Paradox of Tolerance

[ShadowofVashj]

Something to consider from Karl Popper, a distinguished social scientist;

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Source: Within his book "The Open Societies and it's Enemies" page 226, https://archive.org/details/opensocietyandit033120mbp

I mean, I feel like this applies so relevantly today, towards a few different concepts. Such a slippery slope though no? A bit heavy handed but necessary?

[Deleted]

This paradox isn't applicable to the fluctuations of a live society.

[Rukh]

Something to consider from Karl Popper, a distinguished social scientist;



Source: Within his book "The Open Societies and it's Enemies" page 226, https://archive.org/details/opensocietyandit033120mbp

I mean, I feel like this applies so relevantly today, towards a few different concepts. Such a slippery slope though no? A bit heavy handed but necessary?

Mistaking the idea of tolerance of differences between us for tolerance for the sake of tolerance. Not very interesting.

[Gheld]

More of this tired old strawman argument.

Nobody here is saying we should support societies that marginalize certain members and treat them like garbage...

The problem is that A. The people most advocating to "Fix" it via international conflict in their spare time like to advocate for the marginalization of certain members of society.

and B. We are financial allies with countries that marginalize certain members of society. Major financial allies. Because we follow the billionaire power players in our society around like the pied fucking piper while they dump billions of dollars into the pockets of intolerant individuals in societies that don't share the same "freedom and democracy" as we do.

I mean, the horrible genocides you see constantly in Africa are funded by western money. Conflict minerals. It's a thing. Look it up.


We're one of the most violent and intolerant societies on the planet. We just outsourced all of the violence and intolerance.

[Stormdash]

It also matters that "tolerance" as it is used as a cultural battlecry for political correctness/multiculturalism, doesn't mean what "tolerance" means in every other context. Tolerance in actuality refers to the ability to withstand or endure something harmful or inimical. Tolerances on the tuning of machinery, or tolerance to the amount of alcohol in your blood stream. That is the only sort of "tolerance" people should be expected to have in a pluralist society -- the ability to "put up with" the other guy. Not to indulge, cater, or humor them, just to suffer through it.

[Deleted]

Is this another you're intolerant because you don't tolerate my intolerance BS?

[Hraklea]

Social tolerance and legal tolerance are different things. You shouldn't treat them as the same.

[Moralgy]

Is this another you're intolerant because you don't tolerate my intolerance BS?

I think it is more a "we should not tolerate the intolerant for the sake of tolerance".

[-Nurot]

It also matters that "tolerance" as it is used as a cultural battlecry for political correctness/multiculturalism, doesn't mean what "tolerance" means in every other context. Tolerance in actuality refers to the ability to withstand or endure something harmful or inimical. Tolerances on the tuning of machinery, or tolerance to the amount of alcohol in your blood stream. That is the only sort of "tolerance" people should be expected to have in a pluralist society -- the ability to "put up with" the other guy. Not to indulge, cater, or humor them, just to suffer through it.

So might want to check that definition there. There are several of which that have nothing to do with "machinery".

tol·er·ance
/ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun

1. The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

"the tolerance of corruption"

synonyms: acceptance, toleration; open-mindedness, broad-mindedness, forbearance, liberality, liberalism; patience, charity, indulgence,
understanding

"an attitude of tolerance toward other people"

Don't know what context you are trying to provide it in? You can't disprove the meaning of a word by using a secondary definition.

Is this another you're intolerant because you don't tolerate my intolerance BS?

That's exactly what I got out of it.

[Endus]

When talking about "tolerance" as a social issue, it's about tolerating the superficial differences between us that have fundamentally no impact on others. Not an argument that tolerance of all things is automatically "better". Nobody's arguing that you should "tolerate" rapists and murderers committing their crimes; that's a ridiculous position. It's about not taking issue with people of different races, genders, orientations, religions, and what have you, because none of that affects you in any way, and does not fundamentally define any individual's character or value as an individual.

There is no "paradox". There's just people who don't understand the above.

[logandarksky]

There is no tolerance, only varying levels of intolerance. No human can be 100% tolerant it is in our nature to discriminate to hate and to destroy. What makes a civilization is the ability to overcome to a degree our nature and allow others to enter in to our territory this goes from a personal level to a national level. As Americans we have only been intreated in tolerance on a societal level since mid 20 century. Sure we freed the slaves but separation of peoples didn't start to come down in a big way until WW2 and Korea. There at the national level the U.S. Government decided for society to integrate the armed forces. The nation movement for tolerance began there in a big way. However, I do not buy this idea that you don't have to tolerate the intolerant. If you believe in a free and open society you must understand this. A free and open society is not necessarily a tolerant one. As with anything who you are means you must fight for your seat at the table. Natural selection flows deep in our DNA the degree of tolerance can mean succeeding or failing the evolutionary gamble. Who's to say who's winning the tolerant or the intolerant.

[Endus]

There is no tolerance, only varying levels of intolerance. No human can be 100% tolerant it is in our nature to discriminate to hate and to destroy.

It's in our nature to violently attack people who anger us, and to take whatever we want. Discussing our animalistic instincts is a pretty silly point to stand on, since the entire point of civilization and organized society is to control those instinctual urges, to tamp them down, so that we control them, not the other way around.

I view public racism as little different from picking your nose or scratching your balls in public. Saying "it's a natural instinct" isn't an explanation, because you should have learned better by now.

[Draeth]

It's in our nature to violently attack people who anger us, and to take whatever we want. Discussing our animalistic instincts is a pretty silly point to stand on, since the entire point of civilization and organized society is to control those instinctual urges, to tamp them down, so that we control them, not the other way around.

I view public racism as little different from picking your nose or scratching your balls in public. Saying "it's a natural instinct" isn't an explanation, because you should have learned better by now.

This forum really needs a 'Like' button.

[Yvaelle]

Especially if you have taken a biology class and learn about DNA. The race issue seems to be the silliest one for me.

I can understand ideological conflict more than race issues.

This forum really needs a 'Like' button.

^ This to both.

[primalmatter]

Especially if you have taken a biology class and learn about DNA. The race issue seems to be the silliest one for me.

I can understand ideological conflict more than race issues.

Silly in what way exactly? I always find people who deny racial differences fascinating. How do you explain away different skeletal structures? We are not all the same but to try and research what makes us different has almost become criminal in the modern age. It is only humans as well if you ask a biologist if all canine are exactly the same they will lecture you for hours. If you ask if all humans are the same they will shift their feet look uncomfortable and say yes of course..

[primalmatter]

The racial differences are highly superficial. And only really matter when you go to the doctor, or need to learn about genetic diseases, etc.

"Race" in humans is akin to "Breed" in other animals. All dogs are still dogs, even if they are a Chihuahua or a Rottweiler.

All humans are humans, and none of us are "pure" humans. We are all hybrids.

Watch this Documentory on PBS, it is really good:




First Peoples
http://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/home/

I don't mean to offend you but that is a extremely unscientific approach to the question that comes close to saying god did it..

There are clear traits shown by different groups that effect a whole host of things from body size to endurance. We could gain so much by studying racial differences and the results of mixed births. Instead we wallow letting the vaste potential of it be utterly wasted out of fear of what the information might uncover...

People who claim their are not extremely noticeable differences in races are akin to creationist... They set the world back with their fear and ignorance.

[Random010203]

I don't mean to offend you but that is a extremely unscientific approach to the question that comes close to saying god did it..

There are clear traits shown by different groups that effect a whole host of things from body size to endurance. We could gain so much by studying racial differences and the results of mixed births. Instead we wallow letting the vaste potential of it be utterly wasted out of fear of what the information might uncover...

People who claim their are not extremely noticeable differences in races are akin to creationist... They set the world back with their fear and ignorance.

Science defines same species as the ability to breed with one another. Race is a social construct which is defined as: "a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics (Anemone, 2011)." Considering there are several "races" that exist in our world, then by definition there must be some level of difference between those races.

I would agree with you, to a lesser extent, that there are differences between races. Furthermore I would argue that by not studying those differences we harm our own knowledge of racial: susceptibility to disease, appetite, life expectancy, etc.



Works Cited

Anemone, Robert L. (2011). "Race and biological diversity in humans". Race and Human Diversity: A Bicultural Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pretice Hall. pp. 1–10.

[Kraenen]

The racial differences are highly superficial. And only really matter when you go to the doctor, or need to learn about genetic diseases, etc.

You'd think those are kind of important, no?

[primalmatter]

Likewise no offense to you, but I am going to be going by what actual science says, in regards to our genetic history.

Differences exist, but they are mostly skin deep; And where they are not, they are adaptations to environment, or concentration of some select feature by the culture. Which all comes back to breeding.

Right but the thing is... your wrong.

Take the most drastic examples. The average african male has a far denser bone structure then most other species of humans. This gives them a far higher tolerance to factors and broken bones compared to Europeans. Their skull is also differently shaped allowing them to possess a far stronger bit with a larger and slightly differently angled jaw. There are disadvantages compared to other races of course. One of them being a far smaller birthing canal then on average.

These are not minor thing.. by sweeping this under the rug you hide the advantages and yes the disadvantages each race possess.What if though selective breeding we could keep the strengths but minimize the weakness?

A entire field of study for the betterment of man kind is currently closed to us due to extremely ignorant beliefs of racial equality.

[primalmatter]

This I agree with. But this is using race as what it is, a social construct. That is my main contention with people that use race to discriminate.

I see all "races" as humans. With a subset of genes concentrated in a certain location, by culture or environment, or both. Which is what we call Breed.

Right but this belief is a harmful one. By pretending people are equal we limit ourselves. We have to start taking a stand against people who say all races are equal. It isn't true. Once we dispel that intolerance a whole new frontier of science will open up