Paradox of Tolerance

I think we're all aware of what occurred last weekend. I also think we're all aware of what has dominated this board and the media since last weekend. Instead of arguing about specific events, the reactions to those events, and the implications of those reactions I figured now might be the time to take a step back and have a more philosophical discussion. As such I present to the board the Paradox of Tolerance.

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.

The Paradox of Tolerance was originally proposed in 1945 by world renowned philosopher Karl Popper. To sum up what Popper wrote it pretty much says that any society that is infinitely tolerant will lose that tolerance due to a rise in intolerance.

I feel like this concept is especially poignant today and I think you can all agree. The question is do you agree with what Popper said?

Does a tolerant society need to tolerate even intolerance? Or will a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance be inevitably brought to its knees by that same intolerance?

I believe this theory has some merit.. you know, people can only tolerate so much before they'll become intolerant. Patience seems to be very lacking in the world of now, and the more you poke the bear with the stick, the more provocative the bear is going to become.

PC is getting ridiculous, the world isnt full of roses, and if a society fails to harden up over words, let alone actions, then we're all in for a big wake up call

a reply to: Xcalibur254

A tolerant society need not tolerate intolerance absolutely. For one, the intolerant will flip that right back on the tolerant and accuse them of intolerance. "You are being intolerant to me". The tolerant one will then reflect and in an absolutist sense think, correct, I am not being tolerant enough and then struggle to be MORE tolerant allowing the intolerant one to snicker beneath their breath "ha'' that's all I have to do to get them off my back.

a reply to: zootmanx

That's certainly an interesting way to interpret it. I would however argue that PC culture is rooted in a philosophy of tolerance. What it sets out to achieve is to ensure that every person be treated with respect. It is an attempt to end intolerance. As such I don't really think the Paradox of Tolerance applies to it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I agree, while PC is an idea/philosophy to treat everyone equal, i think it also creates a situation where everyone is EXPECTED to be tolerant down to the fine strand of hair. and while the ideal of this seems appealing on paper, I think it's causing the opposite effect, and ultimately is unrealistic, as I personally believe to be tolerant on a heavy scale in a stressful society requires discipline, and patience, which unfortunately many do not have and that will lead to major intolerance in the end.

I think balance is key here. Being overly tolerant is dangerous, imagine if laws didnt exist. There would be no form of order. We are beings of order, from daily routines, habits and cycles. To break these routines and "order" causes a knock on effect. I think the same can be said for tolerance. Whereas being too intolerant and strict will also deny any individual freedom and respect.

a reply to: zootmanx

I would still argue that tolerance of PC culture is not tolerance of intolerance. Instead I would say that it is tolerance of hyper-tolerance (depending on the person.) Now does Popper's concept need a modern updating? That's certainly up for debate.

Considering Popper's background (Jew born in Austrian) and the time at which he came up with the Paradox of Tolerance (1945) I think his inspiration is pretty clear.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

PC culture is rooted in a philosophy of tolerance.

Man for someone who has spider jerusalem as their avatar, that response is kind of disappointing.

PC is anything but all inclusive tolerance. It is only tolerant for certain ideals. Ideals that in a normal society are laughed at and ridiculed. That is why they have to jam those certain ideals down our throats. It is very similar to brainwashing. It is telling a person that they are not an individual and they are not allowed to be unique. They must conform to this certain, narrow way of thinking.

PC employs the same tactics as cults do when trying to brainwash a new member.

Tolerance of intolerance is still tolerance.

Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.

I believe when it comes to tolerance, Aristotle's idea of the golden mean is a good guide (like it is for almost anything imaginable). Be tolerant to just the right degree to promote love and inclusion, but not so tolerant that you are consumed by intolerance in the process.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

My being a white, Christian, male I have to be respectful and tolerant of every one else. Just that much makes me a bigot and intolerant to them. Something is going to give on this sooner or later.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I think we're all aware of what occurred last weekend. I also think we're all aware of what has dominated this board and the media since last weekend. Instead of arguing about specific events, the reactions to those events, and the implications of those reactions I figured now might be the time to take a step back and have a more philosophical discussion. As such I present to the board the Paradox of Tolerance.

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.

The Paradox of Tolerance was originally proposed in 1945 by world renowned philosopher Karl Popper. To sum up what Popper wrote it pretty much says that any society that is infinitely tolerant will lose that tolerance due to a rise in intolerance.

I feel like this concept is especially poignant today and I think you can all agree. The question is do you agree with what Popper said?

Does a tolerant society need to tolerate even intolerance? Or will a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance be inevitably brought to its knees by that same intolerance?

You know that funny, supposedly intolerance and transcend ence aren't actually independent from one another.