this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026

676 points (96.3% liked)

Cool Guides

6609 readers

247 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JCSpark@lemmy.ca

676

The paradox of tolerance (discuss.online)

submitted 1 day ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/coolguides@lemmy.ca

143 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 14 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.

This is a common misconception about the Paradox of Tolerance, and I'm going to reference the person who invented it: Karl Popper in his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies:

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.

Popper argues that we should tolerate intolerance only up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his position.

The graphic above states that we should not tolerate "movements" which preach "intolerance." This is a subjective standard. I think Islam preaches intolerance. By this standard, I would be justified in banning all Muslims from immigrating to Denmark. This is why Popper used the much clearer standard of physical violence. Any modern society must tolerate disagreement - including "intolerant" disagreement. We resolve that intolerance at the ballot box. We cannot allow physical violence. No, someone saying mean words is not physical violence.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it's refusing rational argument that's a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Further, if you finish the paragraph it becomes clear that the opening statement is anything but a misunderstanding:

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.

You don't have to agree with him, you can be partial to rawles, but popper was not vague.

[–] squalless@programming.dev 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I disagree with this assessment of the text - assuming it's correct, I'm not familiar with the source.

What this extract is saying imo is as long as it's possible to effectively keep in check and counter intolerance with argument and public opinion, suppression is unwise.

But, tolerance should reserve the right to suppress intolerance before it becomes violent, specifically when intolerance acts in bad faith and refuses to participate in logical argument or debate, and instead denounces argument entirely.

So the threshold is not violence itself, but one example of what "may" lead to violence.

Just my 2¢ on the text (not my opinion on the topic).

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

There is no way to reconcile your interpretation with the actual text:

and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

A preemptive strike is neither stated nor implied by Popper. I find that a dangerous proposition for a democratic nation. It would justify any and all manner of violence based on nothing and anything but the subjective and active imaginations of the politically inclined.

[–] squalless@programming.dev 3 points 5 hours ago

I've re-read it and still kindly and respectfully disagree about the meaning of that excerpt in isolation. Whatever the implications of this interpretation are, I have no idea because I'm not familiar with the work (however naïvely).

Here's a detailed breakdown of my take:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;

The key word here is always, so, intolerant philosophies shouldn't always be suppressed.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

The condition for not suppressing intolerant philosophies is if they can be kept in check and countered by public opinion and rational argument.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;

Reserve the right to suppression if necessary..

for it may easily turn out that

Because the following things might easily happen:

they [the intolerant] 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.

An example of what may occur when the first approach fails due to essentially bad faith, and the reasoning for why to reserve the right to suppression. But it doesn't frame violence as the threshold for when to apply that suppression.

Anyway, that's my take. I'm still assuming this quote is accurate - I haven't checked it.

And once again I'm absolutely not agreeing with these positions or assertions about the suppression of intolerance, this is just how I understand the text.