A little while back I saw someone recontextualize the paradox of intolerance in a very nice way. They basically said “tolerance is part of a social contract.” So if you live in a society that has tolerance as part of its social contract, and someone is intolerant, then they are rejecting the social contract and it’s not hypocritical to censure them for that.
That’s smart - I never thought about handling it through Hobbes.
Another way that I found to handle this is through some pseudo-utilitarianism. Like this:
Tolerance is scalar, not binary; you can have more or less tolerance in a society, but it’s never zero or complete. And the goal of a tolerant society is to maximise the amount of tolerance in itself, in a sustainable way for the future.
When you remove a discourse from public spaces, you’re decreasing the overall tolerance of the society. However, the spread of intolerant discourses also decreases it. So a tolerant society should weight those two things, and remove intolerant discourses from public spaces only as much as necessary.
The net result is similar, in spirit, to Popper’s paradox of tolerance: the society should give itself the right to curb down intolerance, but it shouldn’t use this right willy-nilly.
Sure. Although ‘tolerance’ here needs stricter defition. I would argue that the proponents of censorship are few. The victim is discourse itself, and by extent, regular imperfect people.
This is by no means a perfect definition, but I think that “tolerance is the acceptance of someone’s intrinsic attributes, appearance, behaviour and utterances, without acting or speaking against the person because of those things” should be a good start.
The victim is discourse itself
I’m pleasantly surprised that someone caught this up - originally the argument was about freedom of speech, that’s why it focuses so much on discourses.
You can’t expect everyone to see 9 as 4+5 because some will see it as 8+1 or even 12 + -3 or many other possibilities, and you need to accept and understand those people. But you don’t have to listen to people who claim 10 + 7 is 9, for example, and you can tell them they’re wrong.
You do not have to accept people who are obviously incorrect, and more importantly, you shouldn’t.
Kids don’t know how to do math but you don’t cast them away, you teach them how to do it.
We’re talking about people who are confidently wrong, not without knowledge and are willing to learn. CONTEXT.
Can I post anything without 50 people taking some smartass point of view outside of its context and thinking they’re correcting me somehow? Holy hell.
Absolutely. Except that the world is more complex, and there is no right answer.
The issue is not that people choose to distance themselves from the conversation.
The issue is that a powerful select few control what you do or do not hear.
Ever think about where these people come from? Isolation.
The mass censorship strategies of today only serves to divide the extremes. It fosters friction.
In my view, a sane (sanest?) policy would be to use the law as a framework of what is acceptable.
Getting billionares to silence people we do not like is not virtuous, whether it be media smear canpaigns or deplatforming.
We should care about free speech on our platforms. It is the cornerstone of civilization.
There’s a Chick Tract vibe here that’s disconcerting.
- The art style.
- Everyone presented here happens to be white.
- It ends with a moment so over-the-top that it undermines the conversation.
- It presents harsh realities from the perspective of someone who isn’t particularly aware of them. Notice how the guy gets carted off to jail for being an inconvenience to a corrupt cop - rather than getting choked, shot, or thrown out a window.
I’m not sure my point, except that I don’t think this particular contribution to the conversation has much, if any, value.
