Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says progressive politicians need to tone down their rhetoric following the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. As Sean Amato reports, Smith’s comments are also under the microscope. #ableg #cdnpoli
You made a wild assertion defining the thing as something it’s absolutely not about while implying I misunderstood it in the same breath, and now I should be charitable in how I interpret you?
Point being: paradox of intolerance is absolutely agnostic to what’s legal and sometimes it can mean punching nazis
The paradox of tolerance says that if you tolerate everything, you will tolerate the intolerant when they take over, which will lead to intolerance.
The solution to the paradox of tolerance is simply to not tolerate the intolerant taking over and instituting an intolerant society. There are many examples of un-punched Nazis who have not managed to manifest their intolerance (because the law protects people), as well as punched Nazis who remain unrepentant and go on to commit intolerant crimes. Famously, the actual Nazi party was engaged in street battles with the Communists in inter-war Germany, and this didn’t prevent their rise to power. Their rise was enabled by a complicit populace voting for them, as well as a weak constitution which allowed dictatorial rule (and of course other factors).
You brought up the paradox of tolerance in response to someone denouncing violent rhetoric. But you have never explained - and can’t explain because it’s not true - how violent rhetoric is necessary to prevent the erosion of tolerance in society.
Ok then I think you’re saying the paradox of tolerance doesn’t necessitate extra-legal action, maybe instead of “misunderstood” you meant “interpreted in ways I disagree with” and that’s fine.
It’s a classic liberal position, one that liberals often hold as they sleepwalk towards fascism, but I can forgive you for being a liberal.
However, there are many that won’t let laws (which are again morally apathetic and can and often are unjust or fascist in nature themselves) stop us from resisting fascism in every possible way as the situation calls for it. I’m thankful for those people.
There’s a debate to be had about the extent to which society should pre-emptively resist fascism, be that extra-judicially or within the law. But there is simply no paradox.
Calling it a paradox implies that there’s some contradiction between being tolerant in the sense of freedom of religion and expression - allowing people to peacefully exist whatever their background or identity - and the necessity (in order to main those freedoms) of resisting fascism. There isn’t; there is no fundamental reason why you need to restrict individual freedoms in order to prevent fascism.
It would be much more productive if, instead of using the “paradox of tolerance” as a bit of a thought-terminating cliche, people declared what kind of actions they thought were justified and why. Is violent rhetoric which, for example, calls for the death of Trump justified? I have no idea if you think it is because you switched from the specific to the general so quickly. There’s such a vast breadth of actions which people allude to when talking about the so-called paradox that some are bound to find broad appeal while some are bound to be extremist fringe stuff.
I disagree with some of that. Individual freedoms do sometimes need to be limited, for example “freedom” to oppress or “freedom” to deny hiring certain races.
It’s considered a paradox because by tolerating intolerance you allow intolerance to occur. And by being intolerant of intolerance you are allowing intolerance to occur.
The point of it is to highlight that intolerance is enabled by being too tolerant. We must not tolerate intolerance, paradoxically, in order to have a tolerant society.
The nuance being in what things are not being tolerated. Anarchist ideology is about abolishing hierarchy and building a completely egalitarian society, part of the work to do that means taking unjustly hoarded wealth away from the wealthy.
That’s another example of how egalitarian and tolerant goals require some intolerant actions.
It’s considered a paradox because by tolerating intolerance you allow intolerance to occur. And by being intolerant of intolerance you are allowing intolerance to occur.
If your principles of tolerance are, “everyone should be allowed to express their identity, religion and opinions peacefully and calmly, as long as their views do not call for violence” then that allows people to express their view that a certain race is inferior. But it does not result in the end of tolerance (as this popular but wrong summary express).
It’s only a paradox if you can only think of tolerance as being absolute, where any level of restriction on what people are allowed to do or express is “intolerant”.
Individual freedoms do sometimes need to be limited, for example “freedom” to oppress or “freedom” to deny hiring certain races.
But these “freedoms” are not freedoms any liberal or advocate of tolerance means by “freedoms.”
I’d go further than saying this is “the nuance”; this is the whole thing. Mentioning the paradox doesn’t give any guidance in what to do; just directly saying “we shouldn’t allow people to display swastikas” or " we should allow people to call for the assassination of presidential candidates" will result in a useful discussion.
This is exactly why it’s sleepwalking towards fascism. Letting people openly express intolerant views, educate their children with intolerant views, meet up and shout intolerant views, sign up as political parties with intolerant views… It leads to fascist takeover of democracy.
Sure they’re playing by the rules of the liberals but they’re exploiting every single advantage in terms of capital ownership and racial majority in order to “vote” their way to fascism.
There are laws that try to prevent this, but those laws are weak and the legislature is captured.
You fight them before they win the election, and if they do, and after they do.
Otherwise whoever has the most money and influence implements their vision for society, using the “dictatorship of the majority” to hurt marginalized people.
This is how liberalism enables fascism by not opposing capitalism and by not acknowledging that some freedoms need to be reined in
But you need evidence, or a strong argument, to determine cause and effect here. Sure, there’s a scenario you can imagine in which intolerant views are shared, proliferated, spread among the population, gain support, gain votes, gain power. But there are many liberal democracies in the world, and most are still holding onto their liberal democratic principles. The USA is heading for fascism, which is certainly terrifying, but what about the UK? What about France? All the other countries? Even the far right in these countries is forced to be circumspect in their intolerance due to public opinion, and their probes in the direction of fascist rhetoric and policy are weak at worst.
And if you want to couch this as a “paradox” then you end up with the “paradox of democracy” (it’s possible for people to vote for the removal of democracy). What you’re saying is not that we need to resist fascism because fascists are violent and a risk to people’s lives, but that we should resist fascism because they might be too convincing and get people to vote for them - and hence arguing that we should be less democratic in order to prevent their gaining power. So maybe you do think that’s a paradox. But in practice the way democracies solve this is by banning parties which are a threat to democracy and by having a high bar to do so because otherwise that will be wielded against all sorts. It would certainly be wielded against people who “oppose capitalism” (this we know from history).
Once again, we find that there’s a route through the “paradox” which neither capitulates entirely to fascists, nor capitulates entirely to the anti-democratic, illiberal tendencies of their most extreme opponents.
There are laws that try to prevent this, but those laws are weak and the legislature is captured.
And so we get to what I said originally: the “solution” to the so-called paradox is to have strong laws, for example a hard-to-modify constitution, which guarantee people’s rights. The formulation doesn’t have to be explicitly legal in nature to have a legal solution.
Why engage someone on a discussion board if you’re not actually willing to discuss the subject…
At least you understand now that I wasn’t saying the paradox of tolerance is “about laws.”
You made a wild assertion defining the thing as something it’s absolutely not about while implying I misunderstood it in the same breath, and now I should be charitable in how I interpret you?
Point being: paradox of intolerance is absolutely agnostic to what’s legal and sometimes it can mean punching nazis
The paradox of tolerance says that if you tolerate everything, you will tolerate the intolerant when they take over, which will lead to intolerance.
The solution to the paradox of tolerance is simply to not tolerate the intolerant taking over and instituting an intolerant society. There are many examples of un-punched Nazis who have not managed to manifest their intolerance (because the law protects people), as well as punched Nazis who remain unrepentant and go on to commit intolerant crimes. Famously, the actual Nazi party was engaged in street battles with the Communists in inter-war Germany, and this didn’t prevent their rise to power. Their rise was enabled by a complicit populace voting for them, as well as a weak constitution which allowed dictatorial rule (and of course other factors).
You brought up the paradox of tolerance in response to someone denouncing violent rhetoric. But you have never explained - and can’t explain because it’s not true - how violent rhetoric is necessary to prevent the erosion of tolerance in society.
Ok then I think you’re saying the paradox of tolerance doesn’t necessitate extra-legal action, maybe instead of “misunderstood” you meant “interpreted in ways I disagree with” and that’s fine.
It’s a classic liberal position, one that liberals often hold as they sleepwalk towards fascism, but I can forgive you for being a liberal.
However, there are many that won’t let laws (which are again morally apathetic and can and often are unjust or fascist in nature themselves) stop us from resisting fascism in every possible way as the situation calls for it. I’m thankful for those people.
There’s a debate to be had about the extent to which society should pre-emptively resist fascism, be that extra-judicially or within the law. But there is simply no paradox.
Calling it a paradox implies that there’s some contradiction between being tolerant in the sense of freedom of religion and expression - allowing people to peacefully exist whatever their background or identity - and the necessity (in order to main those freedoms) of resisting fascism. There isn’t; there is no fundamental reason why you need to restrict individual freedoms in order to prevent fascism.
It would be much more productive if, instead of using the “paradox of tolerance” as a bit of a thought-terminating cliche, people declared what kind of actions they thought were justified and why. Is violent rhetoric which, for example, calls for the death of Trump justified? I have no idea if you think it is because you switched from the specific to the general so quickly. There’s such a vast breadth of actions which people allude to when talking about the so-called paradox that some are bound to find broad appeal while some are bound to be extremist fringe stuff.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss.
I disagree with some of that. Individual freedoms do sometimes need to be limited, for example “freedom” to oppress or “freedom” to deny hiring certain races.
It’s considered a paradox because by tolerating intolerance you allow intolerance to occur. And by being intolerant of intolerance you are allowing intolerance to occur.
The point of it is to highlight that intolerance is enabled by being too tolerant. We must not tolerate intolerance, paradoxically, in order to have a tolerant society.
The nuance being in what things are not being tolerated. Anarchist ideology is about abolishing hierarchy and building a completely egalitarian society, part of the work to do that means taking unjustly hoarded wealth away from the wealthy.
That’s another example of how egalitarian and tolerant goals require some intolerant actions.
If your principles of tolerance are, “everyone should be allowed to express their identity, religion and opinions peacefully and calmly, as long as their views do not call for violence” then that allows people to express their view that a certain race is inferior. But it does not result in the end of tolerance (as this popular but wrong summary express).
It’s only a paradox if you can only think of tolerance as being absolute, where any level of restriction on what people are allowed to do or express is “intolerant”.
But these “freedoms” are not freedoms any liberal or advocate of tolerance means by “freedoms.”
I’d go further than saying this is “the nuance”; this is the whole thing. Mentioning the paradox doesn’t give any guidance in what to do; just directly saying “we shouldn’t allow people to display swastikas” or " we should allow people to call for the assassination of presidential candidates" will result in a useful discussion.
This is exactly why it’s sleepwalking towards fascism. Letting people openly express intolerant views, educate their children with intolerant views, meet up and shout intolerant views, sign up as political parties with intolerant views… It leads to fascist takeover of democracy.
Sure they’re playing by the rules of the liberals but they’re exploiting every single advantage in terms of capital ownership and racial majority in order to “vote” their way to fascism.
There are laws that try to prevent this, but those laws are weak and the legislature is captured.
You fight them before they win the election, and if they do, and after they do.
Otherwise whoever has the most money and influence implements their vision for society, using the “dictatorship of the majority” to hurt marginalized people.
This is how liberalism enables fascism by not opposing capitalism and by not acknowledging that some freedoms need to be reined in
But you need evidence, or a strong argument, to determine cause and effect here. Sure, there’s a scenario you can imagine in which intolerant views are shared, proliferated, spread among the population, gain support, gain votes, gain power. But there are many liberal democracies in the world, and most are still holding onto their liberal democratic principles. The USA is heading for fascism, which is certainly terrifying, but what about the UK? What about France? All the other countries? Even the far right in these countries is forced to be circumspect in their intolerance due to public opinion, and their probes in the direction of fascist rhetoric and policy are weak at worst.
And if you want to couch this as a “paradox” then you end up with the “paradox of democracy” (it’s possible for people to vote for the removal of democracy). What you’re saying is not that we need to resist fascism because fascists are violent and a risk to people’s lives, but that we should resist fascism because they might be too convincing and get people to vote for them - and hence arguing that we should be less democratic in order to prevent their gaining power. So maybe you do think that’s a paradox. But in practice the way democracies solve this is by banning parties which are a threat to democracy and by having a high bar to do so because otherwise that will be wielded against all sorts. It would certainly be wielded against people who “oppose capitalism” (this we know from history).
Once again, we find that there’s a route through the “paradox” which neither capitulates entirely to fascists, nor capitulates entirely to the anti-democratic, illiberal tendencies of their most extreme opponents.
And so we get to what I said originally: the “solution” to the so-called paradox is to have strong laws, for example a hard-to-modify constitution, which guarantee people’s rights. The formulation doesn’t have to be explicitly legal in nature to have a legal solution.