That’s exactly the problem, though - if they feel like just one part of their opinion being outside the group thing will get them chastised, well there’s something wrong there. It has to be possible to disagree with people and still listen to them. Because that’s how you get them to listen to you, which is the only real chance you have to change their opinion long term.
I don’t know what you’re referring to, I don’t remember when we have been particularly tolerant towards people who think differently. This opinion has gotten me at least as much flak a decade or so ago as today in circles like these.
At least in the US, there was a very specific time where we were absolutely too tolerant with the intolerant and that has directly led to our political quagmire now:
Paradox of tolerance: if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
While the rollback of post Civil War reconstruction and tolerance of violent segregationists is definitely an instance of “tolerance of the intolerant”, you should read the article and source material it’s quoting more closely, because you’re contradicting the entire argument they’re making.
Here’s the quoted passage again, but in full
[Less well known is 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.—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 [intolerant ideologies] 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.
As usual in political philosophy, the definition of intolerance is stricter and includes an element of rejection by force or imposition.
From the passage, the type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.
In that discourse where the philosopher is arguing that a free, open inquiry and rational argument is crucial to an open society, they unsurprising aren’t arguing for the suppression of exclusionary opinions.
They’re arguing for a system of governance that protects freedom of individuals to debate (and denounce) each other.
So, tolerating segregationist terrorists in the post Civil War is a case of “extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant” as mentioned in the paradox.
In contrast, a disagreement with someone who is not imposing their beliefs is not, and the paradox has no bearing.
Paradox of tolerance has no bearing on disagreements lacking imposition, and is used to defend open discourse, not argue against it.
Which very specific time are you referring to? You just linked to a Wikipedia article on the paradox of intolerance, which even explains how it’s not nearly as simple as you present it. And the other article you linked is an opinion piece that shows more of a pattern than a causational relationship.
… And there are many years between then and now. I was talking about the last few decades.
But you know, you have kind of proven my point ITT. You may not be outright chastising anyone, but you’re pretty sarcastic with anyone who doesn’t agree with you and act like your opinion is the only correct one and anyone with a different one is less than you. People don’t like being treated like that, so no wonder they just say “I don’t do politics” - because they probably have more self respect than I do.
That’s exactly the problem, though - if they feel like just one part of their opinion being outside the group thing will get them chastised, well there’s something wrong there. It has to be possible to disagree with people and still listen to them. Because that’s how you get them to listen to you, which is the only real chance you have to change their opinion long term.
We’ve been tolerable of the intolerant long enough.
I don’t know what you’re referring to, I don’t remember when we have been particularly tolerant towards people who think differently. This opinion has gotten me at least as much flak a decade or so ago as today in circles like these.
At least in the US, there was a very specific time where we were absolutely too tolerant with the intolerant and that has directly led to our political quagmire now:
Paradox of tolerance: if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
Failure to punish Confederates after the Civil War created culture of impunity that shields Trump today
While the rollback of post Civil War reconstruction and tolerance of violent segregationists is definitely an instance of “tolerance of the intolerant”, you should read the article and source material it’s quoting more closely, because you’re contradicting the entire argument they’re making. Here’s the quoted passage again, but in full
As usual in political philosophy, the definition of intolerance is stricter and includes an element of rejection by force or imposition. From the passage, the type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.
In that discourse where the philosopher is arguing that a free, open inquiry and rational argument is crucial to an open society, they unsurprising aren’t arguing for the suppression of exclusionary opinions. They’re arguing for a system of governance that protects freedom of individuals to debate (and denounce) each other.
So, tolerating segregationist terrorists in the post Civil War is a case of “extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant” as mentioned in the paradox. In contrast, a disagreement with someone who is not imposing their beliefs is not, and the paradox has no bearing.
Paradox of tolerance has no bearing on disagreements lacking imposition, and is used to defend open discourse, not argue against it.
Which very specific time are you referring to? You just linked to a Wikipedia article on the paradox of intolerance, which even explains how it’s not nearly as simple as you present it. And the other article you linked is an opinion piece that shows more of a pattern than a causational relationship.
I’m clearly referencing the time after the American Civil War when the traitors weren’t punished enough.
… And there are many years between then and now. I was talking about the last few decades.
But you know, you have kind of proven my point ITT. You may not be outright chastising anyone, but you’re pretty sarcastic with anyone who doesn’t agree with you and act like your opinion is the only correct one and anyone with a different one is less than you. People don’t like being treated like that, so no wonder they just say “I don’t do politics” - because they probably have more self respect than I do.
It’s not my fault that you didn’t read my comment that was perfectly clear that the time I was referencing was right after the American Civil War.
I wasn’t being sarcastic despite you reading it that way. You were wrong. Deal with it.
q.e.d.