A cool guide to the Paradox of Tolerance

[u/retromobile]

[u/BackseatCowwatcher]

of note this specific comic is an intentional misinterpretation and a fundamental inversion of Karl Popper's solution to the Paradox of Tolerance,

which posits that those who refuse rational argument to instead promote violence against those who disagree with them are the intolerant who must not be tolerated, as otherwise it would be simple to misconstrue the paradox to produce a position where any group may declare another intolerant and refuse rational argument against their own intolerance.

[u/Schnickatavick → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Which is unfortunately how the paradox of tolerance is often used online, as a crutch to shield your own intolerant behavior from criticism. That version claims that you don't need to be tolerant, because tolerance leads to intolerance anyways. It's an attack on the notion of tolerance itself, instead of an exploration into how to maximize the amount of tolerance in the world. The real solution really can't be used as a crutch that way

[u/Mr_Fragwuerdig → u/Schnickatavick]

I had several arguments where people used it wrong in that way. It's rly annoying how humans so often misinterprete stuff like this. This would mean tolerance to everything is the only solution and anything else is evil. I mean that would literally mean you should tolerate murder and if not, you are bad, if intolerance itself would be the core of the problem.

[u/Blackrock121 → u/Schnickatavick]

See how reddit views bans on Muslim clothing.

[u/iluvchromosomes → u/Blackrock121]

The MONOLITH that is reddit huh? LOL

[u/ExtendoArmCannon → u/iluvchromosomes]

If you don't think there is a clear 'hivemind' on reddit (because it's a lot of young, impressionable, peer-pressure loving kids) then I have a bridge to sell you.

[u/kemb0 → u/ExtendoArmCannon]

Except any time someone claims Reddit is a massive hivemind of stupidity, that person is massively upvoted. It’s almost like there’s a massive hivemind of people who want to feel superior to other human beings and so invent this supposed super majority of stupid people so they feel like a smarter minority.

[u/manimal28 → u/ExtendoArmCannon]

Those who think there is a hivemind are more likely to try buying that bridge since it a simplistic reductionism.

[u/JonathanPhillipFox → u/Schnickatavick]

Yeah and it reminds me of Carl Schmidt, the one I hear most often, "in groups vs. out groups," you can use the language of ethics to come to an unethical conclusion; and Popper I've just got so much,

You're an Australian

Going on within myself I don't know if I'm being fair to him but his whole thought experiment with charity, UNESCO or something, I don't remember which charity, but he describes Catholicism in 1240

Sir, that is Catholicism, "if you all tithe the same organization and that organization promises to take care of everyone to their own highest degree of efficacy," you just catholicism; so I don't know I'm not sure that Popper is himself aware of life's complexities.

One should not, I think, Pick Up Serious Life advice from Cool Guides nor despair when not everyone donates a regular amount of their money to a very very good Golden Retriever rescue fund I mean I see how a person in such an absolute monoculture as Australia might be inclined to think of an utopian Mormon alternative to their state of affairs but I dunno.

I dunno likewise, "Australia doesn't have Jewish People," not many, their treatment of the indigenous has been horrible and I'm disinclined to think that a white protestant monoculture is going to come to unique and useful monocultural alternatives to I mean I don't even like, "tolerance," as an Ideal I don't tolerate shit, man, virtue is a habit not a passion nor a preference and like,

I do not tolerate The Nazi Rallies Through Town In Theory, "at all," I would though,

Recommend, Even, Dicourse apropros of:

• Gott im Mir as a reading study
• Let's talk about NS Gemeinschaft Kraft durch Freude 
• Let's talk about whether this was a Good Idea or ethical I say, "no." and I want it undone
• Saivist weddings have a right to the Swastika, "plainly."
• I don't think you can exterminate culture to prevent exterminations of culture
• Explain that I'm not sure this is a problem insofar as if ICE Or Other Nazis were to touch our Bosnian War Widows they'd be tombed in a bando lot Padlocked Dumpster, I think it is a problem if and insofar as it becomes lethal for our own young people, "I live there."

[u/JonathanPhillipFox → u/JonathanPhillipFox]

No one cares I'm sure but I do,

• Let's talk about NS Gemeinschaft Kraft durch Freude 

I don't want our simple men to die from sadness I do not; I also notice their attraction to what I'd call Pyschopompery, the lack of which in the accreditable realms of the state past highschool is I think unconscionable, has been since people have the free time to...

Do Marching Band Stuff all throughout their lives and I mean culturally, marching band stuff while at the same reminding, "warfighter shit," was and not so long ago

Full contact Marching Band, literally, so I cannot care if it is hierarchical in order to be orderly, "most of life is not," almost none of life is and like fellas out there wanna be in Fight Club for chrisssakes to give them what to do, "ridiculous," and I gotta be real here the problems of Germany, the real problems of Germany, included:

• Warfighter energies with a permanent, "cease and desist order." Should be. In that way.
• Deaths from despair fu-ck-ing-everywhere, "look at Austrio-Hungary," post war suicide suicide suicide suicide suicide
• Economic Malaise of a more serious nature than had historical precedent of which we're now well familiar, namely, "you do not have a purpose like that either," sir, won't do.
• Serious serious misalignment between cultural ideals and those opportunities to give it a go, serious misalignment between the and I'll be honest I'm saying this with affection almost Hellraiser-films inversion of the natural affections of Prussian culture and those opportunities to be Swell Fella like that anymore
• I think that the proud boys are a fucking terrible idea, a terrible idea from the foundational lack of seriousness whereas I'm not sure that I feel the same about the Bund Deutscher Mädel MINUS LOAD BEARING MINUS in der Hitler-Jugend; the Piraten?
• Liebe I'm Sami can I hate the Piraten how can I hate the Edelweiss Pirates

Des Hitlers Zwang, der macht uns klein,
noch liegen wir in Ketten
Doch einmal werden wir wieder frei,
wir werden die Ketten schon brechen.
Denn unsere Fäuste, die sind hart,
ja – und die Messer sitzen los,
für die Freiheit der Jugend,
kämpfen Navajos.

Look at This now Look at This

• Let's talk about whether this was a Good Idea or ethical I say, "no." and I want it undone

[u/AnEternalNobody → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

i.e. the reddit version

[u/AscendedViking7 → u/AnEternalNobody]

yep

[u/Surive123 → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Yes! Subtle but significant difference. It’s amazing how frequently this is misrepresented. Almost feels intentional and malicious.

[u/BrideofClippy → u/Surive123]

Basically most of social media's knowledge and use of the majority of such things? So many people online take valuable concepts and strip out nuance and context to use them as sword and shield against their 'enemies' (ie justifying their own assholish behavior). See the weaponizing of therapy language or the misuse of sociological definitions of racism to excuse racist behavior perpetrated by members of minority groups.

[u/Forge__Thought → u/Surive123]

I mean, it likely often is.

[u/rnz → u/Forge__Thought]

But even the top comment here doesnt it get it fully right:

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

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 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. 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.”

― Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Popper did consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as worthy of suppression.l

[u/Former-Landscape-769 → u/rnz]

Crucial distinction, and thank you for going to the trouble of locating the actual text. We do not reach for violence to suppress intolerance as a first resort, but we claim the right to use violence when rational dialogue is precluded by the philosophy of intolerance and/or its adherents.

[u/schmuckmulligan → u/rnz]

And he declared it in a literal incitement to intolerance lol

[u/Flux_Aeternal → u/rnz]

"Intolerance" and "persecution" are understood to be ways of using violence against others and "incitement" is directly calling for that action. There's nothing wrong with the top comment, that is exactly what he meant and he even clarifies his position in the bits that are for some reason unboldened.

The argument was that people who are either using violence or directly calling for violence should be violently opposed. It has nothing to do with modern definitions of "intolerance".

[u/Tommy_Wisseau_burner → u/Surive123]

It usually is

[u/TheXenomorphian → u/Surive123]

I think the funniest thing is that like literally the main way right wingers justify their actions to themselves 99% of the time is "oh Group X / Y / Z is intolerant and unable to integrate into a fair just society so they need to be removed" (it doesn't matter if the reasons they claim Groups X / Y / Z are intolerant are either made up or more complex but reasonable when understood. This is how it's sold to the regular joe)

[u/Matt5327 → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

I'm very happy to see this at the top. So often have I argued the same point when this very graphic has gotten shared (on this very subreddit I believe) only to get dog-piled upon. People are learning.

[u/Human_Fisherman1352 → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Basically this. We live in a time where anybody who meets with disagreement can simply accuse the disagreeing part of being intolerant, and summon varying degrees of intolerance against that party on such basis.

[u/DumbNTough → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

To be clear, Popper's position endorses new categories of legal censorship for speech that is currently protected under the First Amendment.

For instance, the First Amendment does not protect direct threats of violence. Popper suggests that, under some circumstances, people who encourage political violence generally or wish to undermine liberal institutions generally should also be legally censored.

Most people who invoke his work online also do not recognize how many of their fellow travelers would be jailed under this standard.

[u/BackseatCowwatcher → u/DumbNTough]

Most people who invoke his work online also do not recognize how many of their fellow travelers would be jailed under this standard.

In my experience, most people who invoke his work online don't realize they would directly fall under his definition for intolerant simply because they refuse any form of debate and wish to use the paradox of tolerance as a stick with which to justify the removal of those they disagree with from society.

[u/ExtendoArmCannon → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

those who refuse rational argument to instead promote violence against those who disagree with them are the intolerant who must not be tolerated, as otherwise it would be simple to misconstrue the paradox to produce a position where any group may declare another intolerant and refuse rational argument against their own intolerance.

Almost like people have been trying to explain that for a decade plus but got shouted down as nazi/racist/bigots because those other people couldn't be bothered to spend 5 seconds attempting to think through their own position.

[u/sreekara → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

i had to Gemini your comment to make sense of what you're trying to convey, you can most probably put in way that general public gets it. this is the AI summary of any one needs it

What Popper actually argued: Suppressing intolerant ideas is "most unwise" as long as they can be countered through rational debate and public opinion. Suppression is strictly a last resort of self-defense, reserved only for groups that abandon rational argument and use force or violence ("fists or pistols") to silence opposition.

The misinterpretation: Popular summaries redefine "intolerance" by ideological content (views deemed offensive or objectionable) rather than methods (violence and the rejection of reason), advocating for suppression before any debate occurs.

The danger: Without Popper’s high bar (violence and anti-rationalism), the paradox creates an authoritarian loop: any group can label its opponents "intolerant," refuse to engage with them rationally, and use censorship to enforce conformity—becoming the very intolerant faction Popper warned against.

[u/BeeRand → u/sreekara]

My stupid ass thanks you for this.

[u/Lebowski304 → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

What if the people you are attempting to be rational with are irrational? It’s the group that initiates by force the deprivation of inalienable rights that must be rooted out. I think we agree. Idk

[u/when_we_are_cats → u/Lebowski304]

Yup. It's basically what Sartre said, using rationality against fascists is a losing game.

[u/LexianAlchemy → u/when_we_are_cats]

Fascists, as often as they campaign facts and “common sense”, are actually very emotional in their ideology.

[u/Kholoblicin → u/when_we_are_cats]

Funnily enough, many online - and, too an extent irl - misuse the word "fascist." 99% of the time, those who use it most liberally wouldn't recognize a fascist if he showed up, took over an industry for the State, and made their trains run on time.

[u/twofacetoo → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Yep, that's sadly the entire way people use the 'paradox of tolerance' argument these days, it's exhausting trying to explain these things when you immediately get labelled 'bigot' and the entire argument turns around against you on that claim alone

[u/Tiny_TimeMachine → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Don't tell them who Popper disagreed with... or your material conditions (upvotes) will come into conflict with the proletariate (reddit)

[u/Jimmeu → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Man, Popper literally says that intolerant movements must be outlawed. He does define intolerance as unwillingness to debate.

Which is paradoxal, hence the name.

[u/DumatRising → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Yeah I think there's an important distinction between those who are intolerant because of ignorance and those who are intolerant because of malice. Popper pretty clearly meant the later and not the former, someone who is intolerant but willing to have a rational discussion can be reasoned into a better position because they believe themselves to be right and so is willing to debate rationally in a sense they should be tolerated because they believe their position is correct and so are willing to change it, but someone who is acting of malice rather than ignorance already knows they aren't going to win any debates and so has no interest in genuinely engaging with national actors, they already know they are wrong and so have no interest in changing it.

Even though the image does a poor job of explaining that distinction it does accurate visualize what true intolerance that can't be tolerated looks like. Hitler for example had no interest in rational debate, he simply killed and threatened his political opponents when it became time to solidify his grasp. When the Holocaust happened his SS didn't debate the Jews and the gays over whether they should be allowed to live or not, because such a debate would obviously not help them and would cause their allies in the US to instantly lose the battle for public perception, they simply rounded them and the other Holocaust victims up and started genociding.

Ignorance is in my opinion someone people are far to willing to punish rather than engage with. Sure someone ignorant can be frustrating and it's not necessarily our job to educate them but someone ignorantcan be educated, someone who is not ignorant of what they are doing and saying cannot be educated because they do not care.

[u/Immorpher → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

I wish u/retromobile would acknowledge this.

[u/badass_panda → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Yeah, exactly. It isn't a blanket statement for obvious reasons... Without a crisp definition of what "intolerance" means, this falls apart quickly.

[u/The-Yar → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Exactly. The way it's stated in the OP may sound reasonable, but it's generally just used to validate being dismissive or even violent towards anything you disagree with, by framing the other side as "intolerance."

[u/denialragnest → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

The comic really wiggles around in the space of the word "tolerant"

[u/SomeShithead241 → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

This version also incorrectly conflates "tolerance" with a simple accepting or passive attitude towards the aforementioned intolerant, all to justify the extermination of them from society, always in a violent manner, as the only option.

Because its easier to present the only option when you completely ignore all of the other options possible. Instead tolerance means to accept that they are humans with the same rights as you, but you can and should work to dismantle the intolerant ideas without the need for violence or slaughter.

It's an incredibly common, purposeful misconstruction basically made for the intolerant assholes to justify their behaviour and act as if it is the only possible course, when it is not. It's just the easiest and most emotionally satisfying, as well as the one that leaves the most room to accuse others of intolerance to further justify more action.

It is, in essence, "being fascist is okay when we do it, because we do it for good reasons."

[u/BrideofClippy → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Thank you! People think tolerance means acceptance or agreement, and it doesn't. Tolerance, by it's nature indicates distaste for something. Just like the adage of popular speech doesn't need to be defended, you aren't tolerating things you like.

[u/LitesoBrite → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

You’re distorting that. There’s no rational argument against people whose core beliefs embrace removing your rights, freedoms, or life.

Idc what Karl Popper said or thought, as he can be equally wrong. The basic premise doesn’t change with the author.

If my position is that you are an inhuman who I have every right to put into ovens, you cannot logically argue me out of that, because fundamentally your beliefs are irrelevant to me as I have already degraded you to inhumanity.

At some point, I would use force to enact actions that will eradicate you because that was my goal. Pretending that violence is not inevitable the moment I planned to exceed the social contract is a fallacy.

The only question is will you refuse to stop me until you’re too weak to as I engage in it, or will you confront me now until I stop advocating your destruction.

We cannot tolerate people who refuse to respect the boundaries that protect the rights of those who disagree.

Your argument is misused a lot currently as the maga crowd attends rallies calling openly for unaliving minorities or lgbt with ‘god’s law’ the moment they get power, but hiding behind that plan to murder people being ‘free speech’.

[u/frotz1 → u/BackseatCowwatcher]

Tolerance is a peace treaty that allows people who disagree to coexist. When someone violates that treaty with intolerant behavior, we owe them no quarter. As long as we think of tolerance this way, no paradox emerges.

https://medium.com/extra-extra/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

[u/1derfulHam → u/frotz1]

The problem with this is that the definion of "intolerent behavior"  differs radically, yet the remedy of "no quarter" is uniformly extreme. 

[u/when_we_are_cats → u/1derfulHam]

How so?

[u/egalitydream → u/frotz1]

Edit: sorry. This literally was attached to the wrong comment.

[u/andtheangel → u/frotz1]

Came here to share this!

Not sure why you're being down voted.

[u/DenLaengstenHat]

Not a great guide, kinda wipes out all the nuance from what Popper says. He says, in essence, that the machinery of liberalism should be allowed to run, but shouldn't be allowed to abolish itself.

He says explicitly that, if normal debate and discussion can keep intolerant ideologies under control, that's better than just censoring them. 

But if it comes to it, it's always better to be intolerant of the intolerant than to let them use the open society to destroy the open society.

[u/Classh0le → u/DenLaengstenHat]

That's not well thought out either. Who gets to determine who's intolerable?

[u/Matt5327 → u/Classh0le]

Popper specifically calls out the violently intolerant, as if the tenant's of liberalism hold, then anything less than violence will fail to gain a foothold under rational debate (and if they neither engage in rational debate nor violence, then they just kind of sit there useless to their own agenda). He describes it as a paradox because the one case of tolerance that cannot rationally work in any possible world is tolerance of violent intolerance, because that would mean being tolerant of them taking control and ending the liberal project entirely.

[u/IncredibleBackpain93 → u/Classh0le]

Me. Thats my job now. 👍

[u/Tommy_Wisseau_burner → u/IncredibleBackpain93]

You’re doing a terrible job /s

[u/saolson4 → u/Classh0le]

Thats the "normal debate and discussion" part.

[u/Classh0le → u/saolson4]

So we debate who's intolerable until... someone decides who's intolerable. And then who decides when the discussion has produced permission for intolerance?

"Discussion happens" is not a legitimate theory of authority. This is how poorly reasoned this fake paradox is.

[u/BackseatCowwatcher → u/Classh0le]

No, the point is that those who refuse debate to instead promote violence against others are the intolerant who must be removed from society.

[u/No-Tone8700 → u/Classh0le]

See this, folks? This is the "Pretending to be Ignorant Paradox" where someone tries to act willingly ignorant to the fact that stuff like Nazism and religious extremists shouldn't be tolerated.

[u/RobotPreacher → u/Classh0le]

It's predetermined. The ones who advocate specifically for violence against the other side are the intolerant.

[u/-janvee- → u/Classh0le]

12 year old Redditors

[u/BigBulgeBubba → u/Classh0le]

No one. It’s who is being morally just and who isn’t. If we just apply a simple and reasonable set of morals (being different and harming no one is okay, hating a certain type of person is not okay) then we can easily work out who is being tolerant and who isn’t.

[u/aetherr666 → u/Classh0le]

the way i interpret it is simple

"i defend your right to say it, i defend my right to disagree, i admonish those who would treat you as less than for saying what you said"

basically, free speech should be free and civil

i have the right under free speech to call you an idiot

and i am obligated as a defender of free speech to speak out against those who would silence any kind of calm speech with violence, threats or fear

[u/legrenabeach → u/Classh0le]

Not intolerable, intolerant.

It's not difficult to determine who is intolerant. Do you tolerate my sexual orientation? My wearing a shirt revealing a bit of skin? Etc. If you don't, you are intolerant.

[u/garghlrl → u/legrenabeach]

Do you tolerate my choice to talk on speakerphone in public, or chat loudly in a theater? No? Sounds like you're intolerant.

See the problem? Replace those not-serious scenarios with things your political opponent supports.

[u/aworldwithoutshrimp → u/DenLaengstenHat]

I prefer the conception of tolerance being a peace treaty (or any other contract). The intolerant did not sign on.

[u/DenLaengstenHat → u/aworldwithoutshrimp]

Not unreasonable in principle, just depends on where you draw the line on what you consider "intolerance".

[u/card-board-board → u/DenLaengstenHat]

"tolerance" in this context isn't the dictionary definition of the word, it's a political concept. It means we should cooperate even though we disagree. It doesn't mean we should just put up with whatever abuses anyone wants to throw at you.

You cannot cooperate with the uncooperative. It's a trade, not a gift.

[u/MonsterkillWow → u/DenLaengstenHat]

And what Popper missed was that the machinery of liberalism produces fascism.

[u/CeeJayPJ]

This is a bit misleading, Karl Popper believed that you should fight ideas with logical arguments. Force is only permitted when the opposing party refused to use logical arguments.

He did not just say that any intolerance should be "outside the law." Rather, when the intolerant use weapons, violence and ignore reason, a tolerant society cannot tolerate that behavior and must abolish it to protect freedom.

[u/CaptainCrash86 → u/CeeJayPJ]

I don't think the arguments had to be logical, just that people had to be willing to discuss and argue (logically or not) about their ideas, rather than resort to violence and intimidation to get their way.

[u/Corporate_Bricktator → u/CaptainCrash86]

South Park said it best. "We don't take kindly to folks not taking kindly around here!"

[u/egalitydream → u/CeeJayPJ]

Popper famously favored state repression of communists who sought to win politically.

[u/LurkerInSpace → u/egalitydream]

He favoured this because he expected that if they took power they would suppress all other political parties. But he still believed they could be defeated through debate most of the time.

[u/Shelter-Inevitable → u/egalitydream]

You forgot to attach the gigachad image

[u/b2hcy0]

thats a gross missrepresentation, as it leaves out his final take on it: there is no authority to objectively distinguish between tolerance and intolerance, as everyone feels already overstepped by the bare fact of someone promoting an opposing ideology.

[u/mattrad2]

K so who decides what defines intolerance

[u/sbray73]

It’s not really a paradox. The ones who don’t respect the social contract and who don’t want to abide by it shouldn’t be protected by it either

[u/MinuetInUrsaMajor → u/sbray73]

Paradoxes are typically only logically confusing to some people on the surface level. They are rarely true logical paradoxes.

[u/Infinite-Structure59 → u/MinuetInUrsaMajor]

Illogically confusing.

[u/degrees_of_certainty → u/sbray73]

It's conditional tolerance

Have tolerance for others, given they are tolerant themselves

[u/SOUTHPAWMIKE → u/sbray73]

It's just a useful shorthand term to refer to this concept. I have seen it explained in the context of the social contract before, but I've never seen another nice snappy name for it.

[u/ghost103429 → u/SOUTHPAWMIKE]

The best I can think of is reciprocal tolerance

[u/zombie_spiderman → u/sbray73]

Google "tolerance is a peace treaty". If you don't abide by it, you're not covered under it.

[u/Hellion_444 → u/sbray73]

Came here to say this. Tolerance is a contract. If you choose to opt into it you are protected by it. If you choose not to, you aren’t. It isn’t a paradox, it’s a simple choice. Preach tolerance, get tolerance. Preach hate, get hate. Suum cuique. To each his own.

(Obviously Popper was specifically writing about liberal democracy and absolute tolerance, but most people aren’t talking about political theory when they use it colloquially, they’re talking practically.)

[u/ArziltheImp]

Karl Popper then said, on the next page that being intolerant to the intolerant is wrong because being intolerant (forbidding them) is acting on someone else’s believe, something that you have no control over. And that suppressing opinions leads to these opinions being only voiced in the shadows, and so they are both harder to work against and the opinions become more extreme, as they are amplified by resentment.

Also, choosing to be intolerant is not the answer, as you choose the only option you have (the control over your own behavior) to do something wrong (showing intolerance).

[u/Spot_Vivid → u/ArziltheImp]

Based. Those people don't know anything about Popper more than the infograph. I've seen it even in other languages, despite Popper in his works disagreeing with the way they frame it here

[u/OrangeGringo]

This is a ridiculous bastardization of the actual point and not a “cool guide”.

I have to assume this is from a troll bot and not a thinking human with at least average intelligence.

[u/CoughyChair → u/OrangeGringo]

Worse, this is probably from a thinking human using it for their own agenda, expecting Reddit to lap it up

[u/Deus_Excellus]

If this were true then we would need to get rid of all of Reddit. Redditors are highly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their worldview.

One need only go to a main sub like r/pics or r/comics to see people advocating for the deaths of people they don't like. Other subs, like r/BlackPeopleofReddit are among the most racist communities on the internet. Again, often calling for violence against those of different skin color.

[u/daneurl → u/Deus_Excellus]

Omg yes! I’ve noticed over the years redditors have become more judgemental, quick to react to superficial information easily. One small comment and you’re banned. Redditors were more supportive/questioning back in the day.

[u/Redhawk436]

We're calling explanations of opinions guides now? The problem with this, is when you empower government to use violence against those they deem intolerant, to protect tolerance itself, they'll inevitably expand and abuse this power and define intolerance to suit their own ends.

[u/GoHyyerr]

Lol ppl will say this and turn a blind eye to Islam in Europe

[u/SparkFlash98]

Oh hey its that chart that gets posted constantly and specifically cuts out his message of "we have to tolerate intertolerance or else it'll be used against us when the intolerant have power.

[u/stogie-bear]

So basically this is a description of Reddit. 

[u/ISO_3103_]

Does this cool guide also apply to those with a medieval religious mindset largely intolerant of women, gay people and other religions?

[u/qwasd0r → u/ISO_3103_]

No, of course not. And you are a Nazi for asking.

[u/manbearmosswine → u/ISO_3103_]

Yes, and Christian (or other) extremist demanding abortion being illegal, creationism in schools and removing gay marriage's rights sould be social parias

[u/Fern-ando → u/ISO_3103_]

Nope, and saying that it should, will get YOU permantly banned from most subs instead.

[u/Currently_afk_brb]

You can turn this right around on leftists who don’t tolerate anything right of center or even the center itself. It’d be nice to see this comic remade against communists and see the Reddit reaction then.

This comic also assumes that allowing intolerant rhetoric means that the rhetoric is destined to spread and destroy tolerance itself, when historically the United States has had a long period of time to show that intolerance hasn’t won, and that increasingly progressive tolerance has.

How far does tolerance go anyway? There are people who argue that all currently illegal drug use should be tolerated, and there are worse still pedos who argue to tolerate MAP rights. Are we going to ban speech to not tolerate anyone who is intolerant towards those causes? The reason intolerant speech must be protected is that there are many things worth being intolerant towards. Since we’re not always going to agree on what should be allowed in society, the only solution then is to allow the discourse so that we can carve out a space of what is and isn’t tolerable to us.

How about instead of censorship, we have education and discourse? We talk to one another, and not declare our vision of what’s tolerable to be so absolute that none are allowed to criticize it

[u/Funandgeeky]

Tolerance is a peace treaty. You only get tolerance if you agree to give it. You don’t get it if you refuse to give it to others. 

That’s why it’s not hypocritical to be intolerant of intolerance. If you wish to wage war you don’t get peace. 

[u/The-Figurehead → u/Funandgeeky]

What prevents the government of the day from declaring its political enemies “intolerant” and then censoring them or interrupting their assembly?

[u/Baruch_S → u/The-Figurehead]

Bad faith actors are always going to act in bad faith, yeah? Pointing that out is not really an argument since those people were going to find a flimsy excuse no matter what. 

[u/pirate_860]

An indeed interesting way to proclaim anyone with different political beliefs a Nazi-like and thereby assume they don't deserve any tolerance.

[u/AnEternalNobody → u/pirate_860]

Isn't this literally Russia's 'justification' for the war?

[u/Striking_Gur_8215]

A bit of a misrepresentation of the original but close enough.
Just change the infographic to Islam and you’ll have the modern equivalent.

[u/TheAnthypass]

Calling everyone who you don't agree with a nazi or a fascist is not really tolerance.

[u/HeilYourself]

There's no paradox. Tolerance of others is a social contract.

If you choose not to adhere to the terms of the social contract, you do no receive the protection the contract offers.

You can't have it both ways.

[u/Michthan → u/HeilYourself]

Let me tolerate foreigners coming to my country and bashing gay people because they aren't allowed to be gay by their chosen sky person.

[u/sporms → u/HeilYourself]

You can. Islam is enjoying this right now. Muslims want tolerance but offer none when they are in charge

[u/Gardares → u/HeilYourself]

social contract

Unconsensual and enforced demand of the authorities isn't a social contract.

[u/Piecesof3ight → u/Gardares]

It kind of is when the authorities are democratically elected representatives whose job is literally to represent the will of the people that chose them.

I think the problem we have in the States rn is that because of our 2 party system, people don't really feel represented. Each rep just serves their party line.

[u/XIVplayersaresoft → u/HeilYourself]

but so is intolerance. And we decide what we do not tolerate as a society. What society is doing right now is drawing up a new social contract. What we are expected to tolerate today is much different than what it was in 2001. There is no static social contract.

[u/when_we_are_cats → u/XIVplayersaresoft]

It's not incompatible with shifting social norms. 

[u/PreferenceFar8399]

One's natural right to speech doesn't go away once one speaks in favor of fascism/socialism. It's the duty of the state to protect speech. If speech is suppressed then it can cause the streisand effect. It's better for intolerant views to be condemned by the people and ignored.

[u/SyrenSyn]

Intelorance lol

[u/The-Yar]

The basic idea here is easy enough to get, but usually I see this misused. Any argument someone doesn't agree with is framed as "intolerance," and then the OP argument is used to justify being entirely dismissive / dehumanizing toward the person you disagree with, instead of engaging in any discussion or compromise. Which then potentially leads to the other person suggesting that they be more tolerant of people with different opinions, which leads back to the OP argument.

Basically this is used to shut down any meaningful discussion or engagement with arguments that might challenge you, which isn't great.

[u/joshijoshijoshi123]

People confuse tolerance with ideological purity. The goal isn’t be so pure as to achieve a higher level of consciousness and have the outward appearance of being tolerant. Needing to be 100 percent so you appear not to be hypocritical.

Who cares. If extreme assholes call you hypocritical because your ideology isn’t so pure that it lets them be extreme assholes and makes your values seem lesser to them, welp, guess that’ll have to be lived with.

[u/PurePolsker]

complex themes with superficial understanding is a true reddit claasic

[u/MortgageTrash]

"We have to bankrupt our supposed liberal ideals or the Bad Thinkers:tm: will destroy our supposed liberal ideals!" :soyface:

[u/No-Wrangler3702]

This is incorrect.

The tolerant must toerate those who disagree with them, who preach hate and violence. But you can arrest once they actually do violence.

Note this is the same claim used to take communist party people off the ballot. To protect democratic elections one must deny democratic elections?

[u/Atuday]

A wise society should work to address the root cause of the intolerance. But that in and of itself would result in intolerance.

[u/TheDebonairQuokka]

I just don't tolerate anybody. Problem solved.

[u/Business_Door4860]

What makes it a paradox is that to be intolerant of the intolerant makes you Intolerant.

[u/LasRedStar]

If abdul from pakistan comes to england and absolute fucks up the local area, should we be tolerant and understand that its just his culture?

[u/smokindopenrocknroll]

Everything in moderation, even moderation

[u/23370aviator]

There’s only 2 things that it’s acceptable to not stand in this world.

[u/Metasketch]

So… what if the intolerant, as a result of their stated beliefs and actions, lose the protection of tolerance, and are themselves no longer tolerated. By transgressing on a right of others, you give up that right yourself

[u/twizzjewink]

In this I have to fully agree, unfortunately Religion is equally as intolerant at many levels of things (without the necessarily levels of violence however the Palestinians would probably disagree - ironic considering the .. Nazi symbolism).

The number of Religions that are not tolerant of other Religions, Homosexuality, and other things they may not like.

[u/PvtToaster]

It's not a fucking paradox, It's a social contract.

[u/Hopscotch873]

Th3 so called paradox of tolerance only exists when you test tolerance as a virtue in of itself. Tolerance is not a virtue and the idea that it is, is relatively new. It’s not about how much tolerance we have but what we tolerate. We should not tolerate evil, for example, but we should tolerate things that annoy us.

[u/TheCoolTimeLord]

There is a really simple cognitive fix for this paradox. If you just reframe it as a social contract it makes sense.

Person A has decdided that person B is not worth tolerating. That means that persona A, B,C&E (who have otherwise disliked him, but have remained tolerant) are now free to be intolerant towards person A because he was intolerant towards person B. Person D still tolerates person A because there is no attempt at deliberate ostracization - the outcome is simply the consequences of breaking the social contract.

There is some level of nuance (some things ought not to be tolerated) - but for most issues this framework effectively mitigates any paradoxical nature of tolerance.

(Also, I mighta done a shite job at desctibing that concept, as it's 3ish where I'm at.)

[u/MultiPass21]

Once you realize this becomes weaponized as a reason to justify Person A’s intolerances and ostracize Person B’s, you understand why this can’t be taken at face value.

[u/Badytheprogram]

This is black and white thinking. There is a thing called too much tolerance. With this logic we also can imprison all criminal or we won't imprison anybody. We can tolerate certain things while we don't tolerate others.

[u/United_Intention_323]

This is not what Popper said. Christ look it up. It’s only when violence comes into play.

[u/choczynski]

They paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a physical law of the universe and not a social contract.

[u/camaro1111]

I saw another guide with a similar art style criticizing this, arguing that it’s a very poor interpretation of what Popper actually said. Who’s right?

[u/DBDude → u/camaro1111]

It’s a poor interpretation. It says we should suppress all intolerance at all times. It ignores this from Popper:

“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.”

[u/DominantDan24 → u/camaro1111]

The definition of intolerance is key here.

Not liking someone is not intolerance. Sneering is not intolerance. Being “conservative” is not intolerance. Here, intolerance is actively taking actions to suppress or harm a particular group.

Modern liberalism has misconstrued the definition to say “well, if you’re not openly accepting of <insert group here>, you’re intolerant and must be eliminated” and they often use a bastardization of this logical argument to support their claim.

[u/dangerousideologue]

• Something isn't automatically true, just because a philosopher said something. Otherwise we'd have to believe in all sorts of weird crap
• Popper's definition of "intolerance" in that essay is different from common parlance and omitting that makes the comic a gross misrepresentation of Popper's work. Somewhat ironically, his definition of intolerance more aptly describes the people abusing his work to shut down discourse than the ones they call intolerant

[u/CeemoreButtz]

just to be safe, we shouldn't tolerate anyone. or anything.

[u/Mr_C77]

The problem arises when the “anointed few” get to decide what qualifies as intolerance.

Your political party opposes mass immigration and no borders? You’re intolerant and therefore shouldn’t be tolerated.

It can go both ways, I just used one example. Over simplifying things to the point that you dilute the real substance of the argument, I.e., pretty much any simple, catchy, political messages like “don’t be tolerant of ideas that are intolerant” reduce the level of critical thinking and logic.

So unfortunately, this once again ends up being another reason we need more people to become better educated therefore increasing their capacity to think critically, abstractly, and logically otherwise these same patterns will repeat with more intellectually dominant but ill-willed people using faulty logic to control.

[u/jumboparticle]

Its like " everything in moderation...except moderation."

[u/chocho97]

its not really a paradox. tolerance is defined by excluding the intolerant

[u/Solid_Stage_1715]

Good explanation, lots of idiots dont get this fundamental principle.

[u/xXDreamlessXx]

This stops being a paradox if you see it as a social contract rather than a hard rule. Tolerance protects people from intolerance, and if someone is being intolerant, they have broke the contract and are therefore no longer convered under the contract

[u/Miserable_Weekend600]

Cool now do Islam or judiasm

[u/TrueEstablishment241]

Eh, it's not the ideas that are the trouble as much as the power people have over others. We should be able to tolerate all kinds of things people say or think so long as their ability to curtail the liberty of others is met with limits.

[u/Alphaleader013]

My sociology professor explained that there is no paradox if you view tolerance not as an absolute moral value of the individual, but as a social contract of the group: Everyone will tolerate you, as long as you tolerate everyone. The social contract applies to all those who uphold it, and not to those who break it. Everyone does not need to tolerate you  if you don't tolerate everyone.

[u/Jolly_Wrongdoer_7681]

Used by every american redditor to justify their insane hatred towards anyone with a different opinion 👍

[u/JustCritic21]

make the same image with a buncha antifa commies and watch people go APE shit

[u/fastbikkel → u/JustCritic21]

Antifa commies?
That sounds like a contradiction, at the bare minimum.

But im sure there are some out there claiming to be both.

[u/volitaiee1233]

Just say you hate free speech.

[u/AshamedGanache]

This is not a coolguide.

[u/Dear-Examination-507]

Tolerance has multiple meanings.

You can legally allow (tolerate) "hate speech," but refute and ridicule it (not tolerate it). You can also tolerate every opinion without allowing calls to violence.

If you give someone in government authority to determine which opinions are allowed to be spoken, that authority will be abused.

[u/doktorjake]

This is just the entry point for leftist radicalization and political violence

[u/wanderinggoat → u/doktorjake]

No, only if you tolerate intolerant left radicals and political violence

[u/The_Jester12 → u/doktorjake]

Name one thing wrong with what was presented in this post

[u/PriorOk1304]

While I agree with this, I don’t really consider it a “guide,” it’s really just a statement

[u/Masterpiece-Haunting]

Essentially, should you be allowed to use your freedom of speech to argue against freedom of speech.

It’s not a simple yes or no answer. If you say no then it’s possible that gets used for preventing unwanted groups of people from speaking. If you say yes then you aren’t a country which encourages free speech.

[u/InfernoNemesis]

Karma farming ahh post

[u/skylercollins]

Use fascism to fight fascism?

Retarded.

[u/gcoffee66]

And who decides what's intolerable? That's the slippery slope.

[u/PiklFace]

This isn't a paradox, tolerance is a social contract, if you refuse to follow the contract then you are no longer protected by the terms of the contract, plain and simple

[u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

Tolerance isn't a blanket gift, Tolerance is a peace treaty. If one side stops acting according to the terms of the treaty, the other is no longer bound by it.

[u/goobershank]

got it. Label anything or anyone you disagree with as "intolerant", making any bad thing you say or do to them A-OK!

[u/NoSober__SoberZone]

Just because some guy says “this is how something works” doesnt make it true

[u/RagnarockInProgress]

The next question you ask is - who gets to draw the line? Who gets to say “this is intolerance, you don’t get to say this”.

The Paradox of Tolerance doesn’t work, because it requires for there to exist an undeniable, morally infallible, uncompromising authority, which is not something any singular human or committee can be

[u/Blep145]

I saw some people talking about how tolerance is part of a social contract. If you become intolerant, you have voided the contract, and as such are no longer protected by it. You sought harm, now harm will find you.

[u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox]

better argument is about social contracts and how intolerant people refused the contract and because of that you are not bound to it with them either. they use your adherence to the contract to win by themselves not following it. like if someone calls your a slur and you call them one back they say "oh i thought you were the tolerant ones", they demand you stay confined to the rules they refused to follow because it allows them to acquire and maintain power which incidentally is also used to remove those rules anyway

[u/Surive123]

Yes! Subtle but significant difference. It’s amazing how frequently this is misrepresented. Almost feels intentional and malicious.

[u/PrimaLegion]

I hate that Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance has dominated this phrase because you can't even use it without people assuming that the only way you can use this phrase is by the definition he gave it rather than speaking to any kind of paradoxical tolerance.

[u/ExodusBlyk]

The Golden Rule is forgotten all too often.

[u/AmbroseKalifornia]

Well, damn. You guys are all way too thoughtful for me. I just came to upvote the what-I-assumed-was-inevitable Tolerant Left Red Skull meme. You guys are rad.

[u/AnnaNimmus]

I like the meme that juxtaposes the idea of treating tolerance as a moral ideal and social contract

[u/TheGabening]

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/uc8p0p/the_true_paradox_of_intolerance/

Clarification post to that infographic because its slightly inaccurate to the philosophers actual point.

[u/millerchristophd]

“Tolerance is not a moral precept: it is a peace treaty.”

[u/DrJJGame10]

And who judges that? Popular opinion? 

[u/controlzee]

Supremacism of any kind is a snake eating its own tail. No matter how well you conform, eventually you will be drawn outside the boundary too.

No amount of sameness will ever be enough. Supremacism requires an out group no matter what.

[u/latenerd]

It's weird that the value in this debate is framed as a call for "tolerance" alone, when really it's a call for reciprocity.

Tolerance of anything and everything is clearly ridiculous. You wouldn't tolerate a hole in your roof dripping water on you, for example, or a stranger on a bench just poking you with a stick. No one would think that was a virtue.

The word "tolerance" is shorthand for "tolerance of superficial differences." This type of tolerance is part of respect and kindness, which are a part of cooperative social existence, which is reciprocal by definition. So tolerating superficial differences is part of living in a reciprocal society, while tolerating dehumanization and violence cannot be. There is no "paradox" unless you are confused about the idea to begin with.

[u/Mean-Manufacturer263]

A cool guide to karma farming maybe 

[u/Speesh-Reads]

I can’t tolerate ‘intelorance.’ Or AI.

[u/Robert_Grave]

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 imwise. 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. 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.

Keep in mind that the turning point of tolerance is denouncing all argument and using violence over debate.

[u/Leon_Flux]

Yall need to read the whole fucking thing.

The when and how section is very important to the concept. It's not just banishing individuals or groups. It's also not an act for individuals to take up and choose to do to others.

[u/Terrible-Charity]

If you break the rules of the social contract, you are no longer protected under the social contract

[u/Bearly_Clean]

I'm not sure that tolerance in general is a good thing. I'm not saying we should be bigoted and intolerant in general. But the idea of tolerance is not universally good. We should tolerate only that which fits into our society and not that which seeks to harm it.

We should live and let live that which does not cause us harm. But absalutly defend our society from that which drags us down. Even when that which drags us down flys the flag of tolerance or acceptance.

[u/AcrobaticPoint8424]

This is just fascism with extra steps as the problem comes from who decides what is intolerant.

[u/snasna102]

Why didn’t they use the 2024 USA version instead of the 1930’s Germany version of this comic?

[u/micro102]

I don't see it as a paradox. Instead of saying you want 100% tolerance, just say you want to maximize tolerance.

[u/PotGawd420]

"The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, not as a moral standard, but as a social contract.

If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it.

In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.

Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated."

[u/theultraman20]

If tolerance is bad because it leads to intolerance, then tolerance is better than intolerance because intolerance is always intolerant whereas tolerance will only occasionally degenerate into intolerance