> I have not yet concluded whether I believe in free speech without limits
Check out the Paradox of Tolerance, it’s very relevant to deciding on “free speech with / without limits”.
Check out the Paradox of Tolerance, it’s very relevant to deciding on “free speech with / without limits”.
What proactive tolerances are we working with? Because the standard on A-A-G seems to be "we're only going to tolerate things we mostly agree with" - which is a faux tolerance. If they can't tolerate the speech of a sitting president then we haven't really reached the point where the paradox of tolerance is at play. That is routine intolerance. To be tolerant there has to be an element of putting up with things they genuinely disagree with.
People who refer to it hypocritically pretend to have a higher moral ground than their opponents. In fact, they are more or less the same. Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder. But it's not hypocrisy.
Quite frankly I’m finding it hard to respond.
> Truly tolerant people should win the other side with their virtue, and yes, it insanely harder.
Popper does a really good job explaining why this is not possible, and therefore tolerance without limit is not possible.
I’d prefer tolerance without limit to be the optimal strategy, but I do need some convincing that it’s possible.
Do you mind adding constructive criticism so we can work on a better mental model for tolerance and free speech?
So, how do tolerant people fight the intolerant? Maybe, we have some similar precedents from the past. Turning the other cheek principle [2] and nonresistance movement [3] have worked out quite well for Gandhi. Educate, explain, suffer injustice, yet, stay true to your principles. That's the way to the better future for humanity.
(I'm not claiming to be a fully tolerant person myself. I'm just calling out hypocrites who pretend to be ones)
[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toleranc...
Tolerating them may be better for humanity but it takes to long for those folks to disappear from the gene pool. And, they are armed due to the 2nd Amendment, which Gandhi didn't have to deal with. Sure, guns exist around the world but they are in massive abundance in the US.
And I don't even want to touch the subject or very recent far more destructive mobs which not only were not silenced, but instead were celebrated and praised for their principled position
I don't think you know who Gandhi was.
If you think that tolerance doesn't work then just don't call yourself tolerant, it's quite simple. Also your remarks about the gene pool might be interpreted as a call for genocide, so I'd be careful with that.
> There is a word for that in the English language: hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy, it's cognitive dissonance.
Half of this thread in a nutshell is loyalists who have a mediocre grasp on history.
Our government was established on founding principles that have been eroded and usurped beyond recognition. The loyalists cannot imagine that one day our elites in government - who care nothing about the people - will do something that even they think crosses a grotesque line. By that time, it will be too late. The power they've given the government in order to remove the bad orange man will not be given up without a fight.
Yes, I particularly love when people are trying to appeal to history and justify hate speech laws and Antifa to say that without them, a second Hitler could raise to power. I consider myself to be lacking in education, but damn.
He also says that you can’t wake a person pretending to sleep.
I enjoy learning about the tactics used by non violent approaches - and it has shown a realistic and clever tactical approach to your political reality.
Gandhi’s approach was always about both - morals and practical tactics.
Take Mandela- he adapted Gandhi’s approach because he realized that the approach was contingent on his operating environment.
So acknowledging Gandhi means acknowledging Popper.
You can’t convince someone who is only deigning to speak to you, or worse - sees you as a chance to broadcast their poison while appearing legitimate.
Bad faith arguments are not solvable in the modern public squares.
Note that this isn't hyperbole for rhetorical effect, that is literally the kind of intolerance that the paradox of tolerance is based on, and seems to be what you're advocating, by extension.
“Ignorance breeds fear. We fear those things we don’t understand. If we don’t put a lid on that fear and keep that fear in check, that fear in turn will breed hatred because we hate those things that frighten us.
“If we don’t keep that hatred in check, that hatred in turn will breed destruction. We want to destroy those things that we hate. Why? Because they frighten us. But guess what? They may have been harmless and we were just ignorant.”
https://lanthorn.com/61539/news/news-daryl-davis-lecture-at-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/klan.ht...