I really liked this perspective and I think I learned a lot about my own rejection of my heritage (it's "red group") and hometown friends and family. It's true, I hate'm more than ISIS. Pretty silly, but I think it's good that I'm chewing on this now.
One thing I strongly disagree with:
>When a friend of mine heard Eich got fired, she didn’t see anything wrong with it. “I can tolerate anything except intolerance,” she said.
>“Intolerance” is starting to look like another one of those words like “white” and “American”.
>“I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Doesn’t sound quite so noble now, does it?
If Eich had gotten fired for arguing that healthcare should be a capitalist free market system in America, or that guns ownership should have no regulation, or some other red-group position that doesn't involve the oppression of others, I'd defend him.
But, intolerance can't be tolerated. Paradox of tolerance, sure. Arguably, making me intolerant (ARGUABLY).
There's a difference between conservative political views and intolerant political views. The fact that a shitload of red group values coincide with intolerance (or that a lot of intolerant people are red group) is sure unfortunate for red groupers that are tolerant, but that's life. (and no, blue group "intolerance of the intolerant" does not equate to "bad people on both sides" for me)
Let’s look back at the original quote of Karl Popper:
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.
You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies?
I appreciate your approach here. Then again, while Karl Popper invented the term, his initial quote around it doesn't for me define law.
But, to your point:
> You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force?
Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. I would not be surprised to learn of a weaponized gay uprising somewhere like Utah, particularly in the last century or two. It was literally war for survival for them. Still is, in parts of the world and even parts of America. The stories I could pass on to you, and you can easily find on your own, stretch straight into 2019.
Eich was a member of this persecution class, even if he would be one saying "guys guys, we shouldn't HURT them for their gayness, even though their gayness is bad! Now here's another 1000$, feel free to spend it on tar."
> Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies?
There's ambiguity here, around what "suppress" means, "suppress the utterance," "keep them in check," etc. Anyway, Popper's word isn't law, and he himself contributes to this ambiguity:
> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
To me, Mozilla is perfectly justified saying "we do not tolerate the intolerant, please leave our organization." Nobody at Mozilla (that I remember) was saying "put a ball gag on that man, he should not even be allowed to speak." The argument was "Mozilla doesn't tolerate this. By having him at the organization, we appear to tolerate it. We implicitly tolerate it. We pay him a salary and some of that money he spends on oppressing gays. He must go."
Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past.
But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else). Thus, in the Karl Popper's original view of the paradox of tolerance, he'd argue that we shouldn't suppress the intolerant ideology of the people who voted for that ballot, especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right?
Look, for me, your ideology of suppressing all ideologies you deem intolerant, regardless of the actual actions of the followers, is very much intolerant, in the original sense of Popper: "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're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters. Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies?
> especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right?
No. It is not possible to convince someone that doesn't want homosexuals to have the same rights have other humans, that they should have the same rights, with "rational argument." First-hand experience. Sometimes introducing them to confident gays who are proud of their personhood works, though that could just result in an attempt to "save" the homosexual from their sinful actions. Another way is peer pressure via zeitgeist, which is happening now.
> But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else)
Systemic implementation of dehumanizing laws results in a cultural approval of acts of violence. If tomorrow the state of California said to you "your race (whatever it may be) can no longer marry," how would that feel? It'd feel like fists and pistols time to me. Sometimes that happens, and we get black panthers. What else is someone to do when they are treated as sub humans? Kowtow? "Please, oppressors, hear my rational pleas. I don't mean to be intolerant of your viewpoint, but I argue that I am human."
>We're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters.
I don't speak for the mainstream media. I blame them for the rampant gun violence and uptick in suicide in this country, for what it's worth. At the same time, there are good investigative outlets exposing the hypocrisy and crimes of oppressive government officials. Like all human institution, it's imperfect.
> Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies?
I ask myself this nearly every day. So far the answer is still "no." Pretty easy to say so: I don't do things that support intolerance (insofar as intolerance of intolerance doesn't count as intolerance in my value system, which is the direct representation of my view on this discussion).
> No. It is not possible to convince someone that doesn't want [X's] to have the same rights [as] other humans, that they should have the same rights, with "rational argument."
Depending on what you mean by "rational argument", this is extremely wrong. All known expansions of our moral circle to encompass other humans and even other sorts of sentient beings, going as far back as Stoic philosophy in antiquity, have occurred precisely via (more or less overtly stated) moral/ethical arguments of this sort. Even OP's blogpost is itself such an argument!
There are people that your basic contention applies to - people you can't convince via such a 'rational' appeal to morals; consider the Christchurch killer, whom I just discussed in another comment in this HN-thread. And if hate content turns out to systematically, with relatively-high probability, offer up pretexts that such individuals can trivially use to justify, publicize, glorify etc. their murderous acts, that's definitely something which should be of grave concern to us; and a meaningful, perhaps even a decisive challenge to the usual arguments for maximalist free speech. But that's a very different argument indeed to the one you are actually making here!
Eich was ousted in 2014 for having contributed to a campaign for a 2008 ballot referendum in California that passed, in a year when even Barack Obama was at least publicly opposed to same-sex marriage. It wasn’t an ongoing thing and there’s no evidence of any ongoing donations to “anti-gay organizations”, just a single political contribution six years previous in favor of a position publicly held by a majority of California voters and both Presidential candidates.
Ironically, one of the interesting observations about Prop 8 was that it revealed a division in the so-called “Obama coalition” because many Californians who voted “yes” were culturally conservative people of color—people who vote Democrat on the federal level because of the Southern Strategy and other Republican appeals to white nationalism, but don’t share the values of white progressives. If support for Prop 8 was truly and consistently treated as a firing offense, the net effect would be very similar to outright racial discrimination.
But fine, if that’s not enough for you, in 2009 there was a boycott of Whole Foods because their libertarian CEO wrote an op-ed in opposition to Obamacare. The motivation for these things isn’t some refined Popper-inspired theory of tolerance, it’s just old-fashioned intolerance of the most conservative 50% of the population.
Maybe Eich should have gotten fired for some other things he did cough cough js cough cough but what's "intolerant" about donating to a political organization which is pursuing its cause by entirely legitimate, non-violent, tolerant means? And what's "tolerant" about firing someone for donating to the _wrong_ sort of political organization? In fact, some politicized organizations, e.g. unions, do engage in violence every now and then, but firing someone for donating or contributing to them would still be beyond the pale. That's how strong the taboo against "you donated to a political organization I don't like, you're fired!" is.
> donating to a political organization which is pursuing its cause by entirely legitimate, non-violent, tolerant means
Restricting the ability of a class of people to marry based on their sexual orientation re: consenting adults is not tolerant.
There is no "legitimate" way to restrict these human rights - gay people were not an "intolerant" class in this scenario, they were a persecuted minority. Therefore, Eich engaged in a form of intolerance that justified the blowback.
You can say this about anything the government does. Any law at all is going to infringe on some people's preexisting natural rights and deprive them of some "ability" they used to have! So, unless you're some sort of extreme anarchist or libertarian, this is still not a good defense of "you donated to the wrong political cause, you're fired!"
I get it, and I'm not intelligent enough by far to make a decent defense of the tolerance paradox, so instead I'll attempt to describe how it works in my value system.
I see it as a sort of logic system. Tolerance of good things is good, tolerance of bad things is bad. Intolerance is bad. Intolerance of bad things is good.
Thus
Tolerance OF intolerance = bad
Intolerance OF tolerance = bad
Tolerance OF good = good
Tolerance OF bad = bad
Intolerance OF good = bad
Intolerance OF bad = good.
Tolerance OF intolerance OF bad = good
Tolerance OF tolerance OF bad = bad
Intolerance OF intolerance OF bad = bad
Intolerance OF tolerance OF bad = good
I am confident that I take a measured approach to good vs bad. I recognize moral relativity but I have still settled for myself on a set of values (that you'd probably call blue group for the majority). We could I guess argue around what is bad or good but that sounds... tiring.
Issue is the definition of "intolerance". Back to Popper, who uses intolerance as:
"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."
In contrast, your definition seems to be something like: If the speech is advocating something that would hurt someone who is already a victim, it's intolerance.
I think Popper's definition is better. The way you use it is sort of nonsensical. E.g. If someone advocated bombing Tokyo in 1944, is that 'intolerance'? No, it's advocating a policy of killing. Same with advocating the death penalty, or war against Iran, or increased sentences for small crimes, or more drone strikes in Pakistan. If these are not 'intolerant', how can you say that advocating a ban on gay marriage is 'intolerant'? It may be wrong but it's not intolerant because it doesn't denounce rational argument.
Intolerant doesn't mean 'wrong opinion'. It doesn't even mean 'super wrong opinion with really bad outcomes'. Intolerance is being unwilling to have a conversation. It's not about what you're arguing for. It's whether you're willing to argue at all.
You are far better at rhetorical argument than me, so the only thing I can do is state my values as well as I am capable:
I like your framing of Popper's definition of intolerance, and yes I don't feel that bombing Japan in 1944 was a form of intolerance (it was a form of intolerance of intolerance, which for me is Good). The Japanese were not to be argued with - they were enslaving, experimenting on, and raping the Chinese and Filipinos at a terrifying rate. The ideology can only be not tolerated until it poses existential risk, at which point it has to go the way of the Nazis (and have the entire world fight against it).
For me intolerance doesn't just mean "not open to rational discussion," well, maybe it does? Anybody that believes some humans should have different rights than others is to me intolerant, unless the humans they're intolerating are ones who themselves are seeking to oppress other humans. In my ethic system, it is irrational to view any human as different than another... Unless that human is engaged in oppression. I see the risk for circular logic but I don't feel I've fallen prey to it, I'm just bad at explaining it.
Basically, I don't believe it's ok to have a government step in and say "you aren't allowed to believe these things" to a Nazi. I do believe it's ok for everyone to say "fuck off with your Nazi ideals, you may not present them at this venue / you may not work here while you espouse them." I do believe it's ok for a government to say "your beliefs have in the past empowered violence against humans, you don't get to sit in the park with a megaphone and espouse them. Invite people to your home to talk about it if you want to" i.e. how Germany deals with Nazis in 2019.
At the very least we can see the zeitgeist shifting - KKK demonstrators are hilariously outnumbered in 2019, so things are going in the direction of tolerance by my definition of the word.
I think there's a lot of contradictions and circularity in your rationalizations here.
Obvious example: "your beliefs have in the past empowered violence against humans, you don't get to sit in the park with a megaphone and espouse them". Communist speech has "empowered violence against humans". If this was a guiding principle, you'd need to be a supporter of McCarthyist anti-Communist speech restrictions. But you're not; you're fine with May Day parades and communists in Hollywood. Which demonstrates that this isn't a guiding principle; it's a rationalization to harm your outgroup.
---
The way your beliefs go wrong is when words get expanded or shifted to apply to new things that they didn't before. E.g. you set up a rule where it's okay to commit aggressive/censorious acts against "Nazis". That's fine in 1944. But pretty soon, people who want to commit these acts anyway will just start using the word "Nazi" more and more broadly. This continues until 2019, when anyone supporting Bill Clinton's 1999 immigration policy is now considered a "Nazi", and thus fair game for all sorts of violence and censorship.
Same story with "oppression", "racism", "Islamophobia", "transphobia", and a whole vocabulary of other words specifically designed to terminate thought and justify aggression.
This pattern has happened over and over in history; it's at the root of countless tragedies, and I hope you'll reconsider how you're approaching these issues because otherwise there's a good chance you'll end up contributing, if only in a supporting/encouraging/justifying way, to some terrible historical crimes.
Hmm. I'm still not convinced. Communism may have lead to the deaths of millions through the rise of the PRC or Stalin starving his population, but was that Karl Marx's economic theory that led to that, or really shit policy implementation by power centralizers and tyrants?
Nothing about Communism inherently says "some people are less people than others," and THAT is what I think can be intolerated. So "let's make Germany great again via centralizing power into a fuhrer" is tolerable (in that I'll argue against it but also argue for a supporter's right to espouse this belief), but "let's make Germany great again by killing the Jews, who are subhuman" is intolerable, in that anyone that says something like that shouldn't be given a platform.
So my "your speech in the past has empowered violence against humans" example specifically targets the subhumanizing language of Nazism, nothing more. Now, Nazism is indistinguishable from antisemitism. If someone wants to take economic or political policy points from the national socialist party of 1930s Germany, they'd have to separate it entirely and call it something different.
I think I understand where you're coming from though. "why not just call everything I disagree with Nazism?" That's a very fair point. You're right, I think I need to be very careful with my value definition of what falls under "intolerable" belief systems. I think I've got it down with "anything that dehumanizes in any way." Anything that argues ANYBODY deserves less rights for some aspect of themselves... Unless that aspect is them intolerating other humans (dehumanizing other people).
I will try some examples to challenge my idea but I am grateful for you as well also challenging me. It helps me grow.
So Communism -> fine, unless it is applied to argue "kill the aristocrats for being rich."
Nationalism -> fine, unless "our country is awesome and we should love it" turns into "other countries are Other and we should hurt them to benefit ourselves."
Islamophobia: often people get accused of this for saying something like "Islam is being used as a tool of radicalization in the middle East," which is what I think the article we are commenting on was discussing instances of. That's not cool - it is being used as a tool of radicalization. Atheism has too, though. I have a problem with it (it becomes intolerable to me) when someone says something like "Islam is inherently prone to radicalization." This is nonsensical and bad - ALL human belief systems are prone to radicalization, someone picking Islam specifically means they want to view Muslims as subhuman. Intolerable.
Really, though, I empathize with anti-anti-fa and the like points. Tires to ground, I'm anti violence in all forms. I'm pro peaceful protest and I believe love and friendship (no, really) are the best solutions to gay hatred or racism or rampant capitalism. If I was in a communist march and someone punched a guy in a Trump hat in the face, I'd stand witness against them. It's not a very effective means of converting what could be a fellow anti capitalist.
But if the black panthers rose again and started war with the US government, I'd totally get it. I'd oppose the use of violence just as I oppose the use of police violence against blacks. Maybe my anti violence value is because I have the privilege to not experience violence at the hands of gay haters or racists? Who knows. Maybe I'd take up arms if the Red group came for us liberal Californians. I sure hope I wouldn't.
Like I said, you're more organized of thought than I am, so I guess I just hope my combination of anti-violent value system alongside my willingness to always challenge intolerance (the belief that any given person is worth less, or that any belief system is worth less, unless that belief system is in any way down the line arguing that some people are worth less) should keep me safe from supporting historical crimes.
Right now it seems the greatest danger is sometimes engineers get fired from tech jobs for opposing gay marriage or arguing that there's something inherently different about women that makes them unsuitable for hard science. Doesn't seem too concerning yet. As far as I know it hasn't led to like, violence against white anti illectuals, just to people having their back turned to those white anti intellectuals (by not giving them a platform). A few maga hats have been snatched? Deplorable but I have no control over that. I can only continue to argue for anti violence and condem violence.
The issue is that (leaving aside the pacifism), your morals are the same as your enemies'. It's only your factual beliefs that differ.
Can you see how a pro-life person might apply your principle, and thus justify violence against people performing abortions/"mass-murdering unborn children"? He'd use the same sentiment you are. "I'll tolerate them, but if they devalue others' life I will not speak and only use force."
Can you see how a white nationalist who actually did think Jews were using social manipulation to slowly erase his entire lineage would justify violence against Jews? He'd use the same sentiment you are. They call it self-defense. They call Holocaust victims, "deaths in the war between the Jews and Germans" because they believe that the Jews were the aggressors.
A difference in factual beliefs, not moral principles.
What if you read the Quran and studied the history, and came to the positive conclusion that Islam is a violent expansionist ideology which dehumanizes non-Muslims and encourages followers to abuse and sometimes murder them, in a way other religions do not? You would then become anti-Islam in a forceful way, not even willing to talk to Muslims but only willing to use force against them.
Your moral beliefs are't really different from pro-life terrorists, white nationalist anti-semites, or anti-Islam murderers. What's different about you is simply your factual beliefs.
This is how you can support historical crimes - the same way they do. By getting some facts wrong.
I think Popper's tolerance framework is robust against these kinds of situations, becuase it doesn't make you a historical criminal even if you get some facts wrong.
I know I won't participate in historical crimes because even if I do think one group are really really bad, I don't think that justifies committing crimes against them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Human rights are universal, and even wrong/bad people have them. This includes speech rights.
Hm. I hear you. You've certainly given me something to chew on. I'll need to figure out how I can balance my strong opposition to dehumanizing systems against the tendency for all humans to dehumanize each other, regardless of the belief system. I really should pick up some of those moral philosophy books I put down.
Thanks for digging down into the weeds with me. It's always good to bounce ideas off people, especially those more organized of thought than me.
Anyway, hope you have a good father's day weekend.
One thing I strongly disagree with:
>When a friend of mine heard Eich got fired, she didn’t see anything wrong with it. “I can tolerate anything except intolerance,” she said.
>“Intolerance” is starting to look like another one of those words like “white” and “American”.
>“I can tolerate anything except the outgroup.” Doesn’t sound quite so noble now, does it?
If Eich had gotten fired for arguing that healthcare should be a capitalist free market system in America, or that guns ownership should have no regulation, or some other red-group position that doesn't involve the oppression of others, I'd defend him.
But, intolerance can't be tolerated. Paradox of tolerance, sure. Arguably, making me intolerant (ARGUABLY).
There's a difference between conservative political views and intolerant political views. The fact that a shitload of red group values coincide with intolerance (or that a lot of intolerant people are red group) is sure unfortunate for red groupers that are tolerant, but that's life. (and no, blue group "intolerance of the intolerant" does not equate to "bad people on both sides" for me)