You're viewing a single thread.
there is no Paradox to disappear, nor there is a solution, a Paradox is a paradox, this is like trying to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma with some clever workaround.
just no.
Let's posit a society is totally tolerant, you have a tolerant society
if someone starts to act intolerant, you have to options:
-
If you tolerate it, then you now have intolerance in your society.
-
If you don't tolerate it, or put it another way you are intolerant towards there intolerance and remove them from your society, then you now have still have intolerance in your society.
that's it, that's the paradox, it has no solution or clever workarounds it's just what it is.
This also doesn't mean that not tolerating nazis and someone not tolerating the existence of PoCs for example is the same thing.
It's a clever way bigots came up with to try to show that we must allow people to be intolerant.
It's bullshit like everything else the alt right says.
If the primary rule of society is "be tolerant" and you break it, well, fuck you, there are going to be consequences.
It's that simple. There is no paradox.
bUt ThAt Is iNtoLeRAnT!!1!
No. It's upholding the primary rule of society.
it's the opposite.
It’s a clever way bigots came up with to try to show that we must allow people to be intolerant.
no. it's used by leftists to justify hating nazis, at least that's how it was used whenever I saw it in the wild.
Also if you look at the conclusion of the paradox, you'll see that it can't really be used any other way.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
it has no solution or clever workarounds it’s just what it is.
There is, and in mathematics we'd define it as Closure. We define a set such that operations on members of the set will always reproduce new members of the set. The problem with applying this logic to a sociological environment is that - in practice - what we're doing is defining "personhood" as membership in the closed "tolerant" set. Dehumanizing anyone outside the tolerant group is not - I suspect - what the OP was hoping to achieve.
That gets us to the "trivial" solution to the paradox of tolerance, which is to kill everyone. Alternatively, to kill everyone except yourself or to kill everyone who isn't in your tolerance set. Viola! Everyone can express perfect tolerance because the only people alive are the folks who share that same sense of perfect tolerance. We might call this a "Final Solution" to the problem of tolerance.
But like many strictly logical and mathematical approaches to resolving social contradictions, it isn't in any way practical or particularly ethical. It is a brute force approach to solving what is, at its heart, a problem of interpersonal perception, accrued bias, and political manipulation.
The real problem of intolerance comes down to the old Dunbar's Number, the upper limit that human brains can process additional individuals as people worthy of empathy. This is a biological limit, not a logical one. And it produces a whole host of knock-on effects that the simple logical paradox doesn't engage with.
There is
there isn't, that's why it's a paradox.
It isn't a paradox. The reference is a misnomer.
The real problem of intolerance comes down to the old Dunbar’s Number, the upper limit that human brains can process additional individuals as people worthy of empathy. This is a biological limit, not a logical one. And it produces a whole host of knock-on effects that the simple logical paradox doesn’t engage with.
Dunbar's Number is an interesting concept, but it is a controversial one. For example, here is an article disputing it. Just one example of many.
No, I don't think reducing the tolerance paradox to biological limits is productive or instructive. Instead, I prefer a more religious lens: People are "religiously" attached to their chosen dogma (leftism, conservatism, centrism, etc) and view those who do not share their beliefs as either potential converts or, in the case of a failed conversion attempt, dangerous threats to be eliminated. We see this kind of rhetoric in all kinds of extremism, which is where intolerance invariably finds its home.
For example, here is an article disputing it. Just one example of many.
Which all do recognize some general upper limit, even if the variance can dip into the single digits or approach the high triples. The point being that there is a functional upper bound, and certainly not one so high that it can accommodate a fully high school's worth of students much less a nation's worth of citizens.
No, I don’t think reducing the tolerance paradox to biological limits is productive or instructive.
Its useful from a practical perspective, as it demonstrates a real upper limit on the individual. For the same reason that estimated life expectancy, standard walking speeds, and normal sleep patterns shape our basic expectations of human behavior and comfort, an understanding of social maximal empathy limits can help us engineer social structures efficiently.
You wouldn't expect a normal human to sprint at the speed of freeway traffic. Why would you expect a normal human to empathize with a constituent group of a million people?
We see this kind of rhetoric in all kinds of extremism
We don't just see it in extremist ideologies. We see it in every ideology. Milquetoast moderates like George Bush and Bill Clinton had the same fundamental impulses when they governed the US as Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. Only their policies differed. Policies that were inevitably most favorable to very particular constituencies. This was not a difference in their scale of empathy.
Nativism and alienation will always be a problem for groups of humans at the scale of thousands. And so social and political structures need to be resized to accommodate that upper bound. Otherwise, tolerance just becomes double-speak, a term you toss about when you're angry at some out-group for failing to conform to the biases of your in-group.
-