[BizarroLand]

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

It stands to reason then that if all speech is truly free eventually some speech will be censored. America doesn't allow people to say "Fuck" on public TV broadcasts, therefore all speech isn't free. No one is harmed by a curse word. Worst case a child will learn the word a few years earlier than when they usually do, and yet we censor that anyway.

Therefore, you can't say that all speech is free speech on all channels.

What you say in person may at worst get you into an altercation or ostracized, but you have the right to say it. Once your voice is amplified out of earshot you are no longer truly free to speak as you will.

You can say what you want to say, yes, but the repercussions of your words amplify with every repetition. Not everyone is aware of that, and when you are on a platform where, by words, you can incite a group to violence safely from the other side of the country, you should have your speech monitored and censored if need be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[tick_tock_tick]

Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits.

[didibus]

My read of Popper was that we should be prepared to even use force against intolerant people who are not willing to engage in rational debate.

What Popper didn't anticipate is that the square of public opinion would become the internet, and a big question this creates is if the internet is a place where rationale debate and proportional representation of ideas is possible or not.

If the internet were to make the public square of opinion a place of irrational debate, I think Popper would be very much against it, and would want us to do something about it.

Here's a quote from him:

> 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

So the condition he puts forward is: can we counter the intolerants on the internet by using rational arguments? If we can, than suppression (he claims) would be unwise, but if we can't, than suppression by force (he claims) might be warranted.

At least that's how I interpret Popper.

[throwaway316943]

To me it seems he’s clearly saying that if they decide to use force then we should be prepared to respond in kind not that we should use force to suppress irrational argument. The end of the first sentence maps to the end of the second.

[didibus]

How I interpret it is not that we should use force to suppress irrational argument, but that if we are failing to counter intolerance with rationale argument in the public opinion, than we should be prepared to do even more to counter it, maybe even to use force. And then he lists examples of what he'd consider cases where more than just countering with rationale argument would be justified, and those are: denounce all arguments, not willing to discuss at a rationale level, not willing to listen, believing they are being deceived, using pistols and fists.

[BizarroLand]

So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid?

Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me.

[tablespoon]

>> Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits.

> So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid?

> Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me.

Your snark isn't warranted. The Wiki article you yourself cited says where Popper introduced the concept and even speaks about what his limitations were.

I will let you read that again to find them, rather than providing a quote.

[kbenson]

> Your snark isn't warranted.

Honestly, given the comment being replied to started with "go and actually read" I think the snark is warranted if they want. Also, for what it's worth I think they were trying to modulate that snark a bit by using "friend".

If it's truly easy to realize what is being asked, a pointer in the right direction is useful. If it does require a lot of work, then providing some evidence to at least get someone started if not an actual reference would be called for.

In any case, I'm not sure a comment that boils down to "if you actually read X, you'd know that what you just said is wrong" is worth defending, regardless of whether you think it's factually correct or not. You could have just pointed out that there was evidence of this position and left it at that.

For what it's worth, I only bothered to reply because you're not the only person that took the comment that way. The strongest possible interpretation of the prior comment is "This isn't helpful to me. If you're going to state I'm wrong, please provide more information on how so I can address that usefully" which I think is a vary valid complaint to what it was responding to. Interpreting snark where it doesn't necessarily exist or providing additional snark in your own in response (not that you did this) isn't a useful way to move the discourse forward.

[tablespoon]

> Also, for what it's worth I think they were trying to modulate that snark a bit by using "friend".

The internet sucks for nuance, but "friend" in this context doesn't read as modulation to me, it reads as sarcasm (and thus intensifies the snark).

Edit: Dropped a response that was due to a simple misreading. Sorry.

[kbenson]

> The internet sucks for nuance, but "friend" in this context doesn't read as modulation to me, it reads as sarcasm (and thus intensifies the snark).

It does suck for nuance. The safest and most useful thing to do here (as a place that tries to keep things civil) is to assume it's not snark and treat it as sincere. If it was sincere, treating it as if it's not is causing more of a problem, and if it's not, treating it as if it is leads to useful responses.

> I don't think that's the case. There are a couple of other comments that read the GGP as unnecessarily snarky.

I think perhaps you misread me? I chose you as a representative comment to reply to because there were a few along similar lines. If it was just one, I probably wouldn't have bothered.

> The only thing I did that was unique was note that he didn't have to search through "25 books" to get the answer, because his own source gave it directly.

I'll just say that if that information was known to the original replier, it should have been included, and if it wasn't, perhaps the reply should have been reworded?

That you actually provided useful info is another reason I bothered to reply to yours. As one that actually provided value to the discussion, I hoped to steer any additional eyeballs responses might draw to a useful comment, rather than a useless one.

I don't want to clutter this discussion too much with meta forum etiquette stuff, which I'm already prone to do at times, so I'll try to refrain from any additional responses on this.

[BizarroLand]

When I use the word friend with a stranger, I mean it to say, "I have no ill intentions towards you". I'll look for a better way to express that in the future if the intent isn't coming through.

[BizarroLand]

There's no snark intended.

Maybe using the word "callous" made it seem that way, but that is an accurate depiction of what their response was, rough, without thoughtfulness, the reflexive expression of an above average mind unconcerned with how their message was received.

[abecedarius]

Just look up where he wrote about this paradox of tolerance? It was in a footnote. (To guard, I'd guess, against people deliberately misinterpreting his words in the main text and going "Ha, look at this doctrinaire free-speech absolutist." I've read the book that was in.)

[BizarroLand]

Why does where it was written matter? Saying that it being written in the footnotes invalidates the argument is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

You would actually need to refute the argument directly for your assertion to have any weight to it.

[abecedarius]

What I'm saying is:

- People make a big deal about renowned philosopher Karl Popper warning us of the danger and incoherence of tolerance towards free speech. I think this misuses his rep.

- The one-paragraph quote on the Wikipedia page linked above was Popper's full writing on this. You don't need to look further for it.

Others were already addressing the object-level arguments.

[luckylion]

That's such a weird reply. You claimed, were told that it's not accurate, and then went on the offense with a slightly nicer version of "why should I read about the things I claim? How about you prove that it's not as I read on that one meme on imgur.com".

[BizarroLand]

I didn't ask why I should read it. I asked for what to read. If they so much as selected the single book they're basing their claim on that would cut down their homework assignment by 96%.

I don't need chapter and verse, just a homing beacon would suffice.

Besides, we're roughly adults here. Someone saying "Nuh-uh" to an oft-quoted article has the gravitas of damp toast. Why shouldn't I question their response?

[luckylion]

> Why shouldn't I question their response?

Because you haven't read the source you're basing your claim on, you've only read about it from other people who haven't read it and are parroting it because it fits their agenda.

You do you, but that feels weird.

[tick_tock_tick]

What the hell kind of response is this? You try to puppet Popper's work, I tell you that's not at all what he said, you affirm you never read any of it and complain it's unreasonable to expect you to read it.........

[BizarroLand]

Well, you're the first person I've encountered who has said that the well-known and oft-quoted bit of his work that I even provided a link to in wikipedia with quotes taken directly from is completely false in all regards.

You followed that up with a command to read more of his work without narrowing down out from which of his 25 books would provide any context to back your assertion up.

I just want a little more context than a single sentence from some person on the internet to re-evaluate my hypothesis. That shouldn't be too much to ask. Especially since you're asserting that you know more about the subject than the people who authored the Wikipedia page and every person who has written an article about it.

[bradknowles]

Your freedom of speech does not extend to yelling “FIRE!!!” in a crowded theater.

Your freedom of speech does not extend to inciting a riot.

There are obvious limits to “free speech”.

[causi]

Actually, it does extend to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. That is entirely legal, at least in the United States.

[BizarroLand]

No, it doesn't. Went to the Supreme Court, and that is not free speech. "the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has become synonymous with speech that, because of its danger of provoking violence, is not protected by the First Amendment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

[dragonwriter]

> Went to the Supreme Court, and that is not free speech.

No, it didn't go to the Supreme Court.

> "the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has become synonymous with speech that, because of its danger of provoking violence, is not protected by the First Amendment."

While the phrase may be used that way, its referencing nonbinding dicta (expressions in a ruling that are not germane to the decision rule for the case actually before the court) that does not reflect preexisting law from a case that has since been almost entirely overruled and is widely recognized as being an aberration that (in its actual binding holding) allowed extensive government regulation of core protected political speech.

It reflects neither the law before the decision, the binding case law created by the decision, nor the state of the law after the decision was rejected.

[causi]

Why do people quote the Paradox of Tolerance as if it's unerring holy gospel and not just a philosophical idea?