"Paradox of Tolerance"
Jun. 17th, 2020 02:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
writerkitI've been somewhat skeptical of the Paradox of Tolerance for a while, but today I came across the original quote:
"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.”
(Which I pulled from here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom but I've seen the whole thing quoted in a few other places.)
Specifically, note the part in the middle that all the Paradox of Tolerance people generally like to excise, that says that you shouldn't start suppressing them until they start getting violent and stop meeting you on the level of speech.
So as it turns out I've been right to be extremely skeptical of it, because he didn't actually *say* what most of his proponents say he said. Not that I think saying "Maybe you should go read the actual quote" will get me anywhere arguing with the sort of person who buys into it.
Other relevant thing I've discovered recently: the people who think we should have hate speech laws like Europe has should sit down and look at how those laws are actually enforced; The Intercept has an article about how those laws are used to suppress left-wing causes at least as often as they're used to suppress actual hate speech. But again, I expect the response I'll get is "but in America it wouldn't be like that!" Especially when you consider current Library Science Discourse, from people who really should know better, of a vocal group of librarians suggesting the Seattle Public Library should have denied the TERF group the use of their meeting room despite the fact that any lawsuit over doing so being one the library would be certain to lose. This course of action is advocated on the grounds that unjust laws (ie the First Amendment) are to be disobeyed. I've also heard "we fought back against the Patriot Act despite lawsuits; not fighting this is just proving your bigotry!"
We fought the Patriot Act with the aim of getting the courts to strike it down; the courts *can't* strike down the First Amendment. If they lose that lawsuit (which they will), the city loses a lot of money, the TERFs get a lot of money and media attention, and any good the library could have done for marginalized communities is lost. But honestly? The consequences of them *winning* that lawsuit would be worse-- because losing that lawsuit would at least be localized. If the library *wins* that lawsuit... well, "hate group" is not a legally defined term. If they win that lawsuit all the libraries in the South are free to call whatever active political groups they dislike hate groups and deny them use of their meeting rooms. Do you *really* want to open that can of worms? Do you have a strategy for ensuring that wouldn't splash back negatively and cause a whole lot of unintended, undesired consequences? (I have yet to meet a single person espousing this who has an answer to that question that isn't some variation on "by asking that question you're proving that you're part of the problem" or "that's why we need wholesale revolution." Librarians really should know better.)
"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.”
(Which I pulled from here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom but I've seen the whole thing quoted in a few other places.)
Specifically, note the part in the middle that all the Paradox of Tolerance people generally like to excise, that says that you shouldn't start suppressing them until they start getting violent and stop meeting you on the level of speech.
So as it turns out I've been right to be extremely skeptical of it, because he didn't actually *say* what most of his proponents say he said. Not that I think saying "Maybe you should go read the actual quote" will get me anywhere arguing with the sort of person who buys into it.
Other relevant thing I've discovered recently: the people who think we should have hate speech laws like Europe has should sit down and look at how those laws are actually enforced; The Intercept has an article about how those laws are used to suppress left-wing causes at least as often as they're used to suppress actual hate speech. But again, I expect the response I'll get is "but in America it wouldn't be like that!" Especially when you consider current Library Science Discourse, from people who really should know better, of a vocal group of librarians suggesting the Seattle Public Library should have denied the TERF group the use of their meeting room despite the fact that any lawsuit over doing so being one the library would be certain to lose. This course of action is advocated on the grounds that unjust laws (ie the First Amendment) are to be disobeyed. I've also heard "we fought back against the Patriot Act despite lawsuits; not fighting this is just proving your bigotry!"
We fought the Patriot Act with the aim of getting the courts to strike it down; the courts *can't* strike down the First Amendment. If they lose that lawsuit (which they will), the city loses a lot of money, the TERFs get a lot of money and media attention, and any good the library could have done for marginalized communities is lost. But honestly? The consequences of them *winning* that lawsuit would be worse-- because losing that lawsuit would at least be localized. If the library *wins* that lawsuit... well, "hate group" is not a legally defined term. If they win that lawsuit all the libraries in the South are free to call whatever active political groups they dislike hate groups and deny them use of their meeting rooms. Do you *really* want to open that can of worms? Do you have a strategy for ensuring that wouldn't splash back negatively and cause a whole lot of unintended, undesired consequences? (I have yet to meet a single person espousing this who has an answer to that question that isn't some variation on "by asking that question you're proving that you're part of the problem" or "that's why we need wholesale revolution." Librarians really should know better.)
