Paradox of tolerance

[[File:Lichtermeer gegen den Rechtsruck 2025-01-25 - Lucas Werkmeister - 08 - Paradox of Tolerance.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A 2025 Anti-[[Alternative for Germany|AfD]] demonstration in Germany, with one demonstrator quoting Popper]]
{{philosophy}}
{{cquote|When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.|||Quote commonly misattributed to French philosopher Louis Veuillot}}
The '''Paradox of Tolerance''' is a concept advanced by the [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]] which claims that unlimited [[tolerance]] necessarily results in the destruction of the tolerant by the intolerant, resulting in a society in which tolerance is no longer possible. Therefore, while [[paradox]]ical to the concept of [[free speech]], it is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance. The concept is important in discussions on free speech, its limits (if they exist), and to whom the right to speak must be afforded — generating endless controversy and bad [[argument]]s from people of all colours of the [[political spectrum]].

==What Popper actually said==
There is a degree of misunderstanding regarding the tolerance paradox, since Popper is not always quoted in full. This is his 1945 statement:
{{quotebox|1=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.<ref>''The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume 2: Hegel and Marx'' by Karl Popper (1966) Routledge. ISBN 069101972X. 5<sup>th</sup> edition. Note 4 of Chapter 7.</ref>}}

Effectively, some people are prepared to abandon the realm of [[logic]] and [[Reasoning|reason]], instead [[Argumentum ad baculum|turning to violence]]. If society tolerates violence for tolerance's sake, the result is that this society engenders its own extinction. With the demise of the tolerant, the [[bigotry|bigots]] and hate preachers of society will prevail. Therefore, in his opinion, it is valid to suppress such agitators before they take advantage of and destroy the society that extended them the benefit of the doubt (effectively stopping them from biting the hand that fed them, by not feeding them at all). This is why even in countries that allow freedom of expression to a liberal degree, there are some restrictions, such as the incitement of violence. A good example would be the [[Islamism|radical Islamic]] cleric [[Anjem Choudary]], who was jailed in the [[UK]] for violent speech.<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37098751 Radical cleric Anjem Choudary guilty of inviting IS support]. [[BBC]], 16 August 2016.</ref>

It makes sense, doesn't it? Free speech is all fine and dandy, but let's stretch that to the limit. A and B are promoting their [[Ideology|ideologies]]. A-ism is based on reasoned arguments — they may not yield correct conclusions, or they may, but A is speaking in good faith. B-ism is based on calls to violence and insurrection. If both are afforded the right to speak freely, modelling things out, B will necessarily inflict violence, or threats of such, on A — but violence and violent threats [[Chilling effect|have the effect of ''silencing'' others]], which indirectly impedes their right to speak freely — you are not 'free' to speak if someone will hurt you for doing so! Thus, free will is replaced with coercion, and society suffers as a result.

==Misuse==
Unfortunately, the name of the concept has made it ripe for abuse and misuse by [[moonbat|moonbats]] and [[wingnuts]] alike. Some on the [[right-wing|right]] use similar logic to the [[everyone is racist|"everyone is racist"]] argument, stating that [[nirvana fallacy|because no one can be perfectly tolerant, the concept of tolerance is tenuous to begin with]], and this gives them free reign to oppress groups that don't align with their ideal society — namely women and ethnic minorities (this becomes especially true in the case of [[white nationalist]]s). "Everyone is intolerant, at least we admit it,"<ref>[https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-excuse-for-attacking-free-speech/ Why the "Paradox of Tolerance" Is No Excuse for Attacking Free Speech]. Foundation for Economic Education, 21 August 2017.</ref> they might claim, which confuses internal consistency with [[rationality]] — simply having a consistent [[moral]] framework doesn't mean that those morals are good. In addition, there is an argument for pre-emptive suppression of groups that are likely to turn violent — the [[alt-right]], for example, may not be consistently violent, but there has been an uptick in attention paid to [[right-wing]] [[terrorism]] recently. Should we tolerate at the cost of lives? (Or is that a [[false dilemma]]?)

Likewise, many [[liberals]] and others on the [[left-wing|left]] make the argument that because of the paradox of tolerance, intolerant views cannot be tolerated, and this is thus to be used as a defence against intolerant views. The keyword here — intolerant — being however they choose to define it, making for some interesting takes, to say the least. However, it too is based on a [[fallacy]] if used as an argument for [[censorship]], since Popper explicitly states that he considered such laws to be unwise. In defence of [[No platform|deplatforming]], Popper is often [[quote mining|quote-mined]]<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6ub41y/the_paradox_of_tolerance/ The Paradox of Tolerance]. [[Reddit]].</ref> to suggest that the default position on intolerance is suppression, when this really only applies to violence (for which the definition and extent are up for debate). And [[irony|ironically]] enough, given that some [[communists]] argue for 'violent revolution' and joke about 'killing/eating' the rich, this actually hurts them as well as the [[far-right]].

==Joseph Goebbels==
{{main|Joseph Goebbels}}
[[Nazi]] Minister of [[Propaganda]] Goebbels was well aware of this paradox as early as 1935 and exploited it to the Nazi Party's advantage:<ref>[https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=lawfrp Intolerant Democracies] by Gregory H. Fox & Georg Nolte 1995) ''Harvard International Law Journal'' 36(1):1-70.</ref><ref>Hans Schwarz van Berk, Die Dummheit der Demokratie. In: Joseph Goebbels (Autor), Hans Schwarz van Berk (Hrsg.), Der Angriff, Aufsätze aus der Kampfzeit, Franz Eher Nachf., München 1935, S. 61.</ref>
{{cquote|This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed.<BR>
(''Das wird immer einer der besten Witze der Demokratie bleiben, daß sie ihren Todfeinden die Mittel selber stellte, durch die sie vernichtet wurde.'')}}

==The Nazi bar==
The Nazi bar [[anecdote]] is an informal encapsulation of the paradox of tolerance, first explained by Michael Tager (@IamRageSparkle) on [[Twitter]] in 2020 before Twitter turned into Musk's Nazi Bar in 2022:<ref>[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar Nazi Bar] ''Wiktionary''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200709113754/https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/1280892535024619522 And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people." And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.] by @IamRageSparkle (8:52 AM - 8 Jul 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 9, 2020).</ref> 
{{cquote|I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."

And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a [[punk]] uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them." 

"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.}}

==The point?==
Free speech, like any other [[human rights|right]], ends where other rights begin.

==See also==
{{otherlang
|pt=Paradoxo da tolerância}}

==External links==
*[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/#ConTolPar Toleration] at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Human rights]]
[[Category:Nazism]]
[[Category:Paradoxes]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Categories: Human rights, Nazism, Paradoxes, Philosophy, Politics