The paradox of tolerance

[David]

[What'sinaname]

Apples can be red too

[David]

Well, I can’t disagree with that! QED

[What'sinaname]

^ It's an excellent OP by the way. It's just that reading and thinking about it is quite exhausting, hence by post.

[stui magpie]

I'm going to need to reflect on the OP and come back later, I'm about to drive to NSW.

First comment though is the supposed definition of "Tolerance"

Yes, Tolerate can mean to put up with something unpleasant, but it can also mean being accepting of difference. In the second context, being tolerant of different religions and sexualities is a higher bar than in the first and that's the definition I prefer to use when looking at this question. In this context, progressives could rarely be described as Tolerant, despite that being how they see themselves. They tend to pick a position on a topic, then be totally intolerant of any different views. You could say the same about those on the extreme right.

Second, and this is only from a quick initial read, the answer isn't black and white, it's not as simple as cause and effect. Being tolerane or intolerant of intolerance doesn't necessarily foster it or quash it, it's only one factor of many combined which act in concert.

Anyway, I'll come back later.

[LaurieHolden]

Just for fun I stuck your OP into ChatGPT and asked for a counterbalance using academic sources -

Engaging critically with the paradox of tolerance, particularly in the context of extremist ideologies, necessitates a nuanced exploration grounded in academic discourse.

The Efficacy of Suppression vs. Engagement
Counter to the perspective that suppression inadvertently empowers extremist movements, scholars like Sunstein (2018) argue for the necessity of a robust legal framework that can differentiate between protected speech and actions that directly incite violence. Sunstein posits that the marketplace of ideas alone is insufficient to combat dangerous ideologies without such legal boundaries (Sunstein, 2018). This view suggests that legal measures against incitement are not antithetical to free speech but essential to its preservation.

The Role of Free Speech
The importance of free speech, and its role in democracies, is widely discussed in academic literature. Gelber and McNamara (2016) highlight that counter-speech is an effective tool in combating hate speech, underscoring the value of engagement over suppression. However, they also acknowledge that the effectiveness of counter-speech depends on the platform, audience, and context, suggesting that there are limits to its applicability (Gelber & McNamara, 2016).

The Concept of Tolerance as a Social Contract
Rachels (1999) provides a perspective on tolerance as a foundational aspect of moral philosophy, arguing that tolerance is rooted in the recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of every person. From this viewpoint, the social contract interpretation of tolerance could risk undermining this fundamental ethical principle by making tolerance conditional (Rachels, 1999).

Progressive Politics and the Fantasy of Control
Mudde (2019) explores the challenge that progressive movements face in addressing right-wing extremism without resorting to undemocratic measures. He suggests that a transparent, principled approach to political engagement, emphasizing democratic norms and human rights, is crucial in resisting authoritarian tendencies (Mudde, 2019). This aligns with the argument that political convictions and dialogue should take precedence over attempts to suppress dissenting voices.

Confronting the Root Causes of Extremism
Economists like Piketty (2014) delve into the socioeconomic underpinnings of political extremism, arguing that inequality and disenfranchisement play significant roles in fueling radical ideologies. Addressing these root causes through inclusive economic policies and social justice initiatives is proposed as a more effective strategy for diminishing the appeal of extremist groups (Piketty, 2014).

In sum, while the debate around the paradox of tolerance is complex, academic discourse offers valuable insights into the efficacy of legal measures, the role of free speech and engagement, the ethical underpinnings of tolerance, and the importance of addressing socioeconomic factors contributing to extremism. This scholarly perspective emphasizes a multifaceted approach that upholds democratic values and human rights while actively confronting the challenges posed by intolerant ideologies.

References
Gelber, K., & McNamara, L. (2016). The effects of civil hate speech laws: Lessons from Australia. Law & Society Review, 50(4), 1042-1074.
Mudde, C. (2019). The Far Right Today. Polity.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
Rachels, J. (1999). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
Sunstein, C.R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.

[David]

[LaurieHolden]

^I'm finding ChatGPT4 is giving me some engaging content to consider in discussions like these.
Prior to this, I used to attend public speaking forums in Brisbane, which unfortunately aren't run anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brisbane_Institute
They used to invite a range of speakers to orate on a diverse range of subjects. It was my Church of sorts.

While a controversial view, I reckon that's where Churches have failed to evolve. Ditch the book and become community hubs for progressive discussion on topical issues of the day.
If public access forums like the Brisbane Institute cease, we're left to the biases of the media to guide opinion on paradox of tolerance or what we should tolerate.
As (Piketty, 2014) theorised, addressing these root causes through inclusive economic policies and social justice initiatives is proposed as a more effective strategy for diminishing the appeal of extremist groups.
In order to do this, forums of information should be encouraged to encourage informed debate and as you put it move on from the fantasy of control.

I'm not sure if I even articulated that correctly, but I'm intrigued by the discussion. Good OP.

[stui magpie]

OK, I've had another read and I think I'm on a similar page to David, albeit I stand by my earlier comments.

David's 2nd last para I completely agree with, you don't change opinions by bullying and castigating people. If anything you're more likely to harden their resolve.

The other important thing to remember in all of this is that humans are essentially emotional creatures. We like to think that we make rational and logical decisions but in fact we usually make emotional decisions then rationalise them afterwards. This is why emotive appeals work better than logical ones.

Similarly people form views based on emotion and personal experience. In cases of extreme views, when they find themselves isolated, they seek out others with similar views. Whether their old circle of friends or people they know are Tolerant (or intolerant) of their views, they aren't giving them the affirmation of actively agreeing with them.

Someone being tolerant may say to them that they disagree with them and try to have constructive discussion but that's not what they want. They want someone to tell them they're correct so they seek out others with the same or similar views.

Neither tolerance nor intolerance is going to make those views proliferate and take over unless circumstances exist that make those views palatable to enough people.

Using Trump as an example, he tapped into a vein of anger in blue collar middle america, people who felt they'd been ignored and taken for granted. It was an emotive message, not logical or rational, and it worked. Clinton calling those people a basket full of deplorables certainly didn't make them all suddenly feel cowed and go back home, it incited many of them.

Similar to what David said about how progressives need to stop being snarky and dismissive to get traction, the first step in those situations starts with listening and understanding. Don't just dismiss the MAGA accolytes as collectively stupid, seek to understand where the anger that Trump tapped into came from. What are/were the collective circumstances and is there something the Democrats can do, practically, to start winning them back. When you can tell people that you've listened to them, you understand them, and this is what you're going to do about it, you're on the right path.

[think positive]

I practiced tolerance recently for 12 days and 15 hours - and karma then smacked the bitch with covid!! thankyou lord!

[pietillidie]

My first reaction is a bit like Stui, in that it depends how the term is being used given it's so malleable. But the reaction to your post shows that it's definitely on people's minds, so it's worth pondering.

[LaurieHolden]

I've gone back to this thread a few times, it makes for compelling and considered reading from the OP to the responses.
It's given me plenty to consider and delve into the subject further. As Stui pointed out, balancing emotive responses and logical ones isn't easy.
Good discussion al sollĭcĭtus.

[Magpietothemax]

"Tolerance" by whom, and of what? Internationally we see the rise of fascist, neo-nazi parties, under the most benevolent of tolerance from governments everywhere in Europe, the US. The AfD now helps formulate policy in the German government, Macron is implementing the policies of Le Pen, Biden seeks compromise with Republican fascists...

What is NOT tolearated by these same governments is opposition to genocide, expressed in the global mass pro-Palestine protests. Governments everywhere, (Great Britain, France, Germany, the US, here in Australia) have sought to criminalise protests against the US-Israeli genocide in Gaza as "anti-Semitic".

Democratic rights are a class question. The capitalist class will always tolerate fascists, especially in times of intense class polarisation as we are living through today. They might crack down on one or two extreme right wing outfits to cover their tracks. But in the next breath, they arm and train neo-Nazis (ex: Ukraine), they welcome open fascists into Parliament, etc etc.

The only social force that has a class interest in refusing to tolerate fascists is the working class.

[pietillidie]

[Magpietothemax]