Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance Refuted

Karl Popper is a Jewish Philosopher who formulated the "Paradox of Tolerance" as an apologetical tool in answering how to defend tolerance against "the intolerant". This video examines the argument commonly seen in internet circles and why it makes no sense at all.

[Mrfaceroll]

This comic/meme missrepresents what he actualy said. He states clearly that we should not repres intolerant views. Only when they fail to meet us on a level of a racional argument and try to force their intolerance on others. If we allow that intolerance will take over and tolerance stops existing. I probably butchered that. Just look up the whole quote its pretty obvious what he means once you read it all. This Comic purposly skips a few important statements to twist it, so it fits political views of its Creator.

[aMaritze]

This video goes off an tangents about paradoxes vs. contradictions that are irrelevant, since it doesn't address the core issue of why Poppers argument is a paradox to start off with. By the time our narrator gets around to the actual meat of Poppers argument he presents a rather stupid strawman version of Poppers idea that bears almost no resemblance to what was actually proposed. A waste of time.

[theSultanofSquares]

This whole video is a perfect example of why you can't create an argument without defining your initial terms. You are only able to present this slippery slope, bad version of "intolerant of intolerance" because you specifically refuse to define what tolerance actually means - very convenient for your premise. This preys on the audience's subconscious tendency to listen to your argument through their own terms, rather than you actually being relied upon to define your own terms. You can only lump-sum Nazis, Communists, Muslims, etc. into one group as all individually "intolerant groups" by specifically leaving it vague as to how exactly your Karl Popper straw man is defining his form of "tolerance". Popper explores what tolerance means in his version of a tolerant society. You refuse to define tolerance which allows you to make your straw man Popper have a negative form of "tolerance" which fits your narrative perfectly, precisely because it is undefined and formed by the construction you've presented, rather than defined at the outset. Form arguments better. Or just understandable.
There absolutely are arguments against a regulatory form of "tolerance" within an centralized society. Actually use them rather than making nonsensical trash which sullies the actual debates around Popper and his actual writings, not some purposeful misunderstanding of his work.

Also, stop your anti-Semitic dog whistle crap calling him a Jewish philosopher, the guy was arguably a Lutheran, more accurately an agnostic. And don't come at that by arguing for a solely race-based view of Jewish identity because of his grandparents. Equating Jewish identity with an entirely genetic/ethnic definition is also and anti-Semitic dog whistle. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if this is the only expression of this, if only because many people make mistakes along these lines, but you walk among unsavory company by using such rhetoric.

[Darkify]

1. He ain't Jewish, he was Lutheran. I don't see why you mentioned it unless you're trying to send a dog-whistle. 2. You clearly didn't read the book, nor the next passage after he proposes how the paradox works - you don't ban any intolerant ideas, you defeat them in the sphere of public debate, and only ban them when these people say that the debate is invalid itself. Please actually read about what you're criticising instead of taking one glance at some comic, maybe you'd be actually able to come up with a meaningful rebuttal then.

[caressagivens]

I think you've taken a lot of time to over simplify an over simplified illustration.

[stevied]

Tolerance vs intolerance is the wrong battle. The question should be “are the intolerant people violating people’s rights or not”. If they are not violating anyone’s rights, then they must be tolerated. If they are violating people’s rights, then arrest the individuals who are doing that. Simply “having intolerant views” isn’t a crime. Committing crimes is a crime.

[nihilistic]

You didn't really refute the Paradox of Tolerance. Instead, you just discussed some of the problems with what constitute intolerance and tolerance. in other words, you played in the hands of Popper, ultimately entertaining it instead of refuting it.

[aarondowney]

For your first point, challenging the definition of the word "paradox" isn't refuting the argument, it's not even addressing the argument. You're committing logical fallacy by critiquing the 'name' of the idea without addressing or refuting the arguments which the idea is based upon. Your second point... was so badly articulated, I assume you're questioning how do we, as a society, determine what/who is tolerant/intolerant? And how or what punishment is just, who decides that, how do we go about it? Ok, all valid things to question. But these questions aren't appropriate to ask here, they don't address the idea itself, or 'refute' it, as you say. You're posing questions to an idea that isn't addressing any of those concepts. I feel I have become stupider after watching this, hearing you blather on about chess and smash bros, it's clear you don't take this seriously.

[armandosanchez]

So basically he is saying "it's ok when we do it".

[TJackson]

Who expects a logical positivist to understand philosophy? They believe that the only truths are analytic apriori or empirical. In other words they are true by definition or made true through experience. This belief they hold as true is apodictic or synthetic apriori. Thus this statement they believe in is false according to the statement.

[AnsurTemut]

You should read "The open society and its enemies", specially if you're trying to refute it. Your analysis is based on a comic. Go to source, dude, that's basic.

[Bot-vzzg]

HAHAHAH Wikipedia early life section. EVERY DAMN TIME

[micahmackinnon]

Isaiah Berlin gave a lecture of two concepts of liberty: negative and positive liberty. This is essential in the interpretation of what amounts to be social contract theory when analyzing the paradox of tolerance (one must be intolerant to be tolerant). In your words and the way you define society, you use negative liberty most prominently; freedom from outside influence/constraints. This simply doesn't exist within society, you are right. By being a member of society you are tacitly or explicitly agreeing to certain terms of a social contract where you give up certain freedoms (the right to judge oneself and to commit murder, etc)

That's not what Popper is discussing. He has acknowledged this multiple times in correspondence with Berlin after his twin concepts of liberty lecture. Berlin paints positive liberty (freedom to be ones own master) as road to authoritarianism for much the same reasons that you have listed above while Popper disagrees and cites Plato in that the pursuit of truth (moral truth) as the ends instead of the means. Conceptual semantics is the pursuit and to establish, through collective action, a human consciousness of the depth of liberty and tolerance and what rights should be sacrificed when you are a member of society (like white supremacy, fascism, or extremist religions). This gives room for discussion and common ground without authoritarian dangers.

TLDR; You misrepresented Popper's argument and he has discussed at length that this is a process best demonstrated by democratic representation through which meaning and morality is collectively agreed upon.

[AWindy]

This was really misrepresentative of the core ideas of the paradox. The meme was also a really poor representation of the paradox

[louisfiorucci]

The ends don't justify the means, one cannot justify the complete suppression of ideas and speech, even if they are dangerous. However, one is also obligated to not be complicit through inaction because not acting gives permission for behavior to continue and spread. However, I argue that the contradiction can be avoided by drawing a line of constraint determined by the measure of complicit inaction. One is only to act and silence the intolerance when their inaction is complicit in furthering intolerance but to contribute no further than the threshold of complicitcy. To cross this line would make an individual guilty of the very intolerance they are trying to prevent.

[socenter]

you don’t even understand what the word paradox means while trying to grill someone else for using it correctly

[b.c.]

... more news on the indefensible insanity of liberalism. Thanks tho, another good video

[ShawarMoni]

You're making non-arguments... Non contradiction is relevant when discussing rational propositions not moral hierarchies, otherwise we fall into meaningless binaries.

[nunyabidnis]

Step aside Popper:

Maybe you can talk to me because I'm white, of dutch/welsh/german decent, of Catholic, Quaker, and some Pennsylvania Dutch heritage. Fair hair, blue eyes, male adult, heterosexual, from an all white neighborhood. There's no (ethnic or religious background) to preclude me from being able to be seen as a rational actor. Well, I'm sure you can find something if you try, which brings me to...

What do we assume Popper could not tolerate?

Example:
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." If someone is intolerant of 'witches, ' you cannot tolerate that intolerance, without being complicit.

One person's freedoms end, where an other's begins:
If you are a witch, I cannot have the personal freedom to oppress you for it, and likewise. If I were an oppressive force because you are a witch, then you must have the right to intervention, so that I will fail in my attempt to impair your personal freedom. You cannot tolerate me to do this; you must tolerate being intolerance of others impairing your rights. So what happens if you're intolerant of intolerance?

How we intervene determines how tolerant we are. Man is a damnable beast, but man is not _exclusively_ that. To assume otherwise or that they are deserving of a beast's fate in spite of the rest might be something one can't tolerate, if man is not to be a beast. ...Or a witch.. or victim, loner, tyrant, and all shades and shapes in between. Tolerance makes societies.. the extent of that makes enemies; on what grounds we make these distinctions matters.

Are people detaining and abusing people for being of a certain heritage or belief? Or are people trying to de-escalate still free people from abusing others... for being of a certain heritage? Kind of a difference there. If you intervene on rhetoric, it could only be on the conditions of, "this speech is aimed at resulting impairment of an other's free speech." Because again, one person's freedom ends where an other's begins.. and that is an equilibrium that must be maintained consciously and deliberately to some extent, to best minimize the amount of impairment that can be caused.

Shouting, "fire, " in a crowded theater is an example. Whispering, or saying "fire, " with different inflection and dynamics, in a crowded theater... That's where the discussion really is. "Do I have the right to causing and exploit chaos through language? How far am I allowed to take this before someone stops me?" Like... people tolerate an extent of being a cheeky bastard and control freak rhetorically.. but the whole premise feels compulsive. Eventually people will have to say to knock that off, because it's impairing their right to go to the theater without someone trying to cause stampedes.

That person should probably have some perspective on where they've intruded on social norms. Folks like Popper talk about it, rather than trying to dehumanize peoples based on things that they didn't active choose, or quartering troops to purge or imprison folks by flag or ethnicity. ...Bit of a difference there.

*Tl;dr* : It is impossible to consider tolerance as a boolean (on/off, yes/no, all/nothing; 1 or 0 only) value, because it is not one. It's a sliding scale, (consider 0.1 to 1) and humans can both tell the difference, and use different measures with imperfect but relative accuracy.

[johnj.]

@therealMedWhite,
Just for your clarification, a 'paradox' isn't defined as "using language to explain language", there's already an English term for that, and its actual word (as you so elegantly defined it) is 'description'.

A 'paradox' is ACTUALLY defined simply as 'a proposition that in logical thinking or common sense may lead to an unacceptable or self-contradictory conclusion".

On the other hand the English terms "paradox" and a "contradiction" are basically just synonyms for each other, as a 'contradiction' can be a pair or a collection of statements (or 'propositions') which oppose each other in meaning or in execution (ie. if that contradiction for example, was an order to someone else.)

I am thankful though, that I've finally found a video attempting to refute the Paradox of Tolerance, however from my perspective in intellectual debates, arguments or in informed discussions, if one is to even consider refuting someone else's proposition, you for example, must thoroughly investigate the definitions or the logistics behind the facts or the words that you might use to describe and back up your argument(s).
In my opinion, just doing that during informed discussions makes you appear more credible and articulate to the other party that you're refuting.

Please actually use the right terms next time when you're offering up a statement, argument or an opinion. Misusing and mixing up definitions is a bit embarrassing tbh...