Against the paradox of tolerance

I once saw someone argue (haven't found the citation) that, in context, Popper used the word "tolerate" to mean something like "refrain from using violence to suppress".  If that is so, then the "intolerant" are those who advocate using violence to suppress their opponents.  Whereas today's common usage of "intolerant" probably includes anyone who expresses negative opinions about groups of people.  It does seem to me that the definition of "tolerance" is pretty important, when interpreting the quote, and I feel much better about it when I think that "intolerant" implies "violent" [bold added]:

Less well known [than other paradoxes] 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 most 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.

I think the relevant limits on free speech in America are generally taken to be "making specific, credible threats of violence, or advocating imminent lawless action".  So, under the above interpretation, Popper is saying that, for those who advocate an ideology that says its followers should commit certain crimes, we should prefer to oppose them peacefully, but we would be justified in opposing them by force and should do so when necessary; this would amount to somewhat broadening the above encroachments on free speech (e.g. by saying "advocating lawless action, even if it's not imminent, still counts if certain additional conditions apply").  I'm certainly sympathetic to his position, and might agree with it—it would be nice to see a proper statement of what the new speech limit should be.

On the notion of "paradox", here's a related thing: Libertarians often subscribe to the non-aggression principle, which is usually interpreted to mean that violence is aggressive and therefore bad, unless it is used to either punish a prior act of aggressive violence (usually with some notion of proportionality), or stop an ongoing or possibly an imminent act of aggressive violence.  One could look at this and say "So you want to minimize violence, but you're on board with committing violence; that's paradoxical."  But I think most people usually don't consider it paradoxical to draw distinctions between kidnapping an innocent and throwing a convicted criminal in jail, or between murder and killing in self-defense.

I think that successful behavior is contagious, unsuccessful behavior much less so. People will try to copy what you do if they see that you gain something from that behavior. (The rewards may be social, and they are not necessarily worth it. For example, martyrs are admired by fellow believers, and in some people this triggers the reaction "I want to be admired, too". Even if, from selfish perspective, dying is too much of a cost, and you will not live to experience the benefits of the admiration. Yet the emotion "I want to be admired, too" can be strong.)

If this is correct, then tolerance will be copied only when it is generally recognized as successful. For example, in today's society, most people see neo-Nazis as losers. Like, yeah, they may be dangerous if you meet them alone, but that probably happens rarely. More importantly, they will never be invited to someone's party, unless that person is also a fellow neo-Nazi. They are a despised minority -- and tolerance wins because few people volunteer to join a despised minority, and some members of the despised minority gradually figure out that it's not worth it and they leave.

Now imagine a Third-Reich scenario, where Nazis are the people in power, they are rich and successful, they collectively own the government, business, academia, and press. Not approving of Nazis violence gets you cancelled or worse. How many people would copy tolerance in this scenario?

The reason for posting the new theory was:

Some reddit users (mostly on the left side) are using the tolerance paradox to silence others; they are also using it to promote violence against those they wish to silence... I propose a new theory to cover both sides - whilst simultaneously allowing for continued discussion...

Theory Name: The Equilibrium of Tolerance

1. I propose a New Theory... 18/09/2024

Theory Name: The Equilibrium of Tolerance

This theory seeks to maintain balanced tolerance across the political and social spectrum. It aims to ensure open discourse while placing universal limits on harmful actions, regardless of where those actions originate.
 

2. Key Principles of the Theory

a) Tiered Tolerance

Tolerance operates on a sliding scale, where certain behaviours or ideas are met with more scrutiny, while still allowing open discussion:

• Tier 1: Open Discourse (Highest Tolerance Level)
  All ideas, regardless of their political, social, or moral stance, are open for discussion, as long as they remain within the bounds of civil discourse. This tier allows for debate on controversial topics, providing the conversation remains respectful and avoids promoting harm to others.
• Tier 2: Critical Engagement (Moderate Tolerance Level)
  In this tier, ideas that could have indirect harmful consequences are met with critical engagement and challenge. These ideas are not silenced, but their potential consequences are examined rigorously to ensure that they are not implicitly advocating harm. The speaker must be prepared to defend their views under logical scrutiny.
• Tier 3: Prohibition of Direct Harm (Lowest Tolerance Level)
  This tier prohibits speech or actions that directly promote violence, dehumanization, or active harm. Regardless of the political or ideological background, advocating for violent actions or dehumanizing groups or individuals falls outside the realm of acceptable discourse. This tier sets a universal standard that speech promoting harm to others, irrespective of the source, cannot be tolerated.

b) Reciprocal Tolerance

Tolerance must work both ways. All groups, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, must be willing to engage with those they disagree with. The theory rejects selective tolerance, where one group demands tolerance for its views but refuses to tolerate or engage with opposing views.

The central idea is that no side gets a free pass in shutting down discourse simply because they disagree with or dislike the opposing side. Tolerance must be reciprocated, and disagreements must be addressed through discussion, not suppression.

c) Universal Rejection of Violence

The theory unequivocally rejects the use of violence or violent rhetoric to silence or harm others. This principle applies universally—across the political spectrum—ensuring that no group or individual can justify violence under the guise of defending tolerance. It establishes that calls for violence cannot be tolerated in a society that values open discourse.

d) Distinction Between Ideas and Actions

The theory makes a clear distinction between discussing ideas and advocating harmful actions. While even unpopular or controversial ideas may be debated, the moment an idea translates into a call for tangible harm—whether through physical violence or systematic exclusion—it falls into the category of intolerable behaviour.

This framework allows for the discussion of diverse viewpoints, while ensuring that calls for harm are excluded from legitimate discourse. The focus is not on silencing ideas, but on preventing actions or rhetoric that could directly lead to violence or harm.

3. Application in the Real World

• For All Sides: The theory treats all groups—regardless of their political or ideological affiliations—equally. It does not assume any inherent bias in one side being more or less harmful. Rather, it establishes a neutral standard for discourse, where the key criterion is whether the ideas being discussed promote harm or violence, rather than which side of the spectrum they originate from.
• For Everyone: The theory promotes open dialogue, but firmly draws the line at advocating harm or violence. It encourages critical engagement with ideas, while protecting against the misuse of tolerance as a weapon for silencing dissent or justifying violence.

4. Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Tolerance

The Equilibrium of Tolerance ensures that discourse remains open, while applying a neutral standard across all viewpoints. It prevents the misuse of the tolerance paradox to justify silencing or violence, and instead fosters a healthy democratic environment where all ideas can be discussed—as long as they do not promote harm.

The goal is to support free and open debate, ensuring that no one side dominates or suppresses the other, and that violence and dehumanization are universally rejected, without bias or preference for any particular ideology.

This restructured approach should be more balanced, avoiding any implication that one political side is inherently more harmful than the other. It focuses on behaviour and rhetoric rather than labelling specific ideologies, ensuring neutrality across the board.

Yours sincerely, the Conservative-Right.

Just because good behavior is contagious doesn't mean it will necessarily spread. There are people and/or organizations that purposefully want to troll or be bad actors either for monetary gain (false short report to manipulate a stock price), political gain (foreign interference in an election) or out of their enjoyment or possibly some mental disorder or to show off or enjoyment of breaking norms. A rational discussion or showing good behavior might not be effective in stopping the intolerant speech or behavior. So just displaying good behavior in response to bad behavior doesn't always solve the problem and sometimes the bad or evil actions need to be fought and/or not tolerated. In terms of hate speech, I've noticed that often people that conduct hate speech don't want to engage in rational discussions and a lot of the hate speech on social media is generated by bots. That intolerant hate speech then might become contagious in a negative way!

I'd say the paradox of tolerance is probably correct, in the sense that an Adversarial example can always be constructed as a counterexample to a perfectly tolerant society, and I suspect it's related to the reason you can't optimize all goals at once, or why no learning algorithm performs better than any other on all possible problems.

Any ideology can be contagious as they tend to ride on top of social bonds. However, your premise for arriving at a tolerant utopia requires that a single ideology will become dominant against all other competing ideologies.

While the ideals and principles of tolerance can certainly spread, they will encounter other ideologies in opposition. Unfortunately, this brings us right back the Popper's paradox. Tolerance would need to win against other intolerant ideologies. Tolerance could only maintain its status if the other ideologies simply submit or voluntarily disband of their own accord.

What could cause intolerant ideologies to voluntarily disband? The members would need to come to understand their needs are better met by the tolerant ideology. However, even if that may be the case, ideologies are built on social structure and status. Typically, individuals are not reasoning on a level void of significant bias for their tribe. They are simply exhibiting whatever behavior builds stronger bonds and social status within their group or ideology.

Even if we could somehow arrive at the point of the utopian tolerance, we likely have another obstacle. That being hedonic adaptation. As we drift toward our utopian society, ultimately we will find new monsters to seek out. What was once considered tolerant will be seen as intolerant. Thus a narrowing of the utopian vision may begin to develop until it breaks.

As for Popper's paradox and its original dilemma. I believe the best we can achieve to invalidate the paradox is to use the most narrow definition of tolerance possible. That being "restraint from using force to silence or remove others from society". My elaboration on Popper's Paradox of tolerance and solutions provides more detail.