I get it, and I'm not intelligent enough by far to make a decent defense of the tolerance paradox, so instead I'll attempt to describe how it works in my value system.

I see it as a sort of logic system. Tolerance of good things is good, tolerance of bad things is bad. Intolerance is bad. Intolerance of bad things is good.

Thus

Tolerance OF intolerance = bad

Intolerance OF tolerance = bad

Tolerance OF good = good

Tolerance OF bad = bad

Intolerance OF good = bad

Intolerance OF bad = good.

Tolerance OF intolerance OF bad = good

Tolerance OF tolerance OF bad = bad

Intolerance OF intolerance OF bad = bad

Intolerance OF tolerance OF bad = good

I am confident that I take a measured approach to good vs bad. I recognize moral relativity but I have still settled for myself on a set of values (that you'd probably call blue group for the majority). We could I guess argue around what is bad or good but that sounds... tiring.

Issue is the definition of "intolerance". Back to Popper, who uses intolerance as:

"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."

In contrast, your definition seems to be something like: If the speech is advocating something that would hurt someone who is already a victim, it's intolerance.

I think Popper's definition is better. The way you use it is sort of nonsensical. E.g. If someone advocated bombing Tokyo in 1944, is that 'intolerance'? No, it's advocating a policy of killing. Same with advocating the death penalty, or war against Iran, or increased sentences for small crimes, or more drone strikes in Pakistan. If these are not 'intolerant', how can you say that advocating a ban on gay marriage is 'intolerant'? It may be wrong but it's not intolerant because it doesn't denounce rational argument.

Intolerant doesn't mean 'wrong opinion'. It doesn't even mean 'super wrong opinion with really bad outcomes'. Intolerance is being unwilling to have a conversation. It's not about what you're arguing for. It's whether you're willing to argue at all.

You are far better at rhetorical argument than me, so the only thing I can do is state my values as well as I am capable:

I like your framing of Popper's definition of intolerance, and yes I don't feel that bombing Japan in 1944 was a form of intolerance (it was a form of intolerance of intolerance, which for me is Good). The Japanese were not to be argued with - they were enslaving, experimenting on, and raping the Chinese and Filipinos at a terrifying rate. The ideology can only be not tolerated until it poses existential risk, at which point it has to go the way of the Nazis (and have the entire world fight against it).

For me intolerance doesn't just mean "not open to rational discussion," well, maybe it does? Anybody that believes some humans should have different rights than others is to me intolerant, unless the humans they're intolerating are ones who themselves are seeking to oppress other humans. In my ethic system, it is irrational to view any human as different than another... Unless that human is engaged in oppression. I see the risk for circular logic but I don't feel I've fallen prey to it, I'm just bad at explaining it.

Basically, I don't believe it's ok to have a government step in and say "you aren't allowed to believe these things" to a Nazi. I do believe it's ok for everyone to say "fuck off with your Nazi ideals, you may not present them at this venue / you may not work here while you espouse them." I do believe it's ok for a government to say "your beliefs have in the past empowered violence against humans, you don't get to sit in the park with a megaphone and espouse them. Invite people to your home to talk about it if you want to" i.e. how Germany deals with Nazis in 2019.

At the very least we can see the zeitgeist shifting - KKK demonstrators are hilariously outnumbered in 2019, so things are going in the direction of tolerance by my definition of the word.

I think there's a lot of contradictions and circularity in your rationalizations here.

Obvious example: "your beliefs have in the past empowered violence against humans, you don't get to sit in the park with a megaphone and espouse them". Communist speech has "empowered violence against humans". If this was a guiding principle, you'd need to be a supporter of McCarthyist anti-Communist speech restrictions. But you're not; you're fine with May Day parades and communists in Hollywood. Which demonstrates that this isn't a guiding principle; it's a rationalization to harm your outgroup.

---

The way your beliefs go wrong is when words get expanded or shifted to apply to new things that they didn't before. E.g. you set up a rule where it's okay to commit aggressive/censorious acts against "Nazis". That's fine in 1944. But pretty soon, people who want to commit these acts anyway will just start using the word "Nazi" more and more broadly. This continues until 2019, when anyone supporting Bill Clinton's 1999 immigration policy is now considered a "Nazi", and thus fair game for all sorts of violence and censorship.

Same story with "oppression", "racism", "Islamophobia", "transphobia", and a whole vocabulary of other words specifically designed to terminate thought and justify aggression.

This pattern has happened over and over in history; it's at the root of countless tragedies, and I hope you'll reconsider how you're approaching these issues because otherwise there's a good chance you'll end up contributing, if only in a supporting/encouraging/justifying way, to some terrible historical crimes.

Hmm. I'm still not convinced. Communism may have lead to the deaths of millions through the rise of the PRC or Stalin starving his population, but was that Karl Marx's economic theory that led to that, or really shit policy implementation by power centralizers and tyrants?

Nothing about Communism inherently says "some people are less people than others," and THAT is what I think can be intolerated. So "let's make Germany great again via centralizing power into a fuhrer" is tolerable (in that I'll argue against it but also argue for a supporter's right to espouse this belief), but "let's make Germany great again by killing the Jews, who are subhuman" is intolerable, in that anyone that says something like that shouldn't be given a platform.

So my "your speech in the past has empowered violence against humans" example specifically targets the subhumanizing language of Nazism, nothing more. Now, Nazism is indistinguishable from antisemitism. If someone wants to take economic or political policy points from the national socialist party of 1930s Germany, they'd have to separate it entirely and call it something different.

I think I understand where you're coming from though. "why not just call everything I disagree with Nazism?" That's a very fair point. You're right, I think I need to be very careful with my value definition of what falls under "intolerable" belief systems. I think I've got it down with "anything that dehumanizes in any way." Anything that argues ANYBODY deserves less rights for some aspect of themselves... Unless that aspect is them intolerating other humans (dehumanizing other people).

I will try some examples to challenge my idea but I am grateful for you as well also challenging me. It helps me grow.

So Communism -> fine, unless it is applied to argue "kill the aristocrats for being rich."

Nationalism -> fine, unless "our country is awesome and we should love it" turns into "other countries are Other and we should hurt them to benefit ourselves."

Islamophobia: often people get accused of this for saying something like "Islam is being used as a tool of radicalization in the middle East," which is what I think the article we are commenting on was discussing instances of. That's not cool - it is being used as a tool of radicalization. Atheism has too, though. I have a problem with it (it becomes intolerable to me) when someone says something like "Islam is inherently prone to radicalization." This is nonsensical and bad - ALL human belief systems are prone to radicalization, someone picking Islam specifically means they want to view Muslims as subhuman. Intolerable.

Really, though, I empathize with anti-anti-fa and the like points. Tires to ground, I'm anti violence in all forms. I'm pro peaceful protest and I believe love and friendship (no, really) are the best solutions to gay hatred or racism or rampant capitalism. If I was in a communist march and someone punched a guy in a Trump hat in the face, I'd stand witness against them. It's not a very effective means of converting what could be a fellow anti capitalist.

But if the black panthers rose again and started war with the US government, I'd totally get it. I'd oppose the use of violence just as I oppose the use of police violence against blacks. Maybe my anti violence value is because I have the privilege to not experience violence at the hands of gay haters or racists? Who knows. Maybe I'd take up arms if the Red group came for us liberal Californians. I sure hope I wouldn't.

Like I said, you're more organized of thought than I am, so I guess I just hope my combination of anti-violent value system alongside my willingness to always challenge intolerance (the belief that any given person is worth less, or that any belief system is worth less, unless that belief system is in any way down the line arguing that some people are worth less) should keep me safe from supporting historical crimes.

Right now it seems the greatest danger is sometimes engineers get fired from tech jobs for opposing gay marriage or arguing that there's something inherently different about women that makes them unsuitable for hard science. Doesn't seem too concerning yet. As far as I know it hasn't led to like, violence against white anti illectuals, just to people having their back turned to those white anti intellectuals (by not giving them a platform). A few maga hats have been snatched? Deplorable but I have no control over that. I can only continue to argue for anti violence and condem violence.

The issue is that (leaving aside the pacifism), your morals are the same as your enemies'. It's only your factual beliefs that differ.

Can you see how a pro-life person might apply your principle, and thus justify violence against people performing abortions/"mass-murdering unborn children"? He'd use the same sentiment you are. "I'll tolerate them, but if they devalue others' life I will not speak and only use force."

Can you see how a white nationalist who actually did think Jews were using social manipulation to slowly erase his entire lineage would justify violence against Jews? He'd use the same sentiment you are. They call it self-defense. They call Holocaust victims, "deaths in the war between the Jews and Germans" because they believe that the Jews were the aggressors.

A difference in factual beliefs, not moral principles.

What if you read the Quran and studied the history, and came to the positive conclusion that Islam is a violent expansionist ideology which dehumanizes non-Muslims and encourages followers to abuse and sometimes murder them, in a way other religions do not? You would then become anti-Islam in a forceful way, not even willing to talk to Muslims but only willing to use force against them.

Your moral beliefs are't really different from pro-life terrorists, white nationalist anti-semites, or anti-Islam murderers. What's different about you is simply your factual beliefs.

This is how you can support historical crimes - the same way they do. By getting some facts wrong.

I think Popper's tolerance framework is robust against these kinds of situations, becuase it doesn't make you a historical criminal even if you get some facts wrong.

I know I won't participate in historical crimes because even if I do think one group are really really bad, I don't think that justifies committing crimes against them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Human rights are universal, and even wrong/bad people have them. This includes speech rights.

Hm. I hear you. You've certainly given me something to chew on. I'll need to figure out how I can balance my strong opposition to dehumanizing systems against the tendency for all humans to dehumanize each other, regardless of the belief system. I really should pick up some of those moral philosophy books I put down.

Thanks for digging down into the weeds with me. It's always good to bounce ideas off people, especially those more organized of thought than me.

Anyway, hope you have a good father's day weekend.

Likewise, thanks for having a conversation.