That’s a decent solution. I was referring to The Paradox of Tolerance. You can disagree with Popper, but it’ll take more that a couple of sentences in Lemme to convince me.
The person you are replying to is assuredly aware of the topic. What was stated is paraphrasing a direct response to the paradox, which has been posted here several times, and many more on Reddit before that.
One thing I’m not sure about: when academic ideas filter through other parts of society, they’re often stripped of most of their nuance. “Toxic masculinity,” for instance, a lot of people misunderstand to mean that masculinity is toxic.
I can say that I view this article as a general response to questions from conservatives circa 2005 about why the left was antagonistic to, I don’t know, racism. But I don’t know if this challenge to them is the same as a challenge to Popper.
I think I have to admit I don’t actually know what Popper has to say on the matter. Though, I get the impression these two authors might agree, at least broadly, and are simply viewing the same problem through different lenses.
That is, resolving the paradox might be interesting to someone if paradoxes bother them, and perhaps “but it’s not a paradox” is something they could say on a Fox News panel, but I’m not sure it will otherwise inform their political strategy.
I believe this is the article that kicked off support for the idea. Thankfully it’s not a Medium-requires-an-account article
Thank you, that’s one I’m going to read.
“Toxic masculinity,” for instance, a lot of people misunderstand to mean that masculinity is toxic.
Whatt‽‽ ϞϞ(๑⚈ ○ ⚈๑) I thought I was practicing the non toxic version of masculinity!
But I don’t know if this challenge to them is the same as a challenge to Popper.
Well, thanks for the link, in any case. My reading comprehension and analytic skills aren’t completely undeveloped, and while I’ve been known to fall for brief periods for clever sounding schemes*, I’m generally skeptical enough to read between the lines.
I think I have to admit I don’t actually know what Popper has to say on the matter. Though, I get the impression these two authors might agree, at least broadly, and are simply viewing the same problem through different lenses.
He wasn’t the first, but he was the first to really coin the term that stuck. It’s hard to read, if for no other reason than it’s philosophy and my eyes tend to glaze over.
That is, resolving the paradox might be interesting to someone if paradoxes bother them
Yeah, I think it’s a paradox only to absolutists, and I distrust absolutists. There are physical laws of nature that are absolute, and even then we find exceptions; but trying to hold to philosophical absolutes leads to people like Ayn Rand, and Libertarians. So, to paraphrase possibly the best scene in any movie ever, “the code is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules”.
I once thought flat tax was a great idea, believing it’d get us closer to European-style “finally I don’t have to sorry about this shit for two while months every year” taxes; before a friend pointed out the disproportionate impact a flat tax has on different economic stratuses. Stratusi? Whatever.
I’m generally skeptical enough to read between the lines.
Haha, honestly, some of that was just me putting down thoughts I had while looking for some kind of supportive argument.
Yeah, I think it’s a paradox only to absolutists
I mean, it is called a paradox, haha.
I like the idea of resolving it, but that’s only because I like math. I imagine both could be rhetorically useful.
If you’re talking to someone with a strong belief in fairness, telling them about social contracts seems useful. It reminds me, actually, of the best prisoner’s dilemma strategy: cooperation, retaliation, and forgiveness.
If, however, you’re talking to someone who likes splitting the Earth, the punk rock energy of telling god to go fuck himself, and rotating 4D objects in their mind for a laugh, telling them they can just accept the paradox as-is and invoke it on purpose seems just as well.
Oh, yeah; that’s a good one. I’ve read sci-fi books that are almost this, but less obvious about it; Libertarian wet dreams. I mean, fair enough, there’s plenty of communist fiction. But sometimes it gets a bit absurd.
One of my favorite all-time sci-fi trilogies is The Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright. And it’s a sort of libertarian fantasy: übermensch against the forces of evil (which aren’t socialists; it’s not that kind of libertarian fantasy) who triumphs mainly by force of sheer will. Great books, and I think the ending is about the best I could imagine, because it inverts the entire libertarian message. The libertarian ideal society exists because The Gods allow it to. It’s kind of like Anarchy Park in whichever Larry Niven book that was: anything goes, except violation of other’s freedom, all enforced by all-mighty AI cops. It’s such a funny caveat.
Incidentally, I didn’t know about that Prisoners Dilemma strategy; thanks! I learned something new today.
Tolerance is not a paradox, it’s a contract. Either you tollerate others or you break the contract and are no longer covered by it.
if you don’t like contract, ‘peace treaty’ also works well!
That’s a decent solution. I was referring to The Paradox of Tolerance. You can disagree with Popper, but it’ll take more that a couple of sentences in Lemme to convince me.
The person you are replying to is assuredly aware of the topic. What was stated is paraphrasing a direct response to the paradox, which has been posted here several times, and many more on Reddit before that.
Is there a source for that response? It sounds good, and I’d like to read a reasoned argument for the paraphrase.
I believe this is the article that kicked off support for the idea. Thankfully it’s not a Medium-requires-an-account article (ugh).
One thing I’m not sure about: when academic ideas filter through other parts of society, they’re often stripped of most of their nuance. “Toxic masculinity,” for instance, a lot of people misunderstand to mean that masculinity is toxic.
I can say that I view this article as a general response to questions from conservatives circa 2005 about why the left was antagonistic to, I don’t know, racism. But I don’t know if this challenge to them is the same as a challenge to Popper.
I think I have to admit I don’t actually know what Popper has to say on the matter. Though, I get the impression these two authors might agree, at least broadly, and are simply viewing the same problem through different lenses.
That is, resolving the paradox might be interesting to someone if paradoxes bother them, and perhaps “but it’s not a paradox” is something they could say on a Fox News panel, but I’m not sure it will otherwise inform their political strategy.
Thank you, that’s one I’m going to read.
Whatt‽‽ ϞϞ(๑⚈ ○ ⚈๑) I thought I was practicing the non toxic version of masculinity!
Well, thanks for the link, in any case. My reading comprehension and analytic skills aren’t completely undeveloped, and while I’ve been known to fall for brief periods for clever sounding schemes*, I’m generally skeptical enough to read between the lines.
He wasn’t the first, but he was the first to really coin the term that stuck. It’s hard to read, if for no other reason than it’s philosophy and my eyes tend to glaze over.
Yeah, I think it’s a paradox only to absolutists, and I distrust absolutists. There are physical laws of nature that are absolute, and even then we find exceptions; but trying to hold to philosophical absolutes leads to people like Ayn Rand, and Libertarians. So, to paraphrase possibly the best scene in any movie ever, “the code is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules”.
Haha, honestly, some of that was just me putting down thoughts I had while looking for some kind of supportive argument.
I mean, it is called a paradox, haha.
I like the idea of resolving it, but that’s only because I like math. I imagine both could be rhetorically useful.
If you’re talking to someone with a strong belief in fairness, telling them about social contracts seems useful. It reminds me, actually, of the best prisoner’s dilemma strategy: cooperation, retaliation, and forgiveness.
If, however, you’re talking to someone who likes splitting the Earth, the punk rock energy of telling god to go fuck himself, and rotating 4D objects in their mind for a laugh, telling them they can just accept the paradox as-is and invoke it on purpose seems just as well.
Oh, speaking of Ayn Rand, have you read this? I love this.
Oh, yeah; that’s a good one. I’ve read sci-fi books that are almost this, but less obvious about it; Libertarian wet dreams. I mean, fair enough, there’s plenty of communist fiction. But sometimes it gets a bit absurd.
One of my favorite all-time sci-fi trilogies is The Golden Age trilogy by John C. Wright. And it’s a sort of libertarian fantasy: übermensch against the forces of evil (which aren’t socialists; it’s not that kind of libertarian fantasy) who triumphs mainly by force of sheer will. Great books, and I think the ending is about the best I could imagine, because it inverts the entire libertarian message. The libertarian ideal society exists because The Gods allow it to. It’s kind of like Anarchy Park in whichever Larry Niven book that was: anything goes, except violation of other’s freedom, all enforced by all-mighty AI cops. It’s such a funny caveat.
Incidentally, I didn’t know about that Prisoners Dilemma strategy; thanks! I learned something new today.
insane how this exact back and forth has become its own form of deja vu the way i have seen it on reddit/threadiverse literally dozens of times
This dude fucks!!
What?
“tolerate my intolerance” isn’t a thing.
Ah right, didn’t understand the “contract” part