It's time for the gloves to come off. I would love to see the Dems stop giving a shit what Fox and the right say about them. No matter what they do it's going to be trashed so stop trying to win those people over and fucking fight for the people who elected you.
Popper was wrong about tolerance. It's not a paradox.
It's a contract.
Everyone is assumed to be party to the contract of tolerance. The contract is that you must be tolerant of every other party to the contract.
If someone is not tolerant of another party to the contract (I see this brought up primarily in the context of certain hot-button social issues), then they have violated the contract and those still party to it are no longer obligated to be tolerant toward them.
There is no paradox. If you don't abide by the obligations of the contract, you don't receive the benefits of the contract.
When the Western Allies wrote the Basic Law of Germany in the wake of the Second World War, they recognised this and included provisions allowing political entities that were fundamentally opposed to democratic governance to be dismantled and blocked from ever forming again, and also, I believe, further entrenched a provision that violent resistance against groups seeking to end democracy could not be criminalised. The Sozialistische Reichspartei Deutschlands and Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands are illegal under this provision; the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (officially Die Helmat) cannot receive public financing for some time; it is possible the Alternative für Deutschland will also be banned. (Other groups have been banned under different provisions applicable to organisations that are not political parties.)
Liberal democracy is a contract. All participants agree to uphold its basic principles and in return are permitted to participate in it; those that do not must be barred from participation in it.
I think you're absolutely right that the "contract" framing is clearer and more intuitive than the "paradox" framing. But I'd argue these are just two different conceptual angles on the same underlying moral principle: that tolerance is conditional, not absolute, and loses its meaning when extended to those who would destroy the conditions that make tolerance possible.
The paradox lens focuses on the logical contradiction - unlimited tolerance leads to tolerance's own destruction. The contract lens focuses on reciprocal obligations - tolerance is something you earn through tolerant behavior toward others
I agree that they can be seen as two framings of the same underlying moral principle. I personally prefer the contractual framing because it is clearer, more intuitive, and, I find, easier to defend than the paradox framing on its own merits without delving into an exploration of the underlying moral framework to explain the paradox. A bad-faith actor can more easily exploit "tolerance is a paradox" to argue that tolerance is bullshit than they can the contractual framing (though in that case the argument would be "well I never signed this contract" to which the answer is "you benefit from it by living in society", which is to me in essence the same reason why treason is criminal even if you're only bound by laws on treason by dint of having been born with some citizenship, rather than its being yours by choice).
The insight that unlimited tolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance is important and valuable, but I personally think that viewing tolerance as a contract better reflects the underlying moral buttress of tolerance, that the tolerant are nonetheless allowed to be intolerant toward the intolerant while still claiming the mantle of tolerance.
When this comes up for me in my own discussions with others about tolerance, it is usually in the context of explaining to an individual person why their behaviour is not to be tolerated, and very often such people don't care one whit about society at large and merely seek to exploit the tendency of the tolerant to allow just a little intolerance here and there in the name of societal harmony. Perhaps Dr. King said it best about the white moderates who prefer negative peace to positive peace, who would rather let institutional racism (that is, intolerance) go unchallenged than undergo the societal upheaval necessary for true justice (that is, actual tolerance):
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
Thank you, Mike - very clear and logical argument! How I wish more people on the Left understood this. It is also related to how to deal with a bully - you boldly walk up and punch him in the face - hard. You aim to knock him down and shock him into retreat. The Left does not get this on any level.
You are right to defend Newsom’s strategy.
During Obama’s two terms of presidency the Right’s gerrymandering accelerated exponentially and Holder did zero about this. If they had addressed it at the time - and stopped it - we would not be in this mess today.
The Left needs to grow a spine and a brazen in-your-face take down of the bullies and criminals running our country into the ground.
Thank you for bringing up the paradox of tolerance as it is more important than ever for liberals to grapple with it (once again).
However, I would be surprised if CA liberals have the guts to follow through with Newsom's proposal as they will be thwarted either by the courts or moneyed interests that will raise hell in order to allow the GOP Gerrymander in Texas to succeed at its objective.
Exactly. If I was jumped on the street, would I play by the rules? Hell no! I would do anything necessary to defend myself and neutralize the attacker. Our country’s soul is at stake. And the safety of its people.
Mike is right, of course, but there are two more factors in this equation that he doesn't mention: the voters and the media. The GOP would not be rewarded for norm-assassination if the voters didn't reward them for it. And the voters might not be so inclined to reward them if the media did a better job of explaining what they're doing.
I have yet to see an example of voters punishing politicians for being insufficiently respectful of institutional "gentlemen's agreements." They respond to things as they perceive them, not as they really are. As long as the media is so addicted to framing every outcome as a "victory" for one side and a "defeat" for the other, regardless of fair play, voters will want to support the winners.
But there will come a time when the Democrats somehow, despite themselves, get the upper hand in Washington. When they do, they had BETTER take advantage of it and force gerrymandering reform.
It's easy! I would be happy to write the bill for them!
And it's one of the things they absolutely MUST do if they win.
Dem’s walked out of CRIMINAL BOVE’s lifetime appointment. What a coup! Never thought I’d live through this! Maybe I won’t! I have great anxiety for my grandchildren though!
TL;DR. The Democrats are in a street fight and many/most of them think they are debating issues. Take the gloves off and neck punch the people who have been waving tiny copies of the Constitution in our faces while destroying the actual Constitution.
I remember being frustrated with Democrats when they forced Al Franken to resign. The notion that they were trying to show how to behave was naive, to say the least.
I disagree. Suppose this happens and it is said, we had to become a bit like them to beat them. So both sides gerrymander in the most craven way. And then it’s another thing that has to be given up and another thing. What’s the peaceful and voluntary road back from what follows ? When is there an opportunity to say hey we went too far let’s go back? History offers a paucity of examples where this happens without conflict. Perhaps the better option is to consider ways of not playing the game they’re inviting us to play.
We are, unfortunately, thrust into a political landscape of raw political power games. If we don't preserve our democracy and republic by these means, then we edge closer towards the abyss. There really isn't a way to fight this kind of full-fledged authoritarian consolidation through forbearance. There just isn't. The wheels have come off the bus.
I submit that we can head closer to the Yugoslav eventuality or the Czechoslovakia eventuality, that what you’re proposing takes us closer to the former with no road back, and that if we wait too long the choice will be made for us, irrevocably.
At some point we have to draw a line where the price is recognized as too high, and we need to think about what happens after.
the price being demanded by the regime now (disavowal of all "regular" democractic norms) is what matters here. we are not in a thought experiment - these extreme times require an equal and opposite measured response or all of us will be be lost and many will die. there will be no more america as we once knew it. we are already on that trajectory.
Indeed. So then let us think about what comes after, who we want to be after, and what polities are sustainable with us being the people we want to be. Believe me, I am profoundly aware this is no thought experiment. That’s why I invoked Yugoslavia.
It seems a sad day when we have to acknowledge the truth of what you say. It is a sadder life altogether if we fail to respond appropriately to the threat in our face. Recall, please, the suffering and its duration in Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Russia, when people failed to seize practical remedies to pressing moments. Capitulating in advance has a sweeping character, as we see.
It's time for the gloves to come off. I would love to see the Dems stop giving a shit what Fox and the right say about them. No matter what they do it's going to be trashed so stop trying to win those people over and fucking fight for the people who elected you.
Popper was wrong about tolerance. It's not a paradox.
It's a contract.
Everyone is assumed to be party to the contract of tolerance. The contract is that you must be tolerant of every other party to the contract.
If someone is not tolerant of another party to the contract (I see this brought up primarily in the context of certain hot-button social issues), then they have violated the contract and those still party to it are no longer obligated to be tolerant toward them.
There is no paradox. If you don't abide by the obligations of the contract, you don't receive the benefits of the contract.
When the Western Allies wrote the Basic Law of Germany in the wake of the Second World War, they recognised this and included provisions allowing political entities that were fundamentally opposed to democratic governance to be dismantled and blocked from ever forming again, and also, I believe, further entrenched a provision that violent resistance against groups seeking to end democracy could not be criminalised. The Sozialistische Reichspartei Deutschlands and Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands are illegal under this provision; the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (officially Die Helmat) cannot receive public financing for some time; it is possible the Alternative für Deutschland will also be banned. (Other groups have been banned under different provisions applicable to organisations that are not political parties.)
Liberal democracy is a contract. All participants agree to uphold its basic principles and in return are permitted to participate in it; those that do not must be barred from participation in it.
There is no paradox.
I think you're absolutely right that the "contract" framing is clearer and more intuitive than the "paradox" framing. But I'd argue these are just two different conceptual angles on the same underlying moral principle: that tolerance is conditional, not absolute, and loses its meaning when extended to those who would destroy the conditions that make tolerance possible.
The paradox lens focuses on the logical contradiction - unlimited tolerance leads to tolerance's own destruction. The contract lens focuses on reciprocal obligations - tolerance is something you earn through tolerant behavior toward others
I agree that they can be seen as two framings of the same underlying moral principle. I personally prefer the contractual framing because it is clearer, more intuitive, and, I find, easier to defend than the paradox framing on its own merits without delving into an exploration of the underlying moral framework to explain the paradox. A bad-faith actor can more easily exploit "tolerance is a paradox" to argue that tolerance is bullshit than they can the contractual framing (though in that case the argument would be "well I never signed this contract" to which the answer is "you benefit from it by living in society", which is to me in essence the same reason why treason is criminal even if you're only bound by laws on treason by dint of having been born with some citizenship, rather than its being yours by choice).
The insight that unlimited tolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance is important and valuable, but I personally think that viewing tolerance as a contract better reflects the underlying moral buttress of tolerance, that the tolerant are nonetheless allowed to be intolerant toward the intolerant while still claiming the mantle of tolerance.
When this comes up for me in my own discussions with others about tolerance, it is usually in the context of explaining to an individual person why their behaviour is not to be tolerated, and very often such people don't care one whit about society at large and merely seek to exploit the tendency of the tolerant to allow just a little intolerance here and there in the name of societal harmony. Perhaps Dr. King said it best about the white moderates who prefer negative peace to positive peace, who would rather let institutional racism (that is, intolerance) go unchallenged than undergo the societal upheaval necessary for true justice (that is, actual tolerance):
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
The three of you need to be in leadership roles for the cleanup on aisle 3 before the entire supermarket is engulfed.
Thank you, Mike - very clear and logical argument! How I wish more people on the Left understood this. It is also related to how to deal with a bully - you boldly walk up and punch him in the face - hard. You aim to knock him down and shock him into retreat. The Left does not get this on any level.
You are right to defend Newsom’s strategy.
During Obama’s two terms of presidency the Right’s gerrymandering accelerated exponentially and Holder did zero about this. If they had addressed it at the time - and stopped it - we would not be in this mess today.
The Left needs to grow a spine and a brazen in-your-face take down of the bullies and criminals running our country into the ground.
Thank you again.
Thank you for bringing up the paradox of tolerance as it is more important than ever for liberals to grapple with it (once again).
However, I would be surprised if CA liberals have the guts to follow through with Newsom's proposal as they will be thwarted either by the courts or moneyed interests that will raise hell in order to allow the GOP Gerrymander in Texas to succeed at its objective.
Exactly. If I was jumped on the street, would I play by the rules? Hell no! I would do anything necessary to defend myself and neutralize the attacker. Our country’s soul is at stake. And the safety of its people.
Mike is right, of course, but there are two more factors in this equation that he doesn't mention: the voters and the media. The GOP would not be rewarded for norm-assassination if the voters didn't reward them for it. And the voters might not be so inclined to reward them if the media did a better job of explaining what they're doing.
I have yet to see an example of voters punishing politicians for being insufficiently respectful of institutional "gentlemen's agreements." They respond to things as they perceive them, not as they really are. As long as the media is so addicted to framing every outcome as a "victory" for one side and a "defeat" for the other, regardless of fair play, voters will want to support the winners.
But there will come a time when the Democrats somehow, despite themselves, get the upper hand in Washington. When they do, they had BETTER take advantage of it and force gerrymandering reform.
It's easy! I would be happy to write the bill for them!
And it's one of the things they absolutely MUST do if they win.
https://citizen99.substack.com/p/what-if-we-win?r=2sauq
Good going as always, Mike!
Finally!
Polite while being steamrolled?!?
Dem’s walked out of CRIMINAL BOVE’s lifetime appointment. What a coup! Never thought I’d live through this! Maybe I won’t! I have great anxiety for my grandchildren though!
FIGHT BACK!
TL;DR. The Democrats are in a street fight and many/most of them think they are debating issues. Take the gloves off and neck punch the people who have been waving tiny copies of the Constitution in our faces while destroying the actual Constitution.
I remember being frustrated with Democrats when they forced Al Franken to resign. The notion that they were trying to show how to behave was naive, to say the least.
I disagree. Suppose this happens and it is said, we had to become a bit like them to beat them. So both sides gerrymander in the most craven way. And then it’s another thing that has to be given up and another thing. What’s the peaceful and voluntary road back from what follows ? When is there an opportunity to say hey we went too far let’s go back? History offers a paucity of examples where this happens without conflict. Perhaps the better option is to consider ways of not playing the game they’re inviting us to play.
We are, unfortunately, thrust into a political landscape of raw political power games. If we don't preserve our democracy and republic by these means, then we edge closer towards the abyss. There really isn't a way to fight this kind of full-fledged authoritarian consolidation through forbearance. There just isn't. The wheels have come off the bus.
I submit that we can head closer to the Yugoslav eventuality or the Czechoslovakia eventuality, that what you’re proposing takes us closer to the former with no road back, and that if we wait too long the choice will be made for us, irrevocably.
At some point we have to draw a line where the price is recognized as too high, and we need to think about what happens after.
the price being demanded by the regime now (disavowal of all "regular" democractic norms) is what matters here. we are not in a thought experiment - these extreme times require an equal and opposite measured response or all of us will be be lost and many will die. there will be no more america as we once knew it. we are already on that trajectory.
Indeed. So then let us think about what comes after, who we want to be after, and what polities are sustainable with us being the people we want to be. Believe me, I am profoundly aware this is no thought experiment. That’s why I invoked Yugoslavia.
It seems a sad day when we have to acknowledge the truth of what you say. It is a sadder life altogether if we fail to respond appropriately to the threat in our face. Recall, please, the suffering and its duration in Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Russia, when people failed to seize practical remedies to pressing moments. Capitulating in advance has a sweeping character, as we see.