Latest / Why We Do What We Do / The Paradox of Tolerance

Transcript

The Paradox of Tolerance · Why We Do What We Do

0:03
Speaker 1: You're listening to Why we Do what we do?
0:15
Speaker 2: Welcome to Why We Do what we Do. I am
0:18
Speaker 2: your extremely nice host, Abraham.
0:21
Speaker 1: And I am your too nice to confront you host, Shane.
0:25
Speaker 2: We are a psychology podcast. We talk about all of
0:28
Speaker 2: the things that humans and non human animals do and
0:32
Speaker 2: an attempt to understand the sort of confusing behaviors and
0:36
Speaker 2: actions that we see around us all the time, and
0:39
Speaker 2: just you know, put some science to it.
0:41
Speaker 1: Yes, and so today we are talking about the concept
0:44
Speaker 1: of the paradox of tolerance. And this came up because
0:48
Speaker 1: right now in the US, as I'm sure you've all seen,
0:51
Speaker 1: the turd Reich is starting to rise, and we just
0:55
Speaker 1: thought it was important to talk about why we should
0:57
Speaker 1: not let it happen.
1:01
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, that is essentially one of the founding
1:05
Speaker 2: events that kicked off the decision to bring this discussion around.
1:09
Speaker 2: And so this is going to be an episode that
1:11
Speaker 2: goes deep into some philosophy territory. You could sort of
1:14
Speaker 2: superimpose a political lens on top of it, and I
1:17
Speaker 2: think you would quickly see how that works. But I
1:20
Speaker 2: think we're going to keep it really in the realm
1:22
Speaker 2: of philosophy and unpack where this idea comes from, what
1:25
Speaker 2: it is, what it's pitfalls, may or may not be
1:29
Speaker 2: arguments against it, and ultimately how we could use this
1:32
Speaker 2: moving forward if we find utility in it.
1:35
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, But before we do that, we like to
1:38
Speaker 1: at the beginning of all of our episodes celebrate lots
1:41
Speaker 1: of holidays. We celebrate all kinds of holidays. And today,
1:44
Speaker 1: on the day that this episode comes out, will be
1:47
Speaker 1: March fifth of twenty twenty five, which means that we
1:50
Speaker 1: are celebrating Discover what Your Name Means Day.
1:54
Speaker 2: Yes, we know you're all thinking about that as the
1:57
Speaker 2: day you're going to celebrate today, or maybe we're thinking
2:00
Speaker 2: about the fact that it is Equal pay Day, which
2:04
Speaker 2: sounds very nice.
2:05
Speaker 1: I like that it's also International Open Data Day.
2:10
Speaker 2: This National Absynthe Day for those of you who partake
2:16
Speaker 2: partake responsibly.
2:18
Speaker 1: Yes, that's always described as a very dangerous liquor, very
2:22
Speaker 1: extreme liquor, but no thanks. What I will say yes
2:25
Speaker 1: to is it's National Cheese Doodle Day.
2:29
Speaker 2: And I do believe that the hype around absinthe is
2:33
Speaker 2: not accurate and maybe even has some foundations in certain
2:36
Speaker 2: xenophobia and racism. But sure, anyway, it was Choos Doodle Day.
2:40
Speaker 2: We got past the absinthe day. It's also a National
2:43
Speaker 2: Multiple Personality Day, also called National Dissociative Identity Disorder Day,
2:50
Speaker 2: which is the more technical name for it.
2:53
Speaker 1: Yes, today is also National Potty Dance Day.
2:57
Speaker 2: Great that one you might have to say lebrate publicly,
3:01
Speaker 2: you know, yeah? Because yeah, it is National poutine Day.
3:04
Speaker 1: Ooh delicious. Also speaking of delicious, it's National Scott Day.
3:09
Speaker 2: Is that delicious?
3:11
Speaker 1: I think?
3:12
Speaker 2: So? It is pasty Day.
3:18
Speaker 1: Mmm, those are the tasty pasties. I love it. Sure
3:22
Speaker 1: it is Real Film Day r ee l oh.
3:27
Speaker 2: Right, yes, so film that is on a wheel?
3:30
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like that.
3:31
Speaker 2: It is British Pie Week for those of you who
3:35
Speaker 2: enjoy those nice savory blood pies.
3:39
Speaker 1: If you don't like that, though, it is Chocolate chip
3:41
Speaker 1: Week or chocolate chip Cookie Week. I should say, which
3:44
Speaker 1: are just delicious?
3:45
Speaker 2: Yeah? I accept either one chocolate chip or chocolate chip cookie. Yeah,
3:49
Speaker 2: speaking of which, I guess it is Dental Assistant Appreciation Week.
3:54
Speaker 2: So dental assistance very helpful, will help you get the
3:57
Speaker 2: chocolate chip cookie cavities out.
3:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, I love it.
3:59
Speaker 2: It's Hearing Awareness Week, very important protect your hearing. Get
4:04
Speaker 2: hearing aids if you start losing your hearing.
4:06
Speaker 1: Yeah.
4:06
Speaker 2: It is National r de Vark Week, the first animal
4:10
Speaker 2: in the dictionary.
4:11
Speaker 1: Yes, there's so many a's in that name. It's a
4:14
Speaker 1: National Consumer Protection Week.
4:16
Speaker 2: Very relevant as that agency is currently being dismantled. It
4:20
Speaker 2: is National ghost Writers Week, not ghost Writers Week, but
4:24
Speaker 2: ghost writers Week. Maybe you could have both.
4:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are several ghost writers, but this is more
4:30
Speaker 1: about the people that write but don't get credit, right,
4:32
Speaker 1: like most of the Goosebump series. Yeah, it's a National
4:36
Speaker 1: invest In Veterans Week, and it is a Ramadan. All right,
4:41
Speaker 1: lot's to celebrate this week.
4:43
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we don't just do a podcast about holidays,
4:47
Speaker 2: although we like to take a moment to have fun
4:50
Speaker 2: with the fact that there are so many holidays, and
4:53
Speaker 2: so many of them are holidays that nobody knew, well
4:56
Speaker 2: not nobody, but very few people, probably most of our
4:59
Speaker 2: listen did not know where holidays, and so it's just
5:03
Speaker 2: kind of a fun thing to share those with everybody.
5:06
Speaker 2: As it were. We're actually here today too, as we mentioned,
5:10
Speaker 2: get into the philosophy, albeit tangentially related to politics, but
5:15
Speaker 2: largely this philosophy called the paradox of tolerance. Before we
5:20
Speaker 2: jump into that, I'm going to quickly let you know
5:22
Speaker 2: that if you like what you hear today would like
5:24
Speaker 2: to support us, and you aren't already, then you can
5:27
Speaker 2: do so by joining us over on Patreon. You can
5:30
Speaker 2: go to our web store and pick up some merch
5:32
Speaker 2: You can leave us a rating and a review, like
5:34
Speaker 2: and subscribe, and of course tell a friend and I'll
5:37
Speaker 2: talk more about that at the end of this discussion.
5:41
Speaker 2: If you are joining us for the very first time,
5:44
Speaker 2: then welcome. I am so happy that you decided to
5:46
Speaker 2: come here and hang out with us. I hope that
5:49
Speaker 2: you enjoy what you hear in this episode, and that
5:51
Speaker 2: you then you pass it on to other people. Yes,
5:54
Speaker 2: tell them that if they don't pass it on to
5:56
Speaker 2: other people, that they will to ten other people that
5:58
Speaker 2: they will be cursed. Yes kidding, you have to do
6:00
Speaker 2: that part. But sharing it is good.
6:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah yeah. Word of mouth really does wonders for podcasts,
6:07
Speaker 1: so please please please share.
6:09
Speaker 2: And if you are a returning listener, then welcome back.
6:12
Speaker 2: Glad that we didn't frighten you away from whatever got
6:15
Speaker 2: you here in the first place, and that you continue
6:17
Speaker 2: to find some amount of value in whatever it is
6:20
Speaker 2: we're trying to do here. Yeah, but with that being said,
6:22
Speaker 2: I think we're ready to start with a little thought experiment.
6:27
Speaker 1: Yes, So let's imagine a group of people are shipwrecked
6:30
Speaker 1: on an island. Knowing they have a better chance of
6:33
Speaker 1: striving by working together, they make a pact to always
6:36
Speaker 1: treat one another with respect, kindness, and tolerance. This works
6:40
Speaker 1: for a while, but eventually one of the members of
6:42
Speaker 1: the group, Pete, starts being rude to other members of
6:46
Speaker 1: the group. In their commitment to the pact, the rest
6:48
Speaker 1: of the group continues to be nice to Pete and
6:50
Speaker 1: include him equally in all decisions and activities, and.
6:54
Speaker 2: So without any repercussions for his cruelness, Pete only worsens
6:59
Speaker 2: and eventually all respect, kindness, and tolerance is gone from
7:03
Speaker 2: his interactions with others. Worse, some members also start acting
7:08
Speaker 2: cruel and intolerant because they're frustrated with how they're being
7:12
Speaker 2: treated by Pete and seeing that he is getting away
7:14
Speaker 2: with it.
7:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then when the group finally confronts Pete, he
7:18
Speaker 1: lashes out at them, arguing that they are not being
7:20
Speaker 1: tolerant towards him, saying, quote, you claim to be tolerant.
7:24
Speaker 1: But then you tell me I can't behave the way
7:27
Speaker 1: I want to behave. You are all lying, intolerant hypocrites.
7:31
Speaker 1: End quote.
7:32
Speaker 2: Now that's our little hypothetical, that's our thought experiment to
7:36
Speaker 2: help sort of highlight the issue that arises here in
7:40
Speaker 2: the space of them being very nice to one another,
7:42
Speaker 2: or at least attempting to in case it was ambiguous.
7:46
Speaker 2: In this hypothetical scenario, Pete is a jerk. He is
7:50
Speaker 2: completely in the wrong here. But this is used. This
7:55
Speaker 2: whole thing was designed to illustrate the paradox of tolerance,
7:58
Speaker 2: a concept justcribed by philosopher Karl Popper, to illustrate the
8:04
Speaker 2: issue with a sort of unnuanced like total acceptance and
8:10
Speaker 2: tolerance of all beliefs and opinions.
8:13
Speaker 1: Yes so. Carl R. Popper was an Austrian scientific philosopher
8:18
Speaker 1: born July twenty eighth, nineteen oh two in Vienna and
8:22
Speaker 1: lived to be ninety two years old, so good for him.
8:24
Speaker 1: It's a long time to live. He passed away in
8:26
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four, so he got to experience Dervana's never Mind,
8:30
Speaker 1: which is probably really fun, especially at that edge.
8:33
Speaker 2: Highlight of his life.
8:34
Speaker 1: I'm sure yeah, uh, yeah, he was like, this is
8:36
Speaker 1: what my life has led to. He is often regarded
8:39
Speaker 1: as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the
8:42
Speaker 1: twentieth century.
8:43
Speaker 2: So he wrote about a lot of things. But one
8:47
Speaker 2: of the things that was he is particularly well known
8:50
Speaker 2: for is that he wrote about the necessity of this
8:53
Speaker 2: concept of falsifiability in science. So, for example, like although
8:58
Speaker 2: he really seemed to admire or Freud's work, he also
9:02
Speaker 2: noted that Freud's theories lacked scientific rigor because they could
9:07
Speaker 2: never actually be tested, they could never be proven wrong. Alternatively,
9:11
Speaker 2: he actually worried about some of like Einstein's work, and
9:14
Speaker 2: I think he admired it, but you know, there was
9:17
Speaker 2: a risk that should Einstein's work be proven false, it
9:21
Speaker 2: would greatly unravel our understanding of the universe. But that
9:26
Speaker 2: actually was also a strength of Einstein's theories is that
9:30
Speaker 2: they were completely testable. They could be proven wrong with observation,
9:34
Speaker 2: with math, with experimentation. Although just in case you weren't
9:38
Speaker 2: a where Einstein has mostly been proven correct, just over
9:42
Speaker 2: and over and over again, even things that we couldn't
9:45
Speaker 2: test before that we like it sent long since he
9:47
Speaker 2: has died with been able to test he has basically
9:51
Speaker 2: just been right all along.
9:53
Speaker 1: Yeah for sure, at least in his science realm yes now.
9:58
Speaker 1: In critiquing Freud's theories, Popper us the examples of two individuals.
10:01
Speaker 1: One pushes a child into water, intending to drown them,
10:04
Speaker 1: while another jumps in to rescue the child. He observes
10:07
Speaker 1: that psychoanalysis can interpret both actions. For the first individual,
10:10
Speaker 1: a psychoanalyst might suggest the behavior was motivated by a
10:13
Speaker 1: repressed element of the unconscious it. For the rescuer, the
10:17
Speaker 1: action could be seen as the ego and super ego
10:19
Speaker 1: successfully subliminating a similar impulse. And Popper's point is that
10:24
Speaker 1: psychoanalysis has the flexibility to explain any kind of behavior,
10:28
Speaker 1: regardless of its nature.
10:31
Speaker 2: I think it was sublimating a similar impulse. Who but
10:35
Speaker 2: yes so? Popper specifically wrote, quote. The point is very clear.
10:40
Speaker 2: Neither Freud nor Adler excludes any particular person's acting in
10:44
Speaker 2: any particular way, whatever the outward circumstances. Whether a man
10:49
Speaker 2: sacrificed his life to rescue a drowning child a case
10:52
Speaker 2: of sublimation, or whether he murdered the child by drowning
10:55
Speaker 2: a case of repression, cannot possibly be predicted or excluded
11:00
Speaker 2: by Freud's theory end quote, And he's pointing out essentially
11:03
Speaker 2: that like it's a win win situation. You can't be wrong,
11:07
Speaker 2: and if you can't be wrong, then it's not a
11:09
Speaker 2: good scientific it's not scientifically valid because scientifically valid hypotheses
11:15
Speaker 2: must be able to be proven incorrect or else. Then
11:19
Speaker 2: it could be anything like you could assign any cause
11:21
Speaker 2: to a thing if you never have to test that
11:24
Speaker 2: cause right now.
11:26
Speaker 1: Popper was also very interested in politics, and as a Jew,
11:30
Speaker 1: having lived through the Holocaust, was particularly thoughtful about the
11:33
Speaker 1: conditions that give rise to extreme hatred and cruelty, as
11:36
Speaker 1: demonstrated by the Nazis.
11:39
Speaker 2: And as demonstrated by ads. All Right, we're back, and
11:49
Speaker 2: I'm sure our sponsors love being compared to Nazis. And
11:55
Speaker 2: it's very possible no ads played because they heard that
11:57
Speaker 2: and they're like, I do not give those people anybody
11:59
Speaker 2: do that? Yeah, anyway, So, yes, there is this whole
12:05
Speaker 2: issue that Popper was. The whole world was confronting this.
12:09
Speaker 2: But this is something Paper definitely noted. He's looking at this,
12:13
Speaker 2: the rise of extremism and Nazis and being like, what
12:16
Speaker 2: could how do we think about this. How do we
12:18
Speaker 2: explain this? And to this end Popper contemplated how the
12:22
Speaker 2: German people, who are otherwise good kind people, could support
12:26
Speaker 2: and give rise to this bigoted, anti tolerant or hitler.
12:31
Speaker 1: Yes, is this that guy? Now? In nineteen forty five,
12:35
Speaker 1: Popper published quote The Open Societies and Its Enemies, in
12:39
Speaker 1: which he writes of the paradox of tolerance, and he
12:42
Speaker 1: says this is the actual quote. He says, quote less
12:45
Speaker 1: well known is the paradox of tolerance. Unlimited tolerance must
12:49
Speaker 1: lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited
12:53
Speaker 1: tolerance even to those who are intolerant, If we are
12:57
Speaker 1: not prepared to defend a tolerant society again the onslaught
13:01
Speaker 1: of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and
13:04
Speaker 1: tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply,
13:08
Speaker 1: for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of
13:11
Speaker 1: intolerant philosophies, as long as we can encounter them by
13:14
Speaker 1: rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion.
13:17
Speaker 1: Suppression would certainly be unwise, but we should claim the
13:21
Speaker 1: right to suppress them, if necessary, even by force, For
13:25
Speaker 1: it may easily turn out that they are not prepared
13:28
Speaker 1: to meet us on the level of rational argument, but
13:30
Speaker 1: begin by denouncing all argument. They may forbid their followers
13:34
Speaker 1: to listen to rational argument because it is deceptive, and
13:37
Speaker 1: teach them to answer arguments by the use of their
13:39
Speaker 1: fists or pistols. And this is something we really want
13:42
Speaker 1: to emphasize here in the latter half of this quote.
13:45
Speaker 1: We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the
13:48
Speaker 1: right to not tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that
13:51
Speaker 1: any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and
13:55
Speaker 1: we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal
14:00
Speaker 1: the same way as we should consider incitement to murder
14:03
Speaker 1: or kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade
14:06
Speaker 1: as criminal. End quote.
14:08
Speaker 2: Beautiful and there's a lot to unpack in there and understand,
14:11
Speaker 2: but I think he makes some really important points that
14:15
Speaker 2: we'll want to stress. But essentially, what he's espousing here
14:20
Speaker 2: is that to be tolerant, we must be intolerant of intolerance.
14:25
Speaker 2: Hence the paradox right right. So being tolerant means let
14:29
Speaker 2: it be like a complete and total. Tolerance means letting
14:34
Speaker 2: in the intolerance, giving them a seat at the table,
14:37
Speaker 2: and in a society that accepts that intolerance the intolerant,
14:41
Speaker 2: then those intolerant people are intolerant of the tolerant people,
14:46
Speaker 2: and then they remove their ability to exist. And this
14:49
Speaker 2: is why Popper argues for the dismantling of these intolerant
14:53
Speaker 2: philosophies and institutions to prevent their wholesale takeover and destruction
14:58
Speaker 2: of those attempting to treat each other with kindness to
15:02
Speaker 2: begin with, right.
15:03
Speaker 1: And so at this point we think it's important to
15:05
Speaker 1: stress some elements of nuance in his position as well.
15:08
Speaker 1: And truly nuance is what makes the world go around, right.
15:11
Speaker 2: Yes, very important.
15:12
Speaker 1: He starts with the position that the first line of
15:15
Speaker 1: defense against intolerant ideas should be rational arguments and should
15:19
Speaker 1: not suppress intolerance speech. Outright, now, that's not saying that
15:24
Speaker 1: everybody should be able to go around and say a
15:26
Speaker 1: whole bunch of ridiculous things and say whatever they want
15:29
Speaker 1: all the time and be harmful to people. That's a
15:32
Speaker 1: real problem, right. But what he's saying specifically is if
15:36
Speaker 1: attempts at arguments to keep intolerance and check are insufficient
15:40
Speaker 1: to stem the tide of intolerance, and in particular when
15:43
Speaker 1: intolerance becomes dangerous, then those people have crossed online past
15:47
Speaker 1: which their intolerance cannot be tolerated and should be suppressed.
15:51
Speaker 2: Yes, and the word tolerance is happening just at such
15:55
Speaker 2: it's incredible frequency. I understand, and that it might start
16:01
Speaker 2: to feel like it's losing meaning, and I apologize. I'll
16:04
Speaker 2: try and use some synonyms to help call the problem
16:08
Speaker 2: of overuse of that word. Yeah. This whole idea here, then,
16:12
Speaker 2: is that first we try and discuss it, we use
16:14
Speaker 2: rational arguments, we try and have a conversation. We're not
16:19
Speaker 2: just outwardly suppressing everything. Very different from the position of
16:23
Speaker 2: the hate speech intolerant line of reasoning here. But in
16:27
Speaker 2: his nineteen seventy one book A Theory of Justice, another
16:31
Speaker 2: author John Rawls he further elaborated on Popper's idea by
16:36
Speaker 2: stating that complete tolerance is superseded by society's right for
16:41
Speaker 2: self preservation. And essentially what he says is that once
16:45
Speaker 2: intolerance reaches the point at which it threatens the liberties
16:48
Speaker 2: of people in society, then society can choose to limit
16:52
Speaker 2: the freedoms of these people. Of the people who are
16:55
Speaker 2: being intolerant, who are espousing hate speech, who are spreading
16:59
Speaker 2: dis information that sort of thing.
17:01
Speaker 1: One thing I think is really important to point out
17:04
Speaker 1: here and something to kind of pay attention to, is
17:08
Speaker 1: how the phrase intolerant can be weaponized by people who
17:13
Speaker 1: are actually intolerant. Yes, and so you're going to see
17:17
Speaker 1: that when we start describing intolerance and all of the
17:20
Speaker 1: stuff that you could you can make the argument that
17:22
Speaker 1: some people will say it's objective and you're not wrong
17:24
Speaker 1: in saying that, and how it can be leveraged against
17:28
Speaker 1: people who are actually tolerant and accepting of of groups
17:32
Speaker 1: of people. And we'll kind of continue to unpack that
17:34
Speaker 1: a little bit more. But I'm sure you're maybe having
17:36
Speaker 1: that thought as you're as we're talking about this is well,
17:40
Speaker 1: you know, this group is saying that, you know, some
17:43
Speaker 1: advocating for some rights are intolerant to their beliefs, or
17:47
Speaker 1: that you know, a person who owns a cake shop
17:50
Speaker 1: who might have a religious background and might decide that
17:52
Speaker 1: they're not going to sell a cake to a same
17:54
Speaker 1: sex couple. It's intolerant to make them serve those those
17:57
Speaker 1: groups of people. So, and we'll unpack a little bit
18:00
Speaker 1: of that as we go, but I think it's one
18:02
Speaker 1: of those thoughts that kind of emerges. As I'm sitting
18:04
Speaker 1: here thinking about it, I'm like, yeah, I could see
18:05
Speaker 1: why people. I can see how people could weaponize this
18:08
Speaker 1: and really kind of twist its meaning.
18:10
Speaker 2: They absolutely have tried to do that for sure.
18:13
Speaker 1: Yeah.
18:14
Speaker 2: But so the position here is I think more concretely
18:18
Speaker 2: observable in the paradox of freedom of speech, and particularly
18:23
Speaker 2: because this is one that I think a lot of
18:25
Speaker 2: people are pretty familiar with. This is in the First
18:28
Speaker 2: Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is frequently cited,
18:34
Speaker 2: it is used by a lot of people in a
18:36
Speaker 2: lot of spaces to specifically talk about how important it
18:40
Speaker 2: is to protect freedom of speech. And as I said,
18:43
Speaker 2: the First Amendment guarantees this right. However, freedom of speech
18:47
Speaker 2: is not universal. This is spelled out in our laws
18:49
Speaker 2: and is pretty well understood by the public at large.
18:52
Speaker 2: If you just started randomly accusing someone, some random stranger,
18:57
Speaker 2: or maybe someone you know but dislike, but for the
18:59
Speaker 2: all in tens and purposes, they're not like known to
19:01
Speaker 2: the world. They're just some person. If you start accusing
19:04
Speaker 2: them of some heinous crime of which they are innocence,
19:08
Speaker 2: they did not commit that crime, and that person as
19:10
Speaker 2: a consequence of this accusation has their life destroyed. Then
19:15
Speaker 2: free speech has been used to limit another person's liberties
19:18
Speaker 2: and opportunities at success and happiness and whatnot, and laws
19:23
Speaker 2: protect against this kind of abuse, like their freedom of
19:26
Speaker 2: speech does not extend to the point at which you
19:29
Speaker 2: can curb other people's freedoms and their freedom of speech right,
19:33
Speaker 2: and the laws are there, like people aware of this now,
19:36
Speaker 2: public figures can be openly maligned and criticized as public figures,
19:42
Speaker 2: but libel laws protect private citizens from certain forms of speech.
19:47
Speaker 2: And another example a lot of people's site is like
19:50
Speaker 2: you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there
19:53
Speaker 2: is no fire. This could lead to a gravely dangerous
19:56
Speaker 2: situation and cause unnecessary panic, and there must be some
20:00
Speaker 2: restrictions on the freedom of speech to protect people from abuse.
20:05
Speaker 2: And as I said, that's why I think a lot
20:07
Speaker 2: of people actually sort of implicitly understand this, because we've
20:12
Speaker 2: had to craft laws to help say, like, yes, we
20:15
Speaker 2: guarantee freedom of speech, meaning that the government cannot oppress
20:19
Speaker 2: your speech, but that does have certain limitations when that
20:23
Speaker 2: speech then becomes used to restrict other people's freedoms which
20:27
Speaker 2: is more paramount and how it is not allowed. Like
20:31
Speaker 2: freedom is the paramount thing, liberty is the guaranteed thing.
20:34
Speaker 2: So you cannot use liberty to obstruct or remove liberties
20:39
Speaker 2: from others. And that's the same basic idea in the
20:42
Speaker 2: paradox of tolerance.
20:44
Speaker 1: Right. So speaking of people who like to exercise their
20:48
Speaker 1: free speech, here's some maths. So in this discussion around
21:00
Speaker 1: freedom of speech, you're going to find that there are
21:02
Speaker 1: people who are bad faith actors, bad faith just like
21:04
Speaker 1: people who are entering these arguments, entering these spaces using
21:07
Speaker 1: that as kind of they're weaponizing this phrase of free speech. Right, So,
21:11
Speaker 1: insincere and bad faith saboteurs will quickly seize the opportunity
21:15
Speaker 1: to highlight the quote restriction of freedom speech part to
21:19
Speaker 1: accuse reasonable policy makers of despotic rule. They will scream, see,
21:25
Speaker 1: they're taking our freedoms. And ironically, these people will complain
21:28
Speaker 1: that their freedom of speech is being impinged when others
21:32
Speaker 1: exercise their freedom of speech to criticize the hate speech
21:35
Speaker 1: without actually suppressing it. So when somebody says something that
21:39
Speaker 1: is of poor taste and somebody else calls them out,
21:42
Speaker 1: they'll go, I'm allowed to say what I want freedom
21:44
Speaker 1: of speech. You can't restrict my freedom of speech. Blah
21:47
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. And people seem to forget the
21:49
Speaker 1: freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
21:52
Speaker 2: Yes, and there's this really fun XKCD comic that I
21:56
Speaker 2: think summarizes this point really well. I mean, there are visuals,
22:00
Speaker 2: but they are I think, wholly there to just carry
22:03
Speaker 2: the text. They don't actually add or change anything about
22:06
Speaker 2: how your understanding of the text. But essentially, here's what
22:09
Speaker 2: he writes, so public service announcement. So I'm quoting this directly. Now,
22:13
Speaker 2: the right to free speech means the government can't arrest
22:16
Speaker 2: you for what you say. It doesn't mean that anyone
22:19
Speaker 2: else has to listen to your bullshit or host you
22:22
Speaker 2: while you share it. The First Amendment doesn't shield you
22:25
Speaker 2: from criticism or consequences. If you're yelled at, boycotted, have
22:29
Speaker 2: your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community,
22:33
Speaker 2: your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that
22:36
Speaker 2: the people listening to you think you're an asshole and
22:39
Speaker 2: they're showing you the door. End quote this comic.
22:42
Speaker 1: There you go. You see this a lot in spaces
22:44
Speaker 1: where I mean, this is I think a perfect example
22:48
Speaker 1: on Twitter where people will complain all day about saying
22:52
Speaker 1: anti Semitic things, horrifically homophobic things, transphobic things, and then
22:57
Speaker 1: when their accounts get banned, when they're counts get suspended.
23:02
Speaker 1: I mean Alex Jones is a perfect example of this,
23:04
Speaker 1: complaining about his freedom of speech being infringed upon, but
23:07
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, he's saying horrifically harmful
23:10
Speaker 1: and threatening things to people, and so of course it
23:14
Speaker 1: was going to happen that there was going to be
23:16
Speaker 1: a loss of advertisers for his shows, for all these
23:20
Speaker 1: different situations that have happened, and lawsuits galore. I mean,
23:23
Speaker 1: the families of Sandy Hook continue to sue him and
23:26
Speaker 1: continue to push on him because what he was saying
23:29
Speaker 1: was incredibly harmful and impactful to them. So you could
23:32
Speaker 1: say whatever he wanted, nobody was putting a clamp over
23:36
Speaker 1: his mouth and stopping him from saying anything. But that
23:38
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that he wasn't going to deal with the
23:41
Speaker 1: results of those actions.
23:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think you could someone might argue like, well,
23:46
Speaker 2: now the government is because he's now having to pay
23:49
Speaker 2: these settlements. But I mean, I think there's a couple
23:51
Speaker 2: of things. One is, he is a public figure. He
23:53
Speaker 2: is a basically for all intents and purposes, a celebrity
23:57
Speaker 2: in the public sphere, and so he is open to criticism.
24:01
Speaker 2: And two is that what he said, which was blatantly,
24:06
Speaker 2: patently and knowingly false, led to the real harassment of
24:12
Speaker 2: innocent people. Not only were they innocent, they had already
24:14
Speaker 2: been victimized by losing their children, and then they were
24:18
Speaker 2: relentlessly harassed by the people who listened to Alex Jones.
24:23
Speaker 2: When all he's trying to do is advance this far
24:27
Speaker 2: right conservative agenda and essentially secure and support the right
24:34
Speaker 2: of people to own guns and kill other humans, Like
24:37
Speaker 2: that was his only agenda, and in doing that, he
24:39
Speaker 2: was perfectly willing to sacrifice the families of victims of
24:44
Speaker 2: a shooting where like five year old children were murdered,
24:48
Speaker 2: and he's essentially like using that as political leverage, calling
24:53
Speaker 2: it a hoax when he knew damn well it wasn't
24:55
Speaker 2: a hoax, and evidence showed that he acted in bad
24:58
Speaker 2: faith and like was deliberately causing harm to these people, right,
25:03
Speaker 2: and was found then responsible for doing it. So yeah,
25:05
Speaker 2: I think that's exactly. It is that like, we do
25:09
Speaker 2: not need this. Not only do we not need it,
25:12
Speaker 2: it is counter productive to allow that level of intolerance
25:16
Speaker 2: into public spaces, And by being tolerant of intolerance, we
25:21
Speaker 2: open the door for that rhetoric to seep in and
25:26
Speaker 2: start to take over. It starts to influence people who
25:29
Speaker 2: then buy what they're selling. They believe it. They hear
25:32
Speaker 2: these arguments and they think like, Okay, yeah, I'm picking
25:35
Speaker 2: up what you're selling. I hear what you're saying, and
25:38
Speaker 2: it resonates with them. When those people are not interested
25:41
Speaker 2: in any of the things that they're trying to advance,
25:43
Speaker 2: what they need is votes, and they need fear, and
25:47
Speaker 2: they need people who are not going to think critically
25:50
Speaker 2: about things to give them power and support. And man,
25:54
Speaker 2: are they good at that. There is a very successful
25:58
Speaker 2: model for scaring people into allowing you to further your
26:02
Speaker 2: very selfish agenda that has no actual Like, again, it
26:08
Speaker 2: is not in the public interest to advance that agenda.
26:11
Speaker 2: It is maybe in the interest of a very very
26:14
Speaker 2: very small minority of people who already have power to
26:17
Speaker 2: further concentrate that power and take resources away by just
26:22
Speaker 2: othering people. And they will just find a target, it
26:25
Speaker 2: kind of doesn't matter who that target is. But an
26:28
Speaker 2: already marginalized group is an easy target because they're in
26:32
Speaker 2: a minority, so like they are, they're harder to miss
26:35
Speaker 2: when they're gone. They're easy to rally a large group
26:38
Speaker 2: of people against because there's so few of them, and
26:41
Speaker 2: so they tend to pick on marginalized communities, not for
26:45
Speaker 2: any other reason than their agenda is to other people
26:49
Speaker 2: create fear and use that fear to accumulate power.
26:53
Speaker 1: You nailed it, one hundred percent.
26:55
Speaker 2: Great, So we're going to elaborate on this more. But
27:00
Speaker 2: we're trying to essentially understands the like what the problem
27:03
Speaker 2: is with allowing intolerance into spaces where we're trying to
27:07
Speaker 2: otherwise have tolerance. But this position of Carl Popper's is
27:11
Speaker 2: not without criticism. So let's go ahead and unpack a
27:14
Speaker 2: couple of the arguments people make against this idea of
27:18
Speaker 2: that we should be intolerant of intolerance.
27:22
Speaker 1: Right, So does one person point out and that kind
27:24
Speaker 1: of as we were talking about this earlier, too many
27:27
Speaker 1: have attempted to appropriate and co opt this idea to
27:30
Speaker 1: mean anyone who doesn't agree with me, and that's where
27:34
Speaker 1: it gets weaponized. It is weaponized against decent people by
27:37
Speaker 1: indecent people claiming to have the moral high ground. This
27:40
Speaker 1: dilutes the potential efficacy of the tolerance argument by presenting
27:43
Speaker 1: as if it's a legitimate in situations it doesn't actually
27:46
Speaker 1: apply in but the audience doesn't know that. What they
27:49
Speaker 1: see are two people using the same logic and arriving
27:53
Speaker 1: at different conclusions. So it appears the logic is incorrect,
27:57
Speaker 1: not that it has been sabotaged and you serve by
28:00
Speaker 1: bad faith actors.
28:02
Speaker 2: Yeah. So essentially the argument here is that like people
28:07
Speaker 2: can sort of use the paradox of tolerance to say,
28:11
Speaker 2: if you don't agree with me, you're being intolerant of
28:14
Speaker 2: my ideas, meaning that you are intolerant and I should
28:17
Speaker 2: not have to tolerate your intolerance because we don't tolerate intolerance, right, right,
28:23
Speaker 2: And that sort of gets into this weird, washy, sort
28:26
Speaker 2: of fuzzy area where people are going like, oh, I
28:28
Speaker 2: don't know, they're making some good points when they actually
28:31
Speaker 2: they don't actually care about tolerance. What they're trying to
28:33
Speaker 2: do is just shut down discourse. They don't care about
28:37
Speaker 2: being like having a legitimate argument. They're just trying to
28:40
Speaker 2: get people fired up and on their side by making
28:43
Speaker 2: the other side look like it is logically flawed because
28:47
Speaker 2: they are logically flawed, right, And so that's sort of
28:50
Speaker 2: how that argument goes. Another one argued that they sort
28:53
Speaker 2: of were asking rhetorically, who makes the rules of what
28:57
Speaker 2: is intolerant? And I think it can get fun when
29:00
Speaker 2: the intolerant person is claiming to be the tolerant one,
29:04
Speaker 2: and they're calling the person who is being accepting the
29:08
Speaker 2: intolerant one, and they're basically saying, you are being intolerant
29:12
Speaker 2: of my intolerance or my behavior, which they may not
29:14
Speaker 2: necessarily calls intolerance. Again, this that word is starting to
29:18
Speaker 2: lose all meaning in my ear, and so this person
29:21
Speaker 2: gives this argument in this scenario, they say, okay, let's
29:24
Speaker 2: imagine that person B. We have a person A and
29:26
Speaker 2: a person B. Person B doesn't like what person A
29:29
Speaker 2: is doing, and they decide that person A is intolerant.
29:32
Speaker 2: So then person B starts treating person A poorly by
29:36
Speaker 2: being intolerant of that person's perceived discretions, whatever they might be.
29:41
Speaker 2: Then person C comes along and they see person B
29:44
Speaker 2: being cruel to person A, and super C identifies that
29:47
Speaker 2: them person B looks like they're being intolerant. So now
29:50
Speaker 2: person C is going to go after the inappropriate behavior
29:55
Speaker 2: of person B, who looks like they're the one who's
29:56
Speaker 2: being intolerant. And then person D comes along and sees
29:59
Speaker 2: that person and C is being rude and intolerant to
30:02
Speaker 2: person B and so on, like it just kind of
30:04
Speaker 2: continues the snowball of like, well, it's all in the
30:07
Speaker 2: eyes of the beholder, Like was person A actually doing
30:10
Speaker 2: anything to be intolerant? We don't know. All we know
30:13
Speaker 2: is that person B decided to treat them with intolerance.
30:15
Speaker 2: And now someone else comes along and see person B
30:18
Speaker 2: is doing looks like intolerance, and so they treat that
30:20
Speaker 2: person with intolerance, and it just builds on this endless
30:23
Speaker 2: cycle of like where do we draw the line? So
30:26
Speaker 2: that's kind of the argument they're making there.
30:28
Speaker 1: Right, And I think you know, when you look at
30:30
Speaker 1: both these examples that we're talking about, essentially illustrates that
30:33
Speaker 1: what might be considered tolerant or intolerant is in the
30:36
Speaker 1: eye of the beholder, like Abraham just mentioned, but in
30:39
Speaker 1: the culture and the zeitguys at a time that also
30:42
Speaker 1: it requires a little bit of nuanced to look at
30:44
Speaker 1: what is happening in those spaces. Right, So it's not
30:46
Speaker 1: just the individual, it's also what is being said publicly.
30:50
Speaker 1: It is what the larger group or society is arguing
30:53
Speaker 1: against or for, which means that what we think of
30:57
Speaker 1: as okay today or not okay of as today is
31:00
Speaker 1: arbitrary and idiosyncretic to time, place, context, and a lot
31:04
Speaker 1: of different variables that can shift and change and discuss
31:08
Speaker 1: and alter what we can and cannot or what we
31:11
Speaker 1: should or should not tolerate.
31:13
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, and we'll further sort of I think, provide
31:16
Speaker 2: a little bit of counter arguments to these conclusions. I mean,
31:19
Speaker 2: I think it's reasonable to say these arguments are not
31:23
Speaker 2: entirely wrong. I think they are not without merit, and
31:25
Speaker 2: I think that for the most part, they are legitimately
31:29
Speaker 2: trying to advance this discussion. So I think it's worth
31:32
Speaker 2: considering their opinion as we as we move forward in
31:35
Speaker 2: this right But in considering all the things that we've
31:38
Speaker 2: discussed so far, we've described what the paradox of tolerance is.
31:43
Speaker 2: We've sort of unpacked the idea of like freedom of speech,
31:46
Speaker 2: how that comes with a similar type of paradox where
31:49
Speaker 2: essentially the limit is is it starting to restrict other
31:52
Speaker 2: people's freedoms? And then we've unpacked some of these counter arguments,
31:57
Speaker 2: and so from here, I think we need to figure
32:00
Speaker 2: out Okay, so what do we do with all of
32:02
Speaker 2: this information. We'll tell you after we play some ads.
32:13
Speaker 2: All right, so we've unpacked the history of this idea
32:16
Speaker 2: and sort of the position here, so let's consider what
32:20
Speaker 2: happens next.
32:21
Speaker 1: I think this is tough because you can ask the
32:24
Speaker 1: question of what are we going to be tolerant about? Right?
32:27
Speaker 1: Are we going to tolerate neo Nazism rising in the
32:31
Speaker 1: United States? Are we going to tolerate organized religion and
32:34
Speaker 1: the level of corruption that occurs in those spaces? Are
32:36
Speaker 1: we going to tolerate corruption inside of police forces and
32:39
Speaker 1: all of those? And then you might have people saying
32:41
Speaker 1: that we'll tolerate that because what they're doing is good
32:44
Speaker 1: work in the cause of X, Y and.
32:46
Speaker 2: Z, and so, yeah, the ends justify the means.
32:48
Speaker 1: End justify the means very much so consequential perspectives, right, So,
32:52
Speaker 1: I think it's important to understand how intolerance works for
32:55
Speaker 1: people though. So intolerance has the advantage of basically fighting dirty. Right,
33:01
Speaker 1: So one person agreed to no weapons, no sneak attacks,
33:04
Speaker 1: no backstabbing, And that's the person who's trying to use
33:06
Speaker 1: like legitimate, good faith arguments and have like a I
33:09
Speaker 1: don't know, a real human and scientific discussion about something,
33:12
Speaker 1: and the opponent says, yeah, sure, oh yeah, well, and
33:16
Speaker 1: then what they'll They'll agree to it, they'll sign the contract,
33:19
Speaker 1: and then they turn around they stab the person in
33:21
Speaker 1: the back, right, they sneak attack that person, and history
33:24
Speaker 1: is held in the hands that write the textbooks. The
33:26
Speaker 1: evil bigots who lie, cheat, and steel will cover up
33:29
Speaker 1: their misdeeds or mischaracterize those deeds, or mischaracterize those their
33:34
Speaker 1: enemies and their enemies position about things, all because they
33:37
Speaker 1: fight dirty. They do not fight by the rules. So
33:41
Speaker 1: when we are starting to talk about a tolerant society,
33:43
Speaker 1: a pro social society, a place where people can agree
33:46
Speaker 1: and share ideas and have discussions thoughtful, meaningful, productive discussions,
33:51
Speaker 1: you've got a group of people who are not at
33:52
Speaker 1: all interested in having those discussions, and they are going
33:55
Speaker 1: to lie, cheat, and steel to effectively get their their
33:59
Speaker 1: perspectives across.
34:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, at one point in an episode not that long ago,
34:04
Speaker 2: we tried to use the metaphor of like two different
34:06
Speaker 2: people trying to play a game together and they're playing
34:09
Speaker 2: separate games, and it's like one person's playing chess and
34:13
Speaker 2: the other person is in this case, picking up the
34:16
Speaker 2: chess board and throwing it across the room and then
34:20
Speaker 2: saying they won, yeah, and then saying like, you cheat it,
34:23
Speaker 2: and like the other person didn't cheat, and now this
34:25
Speaker 2: person has destroyed the game. So like that's sort of
34:30
Speaker 2: what they're doing here. And so like in the freedom
34:32
Speaker 2: of speech example, they'll use freedom of speech to suppress
34:35
Speaker 2: other people's freedom of speech and will complain that their
34:39
Speaker 2: freedom of speech is being suppressed when they're simply criticized
34:42
Speaker 2: for their actions, even when they aren't actually prevented from
34:46
Speaker 2: engaging in some things like some like hate speech, things
34:49
Speaker 2: that they they might do. And so this this the
34:52
Speaker 2: whole thing, Like it's hypocritical, bigoted, bad faith, insidious cancer
34:57
Speaker 2: that is anathema to a functioning society. And what I'm
35:01
Speaker 2: calling that, by the way, is the intolerant right, the
35:04
Speaker 2: sort of bigoted, the hate speech side of things. The
35:07
Speaker 2: people who argue and again in bad faith, that they're
35:12
Speaker 2: the ones who are being oppressed when their only real
35:14
Speaker 2: objective is to oppress others, they're the intolerant ones, and
35:18
Speaker 2: they aren't anathema to society right now.
35:23
Speaker 1: Interestingly, intolerance is cannibalistic. So what ends up happening is
35:27
Speaker 1: intolerance will lead to its own self destruction. While intolerant
35:31
Speaker 1: people argue that suppressing their hate speech is authoritarianism, as
35:34
Speaker 1: if they think that's a bad thing, because everybody who
35:36
Speaker 1: says that is typically moving, you know, like those folks
35:40
Speaker 1: that will do that, we'll move into those spaces. The
35:43
Speaker 1: alternative to suppressing hate speech is actually authoritarianism. When intolerance
35:47
Speaker 1: becomes the driving philosophy of the government, that government becomes authoritarian.
35:52
Speaker 1: Basically by definition, what ends up happening is they are saying, oh,
35:57
Speaker 1: you know, we are right, you are wrong. Here are
36:01
Speaker 1: the things that you cannot say. You can you can
36:03
Speaker 1: no longer say gender, sex, biological sex in research, you
36:07
Speaker 1: cannot say women in research, you cannot say pronouns in research.
36:11
Speaker 1: And so those folks that are arguing for freedom of
36:14
Speaker 1: speech and all of those things, they are effectively moving
36:17
Speaker 1: into authoritarian spaces.
36:19
Speaker 2: You know, the ones that are actively suppressing speech. Right
36:22
Speaker 2: even though this is cannibalistic. The intolerant people can briefly
36:25
Speaker 2: band together to suppress the tolerant people, just as Karl
36:29
Speaker 2: Popper described. They essentially will crush, destroy, and eliminate the
36:33
Speaker 2: tolerant ideas. And once the tolerant ideas are gone and
36:37
Speaker 2: all that's left is intolerance, then intolerance becomes intolerant of itself.
36:42
Speaker 2: The ends like they just it needs something to fight,
36:46
Speaker 2: it needs something destroy, to destroy. It's only reason to
36:51
Speaker 2: be reison detre if you if you want the French
36:54
Speaker 2: for it is to destroy right. And so once it
36:58
Speaker 2: has united long enough to destroy the enemy of intolerance,
37:03
Speaker 2: which is good people, then the end state of intolerance
37:07
Speaker 2: is that everyone's gone. There's only one person left, the
37:10
Speaker 2: most intolerant of them all, because it destroys everything, and
37:13
Speaker 2: once there's no clear enemy, it just destroys itself. It
37:16
Speaker 2: is a counter productive way of approaching anything. That's only
37:22
Speaker 2: end state being as everyone is.
37:24
Speaker 1: Gone a perfect metaphor for this. And you watch this
37:27
Speaker 1: happen like we watched this happening in World War Two,
37:29
Speaker 1: like Nazi Germany went like this. They were like, we're
37:32
Speaker 1: gonna annex the entire world, and we're gonna have allies
37:35
Speaker 1: and then at some point in time they've said, you
37:36
Speaker 1: know what.
37:37
Speaker 2: You know what we're gonna do.
37:38
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna take Russia. The people who have
37:40
Speaker 1: been working with us, We're gonna take them. And then
37:41
Speaker 1: you know what we're gonna do as we move into Russia,
37:44
Speaker 1: We're gonna burn everything behind us. And so we're gonna
37:46
Speaker 1: do this scortch Earth policy where we're gonna wreck everything
37:49
Speaker 1: behind us. We're gonna keep pushing forward into Russia and
37:51
Speaker 1: we're gonna take over our friends. And then they were like, oh,
37:54
Speaker 1: that didn't work, and that was like one of the
37:56
Speaker 1: biggest failings of the military at that time of the military.
38:00
Speaker 1: They were like they cannibalized themselves thinking that they were
38:03
Speaker 1: you know, they were the only tolerant voice in a
38:06
Speaker 1: world where you know, actually they were the most intolerant.
38:08
Speaker 1: Like it was like an actual thing that happened where
38:11
Speaker 1: it was like you watched that happen in real time.
38:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was wild, and I mean that is you know,
38:16
Speaker 2: the whole thing that kicked off this discussion was the
38:18
Speaker 2: rise of Hitler and the Third Reich is understanding, like
38:23
Speaker 2: they just kept giving space and time to intolerant ideas,
38:28
Speaker 2: and eventually those intolerant ideas just pushed out tolerant ideas
38:32
Speaker 2: until what was left intolerant ideas ruled everything with an
38:36
Speaker 2: iron fist. That is a thing that has like it
38:41
Speaker 2: was useful and very instructive for humanity to have had
38:44
Speaker 2: that lesson, I would think, so that we could make
38:47
Speaker 2: sure that it never happens again. Unfortunately, people's memory is terrible.
38:53
Speaker 3: Yes, well they're not reading books, so yeah, but you know,
38:58
Speaker 3: the basic tenet of operas and rolls ideas I think
39:02
Speaker 3: are sufficient to prevent against this whole concern about an
39:06
Speaker 3: authoritarian takeover that they rail against as being the thing
39:10
Speaker 3: that they want to avoid with extreme tolerance.
39:14
Speaker 2: And of course that's exactly the end goal of what
39:17
Speaker 2: they're doing, is authoritarian takeover. But I believe it's actually
39:22
Speaker 2: not that complicated. In my mind, the line of demarcation
39:25
Speaker 2: is fairly clearly observed when what we go back to
39:29
Speaker 2: the thing that Carl Popper said, what John Rawl said,
39:32
Speaker 2: where it's like when actual harm is caused, when actual
39:36
Speaker 2: freedoms are restricted by these nefarious people, then we can
39:40
Speaker 2: point to that and say this has crossed the line.
39:43
Speaker 2: Like we're at the point now where we are censoring
39:46
Speaker 2: people's speech actively, they cannot, in research, use basic words
39:51
Speaker 2: that they would need to use to communicate, When people
39:54
Speaker 2: cannot read books that they're interested in learning things about,
39:57
Speaker 2: when people are told that they can't like do certain
40:01
Speaker 2: forms of entertainment, like that is a willing consensual thing,
40:05
Speaker 2: like going to a drag show or something like that,
40:07
Speaker 2: or performing in one, and like all of these ways
40:11
Speaker 2: of restricting people's freedoms when they are in a consensual
40:15
Speaker 2: space where they're not hurting anyone. Those are the intolerant
40:19
Speaker 2: ideas that we can get rid of. And they're not useful.
40:22
Speaker 2: They are counterproductive, they are cannibalistic, they're insidious, and they
40:26
Speaker 2: are self destructive as well.
40:28
Speaker 1: Right, So, when we choose to live in a society,
40:30
Speaker 1: we generally enter our social contract with those people around us.
40:33
Speaker 1: We agree that when in social spaces, we do our
40:36
Speaker 1: best to maintain the peace of those public spaces. We
40:38
Speaker 1: agree to certain rules about what we can and cannot
40:41
Speaker 1: do for that space to continue being a workable space
40:44
Speaker 1: for people for the group at large. At the very least,
40:48
Speaker 1: we agree not to put one another in undue danger
40:50
Speaker 1: if we can avoid it. So, for example, I cannot
40:53
Speaker 1: fire a gun into a crowd of people and argue
40:55
Speaker 1: that I wasn't trying to kill anyone. I was just
40:57
Speaker 1: exercising my right to fire a gun and get away
40:59
Speaker 1: with that. Similarly, I cannot recklessly go into a crowd
41:02
Speaker 1: of people when I am sick, knowing that I can
41:05
Speaker 1: likely spread my disease to those people and put people
41:08
Speaker 1: in harm's way. We can agree we won't hurt each other,
41:12
Speaker 1: that behavior violates that agreement and therefore cannot be tolerated.
41:16
Speaker 1: There is a line, yeah, And so we just considered,
41:20
Speaker 1: like what our obligations are to one another in various spaces,
41:25
Speaker 1: what someone chooses to do with their own life as
41:27
Speaker 1: their own business. We do not need to be concerned
41:31
Speaker 1: concerned about who someone else loves, what God they worship,
41:35
Speaker 1: or what kind of music they choose to listen to.
41:37
Speaker 1: That is not something we need to be policing or
41:41
Speaker 1: worrying about. Those are not things that when they believe
41:44
Speaker 1: in some God, when they love some person, that does
41:47
Speaker 1: not affect my right to do anything else. And so
41:50
Speaker 1: it does not something that that society has any rights
41:54
Speaker 1: to prevent those people from exercising those individual preferences. Of
42:00
Speaker 1: it is when our preferences are super imposed on others
42:03
Speaker 1: that then force them to conform to our preferences. That
42:07
Speaker 1: we have violated our treaty, where we have broken the pact,
42:11
Speaker 1: where we are being intolerant, and that intolerance should not
42:15
Speaker 1: be accepted. Right, And there are going to be gray
42:18
Speaker 1: areas that we will need to work through as a society,
42:20
Speaker 1: and our values and thoughts about the general acceptability of
42:23
Speaker 1: different forms of speech and behavior will change and evolve
42:26
Speaker 1: with us. It has, and we've watched it happen in
42:28
Speaker 1: the last twenty thirty years, ourselves, the.
42:30
Speaker 2: Whole ass whole century. Yeah, but yeah, our in our lifetime.
42:32
Speaker 1: In our own lifetime, we've watched it happen like crazy.
42:34
Speaker 1: So and they're likely will not be a clear set
42:37
Speaker 1: of policies that work. And definitely that's just not how
42:40
Speaker 1: flexible in evolving and maturing society works. But that doesn't
42:44
Speaker 1: mean that we shouldn't at least attempt to preserve the
42:47
Speaker 1: majority of our liberties by preventing the actions that would
42:49
Speaker 1: curb those liberties.
42:52
Speaker 2: And going to your point, like just thinking about there
42:54
Speaker 2: are some movies and TV shows that are sort of
42:57
Speaker 2: difficult to watch because they haven't aged very well in
43:00
Speaker 2: the really everything before the early two thousands and even
43:05
Speaker 2: well into early two thousands, there were so many like
43:08
Speaker 2: homophobic jokes, right, And I know that there are a
43:11
Speaker 2: lot of maybe ex comedians and maybe even still current
43:15
Speaker 2: comedians who they see this and they're like, oh, it's
43:20
Speaker 2: too hard to make a joke anymore. But most comedians.
43:23
Speaker 2: First of all, most comedians are doing just fine because
43:27
Speaker 2: they just write different jokes. But I think the main
43:29
Speaker 2: thing is we just decided that's really not that funny.
43:32
Speaker 2: It's not clever, it's not interesting, it's not funny, Like
43:36
Speaker 2: you're just trying to tell a joke and it's not landing,
43:39
Speaker 2: and then you're blaming the audience. I'm like, write a
43:40
Speaker 2: better joke, man, right, Like who someone chooses to love? Well,
43:44
Speaker 2: I guess that was taboo enough to be considered funny
43:47
Speaker 2: back then. Like it's just not funny, Like so we're
43:51
Speaker 2: not gonna laugh because there's nothing about it to laugh about.
43:55
Speaker 2: And like we find ways to laugh about things that
43:57
Speaker 2: are tragic and be ok with that because it helps
44:01
Speaker 2: us sort of lighten the load of those things. But
44:04
Speaker 2: we do not need to put other people down to
44:07
Speaker 2: like find humor, and it just seems that like that
44:09
Speaker 2: works less and less and less over time, right, And
44:12
Speaker 2: I mean there were there were jokes that were would
44:14
Speaker 2: be at the expense of women for a very long
44:17
Speaker 2: time that I think mostly aren't happening that much anymore.
44:20
Speaker 2: And again it's because it's not funny, right, So, like
44:23
Speaker 2: climb off your high horse there, and and let's uh,
44:26
Speaker 2: let's acknowledge that, like it's not that people are too
44:30
Speaker 2: sensitive for comedy to work, it's that we got more
44:32
Speaker 2: sophisticated in how we consume humor. And those poorly written,
44:36
Speaker 2: stupid jokes just they're not good jokes, so we're not
44:39
Speaker 2: gonna laugh at them anymore, right, Right, We've evolved, So
44:42
Speaker 2: write better jokes, man, That's it.
44:44
Speaker 1: It's that simple.
44:45
Speaker 2: Write better ads. All right. We're sort of wrapping up here,
44:55
Speaker 2: but I think we we just want to end on
44:58
Speaker 2: on I recommend cs where we think this is going.
45:02
Speaker 2: What I think we want to take away from our
45:05
Speaker 2: understanding of this philosophy and of this argument.
45:09
Speaker 1: One thing, though, I would say, is what we must
45:10
Speaker 1: be careful of is not to let those insidious, intolerant
45:13
Speaker 1: ideas claim to be preserving freedom while actively taking it
45:16
Speaker 1: away like that becomes a problem when you have somebody
45:19
Speaker 1: who is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
45:22
Speaker 1: They say they are protecting our freedoms while banning what
45:25
Speaker 1: kinds of books we can read in libraries. They say
45:28
Speaker 1: they are protecting our freedoms while telling us who we
45:30
Speaker 1: can and can't marry. They say they're protecting our freedoms
45:34
Speaker 1: when they blame our problems on minorities and advocate violence
45:37
Speaker 1: and expulsion of minorities and are doing that in inhumane ways.
45:40
Speaker 1: They say they are protecting our freedoms while telling us
45:43
Speaker 1: what religion we must all follow or else be unable
45:46
Speaker 1: to have the same rights. These are intolerant ideas that
45:49
Speaker 1: suppress others and are actively actively harmful to others, and
45:54
Speaker 1: actively go against what we know of the world today,
45:57
Speaker 1: of the science that's behind it, of the impact act
46:00
Speaker 1: of these types of policies. We know better, yeah, than
46:04
Speaker 1: what they are saying, and that that is so critically important.
46:07
Speaker 1: It's not just that they're intolerant, they're just anti people
46:10
Speaker 1: policies they are.
46:11
Speaker 2: And they're just wrong, and they're they're just counterproductive. And
46:15
Speaker 2: I mean, in the marketplace of ideas, we want to
46:18
Speaker 2: have a diversity of ideas we want to we want
46:20
Speaker 2: that is good. But I like to think of like
46:23
Speaker 2: in your diet is good to have diversity in your diet.
46:25
Speaker 2: If all you eat is like is bacon all day long,
46:28
Speaker 2: like you will eventually get diseases and you will die. Yeah,
46:32
Speaker 2: Like a diversity of in your diet is a good thing.
46:35
Speaker 2: But we'll notice that I did not include shattered glass
46:39
Speaker 2: as a part of like what is included in a
46:41
Speaker 2: diverse diet, Like we should not be eating shattered glass
46:45
Speaker 2: And in the market of place of ideas, we do
46:47
Speaker 2: not need these ideas that are the shattered glass of
46:50
Speaker 2: the marketplace of ideas. That we don't need these destructive,
46:54
Speaker 2: counter productive intolerances to even be a part of the conversation.
46:59
Speaker 2: They're starting back from a place that we left behind
47:02
Speaker 2: a long time ago. We don't even need to be
47:04
Speaker 2: there anymore. That part is done. We understand, like we've
47:08
Speaker 2: evolved from that so far, Like we don't need to
47:11
Speaker 2: take it back there. And we can disagree with one another,
47:15
Speaker 2: and we can have different opinions about things, and we
47:18
Speaker 2: can argue with good faith that we believe that one
47:21
Speaker 2: thing should be one way and not another. But as
47:23
Speaker 2: soon as the conversation turns to ideas that limit the
47:26
Speaker 2: freedoms of other people, than those are the ideas that
47:29
Speaker 2: we can expel from the conversation, right, And that's I
47:32
Speaker 2: think how we draw that line in the sand by saying, like,
47:36
Speaker 2: is this an idea that allows us to continue to
47:39
Speaker 2: give people as much freedom as possible? Or is this
47:42
Speaker 2: an idea that is explicitly advocating for and allowing for
47:45
Speaker 2: the restrictions of freedoms. These ontallerant ideas have no place,
47:49
Speaker 2: no purpose, and no right to exist if all they're
47:52
Speaker 2: going to do is harm others and restrict their freedoms.
47:55
Speaker 2: So I think people hear this and they say, like,
47:57
Speaker 2: you're just trying to suppress ideas. Wants to hear people
48:01
Speaker 2: who disagree with me? What I do not need, what
48:04
Speaker 2: we as a species do not need our counterproductive, harmful
48:09
Speaker 2: and tolerant ideas that's only goal is to suppress and
48:13
Speaker 2: restrict the freedoms of others.
48:14
Speaker 1: Nailed it, there you go, lovely, I couldn't set it
48:18
Speaker 1: better myself.
48:19
Speaker 2: Well, thank you. So that I think is the overall
48:23
Speaker 2: sort of summary and take them of how I understand
48:25
Speaker 2: and interpret the paradox of tolerance, and how we can
48:29
Speaker 2: use this moving forward to continue to expand how we
48:33
Speaker 2: choose to sort of govern ourselves as a species, and
48:37
Speaker 2: how when we as a very social species as we are,
48:41
Speaker 2: the best way that we can navigate that space is
48:44
Speaker 2: to allow all ideas on the table. Until those ideas
48:47
Speaker 2: turned towards suppressing and harming others, those ideas we can
48:50
Speaker 2: just shuffle right back off the table again. The rest
48:53
Speaker 2: of the ideas totally welcome. Disagree with me on whatever
48:56
Speaker 2: you can disagree with of what I think deities there
48:59
Speaker 2: are or are not. Fine, let's have that conversation. You
49:02
Speaker 2: can disagree with me about exactly how evolution played out, Fine,
49:06
Speaker 2: let's have that conversation. But what we don't need is
49:09
Speaker 2: ideas about how we're going to harm and restrict the
49:11
Speaker 2: freedoms of others. Those ideas go right into the wastebind.
49:14
Speaker 2: We do not need space or time for them, right
49:17
Speaker 2: one percent? Okay, Well, if you would like to tell
49:21
Speaker 2: us about your paradoxes of tolerance or freedom of speech,
49:25
Speaker 2: and would like to tell us how wonderful of a
49:27
Speaker 2: job that we did, you can read us directly by
49:30
Speaker 2: emailing us at info at WWDWWD podcast dot com or
49:34
Speaker 2: on the social media platforms. I'm spending some time over
49:37
Speaker 2: a blue sky, so you can reach me there. We
49:39
Speaker 2: look forward to hearing from you. We like hearing heaping
49:42
Speaker 2: amounts of praise, and we're always open to constructive criticism
49:46
Speaker 2: and legitimate ideas. So if you want to bring those
49:49
Speaker 2: legitimate ideas, we will respond to them. If you have
49:52
Speaker 2: just more hate speech than I will ignore you. And
49:54
Speaker 2: if you are going to scream about having me and
49:57
Speaker 2: pose like remove your freedom of speech because I'm talking
50:00
Speaker 2: into a microphone and you chose to listen to it,
50:03
Speaker 2: then you do not understand freedom of speech. I don't
50:05
Speaker 2: really expect that to be our audience. We have a
50:07
Speaker 2: smart audience of people, so probably I'm preaching to the choir.
50:10
Speaker 2: People do not even need to hear that message right exactly.
50:14
Speaker 2: If you are joining us for the first time, then
50:16
Speaker 2: we are going to do something that might be a
50:17
Speaker 2: little surprising, which is that we're going to recommend some
50:20
Speaker 2: things that are unrelated to our topic at hand, just
50:23
Speaker 2: some things we're choosing to recommend. But before we do that,
50:26
Speaker 2: I have some credits to get through. First. Is that,
50:29
Speaker 2: as I said, if you would like to support us.
50:31
Speaker 2: One way you can do that is by going over
50:32
Speaker 2: to Patreon. You sort of become a member of the club,
50:35
Speaker 2: if you will, and in so doing you'll get extra
50:38
Speaker 2: behind the scenes content, AD free content, early episodes, all
50:41
Speaker 2: that kind of thing. And in addition, I will read
50:44
Speaker 2: your name in thanks. So here are some patrons, some
50:47
Speaker 2: people who went over to Patreon. They took the leap
50:50
Speaker 2: and they've been supporting us, and I just really really
50:52
Speaker 2: appreciate who they are and who they have been for
50:54
Speaker 2: our podcast. So thank you to Mike m Megan, Mike T, Justin,
50:59
Speaker 2: Kim Brad, Stephanie, Olivia, Brian Ashley, and Kiara. You guys
51:03
Speaker 2: are wonderful.
51:04
Speaker 1: Y'all are the best and we love you so much.
51:06
Speaker 2: Thank you, of course to my team of people without
51:08
Speaker 2: whom I could not do this show writing and fact
51:11
Speaker 2: checking from Shane and myself. Our social media coordinator is
51:14
Speaker 2: Emma Wilson, and our audio engineer who also does all
51:18
Speaker 2: of our music production is Justin Greenhouse and he's the coolest.
51:23
Speaker 2: Is there anything that I am missing or anything you'd
51:25
Speaker 2: like to add before we get to our recommendations.
51:28
Speaker 1: No, I think we're good right now.
51:30
Speaker 2: Perfect. Then it's actually not even time for antbreak, so
51:32
Speaker 2: we'll just go straight to recommendations.
51:34
Speaker 1: Beautiful recommendations.
51:44
Speaker 2: All right, I am recommending a TV show. It is
51:47
Speaker 2: not quite finished releasing at second season, but and I
51:51
Speaker 2: show that I have recommended this show before. But this
51:54
Speaker 2: is an Apple TV Plus show. It's called Severance. It
51:59
Speaker 2: is where most of the way through season two, and
52:02
Speaker 2: it has just been spectacular. It is such such a
52:07
Speaker 2: good show. I think Apple TV has been just absolutely
52:10
Speaker 2: crushing it with extremely great content. But Severance is among
52:16
Speaker 2: the best I think shows that is on television right now,
52:20
Speaker 2: possibly shows that have ever been on television. It is
52:22
Speaker 2: that good. So if you can get yourself over to
52:25
Speaker 2: Apple TV Plus and check out Severance, it is fabulous.
52:29
Speaker 2: Or I mean, if you get it some other way.
52:31
Speaker 2: I'm sure it's available via other media platforms or maybe
52:35
Speaker 2: on Blu Ray or something. I'm loving it. I don't
52:37
Speaker 2: think that there's any way they could mess up season
52:39
Speaker 2: two at this point with the final episodes that remain.
52:42
Speaker 2: But just fantastic show.
52:44
Speaker 1: You haven't seen it, right, I haven't seen any of it,
52:46
Speaker 1: and I hear, I just hear, it's wonderful. I got
52:48
Speaker 1: here it's incredible, and.
52:50
Speaker 2: I do understand like setting the bar too high and
52:52
Speaker 2: setting super high expectations I think is problematic for people
52:55
Speaker 2: who want to go into a show like this with
52:57
Speaker 2: an open mind. So consider that you might disagree with
53:01
Speaker 2: my opinion about how good this show is and just
53:05
Speaker 2: be ready to take it as it is. But I
53:08
Speaker 2: guess I'll say really quick for those who haven't who
53:10
Speaker 2: aren't familiar with the premise, the basic idea as it
53:14
Speaker 2: starts is that there is a procedure for people to
53:16
Speaker 2: separate their work life from their home life by implanting
53:20
Speaker 2: a chip that functionally it compartmentalizes their memories. So when
53:25
Speaker 2: they're at work, they have no memory of who they
53:28
Speaker 2: are outside of work, and to them, they are always
53:30
Speaker 2: awake and they're always awake in that exact space, and
53:34
Speaker 2: the people who are on the outside they have no
53:36
Speaker 2: memory of being at work. Basically, they walk into work,
53:39
Speaker 2: get on the elevator, and then they walk off the
53:41
Speaker 2: elevator and go home, and a part of their day
53:43
Speaker 2: has disappeared, and that is like all that they know,
53:46
Speaker 2: so they to them, it almost feels like they are
53:48
Speaker 2: never working because they're only conscious memories of the times
53:51
Speaker 2: that they're outside of there, and there's a huge amount
53:56
Speaker 2: of expanding that happens from there in terms of what
53:59
Speaker 2: they learn about out the nature of this procedure, and
54:02
Speaker 2: people who can maybe traverse those two different worlds somewhat differently.
54:07
Speaker 2: The procedure is called the Severance procedure, hence the name
54:10
Speaker 2: of the show. Yeah. I think it's a fantastic idea
54:12
Speaker 2: and a really cool way to build a show.
54:15
Speaker 1: Concept that's so fascinating. I love that.
54:18
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's like I would say, it's kind of
54:21
Speaker 2: in like psychological thriller territory, but there's also a decent
54:25
Speaker 2: like there's a pretty decent amount of comedy that's built
54:26
Speaker 2: into it. It was created in part by Ben Stiller,
54:30
Speaker 2: who obviously has a lot of background in comedy, and
54:33
Speaker 2: he directed several of the episodes and wrote most or
54:36
Speaker 2: all of the shows or episodes. So I think it's
54:42
Speaker 2: very experienced, bright people who are doing very good writing.
54:46
Speaker 1: Right, we'll right, Yeah, I've heard, I've heard does a
54:48
Speaker 1: great things. So it's on my list for sure.
54:50
Speaker 2: Cool. All right, that's way too much on my recommendations.
54:55
Speaker 1: All right. I recently finished a book called The Black
54:57
Speaker 1: Tongue thief. Okay, and that has written by a man
55:00
Speaker 1: named Christopher Buelman. So I recommended Christopher Bulman before he
55:03
Speaker 1: wrote a book called Between Two Fires, which is like
55:06
Speaker 1: a really interesting medieval horror type of book. This one
55:10
Speaker 1: is less horror and more fantasy adventure, medieval fantasy adventure.
55:15
Speaker 1: He does a really wonderful job of pacing in world
55:18
Speaker 1: building in this book. It is about a thief who
55:23
Speaker 1: is indebted to a thieves guild as part of his training.
55:26
Speaker 1: He was trained to be a thief, and now he
55:28
Speaker 1: owes them a lot of money. Basically, it's like what
55:30
Speaker 1: happens if medieval times had student loans and so he
55:35
Speaker 1: but he gets caught in a in a little bit
55:37
Speaker 1: of trouble because he tries to rob this group. And
55:40
Speaker 1: this is like the first chapter. He tries to rob
55:42
Speaker 1: this group and gets now tied into working for this
55:46
Speaker 1: like magic soldier from a different country. And so the
55:50
Speaker 1: world building around this is really cool. It takes place
55:53
Speaker 1: after the Goblin Wars.
55:56
Speaker 2: Oh right, everyone's familiar with the Goblin Wars.
55:58
Speaker 1: Everybody's familiar with the Goblin War, of course, and they
56:01
Speaker 1: called them the I forget what the first war is called.
56:04
Speaker 1: There were two of them. The second one was called
56:06
Speaker 1: The Daughter's War because all the men had died in
56:08
Speaker 1: the First War, and so the Daughter's War was the
56:10
Speaker 1: second War. And there's actually the second book in the
56:12
Speaker 1: series is called The Daughter's Wars, the Prequel. But it's
56:15
Speaker 1: it's so good. It's got goblins and it's got deserted islands,
56:19
Speaker 1: and it's got magic, and it's got giant battle ravens,
56:23
Speaker 1: and it's got giants themselves and assassins and it's just
56:27
Speaker 1: a really great, fast paced story. It's like almost five
56:31
Speaker 1: hundred pages, and it just it doesn't read like that
56:33
Speaker 1: because it is so well done. He doesn't spend a
56:36
Speaker 1: lot of time explaining how magic works. He just explains
56:38
Speaker 1: that magic is there and people are trained things. Yeah. Yeah,
56:41
Speaker 1: it just does things. And I love that about it.
56:43
Speaker 1: It's like you're just kind of like dropped in this
56:45
Speaker 1: world and you're like, this is what happened? Here you go?
56:47
Speaker 1: You know, it's pretty wonderful.
56:49
Speaker 2: All right, Well that was the hard sell because that
56:51
Speaker 2: definitely sounds super interesting. I tend to love fantasy and
56:55
Speaker 2: adventure myself, so yeah, I might have to put that
56:58
Speaker 2: one on the list.
56:59
Speaker 1: I think you'll dig it. Actually, I think you'll really
57:01
Speaker 1: love it.
57:02
Speaker 2: Awesome. I'm interested to check it out, see what to
57:05
Speaker 2: take away from it.
57:06
Speaker 1: Beautiful.
57:06
Speaker 2: Okay, I think that's a that's a great place for
57:08
Speaker 2: us to end this discussion. I think it did all
57:11
Speaker 2: my thank yous. I think I think I did all
57:12
Speaker 2: of my credits. Man, am I missing anything? Thank you
57:15
Speaker 2: everyone for listening. Thank you for recording with me today.
57:17
Speaker 1: Shane, Yeah, thank you for having me all right?
57:20
Speaker 2: Perfect? Then I think that we will wrap it up there.
57:23
Speaker 2: This is Abraham and this is Shane. We're out.
57:26
Speaker 1: See. Yeah, you've been listening to Why We Do what
57:29
Speaker 1: We Do. You can learn more about this and other
57:32
Speaker 1: episodes by going to wwd wwdpodcast dot com. Thanks for listening,
57:38
Speaker 1: and we hope you have an awesome day.