Substack and The Paradox of Tolerance

Plus the paradox of information

I didn’t expect that an article about Bryan Cranston confronting his white privilege would lead me to publish a post about Substack.

But here we are.

In the play “The Power of Sail,” Cranston plays a professor who invites a white nationalist Holocaust denier to a campus symposium. The professor indicates that he will rebuke the invitee and his ideas, in a debate at the symposium..

As a “free-speech absolutist,” the professor says, “The answer to hate speech is more speech.”

Sounds like Substack’s view, doesn’t it?

---

In the play, the professor’s privilege

prevents him from seeing the very real harm caused by his actions until it is much too late.

Whether due to privilege or for other reasons, will the story be the same for Substack?

The play asks if there should be limits to free speech, and if so, why? It tests the boundaries of the free speech ideal by examining the traditional arbiters of that speech — those who get to decide whose voice is lifted and whose voice is quashed. It suggests the existence of a moral compass in an age when truth is often called relative by special-interest groups opposed to it.

I imagine Substack would say that it is not an arbiter of speech. But perhaps Substack is nevertheless amplifying the voices of the privileged and those whose voices the privileged have chosen to amplify.

Also, we have a hint in this passage that free speech is challenged not just by hate speech but also by untruth.

---

In the play, a black academic tries to stop the white professor from hosting the white nationalist at the symposium by

citing 20th century philosopher Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance.” Popper’s idea is that if a society — in pursuit of tolerance without limits — tolerates the intolerant, the latter will eventually destroy that society.

Off to Wikipedia’s article on "paradox of tolerance” I went.

The article quotes Popper’s statement of the paradox. I’ll break Popper’s paragraph down into portions, to make it easier to process. (It helped me.)

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

… I do not imply … that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument;

they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

A lot to think about.

In particular we see, again, a possible connection between intolerance and untruth. Rational argument against intolerance is preferable to suppression of intolerance. However, rational argument may not keep intolerance in check if the intolerant “forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive.” Of course, asserting that rational argument is deceptive is itself deceptive.

The intolerant may teach followers “to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.” Perhaps some followers would answer with metaphorical “fists or pistols.” But others might use threats of violence, or violence itself.

Threats may already be happening.

---

Bryan Cranston and Karl Popper lead me to Canadian truckers – specifically, to speech about their blockades protesting vaccination mandates.

Note Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement against the opposition party: “Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas.” And the Conservative Party interim leader Candice Bergen’s statement against Trudeau: "I understand the prime minister admires basic dictatorships, but let's remind the prime minister that this is Canada, this is not a dictatorship."

In this dispute, as in many arguments between liberals and conservatives, both sides suggest the other side is intolerant. To put it another way, both suggest the other is associated with wrong and dangerous views.

---

Back to Substack.

When vaccine supporters express concern about vaccine opponents and vice versa, I think a background to each side’s concern is that they see the other side’s misinformation as related to intolerance.

If each side’s view about the other side has merit, is it impossible then to decide who is intolerant and whose opinions shouldn’t be tolerated?

Or is this a false equivalence? Does one side have a significantly better argument that it favors tolerance and truth while the other side is essentially dangerous?

---

The paradox of tolerance is that unlimited tolerance results in intolerance. The paradox of information, as I see it, is that unlimited information results in misinformation.

In my view, the dilemma of unlimited freedom of speech – with unlimited tolerance and information – is not that everyone will become intolerant and misinformed. It's that intolerance and misinformation will grow at the expense of tolerance and information. Free reasoned speech will lose out to speech that harms.

How do we begin to resolve the paradoxes of tolerance and information, either on Substack or elsewhere? How might Substack or society promote free speech without it leading to intolerance, misinformation, and harm?