Reality Bites

How does a society defend tolerance without becoming intolerant?

Fair warning, this post may seem to be a bit random and that is largely because it is.

I probably should have partaken of several more cups of coffee before I sat down to commit this one to electrons on the screen.

I have been considering how, in a civil society, there is always tension between what is permitted and what is not, leading to the question of how much we must sacrifice of what is permitted to prevent what is not permitted - and how we know what should be permitted vs. not permitted.

I’ve written about Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance in the past. Popper, the Austrian-born British philosopher, stated that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

The greater paradox is the presupposition that one must abandon one’s belief to defend that belief from destruction – using Popper’s case as an example, to protect tolerance, one must become (selectively) intolerant. Defending tolerance by being intolerant of intolerance is quite the mouthful.

The structure of Popper’s Paradox, that one group, belief system or ideology can be overwhelmed if they choose not to defend their position is something that has wider application. Our constitution would seem to be in the same category, and that is what gave rise to the phrase “The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.”

Quite the conundrum for the people. One sympathizes.

It would seem there must be some limit, some line that cannot be crossed or it all collapses.

Some say what we believe is our reality – and if enough people believe it, that makes it real.

I don’t believe that a majority can define reality.

I was reading an interesting X thread this morning that Sarah Hoyt, posting at Instapundit, pointed to about how the American left “creates” its reality through consensus. X user Todd of misCHəf (@AndToddsaid) noted “For starters, you cover this in the thread, but the left very much bullies its views onto others, esp. under the guise of anti-bullying.”

I think this is true – the “anti-racist” movement believes that to end racism, people must be more racist, just against the “right” groups – and of course, they get to pick the “right groups.”

I do not accept that as being true and therefore, it is not reality.

For example, I know there are racists in America, but the reality is there are far fewer than the left proposes, so I refuse to believe the reality is that America is a racist country simply because that has become a widely held belief within a large community of Americans.

Reality is generally defined as the state of things as they actually exist, independent of human perception or interpretation. It refers to the objective world of physical matter, events, and facts that persist whether or not they are observed or understood by individuals. Of course, in philosophy, the concept of reality can be more complex, encompassing discussions about the nature of existence, what constitutes "real" versus "perceived," and how subjective experience influences one's understanding of reality.

I think that line that cannot be crossed is drawn with truth, and by “truth”, I mean objective truth. I don’t believe in “my truth” or “your truth” because in the grand scheme of things, when truth is shaded that way, it is opinion, not truth.

In my world, truth and reality go hand in hand. One cannot have truth without reality, nor can reality exist without truth.

I guess my perspective comes from decades in business where I learned that results are what matter, everything else is just conversation.

I think America’s political landscape would change for the better if politicians would focus on the reality of results rather than prevarication for political advantage. We can know what works and what doesn’t. I think there are fewer shades of gray than we seem willing to accept.

All we need to do is to have the strength to look for the truth. When we find the truth, we have found reality.