3 ms·

Nope, intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolertated. Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlim

Nope, intolerance is the one thing that cannot be tolertated. Karl Popper: "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. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, 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 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."

Torgo 11y ago
The Amish are "intolerant" yet we tolerate their existence. Anybody that claims to value diversity should understand that for there to be differences that there has to be some sort of boundary between things, which crudely can be called "intolerance." The Amish are Amish because they are not us, they have separated themselves from us.
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  The Amish don't go around reenacting the various Anabaptist slaughters of Catholics from the 16/17th centuries either. So, we tolerate their views because they're pacifists, thus are not a threat to society at large.
kps 11y ago
Problem is that each faction thinks that the others' intolerance is intolerable, while their own intolerance is necessary intolerance of intolerance.
philh 11y ago
> 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. Then we can be intolerant of people who argue with violence instead of with words. That doesn't require us to be intolerant of people who hold certain opinions.
fapjacks 11y ago
> "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" ... "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal" This is circular and I think not very well thought out. Declaring something criminal is "answering arguments by the use of ... pistols", just as he is railing against in the same paragraph. Who defines tolerance and intolerance? Who gets to draw the line? I think being tolerant necessarily means tolerating the intolerant, and I think people arguing otherwise are being the very intolerant they are trying to defeat. You can't be tolerant sometimes, intolerant others, and then hold an olive branch high above your head, claiming to be tolerant. It doesn't work that way, in the same way that you can't claim to be a pacifist if you support pacifism sometimes, and violence others. It just is a false statement.

Torgo 11y ago

The Amish are "intolerant" yet we tolerate their existence. Anybody that claims to value diversity should understand that for there to be differences that there has to be some sort of boundary between things, which crudely can be called "intolerance." The Amish are Amish because they are not us, they have separated themselves from us.

norea-armozel 11y ago
The Amish don't go around reenacting the various Anabaptist slaughters of Catholics from the 16/17th centuries either. So, we tolerate their views because they're pacifists, thus are not a threat to society at large.

kps 11y ago

Problem is that each faction thinks that the others' intolerance is intolerable, while their own intolerance is necessary intolerance of intolerance.

philh 11y ago

> 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. Then we can be intolerant of people who argue with violence instead of with words. That doesn't require us to be intolerant of people who hold certain opinions.

fapjacks 11y ago

> "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" ... "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal" This is circular and I think not very well thought out. Declaring something criminal is "answering arguments by the use of ... pistols", just as he is railing against in the same paragraph. Who defines tolerance and intolerance? Who gets to draw the line? I think being tolerant necessarily means tolerating the intolerant, and I think people arguing otherwise are being the very intolerant they are trying to defeat. You can't be tolerant sometimes, intolerant others, and then hold an olive branch high above your head, claiming to be tolerant. It doesn't work that way, in the same way that you can't claim to be a pacifist if you support pacifism sometimes, and violence others. It just is a false statement.