3 ms·

So you're saying you're a hater hater? Nice passive aggressive slam btw.

DonHopkins 11y ago
The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. [1] “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 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.” ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [2] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-...
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  How does Popper address the staggering power imbalance required to use force to suppress intolerance? Can genuine tolerance ever exist in a society where the strong dictate what is politically correct? "Tolerance," to me, has a simple definition: whoever uses force first is the one who's intolerant. I'd be curious to know how Popper avoided the same conclusion.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - skj 11y ago
    So intolerance exists only through violence? That seems wrong on its face.
    - CamperBob2 11y ago
      How so? If I don't lift a finger against you (and that includes voting to use government-based force against you), then why is it important for you to control what opinions I can express?
      - DonHopkins 11y ago
        It's not about controlling which opinions you can express, it's about how to react to them. It's possible for both of us to be intolerant without resorting to physical violence or government-based force. If you express an intolerant opinion, it's important for me to express that I think you're full of shit and why, and that I won't tolerate it, without physically lifting a finger against you, or otherwise trying to destroy your life or well being. That's how and why freedom of speech works. It doesn't indemnify you from the consequences of expressing your opinions. I am fully justified in expressing my intolerance of your intolerance without resorting to violence. I'm not going to wait for you to go as far as to hit me in the face or spend money on a propaganda campaign that's actively trying to destroy my marriage (for example), before I verbally express my intolerance of something you said or did. But if you donated to a political campaign that results in destroying my marriage, or if you're the executive director of an organization dedicated to that cause, and I find out that you've been having gay sex orgies on the low down, or cheating on your wife on Ashley Madison, then it's totally justified for me to publicly out you, and if your wife decides to divorce you or FRC decides to fire you upon learning that, then it's between you and them, and what I did was totally justified, no matter how much you feel like playing the victim.

The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance. [1] “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 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.” ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [2] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-...

CamperBob2 11y ago
How does Popper address the staggering power imbalance required to use force to suppress intolerance? Can genuine tolerance ever exist in a society where the strong dictate what is politically correct? "Tolerance," to me, has a simple definition: whoever uses force first is the one who's intolerant. I'd be curious to know how Popper avoided the same conclusion.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- skj 11y ago
  So intolerance exists only through violence? That seems wrong on its face.
  - CamperBob2 11y ago
    How so? If I don't lift a finger against you (and that includes voting to use government-based force against you), then why is it important for you to control what opinions I can express?
    - DonHopkins 11y ago
      It's not about controlling which opinions you can express, it's about how to react to them. It's possible for both of us to be intolerant without resorting to physical violence or government-based force. If you express an intolerant opinion, it's important for me to express that I think you're full of shit and why, and that I won't tolerate it, without physically lifting a finger against you, or otherwise trying to destroy your life or well being. That's how and why freedom of speech works. It doesn't indemnify you from the consequences of expressing your opinions. I am fully justified in expressing my intolerance of your intolerance without resorting to violence. I'm not going to wait for you to go as far as to hit me in the face or spend money on a propaganda campaign that's actively trying to destroy my marriage (for example), before I verbally express my intolerance of something you said or did. But if you donated to a political campaign that results in destroying my marriage, or if you're the executive director of an organization dedicated to that cause, and I find out that you've been having gay sex orgies on the low down, or cheating on your wife on Ashley Madison, then it's totally justified for me to publicly out you, and if your wife decides to divorce you or FRC decides to fire you upon learning that, then it's between you and them, and what I did was totally justified, no matter how much you feel like playing the victim.