5 ms·

That quote from Popper is straight-up idealist non-sense. The problems I see are: 1. Popper assumes that tolerant and intolerant ideas are easily distinguishab

That quote from Popper is straight-up idealist non-sense. The problems I see are: 1. Popper assumes that tolerant and intolerant ideas are easily distinguishable, not intermingled, and that there exists some sort of undisputed authority to make the distinction. Example: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 2. Suppression of "intolerance" excuse has often been abused by brutal authoritarians to exercise their power. 3. Suppression of ideas deemed "intolerant" often dismisses real underlying issues. For example, some "racist ideas" in this us election cycle are rooted in the fact that there are real "losers" in globalization. It's a lot easier to dismiss someone as a racist than it is to understand and emphasize with where these feelings are actually coming from and try to fix the issue. I believe that racism is more often that not, the symptom of real problems.

beefield 10y ago
1. I do not think that the precise distinction of tolerant and intolerant ideas was Popper's point. His point was that there _exists_ so intolerant ideas that a tolerant society must be ready to suppress them. Obviously where the precise limit for intolerance in practice is, is a question of ongoing and endless discussion and not a question with easy and clear-cut answer. 2. Brutal authoritarians have also used elections countless times as an excuse to exercise their power. I do not think that makes democracy and elections "idealist non-sense". 3. Does it not make more sense to address the real underlying issues than tolerate bigotry and racism? I would prefer those would be kept separate issues, but to my (obviously tolerant) eyes, it seems more like there are people who really think that intolerance, bigotry and racism are a _solution_ to the underlying problems.
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  > I would prefer those would be kept separate issues Wouldn't we all! But unfortunately that's not how the real world works. I think you dismissed my point though... For example, when someone says "build a wall," it's easy just to say "you're racist and hate mexicans." But if you actually let that idea play out, you'll see it's not really about disliking mexicans, it's a response to drug problems in the US, security issues, and an economy that has failed millions (while still succeeding on the whole). I don't doubt there are some pure racist chanting "build a wall" as well, but they are in the minority (no pun intended) and if you actually fix the above concerns a lot less people would be shouting "build a wall". But my point is, you have to let that "racist" idea be heard to understand the problem before you dismiss it as an "ignorant solution." Again, I believe racism is more often the symptom, than the problem itself.
  - beefield 10y ago
    > But my point is, you have to let that "racist" idea be heard to understand the problem before you dismiss it as an "ignorant solution." But that is more or less precisely what Popper says: "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." Rational argument (in my opinion) here is _exactly_ what you say, racism is typically the symptom, and not the problem, and the problem needs to be solved. But that does not imply that we should somehow applaud racism and bigotry as free speech. And we need to say to the people who claim that racism and bigotry is the solution to the problem that they are wrong and their racism and bigotry is unacceptable. If we want to live in a tolerant society, that is.

beefield 10y ago

1. I do not think that the precise distinction of tolerant and intolerant ideas was Popper's point. His point was that there _exists_ so intolerant ideas that a tolerant society must be ready to suppress them. Obviously where the precise limit for intolerance in practice is, is a question of ongoing and endless discussion and not a question with easy and clear-cut answer. 2. Brutal authoritarians have also used elections countless times as an excuse to exercise their power. I do not think that makes democracy and elections "idealist non-sense". 3. Does it not make more sense to address the real underlying issues than tolerate bigotry and racism? I would prefer those would be kept separate issues, but to my (obviously tolerant) eyes, it seems more like there are people who really think that intolerance, bigotry and racism are a _solution_ to the underlying problems.

spaceflunky 10y ago
> I would prefer those would be kept separate issues Wouldn't we all! But unfortunately that's not how the real world works. I think you dismissed my point though... For example, when someone says "build a wall," it's easy just to say "you're racist and hate mexicans." But if you actually let that idea play out, you'll see it's not really about disliking mexicans, it's a response to drug problems in the US, security issues, and an economy that has failed millions (while still succeeding on the whole). I don't doubt there are some pure racist chanting "build a wall" as well, but they are in the minority (no pun intended) and if you actually fix the above concerns a lot less people would be shouting "build a wall". But my point is, you have to let that "racist" idea be heard to understand the problem before you dismiss it as an "ignorant solution." Again, I believe racism is more often the symptom, than the problem itself.
- beefield 10y ago
  > But my point is, you have to let that "racist" idea be heard to understand the problem before you dismiss it as an "ignorant solution." But that is more or less precisely what Popper says: "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." Rational argument (in my opinion) here is _exactly_ what you say, racism is typically the symptom, and not the problem, and the problem needs to be solved. But that does not imply that we should somehow applaud racism and bigotry as free speech. And we need to say to the people who claim that racism and bigotry is the solution to the problem that they are wrong and their racism and bigotry is unacceptable. If we want to live in a tolerant society, that is.