5 ms·

You think suppressing speech is a great way to combat "fascism"? The irony.

• jackweirdy 8y ago
  It's not ironic, it is the Paradox of tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  • ErikHuisman 8y ago
    "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." - Karl Popper
    • Cthulhu_ 8y ago
      Great in theory, in practice, channels like infowars are using irrational arguments and keep using them; you'll never see the rational counter arguments in their broadcasts. I mean to bring up facism again, there were valid rational counter-arguments to the nazi's arguments, but because they owned the media nobody saw them and those that published them were squashed. Same thing is still happening all over the place.
  • hhjinks 8y ago
    Ignoring the fact that the paradox of intolerance is the mother of all slippery slope arguments, letting a fascist speak is not the same as "being tolerant without limit". If your people are turning fascist, it's not because of a clown on itunes, it's because you've failed to provide sufficient education and opportunity to self-actualize to your population. Fascism doesn't grow where fascists speak, it grows where people are hateful and disenfranchised. That's not to say I want Alex to stay. Good riddance. I just don't like the paradox of intolerance.