4 ms·

>Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Didn't it work

>Does no one realize that this claim is not based on any evidence whatsoever? And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Didn't it work on Reddit, in which they found that driving hateful communities out raised the level of discourse? And a possible way to structure society. Hitler himself admitted that had the Nazis not been tolerated, they wouldn't have gained the foothold they did. Not only do I prefer Popper's claim, but I prefer the Frankfurt School's claim too[0]. Which, in my view, stands firmly in line with the democratic functions of society envisioned by such liberals as J.S. Mill for instance. But it comes down to ideology; it is not a crime nor an intellectual failing to dismiss liberalism on ideological grounds. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18368318

naasking 8y ago
> And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Sure, but that doesn't make it a sound policy for real political discourse. > Didn't it work on Reddit, in which they found that driving hateful communities out raised the level of discourse? Or did it simply fuel a growing narrative of censorship and persecution which is driving the counter-PC culture and electing people like Trump? I don't think analyzing this as a closed system is faithful to the point I'm making, because these changes can and do have negative externalities. > Hitler himself admitted that had the Nazis not been tolerated, they wouldn't have gained the foothold they did. So basically, had the majority of the country not been sympathetic to Nazi principles, then Nazis wouldn't have gotten elected? That strikes me as absurdly tautological. A minority of people cannot be resist the wishes of a majority via intolerance, and if good people are the majority, then they can safely ignore the minority. > Not only do I prefer Popper's claim, but I prefer the Frankfurt School's claim too[0]. This claim at that link is pure nonsense: "Tolerance is a democratic principle, since it relies on the idea that nobody has an absolute claim on the truth" No, simply false. Tolerance is justified by the recognition that all people have intrinsic value ala Kant, that they are thinking feeling beings and that unless you wish to launch your own campaign for genocide against people with whom you disagree, then you should seek to convince them of your version of the truth using non-violent means. The only time violence is justified is in response to violence. The far left and the far right are both guilty of violating this principle.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >Sure, but that doesn't make it a sound policy for real political discourse. I can't see why not. >Or did it simply fuel a growing narrative of censorship and persecution which is driving the counter-PC culture and electing people like Trump? No. And besides, on the logic that it might make people angry or convinced of their delusional views therefore we shouldn't do it is very poor reasoning. >because these changes can and do have negative externalities. In the same way that naive tolerance does? >had the majority of the country not been sympathetic to Nazi principles, then Nazis wouldn't have gotten elected? No. "Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement." (A Hitler at the 1933 Nuremberg Nazi Party rally) "If our opponents had been clever, considering that political weapons were so unevenly distributed, they could have undoubtedly found ways and opportunities to make our success impossible." (J Goebbels, 1934) "If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work" (J Goebbels, 1934) >Tolerance is justified by the recognition that all people have intrinsic value ala Kant Not in democratic society; can you point me to which Kantian thinkers (including Kant himself!) whose thought formed the basis of any modern state? Tolerance as we know it emerged only with the emergence of widespread democracy after the French revolution beginning in Western Europe and the American revolution in the New World. Both republics founded on democracy (and therefore tolerance), not a Kantian maxim. As Marcuse said in 1965, "Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought." >The only time violence is justified is in response to violence. I disagree, and as I said earlier, it's no crime to disagree with liberal dogma like this. But if we must go this route, what does violence say of structural violence, for instance?

naasking 8y ago

> And yet it remains an interesting thought experiment, doesn't it? Sure, but that doesn't make it a sound policy for real political discourse. > Didn't it work on Reddit, in which they found that driving hateful communities out raised the level of discourse? Or did it simply fuel a growing narrative of censorship and persecution which is driving the counter-PC culture and electing people like Trump? I don't think analyzing this as a closed system is faithful to the point I'm making, because these changes can and do have negative externalities. > Hitler himself admitted that had the Nazis not been tolerated, they wouldn't have gained the foothold they did. So basically, had the majority of the country not been sympathetic to Nazi principles, then Nazis wouldn't have gotten elected? That strikes me as absurdly tautological. A minority of people cannot be resist the wishes of a majority via intolerance, and if good people are the majority, then they can safely ignore the minority. > Not only do I prefer Popper's claim, but I prefer the Frankfurt School's claim too[0]. This claim at that link is pure nonsense: "Tolerance is a democratic principle, since it relies on the idea that nobody has an absolute claim on the truth" No, simply false. Tolerance is justified by the recognition that all people have intrinsic value ala Kant, that they are thinking feeling beings and that unless you wish to launch your own campaign for genocide against people with whom you disagree, then you should seek to convince them of your version of the truth using non-violent means. The only time violence is justified is in response to violence. The far left and the far right are both guilty of violating this principle.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>Sure, but that doesn't make it a sound policy for real political discourse. I can't see why not. >Or did it simply fuel a growing narrative of censorship and persecution which is driving the counter-PC culture and electing people like Trump? No. And besides, on the logic that it might make people angry or convinced of their delusional views therefore we shouldn't do it is very poor reasoning. >because these changes can and do have negative externalities. In the same way that naive tolerance does? >had the majority of the country not been sympathetic to Nazi principles, then Nazis wouldn't have gotten elected? No. "Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement." (A Hitler at the 1933 Nuremberg Nazi Party rally) "If our opponents had been clever, considering that political weapons were so unevenly distributed, they could have undoubtedly found ways and opportunities to make our success impossible." (J Goebbels, 1934) "If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work" (J Goebbels, 1934) >Tolerance is justified by the recognition that all people have intrinsic value ala Kant Not in democratic society; can you point me to which Kantian thinkers (including Kant himself!) whose thought formed the basis of any modern state? Tolerance as we know it emerged only with the emergence of widespread democracy after the French revolution beginning in Western Europe and the American revolution in the New World. Both republics founded on democracy (and therefore tolerance), not a Kantian maxim. As Marcuse said in 1965, "Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought." >The only time violence is justified is in response to violence. I disagree, and as I said earlier, it's no crime to disagree with liberal dogma like this. But if we must go this route, what does violence say of structural violence, for instance?