3 ms·
Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible. > I do not imply
by dleslie 8y ago
Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible.
> 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.
- fixermark 8y agoPeople will, of course, disagree on where the threshold is where violence becomes acceptable. They'll also disagree that it's "violence" to refuse to enter into a business relationship with someone.
- dleslie 8y agoIndeed, what constitutes violence isn't a universally shared understanding.
- ceejayoz 8y agoDo let me know when PayPal starts beating up customers as part of their offboarding process, and I will probably object to such behavior. It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument".