3 ms·

Let’s look back at the original quote of Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even t

by xyzzyz 7y ago

Let’s look back at the original quote of Karl Popper: 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. You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies?

komali2 7y ago
I appreciate your approach here. Then again, while Karl Popper invented the term, his initial quote around it doesn't for me define law. But, to your point: > You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. I would not be surprised to learn of a weaponized gay uprising somewhere like Utah, particularly in the last century or two. It was literally war for survival for them. Still is, in parts of the world and even parts of America. The stories I could pass on to you, and you can easily find on your own, stretch straight into 2019. Eich was a member of this persecution class, even if he would be one saying "guys guys, we shouldn't HURT them for their gayness, even though their gayness is bad! Now here's another 1000$, feel free to spend it on tar." > Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies? There's ambiguity here, around what "suppress" means, "suppress the utterance," "keep them in check," etc. Anyway, Popper's word isn't law, and he himself contributes to this ambiguity: > We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. To me, Mozilla is perfectly justified saying "we do not tolerate the intolerant, please leave our organization." Nobody at Mozilla (that I remember) was saying "put a ball gag on that man, he should not even be allowed to speak." The argument was "Mozilla doesn't tolerate this. By having him at the organization, we appear to tolerate it. We implicitly tolerate it. We pay him a salary and some of that money he spends on oppressing gays. He must go."
- philwelch 7y ago
  Eich was ousted in 2014 for having contributed to a campaign for a 2008 ballot referendum in California that passed, in a year when even Barack Obama was at least publicly opposed to same-sex marriage. It wasn’t an ongoing thing and there’s no evidence of any ongoing donations to “anti-gay organizations”, just a single political contribution six years previous in favor of a position publicly held by a majority of California voters and both Presidential candidates. Ironically, one of the interesting observations about Prop 8 was that it revealed a division in the so-called “Obama coalition” because many Californians who voted “yes” were culturally conservative people of color—people who vote Democrat on the federal level because of the Southern Strategy and other Republican appeals to white nationalism, but don’t share the values of white progressives. If support for Prop 8 was truly and consistently treated as a firing offense, the net effect would be very similar to outright racial discrimination. But fine, if that’s not enough for you, in 2009 there was a boycott of Whole Foods because their libertarian CEO wrote an op-ed in opposition to Obamacare. The motivation for these things isn’t some refined Popper-inspired theory of tolerance, it’s just old-fashioned intolerance of the most conservative 50% of the population.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else). Thus, in the Karl Popper's original view of the paradox of tolerance, he'd argue that we shouldn't suppress the intolerant ideology of the people who voted for that ballot, especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right? Look, for me, your ideology of suppressing all ideologies you deem intolerant, regardless of the actual actions of the followers, is very much intolerant, in the original sense of Popper: "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're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters. Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies?

by xyzzyz 7y ago

komali2 7y ago

I appreciate your approach here. Then again, while Karl Popper invented the term, his initial quote around it doesn't for me define law. But, to your point: > You think that Brendan Eich and people like him would meet you with fists and pistols if you didn’t suppress him by force? Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. I would not be surprised to learn of a weaponized gay uprising somewhere like Utah, particularly in the last century or two. It was literally war for survival for them. Still is, in parts of the world and even parts of America. The stories I could pass on to you, and you can easily find on your own, stretch straight into 2019. Eich was a member of this persecution class, even if he would be one saying "guys guys, we shouldn't HURT them for their gayness, even though their gayness is bad! Now here's another 1000$, feel free to spend it on tar." > Or are you merely, contrary to what Popper recommends, suppressing all intolerant philosophies? There's ambiguity here, around what "suppress" means, "suppress the utterance," "keep them in check," etc. Anyway, Popper's word isn't law, and he himself contributes to this ambiguity: > We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. To me, Mozilla is perfectly justified saying "we do not tolerate the intolerant, please leave our organization." Nobody at Mozilla (that I remember) was saying "put a ball gag on that man, he should not even be allowed to speak." The argument was "Mozilla doesn't tolerate this. By having him at the organization, we appear to tolerate it. We implicitly tolerate it. We pay him a salary and some of that money he spends on oppressing gays. He must go."

philwelch 7y ago
Eich was ousted in 2014 for having contributed to a campaign for a 2008 ballot referendum in California that passed, in a year when even Barack Obama was at least publicly opposed to same-sex marriage. It wasn’t an ongoing thing and there’s no evidence of any ongoing donations to “anti-gay organizations”, just a single political contribution six years previous in favor of a position publicly held by a majority of California voters and both Presidential candidates. Ironically, one of the interesting observations about Prop 8 was that it revealed a division in the so-called “Obama coalition” because many Californians who voted “yes” were culturally conservative people of color—people who vote Democrat on the federal level because of the Southern Strategy and other Republican appeals to white nationalism, but don’t share the values of white progressives. If support for Prop 8 was truly and consistently treated as a firing offense, the net effect would be very similar to outright racial discrimination. But fine, if that’s not enough for you, in 2009 there was a boycott of Whole Foods because their libertarian CEO wrote an op-ed in opposition to Obamacare. The motivation for these things isn’t some refined Popper-inspired theory of tolerance, it’s just old-fashioned intolerance of the most conservative 50% of the population.
xyzzyz 7y ago
Eich? No. Persecutors of homosexuals? Yes. Homosexuals have been thrown in prison, tarred and feathered, and subjected to physical and psychological torture masked as "medicine" in the past. But the ballot Eich voted for passed, and the homosexuals weren't met with fists in pistols in California afterwards (at least not any more than everyone else). Thus, in the Karl Popper's original view of the paradox of tolerance, he'd argue that we shouldn't suppress the intolerant ideology of the people who voted for that ballot, especially as we could successfully counter their intolerant ideology with rational arguments, right? Look, for me, your ideology of suppressing all ideologies you deem intolerant, regardless of the actual actions of the followers, is very much intolerant, in the original sense of Popper: "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're already at the "fists or pistols" stage, with mainstream media praising the milkshaking and excusing the Berkeley rioters. Please, ask yourself, are you completely sure you're not one of the baddies?