8 ms·

Popper's quote is often quite misconstrued. Here it is, in context: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited to

by rjf72 7y ago

Popper's quote is often quite misconstrued. Here it is, in context: "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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." He is specifically framing the issue as one where an ideology goes outside of the realm of debate and on to violence. So for instance an ideology that says 'attack migrants' is obviously something that should be suppressed because these people have skipped the whole debate step and instead appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner. But, by contrast, an ideology that argues for reasons why unchecked migration may be unhealthy for a society and lobbies for according change is something some may consider intolerant, but is quite obviously not what he was referring to. On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.

novaleaf 7y ago
thank you so much for putting the Popper quote here. This is the first I have heard of it, but it sounds very reasonable.
- makomk 7y ago
  Superficially, it does sound quite reasonable. The problem is that the quote itself is a call for people to abandon rational debate and use violence, not just against targets who have themselves eschewed debate for violence but against "any movement preaching intolerance". Whilst his justification is that those movements might themselves eschew debate for violence, he very specifically does not restrict this to movements which have done so or even threatened to do so. So for instance, Poppler's paradox is easily used to justify violent intolerance of anyone who opposes unchecked immigration. Not only are they preaching intolerance, but people with very similar-sounding views are actually violently attacking immigrants so it's easy to justify the claim that those ones might as well.
  - novaleaf 7y ago
    I think the key mitigation is: > "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" But I understand your point. To that end, attacking illegal immigrants would be "intolerant". But what about advocating their arrest and deportation?
  - rjf72 7y ago
    The reason I offered Popper's entire quote is because while I do think many people use it as are you suggesting, his quote makes it quite clear that is not what he is suggesting. He is speaking of an intolerant view as one that is intolerant of alternative views. In other words a view that: - refuses to debate or discuss its merits and values - refuses to meaningfully consider or discuss alternatives - responds to discussion with aggression The book which includes his quote was published in 1945, Popper was of Jewish ancestry, and the book was speaking primarily about avoiding totalitarianism. His philosophy should be taken in that context. People are manipulating his quote to try to justify intolerance of anything except their own world view, but it is this exact sort of totalitarianism he was suggesting that may imperil an open and free society. In particular he also defined an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society." Intolerance trends towards a closed society where you believe what you are supposed to believe, or face the consequences. Tolerance trends towards an open society where individuals may not agree, but are free to express themselves and challenge one another on any view or value.
vmh1928 7y ago
There's an interesting parallel here by Nassim Taleb, author of several books the most famous of which might be The Black Swan. In this article, a chapter from an in-progress book, he contends that the most intolerant faction will eventually come to dominate. In the article he's talking about extremist Muslims but it could just as easily be extremist Christians or extremist white nationalists. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Indeed his example is Julian the Apostate
kyledrake 7y ago
> On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views. With all due respect, "Antifa" in their use of the word is almost completely a straw man created by the extreme right to justify their insane and violent behavior. A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland doesn't equivocate to me with a group of people that are using stochastic terrorism tactics to murder hundreds of people. I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).
- afiori 7y ago
  I don't think there is any respect in this reply. > They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false). Literally it was a police officer who saw and reported "what looked like" quick drying concrete. > lie that was completely false There were people associated with antifa publicizing this. > I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. There is no "both side" there is violent extremists, whether they agree or not between themselves is irrelevant. > hasn't even killed a single person yet. Is this seriously the threshold for political violence and abandoning political rationality? (And anyway after Tacoma it is not for a lack of trying). Right now what I see is one side being allowed with mainstream opinion of defending political violence. Antifa is performing political violence. Throwing a milkshake is not self-defense, it is political violence. Alt-right extremism is also political violence. I only see despicable people in both groups. I see no reasons why one side faults should excuse the other.
  - marmada 7y ago
    By equating "milkshake throwing" with the violence of the alt-right (using guns to murder tens/hundreds of innocent civilians) you portray both sides as equal when one side has clearly done something that is much more morally reprehensible. This form of "enlightened centrism" is insidious because while it claims to be "neutral" and "unbiased", in reality, it artificially gives a moral advantage to one side (in this case the alt-right). It also ignores that sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the greater good. Do you disagree with either of the following two points? 1. Even if milkshake throwing is bad, it is objectively less bad than shooting innocent civilians. 2. The "political violence" committed by the left is much smaller compared to the political violence committed by the right.

by rjf72 7y ago

novaleaf 7y ago

thank you so much for putting the Popper quote here. This is the first I have heard of it, but it sounds very reasonable.

makomk 7y ago
Superficially, it does sound quite reasonable. The problem is that the quote itself is a call for people to abandon rational debate and use violence, not just against targets who have themselves eschewed debate for violence but against "any movement preaching intolerance". Whilst his justification is that those movements might themselves eschew debate for violence, he very specifically does not restrict this to movements which have done so or even threatened to do so. So for instance, Poppler's paradox is easily used to justify violent intolerance of anyone who opposes unchecked immigration. Not only are they preaching intolerance, but people with very similar-sounding views are actually violently attacking immigrants so it's easy to justify the claim that those ones might as well.
- novaleaf 7y ago
  I think the key mitigation is: > "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" But I understand your point. To that end, attacking illegal immigrants would be "intolerant". But what about advocating their arrest and deportation?
- rjf72 7y ago
  The reason I offered Popper's entire quote is because while I do think many people use it as are you suggesting, his quote makes it quite clear that is not what he is suggesting. He is speaking of an intolerant view as one that is intolerant of alternative views. In other words a view that: - refuses to debate or discuss its merits and values - refuses to meaningfully consider or discuss alternatives - responds to discussion with aggression The book which includes his quote was published in 1945, Popper was of Jewish ancestry, and the book was speaking primarily about avoiding totalitarianism. His philosophy should be taken in that context. People are manipulating his quote to try to justify intolerance of anything except their own world view, but it is this exact sort of totalitarianism he was suggesting that may imperil an open and free society. In particular he also defined an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society." Intolerance trends towards a closed society where you believe what you are supposed to believe, or face the consequences. Tolerance trends towards an open society where individuals may not agree, but are free to express themselves and challenge one another on any view or value.

vmh1928 7y ago

There's an interesting parallel here by Nassim Taleb, author of several books the most famous of which might be The Black Swan. In this article, a chapter from an in-progress book, he contends that the most intolerant faction will eventually come to dominate. In the article he's talking about extremist Muslims but it could just as easily be extremist Christians or extremist white nationalists. https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

selimthegrim 7y ago
Indeed his example is Julian the Apostate

kyledrake 7y ago

> On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views. With all due respect, "Antifa" in their use of the word is almost completely a straw man created by the extreme right to justify their insane and violent behavior. A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland doesn't equivocate to me with a group of people that are using stochastic terrorism tactics to murder hundreds of people. I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).

afiori 7y ago
I don't think there is any respect in this reply. > They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false). Literally it was a police officer who saw and reported "what looked like" quick drying concrete. > lie that was completely false There were people associated with antifa publicizing this. > I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. There is no "both side" there is violent extremists, whether they agree or not between themselves is irrelevant. > hasn't even killed a single person yet. Is this seriously the threshold for political violence and abandoning political rationality? (And anyway after Tacoma it is not for a lack of trying). Right now what I see is one side being allowed with mainstream opinion of defending political violence. Antifa is performing political violence. Throwing a milkshake is not self-defense, it is political violence. Alt-right extremism is also political violence. I only see despicable people in both groups. I see no reasons why one side faults should excuse the other.
- marmada 7y ago
  By equating "milkshake throwing" with the violence of the alt-right (using guns to murder tens/hundreds of innocent civilians) you portray both sides as equal when one side has clearly done something that is much more morally reprehensible. This form of "enlightened centrism" is insidious because while it claims to be "neutral" and "unbiased", in reality, it artificially gives a moral advantage to one side (in this case the alt-right). It also ignores that sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the greater good. Do you disagree with either of the following two points? 1. Even if milkshake throwing is bad, it is objectively less bad than shooting innocent civilians. 2. The "political violence" committed by the left is much smaller compared to the political violence committed by the right.