5 ms·

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Know

Embracing Popper's thesis implies the existence of a line separating "tolerant ideologies" from "intolerant ideologies". Who is going to define that line? Knowing how the world works, I don't suspect, but I know it will be used to suppress things that the mob doesn't agree with, while that same mob preaches ideologies more violent and intolerant than the ones they suppress. Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens.

Jarwain 7y ago
I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote > 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 The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. That in and of itself is a belief, but it is a belief that can be discussed through rational argument, and only calls upon violence when all else fails.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  1. That line would still be hard to draw 2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized. While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of doing that, simply because moral issues are some of the most complicated questions in the world. We would never achieve a consensus about the underlying tolerance/intolerance of ideologies, because if we could do that, we would have already done it and we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    > 1. That line would still be hard to draw Perhaps I'm unusually gifted, but I find the line between violence and non violence quite easy to raw. One of the easiest of all lines, really.
    - username90 7y ago
      Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent. If you think that it is wrong to do that then you are on the pacifists side and not the "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance" side.
      - slfnflctd 7y ago
        > Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent Incorrect.
        username90 7y ago
        Stop spreading lies, exact quote: "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" Important part: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force" And there was no mention that the group were violent, just that they refused to listen. He mentioned that the group might get violent in the future not that they are, so we must strike them down preemptively.
    - dunkelheit 7y ago
      Perhaps you haven't given much thought to the edge cases then. For example what if someone is posting racist articles on the web, are they violent or not? Well that's pretty easy - even if they are not directly violent they may incite violence in others so they partly share the blame. But what if they explicitly say that they are categorically against violence and it will just abstractly be better if certain inferior races would not exist and back it up with a rational-sounding argument? Another example. Is peaceful protest violent or non-violent? Well it is peaceful, nobody touches anyone - it is right in the name. But the protesters will probably bring inconvenience to someone, otherwise they won't be noticed - e.g. a sit-in will obstruct the workings of the target establishment. Is it violence or not? Is public shaming violence or not? It is just words after all, but words that can ruin someone's life. Etc.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  > The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. Interestingly, if you merely outlaw the use of violence, then you have already countered such an ideology. And, thus, there is no need to concern oneself with the beliefs of any ideology.
  - rubinelli 7y ago
    Only the use of violence isn't enough; you have to ban the incitement to violence. Authoritarian causes never lacked martyrs.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Fair enough. But we still don't need the law to concern itself with anybody's ideology.
    - Mathnerd314 7y ago
      It depends on how good the enforcement is. If orbital space lasers were set up to incinerate anyone committing an act of violence within a few seconds, it's hard to see how incitement to violence would work. Comparable examples might be getting blocked for posting too fast and triggering the automated spam filter, or trying to harass someone by mailing them $100 bills. At the moment police response time is still 15 minutes though, and inadequate for large crowds, so there is some room for incitement. The bigger problem though is just having laws and having enforcement of those laws; there is too much room for corruption, abuse, etc.
      - trashtester 7y ago
        Not sure if you realize the irony of such extreme violence as a tool to counter violence. Perhaps you don't consider it violence if it is within the law? If so, is it violence to execute people for homosexual acts? What about ideologues that seek to introduce the the death penalty for gay sex? Or is such legal actions only non-violence if it is used to enforce the values that you happen to hold yourself?
rjblackman 7y ago
> Who is going to define that line? It will be defined through rational argument.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  While one would hope that, all evidence points to the line being decided by those who control or can put pressure on The Platforms.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
blub 7y ago
How can fighting intolerance "suppress things the mob does not agree with", if that is in itself intolerance? The whole point is to allow different ideas to exist.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  Look at the history of censorship and look at the current state of affairs. 9 out of 10 times, censorship is just a tool used to suppress things that the one in charge (a person, institution, or 'mob') doesn't like, while that same censor holds ideas equally or more intolerant than the suppressed ones. I don't want to go into specific examples, because otherwise this thread will devolve into a discussion about those specific issues. But look around and try to analyze things impartially.
Gormisdomai 7y ago
> Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens. I don't think this is true. The person in power can be wrong (e.g.) 10% of the time and you'd still have a mostly stable and tolerant system.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. It's simpler to see if you apply the Paradox recursively. There's a reason for an exception to tolerance. It's made only in case of people who directly want to get rid of other members of society. Society needs to get rid of them first. But if, in your quest of chasing out the intolerant, you extend the meaning of intolerance to anything beyond immediate threats to people, or if you start claiming collateral damage, then you are the intolerant that the society needs to get rid of ASAP. The groups currently wielding the Paradox as justification for their actions? If they actually believed in it, they'd dissolve.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. So, Popper's idea is basically a way for a minority who "knows best" to impose their will by force upon the "intolerant" majority (which they term "masses" or "mobs"). In might prevent Nazi-style harm (where the masses were pro Hitler), but it's a recipe for USSR-style harm (where the party knew better and lorded over the masses, "for their good", and protesters were labelled "a mob")...

Jarwain 7y ago

I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote > 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 The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. That in and of itself is a belief, but it is a belief that can be discussed through rational argument, and only calls upon violence when all else fails.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
1. That line would still be hard to draw 2. I know many ideologies that most people would consider "intolerant" but would fall under the "tolerant" umbrella because there's a rationalization for its intolerance. In fact, any ideology, as violent as it might be, can be rationalized. While it is also technically possible to discover the underlying, hidden 'intolerance' of an ideology, society at large is not capable of doing that, simply because moral issues are some of the most complicated questions in the world. We would never achieve a consensus about the underlying tolerance/intolerance of ideologies, because if we could do that, we would have already done it and we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > 1. That line would still be hard to draw Perhaps I'm unusually gifted, but I find the line between violence and non violence quite easy to raw. One of the easiest of all lines, really.
  - username90 7y ago
    Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent. If you think that it is wrong to do that then you are on the pacifists side and not the "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance" side.
    - slfnflctd 7y ago
      > Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent Incorrect.
      - username90 7y ago
        Stop spreading lies, exact quote: "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" Important part: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force" And there was no mention that the group were violent, just that they refused to listen. He mentioned that the group might get violent in the future not that they are, so we must strike them down preemptively.
  - dunkelheit 7y ago
    Perhaps you haven't given much thought to the edge cases then. For example what if someone is posting racist articles on the web, are they violent or not? Well that's pretty easy - even if they are not directly violent they may incite violence in others so they partly share the blame. But what if they explicitly say that they are categorically against violence and it will just abstractly be better if certain inferior races would not exist and back it up with a rational-sounding argument? Another example. Is peaceful protest violent or non-violent? Well it is peaceful, nobody touches anyone - it is right in the name. But the protesters will probably bring inconvenience to someone, otherwise they won't be noticed - e.g. a sit-in will obstruct the workings of the target establishment. Is it violence or not? Is public shaming violence or not? It is just words after all, but words that can ruin someone's life. Etc.
toasterlovin 7y ago
> The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. Interestingly, if you merely outlaw the use of violence, then you have already countered such an ideology. And, thus, there is no need to concern oneself with the beliefs of any ideology.
- rubinelli 7y ago
  Only the use of violence isn't enough; you have to ban the incitement to violence. Authoritarian causes never lacked martyrs.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Fair enough. But we still don't need the law to concern itself with anybody's ideology.
  - Mathnerd314 7y ago
    It depends on how good the enforcement is. If orbital space lasers were set up to incinerate anyone committing an act of violence within a few seconds, it's hard to see how incitement to violence would work. Comparable examples might be getting blocked for posting too fast and triggering the automated spam filter, or trying to harass someone by mailing them $100 bills. At the moment police response time is still 15 minutes though, and inadequate for large crowds, so there is some room for incitement. The bigger problem though is just having laws and having enforcement of those laws; there is too much room for corruption, abuse, etc.
    - trashtester 7y ago
      Not sure if you realize the irony of such extreme violence as a tool to counter violence. Perhaps you don't consider it violence if it is within the law? If so, is it violence to execute people for homosexual acts? What about ideologues that seek to introduce the the death penalty for gay sex? Or is such legal actions only non-violence if it is used to enforce the values that you happen to hold yourself?

rjblackman 7y ago

> Who is going to define that line? It will be defined through rational argument.

im3w1l 7y ago
While one would hope that, all evidence points to the line being decided by those who control or can put pressure on The Platforms.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

blub 7y ago

How can fighting intolerance "suppress things the mob does not agree with", if that is in itself intolerance? The whole point is to allow different ideas to exist.

lone_haxx0r 7y ago
Look at the history of censorship and look at the current state of affairs. 9 out of 10 times, censorship is just a tool used to suppress things that the one in charge (a person, institution, or 'mob') doesn't like, while that same censor holds ideas equally or more intolerant than the suppressed ones. I don't want to go into specific examples, because otherwise this thread will devolve into a discussion about those specific issues. But look around and try to analyze things impartially.

Gormisdomai 7y ago

> Popper's opinion only makes sense when the person in power (or the mob) is never wrong, and that never happens. I don't think this is true. The person in power can be wrong (e.g.) 10% of the time and you'd still have a mostly stable and tolerant system.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. It's simpler to see if you apply the Paradox recursively. There's a reason for an exception to tolerance. It's made only in case of people who directly want to get rid of other members of society. Society needs to get rid of them first. But if, in your quest of chasing out the intolerant, you extend the meaning of intolerance to anything beyond immediate threats to people, or if you start claiming collateral damage, then you are the intolerant that the society needs to get rid of ASAP. The groups currently wielding the Paradox as justification for their actions? If they actually believed in it, they'd dissolve.

coldtea 7y ago
>I think it's the mobs that need to be fought under Popper's thesis. So, Popper's idea is basically a way for a minority who "knows best" to impose their will by force upon the "intolerant" majority (which they term "masses" or "mobs"). In might prevent Nazi-style harm (where the masses were pro Hitler), but it's a recipe for USSR-style harm (where the party knew better and lorded over the masses, "for their good", and protesters were labelled "a mob")...