3 ms·

Karl Popper explained in detail why it’s perfectly rational to praise tolerance and still be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Karl Popper explained in detail why it’s perfectly rational to praise tolerance and still be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance “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.”

yesco 7y ago
> Popper took pains to make clear that he did not mean the expression of intolerant words and ideas, but in fact the opposite: They who must not be tolerated are those who wish to silence discussion and debate
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  Right. Killing “the jews” silences discussion and debate. I’d definitely advocate reading Popper’s own words instead of the potentially ambiguous wikipedia summary.
ican1 7y ago
Karl Popper was talking about intolerance as in a group who resort to violent actions against another group (e.g. killing people for making cartoons). Merely expressing an opinion is never intolerance. Karl Popper, a lifelong supporter of free speech, must be turning over in his grave to know that his opinions are now being used to stifle speech. Also who gets to define who is intolerant? Chinese government will surely say that the Hong Kong protesters are intolerant. Does it make it okay to censor them?
- alasdair_ 7y ago
  “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.” I completely agree that opposing views that can be argued against rationally should always be allowed. But we were talking about literal nazis who advocate (and act upon) VIOLENT intolerance.
  - ican1 7y ago
    Who gets to determine who is a "literal Nazi"? Is Jordan Peterson a "literal Nazi"? His films are currently being canceled.
gruez 7y ago
obligatory rebuttal whenever this gets brought up to excuse censorship: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t... recent subthread on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21229775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21229775
mensetmanusman 7y ago
Debunked
knzhou 7y ago
That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. From the other side, you look like the intolerant one.
- mlyle 7y ago
  Really, I don't think mentioning Popper is a facile response ;) One should actually be familiar with the source material to criticize it. You spout relentless apologia for Chinese government actions; for instance, you were arguing with me in the other thread about whether the pressure focused on the NBA/Rockets was Chinese government action. Silver has now confirmed that it was.

yesco 7y ago

> Popper took pains to make clear that he did not mean the expression of intolerant words and ideas, but in fact the opposite: They who must not be tolerated are those who wish to silence discussion and debate

alasdair_ 7y ago
Right. Killing “the jews” silences discussion and debate. I’d definitely advocate reading Popper’s own words instead of the potentially ambiguous wikipedia summary.

ican1 7y ago

Karl Popper was talking about intolerance as in a group who resort to violent actions against another group (e.g. killing people for making cartoons). Merely expressing an opinion is never intolerance. Karl Popper, a lifelong supporter of free speech, must be turning over in his grave to know that his opinions are now being used to stifle speech. Also who gets to define who is intolerant? Chinese government will surely say that the Hong Kong protesters are intolerant. Does it make it okay to censor them?

alasdair_ 7y ago
“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.” I completely agree that opposing views that can be argued against rationally should always be allowed. But we were talking about literal nazis who advocate (and act upon) VIOLENT intolerance.
- ican1 7y ago
  Who gets to determine who is a "literal Nazi"? Is Jordan Peterson a "literal Nazi"? His films are currently being canceled.

gruez 7y ago

obligatory rebuttal whenever this gets brought up to excuse censorship: https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-t... recent subthread on this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21229775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21229775

mensetmanusman 7y ago

Debunked

knzhou 7y ago

That's a facile response, because it works for everybody. Everybody intolerant thinks of themselves as a fundamentally tolerant person, whose hand has regrettably been forced by the unforgivable actions of the enemy tribe. From the other side, you look like the intolerant one.

mlyle 7y ago
Really, I don't think mentioning Popper is a facile response ;) One should actually be familiar with the source material to criticize it. You spout relentless apologia for Chinese government actions; for instance, you were arguing with me in the other thread about whether the pressure focused on the NBA/Rockets was Chinese government action. Silver has now confirmed that it was.