2 ms·

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it sounds similar Popper's standard response to the paradox: that we should reserve the right to use force to suppress i

by baddox 6y ago

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it sounds similar Popper's standard response to the paradox: that we should reserve the right to use force to suppress intolerance, but it should be a last resort. And I agree. However, I'm not sure what kind of "regulation" you're referring to, because if you mean that, say, only the government gets to decide when to use force to suppress intolerance, there's the obvious problem of "what happens if the government is intolerant?"

Udik 6y ago
> there's the obvious problem of "what happens if the government is intolerant?" Well, I guess that at some point you have to accept one risk or another. Any system can fail in one way or the other. I personally don't like laws limiting freedom of speech; but I also don't like angry mobs that openly and proudly exercise intolerance of anything that falls into their own entirely subjective definition of intolerance. I would like the state to protect me from those who try to set the limits of freedom of speech as it suits them; but I understand that if the state wants to take from the people the power to silence unacceptable speech, then it must provide some minimum guarantee by taking it upon itself. Best of all would be no laws, but education and common sense, and of course tolerance, from all parts: but again, what do you do if that fails?