43 ms·

> "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "para

> "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "paradox of intolerance", where he defines intolerance as those who resort to violence instead of speech, and the would be censors of this age who bring up the paradox - without seeming to have read it - tell us that the intolerant are those we disagree with. "we" being those the would be censors disagree with. > free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour > if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society I agree. There is a clear line, which is crossed the moment someone resorts to violence instead of speech, and it has been drawn clearly in law. The bad actors would be those looking to reduce freedoms such as speech, based on nothing more than disagreement, which as it happens is something fascists (among others) have done when they've had the chance.

atoav 6y ago
I am quite convinced Popper would have disagreed that the line doesn't needs to be drawn (in some cases) before violence — at least this is what I learned about him when I studied philosophy in Vienna, the city where he grew up in. Popper e.g. also says that the goal of elections is to have a transfer of power without having to have civil wars, guillotines and other violent means. This means to prevent violence we have to maintain certain rules. This doesn't mean however, that we have to wait till bad actors in fact act violently, after e.g. having stated they want to abolish these rules, after threatening violence, after breaking present rules and stretching present conventions etc. This means that he didn't want to suppress intolerant views (IF they can be hold in balance with rational arguments and public discourse) — instead he would plead to limit their effects on society (thus reducing potential future violence). But it has been over a decade since I read Popper, so maybe you read something I didn't.
- tupputuppu 6y ago
  Popper's idea was that people need to be free to discuss and debate different perspectives. When most people don't feel free to voice their opinions I think it's safe to say the culture and institutions we have don't support that goal.
  - pas 6y ago
    There's a difference between "not allowing racists/bigots to shout whatever insult they happen to come up with", and "banning research into biological underpinnings of cognition, intelligence, etc". Most people are not scholars, at best pundits, but even if they are, most of their thoughts are still not careful and nuanced constructive arguments. And maybe, just maybe, putting some brakes on the global cyber hate wave machines, where anyone can share/amplify the most damaging shit with one click is not a bad idea. That said, partisanship bias, fairness, justice are all related problems when it comes to how to apply those brakes. And yes, the institutions are shit, both old and new. Academia, FB/Tw, MSM, parties/congress, religions. But they are not without advantages, not unsalvageable.
- brigandish 6y ago
  I'm confused, who is saying that a line doesn't need to be drawn? The line already has been drawn, in law. SCOTUS has made the line clear and present danger[1]. That is, a threat made via speech has to be clear, credible and imminent else it is not considered a threat and hence not speech that may be interfered with legally, but if it is then it can be. It's distinctly possible you've read more Popper than I have but his words seem very clear here too[2]: > 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 He goes on to contrast that with those who give up on speech and respond with violence (and it's all within about a page). So we have a clear line and there's no need to wait for violence to actually occur before legal remedy can be sought, which would appear to me to fit with Popper's statement and what you studied. I completely agree with Popper on elections, and free speech fits the same mould, it's primary function is to reduce violence. Without free speech the options for those who wish to change society are only violent. With it there is no excuse for violence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger [2] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopperKarlSir/page/n837/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...
pas 6y ago
That line very much gets fuzzy if you look at it over time as law constantly changes. Call for immediate violence is treated very much like violence in a lot of jurisdictions.
- brigandish 6y ago
  The law has indeed changed over time, but that is the nature of common law, it changes as new challenges come up where novel arguments will arise. That doesn't make the law fuzzy though, it's clear enough for the vast majority of cases that occur at any one time. The actual statute upon which the law rests is in the constitution, I'm not aware of any changes to that since 1791.
cycomanic 6y ago
So are you proposing that the US should become part of the British Empire again? Because quite literally the founding of the US is based on protesters resorting to violence.
- brigandish 6y ago
  They resorted to violence because they didn't have free speech, which is why it was written in to the constitution, they'd had experience of government interference in their speech. Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is.
youareostriches 6y ago
It’s curious you mention these lines already being legally defined while seeming to not actually know what they are. US law already makes speech that incites violence illegal. There is plenty for you to learn in this area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

atoav 6y ago

I am quite convinced Popper would have disagreed that the line doesn't needs to be drawn (in some cases) before violence — at least this is what I learned about him when I studied philosophy in Vienna, the city where he grew up in. Popper e.g. also says that the goal of elections is to have a transfer of power without having to have civil wars, guillotines and other violent means. This means to prevent violence we have to maintain certain rules. This doesn't mean however, that we have to wait till bad actors in fact act violently, after e.g. having stated they want to abolish these rules, after threatening violence, after breaking present rules and stretching present conventions etc. This means that he didn't want to suppress intolerant views (IF they can be hold in balance with rational arguments and public discourse) — instead he would plead to limit their effects on society (thus reducing potential future violence). But it has been over a decade since I read Popper, so maybe you read something I didn't.

tupputuppu 6y ago
Popper's idea was that people need to be free to discuss and debate different perspectives. When most people don't feel free to voice their opinions I think it's safe to say the culture and institutions we have don't support that goal.
- pas 6y ago
  There's a difference between "not allowing racists/bigots to shout whatever insult they happen to come up with", and "banning research into biological underpinnings of cognition, intelligence, etc". Most people are not scholars, at best pundits, but even if they are, most of their thoughts are still not careful and nuanced constructive arguments. And maybe, just maybe, putting some brakes on the global cyber hate wave machines, where anyone can share/amplify the most damaging shit with one click is not a bad idea. That said, partisanship bias, fairness, justice are all related problems when it comes to how to apply those brakes. And yes, the institutions are shit, both old and new. Academia, FB/Tw, MSM, parties/congress, religions. But they are not without advantages, not unsalvageable.
brigandish 6y ago
I'm confused, who is saying that a line doesn't need to be drawn? The line already has been drawn, in law. SCOTUS has made the line clear and present danger[1]. That is, a threat made via speech has to be clear, credible and imminent else it is not considered a threat and hence not speech that may be interfered with legally, but if it is then it can be. It's distinctly possible you've read more Popper than I have but his words seem very clear here too[2]: > 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 He goes on to contrast that with those who give up on speech and respond with violence (and it's all within about a page). So we have a clear line and there's no need to wait for violence to actually occur before legal remedy can be sought, which would appear to me to fit with Popper's statement and what you studied. I completely agree with Popper on elections, and free speech fits the same mould, it's primary function is to reduce violence. Without free speech the options for those who wish to change society are only violent. With it there is no excuse for violence. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger [2] https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopperKarlSir/page/n837/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...

pas 6y ago

That line very much gets fuzzy if you look at it over time as law constantly changes. Call for immediate violence is treated very much like violence in a lot of jurisdictions.

brigandish 6y ago
The law has indeed changed over time, but that is the nature of common law, it changes as new challenges come up where novel arguments will arise. That doesn't make the law fuzzy though, it's clear enough for the vast majority of cases that occur at any one time. The actual statute upon which the law rests is in the constitution, I'm not aware of any changes to that since 1791.

cycomanic 6y ago

So are you proposing that the US should become part of the British Empire again? Because quite literally the founding of the US is based on protesters resorting to violence.

brigandish 6y ago
They resorted to violence because they didn't have free speech, which is why it was written in to the constitution, they'd had experience of government interference in their speech. Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is.

youareostriches 6y ago

It’s curious you mention these lines already being legally defined while seeming to not actually know what they are. US law already makes speech that incites violence illegal. There is plenty for you to learn in this area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action