5 ms·

i think the point is that sometimes bad people need to be called out and not just tolerated. it’s also called the paradox of tolerance, where if a society is t

i think the point is that sometimes bad people need to be called out and not just tolerated. it’s also called the paradox of tolerance, where if a society is tolerant of intolerance, eventually the intolerance will win by taking advantage of tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

kodah 6y ago
Any time I hear "small groups with loud voices" to describe what's going on in society these days, I think of this.
optimalsolver 6y ago
The documentary "The Power Of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis highlights an excellent example of this. During a 90s election in Algeria, a radical (and popular) Islamist party made it clear that if they won, their first action would be to cancel all future elections. This basically put all the secular parties (both left and right) in a bind. Do you just proceed with the election as if everything's normal, even though it might be the end of democracy if the radical group wins? On the other hand, if you decide to boot out the radicals from the democratic process, haven't you now ended free and fair elections?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > This basically put all the secular parties (both left and right) in a bind. Which is the solution. Bind themselves and everybody else. Have a constitution that enshrines the right to things like fair elections and free speech. Have an amendment process that requires two thirds of the Senate, in a Senate that only has one third of the seats up for election in any given year. And three quarters of the states, which rarely agree on anything. Things like that. Then even if the populists get in once, they don't have the power to end elections or free speech. And once the people see their true nature, they lose the next one. Obviously you do have to be very careful not to allow any end runs around that process.
Anon1096 6y ago
That's absolutely not the point. Scott Alexander from the Slate Star Codex is definitely not in favor of shutting down discussion from undesirables.
monoideism 6y ago
Have you read that Wikipedia article you cite? Because extra-judicial persecution of "bad people" [0] is something Popper never discussed or advocated for in _Open Societies and Its Enemies_. He very specifically advocates for this only when all else has failed, and only by the state itself -- being as such action doesn't bode well for any liberal democracy that undertakes such action. I know you've not read the book, but perhaps read the Wikipedia article you're citing. 0. I've seen a whole range of people called "bad people" by antifa types these days, from centrists all the way to white supremacists.

kodah 6y ago

Any time I hear "small groups with loud voices" to describe what's going on in society these days, I think of this.

optimalsolver 6y ago

The documentary "The Power Of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis highlights an excellent example of this. During a 90s election in Algeria, a radical (and popular) Islamist party made it clear that if they won, their first action would be to cancel all future elections. This basically put all the secular parties (both left and right) in a bind. Do you just proceed with the election as if everything's normal, even though it might be the end of democracy if the radical group wins? On the other hand, if you decide to boot out the radicals from the democratic process, haven't you now ended free and fair elections?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> This basically put all the secular parties (both left and right) in a bind. Which is the solution. Bind themselves and everybody else. Have a constitution that enshrines the right to things like fair elections and free speech. Have an amendment process that requires two thirds of the Senate, in a Senate that only has one third of the seats up for election in any given year. And three quarters of the states, which rarely agree on anything. Things like that. Then even if the populists get in once, they don't have the power to end elections or free speech. And once the people see their true nature, they lose the next one. Obviously you do have to be very careful not to allow any end runs around that process.

Anon1096 6y ago

That's absolutely not the point. Scott Alexander from the Slate Star Codex is definitely not in favor of shutting down discussion from undesirables.

monoideism 6y ago

Have you read that Wikipedia article you cite? Because extra-judicial persecution of "bad people" [0] is something Popper never discussed or advocated for in _Open Societies and Its Enemies_. He very specifically advocates for this only when all else has failed, and only by the state itself -- being as such action doesn't bode well for any liberal democracy that undertakes such action. I know you've not read the book, but perhaps read the Wikipedia article you're citing. 0. I've seen a whole range of people called "bad people" by antifa types these days, from centrists all the way to white supremacists.