4 ms·
Scotland should kick them out as well. Also I find it kind of hilarious how many people who hate Brian Krebs go out of their way to comment on his website. “Fr
by ABeeSea 6y ago
Scotland should kick them out as well.
Also I find it kind of hilarious how many people who hate Brian Krebs go out of their way to comment on his website. “Free speech” warriors don’t seem to understand freedom to associate or free markets.
De-platforming violent extremists works. We should keep doing it. And shame any company willing to work with violent extremists.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoYea anyone we label violent extremists should be completely and utterly deplatformed. Also reported to their employer so they cannot earn money that enables them to commit more violence.
- zimpenfish 6y ago> anyone we label violent extremists should be completely and utterly deplatformed They've labeled themselves, though, by espousing violent extremist views.
- richardARPANET 6y agoextremist = anything you don't agree with
- CyberRabbi 6y agoI agree, they must be punished for their violent extremist seditionist views. They are a threat to our society. It’s called the “paradox of tolerance” the intolerant do not deserve rights because they have labeled themselves as intolerant.
- dang 6y agoPlease stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN. You've been doing it repeatedly, it's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of what they're battling for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Totally unrelated: if you want us to rename your account we can do that for you. It's easiest if you email hn@ycombinator.com. I'm just adding this here because I noticed you mentioned it in your profile.)
- CyberRabbi 6y agoSorry dang. I’m just passionate about this stuff. I’ll stop the anti-fascist posting. Thank you for your work on hn.
- gfodor 6y agoYou should go actually read what Popper said about the paradox of intolerance, instead of projecting your own interpretation onto it based upon your assumptions. Edit: here, I'll do it for you: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, 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. — 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." Put more succinctly: one ought to reserve the right to not tolerate the intolerant without limit, but we should always err to engage with them on the level of rational argument. Once they claim that rational argument is no longer the field on which they want to argue, and violence is, the right we reserve is to counter with our own intolerance of that, through violence if necessary, even though that is contrary to our principles of never being intolerant (hence the paradox.) So no, it doesn't mean you shouldn't tolerate intolerance. On the contrary, it means you should tolerate it as much as humanly possible, but not limitlessly. It's basically the inverse of what you and others claim it says. The paradox is the fact that unlimited tolerance of the intolerant is paradoxical, not that any tolerance of the intolerant is. People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence, specifically, are actually sitting on the "intolerant" side of this argument, funny enough.