5 ms·

> People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence In your quote from Popper, he doesn't tie the suppression spe

> People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence In your quote from Popper, he doesn't tie the suppression specifically to violence, does he? "they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument" isn't a violence related criteria; merely "they insist on arguing in bad faith". Or "they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive" which is basically predicting the "FAKE NEWS" crowd; again, not specifically violence related. ("and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" is, I think, an extra clause rather than a conjunction to the rational argument clause.)

gfodor 6y ago
it seems evident that if "fists or pistols" are in play then certainly intolerance for that is a given. you are correct that its not tied to that exclusively, and given the obvious intolerance for that the more material threshold seems to be abandoning engagement altogether. that said, I don't agree with your assessment that people saying the news is fake meets the test. from my vantage point the mainstream news is fake, for the most part, at this time, at least when it comes to politics. "the news" is not the forum for rational argumentation, not in my country at least. it seems to be close to pure propaganda, at least on the issues that are the most divisive. the forum for rational argument are the online public squares and in-person gatherings. and this is where Popper's argument in my opinion holds increasing relevance. people retreating into filter bubbles and presuming their ideological opponents are evil, immoral to even engage with, etc, seems more in line with Popper's argument and is as prevalent as the news media propaganda. it doesn't take more than a few minutes to find examples of people on the right saying those on the left are secret communist pedophiles, and people on the left saying those on the right are white supremacists. (not the fringes, but that the mainstream views are in alignment with those labels.) this is the kind of intolerance the tolerant ought to push back against.

gfodor 6y ago

it seems evident that if "fists or pistols" are in play then certainly intolerance for that is a given. you are correct that its not tied to that exclusively, and given the obvious intolerance for that the more material threshold seems to be abandoning engagement altogether. that said, I don't agree with your assessment that people saying the news is fake meets the test. from my vantage point the mainstream news is fake, for the most part, at this time, at least when it comes to politics. "the news" is not the forum for rational argumentation, not in my country at least. it seems to be close to pure propaganda, at least on the issues that are the most divisive. the forum for rational argument are the online public squares and in-person gatherings. and this is where Popper's argument in my opinion holds increasing relevance. people retreating into filter bubbles and presuming their ideological opponents are evil, immoral to even engage with, etc, seems more in line with Popper's argument and is as prevalent as the news media propaganda. it doesn't take more than a few minutes to find examples of people on the right saying those on the left are secret communist pedophiles, and people on the left saying those on the right are white supremacists. (not the fringes, but that the mainstream views are in alignment with those labels.) this is the kind of intolerance the tolerant ought to push back against.