2 ms·

My point is that if the laws allow intolerance then our ability to be a tolerant society will go away sooner or later. This is why I have no problem with laws t

My point is that if the laws allow intolerance then our ability to be a tolerant society will go away sooner or later. This is why I have no problem with laws that forbid hate speech, such as hate speech exhibited by Trump.

busterarm 5y ago
We're taking about being intollerant of bigotry here. What is it you're arguing to be tolerant of here? It's like you're picking two sides of the same argument depending on whom it favors. I suggest that you reread your quote as well. The very premise of Popper's argument is based upon society being tolerant without limit. That's the starting point. If I'm saying explicitly to be intolerant then this paradox does not even enter the conversation.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  Sorry for the confusion. I mostly agree with you, except the par here you say that it should be allowed because of the current laws. I think the idea of not tolerating intolerance should be worked more strongly into our laws. The advent of the internet has allowed sizable hate groups to organize and coordinate their efforts as well as accelerated the spread of misinformation. The problem with simply disproving of Trump is that he has enough supporters to approve of him that he essentially gets to keep operating on their backs without any actual impediment, and given what he does it is a detriment to the society as a whole.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    One of the unfortunate realities of the way that we constructed our Constitution and its amenmdment process is that if a significant enough group of Americans decide that this country should be an unpleasant place to live, then it will. And it should. That flaw is also from where it derives all of its power. While you would likely make the argument that hateful bigotry will tear this country apart, I might make the counter argument that going after the First Amendment would do the same. In reality, I hope that neither of us have to be proven right.

busterarm 5y ago

We're taking about being intollerant of bigotry here. What is it you're arguing to be tolerant of here? It's like you're picking two sides of the same argument depending on whom it favors. I suggest that you reread your quote as well. The very premise of Popper's argument is based upon society being tolerant without limit. That's the starting point. If I'm saying explicitly to be intolerant then this paradox does not even enter the conversation.

IgorPartola 5y ago
Sorry for the confusion. I mostly agree with you, except the par here you say that it should be allowed because of the current laws. I think the idea of not tolerating intolerance should be worked more strongly into our laws. The advent of the internet has allowed sizable hate groups to organize and coordinate their efforts as well as accelerated the spread of misinformation. The problem with simply disproving of Trump is that he has enough supporters to approve of him that he essentially gets to keep operating on their backs without any actual impediment, and given what he does it is a detriment to the society as a whole.
- busterarm 5y ago
  One of the unfortunate realities of the way that we constructed our Constitution and its amenmdment process is that if a significant enough group of Americans decide that this country should be an unpleasant place to live, then it will. And it should. That flaw is also from where it derives all of its power. While you would likely make the argument that hateful bigotry will tear this country apart, I might make the counter argument that going after the First Amendment would do the same. In reality, I hope that neither of us have to be proven right.