4 ms·

Paradox of tolerance; the only way to have a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance. You have to make that exception or you lose the entire thing.

Paradox of tolerance; the only way to have a tolerant society is to be intolerant of intolerance. You have to make that exception or you lose the entire thing. Very much a “sorry not sorry” about “cancel culture”.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago
Yeah that "paradox of tolerance" is just bullshit. You may as well admit that tolerance in general is not attainable. I understand why you people want to censor other people. But don't claim you do it in the name of tolerance. It's all just a power game.
naasking 5y ago
Popper didn't say to be intolerant of all intolerance, he said only to be intolerant of intolerance that cannot be countered by reasoned argument or kept in check by popular opinion. In no sense are far-right ideas "popular", and they are easily countered by reasoned arguments. Popper's paradox of intolerance is probably the most misused and misquoted argument in online debates these past few years.
- dariusj18 5y ago
  Except they are proving difficult to keep in check. January 6th was pivotal because 1. It's very lucky it didn't go in the other direction, 2. People watching learned a few lessons for the next time.
  - naasking 5y ago
    I disagree that they are difficult to keep in check. Jan 6th was a failure of capitol police and other law enforcement agencies. The mob that breached the capitol was around 800 people, which is easily managed by a small police force. They had ample evidence that these protests would be in the tens of thousands. I'm sure you've seen the police presence for BLM protests, so I think the response here speaks for itself. I honestly don't see how this indicates the far-right are difficult to keep in check. It really shows that law enforcement didn't even try, either because they didn't believe they would become riotous or violent, or (hopefully not) for more nefarious reasons.
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      That's part of the issue though. Difficult to keep in check means militarizing our Capitol. That's not a good thing and is bad on many levels.
      - naasking 5y ago
        Why? There are over 1,500 capitol police officers. That's more than enough. Militarizing the capitol the way they did was total overkill; security theatre that they used to get a bigger budget.
        dariusj18 5y ago
        Because security is an illusion, and theater is a part of that. January 6th shattered part of that illusion and, having happened, it is now a part of the consciousness. Every protest will now be a possible threat, a chance for fear to win. Until there is enough time passed for it to fade it must not be reproduced. Also, I don't want a situation where 1500 capitol police even have to defend our institutions. Getting to that point is already a major lose.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago

Yeah that "paradox of tolerance" is just bullshit. You may as well admit that tolerance in general is not attainable. I understand why you people want to censor other people. But don't claim you do it in the name of tolerance. It's all just a power game.

naasking 5y ago

Popper didn't say to be intolerant of all intolerance, he said only to be intolerant of intolerance that cannot be countered by reasoned argument or kept in check by popular opinion. In no sense are far-right ideas "popular", and they are easily countered by reasoned arguments. Popper's paradox of intolerance is probably the most misused and misquoted argument in online debates these past few years.

dariusj18 5y ago
Except they are proving difficult to keep in check. January 6th was pivotal because 1. It's very lucky it didn't go in the other direction, 2. People watching learned a few lessons for the next time.
- naasking 5y ago
  I disagree that they are difficult to keep in check. Jan 6th was a failure of capitol police and other law enforcement agencies. The mob that breached the capitol was around 800 people, which is easily managed by a small police force. They had ample evidence that these protests would be in the tens of thousands. I'm sure you've seen the police presence for BLM protests, so I think the response here speaks for itself. I honestly don't see how this indicates the far-right are difficult to keep in check. It really shows that law enforcement didn't even try, either because they didn't believe they would become riotous or violent, or (hopefully not) for more nefarious reasons.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    That's part of the issue though. Difficult to keep in check means militarizing our Capitol. That's not a good thing and is bad on many levels.
    - naasking 5y ago
      Why? There are over 1,500 capitol police officers. That's more than enough. Militarizing the capitol the way they did was total overkill; security theatre that they used to get a bigger budget.
      - dariusj18 5y ago
        Because security is an illusion, and theater is a part of that. January 6th shattered part of that illusion and, having happened, it is now a part of the consciousness. Every protest will now be a possible threat, a chance for fear to win. Until there is enough time passed for it to fade it must not be reproduced. Also, I don't want a situation where 1500 capitol police even have to defend our institutions. Getting to that point is already a major lose.