3 ms·

> I think you underestimate how fragile Democracy is and you don't need to look much farther than Moscow. Which is exactly why we need to uphold classical libe

> I think you underestimate how fragile Democracy is and you don't need to look much farther than Moscow. Which is exactly why we need to uphold classical liberal principles, as well as speak truth with appropriate nuance. The best way to deal with a bad idea is with a better idea, not by silencing the bad idea. I'd have a lot more respect for Google in this case if they, in collaboration with researchers and experts, produced their own well-researched, nuanced, carefully stated arguments against what they disagree with.

tw04 5y ago
Ahh the old paradox of tolerance. What you preach has failed literally every time it has been tried throughout history. You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. And the irony of preaching tolerance while downvoting me is ripe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- pigeonhole123 5y ago
  So you’re saying we need to censor to protect freedom of speech?
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  > You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. I'm not proposing full tolerance of the intolerant. Rather, as Karl Popper explained, political institutions within a liberal democratic society are the most appropriate scope within which the people's will regarding what to tolerate is expressed. In other words, contact your representatives about what needs to be outlawed, and until something is outlawed, show liberal tolerance—which absolutely includes refuting bad ideas in public debate. Regarding YouTube, their choice to deplatform people is their choice -- and it's not against the law, since they own the platform. I certainly disagree with the wisdom behind their choice. It's likely to cause more problems than it solves; but I'm tolerating it even as I argue against it in public debate. (also, I didn't downvote you)
- ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
  At first pass, I don't see how this applies to people sharing information about vaccines whether personal experience, science, or misunderstood science. How would you say that people sharing information about vaccines and their effects are intolerant? How would you say that people not wanting to get vaccinated are intolerant of any particular demographic group? That's not targeting anyone by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. It's a decision for them self about their person.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  > You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. [citation needed]. Popper's personal opinion that you linked to (and that is now used in a much more absolutist way that originally intended by its author, who never intended to cheer for censorship and crackdowns in name of democracy) isn't data and Full stop isn't a proof. Yes, Popper was smart. No, he wasn't an oracle of unquestionable wisdom. Tell me, how was legalization of marijuana in the U.S. won? After all, chucking people into prison for decades is quite some intolerance. Did the MJ lovers stage an insurrection? No, they won at the ballot box, which is the tolerant way. Not by reverse oppression of their enemies. To disprove a sentence that says "every time", one example to the contrary is enough. This is your example. For another, take gay rights. There wasn't a gay revolution that would smite the religious conservatives and crush them.

tw04 5y ago

Ahh the old paradox of tolerance. What you preach has failed literally every time it has been tried throughout history. You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. And the irony of preaching tolerance while downvoting me is ripe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

pigeonhole123 5y ago
So you’re saying we need to censor to protect freedom of speech?
TimTheTinker 5y ago
> You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. I'm not proposing full tolerance of the intolerant. Rather, as Karl Popper explained, political institutions within a liberal democratic society are the most appropriate scope within which the people's will regarding what to tolerate is expressed. In other words, contact your representatives about what needs to be outlawed, and until something is outlawed, show liberal tolerance—which absolutely includes refuting bad ideas in public debate. Regarding YouTube, their choice to deplatform people is their choice -- and it's not against the law, since they own the platform. I certainly disagree with the wisdom behind their choice. It's likely to cause more problems than it solves; but I'm tolerating it even as I argue against it in public debate. (also, I didn't downvote you)
ScoobleDoodle 5y ago
At first pass, I don't see how this applies to people sharing information about vaccines whether personal experience, science, or misunderstood science. How would you say that people sharing information about vaccines and their effects are intolerant? How would you say that people not wanting to get vaccinated are intolerant of any particular demographic group? That's not targeting anyone by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. It's a decision for them self about their person.
inglor_cz 5y ago
> You can’t stop intolerance with tolerance, you will lose every time. Full stop. [citation needed]. Popper's personal opinion that you linked to (and that is now used in a much more absolutist way that originally intended by its author, who never intended to cheer for censorship and crackdowns in name of democracy) isn't data and Full stop isn't a proof. Yes, Popper was smart. No, he wasn't an oracle of unquestionable wisdom. Tell me, how was legalization of marijuana in the U.S. won? After all, chucking people into prison for decades is quite some intolerance. Did the MJ lovers stage an insurrection? No, they won at the ballot box, which is the tolerant way. Not by reverse oppression of their enemies. To disprove a sentence that says "every time", one example to the contrary is enough. This is your example. For another, take gay rights. There wasn't a gay revolution that would smite the religious conservatives and crush them.