5 ms·

People tend to forget that we are waging a war - an information war. And the first thing you do when you are at war is denying your opponent of any advantages.

People tend to forget that we are waging a war - an information war. And the first thing you do when you are at war is denying your opponent of any advantages. But regardless of current events, this could fit in the paradox of tolerance. Should we tolerate the intolerant, i.e. Russian apologists? History hasn't been very kind with the proponents of absolute freedom of discourse.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Should we tolerate the intolerant Yes. Tolerance is absolute, it must be capable of withstanding anything without compromising. Otherwise it is not tolerance, it is selective intolerance. A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others.
- lm28469 5y ago
  Well that's your definition. I'd recommend reading about the history of Europe and its philosophers, you'd discover many version of freedom, freedom of speech, tolerance, &c. Contrary to what Americans believe these things aren't written in stone by a Divine hand and are products of a long process
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    I'm not american. My country has even more restrictive freedom of speech laws than germany and they were inspired by the european ideas you mentioned. When in doubt, judges in my country will literally cite european law to support their decisions.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others. It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis. By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods. That’s pretty much the core of Popper’s paradox of tolerance: “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 most 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.”
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis. Not really. > By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods. If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality?
    - manuelabeledo 5y ago
      > If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality? You could just look back and see by yourself. We don't need to hypothesise about "what could happen", because it already has. Popper himself based his explanation of the paradox of tolerance in the rise of Nazi Germany.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        So we're supposed to impose truths on everyone whether they like it or not and exclude those who don't accept them? Do you realize that this is not tolerance but authoritarianism?
        manuelabeledo 5y ago
        We are supposed to not accept authoritarianism.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Should we tolerate the intolerant Yes. Tolerance is absolute, it must be capable of withstanding anything without compromising. Otherwise it is not tolerance, it is selective intolerance. A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others.

lm28469 5y ago
Well that's your definition. I'd recommend reading about the history of Europe and its philosophers, you'd discover many version of freedom, freedom of speech, tolerance, &c. Contrary to what Americans believe these things aren't written in stone by a Divine hand and are products of a long process
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  I'm not american. My country has even more restrictive freedom of speech laws than germany and they were inspired by the european ideas you mentioned. When in doubt, judges in my country will literally cite european law to support their decisions.
manuelabeledo 5y ago
> A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others. It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis. By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods. That’s pretty much the core of Popper’s paradox of tolerance: “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 most 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.”
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis. Not really. > By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods. If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality?
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    > If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality? You could just look back and see by yourself. We don't need to hypothesise about "what could happen", because it already has. Popper himself based his explanation of the paradox of tolerance in the rise of Nazi Germany.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      So we're supposed to impose truths on everyone whether they like it or not and exclude those who don't accept them? Do you realize that this is not tolerance but authoritarianism?
      - manuelabeledo 5y ago
        We are supposed to not accept authoritarianism.