5 ms·
He's not advocating for a world free of intolerance; in fact, he advocates for the use of intolerance when necessary, and describes when it is necessary. Intole
by dleslie 4y ago
He's not advocating for a world free of intolerance; in fact, he advocates for the use of intolerance when necessary, and describes when it is necessary. Intolerance can be rational, after all; and intolerance can be moral.
FWIW, I am aware of the full quote because I've seen it elsewhere; but then, I used to spend quite a lot of time arguing on the intarwebs.
- golemotron 4y agoThe thing Popper misses is that once you rationalize your own intolerance, others will rationalize theirs, missing the nuance of his limit.
- dleslie 4y agoHe advocates to be intolerant of those who refuse engage in rational argument and those who opt for violence. The nuance is in the limit. If a person, in their intolerance, is resorting to violence towards those that are not doing likewise, then they are in the wrong. Even if they believe that they are abiding by the limit when doing so. Rational argument should always be the preferred course of action, and intolerance and violence only as a bitter last resort.
- golemotron 4y agoPeople miss the nuance and become intolerant even when violence isn't on the table.
- dleslie 4y agoOf course, but that doesn't mean they're unwilling to talk, and it's only when they cause violence that we should be intolerant of them.