Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I’m a big believer in Karl poppers paradox of tolerance

Karl popper was right in his words β€œUnlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance

God I fricking hate redditors peepeeriding Popper and the paradox of tolerance so fricking much :marseyraging:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Especially because they get it wrong.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They do, it's so funny.

Redditors: karl pooper said if you let people freely exchange ideas they will inevitably conclude nazism is the way to go

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They make it sound like Nazism is the right choice and superior idea.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseywrongthonk:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Literally the next paragraph contradicts the Reddit Interpretation of the paradox. It's just so emblematic of how lazy and uninformed redditors are.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Got a link I’ve never read it

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Literally the wikipedia page. The part redditors quote is in bold:

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the 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. β€”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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

Where is the contradiction?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The contradiction is that redditors use (the first part of) this passage to justify why people with badthink must not be allowed to express their opinions and why all argument with them must be denounced pre-emptively. I.E. they're exhibiting the exact behaviour which Popper said is not justified and must not be tolerated.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yes, but when do you define the boundary for when you can counter someone with rational logic? And when are you no longer keeping them in check by public opinion? Conspiracy theorists are an example of people who are impenetrable to rational thought and would therefore meet the criteria set by his "rule" especially given the now widespread prevalence of these beliefs resulting in negative real-world harm, such as antivax conspiracy theorists resulting in the reemergence of numerous previously controlled infections (I'm not even talking about Covid-19). I don't see any contradiction, but you would be free to disagree as to when that line should be drawn.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The criterion isn't "am I successfully countering this idea with my arguments", the criterion is "are the people I disagree with engaging in rational argument". In other words, the only condition under which you're allowed to dispense with argument and resort to force is if your opponents have resorted to force first.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

Yeah, you're only supposed to not tolerate it when the other side resorts to violence. Which isn't a huge philosophical take. Beat up people who try to kick your butt. Wow so fricking brilliant.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Everything is violence when "mental health" is seen as this tangible part of their being. All they have to claim is that you're making them sad and anxious and you're basically assaulting them.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>Micro aggression

>Micro assault (actually had that term defined to me in a seminar in college)

The way to limit speech is a little bit at a time by associating it with physical aggression

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.