Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is this really the reading comprehension level of the average rightoid? There is nothing in that paragraph that says that literal force is required for there to be a response of force to intolerance.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law

You really have to be fricking dumb to not understand that preaching intolerance is not an act of physical force right?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is immediately following a lengthy argument whereby Popper specifies the necessary level of intolerance to trigger suppression:

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

I.E. "intolerance" here should not be read in a vague sense but specifically means "people who won't tolerate hearing a contrary argument".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It very clearly states that they "MAY" do these things, not that any single one is a requirement. There would need to be context outside this paragraph to inform any further. Hence, that paragraph does not supply the contradiction you believe it does.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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