The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.
Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.
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.
Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.
Nope. Don’t care. If you’re a Nazi then I’m going to punch you. People who call for the death of others do not deserve kindness. They deserve the violence they so heavily crave to give others. There is zero justification you can use to allow people like that to exist in society when they actively try to destroy people within it for their own twisted goals and purposes.
As potterpockets said, those who seek to break the social contract do not get the benefit of its protection.
I thought I made it quite clear but I will simplify it further for you: the tolerance paradox is misused to justify violence against people with whom the aggressor disagrees. It should not be used that way as it was never intended to be used that way. The top level comment is a classic example of not understanding what Popper wrote.
I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Which part confuses you?
I’ll ask again – to whom are you arguing against?
To repeat myself, I’m arguing that the top comment (and clearly you) doesn’t understand the paradox of tolerance. If you’re not going to read my comments before you reply, what are you hoping to achieve? You just come across as lacking even basic reading comprehension.
If a group disrespects another group, they disrespect it and some shame may befall them.
If they begin to rally for the diminishment of another group - that has caused no harm (other than imagined) - then that group has left the social contract and its protections.
You’re conflating conveniently and setting up a garbled false choice where you’re arguing in defense of tolerating intolerance because to do otherwise is bad and “both sides.”
Once one side proclaims that the other side deserves a punch in the face, the receivers may try to invoke your drivel, but they began by deciding a population should be removed or diminished.
The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.
Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.
Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.
Nope. Don’t care. If you’re a Nazi then I’m going to punch you. People who call for the death of others do not deserve kindness. They deserve the violence they so heavily crave to give others. There is zero justification you can use to allow people like that to exist in society when they actively try to destroy people within it for their own twisted goals and purposes.
As potterpockets said, those who seek to break the social contract do not get the benefit of its protection.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I thought I made it quite clear but I will simplify it further for you: the tolerance paradox is misused to justify violence against people with whom the aggressor disagrees. It should not be used that way as it was never intended to be used that way. The top level comment is a classic example of not understanding what Popper wrote.
deleted by creator
I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Which part confuses you?
To repeat myself, I’m arguing that the top comment (and clearly you) doesn’t understand the paradox of tolerance. If you’re not going to read my comments before you reply, what are you hoping to achieve? You just come across as lacking even basic reading comprehension.
I feel like you don’t get the paradox part. Being a nazi is opting out if the social web of protections of which tolerance is a part.
Punch a local nazi today, you’ll see that it’s a wholesome experience.
If a group disrespects another group, they disrespect it and some shame may befall them.
If they begin to rally for the diminishment of another group - that has caused no harm (other than imagined) - then that group has left the social contract and its protections.
You’re conflating conveniently and setting up a garbled false choice where you’re arguing in defense of tolerating intolerance because to do otherwise is bad and “both sides.”
Once one side proclaims that the other side deserves a punch in the face, the receivers may try to invoke your drivel, but they began by deciding a population should be removed or diminished.
It’s not the same.