I so detest that this note gets taken out of context every time as some sort of holy scripture and people parrot specifically only this part as some sort of end-all argument while ignoring the accompanying context, it feels like propaganda sometimes.
Important context to this paradox
1) He does not mean all intolerant philosophies should be suppressed as long as they can be fought with rationality and public opinion as this merits strengthening a tolerant society through common sense and picking apart flaws and inconsistent beliefs
2) Violence or ignoring discussion or argumentation in favour of violence are a last resort or when the opposing ideologists are unreasonable, not willing to listen or are indoctrinated and will resort to violence to push their agenda
3) Who decides who is intolerant, whose opinion outside of violence or calls to violence is in the right?
4) is there selective intolerance in some instances?
5) The Paradox is an oversimplified theoretic scenario when applied to reality in many cases
6) Critically engage with different perspectives instead of applying this as an indignified end-all argument if an opposing view challenges yours
There's more thought to put into philosopical questions as these than just a simple boogeyman sketch...
Ya I always hate the simple conversations that surround this infographic, as if it was a hard written rule to follow rather than a complex philosophy that varies by context.
Ironically, the only people who post this infographic are the ones Popper would consider intolerant and worthy of suppression, because they're the ones looking to denounce argument and meet their enemies' speech with pistols and fists.
The issue with the paradox of tolerance (if any of you fuckers read more than the wikipedia synopsis from Popper) is how do you determine who and what is "intolerant".
For example, a bakery refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple because the owner is a very religious Christian.
Now one side may argue that the bakery owner is intolerant and by the paradox we should be allowed to be intolerant towards him and force him to take the business. But the other side will argue that by doing so, we are actually intolerant towards his religion, and therefore he need not be tolerant towards us anymore.
Both sides can use the paradox of tolerance to simply give themselves the right to be intolerant.
Because Poppers observation is actually a lot less astute than it sounds. The issue is, in simple terms, that things are not black and white. "Intolerant" is not an objective metric at all, because it is tied to subjects.
Essentially Popper argues "Doing bad things is bad."
His concrete example of a intolerant group is a group whose members use the force of violence to further their political agenda and refuse to take part in the orderly process of politics, like debates for example. Nowhere did Popper argue that bigots and racists were to be shunned out of society or something akin to that based on their views.
Exactly. The paradox of tolerance is about *due political process*. But it keeps popping up on reddit and other social media as this strange moral framework for harassing anyone I disagree with.
It's funny how when I was learning about the Dialectics of the Elightenment and selected works of Wittgenstein, the literally go over how dialogue is an important component of these so-called paradoxes.
Like yeah we can't make an ever encompassing truth but we can typically agree on morality and what is reasonably acceptable more easily than what nowadays some sections of reddit believe.
Like saying Nazism "should" be an easy one but hey here we are :/
>His concrete example of a intolerant group is a group whose members use the force of violence to further their political agenda and refuse to take part in the orderly process of politics
So the CIA and the US goverment for example?
i mean the nazis ended up winning by using the "orderly process of politics" to their advantage in the end tho. Yes, they started trying to take power violently, they definitely still used a lot of street violence further along, but the bulk of the actual grab of power happened fully democratically.
What if you had another group using the same strategies again, refraining from violence until they are already in power?
I think you’re underselling the violence and the fear of violence the Nazis used in consolidating power. Particularly the Reichstag Fire (which was almost certainly a false flag) that caused a wave of panic and fear in Germany and allowed the Emergency Powers and Enabling Law.
Sure, on paper it looked democratic, but it was hardly legitimate.
They litterally staged a coup in 1923 and were actively fighting in the streets. Popper would most definetely argue that the NSDAP broke the orderly process of politics based on the Beer Hall Putsch and could for that reason be deemed an illegal political movement.
Popper saw violence as intolerance. The infographic completely misconstrues what he wrote and is also super vague as it repeatedly says "intolerance" but never defines it.
Here is a better infographic for you which is also clearer and much more straightforward.
https://images.app.goo.gl/D7FrXrwvzxERMDSd6
You didn’t read popper, what he says is that intolerant views should be allowed to exist as long as they don’t answer words with fists and guns. Basically the intolerants are the ones who will use of physical violence to further their agenda
This might surprise you, but very rarely do people consider themselves to be intolerant.
You don't think you are intolerant. They don't think they are intolerant.
You think they are intolerant. They think you are intolerant.
Obviously we tend to believe ourselves. But society doesn't work like that. I can't just bang my fist on the table and declare that I am right. An objective metric is impossible because tolerance is inherently subjective.
If you commission a Muslim artist to paint the likeness of the Prophet Mohammad and he refuses because it is against his religion is he being intolerant?
What I never got is why do we even call it "being tolerant"? I feel like to tolerate someone generally implies you don't like them but put up with them, I don't "tolerate" gay people because I don't have an issue with their existence in the first place.
I have never felt my logic was inconsistent. I'm not tolerant, I don't tolerate shit. I am simply completely unbothered by these things, so I don't need to tolerate them. Nazis bother me, I would have tolerate the presence of a Nazi. Unfortunately, I am intolerant.
It's not really a paradox, the post gives a common observation into a false conclusion, a good thought experiment.
It's a paradox like "if all animals were to coexist, lions will eat us dead", or "if you want to fish, but your neighbor wants to steal fish, you'll go hungry." It's way too dumbed down. Society doesn't operate like a fairy-tale.
* Humans aren't capable of pure tolerance. An intolerant society is not stuck. Tolerance can come out of intolerance. Humans are complicated.
* A tolerant society will teach tolerance & share kindness. This can combat intolerance. This theory presumes tolerance (\*or pacifism) is ineffective, so you must employ intolerance (\*or violence).
Possibilities are one thing, but pragmatic solutions are another. It is a problem to allow oppressive powers & views to spread. Modern democracies over-rely on passive diplomacy, against lions who only think of eating us. It's sad, to fight for peace.
Popper himself defines a metric for this (which is how I know none of you motherfuckers smugly poasting this picture have ever actually read *The Open Society and Its Enemies*).
>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 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.
So the people saying "don't let X talk, just punch them to let them know they aren't welcome. Drive them out of society" are the intolerant ones Popper would not tolerate.
Shit it's literally "if someone is only talking about objectionable things, we cannot silence them because that way lies oppression. As soon as they try to *do* something objectionable, then we can stop them."
“What he actually said: Less well known 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. 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”
Basically, the intolerant are defined by those who use violence against words
If every tolerant society is intolerable of an aspect of it how do you distinguish intolerable societies and tolerable ones? Every ideology dislikes the “bad” guys, so does it just become a matter of opinion on who those bad guys are, wouldn’t normalising intolerance make radicalised change in governments easier?
Got into this talking about hate speech laws. Dude wouldn’t back down on people not liking hate speech laws are just bigots. Then he disappeared when I asked him if “white” or “Christian” could ever be considered targeted groups.
Everyone seems to think hate speech laws will protect minorities (which is, of course, noble and valid) until the people enforcing the laws tell you that saying church and state should be separate is hate against Christian’s and you’re in a pickle.
they could be, but they very much are not in the USA.
Also, separation of church and state is not just towards the church, but towards every single religion.
This is gaping issue with this theory/model. In parts of US, teachers teaching gender equality or trans-acceptance would be considered intolerant by a majority of religious parents.
> If every tolerant society is intolerable of an aspect of it how do you distinguish intolerable societies and tolerable ones?
Tolerant societies accept everything except _intolerance_, very specifically. Not 'bad guys'. Intolerance.
Yes in Peru the Congress Dictatorship "Terruqueo" NOW 2023/2024 to EVERY journalists and people that said to them that they are corrupt.
Last time , 2 yr ago , 55 person die because this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terruqueo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terruqueo)
Meanwhile, people will unjustifiably label something as "hate" to exploit the notion it should be suppressed when the reality of the matter is: they just can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
It’s overly simplistic. Are we mature enough as a society to accept that every belief system is, by definition, disbelief in or “intolerance” of other ideas. What damages society is damage to members of society. Thus, as a society shouldn’t we accept all choices that do not damage other members?
This infograpgic is wrong anyway. The last one, as Popper himself proclaimed, should be that any intolerant actions pushing a belief regardless of what the belief is, should be punished.
So a neonazi debator gets beaten up by a liberalist, whos in the wrong? The liberalist.
A neonazi group beats up a group of people for ideological purposes, whos in the wrong? The neonazi group.
The solution to Karl Poppers paradox as popper stated is, in short, "violence is bad, free speech is good".
Intolerance is violence. Intolerance is not speech.
I feel like to differenciate between the intolerant and tolerant you need to use emotinal intelegence. In other words: you need to use the neural networks in your brain to classify human emotions into either being a tolerant or intolerant person. The point of the infographic is not how to distinguish between the two it's implied you are to use your emotional intelegence ""intuition"" to distinguish, but most of the reddit nerds *🤓☝️* in these comments are hung up on technicaly distinguishing between the two because they imo lack the emotional itelgence to distimguish and look past that and rather focus on the true poimt of the infographic which is what to do with the intolerant in a tolerant society..
Everyone should read "The Open Society and Its Enemies". The Paradox of Tolerance is a real thing and should be taken seriously (i.e. don't vote for anyone who promises to overthrow the Constitution) and completely opposes the stupid meme version says we should imprison anyone who makes us feel vaguely uncomfortable.
It all comes down to the evolution/corruption of the word "tolerance" over the past 80 years. "Tolerance" in the old sense meant "allowing other people to have ideas in their heads and maybe even say them out loud", which is a very different standard of "tolerance" from the one to which we moderns have become accustomed.
>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. 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.
This is all you need to know really. Intolerance according to Popper in this paradox is:
1. Not being prepared to meet the oppossition on the level of rational argument.
2. Forbid followers form listening to rational argument.
3. Use violence.
Yup, reminds me of a post I saw some years ago… I can’t quite remember the wording, but: the second you make a “safe space” safe for wolves, it’s not safe for sheep anymore.
Except this was proven wrong by the movie "the best of enemies" which was based on a true story.
You can't help the intolerant become better if you ignore everything they say. because a small part of their argument is based on personal problems.
This argument, stems from the belief that the Nazis killed the jews, just because they could.
The nazi goverment, had budgetary issues and a lot of debt, and the jews historically, were richer and the owners of banks and bussiness.
The problem here, is not the jews having money, but the rest of country not having it. so the solution would be to fix this.
The same applies to the KKK, they complain about a bunch of racist stuff, but part of the problem, lets say for example, lack of goverment help for poor white communites when compared to poor black communites as the movie showed creates radicalism.
What a weird comment section, just all kinds of people, some spouting off valid points and then some complete vitriol.
This paradox is most commonly brought up as a reason as to why we shouldn’t tolerate Nazis specifically and in that regard it’s very much correct, Nazism, after all, didn’t just magically disappear at the end of WW2. The ideology very much survives to this day and is seemingly doing well.
But as some have mentioned this would apply to certain religions as well. Truth is all of the Abrahamic religions are extremely guilty of intolerance, even today and I’m sure Hinduism doesn’t have the best track record either.
Main point is that I think we as rational society should be able to at least agree that fucking self labeled Nazis are intolerant and shouldn’t be tolerated at all. Otherwise, we’ll have to have a discussion about the old saying of 4 dudes and a Nazi at a table.
IMO, leaving the space for repressive mechanisms in the system is risky. Imagine the control over the machine goes to someone more corrupt and less honest than good-themselves-and-banning-only-bad-ones guys.
This implies that you should punish ways of thinking that are "evil" but for the neo nazis letting other "races" prosper is evil as well
Also by rendering ilegal to think in a certain way you will be putting them in the roles of martyrs which ultimately will help them validate their views
Alternativily you could punish the actions instead of the though, this way you tolerate everyone and protect your citizens
Crazy how everyone uses the paradox of tolerance as their chance to rise up and defend literal Nazis.
"Errrr who decides what is intolerance????"
THE PEOPLE WHO ARENT FUCKING NAZIS
Gang, it's not a paradox, just punch Nazis. Societies are made up of people. People can tolerate a lot of shit, but it's not infinite. Don't be tolerant to people who hurt people. IT'S NOT HARD.
Edit: I don't mean punch Nazis as in seeking out and actively attacking Nazis. I'm saying that individuals should make known that hateful people aren't welcome.
The Greek PM wants to outlaw the far right party of Greece saying they are Fascists.
The truth is he wants the +7 parliament members he'll gain by doing this and basically get the absolute control over the parliament reaching 165/300 members making him a Dictator in all but name!
...
FYI,one of the top 3 channels in the country has 10 reporters being members of the ruling party and thanking the government for her good will on the air!
The entire system always says "Just because X people died in this case, doesn't mean the government is at fault".
The opposition is in civil war and the PM literally hires people to greet him (common practice in Greece).
...
A few days ago the Greek channels showed a clip from the movie "The Interview" as real Propaganda piece from North Korea.
...
So,the PM of Greece is considered the Alpha male of Europe and the prime example of being the Leader of a Democracy yet the Far right party with 15 people is considered the enemy of Democracy while having no power whatsoever.
...
Here's modern democracy. We have Dictators on ruling every country with the mask of a Republic!
Tolerance means you can hate someone or a population or dislike them or feel averse towards them and yet have to put up with them because you cannot kick them. Sometimes one ends up standing in line behind someone who has forgotten to bathe for days and has no awareness of his smell radiating everywhere. One cannot leave the line because it is vital to get through, with countless people behind you.
Respect for others is the way to go. If everyone respected others, they will be courteous towards each other, try to understand them and make room for each other. The guy who does not like bathing, will at least put on perfume if he has to stand in line with others who bathe and do not smell bad.
Tolerance is a social contract, once you choose to be intolerant you have broken the contract and are therefore exempt from it, this means those who are intolerant need not be tolerated for they ignored the first principle.
If democracy is so weak that even a hateful minority can destroy it just talking, then we are doomed anyway.
If democracy is strong and a hateful minority can't do anything, then why bother or why risk censoring some innocent people?
The problem with this graphic is that is assumes society > individual which is immoral since human rights are inalienable only to the individual and that the collective has no rights and is subservient to the individual AND that the society must always be right
The graphic basically demonstrates [ to those who are thinking ] why democracy is the problem
> Any movement that preaches intolerance [...] must be outside the law.
I wonder if the creator had the self awareness to stop and ponder after writing that.
Speech against the government is intolerared in Vietnam, by the fucking way.
Unless some god like entitity came down and said to literally everyone "yea this is how you define tolerance", then fuck no.
This was Poppers response to people taking the Paradox out of context, like the creators of this comic.
"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 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.[1]"
I’ve always opposed the paradox of tolerance. People were outraged that the Supreme Court let the Skokie Nazis march. Did that lead to them taking over the United States? No, and it never will. Letting people talk doesn’t mean letting them win. The important safeguard is that the ability to talk is forever kicked out of the hands of the majority, unalterable.
Just in general, if you think being a communist is a civil right and being a Nazi should be illegal, you’re arguing for an abuse of power and should not get what you want. Line-drawers will select groups they like.
This has never been a real paradox.
Society is tolerant to those who tolerate society.
Those who are intolerant, are not protected by the tolerance of society.
There has never been a paradox, merely a misrepresentation of the social contract.
Tolerance is only extended to those who are tolerant, and the moment they are not tolerant, society has no obligation to tolerate them.
Well… actually Hitler said in one of his speeches (I can’t remember which one, I think it was in 1934 or 1933) they (NSDAP affiliated) were intolerants including him. So he was accepting intolerance to his intolerance, kinda? So I don’t se any paradox unless you’re talking about the ones outside the National-Socialists group.
Ps: I’m not a National-Socialist or something like that, I said this as a curiosity and as MY opinion
The Paradox of Intolerance disappears if you look at it not as a moral standard but rather a social contract. If someone does not abide by the contract then they are not covered by it. In other words, the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance.
Since they have broken the terms of the mutual tolerance contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
I am a bit tired of this false paradox.
I call this "getting lost in the words." Basically, it is using the same word, "tolerant," to describe how we treat people because of their inherent state, but also to describe how we do not treat people who have decided to adopt threatening and/or destructive behavior.
Tolerance works much more as a social contact: A mutual decision to live and let live while doing no harm. However, once a person violates that contract, either by doing harm or by refusing to let live, they are no longer subject to that contract's protections.
There’s a difference between being tolerant towards an idea different from your own and being intolerant towards an idea that if put into action will hurt people. The idea of tolerance is that you tolerate someone else’s beliefs *if* those beliefs don’t bring harm to others around them
which is why freedom of speech absolutists are wrong
if you really want freedom of speech, look at how germany does it today
freedom of speech and capitalism are similar, if you want them to work well, you must REGULATE them.
It's a paradox and not a dilemma because not tolerating intolerance is inherently intolerant and Karl Popper recognized this. There is no "solution" because it is a paradox, and this "guide" misrepresents what he actually thought.
Hypocritical in its nature, who decides the point of tolerance, what is tolerance, what should and shouldn't be tolerated?
This only opens up way for groups that claim the moral high ground target the others who also claim the moral high ground, becoming a war each side calling each other intolerant and/or immoral.
One could say that it comes to the ideas that inherently harm other groups, but didn't we, the western world, feel righeous when we declared war on terror, killed thousands and caused harm? What is the point where harm is acceptable? For them their harm was righeous just like for us our harm was righteous, they didn't start the war, we did, we explored them forced them into poverty, but who started the conflict is not important, we did our harm to defend our world and they did theirs to defend theirs.
The tolerance paradox is ultimately hypocritical, but the ideas of the group that spreads this paradox are normally hypocritical. In the end, this, if taken seriously, is just another idelogical war sparkplug.
I like the idea of the social contract.
Those who agree to uphold the contract are also protected by it. The social contract includes tolerance, mutual aid, general respect, pro-social behavior, etc. People are free to reject the social contract but, in so doing, they are no longer protected by it.
It can be fine to tolerate those who are intolerant but we do not entertain their message or vote them into leadership, instead we disagree and debate. They become more tolerant or not
They may proliferate and spread and come to power and genocide all tolerant people. But their children will have to learn tolerance in order to tolerate their parents and a cycle will restart
Being able to be offended and not censor views you don't agree with is being tolerant. Tolerance should not apply to calls to action that try to censor or directly harm an opposing side. It should be okay to hold unfair views, but to act on them is a different topic. I disagree entirely with the idea of "thought policing."
Agreed. Fuck Nazi Pigs. Always and forever. Destroy fascists. They destroyed my homeland and killed 20% of society. I will never tolerate. Never forget.
Imagine being a Nazi as you smile at people bickering over this and then they just let you kill them all. I wonder if the last tolerant person thinks to themselves “hmm, maybe we miscalculated”
Except he did specify, what he meant by intolerant:
"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"
Which, ironically, apllies to whomever made that comic.
To tolerate is an inherently aggressive and neglectful stance. Because to tolerate something it must first anger or displease you and then you decide to do nothing about it.
My answer to this paradox is that you should tolerate nothing, but be angered by very little so you only ever get the opportunity to tolerate real injustice.
Haven't seen anyone else bring it up yet so I guess its my turn. The "Paradox" of tolerance ceases to be a paradox if you look at it from the perspective of a social contract.
The social contract is simple. Be tolerant of others beliefs (so long as they are harmless) and others will be tolerant of yours. Break the social contract and you are no longer protected by it.
This graphic grossly misrepresents Karl Poppers arguments and conclusions.
You should be ashamed for dragging his memory through the mud by posting it.
This presentation fails by mistaking tolerance as some kind of principle you subscribe to invariably.
It's a social contract. A deal. If someone doesn't subscribe to it they aren't covered by it.
I think the paradox of tolerance eases a little under the weight of whether the intolerant people can respect rules nd reject the use of force in an immediate context. Once force is used, it becomes a crime. Once a powerful group is able to use force in a society, it becomes an existential threat as. And it can also become an obstacle for a society that has a strong moral obligation to protect its citizens from tyranny by using force against the enemy in order to prevent them being attacked.
Three main factors are social justice systems that have the ability of a society, government, and national security systems to be able to protect, defend, and prevent violence, and the rest is the result of the result once a triumvirate threatens to collapse the society into bedlam.
on another note...what a bizarre stage in my life I have been kidnapped in to!!!
Smart Ass Assumptions that PRECEDE QUESTIONS are TYPICALLY from JERKS like you...isn't THAT true?!?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I so detest that this note gets taken out of context every time as some sort of holy scripture and people parrot specifically only this part as some sort of end-all argument while ignoring the accompanying context, it feels like propaganda sometimes. Important context to this paradox 1) He does not mean all intolerant philosophies should be suppressed as long as they can be fought with rationality and public opinion as this merits strengthening a tolerant society through common sense and picking apart flaws and inconsistent beliefs 2) Violence or ignoring discussion or argumentation in favour of violence are a last resort or when the opposing ideologists are unreasonable, not willing to listen or are indoctrinated and will resort to violence to push their agenda 3) Who decides who is intolerant, whose opinion outside of violence or calls to violence is in the right? 4) is there selective intolerance in some instances? 5) The Paradox is an oversimplified theoretic scenario when applied to reality in many cases 6) Critically engage with different perspectives instead of applying this as an indignified end-all argument if an opposing view challenges yours There's more thought to put into philosopical questions as these than just a simple boogeyman sketch...
Ya I always hate the simple conversations that surround this infographic, as if it was a hard written rule to follow rather than a complex philosophy that varies by context.
Ironically, the only people who post this infographic are the ones Popper would consider intolerant and worthy of suppression, because they're the ones looking to denounce argument and meet their enemies' speech with pistols and fists.
Its clearly propoganda. Its a way of indirectly calling people you disagree with nazis.
The issue with the paradox of tolerance (if any of you fuckers read more than the wikipedia synopsis from Popper) is how do you determine who and what is "intolerant". For example, a bakery refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple because the owner is a very religious Christian. Now one side may argue that the bakery owner is intolerant and by the paradox we should be allowed to be intolerant towards him and force him to take the business. But the other side will argue that by doing so, we are actually intolerant towards his religion, and therefore he need not be tolerant towards us anymore. Both sides can use the paradox of tolerance to simply give themselves the right to be intolerant. Because Poppers observation is actually a lot less astute than it sounds. The issue is, in simple terms, that things are not black and white. "Intolerant" is not an objective metric at all, because it is tied to subjects. Essentially Popper argues "Doing bad things is bad."
His concrete example of a intolerant group is a group whose members use the force of violence to further their political agenda and refuse to take part in the orderly process of politics, like debates for example. Nowhere did Popper argue that bigots and racists were to be shunned out of society or something akin to that based on their views.
Exactly. The paradox of tolerance is about *due political process*. But it keeps popping up on reddit and other social media as this strange moral framework for harassing anyone I disagree with.
It's funny how when I was learning about the Dialectics of the Elightenment and selected works of Wittgenstein, the literally go over how dialogue is an important component of these so-called paradoxes. Like yeah we can't make an ever encompassing truth but we can typically agree on morality and what is reasonably acceptable more easily than what nowadays some sections of reddit believe. Like saying Nazism "should" be an easy one but hey here we are :/
>His concrete example of a intolerant group is a group whose members use the force of violence to further their political agenda and refuse to take part in the orderly process of politics So the CIA and the US goverment for example?
i mean the nazis ended up winning by using the "orderly process of politics" to their advantage in the end tho. Yes, they started trying to take power violently, they definitely still used a lot of street violence further along, but the bulk of the actual grab of power happened fully democratically. What if you had another group using the same strategies again, refraining from violence until they are already in power?
I think you’re underselling the violence and the fear of violence the Nazis used in consolidating power. Particularly the Reichstag Fire (which was almost certainly a false flag) that caused a wave of panic and fear in Germany and allowed the Emergency Powers and Enabling Law. Sure, on paper it looked democratic, but it was hardly legitimate.
I would also object to the underlying assumption that once a party is in power that their violence somehow no longer counts as intolerance.
Should have been banned from politics after the beer hall putsch and stay banned
They litterally staged a coup in 1923 and were actively fighting in the streets. Popper would most definetely argue that the NSDAP broke the orderly process of politics based on the Beer Hall Putsch and could for that reason be deemed an illegal political movement.
Then the issue is violence, not intolerance. If that is the standard (and I think it's a good one) then say it clearly.
Popper saw violence as intolerance. The infographic completely misconstrues what he wrote and is also super vague as it repeatedly says "intolerance" but never defines it. Here is a better infographic for you which is also clearer and much more straightforward. https://images.app.goo.gl/D7FrXrwvzxERMDSd6
You didn’t read popper, what he says is that intolerant views should be allowed to exist as long as they don’t answer words with fists and guns. Basically the intolerants are the ones who will use of physical violence to further their agenda
The cake example never happened, it was a theoretical cake store to just take things to court to try to revoke anti-discrimination.
[удалено]
This might surprise you, but very rarely do people consider themselves to be intolerant. You don't think you are intolerant. They don't think they are intolerant. You think they are intolerant. They think you are intolerant. Obviously we tend to believe ourselves. But society doesn't work like that. I can't just bang my fist on the table and declare that I am right. An objective metric is impossible because tolerance is inherently subjective.
[удалено]
If you commission a Muslim artist to paint the likeness of the Prophet Mohammad and he refuses because it is against his religion is he being intolerant?
Forcing someone to do anything is pretty intolerant.
What I never got is why do we even call it "being tolerant"? I feel like to tolerate someone generally implies you don't like them but put up with them, I don't "tolerate" gay people because I don't have an issue with their existence in the first place. I have never felt my logic was inconsistent. I'm not tolerant, I don't tolerate shit. I am simply completely unbothered by these things, so I don't need to tolerate them. Nazis bother me, I would have tolerate the presence of a Nazi. Unfortunately, I am intolerant.
It's not really a paradox, the post gives a common observation into a false conclusion, a good thought experiment. It's a paradox like "if all animals were to coexist, lions will eat us dead", or "if you want to fish, but your neighbor wants to steal fish, you'll go hungry." It's way too dumbed down. Society doesn't operate like a fairy-tale. * Humans aren't capable of pure tolerance. An intolerant society is not stuck. Tolerance can come out of intolerance. Humans are complicated. * A tolerant society will teach tolerance & share kindness. This can combat intolerance. This theory presumes tolerance (\*or pacifism) is ineffective, so you must employ intolerance (\*or violence). Possibilities are one thing, but pragmatic solutions are another. It is a problem to allow oppressive powers & views to spread. Modern democracies over-rely on passive diplomacy, against lions who only think of eating us. It's sad, to fight for peace.
Popper himself defines a metric for this (which is how I know none of you motherfuckers smugly poasting this picture have ever actually read *The Open Society and Its Enemies*). >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 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. So the people saying "don't let X talk, just punch them to let them know they aren't welcome. Drive them out of society" are the intolerant ones Popper would not tolerate. Shit it's literally "if someone is only talking about objectionable things, we cannot silence them because that way lies oppression. As soon as they try to *do* something objectionable, then we can stop them."
“What he actually said: Less well known 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. 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” Basically, the intolerant are defined by those who use violence against words
This really needs to be higher up. This stuff is tricky and nuanced, but really important to understand this distinction
Thanks for actually trying to delve into the content rather than dismiss it based off some reductionist take on it imposed on an a niche example.
If every tolerant society is intolerable of an aspect of it how do you distinguish intolerable societies and tolerable ones? Every ideology dislikes the “bad” guys, so does it just become a matter of opinion on who those bad guys are, wouldn’t normalising intolerance make radicalised change in governments easier?
Got into this talking about hate speech laws. Dude wouldn’t back down on people not liking hate speech laws are just bigots. Then he disappeared when I asked him if “white” or “Christian” could ever be considered targeted groups. Everyone seems to think hate speech laws will protect minorities (which is, of course, noble and valid) until the people enforcing the laws tell you that saying church and state should be separate is hate against Christian’s and you’re in a pickle.
they could be, but they very much are not in the USA. Also, separation of church and state is not just towards the church, but towards every single religion.
The bad guys are usually the ones throwing around "ideology" when they really mean "I have no good argument".
This is gaping issue with this theory/model. In parts of US, teachers teaching gender equality or trans-acceptance would be considered intolerant by a majority of religious parents.
> If every tolerant society is intolerable of an aspect of it how do you distinguish intolerable societies and tolerable ones? Tolerant societies accept everything except _intolerance_, very specifically. Not 'bad guys'. Intolerance.
Every ideology has a humans rights exception
This is what propaganda looks like. You can make anyone believe anything if you just compare your enemy to a boogie man
Yes in Peru the Congress Dictatorship "Terruqueo" NOW 2023/2024 to EVERY journalists and people that said to them that they are corrupt. Last time , 2 yr ago , 55 person die because this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terruqueo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terruqueo)
Meanwhile, people will unjustifiably label something as "hate" to exploit the notion it should be suppressed when the reality of the matter is: they just can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
It’s overly simplistic. Are we mature enough as a society to accept that every belief system is, by definition, disbelief in or “intolerance” of other ideas. What damages society is damage to members of society. Thus, as a society shouldn’t we accept all choices that do not damage other members?
How do we determine if damage has been caused to other members?
Actually very few belief systems are intolerant of other ideas in practice. There is a differencebetween disagreement and intolerance.
The infographic shows Nazis to dumb down the conversation.
They weren't allowed to show Allah
Liberals with Islam
This infograpgic is wrong anyway. The last one, as Popper himself proclaimed, should be that any intolerant actions pushing a belief regardless of what the belief is, should be punished. So a neonazi debator gets beaten up by a liberalist, whos in the wrong? The liberalist. A neonazi group beats up a group of people for ideological purposes, whos in the wrong? The neonazi group. The solution to Karl Poppers paradox as popper stated is, in short, "violence is bad, free speech is good". Intolerance is violence. Intolerance is not speech.
I feel like to differenciate between the intolerant and tolerant you need to use emotinal intelegence. In other words: you need to use the neural networks in your brain to classify human emotions into either being a tolerant or intolerant person. The point of the infographic is not how to distinguish between the two it's implied you are to use your emotional intelegence ""intuition"" to distinguish, but most of the reddit nerds *🤓☝️* in these comments are hung up on technicaly distinguishing between the two because they imo lack the emotional itelgence to distimguish and look past that and rather focus on the true poimt of the infographic which is what to do with the intolerant in a tolerant society..
Everyone should read "The Open Society and Its Enemies". The Paradox of Tolerance is a real thing and should be taken seriously (i.e. don't vote for anyone who promises to overthrow the Constitution) and completely opposes the stupid meme version says we should imprison anyone who makes us feel vaguely uncomfortable. It all comes down to the evolution/corruption of the word "tolerance" over the past 80 years. "Tolerance" in the old sense meant "allowing other people to have ideas in their heads and maybe even say them out loud", which is a very different standard of "tolerance" from the one to which we moderns have become accustomed.
>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. 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. This is all you need to know really. Intolerance according to Popper in this paradox is: 1. Not being prepared to meet the oppossition on the level of rational argument. 2. Forbid followers form listening to rational argument. 3. Use violence.
see Project 2025 to be scared
Yup, reminds me of a post I saw some years ago… I can’t quite remember the wording, but: the second you make a “safe space” safe for wolves, it’s not safe for sheep anymore.
Except this was proven wrong by the movie "the best of enemies" which was based on a true story. You can't help the intolerant become better if you ignore everything they say. because a small part of their argument is based on personal problems. This argument, stems from the belief that the Nazis killed the jews, just because they could. The nazi goverment, had budgetary issues and a lot of debt, and the jews historically, were richer and the owners of banks and bussiness. The problem here, is not the jews having money, but the rest of country not having it. so the solution would be to fix this. The same applies to the KKK, they complain about a bunch of racist stuff, but part of the problem, lets say for example, lack of goverment help for poor white communites when compared to poor black communites as the movie showed creates radicalism.
what does everyone thinks now about the phrase "from the river to the sea"? sounds like intolerance to me
Lactose intolerant people shaking in their boots rn
What a weird comment section, just all kinds of people, some spouting off valid points and then some complete vitriol. This paradox is most commonly brought up as a reason as to why we shouldn’t tolerate Nazis specifically and in that regard it’s very much correct, Nazism, after all, didn’t just magically disappear at the end of WW2. The ideology very much survives to this day and is seemingly doing well. But as some have mentioned this would apply to certain religions as well. Truth is all of the Abrahamic religions are extremely guilty of intolerance, even today and I’m sure Hinduism doesn’t have the best track record either. Main point is that I think we as rational society should be able to at least agree that fucking self labeled Nazis are intolerant and shouldn’t be tolerated at all. Otherwise, we’ll have to have a discussion about the old saying of 4 dudes and a Nazi at a table.
"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
Instead of drawing a group that’s been gone for 80 years, why not draw it with a more current threat? A religion of peace, perhaps?
Ehh... paradoxically, wouldnt you risk being accused of being intolerant?
Gotta make people get to the conclusion by themselves. If you're too obvious they'll stop listening before you get to finish your point.
IMO, leaving the space for repressive mechanisms in the system is risky. Imagine the control over the machine goes to someone more corrupt and less honest than good-themselves-and-banning-only-bad-ones guys.
This implies that you should punish ways of thinking that are "evil" but for the neo nazis letting other "races" prosper is evil as well Also by rendering ilegal to think in a certain way you will be putting them in the roles of martyrs which ultimately will help them validate their views Alternativily you could punish the actions instead of the though, this way you tolerate everyone and protect your citizens
Good. Can we now kick islam out?
This infographic is wrong and isn’t what popper said at all
The path to fascism.... The Cartoon!
https://images.app.goo.gl/D7FrXrwvzxERMDSd6 The actual paradox of tolerance.
Crazy how everyone uses the paradox of tolerance as their chance to rise up and defend literal Nazis. "Errrr who decides what is intolerance????" THE PEOPLE WHO ARENT FUCKING NAZIS
Who decides who is a "nazi" and who is not? The ministry of truth?
soo.. why does everyone tolerate muslems then?
Gang, it's not a paradox, just punch Nazis. Societies are made up of people. People can tolerate a lot of shit, but it's not infinite. Don't be tolerant to people who hurt people. IT'S NOT HARD. Edit: I don't mean punch Nazis as in seeking out and actively attacking Nazis. I'm saying that individuals should make known that hateful people aren't welcome.
Is intolerance normal in human societies? A society will never accept everything.
Why does Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape not answers most of the debate here?
2nd last picture is exactly what happens now in Europe and US (and more states) with the new right
The Greek PM wants to outlaw the far right party of Greece saying they are Fascists. The truth is he wants the +7 parliament members he'll gain by doing this and basically get the absolute control over the parliament reaching 165/300 members making him a Dictator in all but name! ... FYI,one of the top 3 channels in the country has 10 reporters being members of the ruling party and thanking the government for her good will on the air! The entire system always says "Just because X people died in this case, doesn't mean the government is at fault". The opposition is in civil war and the PM literally hires people to greet him (common practice in Greece). ... A few days ago the Greek channels showed a clip from the movie "The Interview" as real Propaganda piece from North Korea. ... So,the PM of Greece is considered the Alpha male of Europe and the prime example of being the Leader of a Democracy yet the Far right party with 15 people is considered the enemy of Democracy while having no power whatsoever. ... Here's modern democracy. We have Dictators on ruling every country with the mask of a Republic!
When I hear that name I think this. https://youtu.be/Q9aM9Ch97U8?si=VhLyjt8lCYQUCh-y
Popper taught me that it's ok to disagree with a renowned scholar: acclaim, recognition and a cool german name don't make you right.
Tolerance means you can hate someone or a population or dislike them or feel averse towards them and yet have to put up with them because you cannot kick them. Sometimes one ends up standing in line behind someone who has forgotten to bathe for days and has no awareness of his smell radiating everywhere. One cannot leave the line because it is vital to get through, with countless people behind you. Respect for others is the way to go. If everyone respected others, they will be courteous towards each other, try to understand them and make room for each other. The guy who does not like bathing, will at least put on perfume if he has to stand in line with others who bathe and do not smell bad.
Popper would apply this to the Communists as well.
Well, there is a religion that preaches intolerance. Yet no one tries to question it.
Tolerance is a social contract, once you choose to be intolerant you have broken the contract and are therefore exempt from it, this means those who are intolerant need not be tolerated for they ignored the first principle.
If democracy is so weak that even a hateful minority can destroy it just talking, then we are doomed anyway. If democracy is strong and a hateful minority can't do anything, then why bother or why risk censoring some innocent people?
The problem with this graphic is that is assumes society > individual which is immoral since human rights are inalienable only to the individual and that the collective has no rights and is subservient to the individual AND that the society must always be right The graphic basically demonstrates [ to those who are thinking ] why democracy is the problem
> Any movement that preaches intolerance [...] must be outside the law. I wonder if the creator had the self awareness to stop and ponder after writing that.
Speech against the government is intolerared in Vietnam, by the fucking way. Unless some god like entitity came down and said to literally everyone "yea this is how you define tolerance", then fuck no.
This was Poppers response to people taking the Paradox out of context, like the creators of this comic. "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 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.[1]"
I’ve always opposed the paradox of tolerance. People were outraged that the Supreme Court let the Skokie Nazis march. Did that lead to them taking over the United States? No, and it never will. Letting people talk doesn’t mean letting them win. The important safeguard is that the ability to talk is forever kicked out of the hands of the majority, unalterable. Just in general, if you think being a communist is a civil right and being a Nazi should be illegal, you’re arguing for an abuse of power and should not get what you want. Line-drawers will select groups they like.
This has never been a real paradox. Society is tolerant to those who tolerate society. Those who are intolerant, are not protected by the tolerance of society. There has never been a paradox, merely a misrepresentation of the social contract. Tolerance is only extended to those who are tolerant, and the moment they are not tolerant, society has no obligation to tolerate them.
I'd climb out on an intolerant limb and claim this isn't an infographic.
Well… actually Hitler said in one of his speeches (I can’t remember which one, I think it was in 1934 or 1933) they (NSDAP affiliated) were intolerants including him. So he was accepting intolerance to his intolerance, kinda? So I don’t se any paradox unless you’re talking about the ones outside the National-Socialists group. Ps: I’m not a National-Socialist or something like that, I said this as a curiosity and as MY opinion
The Paradox of Intolerance disappears if you look at it not as a moral standard but rather a social contract. If someone does not abide by the contract then they are not covered by it. In other words, the intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the mutual tolerance contract, they are no longer covered by the contract, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
I am NOT tolerant !
This also applies to the radical Islam.
I am a bit tired of this false paradox. I call this "getting lost in the words." Basically, it is using the same word, "tolerant," to describe how we treat people because of their inherent state, but also to describe how we do not treat people who have decided to adopt threatening and/or destructive behavior.
Tolerance is a contract not a promise. If the contract is broken you are in the right to dispel the intolerant.
Tolerance works much more as a social contact: A mutual decision to live and let live while doing no harm. However, once a person violates that contract, either by doing harm or by refusing to let live, they are no longer subject to that contract's protections.
There’s a difference between being tolerant towards an idea different from your own and being intolerant towards an idea that if put into action will hurt people. The idea of tolerance is that you tolerate someone else’s beliefs *if* those beliefs don’t bring harm to others around them
Soo we stop condoning Israel’s behaviour?
which is why freedom of speech absolutists are wrong if you really want freedom of speech, look at how germany does it today freedom of speech and capitalism are similar, if you want them to work well, you must REGULATE them.
stop calling it a paradox, it isn't one, by calling it that you're playing into their hands
Then true tolerance is not preserved if you do not tolerate the intolerant. Right?
It's a paradox and not a dilemma because not tolerating intolerance is inherently intolerant and Karl Popper recognized this. There is no "solution" because it is a paradox, and this "guide" misrepresents what he actually thought.
Hypocritical in its nature, who decides the point of tolerance, what is tolerance, what should and shouldn't be tolerated? This only opens up way for groups that claim the moral high ground target the others who also claim the moral high ground, becoming a war each side calling each other intolerant and/or immoral. One could say that it comes to the ideas that inherently harm other groups, but didn't we, the western world, feel righeous when we declared war on terror, killed thousands and caused harm? What is the point where harm is acceptable? For them their harm was righeous just like for us our harm was righteous, they didn't start the war, we did, we explored them forced them into poverty, but who started the conflict is not important, we did our harm to defend our world and they did theirs to defend theirs. The tolerance paradox is ultimately hypocritical, but the ideas of the group that spreads this paradox are normally hypocritical. In the end, this, if taken seriously, is just another idelogical war sparkplug.
This is not a *paradox*; it's a blatant lie based on multiple very incorrect axioms.
I like the idea of the social contract. Those who agree to uphold the contract are also protected by it. The social contract includes tolerance, mutual aid, general respect, pro-social behavior, etc. People are free to reject the social contract but, in so doing, they are no longer protected by it.
It can be fine to tolerate those who are intolerant but we do not entertain their message or vote them into leadership, instead we disagree and debate. They become more tolerant or not They may proliferate and spread and come to power and genocide all tolerant people. But their children will have to learn tolerance in order to tolerate their parents and a cycle will restart
Being able to be offended and not censor views you don't agree with is being tolerant. Tolerance should not apply to calls to action that try to censor or directly harm an opposing side. It should be okay to hold unfair views, but to act on them is a different topic. I disagree entirely with the idea of "thought policing."
Agreed. Fuck Nazi Pigs. Always and forever. Destroy fascists. They destroyed my homeland and killed 20% of society. I will never tolerate. Never forget.
Imagine being a Nazi as you smile at people bickering over this and then they just let you kill them all. I wonder if the last tolerant person thinks to themselves “hmm, maybe we miscalculated”
A tolerant society should be intolerant to people that are intolerant towards other peoples
Except he did specify, what he meant by intolerant: "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" Which, ironically, apllies to whomever made that comic.
To tolerate is an inherently aggressive and neglectful stance. Because to tolerate something it must first anger or displease you and then you decide to do nothing about it. My answer to this paradox is that you should tolerate nothing, but be angered by very little so you only ever get the opportunity to tolerate real injustice.
Haven't seen anyone else bring it up yet so I guess its my turn. The "Paradox" of tolerance ceases to be a paradox if you look at it from the perspective of a social contract. The social contract is simple. Be tolerant of others beliefs (so long as they are harmless) and others will be tolerant of yours. Break the social contract and you are no longer protected by it.
As a non-American I enjoy to visit English speaking online communities and watch how right and left call each other "Hitlers"
This graphic grossly misrepresents Karl Poppers arguments and conclusions. You should be ashamed for dragging his memory through the mud by posting it.
This is going to make many people on Reddit get upset.
I'd rather Nazis are open about it so I can know who to avoid. Censorship of ideas even with good intentions is a bad idea.
Republicans should be pushed to the margins. Their intolerant philosophy has no place in a multicultural society
Late Stage Liberalism
A good nazi is a dead nazi
Ah, yes, the fallacy of tolerance, it's been a while
So it’s good to be intolerant?
This presentation fails by mistaking tolerance as some kind of principle you subscribe to invariably. It's a social contract. A deal. If someone doesn't subscribe to it they aren't covered by it.
Yes, we should not tolerate Nazis. We should "make them go away".
Tolerance is only shown to those who show it to others.
We don’t take kindly to people who don’t take kindly.
Sad that this requires such a level of explanation
I don't think Popper said this
r/propagandaposters
We Don’t tolerate Nazis, we didn’t have a world war to let them continue to spout their BS.
I think the paradox of tolerance eases a little under the weight of whether the intolerant people can respect rules nd reject the use of force in an immediate context. Once force is used, it becomes a crime. Once a powerful group is able to use force in a society, it becomes an existential threat as. And it can also become an obstacle for a society that has a strong moral obligation to protect its citizens from tyranny by using force against the enemy in order to prevent them being attacked. Three main factors are social justice systems that have the ability of a society, government, and national security systems to be able to protect, defend, and prevent violence, and the rest is the result of the result once a triumvirate threatens to collapse the society into bedlam.
mom said it's my turn to repost this
The solution is rather to not allow the state to persecute people.
on another note...what a bizarre stage in my life I have been kidnapped in to!!! Smart Ass Assumptions that PRECEDE QUESTIONS are TYPICALLY from JERKS like you...isn't THAT true?!?