Since the far left redefines words as though language were Calvinball, none of this idea means anything in practice except "we have assumed control."
Alright, fair enough, I'm just familiar with Popper as a codifier. How about this: it's fucking stupid to just go "He's a leftie Jew, therefore everything he says is wrong"? (Popper isn't even a Marxist, his political ideologies are a huge fucking grab-bag of influences from all over the place).The idea that science should be evidence based was known well before Popper was alive. And his ideal of the scientific method was developed by Peirce, Karl just put his name on it.
A problem is that Progressives in their journey to make Progress tend to support people who don't value Progress.The decaying quality of life in England, the Netherlands and much of the rest of Europe is evidence enough of what happens when your tolerant society tolerates intolerant people.
there were no "hate speech" laws in weimar gemany
the nazi party was suppressed (outright banned for a while) because it had recently attempted a violent coup in bavaria, and there were separate bans against the SA and SS because they had been involved in large scale political violence on a regular basis
The only way to protect democracy is to round up communists and fascists into cattlecars and send them to work. I see no paradox here.This could easily devolve into "reee dumb people on social media" but I'm more interested in the logical consistency of the concept. It comes from Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and the gist of it is "Tolerating intolerant people will lead to the destruction of tolerance therefore it is essential to be intolerant towards the intolerant". Now Popper doesn't support silencing the intolerant and suggests rational debate and public opinion keeping them in check, unlike some who quote him, but I'm confused on where the paradox is. I only see a contradiction if you assume "We tolerate EVERYONE" as opposed to a more accurate "We tolerate anyone who does not force their beliefs onto others".
Am I missing something here or is Popper's paradox not an actual paradox?
I can't speak for others, but I'm always glad to hear whether someone is either a communist, marxist or jew, with somewhat of a milder view of any that were communist/marxist prior to 1950 when the deadly results were thoroughly seen in soviet union and communist china. As for knowing someone is jewish is as good to know as when someone is russian. It informs allegiance to specific tribal concerns.He's a leftie Jew, therefore everything he says is wrong
Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology, the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: "No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today."
Lefties don't see genociding class enemies as intolerant.As for the paradox of intolerance, or as karl popper worded it (according to wikipedia): ""In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."
It strikes me that this will typically be read as an excuse to punch nazi's (or commies, etc), which might have been fine, if only the detection was perfect, but in practice it leads to girls with "make bitcoin great again" baseball caps being assaulted.
Somehow the phrase looks like a big red button of a joystick, waiting to be pressed and fire a missile with.
And what is the result? The result is two factions, intolerant of each other, having a justification in Popper's words to be intolerant to each other. You just arrive at competition over power.
I think perhaps the question itself is a red herring to begin with. "Maintain a tolerant society" is posed as goal. But why should that be a goal in the first place? I mean furries and troons are fun to laugh at, but I think a good case can be made for having taboo's on certain subjects as a morally positive trait of a society.
A tolerant society? Tolerant of what? Blanket tolerance can't possibly be morally virtuous. Tolerance of pedophilia, tolerance of murder, there are many forms of tolerance that are universally morally bankrupt. It is not even the second part of the sentence that seems inconsistent, it's the first part that is very unclear in itself.
ps: this is the popular (and poor) online way that the idea is presented:
View attachment 732240
The Bible went into detail about how killing children of people is good having examples of cases in which ONE PERSON survived and then caused a fuckton of trouble. Like after the part of King David there were some people from some tribes that survived and they rebuilt everything and caused troubles. And if the Israelites done what G-d said then they would've kept true to him. The logic behind all that is that you are killing so you don't have to kill.Lefties don't see genociding class enemies as intolerant.
Yeah. and they will de-platform you - or lock you up if you disagree. In my experience, libertarians become totalitarians in a few steps. They love to force people to be free - and will be thugs towards anyone who disagrees. Like, by getting rid of national health systems and forcing them to take health insurance from their business cronies. Libertarians are ideological crazies like communists, fascists and whatever other -ists.DIdn't the Libertarians already resolve this moral dilemma by making up the "marketplace of ideas"? All ideas/ideologies are allowed, and the good ones will naturally rise to the top because they have more convincing argument or better results than the bad ones.
The paradox is in not distinguishing between intolerant attitudes and their expression and actually forcibly silencing people.Am I missing something here or is Popper's paradox not an actual paradox?