Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Defending tolerance means not tolerating the intolerant - the tolerance paradox (Original Post) Soph0571 Jun 2018 OP
K&R ck4829 Jun 2018 #1
This is great! In 9th grade I took a personality test. I always liked the part where the tester wrot rainin Jun 2018 #2
Tolerating the intolerant is not "Tolerance" LostOne4Ever Jun 2018 #3
Quite profound, actually. K&R n/t Glorfindel Jun 2018 #4
Nice graphics - bad advice! TomVilmer Jun 2018 #5
I'm having Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid flashbacks... forgotmylogin Jun 2018 #6
"If the First Amendment protects Communists, then we'll lose the First Amendment." Jim Lane Jun 2018 #7

rainin

(3,011 posts)
2. This is great! In 9th grade I took a personality test. I always liked the part where the tester wrot
Wed Jun 27, 2018, 08:08 AM
Jun 2018

I was "intolerant of intolerance". It has always been true of me.

TomVilmer

(1,832 posts)
5. Nice graphics - bad advice!
Wed Jun 27, 2018, 08:33 AM
Jun 2018

Here is more of that quote, from Karl R. Popper: "The Open Society and Its Enemies":
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 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.

Absurdly written by a philosopher, basically telling us to give up using good arguments, since weapons anyway works better!

forgotmylogin

(7,530 posts)
6. I'm having Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid flashbacks...
Wed Jun 27, 2018, 09:56 AM
Jun 2018

"Can you make a record player that will play records recorded with a sound that breaks record players..."

"Can one have tolerance for people who seek to destroy intolerant people..."

It's a strange loop!

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
7. "If the First Amendment protects Communists, then we'll lose the First Amendment."
Wed Jun 27, 2018, 02:50 PM
Jun 2018

That was the argument advanced for outlawing the Communist Party and tossing various Communists, socialists, and others in jail.

Eventually, however, that error was corrected. For some decades now, it's been quite legal for people to advocate Communism, or in other ways to say that speech they don't like should be illegal.

Somehow, the predictions of disaster have not come true.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Defending tolerance means...