General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDefending tolerance means not tolerating the intolerant - the tolerance paradox
I like this:
Very clever
rainin
(3,011 posts)I was "intolerant of intolerance". It has always been true of me.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)It is apathy!!!
Tolerance requires reciprocation!
Glorfindel
(9,733 posts)TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)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)"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)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.