Follow

*opens birdsite

second or third thing i see yet another popper misquote.

always just the fucking first lines:

> 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.

never the rest

> 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.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_)

judging by how intolerant and immune to reason and discussion the new "left" (for lack of a better term) is, i have the vague suspicion that exactly those who misquote him all the time are who he meant.

Show thread

@bonifartius To me even the whole quote still sounds stupid and vague.
I'm not really a free speech absolutist but i don't see some fundamental mechanism by which legally unlimited tolerance of speech must inevitably under any and all possible circumstances lead to oppression. It kind of counts on critical percentage of people being not able to grow intellectually beyond complete stupidity. Not that the state of discourse everywhere doesn't support such claim, but i think the jury is still out.

@retroartdt i think one has to read the whole text but not a short quote (i didn't). i just think that using just the first part is on the verge of malice, because it's misquoting popper to silence anyone from discussion which may be deemed intolerant.

> It kind of counts on critical percentage of people being not able to grow intellectually beyond complete stupidity. Not that the state of discourse everywhere doesn't support such claim, but i think the jury is still out.

just look on any big social media, it's 99% people parroting things like the shortened popper quote. i think there's a vital difference between learning mechanically which can get you _very_ far in our society, and learning out of curiosity. you don't get critical minds by mechanistic learning.

@bonifartius
No problem, broken is english what i speak. Just don't you appropriate my broken englishe! 😆

@bonifartius I agree. Still there is a vanishing part of me that holds hope that there is a possibility that more people would be able somehow miraculously at some point embrace actual critical thinking instead of blindly following e.g.: critical theories or moronic conspiracy theories.

@bonifartius <opens birdsite I am @solarflair00@twitter.com and would like to tag team with you for onboarding people from birdsite to Fediverse.

@retroartdt <but i don’t see some fundamental mechanism by which legally unlimited tolerance of speech must inevitably under any and all possible circumstances lead to oppression

That’s because you don’t understand logic. ∀x A ⇒ ⊢ A{x↦a} by Universal Instantiation Everything leads to oppression, and free speech is a thing, ergo free speech leads to oppression. (This is known as Pooper’s Paradox of Hypocrisy Tolerance).

<for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument “If I close my eyes and click my heels together three times and say ‘My 对象 is a fascist irrational!’ Then I can be intolerant to them and that makes me a tolerant person. BrokeBack”


raid.png
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.