Paradox of intolerance.

sk8erboii

Thread is done on the IMHO subheading of this forum.

Some people postulate that you should tolerate different viewpoints even if they clash with that same tolerance. This is simply wrong.

In the aftermath of World War 2, Austrian - British Philosopher Karl Popper wrote The Open Society. He states

“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.”

If you hold intolerant ideologies then you simply cannot cry foul when you are politically and socially ostracized. It is in the best interest of the entire world to suppress you and eliminate you because you are a threat to personal freedoms and in extreme cases, human life. It is not hypocritical to remove the intolerant from society, whether through imprisonment or other methods.

Pointing out this paradox is a common defense of the intolerant. Certain groups claim moral superiority using this thin logic, certainly aware that if the status quo was on their side they would not hesitate to execute or intern the dissident.

Tolerance is held together by violence. A liberal society with equal rights defending itself is not the same as the intolerant using violence to destroy it.

There is nothing to debate here. If you impose your will on others violently, you will also meet the same violence multiplied a thousand times.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

There is nothing to debate here.

ok

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

ok

You can atleast try mate

The Kelkin is in the microwave, ready to pop when this thread does.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

You can atleast try mate

you said there's nothing to debate. youre clearly not open to any other point of view, why should anyone waste their time?

Fr_Dougal

sk8erboii wrote: »

You can atleast try mate

No, you’re fine.

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

you said there's nothing to debate. youre clearly not open to any other point of view, why should anyone waste their time?

Tell me about these ‘other point of view’ you might have.

Aside: Other point of view from the multilateral western agreement of a tolerant society? Sounds like you’re advocating for some sort of totalitarian society

Edgware

sk8erboii wrote: »

Thread is done on the IMHO subheading of this forum.

Some people postulate that you should tolerate different viewpoints even if they clash with that same tolerance. This is simply wrong.

In the aftermath of World War 2, Austrian - British Philosopher Karl Popper wrote The Open Society. He states

“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.”

If you hold intolerant ideologies then you simply cannot cry foul when you are politically and socially ostracized. It is in the best interest of the entire world to suppress you and eliminate you because you are a threat to personal freedoms and in extreme cases, human life. It is not hypocritical to remove the intolerant from society, whether through imprisonment or other methods.

Pointing out this paradox is a common defense of the intolerant. Certain groups claim moral superiority using this thin logic, certainly aware that if the status quo was on their side they would not hesitate to execute or intern the dissident.

Tolerance is held together by violence. A liberal society with equal rights defending itself is not the same as the intolerant using violence to destroy it.

There is nothing to debate here. If you impose your will on others violently, you will also meet the same violence multiplied a thousand times.

Could you go through that again. You lost me at "Some people"

sk8erboii

Edgware wrote: »

Could you go through that again. You lost me at "Some people"

Eliminate the intolerant. That’s its in one sentence.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

Tell me about these ‘other point of view’ you might have.

Aside: Other point of view from the multilateral western agreement of a tolerant society? Sounds like you’re advocating for some sort of totalitarian society

Karl Popper? Pale, stale and male my friend.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

Eliminate the intolerant. That’s its in one sentence.

eliminate how?

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

eliminate how?

Suppression, imprisonment and in extreme cases (Mussolini for example), executions.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

Suppression, imprisonment and in extreme cases (Mussolini for example), executions.

i do love a parody account

Ten of Swords

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

i do love a parody account

? Im dead serious. This thread is a response to the wannabe right wing fetishists that plague this forum. My views are shared by the majority of educated people my age. You’re talking to the demographic thats not endemic to the echo chambers of this forum.

And the funny thing is, we also thought the posts here are parody. But theyre not so heres an alternative view. Try not to be offended by it

jackboy

sk8erboii wrote: »

Suppression, imprisonment and in extreme cases (Mussolini for example), executions.

Who will decide which citizens should be executed?

sk8erboii

Ten of Swords wrote: »

I never said he was the first? I quoted him because he is pertinent to the discussion about how tolerating the intolerant (A certain national socialist party) was detrimental to western values

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

? Im dead serious. This thread is a response to the wannabe right wing fetishists that plague this forum. My views are shared by the majority of educated people my age. You’re talking to the demographic thats not endemic to the echo chambers of this forum.

And the funny thing is, we also thought the posts here are parody. But theyre not so heres an alternative view. Try not to be offended by it

i'm not in the least offended. we all cope with our daemons in our own way. you fantasize about gulags and executions and good luck to you.

nkl12xtw5goz70

It's hilarious to see someone calling for the suppression, imprisonment, or execution of people with right-wing politics ... all in the name of tolerance, of course.

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'm not in the least offended. we all cope with our daemons in our own way. you fantasize about gulags and executions and good luck to you.

The only cope here is that passive aggressive psychoanalysis lol.

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

The only cope here is that passive aggressive psychoanalysis lol.

subtlety is at the heart of good parody. less is more.

tabby aspreme

Would there be any tolerance of people, being intolerant due to their religious beliefs

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

subtlety is at the heart of good parody. less is more.

There is no parody here mate. Personal attacks arent arguments either

sk8erboii

Ailani Melted Cognac wrote: »

It's hilarious to see someone calling for the suppression, imprisonment, or execution of people with right-wing politics ... all in the name of tolerance, of course.

Nope not right wing politics specifically, but that would be the most pertinent example

suicide_circus

sk8erboii wrote: »

There is no parody here mate. Personal attacks arent arguments either

its not a personal attack, guy

either this is parody or you're quite unwell

The One Doctor

sk8erboii wrote: »

Eliminate the intolerant. That’s its in one sentence.

Ok. So if someone is intolerant, they are eliminated. That means that others are intolerant of the intolerant, and they get eliminated too.

So on and so forth. Everyone dead, the end.

Back in your box, Mary Lou.

sk8erboii

suicide_circus wrote: »

its not a personal attack, guy

either this is parody or you're quite unwell

? Im fine. Its interesting to see the reaction from this forum. All I did was state one of the foundations of western society and suddenly im unwell and a parody.

Except my views are held by the majority of people my age. And even by people who had to witness intolerance first hand during the 40s. Philosophers, politicians and educated people in general must all be unwell and parodies.

According to you.

sk8erboii

The One Doctor wrote: »

Ok. So if someone is intolerant, they are eliminated. That means that others are intolerant of the intolerant, and they get eliminated too.

So on and so forth. Everyone dead, the end.

Back in your box, Mary Lou.

Retarded post.

A liberal society defending itself from the intolerant is not the same as the intolerant trying to destroy it.

That’s been written about maybe 50 times in books at this point.

Mod-Banned

riffmongous

sk8erboii wrote: »

? Im fine. Its interesting to see the reaction from this forum. All I did was state one of the foundations of western society and suddenly im unwell and a parody.

Except my views are held by the majority of people my age. And even by people who had to witness intolerance first hand during the 40s. Philosophers, politicians and educated people in general must all be unwell and parodies.

According to you.

Oh it's not interesting or surprising at all

suicide_circus

consider this. one day some view that you hold will be considered incompatible with the orthodoxy of the day. will you willingly submit to suppression, imprisonment and execution? Or do your opinions change according to what is currently popular?

Fr_Dougal

sk8erboii wrote: »

Eliminate the intolerant. That’s its in one sentence.

Looks like your wish has come true.

You have been both eliminated and imprisoned.

biko

Edgware wrote: »

Could you go through that again. You lost me at "Some people"

If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

Karl Popper

tabby aspreme

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Would there be any tolerance of people, being intolerant due to their religious beliefs

Pity that he missed that one before he got the heave-ho.

I guess that one would be for "the hypocrisy of tolerance" thread he had in the pipeline :rolleyes:

Edgware

jackboy wrote: »

Who will decide which citizens should be executed?

Someone above your pay grade.
The fact that you even ask that question means your name is added to the list

Clarence Boddiker

Sk8er is either extremely naive to think its acceptable to advocate murder online, or he feels he is protected somehow, or likely he's straight up fedposting.

Hamsterchops

To paraphrase post #1

If you indulge in dystopian ideologies then you should decist from complaining when you are deemed political & social outcasts. It is in the best interest of the inhabited world to suppress and eradicate you because you are a threat to democracy and even human life. It is not extreme to remove the insufferably intolerant from society, whether through in in incarceration or other more intrusive methods.

Pointing out this paradox is a common defense of the intolerant. Certain groups claim the moral high ground by using this transparent logic, certainly aware that if status quo was on their side they would not hesitate to execute or intern the unconformist.

Tolerance is best measured by torque, A neo liberal amalgamate with an equal adhesive property, defending itself is not the same as the intolerant using a hammer to crack the proverbial nut.

There is nothing new to regurgitate here. If you impose your views on others by psycho force you will also meet the same anti magnetic resistance multiplied one hundred times. And so, it has always been thus, since Adam was in short trousers.

biko

Maybe it is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali says: “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”

Lefty Bicek

biko wrote: »

If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

Karl Popper

So shoot the 'tolerant without limit' then.

Prevention is better than cure, no ?

splinter65

sk8erboii wrote: »

Eliminate the intolerant. That’s its in one sentence.

You’re intolerant of the intolerant. So you need to be eliminated.

Sober Crappy Chemis

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Looks like your wish has come true.

You have been both eliminated and imprisoned.

🎵🎵🎵 He was a skaterboi, boards said see ya later boi ......🎵🎵🎵

biko

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

So shoot the 'tolerant without limit' then.

Such an apt username Bicek


On topic, of course we cannot go around killing people, that serves as little purpose now as it did under Pol Pot.

Lefty Bicek

biko wrote: »

Such an apt username Bicek


On topic, of course we cannot go around killing people, that serves as little purpose now as it did under Pol Pot.

Thank you !

LB is a character of Nelson Algren, my favourite American writer by a long margin.

On topic - I am more of a 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend...' etc

The extension of the principle of 'intolerance towards the (alleged) intolerant' into, eg, deplatforming people who disagree with us, is simply cowardice.

If it comes to a physical battle, Milo is going to lose against most.

jimgoose

Naggin Merchant wrote: »

So the op is going to round up extremist muslims?

In terms of tolerances, a lot of folk will round round up or down to the nearest thou. But that's no good in this shop, biyeen - you have to be bang-on!

Tony EH

biko wrote: »

If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

Karl Popper

What Karl Popper and the OP have confused is that "tolerance" is not "acceptance".

Views can be "tolerated", while not being accepted or agreed with and actions on those views can be met with opposition in its many forms.

Tolerance isn't blind.

STB.

Thread should be renamed "the shíte that goes around in my head"

One eyed Jack

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Looks like your wish has come true.

You have been both eliminated and imprisoned.

There’s a certain irony in the OP getting ‘cancelled’ after starting a thread about a philosophical tolerance paradox