The way I’ve reconciled the Paradox of Tolerance for myself is to view tolerance as part of a social contract. The social contract demands that tolerance be extended to everyone who in turn accepts that social contract themselves. “Being tolerant” doesn’t necessarily require that tolerance to be given out indiscriminately. Like how I wouldn’t consider a vegan any less a vegan if they ended up having to kill something in self-defense, even if they had to kill it by biting chunks out of it.
The more coherent answer is the deceased lack inherent rights/liberties.
At best, the living have duties to legacies & claims by descendants toward the deceased.
It’s call the Paradox of Tolerance
The paradox distorted by authoritarians to justify illegitimate force?
Seems some non-liberals willfully find it “very difficult” “to understand”.
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant?
When they
“are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument”
“they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power.
A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
I’d call this the early version, the one practiced by responsible institutions before fascism takes over. The late version being done by the people and their allies only after the fascists have already started to destroy the institutions and perpetuate violence.
It can be difficult to tell when is the right time, but yes, when it falls to the mob to enact (closer to the version I’ve laid out), the fascists have probably have gained too much ground.
Authoritarianism wins when the people act authoritarian, ie, corrupt the legitimacy of their government by abandoning the protection of inalienable/universal/inherent rights & liberties.
Your “remedy” is to kill the patient.
Society has been lazily disengaging from each other, segregating ourselves into ideological spaces where no one feels challenged to change their minds.
Society isn’t fully utilizing the classic remedies in a liberal democratic of speech, civic engagement, & political organization.
“my” version is for when the Nazis have already taken power and are killing people. But I get it, you disagree with the actions of WW2 resistance movements…
…they happened AFTER institutions had fallen (hence, “late”), and people were being killed. So no, resistance movements aren’t “killing the patient” the patient is already dying by the time they emmerge.
Popper is right about institutional power beforehand (protecting society from fascism “early”). I’m right about violent resistance movements once fascism is actively destroying institutions and killing people (then resistance movements must start protecting society).
Yes, fascism negates the rights of the fascists. It has to in order to protect free society.
It’s call the Paradox of Tolerance, and is very difficult for centrist liberals to understand.
The faster you string fascists up, the better off society will be. The body? Who cares, do what you want with it.
It’s not fascist, to be “fascist against fascism”.
The way I’ve reconciled the Paradox of Tolerance for myself is to view tolerance as part of a social contract. The social contract demands that tolerance be extended to everyone who in turn accepts that social contract themselves. “Being tolerant” doesn’t necessarily require that tolerance to be given out indiscriminately. Like how I wouldn’t consider a vegan any less a vegan if they ended up having to kill something in self-defense, even if they had to kill it by biting chunks out of it.
The more coherent answer is the deceased lack inherent rights/liberties. At best, the living have duties to legacies & claims by descendants toward the deceased.
The paradox distorted by authoritarians to justify illegitimate force? Seems some non-liberals willfully find it “very difficult” “to understand”.
text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[1]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com
Source: The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl R. Popper ↩︎
I’d call this the early version, the one practiced by responsible institutions before fascism takes over. The late version being done by the people and their allies only after the fascists have already started to destroy the institutions and perpetuate violence.
It can be difficult to tell when is the right time, but yes, when it falls to the mob to enact (closer to the version I’ve laid out), the fascists have probably have gained too much ground.
Authoritarianism wins when the people act authoritarian, ie, corrupt the legitimacy of their government by abandoning the protection of inalienable/universal/inherent rights & liberties. Your “remedy” is to kill the patient.
Society has been lazily disengaging from each other, segregating ourselves into ideological spaces where no one feels challenged to change their minds. Society isn’t fully utilizing the classic remedies in a liberal democratic of speech, civic engagement, & political organization.
“my” version is for when the Nazis have already taken power and are killing people. But I get it, you disagree with the actions of WW2 resistance movements…
…they happened AFTER institutions had fallen (hence, “late”), and people were being killed. So no, resistance movements aren’t “killing the patient” the patient is already dying by the time they emmerge.
Popper is right about institutional power beforehand (protecting society from fascism “early”). I’m right about violent resistance movements once fascism is actively destroying institutions and killing people (then resistance movements must start protecting society).