An Application of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance

. . . However, [John] Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."​

Good thing history has repeatedly demonstrated that such emergency backdoors which permit ideological inconsistency "for the sake of self-preservation" cannot be abused by a reigning, celebratedly tolerant regime.

Good thing there is nothing but a flawless, incorruptible, universal high standard available for evaluating what constitutes sincere intentions about security and danger concerns minus any hidden motivations.

Good thing mere words never become as vile and threatening as sticks and stones to the runaway paranoia of a super-sensitive, twittering, daycare-for-adults generation with tender "princess and the pea" sensibilities anymore than the same ever drove their ruggedly independent, holy-roller forebears with a crooked oak stick of psychotic mania stuck up their backsides to shriek impiety committed against sacred totems.

- - -

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not the Left. The Dems, maybe.
And even the Dems face problems. How?
Communication with Trump voters is impossible.
The Left has almost no media access, the Dems are trapped by the bothsides bs framing of all the major media,
and the Reps are already losing the elections based on vote counts.

Yep. It's even worse than the early years of W's tenure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This has already gone well beyond what I had hoped for. Thanks, everyone

Intolerance is also highly contagious, or at least, more contagious or communicable than tolerance.

Any thoughts on how we might be able to counter that trend?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree with giving a forum to white supremacy. If they want to win an argument, don't start with ideologies we fought two wars against.

 

If I wanted to give in to the forces of intolerance, the politics forum would be the place to do so, and the reasons for this follow also from the corrolaries to Popper's intolerance paradox:

Intolerance, like war, is much more contageous than tolerance, or peace. To give in to the fear that usually accompanies intolerance in the form of tariffs or restricting immigration, or other protectionist measures, is to yield to the religion of a society of fearful or angry hornets, or fearful or hungry wolves. These forces must always be countered more vigorously than the forces that create such conditions, and fear is exactly what exacerbates and perpetuates intolerance.

You must be willing to apply sufficient smoke to dissipate the hive, or enough force to muzzle the wolves, or enough barriers to quarantine the plague, putting a stop to the growth of fear before it spreads. It doesn't help when your opponents are so willfully ignorant, they literally know nothing else but fear. It has always been that way.

There are times I feel like I am the last syringe of effective antibiotic left in a very disease riddled world.

 

Tariffs make sense in some contexts. It's not wrong just because Trump did it (badly).

 

When everyone you disagree with becomes a white supremacist by default? Also, what is at risk if they are perpetual loser? If your point of view is the best argument, why fear the other?

 

That would be bad, but that is not happening.

The holocaust.

 

Yes it is. Not you specifically, but pretty much on campus,

So based on the past, we control what others can think, say, and hear?

 

That's a bogus meme.

if you are promoting pseudoscience, hate speech, and admit you just enjoy trolling liberals, you shouldn't get a platform reserved for legitimate intellectual positions. Nothing about that interferes with you getting all third Reich on Twitter.

 

Bullshit.
It is not happening anywhere.

They aren't perpetual losers - they are backed by wealth and power, they have access to media amplification and endless repetition, they have an entire body of agitprop victims primed to take them seriously, and they have significant political representation. There is much to fear in this situation.

Meanwhile, my point of view is the loser by comparison, regardless of argument. Argument only wins if reason is choosing the winner.

 

I didn't have to wait long to find an example. This is the kind of intolerance I don't tolerate:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw...ists-threaten-to-burn-berkeley-bookstore.html

 

That's how many view the left. Isn't that a curiosity?

So irrationality wins the argument?

 

You've already defined the argument without first hearing it. It's legitimacy, in your mind, is subject to your opinions. Perhaps liberals need to be trolled, since they are so intolerant.

 

Only the ignorant and worse. Anybody who thinks the Left is backed by wealth and power in the US, has omnipresent media presence and serious political representation, and so forth, is a damn fool.
In my experience, not a single one of those suckers can identify a Leftwing analysis or a Leftwing media presence. Every one of them thinks Hillary Clinton is a leftwing politician. Who gives a shit what people that ignorant think about anything? Thinking is not something they do. The only reason to care at all about their "views" is the necessity of somehow preventing them from wrecking the country for the decent folk who want to live in it.

Theirs elected a President. Winning arguments by reason is irrelevant to them.

Don't be stupid. They themselves defined their "argument". And who hasn't heard their "argument"? - five hundred times from every TV station in the country, five thousand times from talk radio, every week of every year since any of us were born in the US?

Well you've got a fifty year multimedia billionaire funded head start on that project - and your own President on twitter. So you're looking good: https://i2.wp.com/www.historybyzim.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/eckford.jpg
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/184/739/54-m.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34930042

 

So all the news outlets, Hollywood, the internet are fighting against the Left? Possibly your definition of the Left differs from mine?

Or perhaps the election won the argument, for the time being.

What's their argument, Ice?

 

This idea is where my investigation into Popper's tolerance paradox began.

A number of modern comedians, notably George Carlin, Chris Rock, Penn Jillette and others, have complained about the difficulty doing effective comedy in a "politically correct" campus environment.

George Carlin, for example, had his "seven forbidden words" which he made fun of early in his career. Imagine the outrage if George went to do a show, say, at mostly black Howard University, and tried to do a joke with a punch line: "all you 'n's suck!" It would bomb, no doubt, so George would typically do a more politically correct joke.

Chris Rock, on the other hand, actually does the reverse equivalent in his jokes, sometimes with an even harder edge than Richard Pryor, and he still manages to make it work well, even for mixed racial audiences, IMHO.

Comedy depends on walking a knife edge between good and bad taste. Chris Rock, in particular, has complained that some of his more recent jokes he has tried on campus have bombed in ways they probably wouldn't have done in a more tolerant political environment only a decade or so ago.

Controlling what people think, say, and hear in a tolerant environment isn't necessary. Comedians (and also Politicians) will find their own comfort levels with an audience, and if it doesn't work, they will lose those audiences.

I still find it strange that a comedian like Andrew Dice Clay (or for that matter, politicians like Donald Trump) can get away with denigrating women in his routine, again and again. Obviously, they know something about their intended audiences or supporters that I don't.

 

We enjoy comedy because it challenges our conceptions. Trump might be the proverbial flasher.

 

It's misdirection.

 

All the major news outlets - check. Most of Hollywood, especially its most politically influential aspects - check (our two Presidents who got their big boost from Hollywood were both Republican). The internet - what in hell is "the internet" ? You can actually find some Lefty folks on the internet, if you look, but nobody pipes "the internet" into their lives.

You haven't got a clue what the Left is. Five bucks says you can't name a lefty pundit or media intellectual without a netsearch.

Tell it to the janitors of the black site "interrogation" cells he's trying to restart, even at Gitmo. Or the remaining relatives of the targets of the cruise missile killings he doubled his first week in office.

Oh, he's a joke alright. How about your conception of a banana republic's fascist bigman - he "challenge" that? If he turns up in a gold braided medal-bedecked uniform at that embarrassing, degrading, cheap-show military parade he intends to use to humiliate the country, will you be laughing at the comedy of it all?