• mrpants@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You simultaneously reject it and believe he wrote it to prove how unsustainable it is?

    You’re entirely wrong. No ideas need to be shared where people don’t want to hear them. You are free to speak and I am free to not listen. It’s truly a beautiful approach.

    Edit: I’d also like to add that the paradox Popper is referring to is that of tolerating intolerance. That’s the paradox.

          • mrpants@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s called the paradox of tolerance. Tolerating intolerance is the paradox. So it says you can’t tolerate intolerance.

              • mrpants@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No it doesn’t. This argument works only if you assume that “intolerance” is something that can be defined as “anyone against anything I’m doing”.

                If fascists were able to say “they’re being oppressive of my desire to exclude them from our society” then that’s not a flaw in the paradox but their reasoning abilities. Any philosophy is irrelevant then.

                The argument boils down to “it’s impossible to know if the opposing side is truly being intolerant.” You say it is impossible. I say it isn’t.

                  • mrpants@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The deep divisiveness comes from the shitty ideas that should have been shunned long ago and instead were left to fester.

                    You don’t care about instances loke Exploding Heads or their awful ideas because you’re unaffected by them so you can hold these lofty perfect ideals instead of facing the reality of the situation.

                    Opposing and shunning hate speech is not fascism and your argument depends on pretending to be unable to see the difference between hate and disagreement.

                    Allow me to illucidate the simplicity of this in reality:

                    • Economic policy: Disagreement
                    • Minstrel show images: Hate speech
                    • Energy policy: Disagreement
                    • Saying men and straight people should have less rights than women and gays: Hate speech