Liberal Forum

Every midwit leftist is 'educated' on Carl popper's "paradox of intolerance", and I often hear them repeat this idea whenever they want to be clever.

Basically it goes like this: you cannot tolerate intolerance because that results intolerance.

It is painfully easy to refute this idea. In fact it is so easy that it makes me wonder why popper is a respected philosopher at all (perhaps because of this ethnic group?)

Quite simply, disembodied intolerance doesn't exist. Take Hitler, for example. He clearly did not like the jews, but that doesn't mean he lacked tolerance for everything. He seemed to have a remarkable degree of tolerance for germans, for example. In fact, the reason he was mad at jews is because he believed they were bad for the germans.

You can question whether he was correct aboutthat judgement, but that is all it is. A claim that is either true or false. It is not disembodied intolerance and it is not universally applied.

Indeed, Carl popper's argument would condemn literally any human who has a friend enemy distinction. Which is literally every human. Condemning all humanity is not very tolerant.

gosh. That was easy.
 

FOS » 45 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

45 minutes ago

Every midwit leftist is 'educated' on Carl popper's "paradox of intolerance", and I often hear them repeat this idea whenever they want to be clever.

Basically it goes like this: you cannot tolerate intolerance because that results intolerance.

It is painfully easy to refute this idea. In fact it is so easy that it makes me wonder why popper is a respected philosopher at all (perhaps because of this ethnic group?)

Quite simply, disembodied intolerance doesn't exist. Take Hitler, for example. He clearly did not like the jews, but that doesn't mean he lacked tolerance for everything. He seemed to have a remarkable degree of tolerance for germans, for example. In fact, the reason he was mad at jews is because he believed they were bad for the germans.

You can question whether he was correct aboutthat judgement, but that is all it is. A claim that is either true or false. It is not disembodied intolerance and it is not universally applied.

Indeed, Carl popper's argument would condemn literally any human who has a friend enemy distinction. Which is literally every human. Condemning all humanity is not very tolerant.

gosh. That was easy.

Popper's paradox reveals that to preserve tolerance, we must sometimes be intolerant of the intolerant, especially when they threaten the very existence of a free and open society. The problem with this, as I see it, is that he never defined what is meant by a 'free and open society'. He put no definition or parameters on this idea. Therefore, his paradox is rooted in nothing more than semantics from who the leaders are at the time. 

Vegas » Today, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:03 am

Popper's paradox reveals that to preserve tolerance, we must sometimes be intolerant of the intolerant, especially when they threaten the very existence of a free and open society. The problem with this, as I see it, is that he never defined what is meant by a 'free and open society'. He put no definition or parameters on this idea. Therefore, his paradox is rooted in nothing more than semantics from who the leaders are at the time.

right, well a person could easily say that jewish power is a threat to a free and open society. Someone might disagree but there is not intrinsic contradiction. His reasoning only makes sense if there is such a thing as disembodied intolerance, when a person is just intolerant of literally everything and for no reason whatsoever. Which is absurd and just doesn't exist.

Really, it seems like an attempt to smuggle in a reductionist 'cosmic struggle between good and evil' perspective on politics...and for sure popper would view jews as 'good' and jewish power results in a 'free and open society' while germans in the 30s were 'evil'.

This sort of attitude is distinctly middle eastern. When left to their own devices, Europeans tend to gravitate naturally towards a more nuanced view of good and evil, similar to the sentiments expressed by nietzche in 'beyond good and evil'.
 
 
 

FOS » 44 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

44 minutes ago

right, well a person could easily say that jewish power is a threat to a free and open society. Someone might disagree but there is not intrinsic contradiction. His reasoning only makes sense if there is such a thing as disembodied intolerance, when a person is just intolerant of literally everything and for no reason whatsoever. Which is absurd and just doesn't exist.
 

I need to introduce you to my butt hurt older brother. 
 

FOS » Today, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:20 am

Every midwit leftist is 'educated' on Carl popper's "paradox of intolerance", and I often hear them repeat this idea whenever they want to be clever.

Basically it goes like this: you cannot tolerate intolerance because that results intolerance.

It is painfully easy to refute this idea. In fact it is so easy that it makes me wonder why popper is a respected philosopher at all (perhaps because of this ethnic group?)

Quite simply, disembodied intolerance doesn't exist. Take Hitler, for example. He clearly did not like the jews, but that doesn't mean he lacked tolerance for everything. He seemed to have a remarkable degree of tolerance for germans, for example. In fact, the reason he was mad at jews is because he believed they were bad for the germans.

You can question whether he was correct aboutthat judgement, but that is all it is. A claim that is either true or false. It is not disembodied intolerance and it is not universally applied.

Indeed, Carl popper's argument would condemn literally any human who has a friend enemy distinction. Which is literally every human. Condemning all humanity is not very tolerant.

gosh. That was easy.

The Nazis encouraged the German  youth to report their parents if they heard any conversation less than enthusiastic about the Reich.....so much for your tolerance argument.
 

RebelGator » Today, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 1:11 pm

The Nazis encouraged the German  youth to report their parents if they heard any conversation less than enthusiastic about the Reich.....so much for your tolerance argument.

let me guess. Some jew told you that.

FOS » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

let me guess. Some jew told you that.

Was there something you wanted to refute about my post?

RebelGator » 27 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

27 minutes ago

Was there something you wanted to refute about my post?

sure. It just isn't true. There was plenty of criticism of the state in natsoc Germany, anf often the state even listened to it. In fact, hitler conceeded to popular protests on multiplr occasions.

FOS » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

sure. It just isn't true. There was plenty of criticism of the state in natsoc Germany, anf often the state even listened to it. In fact, hitler conceeded to popular protests on multiplr occasions.

I was specific about my example, the one you're ignoring.   

RebelGator » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

I was specific about my example, the one you're ignoring. 

I'm just calling ****. It doesn't even have to do with intolerance anyway, but rather authoritarianism...so you couldn't even stick to the assignment. But it would simply be false to say gwrmans were. Ot allowed to criticize the state...because sometimes they did and the state allowed it...want an example?