reminder rule
-
What about dehumanizing billionaires and cops?
-
What about dehumanizing billionaires and cops?
It’s the paradox of tolerance but with violence this time.
-
It’s the paradox of tolerance but with violence this time.
But THE ENTIRE POINT of the paradox of tolerance is that the intolerant cannot be tolerated. That means either we understand we have to do bad things to certain other humans, or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
-
Billionaires are subhuman and don’t deserve to exist.
-
But THE ENTIRE POINT of the paradox of tolerance is that the intolerant cannot be tolerated. That means either we understand we have to do bad things to certain other humans, or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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 most imwise. 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
(emphasis added)
By Popper’s standards, you should not be tolerated in an open society, as you seem willing to “do bad things to certain other humans” who come under a presumably broader definition of intolerance than those who “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
Do note that this footnote is the only thing he ever wrote on the matter.
-
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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 most imwise. 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
(emphasis added)
By Popper’s standards, you should not be tolerated in an open society, as you seem willing to “do bad things to certain other humans” who come under a presumably broader definition of intolerance than those who “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
Do note that this footnote is the only thing he ever wrote on the matter.
Read the rest of the fucking quote.
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; …
-
Read the rest of the fucking quote.
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; …
How on earth do you make the leap from “suppress them if necessary” to “dehumanize”? Most imwise.
-
Billionaires are subhuman and don’t deserve to exist.
subhuman implies a level of humanity and billionaires don’t have that.
-
How on earth do you make the leap from “suppress them if necessary” to “dehumanize”? Most imwise.
Where did I say someone wasn’t a human?
