Comment by eecc
1 year ago
Well your question leads straight to the “Paradox of Intolerance”.
It’s indeed tricky, but the sorting criteria is: once in power, would these people club me to death, or let go of power if they lost a free election?
1 year ago
Well your question leads straight to the “Paradox of Intolerance”.
It’s indeed tricky, but the sorting criteria is: once in power, would these people club me to death, or let go of power if they lost a free election?
In the paradox of intolerance, Popper was writing about violence, not anti-establishment speech.
Known for his critical rationalism and vehement opposition to authoritarianism, Popper would probably be spinning in his grave if he knew that his essay is cited as a token every time someone is persecuted for posting the wrong kind of tweet.
Not really, I’m afraid you’re shifting the goalposts.
I don’t think Popper would be so naive to just limit intolerance to physical violence (which is already ruled out by law, so why bother).
The intolerance is against anything intolerant that if given enough power will stamp out (violently) Democracy itself.
One just needs to look at Putin’s Russia to understand what he meant.
it is not a paradox, but an antinomy. the limits of democracy were clearly seen with covid19 and with the funding of ONG.
It must be tricky since I don't think you understood Popper at all.
Popper was completely in favor of free speech, and a completely open society, with no censorship except in the cases of actual violence:
"he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible" [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper#
“I don’t think you understood Popper at all.”
That’s an interesting way of debating.
I have to admit I’m tempted to grief for your insult but it’s too much of a good day to waste it