Cool Guides

6615 readers

390 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JCSpark@lemmy.ca

689

The paradox of tolerance (discuss.online)

submitted 2 days ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/coolguides@lemmy.ca

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it's refusing rational argument that's a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Further, if you finish the paragraph it becomes clear that the opening statement is anything but a misunderstanding:

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.

You don't have to agree with him, you can be partial to rawles, but popper was not vague.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it’s refusing rational argument that’s a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.

Not just that. He also very clearly requires there to be the incitement to physical violence:

and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

I agree with the end of the paragraph. His definition of intolerance includes the incitement to violence, and what he argues follows logically.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Read it again. He's using incitement to violence as a consequence to to be avoided, not as a driving factor.

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.

He goes on:

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.

He was writing at the end of WW2. He was saying it would have been fine to stop the Nazis at the start, before they were inciting violence because they couldn't be reasoned with.
It's clear you don't agree with his position , and that's okay. You can just disagree with him.