and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal,
Again, this isn’t saying people simply saying things you don’t like hearing should be criminal, it’s the incitement to violence and persecution.
The difference between saying “I don’t like black people” and saying “We should kill all of the black people.”
People don’t have to listen to your arguments about why their values and morals are wrong and awful. Just like you don’t have to listen to people claim the same about your own. Tolerance is the simple acceptance that despite having different views and values, you both have the same basic right to live.
You’re projecting your beliefs onto popper. You don’t have to agree with him. I’m not interested in debating the appropriate nature of tolerance in society.
I really don’t know how much more clear he could have been about his beliefs: incitement to intolerance is not the same as incitement to violence. He extremely plainly states that we should engage in rational dialogue if we can, but reserve the right to suppress intolerance, even by force, because they may begin preaching violence.
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.
Claiming the right to suppress them because it “may easily turn out” is not the same as “once it becomes clear”.
He’s extremely obviously not using incitement to intolerance as a stand-in for incitement to violence, because he says it should be criminal in the same fashion as incitement to violence.
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.
Consider the context in which he wrote what he wrote: world war two had just ended. We saw what happened when an open society allowed an intolerant right wing group to spread hateful rhetoric: they started small, got extreme, and then got violent.
Is it too much of a stretch to think he would have the opinion “it would have been okay to stop the Nazis when they were shitty, and before they got evil”?
In the aftermath, influenced by popper and people like him, Germany outlawed the entire ideology.
No one considers it counterintuitive or ambiguous if you need to tolerate people being violent or inciting violence against you.
simply saying things you don’t like hearing
That’s a disingenuous way of portraying hate speech. Even if you’re in the “tolerate hate speech” crowd there’s no reason to trivialize someone else’s position.
You’re under no obligation to agree with popper. There’s no need to turn his position into a different one so you can agree with him. We don’t need two Rawls.
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.
Violence. Not opinions.
There are plenty of people that every person in the world would see others as not living up to their own values and morals if everyone knew everything about everyone. There will always be people you can’t understand and have a difficult time communicating with because you’re coming from such different points of view. You both have the same right to live, and to be honest about your views and feelings and have you perceive the world.
That’s what tolerance is. It’s not a simple and easy thing because it means accepting that people who strongly believe things total opposite of what you strongly believe have the same right to exist and be honest that you do.
The people who break that for calling on others to be killed, or beaten, or chased out of society, those are the people displaying actual intolerance.
The entire point of what he said and goes on to say in many other writings is that people who insist on violence and can not be reasoned with are the intolerance that society can not tolerate.
Go sit and actually read his works. Don’t bastardize a blurb over and over and try to sit there saying I’m the one being disingenuous and misunderstanding the man.
Goodness, if someone quotes that part of his work again I’m going to lose it. He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won’t do that it might lead to violence.
I already said I’m not interested in debating the nature or role of tolerance at the moment.
He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won’t do that it might lead to violence.
No, he does not. You’re misinterpreting the word “may” used in this context and time period.
I can see very clearly why you’re not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance… while you are literally in a thread about tolerance.
Your last reply you tried to call me disingenuous and say that I was projecting my beliefs. Instead of bastardizing Poppers works chatting with AI to try to make yourself look as if you have an education on the topic, I suggest signing up for a few classes.
If nothing else, at least get the AI to explain your misunderstanding of the word “may” in that single little snippet of text you are so in love with before you bother replying again.
I can see very clearly why you’re not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance… while you are literally in a thread about tolerance
I thought we were in a thread about a popper quote? Because I’m pretty sure I replied to someone saying it was misinterpreted.
I said your phrasing was disingenuous because you characterized the position of people you disagree with in a dismissive fashion. I said you were projecting your opinion because instead of saying “I disagree with this person” you chose to say “they are actually saying what I think and are just generally misunderstood”.
Again, this isn’t saying people simply saying things you don’t like hearing should be criminal, it’s the incitement to violence and persecution.
The difference between saying “I don’t like black people” and saying “We should kill all of the black people.”
People don’t have to listen to your arguments about why their values and morals are wrong and awful. Just like you don’t have to listen to people claim the same about your own. Tolerance is the simple acceptance that despite having different views and values, you both have the same basic right to live.
You’re projecting your beliefs onto popper. You don’t have to agree with him. I’m not interested in debating the appropriate nature of tolerance in society.
I really don’t know how much more clear he could have been about his beliefs: incitement to intolerance is not the same as incitement to violence. He extremely plainly states that we should engage in rational dialogue if we can, but reserve the right to suppress intolerance, even by force, because they may begin preaching violence.
Claiming the right to suppress them because it “may easily turn out” is not the same as “once it becomes clear”. He’s extremely obviously not using incitement to intolerance as a stand-in for incitement to violence, because he says it should be criminal in the same fashion as incitement to violence.
Consider the context in which he wrote what he wrote: world war two had just ended. We saw what happened when an open society allowed an intolerant right wing group to spread hateful rhetoric: they started small, got extreme, and then got violent.
Is it too much of a stretch to think he would have the opinion “it would have been okay to stop the Nazis when they were shitty, and before they got evil”? In the aftermath, influenced by popper and people like him, Germany outlawed the entire ideology.
No one considers it counterintuitive or ambiguous if you need to tolerate people being violent or inciting violence against you.
That’s a disingenuous way of portraying hate speech. Even if you’re in the “tolerate hate speech” crowd there’s no reason to trivialize someone else’s position.
You’re under no obligation to agree with popper. There’s no need to turn his position into a different one so you can agree with him. We don’t need two Rawls.
Violence. Not opinions.
There are plenty of people that every person in the world would see others as not living up to their own values and morals if everyone knew everything about everyone. There will always be people you can’t understand and have a difficult time communicating with because you’re coming from such different points of view. You both have the same right to live, and to be honest about your views and feelings and have you perceive the world.
That’s what tolerance is. It’s not a simple and easy thing because it means accepting that people who strongly believe things total opposite of what you strongly believe have the same right to exist and be honest that you do.
The people who break that for calling on others to be killed, or beaten, or chased out of society, those are the people displaying actual intolerance.
The entire point of what he said and goes on to say in many other writings is that people who insist on violence and can not be reasoned with are the intolerance that society can not tolerate.
Go sit and actually read his works. Don’t bastardize a blurb over and over and try to sit there saying I’m the one being disingenuous and misunderstanding the man.
Goodness, if someone quotes that part of his work again I’m going to lose it. He literally says the line is rational discussion because if they won’t do that it might lead to violence.
I already said I’m not interested in debating the nature or role of tolerance at the moment.
No, he does not. You’re misinterpreting the word “may” used in this context and time period.
I can see very clearly why you’re not interested in having an actual conversation about tolerance… while you are literally in a thread about tolerance.
Your last reply you tried to call me disingenuous and say that I was projecting my beliefs. Instead of bastardizing Poppers works chatting with AI to try to make yourself look as if you have an education on the topic, I suggest signing up for a few classes.
If nothing else, at least get the AI to explain your misunderstanding of the word “may” in that single little snippet of text you are so in love with before you bother replying again.
I thought we were in a thread about a popper quote? Because I’m pretty sure I replied to someone saying it was misinterpreted.
I said your phrasing was disingenuous because you characterized the position of people you disagree with in a dismissive fashion. I said you were projecting your opinion because instead of saying “I disagree with this person” you chose to say “they are actually saying what I think and are just generally misunderstood”.