Hitler regularly spoke about the “harm” he believed Judaism was causing. He infamously demonstrated his belief that the Jewish mindset was dangerously harmful to society, and used that risk and danger to justify acting against them. His argument was that Judaism was “intolerant” of German culture, and he came to the same conclusion that Popper would come to a little later: it is morally correct to suppress the “intolerant”.
The correct lesson to learn from Popper’s Paradox is the insidiousness of fascism. Intolerance for the “intolerant” is the foundation.
If a philosophical model leads to atrocity when it is adopted by your enemy, that model is irreparably flawed.
The moral lesson from the Intolerance paradox is “you are justified in destroying those who do not agree with you”. That philosophy is identical to and indistinguishable from the personal worldview of every oppressor that has ever existed.
Whether the Jews were actually, objectively fascist or not is irrelevant: the German public believed them to be their enemies, and believed themselves justified in destroying their enemies. Popper’s Paradox does not improve that situation; it worsens it. It gives them a sense of legitimacy for whatever actions they decide to take against their enemy.
No, the moral lesson from the intolerance paradox is “destroy intolerance”.
Bad people always find excuses. Do you believe in feeding the homeless? What if the Nazis fed the homeless Jews Zyklon B, would you still believe in feeding the homeless then, you genocidal freak?
The entire point of Popper’s Paradox is to encourage “Good” people to use the exact same excuses as the “Bad”.
The problem with the paradox is that nobody identifies themselves as the bad guy.
You have demonstrated hostility toward me, intolerance of my viewpoint. My philosophy of “tolerance” calls for me to tolerate your speech, up until you actually call for harm against me. Your philosophy of “intolerance for the intolerant” calls for me to suppress you.
Adopting your philosophical model, I should hunt you down and destroy you. Maintaining my own philosophical model, I should endeavor to tolerate your intolerant attitude and behavior.
Shall I maintain my own philosophy? Or shall I adopt yours?
You’re not quite grasping the concept. Bad people always copy good people’s excuses, so that’s a very lame excuse not to be good. Do you tolerate everything except the intolerant? Great, then I tolerate you.
The Nazis were the bad guys. It doesn’t matter how they identified themselves. They were still bad - because they didn’t tolerate Jews, homosexuals, disabled people or Gypsies.
The Nazis stole their eugenics policies directly from the US. What they called “Lebensraum” our ancestors called “manifest destiny”. Their “Rassenschande” was cribbed from our “anti-miscegenation” laws. “Sonderweg” was “American Exceptionalism”. Long before they had the Holocaust, we had the Trail of Tears.
The people fighting the Nazis were performing many of the same atrocities as the Nazis. We even had our own concentration camps filled with Japanese civilians, interred simply because we deemed them a potential threat.
We have been the bad guys. We will be the bad guys again. When we were the bad guys, we didn’t call ourselves the bad guys, yet we subscribed to a philosophy that would later become the Paradox of Intolerance and committed uncountable atrocities against “the intolerant”, who we would later determine to have been the good guys.
If your philosophy leads to atrocity when adopted by your enemy, your philosophy is broken.
No, I am not trying to convince you of anything like that. I am saying that the Nazis were only able to justify their intolerance of the Jews by subscribing to an intolerance paradox.
I am saying that they were following the exact philosophy that you are promoting.
I am saying that they could not justify their actions under a “tolerance” policy
I gave you the source. Mein Kampf.
Hitler regularly spoke about the “harm” he believed Judaism was causing. He infamously demonstrated his belief that the Jewish mindset was dangerously harmful to society, and used that risk and danger to justify acting against them. His argument was that Judaism was “intolerant” of German culture, and he came to the same conclusion that Popper would come to a little later: it is morally correct to suppress the “intolerant”.
The correct lesson to learn from Popper’s Paradox is the insidiousness of fascism. Intolerance for the “intolerant” is the foundation.
It’s different because the Jews weren’t fascists.
I dunno man, Israel serving some real fashy vibes rn.
If a philosophical model leads to atrocity when it is adopted by your enemy, that model is irreparably flawed.
The moral lesson from the Intolerance paradox is “you are justified in destroying those who do not agree with you”. That philosophy is identical to and indistinguishable from the personal worldview of every oppressor that has ever existed.
Whether the Jews were actually, objectively fascist or not is irrelevant: the German public believed them to be their enemies, and believed themselves justified in destroying their enemies. Popper’s Paradox does not improve that situation; it worsens it. It gives them a sense of legitimacy for whatever actions they decide to take against their enemy.
No, the moral lesson from the intolerance paradox is “destroy intolerance”.
Bad people always find excuses. Do you believe in feeding the homeless? What if the Nazis fed the homeless Jews Zyklon B, would you still believe in feeding the homeless then, you genocidal freak?
You’re not quite grasping the concept.
The entire point of Popper’s Paradox is to encourage “Good” people to use the exact same excuses as the “Bad”.
The problem with the paradox is that nobody identifies themselves as the bad guy.
You have demonstrated hostility toward me, intolerance of my viewpoint. My philosophy of “tolerance” calls for me to tolerate your speech, up until you actually call for harm against me. Your philosophy of “intolerance for the intolerant” calls for me to suppress you.
Adopting your philosophical model, I should hunt you down and destroy you. Maintaining my own philosophical model, I should endeavor to tolerate your intolerant attitude and behavior.
Shall I maintain my own philosophy? Or shall I adopt yours?
You’re not quite grasping the concept. Bad people always copy good people’s excuses, so that’s a very lame excuse not to be good. Do you tolerate everything except the intolerant? Great, then I tolerate you.
You trust bad people to realize they are bad?
No.
So, bad people, thinking they are good, are going to be following your philosophy? They are going to be attacking the people they believe to be bad?
The Nazis were the bad guys. It doesn’t matter how they identified themselves. They were still bad - because they didn’t tolerate Jews, homosexuals, disabled people or Gypsies.
The Nazis stole their eugenics policies directly from the US. What they called “Lebensraum” our ancestors called “manifest destiny”. Their “Rassenschande” was cribbed from our “anti-miscegenation” laws. “Sonderweg” was “American Exceptionalism”. Long before they had the Holocaust, we had the Trail of Tears.
The people fighting the Nazis were performing many of the same atrocities as the Nazis. We even had our own concentration camps filled with Japanese civilians, interred simply because we deemed them a potential threat.
We have been the bad guys. We will be the bad guys again. When we were the bad guys, we didn’t call ourselves the bad guys, yet we subscribed to a philosophy that would later become the Paradox of Intolerance and committed uncountable atrocities against “the intolerant”, who we would later determine to have been the good guys.
If your philosophy leads to atrocity when adopted by your enemy, your philosophy is broken.
I suppose leftists did all of those things.
You’re trying to convince me that because Nazis killing Jews is bad, Jews killing Nazis is bad too. That won’t work.
No, I am not trying to convince you of anything like that. I am saying that the Nazis were only able to justify their intolerance of the Jews by subscribing to an intolerance paradox.
I am saying that they were following the exact philosophy that you are promoting.
I am saying that they could not justify their actions under a “tolerance” policy