上个世纪的独裁政权，从路易·拿破仑到列宁或皮诺切特或毛泽东，都曾呼吁群众反对压迫性的 “资产阶级” 或 “权贵” 中产阶级，结果只是建立了更糟糕的政权。

平等主义的红旗之所以受欢迎，是因为在过去的几个世纪里，人们对自由的渴求和对现实生活的不堪忍受助长了它的气焰；

今天，我们把它当作邪恶的象征，是因为国家利用了这面旗帜，汲取了这种能量，并反过来给它喂以毒药，通过偷换 “内容”，在 “结构” 上取代了解放 ……

如果您的斗争是在维护而非摧毁一个 “结构”，那么它就不是革命斗争。它只是规范的改变、“内容” 的改变、一个群体对另一个群体的特权的改变、一种排他性价值对另一种排他性价值的改变。

如何避免这种状况在未来重演？ ……

近日的交流话题很多，从伦敦涂鸦、到加密后门、再到法西斯主义，它们都指向同一个问题：我们应该支持宽容吗，还是应该支持严打？您可能对这个议题并不陌生，毕竟曾经很多社会问题都被指向了要求政府 “管管”。于是本文希望能从一个在中文内容里可能相对罕见的角度上探讨相关话题。

更新📌《违者必究还是宽宏大量？- 闲聊从波普尔到失败的革命》
https://iyouport.substack.com/p/aab

#Censorship #ParadoxofTolerance #Fascism #Revolution #China #Totalitarianism

Note to anyone who references the #ParadoxOfTolerance. What Karl Popper said was;

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant..."

With the exception of a few naive teenage libertarians, nobody is advocating *unlimited* tolerance. We're just arguing against abandoning tolerance to the point of dehumanizing people who hold intolerant views.

So the vast majority of handwaves at the PoT are slaughtering strawmen. The obvious response being to quote Nietzsche...

(1/2)

Not to anyone who references the #ParadoxOfTolerance. What Karl Popper said was;

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant..."

With the exception of a few naive teenage libertarians, nobody is advocating *unlimited* tolerance. We're just arguing against abandoning tolerance to the point of dehumanizing people who hold intolerant views.

So the vast majority of handwaves at the PoT are slaughtering strawmen. The obvious response being to quote Nietzsche...

(1/2)

When you and your community (which are the same thing) are threatened and attacked, what will you do?

#threat #extreme #violence #protection #martialarts #defense #community #safe #masculinity #men #protector #healthecycle #paradoxoftolerance #popper #yell #scream #fight #angry #communitydefense #allforone

Source: https://www.tiktok.com/@watchfulcoyote/video/7243971745793756459

@drahardja I'm not so sure that it does. I agree that it will be helpful for people who see tolerance as a personal moral virtue/obligation to have it reframed as a socio-legal settlement. But that was what Popper's #ParadoxOfTolerance was about in the first place, so that framing does not obviate it, and I'm not sure the essay adds anything to Popper's answer or resolves any of the thorny details (when does what risk, of what kinds of harm, justify suppressing the intolerant, and how).

This is pretty good. This viewpoint resolves the need for the #ParadoxOfTolerance, because it views the concept of #tolerance through the lens of a legal contract, a peace treaty.

“Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.”

https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376

It is not bigotry to regard as intolerable those who declare disgust for you (until you submit, becoming as they wish).

It's the same intolerance from #ParadoxOfTolerance meeting crowd dynamics.

This is clear cut until #DiffusionOfResponsibility means Masses feel (individually) powerless to affect Leadership, especially when leadership regard all others as interfering out-groups.

With that, what's action to "support/oppose a #war" mean? (re: #falsifiability)

April 16 Breadcast: Pyramid of #StochasticViolence starts about 1 hour in. TL;DR: How genocide gets normalized. Calling it out helps to stop the normalization, but it must be en masse. Pay attention to what’s happening in #FL re trans people, child abuse, and the death penalty & how someone in a #GA jail (not prison) died. Get active and stop this legalized mass murder in its tracks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl-QzEqU3ts

#TransRightsAreHumanRights #fascism #genocide #ACAB #ParadoxOfTolerance

So, I keep seeing this shared around and really want to explain to people why I *hate* this.

This is just some nonsense that exists to make things feel easier and softer, and at the very core of it... to defang people from actually fighting back.

First, just in case anyone here missed the original thing referenced, The Paradox of Tolerance: To maintain a truly tolerant society, you *must* be intolerant of intolerance.

What's covered in once sentence takes several sentences here and references semi-advanced concepts like social contracts (trust me, not everyone knows what a social contract is), this makes it much harder to communicate. Odds are, if you understand this you already understood the original paradox anyways.

On top of that, it softens it and muddles it in a few key ways:

* It targets the person rather than the action, this hits a trap that *a lot* of semi-progressive people fall into. Sure you may understand that someone being a bigot does not condone you being a bigot towards them, but this effectively says the *person* is not due *any* tolerance. (For those saying it's a stretch: "Since *they* have broken the terms of the contract, they are *no longer covered by the contract*" the contract being tolerace)

* It claims the original is a moral take, this is honestly a classic conservative angle of being "logical". Neither is a moral take, both are talking about the nature of society.

* It replaces "must" with "should", and drops the whole point of "you can't have a tolerant society while tolerating intolerance"

And that "should" carries a lot of weight as well... it significantly softens the call to action.

You *MUST* be intolerant of intolerance, a failure to be intolerant of intolerance is a failure to maintain a tolerant society. And when we say you must be intolerant of intolerance, we don't just mean "you're not welcome", it means punching Nazis, running them out of communities, making them *scared* to be heard sharing their hate.

#paradoxoftolerance #tolerance #punchingnazis

@ethics
@philosophy
@politicaltheory
@sociology
@socialcontract
@PhilosophyOfLaw@a gup.pe
@civilsociety
@civility

#Tolerance
#ParadoxOfTolerance
#CritiqueOfPureTolerance
#ContractLaw
#Bigotry
#HateSpeech
#HateCrimes
#FreedomOfSpeech

@oliphant #KarlPopper #ParadoxOfTolerance

"Let people believe what they want."

Yeah, good luck keeping your rights intact--if you believe THAT.

No one can stop anyone else from believing whatever they want to believe. So this is a weasel phrase frequently used to shut down debate, or shame anyone who points out the negative consequences of a religious or political belief.

Sample dialog:

Me: "Climate change is real." Or "vaccines work." Or "Gad is imaginary." Or "Jesus never existed." Or "Religion is an ethical failure." Or "Trans rights are non-negotiable."

Them: "Shut up! That's rude. Let people believe what they want to believe."

Notice the word "let." It's really important. Because I have no control over what anyone believes. What I'm doing is increasing social pressure on that person to examine their beliefs. When someone says "let" people believe what they want to believe, what they're really arguing against is *accountability.* It's a form of gaslighting.

If I inform someone they're factually wrong about some belief, there's nothing stopping that person from ignoring me. Or ignoring the world's leading scientific researchers, or historians, on the topic. No one can stop them from living in a fool's paradise.

But...

"They're entitled to their opinion." Not really.

If someone believes that trans women aren't women, that's a motive for the exclusion / murder of trans women.

If someone believes that immigrants or POC are "inferior," (while simultaneously working harder and "takin' our jerbs,") that's a motive for violence, mistreatment, and genocide.

If someone believes that "gad wants" something, that's a motive to take "gad's will" into their own hands.

Ideas have consequences. I can't ultimately change anyone's mind. But I can step up the pressure on people holding terrible ideas.

The defense of human rights demands that I do just that.
It demands it of you as well.

Going along to get along has brought us directly to the doorstep of fascism. I've been warning people for nearly 30 years about the dangers of religion and right-wing politics. Many of you told me I was "overreacting."

That did not age well.

Friends don't "let" friends believe hateful garbage without calling them to account. Fixing our nation and world begins with you, and how you handle these small conversations. Stop "letting" people get away with lies, self-deception and hate, in the name of "tolerance."

#paradoxoftolerance #hate #lies #beliefs #transrights #humanrights

@donmoyn There should be clear red lines for opposing tolerance: people who advocate violence or #bigotry or oppose democratic institutions.

#paradoxoftolerance #democracy
Paradox of tolerance
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Discovered a #Provençal #proverb: "Amic de cadun, amic de degun" ("friend to everyone, friend to no one"), and thought it was very apt and a succinct statement of the #ParadoxOfTolerance.

Karl Popper described the #ParadoxOfTolerance in 1945. It beggars understanding that modern pundits blithely ignore it, while counting themselves educated.

Why is it always the #journo instances that are happy to host transphobes?

Have they not heard of the #ParadoxOfTolerance?

#Press freedom doesn't just mean the "freedom to" publish what you want. It also means "freedom from" the torrent of lies, disinformation, and foreign government propaganda bent on destroying American consensus and social cohesion.

What good does factual reporting do, if half the nation just decides not to believe it? What good does it do to hold Congressional hearings against the perpetrators of an #insurrection if half the nation thinks it's fake news?

Our founders couldn't have imagined the kind of national #delusion we're going through. If they had, they would have surely qualified the #firstamendment. (Just as they would have qualified the #secondamendment had they understood it would result in young hooligans murdering dozens of school children in a few minutes.)

#Disinformation attacks are no less damaging than kinetic warfare waged against us by another nation. Perhaps even more so. Those of us who remember the 20th century can't fathom that so many Americans have been turned against the ideals of #freedom, #equality, and #justice. Anyone time-traveling to the 2020s from the 1970s or '80s would be astounded that so many Americans openly believe Russian propaganda, as well as diabolical pro-wealth propaganda. They would simply be shocked that billionaires would be allowed to keep pushing this filth onto people's phones and into their living rooms. We're living in a completely alien nation compared to the one I grew up in.

No government that allows the enemies of democracy to weaponize the information space in this fashion will remain democratic for long.

#paradoxoftolerance

Quote Calendar Day # 15

"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."

- Karl Popper (1945)

#Quotemas #ParadoxOfTolerance #AntiOppressive #AntiRascist #AntiFascism #Tolerance #Philosophy

Fighting back against #HateSpeech is not #fascism - it’s the #paradoxoftolerance - we must protect those targeted by fascists for the overall good, progress and protection of an equal society

Fascism is the rounding up, grouping together & silencing of a wide spectrum of #antifascists for simply existing - Making false equivalences to excuse it. It’s pure revenge. The #RadicalRight are trying to divide & muzzle the left by drowning us out. How do we combat such malignant wilful ignorance?

The paradox of tolerance is that intolerance cannot be tolerated.

#Tolerance #Intolerance #Paradox #ParadoxOfTolerance