The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost.

Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'.

We're talking about the Daily Stormer here though. "Mildly sceptical over mass immigration" is putting it a bit too "mildly".

That being said, I personally lean towards allowing free speech without restrictions (with exceptions for things like extortion). I just wanted to remind us about the context in which the parent comment was written.

> The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost.

> Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'.

"Neo-Nazi" is not anywhere close to the same category as "skeptical on mass immigration".

Skeptical on mass immigration represents a reasonable political position that is commonly accepted (as shown by how many Republicans with that position as part of their platform in the US).

Neo-Nazi represents a fetishism for Nazism, Fascism, and the idea that mass murder might be acceptable.

In todays climate, everyone who is not radical left is being called a Nazi.

Ben Shapiro has been called a Nazi.

You are arguing Weev, the Daily Stormer, and the people who call themselves Neo Nazis ... are not?

Do you have any proof their proclamation they are neo nazis is a lie?

You are aware it is literally named after a Nazi tabloid:

The Daily Stormer is named for the Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer, known for its antisemitic caricatures. This 1934 billboard for Der Stürmer reads "With Der Stürmer against Judea. The Jews are our misfortune".

Yes?

Please read the comments upthread. Meanwhile, we moved away from Daily Stormer to Popper, calling people names for various reasons, including Nazi for immigration skeptics. The discussion in this thread is not limited to Daily Stormer anymore, but revolves around radical left calling anyone not having 100% identical opinion Nazis.

Including Ben Shapiro, who is a guy that "wears a funny hat".

This article is about the DailyStormer. They proudly called themselves nazis.

You're moving the goalposts. Ethno-nationalists are not "mildly sceptical over mass immigration". They advocate for the mass murder or violent removal of every person they consider to be "non-white".

Even with a slippery slope, you can install fences to prevent people from falling down. Every society needs to have standards it adheres to, and you can't accept every idea, or as happened in America, the bad ones get louder, because the intolerant are not interested in a discourse, but rather enforcing their views on people.

The 2 cases you picked are poor, because in each case, there's evidence that people can use to make up their minds.

The great thing about tolerating intolerance is that you can have people shot in the streets and pretend it's nothing to do with you.

Every slope is slippery.

I dunno, that sounds like a crime though.

"You also had some very fine people on both sides."

Which leads to other complications. Who enforces the law when the police are the law breakers?

Depending on which school of though...

If you refer to peaceful methods, then look no further than Ghandi and MLK. Protest peacefully. Make them raise their fist. And record it, tell the stories, reduce their mandate.

If you come from Malcolm X's or IRA's point of view: assassinations, military-like strikes, and generally war.

I reserve judgement on which way is better.

Then of course there's Nelson Mandela. He started with peaceful means, came to the conclusion it was ineffective in his case and turned to violence. Later he refused opportunities to leave prison that would have required him to renounce violence. Ultimately, he didn't need to fire a shot after he was released but he would have done so with a clear conscience. Non-violence can be a moral choice, but so can violence in the face of great, violent injustice.

Of course, we're assuming asymmetric warfare here. No-one honestly believes FDR was wrong to declare war on Japan.

It depends. Do you regard your enemy as a good person doing a bad thing, or as a bad person doing a bad thing? If it's the former then teach them a better way a la MLK and Gandhi. If it's the latter, then teach them a better way a la Malcom X.

If you can see some compassion or love in your enemy's eyes, then every time they hold up their fist to beat you you should hold up a mirror.

Gandhi, not Ghandi.

Gandhi was most effective when the Indian armed forces rebelled.

MLK had Malcom X.

You need a good cop and a bad cop.

The Coast Guard.

Nah, those were Jews and communists. No crime shooting them.

/Godwin

Instead of doing that, how about we have laws against killing people, and then actually enforce them?

"Where is the line" for how much we should "tolerate intolerance" is a very easy question to answer.

The line is at current, US law. Break the law with your intolerance, via engaging in violent assault, and you should go to jail.

Regardless of what any philosophers have said, the meme survives because it's ambiguous. What does "not tolerating" mean? It could be anything from quiet disapproval to all-out war. The target is ambiguous as well.

Instead of debating this slippery slogan, better to ask people to clarify what they want to do.

> Every modern moral philosopher has come to the same conclusion

Everything after a statement like that can be safely dismissed as pure bull.

While its a false generalisation, most of modern philosophers specialized on morals/ethics whether they are utilitarists or not agree that excluding the intolerant (more like banning intolerant behavior) is beneficial for the "common good".

From an utilitarist point of view, this isn't even a question: intolerant behavior leads to less people being happy (not even talking about hypotethical fights resulting of intolerance, just people feeling excluded), therefore it should be banned.

But that's not even what his argument is, it's much more bizarre. If I understood correctly, he claimed that

1) Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance.

2) Every modern philosopher agrees with #1.

Both a false statements, as far as I can see.

As for "Intolerant behavior", it's a completely subjective concept that is orthogonal to morality. In most places in Saui Arabia it's not tolerated for a woman to not appear wrapped in a bag, and considered immoral too, but I consider that kind of treatment of women completely intolerant and immoral in itself.

The thing : #1 was wrote by Popper, a rather known utilitarist (well, negative utilitarist: every action, instead of optimizing overall happiness, should aim to decrease overall pain). There is a lot of modern philosopher that agree with this as well. This is a catchphrase, it doesn't refer to what you read but to the reflexion behind (like "i think therefore i am" refer to cartesian doubt and that you can doubt of anything except the fact tht you exist).

HS: The main issue with that, a sentence that resume an "essai" (don't have a clue about the english translation), is that people that do not know what philosophy really is. Let's be honest, if it is taught as well in the world than in France, almost nobody knows. So most people misunderstand what it really means, while some of the other use this knowledge to put people down. Even writing this, i'm pedantic, and i really don't want to be, so imagine someone who like feeling full of himself? And that way, more and ore people hate philosophy and philosopher, and get disinterested. (i wrote like a hundred lines about philosophers in French media, but i'm sure no one care so i will refrain...)

Why so?

Because it's a false premise.

I'm sorry, but what is a false premise? I'm trying to figure out what your argument is, but I'm just not sure. Could you be more clear?

I think the key distinction here is between “intolerance” and refusal of services. No one should be going out of their way to hear or publish the Nazi point of view, and people ought to call them disgusting and monstrous when they appear in the news.

That said we shouldn’t deny them services like hosting, because maintaing a neutral hosting stance is what allows for a firm argument that protects imprortant discourse like legitimate political dissent. Once you allow for a line to be drawn, suddenly bickering over that line becomes a an endless problem that might stifle any idea.

> "Nah. Read your Popper or your Rawls. Every modern moral philosopher..."

I'd also recommend Carl Schmitt [1]

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/#ConPolCriLib

It's always a good idea to know exactly what you're talking about when making gross generalizations regarding the application of a single word. Before you start - define terms and give precise instances please else discussion is mere hand waving.

You replied to the wrong post.