Why are they holding Parler to a different standard?
They should have started doing this 4 years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have witnessed the first coup attempt in our history and 350k people wouldn't have died from a preventable illness.
Concerning the Capitol I agree.
I can forgive uncertainty about covid until March, despite my part of the world taking it very seriously. After that point I think America as a whole, and the Trump administration in particular really shit the bed. We have been wearing masks here on a mandatory basis since February, and have arguably handled covid better than any nation besides New Zealand.
Yeah it's shocking people wouldn't blame themselves.
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But 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.
This seems like it's clearly saying that, as a society, we should reserve the right to silence any group by force if we consider them to be intolerant. It's often said that the government has a monopoly on force, so this is pretty much saying the government should reserve the right to quiet any speech it deems intolerant.
Is this really what the people quoting it want? I'm worried about the government using "intolerance" as a cover for suppressing speech it dislikes for other reasons. Some governments like manage to Germany ban certain types of speech without becoming authoritarian states, but others don't. Particularly in the US, I have a feeling we'll get Trump 2.0 at some point, and he'll be smarter and more capable and more charismatic and more populist and more popular, and I don't know if it's a good idea to give him the right to say "free speech is cancelled and if I think you're not being tolerant enough [to groups I like], you're going to jail bucko". Do people arguing on Popper's side have a reason to be confident that this won't ever happen?
Replace tolerance with "free[dom]" and intolerance with "censorship" without losing its meaning and getting rid of the word play.
"In order for society to be free, it must censor censorship."
even simpler:
"In order for society to be free, it must be free from censorship."
Freedom and censorship are antonyms of each other (mutually exclusive). So obviously, its a paradox.
But 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.
Even as it is with the word - tolerance, it is not particularly insightful in any profound way to me. Can you explain? It just says that in order for the society to remain tolerant, it must get rid of intolerance. To which my brain goes "No shit!", would love to get more insight.
Doesn't this imply that censorship must be allowed for a free society?
Coming to the main point, I think the meaning behind the phrase is that absolute tolerance is not sustainable; a line must be drawn somewhere and yes, we can argue till end of time where that line needs to be drawn as long it is drawn somewhere.
Discussing the point itself: Yea it makes sense though and I had arguments with a liberatarian friend who wants 100% anarchy. No police, no laws, no anything, no FDA, no Fire department and no medical laws, no lawyers, etc. My argument was that such a society is impossible and would crumble upon itself. One bad actor and the entire society falls apart.
Would you be happier if they banned gay wedding cakes too?
Yes but where to draw a line?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
Second, if you look at only those with the intention to kill or gravely wound, the numbers are quite comparable.
Third, one of these is an attack on a much softer target and done without any warning, making it a more dangerous threat.
Because it seems like you're whatabouting presidential assassination attempts to do what exactly?
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.