I have observed a growing tendency for some individuals on the left to cite Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” in ways that misrepresent its original intent, effectively suggesting that any stance short of full-throated radical leftism should be deemed fascistic. This reinterpretation goes beyond Popper’s caution about tolerating genuinely intolerant ideologies, instead using his argument as a blanket justification for shutting down or even endorsing violence against those deemed insufficiently progressive.
Last week a moderator on University of Oregon's subreddit was banned for pinning a message endorsing violence against conservatives on campus.
You're one of today's lucky 10,000 that gets to learn about Section 230.
When a liberal is president, the conservatives say Section 230 is a dangerous and inconsiderate provision that absolves too much liability from tech corporations. Liberals protest to defend personal freedoms and that's the end of it.
When a conservative is president, the liberals say Section 230 is a dangerous and inconsiderate provision that absolves too much liability from tech corporations. Conservatives protest it to preserve American businesses and that's the end of it.
Note, neither side actually wants to fix the issue. They just want to control the narrative by threatening publishers with pugilist legislation. Section 230 is arguably quite great for individual liberty, which is why both sides of the aisle threaten it when their party is underfoot. Sorry for not feeding into your "us vs them" shtick, suppressing online speech is sadly a bipartisan fascination.
Reddit didn't get extreme. Republicans got extreme. The Republican Party is intent on dismantling the very idea of liberal civil society.
American "conservatives" are against healthcare, clean energy, labor laws, minimum wage, public education, child healthcare, science, women's right to vote, equal rights for black people, rock music, dungeons and dragons, ... Whatever it is the Republicans are against it. Their entire mode of operation is to throw a wrench in things and then feign aloofness. Some of us are done pretending they are anything than what they've shown themselves to be.
A lot of blood was spilled to create a civil liberal society with basic things like equality under the law, public education, clean water, 40-hour work weeks, and on and on. And a lot of blood will need to be spilled to keep it.
I suppose the Paradox of Tolerance gives you blanket permission to be violent against anyone who fails to meet your exact political litmus test? Indeed, Popper’s warning about tolerating the intolerant was intended to guard against existential threats to a pluralistic society, not to license indiscriminate hostility. By extending the label of “intolerant” to encompass nearly all Republican or conservative positions, you transform the paradox into a broad justification for suppressing any viewpoint you oppose.
Moreover, while it is undeniably true that significant social and political progress has required great effort and, in some cases, profound sacrifice, it does not follow that we must now treat all dissenting views as immediate dangers warranting violent reprisal. If anything, the most effective way to preserve the foundations of liberal civil society, such as robust public education, fair labor laws, and equitable treatment for all, is to engage in an open, if sometimes messy, democratic process, rather than to endorse sweeping forms of retribution.
When we equate every policy disagreement with an existential threat, we risk undermining the very civil discourse we claim to protect. Therefore, invoking the Paradox of Tolerance to rationalize violence is far removed from Popper’s original intention and, taken to its extreme, contradicts the core values of a tolerant and inclusive society.
I have observed a growing tendency for some individuals on the left to cite Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Tolerance” in ways that misrepresent its original intent, effectively suggesting that any stance short of full-throated radical leftism should be deemed fascistic. This reinterpretation goes beyond Popper’s caution about tolerating genuinely intolerant ideologies, instead using his argument as a blanket justification for shutting down or even endorsing violence against those deemed insufficiently progressive.
Last week a moderator on University of Oregon's subreddit was banned for pinning a message endorsing violence against conservatives on campus.
[flagged]
You're one of today's lucky 10,000 that gets to learn about Section 230.
When a liberal is president, the conservatives say Section 230 is a dangerous and inconsiderate provision that absolves too much liability from tech corporations. Liberals protest to defend personal freedoms and that's the end of it.
When a conservative is president, the liberals say Section 230 is a dangerous and inconsiderate provision that absolves too much liability from tech corporations. Conservatives protest it to preserve American businesses and that's the end of it.
Note, neither side actually wants to fix the issue. They just want to control the narrative by threatening publishers with pugilist legislation. Section 230 is arguably quite great for individual liberty, which is why both sides of the aisle threaten it when their party is underfoot. Sorry for not feeding into your "us vs them" shtick, suppressing online speech is sadly a bipartisan fascination.
Reddit didn't get extreme. Republicans got extreme. The Republican Party is intent on dismantling the very idea of liberal civil society.
American "conservatives" are against healthcare, clean energy, labor laws, minimum wage, public education, child healthcare, science, women's right to vote, equal rights for black people, rock music, dungeons and dragons, ... Whatever it is the Republicans are against it. Their entire mode of operation is to throw a wrench in things and then feign aloofness. Some of us are done pretending they are anything than what they've shown themselves to be.
A lot of blood was spilled to create a civil liberal society with basic things like equality under the law, public education, clean water, 40-hour work weeks, and on and on. And a lot of blood will need to be spilled to keep it.
I suppose the Paradox of Tolerance gives you blanket permission to be violent against anyone who fails to meet your exact political litmus test? Indeed, Popper’s warning about tolerating the intolerant was intended to guard against existential threats to a pluralistic society, not to license indiscriminate hostility. By extending the label of “intolerant” to encompass nearly all Republican or conservative positions, you transform the paradox into a broad justification for suppressing any viewpoint you oppose.
Moreover, while it is undeniably true that significant social and political progress has required great effort and, in some cases, profound sacrifice, it does not follow that we must now treat all dissenting views as immediate dangers warranting violent reprisal. If anything, the most effective way to preserve the foundations of liberal civil society, such as robust public education, fair labor laws, and equitable treatment for all, is to engage in an open, if sometimes messy, democratic process, rather than to endorse sweeping forms of retribution.
When we equate every policy disagreement with an existential threat, we risk undermining the very civil discourse we claim to protect. Therefore, invoking the Paradox of Tolerance to rationalize violence is far removed from Popper’s original intention and, taken to its extreme, contradicts the core values of a tolerant and inclusive society.