“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
If I got this right you took something I didn’t say as your foundational point to argue against, said that I should say what you want me to say instead to be truthful, and that advocating for intolerance against the intolerant is dumb because you’ve defined it to either include or require political violence.
I guess you get points for boldness, but -10 points from gryphondorf for arguing with yourself.
And to be clear; supporting assassinations & enjoying the poetic justice of someone who advocates for gun violence and that some people should be killed for who they were born as and not their choices getting killed by a gun are not the same thing.
Okay. Is the point of that comment that political assassinations of non-violent people should never happen?
What does Popper mean by “defend a tolerant society”? What do you think people should think when you post that now in a thread about a political murder?
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
“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
Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Do those words mean you support the assassination of someone who was non-violent but expressed disagreeable viewpoints? That’s not very tolerant.
By this standard anyone who supports such a thing should also be assassinated. (Note: anyone can define anything anyway they want to justify this)
This is why the paradox of tolerance is a stupid, poorly camouflaged advocacy for political violence.
Just own up to saying you want to kill your political enemies. It’s more honest.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
If I got this right you took something I didn’t say as your foundational point to argue against, said that I should say what you want me to say instead to be truthful, and that advocating for intolerance against the intolerant is dumb because you’ve defined it to either include or require political violence.
I guess you get points for boldness, but -10 points from gryphondorf for arguing with yourself.
And to be clear; supporting assassinations & enjoying the poetic justice of someone who advocates for gun violence and that some people should be killed for who they were born as and not their choices getting killed by a gun are not the same thing.
Manmoth@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Okay. Is the point of that comment that political assassinations of non-violent people should never happen?
What does Popper mean by “defend a tolerant society”? What do you think people should think when you post that now in a thread about a political murder?
Do you disavow the murder of Charlie Kirk?
Do you think it was immoral?
Gloomy@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
There is a difference between not tolerating intolerance and actively calling for the killing of / celebrating the death of an intolerant person.