But THE ENTIRE POINT of the paradox of tolerance is that the intolerant cannot be tolerated. That means either we understand we have to do bad things to certain other humans, or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
You can be intolerant and violent without being dehumanizing. You can still punch a Nazi and resist fascists without dehumanizing. This whole argument has got me confused. It’s not even an argument.
Hell, you can still be a bad person without dehumanizing.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : 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.—In this formulation, 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 imwise. 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
(emphasis added)
By Popper’s standards, you should not be tolerated in an open society, as you seem willing to “do bad things to certain other humans” who come under a presumably broader definition of intolerance than those who “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
Do note that this footnote is the only thing he ever wrote on the matter.
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; …
Look, I get it, you’re one of the standard issue online leftists who saw that one retarded comic strip about Popper and think that justifies your resentful desire to punch a nazi or whatever. The whole motte and bailey of “well umm actually by dehumanize I just mean detaining violent ideologues who refuse to engage in argument, and I guess maybe also shooting Charlie Kirk for expressing opinions different to my own cause words are violence or whatever” is incredibly tiresome. If you had ever read The Open Society and its Enemies (or anything beyond forum posts and microblogs) you would know that you are that irrational, violent voice that cannot be tolerated according to Popper.
rofl! You are a pathetic mess. Seriously, you are a joke.
If you cannot understand the difference between killing a violent extremist who ACTIVELY called for the harm of others, and someone who merely recognizes that rhetoric as harmful to the very human condition, then you are nothing more than the most useful idiot vile beings could ever ask for.
Why do you want to be such a pathetic useful idiot? You are DANGEROUSLY close to being one of those pathetic fools unprepared to meet others on the field of rational argument…
Either CLEARLY state your claims of rational thought, or go down in history as a fucking tool unable to think your way out of a fucking paper bag.
What do you think, “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force” means? Because thus far, you’ve proven to be too stupid to understand the very things you attempt to quote… NOWHERE have I said that we should dismiss vile people as humans. The debate on who deserves “humanity” comes down to whether or not you consider basic name-calling as “dehumanizing”.
For the record, if you think basic name-calling is “dehumanizing”, you’re nothing but a useful tool for censorship.
But THE ENTIRE POINT of the paradox of tolerance is that the intolerant cannot be tolerated. That means either we understand we have to do bad things to certain other humans, or OP is straight up fucking wrong depending on what they mean by, “dehumanizing”.
You can be intolerant and violent without being dehumanizing. You can still punch a Nazi and resist fascists without dehumanizing. This whole argument has got me confused. It’s not even an argument.
Hell, you can still be a bad person without dehumanizing.
I agree. Though far, far too many people think “don’t dehumanize” means you cannot even call them despicable trash, let alone condemn them to death.
If a mean word is too far, you’ve already lost.
(emphasis added)
By Popper’s standards, you should not be tolerated in an open society, as you seem willing to “do bad things to certain other humans” who come under a presumably broader definition of intolerance than those who “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols”.
Do note that this footnote is the only thing he ever wrote on the matter.
Read the rest of the fucking quote.
How on earth do you make the leap from “suppress them if necessary” to “dehumanize”? Most imwise.
Where did I say someone wasn’t a human?
Do you know what “depending on what they mean” means?
Look, I get it, you’re one of the standard issue online leftists who saw that one retarded comic strip about Popper and think that justifies your resentful desire to punch a nazi or whatever. The whole motte and bailey of “well umm actually by dehumanize I just mean detaining violent ideologues who refuse to engage in argument, and I guess maybe also shooting Charlie Kirk for expressing opinions different to my own cause words are violence or whatever” is incredibly tiresome. If you had ever read The Open Society and its Enemies (or anything beyond forum posts and microblogs) you would know that you are that irrational, violent voice that cannot be tolerated according to Popper.
rofl! You are a pathetic mess. Seriously, you are a joke.
If you cannot understand the difference between killing a violent extremist who ACTIVELY called for the harm of others, and someone who merely recognizes that rhetoric as harmful to the very human condition, then you are nothing more than the most useful idiot vile beings could ever ask for.
Why do you want to be such a pathetic useful idiot? You are DANGEROUSLY close to being one of those pathetic fools unprepared to meet others on the field of rational argument…
Either CLEARLY state your claims of rational thought, or go down in history as a fucking tool unable to think your way out of a fucking paper bag.
What do you think, “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force” means? Because thus far, you’ve proven to be too stupid to understand the very things you attempt to quote… NOWHERE have I said that we should dismiss vile people as humans. The debate on who deserves “humanity” comes down to whether or not you consider basic name-calling as “dehumanizing”.
For the record, if you think basic name-calling is “dehumanizing”, you’re nothing but a useful tool for censorship.