Nah, misinterpretation.
Censorship doesn’t stop shit.
Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.
we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force
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
Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views.
The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant.
Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.
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
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.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.
Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place. If you allow those that break the social contract to remain in society, they will cause society to break down as that is their express and explicit goal. A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
Yeah we’re well past that point and have been definitely since alternative facts got normalized in discourse. This is a post-truth society. And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.
Nah, misinterpretation. Censorship doesn’t stop shit. Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.
Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views. The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant. Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.
Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.
Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.
Well that’s fucking stupid when we know deplatforming works. Also you’re using specific definitions to deliberately misunderstand the paradox of tolerance so this is a stupid argument in the first place. If you allow those that break the social contract to remain in society, they will cause society to break down as that is their express and explicit goal. A fucking high school intellect wrote that garbage article. Also, fuck pacifism, that’s a tool of fascists.
Yeah we’re well past that point and have been definitely since alternative facts got normalized in discourse. This is a post-truth society. And next time use your own words instead of a gpt.