@amj The paradox of tolerance isn鈥檛 about there being a problem with respecting Nazi ideas: that wouldn鈥檛 be a paradox of tolerance.

The paradox of tolerance is that you can鈥檛 tolerate people trying to shut other people up (you can鈥檛 tolerate people being intolerant), refusing to engage in dialogue, shouting others down, using violence and threats of violence to shut others up. That is the intolerance that Karl Popper said must not be tolerated, and should be prevented even if violence is necessary. He wasn鈥檛 concerned with shutting Nazis up and stopping them from discussing their ideas.

Having and sharing nasty ideas is not the same thing as being intolerant.

The Open Society and Its Enemies is really big on explaining why tolerating people discussing ideas you hate is really important.

@amj 鈥淚n 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 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.鈥 (K. Popper)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!