Hacker News Reader

Comment by yc-kraln | Hacker News Reader

I don't find it to be controversial that questioning someone's humanity or personhood isn't simply "offensive." I find it very surprising that people chanting anti-Semitic nonsense continue to find acceptance and defenders in the United States.

To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

View on HN

> To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant. Why is this new or subject to debate?

It's a somewhat gross simplification of Popper's original:

"Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] 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 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."

- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945)

Doesn't the social justice movement nowadays look rather much like Popper's second paragraph?

I agree with you and right now antifa and BLM are the ones preaching intolerant rhetoric. They can’t for the life of them figure out that we just need to put the past behind us and see that we really have it good right now. They don’t see how much toleration they get despite their intolerance of American Principles, the founders of America, and capitalism. I even heard recently from Larry Elder’s interview on Great American Thinkers (I think that’s what it was called.) that BLM is anti Israel which shows that they are anti Semitic themselves. BLM would have every white man or woman acknowledge the sins of their forefathers as if they were their own.

Although sometimes I like playing the keyboard warrior as I did just here in my previous comment. I also feel there are good people that are in the movement of BLM. I sympathize and empathize with those that are hurting right now. I also believe BLM is not fully responsible for the rioting really I don’t know who to blame for that but regardless lawlessness is not cool. I believe in BLM the concept but not the movement. BLM the concept to me is that BLM because some black people feel and at times, if not very often are discriminated against who get nasty looks anything really. I don’t back down with what I said though. Just as there are people in BLM that do the following there are also people in ALM that are being intolerant, anti Semitic possibly racist and the like. I think they too should be treated with intolerance to an extent. They should not feel welcome making those comments, because they should make a change. I still agree that we should defend The right to free speech that we disagree with, but that just means to me that the government shouldn’t infringe on those rights. We have the freedom to speak our words from possible government intervention, but not a freedom to choose the social consequences. I think people forget that part of the Republican platform in America is standing for individual liberty. As I’ve been told recently if we are color blind that may be bad if we are unaware of our own personal things that make us an individual that’s also bad. Individual liberty to me means standing up for everyone including the little guy but you can’t stand up for the little guy at large expense of the group just as you can’t stand up for the group at the large expense of the minority. That principle I learned from the book Economics in One Lesson and also Our Republican Constitution. If BLM the organization donation’s list goes through ActBlue can you really say it’s a bipartisan movement? I believe the Republican Party still aligns with the principle of BLM the concept but the organization and it’s movement seems to me to drift to partisan politics.

More about ActBlue:

> Powering Democratic candidates, committees, parties, organizations, and c4s around the country.

[1]: https://secure.actblue.com/ [2]: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/ms_blm_homepage_2019

> I also feel there are good people that are in the movement of BLM.

There are good people in any movement, especially if it is sufficiently large enough. And you will certainly find much virtue even in people advancing vile causes if you take stock of their character apart from advancing the vile cause.

Social justice itself is a pile of toxic thought patterns trying to fight for goals that are by and large good. They just do it twelve different kinds of wrong. If a person doesn't think there are good people protesting on the streets and in the movement just because they genuinely care and want to see things better, I'd posit they should go get some new eyes. They just have a nasty brain virus infection.

> To have a tolerant and open society you need to be intolerant to those who are intolerant

Do you have any proof of that? From what I can see, the US has been, for the past 200 years, the most tolerant to intolerance, and also (one of) the most tolerant. Weimar Republic (pre-Nazi Germany), had prohibitions on anti-Semitism, yet it didn't help. I'm sure there are also counterexamples, but regardless your claim doesn't exactly follow.

Is this ignoring that we not only had a Nazi movement back before the war but also the fact that we put Asian Americans into camps, had a long period of treating Irish Americans as 2nd class citizens? This is without going into the big issues of slavery much of which still show signs today in how our police system treats black Americans.

What part of all of that makes us the most tolerant exactly?

Compared to other countries during the same historic periods. E.g. not many other countries went to war to stop slavery. Maybe the UK? Not many.

If you want free speech you have to accept the bad with the good. And if you don’t, well, just go back to your safe bubble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com