Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
Mon Apr 4, 2022, 08:58 PM Apr 2022

Tolerance and violence are pretty much at opposite ends of the "how to handle things" spectrum,

but they do have something in common: people often seem to take extreme --- and foolish --- positions with respect to both alternatives.

Should we really be tolerant of ANY words and deeds? Should we tolerate intolerance and place no restrictions on racists, misogynists, homophobes and religious bigots? Should we "mind our own business" when a neighbor claims "freedom of religion" and stone's his disrespectful child?

Is violence ALWAYS unjustified and therefore "wrong"? Are Ukrainians wrong for killing Russian terrorists? Was "the Greatest Generation" wrong for travelling overseas to shoot soldiers of Germany, Italy and Japan?

Most of the time, there are better ways to handle a problem than violence.

And, nearly all of mankind's myriad different ways to navigate through a lifetime should be tolerated.

But, these are not absolutes. There are times and circumstances in which refusing to use violence or shrugging and "minding our own business" is immoral.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tolerance and violence are pretty much at opposite ends of the "how to handle things" spectrum, (Original Post) Atticus Apr 2022 OP
Karl Popper: The Tolerance Paradox Gaugamela Apr 2022 #1
This Hekate Apr 2022 #2
Thank you. onecaliberal Apr 2022 #3

Gaugamela

(2,496 posts)
1. Karl Popper: The Tolerance Paradox
Mon Apr 4, 2022, 09:09 PM
Apr 2022

From The Open Society and its Enemies

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 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.


https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tolerance and violence ar...