Now maybe a few noggleheads might argue it’s not meant that way, but if they can bizarrely argue OK means white power with a straight face because “meanings change,” then employing the Paradox clearly marks one as a fascist
“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.”
Please read this carefully and fully, I will be breaking this down as best as i can.
Firstly,
“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.”
This sounds pretty straight forward right? If something or someone is intolerant they must be suppressed, easy right?
This is the part that shows people don’t know the full quote. Here’s why:
“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.”
He follows it up by saying you should not just suppress people just because they are intolerant, in fact he outright says this is a bad idea if you can defeat them with rational arguments.
By trying to remove something simply because it makes you uncomfortable is to say the argument and points they make are better than your own. It is saying they make a better case why they are right then you are, which means you need to refine your arguments. Suppression is admitting you do not have a logical argument to counter them and they are right, so you must suppress them.
Secondly, this is the part about public opinion keeping them in check. Quite simply, the Nazi idology is one of the single most reviled in the world, more then communism, which has killed more people.
Liking an image is not akin to agreeing with the idology.
I personally love the Nazi uniforms and think they were the best dressed military in history; however, this is not saying I support the ideology that spawned said uniforms. I just like the aesthetic of the uniform. You might think some other uniform from history looks better, as this is subjective. That’s the point, it liking how something looks, no different than looking at a painting and deciding, “I like this,” or “I dislike this.” This in no way means I support what the Nazis did or what the ideology stands for and most people will also oppose it.
Actual Neo-Nazis have very little power. Very few shops will knowingly deal with them, very few businesses will hire them, and very few people will even give them the time of day.
That’s what filtering does on this site. It blocks their voice and I imagine a lot of people block them and ignore them, and actual Nazi messages are ignored. These people are not listened to. That is the public response because their message is so revolting by public opinion to the point most people chalk up anyone who says these things as just trying to be edgy because the concept someone actually thinks this way is ridiculous to most people.
You have a right to be uncomfortable and you have a right to ignore and block your view of this content. This is why filters exist, if you are uncomfortable and do not wish to see such things, then block it and it is not in view. Yes it’s sad, but the thing about suppression is it does the same things as filtering it. You do not get rid of the words, thoughts, or ideas. You simply drive it into the shadows where you and no one else can see it, but it still exists. It will always exist.
Thirdly,
“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 do have this right. Look at a lot of comments and you will find some deleted for rules violations and checking those rules shows a lot of the time, it’s done to the person being terrible. Their words were removed, they were suppressed by the site for what they said.
The main point here is the time you need to suppress them is when they stop answering arguments with arguments and instead answer with threats and violence. Here’s what’s interesting. It is illegal to utter a credible threat, and this site I am quite sure will deal with someone who was a credible threat.
That’s the distinction it has to be a legitimate threat to you. I can say “I am going to kill you,” but the fact is that isn’t credible because I have no idea where you are and you could be halfway around the world from me, meaning I have no real way to actually harm you.
Take the OC Aryanna, one of the bigger things that cause argument. She is a fictional character, a Nazi Pony whose popularity is the juxipostion between the Ponies and such a revolting ideology, thats her appeal, similair to the juxtaposition between the the ponies and the brutality of Fallout. Like all the things on this site, she is pixels on a screen. There is no threat, it cannot harm you in any way. Make you uncomfortable? Sure, but in no way can a drawing harm you.
So I ask, “Where exactly is the threat that needs to be suppressed as said in the Paradox of Tolerance? Where are the fists, the pistols or any other weapon one can use to harm and threaten in a drawing?”
There is none, it is pixels on a screen.
The Paradox of Tolerance doesn’t actually support removing images from this site. Quite the opposite. It supports them remaining unless they are a legitimate threat.
Now, if you are still reading, I’d like to address another thing I’ve noticed.
That being people comparing remaining neutral regarding images and remaining neutral to a war that was actually taking lives.
An image is not the same thing as a war. It is not the same thing as people actively killing other people through warfare or death camps. To remain neutral when people are being rounded up and slaughtered is most certainly not something one should do in most cases. But remaining neutral on pictures is not remotely the same. It is a false equivalence as no one is being harmed by a drawing.
Now I have one thing I’d like to address that i touched on earlier regarding liking an image being somehow equal to supporting an ideology.
Please, watch this video. I’ll still summarize it under the link, so it’s more a formality.
https://youtu.be/UCj8llyzfWo
To summarize, in the video it says playing a german soldier in a WWII shooter such as Battlefield 5 or a Terrorists in Counter Strike will cause you to support these ideologies or actions.
I have to ask of those who’ve read this far, do you believe this is so? I ask because it’s the same argument that video games make people violent. I bring this up as I see a lot of people who seem to think that the liking of an image or even seeing the image will somehow lead you to support the ideology.
Just as video games are not making people violent, playing as a WWII german soldier or Terrorist doesn’t make you suddenly want to support these groups, nor does seeing an image.
Video games are pictures, moving, and ones we control. If anything, they have a higher chance of getting support since you are the one doing things, but the fact is video games don’t influence us in that way and neither does a still image someone drew make those who see it suddenly support whatever they see. They either already supported the ideology before seeing the image or they like the aesthetics of the image. They didnt suddenly become Nazi from an image of a pony with a nazi swastika on her flanks.
Regardless, if you read this far, I thank you. I hope I was able to help you understand why people take the stances they do regarding this site as well as your own stance a bit better. We should always examine our own views and actions to avoid becoming things we oppose without realizing it. There is a thin line between protection and oppression, and it’s all too easy for one to cross that line without realizing it and be what they claim to be fighting. I know I’ve had to change views I’ve held before after reexamining them.
Thank you for reading.
@Background Pony #E334
Somehow, the “nazis” are engaging in a rational argument, while the “us” you refer to are screeching, trying to take Derpibooru’s patreon down, and attacking the other boorus because they dared to exist. Oh and also blocking anyone who disagrees immediately on their twitters, and coming here just to insult people. Not really a very rational position, is it?
Maybe look in the mirror for once. You might see someone who is you, but more honest, there.
@Background Pony #E334
Somehow, the “nazis” are engaging in a rational argument, while the “us” you refer to are screeching, trying to take Derpibooru’s patreon down, and attacking the other boorus because they dared to exist. Oh and also blocking anyone who disagrees immediately on their twitters, and coming here just to insult people. Not really a very rational position, is it?
Maybe look in the mirror for once. You might see someone who is you, but more honest, there.I don’t think you understand. To be a Nazi has nothing to do with “rational” argument. And Nazi symbols of murder, hatred and suffering are not arguments. A symbol is not an argument. Demanding to emblazon a symbol of mass murder on a pony is not an argument. Declaring that you have a right to emblazon said symbol on a pony on a private website is not an argument. That is a declaration, possibly a form of misguided advocacy that is better qualified as propaganda. It’s pretty rare in today’s age to see people advocating on behalf of Nazi symbology, but I suppose in many ways the Atlantic article was right about the types of individuals who make up some of this community. But no, those are not arguments, rational or otherwise.yes yes all very boring stuff, don’t bother looking into it goyim, and if you do and come to the wrong conclusion we’ll kill and destroy you anyway.
@Background Pony #0360
Also you were responding to another post instead of the OP lol, OP is the paradox post.
The biggest elephant in the room is that the ‘Paradox of Tolerance’ immediately asks also:Why is Foalcon and Rape allowed then but Nazi is not?
@Background Pony #E334
Faust said the M6 were young adults. Try againWord of Faust for proofs. She said they are young adults, but deliberately act immature to appeal to kids. After S1&2 they start acting less immature + passage of time means the only ones who want to think the M6 are children are pedophiles
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Locked
Lock reason: There was no need to start necroing this