• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The argument boils down to “it’s impossible to know if the opposing side is truly being intolerant.” You say it is impossible. I say it isn’t.

    Close, but not quite. That situation does, indeed, arise, but what I am arguing for is a philosophical model that provides valid results even when applied by my worst enemy.

    While we can certainly come up with any number of subjective characteristics distinguishing you from them, there is no objective distinction between your brand of intolerance and theirs. As the subjects of your intolerance, they have just as much a claim to declare you fascist as you have to declare them. The tragedy of Popper’s paradox is that it absolutely requires, but does not give any guidance in determining who is the good guy and who is the baddie. In the form commonly presented, It just tells you it is a moral imperative to oppress your enemies. That’s a big fucking problem when history eventually determines you were on the wrong side of the issue.

    The free speech absolutist does not have this problem. He recognizes that he does not agree with his opponent, but he understands he is not empowered to silence his opponent. This is true regardless of who thinks themselves the good guy.

    Popper’s paradox calls for fascist reactions to fascism. Popper’s paradox calls for the echo chambers and deepens the divisiveness that underpins so many of our societal problems today.

    • mrpants@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The deep divisiveness comes from the shitty ideas that should have been shunned long ago and instead were left to fester.

      You don’t care about instances loke Exploding Heads or their awful ideas because you’re unaffected by them so you can hold these lofty perfect ideals instead of facing the reality of the situation.

      Opposing and shunning hate speech is not fascism and your argument depends on pretending to be unable to see the difference between hate and disagreement.

      Allow me to illucidate the simplicity of this in reality:

      • Economic policy: Disagreement
      • Minstrel show images: Hate speech
      • Energy policy: Disagreement
      • Saying men and straight people should have less rights than women and gays: Hate speech
      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You continue to ignore historical precedence. Everyone want to think that they would have been Oskar Schindler, but the reality is that if you were a German in 1935, you would have supported the Nazis, just like the overwhelming majority of Germans.

        The question isn’t whether minstrel shows or homophobic attitudes are hate speech. The question is whether the people holding those opinions can speak them, or whether they should be censored and oppressed.

        Silencing someone for holdong a politically incorrect opinion: hate speech.

        • mrpants@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry I didn’t realize I was talking to an idiot. That’s my bad. That’s on me.

          “You, person who opposes Nazi ideology, would ackshually support it” Brilliant detective work there pal.

          Edit: Also wanted to add but was busy. The Nazi party never achieved anything close to majority support. They peaked at 37% and were declining to 33% during the last free and fair election. No one likes Nazis. Not even Germans in the 30s and 40s.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party_election_results