883
It's not a paradox (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

everyone who voted for Trump broke the social contract of this country

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    Thank you for demonstrating exactly how this sentiment is so much of a problem.

    Every marginalized populace has been accused of being an enemy of society. The paradox of intolerance says it is morally acceptable to oppress the enemies of society. The paradox says that oppressing these enemies is a moral imperative.

    The same moral principle that allows you to be intolerant of Trump voters justifies intolerance toward Biden voters, and anyone else that anyone doesn't like.

    The paradox of intolerance was cribbed from Mein Kampf, and is the foundational principle of fascism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm gonna need a source on that, bud.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I gave you the source. Mein Kampf.

    Hitler regularly spoke about the "harm" he believed Judaism was causing. He infamously demonstrated his belief that the Jewish mindset was dangerously harmful to society, and used that risk and danger to justify acting against them. His argument was that Judaism was "intolerant" of German culture, and he came to the same conclusion that Popper would come to a little later: it is morally correct to suppress the "intolerant".

    The correct lesson to learn from Popper's Paradox is the insidiousness of fascism. Intolerance for the "intolerant" is the foundation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's different because the Jews weren't fascists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    If a philosophical model leads to atrocity when it is adopted by your enemy, that model is irreparably flawed.

    The moral lesson from the Intolerance paradox is "you are justified in destroying those who do not agree with you". That philosophy is identical to and indistinguishable from the personal worldview of every oppressor that has ever existed.

    Whether the Jews were actually, objectively fascist or not is irrelevant: the German public believed them to be their enemies, and believed themselves justified in destroying their enemies. Popper's Paradox does not improve that situation; it worsens it. It gives them a sense of legitimacy for whatever actions they decide to take against their enemy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    No, the moral lesson from the intolerance paradox is "destroy intolerance".

    Bad people always find excuses. Do you believe in feeding the homeless? What if the Nazis fed the homeless Jews Zyklon B, would you still believe in feeding the homeless then, you genocidal freak?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    You're not quite grasping the concept.

    The entire point of Popper's Paradox is to encourage "Good" people to use the exact same excuses as the "Bad".

    The problem with the paradox is that nobody identifies themselves as the bad guy.

    You have demonstrated hostility toward me, intolerance of my viewpoint. My philosophy of "tolerance" calls for me to tolerate your speech, up until you actually call for harm against me. Your philosophy of "intolerance for the intolerant" calls for me to suppress you.

    Adopting your philosophical model, I should hunt you down and destroy you. Maintaining my own philosophical model, I should endeavor to tolerate your intolerant attitude and behavior.

    Shall I maintain my own philosophy? Or shall I adopt yours?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're not quite grasping the concept. Bad people always copy good people's excuses, so that's a very lame excuse not to be good. Do you tolerate everything except the intolerant? Great, then I tolerate you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You trust bad people to realize they are bad?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    No.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So, bad people, thinking they are good, are going to be following your philosophy? They are going to be attacking the people they believe to be bad?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Nazis were the bad guys. It doesn't matter how they identified themselves. They were still bad - because they didn't tolerate Jews, homosexuals, disabled people or Gypsies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Nazis stole their eugenics policies directly from the US. What they called "Lebensraum" our ancestors called "manifest destiny". Their "Rassenschande" was cribbed from our "anti-miscegenation" laws. "Sonderweg" was "American Exceptionalism". Long before they had the Holocaust, we had the Trail of Tears.

    The people fighting the Nazis were performing many of the same atrocities as the Nazis. We even had our own concentration camps filled with Japanese civilians, interred simply because we deemed them a potential threat.

    We have been the bad guys. We will be the bad guys again. When we were the bad guys, we didn't call ourselves the bad guys, yet we subscribed to a philosophy that would later become the Paradox of Intolerance and committed uncountable atrocities against "the intolerant", who we would later determine to have been the good guys.

    If your philosophy leads to atrocity when adopted by your enemy, your philosophy is broken.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I suppose leftists did all of those things.

    You're trying to convince me that because Nazis killing Jews is bad, Jews killing Nazis is bad too. That won't work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, I am not trying to convince you of anything like that. I am saying that the Nazis were only able to justify their intolerance of the Jews by subscribing to an intolerance paradox.

    I am saying that they were following the exact philosophy that you are promoting.

    I am saying that they could not justify their actions under a "tolerance" policy

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Nazis could justify their intolerance of Jews with anything they wanted.

    Do you think it's ok to punch a Nazi?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Nazis could justify their intolerance of Jews with anything they wanted.

    That is exactly my point.

    You can justify your intolerance of anyone with anything you want. That's what the Paradox of Intolerance lets you do. You don't need any further justification than "I don't think they like me very much.".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I think you meant to say "Trump bad!!!"

    The downvotes you have received are ridiculous. Despite the well spoken argument that you have made in good faith, people are just pissed off that you've seen the problem in a different way to them and I'd guess that in many cases, just failed to understand what you're saying.

    I think you're absolutely right. Alienating people politically opposed to you by insulting them, isn't only a reciprocating problem, but actively counter productive to your cause. I don't think any republican has switched sides because a democrat has called them a low IQ cult member.

    This is some Reddit tier shit. Such a shame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're right, it all depends on who is in power, and what they define to be tolerable and what intolerance is in their view. That's why it's our moral obligation to tolerate the intolerant, however counterintuitive that may sound.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago

    There is a line, but that line is where intolerant speech crosses to threats or acts of physical harm, either to person or property.

    "If you offend me, I will silence you."

    Vs.

    "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -27 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not a fan of Trump, but there was never a "social contract" in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    if you think that, you are not a citizen.. you're a customer..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm a citizen by coercion of the government, not by voluntary means.

    A "social contract" cannot be used to justify the existence of an oligarchy of politicians and its actions because they will initiate force against those who do not wish to enter into that contract.

    In fact, the so-called "social contract" is not a contract at all because it is unilateral in nature. Voting and taxation don't necessarily imply consent with how government works, as there is no explicit consent of every citizen.

    Such indiscriminate uncritical love of representative democracy is a threat to liberty itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    you sound like a Russian propagandist.. only someone totally defeated by fear thinks that way.. you are clearly a slave..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Argumentum ad hominem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    you're mis-using that term, to try to gain sympathy.. another sign of weakness..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Sorry, dude, but your previous comment was a textbook example of ad hominem. Further, the comment I'm replying to is an example of gaslighting and another ad hom.

    Focus on the argument, not the person making it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're literally accusing me of "russian propagandist" instead of replying to my personal argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    a little too close to home perhaps.. i merely suggested you argue like a Russian coward.. i said nothing personally identifying about you as an individual, therefore it wasn't an ad hominem attack, you drama queen..

    i will repeat my statement to clarify.. if you think the way you claim to, you are a slave and a coward.. you are not a citizen of any country, and your opinion doesn't matter to me in the least.. because i don't care about slaves..

    i don't care if that makes you sad

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Fair enough. You're still not replying to my opinion anyway.

    I can infere that you're a very close-minded person. You're criticizing the "tone" of my opinion instead of its content.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •