When responding to intolerant people who lack power, you should respond gracefully and respectfully. When intolerant people claim power, the gloves can start coming off. Also, never engage in offensive violence, but defensive violence is occasionally called for.
You can’t deny that there is an actual tipping point for tolerating intolerance. We actually have historical precedent. There’s millions of Jews who would agree... if they could.
The line of government intervention should be drawn at insighting violence and hate speech, thats one of the few examples of where the line is drawn in free speech and isn’t just something we need to duke it out in the battle of ideas
@@themrpope4537 Yes. Calls to violence being illegal is a good thing. There is no legal term called hate speech though. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect hate speech.
When would have been the right time for those people in Germany who didn't vote for the Nazis to start defending themselves? What about the German Jews, the homosexuals and left wing atheists in Nazi Germany? When would it have been the right time for them to start defending themselves?
GorillaGuerilla Communists and the SA were fighting all the time before the nazi were elected. The nazis managed to gain a lot of sympathy from the public because of all the fighting. The communists came before the nazis, they even managed to take over Bavaria in 1919.
Then you need to define "self defense". Palestinians come to mind. Also, Nelson Mandela. And...BLM? Violence for getting gunned down in the streets for no reasons kinda sound like the definition of self-defense.
Couldn't you argue that white supremacy by its very nature is violent and therefore a call to violence is inherent in the speech of its advocates? Thereby making suppression of it defensive in nature?
@@emilholst9789 I'm not saying people should be criminalized for being white supremacists however I think that there are inherent contradictiona between white supremacist ideology and functional society. For example, if someone identifies as a white supremacist then they should not be allowed to be police officers because of the potential complications of having someone who is allegedly supposed to keep the peace keeping the peace unequally across races.
Karl Popper actually says "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. For suppression of the intolerant to be justified, they need to both stop being controllable by debate and general societal rejection, or they also need to start engaging in violence. Even then, it would only allow for the government to crackdown on the people actively doing those things, not anyone who believed in the ideology and supported it. If either one of those conditions is met, then suppression is justified but not before. All other interpretations seem to ignore the first part I put in bold as a permissible reason for suppression.
Yeah the philosopher of world renown who contributed the cornerstone concept of falsification to the scientific method committed something as elementary as a strawman in one of his most popular assertions. Thank goodness we have UA-cam to set the idiot Karl Popper straight on this /S
"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." --Karl Popper en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It's not a paradox. A thing cannot embrace its polar opposite. It's like telling someone who believes in loving everything that they have to love hatred itself--it's illogical. The purpose of "being tolerant" is in accepting differing views and ideologies. Those who are intolerant of differing views and ideologies are clearly counter-productive to that purpose, so rejecting an ideology that seeks to destroy or detriment ideologies other than itself is not "intolerance" at all. It's only a paradox if you reduce the real world down to ridiculously simply statements.
@@crzune No, you can't call for someone to be attacked, you can't commit defamation, you can't give false alarms. Unless your calling for any of those, you're opinion should be tolerated. Complete free speech doesn't exist and shouldn't.
One of the basic laws of logic is that a negation of a negation of any proposition A is logigally equivalent to A itself. Meaning that if intolerance is the negation of tolerance (which it is), then being intolerant towards intolerance means the same as being tolerant.
Tolerance is allowing the intolerant to express their ideas! That's the paradox of it! I can follow you in not wanting to become the "devil" you're fighting, but what will happen if they become to strong, perhaps even a majority? And remember, we've seen first hand throughout history that it doesn't even take a majority for demagouges with vile ideologies to gain too much power! Besides, when you say the ones who will use violence is just as bad, don't you then fail to look at what the goal each side want to achieve is? You are basically saying that anyone who will not just limit themselves to standing and shouting at fascists and nazis - is just as bad as the people who adhere to some of the most vile political ideologies! "The only thing neccesary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"(Edmund Burke) Now I'm not saying "punching a nazi" is the solution, not at all - but I'm saying people need to start thinking long and hard about the paradox of tolerance!
Now I just wanna add, that I prefer non-violence over violence - and our first goal should always be focussing on de-radicalization - but we have to find out where we set the limit towards those who can't be reached with good intentions and reason!
In the west, the word 'Islamophobia' is used to shut off any honest conversation about a certain intolerant ideology in the battle of ideas.. This is an example of how the intolerant destroys the tolerant.
Fascism is inherently right wing as it stands against every school of leftist thought. It is a nationalistic populism with strong authoritarian bias. The invocation of internal and external enemies as the cause of all the fascistic nations problems with oppression and militarism the only solution. Masculinity and patriarchy are held up as the primacy of what is good, while critical thought and political dissent is crushed. Not complex, just because YOU dont understand doesnt mean that the understanding doesnt exist.
Intolerance as in neo-nazism, etc having legal repercussions. Like in Germany, for example, it is illegal to brandish a Swastika in public, that is an example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.
Germany doesn’t have freedom of speech. That’s nothing to brag about or promote. I hate Nazis just as much as the next guy but banning free speech isn’t the right way to go.
Not tolerating intolerance isn't intolerance. But there is a BIG difference between protesting intolerance and being violent. It's not hard to understand
*Here is the FULL quotation from Popper:* 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. *The previous bit is parroted by ANTIFA but ignores the next part of the passage:* - 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. *Popper then DOES say that suppression is necessary by force but ONLY in DEFENSE. In other words, Popper and Kyle agree.* 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.
the longer society maintains a peaceful stance with these irrational fools, the more power we give them. And that is exactly how it's been going down. It's looking like there is no peaceful solution, we have exhausted efforts of talk and peace. Now they're just laughing at us.
+Keeping Silence I think Kyle failed to completely understand the paradox! What is lacking is, where do we set the limit - when is it time for self defence? I've always been fascinated by this paradox! Of course I can't help seeing it in a historical context - so when was the right time for Jews, homosexuals, socialists etc to defend themselves against nazism? (cause there's no doubt that they waited to long!) How do we judge when something become to dangerous and we have to implement laws against it?
GorillaGuerilla exactly people waited too long before, the liberals and social democrats in Germany were touting the exact same let's be peaceful line and it didn't work, right wing extremists don't understand peace or rational debate and most of them never will, this is why it's important to suppress them and make them fear the wrath of our coalition before things get uglier than they are now, we must grow our ranks, we can't let them continue to spread their message, this is why hate speech laws are important, this is why radical protest against apologist and extremist speakers is necessary, if the government won't suppress and even endorses them then the people must stand up.
I mean, if offensive violence can change minds, I'd be in favor of it, but there's more proof that love changes minds, not violence. I think we should protest, but not be aggressive by yelling, being divisive etc. just chanting "love over hate", etc. I don't think we should allow these people a platform or anything. We should prevent them from gaining power at all costs of course, it's just a question of how you go about doing that.
It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, intolerance needs to exists at some level for tolerance to define itself. It's always part of each other like a yin/yang or light/darkness thing, they're part of each other. Being intolerant of intolerance is still intolerance, but everyone can sense it's not the same. Intent and context matters, so maybe intolerance isn't a bad thing by definition because without it you wouldn't even know what tolerance is?
It's just wordgames to mess with decent people so that they will leave assholes to their assholery. Anybody who falls for this crap and stops defending innocents from bullying is an enabler and guilty as well. People, don't listen to the assholes. Don't just ignore them. Don't enable them. A kid who misbehaves needs to be taught a lesson in humility and decency. What happened to raising a child. A functioning society can't allow itself tolerance of intolerance towards innocents. Shitty behaviour should never be tolerated. What kind of shitty parenting did these people have to get the idea that they can get away with shitty behaviour. To be fair, I am convinced that todays younger generations are the most open minded, least racist, xenophobic, least assholery generations ever, but of course they also have their share of assholes like every generation. But the bulk of shitty assholes commenting on the internet, are from what I gather older generations (I'm in the 30+ category). The older the more racists in a generation, which kinda makes sense. There is a positive trend. But the internet finally gave all the assholes out their a plattform to come together, and create a parrallel world that makes them believe they are the majority, whose awful views should be respected.
I don't really get why people are against Nazi punching. It have to do with the fact that I'm not white, I'm bringing up not being white not as race baiting but because I've only seen white people against Nazi punching, but saying that you want to do genocide against anyone who's not white sounds like a threat, and if someone says a threat, I'll defend myself. Some people say, what about free speech? There are limits to the first amendment, you can't do sacrifices in the name of a religion, and you can't say threats, Nazism isn't protected by the first amendment.
Xavier Medina *"I don't really get why people are against Nazi punching."* Because it creates an excuse for people to shut down others free speech with violence by simply claiming that they are fascists/nazis, and AntiFa and BAMN does that all of the time, like for example, recently when Ben Shapiro, who is a jew, had his speech on Berkley attacked by such groups, or when people with MAGA hats are assaulted by thugs on street without any provocation. *"It have to do with the fact that I'm not white, I'm bringing up not being white not as race baiting..."* Oh, sure you aren't... *"...I've only seen white people against Nazi punching"* Then you need to take a look around more. *"but saying that you want to do genocide against anyone who's not white sounds like a threat, and if someone says a threat, I'll defend myself."* Well, if they are saying at that moment that they want to kill someone or some group and/or making a "call for violence", then that's not free speech and you should record that and call the cops, because that's a crime, well, at least in my country it is, and in doing so, denouce them to the authorities and send the recording to the media, post it on the internet, that will have more of an impact then just charging straigh it and punching them, as you not only exposes yourself, but also, as Kyle mentioned in the video, you become the one who started the fight.
Have you not read Machiavelli? If you want to win, you need to adopt the successful tactics of the enemy Philosophy is nice and all, but do we want to win or not? Love and peace do not win wars, Kyle. 3 armies defeated the Nazis. In fact, armies win every war. Every revolution is not bloodless. There is no victory without a price. The question is, do you want it to be us- the poor and educated workers, or our enemy? Besides, to quote Ghenghis Khan, the most progressive person of the Medieval Era (he established the first postal system and championed religious toleration so long as you paid your taxes)- “The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.” If the Left wants to be decent people, we need to stop being human beings. Because human beings are not decent. No side is so more moral than the other. It is a farce to think our side does not have darkness within our souls. Being a leader means destroying your enemies and capping a few mo-fos And I'm being facetious by the way. The minute Kuma Sama quotes Genghis Khan, is when you know I am trolling.
Thank you Kyle. This is the biggest issue holding the progressives back. People who just label people Nazis for no reason other then they disagree with them and attack them with violence. That makes outsiders question the entire movement.
I don't agree there is a Paradox of Tolerance, I see it as getting lost in the word definitions and taking them too literally, rather then going by the nuances of the sentiments involved.
That depends on how you define nuance. Appealing to complexity and "nuance" doesn't justify holding your enemies to a standard which you yourself are not prepared to accept, for example. It's all good and well to talk about nuance, but you can be nuanced without being outright hypocritical.
Anarcho Forget the words tolerant and intolerant. Imagine that a person supporting a tolerant society is someone suporting a "live and let live" society, one where each person pursues their own happiness as much as possible withOUT interfering in the lives of others... the whole "my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose." It's important to see this perspective AS a certain way of life, one that doesn't agree with differing ones. So, when people come along and want to control everyone, discriminate and oppress people, that's conflicting with the permissive society. In supporting a "leave others alone" society, you're opposed to people not leaving others alone. Tolerance doesn't mean everything is allowed, it means a society where intolerance isn't acceptable. In criminalizing murder, are we intolerant? No, we're outlawing people harming others. It's only by focusing on the semantics, the words themselves that contradiction appears. IMNSHO
+Aeroldoth3 I agree with what you're saying about the idea of a "live and let live" society, and I'm not suggesting that in such a society _everything_ and _anything_ should be permissible. "He who defends everything defends nothing," and all that sort of thing. If I were of the opinion that _everything_ were permissible, then I would also think it permissible to commit acts of offensive violence against racists and bigots. I do not, however, think that we should be permitted to commit such acts, and therefore I clearly do not believe that _everything_ is permissible. The question, then, is this: where do we draw the line? The proper liberal response to this question is that we should allow all people the freedom to commit any act which itself allows for the freedom of others to act likewise, and so on. To put it down to four words, _permit that which permits._ My concern, therefore, is not with the idea of setting a restriction _per se,_ but rather with the consistency with which we are prepared to respect that restriction. All talk of constraints and limitations is sophistical if we are only prepared to impose those limitations upon our enemies. Indeed, we _define_ our enemies as being those individuals who stray outside of the set boundaries, or at least as those individuals who _wish_ to do so. If we ourselves move beyond those boundaries, then, we cease even so much as to represent a distinct opposition to our enemies, and simply become something else worth opposing. "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." In other words, my problem is not with principles that are themselves nuanced, what I take issue with is nuance in the _application_ of those principles. Namely, I am worried that people will coordinate the implementation of their principles in a way that coincides exactly with whatever their personal interests and prejudices happen to be, and then euphemistically rationalise this as being a "nuanced" approach to ethics.
Anarcho *permit that which permits.* I like that. *people will coordinate the implementation of their principles in a way that coincides exactly with whatever their personal interests and prejudices happen to be* That's something I think is going to happen regardless of what kind of society we have. Even if we were able to spell out the ideal utopia in detail, there would still be people who would twist things to suit their own ends, who would find loopholes, who would feel justified in abusing a system as they saw others do. The best you can do is support a broad ideal, a generalized principle, because every situation will have extenuating circumstances, and it is in that wiggle room for interpretation that people will willingly or unwillingly reach flawed conclusions. I never studied communism, but it's my understanding that while it looked good on paper, it didn't work in reality as it didn't account for human greed and failings. What I think should be done is: A) Lay out a general ideal B) provide specific examples to illustrate the spirit of that ideal C) Implement the philosophy, hoping the people can refine it through the generations However all this is way off topic. My only point in the OP was regarding the repeated snark from people about "tolerant" people not tolerating intolerance and the seeming contradiction. I don't see a contradiction, I believe the people complaining about the left's "tolerance" either don't understand the nuance involved or just want something to whine about.
I agree that intolerance should not go unanswered. However, while I can understand the urge to punch out neo-Nazism's, it doesn't justify aggressive violence against them. If you do that, you are no better than they are. I agree completely with Kyle on this.
We can't be tolerant of *intolerance* that allows physical violence. *But* freedom of speech is its own arena because the best idea will always win when both sides are freely open.
It reminds me of the situation of women rights in Britain with suffragettes and suffragists, how with the violent actions suffragettes did to try and get equal women rights actually lowered public want for equal women rights, which the suffragists through non violent means increased public opinion heavily.
Are we at war or aren't we? I'm not for shouting, talking, platforming, deplatforming, protesting, counterprotesting, or any of that bs. We're either at war or we aren't, the people who disagree with me tell each other constantly that they are at war and they kill my people... So I'm just going to ignore everyone until everyone can agree we are at war or realize we already have been
No, that's not the question. That's an uninteresting question. Here's a more interesting question: How do you stop violent people _with_ force? Answer: By defeating those people in a violent confrontation. Question: What do you need in order to defeat those people in a violent confrontation? Answer: You need superior numbers. Question: How does one acquire superior numbers? Answer: By means of nonviolent persuasion. One way or another, the determining question will be this: Who can use words to convince more people to join their cause?
How about the slaves who freed themselves from slavery through violence? Are they wrong to use physical violence? In other words; where is the line drawn between what's self-defense and what's not?
Puglosipher when the alt right starts enslaving black people you have credibility. However those who are enfranchised and protected by the same rights as their fellow citizens have no legitimacy to use violence.
Violence is sometimes the only solution. I'm not sure how people have convinced themselves that Nazism will disappear if we ignore it. The shit spreads. Look at how many young white men have joined the "alt-right".
fighting Amerikkkan fascism makes sense! any attack against fascism is SELF-DEFENSE! We need a progressive militia movement to protect and serve our oppressed communities. Kyle is so fucking naive.
You don't make sense here. You describe physical violence as some kind of special case "thing that the baddies do", but you say it's fine to fight with ideas... which is also a thing that the baddies do! So how can you fight with ideas, if that's a thing that the baddies do? Does that make you stand for what the baddies stand for? No, and neither does the violence you use the same argument against. Extend it further and you could say that you shouldn't fine a thief, and you shouldn't lock up a kidnapper, because that means you agree with theft and kidnap. It's not a good argument. You're focused on imagery here, not substance. And it's selective imagery. Bottom line of how I personally judge it right here: These forces are not applied equally and they should not be treated as though they are. A fascist is not just as valid as an anti-fascist in making an argument, and does not deserve the same consideration, nor the same rights. They desire extermination, and quite deliberately attempt as a group to cause that dream to come to fruition, and should quite frankly be rounded up and shot for it. They choose to make themselves a dangerous hazard to ordinary society, and because of choosing to do that ought to be dealt with in the same fashion you'd treat any other dangerous hazard to ordinary society. So yeah there's my strong disagreement with you on that. Appreciate there being a difference in viewpoint, but your reasoning for why yours is the superior notion was way off.
" but you say it's fine to fight with ideas... which is also a thing that the baddies do! " ..... Baddies also breathe.. You're really trying hard to twist the narrative to support offensive violence. its not the fact that bad people doing something is bad its the fact that its bad and when people do it we label them as such. Using offensive violence is the fastest way to devolve a civilization into chaos with people settling all their problems with fists and guns instead of ideas. "Extend it further and you could say that you shouldn't fine a thief, and you shouldn't lock up a kidnapper, because that means you agree with theft and kidnap. It's not a good argument. You're focused on imagery here, not substance. And it's selective imagery." What isn't a good argument is what you're saying here. Thievery is a crime as is kidnapping. Thievery = theft of property allowing this to continue would devolve society into chaos Kidnapping = unlawful imprisonment and being taken against your will allowing this to continue would devolve society into chaos having stupid horrible ideas is not nor should be. "A fascist is not just as valid as an anti-fascist in making an argument" It doesn't matter if you think they are or not, we don't allow selective offensive violence against people we don't like. I don't remember electing you as the validity police, either. Not to mention many members of Antifa are just as horrible in action as the fascists they claim to hate and attack random people that they SUSPECT of being part of that ideology. "and does not deserve the same consideration, nor the same rights" Why is that? because you say so....? Sorry, i have to ask again, who elected you as supreme arbiter of the world? I sure as hell didn't. "They desire extermination" So? a lot of people desire horrific things, we don't punish people for having shitty beliefs or wishes, that would be thought crime. we punish people for taking actual action. " and should quite frankly be rounded up and shot for it. " "We should kill people for thought crime" Sorry if i'm not in favor of this. "your reasoning for why yours is the superior notion was way off." Nope, his is on base as any consistent rational person would be, yours is basically "We should be able to kill people with horrible desires"
What does the meaning of unalienable have to do with anything? I'm talking about what people deserve, not what they currently get. There are obviously a lot of problems with the way laws work right now. This isn't me trying to argue about what legally goes at the moment. This is me saying what should and shouldn't be the case, in my opinion.
SkyTech you say I'm "twisting" it but I'm not. His argument is literally "we shouldn't use offensive violence because the baddies use offensive violence". He plainly and clearly actually said that. That's the argument (his argument, not my 'twisting' of it) that I was trying to illustrate as ridiculous. And you just absolutely agreed that it was. I'm not necessarily saying there isn't any possible sensible argument in favour of pacifism. I'm saying that this particular argument in favour of pacifism, as presented in the video, is stupid. And I provided parallel arguments in order to show just how stupid it is.
As for my stance on anti-fascists not being as bad as fascists, you are absolutely free to disagree with that, right up until the point one of them gains power and tells you that you aren't free to do anything any more, and that they don't give a crap about your sense of fairness. Keep believing in that false equivolency, all you want. It's a comment on a youtube video, nobody's commanding you to obey it.
People tend to forget that in the process of being intolerant (in ways that have real world ramifications upon people, so not using language) you effectivly have to oppose yourself.
No paradox: Intolerance against intolerance - Popper. I also agree one should not react with phsyical violence against people with these ideas. Only the state is allowed to react with legal means.
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Popper: The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (1945)
Just don't fall victim to their wordplays. Don't ignore them, beat them down with words. Otherwise they'll keep dominating the internet comment threads with their vile and despicable comments. They've convinced each other that they are the majority and that their inhumane views deserve respect and be law. They made unjustified assholery seem socially acceptable. It's time the deplorables learned that they've no place in a working society. The bullies should be told that nobody, at least no decent person, likes them.
We as a society should not tolerate intolerance, but the government or any central body can’t be our mechanism for doing that without our surrendering of liberties that this principle is trying to protect.
I agree with your statement about offensive violence and you comment about antifa was very insightful. Never thought about it like that. Looking back at European history though, especially going back to the 1930s and 1940s...The allied forces didn't send Hitler a strongly worded letter. I'm not sure the diskussion can be reduced to this level, but I'm worried that if the intolerant gets too much wind in their sails, there'll be no other options left for the tolerant than to fight fire with fire. How do you recognize that day? I don't support offensive violence and I'm not entirely comfortable with antifa either, but the fascists, white supremacists and neo-nazis scare the living daylight out of me.
"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." --Karl Popper en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance *Just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.*
Bit Spook - I think maybe what Mrbigweeknee meant was that the level of tolerance we have for something might depend on how vulgar or horrendous that idea it. For example, we should be more tolerant of religious views that don't like gay people marrying than we are of religious views that want to kill gay people. Let me be clear: we should be intolerant of both.... but the level of intolerance varies. As denying people the right to marry is less bad than essentially genocide.
Though I understand the point you are making,... All religion is delusion; a persistent false belief that i resistant to evidence. Delusion is mental illness. An illness should be treated; not cuddled. People are entitled to thier views, they are not entitled to spread them to the healthy. They certainly are not entitled to enforce them in any way. I despise religion, but I would make no law to oppress the afflicted. I would make every possible law to prevent them from gaining political power for all religious paths lead to theocracy.
We can use a different example. I wasn't trying to specifically use a religious example. Theocracy always seems to lead to less tolerance. More tolerant towards those complaining about kneeling during the national anthem and less tolerant of KKK members?
Sure, sure... but, wrong is wrong. Both of those things come from the same authoritarian place. If you somehow had honest data for a venn diagram, the overlap would not be insignificant for those that disapprove of kneeling and wouldbe kkk members(thier actual, on paper, numbers are very small). You speak of gradations and I understand that, but a single step down the wrong path still leads to the same place as ten steps down.
I think the person was referring to making "hate speech" illegal and not protected speech. Which is a DREADFUL and DAMAGING idea. We need tolerance of ALL ideas as long as they are ideas and speeches not physical aggression.
It's possible to be intolerant of intolerance without being violent. This guy blew the topic way out of proportion, why bring violence into it? It's the other side who are the violent ones.
Way I see it? Being the "good guy" isn't priority. Winning is priority. This is not the same thing as thinking I'm the good guy just because of my political alignment. I just don't care.
"The problem with liberals is they think you can talk everything out." -Vincent Hallinan, badass lawyer Edit: Anyone interested in learning more about Vincent who lived an amazing life please listen to the Dollop Podcast on him. Its the third newest one. If you have never listened to the Dollop I highly recommend it, its a American history podcast where Dave Anthony reads a story to comedian Gary Reynolds who has no idea what the topic, is about. Its my favorite podcast and I listen to a fuck ton of podcast lol.
Yes you're right let's fight everyone you disagree with. So the next time someone punches you in the face for disagreeing with you don't complain about it. He disagrees with you so therefore he was right to do so.
I feel being more intolerant of intolerance is necessary, but in my mind it's about saying to your hating Uncle "Well, you certainly have the right to be an ugly racist, but as long as that is your MO, stay the fuck out of my house, no parties, no invitations... pretty much shunning. Don't do business with them, whatever... but agreed, always peaceful, never use violence.
until your opponent shoots in your face after you beat him with your words. Never give power to a group of crazies.You can't win a debate against an ahole. He won't accept his loss.
This "paradox" is nonsense. You tolerate a person's beliefs as long as they remain nothing more than beliefs. If they start trying enact the violence in their hearts upon other people then they must be stopped, preferably with as little force as necessary.
I'm so sick of this. THERE IS NO FUCKING PARADOX. Being tolerant of intolerance is like not locking up a child abductor because "that would make us no better than him".
That's a 4 year old's understanding of the concept. How is "letting idiots say dumb shit" even remotely similar to "not locking up a child abductor" ? Beating the shit out of people without them attacking you first DOES INDEED make you as bad (if not worse) than the people you are fighting against, because YOU are the person that initiated violence.
+SkyTech RTS Exactly, I can't believe how many people don't get this. Actually, I kind of _don't_ believe it, I think they're often _deliberately_ drawing a false analogy in order to justify their position.
The problem is, Hans, people usually define "intolerant" as "people who disagree with me". Thus, it is a very vague concept to decide who deserves to have violence directed at them. or who gets or doesn't get to speak about certain issues. For conservatives, forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a Catholic employer to provide money for contraceptives with health care insurance is "intolerant" of their religious beliefs. For leftists of the "regressive" variety, criticizing the Qur'an is intolerant of Muslims. Criticizing gender-feminism is intolerant of women. Supporting limits on immigration is intolerant of foreigners, etc. That's why the criteria we use for when to crack down on intolerant speech is not "Is this despicable?", but "Does this put any life on immediate and unambiguous danger?" (think a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario). This is a pretty good article about this stuff: slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
+May "Words have effects" oh here we go with this nonsense... " How would you like it if you were constantly harrassed by people for the way you are" I WOULD BEAT THEM UP!10i32523494848934848389 If they were directly harassing me i'd leave, or if they pursued call the authorities. "How'd you live a normal life when everybody looked at you as if you were a child abductor" What the fuck are you talking about? "You also defend bullying. " How..? I'm the one against beating people up, sorry your 1984 style "up really means down" argument might work with infants but it does not work on me. ". I guess you are a bully" Yeah, I guess so... because I want people to be consistent and not violently beat people up they disagree with. i'm the villain here. k. ", and don't see anything wrong with how you treat others." ...? This is the kind of bulllshit that' spouted when you have cognitive dissonance. ". it's all fun and games after all, isn't that right? " Yup that's right. because that was totally implied in my argument. You need to actually argue my point and not make up some strawman to attack. "Tell that to all the suicide victims. And don't you dare blame them for being weak or worse not able to take a "joke"" .... What does this have to do with me or my argument? stop going on a tangent about random irrelevant shit. "What if your constant bullying, or simply marginalizing drives someone to run amok. Ever thought of that? All schoolshootings happened because someone had to fuck someone elses life. Your words have effects. Words hurt,you asshole and you know that, otherwise why'd you do it. Don't you provoke to get a reaction from your victim? If someone punches you for talking shit about him for no good reason, then you totally deserve it. " Words hurt!313231 grow up, you act like that I haven't been on the internet for most of my life, words cannot physically harm you, this is just a fact, someone with "science" in their name should have known this. What you do about it is ignore it, argue it or tell them to fuck off, but you don't UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE get to take away someone's right to speak just because they say shitty things, otherwise why shouldn't I take away your right to speak? or beat you up because you said stuff I don't like? why not? do you want to live in the fucking wild west where verbal slights are solved by violence? because I don't. No. Random violence is not justified, period. Unless they PHYSICALLY HARMED YOU you have NO right to strike them, it doesn't matter how mean or shitty their beliefs are. stop capitulating to base emotions you imbecile. "What about Charles Manson? Why is he in prison again? After all he hasn't killed anybody. He just talked to some people, who in return killed some people. How can that be Mansons fault? Should we really wait until someone snaps before acting? " You fucking idiot, he sent his little minions to kill people, he didn't just "talk" to people you little shit. nobody is going to be swayed by that pathetic and dishonest equivalence you just made. Jihadists can say what they want, its when they get together to kill people that's where you take action. moron. Also you combat that with discussion and debate.
If they bring bad ideas, you bring your good ideas... If they bring violence, on after that, you respond in kind. If only ideas are expressed, only respond with better ideas.
There is a fine balance with freedom that creates more instability and insecurity ; and restrictriction that creates more security and stability. No functional society silely rests upon one or the other exclusively and it is up to the people to try to figure out this fine silver lining of balance.
You can not be intolrant to intolerance exluding violently defending your positions if you are forced into it. This is because sooner or later you will come across with somebody intolerant enough and at the same time having one's fists faster than speech generator.
s3nse c0rruptr he wasn’t saying that misunderstood the question. He was saying he was unclear what the person asking the question said when he said “not tolerating the intolerant”. As he said, if the question-asker meant intolerance = peacefully debating intolerant people, he’s 100% on board. If they meant intolerance = using violence to shut down intolerance, he disagrees.
Intolerance of Intolerance is a self-defeating principle, but more importantly, it doesn't make any sense. What makes your intolerance different? You're justifying doing something wrong because you think you're inherently right.
Being intolerant of intolerance is intolerance. lol How about that? How about we just talk and don't shit on each other, no matter how offended we are at first.
Why? So the alt-right can red pill enough people to take over the levers of power? No thanks. Easier to punch a nazi than retake europe, pardon me, i mean america.
Martin was assassinated; He lost. Ghandhi didnt win; the breakup of india pakistan proved that. The suffrage movement, in the US and Britain, was far from nonviolent. perhaps you could at least google a topic before you speak as though you know about it. www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1MSIM_enUS670US670&q=suffrage+movement+violence&oq=suffrage+movement+violence
Bit Spook MLK influence and inspired anti-segregation laws. You know that saying, "although you may die, your legacy will live on." Even though he was assassinated that doesn't mean his achievements are undermined. Gandhi got what he wanted, a free and independent India. Even if they was broken apart, he still got the British out peacefully. And you are right, the suffrage movement did had its violent moments in the US and the UK, but the majority of the suffrage movements in other countries show that they didn't need violence in order to achieve their goals.
"Win the battle of ideas" ....... yet refuse to listen to ideas you don't approve of. Some even try to make sure NO-ONE can listen to ideas they do not approve of by shouting down or de-platforming. That's not winning the battle of ideas; you may think you have all the answers, but so do those opposing you. You are not the arbiter of truth. Shutting down the lines of communication of those opposing you, only proves one thing: you feel you don't have the arguments to defeat the opposing arguments.
The internet has been hijacked by assholes. They are spamming every channel, every website with their bs, trying to stear the narrative in almost all comment threads. That way they influence opinions. The vast majority of people don't have their own mind, they are like lemmings who follow the biggest trend. People are too lazy to think or too dumb to do real research. That's what many groups who follow an agenda try to exploit. E.g, anti-vaxxers, creationists, conspiracy nutter in general, etc. Making it look like as if 80+ % or whatever high number of people on the internet are conspiracy nutters, assholes or defenders of assholery. It's like people have forgotten the times when we had one cyber mobbing suicide victim after another (the actual reason SJW and PC became a thing). But now the assholes have crawled from under their rocks, they joined hands, created bots and whatever to fight against the "horrible injustice" they face, which is that people show no tolerance towards their intolerance. They changed the narrative on the internet with their trolling in such a massive way that when you read comments that you think that almost everybody is defending the asshole trolls nowadays. This gave racists, xenophobes, the average schoolbully, sociopaths, psycopaths and plain old assholes the conviction that they've always been the silenced majority who now is uprising against what used to be called decency. They demand that they can be assholes towards everybody the want for no good reason, but at the same time they cry that they are faced with intolerance towards their intolerance. "Let me be intolerant, but don't be intolerant towards me, otherwise you hurt ma feelings"
Put the paranoia away, guys. You should listen to people that you don't agree with. They might have something important to tell you you didn't know about. Just listen provided the person isn't insulting you or attacking you physically.
The question is an attempt to sound clever using semantics. _If guns don't kill people, people kill people... Does that mean that toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?_
Yes that's exactly it. Clever wordplays to sound logical, in order to mess with decent people so they may stop bothering them for being an assholes. It's psychology. They hope some idiot will listen to them, because he's afraid of being called a hypocrite. It's what lawyers do all the time to sway a jury. In fact, in a documentary about American Nazi's many years ago, they bragged that they have become more clever, and that they were now sending their brainwashed hate filled children to universities, so they'd become lawyers and politicians, to take over America. I have the feeling they have succeeded. The logical consequence would be for the assholes to also stop being intolerant towards their innocent victims at the same time as other become tolerant tolerant towards them, but we know that's not what they want. Looking at the gun example, the logical consequence would be to not give a gun to a human, because humans kill humans. Or one of the logical fallacy of some anti-vegetarians: plants can feel too, so it's ok to eat animals. The logical consequence would be to also stop eating plants if that were the case.
@@diomilmontesdeoca8303 Their ideology is calling for the massacres of minorities and for democracy to be completely destroyed. The only good fascist is a dead one.
@@terminalius You would condemn a certain group of people to death because they have a different opinion than you? Sounds like something Hitler would do.
@@terminalius You say that you are against massacres in one breath and then support the massacre of your political opponents in another breath. I’m starting to think that you’re the fascist.
I disagree with the fact that offensive violence is by definition bad. I think this raises an interesting question: Say another country is committing horrible human rights abuses and they won't respond to sanctions or diplomacy. Do we then have a responsibility to stop the problem by force? Or what if a person is committing a crime? Do the police have a right to use violence against them (assuming they don't respond to anything else)? Well, most would probably say yes. But is offensive violence still inherently wrong?
You're an idiot. I'm sure if communists beat up enough facists it wouldn't have happened right........ right...? oh wait.. people were beating up nazis (they were jailed too!) offensive violence to people who are not an imminent threat to you does not work.
Tolerance like most things is good to the point of being abusiveness. We get the results of what we tolerate. The same for our body. You will tolerate pain to a certain limit and then get surgery or pain killing drugs.
I think the question was mainly about free speech for guys who spread toxic ideas and I am really sad Kyle did not talk about why free speech is more important than trying to stop it.
And what do you do if they just respond to your arguments with "How about no?". You can't force them to do something unless you use violence in that case.
Do I have a different definition of ‘tolerance’? To tolerate someone would mean you don’t like them &/or their ideas, but put up with them anyway. If you don’t tolerate people who oppose you/your ideas, you are not ‘tolerant’ by definition.
but the intolerant are not tolerant of the tolerant, by definition. If intolerant people gain control of the government and start placing restrictions on tolerant people, banning them from assembling to talking in public, Kyle's argument is that tolerant people would tolerate those restrictions, which I think is stupid.
philpott kentucky I’m not saying you should tolerate the intolerant. But it’s dishonest to claim to be tolerant while doing it. You can say “I do not tolerate .....”, but as soon as you say that, you can’t then say you’re ‘tolerant’ On the flip side, if you claim to be ‘tolerant’, then defend Islamic extremism in ‘tolerance’, you’re also stating you don’t like Islamic extremism, but put up with it regardless... I’m just saying that people use the word tolerance too freely.
I can't help myself..I must comment since I love this type of riddles. I want to keep Kyle's core belief in mind: the only way to combat hateful speech is with more speech. WARNING: what follows might be very boring if you're not into formal logic. Paradox: if a society is tolerant without limit, the ability to be tolerant will eventually be ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. That in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. What I understand is that if Bob (or a society) has tolerance without limit, because of a curse for example, then that ability will eventually be ceased or destroyed once John tries to kill him. Bob must protect himself but he can only do that by not tolerating violence. Definition of a paradox from a mathematician's point of view: a statement that is neither true nor false. If P is a paradox, the the truth of P leads to the falsehood of P, but the falsehood of P leads to the truth of P and thus creating an infinite loop. Example: Let P be the statement "this statement is false." If P is true, then what P says is true. But if what P says is true, then "this statement is false" is false. So P is false (from truth we arrived at falsehood). But if P is false, then what it says is false. So, "this statement is false" is not true, i.e, it is true (from falsehood we arrived at truth). Does the paradox of tolerance fit the criteria for being a paradox? We could add to Bob's story that his curse can never be broken, not even by incredible levels of intolerance. So we could imagine John attacking Bob and Bob letting him because he must be tolerant. So there's a premise that we can question: the ability to be tolerant will eventually be ceased or destroyed by the intolerant (*). So we just arrived from truth to falsehood but not the other way around. It is false that limitless tolerance exists at all times. Maybe Bob's story is too fictional and in the real world, (*) is always true. Then there cannot be limitless tolerance and we have this conclusion: limitless tolerance and (*) are inconsistent; they cannot be true at the same time. We still don't have a paradox. I don't know much about societies but at the individual level, there can be all kinds of people. It is perfectly possible that there is someone out there that is completely altruistic and will never face a difficult moral dilemma and thereby having limitless tolerance by his own right (and we will never know what this person would do in moral dilemmas). But for the most of us, things are are very unjust would make us draw the line and so we have levels of, rather than complete, tolerance. For Kyle, violence in response to an imminent attack is justified as long as its in self defense. This brings me back to his position : the only way to combat hateful speech is with more speech. This position is compatible with the belief that one can respond with violence as long as its done in self defense. After all, we're talking about hateful speech, not hateful violence. The question of, would this work with societies? seems far more complex. Would having a society that in its majority would always follow Kyle's rule function? I don't know about you but for me it sounds like a thing.
@Secular Talk I've lived in Kansas most of my life and grew up there. It is a red state but 90% of the people I encountered there were reasonably relatable and accepting of everyone for the most part. I recently moved to San Angelo Texas, another deep red state. From my 4 weeks here iv learned that Texas is a time capsule from 2 decades ago. I haven't met a single person that hasn't come off as a non accepting asshole. They call me Bernie at my new job, they still use the word socialist like its a racial slur, the use the n word repeatedly in a two sentence dialog. It's honestly crazy down here man they think transgendered should be kicked out of the military and think it's a mental disease. THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT FACTS WHEN POINTED OUT ABOUT TRUMP THEY JUST CALL ME A SORE LOSER EVEN WHEN IM MAKING EXTREMELY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. PLEASE HELP ME
Im not to shocked to read about your anecdote. In Texas they pride themselves on indoctrinating the young and making it a safespace for white racists to voice freely their dislike for anybody that doesnt look or think in the conservative, far right wing mindset. I thought Florida was like that until I met people from Florida who were not as bad as some of the people I met from Texas. Im beginning to believe Arizona is a lot like Texas too. I've Met some shady white individuals from that area and yes I am black. These things become a lot easier to notice
I think the core of the question is at what point does belief constitute responsibility? Hypothetically, a person who commits a violent act can be held accountable for that, everyone kind of agrees on that. But what about the small group of people that are egging him on? What about the slightly larger group agitating for some sort of violence, but not going to risk it themselves? What about the larger group of people who loudly share his same beliefs? What about the largest group of people who simply did nothing?
inciting a riot is a felony in the US, and when you march in the streets shouting white power that's inciting a riot. The law isn't enforced when it's the white racists breaking it, so the people have to hold them accountable.
"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States Thats when you punch a nazi.
There is no paradox, just semantical BS. Tolerance with intolerance is intolerance, intolerance with intolerance is tolerance. Is like phylosofucking thinking about negation of a negative....
I always think about this when it comes to religion. I'm for religious freedom, but pretty much all devout followers of a religion are intolerant to one or more groups of people simply because their book told them so. And sure you can have separation of church and state, but not really since everyone has the right to vote based on their beliefs. Not sure what I really believe
Fight rhetoric with rhetoric, because good ideas withstand the tests of scrutiny. Violence is an appropriate response to violence or such utter deprivation of rights that there is no longer any feasible means of recourse outside of violence *and* the status quo is inhumanely deplorable.
Violence is nesicary. There is a reason we feel those emotions, it's about survival and evolution, denouncing violence is denouncing millions of years of survival. Things that inhibit the ability for one to survive will be removed. Fascism is exactly that, and will be removed.
Secular Satanist you know fascism is pretty much exactly what you described right? Like you are actually advocating for an ideology exactly like the basis of fascism right now. The idea of embracing base human emotions and violence is the basis of fascism as describe by Mousolini.
Bosscascade Lol because somebody said it forever ago, makes it legit. Okay so let's take the bible as the literal truth then. Fucking tard. This is why the left loses. Bunch of pussies scared to DEFEND what you believe with an iron fist.
(Holy Shit) Thanks Kyle for an insightful answer! If you're still recording answers to these questions, Follow Up: 1. If someone (Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, Violent Misogynist, etc.) has advocated for killing/human rights violations, wouldn't you consider that an offensive action? In other words, do you really think you can peacefully advocate for genocide? (Thus, wouldn't taking action against these groups be justified under 'self-defense'?) 2. Although you may lose the moral high ground engaging in 'offensive violence,' couldn't you argue that it's worth it from a practical standpoint? There are many examples of this, the most salient, recent example being Richard Spencer saying that he was afraid to espouse his views after being punched in the face. As Stokely Carmichael said, "In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” 3. In the past, I believe you have supported controversial (read: bigoted) speakers being given public platforms, such as at universities. Doesn't this contradict your claim here that we should aggressively combat hateful speech? (The most direct way of combating the speech would be to deny its audience.) As always, keep up the great work! Hope to ask another question at 1M ;) For those interested in this line of thought and to clarify the question regarding the Paradox of Tolerance entails: "Every liberal democracy realize early on there are some positions which must prima facie be aggressively excluded from public discourse. You can't even articulate why they are unreasonable because to articulate why they are unreasonable is to itself open the possibility of reason. This is why you can't allow 'just hypothetical' questions about whether Jews, blacks, women, etc. are innately inferior/destroyable. Nazi theorists like Carl Schmitt very quickly diagnosed this weakness in liberal democracies; you can collapse a democracy by insisting the democracy had a right to end itself i.e. Hindenburg to Hitler defended as a 'peaceful transition of power.' Intolerance cannot be tolerated because the law can be co-opted by, and thus protective of, fascism. Fascism wriggles into democracies by insisting on the right to be heard, achieves critical mass, then dissolves the organs that installed it. Meaning the stronger it becomes, the more difficult it is to sufficient combat it with reason. The Overton Window becomes warped, as we are seeing with the Trump administration's "alternative facts” because the State ultimately decides the truth. Some positions must be excluded from discourse. Some positions you do not listen; you can only punch. A society that begins to entertain why some members of its state might not belong is doomed." -Anthony Oliveria
1. If you can prove an individual threatened to harm someone (IE terroristic threat) then call the authorities 2. Nothing about offensive violence and breaking the law is practical, all you're doing is justifying the opposition's agenda not to mention this is such flimsy logic it be used to justify violence against any group. 3. That doesn't contradict his argument, you do not de-platform or prevent these people from speaking, you attack it with facts and evidence, once again the alternaive is anyone can de-platform anybody for stupid insipid reasons. I know these questions are for kyle but I had to address this. anything can be labeled intolerance such as liberalism itself by the Right wing religious idiots. The idea that without beating the holy shit out of random people with bad ideas is required to prevent a nazi takeover of the country is absurd. but attacking these people with fists and weapons instead of words and facts is a lot closer to achieving the very thing you seek to prevent.
There is no real paradox of tolerance. It's a strawman fallacy is anything. Tolerance isn't an absolute, so being tolerant doesn't require you to be tolerant of intolerance. I feel like only stupid people make this argument.
@philpott kentucky Yes. And? We don't allow for the killing of other people either, however killing in self defense is a thing aswell as war both of which are perfectly legal.
I don't know that using the phrasing "running roughshod over the people who are intolerant of our belifes" is a very good choice in light of Heather Heyes literally being "run roughshod over" by those who were intolerant of her belifes.....just food for thought. I am not the PC police by any stretch but that was an unfortunate euphemism in this particular discussion.
I disagree with the initial premise. I think the kind of speech that's been popularized in liberal circles, where one assumes the opponent is an absolute moron and insults, shames and labels them with no regard for accuracy gives ammo to the right as well. Why do we have to tolerate loud assholes who do nothing but make this side of politics look bad through their speech just so we can draw the line exactly at violence? No. If you're too stupid or too angry to behave like a rational human being, I don't support your politics. That kind of person would undoubtedly make costly mistakes going forward, and not even realize it. We've let a kind of politics grow in which the only thing that matters is that the people on your side clap when you speak, and chant alongside you, instead of one where we try to be correct in what we say and do.
NeonRogue It's not a paradox though. Not tolerating intolerance isn't a paradox because the type of intolerance is vastly different. Being violent towards people advocating violence is what's really the issue
The way i see it ... Think of a person with an amazing charisma. He regularly enchants his audience - manages to make them "think" his way - engages in political debattes and encourages anti-democratic thinking. Imagine opportunists to give this person bigger and bigger stages to reach more and more people with his message. All the while - fact checker continously claim that what he says are lies - but his words still manage to enchant the people. At that point there still is a fairly strong democratic countermovement - but eventually you notice how the political climate in the country shifts - and to your surprise you notice that this persons followers have become a dominant force in all media. They do not react to things anymore - they are not in opposition anymore - they have become actors and force others to react to them. Then you realize that the resistance has become too weak to stand against this new political power. And to make things worse - the risen power does not even keep its intentions secret anymore. They openly start to preach hatred against a substantial part of the population as well as people outside the country, they even openly talk about dismantelling democratic institutions and mechanisms .... like free speech. So the qustion of the paradox kind of is - should such a person/movement be allowed under the principle of free speech? - And is there a time when you HAVE to intervene to save your democratic mechanisms? If there is a time to intervene - why then and not earlier? Cause intervening means that the system has failed - and that it has created its antithesis.
"The Paradox of Tolerance" is an imagined paradox by those seeking to resolve their own cognitive dissonance with regards to left wing authoritarianism. I don't even agree that shame is the best tool to counter far right ideals (though it will work in a pinch). "Win the argument," as Chomsky says, though admittedly that's easier for Chomsky to do than others.
so if nazis take over the country and start banning liberals from protesting or speaking out, liberals should just tolerate it? That's stupid, and the reason why Karl Popper said tolerating intolerance will lead to the destruction of a society.
It is the word "if" that we need to examine here. When assessing risk, humans have a tendency to let the severity of an outcome disproportionately represent the danger in their minds. A Nazi take over would be grave indeed, but how likely is it really? If I said would you rather have a 1:20,000 chance of being run over by a bus, or a 1:10,000,000 of being killed by a terrorist, surprisingly some people would take their chances with the bus. Charlottesville happened, one girl was killed about 20 others were injured. That's bad, you'll get no argument from me. But then the next weekend in there was an alt-right rally in Boston. Roughly two dozen protestors showed up, and they were met with 15,000 counter-protestors. The ideals of the far right are utterly repugnant to the vast majority of Americans, there is no danger that they will ever accept them. But there is one way in which right-wing extremism can become more powerful, and that is when they can win sympathy by successfully playing the victim card. Look at Milo Yaba-daba-doppolis, if he had been allowed to speak at Berkley a couple dozen people would have heard him, but because he was banned the story made national headlines, and he was made into an ideological martyr. People would would not have otherwise been sympathetic to his cause suddenly found a common foe in, as they would term it, "latte sippin' liberals who want to stifle our free speech." It's not all together intuitive, I'll grant you, but unfortunately it is human nature. Fighting an ideology with violence is like fighting a fire with gasoline. You can't punch the hatred out of a Nazi, it's just going to steel his resolve. It's unlikely that you can talk the hatred out of him either, but there is a slightly higher chance of success. You can shame them, but that only forces them underground. It's best just to let them speak and make themselves into social pariahs. At least that way there is a chance they'll outgrow it, or cave to social pressures. They really are an underwhemling minority of the population.
And by the way, do you mean the Karl Popper who said, "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. "?
Let me simplify then. Nazis won't take over the country and start banning liberals from protesting, their views are extremely unpopular, that is why the Paradox is imagined. What if Santa Claus takes over and enslaves the country, putting us to work in the sweatshops of the north pole making toys? It's really not worth losing any sleep over.
The problem is, it's not "offensive violence" for me to punch a nazi. As a brown person, I would be acting in self defense. I prefer pre-preemptive self-defense
No, your skin color does not give you an exemption from the law There's a dangerous number of people in politics that are justifying violence in this fucking dumbass identity politics way..
When responding to intolerant people who lack power, you should respond gracefully and respectfully. When intolerant people claim power, the gloves can start coming off.
Also, never engage in offensive violence, but defensive violence is occasionally called for.
The right to revolution, basically...
The thing is a toxic ideology like Nazism spreads like a wildfire.
You can’t deny that there is an actual tipping point for tolerating intolerance.
We actually have historical precedent.
There’s millions of Jews who would agree... if they could.
The line of government intervention should be drawn at insighting violence and hate speech, thats one of the few examples of where the line is drawn in free speech and isn’t just something we need to duke it out in the battle of ideas
From my understanding The Weimar Republic had hate speech laws and it still didn't stop Hitler.
@@themrpope4537
Hate speech doesn’t exist. If you are talking about calls to violence that is already illegal.
Stephen Darrenkamp and that’s a good thing
@@themrpope4537
Yes. Calls to violence being illegal is a good thing. There is no legal term called hate speech though. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect hate speech.
I think it's pretty simple, only act in violence as a means of self defense.
BJ Chester yes
People who uses violence will tend to justify it to themselves. Do enough mental gymnastics violence becomes self defense.
When would have been the right time for those people in Germany who didn't vote for the Nazis to start defending themselves?
What about the German Jews, the homosexuals and left wing atheists in Nazi Germany?
When would it have been the right time for them to start defending themselves?
GorillaGuerilla Communists and the SA were fighting all the time before the nazi were elected. The nazis managed to gain a lot of sympathy from the public because of all the fighting. The communists came before the nazis, they even managed to take over Bavaria in 1919.
Then you need to define "self defense". Palestinians come to mind. Also, Nelson Mandela. And...BLM? Violence for getting gunned down in the streets for no reasons kinda sound like the definition of self-defense.
Tolerating the Intolerant is intolerable in a civilized society. - Herb Bluntman.
Kyle was born in Kenya.
I wanna see his papers!
Kybungo
As a Kenyan I can confirm
Working Class Socialist lmao "real news"
Mao naise 🤗
Couldn't you argue that white supremacy by its very nature is violent and therefore a call to violence is inherent in the speech of its advocates? Thereby making suppression of it defensive in nature?
No because that is conflating words with violence.
You have to be very clear about the line you are drawing. A consealed threat is not a crime until it is clear and open.
@@emilholst9789 I'm not saying people should be criminalized for being white supremacists however I think that there are inherent contradictiona between white supremacist ideology and functional society. For example, if someone identifies as a white supremacist then they should not be allowed to be police officers because of the potential complications of having someone who is allegedly supposed to keep the peace keeping the peace unequally across races.
Karl Popper actually says
"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.
For suppression of the intolerant to be justified, they need to both stop being controllable by debate and general societal rejection, or they also need to start engaging in violence. Even then, it would only allow for the government to crackdown on the people actively doing those things, not anyone who believed in the ideology and supported it.
If either one of those conditions is met, then suppression is justified but not before. All other interpretations seem to ignore the first part I put in bold as a permissible reason for suppression.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a straw man. Our society is not "perfectly" tolerant. We have laws against threats and violence.
Inappropriate use of the term _straw-man_ tests my tolerance.
redd Greene Blue Only a Sith deals in tolerance....
Yeah the philosopher of world renown who contributed the cornerstone concept of falsification to the scientific method committed something as elementary as a strawman in one of his most popular assertions. Thank goodness we have UA-cam to set the idiot Karl Popper straight on this /S
"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." --Karl Popper en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The Paradox does not exist, the premise is wrong.
It's not a paradox. A thing cannot embrace its polar opposite. It's like telling someone who believes in loving everything that they have to love hatred itself--it's illogical. The purpose of "being tolerant" is in accepting differing views and ideologies. Those who are intolerant of differing views and ideologies are clearly counter-productive to that purpose, so rejecting an ideology that seeks to destroy or detriment ideologies other than itself is not "intolerance" at all.
It's only a paradox if you reduce the real world down to ridiculously simply statements.
Silly liberals, excuse me while I go have sex for the sake of abstinence.
Kinda my point.
You can't have absolute freedom so does it make sense to have absolute freedom of speech?
@@crzune No, you can't call for someone to be attacked, you can't commit defamation, you can't give false alarms. Unless your calling for any of those, you're opinion should be tolerated.
Complete free speech doesn't exist and shouldn't.
One of the basic laws of logic is that a negation of a negation of any proposition A is logigally equivalent to A itself. Meaning that if intolerance is the negation of tolerance (which it is), then being intolerant towards intolerance means the same as being tolerant.
Tolerance is allowing the intolerant to express their ideas!
That's the paradox of it!
I can follow you in not wanting to become the "devil" you're fighting, but what will happen if they become to strong, perhaps even a majority?
And remember, we've seen first hand throughout history that it doesn't even take a majority for demagouges with vile ideologies to gain too much power!
Besides, when you say the ones who will use violence is just as bad, don't you then fail to look at what the goal each side want to achieve is?
You are basically saying that anyone who will not just limit themselves to standing and shouting at fascists and nazis - is just as bad as the people who adhere to some of the most vile political ideologies!
"The only thing neccesary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"(Edmund Burke)
Now I'm not saying "punching a nazi" is the solution, not at all - but I'm saying people need to start thinking long and hard about the paradox of tolerance!
Now I just wanna add, that I prefer non-violence over violence - and our first goal should always be focussing on de-radicalization - but we have to find out where we set the limit towards those who can't be reached with good intentions and reason!
Exactly.
In the west, the word 'Islamophobia' is used to shut off any honest conversation about a certain intolerant ideology in the battle of ideas..
This is an example of how the intolerant destroys the tolerant.
Only in defense of your life or lives of love ones. Just say no to offensive violence.
*lives of all
Violence against fascism is defensive violence
Kyle, have you spoken to anyone from Antifa? Doesn't seem like it
Greg have you spoen to some fashists? Doesn't seem like it or maybe you are one?
Spoken* Fascists*
Have YOU spoken to an English teacher in your life? Doesn't seem like it.
May the Science be with You What are you talking about? What does my question for Kyle have to do with speaking to fascists?
Fascism is inherently right wing as it stands against every school of leftist thought. It is a nationalistic populism with strong authoritarian bias. The invocation of internal and external enemies as the cause of all the fascistic nations problems with oppression and militarism the only solution. Masculinity and patriarchy are held up as the primacy of what is good, while critical thought and political dissent is crushed. Not complex, just because YOU dont understand doesnt mean that the understanding doesnt exist.
Of course, just because you tolerate someone doesn't mean you have to agree with or even like them.
Intolerance as in neo-nazism, etc having legal repercussions. Like in Germany, for example, it is illegal to brandish a Swastika in public, that is an example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.
I think it's societies job to be intolerant of intolerance, not the government.
Germany doesn’t have freedom of speech. That’s nothing to brag about or promote. I hate Nazis just as much as the next guy but banning free speech isn’t the right way to go.
@@stevied3400 there is no such thing as complete free speech. Inciting a riot, defamation, libel are all forms of speech that is not protected.
@@ChrisJimenez2010
True. But hate speech is protected.
I love how people think they are the authority on what is good and what is right. Cracks me up every time.
Not tolerating intolerance isn't intolerance. But there is a BIG difference between protesting intolerance and being violent. It's not hard to understand
*Here is the FULL quotation from Popper:*
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.
*The previous bit is parroted by ANTIFA but ignores the next part of the passage:*
- 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.
*Popper then DOES say that suppression is necessary by force but ONLY in DEFENSE. In other words, Popper and Kyle agree.*
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.
You realise I am just quoting a philosopher right? I'm not even talking about any of that
Even though it agrees with you? I'm not sure you understood it
the longer society maintains a peaceful stance with these irrational fools, the more power we give them. And that is exactly how it's been going down. It's looking like there is no peaceful solution, we have exhausted efforts of talk and peace. Now they're just laughing at us.
+Keeping Silence
I think Kyle failed to completely understand the paradox!
What is lacking is, where do we set the limit - when is it time for self defence?
I've always been fascinated by this paradox!
Of course I can't help seeing it in a historical context - so when was the right time for Jews, homosexuals, socialists etc to defend themselves against nazism?
(cause there's no doubt that they waited to long!)
How do we judge when something become to dangerous and we have to implement laws against it?
GorillaGuerilla exactly people waited too long before, the liberals and social democrats in Germany were touting the exact same let's be peaceful line and it didn't work, right wing extremists don't understand peace or rational debate and most of them never will, this is why it's important to suppress them and make them fear the wrath of our coalition before things get uglier than they are now, we must grow our ranks, we can't let them continue to spread their message, this is why hate speech laws are important, this is why radical protest against apologist and extremist speakers is necessary, if the government won't suppress and even endorses them then the people must stand up.
I mean, if offensive violence can change minds, I'd be in favor of it, but there's more proof that love changes minds, not violence. I think we should protest, but not be aggressive by yelling, being divisive etc. just chanting "love over hate", etc. I don't think we should allow these people a platform or anything. We should prevent them from gaining power at all costs of course, it's just a question of how you go about doing that.
It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, intolerance needs to exists at some level for tolerance to define itself. It's always part of each other like a yin/yang or light/darkness thing, they're part of each other. Being intolerant of intolerance is still intolerance, but everyone can sense it's not the same. Intent and context matters, so maybe intolerance isn't a bad thing by definition because without it you wouldn't even know what tolerance is?
It's just wordgames to mess with decent people so that they will leave assholes to their assholery.
Anybody who falls for this crap and stops defending innocents from bullying is an enabler and guilty as well.
People, don't listen to the assholes. Don't just ignore them. Don't enable them. A kid who misbehaves needs to be taught a lesson in humility and decency. What happened to raising a child. A functioning society can't allow itself tolerance of intolerance towards innocents. Shitty behaviour should never be tolerated. What kind of shitty parenting did these people have to get the idea that they can get away with shitty behaviour.
To be fair, I am convinced that todays younger generations are the most open minded, least racist, xenophobic, least assholery generations ever, but of course they also have their share of assholes like every generation. But the bulk of shitty assholes commenting on the internet, are from what I gather older generations (I'm in the 30+ category). The older the more racists in a generation, which kinda makes sense. There is a positive trend. But the internet finally gave all the assholes out their a plattform to come together, and create a parrallel world that makes them believe they are the majority, whose awful views should be respected.
Exactly.
I don't really get why people are against Nazi punching. It have to do with the fact that I'm not white, I'm bringing up not being white not as race baiting but because I've only seen white people against Nazi punching, but saying that you want to do genocide against anyone who's not white sounds like a threat, and if someone says a threat, I'll defend myself. Some people say, what about free speech? There are limits to the first amendment, you can't do sacrifices in the name of a religion, and you can't say threats, Nazism isn't protected by the first amendment.
Xavier Medina
*"I don't really get why people are against Nazi punching."*
Because it creates an excuse for people to shut down others free speech with violence by simply claiming that they are fascists/nazis, and AntiFa and BAMN does that all of the time, like for example, recently when Ben Shapiro, who is a jew, had his speech on Berkley attacked by such groups, or when people with MAGA hats are assaulted by thugs on street without any provocation.
*"It have to do with the fact that I'm not white, I'm bringing up not being white not as race baiting..."*
Oh, sure you aren't...
*"...I've only seen white people against Nazi punching"*
Then you need to take a look around more.
*"but saying that you want to do genocide against anyone who's not white
sounds like a threat, and if someone says a threat, I'll defend myself."*
Well, if they are saying at that moment that they want to kill someone or some group and/or making a "call for violence", then that's not free speech and you should record that and call the cops, because that's a crime, well, at least in my country it is, and in doing so, denouce them to the authorities and send the recording to the media, post it on the internet, that will have more of an impact then just charging straigh it and punching them, as you not only exposes yourself, but also, as Kyle mentioned in the video, you become the one who started the fight.
wajdef
Oh, so all of the whites who were killed by nazis don't count?
offensive violence is necessary
sometimes, not always
Ramon Gomide only in self defense
No
Necessary for what?
fighting Amerikkkan fascism makes sense! any attack against fascism is SELF-DEFENSE!
Have you not read Machiavelli?
If you want to win, you need to adopt the successful tactics of the enemy
Philosophy is nice and all, but do we want to win or not?
Love and peace do not win wars, Kyle. 3 armies defeated the Nazis. In fact, armies win every war. Every revolution is not bloodless. There is no victory without a price. The question is, do you want it to be us- the poor and educated workers, or our enemy?
Besides, to quote Ghenghis Khan, the most progressive person of the Medieval Era (he established the first postal system and championed religious toleration so long as you paid your taxes)-
“The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”
If the Left wants to be decent people, we need to stop being human beings. Because human beings are not decent. No side is so more moral than the other. It is a farce to think our side does not have darkness within our souls.
Being a leader means destroying your enemies and capping a few mo-fos
And I'm being facetious by the way. The minute Kuma Sama quotes Genghis Khan, is when you know I am trolling.
Thank you Kyle. This is the biggest issue holding the progressives back. People who just label people Nazis for no reason other then they disagree with them and attack them with violence. That makes outsiders question the entire movement.
I don't agree there is a Paradox of Tolerance, I see it as getting lost in the word definitions and taking them too literally, rather then going by the nuances of the sentiments involved.
That depends on how you define nuance. Appealing to complexity and "nuance" doesn't justify holding your enemies to a standard which you yourself are not prepared to accept, for example. It's all good and well to talk about nuance, but you can be nuanced without being outright hypocritical.
Anarcho
Forget the words tolerant and intolerant. Imagine that a person supporting a tolerant society is someone suporting a "live and let live" society, one where each person pursues their own happiness as much as possible withOUT interfering in the lives of others... the whole "my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose." It's important to see this perspective AS a certain way of life, one that doesn't agree with differing ones.
So, when people come along and want to control everyone, discriminate and oppress people, that's conflicting with the permissive society. In supporting a "leave others alone" society, you're opposed to people not leaving others alone.
Tolerance doesn't mean everything is allowed, it means a society where intolerance isn't acceptable. In criminalizing murder, are we intolerant? No, we're outlawing people harming others. It's only by focusing on the semantics, the words themselves that contradiction appears. IMNSHO
+Aeroldoth3 I agree with what you're saying about the idea of a "live and let live" society, and I'm not suggesting that in such a society _everything_ and _anything_ should be permissible. "He who defends everything defends nothing," and all that sort of thing. If I were of the opinion that _everything_ were permissible, then I would also think it permissible to commit acts of offensive violence against racists and bigots. I do not, however, think that we should be permitted to commit such acts, and therefore I clearly do not believe that _everything_ is permissible.
The question, then, is this: where do we draw the line? The proper liberal response to this question is that we should allow all people the freedom to commit any act which itself allows for the freedom of others to act likewise, and so on. To put it down to four words, _permit that which permits._
My concern, therefore, is not with the idea of setting a restriction _per se,_ but rather with the consistency with which we are prepared to respect that restriction. All talk of constraints and limitations is sophistical if we are only prepared to impose those limitations upon our enemies. Indeed, we _define_ our enemies as being those individuals who stray outside of the set boundaries, or at least as those individuals who _wish_ to do so. If we ourselves move beyond those boundaries, then, we cease even so much as to represent a distinct opposition to our enemies, and simply become something else worth opposing. "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
In other words, my problem is not with principles that are themselves nuanced, what I take issue with is nuance in the _application_ of those principles. Namely, I am worried that people will coordinate the implementation of their principles in a way that coincides exactly with whatever their personal interests and prejudices happen to be, and then euphemistically rationalise this as being a "nuanced" approach to ethics.
Anarcho
*permit that which permits.*
I like that.
*people will coordinate the implementation of their principles in a way that coincides exactly with whatever their personal interests and prejudices happen to be*
That's something I think is going to happen regardless of what kind of society we have. Even if we were able to spell out the ideal utopia in detail, there would still be people who would twist things to suit their own ends, who would find loopholes, who would feel justified in abusing a system as they saw others do. The best you can do is support a broad ideal, a generalized principle, because every situation will have extenuating circumstances, and it is in that wiggle room for interpretation that people will willingly or unwillingly reach flawed conclusions.
I never studied communism, but it's my understanding that while it looked good on paper, it didn't work in reality as it didn't account for human greed and failings.
What I think should be done is:
A) Lay out a general ideal
B) provide specific examples to illustrate the spirit of that ideal
C) Implement the philosophy, hoping the people can refine it through the generations
However all this is way off topic. My only point in the OP was regarding the repeated snark from people about "tolerant" people not tolerating intolerance and the seeming contradiction. I don't see a contradiction, I believe the people complaining about the left's "tolerance" either don't understand the nuance involved or just want something to whine about.
I agree that intolerance should not go unanswered. However, while I can understand the urge to punch out neo-Nazism's, it doesn't justify aggressive violence against them. If you do that, you are no better than they are. I agree completely with Kyle on this.
It is defensive
We can't be tolerant of *intolerance* that allows physical violence. *But* freedom of speech is its own arena because the best idea will always win when both sides are freely open.
Shockingfire7 then why hasn’t it won?
He is saying that so you won't bother him when he bullies someone
^ exactly lol
I have lost many friends with all of this going on. A young lady said she was team confederate just to push my buttons.
It reminds me of the situation of women rights in Britain with suffragettes and suffragists, how with the violent actions suffragettes did to try and get equal women rights actually lowered public want for equal women rights, which the suffragists through non violent means increased public opinion heavily.
They won tho. Every war is won with some violence.
you think establishing equal rights is a "war"?
Are we at war or aren't we? I'm not for shouting, talking, platforming, deplatforming, protesting, counterprotesting, or any of that bs. We're either at war or we aren't, the people who disagree with me tell each other constantly that they are at war and they kill my people... So I'm just going to ignore everyone until everyone can agree we are at war or realize we already have been
If you are tolerant of the intollerant ideas then you can also be tolerant with the idea that dangerous ideas should be intolerated. Thats the answer.
So tolerancy does not mean being tolerant towards nazis.
And it us still tolerant to be intollerant towards nazis
@@ОлежаВонофага Yea so communist black supremacists are destroying the United States. Are you intolerant to them or are you kissing their ass/
@Robert
Nazis are all either dead or in their 90s or 100s so that isn’t a good rationalization either.
@Robert
What makes you say that?
I think the question is how do you stop violent people without force?
If they are actively ATTACKING you, you are justified in fighting back.
you are not justified in attacking people who are saying stupid things.
No, that's not the question. That's an uninteresting question. Here's a more interesting question:
How do you stop violent people _with_ force?
Answer: By defeating those people in a violent confrontation.
Question: What do you need in order to defeat those people in a violent confrontation?
Answer: You need superior numbers.
Question: How does one acquire superior numbers?
Answer: By means of nonviolent persuasion.
One way or another, the determining question will be this: Who can use words to convince more people to join their cause?
How about the slaves who freed themselves from slavery through violence? Are they wrong to use physical violence?
In other words; where is the line drawn between what's self-defense and what's not?
Puglosipher when the alt right starts enslaving black people you have credibility. However those who are enfranchised and protected by the same rights as their fellow citizens have no legitimacy to use violence.
Something Special Never heard of the Haitian Revolution?
Violence is sometimes the only solution. I'm not sure how people have convinced themselves that Nazism will disappear if we ignore it. The shit spreads. Look at how many young white men have joined the "alt-right".
I think at some point violence becomes the answer. We arent there yet tho.
fighting Amerikkkan fascism makes sense! any attack against fascism is
SELF-DEFENSE!
We need a progressive militia movement to protect and serve our oppressed communities. Kyle is so fucking naive.
Being intolerant to intolerance isn't the same.
You don't make sense here. You describe physical violence as some kind of special case "thing that the baddies do", but you say it's fine to fight with ideas... which is also a thing that the baddies do! So how can you fight with ideas, if that's a thing that the baddies do? Does that make you stand for what the baddies stand for? No, and neither does the violence you use the same argument against. Extend it further and you could say that you shouldn't fine a thief, and you shouldn't lock up a kidnapper, because that means you agree with theft and kidnap. It's not a good argument. You're focused on imagery here, not substance. And it's selective imagery.
Bottom line of how I personally judge it right here: These forces are not applied equally and they should not be treated as though they are. A fascist is not just as valid as an anti-fascist in making an argument, and does not deserve the same consideration, nor the same rights. They desire extermination, and quite deliberately attempt as a group to cause that dream to come to fruition, and should quite frankly be rounded up and shot for it. They choose to make themselves a dangerous hazard to ordinary society, and because of choosing to do that ought to be dealt with in the same fashion you'd treat any other dangerous hazard to ordinary society.
So yeah there's my strong disagreement with you on that. Appreciate there being a difference in viewpoint, but your reasoning for why yours is the superior notion was way off.
" but you say it's fine to fight with ideas... which is also a thing that the baddies do! "
.....
Baddies also breathe..
You're really trying hard to twist the narrative to support offensive violence. its not the fact that bad people doing something is bad its the fact that its bad and when people do it we label them as such.
Using offensive violence is the fastest way to devolve a civilization into chaos with people settling all their problems with fists and guns instead of ideas.
"Extend it further and you could say that you shouldn't fine a thief, and you shouldn't lock up a kidnapper, because that means you agree with theft and kidnap. It's not a good argument. You're focused on imagery here, not substance. And it's selective imagery."
What isn't a good argument is what you're saying here.
Thievery is a crime as is kidnapping.
Thievery = theft of property allowing this to continue would devolve society into chaos
Kidnapping = unlawful imprisonment and being taken against your will allowing this to continue would devolve society into chaos
having stupid horrible ideas is not nor should be.
"A fascist is not just as valid as an anti-fascist in making an argument"
It doesn't matter if you think they are or not, we don't allow selective offensive violence against people we don't like. I don't remember electing you as the validity police, either. Not to mention many members of Antifa are just as horrible in action as the fascists they claim to hate and attack random people that they SUSPECT of being part of that ideology.
"and does not deserve the same consideration, nor the same rights"
Why is that? because you say so....? Sorry, i have to ask again, who elected you as supreme arbiter of the world? I sure as hell didn't.
"They desire extermination"
So? a lot of people desire horrific things, we don't punish people for having shitty beliefs or wishes, that would be thought crime. we punish people for taking actual action.
" and should quite frankly be rounded up and shot for it. "
"We should kill people for thought crime"
Sorry if i'm not in favor of this.
"your reasoning for why yours is the superior notion was way off."
Nope, his is on base as any consistent rational person would be, yours is basically "We should be able to kill people with horrible desires"
"does not deserve the same consideration, nor the same rights"
the fuck do you think unalienable means
What does the meaning of unalienable have to do with anything? I'm talking about what people deserve, not what they currently get. There are obviously a lot of problems with the way laws work right now. This isn't me trying to argue about what legally goes at the moment. This is me saying what should and shouldn't be the case, in my opinion.
SkyTech you say I'm "twisting" it but I'm not. His argument is literally "we shouldn't use offensive violence because the baddies use offensive violence". He plainly and clearly actually said that. That's the argument (his argument, not my 'twisting' of it) that I was trying to illustrate as ridiculous. And you just absolutely agreed that it was.
I'm not necessarily saying there isn't any possible sensible argument in favour of pacifism. I'm saying that this particular argument in favour of pacifism, as presented in the video, is stupid. And I provided parallel arguments in order to show just how stupid it is.
As for my stance on anti-fascists not being as bad as fascists, you are absolutely free to disagree with that, right up until the point one of them gains power and tells you that you aren't free to do anything any more, and that they don't give a crap about your sense of fairness. Keep believing in that false equivolency, all you want. It's a comment on a youtube video, nobody's commanding you to obey it.
People tend to forget that in the process of being intolerant (in ways that have real world ramifications upon people, so not using language) you effectivly have to oppose yourself.
No paradox: Intolerance against intolerance - Popper. I also agree one should not react with phsyical violence against people with these ideas. Only the state is allowed to react with legal means.
That is definitely NOT a Popper quotation
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Popper: The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (1945)
Out of context, ma dude
if this ain't clear, nothing is bro :p
What about the bit that you *conveniently* left out?
It allows them to play the victim if you listen. Don't listen, and they won't be heard while screaming in their holes.
Just don't fall victim to their wordplays. Don't ignore them, beat them down with words. Otherwise they'll keep dominating the internet comment threads with their vile and despicable comments. They've convinced each other that they are the majority and that their inhumane views deserve respect and be law. They made unjustified assholery seem socially acceptable. It's time the deplorables learned that they've no place in a working society.
The bullies should be told that nobody, at least no decent person, likes them.
We as a society should not tolerate intolerance, but the government or any central body can’t be our mechanism for doing that without our surrendering of liberties that this principle is trying to protect.
I agree with your statement about offensive violence and you comment about antifa was very insightful. Never thought about it like that. Looking back at European history though, especially going back to the 1930s and 1940s...The allied forces didn't send Hitler a strongly worded letter. I'm not sure the diskussion can be reduced to this level, but I'm worried that if the intolerant gets too much wind in their sails, there'll be no other options left for the tolerant than to fight fire with fire. How do you recognize that day?
I don't support offensive violence and I'm not entirely comfortable with antifa either, but the fascists, white supremacists and neo-nazis scare the living daylight out of me.
This is not a paradox, its compositionally fallacious. If you specify exactly what is and isn't being tolerated, if becomes clearer.
"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." --Karl Popper en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
*Just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.*
Bit Spook - I think maybe what Mrbigweeknee meant was that the level of tolerance we have for something might depend on how vulgar or horrendous that idea it.
For example, we should be more tolerant of religious views that don't like gay people marrying than we are of religious views that want to kill gay people. Let me be clear: we should be intolerant of both.... but the level of intolerance varies. As denying people the right to marry is less bad than essentially genocide.
Though I understand the point you are making,... All religion is delusion; a persistent false belief that i resistant to evidence. Delusion is mental illness. An illness should be treated; not cuddled. People are entitled to thier views, they are not entitled to spread them to the healthy. They certainly are not entitled to enforce them in any way. I despise religion, but I would make no law to oppress the afflicted. I would make every possible law to prevent them from gaining political power for all religious paths lead to theocracy.
We can use a different example. I wasn't trying to specifically use a religious example. Theocracy always seems to lead to less tolerance.
More tolerant towards those complaining about kneeling during the national anthem and less tolerant of KKK members?
Sure, sure... but, wrong is wrong. Both of those things come from the same authoritarian place. If you somehow had honest data for a venn diagram, the overlap would not be insignificant for those that disapprove of kneeling and wouldbe kkk members(thier actual, on paper, numbers are very small). You speak of gradations and I understand that, but a single step down the wrong path still leads to the same place as ten steps down.
I think the person was referring to making "hate speech" illegal and not protected speech. Which is a DREADFUL and DAMAGING idea. We need tolerance of ALL ideas as long as they are ideas and speeches not physical aggression.
It's possible to be intolerant of intolerance without being violent. This guy blew the topic way out of proportion, why bring violence into it? It's the other side who are the violent ones.
Luisa Tierney I’ve seen enough Antifa videos to prove that you’re wrong on that. Both extremes on right and left are just as bad as each other.
@@kobayashi1194 being against fascism does not make you extremist
@@autumnumberger3883 Antifa are communist terrorists.
@Victor I like how you didn't attack the "terrorist" part, because you know there is no denying that.
@@travv88 lmao fuvking idiot
Way I see it? Being the "good guy" isn't priority. Winning is priority. This is not the same thing as thinking I'm the good guy just because of my political alignment. I just don't care.
"The problem with liberals is they think you can talk everything out."
-Vincent Hallinan, badass lawyer
Edit: Anyone interested in learning more about Vincent who lived an amazing life please listen to the Dollop Podcast on him. Its the third newest one. If you have never listened to the Dollop I highly recommend it, its a American history podcast where Dave Anthony reads a story to comedian Gary Reynolds who has no idea what the topic, is about. Its my favorite podcast and I listen to a fuck ton of podcast lol.
So you are going to walk straight into nuclear radiation? You want to take over a completely destroyed waste land? Ok, have fun.
So what is not everything? A minority of problems on rare occasions or anything you call a Nazi?
I Piss On Confederate Graves And most things can. So... what’s the point of this..?
I piss on confederate graves A short cut to a Nuclear War, would be to visit the Hanford Nuclear Site. I heard they give tours.
Yes you're right let's fight everyone you disagree with. So the next time someone punches you in the face for disagreeing with you don't complain about it. He disagrees with you so therefore he was right to do so.
I feel being more intolerant of intolerance is necessary, but in my mind it's about saying to your hating Uncle "Well, you certainly have the right to be an ugly racist, but as long as that is your MO, stay the fuck out of my house, no parties, no invitations... pretty much shunning. Don't do business with them, whatever... but agreed, always peaceful, never use violence.
this is 100% acceptable.
you don't need to physically beat people to make them look stupid as fuck.
The Golden Rule (Treat others the way we want to be treated) solves 90% of people problems.
90%?
@@Pau_aart that 10% is for people who like to be treated wrongly lmao
The only way to win a war of ideas is with ideas. Period.
until your opponent shoots in your face after you beat him with your words. Never give power to a group of crazies.You can't win a debate against an ahole. He won't accept his loss.
This "paradox" is nonsense. You tolerate a person's beliefs as long as they remain nothing more than beliefs. If they start trying enact the violence in their hearts upon other people then they must be stopped, preferably with as little force as necessary.
Yeah and what if those people get elected into power, and or take office?
+Erik Brock Thank you. Jesus Christ, some of the comments on this video...
Thank you for speaking out against antifa.
I'm so sick of this. THERE IS NO FUCKING PARADOX. Being tolerant of intolerance is like not locking up a child abductor because "that would make us no better than him".
That's a 4 year old's understanding of the concept.
How is "letting idiots say dumb shit" even remotely similar to "not locking up a child abductor" ?
Beating the shit out of people without them attacking you first DOES INDEED make you as bad (if not worse) than the people you are fighting against, because YOU are the person that initiated violence.
+SkyTech RTS Exactly, I can't believe how many people don't get this. Actually, I kind of _don't_ believe it, I think they're often _deliberately_ drawing a false analogy in order to justify their position.
The problem is, Hans, people usually define "intolerant" as "people who disagree with me". Thus, it is a very vague concept to decide who deserves to have violence directed at them. or who gets or doesn't get to speak about certain issues.
For conservatives, forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a Catholic employer to provide money for contraceptives with health care insurance is "intolerant" of their religious beliefs.
For leftists of the "regressive" variety, criticizing the Qur'an is intolerant of Muslims. Criticizing gender-feminism is intolerant of women. Supporting limits on immigration is intolerant of foreigners, etc.
That's why the criteria we use for when to crack down on intolerant speech is not "Is this despicable?", but "Does this put any life on immediate and unambiguous danger?" (think a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" scenario).
This is a pretty good article about this stuff: slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
+May
"Words have effects" oh here we go with this nonsense...
" How would you like it if you were constantly harrassed by people for the way you are"
I WOULD BEAT THEM UP!10i32523494848934848389 If they were directly harassing me i'd leave, or if they pursued call the authorities.
"How'd you live a normal life when everybody looked at you as if you were a child abductor"
What the fuck are you talking about?
"You also defend bullying. "
How..? I'm the one against beating people up, sorry your 1984 style "up really means down" argument might work
with infants but it does not work on me.
". I guess you are a bully"
Yeah, I guess so... because I want people to be consistent and not violently beat people up they disagree with.
i'm the villain here.
k.
", and don't see anything wrong with how you treat others."
...? This is the kind of bulllshit that' spouted when you have cognitive dissonance.
". it's all fun and games after all, isn't that right? "
Yup that's right.
because that was totally implied in my argument.
You need to actually argue my point and not make up some strawman to attack.
"Tell that to all the suicide victims. And don't you dare blame them for being weak or worse not able to take a "joke""
.... What does this have to do with me or my argument? stop going on a tangent about random irrelevant shit.
"What if your constant bullying, or simply marginalizing drives someone to run amok. Ever thought of that? All schoolshootings happened because someone had to fuck someone elses life. Your words have effects. Words hurt,you asshole and you know that, otherwise why'd you do it. Don't you provoke to get a reaction from your victim? If someone punches you for talking shit about him for no good reason, then you totally deserve it. "
Words hurt!313231
grow up, you act like that I haven't been on the internet for most of my life, words cannot physically harm you, this is just a fact, someone with "science" in their name should have known this. What you do about it is ignore it, argue it or tell them to fuck off, but you don't UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE get to take away someone's right to speak just because they say shitty things, otherwise why shouldn't I take away your right to speak? or beat you up because you said stuff I don't like?
why not? do you want to live in the fucking wild west where verbal slights are solved by violence? because I don't.
No. Random violence is not justified, period. Unless they PHYSICALLY HARMED YOU you have NO right to strike them, it doesn't matter how mean or shitty their beliefs are.
stop capitulating to base emotions you imbecile.
"What about Charles Manson? Why is he in prison again? After all he hasn't killed anybody. He just talked to some people, who in return killed some people. How can that be Mansons fault? Should we really wait until someone snaps before acting? "
You fucking idiot, he sent his little minions to kill people, he didn't just "talk" to people you little shit. nobody is going to be swayed by that pathetic and dishonest equivalence you just made.
Jihadists can say what they want, its when they get together to kill people that's where you take action.
moron.
Also you combat that with discussion and debate.
If they bring bad ideas, you bring your good ideas... If they bring violence, on after that, you respond in kind. If only ideas are expressed, only respond with better ideas.
I would say run away, you can't get in trouble with the law that way.
Antifa - "Let's start a war for peace"
There is a fine balance with freedom that creates more instability and insecurity ; and restrictriction that creates more security and stability. No functional society silely rests upon one or the other exclusively and it is up to the people to try to figure out this fine silver lining of balance.
kyle just admit you don't understand the paradox of tolerance and go study, you keep talking objectively wrong things
exactly. Its like he was trying to argue against it cause of "MUH PRINCIPLES" such a fool. Stubborn like always
You can not be intolrant to intolerance exluding violently defending your positions if you are forced into it. This is because sooner or later you will come across with somebody intolerant enough and at the same time having one's fists faster than speech generator.
"I don't understand the question" them move on. Don't talk about shit you've already admitted you don't understand.
s3nse c0rruptr he wasn’t saying that misunderstood the question. He was saying he was unclear what the person asking the question said when he said “not tolerating the intolerant”. As he said, if the question-asker meant intolerance = peacefully debating intolerant people, he’s 100% on board. If they meant intolerance = using violence to shut down intolerance, he disagrees.
Intolerance of Intolerance is a self-defeating principle, but more importantly, it doesn't make any sense. What makes your intolerance different? You're justifying doing something wrong because you think you're inherently right.
Being intolerant of intolerance is intolerance. lol How about that?
How about we just talk and don't shit on each other, no matter how offended we are at first.
You can't be intolerant and demand tolerance. It doesn't work that way.
Why? So the alt-right can red pill enough people to take over the levers of power? No thanks. Easier to punch a nazi than retake europe, pardon me, i mean america.
There are many other forms of violence beyond physical aggression. A violent behaviour, of any kind, is still a violent behaviour.
pacifism loses.
Violence against those that are physically stronger than you is stupid too.
Bit Spook I think Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and the suffrage movement would like to have a word with you...
@skytechrts: Numbers. Antifa have smashed nazis repeatedly. Boston was 100 rightists vs 40,000 counterprotesters.
Martin was assassinated; He lost. Ghandhi didnt win; the breakup of india pakistan proved that. The suffrage movement, in the US and Britain, was far from nonviolent. perhaps you could at least google a topic before you speak as though you know about it.
www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1MSIM_enUS670US670&q=suffrage+movement+violence&oq=suffrage+movement+violence
Bit Spook MLK influence and inspired anti-segregation laws. You know that saying, "although you may die, your legacy will live on." Even though he was assassinated that doesn't mean his achievements are undermined. Gandhi got what he wanted, a free and independent India. Even if they was broken apart, he still got the British out peacefully. And you are right, the suffrage movement did had its violent moments in the US and the UK, but the majority of the suffrage movements in other countries show that they didn't need violence in order to achieve their goals.
"Win the battle of ideas" ....... yet refuse to listen to ideas you don't approve of. Some even try to make sure NO-ONE can listen to ideas they do not approve of by shouting down or de-platforming. That's not winning the battle of ideas; you may think you have all the answers, but so do those opposing you. You are not the arbiter of truth.
Shutting down the lines of communication of those opposing you, only proves one thing: you feel you don't have the arguments to defeat the opposing arguments.
Sargon of Akkad would not be pleased Kyle. We must champion and platform white supremacists! 😂😂😂
The internet has been hijacked by assholes. They are spamming every channel, every website with their bs, trying to stear the narrative in almost all comment threads. That way they influence opinions. The vast majority of people don't have their own mind, they are like lemmings who follow the biggest trend. People are too lazy to think or too dumb to do real research. That's what many groups who follow an agenda try to exploit. E.g, anti-vaxxers, creationists, conspiracy nutter in general, etc. Making it look like as if 80+ % or whatever high number of people on the internet are conspiracy nutters, assholes or defenders of assholery. It's like people have forgotten the times when we had one cyber mobbing suicide victim after another (the actual reason SJW and PC became a thing). But now the assholes have crawled from under their rocks, they joined hands, created bots and whatever to fight against the "horrible injustice" they face, which is that people show no tolerance towards their intolerance. They changed the narrative on the internet with their trolling in such a massive way that when you read comments that you think that almost everybody is defending the asshole trolls nowadays. This gave racists, xenophobes, the average schoolbully, sociopaths, psycopaths and plain old assholes the conviction that they've always been the silenced majority who now is uprising against what used to be called decency. They demand that they can be assholes towards everybody the want for no good reason, but at the same time they cry that they are faced with intolerance towards their intolerance. "Let me be intolerant, but don't be intolerant towards me, otherwise you hurt ma feelings"
Put the paranoia away, guys.
You should listen to people that you don't agree with. They might have something important to tell you you didn't know about. Just listen provided the person isn't insulting you or attacking you physically.
I've been called both a Communist and a Nazi, so I'm good.
The question is an attempt to sound clever using semantics.
_If guns don't kill people, people kill people... Does that mean that toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?_
Yes that's exactly it. Clever wordplays to sound logical, in order to mess with decent people so they may stop bothering them for being an assholes. It's psychology. They hope some idiot will listen to them, because he's afraid of being called a hypocrite. It's what lawyers do all the time to sway a jury. In fact, in a documentary about American Nazi's many years ago, they bragged that they have become more clever, and that they were now sending their brainwashed hate filled children to universities, so they'd become lawyers and politicians, to take over America. I have the feeling they have succeeded.
The logical consequence would be for the assholes to also stop being intolerant towards their innocent victims at the same time as other become tolerant tolerant towards them, but we know that's not what they want.
Looking at the gun example, the logical consequence would be to not give a gun to a human, because humans kill humans. Or one of the logical fallacy of some anti-vegetarians: plants can feel too, so it's ok to eat animals. The logical consequence would be to also stop eating plants if that were the case.
Violence against fascists (aka violent people) ISN'T "offensive" violence. It is "defensive" violence, self-defense.
No, it is not self defense to go out and attack someone just because they're holding a sign that YOU consider to be fascist.
@@diomilmontesdeoca8303 Their ideology is calling for the massacres of minorities and for democracy to be completely destroyed.
The only good fascist is a dead one.
@@terminalius
You would condemn a certain group of people to death because they have a different opinion than you?
Sounds like something Hitler would do.
@@stephenrochester6309 Yes. I would. 😹
@@terminalius
You say that you are against massacres in one breath and then support the massacre of your political opponents in another breath. I’m starting to think that you’re the fascist.
I disagree with the fact that offensive violence is by definition bad. I think this raises an interesting question: Say another country is committing horrible human rights abuses and they won't respond to sanctions or diplomacy. Do we then have a responsibility to stop the problem by force?
Or what if a person is committing a crime? Do the police have a right to use violence against them (assuming they don't respond to anything else)? Well, most would probably say yes. But is offensive violence still inherently wrong?
Kyle would have let the Nazis take over Germany.
You're an idiot.
I'm sure if communists beat up enough facists it wouldn't have happened right........ right...?
oh wait.. people were beating up nazis (they were jailed too!) offensive violence to people who are not an imminent threat to you does not work.
Tolerance like most things is good to the point of being abusiveness. We get the results of what we tolerate. The same for our body. You will tolerate pain to a certain limit and then get surgery or pain killing drugs.
Antifa4life
You are the cancer of the left.
I think the question was mainly about free speech for guys who spread toxic ideas and I am really sad Kyle did not talk about why free speech is more important than trying to stop it.
What is a "toxic idea" though?
Conservatives would call us liberals "toxic"
Pretty much what you said.
And what do you do if they just respond to your arguments with "How about no?". You can't force them to do something unless you use violence in that case.
But words are violence.
Also using a megaphone to be the loudest is not an argument
perfect example of how to handle intolerance could be seen last saturday in Gothenburg, Sweden.
This paradox put a speedbump in the vision in my head of a world that's 100% unified.
Do I have a different definition of ‘tolerance’?
To tolerate someone would mean you don’t like them &/or their ideas, but put up with them anyway. If you don’t tolerate people who oppose you/your ideas, you are not ‘tolerant’ by definition.
but the intolerant are not tolerant of the tolerant, by definition. If intolerant people gain control of the government and start placing restrictions on tolerant people, banning them from assembling to talking in public, Kyle's argument is that tolerant people would tolerate those restrictions, which I think is stupid.
philpott kentucky I’m not saying you should tolerate the intolerant. But it’s dishonest to claim to be tolerant while doing it.
You can say “I do not tolerate .....”, but as soon as you say that, you can’t then say you’re ‘tolerant’
On the flip side, if you claim to be ‘tolerant’, then defend Islamic extremism in ‘tolerance’, you’re also stating you don’t like Islamic extremism, but put up with it regardless...
I’m just saying that people use the word tolerance too freely.
That's a very good question...I don't fully understand the question.
Well done automated delay response :P
I can't help myself..I must comment since I love this type of riddles. I want to keep Kyle's core belief in mind: the only way to combat hateful speech is with more speech. WARNING: what follows might be very boring if you're not into formal logic.
Paradox: if a society is tolerant without limit, the ability to be tolerant will eventually be ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. That in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
What I understand is that if Bob (or a society) has tolerance without limit, because of a curse for example, then that ability will eventually be ceased or destroyed once John tries to kill him. Bob must protect himself but he can only do that by not tolerating violence.
Definition of a paradox from a mathematician's point of view: a statement that is neither true nor false.
If P is a paradox, the the truth of P leads to the falsehood of P, but the falsehood of P leads to the truth of P and thus creating an infinite loop.
Example: Let P be the statement "this statement is false." If P is true, then what P says is true. But if what P says is true, then "this statement is false" is false. So P is false (from truth we arrived at falsehood). But if P is false, then what it says is false. So, "this statement is false" is not true, i.e, it is true (from falsehood we arrived at truth).
Does the paradox of tolerance fit the criteria for being a paradox? We could add to Bob's story that his curse can never be broken, not even by incredible levels of intolerance. So we could imagine John attacking Bob and Bob letting him because he must be tolerant. So there's a premise that we can question: the ability to be tolerant will eventually be ceased or destroyed by the intolerant (*). So we just arrived from truth to falsehood but not the other way around. It is false that limitless tolerance exists at all times.
Maybe Bob's story is too fictional and in the real world, (*) is always true. Then there cannot be limitless tolerance and we have this conclusion: limitless tolerance and (*) are inconsistent; they cannot be true at the same time. We still don't have a paradox.
I don't know much about societies but at the individual level, there can be all kinds of people. It is perfectly possible that there is someone out there that is completely altruistic and will never face a difficult moral dilemma and thereby having limitless tolerance by his own right (and we will never know what this person would do in moral dilemmas). But for the most of us, things are are very unjust would make us draw the line and so we have levels of, rather than complete, tolerance. For Kyle, violence in response to an imminent attack is justified as long as its in self defense. This brings me back to his position : the only way to combat hateful speech is with more speech. This position is compatible with the belief that one can respond with violence as long as its done in self defense. After all, we're talking about hateful speech, not hateful violence. The question of, would this work with societies? seems far more complex. Would having a society that in its majority would always follow Kyle's rule function? I don't know about you but for me it sounds like a thing.
@Secular Talk I've lived in Kansas most of my life and grew up there. It is a red state but 90% of the people I encountered there were reasonably relatable and accepting of everyone for the most part. I recently moved to San Angelo Texas, another deep red state. From my 4 weeks here iv learned that Texas is a time capsule from 2 decades ago. I haven't met a single person that hasn't come off as a non accepting asshole. They call me Bernie at my new job, they still use the word socialist like its a racial slur, the use the n word repeatedly in a two sentence dialog. It's honestly crazy down here man they think transgendered should be kicked out of the military and think it's a mental disease. THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT FACTS WHEN POINTED OUT ABOUT TRUMP THEY JUST CALL ME A SORE LOSER EVEN WHEN IM MAKING EXTREMELY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. PLEASE HELP ME
I can't do anything to help you, but here's some advice.
The workplace is never a good place to talk about politics.
Ask them to point to "Nambia" on a map, and explain to them that the guy they elected wants to bomb it.
Im not to shocked to read about your anecdote. In Texas they pride themselves on indoctrinating the young and making it a safespace for white racists to voice freely their dislike for anybody that doesnt look or think in the conservative, far right wing mindset. I thought Florida was like that until I met people from Florida who were not as bad as some of the people I met from Texas. Im beginning to believe Arizona is a lot like Texas too. I've Met some shady white individuals from that area and yes I am black. These things become a lot easier to notice
I think the core of the question is at what point does belief constitute responsibility? Hypothetically, a person who commits a violent act can be held accountable for that, everyone kind of agrees on that. But what about the small group of people that are egging him on? What about the slightly larger group agitating for some sort of violence, but not going to risk it themselves? What about the larger group of people who loudly share his same beliefs? What about the largest group of people who simply did nothing?
inciting a riot is a felony in the US, and when you march in the streets shouting white power that's inciting a riot. The law isn't enforced when it's the white racists breaking it, so the people have to hold them accountable.
"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words#United_States
Thats when you punch a nazi.
There is no paradox, just semantical BS. Tolerance with intolerance is intolerance, intolerance with intolerance is tolerance. Is like phylosofucking thinking about negation of a negative....
The assholes, and nazi's are out to mess with people so they can keep being assholes.
I think the question was more of "should we violate the 1st amendment of free speech". Not every idea or philosophy should be voiced freely.
yes it should. Otherwise you are just giving said ideas more power.
I always think about this when it comes to religion. I'm for religious freedom, but pretty much all devout followers of a religion are intolerant to one or more groups of people simply because their book told them so. And sure you can have separation of church and state, but not really since everyone has the right to vote based on their beliefs. Not sure what I really believe
Fight rhetoric with rhetoric, because good ideas withstand the tests of scrutiny.
Violence is an appropriate response to violence or such utter deprivation of rights that there is no longer any feasible means of recourse outside of violence *and* the status quo is inhumanely deplorable.
So punching an Islamist puts you on the same moral standing as an Islamist?
If you punch him first, then yes.
an islamist? ... you mean - a muslim...
Violence is nesicary. There is a reason we feel those emotions, it's about survival and evolution, denouncing violence is denouncing millions of years of survival. Things that inhibit the ability for one to survive will be removed. Fascism is exactly that, and will be removed.
Secular Satanist you know fascism is pretty much exactly what you described right? Like you are actually advocating for an ideology exactly like the basis of fascism right now. The idea of embracing base human emotions and violence is the basis of fascism as describe by Mousolini.
Bosscascade nope. It's not the same thing. You're dumb, move along.
Bosscascade
Lol because somebody said it forever ago, makes it legit. Okay so let's take the bible as the literal truth then. Fucking tard. This is why the left loses. Bunch of pussies scared to DEFEND what you believe with an iron fist.
Bosscascade
Meanwhile everybody else gets away with the strawman arguments and violence against us, but we can't fight back. You Are 100% Wrong.
Violence is only necessary when you're too stupid to argue for your case, and even then it's not really a thing you should do
(Holy Shit) Thanks Kyle for an insightful answer! If you're still recording answers to these questions, Follow Up: 1. If someone (Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, Violent Misogynist, etc.) has advocated for killing/human rights violations, wouldn't you consider that an offensive action? In other words, do you really think you can peacefully advocate for genocide? (Thus, wouldn't taking action against these groups be justified under 'self-defense'?) 2. Although you may lose the moral high ground engaging in 'offensive violence,' couldn't you argue that it's worth it from a practical standpoint? There are many examples of this, the most salient, recent example being Richard Spencer saying that he was afraid to espouse his views after being punched in the face. As Stokely Carmichael said, "In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” 3. In the past, I believe you have supported controversial (read: bigoted) speakers being given public platforms, such as at universities. Doesn't this contradict your claim here that we should aggressively combat hateful speech? (The most direct way of combating the speech would be to deny its audience.)
As always, keep up the great work! Hope to ask another question at 1M ;)
For those interested in this line of thought and to clarify the question regarding the Paradox of Tolerance entails:
"Every liberal democracy realize early on there are some positions which must prima facie be aggressively excluded from public discourse. You can't even articulate why they are unreasonable because to articulate why they are unreasonable is to itself open the possibility of reason. This is why you can't allow 'just hypothetical' questions about whether Jews, blacks, women, etc. are innately inferior/destroyable. Nazi theorists like Carl Schmitt very quickly diagnosed this weakness in liberal democracies; you can collapse a democracy by insisting the democracy had a right to end itself i.e. Hindenburg to Hitler defended as a 'peaceful transition of power.' Intolerance cannot be tolerated because the law can be co-opted by, and thus protective of, fascism. Fascism wriggles into democracies by insisting on the right to be heard, achieves critical mass, then dissolves the organs that installed it. Meaning the stronger it becomes, the more difficult it is to sufficient combat it with reason. The Overton Window becomes warped, as we are seeing with the Trump administration's "alternative facts” because the State ultimately decides the truth. Some positions must be excluded from discourse. Some positions you do not listen; you can only punch. A society that begins to entertain why some members of its state might not belong is doomed." -Anthony Oliveria
1. If you can prove an individual threatened to harm someone (IE terroristic threat) then call the authorities
2. Nothing about offensive violence and breaking the law is practical, all you're doing is justifying the opposition's agenda not to mention this is such flimsy logic it be used to justify violence against any group.
3. That doesn't contradict his argument, you do not de-platform or prevent these people from speaking, you attack it with facts and evidence, once again the alternaive is anyone can de-platform anybody for stupid insipid reasons.
I know these questions are for kyle but I had to address this.
anything can be labeled intolerance such as liberalism itself by the Right wing religious idiots. The idea that without beating the holy shit out of random people with bad ideas is required to prevent a nazi takeover of the country is absurd.
but attacking these people with fists and weapons instead of words and facts is a lot closer to achieving the very thing you seek to prevent.
The defensive should not exceed the necessity to fend off the attack.
There is no real paradox of tolerance. It's a strawman fallacy is anything. Tolerance isn't an absolute, so being tolerant doesn't require you to be tolerant of intolerance. I feel like only stupid people make this argument.
so it's ok to ban nazis, because nazis want to ban everybody else?
@philpott kentucky Yes. And?
We don't allow for the killing of other people either, however killing in self defense is a thing aswell as war both of which are perfectly legal.
I don't know that using the phrasing "running roughshod over the people who are intolerant of our belifes" is a very good choice in light of Heather Heyes literally being "run roughshod over" by those who were intolerant of her belifes.....just food for thought. I am not the PC police by any stretch but that was an unfortunate euphemism in this particular discussion.
I disagree with the initial premise. I think the kind of speech that's been popularized in liberal circles, where one assumes the opponent is an absolute moron and insults, shames and labels them with no regard for accuracy gives ammo to the right as well. Why do we have to tolerate loud assholes who do nothing but make this side of politics look bad through their speech just so we can draw the line exactly at violence? No. If you're too stupid or too angry to behave like a rational human being, I don't support your politics. That kind of person would undoubtedly make costly mistakes going forward, and not even realize it. We've let a kind of politics grow in which the only thing that matters is that the people on your side clap when you speak, and chant alongside you, instead of one where we try to be correct in what we say and do.
No they're talking about the paradox that antifa has that they have the logic of, "the only way to combat intolerance is with intolerance."
NeonRogue It's not a paradox though. Not tolerating intolerance isn't a paradox because the type of intolerance is vastly different. Being violent towards people advocating violence is what's really the issue
The way i see it ...
Think of a person with an amazing charisma. He regularly enchants his audience - manages to make them "think" his way - engages in political debattes and encourages anti-democratic thinking. Imagine opportunists to give this person bigger and bigger stages to reach more and more people with his message.
All the while - fact checker continously claim that what he says are lies - but his words still manage to enchant the people.
At that point there still is a fairly strong democratic countermovement - but eventually you notice how the political climate in the country shifts - and to your surprise you notice that this persons followers have become a dominant force in all media. They do not react to things anymore - they are not in opposition anymore - they have become actors and force others to react to them.
Then you realize that the resistance has become too weak to stand against this new political power. And to make things worse - the risen power does not even keep its intentions secret anymore. They openly start to preach hatred against a substantial part of the population as well as people outside the country, they even openly talk about dismantelling democratic institutions and mechanisms .... like free speech.
So the qustion of the paradox kind of is - should such a person/movement be allowed under the principle of free speech? - And is there a time when you HAVE to intervene to save your democratic mechanisms?
If there is a time to intervene - why then and not earlier? Cause intervening means that the system has failed - and that it has created its antithesis.
America has learned nothing from Charles Manson
Good questions and great answers Kyle!
Intolerance is just that violence is just that these a simple common sense but common sense is so uncommon it should be considered a super power
"The Paradox of Tolerance" is an imagined paradox by those seeking to resolve their own cognitive dissonance with regards to left wing authoritarianism. I don't even agree that shame is the best tool to counter far right ideals (though it will work in a pinch). "Win the argument," as Chomsky says, though admittedly that's easier for Chomsky to do than others.
so if nazis take over the country and start banning liberals from protesting or speaking out, liberals should just tolerate it? That's stupid, and the reason why Karl Popper said tolerating intolerance will lead to the destruction of a society.
It is the word "if" that we need to examine here. When assessing risk, humans have a tendency to let the severity of an outcome disproportionately represent the danger in their minds. A Nazi take over would be grave indeed, but how likely is it really?
If I said would you rather have a 1:20,000 chance of being run over by a bus, or a 1:10,000,000 of being killed by a terrorist, surprisingly some people would take their chances with the bus. Charlottesville happened, one girl was killed about 20 others were injured. That's bad, you'll get no argument from me. But then the next weekend in there was an alt-right rally in Boston. Roughly two dozen protestors showed up, and they were met with 15,000 counter-protestors.
The ideals of the far right are utterly repugnant to the vast majority of Americans, there is no danger that they will ever accept them. But there is one way in which right-wing extremism can become more powerful, and that is when they can win sympathy by successfully playing the victim card. Look at Milo Yaba-daba-doppolis, if he had been allowed to speak at Berkley a couple dozen people would have heard him, but because he was banned the story made national headlines, and he was made into an ideological martyr. People would would not have otherwise been sympathetic to his cause suddenly found a common foe in, as they would term it, "latte sippin' liberals who want to stifle our free speech."
It's not all together intuitive, I'll grant you, but unfortunately it is human nature. Fighting an ideology with violence is like fighting a fire with gasoline. You can't punch the hatred out of a Nazi, it's just going to steel his resolve. It's unlikely that you can talk the hatred out of him either, but there is a slightly higher chance of success. You can shame them, but that only forces them underground. It's best just to let them speak and make themselves into social pariahs. At least that way there is a chance they'll outgrow it, or cave to social pressures. They really are an underwhemling minority of the population.
And by the way, do you mean the Karl Popper who said, "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. "?
that meandering statement didn't address my point at all.
Let me simplify then. Nazis won't take over the country and start banning liberals from protesting, their views are extremely unpopular, that is why the Paradox is imagined. What if Santa Claus takes over and enslaves the country, putting us to work in the sweatshops of the north pole making toys? It's really not worth losing any sleep over.
"Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice." -Ayaan Hirsi Ali (guess what she was referring to; hint: it wasn't right wing terror in the us)
The problem is, it's not "offensive violence" for me to punch a nazi. As a brown person, I would be acting in self defense. I prefer pre-preemptive self-defense
No, your skin color does not give you an exemption from the law
There's a dangerous number of people in politics that are justifying violence in this fucking dumbass identity politics way..
But what about being intolerant of intolerance through legal action?