The German People were following the paradox in 1935 when they denounced people who were interfering with their ideals. They were denouncing people who were trying to harm their ideal society. They were intolerant of those people who were pushing an "alternative" world view that wasn't conducive to the advancement of the public's goals. They felt these people had no redeeming qualities; that they were dangerous and disruptive to society. That they had nothing of any value to say, and that it was acceptable to suppress them. These dangerous, disruptive elements should be intolerated. They should be suppressed and destroyed, rather than allowed to interfere with the purity of German society.

If you present Popper's paradox to the German public in 1935, they will agree with its truth. They will use his philosophy to support their eugenics and genocidal programs: it is vitally important for the German people to fight back against the intolerance of these disruptive influences. Indeed, Hitler presented the same concept in Mein Kampf, and called for intolerance against those he deemed intolerant.

There is no objective truth behind the paradox. Popper's paradox works just as well for justifying your enemy's actions as it does for your own. For that reason, it must be rejected.

[–] mrpants@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it doesn't. This argument works only if you assume that "intolerance" is something that can be defined as "anyone against anything I'm doing".

If fascists were able to say "they're being oppressive of my desire to exclude them from our society" then that's not a flaw in the paradox but their reasoning abilities. Any philosophy is irrelevant then.

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

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

[–] mrpants@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

Allow me to illucidate the simplicity of this in reality:

Economic policy: Disagreement
Minstrel show images: Hate speech
Energy policy: Disagreement
Saying men and straight people should have less rights than women and gays: Hate speech

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] mrpants@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

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

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

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