Post 9m2k0rRTxUDa85d7Ls by r000t@ligma.pro
(DIR) More posts by r000t@ligma.pro
(DIR) Post #9m2b7VDM6HNpdA79P6 by b0zil@fedi.absturztau.be
2019-08-19T10:18:43.066421Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
When the hell did the Paradox of Tolerance become a standard I-am-right argument in any debate ?
(DIR) Post #9m2bKeKdVsSxfkmyP2 by b0zil@fedi.absturztau.be
2019-08-19T10:21:04.570541Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
> my arguments are based on a paradox btw> the idea of it was born in 1945 btw
(DIR) Post #9m2hcajMEzCHROI5PE by r000t@ligma.pro
2019-08-19T11:31:32Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@b0zilI've really only seen it once from one nutter on the fediverse. Bet I know who you just got done rolling your eyes at.
(DIR) Post #9m2iTaLYOmdjb8QTVw by b0zil@fedi.absturztau.be
2019-08-19T11:41:07.544961Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@r000t I've been seeing it used by four different people by now.It not only concerns this one but a handful of "irrefutable" arguments that have never been either socially or scientifically proven in the past, and used as a form of last resort argument because a few people agreed that there were good ones. They don't even bother listening to you if you don't take it as a valid one.This is just annoying me tbh.
(DIR) Post #9m2jSkyJVcmgDRiyOG by r000t@ligma.pro
2019-08-19T11:52:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@b0zilThe key thing to remember is that anybody using "paradox of intolerance" as an argument against free speech is1) conflating intolerant opinions with intolerant actions2) conflating tolerance (allowing something) with acceptance (approving of something)3) showing you they've done zero background research on the actual topic, and haven't actually read Popper's paper (they wouldn't agree with it if they did) 4) showing you that they get their political ideology from one page comics
(DIR) Post #9m2k0rRTxUDa85d7Ls by r000t@ligma.pro
2019-08-19T11:58:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@b0zilThe very paper they're using as an argument against free speech specifically says that the author isn't calling for abolition of free speech, nor is he calling for legislation against unapproved speech..."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."