zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
All the buzzwords are there, toxicity, harassment, safe spaces, sanction, ban, inclusivity. All to promote/cement the viewpoints that we now understand to be ,self evidently, the correct ones.

>>stormd+v2
The most tolerant societies end up tolerating the intolerable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

>>TheSpi+d3
I'll embrace that. Yes, the most tolerant societies tolerate the intolerable, and that's good and right.

something something paradox of "please ban things I don't like" something what good is tolerance if people end up disagreeing with me

>>Feepin+t5
Tolerating the intolerable is much worse than that.

A society ends up nourishing something that destroys it, because the intolerable is under no obligation to play fair.

Germany wrestled its censorship laws from hard history lessons.

>>shadow+Dt
The thing is, whenever you invoke Popper, you're calling the person you disagree with a literal Nazi who wants to liquidate millions of people.

Anything short of that and the logic falls apart -- there's no threat in tolerating some disagreeable person unless they go on to take over the government and forcibly outlaw all disagreement with them.

>>free_r+uK
I'm afraid I don't know what "invoke Popper" means.

> there's no threat in tolerating some disagreeable person unless they go on to take over the government and forcibly outlaw all disagreement with them.

If that intent is demonstrable, there's no reason to assist them in their goals.

>>shadow+kS
> If that intent is demonstrable, there's no reason to assist them in their goals.

But lacking any chance of success, there is also no reason to allow their existence to spoil my goals; that is, liberalism.

I feel like some people read Popper and advocate Censorship as almost the last tool, whereas some people read him and advocate it as almost the first!