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.—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 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Popper
1945
The Open Society and Its Enemies
[See also Paradox of tolerance.—Joe]
Of course, who gets to draw that line is of supreme importance.
The typical leftist is highly tolerant and open … or will say he is … right up to the moment you disagree with him.
THIS.
This has been the plan all along. Promote “tolerance” as a high virtue, scream “intolerance” at anyone who opposes the left and its depravities, or illogic, or hedonism, or nihilism, etc. right up to the point where they are in power, then shut down all opposing views as being “intolerant”, thereby forcing a uniform and totalitarian group-think. Using free speech as the Trojan horse to destroy that which makes a very comfortable world.
Basically, claims of “hate-speech,” or “racism,” or “bigotry,” or “intolerance,” by the left are nothing more than a secular-leftist blasphemy code to suppress dissent.
Free speech is great… if everyone is more or less on the same page culturally, and playing an honest actor in the debate. In a multicultural context, it has been weaponized to destroy western civilization.
“Basically, claims of “hate-speech,” or “racism,” or “bigotry,” or “intolerance,” by the left are nothing more than a secular-leftist blasphemy code to suppress dissent.”
You forgot “fundamentalist” and “extremist”, and also, the “left” is not nearly so “secular” as you might imagine, but yes– That’s right.
“Free speech is great… if everyone is more or less on the same page culturally, and playing an honest actor in the debate. In a multicultural context, it has been weaponized to destroy western civilization.”
We are dancing closer and closer to the truth here. Be careful or you’ll end up becoming a “fundamentalst extremist”. Take “western civilization” to mean “Protestantism”, and understand that the so-called “left” is not guided by a secular mindset at all, and then it’s just a matter of adding two and two.
You may not be ready to say it just yet, but you are desdcribing the anti-Christ system, the statue of Nebuchadnezzar as described by Daniel, the Beast of Daniel and the Beast of Revelation, and its shennanigans in opposition to the people and the system of Christ.
“Of course, who gets to draw that line is of supreme importance.”
True! The Ten Commandments are the ultimate standard by which all are judged, and the “who” in your statement is the Author of those commandments. And so, none of us mortals gets to draw that line at all, because it’s already been drawn.
It’s not complicated either, nor terribly burdensome to anyone. Still, we all fall short of the standard, and yet we all nonetheless can see the standard, and comprehend it.
And so, brother Boris, you have just, perhaps inadvertently, pointed to the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob as being of supreme importance. Re-read your statement. He gets to draw that line, He did draw that line, and you said that He is of supreme importance. Now He’s gonna hold you to it!
And thus the reason we can never have peace, for very long anyway. As only the victors point of view will be tolerated.
That should have been titled the “The Black hole of Humanity”.
I’ve had that exact quote thrown at me by an angry leftist who claimed the right to suppress me because “HATE SPEECH!”
Fuck them. If they want to call me intolerant and suppress me by force I’ve got the remedy.
Sean
“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.”
Yup. That’s why the intolerant are the chief proponents of “tolerance”. “Tolerate evil unti it can gain a foothold and take over, and then rule” is what they really mean. And that is precisely what they’re getting. It’s a done deal.
“We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Yeah well, in that case you’d have to purge the left (Romish fascism, but that’s a redundant term) in its entirety. And that isn’t going to happen.
Interesting the ethnic group this Popper belonged to. Better at the pilpul than the average. Yet another way to deny the legitimacy of any argument to protect one’s self, community and people.