Karl Popper the Paradox of tolerance

[Rascal]

The Overton window is the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[1][2] According to Overton, the window contains the range of policies that a politician can recommend without appearing too extreme to gain or keep public office in the current climate of public opinion.

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

I have never seen the Overton window presented that way. I like it

 

[1.618034]

I have never seen the Overton window presented that way. I like it

I did too.

Got it via a link in this article that I read today.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/03/the-myth-of-the-free-speech-crisis

Struck a chord with me.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Excellent thread @Rascal - provides a welcome calm space away from you know what.

 

[Damocles]

Popper's tolerance paradox is possibly the most quoted but least understood point on the internet.

Here's what he said and what all the intelligentsia memes are based on.

Less well known is 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.

Now here's the next paragraph that nobody ever quotes

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.

Some other things Popper thought were paradoxical were freedom and democracy. Maybe we should limit those too?

 

[aguero93:20]

Some other things Popper thought were paradoxical were freedom and democracy. Maybe we should limit those too?

I'm more than willing to listen to arguments for limiting both, are you offering them or just leaving it at that?

 

[mexico1970]

There is always some ideology or thought that attempts to martial our thoughts, wrapping it up in pontification doesn't change that fact. Tolerant people have a breaking point and we all have our own area where our buttons are pressed.

 

[Damocles]

I'm more than willing to listen to arguments for limiting both, are you offering them or just leaving it at that?

I'm pointing out that anybody who suggested we limit freedom, democracy and tolerance is probably not the paragon of virtue that we should be paying attention to.

Every authoritarian in history limited those things for their own "moral" reasons.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

No. People have to be free to be racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobic cunts, so long as they do not breach the law.

They way to beat these characteristics is to beat them with reason, not suppression.

That’s my opinion, and I’m not prepared to tolerate any other :)

The question then is: who makes the law(s) and to what end?

 

[aguero93:20]

I'm pointing out that anybody who suggested we limit freedom, democracy and tolerance is probably not the paragon of virtue that we should be paying attention to.

Every authoritarian in history limited those things for their own "moral" reasons.

The arguments for limiting freedom are simple mate, it's simply the balance of rights.

 

[SWP's back]

Would you say that if you were a Muslim though mate, and your kids were at that school?

Muslim (or any religion) = irrational lifestyle choice

LGBT = physical manifestation of being

I know which one I’d rather protect.