[malermeister]

This is known as the paradox of tolerance and was figured out right after WW2 by Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher who witnessed the rise of the Nazis.

Authoritarians use the framework of a free society to rise to power until they are strong enough to topple it. A free society must be able to defend itself against that approach, even if it might seem contrary to its own values.

Here's the way he formulated it:

> 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.

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

[dionidium]

You say this was “figured out” like you think it’s some kind of natural law that was discovered by scientists. It’s not. It’s a value judgement. It’s not at all clear the trade-off is worth it and the very quote you supplied argues for “intolerance of intolerance” as a kind of a last resort, once things turn violent.

Second, as a practical matter, it’s not at all clear what constitutes intolerance. If you think the state has standing to adjudicate intolerance, then I can’t imagine you’ve been paying attention to the kind of routine social errors that are labeled intolerance on social media. The notion that it’s a legitimate function of the state to weigh in on these banal disagreements is risible.

[nextaccountic]

> If you think the state has standing to adjudicate intolerance

It has standing to judge everything else, but not intolerance?

[dionidium]

The state does not, in fact, render judgement on most of the mundane details of your everyday life. You get in disagreements, sometimes people are hateful, people say things you don’t like, and on and on, and the state has no opinion on any of it.

[malermeister]

I am Austrian. We suffered the history. We know where this goes. This is figured out, the only alternative is the descent into fascist totalitarianism.

> the very quote you supplied argues for “intolerance of intolerance” as a kind of a last resort, once things turn violent.

As it already did on Jan 6th and in Charlottesville.

We've seen all of this before. Instead of brown shirts, we have red hats. The ideas and the approach are the same.

> Second, as a practical matter, it’s not at all clear what constitutes intolerance. If you think the state has standing to adjudicate intolerance, then I can’t imagine you’ve been paying attention to the kind of routine social errors that are labeled intolerance on social media. The notion that it’s a legitimate function of the state to weigh in on these banal disagreements is risible.

All of these minor quibbles are irrelevant. There's a violent fascist movement forming and growing stronger by the day.

The Beer Hall Putsch [0] already happened on Jan 6th, the "cultural bolshevism" [1] bogeyman has been slightly rebranded to "cultural marxism" and is being used for propaganda purposes all over the place again. A new Big Lie [2] has been set up in the form of "Trump won!". Mainstream conservatives are behaving like Von Papen. [3]

Obsta Principiis!

If we don't nip this in the bud right now, we will soon see the new version of the Enabling Act [4] and all the horrors that followed.

I understand you might lack the perspective as you most likely don't have the same history to compare it to. Please heed the warning of somebody who does. These things sneak up on you and you won't be able to realize it until it's too late. This excellent excerpt from Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free talks about this phenomenom, I implore you to read it. [5]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen#Bringing_Hitle... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 [5] https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[dionidium]

I don't find any of this convincing. If there were some way to quantify what you're arguing here, I'd short it.

[malermeister]

That's what the germans said in the late 20s too :-)

[dionidium]

Yes, but either the current situation is like Germany in the 1920s or it isn't and either way it remains the case that it's what the Germans said in the late 20s, so it doesn't actually help us to know that that's what they said, since it will have been what they said even in the case where our situation is absolutely nothing like theirs.