"The Paradox of the Open Society"

[Sunstone]

Karl Popper argued that open societies could survive tolerating just about any non-criminal diversity except that they could not tolerate intolerance. Consequently, he believed the state should have the power to repress intolerance -- even to imposing the death penalty upon the worst offenders. He called the need of open, tolerant societies to be intolerant of intolerance "The paradox of the open society".

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?





____________________________
And now in an effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP, Tan Wei Wei will sing "Night in Ulaan Baataar". Tan Wei Wei's version of the traditional drinking song is remarkable for its power and emotionalism. She rewrote some of the lyrics to make it a song about getting drunk and missing her dead father.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A good balance is needed. If people can't vent, if they can't be heard, they are known for acting out. Like a toddler. But, I feel penalties should be legally minimal and more socially, not to the point of making scenes or being so hard on them they double down on their position, but challenged and questined in a way that let's them know you are listening and still see them as human. And definitely not in a way that has people voting on a terrible candidate just because it literally made snow flakey pc douches cry.

 

[Left Coast]

Karl Popper argued that open societies could survive tolerating just about any non-criminal diversity except that they could not tolerate intolerance. Consequently, he believed the state should have the power to repress intolerance -- even to imposing the death penalty upon the worst offenders. He called the need of open, tolerant societies to be intolerant of intolerance "The paradox of the open society".

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?





____________________________
And now in an effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP, Tan Wei Wei will sing "Night in Ulaan Baataar". Tan Wei Wei's version of the traditional drinking song is remarkable for its power and emotionalism. She rewrote some of the lyrics to make it a song about getting drunk and missing her dead father.

In my view, it depends what this repression of intolerance looks like. It has the potential to conflict with freedom of speech or religion. If this means criminalizing the mistreatment of others out of intolerance, then I support it. If it means criminalizing simply voicing opinions that are intolerant, then no, I think that's a recipe for authoritarianism.

 

[sun rise]

A good balance is needed. If people can't vent, if they can't be heard, they are known for acting out. Like a toddler. But, I feel penalties should be legally minimal and more socially, not to the point of making scenes or being so hard on them they double down on their position, but challenged and questined in a way that let's them know you are listening and still see them as human. And definitely not in a way that has people voting on a terrible candidate just because it literally made snow flakey pc douches cry.

That's pretty close to my view.

I disagree with Popper. With humanity as it is today, once speech is restricted that way, it will inevitably lead what we see in Russia and especially China today.

I think the balance is pretty decent in the US today. Hate crimes are outlawed. People who espouse hate while at work can and should be fired from jobs as we see happening to those who, for example, gave Nazi salutes.

But we don't want to give the authoritarian minded more tools to promote their authoritarian ideology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Karl Popper argued that open societies could survive tolerating just about any non-criminal diversity except that they could not tolerate intolerance. Consequently, he believed the state should have the power to repress intolerance -- even to imposing the death penalty upon the worst offenders. He called the need of open, tolerant societies to be intolerant of intolerance "The paradox of the open society".

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?





____________________________
And now in an effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP, Tan Wei Wei will sing "Night in Ulaan Baataar". Tan Wei Wei's version of the traditional drinking song is remarkable for its power and emotionalism. She rewrote some of the lyrics to make it a song about getting drunk and missing her dead father.

I think he has a point. I am not sure I agree with it completely. When the intolerable reaches a level deemed to be criminal, it should be adjudicated, but the punishment should be commensurate to the extent of the crime and mitigating factors. We tolerate the existence of groups like the KKK, to the point where their intolerance crosses the line into the illegal. Until then, any government interference would be akin to thought policing. Paradoxically, these intolerant groups are met with intolerance for existing. I think that this intolerance should be within legal parameters that currently exist. Keep an eye on the intolerable groups. Act if they step out of line. Allow peaceful, rational objection to doctrines of the intolerable groups. More than that is impinging on liberty that would impact everyone and not just the intolerable.

 

[Heyo]

There is no paradox. In an open society there is no intolerance and thus no need to supress speech.
When you have intolerance in your society, you don't have an open society and thus no obligation to be tolerant towards the intolerant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no paradox. In an open society there is no intolerance and thus no need to supress speech.
When you have intolerance in your society, you don't have an open society and thus no obligation to be tolerant towards the intolerant.

An interesting thought. So you conclude there are inherent properties of an open society in which intolerance could not exist. I suppose, this might be correct in an idealized condition. Perhaps the suggestion to balanced conditions is a pragmatic approach to that ideal.

 

[dianaiad]

Karl Popper argued that open societies could survive tolerating just about any non-criminal diversity except that they could not tolerate intolerance. Consequently, he believed the state should have the power to repress intolerance -- even to imposing the death penalty upon the worst offenders. He called the need of open, tolerant societies to be intolerant of intolerance "The paradox of the open society".

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?

Paradox, indeed...because if society decides to be intolerant of 'intolerance,' who decides who the intolerant are? Any free and open society that hopes to REMAIN so must 'tolerate intolerance,' at least verbally. There is no need to tolerate physical violence or any action that causes others physical discomfort, (it's the old 'your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose' thing) but we MUST tolerate the pamphlets, loud mouths on corners, people with whose opinions we deeply disagree, and people whose way of life offends us if we know about it.

Like those white supremacists who put out "Strong families make strong nations" signs. We MUST tolerate and allow those things, if we are to be free to think for ourselves. It astounds me,, frankly, that it is the so called "liberals" and "progressives" who are so keen to shut down everybody ELSE'S freedom of expression, speech and beliefs.







____________________________
And now in an effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP, Tan Wei Wei will sing "Night in Ulaan Baataar". Tan Wei Wei's version of the traditional drinking song is remarkable for its power and emotionalism. She rewrote some of the lyrics to make it a song about getting drunk and missing her dead father.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A good balance is needed. If people can't vent, if they can't be heard, they are known for acting out. Like a toddler. But, I feel penalties should be legally minimal and more socially, not to the point of making scenes or being so hard on them they double down on their position, but challenged and questined in a way that let's them know you are listening and still see them as human. And definitely not in a way that has people voting on a terrible candidate just because it literally made snow flakey pc douches cry.

Balance seems the most pragmatic approach. We balance tolerating the existence of some ideas and their sponsoring groups to the point where they cross the line that society has deemed. Vigilance and education seems the best way to deal with the intolerable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Paradox, indeed...because if society decides to be intolerant of 'intolerance,' who decides who the intolerant are? Any free and open society that hopes to REMAIN so must 'tolerate intolerance,' at least verbally. There is no need to tolerate physical violence or any action that causes others physical discomfort, (it's the old 'your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose' thing) but we MUST tolerate the pamphlets, loud mouths on corners, people with whose opinions we deeply disagree, and people whose way of life offends us if we know about it.

Like those white supremacists who put out "Strong families make strong nations" signs. We MUST tolerate and allow those things, if we are to be free to think for ourselves. It astounds me,, frankly, that it is the so called "liberals" and "progressives" who are so keen to shut down everybody ELSE'S freedom of expression, speech and beliefs.







____________________________
And now in an effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP, Tan Wei Wei will sing "Night in Ulaan Baataar". Tan Wei Wei's version of the traditional drinking song is remarkable for its power and emotionalism. She rewrote some of the lyrics to make it a song about getting drunk and missing her dead father.

[/QUOTE]
I generally agree, but would point out that intolerance is not the exclusive domain of liberals and progressives. Plenty of conservatives have surprisingly totalitarian views.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Vigilance and education seem

That especially. Of course you cant change the minds and hearts of everyone, but it is possible to "steal away" their ideological peers, leaving then fewer in number and having less power and influence. And even just one "getting out" has a story to tell to many.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

that it is the so called "liberals" and "progressives" who are so keen to shut down everybody ELSE'S freedom of expression, speech and beliefs.

As do conservatives, Republicans, and Christians. Pretending it's only "one side" is an extreme disservice, is very dishonest, and only serves to weaken overall efforts into keeping this an open society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no paradox. In an open society there is no intolerance and thus no need to supress speech.
When you have intolerance in your society, you don't have an open society and thus no obligation to be tolerant towards the intolerant.

By that standard it is impossible for any society to be open.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That especially. Of course you cant change the minds and hearts of everyone, but it is possible to "steal away" their ideological peers, leaving then fewer in number and having less power and influence. And even just one "getting out" has a story to tell to many.

I just finished reading "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" and one point I noted was the idea to institute change was the education of the young and future generations. Anyone can change that has the will to, but the longer we remain in one paradigm, the more difficult it is to shed. Applying your idea to the younger generations would be a way to steal away the seeds for future intolerance. The only caveat being to retain older ideas that were wisely and rationally constructed and still hold relevance and value. A balance between those as well.

 

[epronovost]

For a society to have any reason to be called "free" or "democratic" it must espouse a few values and institions (equality of race and gender; strict secularism of the State; primacy of the law; pluralist open election; basic property rights; habeas corpus protection against law enforcement; right to free assembly; seperation of powers; academical freedom). Political speech and actions taken in direct contradiction to those values and institutions must be repressed or tightly controlled or those values and instittions will be damaged and destroyed.

 

[dianaiad]

As do conservatives, Republicans, and Christians. Pretending it's only "one side" is an extreme disservice, is very dishonest, and only serves to weaken overall efforts into keeping this an open society.

This is true. However, I can only fight the battles I see NOW....

And right now, even though my opinions upset folks on the right almost as much as they do folks on the left, it is the left wing that calls me names, and it is the left that characterizes any dissenting opinion as 'hate speech.'

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By that standard it is impossible for any society to be open.

I see his society as the ideal we strive for, but due to practical limitations, can only approximate, at best.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is true. However, I can only fight the battles I see NOW....

And right now, even though my opinions upset folks on the right almost as much as they do folks on the left, it is the left wing that calls me names, and it is the left that characterizes any dissenting opinion as 'hate speech.'

Saying that there are members of left leaning political persuasions acting with intolerance is a different statement from just laying that indictment at their feet as a blanket accusation. The former may be an accurate observation, while the latter comes off as its own form of intolerance. How it is stated makes a difference in the meaning you convey.

 

[Heyo]

By that standard it is impossible for any society to be open.

Not impossible but hard in practice. You only need one intolerant person to make a society not open but if the majority agrees that they want an open society it is possible to convince (or, as ultima ratio, exclude) the intolerant that they are the first to suffer from intolerance.
Intolerance is self defeating in a society that strives to be open.

 

[dianaiad]

Saying that there are members of left leaning political persuasions acting with intolerance is a different statement from just laying that indictment at their feet as a blanket accusation. The former may be an accurate observation, while the latter comes off as its own form of intolerance. How it is stated makes a difference in the meaning you convey.

Hmn.

Tell me.

Of all the left leaning posters on RF...of the vast majority of the left in the USA, do you know any who are dedicated to the idea that people should be free to say what they think, even if what they say and think doesn't march with their own ideas and beliefs?

Or....are the terms 'hate speech' and 'woke' and 'intolerant of intolerance,' and expressions of 'we should stop these people from spreading their hateful ideas to anybody else...' used much by the moderates and the right?

WHICH end of the spectrum figures that the First Amendment really means freedom FROM religion, rather than 'Freedom OF?"

Which end of the political spectrum is most likely to advocate for a law to restrict what a specific religion may or may not do within its belief system, then justify what happens by saying that 'religions are not above the law, and if they do something illegal, that's too bad?"

That's called 'begging the question,' by the way, if one is going to be polite about it.

Yes...some on the right have been, and are, willing to impose their ideology upon others. They would, for instance, rather see a left wing Democrat win the election than vote for a Mormon (or a Catholic...). People are people, after all.

Right NOW, though, I can only, as I mentioned, fight the battles I see...and right now it isn't the RIGHT that is attempting to shut people up, or calls anybody that disagrees with them 'racist..' not because the opposition is actually racist, but because the opposition AGREES with them.

...and I do not ascribe to the idea that it's OK for 'our side" to do wrong things if the OTHER side does, but.....I can only fight the battle in front of me.