A favorite pseudo-dialectical tactic of the Left when it comes to defending cancel culture is the paradox of tolerance. As explained by philosopher Karl Popper, the argument goes that a total commitment to tolerance would end up destroying tolerance since intolerant people would eventually take over through coercion or threats. It’s a version of the libertarian Day Two Problem.
The fault in Popper’s reasoning is his assumption that tolerance has absolute value which reasoned thought will inevitably discern. Therein lies the real paradox. If tolerance were an absolute good, justifying the suppression of intolerance wouldn’t require appeals to greater goods. Yet Popper does just that:
Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] 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.—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.
Note that Popper’s argument hinges on a fear of the intolerant resorting to violence. Asserting the right to suppress the intolerant “in the name of tolerance” is a fig leaf. His real justification rests on an appeal to public safety and order.
Just as making an idol of freedom is the fatal flaw of Liberalism, trying to absolutize tolerance is the error at the heart of Popper’s argument. Both freedom and tolerance are conditional goods. They are worth no more or less than the inherent value of the goods they grant access to. One can always ask, “Freedom to do what? Tolerance of what?”
Of course, it’s the Death Cultists who are destroying public order in the name of tolerance. This should surprise no one, since another way to think of absolutizing conditional goods is removing their limiting principles. Popper’s philosophy has led us to a place where failing to celebrate even the most dyscivic forms of personal expression is seen as tyrannical intolerance.
Just as worshiping the market has concentrated unimaginable wealth in a few hands, making idols of freedom and tolerance has vested the power to dictate which behavior should be celebrated and which suppressed in the Death Cult’s high priests. They wield this power through a list of public rituals.
One of the Cult’s favorite rites is ginning up hate crime hoaxes. Every sacrament requires the proper form and matter, and the Death Cult’s rituals are no different. The form consists of whipping the media into a frenzy over the matter–usually a noose or a backwards swastika left in a convenient spot.
Such liturgies define the Death Cult since they a) demonstrate that the Cultists know nothing about the normal people they despise and b) epitomize the kind of Charlotte’s Web thinking that drives most Cultists. They project as a rule, and since they delight in shoving their symbols in our faces, they solipsistically assume their enemies desire to do the same to them. Their delusion that all non-Cultists are KKK Nazis explains their choice of symbols. Note that they never plant crucifixes or icons.
A recent performance of this ritual was vitiated since the matter was found to be invalid. But not before NASCAR leapt at the chance to humiliate its own fans. Expect these hoaxes to increase in frequency and hysteria as the Cult flexes is dominance. Contrary evidence will be suppressed in the name of tolerance.
Last night I sat down with author Jon Del Arroz and comic book creators Mike and Mindy Wheeler to discus these and many other topics. Watch the replay of the stream here:
The Death Cult is intolerant of sanity and shames people into adopting crazy, unnatural behaviors, which then perpetuate themselves through conditioning. We're seeing an impressively engineered mass hysteria in which our social instincts are turned to bizarre and destructive ends.
I think we have to continue adding disruptive ideas, speaking up and offering alternative viewpoints, and offering non-propaganda entertainment to chip away at this deep collective illusion. It must work – the cultists shriek so whenever they're faced with dissent in even the most innocuous forms.
So there's this big proponent of repressive tolerance. I didn't know, so I had to check, and yep, it's (((Karl Popper))). Every single time.
A loop knot in a garage full of car pros! It was so easy to spot this hoax. NASCAR will bleed out because of this.
In all likelihood, Wallace flat out lied. They're giving him a way to save face with the misidentified garage door cord story, but instead of taking the out, he's doubling down.
Since Wallace has been around garages for a far number of years, yeah he (and everyone around him) knew it wasn't a noose.
But Wallace says he NEVER in all his years saw a pull loop like THAT one before, and a man such as himself is an expert at identifying actual nooses, yes indeed, don't you question his authority!
If he can't say "Oops…my mistake!" and doubled down instead, what is the poker hand he thinks he has?
Based on our rulers' blanket absolution of POC for any accountability, he thinks he's got a full house. He's probably right.
Why is everyone who dons the "philosopher" label so terrible at philosophy?
Because the label has effectively meant "onanistic navel contemplator" since Kant decapitated the discipline by rejecting classical metaphysics.
For the same reason those who call themselves humanists hate humans.
Words now mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean.
Moderns seem to think modernity invented reason. I noticed this again reading the Modernist manifesto at the New Discourse. They have done good work laying the mechanics of Critical Theory bare, but fortunately, they also face-plant into the same epistemic crevasse with professions of faith in progress and the Enlightenment. I think the Angelic Doctor might be surprised to learn the Summa predates the rediscovery of reason, to say nothing of St Augustine of Hippo, or St. Paul and his illustrious visit to Athens.
Well Voltaire and the boys called the medieval period the Dark ages.
Right the age of cathedrals St Domenic, St Francis of Assisi and the the Livres d'heure du Duc de Berry among other accomplishments.
So Voltaire jealous much?
xavier
“Because the label has effectively meant "onanistic navel contemplator" since Kant decapitated the discipline by rejecting classical metaphysics.“
Shout this from the mountaintops!
Oh, I try.
"Catastrophic Spider" is a good name for Kant.
Also, this line: "Kraynak is right, we need to keep Kant in a box. A pine box, with a stake through his heart."
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10/catastrophic-spider.html
If only it were that easy …
Press S for NASCAR
S
I read somewhere that 15 glow in the darks arrived to investigate. If only they took real crimes that seriously, we might not snidely refer to them that way.
Name the last time the FBI solved a crime they didn't also cause.
Comment cannot exist. Reboot universe and try again.
Sometimes they get called in on cases that a different alphabet agency started, such as the Waco debacle started by the ATF.
Good point.
The Fibbies messed up there, too. The F Troop tipped over the outhouse, but the Fibbies went skinny-dipping in the sewage. As evil as Koresh was, the Branch Davidians may have been doomed from the start, but Feds seem to have made a policy of spraying gasoline on the fire.
If we come out the other side of this with a country and have a chance to write a new constitution, we might want to make an explicit point of denying Federal law enforcement access to anything bigger than a six-shot revolver.