General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's inciting his supporters to violence reminds me of a quote from the philosopher Karl Popper.
"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 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."
Popper was an Austrian Jew who fled the Nazis and wrote this in the middle of WW2.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)Black Trump Supporter - Stomps Anti-Trump Protester In KKK Hood At Tucson Rally
Was promptly arrested.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)in that quote. Thanks for posting it.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)the best case against Plato that I've ever read.
This is why my immediate response to an acquaintance of mine who is considering supporting Trump was that, "Donald Trump is a racist and anyone who would support him is a racist" and I left it at that.
Festivito
(13,529 posts)Unlimited? Hmm. Unlimited could mean there are no intolerant that would then destroy tolerance. The quote is not reality based with that word: unlimited.
We each need to decide what we tolerate and what we don't. Just look at our DU jury system to see some of that quagmire.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)I should know better though, it's philosophy after all.
tblue37
(66,035 posts)He also says extreme tolerance of intolerance allows intolerance to destroy a tolerant society.
rusty quoin
(6,133 posts)They are not prepared to meet us with rational argument. And we have been fighting them in a field of lies.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)You could flip this to support separatism - which is very, very bad.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The context of Popper's statement amidst WW2 is all-important. It's the pistols and fists we should be suppressing not the persons.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A majority that's unhappy with what's being said would have a lot of leeway under Popper's formulation:
If a Louis Farrakhan says in a TV interview or writes in a pamphlet that the white race is a race of devils, that speech could readily be criminalized in any jurisdiction with enough jurors who are offended by it. The same would be true of a Stormfront website that preaches intolerance but in the opposite direction.
In modern American jurisprudence, the First Amendment isn't an absolute, but the bar for suppressing speech on such grounds is pretty high. The Supreme Court has used different formulations, but they amount to variations on the "clear and present danger to public order" test. If someone is carrying a "Dump Trump" protest sign at a Trump rally, and Trump says from the podium "Let's rough that guy up!", then arguably there would be such a danger. If the feared connection to violence is less direct, however, as with Farrakhan or Stormfront, then the speech should be permitted.