Popper's quote is often quite misconstrued. Here it is, in context:
"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."
He is specifically framing the issue as one where an ideology goes outside of the realm of debate and on to violence. So for instance an ideology that says 'attack migrants' is obviously something that should be suppressed because these people have skipped the whole debate step and instead appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner. But, by contrast, an ideology that argues for reasons why unchecked migration may be unhealthy for a society and lobbies for according change is something some may consider intolerant, but is quite obviously not what he was referring to. On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.
> On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.
With all due respect, "Antifa" in their use of the word is almost completely a straw man created by the extreme right to justify their insane and violent behavior. A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland doesn't equivocate to me with a group of people that are using stochastic terrorism tactics to murder hundreds of people. I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).
> They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).
Literally it was a police officer who saw and reported "what looked like" quick drying concrete.
> lie that was completely false
There were people associated with antifa publicizing this.
> I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet.
There is no "both side" there is violent extremists, whether they agree or not between themselves is irrelevant.
> hasn't even killed a single person yet.
Is this seriously the threshold for political violence and abandoning political rationality? (And anyway after Tacoma it is not for a lack of trying).
Right now what I see is one side being allowed with mainstream opinion of defending political violence. Antifa is performing political violence. Throwing a milkshake is not self-defense, it is political violence. Alt-right extremism is also political violence. I only see despicable people in both groups. I see no reasons why one side faults should excuse the other.
By equating "milkshake throwing" with the violence of the alt-right (using guns to murder tens/hundreds of innocent civilians) you portray both sides as equal when one side has clearly done something that is much more morally reprehensible.
This form of "enlightened centrism" is insidious because while it claims to be "neutral" and "unbiased", in reality, it artificially gives a moral advantage to one side (in this case the alt-right). It also ignores that sometimes sacrifices are necessary for the greater good.
Do you disagree with either of the following two points?
1. Even if milkshake throwing is bad, it is objectively less bad than shooting innocent civilians.
2. The "political violence" committed by the left is much smaller compared to the political violence committed by the right.
Are you unaware that of the two mass shootings that occurred in the US yesterday, one of them was perpetrated by a self-described 'leftist, anime fan, and metalhead' that supported Antifa?
I literally see no reason to compare them. Not one.
To answer: 1. true 2. agree.
So What?
The only thing you are doing is painting a romantic ideal of antifa as freedom fighters, robin hoods of the people. Stop. They answer violence with violence.
For me, the crux of the matter is that people use Antifa to claim that both the left and the right engage in equal amounts of violence or that both are equally morally bad/good.
I was pointing out that this isn't the case since Antifa uses several orders of magnitude less violence than its right-wing counterparts. Thus, antifa cannot be used to justify the statement that "the left and right are morally equivalent".
I never painted antifa in a romantic light, my point about sacrifices being made for the greater good was in reference to policies that help minorities at the cost of harming the majority.
> For me, the crux of the matter is that people use Antifa to claim that both the left and the right engage in equal amounts of violence or that both are equally morally bad/good.
For me that's simply irrelevant, because how "bad" your enemy is doesn't give you any additional leeway. You can use violence to directly prevent greater violence, for example in self-defense. Throwing milk-shakes at someone achieves nothing. Even when a murderer is arrested, the cops don't get to spit at them while they wait for trial. It doesn't matter in the least how bad a person is. It's a red herring from the word go, due process and same rights for all is a very clear standard, and normalizing violating it because "others are worse", leaves us with nothing.
How conveniently you forget how Steve Scalise was shot, how Bike Lock Man cracked open an old man's skull(and got away with probation), and many other things. The neonazis have done shootings, but the far left attempted to assassinate a senator. Both are pretty bad.
There is also the danger that if you keep equating Antifa with the right wing extremists shooting people you create a space on the ultra left for people who would do those things and I’m sure in any large movement those people are there.
It’s not like left wing groups haven’t done horrible things in decades past.
That said at the moment in the US it’s pretty clear that the body count (literal) is piling up on the right wing side.
Honestly if people could just stop shooting people for stupid reasons it would be awesome.
As an external observer it seems like the US is slowly sliding towards a worse state of affairs, the government seems unable to get it in hand, dangerous times.
Not much better over in the UK either, we have the ever present threat of the islamists, the border question in Northern Ireland hanging over everyone’s heads (I’m just old enough to to remember the IRA blowing up town centres on the mainland) and a group of people who are seriously pissed off brexit hasn’t happened yet, We already had a lovely MP shot to death by a right wing nut bag and there is a really ugly mood, people are really pissed off with the present state of affairs and another recession caused by economic fallout of brexit could light the touch paper.
I think there is a significant (though small) chance we’ll see troops on the streets peacekeeping over the next two years.
Side note:
I find the dismissal of the milkshakes to be a very disingenuous tactic.
From a group that promotes the idea that speech can be violence, the act of throwing any sort of projectile at anyone should be classified as a violent act without qualification.
You could argue that those milkshakes are also a form of stochastic terrorism as it demonstrates that those politicians are vulnerable. So those with the desire can reach them with something other than a milkshake.
I don't want to hear about how milkshakes aren't violence.
I want to hear why that violence is acceptable. Because, deep down, according to your actions, you think that sometimes violence is necessary.
He got shot, but not killed, so you are technically correct in stating that he is alive. I guess you totally defeated the parent commenter's point, good thing the shooters didn't have good aim, right?
I take the OP's original point to be that far-right ideological extremists have targeted, injured, and killed orders of magnitude more people than far-left ideological extremists during the last few years, which seems to me to be incontrovertible without resort to sophistry. Also, given that the larger context of this discussion is terrorist attacks rather than political confrontations that turned violent, it's relevant to ask "how many random bystanders have been killed when self-identified white supremacists opened fire on crowds vs. bystanders killed when self-identified 'antifa' have done so."
There's an interesting parallel here by Nassim Taleb, author of several books the most famous of which might be The Black Swan. In this article, a chapter from an in-progress book, he contends that the most intolerant faction will eventually come to dominate. In the article he's talking about extremist Muslims but it could just as easily be extremist Christians or extremist white nationalists.
Superficially, it does sound quite reasonable. The problem is that the quote itself is a call for people to abandon rational debate and use violence, not just against targets who have themselves eschewed debate for violence but against "any movement preaching intolerance". Whilst his justification is that those movements might themselves eschew debate for violence, he very specifically does not restrict this to movements which have done so or even threatened to do so.
So for instance, Poppler's paradox is easily used to justify violent intolerance of anyone who opposes unchecked immigration. Not only are they preaching intolerance, but people with very similar-sounding views are actually violently attacking immigrants so it's easy to justify the claim that those ones might as well.
The reason I offered Popper's entire quote is because while I do think many people use it as are you suggesting, his quote makes it quite clear that is not what he is suggesting. He is speaking of an intolerant view as one that is intolerant of alternative views. In other words a view that:
- refuses to debate or discuss its merits and values
- refuses to meaningfully consider or discuss alternatives
- responds to discussion with aggression
The book which includes his quote was published in 1945, Popper was of Jewish ancestry, and the book was speaking primarily about avoiding totalitarianism. His philosophy should be taken in that context. People are manipulating his quote to try to justify intolerance of anything except their own world view, but it is this exact sort of totalitarianism he was suggesting that may imperil an open and free society. In particular he also defined an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society."
Intolerance trends towards a closed society where you believe what you are supposed to believe, or face the consequences. Tolerance trends towards an open society where individuals may not agree, but are free to express themselves and challenge one another on any view or value.
> "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"
But I understand your point. To that end, attacking illegal immigrants would be "intolerant". But what about advocating their arrest and deportation?
"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."
He is specifically framing the issue as one where an ideology goes outside of the realm of debate and on to violence. So for instance an ideology that says 'attack migrants' is obviously something that should be suppressed because these people have skipped the whole debate step and instead appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner. But, by contrast, an ideology that argues for reasons why unchecked migration may be unhealthy for a society and lobbies for according change is something some may consider intolerant, but is quite obviously not what he was referring to. On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.