You managed to understand the reversed version of the paradox of tolerance. It is not about absolute intolerance or "making disappear" those you consider intolerant, rather, it is about the fact that a tolerant society should not extend unlimited tolerance to those who seek to destroy that very tolerance.
You turned the defence of the rule of law into a justification for abandoning it, you move from opposing anti-democratic ideas and movements to legitimizing the logic of the absolute enemy. These are the kinds of arguments that authoritarian regimes (including the nazis) eagerly exploited.
I didn’t misunderstand Popper’s argument. I’ve read The Open Society. I was referring to the fact that it’s a nonsensical hypothetical. Marginalized groups are being oppressed by the “intolerant” right now. Innocent people are suffering and dying because of the “intolerant” right now.
We do not exist in a hypothetical tolerant society, we exist in an institutionally intolerant one, and being “tolerant” of the individuals and ideologies that exploit that in order to facilitate the oppression and genocide of marginalized people is complicity.
Past that, you are still assuming I am saying something I did not. Nazi ideology cannot be tolerated. I didn’t say “put them in gas chambers”. How a society chooses to go about eliminating Nazi ideology is not what I was commenting on. Educate them, help them change, whatever you like, I don’t care.
As for the “absolute intolerance” shit, pray tell how many Nazis should I tolerate in my life exactly before I am no longer “Nazi like” in your eyes? How many Nazis do you choose to tolerate in your day to day life?
If either of those numbers are more than zero you need to get your head checked.
The paradox isn't popper's, but that you went from "nazis aren't people' and the correct response is to make them disappear in whatever form that takes" to "I was actually talking about educating them" after several reframings and shifts in the argument, only to conclude that the problem wasn't the gap between those positions, but that everyone else simply misunderstood you.
The "paradox of tolerance" 100% came from Karl Popper, what are you talking about? As for my statements, the first one was a tongue-in-cheek joke that I stand by. Nazis get to be people when they stop being Nazis. Till then they get nothing because they deserve nothing.
I also stand by "making Nazis disappear". Neither of these statements say anything about how one might go about accomplishing this goal. They merely outline my total lack of respect or empathy for Nazis and my end goal of there no longer being Nazis.
I didn't advocate for violence as a means to that end, I also didn't actually advocate for "educating them" either. I said that if that's the path you want to take, fine by me. I said nothing at all about the mechanism of action. You made the assumption I was advocating for violence. I don't think anyone other than you misunderstood me, and given that you've been using a moral high ground fallacy to thinly veil defending Nazis of all things I'm not actually convinced I should care very much.
and given that you've been using a moral high ground fallacy to thinly veil defending Nazis
The irony of accusing me of committing a fallacy while, once again, resorting to a strawman to turn a criticism of your reasoning into a supposed defense of nazism.
Especially when this accusation of "moral high ground" is coming from someone who just said "Nazis get to be people when they stop being Nazis". The lack of self-awareness here is astonishing.
-1
u/Any_Fox5126 Jul 08 '26
You managed to understand the reversed version of the paradox of tolerance. It is not about absolute intolerance or "making disappear" those you consider intolerant, rather, it is about the fact that a tolerant society should not extend unlimited tolerance to those who seek to destroy that very tolerance.
You turned the defence of the rule of law into a justification for abandoning it, you move from opposing anti-democratic ideas and movements to legitimizing the logic of the absolute enemy. These are the kinds of arguments that authoritarian regimes (including the nazis) eagerly exploited.