The Paradox of Tolerance

A paradox that I can endorse.

 

Now do one with Muslims!

 

The Popperian paradox has repeatedly been proved. You have to ask then: Are the liberals, waving the centrist white flag as they ignore the rise of the far right, ultimately as bad as Trump's populist green light politics?

 

I see you have trouble with transferring the concept to groups you actually do hate.

 

The real problem is that Popperian analysis is used to tut at liberal inactivity. Lil Mike is irrelevant to it.

 

I'm not a hater, so your slur is irrelevant to my point.

So, which groups are the ones that cannot be tolerated in a tolerant society. And what should be done with them? Camps? Execution? What are you suggesting by your intolerance?

 

Technically that's irrelevant to the Paradox and therefore worth a thread infraction (but, to be fair, the author of the opening post probably doesn't realise that)

 

There is no far right emergence except in Europe and most of the supposed far right in Europe are in fact every bit as socialist as the people the wish to replace. They tend in the main to be intolerant of Islam which is arguably the world's most intolerant religion. So to some extent they are merely embracing Popper and doing as he taught. The problem with paradoxes is that they are paradoxes.

 

You continue to show no understanding of what's happening in Europe. I'm interested, mind you, in your failure to understand US grown problems. Which political grouping commits most acts of terror in the US? A diddy question to help you focus.

 

Dude over all damn few acts of terror are committed in America year in and year out. More people are struck by lightning year in and year out than are killed by terrorists in the US. Some years are exceptions. In terms of actual body count Muslims win Hands down. More people were killed by Muslim terrorists on 9/11 than have been killed by all far right wing terrorist combined since WWII.

By the way none of what you said is germane to what I actually posted much less a refutation.

 

You didn't answer. What % of terror acts are committed by right wingers? This is particularly pertinent stuff as the Paradox predicts further growth.

 

The paradox shows how tolerance is a stupid idea. Sorry, but I'm very intolerant and will only improve with age.

 

Sorry the number of terrorist acts right wing and other wise are fairly constant over time and have been for decades now. And they are small in number.

 

No need to apologise for the right wingers committing terror. Just give the % that I requested. Given your time period inaccurate comment, please now also give time series information over the number of incidents. Clearly you can do that, given your insistence.

 

You walked into that classic lefty tactic of assigning homework. They know they aren't worth going to all that trouble, which is why they do it.

 

Are you going to also support the fib that right wing terror isn't increasing?

 

The other paradox is that the more diverse a society is, there is less tendancy for altruism (birds of a feather flock together) and so that society ultimately becomes less tolerant because there is less social cohesion.

Let's not forget, it never really worked under communism, and all that "tolerance" ended up leaving deep long-lasting ethnic divisions in different nation states. (the recent civil war in Ukraine for example)

The paradox is, in an intolerant society, where diversity doesn't exist in the first place, intolerance can't exist in that society, because there are no groups to be intolerant against.
By becoming more tolerant, you end up upping the ante of what that society has to be expected to be tolerant to.

I suspect in some ways, it finds a natural equilibrium, and the pendulum will swing back a little bit and start adjusting when it gets past that equilibrium point.

 

Arguably the most insightful comment so far on this thread by either liberal or right winger...

 

I personally think it's a stupid distinction. The only real terrorist threat this country has faced was 911. The rest is just a bunch of violence, and lefties commit far more of it.

Will I prove it to you? Nope.

 

Right wing terror is a stupid distinction, despite it dominating the figures? Crikey.

 

The country was founded by terrorists.

 

So you're trying to justify right wing terror now?

 

Tolerance is tempered by disgust and becomes disdain.

 

How are we to interpret the intolerance we observed during the debate among liberals. How do we interpret the intolerance of people who show up on the lawns of people they disagree with to attempt to terrorize their children and spouses? How do we interpret the intolerance of social media Nazis who ban the expression of thoughts they disagree with?

In the upcoming election, the thought police at Google have been caught conspiring to violate Federal Election law by censoring speech they disagree with. What do we do about those haters?

As we type, one party worships a statue of the Exalted Cleagle of the KKK that they placed in the Capitol Bldg. What do we do about those haters?

One of our parties cooked the asylum books to be able to deny Jewish people the ability to escape Hitler. It was the same party that turned away the MS St Louis sending hundreds of Jewish people to certain death. What do we do about that party?

That same party banned Kosher hot dogs in NYC as another attack on Jewish people who live there. What do we do about the mayor of that city, the author of that act of hatred, who is vying for the Democratic nomination?

 

The lefties are in one trench and the righties are in the other trench. You can try playing the "name that terrorist!" game all you like, but we fought to rid ourselves of state worshiping big government tyrants before, and will have to do it again.

You know what they say about history.