Lemdro.id

2 points

1 year ago

I always cringe when I read comments like this.

Interwar Germany considered Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and various others to not be “part of the social contract”.

Reading your comment with that idea in mind: It is “not paradoxical” to be intolerant to those who want to destroy the contract. “Being violently intolerant against them” is nothing but acting in the defense of self, defense of German people, and the good of German society.

The truly terrifying part is the inevitable rebuttal. It’s always been some variation of “Yeah, but my cause is righteous!”, as though the Germans thought themselves to be evil in 1923.

The paradox is that Popper cribbed his philosophy from Mein Kampf, and nobody seems to realize it. Popper’s paradox should be seen as a lesson on the insidiousness of fascism.

report

[ - ]

Dojan@lemmy.world

0 points

1 year ago

Are you saying that interwar Germany was a tolerant society?

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

They were pretty tolerant of Aryans and other who accepted the “social contract”. It was only those who “refused the social contract” that they really had a problem with. But we’ve decided that it’s OK to be intolerant toward those who refuse the contract.

report

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world

[ - ]

6 points

1 year ago

I always cringe when I read comments like this.

Cringes at my comments, has no problem with trying to somehow equate social progress and tolerance with nazism.

report

[ - ]

-3 points

1 year ago

Ad hominem.

report

GeekyNerdyNerd@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

If you think paraphrasing what you said back to you is an ad hominem, maybe, just maybe, you should reconsider your opinion.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

1 year ago

Is that how you see it? They “paraphrased” my own statement?

The foundation of my argument is that Interwar German people believed Jews to be enemies of their society. I don’t think that is a controversial claim.

What happens when those interwar German people adopt the philosophy described in the parent comment? What happens when they operate against their enemies in exactly the way that the parent commenter suggested?

Let’s try another tack: there are people today who believe homosexuality is an intolerant act against the social contract. There are people today who believe trans people are intolerant of the social contract. We would both likely call them bigots. Should we support these people calling for intolerance of the people they deem intolerant of their cis/hetero lifestyles?

report

[ - ]

Arlaerion@lemmy.ml

2 points

1 year ago

I think you misunderstand the original post. Being tolerant and inclusive ist not a contract you can be for or against, it is the contract you act for or against.

If I act against the contract by being intolerant of others i will be excluded. In your example a homosexual person by being homosexual is not acting against the contract. He/she by being homosexual does not exclude other people from society. If I say: “They have no place in society!”, I am the intolerant one and should be excluded from the contract.

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

I think I understood the original post correctly.

I would argue that they can and do frame their arguments in such a way as to qualify themselves as victims of gay/trans intolerance. The most obvious would be any criticism of “cancel culture”. An argument that gay/trans supporters are “canceling” people for minor, not-intolerant slights would justify their counter-intolerance under the paradox, and set up the conditions I outlined.

I would say that your argument is overly technical.

Adam and Bob are both homophobes. Adam argues gay people shouldn’t exist, and then argues that’s gay people want to cancel him. Bob argues that gay people want to cancel him, and then argues that gay people should not exist. With the technical interpretation you have presented, I would have to conclude that Adam has violated the social contract. He has indicated intolerance against gay people first, justifying the counter-intolerance against him. Bob, however, claims to be intolerated by gay people, which then justifies his counter-intolerance of gay people.

I consider Adam and Bob to be functionally identical. I think a valid philosophical model would evaluate them equally. I consider the technicality you describe to be an insignificant error in logic rather than the fundamental operating principle of the paradox.

What you are talking about is more consistent with the “Non-Aggression Principle” than Popper’s Paradox.

report