this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
261 points (100.0% liked)

World News

2211 readers
859 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Young Bob Manchester assault: Three people arrested after remigration activist set upon by youths

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] timewarp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Already addressed this elsewhere in the thread, but dropping a Wikipedia link to the Paradox of Tolerance is the most predictable, lazy response I receive anytime free speech is discussed.

I would strongly encourage you to actually go read Karl Popper's original text—or even just the link you just dropped—rather than just throwing out the title of the theory.

If you had done the reading, you would know Popper explicitly wrote: "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 most unwise." He stated that suppression is only justified when a group abandons debate and starts using fists and weapons.

By cheering for a mob to use physical violence to preemptively shut down someone speaking, you are acting as the exact intolerant, anti-democratic threat that Popper warned about. You are using a philosopher's warning against political violence to justify political violence.

Go read the literature, along with the subsequent challenges by modern sociologists, before dropping the link.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago

Sigh, you don't get that the reason people post it, is because rational arguments dont work.

The paradox needs a new solution, and its not rational arguments.

[–] nickiwest@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Look at the state of fascist movements across literally the entire world right now.

Are we "counter[ing] them by rational argument and keep[ing] them in check by public opinion"? I think not.

[–] sen@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Too long, not reading, got fascists to stomp.

[–] cockmushroom@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago

Surely you don't think things like the Southport and Nowak riots weren't violent, do you? Aside from that

as long as we can

Generally does not mean "after we have".

[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Pretty sure the stupid fucks abandoned the debate a while ago. They wont listen. So in your opinion suppression is the only option.