China stands as a current authoritarian model which is being championed by people like Australian economist Steve Keen.
If you can handle the ethnic genocide, the lack of due process, suppression of information and free speech, and no democracy, you can look forward to clean streets, low crime, and high economic growth. Some people believe that's a worthy trade. I do not.
And of course properly mentally ill people are usually kept in mental hospitals.
De-institutionalisation was a huge mistake in the US. While the abuses needed to be stopped, throwing mentally unwell people into the streets was a massive overreaction.
Incorrect. Most of Eurasia is fine with Russia, including most of its neighbours.
My favourite Lemmy meme is American tankies pretending they understand European geopolitics. The average Pole or Estonian or Latvian or Lithuanian or would rather die than submit to the gruelling suffering of living under Russian occupation again. This user doesn't care about the truth, but for anyone who is interested, these are Russia's European neighbours:
🇳🇴 Norway - Opposes Russia
🇫🇮 Finland - Opposes Russia
🇪🇪 Estonia - Opposes Russia
🇱🇻 Latvia - Opposes Russia
🇱🇹 Lithuania - Opposes Russia
🇵🇱 Poland - Opposes Russia
🇺🇦 Ukraine - Opposes Russia
🇧🇾 Belarus - Supports / allied with Russia
My friend grew up under Russian occupation. She was cold and hungry her entire childhood. Friends and family would be randomly detained in the night. Sometimes they would never be seen again. They had to ask permission to travel anywhere, and never out of the country. No one could afford things like cars. Jobs were assigned, as were apartments.
Communism is evil. Russia is an imperialist dictatorship determined to exterminate all opposition.
Read it again. He’s using incitement to violence as a consequence to to be avoided, not as a driving factor.
He's explaining the why. That statement is there for a reason, and your reading implies it's superfluous.
He was writing at the end of WW2. He was saying it would have been fine to stop the Nazis at the start, before they were inciting violence because they couldn’t be reasoned with.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party employed violence well before they achieved power. Popper's warnings are obviously an allusion to the Brownshirts.
It’s clear you don’t agree with his position , and that’s okay. You can just disagree with him.
This is catty. Like a little girl. I've extended you courtesy and I would appreciate reciprocity.
I think it has been self-selecting itself into a pretty extreme echo-chamber. I really like the idea of Lemmy but the community demands ideological compliance to a very extreme ideology. People like you and I usually bounce off, while left wing authoritarians appear to enjoy it.
I will try to address your statements in turn as I don't think I am doing a good job of articulating my thoughts. That said, I think we are closer than I originally believed.
To me that whole section is justification for why to reserve the right to suppression: because the intolerant may not engage with argument in good faith, and they may instead tell their followers to denounce logical argument altogether and be violent.
The section justifies when it may be reasonable to suppress incitement to violence. The "and" operator requires the incitement to violence in the premise: "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."
Popper did not write "or." Both incitement to violence and rejection of rational argument is the [non-exhaustive] example Popper uses to justify the right of suppression.
The key word here is may, which to me means “this might happen”. I basically read this as a warning of a potential outcome of intolerant philosophies - and why suppression might be needed and why to reserve the right to it - but not a threshold for when to suppress them.
I agree. As above, the example he used it not explicitly exhaustive. There may be other reasons to claim the right of suppression. However, Popper never used any other examples as valid cause to suppress speech, and in the immediately prior statement, cautioned that suppressing democratic speech is "most unwise."
Given this, the implied claim that Popper and/or the Paradox of Tolerance supports the categorical suppression of "intolerant" speech (as the comic does) are inaccurate.
He then goes on, in the paragraph you quoted, to make it clear that it’s refusing rational argument that’s a problem because it can lead to violence, not violence itself.
Not just that. He also very clearly requires there to be the incitement to physical violence:
and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
I agree with the end of the paragraph. His definition of intolerance includes the incitement to violence, and what he argues follows logically.
and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
This is the operative statement to which I'm referring. If the party to which Popper is referring is not "answering arguments" with "fists and pistols," Popper is not making an affirmative case for suppression.
To be clear, he's not making an absolute statement either. He's not saying, "we may only ever suppress speech which is violent." However - and this is critical - he's also not making an affirmative statement that speech without violence should be suppressed. This is the original work and quote used to derive the Paradox of Tolerance, so I think it behooves us to heed that in this statement, he's referring to physical violence. Further, there are no statements of his in which he argues for suppression of non-violent speech.
There is no way to reconcile your interpretation with the actual text:
and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
A preemptive strike is neither stated nor implied by Popper. I find that a dangerous proposition for a democratic nation. It would justify any and all manner of violence based on nothing and anything but the subjective and active imaginations of the politically inclined.
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C. S. Lewis
People who cloak themselves in righteousness can justify even the worst atrocities committed in the name of their cause.
The sad irony is that all authoritarians convince themselves that they're doing it for the good of their people. We all know of the dangers of right wing authoritarianism. For some reason the left has an unbelievably large blind spot for it. Or maybe they're aware of it but like it? After all, there's no possible reality in which they might be wrong.
I rarely visit Lemmy anymore because it’s full of left wing authoritarians who think their morality and values could never, ever be wrong. If anyone disagrees with them it’s obviously because they’re Nazis. Oh and we like to kill Nazis. Hence the comic.
This isn’t caused by a monopoly. Demand is unprecedented. Prices go up when there isn’t enough product to meet that demand. Customers bid the price up. Thankfully Samsun, SK hynix, Micron, and CXMT are building fabs as fast as they can.
The reason we don’t have higher production capacity is because a few years ago prices were in the toilet and manufacturers were losing money on DRAM. It’s a highly volatile industry so they need deep pockets to survive the dips.
While true, I'm not sure I like the implication of banning it. Many people gamble recreationally, just as many drink wine recreationally or smoke marijuana recreationally or eat unhealthy food recreationally, etc. I do not think we should ban things which can be misused just because some people misuse them. We all suffer because a minority cannot control their impulses.
We should instead have support for people with addiction.
Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.
This is a common misconception about the Paradox of Tolerance, and I'm going to reference the person who invented it: Karl Popper in his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies:
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.
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.
Popper argues that we should tolerate intolerance only up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his position.
The graphic above states that we should not tolerate "movements" which preach "intolerance." This is a subjective standard. I think Islam preaches intolerance. By this standard, I would be justified in banning all Muslims from immigrating to Denmark. This is why Popper used the much clearer standard of physical violence. Any modern society must tolerate disagreement - including "intolerant" disagreement. We resolve that intolerance at the ballot box. We cannot allow physical violence. No, someone saying mean words is not physical violence.
Are you making a technical point of contention on a specific case, or broadly disagreeing? Germany's social services are as expansive as they are expensive.
Things are pretty good here in Denmark. We rank higher than the U.S. in ease of doing business, and our economy is strong. This means good wages and low rates of poverty. Americans are surprised to learn that we don't even have a minimum wage. It's also very easy to fire people, unlike most of our European neighbours. On the other hand, we have strong social safety nets to catch people if they are fired, and give them enough time to find a new job. We also have universal healthcare, meaning no one is desperate to remain in a bad workplace to keep their health insurance. This levels the bargaining power between employers and employees, and results in much fairer workplaces and wages.
I think the best combination for prosperity is pretty clear: a strong, dynamic economy with low regulations and a strong work ethic; and an expansive social safety net paid for by high taxes. For the record, other nations I think are doing pretty well right now include Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and Singapore. This is not to say those nations have no problems. Of course they do. I mean that in aggregate, when we look at the many factors which produce prosperous societies, these countries are doing well right now, and have positioned themselves to continue doing well into the future. I will also add that I think many places in the U.S. continue to be great places to live with excellent economic prospects. Say what you will about the president, but the U.S. is a huge and diverse place. It's full of bright entrepreneurs.
The contention is that people want to leave in part because of high immigration. Germany is not like America. Everyone is entitled to generous social benefits. After many years of high rates of refugee admissions (especially following the Syrian Refugee Crisis), the national budget is becoming very difficult to balance. Taxes continue to rise for everyone, and services are harder to get. Even visiting the doctor can be very difficult now in many cities. Many GPs aren't taking any new patients. Many young Germans argue that the social contract is broken. The state prioritises the welfare of new arrivals and the elderly, and ignores the needs of the young.
Of course there are also many other factors. Germany's decision to prematurely shut down its nuclear reactors will go down in history as one of the worst political and strategic decisions in history. It caused electricity prices to skyrocket and has decimated Germany's previously impressive manufacturing sectors. They also have cultural issues embracing technological efficiency improvements. Most government departments still run by fax machine (by law). Most paperwork must be handled physically. Most Germans still prefer cash. Etc.
Ultimately I agree with you directionally - provided Germany liberalises its immigration only for high earners. This has been the major contention. A very high number of immigrants are low or no skill, and cost the state an enormous amount. This is causing massive economic and social issues. If Germany halted all low/no skilled immigration, sentiment would improve for high skilled immigration. Young people might feel like the social contract were not being torn up.
Edit: the level of discussion here is worse than anything I have ever experienced on Reddit. All replies are some variation of "nuh uh."
By most accounts he spends most of his days living in a reinforced bunker surrounded by a very close group of trusted security. He is deeply paranoid after a lifetime of KGB work. He knows exactly how to get to someone like him, and he appears exceedingly good at anticipating potential attacks. His brutality and cunning appear to have worked so far. This is why you see people occasionally being murdered in very public fashion. It doesn’t matter if they actually crossed him. Suspicion is sufficient. He keeps everyone in a constant state of fear that every conversation they have is being recorded, because it is.
The only way things might get bette in Russia is when he dies, but the truth is, the Russian people accept this kind of authoritarianism. Russia has always had monarchs and dictators, and the Russian people practise an infamous brand of stoicism and nationalism. It’s very likely that they simply accept a new dictator after Putin. Russians are not revolutionaries at heart. They won’t fight civil wars to overthrow dictators. They don’t value freedom like we do.
China stands as a current authoritarian model which is being championed by people like Australian economist Steve Keen.
If you can handle the ethnic genocide, the lack of due process, suppression of information and free speech, and no democracy, you can look forward to clean streets, low crime, and high economic growth. Some people believe that's a worthy trade. I do not.
De-institutionalisation was a huge mistake in the US. While the abuses needed to be stopped, throwing mentally unwell people into the streets was a massive overreaction.
My favourite Lemmy meme is American tankies pretending they understand European geopolitics. The average Pole or Estonian or Latvian or Lithuanian or would rather die than submit to the gruelling suffering of living under Russian occupation again. This user doesn't care about the truth, but for anyone who is interested, these are Russia's European neighbours:
🇳🇴 Norway - Opposes Russia
🇫🇮 Finland - Opposes Russia
🇪🇪 Estonia - Opposes Russia
🇱🇻 Latvia - Opposes Russia
🇱🇹 Lithuania - Opposes Russia
🇵🇱 Poland - Opposes Russia
🇺🇦 Ukraine - Opposes Russia
🇧🇾 Belarus - Supports / allied with Russia
My friend grew up under Russian occupation. She was cold and hungry her entire childhood. Friends and family would be randomly detained in the night. Sometimes they would never be seen again. They had to ask permission to travel anywhere, and never out of the country. No one could afford things like cars. Jobs were assigned, as were apartments.
Communism is evil. Russia is an imperialist dictatorship determined to exterminate all opposition.
He's explaining the why. That statement is there for a reason, and your reading implies it's superfluous.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party employed violence well before they achieved power. Popper's warnings are obviously an allusion to the Brownshirts.
This is catty. Like a little girl. I've extended you courtesy and I would appreciate reciprocity.
I think it has been self-selecting itself into a pretty extreme echo-chamber. I really like the idea of Lemmy but the community demands ideological compliance to a very extreme ideology. People like you and I usually bounce off, while left wing authoritarians appear to enjoy it.
Yes, we don't protect free speech in Denmark. However we do not ban people who subscribe to intolerant ideologies, like Islam.
I will try to address your statements in turn as I don't think I am doing a good job of articulating my thoughts. That said, I think we are closer than I originally believed.
The section justifies when it may be reasonable to suppress incitement to violence. The "and" operator requires the incitement to violence in the premise: "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."
Popper did not write "or." Both incitement to violence and rejection of rational argument is the [non-exhaustive] example Popper uses to justify the right of suppression.
I agree. As above, the example he used it not explicitly exhaustive. There may be other reasons to claim the right of suppression. However, Popper never used any other examples as valid cause to suppress speech, and in the immediately prior statement, cautioned that suppressing democratic speech is "most unwise."
Given this, the implied claim that Popper and/or the Paradox of Tolerance supports the categorical suppression of "intolerant" speech (as the comic does) are inaccurate.
Not just that. He also very clearly requires there to be the incitement to physical violence:
I agree with the end of the paragraph. His definition of intolerance includes the incitement to violence, and what he argues follows logically.
This is the operative statement to which I'm referring. If the party to which Popper is referring is not "answering arguments" with "fists and pistols," Popper is not making an affirmative case for suppression.
To be clear, he's not making an absolute statement either. He's not saying, "we may only ever suppress speech which is violent." However - and this is critical - he's also not making an affirmative statement that speech without violence should be suppressed. This is the original work and quote used to derive the Paradox of Tolerance, so I think it behooves us to heed that in this statement, he's referring to physical violence. Further, there are no statements of his in which he argues for suppression of non-violent speech.
There is no way to reconcile your interpretation with the actual text:
A preemptive strike is neither stated nor implied by Popper. I find that a dangerous proposition for a democratic nation. It would justify any and all manner of violence based on nothing and anything but the subjective and active imaginations of the politically inclined.
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C. S. Lewis
People who cloak themselves in righteousness can justify even the worst atrocities committed in the name of their cause.
The sad irony is that all authoritarians convince themselves that they're doing it for the good of their people. We all know of the dangers of right wing authoritarianism. For some reason the left has an unbelievably large blind spot for it. Or maybe they're aware of it but like it? After all, there's no possible reality in which they might be wrong.
I rarely visit Lemmy anymore because it’s full of left wing authoritarians who think their morality and values could never, ever be wrong. If anyone disagrees with them it’s obviously because they’re Nazis. Oh and we like to kill Nazis. Hence the comic.
This isn’t caused by a monopoly. Demand is unprecedented. Prices go up when there isn’t enough product to meet that demand. Customers bid the price up. Thankfully Samsun, SK hynix, Micron, and CXMT are building fabs as fast as they can.
The reason we don’t have higher production capacity is because a few years ago prices were in the toilet and manufacturers were losing money on DRAM. It’s a highly volatile industry so they need deep pockets to survive the dips.
While true, I'm not sure I like the implication of banning it. Many people gamble recreationally, just as many drink wine recreationally or smoke marijuana recreationally or eat unhealthy food recreationally, etc. I do not think we should ban things which can be misused just because some people misuse them. We all suffer because a minority cannot control their impulses.
We should instead have support for people with addiction.
This is a common misconception about the Paradox of Tolerance, and I'm going to reference the person who invented it: Karl Popper in his 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies:
Popper argues that we should tolerate intolerance only up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his position.
The graphic above states that we should not tolerate "movements" which preach "intolerance." This is a subjective standard. I think Islam preaches intolerance. By this standard, I would be justified in banning all Muslims from immigrating to Denmark. This is why Popper used the much clearer standard of physical violence. Any modern society must tolerate disagreement - including "intolerant" disagreement. We resolve that intolerance at the ballot box. We cannot allow physical violence. No, someone saying mean words is not physical violence.
Are you making a technical point of contention on a specific case, or broadly disagreeing? Germany's social services are as expansive as they are expensive.
Things are pretty good here in Denmark. We rank higher than the U.S. in ease of doing business, and our economy is strong. This means good wages and low rates of poverty. Americans are surprised to learn that we don't even have a minimum wage. It's also very easy to fire people, unlike most of our European neighbours. On the other hand, we have strong social safety nets to catch people if they are fired, and give them enough time to find a new job. We also have universal healthcare, meaning no one is desperate to remain in a bad workplace to keep their health insurance. This levels the bargaining power between employers and employees, and results in much fairer workplaces and wages.
I think the best combination for prosperity is pretty clear: a strong, dynamic economy with low regulations and a strong work ethic; and an expansive social safety net paid for by high taxes. For the record, other nations I think are doing pretty well right now include Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and Singapore. This is not to say those nations have no problems. Of course they do. I mean that in aggregate, when we look at the many factors which produce prosperous societies, these countries are doing well right now, and have positioned themselves to continue doing well into the future. I will also add that I think many places in the U.S. continue to be great places to live with excellent economic prospects. Say what you will about the president, but the U.S. is a huge and diverse place. It's full of bright entrepreneurs.
The contention is that people want to leave in part because of high immigration. Germany is not like America. Everyone is entitled to generous social benefits. After many years of high rates of refugee admissions (especially following the Syrian Refugee Crisis), the national budget is becoming very difficult to balance. Taxes continue to rise for everyone, and services are harder to get. Even visiting the doctor can be very difficult now in many cities. Many GPs aren't taking any new patients. Many young Germans argue that the social contract is broken. The state prioritises the welfare of new arrivals and the elderly, and ignores the needs of the young.
Of course there are also many other factors. Germany's decision to prematurely shut down its nuclear reactors will go down in history as one of the worst political and strategic decisions in history. It caused electricity prices to skyrocket and has decimated Germany's previously impressive manufacturing sectors. They also have cultural issues embracing technological efficiency improvements. Most government departments still run by fax machine (by law). Most paperwork must be handled physically. Most Germans still prefer cash. Etc.
Ultimately I agree with you directionally - provided Germany liberalises its immigration only for high earners. This has been the major contention. A very high number of immigrants are low or no skill, and cost the state an enormous amount. This is causing massive economic and social issues. If Germany halted all low/no skilled immigration, sentiment would improve for high skilled immigration. Young people might feel like the social contract were not being torn up.
Edit: the level of discussion here is worse than anything I have ever experienced on Reddit. All replies are some variation of "nuh uh."
Today anon learned that men like to look at attractive women. What wonders will he learn tomorrow? Tune in next time... for... Dragon... Ball... Z!
By most accounts he spends most of his days living in a reinforced bunker surrounded by a very close group of trusted security. He is deeply paranoid after a lifetime of KGB work. He knows exactly how to get to someone like him, and he appears exceedingly good at anticipating potential attacks. His brutality and cunning appear to have worked so far. This is why you see people occasionally being murdered in very public fashion. It doesn’t matter if they actually crossed him. Suspicion is sufficient. He keeps everyone in a constant state of fear that every conversation they have is being recorded, because it is.
The only way things might get bette in Russia is when he dies, but the truth is, the Russian people accept this kind of authoritarianism. Russia has always had monarchs and dictators, and the Russian people practise an infamous brand of stoicism and nationalism. It’s very likely that they simply accept a new dictator after Putin. Russians are not revolutionaries at heart. They won’t fight civil wars to overthrow dictators. They don’t value freedom like we do.