Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If a Nazi wants to think and articulate nazi things, it’s on us as a society to argue against it, not to forbid thoughts.
Here’s a interesting article of the culture of denouncing during Nazi and GDR times:
And about the concept of freedom of thought:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought
You might recognize that especially repressive regimes resorted to curtail freedom of thoughts in the past.
good lord liberals are fucking worthless. nazis do not deserve free speech or the right to spread their poison. you and your society are completely unequipped to forestall the march of fascism
It’s a paradox because if you suppress other opinions you yourself become intolerant.
I agree that actions have to be regulated as they are by laws. But opinions and thoughts are free and this freedom is absolute.
Even Popper acknowledged that it’s a paradox and stated:
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.
These thought are also formalizef by Rawls:
Rawls asserts that a society must tolerate the intolerant in order to be a just society, but qualifies this assertion by stating that exceptional circumstances may call for society to exercise its right to self-preservation against acts of intolerance that threaten the liberty and security of the tolerant.
The dedicated reader might notice that he refers to acts of intolerance but not to opinions.
Popper, Karl (2012) [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. p. 581
Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 220
It’s a paradox because if you suppress other opinions you yourself become intolerant.
So? People should be intolerant of some things. No decent society would tolerate Nazis.
as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If a Nazi wants to think and articulate nazi things, it’s on us as a society to argue against it, not to forbid thoughts. Here’s a interesting article of the culture of denouncing during Nazi and GDR times:
https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/creating-a-culture-of-denunciation/
And about the concept of freedom of thought: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought You might recognize that especially repressive regimes resorted to curtail freedom of thoughts in the past.
good lord liberals are fucking worthless. nazis do not deserve free speech or the right to spread their poison. you and your society are completely unequipped to forestall the march of fascism
It usually ends up being to defend the right for nazis to have some free speech but oh boy don’t allow those dangerous gommies to have a say!
Counterpoint: I think we should totally forbid nazis
Question, Gulag, Gallows, Guillotine or The wall?
Yeah
Here’s a cartoon of a liberal philosopher for ya.
This is referring to the paradox of tolerance.
It’s a paradox because if you suppress other opinions you yourself become intolerant.
I agree that actions have to be regulated as they are by laws. But opinions and thoughts are free and this freedom is absolute.
Even Popper acknowledged that it’s a paradox and stated: 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.
These thought are also formalizef by Rawls: Rawls asserts that a society must tolerate the intolerant in order to be a just society, but qualifies this assertion by stating that exceptional circumstances may call for society to exercise its right to self-preservation against acts of intolerance that threaten the liberty and security of the tolerant.
The dedicated reader might notice that he refers to acts of intolerance but not to opinions.
Popper, Karl (2012) [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. p. 581
Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 220
I don’t think it’s intolerant to suppress Nazis.
So? People should be intolerant of some things. No decent society would tolerate Nazis.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
And this is why liberals let fascists come into power when it really comes down to it.