I don't know the work of Karl Popper all that well. I do understand that he formulated the idea of falsifiability being an integral part of science, and that does seem like a positive contribution. But another concept of his has been popularized―yea and verily, it is even memetic. And not necessarily for the better.
The above graphic tends to be shared by the same general group of people who have made a fetish of Randall Munroe's "Free Speech" comic, and for similar reasons. To take whatever edge they have in debate and make it permanent, regardless of events. Illustrated thought terminating cliches, in essence.
So to examine the argument fairly, are there times when intolerant ideas must be excluded in order for civilized debate to continue? Potentially, conceivably, maybe. The problem is, who defines? How do you distinguish an intolerant idea from one you just find disagreeable? The truth is that an in-group can very easily define any serious opposition as intolerant, and thus justify themselves in destroying all those who disagree with them. Means less time debating and more time ruling. And I think a lot of that has been happening.
Then, too, how does oppression begin? A lot of us associate it with hateful men targeting the objects of their hatred and persecuting them. Certainly there have been times in history (Jawohl!) when one has accompanied the other. But a more common factor has been a group acquiring large amounts of power and then abusing it. If they are motivated by evil ideas, those often don't make themselves known until afterward.
2 comments:
It seems the country has moved into much more radical territory this past decade than we might have expected, or certainly ever imagined could happen from the point of view gained from experience. In other words we never could have forseen the levels of intolerance that have become impossible to ignore, never mind that the most intolerant among us are those who consider themselves to be liberal. Amazing.
While neither far-left nor far-right viewpoints benefit society, the viewpoints of far-left extremists have proven far more dangerous throughout history: Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Castro, and Lenin oppressed and killed millions in the name of 'social justice'. The Bolsheviks were the liberals of pre-revolutionary Russia. Liberals today seek to eliminate everyone who doesn't share their viewpoints and not just those on the far-right either.
Coincidentally, it was just last night we watched a 90s movie called The Last Supper. It was't particularly good, but what was interesting was its premise of a group of liberal college students who accidentally killed an unexpected dinner guest (Bill Paxton) after he attacked one of them. He was an obviously racist and militaristic brute who got a bit out of control. After that they decided among themselves (once they buried him) to invite to dinner other people who had expressed right-wing views in order to poison them - after giving the guests enough time to redeem themselves (some didn't make it nearly as far as dessert).
You get the idea. It became kind of a kick the dead horse routine after not very long - with some victims being just mildly annoying (like the librarian who didn't like The Catcher in the Rye... really.
Still, the creepy thing is that the shallow nature of those grad students was not unlike what we've seen enacted in the real world these past few years.
There's a real danger in not knowing what drives you. People who consider themselves liberal also think that they act on rational principles and that their values are those of doing your part and caring for your fellow man/woman/person/whatever. In truth there tends to be a lot of tribal vengeance among liberal thinkers now. Which kind of gives one a new appreciation for people who at least know they're tribalists.
Left-wing philosophies by and large are built on the promise of making tomorrow better than today, which sounds reasonable enough. Very frequently, though, leftists start posturing and then acting only in competition with each other and in order to impress other leftists. What you get then is a purity spiral where a small group penalizes each other for insufficient devotion to a cause that--let's remember--the general populace doesn't support and may not even understand. The Bolsheviks are a shining example, given their purge of the Mensheviks.
Thank you for reminding me that The Last Supper is out there. I've heard about it, and in fact a number of people have given me their impressions of it. Somehow I never got around to seeing it myself, though. I'll have to do something about that. If it proves anything it may be that the ultra-woke were indeed with us back then. It's just that changes in society and technology have given them more prominence.
Post a Comment