see a transophobe, racist, etc. Ban them :gulag:
Popper's rejection of Marxism during his teenage years left a profound mark on his thought. He had at one point joined a socialist association, and for a few months in 1919 considered himself a communist.[38] Although it is known that Popper worked as an office boy at the communist headquarters, whether or not he ever became a member of the Communist Party is unclear.[39] During this time he became familiar with the Marxist view of economics, class conflict, and history.[14] Although he quickly became disillusioned with the views expounded by Marxists, his flirtation with the ideology led him to distance himself from those who believed that spilling blood for the sake of a revolution was necessary. He then took the view that when it came to sacrificing human lives, one was to think and act with extreme prudence.
We really need to make the effort to quote leftists and anarchists instead of regurgitating lib talking points that the media spoonfeeds us. Popper was promoted here and elsewhere to throw budding leftists off the scent and capture them in neoliberal mindsets. He's bad folks.
Yeah maybe promoting one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin Society is not the move
I like him in social science fields like psych (damn near essential when you have some crazy claims from wackadoodles) but fields like sociology where its impossible to operationalize sometimes then yeah we should move popper away. i personally love popperian falsification but im also a stats nerd who actually cares about having good data and methods in science
This argument has (limited) usefulness when arguing with libs/reactionaries who say shit like “I don’t agree with those neo-nazis, but I respect their right to say it”
I dont even read the comic I just see the title and like: :yes-comm:
This sounds good in theory, but it’s unwise to trust the government with deciding what is intolerance and what is criticism.
Whats the alternative then? Non-hierarchical committees do it? We leave it all alone and just do whack a mole anytime it goes violent?
Well right now the solution has been to call it free speech and let capital figure it out. It’s not a solution, but I’ll take it over trusting the government to decide what people can and can’t say.
So your solution is to hide it behind a fake veneer of capital handling it and then not actually solve it because you are afraid of the government? Brilliant.
Pretty sure I explicitly said it wasn’t a solution, simply that I preferred free speech in whatever limited way it truly exists to allowing the government to determine what I can and can’t say. You’re welcome to disagree but if all you are going to do is reword what I said into more strawmen then I don’t see much of a point in keeping this dialogue going.
Edit: clarified
I disagree on this because frankly this is liberal ideology at work, free speech isnt worth that much if it means letting fascists roam free, playing whack a mole with the dumb ones that decide to stab a minority for fun and then end up on the edge of being couped once they consolidate and organize for real. Free speech isnt worth all that much if you are enshrining it as sacred at the cost of not being capable of preventing and actually uprooting reactionary ideology from your society.
lol its fine, you can call this liberalism if you want, i dont mind. i mean, its a statement of fact, right? nothing more liberal than free speech. i prefer that to giving the government more power than i can trust them with. i realized earlier this month that im just not a communist because of compromises like this that im not willing to make. id rather take the whack a mole approach for the freaks and focus on community education for the general public. then again, im not white and deal with being profiled constantly anyway, so maybe my experience with the government is different than other people here.
The issue is because there is fundamentally no long term solution in what you are talking about because you throw away any such notions that a government that stops fascism may also overstep its bounds, but because it refuses to stop fascism it essentially dooms itself to a cycle of fascism rising up and trying to overthrow the whole thing, in the long run all but guaranteeing that at some point fascists will control the government and for sure abuse power and destroy free speech while persecuting all manner of minorities.
Its amazingly pure idealism in that the abstract right of free speech is so sacred that bending or infringing on it to ensure that what is left of it as well as ensuring that people wont fall victim to fascism, is unacceptable compared to allowing fascism to fester and grow while basically just performatively taking care of tiny individuals to lull everyone into security that you again, all but guarantee that people will be caught off guard when the conditions arrive for a fascist coup attempt and you have to throw everything previous to the wind anyways if you are to defeat fascism.
moments like these i want a downvote but luckily after typing this out i realized its irony o7 thank for teaching me patience mods
