this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
694 points (96.3% liked)

Cool Guides

6625 readers
3 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Read it again. He's using incitement to violence as a consequence to to be avoided, not as a driving factor.

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.

He goes on:

we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

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.
It's clear you don't agree with his position , and that's okay. You can just disagree with him.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Catty? "Like a little girl"? The hell is wrong with you people that you're looking so hard for insult where none is intended? I apologize for being too casual in my assertion that I think you're bending the work to fit your views instead of explaining why you think his views on tolerance aren't correct.

Yes, I'm saying he included that statement because it's the "why". Suppression of intolerant speech can be justified because it can lead to violence. The violence or incitement thereto isn't a precondition that justifies suppression in his view, but the end state to be avoided.

I'm not sure what you're saying by drawing a distinction between the Nazis and the brown shirts or spelling out the party name. I know the Nazis were violent before they had political power.
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.