How the Woke Fail the Paradox of Tolerance

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 21
In 1945, even as the Nazis fell from power, Karl Popper told us how to find the line where free, liberal societies are in imminent danger in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, most simply summarizing a crucial part of the argument in a short footnote about "The Paradox of Tolerance." There, Popper lays out a short summary of when a free society should and must not tolerate intolerant movements if it is to survive. It is not only when they espouse and preach intolerance but when they also cease to be amenable to reason and rational debate, forbid their followers from listening to reason and rational debate, cannot be held in check by public opinion, and encourage their followers to respond to arguments with "fists or pistols," i.e., violence of some form or another. I contend that the Woke, uniquely, have crossed this line in this episode of the New Discourses Podcast. They are absolutely intolerant, will not debate or listen to alternative perspectives, and, unlike all other hate movements that fail those two criteria, have grown to be completely unchecked and uncheckable by public opinion. This places them outside of the range to which tolerance should be extended in free, open societies, and it identifies them uniquely as a threat to their continuance. Join me to hear my argument for how Karl Popper warned us in 1945 so that we might see this situation when it arose.
Infographic: bit.ly/ParadoxT...
For more on the idea of tolerance, check out the entry on "tolerance" (newdiscourses....) in my Critical Social Justice Encyclopedia and check out the four-part series on Herbert Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" on the New Discourses podcast, part 1 here: newdiscourses....
-James
Support New Discourses:
www.paypal.me/...
newdiscourses....
/ newdiscourses
subscribestar....
/ @newdiscourses
Website:
newdiscourses.com
Follow:
/ newdiscourses
/ newdiscourses
/ newdiscourses
newdiscourses....
/ newdiscourses
/ newdiscourses
minds.com/newd...
/ newdiscourses
Podcast:
/ newdiscourses
podcasts.apple...
bit.ly/NDGoogle...
open.spotify.c...
stitcher.com/p...
© 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.

[@bfranciscop]

It's extremely important to explain this over and over and over, because woke people always misquote the paradox of tolerance, leaving out the part where it clearly describes _them_ as the intolerant ones.

[@katherineneville5304]

This was manifested in AOC’s assertion that something she said was morally correct even if factually incorrect. How can one argue with that?

[@dontbothertoreply9755]

If the problem was this fighting retardation with retardation another moral argument and flaw on their morals (or the lack of) will do it. But you cannot do it, because is an excuse not their goal.

[@frozenironforge5133]

You can't argue with them. They don't want to listen to anyone who isn't part of their ideology. The far left have a cult/religious mind set that's incapable of reason or bargaining. Even moderate leftists get cancled by the far left. That's proof enough. When moderate leftists are cancled and attacked, for not being woke enough then it's a clear sign of which group is truly a tyrannical force that wouldn't stop at putting peope to death in labor camps. Like the concentration camps, the gulag camps, like the camps in China. The woke radical left is incapable of having morality. Morality gets in the way of their progressive agenda, and nothing will stand in their way. They will literally burn down (and have burnt) cities to further their cause

[@daddybadbad]

It can’t be morally correct if it’s not factual

[@skadiwarrior2053]

@@frozenironforge5133 Tony turvy: morality informs ideology. The Wokish movement: ideology informs their morality.

[@chrisc7265]

AOC is clearly full of it, but one can be morally correct without being factual there are countless examples, but to choose one that's probably not controversial: lying about military secrets to protect the lies of agents or troops in enemy territory

[@_WhiteMage]

It's always just been shorthand for: "We consider your speech to be violence, so we can do anything we want to you."

[@teonactalpizza]

Their timing was crazy because they knew that resistance was weak. Had they tried it in the 1980s they would have been arrested, beaten, and shot by the system itself.

[@Ricky-Noll]

You keep churning them out we’ll keep listening. Thanks for doing these James

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

I’ve been waiting to see someone talk about this since I read Gad Saad’s book “the Parasitic Mind”. I had a feeling James would be the guy.

[@ether6107]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3vEga2AgN6WrsU

[@nickssmirkingrevenge]

I highly recommend 'Cynical Theories' (2020) by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.

[@parabola1212]

The Gadfather! You seem like you would/could be a Douglas Murray fan

[@ether6107]

@NOT ALLOW I just want people to know that some conservative sources are simply saying what we want to hear so they can promote a Chinese cult's literal anti-Western/science/racial integration propaganda and conspiracy theories.

[@tatavo7405]

How's the book? (Parasitic Mind)

[@afacere736]

Popper's solution to the paradox of tolerance is implicitly tied up with 1/ his formulation of a political democracy (which is _not_ the rule of the majority, rather it is a system of checks and balances where the rulers are held to account by the ruled) and 2/ his justifications for legitimate violence: in pursuit of democratic accountability where this has been denied through political means, to undermine tyranny (the rule by the unaccountable), and in defence of an existing democratic accountability where the government fails to do so. His whole book is unbelievably relevant to today's problems, he predicted the tyranny of irrationalism without even trying.

[@andyjarman4958]

I've been a fan of Popper for years. How is it New Zealand ends up with these people. James Flynn - another insightful and subtle figure.

[@darrylbetts3093]

after listening to James i was tempted to get Popper’s book- your comment convinced me.

[@tsoliot5913]

100% the and principles the United States was founded upon and which justify its continued existence.

[@LazerGuy89]

Thank you for doing this James, your work is truly indispensable

[@tamara6771]

It's sad that you have to specify/clarify again and again that you're against the woke ideology, and obviously not against certain races, or individuals, or diversity, etc.

[@ether6107]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3vEga2AgN6WrsU

[@floraoddchild3185]

Just like the left, confused, scared, angry people on the right sometimes hear what they want. Following through with his statement of compassion for a diverse society is good to keep the message consistent, especially now that we've got a former head of CIA claiming half of our country are white supremacist and a DOD that's about to purge our military of wrongthink

[@Triggernlfrl]

It is difficult while it is alway 2 ways. Racism is not good or bad it self. There is good racism to. When acknowledge the diffrence and respect it. Bad racism is call for diversity while wanting to mix races like they do not excist.

[@ZachRose88]

Turn away from the shadows on the cave wall before it is too late to do so.

[@juana7035]

@@floraoddchild3185 the crime stats tell us that White Supremacy isn't a problem in our communities, it's confirmed by the SPLC that lists the "supremacy" organizations - the majority of them aren't White. I miss Vincent of Red Elephant's yt channel where he provided explanations and the data. He's listed on the SPLC as a White Supremacist 🙄🙄 I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Christopher Wray telling Congress that White Supremacy is an issue. He's obviously unaware of the FBI stats.

[@academyofchampions1]

James Lindsay is an amazing man. True hero

[@farinati]

A strong moderate voice compelling enough to combat the charisma of cult leaders on the extremes seems like a highly unlikely thing :( Also, love the outro music.

[@simorote]

Dante fan?

[@farinati]

@@simorote I'm not cultured enough to get that reference. Dante?

[@ether6107]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3vEga2AgN6WrsU

[@purplemonkey649]

Reel - Adrian Berenguer Wont let me post a link, easy enough to find.

[@paigemccormick6519]

Farinata, sure you can like the outro music. I understand there was music on the way to the chambers. Sorry, I'm worried it's too late.

[@johnowen1867]

James you are so on point. Since 2016 I have more or less reached the same conclusions you have. You simply have articulated in words what I have come to see myself in thought. Thanks for all efforts.

[@izzywizzy685]

Well said and I think I have the same issue. I can see some things so clearly I’m my mind and thoughts but articulating them at times is hard. It’s weird because there are some times I have no issue, it just flows so easily but those times are fairly rare and I don’t get why that is and it’s frustrating. I use to be such a quick thinker but it changed a bit ago now which sucks.

[@465marko]

@@izzywizzy685 I think maybe it's a practise thing? Like, it's a perishable skill in a way. I'm exactly the same. The concepts are in my head, and I can write them down clearly if I have a few hours to agonise over every sentence! lol But, put me on the spot, I'm a borderline simpleton. And maybe it's from just not doing it often enough.

[@sarabavota]

To me the logic is: what's the aim of tolerance? Coexist togheter despite our differences. If an intolerant person negate this aim, which is a high and sacred one, people need to question him

[@EveKeneinan]

This issue is obvious. Popper argues we should _not_ be intolerant to those who are still willing to meet us on the ground of rational argument. The Woke are not willing to do this. They appeal directly to power.

[@Antonette59]

This has been brewing for a very long time. I very much appreciate you, James. I do what I can but you have a large reach. Thank you.

[@ianwilliams7802]

Fundamentally, ALL principles end up being paradoxical if we push them far enough. This is why Utopia is impossible in this life. The best we can hope for is a functional BALANCE.

[@tsoliot5913]

No, a sound principle weathers reductio add absurdum. It's one of the ways you can know what to trust. Please, don't throw away the possibility of proven principle. Conditional outcomes exist.

[@meerkat1954]

Wouldn't love be a principle that can never be taken too far? I mean a comprehensive, all encompassing understanding of love, including the need at times for tough love (e.g. telling someone not to do things that are against their long term interest such as engaging in deviant sexuality, even if those things might feel good in the moment - we tell them not to do it because we care about them).

[@465marko]

@@meerkat1954 But for some people, deviant sexuality IS a form of love! Deviant sexuality is my love language.

[@andyjarman4958]

Thomas Jefferson's inaugural speech. "error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Hindenburg thought he could balance Communism with Fascism. That's why Hitler gained power without ever winning an election.

[@tbone450r]

How do you balance fascism and communism?

[@RobWallace454]

Just found this channel. This is important work, hopefully more and more have the ears to hear it

[@mustang607]

This sounds like another good new discourse.

[@joejam3250]

it wasn't i listened to it, he just talks in circles most the time, probably only 5 min of material here

[@LoryGM3]

​@@joejam3250 you have tiktok brain 😉

[@jpvoodoo5522]

De-platforming is the symptom that Popper describes (being not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument).

[@NoahBodze]

Been saying this every since I heard of Popper. An open society has clearly delineated enemies - collectivists.

[@astrobot702]

There's a cognitive dissonance that seems to be pervasive where these people have a skewed view that everything is fine. We are now are dangerously close to something very grim..

[@seselgroth]

Normalcy bias perhaps(?) But in one-on-one convos, the nagging feeling that we're in a pre-revolutionary or just plain bad situation IS present. In particular, in those 40+.

[@Wallychans]

Yeh. The people who live in the dirty parts of my city are in absolute denial...

[@lauralayla3854]

All logic has gone out the window. One cannot have a conversation with woke individuals! We are in a lot of trouble!

[@martinheath5947]

Woke will not stop until everything proven to be true and functional has either been turned on its head or destroyed. It's a religious conviction that ideas alone will trump known reality

[@joejam3250]

I like that james (and my hero donald tump) DO NOT use teleprompters and just talk and talk. I got all day, just keep talking james, I'm here for all the times you want to circle back again and again to whatever it is that Karl Popper wrote in that first frame and whatever he said. You'll finally say it how you meant to the first time, only it'll by the tenth time and I'll be here for sir! I am here listening to these wonderfully worded arguments. THE WOKE will NOT compromise HALF WAY and the will not agree to tolerate half the tolera.... back to first frame!

[@ajiwa69]

What you have articulated is the exact reason why I, a life long democrat, voted for trump in 2020

[@ianbanks2844]

I'm a 63 Yr old limey in Manchester England and for the first time in my life I voted Conservative at the last General Election here in the U.K. just as you voted for the Republicans for the first time . Unfortunately the Conservatives have been anything but Conservative.Instead they have continued the march of wokeness as compared to you having a real anti - wokist in Trump . I'm so frustrated and angry .

[@davepike7546]

@@ianbanks2844 The Tories are woke? Lol, what is woke? The Tories have decimated our Country, by moving from their base and moving out further and further to the right. Labour are now the Centre Right Party. What is different is that Politics is being broken down into single issues. Popper doesn't work for American right wing views, this is clumsy as feck. Right wing American views are often based around intolerance, whether it be based on class, race, gender, sexuality etc and are the most vocal about wanting their freedom to express such views. Trying to switch it is disingenuous.

[@pariah_carey]

1:10 they really can't hear it, i've seen it happen many times. they are conditioned to ignore it and their brain purges it from their memory immediately upon realizing that it goes against the Narrative.

[@sklingberg]

Note 4 of chapter 7 in Popper's "The Open Society".

[@plekkchand]

Thanks- this should have been supplied.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

New Discourses, I'm not sure if you have covered this (or want to cover it) but what do you think about demographic replacement of whites in most white countries? White culture is steadily moving closer to minority status every decade thanks to mass immigration. I know this is an unfavorable and politically incorrect idea to discuss (i have been called racist for suggesting the stopping of mass immigration completely to save European culture). I see all races as equal in value but I think culture (and to a far lesser extent genetics) is something worth preserving, but it seems society seems to have turned against that as anything of value. Any thoughts?

[@shaunpatrick8345]

He thinks it would be intolerant to oppose it.

[@NoNameNo.5]

James: stop explaining this, if you need to keep explaining why a liberal might vote for the only bulwark against Wokeism, than your probably dealing with a woke zealot

[@eingew]

He might not change the opinion of the woke zealot, but he might change the opinion of the people watching that discussion.

[@edwardgivenscomposer]

"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that!" - Tom Lehrer

[@anewagora]

Tolerance is a shallow and empty concept in the first place. I understand in earlier times in history it was the best people could do in some cases. But it's still shallow, as if we should make decisions about who to interact with based on some near-universal generic acceptance. This is not how relationships and communities form. I think being open is the starting place, but relationships are chosen and developed, not mindlessly open to anyone. Most people know exactly what their relationship and boundary standards are. Each of us should aim for the best boundaries and most empowering relationships, rather than blind "tolerance".

[@Maridu01]

I thank God the day you read the paper on the “sexist icecaps”. Thank you James. Eternal gratitude. Truly!!!

[@redpillcertified]

THANK YOU, JAMES LINDSAY. YOUR WORK IS OF GREAT VALUE AND HIGHLY APPRECIATED.

[@palmtreep5567]

Being a centrist shouldn't be a derogatory statement. It's folks who can see valid points on each side and aren't the type to become enraged or extremist. But today, you have to reside in one of two echo chambers. And the loudest ones get rewarded.

[@glenn2745]

The truth is that we are not required to tolerate revolutionary ideologies being spread and supported in our society. Whether Marxism or Islamism, any ideology that seeks at its core to overturn a classically liberal society is innately seditious and revolutionary. The constitution is not a suicide pact and I don't need to invite enemies into my country. We knew this 100 years ago and the fight was on across the country to limit the Marxists but when FDR came along, that was all over. Hint - McCarth's list was 100% accurate...He was the first victim of Leftist cancel culture.

[@stevehousden2699]

Incredible analysis. Thanks much.

[@drstrangelove09]

I think that a tolerant society should allow ideas that promote intolerance to be voiced.

[@killbill5486]

TDS is a real affliction. Sufferers get a genuine physical reaction at even hearing his name. That's why it's near impossible to have any kind of conversation with them.

[@rswallen]

What does such vigorous intolerance against the woke look like, and how far does it go? The Trump XO seems like a good starting point, but where is the limit? Is "cancelling" those who seek to cancel valid, or does it just legitimise cancel culture in the long run?

[@mark4asp]

A. My 'motte-and-bailey' In James' previous descriptions we see just two positions. In reality I think there are many. For example: 1. Palace/Inner sanctum. The leader's position 2. Flying monkeys fort. The activist position. 3. Diplomatic enclave. Arguments typically made to gain entry to institutions. What James' calls the Bailey. 4. Motte, or denial position. E.g. 'woke is just another word for awareness of injustice'; 'Equity is just anti-racism; same thing as equality'. B. Woke principle of intolerance 1. I think the real paradox here is how the new woke principle of intolerance, was derived from Popper's paradox of tolerance. By a series of redefinitions and inversions of meaning and logic. By ensuring that woke never had to encounter real world arguments against it. In my description below, I describe what I see as the leader and activist position. 1: Racism was redefined as innate. It's due to society. Only Utopia (AKA communism) will finally stop racism. 2: Racism is one of the greatest evils. Because it leads to genocides & murder by cops. This plays well in identitarian societies. 3: Everyone who's not an antiracist is a latent fascist. Those supporting any kind of border control are racist. Those who voice even a theoretical argument against equity are racist. That includes: libertarians, liberals, conservatives ... 4: Fascism is redefined as everything which isn't anti-racist & it's everywhere, potentially in everyone. It can only be halted by equity, and finally defeated by communism. 5: Equity has the principle of intolerance built-in to its DNA. Wokes are burning the whole of Western thought. They consider it all genocidal, racist, ... C. Popper's paradox of tolerance. What he wrote: Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law. and 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. - Part of footnote 4 in 'Notes To Chapter 7' of "The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume 1: Plato.", by Karl Popper, 1966 - 5th ed. PS: 1945 - 1st ed;

[@mema595]

Thank you James Lindsay. You are a powerful role model for standing up to intolerance.

[@somedandy7694]

The policy ought to be this: Tolerance ends once one party has violated the non-aggression principal. Rant and rave all you want. Call me names all you want. Lie about me behind my back all you want. But the MINUTE you get in my face, threaten me with harm, or give me credible reason to believe my life is in danger, you will be put down (and depending on litigation policy of the state in which it happens you might get back up). The way it is NOW: Tolerate absolutely EVERYTHING from _one_ side, and tolerate NOTHING from the other. In states with stand-your-ground laws and castle doctrine, riots, mass-persecutions and murders are less frequent. That's why 2A is important: an armed society is a polite society.

[@suriyavamsa]

Great stuff. The chap with the spiked helmet that Hitler dealt with was Paul von Hindenburg.

[@Jersey-towncrier]

Given Bill Ws condensed version of AA when he said, "Honesty got me sober; tolerance keeps me that way," I often have hard time squaring the circle of activism. I know that in order for me to stay sober, I have to stay tolerant. However, I also have a very strongly inclined passion towards destroying the woke, and it's very difficult for me since I know that I have to be intolerant of them in order to help destroy them. Try having that paradox-of-tolerance to deal with!

[@afacere736]

"The tactical situation seems simple enough. Thanks to Marx’s prophecy, the Communists knew for certain that misery must soon increase. They also knew that the party could not win the confidence of the workers without fighting for them, and with them, for an improvement of their lot. These two fundamental assumptions clearly determined the principles of their general tactics. Make the workers demand their share, back them up in every particular episode in their unceasing fight for bread and shelter. Fight with them tenaciously for the fulfilment of their practical demands, whether economic or political. Thus you will win their confidence. At the same time, the workers will learn that it is impossible for them to better their lot by these petty fights, and that nothing short of a wholesale revolution can bring about an improvement. For all these petty fights are bound to be unsuccessful; we know from Marx that the capitalists simply cannot continue to compromise and that, ultimately, misery must increase. Accordingly, the only result-but a valuable one-of the workers’ daily fight against their oppressors is an increase in their class consciousness; it is that feeling of unity which can be won only in battle, together with a desperate knowledge that only revolution can help them in their misery. When this stage is reached, then the hour has struck for the final show-down. This is the theory and the Communists acted accordingly. At first they support the workers in their fight to improve their lot. But, contrary to all expectations and prophecies, the fight is successful. The demands are granted. Obviously, the reason is that they had been too modest. Therefore one must demand more. But the demands are granted again. And as misery decreases, the workers become less embittered, more ready to bargain for wages than to plot for revolution. Now the Communists find that their policy must be reversed. Something must be done to bring the law of increasing misery into operation. For instance, colonial unrest must be stirred up (even where there is no chance of a successful revolution), and with the general purpose of counteracting the bourgeoisification of the workers, a policy fomenting catastrophes of all sorts must be adopted. But this new policy destroys the confidence of the workers. The Communists lose their members, with the exception of those who are inexperienced in real political fights. They lose exactly those whom they describe as the ‘vanguard of the working class’; their tacitly implied principle: ‘The worse things are, the better they are, since misery must precipitate revolution’, makes the workers suspicious-the better the application of this principle, the worse are the suspicions entertained by the workers. For they are realists; to obtain their confidence, one must work to improve their lot. Thus the policy must be reversed again: one is forced to fight for the immediate betterment of the workers’ lot and to hope at the same time for the opposite. With this, the ‘inner contradictions’ of the theory produce the last stage of confusion. It is the stage when it is hard to know who is the traitor, since treachery may be faithfulness and faithfulness treachery. It is the stage when those who followed the party not simply because it appeared to them (rightly, I am afraid) as the only vigorous movement with humanitarian ends, but especially because it was a movement based on a scientific theory, must either leave it, or sacrifice their intellectual integrity; for they must now learn to believe blindly in some authority. Ultimately, they must become mystics-hostile to reasonable argument. It seems that it is not only capitalism which is labouring under inner contradictions that threaten to bring about its downfall …" The Open Society And Its Enemies: chapter 20.

[@gg_rider]

I'm reminded of Gary Saul Morson on Unsafe Space describing how the intelligentsia had to reject offers of reforms, in order to keep up the fight and pressure.

[@tsoliot5913]

Jesus Christ,. It's been right there written down for three quarters of a century and we're still mystified.

[@DR_Neal_Rigger]

We are about to see a MASSIVE upheaval.. prepare accordingly and buckle up..

[@snakedogman]

I hope you guys in the US can turn this ship of woke around because too much of it is already blowing over to Europe. I was at least somewhat heartened by French president Macron making some statement that this American woke culture is a threat to the French identity and the French Republic. Of course in Eastern Europe there is already a lot more resilience to these ideas but until now Western Europe seemed to be easy pickings for the woke brigade. I fear for my own country (Netherlands) as we seem to be more than willing to give up what little identity we still have left in the name of "tolerance".

[@matthewkopp2391]

I will be listening. I have considered both Popper's and Marcuse's essay, I generally make Chomsky's conclusion of free speech absolutism because it isn't even strategic to censor or cancel because opponents then simply go invisible just conceal themselves. I don't agree with Popper or Marcuse. But Marcuse reveals the political relativity of it by condemning the entirety of the right wing as worthy of censorship. However I agree with Marcuse's diagnosis in that the established US government both Rep and Dem have violated the constitution by expanding executive power for war and worse. His diagnosis was the USA was becoming increasingly totalitarian how in the world he would only accuse the right as the problem and not the Democrats of his day is strange. But at least part of his diagnosis should be considered as important. I am critical of the military industrial complex for illegal war, private prison, expanded crime bill, surveillance state, militarized police state, torture etc. These issues are things that are partially "out in the open" and partly concealed or omitted. These are major issues people across the spectrum should consider a threat to a free and open society and should be morally condemned. But these issues rarely even come up as debatable, they are ignored across the political spectrum. Recently on FOX news a pundit said we should "kill all the prisoners at Guatanomo." They should have the right to say it, but should be outright condemned for proposing crimes against humanity and international war crimes. But there is very much silence on things that are truly alarming. As far as the so-called woke "left" their activism IMO they obscures these real issues. Canceling a speaker like Dawkins for Islamophobia is a complete abuse of the concept, if you believe in the concept at all. I personally consider Dawkins a good scientist but a philosophical idiot who has very little concept of how religion is functions and dysfunctions but definitely should not be canceled. I am disappointed that there are few thoughtful people on the subject. Peterson is in the right, and Hedges in the left, both have interested defenses and criticism of religion. These false outrage activists generally said nothing when Clinton or Biden were running for president. Clinton could have been charged with an international war crime but then uses this woke language to paint herself as a benevolent or even a legitimate candidate. That is how truly weird it is gotten. Biden does not have that record but openly misinformed the public about Iraq and Libya, so is a paid liar and propagandist. Recently the MS news is filled with obscure allegations of white supremacists etc. but pay little attention to the real state abuses of power.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

The reason the woke captured most of academia is because the progressives and liberals in academia did not have some version of Popper’s paradox of tolerance in their minds or they were too cowardly to make a stand before it became too costly. They now live underfoot of diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucracies (tyrannies). I’m not sure what they could have done except to call out the obvious lack of good faith argument in the woke left position and refused to back down but they were run over roughshod and now can only cower in fear, even with tenure in many cases.

[@philiphales2109]

Biden helped pass the Sentencing Reform Act of 1986 that eliminated federal parole. Biden sponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986) that created harsher sentencing guidelines for crack as opposed to powder cocaine. In 1988 this bill was amended to provide for longer sentences for drug convictions and to prohibit people with drug convictions from getting public housing. Biden sponsored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), which is commonly known as the Crime Bill. This piece of legislation created mandatory minimum sentences and is largely responsible for an exponential growth in the prison population in the United States. Biden has a long record of depriving the American people of liberty, including the black community that he has become so invested in pandering to with this evil woke nonsense.

[@philiphales2109]

@jhan bass -People, probably 90%, have short memories and as Aristotle put it, “conceive the good and happiness as pleasure, and hence they also like the life of gratification...the life they decide on is a life for grazing animals.”

[@philiphales2109]

@And so The United States is the number one arms exporter in the world; it almost seems that the implements of war are all that we produce here now that our manufacturing base has been hollowed out and outsourced. In short war is profitable. The Educational Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex are profitable as well. Domestic surveillance began in earnest after the Patriot Act, and it seems as if it is set to be revamped and repurposed for use on the American citizenry under the rubric of defeating “domestic extremists” and “domestic terrorists.” This again is profitable; it weds big government, big business, and big tech. The left fears Fascism and the right fears an authoritarian socialist regime. Lest we forget, the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi fascism) was a socialist group. The Great Reset aims to create public private partnerships and also redistribute resources and wealth; the first part sounds like worldwide fascism, while the second part sounds like worldwide communism. Hard times are coming down the pike. Alea Iacta Est

[@lmb1931]

James, as always, you are spot on!

[@dnewt3]

Everything we discuss about the irrationalism of the woke can be drawn back to a miscommunication in beliefs. For humans to progress we had to evolve to communicate. With this we had agreed upon definitions so we could discuss issues. When you’re dealing with someone who believes that everything can be redefined to suit a moral idealogy, the ability to communicate is now gone.

[@Mutantcy1992]

I think that in the infographic, the "you have to respect my beliefs" uses "respect" deliberately because woke people mean that when they talk about tolerance. They say tolerance but they don't mean merely tolerating, but also respecting their ideas.

[@Xenophanes198]

This is currently the most important KZbin channel. Thanks a lot.

[@thevarietychannelofyoutube4769]

Seeing someone unironically use the word woke as an insult automatically makes everything you say impossible to take seriously for me. The word is so meaningless that simply saying your not a part of a maga agenda is considered woke

[@TheJacklikesvideos]

I agree with James about the last election. I never found a lesser evil argument so compelling.

[@AidenRKrone]

The issue with the paradox of tolerance isn't the supposed paradox itself; rather, the issue is with the people who are determining who the "intolerant" people are. In other words, who decides what ideologies and philosophies qualify as "intolerant"? According to radicals, activists, and assorted leftists, even moderate conservatives qualify as intolerant. When the left declares _everyone who isn't them_ as intolerant, they no longer have to engage in polite discussion and civil debate.

[@yarpenzigrin1893]

Intolerance is a shield against evil and corruption.

[@kukusnest65]

A few years ago I read Nicholas Talebs's article, "The Most Intolerant Win: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority". It's a real eyeopener to the mechanizations of how really small groups of very vocal folks change policies on a grand scale.

[@ethanpatterson3994]

After seeing this, I am fearful for the verdict of the Jan. 6th Committee. When the government is not held to account, what then? How do we argue with people unwilling to argue? Must it end in civil war or fascist oppression?

[@HolographicSweater]

selfhood and being is a willful act of violence. people must be Held Accountable for engaging in being and selfhood, by any means possible

[@hrvad]

I sometimes feel that the question of "do you tolerate intolerance?" gets into trouble for mostly linguistic reasons. What if we look at it this way: if you champion tolerance and wants it to spread as a value, do you also champion intolerance? I think it's then much clearer that, no, obviously you don't engage in tolerance of the negation of tolerance, and there's no funny-ha-ha linguistic pun to it now. Obviously if you want tolerance to be widespread you can't support the very opposite. Popper did well with his conditions. It's typical high orderliness thinking where a WALL is built to denote the relevant thresholds. Repressive tolerance is Popper without any walls, it's "open borders repression". That is, in practice there will be no limits to the repression they will engage in.

[@stamanjw]

I feel like this idea is actually well-explored in Clint Eastwood's movie Gran Turismo. The protagonist is a very intolerant man, even to an unacceptable standard, but it was his intolerance that lead to making a stand against the thugs in the neighborhood. What do you all think?

[@shaunpatrick8345]

He was intolerant of foreigners coming into his neighborhood and changing it for the worse. It's colonisation. We should not be forced to tolerate that.

[@youtubeyoutube936]

I was thinking about wwii war films featuring the USA army when The ethnic person was the Italian American.

[@stamanjw]

@@shaunpatrick8345 It was not foreigners, it was the criminal behavior of the thugs against which he was intolerant. He ends up befriending and giving his life and car to “foreigners”. Hence the source of the title, “Gran Turismo”.

[@shaunpatrick8345]

@@stamanjw no, he didn't like foreigners. He made that clear in is speech and actions.

[@frankienbloo1723]

I have a ton of respect for Popper, and his fundamental view that a theory must be able to be falsified to have meaning in the world - you must be allowed to fail. The problem I have with his view is, however, how do you falsify his view that which requires falsifiability? How would you falsify Popper's views? The point I'm trying to drive here is Popper's unrelenting attack on idealism (enemies of the open society was largely a hit-piece, and rightly so, against Marxism and Not-see-ism; I'm dodging youtube censors) puts himself into an idealist position - which makes him intolerant by his own standards. This was largely the reason why Berkley free speech protests occurred on campus. Colleges did not allow political speech on campus, because political speech held value statements and therefore was unscientific. Off the tails of WWII, and in the heat of the cold war, college campuses did not allow for any idealistic views like Marxism. To put it simply, for all the logical positivist's claims that they openly change their minds when presented with falsified information, they still refuse to drop their beliefs just like all the rest of us. You throw in a black swan event into their mechanistic, empiricist view of the world, and they continue to "keep on chuggin" as if that black swan was there all the time. This is why his convenient philosopher king response of "just let academia (himself an academic) and democratic rule hold the authority" falls flat on its face. Moreover, his view of a process of testing and seeing what works lacks moral fortitude. It tells the academic that it's okay to give a portion of people in the Congo mosquito nets and a portion of people to not have mosquito nets to see if mosquito nets reduce the chances of malaria (actually happened, by the way) - that's stupid and morally abhorrent. Moreover, to go on top of this, we have seen that the advancement of knowledge and, in general, science in society has largely been advanced by people who are not already established within the already existing system of thought - you need fresh perspectives. Science's success is not solely due to its own methods, but also to its having taken in knowledge from unscientific sources. In turn the notion that there is no knowledge outside science is a convenient fairy-tale held only by dogmatists who distort history for the convenience of scientific institutions. Galileo, for example, relied on rhetoric, propaganda and epistemological tricks to support his doctrine of heliocentrism. If you don't want science to be just another dogmatic religion, then you must allow criticism from sources outside of the scientific worldview - science itself must be allowed to fail. I would much rather live in a society where modern medicine can learn something, and compete, with an alternative like homeopathy therapy (namely not treating everyone like they are a fucking toe-tag), than a society which forces people into only using modern medicine because the so-called "authorities" tell you so. That's how we get people lobotomizing patients. Or in economics (my field) treating kids like they are long-run durable goods families choose to invest in - like a car or a refrigerator.

[@TheJackal917]

A quote from a wikipedia article about the book: ''Some other philosophers were critical. Walter Kaufmann believed that Popper's work has many virtues, including its attack against totalitarianism, and many suggestive ideas. However, he also found it to have serious flaws, writing that Popper's interpretations of Plato were flawed and that Popper had provided a "comprehensive statement" of older myths about Hegel. Kaufmann commented that despite Popper's hatred of totalitarianism, Popper's method was "unfortunately similar to that of totalitarian 'scholars'" ''.

[@iainrobertson1690]

It only takes 1 bit of compromise to compromise the entirety of their sacred position

[@davidbrinnen]

All very well for those of us who have the time to really digest these things and yes, thank you for going to the trouble of making this podcast, I'd seen the very info-graphic you describe kicking around FB for a few years now and though I sort of knew there was something off about it - your insight was necessary to really pin down exactly what... All very well... but. The issue is this, how many people have the time to digest all the information needed to appreciate the scale and nature of the danger? And if you do, you end up like me, being seen as the tin-foil hat wearing prophet of doom among friends and family.

[@meerkat1954]

Prophets have never been respected in their homeland. It's a special quirk of human stupidity. After countless failed civilizations and genocides, you'd think we'd learn to take well reasoned warnings of doom a little more seriously as a species.

[@lillyCfields]

They will eventually see that you were right. People usually have the time if they make the time.

[@whsbsmith]

I keep saying that moderates need to get some backbone and make their voices heard.

[@Chris-hq7nl]

Thanks James.

[@mikedebell2242]

We are there.

[@mindfulmw]

Tolerance is mutual tolerance, rights are mutual rights. These are features of a society not an individual, which is where the argument gets lost imo in individualistic liberalism. Rights are collective, and I am not meaning this from any socialist viewpoint although the irony is heavy!

[@-Nos-]

Fair point. Succinctly, rights are reciprocal concepts; needed more than a individual.

[@deicide666100]

this formulation, 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and 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. Blinding hypocrisy and pseudo intellectualism don’t work

[@kingclover1395]

I felt the same way about our current situation. I couldn't vote for Democrats anymore even though I always used to, and I knew I had to vote against them. But I couldn't really vote for Trump either, so I just became discouraged and didn't vote.

[@Wingedmagician]

James keep spreading the message

[@freddieoblivion6122]

I was typing something up and 'intersectionalism' was auto-corrected to 'intersectionality'... does 'ism' have a certain connotation now?? ism=bad, ality=good? stupid word games they play... sneaky.

[@meerkat1954]

Interesting insight. They're probably doing this all the damn time and we're not noticing.

[@JulieneMilani]

Thank Mr. Lindsay from me and Grandchildren. Bc I’m generally worried where we are headed as a Country.

[@maxl.5297]

Funny old German guy is Paul von Hindenburg, the Weimar Republic president that appointed Hitler as Chancellor. It's not as if he had much of a choice though...

[@steveevans528]

Tolerance is a myth, there is only that which is acceptable and that which is not.

[@odysseuslost]

I love these breakdowns of the various padoxical and hypocritical aspects of woke ideology... The part of Popper that they leave out is extraordinarily telling. It clearly shows it is not a misunderstanding of the ideas, but a willful and intentional distortion of them for purely power based reasons... Funny, when you ascribe to the idea Power is the only thing that exists, everything else is sacrificed in pursuit of that.

[@encle]

Please keep talking about these issues, James.

[@theastralarchive9594]

Out for a year... never more vital to the survival of free thought than it is today.

[@AlexiusY21]

George Soros named his foundation (Open Society Foundation) after that book by Karl Popper...

[@mojorn8837]

There are no true paradoxes, only shallow understandings of the deeply related.

[@ct3343]

We have to win back public opinion with a massive movement of antiwokeism. Your absolutely right we don’t have much time left. Everything as we know it is at stake. It will have to begin with many people working hard to produce content online that ridicules it and getting out to protest it.

[@osirismaximus2787]

Thank you for speaking truthfully about these complex problems!

[@Trinitypater]

Omg amazing!!! You are amazing!

[@Gumbatron01]

There seems to be a confusion, a deliberate one I think, between tolerance and acceptance. What is referred to these days as "tolerance" is actually acceptance. It is possible to tolerate something without accepting. The tolerant left are extremely intolerant, much more intolerant than even the far right. All but the most extreme far right will tolerate people with significantly different beliefs in so far as those people do not attempt to foist their beliefs upon them. The standpoint of the modern left seems to be mandatory acceptance of anything they propose, and they are "progressive", meaning that it never ends. It is never enough, once you tolerate (accept) their current demand, a new demand emerges that is even more extreme. Ignoring conservatives is why the world is spiraling out of control now. The left has pushed and pushed for decades, and the right has acquiesced over and over. A tolerant society should not accept intolerance, but it should tolerate it. Intolerance is generally just people with a different opinion of how society should be structured. Denying these people a voice ensures that the mistakes of society will go unchallenged. You end up with social Lyshenkoism, where the social norms are unchallengeable, that lead to disaster, always.

[@konberner170]

With even solid free speech supporters like Jordan Peterson encouraging tolerance of the Biden administration's intolerance, my feeling is that you are among the few at the vanguard of making these important points. I'll add in the fallacy of appeal to compromise. While Aristotle was not incorrect about maintaining a golden mean between certain extremes, this is far from always true. If someone says they are beating their husband/wife ever day, the advice to find the golden mean and do it every other day shows how badly this can fail. The golden mean exists between two _goods_ where each becomes bad when out of balance. Importantly, this doesn't mean that there are not other scales that are all good at one end and all bad at the other. Authoritarianism is good exactly how? Who can claim that forcing others to conform, regardless of their values, can be called ethical? Where there may (

[@sickandtired6156]

Mic 🎤 drop. Excellent, excellent, excellent.

[@marcelledbetter7296]

I absolutely love your work. Trojan Horse 1-3 is my favorite along with your contribution to 'The Great Awokening.' I wish you would publish a 'Dictionay of Woke' detailing the individual words which comprise the foundation of this hideous ideology. Detail their history, the 'Woke' definition versus Western definition and the ramifications of buying into the new language. A dictionary or an extended video with graphics, all in plain speak so even a kid could understand what is invading society. The monster is in the house now.

[@eorobinson3]

That’s not the Kaiser, that’s von Hindenberg.

[@thebigredwagon]

I found my self leaning towards the right last year and became aware how tribalism was subverting my ability to think clearly. I’ve snapped back now but as I know that once the society is truly polarised then that’s it. I would second what James said and ask everyone whether you fall politically left or right to reach a hand across the divide and pull the ship on a steady course. The alternative if we fail cannot be overstated.

It's interesting to hear a commentary on the imagery of "Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance".

[@palmtreep5567]

Wokal Yokal's anecdote of abstractions from fresh strawberries to strawberry slurpee was fantastic.

[@thadtheman3751]

I believe that guy in the pickelhaube is Hindenburg who effectively put Hitler in power ( he was the last obstacle ).

[@somedandy7694]

I didn't know you voted for Trump. As a fellow Trump-supporter: welcome aboard the not-so-crazy train! Considering how many other concerned liberals did vote for him, you're definitely not alone.

[@tbone450r]

Not enough to win the election tho

[@joejam3250]

I wanna get back to normal times james please!

[@aaronvenable6165]

Bravo, James. This is very well presented. Some evidence to add to your statement that this is the time for moderates to wake up, you might want to reference the essay by Michael Anton, The Flight 93 Election, and Victor Davis Hanson's A Case For Trump.

[@DouglasHPlumb]

Without hypocrisy these people would have nothing

[@hugoc1861]

You are a Gem, Bro

[@kenhiett5266]

James, if you don't understand why Trump is better for our country than Biden, even outside of the context you provided, you either aren't following the plot or you have been influenced by social pressures.

[@jetpilot3714]

Good point

[@mickyfingaz5132]

All humans are at different places in there evolution. Love is the highest level of understanding

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

Best video. I see that cartoon shown so often to justify censorship