Misuse of Karl Popper.

Apparently the Left is using a trope which is called “Popper’s Paradox”. Since I am always interested in anything either Popperian or paradoxical, I took a look. And here’s the story, somewhat condensed:

It goes like this:

1. We must be tolerant.
2. We must not be tolerant of intolerance.
3. Therefore, we must be intolerant of intolerance.

This concept has directly enabled the fantasy that everything that the Left doesn’t like is “intolerance” of the right-thinking Left. Another way to say it is that everything the Left says or does must be tolerated, because “we must be tolerant”; therefore dissent is intolerance, which cannot be tolerated.

This is logically absurd, of course, since it is internally inconsistent, and self-denying, and thus it cannot be true. By inspection we can see that #1 and #2 above are incompatible and oppositional statements. Because the two statements are non-coherent, one of those premises must be false.

Popper wouldn’t ever make this mistake, and he didn’t.

Popper:

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

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 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.”

To summarize what Popper actually said:

1. We must be tolerant, but not without limit.
2. Therefore we must be tolerant of intolerance, IFF intolerance is physically passive, intellectual (amenable to contrary argumentation).
3. But we must not tolerate such intolerance as is totalitarian, i.e., actively aggressive physically, anti-intellectual, suppressive of contrary argumentation, dominating.
4. Because tolerance, like freedom, is not a suicide pact.

Popper actually fully defines the characteristics of the "intolerant":

...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.

The Left requires some sort of aura of legitimacy for their position even if doesn’t actually exist. So the Left chooses to increase its irrationality by attributing to Popper that which he didn’t say, by perversely truncating the quote and then reversing the attribution of intolerance, by redefinition (they are tolerant, but only of skin tone, not of contrary argument or even contrary thought). And that is within the Left’s necessary ability to live with logical and factual falseness in every aspect of their positions.

The Left is argument-impaired, being subsumed under Post Modern concepts of "no truth". If they argue at all, it is with false principles which they think they can attribute to their enemies for the purpose of condemnation of their enemies. This is the essence of Alinskyism: hold your enemies to their own principles (even if you have to make those principles up yourself).

Using a single sentence, undeservedly attributing the positive classification to themselves, ignoring the actual observed characteristics of their own behaviors and beliefs; all these rational failures are cynically used to twist Popper's statement diametrically for their own use. Their use for the past year and a half has been consistent justification of violence upon unarmed citizens. But now they have flipped to anti-violence in preparation for the next election.

The Post Modern Left accepts that "all cultures are equal". But not cultures which have contrary values. So they also accept that there "is no Truth", which nullifies their dogma when it is convenient. The Left has no arguments to offer because they believe BOTH that both sides are equally valid, AND that only their side is valid (for no reason at all). This leads the Left to dictate "Truths" which they also admit do not exist.