Saturday May 24, 2025
  • Venezuela
  • Mexico
  • Colombia
  • Chile
  • Brazil
  • Argentina
  • Podcast
Versión Español
PanAm Post
  • Home
  • Regions
    • South America
    • North America
    • Central America
    • Caribbean
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Authors
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Regions
    • South America
    • North America
    • Central America
    • Caribbean
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Authors
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
PanAm Post
No Result
View All Result

Home » Those who have nothing to say, and say it very badly

Those who have nothing to say, and say it very badly

José Azel by José Azel
September 12, 2019
in Columnists, Education, Ideology, Opinion, Society
FacebookTwitterTelegramWhatsapp
Should society tolerate intolerant speeches, such as those of Ocasio-Cortez and Steve Bannon? (Photo: Flickr)

 

 

RelatedArticles

CNN Fake News: The Network’s Efforts to Justify Its Actions May Be Worse than Its Actual Flawed Reporting

CNN’s audience in 2024 was the lowest in its history

December 21, 2024
Can Socialism Compete “On Equal Terms” in the Field of Ideas?

Can Socialism Compete “On Equal Terms” in the Field of Ideas?

November 20, 2024

Philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), castigated obfuscating writers as those “who have nothing to say, and say it very badly.” Popper, a forceful defender of liberal democracy, was particularly critical of highbrows who criticized the social system without offering any viable alternatives. I am often reminded of Popper’s acerbic criticism when reading the vacuous commentaries of some politicians, celebrities, and columnists. From the political left- to-right, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Steve Bannon come to mind. The reader can surely insert a few favorite names here.

Yet, Popper believed that social criticism was essential for the success of an open society. He advanced the paradoxical idea that “in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.” Popper adds a warning that, if a society is unlimitedly tolerant, its ability to be tolerant is eventually destroyed by the intolerant. Such is the tongue-twisting paradox of tolerance.

The paradox enters our daily lives when deciding what restrictions, if any, are to be applied to freedom of speech. Popper believed that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use such freedom to eliminate freedoms was contradictory. That is, allowing freedom of speech to those that would suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree is inconsistent. So, what freedoms of speech should a tolerant society extend to the intolerant fascists and communist ideologues among us?

Popper, as well as John Rawls, two of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, offered some ideas. The American attitude is to tolerate intolerant views almost without limits. But that, for Popper and Rawls, seemed risky. If the intolerant seek to destroy a society, that society has the right to become intolerant of such views in order to preserve itself. Thus, Rawls added a “self-preservation” exclusionary clause to his tolerance.

In current free speech practice, we seem to have adopted a double standard. Totalitarian views of the right (e.g. fascism) are not to be tolerated, but totalitarian views of the left (e.g., communism) are permissible. For example, if a Neo-Nazi is invited to speak at one of our universities, the appearance is likely to be cancelled in a furor of protests. In fact, even moderate conservative speakers encounter significant backlash. Yet, totalitarian left-wing speakers do not face such a hostile environment.

At this point some clueless reader, who has nothing to say, and says it very badly, will object to my counterpoising racist fascism with “altruistic” communism. Let’s review the historical facts of democide by fascist and communist regimes. Democide, or death by government, is the useful term introduced by R. J. Rummel to define “the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command.”

When it comes to democide, Hitler’s Nacional-Socialists are responsible for approximate twenty million victims. Similarly, The Black Book of Communism estimates one hundred million individuals murdered by Marxist socialists in the 20th century. The authors examine the China of “the Great Helmsman,” Kim Il Sung’s Korea, Vietnam under “Uncle Ho,” Cuba under the Castros, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah.

In a liberal society, the rule of law must protect even odious beliefs. So, should a tolerant society allow a fascist like Steve Bannon, or a socialist like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the right to disseminate intolerant ideas that undermine the foundations of society? Or, should a society, refuse to tolerate the intolerant? Either undertaking is defensible, but somehow, I am not sure on what grounds, we seem to have concluded that Bannon’s odious beliefs should be banned from public discourse, but Ocasio-Cortez’s democide producing beliefs should not.

Perhaps the most consistent way to address the paradox of tolerance is not to display intolerance to ideas that make us uncomfortable, that differ from ours, or even to ideas that make us mad. We should reach for intolerance only when those ideas present a clear and present danger to our political order. Meanwhile, we can choose to avoid those politicians, celebrities, and columnists who have nothing to say, and say it very badly.

José Azel

José Azel

José Azel is a scholar and author. Dr. Azel‘s latest book is “Reflections on Freedom.”

Related Posts

CNN Fake News: The Network’s Efforts to Justify Its Actions May Be Worse than Its Actual Flawed Reporting
Ideology

CNN’s audience in 2024 was the lowest in its history

December 21, 2024
Can Socialism Compete “On Equal Terms” in the Field of Ideas?
Argentina

Can Socialism Compete “On Equal Terms” in the Field of Ideas?

November 20, 2024
In one of Palermo's most iconic venues, Paul Corban played for an intimate audience, surrounded by flickering candles and the rhythmic murmur of Malbec glasses clinking together.
Culture

The Paul Corban Experience: A Night to Be Thankful For

November 17, 2024
The Democratic campaign organized celebrity concerts in the seven key states, all of which they ended up losing. (EFE)
Columnists

The Only Thing Kamala Harris Won in the Election: Debt and Hollywood’s Useless Support

November 12, 2024
In the style of Milei: "Department of Education, Out!" (Archive).
Columnists

Good News from Trump: He Will Close the Department of Education in the U.S.

November 12, 2024
A Rock N’ Roll Mystery: Dan Rather’s ‘Kenneth Frequency’
News

A Rock N’ Roll Mystery: Dan Rather’s ‘Kenneth Frequency’

November 10, 2024
Next Post
Chavez’s Favorite Banker, Victor Vargas’ banks closed down

Chavez’s Favorite Banker, Victor Vargas' banks closed down

Subscribe free and never miss another breaking story

  • Venezuela
  • Mexico
  • Colombia
  • Chile
  • Brazil
  • Argentina
  • Podcast

© 2024 PanAm Post - Design & Develop by NEW DREAM GLOBAL CORP. - Privacy policy

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Regions
    • South America
    • North America
    • Central America
    • Caribbean
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Authors
  • Contact

© 2024 PanAm Post - Design & Develop by NEW DREAM GLOBAL CORP. - Privacy policy

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Privacy and Cookie Policy.