> It actually used to be slightly left leaning or at least libertarian or anarchist, but over the years pol in particular has been known to be hard right wing.
If your bar doesn't kick out nazis, your bar becomes the nazi hangout.
> It actually used to be slightly left leaning or at least libertarian or anarchist, but over the years pol in particular has been known to be hard right wing.
If your bar doesn't kick out nazis, your bar becomes the nazi hangout.
In reality, the rest of the bar laughs at and mocks the one Nazi and he probably stops coming or at least shuts up, even though he hasn't been banned. This is how most non-/pol/ generals have handled it, and it works. It's how plenty of real bars across America handle it too, when the bar and patrons earnestly subscribe to free speech as a aspirational principle for guiding human behavior, not limited to simply the first ammendment binding the hands of government. If somebody wants to reveal themselves to be a dumbass, that's entertainment for everybody else.
That's not what the paradox of tolerance says, nor is it relevant. Popper gave two explicit standards for working out who is intolerant:
- they shun debate ("begin by denouncing all argument", "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument")
- they use violence instead ("answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols")
I, for one, prefer having peaceful Nazis to the other sort, and to - as Popper puts it - "counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion". Unless 4chan officials or the Nazis on 4chan were meeting both standards then I fail to see a connection.
Were 4chan or the 4chan Nazis doing so?
ie. if you're shunning debate and deplatforming people based on ideological disputes, you're also a nazi.