There are lots of people who have been beaten up by Antifa who weren't "intolerant", unless you re-define "intolerant" to "anyone who rejects the world view of the identity politics crowd", which would in itself discredit the argument as being inherently authoritarian. Alison Stanger, for one. But leaving that aside, I've seen a bunch of Popper references pop up (lolol) on social media in the past week. Here's the key passage.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Meeting a real, immediate threat of violence with violence is something that one can put forward an argument for... though even in that circumstance the law asks that you first try to find a way to avoid it by running away, if necessary, in an effort to preserve the state monopoly on violence. But regardless, even Karl Popper, who is expressing an extreme proposal on the justifiable limits of free speech (one that goes farther even than Canada's policies), and doing so in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, is predicating his argument on the logic of self-defense.
Interestingly, that same passage pretty directly condones beating up postmodernists.