Tricky to leverage

bro just peg a new stablecoin to it if it's so liquid...

That sounds frustrating, even stressful- sorry you had those experiences. I think trust is often the first thing to go in some of these spaces, but imo it's also what's essential for being able to approach disagreement with respect, humility and understanding. And so, I don't know what to suggest other than just keeping on trucking trying to build that trust where we can, and focusing on understanding each other foremost. And then just being sure to take time for ourselves when we need it if the stress ever gets too much.

Thanks, and yes I can imagine it's frustrating when you know a lot about a topic and people who don't come in and make a bunch of authoritative claims about it! I'm sorry if it came across like I was doing that- my intention was only to share my take on the meaning of the specific quote. I'm more than happy to leave all actual debate and discussion on the topic itself to people who know wtf they're talking about, or who actually have an opinion on it!

I disagree with this assessment of the text - assuming it's correct, I'm not familiar with the source.

What this extract is saying imo is as long as it's possible to effectively keep in check and counter intolerance with argument and public opinion, suppression is unwise.

But, tolerance should reserve the right to suppress intolerance before it becomes violent, specifically when intolerance acts in bad faith and refuses to participate in logical argument or debate, and instead denounces argument entirely.

So the threshold is not violence itself, but one example of what "may" lead to violence.

Just my 2¢ on the text (not my opinion on the topic).

nah, they'd never touch this liquidity pool

I guess my view on that section is still that it's just an example of what can happen and why to reserve the right to suppression, but not a threshold or reasonable scenario for when to apply suppression.

for it may easily turn out that..

To me, this really isn't saying: "this is one case where it's reasonable to apply suppression", but rather more simply: "because the following may easily occur with intolerant philosophies".

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to reply and expand more on your take. I think let's just say we understand it differently and leave it at that?

You should take the time to read Popper's writing.

I'll consider this suggestion, thanks.

"Intolerant philosophies" aren't simply anyone saying they don't like a certain person or group of people for any particular reason or no reason at all. That's a basic part of the human condition.

Good to know. I was just quoting "intolerant philosophies" from the paragraph before to signify continued reference, but not to try to infer what the author meant by that term - as you know, I have no idea.

You seem to be trying to twist this into saying that it's all right to suppress, even with violence, anyone who says something that you might not like to hear. That's the polar opposite of tolerance and of everything that Popped was saying.

I'm sorry that it comes across this way. I really don't want to twist anything. I just wanted to share my understanding of the words in the quote. I've said many times that I am not agreeing with or endorsing the position that I understand from the text. I also don't agree that your description here is what I've said I understand from it.

You don't get to suppress people just because you think that maybe eventually at some point they might be violent. That would mean killing or suppressing every other human on the planet who doesn't hold a worldview that matches yours on topics you feel are important. It's not the same or rational view to hold.

I don't think I understand the text to mean this either. But whatever it does mean, I'm not agreeing with or endorsing it.

As I suggested elsewhere, let's just agree to disagree on the meaning of the text itself? And please rest assured that none of this reflects my own opinion on what tolerance is.

I've re-read it and still kindly and respectfully disagree about the meaning of that excerpt in isolation. Whatever the implications of this interpretation are, I have no idea because I'm not familiar with the work (however naïvely).

Here's a detailed breakdown of my take:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;

The key word here is always, so, intolerant philosophies shouldn't always be suppressed.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

The condition for not suppressing intolerant philosophies is if they can be kept in check and countered by public opinion and rational argument.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;

Reserve the right to suppression if necessary..

for it may easily turn out that

Because the following things might easily happen:

they [the intolerant] 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.

An example of what may occur when the first approach fails due to essentially bad faith, and the reasoning for why to reserve the right to suppression. But it doesn't frame violence as the threshold for when to apply that suppression.

Anyway, that's my take. I'm still assuming this quote is accurate - I haven't checked it.

And once again I'm absolutely not agreeing with these positions or assertions about the suppression of intolerance, this is just how I understand the text.

I don't think I'm saying that that's what the quote implies- when and how to use force within suppression isn't mentioned in the quote at all, it just says to reserve the right to suppression "even by force". But like I said, I'm not arguing a position or saying I agree with my understanding of the quote, I'm just sharing my understanding because it differed to someone else's.

I think it's more like, I read someone say "this quote means X and it supports my position on this topic".

But, when I read the quote I thought "hmm, I really don't think that's what the words in that quote mean.." and so I decided to share that.

If you disagree with my take that's totally fine! I'm also not trying to make any claim as to the author's overall position. At this point I hope we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Thanks for clarifying the quote's source etc.

I still kindly disagree with this understanding of the language though.

To me that whole section is justification for why to reserve the right to suppression: because the intolerant may not engage with argument in good faith, and they may instead tell their followers to denounce logical argument altogether and be violent.

The key word here is may, which to me means "this might happen". I basically read this as a warning of a potential outcome of intolerant philosophies - and why suppression might be needed and why to reserve the right to it - but not a threshold for when to suppress them.

But, at this point it seems like we might just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the quote!

And once again, none of this is my opinion on the topic itself and I'm not endorsing a position, I'm only offering my understanding of the quote.

So, the above was just my understanding of what the small snippet of text was saying, because I understood it differently to JasSmith, and I wanted to share that. But I wasn't endorsing or agreeing with the position of the text itself.