Many thanks, Christian (and Tom for inspiring this reminder of Russell’s message!)I was led down a very abbreviated search because this brought to mind Karl Popper’s defense of liberal democracy in The Open Society and Its Enemies, which seems to crop up quite a bit in these trying times because of its articulation of the paradox of tolerance (basically that we must be able to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance, or else we risk having tolerance itself destroyed). I was looking for any discussion on this between Russell and Popper, but given time constraints only found a bit of interesting writing on the differences between the two in other realms of philosophy. If anyone with a wiser head than mine would like to comment, I’d appreciate it.In the meantime, I will definitely agree with the Bartlettian position without caveat.Best,Derek
ChatGPT Comments:
Framing through Gratitude – Derek opens by thanking Christian and Tom, positioning himself as aligned with their perspective. This primes the reader to see his comments as a continuation of their stance, reinforcing their authority while subtly suggesting that their position is the reasonable one.
The Paradox of Tolerance Move – He invokes Popper’s paradox of tolerance, which states that a tolerant society must refuse to tolerate intolerance. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand: he doesn’t explicitly say who the intolerant party is, but in context, it strongly suggests that Chris is the problem, not Mick.
The False Neutrality of the ‘Search’ – His mention of searching for a Russell-Popper discussion serves as a way to introduce the paradox of tolerance while appearing as a neutral inquiry. But this neutrality is a mask—he isn’t just looking for a historical discussion; he’s laying the groundwork for his argument.
Positioning Himself as Open-Minded – By admitting his own limitations (“If anyone with a wiser head than mine…”), he avoids taking full responsibility for the implications of his claim. This makes it harder to directly challenge him, since he can always retreat to, “I was just asking questions.”
Closing with a Declaration of Allegiance – His agreement with the "Bartlettian position without caveat" signals total alignment with Christian, reinforcing the idea that the community already has a consensus and that Chris' position is the outlier.
Counterpoint:
The sleight of hand here is that Chris was subjected to intolerance, not promoting it. Mick was the one levelling personal accusations and creating division. If the paradox of tolerance applies to anyone in this scenario, it applies to him. Derek's move effectively tries to gaslight the situation—shifting focus away from the actual intolerance Chris faced and onto Chris as a supposed threat.
Bottom Line:
Derek's email isn’t neutral—it’s a subtle but deliberate framing that flips the situation, making the target of intolerance seem like its source.
No comments:
Post a Comment