/lit/ - Literature

>>22760926
read pic rel then get back to me

>>21419801
>Don’t they realize they would benefit the most from society being open and inclusive?
Popper explicitly says chuds have to be crushed for the good of everyone else.

>>18954622
If violence is all that you see as legitimate, than we have a go ahead to pit you against a wall.

>>18954643
What do you want?

Can /lit/ recommend me any books with secular critiques of liberal tolerance?

For more context, a quote from conservative thinker Richard Weaver:

>There is abroad in democracies today an idea that to criticize anybody for anything is treasonable, that the weak, the self-indulgent, and the vicious have the same claims toward respect and reward as anybody else, and that if a man chooses to be a beast, he has a sort of natural, inviolable right to be one. As far as I can see, there is no possible way of opposing this idea until we admit the existence of evil and the duty of combatting it.

I’m curious to hear arguments in opposition to this idea that don’t rely on nebulous mystical concepts like “evil”. I read Lasch and I think he gets close.

I am not looking for arguments like picrel or those like it (e.g., Marcuse).

>>18737985
There is a difference between being weary of intolerants gaining power and censoring lower class people for having bigoted opinions.

Open boarders for Israel.

>"The philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902–94) argued that the seeds of repressive societies were sown by political philosophers themselves – Plato, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx."
what an absolute retard. dont share his opinion, even if thats true, is it a bad thing?
i heard leo strauss fucked popper in the ass with hardcore owns.

>>18199342

>>17982614


>>17982764
Whadaya talkin about? I’d fuck me. Don’t care if you would. Really wouldn’t want it in fact.

>>17701129
>Unironically calling someone a dumb fuck while call for fascism to save him from censorship

How did you find this board? Get out.

>>17127459
Hold still

>>14933366
Sociopaths, when spotted doing something intentionally malicious to one of our own are smashed with rocks.

>>14899708
The headline says “most”

>>14492098
>I don’t get it!

Can /lit/ possibly refute this? Seems like some airtight logic

>>14215724
>>14215898
>You should tolerate the intolerant
>How else can we establish our monoculture of Christian NPC fascism
Of course the finer points of the argument are lost on you. You’re literally hollow heads

>pulls pin

>>13347116
>drops in lap

>>12085592
stop trying to summon /pol/

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."

When people cite Karl Popper as an excuse to anti-protest racists they're sorely misinterpreting their designated role in the paradox of tolerance. Hate speech should be countered with rational discourse, not outright immediate suppression. Society gets nowhere by plugging your ears and shouting "SHUT UP!" louder than your opposition can spew their polemic.