/lit/ - Literature

>>17192644
This but swap the Nazis and the neolibs in the comic

>>17192644
No. If your "free society" can't exist while people voice dissent(because let's be real he means suppress anyone vaguely outside of the accepted liberal frame, left or right) then it's shit.

>>17192651
If you have a problem with neolibs you're a racist, a sexist, a transphobe, a homophobe or possibly all of them.

>>17192651
They’re tightening the screws because of the reaction to the declining economy. They k ow what’s coming for them. And they will go full dictatorship if they have to.

>>17192644
Every system cracks down on and destroys competing systems that pose a danger to it, only liberalism has to engage in the mental gymnastics of explaining how natural and healthy intolerance is totally still tolerance by way of some paradox.

>>17192672
Ow try it from a socialist standpoint

>>17192670
Don't bite the hand that feeds you stupid whore. Without liberals your insignificant life would still depend entirely on a man.

This comic is so retarded and historically illiterate that it made me never want to read Karl Popper(what a stupid name).

the nazis didnt just come to power because no one decided to stop them i dont think thats how it works

>>17192696
Now try it from a socialist standpoint

>>17192644
You can tolerate an idea while acting to prevent its implementation. The problem with the OP image is that it implies that allowing people to hold and express Nazi views means you're also obliged to stand by and do nothing if Nazis try to seize power over society.

>>17192644
This argument will only be used by those who hold institutional power and fear losing it. The fact that contemporary liberals are employing it is a sign of their weakness rather then strength. A similar argument used against KPD was instrumental in bringing about fascist Germany. Has anyone here actually read Popper? Is his take really that thoughtless?

>>17192670
Possibly

Not today, commie

>>17192707
I'd like to try YOU from a socialist standpoint, if you know what I mean.

>>17192698
>historically illiterate
How do you mean?

>>17192699
The rightwing politicians allowed his faction power. It wasn’t democratic at all. They purged the socialists. That’s how it worked.

>>17192644
In Eric Voegelin's words:
>Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able to even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says.
Popper was a pretty good philosopher of science who, having succeeded at shifting the discussion in that area, became so full of himself that he thought he could take on whatever field of philosophy he wanted without any knowledge of it. He ended up failing; he's the equivalent of Ayn Rand for centrists.

Yes, he was correct in what he said
He didn't actually say anything resembling the image though
He agrees with the typical criticisms of the image
Popper was much more frightened of violent partisans and troubled himself a lot over whether threat of violence was enough or whether actual violence needed to take place

>>17192644
Disgusting Anglo shithead and even more vile globohomo art

>>17192644
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE HECKING TOLERANCERINO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"
If your "democratic" system can't survive popular opinion maybe it fucking deserves to die, ever thought of that?
>>17192663
This. I used to hate communists, now I have liberals ten times as much.

>>17192732
>How do you mean?
Yeah Hitler just got into power because Hindenburg thought they should tolerate his ideas lmao

>>17192719
>means you're also obliged to stand by and do nothing if Nazis try to seize power over society.

seems like a silly argument given that Nazis did a whole bunch of political chicanery to make it that far; in addition to simply surging in population in reaction to the destitution of Germany and degeneracy of Weimar Berlin.

Popperism (as portrayed in the comic, haven't read the man) seems to only exist to silence the reaction, not fix (or reform) the cause.

>>17192644
Most pseud thinker in history.

>>17192750
So wait, you’re saying Hitler killed him in a duel or something?

>>17192765
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

>>17192765
I'd like to kill YOU in a duel... fought with genitals.

>>17192781
Same desu

>>17192644

>>17192793
I was mostly joking but I see she is actually pretty cute.

i too believe we should dispose of those that cause diversity and dissent in our beautiful consumerist society should be socially castrated to imageboards and faggy academic social cliques

>>17192644
Subversive little jew

>>17192882
>little
Popper was 6'1", gentile manlet.

>>17192810
>>17192644
I unironically approve the content of both of these comics

>>17192665
I think it’s more racist and sexist to identify the person based on gender or race and then address them using predetermined adjectives that intentionally create division.

>>17192882
>Subversive

>>17192644
Do we live in a tolerant society? What is a "tolerant society"? Don't we live in countries? Are countries are torelant society by definition? Are there countries which are not a "tolerant society" that have a state of law? Does this state of law allow citizens to critize the concept of "tolerant society"? What do we choose, the tradition from Athens to Justinian, or the strawmans of some guy that has the name of a drug that facilitates anal dilatation?

>>17192644
but who decides what constitutes intolerance?

>>17192891
Are you jewish?

>>17192707
Butt fly, if you are actually female and not some headcase tranny, find a guy you can like and pin him down somehow.

>>17192810
Interesting.

>>17192644
I think he's misusing the word "tolerance."
For example, tolerating orgies doesn't necessarily mean taking part in them...
You can tolerant of a different viewpoint while still voicing your own, opposing view.

>>17192644
It's a shit point because tolerance is an imprecise term, that captures a lot of behaviors that are very different from each other.

>>17193062
Uh, strict vagitarian, but something like that, sure.

>>17192793
>>17192820
extreme doubt
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/13995871/#13995871

>>17192644
no

in fact
there is no paradox at all

>>17192981
you're reading too much into it. this tolerance paradox is just an excuse used by redditors to accuse anyone they dont like of being nazis and to assault them

>>17193117
Hypothetically speaking if you suddenly find a guy you develop previously unrealised feelings for, then you jump.

>>17192882

How can a nazi who creates homogeneity and social control by exclusion un-hypocritically demand to be included in the society on the basis that that society should include them because exclusion is bad?

Jesus Christ.
Is this a literature board?
Why is it that not a single person here understands how paradox works or how to counter it?

>>17192665
I believe in differences between the races and the sexes. I do not believe in mentally ill men getting surgery that coincides with their delusions. And I do not have any problem with homosexuals as long as they are placed in a way that does not conflict with society, in nations like China, you can live out your life as a homosexual with no issues, but they are not politicized or cause conflict in society like they do in neoliberal regimes.

>>17193244
no actual Nazi would argue that. It's not a real paradox if it's just straw.

No because it isn't true tolerance anymore, at least not tolerance to ideas. So you can't really call it tolerance unless you're okay with lying, which most people are.
If the only way to continue a movement's existence is to ideologically betray the movement then the movement is already dead.

>>17193244
The "paradox" is predicated on the subversive implication that thought and action are equivalent.

I can hate a man and think of him in any way I choose, and not act on that hatred or imagery.
That's tolerance.
I'll trade economy with him.
I won't threaten him.
I'll still think he's scum.

The counter declaration is a means of rationalizing violence before you've actually been acted against.

A society cannot be tolerant. Liberals just use the word to signal that they're the morally good and not the so-called "intolerant".

>>17192644
I think, considering the context, Popper's idea of intolerance was something more dire than nasty words

>>17193399
in the US you can be kicked out of college for saying "nigger" 4 years prior. We are in fact at the point of "mean words are the first step on the path to the gas chamber".

>>17193244
Because the Nazi's opponents claim to value freedom of speech and tolerance to opposing ideas. Whether the Nazi himself values or does not value these things doesn't make the society itself any more or less hypocritical when they refuse to let him express his ideas. What is so confusing to you?

>>17192922
>t. straight white male

No, this shit literally makes no sense. It’s a paradox.

>>17193548
t. Envious cretin who obsessed over whites

>>17193638
your white fragility please

>>17192644
Doesn't he refute himself by being a jew complaining that nazis aren't getting gassed?

>>17193659
>>17193638
Turn down Ben Shapiro grandpa

He was right, but he was also originally talking about commies not nazis.

>>17192644

>how to be a hypocrite

No, it only indicates that tolerance is too unstable to be a worthwhile social force, and its institutionalization provides a path to tyranny. The answer to this paradox should be that we should be intolerant of tolerance and those who preach it.

Let me ask a different question.

Can you, without contradiction, tolerate Muslims and Homosexuals? Obviously, the answer is no, because by tolerating Muslims you are tolerating intolerance towards homosexuals. The paradox is that tolerance to all is fundamentally incompatible.

So you are left to choose between tolerating either Muslims or Homosexuals. Since Muslims are the intolerant ones, you should (in the name of tolerance) ban Islam. By Popper's logic, this is a good argument. Except now that I've replaced "Nazis" with "Muslims", it suddenly sounds unacceptable.

>>17193857
>you ought to tolerate even those who want to genocide you
Left or right liberal?

>>17192644
Comic is super islamaphobic desu

>>17193927
>Since Muslims are the intolerant ones,
But the fags also are intolerant for banning muslims. Tolerance as a primary virtue is just retarded, regardless of how you try to spin it

>>17193936
Who are you quoting?

>>17193927
>Why yes, the politics of victimhood and contemporary oppression olympics do arise out of the veneration of tolerance.

>>17193950
Gays are not banning Islam, they are (e.g. in the Middle East) attempting to live there without getting beheaded. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Also I don't give a fuck about either gays or Muslims so please don't start your rambling about your obsession with fags to me.

>>17193955
—> >>17193857

>>17193970
You must be illiterate

>>17192644
boring language dispute that only serves to aid liberalism and expand the definition of terrorist to wrongthinkers

>>17193936
>Left or right liberal?
Ah so you're a communist?

>>17193967
>Gays are not banning Islam
>they are attempting to live there without getting beheaded
To me it seems gays aren't tolerating Islam by forcefully removing its power over the state

>>17193959
I gave up discussing this sort of stuff on this site because you're only interested in arguing with strawmen.

>>17193828
I don't get it, what's wrong with Islam?

>>17193986

>>17193936
Tripfag, I... look, if your ideology is all about tolerance and freedom of thought, drawing arbitrary limitations is fundamentally dishonest. Otherwise, every regime that decimates dissidents qualifies as a "tolerant" and "free thinking" regime.

>>17193967
If the fags want to survive they must be intolerant of islam. Your hypothetical included the exclusion of muslims, making both parties equally intolerant. Contrary worldviews need to exclude each other to ensure survival, thus making tolerance impossible without being suicidal. Tolerance is not a virtue in itself in Poppers example.
>don't start your rambling about your obsession with fags to me.
It's the example you made gay boy

>>17194035
You're struggling to follow very basic logic. Either a Muslim who got angry and felt the need to defend his religion, or an actual retard.

>>17194018
Ah so a reddit-tier communist, great. filtered.

Then ban libertarians too, lest they come to power, and unban the nazis, which could lead to the 4th Reich. Anyone who wants to unban the libertarians will need to be dealt with too.

>>17194069
It doesn't matter that Islam is the original aggressor. It might not even be the case. Homosexuality is mutually exclusive to Islam so coexistence is impossible. You're trying desperately to cling on to tolerance where there is no tolerance.

>>17194035
But if "Islam" wants to survive in that contains the elements its practitioners find essential. The Islamic faith as it is understood by its followers means something more to them than just an organized religion with that name, and that fact isn't changed by the shallow understanding of it that secular materialists have.

>>17192644
All Popper proves is the impossibility of 'tolerance'- NOT that we should not tolerate the intolerant. There is no principled difference between Popper's intolerance and the kind he intends to critique.

>>17192696
Without liberals, Butterfly would still BE a man

>>17192644
All Rightists should be put into camps I agree. Don't give a shit about tolerance though they are just retarded.

>>17192644
Yes. All chuds must be immediately gassed.

>>17194196
>>17194200
BASED BASED BASED BASED

I fucking hate how libs have to lie themselves into thinking that the ruling class silencing dissent is a bad thing while advocating for it. Nigga just run with it, everyone historically did the same

>>17194019

>>17194142
I think that most sensible people have abandoned tolerance as an end-goal goal at this point. The kind of social transformation and accommodation the left wants to achieve goes far beyond what could be described as tolerance.

>>17194076
>Reducing authors to "reddit"
Retard spotted.

>>17194196
>>17194200
based bootlickers

>>17192644
No, since tolerance is arbitrary
Nazis kicking out every other party is ok by Poppers logic since they are the status quo now

>>17194443
Chuds are the bootlickers.
Yes, some pro-censorship liberals are also bootlickers.
Kropotkin is the opposite of bootlicker

>>17194458
>Yes, some pro-censorship liberals are also bootlickers.
The amount of anarchists and communists that get behind them and their outsourced discipline project (even if it is just to achieve some short term goals) indicates otherwise.

Tolerance applies a mapping to some object, and there are implicit power relations involved in it. What is not being tolerated? The problem with nazis is that they hate jews, it's that they want to and did kill them. People have a right to hate. They have a right to their feelings. What they don't have a right to do is violate the rights of others.

For this reason, a better version of the problem is the paradox of violence. The only people who should have violence inflicted on them are violent people. Self-defense is justified but not initiative violence. If you are pacifistic to someone who is killing you, you'll be dead.

Otherwise, you invite a subtle slippery slope. There is a lot of bullshit that shouldn't be tolerated, that gets a free pass in a radically tolerant society. It's ultimately an issue about self-defense. There is no paradox of intolerance.

>>17194539
Correction:
The problem with nazis is NOT that they hate jews

>>17192644
No, because his premise is false. He attempts to draw the conclusion that "intolerant" speech should not be tolerated, because in the past it has brought about systems that extinguished toleration. However, this is a lie, as the Nazis did not come to power through speech, but through street violence, intimidation, and a legal system biased towards them (jailing Communist street fighters but letting the Nazi ones go free). This is sufficient to prove that violently intolerant acts should not be tolerated, but no liberal system like what he claims to criticize makes a claim that they should. Popper is equivocating intolerant acts with speech and using it to create a bad-faith argument for illiberal speech restriction.

>>17194458
butters can i be ur bootlicker
- and by "can i be ur" i mean "will you sit on"
- and by "bootlicker" i mean "my face"
pls respodns

>Old Kike's Kike Paradox
Snooze

>>17194539
>For this reason, a better version of the problem is the paradox of violence. The only people who should have violence inflicted on them are violent people. Self-defense is justified but not initiative violence. If you are pacifistic to someone who is killing you, you'll be dead.
The reason that the paradox of tolerance is relevant because this contradiction is seemingly inherent to the concept of tolerance. The same isn't true for the concept of violence, so it's a rather silly comparison.

Why do right wingers ignore this guy completely but obsess over Karl marx?

>>17194586
They target Soros in his place.

>>17192698
Read him anyway faggot, even if this Jew's stupid ideas on the open society are retarded you should still engage with it and his philosophy of science is still quite good.

>>17194503
>anarchists and communists
The aimless antifa? They’re for stomping out fascism, whether the threat is real or imagined.

>>17194559
You need a nice revolutionary girl into that sort of thing. Pic for you

>>17194586
Because (((Popper))) BTFO of Marxists and anyway most conservatives are liberals anyway and they endorse democracy and censorship anyway.

>>17194615
>anyway
>anyway
>anyway
Holy shit, why am I like this?

>>17194592
Which is fitting, as Soros' openly stated goal (he even named his society after Popper's shitty book) is to force Popperism down every nation's throat whether they want it or not. Popper's ideas would just be academic wank if there wasn't a crazy billionaire obsessed with spreading them.

>>17194579
No. What's duplicitous about Popper's claim is that he makes a moral position (tolerance) seem as though it is subject to logic. It's a normative statement that intolerant people shouldn't be tolerated. Both subjects are on a logical level equally intolerant. What matters is the degree of intolerance and the ultimate form of intolerance is violence.

>>17194624
You don't read your posts before you hit submit.

>>17194586
Marx was far more impactful.

>>17194443
Democracy is bourgeois. There is no democracy in the dictatorship of the proletariat and after.

>>17194592
A fatal mistake. Cut the head off.
>>17194600
This. Imagine not wanting to engage something which creates a reality you are not content with.
Is it fear? Cowardice that you'd become "the enemy"? Converted?
Don't be afraid of death.

>>17194539
What should be tolerated and what shouldn't are inseparably enmeshed into a net of completely arbitrary power relations, therefore not tolerating the intolerant is 100% an exercise in enforcing the status quo rather than it being in any way an ethical issue, due to its arbitrary nature.

>>17194600
His philosophy of science is even more retarded.

There are only two sides to take on the free speech issue. Free Speech absolutism or free speech abolitionism. There is no middle ground. That being said both sides of the issue are understandable.

>>17192721
>Has anyone here actually read Popper?
I had to read him (this half of that book, actually, it's from "The Spell of Plato") as an undergraduate
>Is his take really that thoughtless?
No but it's not that novel either. His real take is similar to Mill's On Liberty-- sort of.
Also if they're going to put this in the context of Nazi Germany it's worth reading about the Nazis and the Weimar constitution.
I'm too tired to elaborate, Popper has interesting ideas but isn't that great and I wouldn't believe anything from a comic. Those are for little people.

>>17194639
I normally do though...
Like, I read the same 3 lines over and over obsessively before I post just so I make sure I didn't make an error and that it reads well.
It just so happened that this time I simply decided to not read my post over a gorillion times (I think I was trying to beat the CAPTCHA timer) and I wrote like I think (like an absolute retarded).
Fuck me.

>>17194731
Well, you can't win them all.
That's the nice part about being anonymous, you can just let your retarded posts die without actually being associated with them.

If some skinhead retards can make the tolerant society collapse that society probably wasnt worth a shit.

>>17194665
>the dictatorship of the proletariat
you don't mean 'the dictatorship of the party, and mostly one guy' right? You mean that the actual millions of people are somehow being the dictatorship surely

>>17194706
Explain faggot, it's so obvious that he's right that it's really hard for anyone with a brain to disagree.
Or are you one of those "methodological anarchist" pseuds?

>>17194745
Tankies or trolls pretending to be tankies don’t know the difference

>>17192644
No, because he makes a subjective claim that tolerance is good, but not for the intolerant. If you take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you'll come to realize it's untenable to hold tolerance as a moral axiom.

>>17193927
>>17193927
>So you are left to choose between tolerating either Muslims or Homosexuals. Since Muslims are the intolerant ones, you should (in the name of tolerance) ban Islam. By Popper's logic, this is a good argument. Except now that I've replaced "Nazis" with "Muslims", it suddenly sounds unacceptable.
Based. These are the same guys that would say we got to respect the muslerinos.
You elegantly showed why Popper is full of shit.

>>17194722
Free speech requires allowing for speech that calls for its destruction. Free speech absolutism is destined to fail for this reason.

>>17192644
Popper never meant this

>>17194889
Except you're falsely assuming that speech calling for the destruction of free speech will actually bring that about. As per >>17194552 there's no reason to assume this based on what actually brought past speech-restricting regimes into power, and it is much more likely that the freedom for anyone to debate someone advocating the destruction of free speech would result in the better idea winning out in the court of public opinion (which would presumably be free speech, based on the self-interest of the listeners proven by the very fact of their participation in the public forum).

>>17194858
It's a form of political masquerading by having a philosophy to point to when in reality it's real purpose is different.
Who is the enemy according to it? Does it apply the logic with a consistent logic? I.e. not dubious cherry picking.

>>17194634
>What's duplicitous about Popper's claim is that he makes a moral position (tolerance) seem as though it is subject to logic. It's a normative statement that intolerant people shouldn't be tolerated.
Are they not? Is it okay for our moral positions to be contradictory or invalid?

>>17192644
Tolerance doesn't mean anything. Tolerant to what end? The implicit tolerance being hinted at is the tolerance of the multicultural empire; a political coalition that can only be grown with the help of white acquiescence. That's why muslims are tolerable and why the ethnocentrism of black people is encouraged. It's also why nazis are disagreeable, they would actually prevent this growth from happening. You're never "tolerating" or "not tolerating" anything, you're always bending the knee

>>17192644
No. Good and tolerant ideas ought to outwin the bad and intolreant ones by merit of their own virtue. If we do not tolerate the intolerant who the fuck do we tolerate? We are by definition intolerant.

This is a coward's philosophy. Nazi philosophy ought to be out in the open so it can be seen for what it is and critiqued directly - not martyred and then protected from scrutiny by the shadow of cowardly moralizing.

And those who will be swayed by these intolerant ideologies anyways are 1) the price of a higher road - and why would the higher road ever be cheap 2) likely to manifest into political more than ideological enemies if their violent ideologies should ever be put into action will out themselves as our enemies, as those of violent enmity - far more than mere ideas of intolerance - cannot be allowed and can and will be killed with the clean conscience of knowing they themselves willing took up a position and arms against us. There is no evil in a mutual engagement in violence.

>>17192644
but... it's not illegal to be a nazi in america and nazism is all but dead.
>b-but trump
no, nazism is politically and ideologically irrelevant today. it mostly serves as coping for big fat white chuds.

so in the end nazism got outcompeted. nothing wrong with letting people free decide what's most valuable to them.

>>17195074
wow that last paragraph is a fucking mess

My point was, when the intolerant put their philosophies into violent action we kill them in self defense, simple as.

>>17192644
>"My ideas are so bad that if we even let people express other ones I will be destroyed"

Popper is right. Without constant violent suppression of other ideas, Neoliberalism will invariably be defeated. This is however mostly a condemnation of his gay religion, not of the intolerance of Fascism--which was purely reactive to the criminal behavior of people bearing his ideology.

>>17192670
They can try. Sooner or later it will be a war on two fronts.

Tolerance is such a lame value anyway. Really an anti-value. "I put up with what I don't like." You want a medal? That's just what the weak do.

>>17193040
No, but my boyfriend is.

>>17192644
If you need to put philosopher in front of your name, then you're not one

>>17193040
>Are you jewish
No, but my boyfriend is.

>>17192793
Wait I know her

>>17192644
Should a [Y] society tolerate [X set of ideas that undermine its foundations]? No, because eventually [X set of ideas that undermine its foundations] will use that tolerance to propel itself into power, resulting in the destruction of [Y] society.

Yes, Popper was right, though not in the way he thought he was.

>>17192921
Islamonazism soon
Best part is these freaks will yaaas kween all the way to the death camp

>>17192644
Tolerance is a pathetic thing to uphold as a virtue to begin with. This "paradox" is just the idea collapsing in on itself.
>>17192665
Yes

>>17195604
I believe that the U.S. was founded by evil octopus people. Given that this is an idea that undermines our society's foundations, will you tolerate it? Or do you think I should be put to death for my belief in the octopus people?

>>17192730
is the socialist standpoint doggy style?

>>17195670
First, we must discuss what it means to tolerate the intolerant.
It means allowing them a platform on national TV.
It means taking their arguments seriously.
It means publishing their work through reputable channels, such as Princeton University Press, and advertising it in similarly reputable channels such as the New York Times.
It means devoting space to it in public debate and schooling, and giving its advocates their share of time to spread their ideas among the masses.
It means allowing those who spread it to continue to live their lives unimpeded.
I think you will find that the idea that the U.S. is founded by evil octopus people, or, to put it more seriously, that the founding of the United States and the spread of liberal democracy are not good things is not tolerated at present. If you attempt to spread it, you will find your path blocked at every stage and your life thrown into chaos. Your friends will leave you. Your wife may leave you. Your family will abandon you. You will be so completely and utterly destroyed by our decentralized system that you will want nothing more than an opportunity to recant and express total allegiance to the system.
You can probably think of a number of compelling examples that align with what I am talking about. When you stop thinking of tolerance" in these black and white terms and instead think of it in terms of the degree to which a view is welcome in public space, you will get what Popper is talking about.

>>17195742
Fuck, I haven't been on national TV or published by Princeton University Press or the New York Times. I guess I'm not being tolerated.

>>17194012
A millennium of slavery
Everything fun is banned
Genital mutilation
Inbreeding
Need I go on?

>>17195219
>wants to fight fire with fire
Team water, please.

>>17194012
Go to an Islamic country and you might get some idea.

>>17195749
Reread my post. Note that not a single regime has ever punished anyone for holding a belief in their heads without acting on it.

>>17192644

>>17194012
Have you ever seen Qataris or Saudis?

>>17195780
You claimed that "tolerating" involves, among other things, allowing the tolerated party a platform on National TV, publishing their work through channels like Princeton University Press, advertising them through channels like the New York Times, etc. I've never heard anyone define "tolerate" this way.

As I understand it, to tolerate someone is to refrain from interfering with them; to allow them to continue existing as they are. For instance, I tolerate people who believe that the Earth is flat. In other words, I don't want anyone to attack them or interfere with them just for holding and expressing their beliefs. This is separate from saying I support flat-earth manifestoes being published in the New York Times.

>>17195781
>Equating the plight of Trump voters to the Holocaust

>>17195827
You aren't getting it. Popper's point is not about letting people sit alone in a basement somewhere ruminating on whether or not the Earth is flat. His point is about ideological beliefs that seek ends contradictory to those of the liberal order. No one cares if you think African-Americans should be exterminated but refrain from sharing that belief with anyone else. The problem begins when you attempt to share it, because the sharing and platforming lead to the belief gaining legitimacy. Once the belief gains legitimacy, it becomes a serious threat to the liberal order.
If you weren't dumb and autistic, you would've gotten that PUP and NYT were simply examples of legitimate channels. If you cannot spread your belief through legitimate channels; if you cannot teach your children your belief without it constantly being undermined by the world outside your door; and if you cannot express your belief in public without coming to serious harm as a result, then your belief is not tolerated.
"In other words, I don't want anyone to attack them or interfere with them just for holding and expressing their beliefs. This is separate from saying I support flat-earth manifestoes being published in the New York Times."
This is exactly the form of "tolerance" that is given to dissident currents under "totalitarian" regimes. It was completely acceptable to express hatred and disdain for Hitler with your friends - people at all levels of society did so. What was not acceptable was to attempt to undermine the public order by spreading that belief and attempting to win legitimacy for it. Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is an attempt to justify the exact same form of behavior under liberal democracy.

>>17195839
The Holocaust (insofar as it actually existed) was a good thing.

>>17195839
not equating them as equally bad, however it's pointing out that with the logic used in the original image you should also agree to not tolerating some other groups too, such as Antifa (regardless of whether or not they're "equal" to the Nazis in "badness")

>>17192644
All this faggot shit just to say "kill people who disagree with you". Hate this self justification pussy bullshit. Just say you want to kill your political opponents instead of masking it behind "tolerance this" and "tolerance that" or "moral this" and "ethics that". Better yet, just shut the fuck up, put your money where your mouth is, go out and do it if you're going to be whining about it like some faggy fucking loser like it's the end of the world, like it's your only option.

>>17195899
>Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is an attempt to justify the exact same form of behavior under liberal democracy.
Not him. Why do you think then "Liberal" Democracy is better than Nazism?

>>17195899
>incapable of understanding that people behave based on their beliefs

>>17196391
Has it ever occurred to you that political ideologies possess characteristics other than tolerance? I dislike Nazism because I am uninterested in anti-Semitism, Slavophobia, and genocide. I am uninterested in racial science, I am uninterested in Social Darwinism, and I am uninterested in the glorification of the state. To me, they are two aspects of the same cancerous phenomenon, that is, popular sovereignty.
>>17196410
They do. This is why propaganda is necessary. When you silence the opposition and bathe them in your own side's propaganda, you ensure their destruction and your own survival.

>>17193828
Watching the Muslims crush the very liberals cheering them on rn once they gain power will be cathartic. Sure we'll all be screwed but at least they'll know they were wrong before the end.

>>17193471
I'm talking about what Popper meant when he wrote about it..

>>17196471
>propaganda is necessary
Whenever some retard tells me that something is right or correct and is incapable of justifying why it is, I immediately come to the conclusion that whatever the total opposite may be, it's true. I'd imagine back in cro-magnon times, this instinctual gut feeling would have resulted in me clobbering them over the head with a rock or some other hard object. Too bad rats like you managed to convince enough people that clearing the brush of the population was wrong.

>>17196497
Dhimmitude is better for Christians than liberalism desu

>>17196551
Perhaps in Shia/Ibadi/Sufi nations, I have very a low opinion of how Sunnis treat other faiths

>>17196541
You know, you can't actually justify much of anything through pure reason. I also suggest you read Ellul to see why propaganda is necessary.

>>17196558
I've already read Ellul, it's one of the main reasons I hate propaganda. If you can't even justify your own beliefs to yourself you're a moron and would have been beaten to death in a prior era.

>>17196572
You are completely wrong. You should read After Virtue to understand why attempts to justify beliefs on the basis of pure reason fall short.

>>17196597
I don't give a shit about philosofag memeword shit like "pure reason". If you have absolutely no clue as to how you came to a conclusion you came to, whether it be through reasoning or whatever underpants gnome bullshit you want, if you really have absolutely no clue and are just regurgitating information, I don't consider you a human being.

>>17193265
My problem with homosexuals is that 99% of them are degenerate pedophiles.

>>17194611
this bitch makes me want to slap the shit out of her.

>>17195074
Hey Tarl, how you doin tonight?

>>17192644
How is this literature?
>>17192670
fucking kys gay butterfly

>>17196639

>>17196716
that slap just turned into a closed fist

>>17196728
Mend your head
Or you dead

>>17194611
>Anarcho-Bimboism
books (or videos) about anarcho-bimbos?

>>17192665
Yeah, and?

>>17196620
You are very, very stupid.

>>17196716
Listen I'm just saying someone needs to slap some sense into her dumb skull
>>17196728
based
>>17196740
gay ass butterfly indeed.

>>17196817
Is that supposed to be insulting? You're worse than stupid, you actually convince yourself you aren't. Easy tell is you go put together these massive self aggrandizing paragraphs that ultimately serve only to posture your ego, because everything in them could be shortened down to a few simple statements.

>>17196831
No.

>No

>>17196875
>no

>(You)

>>17196827
>senseless
>wants to slap the sensible
Mend your head

>>17196897

>>17192644
Don't patronise me with your filthy comics, you cur.

>>17194175
kek

>>17192644
That makes Popper intolerant, which we shall not tolerate, and punish.

>>17192644
In the liberal mind tolerance and intolerance must be identical to eachother, we must be intolerant to be tolerant. Those who tolerate intolerance are intolerant. It really just reduces to liberals being able to censor whoever they want while simultaneously advertising themselves as free thinking and inclusive.

>>17194209
>>17194200
>>17194196
Samefag

I just want to make money. If it means reducing homosexuality and african culture to a cheap logo and ad campaign i'm all for it.

>>17192721
>Is his take really that thoughtless?

No, it's a really underhanded interpretation of him.

>>17192891
small males are genetically superior to large ones and there will only be small males in the future (and large females).

>>17192749
Unfathomably based, sir.

>>17192644
this comics does not represent actual paradox of tolerance, and people who get an opinion from this are totaly dumb niggers.


still, yeah, it's pretty gay, an absolute tolerant society is theoretically pretty good. You prosecute people from their action, not their thought. A bunch of retard virgin nazis can't take control of a good society, and if htey do it anyay that society deserve it.

This paradox is fucking dumb, I don't even care about who's intolerant or tolerant, If i like someone I'll talk to them if I don't then I won't and that's how most people go through life. im not going to cast them out of society because I don't give a shit about them that much

>>17192707
>Now try it from a socialist standpoint
>Don't bite the hand that feeds you stupid whore.
>that feeds you
Sorry, I can't.

>shitty bait thread gets 200+ replies
This board is literally /pol/ 2.0

>>17199426
>(and large females).
I'm with you this far.