/lit/ - Literature

Dr. Manhattan

>>17405494
the more intollerant

>>17405494
Imagine basing your view not only on a flawed argument but on a reduction of the flawed argument. /lit/ is doomed.

Currently, only lefties.

>>17405494
It was decided by combat, they lost and so they are evil. Good always wins.

>>17405494
You find out by a normative set of parameters, not a centralize instance.

>>17405507
Is there a way to measure this?

>>17405494
the people who print the money and control the media

>>17405524
>normative set of parameters
How many "kilointolerances" do you need to be considered intolerant?

>>17405494

>who decides who's intolerant?

Wat. The intolerant are all very loud about this themselves OP. This is literally a non-sequitur lmao. You even browse chan boards at all? It's pretty damn easy to spot someone explicitly wanting to pursue specific kinds of people

>>17405494
That's a misinterpretation of Popper.
Someone else can tell you why, because I won't bother to.

>>17405531
the ones that win and genocide the others were more intollerant
>>17405552
see we have one here, he has absolutely 0 consciousness of himself and his actions.

>>17405552
Like when marxists are intolerants against the bourgeoisie?

>>17405555
you robbed me of my quads...
well next time.
You are correct tho, but the important factor is how people read Popper.

>>17405494
Intolerant to what level?

Of its to the point of one group wanting to kill or enslave another, that is where you can draw the line

https://youtu.be/mkeGZe0tqh8

>>17405548
So you don't know what a normative set of parameters is. Why would you need to measure it? are you fucking stupid? Are you a /pol/ retard that thinks the left will never be held accountable by those parameters? Stop being a faggot, go read a book.

>>17405555
>That's a misinterpretation of Popper.
not really, the message of 'poverty of historicism,' is pretty straightforward, and OP's image is part of it. Sure it misses the greater context surrounding the text, but fundamentally he argued that the only holistic law (of social engineering) a society ought to entertain is of tolerance. That ideas ought not be silenced and those who intend to do so must not be allowed to.

>>17405591
Thank God that Popper wrote enough of text for everyone to cherrypick from, imagine if we had to actually come up with these things on our own.

>>17405589
I opened this thread asking because I'm an absolute ignorant, that's why I want responses from people like you who know the answers already. Can you point me what set of parameters measures intolerance? Who designed the criteria? How can you prove it isn't biased?

>>17405494
The philsoopher King (Google/other tech companies)

>>17405583
Who is drawing the line?

>>17405494
>Who decides who's intolerant?
(((them)))

Read about the Consensus theory of truth

Just labeling your hypocrisy a "paradox" does not make it not hypocrisy. Your still preaching tolerance while practicing intolerance.

>>17405564
Yeah

Hardly any lefties know what tolerance actually means.
You tolerate shit you don't like.
By telling people to tolerate degenerates they're already informing their dislike.
And being told to "tolerate" bullshit you won't stand is just going to make you push back harder.

>>17405494
The ones with power.

Is popper actually a philosopher? This shit is George Carlin tier, bar stool platitudes.

Why is everyone making this about nazis? It's pathological with some people. As if they're the only ones intolerant or the only ones suppressed.

>>17405662
>labeling your hypocrisy a "paradox"

Nailed it.

>>17405680
it's only justified in the case of nazis

>>17405675
he's a sophist

>>17405494
the people in power, who ever those may be...

>>17405680
Because Nazis are some mythical figure to such people.

I recall reading that, after Adorno et al. published The Authoritarian Personality, Lipset pointed out that it could also be used to explain some of the more radical Leftists/Communists. Of course, it's brushed off.

Never my side, always yours.

>>17405666
Should we ban marxism?

>>17405637
If you're seeking to extrapolate a notion of 'measurement' ("kilointolerances") from a stem view into a discussion of intolerance then you're just misguided on how social decisions are made. The parameters are values decided upon by diferent instances of rational discussion and decision making (Example: Rawls notion of 'the veil of ignorance', Aristotle's ethics, Nussbaums's virtue view etc.). and they are elucidated from biases by those same mechanisms of design (like Rawl's geometrical view of justice, a view that could ban a marxist and a nazi)

I don't defend nor view the normative position form Popper's perspective.

>>17405494
> Person A :I want to harm you for existing!
> Person B: I want to exist!
Real brain-buster

>>17405696
Marxism has been irrelevant since the 80s. "Cultural Marxism" is just a meme name for globalism.

>>17405688
i know who they are

Privileged female hands created this post. Men see through the hypocrisy.

>>17405786
Your post?

>>17405494
Me

>>17405809
Hey, could you ban me for a few weeks? >>17405796

>>17405548
Normative means subjective, retard

>>17405740
So is fascism.

>>17405729
>rational discussion and decision making
Ok but WHO is doing those?

>>17405524
Who decides those normative set of parameters.

>>17405868
It's not about who, as I stated, the decision is 'made' or fully guided by a normative set of parameters, not a centralized instance. That normative set of parameters is fed by diferent instances of rational discussion and decision making (Again, examples are: Rawls notion of 'the veil of ignorance', Aristotle's ethics, Nussbaums's virtue view etc.)

>>17405494
Hey CHUD Fonda, why did you give up on socialism and take up exercise? Could it be it failed?
>>17405809
Get a life butters

>>17405809
If you can't into context get off my board faggot.
I hope everyone posts as butters soon, so she can't attention whore.

>>17405895
>decision is 'made' or fully guided by a normative set of parameters, not a centralized instance
Can a normative set of parameters make a decision by himself? Or is it always some group that makes the decision based on those parameters? In this case, who is making the decision?

>>17405494
I fucking hate this infographic style. I viscerally despise it. God, I want to give the artist who made this a giant punch to the jaw.

I align myself with the left, but recpently Im becoming extremely worried about how the practice of those involved in the varied ways of progressive ideologies is becoming more and more fascist-like, using an ideal as a justification for punitive action, specially in gender matters. I think im developing into some kind of schizo but observing how the best response of gender activism is alienating those completely or partially crítical of it is making me question if I shouldnt turn into a conservative, even if I dislike them even more

>>17406304
It's almost as if the left-right paradigm is being used to control you. Why can't you just say you are a moderate? Disappointing, desu. Try to overcome the brainwashing. Neither extreme is good for anybody.

>>17405494
Fuck off back to /pol/ you pathetic little snowflake

>>17405494
The real problem is the idea that intolerance is inherently bad. It's like racism; everyone argues over what constitutes racism while taking for granted that racism is necessarily bad

>>17406319
Yeah, I used conservative instead of rightist for that reason, and also because that dicotomy can link it to electoral politics
A friend of mine always tells me that some of the elements that im worried about will never become mainstream because they are not a majority in the congress/gov. But progressive activism is creating its own sort of paralegal system where it can punish independtly of law, so electoralism is not a problem in here.

>>17406342
>everyone argues over what constitutes racism
Look up the word dictionary, and you will find a clear and succinct definition inside
When did /lit/ turn into a boy's club for morons?

Liberals believe one must co-exist with people who are directly against your own self interest. This is because you let utilitarian beliefs possess you; instead of letting your own interests guide you. If you were smart, you would not let anyone challenge your ability to do as you wish.
>>17406362
Instead of locking yourself into an ideological straight jacket; be parsimonious. You owe nothing to anyone. You aren't going to live forever either, and there certainly isn't going to be an afterlife where you are held accountable for your actions. You are too much of a push over, letting the belfries of morality in your head haunt you from your own violation. Have the courage to destroy, annihilate.

>>17406415
Thank you

>>17406379
Oh, you're right. I just looked up intolerance in the dictionary and it said that intolerance is bad. Case closed

>>17405494
Simple, Juice of all religions and colors

>>17406379
>When did /lit/ turn into a boy's club
Fag, tranny, woman. Which one (or more) are you?

The first and second >>17406444
person who posted this meme was that little weasel bitch who works the word CHUD into every post. Don't blame pol for lighting this shit sack of a thread. She's like a jew who spray paints swastikas on walls. I shudder to imagine what sort of handicapped guttersnipe she must be.

>>17406442
you forgot, "1 in 100" Brain surgery disaster survivor. Lefties are beyond ignorant. They are cows led to slaughter by female Judas goats.

>>17406556
Its a fact the left died 40 years ago at least. Leftism is a social tool used by way smarter people with way more intricate plans than "Juz giv poor people free education n shieet".

Strange how self proclaimed communists in the west root for a government that bails out billion dollar companies and produce cheap underpaid labour. Most supposed communists take off their masks as soon as they get the upper hand.

>>17406571
Imagine being retarded, and not realizing that anti-fascism can in support of capitalism. You really don't understand leftism if you think anti-fascism is anything but the degeneration of communistic principles for opportunistic support among liberals.
>Most supposed communists take off their masks as soon as they get the upper hand.
Anyone that is intelligent would be opportunistic, and would not let "principles" get in the way of their goals

>>17406619
Every communist movement is a degeneration and bad parody of its former self, its an undead ideology.

>>17406619
"its not real communism yet"

>>17406571
Their flag is an anarhco communist/ syndicalist flags, their first feat during the riots was making the chop zone a supposed anarchistic commune ironically supported by government rations lmao.

Their flags dont resemble anything anymore like all modern communist parties

>>17406628
"The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."
>>17406634
No, you absolute fucking retard, communism was defeated well before these idiotic anti-fascists existed. In fact, anti-fascism is the defeat of communism. The fact that communists can even muster up enough forces to create an actual communist programme that calls for the abolition of class society i.g. wage labor. Anti-fascism, historically, has always been for the defense of the capitalist state. Stalin used anti-fascism to defend the capitalist, liberal Spanish Republic against revolution. Anti-fascism world war II was in defense of the Atlantic Empire. The anti-fascist cause has never aided communism. It is a popular front tactic that represents the pure failure of communists to actually take power, and instead defend the very same classes and machines that are being used against them.

>>17405693
this. and nazis don't really exist, there's no substance there, which makes it easy to make someone a nazi for your own purposes.

>>17405494
Whoever is in power. "Intolerant" just means intolerance of the people currently in power.

>>17406663
Antifa the American organization uses the man (if you could call them that) power of defeated leftism and communists in general. Theyre enforcing their ideology without really pushing communism, which is the only thing they can do.

>>17405591
>That ideas ought not be silenced and those who intend to do so must not be allowed to.
ok but it's only ever brought up to justify exactly what it supposedly wants to avoid. the fact that it's always muh nazis really shows this because they want to associate what they're doing as only being against those who necessarily forfeit the ought to not be silenced, invoking the mythical nazi. when the reality of it is the person they're attacking is so powerless that they're even denied the ability to make their views and position known without being overturned by their attacker. i think it comes down to LARPing and seeing themselves as the permanent underdog revolutionary, radicalism attracts such people because they realise how farcical it all is.

>>17406379
>>Look up the word dictionary, and you will find a clear and succinct definition inside
no you fucking won't and any succinct definition you can give is contradicted by most of the instances of so-called racism.

>>17405494
This is a shit idea because it is predicated on the fact that once intolerance is tolerated it will become the dominant social mode. Now that's a pessimistic view of humans isn't it? And if it is only natural for humans, why shouldn't we embrace it then? Just something to think about. Anyways, I don't think intolerance would become dominant if it was tolerated. But se must tolerate intolerance because we need a devil's advocate. Otherwise every shitty tolerant idea would be accepted no questions asked, like letting convicted pedophiles become school teachers.

Sign that someone is a crypto-fascist:
"Well ok the Nazis were pretty bad b-but what about the Communists!"

>>17405959

>>17407036
What if I am a cryptofascist.

>>17407098

79 fucking replies to a /pol/ thread?

>>17407098
you kill yourself

>>17405499
fpbp

>>17405494
The paradox of the paradox of tolerance states that the putative "intolerance" of any given group can be used as a pretext to exercise intolerance against them.

>>17405668
>muh lefties !!!1!
>when the right literally proposes outright genocide

>>17407277
Not even strawmanning, you're just retarded.

>>17407286
Not as retarded as rightcucks like you. I’m beginning to notice almost Muslim levels of delusion in the western right more and more

>>17405494
Karl Popper was a leftist and a fool. THis paradox is fake news.
Who defines someone as intolerants.
You can tolerate someone without embracing them or accepting them. You can tolerate peoples shity ideas with 'giving them a chance'.
What is the conclusion to take from this? If free speech and tolerance is a paradox then what are we feel with. Everything is then arbitariy and everyone intorlerant.

The problem is this isn't a paradox, but its conclusion is dumb. A paradox is only a paradox when the conclusion makes scene. Karl pooper!

And Butters removes another thread critical of her. Do you feel powerful now, baby? Did your bruised little ego recover? You still owe Lamp a five page essay on your Bokonist religious beliefs. May our sinookas never entangle.

Don't pussy out. Show us what a big author you are. So Literary. Make it at least Gardner level.

>>17407036
Signs of a regular fascist:
"Well ok the communists were pretty bad, but what about the liberal-democrats"

The sovereign

Popper’s argument does not say much.

Let me give an example. You have a homophobe and a homosexual. If you are a liberal, you will say the homophobe is intolerant of the homosexual. But if you are a conservative christian, you will say the homosexual is intolerant of the homophobe (I know this statement will be hard for many of you to grasp, but this is due to the fact that you are a liberal and are unable to step outside your value system even for a moment).

If we generalise Popper’s argument across all value systems, it is basically just saying: “The dominant ideology should suppress dissent”.

>>17407380
>The dominant ideology should suppress dissent”.
Wait, so Popper is actually based?

>>17405693
it's cause nazis actually have an aesthetic

>>17407098
Good crypto-anything never leave a trail behind for people to discover that they are crypto.

>>17405555
I'll explain it.
>>17405591
wrong.

The image clearly states "Any movement that preaches intolerance must be outside of the law". It also includes an image that enforces the idea of using violence against such ideas.

That statement in itself preaches intolerance and thus that state itself would be outisde the law.

>as paradoxical as it may SEEM, defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant.

Seems, madam! nay it is; I know not 'seems.'
It doesn't SEEM paradoxical, it is paradoxical.

I have no great love for Karl Popper or George Soros who was inspired by him to walk in his footsteps.

But Karl Popper has explicitly said that one should be able, for example, to deny the holocaust. And that the way to deal with that would be vigorous debate. Not the preaching of intolerance, or persecution, but the enactment of violence should be dealt with violently according to his words.

So not this thoughtcrime, pre-emptive punch-a-nazi rhetoric.

I have little doubt that if karl popper were alive today he'd happily endorse this mangling of his own words. The tribe has a habit of taking whatever position is simultaneously to their advantage and with little regard for truth or consistency. Time has moved on and thus, so has the rhetoric.

But if you read his words, you'll see that the image contradicts his position as he stated at the time.

>>17405740
>globalism

Which is just a meme word for rothschild imperialism.

>>17407380
Does it not seem at least partially unfair to expect people to tolerate people who hate them for things outside of their control? Homophobes choose to have a problem with homosexuals and homosexuals have a problem with homophobic people only because those people started by having a problem with them and it seems like it makes logical sense for a homosexual to dislike a homophobe, whereas it doesn't really make sense to dislike someone for their sexuality. It doesn't ultimately really matter, acceptance for homosexuality has skyrocketed and its unlikely to significantly decrease anytime soon, it's just very difficult for me to understand how a person who hates someone for what they are and a person who hates someone who hates them for what they are, are equivalent

>>17405494
(((them)))

>>17407489
theyll just say that homosexuality is a choice despite having 0 evidence for the claim. even if it were a choice (which it isn't, literally who would choose to be gay of their own volition), it would be a choice that has nothing to do with anyone other than the people fucking said homosexual. you will never get real, stimulating discussion here because only 1 out of every 500 people here are even capable of entertaining the thought that theres a world outside of them and their opinions

>>17407489

> One should not be antagonistic towards people, for reason which these people have no control over.

The above is true in a liberal value system, but might not be in some other system. If you take the above premise as an assumption, then naturally being antagonistic towards homosexuals is wrong. But not all value systems, if we look at them across space and time, share this assumption with liberalism. In some cultures for example, it was considered okay to murder defective newborns (the newborns can hardly be said to have had a choice in that). From a liberal perspective, this is of course horrible.

The point I was trying to make above, is that if you consider ideologies (i.e. value systems) as living creature, memes, that compete and face selective pressure, then Popper's argument is basically just saying that ideologies should defend themselves against potential predators (other competing ideologies, which might encroach on their territory).

>>17407550

To add to the above, and potentially start a discussion, consider the following:

While homosexuality itself might be some people have no control over, public displays of it ARE a choice. And it is not uncommon for cultures, in the past or outside the liberal west, to condemn such displays. So this new wide acceptance of it is quite an experiment I think. It remains to be seen what long term effects it will have for the society that embraces it.

>>17407550
I see what you're saying but I have yet to ever hear someone make a logical case against homosexuality. Everything either boils down to being against someone's religion or it makes them personally sick, neither of which are or should be considered reasonable. And I think it's missing a lot of nuance to frame things like homosexuality and homophobia as if they're competing ideas because realistically, most people who are OK with homosexuality aren't explicitly OK with gay people but in general, are OK with the idea of people doing what they want in a consensual way that doesn't involve them. So it seems odd to treat these things equally when one doesn't really have a decent reason to exist.

>>17407512
>literally who would choose to be gay of their own volition

Saying he was gay worked pretty well for kevin spacey when accused of molestation.

The idea that there are no rewards for being homosexual is an outdated one. I've been offered a better job if I was willing to suck some dick, so it's been shoved in my face.

>>17407592
>It remains to be seen what long term effects it will have for the society that embraces it.
I'm still saying the same thing about the French Revolution

>>17407597
>I see what you're saying but I have yet to ever hear someone make a logical case against homosexuality

We could get rid of HIV pretty much completely if we were able to stop all acts of homosexuality.

We would get rid of half of the cases of child rape and molestation if we were able to remove the sex drive from homosexuals. Despite being 1-2% of the population they are 50% of the pedophilia perpetrators.

>>17405494
who cares?

>>17405512
jeremy corbyn and bernie sanders would disagree with your assessment

>>17407597

> logical case against homosexuality

Normative claims can not be derived purely logically. You have to start with a set of axioms, which in this case are something like moral ground truths, and then you can use logic to reason from there.

For example, here is a logical case against homosexuality:
> Axiom1: Homosexuality is bad.
> Statement: Homosexuality is bad.
> Proof: Axiom1. QED.

This would be an argument a religious person might make, if their book of axioms (The Bible for example) includes this one.

Here is another, more nuanced version:
> Axiom1: Behaviours which were not tolerated in the past, should not be tolerated now.
> Axiom2: Homosexuality was not tolerated in the past.
> Statement: Homosexuality should not be tolerated.
> Proof: Apply Axiom2 to Axiom1. QED.

This is something like a conservative argument I guess.

Also just to spice this up a bit, consider the following:
Given how widespread homophobia is in past cultures, and outside the west (is this assumption true? might not be, I am not a historian), it might be the case homophobia itself is also not a choice. There might be a genetic predisposition in people to homophobic. You could try and make an evolutionary argument, that homosexuals do not reproduce, so are "dead weight" to societies, and somehow selective pressure has ingrained this tendency in people. This is all just speculation of course.

Also do note that I am not trying to promote homophobia here, just want to have a theoretical discussion.

Jews

>>17405494
Is a bigger retard than Popper even concievable?

>>17407653
>who cares?
the people who are going to put a boot on your throat