This shitty image throws around the same word so often I'm convinced the creator doesn't know what it means

This shitty image throws around the same word so often I'm convinced the creator doesn't know what it means.

Other urls found in this thread:

theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/14/schopenhauer-on-race-differences-in-intelligence-and-on-judaism/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

How tolerant of you.

more like lolerance am i right

By the logic of the poster, all mudslimes and their shitty cult should be banned

Damn straight, leftists need to gtfo.
Pandered to them for 60+ years, we're done being tolerant of their intolerance

That is literally cognitive dissonance.

Perfect picture for the biased, small and infinitely stupid female brain. Gj OP now kill yourself you faggit kike.

Sage

>lolerance
ha got em

Yes, that's what Popper argues. That's also what most far-righters argue too.

The whole image is a massive hilarious trap.

i do hope this is all ironic
you're like the guy i'd see on the bus playing 3ds with a mole and sitting naturally jaded in a corner

>That's also what most far-righters argue too
No it isn't

...

lol
someone should do it with muslims for maximun butthurt

then the libcucks will shout
>FALSE EQUIVALENCE
because they learned that phrase 5 days ago, and its a blanket to all criticism and shut down conversation.

You're right
We want them in their own countries so they can fight Israel instead of raping europoors

kek

And who can determin what is objectivly intollerance? the KGB?

lol karl popper is George Soros' main fuck buddy

Stalin was based though

can someone make one with radical islam

BUT LET'S TOLERATE ISLAM.
YES.
ONE OF THE MOST INTOLERANT RELIGIONS AND BRUTAL CULTURES
THIS ALL MAKES SENSE, LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU

THIS

This is from an earlier thread.

Pictoline are a bunch of cucks.

who gets to decide what is or isn't tolerant?

Liberals.

That's why they use the word so often in the image, so it loses meaning.

>the tolerant are destroyed by the intolerant unless the tolerant don't tolerate the intolerant

How much could the tolerant have fucked up for the intolerant to take control with violent rhetoric?

>b-but muh moderate rapists

hahaha nice...

>Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, 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.
>But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they 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.
>We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

What did he mean by this?

He doesn't appreciate that self defense can be legally regulated and morally justified even while aggression is outlawed and seen as evil, so he comes up with some weirdo "dilemma" that only exists in an extremely black and white ivory tower view of the world to begin with.

It's somehow relevant, because western civilization has rejected the idea of self defense and is unwilling to stand up to its enemies, thinking it a sin to defend her values and prosperity. Leftists latch on to "no tolerance of intolerance", even though they are as intolerant as their opponents. It should be the rallying cry of classical liberals and centrists against third world religious dogma, as well as left and right wing radical ideas, but the west is too far gone, so who cares either way. Enjoying the fleeting fruits of our dying high civilization while it lasts, it's the only rational course of action. We'll be living in something resembling the chaotic failed states of Latin America within a few decades.

political correctness

>intolerance will not be tolerated

are the creators of southpark timetravelers?

Stalin and Tito are the only commies I respect.

this

Philosophy degree user here.

Let me assure you all analytic (burger/bong) philosophy is pure kikery. If it's not German -- e.g., Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc. -- throw it in fire.

Woke Schopenhauer on the Jewish menace:

>. . . many great and illustrious nations with which this pettifogging little nation cannot possibly be compared, such as the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Etruscans and others have passed to eternal rest and entirely disappeared. And even so today, this gens extorris [refugee race], this John Lackland among the nations, is to be found all over the globe, nowhere at home and nowhere strangers. Moreover it asserts its nationality with unprecedented obstinacy and, mindful of Abraham who dwelt in Canaan as a stranger but who gradually became master of the whole land, as his God had promised him (Genesis 17:8), it would like to set foot somewhere and take root in order to arrive once more at a country, without which, of course, a people is like a ball floating in air. Till then, it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil; but yet it is inspired with the liveliest patriotism for its own nation. This is seen in the very firm way in which Jews stick together on the principle of each for all and all for each, so that this patriotism sine patria inspires greater enthusiasm than does any other. The rest of the Jews are the fatherland of the Jew; and so he fights for them as he would pro ara et focis [for hearth and home], and no community on earth sticks so firmly together as does this.

>crypto virgin fallacy
>when women can't comprehend something with their tiny babby brains

Of course they don't. How many times have you heard them scream "I'm not interested in what you have to say because you're a bigot"? They have literally zero self-awareness and just parrot words they've heard, all the while trying to redefine them.

Continued:

>It follows from this that it is absurd to want to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country. Originally amalgamated and one with their state, their religion is by no means the main issue here, but rather merely the bond that holds them together, the point de ralliement [rallying-point], and the banner whereby they recognize one another. This is also seen in the fact that even the converted Jew who has been baptized does not by any means bring upon himself the hatred and loathing of all the rest [of the Jews], as do all other apostates. On the contrary, he continues as a rule to be their friend and companion and to regard them as his true countrymen, naturally with a few orthodox exceptions. … Accordingly, it is an extremely superficial and false view to regard the Jews merely as a religious sect. But if, in order to countenance this error, Judaism is described by an expression borrowed from the Christian Church as “Jewish Confession,” then this is a fundamentally false expression which is deliberately calculated to mislead and should not be allowed at all. On the contrary, “Jewish Nation” is the correct expression. The Jews have absolutely no confession; monotheism is part of their nationality and political constitution and is with them a matter of course.

Continued:

They are and remain a foreign oriental race, and so must be regarded merely as domiciled foreigners. When some twenty-five years ago the emancipation of the Jews was debated in the English Parliament, a speaker put forward the following hypothetical case. An English Jew comes to Lisbon where he meets two men in extreme want and distress; yet it is only in his power to save one of them. Personally to him they are both strangers. Yet if one of them is an Englishman but a Christian, and the other a Portuguese but a Jew, whom will he save? I do not think that any sensible Christian and any sincere Jew would be in doubt as to the answer. But it gives us some indication of the rights to be conceded to the Jews.

theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/07/14/schopenhauer-on-race-differences-in-intelligence-and-on-judaism/

Anything not classical liberalism in the empiricist tradition is retarded.

BIG MATZO BALL SITTING ON THE TABLE...

...Muslims

Any progressive views that can't compete in an open marketplace of ideas with intolerant ones, deserve to fail.

It's an indication of how

...

Not at all, far righters argue that they should be kicked out all together so they can self destruct in their own countries rather than try to save them by trying to assimilate them.

As I see it far leftists believe we should adopt their cultures. Normal lefties think we should let them be and practice their own cultures in our countries. Normal righters think we should try to assimilate them and have them adopt our culture and far righters wants nothing to do with them and kick them out.

In essence the ones near the center thinks they are malleable while the people at the edges thinks they aren't.

Popper can't have been very smart, considering I was thinking along these exact lines when I was a teenager in the 90s. Of course, the difference was that I was thinking about Islam, not nazis.

I mean, democracy is inherently self-destructive, because it allows anti-democratic political ideologies to take over, as long as they get the majority. On the other hand, when you try to restrict free speech, you've basically abandoned the very core principles of democracy to begin with, considering free speech exists to give a voice to those who have controversial opinions. There's no point in protecting the free speech of people whose opinions aren't going to be silenced in the first place.

Also, the obvious problem with banning free speech for far-right groups is the whole slippery slope argument, which the left has proven to not be a logic fallacy. Every time you give ground to the left, they move the goal posts, and decide to ban, censor or enforce something new. We've seen this with feminism, anti-racism, trannies and so on.

Equal rights turned into equal outcome, which are in direct opposition to one another. "Racist" now means anyone who's not far-left.
So we're now at a point where true equality doesn't matter, where discrimination based on race and gender are encouraged, where whites are treated as second class citizens, and where left-wing activists can openly use violence against anyone on the right as long as they call them a nazi first.

And that's why you can't ban free speech for the far-right, because they keep changing the definition of what far-right really means. Besides, the far-right only exists because of the mainstream's inability to deal with the far-left, as they gradually chip away at the core principles of western civilization.

ayy

No. If you think the tolerance extremists are something new, you're either very ignorant or very young.

Pictoline begin hipster Mexican ultra left

perfect

Wtf I love gulags and reeducation camps now

The only good pictoline cartoon is where they show that you should flush shitty stained toilet paper down the toilet
The other ones are full blown commie shit