You can't Tolerate Intolerance

This pretty much describes why hate speech laws need to be in place. It's not to "protect SJW feelings" it's to prevent intolerance from rising again. This is literally what the EU, U.N, and Silicon Valley understand. Who else agrees with this here?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
youtube.com/watch?v=h52z-mYLIk8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

not me. i don't think we need to tolerate jews in america just because some people do business with jews.

So I guess we shouldn't tolerate intolerant belief systems like Islam.

why exactly am i supposed to support "tolerance" if it requires being intolerant of others? like the whole appeal of it to begin with was that other people will leave you alone to do your thing if you leave them alone, but now it turns out that true tolerance requires getting into conflicts with people anyway. why not just ditch "tolerance" entirely if that's how it works?

My beliefs are the most tolerant of all, but I do not tolerate intolerance. Because any belief that is not mine is less tolerant, I do not tolerate it. Therefore I am justified in not tolerating anything!

It makes perfect sense!

PERFECT SENSE!!!!!

>we must evict the intolerant to maintain a tolerant society
This is the part where we evict the Muslims, Communists, and Zionists, right? White nationalism is a reactionary movement; without them, it would dissolve of its own accord.

...

no, because the hate speech laws will include more and more things.
In Germany you cannot criticize the German government about it's massive intake of unskilled migrants because "hate speech"

There's absolutely nothing special about tolerance. You can make the same case for any other set of values: If you don't stomp out ideologies that conflict with yours, they might take over and stomp out you instead.

can someone post the unedited Ben Garrison version?

Wrong. Karl Popper has said that you must counter intolerant philosophies with rational arguments, not suppression.

and Nazis,Muslims, and communists will not stop believing these ideologies just because you make it illegal to publicly espouse them,
they will simply meet underground and you will no longer have any input in their discussions, which makes them get even worse

We aren't supposed to be a tolerant society. The constitution protects intolerance.

Intolerance of whites, their suppression and replacement, publicly stated as a virtue by some, must not be tolerated

You can have intolerance without tolerance.

Tolerance, however cannot apparently exist without intolerance. Therefore, tolerance is not required, but intolerance is- and is the stronger of the two.

They're afraid of actions and since liberals actually think speech can be 'violence' (an action), they can't understand the difference.

Islam is tolerant

Jews are tolerant though

Because we need to tolerate as much as we can to help the LGBT or POC community

fucking kys
free speech includes all speech you faggot. it especially applies to shit you don't like.

Nonesense assertions with zero rationale proving it is about the feels.
SAGE THIS FANNY FART

...

You understand that there is more than one way of gaining power. What's stopping a revolution?

>It's not to "protect SJW feelings" it's to prevent intolerance from rising again
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
neck yourself faggot
>in all fields

what's useful about tolerance if your people aren't allowed to live how they choose?

This is a good example of how logic can be used to prove anything so long as it is a priori.

Let's try this again using the scientific method:

>Neo-Nazi groups form after WW2
>Germany attempts to ruthlessly destroy them
>The rest of the First World ignores them formally
>Ordinary non-Germans regard them with contempt
>Neo-Nazis groups remain a small minority of Germans
>Neo-Nazi groups nearly go extinct in the rest of the First World
>Media declares a Neo-Nazi revival, showering them with media attention and creating the illusion
>Alternative for Germany, a Neo-Nazi political party becomes a small, but significant political movement in Germany
>Neo-Nazi groups in the US call a "Unite the Right" rally and manage to muster 300 people
>There are no notable Neo-Nazi groups in the rest of the First World
>Merkel dispatches swat teams to arrest internet trolls for "illegal opinion"
>AfD begin regularly appearing on Sup Forums and other websites

Really activates the almonds, guys. We better do what OP says and pour gasoline on the Neo-Nazi matchbook before the wind snuffs it out. Again. For the 72nd year in a row.

Cultural Marxism isn't tolerant, and neither are Jews nor Islam.

>if we suppress free speech and dissent we can control what people think without question.

...

>Islam is tolerant
I'm sure the gays think so.

>Islam is tolerant

Not of Pagans, apostates, Hindus, or anyone else who does not qualify as a "people of the book." Zoroastrians are tolerated because reasons that definitely had nothing to do with lucrative taxation policies in the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, tho.

When will you authoritarians learn that you can't control peoples thoughts and feelings? The more you try to suppress cerntain thoughts and feelings the more those thoughts and feelings will flourish. You fuckin morons know nothing about WHY nazi's ever gained power in Germany in the first place. Read a fuckin book.

We should definitely oppose intolerant ideas like those the comic creator holds but I don't want to legislate against even this vile propaganda.

Sounds like 'Changing the narrative' to me.

But in case it's not, and you're actually this stupid, let me ask you this. If stomping out intolerance is so important, why does the left refuse to stomp out intolerance from within its own circles? Why doesn't the left consider 'fuck white people' and 'all white people should die' as hate speech? Why doesn't the left vocally criticize the actions of BLM 'activists' who yell 'he white, beat his shit' and proceed to gang beat random white people on the streets? Why does the left tolerate the idea of chastising women who choose out of their own free will and liberty to be stay at home moms? Certainly, these things cannot be classified as 'tolerant'.

Why is there a double standard where these 'moral duties' apply only to things said by the right?

t. false flagging american

I prove it is not bout the feels you fanny fart, enjoy ban

I hope you die by nigger rape aids.

The national guard, the police, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the military, the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security, and any patriotic citizen, AND state militas.

>Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law
What kind of a shitty philosopher is this? You can simply change the laws. We have intolerance for murderers and rapists. Does that mean we're acting outside of the law when we persecute them?

You don't understand anything, when will you learn that you can't be hateful, you don't understand why the nazis got power

>the Southern Poverty Law Center,
>stopping the Revolution

Pick one.

Next you'll tell me the ACLU defends Nazis' right to free speech.

They do though. ACLU defends the constitution no matter how silly it is.

The official answer has to do with marxist ideological masturbation about class warfare. The blacks are oppressed and whites are powerful so blacks can do whatever they want and always have the moral high ground. Anyone who has power is evil, anyone who doesn't is good.

you're hateful

is it painful being this retarded? i sure hope so.

HERESY! Each society has its own word for HERESY!

Communists called all HERESY! fascism.

Fascist Italy called all HERESY! Communism.

Today, the Politically Correct tyranny calls HERESY! "Hate!"

They call people who speak HERESY! names.

You Political Correctness fanatics are playing a very old game.

When you scream HERESY! aka Hate! at people who disagree with you, it says nothing about the point we make.

But it tells us ALL about YOU ANTI-WHITES.

"[Popper] concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

tolerance when it comes to normal citizens doesnt matter, to 'not tolerate' someone who is intolerant is to take away someones freedom of speech. Besides, no ones going around locking up niggers 24/7 for no reason, they break laws first

...

An alliance of anti-communist, monarchist, militarist, business, and anti-semite political blocks during a fiscal crisis handled poorly by a weak and aging leader who saw an extremist as unlikely to achieve any actual political success and picked him as his designated heir and died before he could watch him trick the legislature into granting him emergency powers?

Not according to the last few e-mails the ACLU sent me. They're even jumping on board with the iconoclast movement, because "hate speech." Stuff like this is why people are saying they feel like they woke up in a parallel universe.

nice edit

Please delete. This is Islamophobic hate speech.

To ban hate speech is to ban all speech. For when people are afraid to say something hateful, they will say nothing at all.

The only intolerance in this country comes from left wing pussies crying about their feelings.

>implying that's not the original

Not sure if this is ironic shitposting or real. SJWs are literally stupid enough to think things like this.

>Jews are tolerant though
Yea, so tolerant.
youtube.com/watch?v=h52z-mYLIk8

OP's comic is retarded because if the majority believes in a intolerant ideology then destroying the majority in the sake of tolerance isn't respecting the democratic process

You can't go against democracy when it's incovenient for your ideas

I concur, we need to deport everyone who is intolerant of president Trump.

Popper drew the line when people start calling for murder and persecution of others. He didn't draw it at the speaking of intolerant thoughts.
>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.
The standard in the United States is Brandenburg v. Ohio, speech which is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

why tolerate anything?

what are you talking about, he literally says in that quote you need to be willing to suppress them by force if your rational arguments against them aren't enough to win

>Karl Popper
What a fucking hack. No, tolerance is not a virtue. It makes no sense to inherently value tolerance.

Hitler did not arise because "intolerance".

He arose because Weimar had little to zero institutional legitimacy thanks to the clusterfuck that was Versailles which gutted its monopoly on force, which left it dependent on far right Freikorps Paramilitaries. The Draconian reparations payments also left the German economy precarious and on the brink of collapse. You will note that the NSDAP was stronger in 1923 and 1929-1933, which correlates with economic uncertainty. Then there's the constitutional issues of Weimar itself that made things so much worse. By the Great Depression, Weimar was finished, and it was going to be either the Nazis or Communists.

So, to go "hitler said mean things therefore ww2 happened!" erases a fuckton of other problems which led to Hitler's rise that the EU, UN and Silicon valley are actively enabling. If you seriously think the EU of "fuck the lazy greeks and Italians!", Silicon Valley of "numbers matter more than people!" and the UN which is ignoring Active Genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar will stop this sort of shit from happening again, you are deluding yourself.

Anyway, Silicon Valley will just be used as a tool to manipulate elections if one party screams "THE OTHERS USE HATE SPEECH!" loud enough.

Nonsense image, nonsense post OP. Watch this:
Tolerate all views and ideas. Don't tolerate all actions.

Woah looks like free speech wins again faggot.

Looks like Sup Forums BTFO'd OP's intolerance. I thought we were supposed to be the intolerant ones. I hope's (s)he's safe in xir echo chamber.

The comic is misinterpreting Karl Popper's message.
'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. '

Suppressing ''intolerant'' ideas with rational argument is what Popper argued for, unless the 'intolerant' called for violent revolution, in which case, violence is neccesary.

Tolerate truth, not lies. Facts not fiction. Be real.

It's just marxist soldiers trying to claim the moral high ground while carrying out their own intolerant, murderous ideology.

>it's okay for IN GROUP to attack OUT GROUP because OUT GROUP are evil but IN GROUP is good

underrated

>it was going to be either the Nazis or Communists
Imagine the communists won? There would have been no way to beat Germany and the Soviet Union. I doubt we could have even with the bomb. Heck the people who invented the bomb had communist sympathies to begin with. They probably would have just given it to Communist Germany/USSR.

> we should rely only on rational argument unless it looks like we're going to lose

sounds like a real principled commitment there

>my butt hurts from my brain being full of fuck

k

Who is Karl Popper?

>so much for the "tolerant" left

Another idiot who never read that book and is grossly misrepresenting what popper was saying

That comic also works perfectly if you substitute muslims w nazis tho

They're persecuting all other religions and minorities etc where-ever they have the power, after all, and relatively openly preach intolerance (behead those who insult Islam, kill the infidels etc)

FUcking idiot

If you actually read essay, you know not go by memes. He only advocates the repeal of free speech if and when the consensus of political talk can not dispute harmful speech.
Things, have not gotten nearly this bad since there is a open dialog still going on. He was not referring to Nazism or hate speech, he was referring to rhetoric that was not able to be correctly debated and rebutted by society.
There was a pretty well done response to this with the paradox of a just society. Which refutes this idea pretty well. But, speaking and going through higher thought processes with liberals is a impossible task unless you have 4 hours and a diagram.
Needless to say, this is a false meme and a completely understood philosophy. Popper even stated in his essay this was not a argument against free speech, but a argument against radicalization in order to halt free speech.

>My beliefs are the most tolerant of all
I'm so holy and perfect and that means my opinion is the correct opinion to have. So, if you don't share my opinion means you're intolerant, and you need to be jailed for your incorrect opinion.

Huh? my nation is intolerant towards the people who build the cities and schools. AKA white people! You have no idea unless you've lived it.

The first time i encountered Poppers paradox about tolerance, was in the context of someone arguing against muslim immigration.
That the values and ideas held by a large percentage of muslims, are intolerant toward many aspects of western culture, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

"Agrees"... you mean who is going to regurgitate your double-speak?

They used to tell gay people in America that their ways were too offensive to be discussed in public. They tried to censor us. Eventually it was because we had the ability to speak anyway, that progress was made.

Offensive speech is essential to a Democracy. The Greeks and Romans understood this.

The only people that don't, are those that know their opinions are too weak to withstand reason.

Ah yes, we need one specific type of authoritarianism to stop this other specific type of authoritarianism, defeating the entire point of becoming authoritarian in the first place.

Hitler did not come to power this way and whoever made this is a hack fraud faggot of the highest order.

...

I agree to an extant to not tolerate intolerance, but laws banning free speech are horrible. Sjw's show how far you can go calling almost anything hate speech. Also Hitler came from emotion of hate, kind of like 9/11 gave us the wars. Hate itself is undefinable, but that is more dangerous. Culturally we should criticize hate speech, but with law it's a slippery slope.

freespeech

123

/thread

And so did we
no city in America without something made by Pole or of Polish descent

I really can't comprehend how anyone can be found guilty of a "hate crime" unless they openly admit it. You can't police thoughts.

[Op] premises are invalid as Karl Popper was a Jew. Jews use tolerance as a weapon to ensure their bio-evolutionary survival, but are intolerant to non-Jews.

Your school system should educate to real tolerance and real freedom, as should families and society as a whole.

If You educate an entire population (the intolerant ideologues and who want to ban their speeches) to be intolerant and just ban the speeches, the oppressed will reunite in secret associations and they'll fuck up your state in the long run and You won't even be able to control them.

Retard.

I wondered what ol' Popper's been up to since Blues Traveler,anyway are they gonna send wrongthinkers to Tolerance Camp like in South Park?

>has to exclude all counterevidence using vague subjective criteria
>claims the moral high ground
>expects preferential status because of ethnicity
>somehow not the racist. you racist pigdog!

So you intollerating our intollerance is a call for violence over violence over violence.

Wow, i like this WW3 ploy.

suuuuuure

>liberals need comic strips to push straw man arguments