So much for the tolerant left...oh wait

So much for the tolerant left...oh wait.

Popper wasn't a leftist, he just opposed Fascism.

Agreed. There's no place for fascists in my fucking country.

>popper
oy vey

This is why tolerance is a vice mate. "The intolerant" would be better described as "people the powerful don't like"

Kill them before they kill you
It's the only way to win

This is 100% true. When do we kick out the muslims?

If this is the case why do they allow Islam to survive?

I'll accept it as long as you apply this to commies and Muslims

In this case the "intolerant" is someone who quite literally wants to genocide inferior races. It's only fair to trat him intolerantly, even in a tolerant society. It doesn't get easier than that.

Basically no one in the West likes funamentalist Muslims. Why is this a thing point?

There's something so profoundly smug about this type of comic.

Literary the left
>Everyone I Don't Like Is Hitler
argument

Fascism (authoritarian corporatism) is right wing. So yeah, go read a book.

>Whole doctrine of tolerance is based on a double standard
lol

This fucking comic for simpletons has been haunting my facebook feed. It was first posted there last European muslim attack day and I commented that it could just as easily be applied to Islam; this is when I found out that everybody is a angry islamophile. fuck this world.

>Muslims attack and kill people.
>The media and Academic classes ignore this as best they can.
>tell you to hate Racist Larry down the street who never hurt anyone.
>Some cunt on the internet is like "People hate Islam anyway friend".
I will stop ragging on Islam when they are gone, unlike you fucks I have lost family to this shit.

On a scale of 14 to 88, how mad are you?

...

Nazis were a reaction to literal communists trying to tale over.

So is the democrates and current left right wing? They were collectivists to boot and loved identity politics.

There's such thing as peaceful Muslims. There's no such thing as peaceful racists.

Lol I am so sick of seeing this self-justifting shit.

What the fuck makes a "tolerant" society a good thing in the first place?

It's not the only right wing position that exist, retard.

But everyone is a racist user.

Do you realize they were the ones being "intolerant to intolerancy" too?

This. You could replace Hitler with Rosa Luxemburg in this cartoon and it would be the same point. Communists by definition want a violent bloody revolution.

>quite literally wants to genocide inferior races
Actually, no. In this case, the only thing they "quite literally" want to do is stop statues being torn down and oppose unlimited immigration

You are supposed to be tolerate those who maybe different, but ultimately are good people. E.g. not all muslims, jews, blacks. You are not supposed to tolerate those who openly oppose other people just because of born characteristics or of religion, e.g. Nazis and the KKK.

There is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim you baiting retard. Islam is a cancer not unlike Communism, there is no peace or love or respect, it is evil because it turns man against man. No one knows this more then Muslims who have turned away from the cancer that is Islam and who have embraced the other faiths of this world or who have turned to godlessness, I know as well as any other who have felt gods love that they only turn to a life without god because they have seen the horror of Islam and it has broken there faith. Islam is never good and it will never be good.

>named after a homosexual drug

No wonder it's a jew saying that

So, it applies when to jews and muslims?

I thought we were talking about actual WWII-nazis and not about contemporary US events.

Reminder that this line of thought in this comic was literally created by a Marxist Jew from the Frankfurt School named "Herbert Marcuse".

These people are literally Marxists and some people have been brainwashed not to see them as such.

It's also the most obvious instance of doublethink you could think of.

>Being intolerant of people I consider "intolerant" is fine and doesn't make me intolerant at all

When you see leftists saying this, you know they've been through cultural marxist indoctrination centers.

Popper was also a Jew, and "Open Society" is literally the name of George Soros' Foundation. It's almost like satire.

Sage, report and hide slide threads.

Please explain why a healthy society should make "tolerance" an idol instead of embracing racial homogeneity or theocratic purity?

Nazis were intolerant to tolerance, not intolerant to the intolerancy. Racial laws and squadrism got them out of that game, my friend.

but how do we tollerate the intolerable, the lefties ?

>fascism is corporatism

try reading a book, faggot

>any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law
Still waiting for the ban on BLM, feminism, intersectionality etc.

...

Because other people than whites live and work in it and don't need to have their lives destroyed over ideas of racial/religious purity.

>It's also the most obvious instance of doublethink you could think of.

Not really, it's just basic common sense, for unlimited tolerance always ends up in the inability of defending yourself from enemie forces. It's what happen when you live in the real world: semantics stop being important.

Except Hitler ended up promoting socialism which would have just lead to communism anyway.

Corporatism is a foundational part of fascism, mong.

Or do you thing corporatism = corporate capitalism? Because it doesn't.

Current democrats are neoliberal. They are right of center. There hasn't been a left wing in the US since the McCarthy trials.

Precisely.

False

>not all muslims, jews, blacks.

>muslims
Follow a religion about subjugating and killing all the infidels. Their teachings openly oppose other peoples.

>jews
Follow a religion about subjugating all the goyim (non-Jews). Their teachings openly oppose other peoples.

>blacks
Have some of the highest rate of crime and violence.

>"Nazis"
Anyone you don't like. Even actual national socialists only oppose other groups if they're a threat to their nation/culture/race, and wouldn't care if those people lived in their own countries.

You have no understanding of anything and have a cartoonish view of "Nazis".

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." -Mussolini

Eat shit, neckbeard.

Coulda fooled me.

...

why should whites accept nonwhites around them? I want an objective reason, not emotional driven arguments.
So what happens when "tolerance" is used to be intolerant not to "intolerant Nazis" but to all whites, tolerant or no?

Or do whites not have the right to "defend ourselves from enemy forces"?

>tolerance is so bad we need to break it in order to enforce it

...

>Tolerance is such a brilliant idea that it has to be defended by (((shutting down))) every opposition

Gotta love leftist logic.
>define yourself as the tolerant
>if anyone disagrees with you he must therefore be intolerant

Why is it so easy for you to cast a blanket understanding over groups you don't like, but get all defensive about poor innocent Nazis? Is it that hard for you to help two conflicting ideas in your head at once?

What damage control, they still have rights until those rights are forfeited. Cope.

Blah blah blah neoliberal talking points spread by mutlibillion dollar industries but I'm a freethinker guys blah blah

Yeah now replace the nazi with a muslim

Are you retarded?

I just said why. If you can't grasp that reason, and throw it away because it is "emotional" then you will never get it.

So what's exactly the difference between tolerant and intolerant people? The second kind also has groups they tolerate.

You have a cartoon like characterization of "Nazis" and what they believe. You are like George Dubya saying the "turrists" hate us for our freedom.

Hey, I can cash my George Soros funbux anywhere in the world, chump.

Use some critical thinking.

The issue is that leftists will just claim someone is literally a Nazi and then assume it is acceptable to commit violence against that person.

Nazis were also "intolerant of intolerance".

They saw Jews as intolerant people with too much power and who were trying to genocide European peoples (which they are), and they saw the policies created by the Treaty of Versailles as intolerant to Germans.

>it's just basic common sense

Then you're actually condoning intolerant people, because the people you consider "intolerant" also seems themselves as being "intolerant of intolerance" (your intolerance and other groups). You're just doing mental gymnastics to justify censorship

And I bet your idea of a jew is some little goblin creature with a big nose and rolling in filthy money.

They justify their intolerance by putting words into other peoples mouths.
>All people I don't agree with want x, that is why we should not tolerate them

From an economic standpoint, it makes sense for whites to not want non-whites in their community because they drive the price of labor down and reduce the number of available jobs.
From a cultural standpoint, whites don't want non-whites around because they can't/won't integrate into the majority culture and instead force the majority to swallow and adapt to the minority culture.
From a political standpoint, whites don't want non-whites around because they turn every political discussion into a debate about race and in the process deadlock the political process.

But from an emotional standpoint, we should accept non-whites because they would be sad if they had to leave to their 3rd world shitholes (which are shitholes because of the people living in them).

This is great, until one group with a larger size and mob mentality starts attacking ideas they dont like, not just ones that are intolerant.

By this logic we can kill commies.

I have no problem with Zionist Jews in Israel.

I agree, let's get rid of muslims in that case

>also seems themselves

also see themselves*

Listen to grandma "Nazi".

When you're talking about kids with tiki torches and nazi flags, ok, but who draws the line of which ideology is intollerant?
What if tomorrow they run out of right wing twats and start considering intollerant people that just mind their own buisness, because not supporting their progressive lifestyle is being intollerant?

>Trump's a fascist that's trying to grow his power by stifling the media
>Trump's a fascist that's trying to grow his power by expanding free speech

>The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.

doesnt this go against what white hipsters do nowadays? they tolerate islam, which is openly intolerant to homosexuality.

Well I wasn't going to agree with you at first but then I saw you had a cartoon and I was like, oh dip!

Or, you know...
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.
Popper should have read Aristotle.

>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.

>False
It's true, you philistine, the example Popper uses is Hitler's rise to power.

>So what happens when "tolerance" is used to be intolerant not to "intolerant Nazis" but to all whites, tolerant or no?
And what happens when tolerance is used to be intolerant not to intolerant nazis but to all grocery clerks, tolerant or no?
Are we playing a game in which we concoct random scenarios even if they do not fit the description given by Popper himself?
To answer you: are those white people intolerant in your scenario? No? Then it's downright intolerance, rather than self-defense.
>Or do whites not have the right to "defend ourselves from enemy forces"?
What does this have to do with the paradox of tolerance? I missed the part in which the skin color of the individual is part of the question. Maybe my glasses are not working properly, but as far as I can tell this argument is based on legal and moral grounds, rather than idpol ones.

In the paradox of tolerance, intolerance is used only to suppress intolerance. Pretty simple, isn't it? This means that I can't suppress you for being a white republican straight male, as another user as implied. In the case of Nazis Popper would have not promoted intolerance against them because they are German and European, he would have done that because their entire ideology was based on the annihilation of the rights of German citizens who did not fit certain criterias, mostly racial, and then enacted said policies in an oppressive at first, brutal then manner. This is intolerance, and as such Popper would have supported intolerance against it.

It's a moral argument (in which you may chose not to believe), identity politics is not part of this picture.

People being dumb does not invalidate the argument per-se.

>From an economic standpoint, it makes sense for whites to not want non-whites in their community because they drive the price of labor down and reduce the number of available jobs.

That isn't the fault of non whites, for wanting to work. Plus, they can also be job creators themselves

>From a cultural standpoint, whites don't want non-whites around because they can't/won't integrate into the majority culture and instead force the majority to swallow and adapt to the minority culture.

It isn't the job of non whites to integrate into white culture. If you moved to Japan, would you suddenly want to be a Shintoist ?

>From a political standpoint, whites don't want non-whites around because they turn every political discussion into a debate about race and in the process deadlock the political process.

If that happens, it only happen because of the self turning racial debate that has to happen from whites not being fully accepting in the first place

While the original quote may have been written in the thirties, the stupid comic gained popularity as a way of advocating extrajudicial violence against legally sanctioned peaceful protests of American citizens

Since leftists like to use cartoons to argue
Heres Captain America defending the free speech rights of Neo Nazis

>Then you're actually condoning intolerant people, because the people you consider "intolerant" also seems themselves as being "intolerant of intolerance" (your intolerance and other groups). You're just doing mental gymnastics to justify censorship

Sure, this is what it's about, censorship. I don't think genocide is a legitimate political tool. Problems?

>They saw Jews as intolerant people with too much power and who were trying to genocide European peoples (which they are), and they saw the policies created by the Treaty of Versailles as intolerant to Germans.

I guess this is why Hitler starved European civilians, killed children in death camps and decimated Germany's own youth. And apparently I'm the one doing mental gymnastics here.

Hitler didn't want to genocide inferior races, and didn't.

There is no "paradox of intolerance," there are word games invented by Leftist scum who want an excuse to brutalize people who disagree with them, period.

>It isn't the job of non whites to integrate into white culture. If you moved to Japan, would you suddenly want to be a Shintoist ?
I wouldn't move to Japan because I have my own country and my own culture. If non-whites want to enjoy their own culture, they are free to move back to the countries where that culture is dominant, rather than trying to force everyone else to accept it. Integrate or leave, there is no other reasoning.
>That isn't the fault of non whites, for wanting to work. Plus, they can also be job creators themselves
So again why can't they be job creators in their own countries then? Why do they have to come to our countries to work, when there's plenty of work to be done in their shitholes of origin to make them less shitty.
>If that happens, it only happen because of the self turning racial debate that has to happen from whites not being fully accepting in the first place
You still haven't offered one single legitimate, non-emotion driven argument as to why whites should accept nonwhites. What motivation do whites have to be fully accepting of nonwhites other than "to make them feel good"?

It's almost like half of philosophy consists of twisting the vague, imprecise definitions of extremely general words around to create obvious contradictions, then expecting the world to marvel at how profound and deep you are.

Here, let me try: If a society has freedom for all its citizens, then the citizens will also have the freedom to interfere with other citizens' exercise of their own freedom. Therefore freedom is impossible.

>burger doesn't know history
How surprising.

>There is no "paradox of intolerance," there are word games invented by Leftist scum who want an excuse to brutalize people who disagree with them, period.
Wrong again, Popper wasn't a leftist.

...

No Muslims. Got it.

This isn't particular to tolerance*. A society that values ANYTHING must stamp out those who do not, because otherwise they might end up in charge and do the same thing.

*really, "tolerance" is just shorthand for tolerance of a few specific things. There's no actual paradox.

>Pointing out that people have rights until they commit crimes is damage control

Would Popper support intolerance against an ideology that seeks racial displacement of white people and dissolution of ethnically homogeneous societies in an oppressive at first (affirmative action), brutal then (antifa) manner?

Don't forget this.

Not an argument, just an admission of defeat. There is no such thing as the paradox of tolerance. Either you tolerate all ideas, or you don't. Period. Your cries of WACISM WACISM are simply an admission that I am correct.

Thankfully your side has lost BADLY and EMBARRASSINGLY in the United States, because we still have a culture of freedom of speech. Sorry! Now you and your GOOD LITTLE LEFTIST friend Popper can go scoop your toothy woothies up out of the gutter, and register with the Department of Justice as a terrorist organization if you want to punch some Nazis.

Oh wait, you're Italian. So maybe you should just go and let shitskins live in your house. Don't want to be intolerant, do you?

>I don't think genocide is a legitimate political tool.

Then why are you condoning white genocide via population replacement and cultural degradation?

>I guess this is why Hitler starved European civilians, killed children in death camps and decimated Germany's own youth.
Are you talking about communists or "Hitler" here?

You commies have a bad habit of projecting what you do on everyone else.

Your argument is just as emotionally driven. You don't want to accept non because you feel they are "different". Statistics and facts don't matter here, the only thing that matters to you is a people you can look at and not feel scared.

All in all, this just highlights that no political party has a stranglehold on "tolerance". The left pretends it's the party of "tolerance" but they have their own targets of "intolerance" that they seek to silence.