Thoughts?

...

Pretty /comfy/ the way it's drawn

>Pictoline
Trash.

This isn't philosophy. This is hardly even punditry. This is nothing more than the asinine ramblings of a geriatric fool

Okay then they lose when the stronger intolerance has way more follows because it actually follows a belief system.

>dont tolerate nazis because they hate jews
>do tolerate muslims even though they hate jews

Hmmmm

...

This applies more to Islam than Fascism.

post the unedited one you flag cuck

>Popper left school at the age of 16 and attended lectures in mathematics, physics, philosophy, psychology and the history of music as a guest student at the University of Vienna. In 1919, Popper became attracted by Marxism and subsequently joined the Association of Socialist School Students.[11] He also became a member of the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria, which was at that time a party that fully adopted the Marxist ideology.

But they do tolerate the intolerant. They allow muslims in. So whoever made this image doesnt actually practice their ideals and assumes nazis will auto win everytime, giving creedence to the idea that natsoc is the best ideology if it wins consistently enough to warrant doublethink as idealolgical standard.

Don't tolerate Marxism.

Needs an ANTIFA, Radfem, or better yet a radical islamist version.

...

(((philosopher)))

Much better

>liberal almost realizes tolerance doesn't work
>comes up with a rationalization on the fly instead
Sad!

>>(((Karl Popper)))
OY VEY!

So a little intolerance is good?
Great news, I am very tolerant except for faggots and commies. Everyone else is welcome because only those two groups will lead to widespread intolerance and the downfall of civilization.

I bet the commies who produced that picture will go apeshit when you come from the "you and I are not all that different"-angle.

>oh did I mention that only the only intolerance that matters is the kind that comes from white conservatives? XD

wow real version was fast

But if you dont tolerate an opposing view point arent you the one being intolerant, and therefore should not be tolerated?

He jotted this down as a footnote in one of his books. It's not to be taken too seriously

There is nothing illegal about intolerance, you dont tolerate murder.

yes, communism should be illegal.

this needs to be changed as with communism and meme it

It is paradoxical which is why it's bullshit. The error in his logic is assuming the society was tolerant. If a "tolerant" society ends up electing an "intolerant" leader, then that society wasn't really tolerant after all and that tolerant society deserves to suffer whatever comes from electing an intolerant leader.

>won't tolerate Nazis because they are violently intolerant
>ok with Islam

>meanwhile, liberals on Islam...

...

You dont tolerate foreigners inside your house

Yeah, it's a paradox. One that Popper didn't even bother including in his main text. It was in a footnote

nice

Commie version here.

>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.

So he's saying we should be intolerant towards people who aren't open to rational debate, not that we shouldn't tolerate people saying intolerant things.

It's horseshit and it being passed around now by Lefties is only evidence that they are the established Culture now.

Tolerance and intolerance need to be defined in order for this to really work at all.

If you applied the same logic in the 50s, then the things that we would not have been extending tolerance to those intolerant of the culture at large. So we would have remained a more conservative society, not allowing counter culture to take hold.

So those intolerant of Capitalism and Classical liberalism should be expunged.

GUYS WE NEED TO BEAT PEOPLE UP AT PROTESTS AND MAKE FAKE NEWS HEADLINES OR ELSE WE'LL GET A SECOND HITLER

TWO HITLERS TOO MANY

...

They leave out the part where it's decided who determines what is considered "intolerable"?

EVERYTHING I DONT LIKE IS LITERALLY HITLER

So they are cherrypicking again?

really makes you think

Yet I have to tolerate antiwhite sentiment jah?

pretty shit and nonsensical compared to the islamist ver.

Yep. He's actually arguing in favor of free speech and against political violence

>must be outside of the law
you cannot legislate tolerance, rabbi.

"For remember, that law is force, and that consequently the domain of the law cannot properly extend beyond the domain of force."

using this logic, it's perfectly fine to kill communists, which Hitler did, so these illustrations of this paradox are intolerant therefore I can kill the person that drew them?

Except the shit spelling

noice

Popper seems pretty intolerant of others' ideas. We should hang him.

If liberals would also apply this logic to muslims instead of only to white men they disagree with I would entertain it as an argument. But as it stands it's just another disingenuous club to hit white people over the head with.

He's being misrepresented. See It's basically an argument in favor of free speech

>calling propaganda philosophy

>Retarded leftists trying to distort Karl Popper

Are you aware that intolerance must be exercised at the level of debate, not by the law?

That he never suggested restraining the freedom of expression of intolerants, but simply not reacting to it with rational debate?

I will illustrate. Instead of responding to you with arguments, OP, I urge you to die in the fire and spare mankind from your imbecility.

So we should hang whoever misrepresented Popper for being intolerant?

I was just about to make something like this after reading that retarded comic, job well done like clockwork.

kek
He'd say we should engage them in a rational discussion

Outer Right has developed an strategy to counter this now widely implemented anti-rightist policy which doesn't tolerate ideas outside liberal politics: it's called Stalin Highway. Basic mechanism of Stalin Highway is to exploit the ever more rapid spiraling towards left singularity we have been seeing over the past 60 years.

It goes like this: first recognize the true nature of political system. There are in fact always only two parties: inner party and outer party. In USA, inner party is Democrats since that is the party universities and journalists aligns with. In Britain, that would be Labour. Inner party enjoys zealous protection of these "intellectuals", and gets turned blind eye to whatever it is doing.

Thus, the correct strategy to beat the system is to join the inner party and use the same words they like to hear, but actively drive policies that require even more mental gymnastics to justify than they currently do. For example, left does mental gymnastics to justify affirmative action which is plain solid racial discrimination, but labels it as struggle for equality. Relatively small step for racial segregation on same grounds, just more gymnastics to do.

Stalin was essentially reactionary compared to Trotsky, and big part of why he succeeded in that power struggle was because Trotsky was more aligned with Lenin. Thus, Stalin could claim to be more progressive as he shipped opposition of his own party to build communism (=die in Siberia).

You can't beat the left spiral from outside at this point, only temporarily. You can however take control of it. China for example still uses Marxist talking points of struggling towards communism, equality, opportunity, peace, progress and all that mumbojumbo. In reality it is as close to corporatist state-controlled ethno-facism as any country could ever be. Yet, even our liberals just give it wink and nod. They are, after all, part of team red.

No Germans who tolerated the Nazis were exterminated. Only the intolerant Bolshevik Jewry.

Liberals always misrepresent the primary source. From the Bible to Karl Marx. Nothing new under the belt.

If they were honest people, then they wouldn't be liberals to begin with as their ideals are a complete falsehood.

>Ben Garrison

Islam and leftism are intolerant of dissent, to the point where they would destroy free speech.

This is just the method one tyrant uses to justify his regime

>We're defending you from the Nazis!
>We're defending you from the Jews!
>We're defending you from the 1%!

This is actually pretty good logic.

It's the true white man's philosophy. It is that 'we want peace; but the only peace we will accept is for us to be unchallenged champion of the world, and to force you to lay down your arms"

It's a sort of original Christian motif, or some Nietzscheian shit.

And it's correc tin terms of tolerance, at least, the real meaning of the word. Just not modern progressive tolerance. The nazis were tolerant of everyone except those intolerant of their people (jews)

who do you designate the responsibility in the society to obtain the power of who is and is not tolerant, therefor giving them the executive power to silence someone over thoughts of 'intolerance'?

OK, so about Islam...

The actual passage almost reads as if it has Islam in mind (I might start spamming this because the cartoon in the OP is a misrepresentation):

>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.

I'm US can confirm

Yeah, but if Popper isn't the one claiming we should be intolerant of intolerance, then I want to judge whoever misrepresented him by their own standards.

If intolerance is intolerant, how do they justify their intolerance if it's universally bad?

Whoever it was is a fool who felt confident that the gun would be in their hands. Probably one of those who unironically say things like "wrong side of history"

>don't respect nazis
>respect muslims
LMAO

So you want to eliminate the left because of their identity politics and intolerance.

That Ben Garisson tag. topkek

Free market of ideas is a superior philosophy.
It states that in the free market of ideas superior ideas always win.
Or in other words, if nobody can argue as to why your idea is the best idea, then your idea is not the best idea and deserves to lose

The obvious answer is that tolerance in and of itself is not something that should be part of society, you aren't going to be able to let everybody 'do their thing', because those things will inevitably clash.

Base your society on issues, not virtues you retards.

Nice, now all we need to do is replace the nazis with muslims in the image and get branded racists and islamophobes

That's literally what Popper was actually advocating:

>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.

This is the exact justification for every systemic mass killing ever.

>roffle ecksdee frozen peach maymay

Last time I checked it was the left who was the violent ones.
Minus the dodge of peace that is

hitler would probably agree with this logic though.

The same applies to Islam

Indeed. They won't see that though. They'll just look at the misrepresentation in the cartoon and think it justifies their violence

The Chinese make me laugh, you are 100% correct. At my college, we have a lot of Chinese exchange students, and most of them are working on MBA's, they have come to America to learn CAPITALISM.

Man, I gotta move to South Korea, I’ll be giant.

This is literally what drove the rise of the national socialists, intolerance of political enemies. Nothing makes like a good recruitment strategy than showing that your political opponents are literally out to get you and end your life either literally or in the comforts and environments you thrive in.

You never see the rise of the far right without the rise of the far left first.

How so? The problem as I see it is that technology has given every retard with an opinion a platform to share his or her retarded ideas. It use to be people who were educated and had amounted to something we're given a platform to share their ideas, not anymore.

I'm happy that bigots and intolerant half brained simians are taking the developments in the West so painfully they deserve it

Better fixed.

So does Christianity

Really makes you think.

The state to which we elect people to run on our behalf

Of course he's being represented. The same dimwits I've seen post this stupid comic on Facebook are also either clueless or in denial that Popper was a pro-free market capitalist.

*misrepresented

I think Sweden needs more niggers

I'd suggest you send them this but they'd probably have no idea who these guys are

>ooga booga lets be tolerant of everything except the intolerance
The very principle that caused what the west's going through right now.

>when we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant, the tolerant ones end up being destroyed

That statement implies that utterance of intolerant ideologies will automatically lead to a constant spreading & soon takeover of those ideas, regardless of many factors like the state of economy, politics etc.

>any movement that preaches intolerance and execution must be outside of the law

" 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 most unwise."-Karl Popper

It's a con. All groups are tolerant of some, intolerant of others. Who oppose their views. The answer is to tolerate all, but not support all, not aid all. Otherwise you will be fooled, by those who claim tolerance, but are the most intolerant of all.

they keep throwing shit at the wall
pol always wins

change it to the merchant/bolshevik jew instead of muzzie, destroying russia
jewish communist controlled russia killed millions, no hoax

I'm tempted to make a 1984 parody that ends with the conclusion that war is peace.