The so-called "paradox of tolerance" is exactly the same argument that Hoppe-lolbertarians use to justify throwing...

The so-called "paradox of tolerance" is exactly the same argument that Hoppe-lolbertarians use to justify throwing commies out of helicopters. Both are equally retarded.

Prove me wrong
>protip: you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I bet the faggot who drew this openly supports brown people who throw fags off rooftops

It works remarkably well if you replace the Nazis with Muslims actually. Still not an argument.

Skinheads need to be punched hard and often.

Until we get hate speech laws that will send to pound-me-in-the-ass prison, it's every sane person's duty to knock every tooth out of their jaw when they preach hate, sexism, and fascism in public.

...

came here to post that

Better version.

When bad things happen to your enemies it is good when bad things happen to you it is bad.

NO MORE UNIVERSALISM OR ETHICS JUST GO FULL POST MODERNIST ON THEIR ASSES THE TIME FOR ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEONTOLOGY ARE OVER

And with the overton window the media simply defines anything they wish as intolerant. Now your a racist bigot for posting a flyer which says it's okay to be white. How do we solve that problem Karl?

Move to Canada. You are a disgrace to that flag for even typing "Until we get hate speech laws."

Is it better just because you've added Kathy Griffin to it ?

>unlimited tolerance can lead to the extinction of tolrence

What a retarded fucking argument, as if Hitler rose to power because people in Germany were too tolerant and respected all free speech lmao.

Yeah it's a 'we don't need to play by the rules because we're the good guys' tier argument. No, actually that is the argument.

The point is that it's the same as hoppe and his helicopters.

The difference is that the threat seen by Hoppe is real, and can only be dealt with through violence. And the threat seen by leftists is just people who disagree with them, so they've labeled them Nazis so they can justify killing the people they can't beat in an arguement.

Now go be a good commie and starve to death.

And religious fundamentalists in general.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA

Lolberterians, who hold personal property in highest regards, are philosophical oposite of Commies, who wish to abolish it.
Ergo, Lolberterians ideals are threatened by communists, therefor preemptive measures are taken as the end goal of communism would mean suppression of Loberterians

When the tolerant claim that some groups can not be tolerated, they are no longer the tolerant.
Tolerance obviously is not an absolute, but one side claims that they stand for Tolerance and those who are against them are intolerant and therefor should not be tolerated.
So for them tolerance is not the status quo, but rather an utopia similar to communism they hypothetical one day will reach. In other words, their children may one day be tolerant while they are not.
There is no paradox, because, when it comes to these people, they are trying to reach tolerance through intolerance, just like Communist are trying to reach a peaceful utopia through a bloody revolution

>tl;dr
Lolbertarians are defending themselves because Commies have said that if they could they would take away their property and are actively trying to gain such power, therefor violating the NAP and justifying preventive measures
while "The Tolerant" are commies fighting for a paradise that will never materialize using Moral Highground as their justification

The threat seen by hoppe is also people who disagree with him. Again literally 'we don't need to play by the rules because we're the good guys'. Away with universal ethics!
>Now go be a good commie and starve to death.
>imblying

Ideas should be tolerated without fail, actions should not. People cannot help what they believe, and we should not punish them for that. However they can help whether or not they choose to act on those beliefs, and that is the line in the sand when it comes to tolerance.

>People replying to bait this retarded

SAGE

When the liberal claim that some groups can not be free, they are no longer the liberal.
Freedom obviously is not an absolute, but one side claims that they stand for freedom and those who are against them are illiberal and therefor should not be free.

And religions, peridod.

There would be no paradox if we didn't let a bunch of fucking retards in our countries

Yes?
If a group claims to stand for Absolute Freedom and those who oppose them call illiberal, they do not stand for Freedom as that would entail the freedom of expression.

Actually, nobody really wanted to give hitler a chance.

He got like 15% of the electoral votes in the German parliament. He was only made president because they wanted to shut him up and believed they could appease him.

Adolf was only good for building coalitions, its not like he was swept in on a huge populist wave. A lot of germans flat out hated his rhetoric and the fact that an austrian believed that he had the german's best interests at heart.

Of course it is is a paradox, this board is the living proof of it. The fact is that a strong monarchy is preferable to democracy precisely because the inevitable path of democracy is totalitarianism.

Tolerance means living in circumstances you preferably don't want. Why has this been made a sacred principle?

Kys reddit

thread

The idea is antithetical to democracy, if everyone's speech isn't protected, then nobody's is.

What is categorized as "radical" "intolerant" is derived from what a society views as acceptable viewpoints. Therefore, this logic is only valid when applied to a society that is based around certain ideas. Hoppes ideas are meant to be applied to a society that is specifically designed for libertarians. Our conteporary societies aren't owned by a certain ideology and there is no alternative society for people who dislike that ideology, therefore the application of this idea is a violation of freedom. Suppose lefties were to create some kind of socialist state/commue then ofc they have the right to kick out anybody who actively opposes socialism.

Open society foundation. In the bottom left. This is a George Soros funded Psyop think tank with the open goal of white genocide and Jewish Supremacy. The day of the rope comes faster every time they make these little Kiketoons

Great image OP

Saved

>your
Learn to write, you illiterate monkey

>your a racist bigot for posting a flyer which says it's okay to be white
But BLM is a hate group, amirite?

BLM NIGGERS ARE TERRORISTS THAT SHOULD BE LYNCHED NO TRIAL

Quoting paradoxial shit like pooper principle, okkam`s (heinlein) razor or russel teapot is really retarded.

Any anarchy is retarded, because it has two parts.
First part is when you abandon your nations political power.
Second part is the part, that does not work.

But ancaps are at least funny.

Funny retard is so much better, than an unfunny retard.

Challange accepted.

Tolerance.

Of.

What.

Also...

Intolerance.

Of.

What.

There is nothing wrong with throwing commies out of helicopters

>hi I'm karl popper
>I'm a philosopher which means I've convinced some dumb college kids to give me money to come up with moral justifications for them to be stupid assholes
>today I'll be justifying saying that you're tolerant of free speech and opposing beliefs but also openly advocating for the suppression of beliefs you don't agree with
>this one is actually pretty simple
>you're a college liberal in 2017 which means that your political beliefs are the correct ones and on the right side of history
>that means that other beliefs are bad, and need to be suppressed because if people adopted them they would be wrong because they aren't the ones you hold
>with them suppressed you're free to be tolerant of people of everyone with different beliefs as long as those beliefs don't actually differ from your own in any meaningfully way
>oh I'm also drawn in an amusing cartoon style to disguise that I'm ultimately advocating political violence
>that should do it, now go out and bash the fash

Come on son. You know that's bait. Look with your special eyes.

Ageed.we should ban intolerent islam , judaism , antifa groups

Freedom is the answer, the state within the state
We are cucked by federal government in Mexico, but local indigenous people are protected by the Constitution, and it allows them to preserve their culture and customs, if the small village wants to chop hands of thieves it's fine by the federal government, and it works

Local government allows experiments, federal government can and must protect the freedom of people to organize

If someone wants to be Hitler and start an ethnostate then it should be fine, but not using force by killing unwanted people, people who don't want to take part of that small project should be able to move to another place

Pictoline is shit

It's stupid because it posits the "open society" as a positive good without justifying it.

An open society that leads to a below-replacement birth rate and widespread anomie, mental illness and suicide is absolute shit that belongs in the garbage.

and leftists.

The "paradox of tolerance" is what is known as a proof by contradiction.

Theorem:
A society may be good and intolerant
Proof:
Suppose, for contradiction, that this is not the case, i.e. if a society is good then it is tolerant.
Suppose a given society is good.
Then, by assumption, it is tolerant. As a tolerant society, it will tolerate intolerance, even an intolerance so extreme that it destroys all tolerance. By assumption, then, the society will fail to be good. Thus, the society is good and not good. This is a contradiction, so it must be the case that there is a society which is good and intolerant.

Conclusion: tolerance is not a necessary aspect of a good society.

I'll never understand why liberals so insist on the "don't tolerate intolerance" mantra and hold tolerance to be some kind of virtue.

>bait

Tolerance is just as misinterpreted as diversity. Another person may think and behave differently from the average. If this different pattern of behaviour mostly provides a positive effect for society it is valuable and an example of beneficial diversity (think Aspies, they may be hard to tolerate but most of them are quite smart and would be good scientists).
Thus, beneficial diversity does not have to be "tolerated" by society but rather accepted.

"Tolerance" itself carries the notion that you somehow have to accept diversity with an overall detrimental effect on society.

OP BTFO

Look at the id's you fucking leaf

>throwing communists out of helicopters is retarded
you're the retard, fuck iff

I agree with OP. We must be intolerant against intolerance

Throwing Communists out of helicopters is retarded you Nazi scumbag! True Communism hasn't been tried

...

>mfw i see porky conveniently claiming to be "tolerant" to paint us as intolerant

Holy shit, never really got the image until now.
The fucking citation is (((the open society)))

Body shaming is always wrong too. Such hateful people on this board #lovetrumpshate

>mfw you still haven't figured out that porky is kosher
>mfw you think africans are equal to europeans and socialism is viable if they are included in it