The paradox of tolerance

What does Sup Forums think of it? Makes sense to me. NAZIS GO HOME

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1406655216
goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Agreed. We must not tolerate the intolerance that muslims have so painfully demonstrated

intolerance to intolerance is intolerance.

You make Nazis look reasonable and that's why you lose and prop up larpers

I agree; we must not tolerate those who will not tolerate the glorious white race. 1488

only people who are afraid of persuasive ideas believe this

...

M A R K E T P L A C E
O F
I D E A S

...

being intolerant of intolerance is intolerant. these people have no sense of logic and should just come clean and admit their prejudices already.

If you can tell the difference between right and wrong, you would just tolerate right and not tolerate wrong, and realize that intolerance in the virtue and tolerance is the vice.

I like how they only use Nazis here as the example and don't have a single shred of self-awareness to look at the massive intolerant organizations they themselves prop up. Democracy is the only system in which you can vote to end itself, thus you must naturally always have a baseline respect of the vote and the system, regardless of what else you believe, or it will simply destroy itself. But nah, 'open borders, let anyone in without vetting because fuck laws and borders and shit, civics is for racist weenies unless they're literal nazis and then I'll suddenly care about civics'

Exactly. Saying, "we need to tolerate every single culture, religion, and way of life because they are all equal, morality is relative, there are no rights and wrongs, but screw anyone right of center" is just a shoddy patch job covering up the fact that you've totally abandoned moral frameworks yet still want some sort of moral high ground.

>(((open society foundation)))
Never noticed that before. Hmmmmmmmmm

i can see why liberals and such want the state to
crack down on white identity movements because we are a threat to their system

arresting random people for saying mean things on social media is bullshit though, there's no excuse for that

>the left giving lectures about tolerance
kys
liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1406655216

it doesn't say open society foundation
most muslims don't support terrorism though, i think you're missing the point

>Hitler rose to power because we respected free speech too much

imagine being this stupid

Tongue twisters are just that

>most muslims don't support terrorism though,
ill believe that when i see a group of Muslims, bigger than a handful of jews impersonating Muslims, in protest of ISIS, summary executions of gays, stoning, torture and execution of women rape victims, mass murder child slavery.. etc..

(((Open Society)))
Fuck off Soros.

Double negative so it's back to being tolerant.

What the "paradox of tolerance" actually demonstrates is that "tolerance" is an incoherent basis for policy. No matter what, you have to choose what you will and won't tolerate, so "intolerant" without more specifics isn't a valid criticism of a system or philosophy.

Notice how they keep killing the already dead Nazi movement over and over again. The either don't know about the Soviet persecution of Jews and Christians or they don't care. (Well, and the pesky fact that the USA and Great Britain tolerated the Soviet atrocities will killing the Nazis for creating the Reich's Bank and rounding up Jews who supported the Soviets. If that fact ever becomes widely known, you can kiss the Rothschild Empire goodbye.) They are intolerant of white communities that they don't live in. That is a good excuse to refer to them as White Community Haters, White Self Haters and or Anti White.

basically
>our side is good their side is bad. we good guys they bad. dont feel shitty if u kill them, you're defending tolerance by being intolerant
which is exactly what the nazis said to themselves so congrats, modern left, you're fully retarded

>Ben Garrison

kek

I think people that rule an intolerant society are more afraid of persuasive ideas than those in a tolerant one.

>most muslims don't support terrorism though, i think you're missing the point

Do you think your average Sup Forums user has more intolerant views than your average muslim?

if you say something this fucking retarded can you really still be considered a "philosopher"?

The artist who drew this probably thinks Islam deserves a lot of tolerance and that anything bad about islam is just the actions of a few bad apples.

Well I'm intolerant to your intolerance of my intolerance to tolerance of things that degrade and undermine a people and a society. Fuck off back to tumblr

Popper was an idiot.

He is expressly advocating using the power of the state against people who have done no more than speak. His justification for doing so is a mix of social improvement and risk mitigation.

The word for that is "fascism".

A Nazi holding political office is a tyrant who deserves death. A Nazi holding no office and hanging out on his porch is just some asshole on his porch, and unless he undertakes actual violence or harm what he says on his porch shouldn't matter to anyone.

replace the based Nazis with m*dslimes

This is some biblical shit. If you are intolerant of nazis youre intolerant no matter what retarded fucking angle you look at it. God will judge you as you judge others. There is no best of both worlds in heaven. The lukewarm parish.

I think most reasonable people in the western world don't want to return to "communism" or want to turn their entire society into wahhabism.

Then why is islam celebrated by the open society ? G I wonder...

why should they have to protest against it? no one else does
>summary executions of gays
what's wrong with this?
the term open society is not synonymous with soros' organisation

Popper is a faggot and this thread is cancer
>in all fields

I could've agreed with that until
>Any movement that preaches intolerance must be outside of the law
Take a step back. You're speaking of tolerance as an ideology, and how it conflicts with intolerance. Fair enough.
You then make the statement, flat out, without any preparation, that people who do not agree with the ideology of tolerance should be outside of the law.

That's borderline insane. Imagine if the ideology being advertised here was anything but tolerance.
>Here's communism. As you can see it's directly threatened by capitalism.
>THIS MEANS CAPITALISM MUST BE OUTSIDE OF THE LAW.
How is this anything but insane?

They got one part right though, the intolerant will take western society over if we're too tolerant. Hint: It's not the evil nazhees.

They don't want Nazism either so I fail to see your point.

>most muslims don't support terrorism though
>why should they have to protest against their fellow believers for mass murder, torture,, executions, enslavement, genocide etc..
how can you be this fucking stupid.
you're pretending to be retarded arent you

>people who go against the well being of the state should not be tolerated by the state
I agree 100%

should you have to rally against white terrorism every time a white person commits an attack?

My point was that most people don't want nazism, communism, or wahhabism. I guess I should have asked, but those posters seemed like they were trying to point out some hypocrisy. Or maybe they're just posting shit for laughs, I did chuckle when I saw Merkel's face.

triple negative.

The artist went out of their way to only portray the boogieman of nazism, they're promoting open borders which in virtually all modern contexts is unchecked illegal immigration of muslim migrants, a percentage of which ARE terrorists, and terrorist organizations ARE using this to their advantage, and further is a sub-philosophy of communism. That they single out nazis is plenty evidence that they don't care about the atrocities of communism and mostly likely support it, and definitely support islam, which even in 'moderate' forms is one of the least tolerant ideologies that exists.

stfu, toothpaste

The problem with that strategy is that modern society depends on Cheap Brown Labor to keep from collapsing in a pile of debt. The Nazi's were not wrong about everything, neither were the Soviets. If the powers that be allow actual investigation into WWII, the Goyim figure out that they are wage slaves to Jewish Central Bankers and White Good Goy Enforcers. That is why they keep fighting a long concluded war (73 years since the Nazi surrender,) as if it could go hot at any minute. The Richard Spencer's of the world can be road blocked with simple Lawfare. They are not even 1,000th of the threat that the media makes them out to be.

...

You have to not be in support of it yes, also the left has already decided that the answer to that is 'yes' so their pet sandniggers need to do the same.

They're right, except they shouldn't have just had the nazis there

Put Antifa right next to them too, the far-left and the far-right are both authoritarian intolerant pieces of shit

Very nice

so can libshits STOP pretending they are “tolerant”, and admit “diversity” = niggers and white genocide?
newspeak is so tiring.

Also accurate

It's hilarious to me how the left is now supporting Islam, one of the most right-wing religions ever

"Tolerance" to the degree that ultra-liberals take it is no different from being racist.

Being forced to like black people which are put on a pedestal is the same using racist slurs against them.

True tolerance is treating people the same...might be OK to joke about their skin color too as long as they don't have a bleeding a vagina. But to make it the complete focus is absolutely racist.

BLM is racist.

Aryan Nation is racist.

I really haven't looked in who Karl Popper is, but based on that image alone you can't interpret anything about open borders and willfully allowing terrorists to invade.

Although people don't rail against the authoritarianism that was the USSR and is wahhabism as much as they should that doesn't make the NSDAP a "boogieman".

If it weren't for us stanky mutts you'd be speaking Russian now.

If intolerance to the intolerant is permissible because the intolerant will lead to the end of tolerance, then to be intolerant of others who will also pose a threat to the tolerance is also acceptable. This reasoning can be used to get rid of any group imaginable with enough propaganda and stupidity, which our people have in spades. It can be used to get rid of gays, blacks, muslims, democrats, northerners, southerners, whatever any particular dictator wants.

Bollocks, it just justifies your intolerance.
Therefore allows intolerance to those who don't agree with your politics.

>implying only wahhabism is intolerant

Nobody here approves of unhinged white cunts making us look bad. Muslims don't even go that far. They don't disavow their Jihadists and terrorists. There are even vast spanning communities on Twitter that Twitter don't do anything about how celebrate terror attacks in the West every time one happens. Get fucking real, we are nowhere near similar.

Open borders are a stretch, but according to the paradox of tolerance islam and nazism need to be banned. The funniest part is that proponents of will bend over backwards to make excuses for one but not the other thus showing their dishonesty.

>Wife should obey husband
wow that's so terrible
>They don't disavow their Jihadists and terrorists
yes they do
>There are even vast spanning communities on Twitter that Twitter don't do anything about how celebrate terror attacks in the West every time one happens
reminds me of when people celebrated hether heyer's death here

>What does Sup Forums think of it?

Seems like soviet tier communism to me

And about open borders. Kike Popper was a mentor of George Soros who funds a lot of initiatives geared towards floodin Europe with muslims.

Replace Islam with Christianity and pol would be all for it.

Are Muslims dare I say... /Our guys/?

Double negatives cannot be negated by one another. In fact, they actually have an exponential effect upon one another. So while claiming to be the anti-thesis of intolerance, there is no possible way for them to affirm their supposed openmindness in the current context because ironically their freedom to express their opinion is unopposed, thus they find themselves stuck in a paradox. To either scream wolf when there ain't really anyone to hunt for, making them look like fearmonger or to admit that this application of tolerance is both fallacious and contradictory but then it would also spell their doom. So what did they do?

They took the third option, made a pact with the devil and now in full damage control trying to curb stomp the rising popularity of alternatives means and method to govern, applying an hypocritical and double-faced version of their own supposed tolerance unto the ideologies they see as a genuine threat to their own. They were fooled into becoming the monster they meant to fight by their own leadership who never had their good intention at heart, else they wouldn't so openly manifest their hate of dissenting opinions.

They are the modern version of the medieval era, witch hunting zaelots and nothing more. Acting like the proponent of a greater good yet only make it manifest via the repression (and promotion thereof of if their presence incur a benefit for the application of said repression) of dissenting or heretical/problematic ideologies

Popper is the philosophy behind George Soros's Open Society Project and most of the Jewish effort these days.

As many people have already pointed out, "The Paradox of Tolerance" is inherently self-contradictory. Any idea can be declared tolerant. Any idea can be declared intolerant. A central tyrannical authority is then required to decide which ideas it wants to declare tolerant and which ideas it wants to declare intolerant. The idea of "tolerance" itself, loses all meaning.

"The Paradox of Tolerance" really is just a justification for tyranny. I can't help but think that's is exactly what Popper intended and that is exactly how it is being used today.

White Terrorism is almost non existent in the modern era. Consider the reactions to Charlottesville last summer and Dylan Roof's attack on the black church a few years ago. Cville was a bunch of far right people trying to give a speech and the WHITE COPS pushed them into the Anti Fa against their wishes. James Fields was a sympathizer who got into a deadly confrontation because a mob of people attacked him while he was in his car. (You would run over people too if they were going to drag you out of your car and beat you.)

At no time did the media assure the world that "Not all white men are bad people. White men have contributed many of the advancements and the culture of success that we all take for granted." Instead they talked about the white male problem and then fretted over the number of young white males in the far right. The young white male are sick of having no say in their communities. They are getting restless. Pray they don't do anything even close to what the Muslim Armies are doing in the Middle East or the Muslim suicide soldiers are doing in Europe. You won't like the white man when he uses those kind of tactics.

Seriously makes no sense

Hardcore right-wingers: "All gays should die"

Muslims: "All gays should die"

Leftists: We love muslims and hate right-wingers!

no rake for you

Seems sound enough.

I agree, we should not tolerate leftism, liberalism, and communism.

as much as i wish it wasn't true there are too many edgelords out there like that guy who stabbed those people on the train
>At no time did the media assure the world that "Not all white men are bad people. White men have contributed many of the advancements and the culture of success that we all take for granted." Instead they talked about the white male problem and then fretted over the number of young white males in the far right.
i never denied this
>Muslim Armies are doing in the Middle East
most of the war and conflict in that region is the result of US interference

It makes perfect sense under the assumpption that the left is motivated by anti-white animus.

can you guys at least delete the watermark

The paradox implies that all efforts to be tolerant have been implemented prior. Also that the state has a fundamental right to defend against the intolerant. Any fag that uses this as an excuse to claim moral superiority over nazis uses only the infographic and doesn't take into account that the only way to stop a tyranny is by yourself becoming a tyranny.

>most muslims don't support terrorism though, i think you're missing the point
They're indifferent to it and would gladly allow it to happen. Most would never speak out against it. Be it through fear or they just think it's justified.

...

t. ben

Atleast Putin instills cultural values and his country has zero SJW's.
I'd prefer a world where the USA never came into existence.

Totally agree. Just replace nazis with Marxists. Anyone who reads Marx, talks about Marx, even utters the phrase "bourgeois" unironically should be put in a forced labor camp.

The Middle East contains oil reserves of critical importance and the Real Silk Road (a trade route from India to the West) which could be reopened if the wars ever quite down over there. My point is that whites are held to a much higher standard, which I believe is because the exploitation of cheap brown skinned laborers is the foundation of modern debt based society. Any evil action done by a white man is portrayed as an action done by all whites. Collective guilt for whites. Any evil action done by anyone else is excused as either, the fault of the white man or a one off event that doesn't reflect on the whole. As I said above, I believe this is because the exploitation of cheap brown laborers requires the consent of the poor whites. Whites have to be taught self hatred and race mixing or they will reject the new immigrants to their communities and the (((wealthy class))) won't get its cheap labor.

/thread

Though, since OP is paid per post, this thread will be bumped until it hits the limit.

>I'd rather stand all day in bread lines instead of hearing about people that do things I don't like

underrated post
have a (you)

beats not getting Healthcare if I don't feed the kike.

that's just like us when a white nationalist does an attack. it's unnatural to attack your own
again, i never denied any of this

goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom

Here is the full quote which OP's shitty webcomic deceptively paraphrases.

>“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

>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.”

Are you implying healthcare should be completely free?

I remember when I used to believe this...
There's no coexisting with communists. If you don't hold scare them into their holes, they will come for you. Libertarian, Minarchist, Monarchist, Fascist, Nazi. They don't care. It's all the same to them.
"I'm not a nazi!" you'll cry as they hang you from the gallows in the public square with a sign around your neck that says 'nazi'

But being intolerant of intolerance is in itself intolerant. It doesn't make any fucking sense. It's literally saying that "ideas I don't like shouldn't be tolerated".

Why do Dunning-Kruger kids point to this debunked fallacy as some universal truth again and again and again? You shits even post the same retarded comic every time.

Your argument is based on the assumption you hold the moral authority. You do not. Your side killed more people around the world last century than the "far right" ever did. 100 million+. Marxism is also still the #2 cause of terrorism in the world. Far-left terrorists killed 3 Americans last year to the far-right's 1. More than 200 far-left terrorists were brought up on felony charges in the USA last year plotting and executing attacks.

Right-wing reactionaries can therefore accurately be described as "reacting" to your intolerance.

That's the most convoluted way to rationalize your ideology being superior.
But it let's you virtue signal doing so, I can see why they like it.

>paradox
that just means your ideology based around tolerance is flawed and hypocritical

Plato was also shit compared to Aristotle.

>It's a paradox

Read the whole book

checked

>tolerance is preemptively outlawing people I disagree with for fear that they will do the same.
Wow. Really exacerbates my lemons