It's wrong, isn't it ?

There is no such thing as a 'paradox of tolerance'.
It is a mere failure of the new moral code to be self-aware. The moment you realize you have a 'paradox of tolerance' in your belief system is the moment when your moral code has achieved full maturity, and it becomes a moral doctrine as any other - rigid and incompatible with any other worldview.

What the liberals have here is their inability to see they have become neonazis.

You can't be intolerant of intolerance any more than you can hate hate

Tolerance isn't even the word the progressives should be using, since by definition it means putting up with awful shit, and generally you're not supposed to maintain that there's anything inherently wrong with minorities

It's a silly thing to hold as a virtue.

National socialism was the actual kicking out of the intolerant and subordinate jew as will be of any minority in the future
they just reversed that shit onto us

Also let us remember that Nazism itself was largely a reaction to the intolerance of Communism, which killed thousands of Germans in a revolution

>thinks this wasnt tried in Weimar
>think this is a smart kike move
>thinks this wont lead to an even bigger progrom next time
>never googled delusion

Attached: 1524034567103.gif (500x381, 213K)

this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte#Fascism_in_Its_Epoch

>Tolerance has to be intolerant towards intolerance, otherwise it ends up intolerant

Beautiful

Now make one for commies/socialists

>What the liberals have here is their inability to see they have become neonazis.
or, they simply remained liberals

Neonazis in method, not ideological content.

The paradox of intolerance is about their belief system becoming a static, unchangeable doctrine.

>Neonazis in method, not ideological content.
why not content? It is the liberal democrats who started the most wars, oppress the people the most in peace times, suck dry the middle class and suffocate them in regulations, it is them unleashing the commie hordes, their ideological brothers upon us. It was the liberals introducing parliamentarism, cementing their bourgeois feudalist rule after they overthrew the monarchie under the pretext those were feudalists. The liberal elites in Germany two times fully backed the wars of aggression - yet they walked free when militarists were hung.

>The paradox of intolerance is about their belief system becoming a static, unchangeable doctrine.
The paradox is the believe tolerance could work in a heterogeneous (be it ideological or ethnical) environment. .

Society tolerates a broad spectrum of things with few things being considered criminal. A liberal society ought to tolerate the opinions of intolerant people, and just not act on them. Intolerant people should effectively be the same as racist grandpas or whatever - you endure some of their talking points you disagree with but in the end still want them around.

Attached: 5-things-you-might-not-have-known-about-george-soros-8-638.jpg (638x479, 79K)

I hardly see how this is a "paradox".

This may sound crazy, but there haven't been Nazis in a long time.
And also being having tolerance is the fact that white people have not destroyed you.

because those calling for more tolerance and the fight against intolerance derive their ideological inspirations from those who make NS look like amateurs.

Attached: free speech.jpg (700x539, 69K)

>there haven't been Nazis in a long time
I am a Nazi. What the fuck is wrong with you?

>being a nazi
>being a nazi with state power

You are messing 2 different things; free speech and acting on it. I don't mind fascists having the right to be open about their racism and bigotry, but the moment they would try and implement such policies -- that crosses the line of wanting to be left alone into actively trying to discriminate -- at this point all bets are off because it's not a matter of free speech anymore, but a declaration of war on people they don't like. Fromhere on putting their heads on a fucking stick is self-defense.

Attached: hitchens.jpg (400x315, 24K)

>National socialism was the actual kicking out of the intolerant

Kek.

National socialism was where the European far-right came the closest to ISIS. It's not even a horseshoe theory since they're on the same side of the spectrum.

they act like this couldn't be applied to them also.

>they act like this couldn't be applied to them also.

This is the same argument islamists make when they are faced with the fact that they won't be able to control who will their daughter/son marry. The feeling that you are powerless to control another persons life drives fundamentalists crazy, but they are still not victims of "liberal tyranny" since they are the ones aspiring power over other peoples lives.

>socialists
>right wing

Fixed it

Attached: BE467FA8-912C-4952-A8B3-050A40426CD2.jpg (750x925, 227K)

europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

As a matter of fact I can

But who dictates who is fairly intolerant and who is not? People arguing that they don't want their country destroyed by hordes of people from incompatible cultures would be viewed as intolerant, but they are being fair in their discrimination because in that scenario, the second panel is 30 years later, the country burns to the ground because some tolerant idiots thought it would be fine to hand the country over to ACTUAL intolerants who would not tolerate their virtue signalling tolerance.

It's 100% true. Replace the nazis with purple haired antifa commies.

The label of 'Nazi' is then applied to any political dissenter who disagrees with the leftist establishment regardless of how applicable the label actually is. And thus the excuse that they are merely not tolerating intolerance has become a smokescreen for intolerance of a different and far more insidious kind.

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

So that would cover pretty much every movement today? They're all excluding someone.

>But who dictates
This is what I meant in and The solidified, sedimented dogma in a liberal's head is that non-pales are a priori good people, while pious 'whites' have to repent for the 'sins' of their fathers. I put "whites" in quotation marks, since the liberal can't differentiate between nations such as the Anglos, the Portugese, and the Belgians (who legitimately did cruel stuff to outside populations) and Alpines (N. Italy, Austria, Bavaria), Slavs, Balts, and the wild Caucasian nations such as the Chechens, who are innocent of the stuff liberals hate 'whites' for, and many times were the victims of the same under Muslim invader rule.

You seem to imply that the failed dickheads have to share the same motives; however, as was also show at the Nuremberg trial, a common movement can be forged on independent, perhaps even contradictory grounds. Think of the modern-day Jewish cabal: do you honestly think Trump, Putin, Soros, Merkel, NGOs from the Netherlands, Kim, and Islamists of all colors including Iran are cooperating on destroying the European man? That would be a tinfoil hat, from real thick gauge of tin. But they can use each other, aid each other, or at least stay out of each other's way

Karl Popper is contradictory
He for example claims that only conclusions we get via falscifcation are absolute truth, but you cant prove this statement via falscification

And again, if any of you actually read any of his works on multiculturalism and the melting pot effect you would know how much of a naive and childish thinker he is
The same goes for this shit

They would end up banning themself, think about it

I'm not sure. They want to get rid of us and make us pay for it. Why would we go along with that?

parameterize tolerance and restate it all logically, and you'll have to use the universal quantifier; then the fallacy will be clear

Yes.
Guess what tribe he belongs to.

>Being politically illiterate
Wait until you get into middle school.

Mill definitely didn't.

The very fact that "tolerance" supposedly requires a paradox to work should make you question its very premise.

If someone is intolerant and takes no action on it - nothing happens.
If someone is intolerant and exercises intolerant speech - this will not have any effect unless the argument makes sense
If someone is intolerant and acts on it - guess what there's fucken laws against this shit already

It's as if you WANT people's feelings to get hurt

It's wrong because it's contextually based on how the "intolerant" is framed and the time period you are referring to.

Suddenly we can justify McCarthyism and the Red Scare. We can justify most things that would be seen as "intolerant" in today's light.

to be clear, what I meant by "parameterize" is to ban the naked use of the word and require that it always accompany a prepositional phrase of the form "tolerance of X" for some X
this prevents us from speaking of blanket "intolerance", which is not a meaningful concept, but instead "not(tolerance-of(X))" for particular X
universal quantifier allows us to say things like "for-all(X, not(tolerance-of(X)))", which is one form of the strawman they'd like to paint, as they'd like to conflate it with "not(for-all(X, tolerance-of(X)))" -- but DeMorgan's law says otherwise

It's right, but it undermines "tolerant open societies". All that Popper is really saying is "There are some things you can't allow people to say." which pretty much everyone except libertarians would agree with, they just disagree on what precisely those things are. For leftists it's speech critical of brown people or supportive of restoring capitalism, for monarchs, criticizing the King, for libertarians, supporting Communism, etc.

It's right, we shouldn't tolerate islam.

>outside of the law

ah yes selective application of the rule of law is by no means a path to totalitarianism/authoritarianism/tyranny

YOUR RIGHTS
WHERE MINE BEGIN

This is the simple solution. Does your speech (act) actively impede my speech (act)? Then it cannot be allowed. That is the only restriction

Should people that want to go fast use cars?
You want more speed? Get in a car!
The answer is NO.

It's a paradox, but unlimited desire to go faster can lead to absolute stillness.
When we extend our desire to go fast to actually using cars...
Let's give them a chance!
...The previously walking citizens end up dying in accidents. And their speed with them.

Any movement that preaches usage of cars must be outside of the law.
As paradoxical as it may seem, desire to go faster...
...Requires to never use cars.

This solution requires the extermination of all humans as being intolerant of intolerance makes everybody intolerant.

It's a specious argument and the person who wrote it is intolerant and should thusly be killed by tolerant people.

Attached: retarded and queer.jpg (482x480, 79K)

It is wrong.

"Tolerance" isn't a good in and of itself or something we should want to achieve.

However, using violence against people because of what they have to say is wrong, even if they say evil things. This is true whether we are discussing private persons or the State, which is socialized violence.

But let's say you disagree with the above - you are still faced with the practical solution of creating a monster which can and probably will turn against you and your agenda as the political climate changes. Few movements want to take that practical risk, even with no ethical qualms.

Why don't these morons realize that the problem comes form the fact that the word "nazi" just means "anyone I disagree with" and the fact that antifags are just going around punching people for disagreeing with them on anything?

>morons realize

The juxtaposition alone should provide an answer.

It's wrong.
What leftists are doing is denying others their rights.
You can dislike and protest others' speech, but you cannot silence them. Leftism is predicated not on dialogue but on violently silencing opposition. It has to do this because it lacks a single theory that holds up under scrutiny. So they indoctrinate the young not to think, but to (for lack of a better word) oppress those with different ideas.

Saved

>Intolerance according to Popper: when someone stops another group from airing their own opinion, being intolerant of other ideas

>Intolerance according to what some people attribute to Popper: hateful ideas (racism, nazism)

Popper was actually talking about stopping people from preventing others from airing ideas the first group didn't like, not about shutting down hateful ideas

Attached: [Amanogami Dai, D-Heaven] japans ally - trump kantai.png (184x360, 57K)

wanna know something bud
Karl popper was a jew ;)

Karl Popper is a complete fucking retard.

Yes, you tolerate intolerance. Do you know what else you do? You fucking listen to intolerance, because guess what? Where there is smoke, there is fucking fire.

>free speech is alright as long as you have nice things to say
This is the kind of shit that made me stop being a leftist

This is a shitty infographic that doesn't even deserve to be called a meme.

Also Jews made this.

It would have literally been produced by the Open Society Foundation. Soros is a huge Karl Popper fan.

this

The actual quote:
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 most 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. (01/02)

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.
Another of the less well-known paradoxes is the paradox of democracy, or more precisely, of majority-rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule. That Plato’s criticism of democracy can be interpreted in the way sketched here, and that the principle of majority-rule may lead to self-contradictions, was first suggested, as far as I know, by Leonard Nelson (cp. note 25 (2) to this chapter). I do not think, however, that Nelson, who, in spite of his passionate humanitarianism and his ardent fight for freedom, adopted much of Plato’s political theory, and especially Plato’s principle of leadership, was aware of the fact that analogous arguments can be raised against all the different particular forms of the theory of sovereignty. (02/02)

All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in the way suggested in section ii of this chapter, or perhaps in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public. And we may add that some form of majority vote, together with institutions for keeping the public well informed, is the best, though not infallible, means of controlling such a government. (No infallible means exist.) Cp. also chapter 6, the last four paragraphs in the text prior to note 42; text to note 20 to chapter 17; note 7 (4) to chapter 24; and note 6 to the present chapter.

It's not a paradox. The logical conclusion is that tolerance doesn't work for this exact reason. You shouldn't conclude that there's some paradox involved. The tolerant (read: weak) get trodden upon.

Attached: 1477916398541.jpg (784x643, 57K)

womp womp

/thread

If you read his book he couches rational argument in falsificationist philosophy of science.

Essentially he asks "how do you know that" for every proposition. If it isn't a mathematical proof then you need to rely on empirical support for any claim (a priori justification doesn't work for non analytic proposition types, eg newtonian physics has been overturned despite the derivations at the from of his principia).

Now that we are in the realm of empiricism we need to know how to favor propositions over others when they have been observed.

Popper thought that the problem of induction was fatal to Bayesian epistemology and developed falsificationism. Essentially, you favor theories that are testable (able to be shown to be false), confirmed, corroborated, and have excess empirical content than their competitors (they exclude more). This is the bar for meaningful/scientific discourse. The rest you have no rational reason to believe.

If your argument isn't scientific then there is a problem. If you cling to it in face of more cogent arguments then you are intolerant.

This is what he is on about!

Guess who shouts down rational discourse now. It aint Republicans.

t. phil phd user

based meme degree poster
What sort of job do you do with that? Professor?

For a while yes.

I hate what academia has become and jumped ship. I know work in the private sector.

Phil Phds not in academia tend to work in consulting, public policy, ed admin, etc.

The degree (at least the BA) is also a great stepping stone to law

That would be the case if Popper wasn't a scientific realist and methodological monist. He thinks we should tolerate other views insofar as they are scientific. Argument over which views are better is necessary for progress according to Popper. This requires a degree of tolerance.

Nazis are also tolerant of the things they are tolerant of, and they are intolerant of the things they are intolerant of. So this idea of tolerance with limits is just what every ideology has, and the only differences are a matter of personal preference.

Then you shouldn't Nazis and such still be tolerated? Their views haven't been proven unnecessary to progress, in fact they advanced medicine quite a bit although be it through unsavory means.

Arguments are arguments despite the other beliefs the person making them holds.

We shouldn't discount their findings in medicine but we should discount their state mythology.

Whether or not it is permissible to conduct research on prisoners is another argument altogether... along with how to justify ethical propositions or even if that is possible...

"The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who hate it to emulate it." - Adolf Hitler

Classical liberalism cannot simultaneously sustain itself and be true to its core values. Therefore, it is irreparably flawed and out of sync with reality.

No no no. Popper claimed the opposite. He said our knowledge is permanently provisional because as a matter of logic we can't prove that what we 'know' is true and it's always possible it could turn out to be false. This has been the case for most of what has been 'known' throughout human history.
Popper proposed empirical falsification as the demarcation between science and non-science. We accept things as provisionally true—that which has the most secure foundation and which constitutes the best of our knowledge—but at all times we must be aware that what we 'know' to be true could end up being false, as was the case with Newtonian mechanics which was 'proved to be true' billions of times before it was exposed as being incapable of standing up, and therefore false, in certain circumstances.

Attached: Popper.jpg (640x878, 40K)

>You seem to imply that the failed dickheads have to share the same motives; however, as was also show at the Nuremberg trial, a common movement can be forged on independent, perhaps even contradictory grounds.
yes, and they still share the same motives, the EU economic policy was written by a NS. What changed is the racial policy, in this regard we have an inverted Nazi policy.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hunke_(Politiker)#NS-Wirtschaftsideologie

>Think of the modern-day Jewish cabal: do you honestly think Trump, Putin, Soros, Merkel, NGOs from the Netherlands, Kim, and Islamists of all colors including Iran are cooperating on destroying the European man?
Yes indeed (minus Trump and Iran)
>That would be a tinfoil hat, from real thick gauge of tin. But they can use each other, aid each other, or at least stay out of each other's way
So you deny there is a policy of ethnic cleansing carried out by the elites of Europe, be they socdems or christdems?