I keep seeing this pop up

He wrote a book about Open Society and its enemies. George Soros got a lot of his ideas from Popper.

Pretty much.

What's happening right now the extension of accusations of being a Nazi to anyone who doesn't conform to the progressive left is a pretty definitive example of why Popper was wrong. The moment you start picking out groups that don't deserve free speech you've opened the floodgates for ostracism and censorship.

Attached: Popper hates Muzzies.jpg (800x1000, 253K)

National Socialism was a German disease; nothing like it has ever surfaced again, despite leftist hysteria.

Communism, however, still exists today, and has infected countries with nominally non-Communist governments. If anything should not be tolerated, it should be the real threat of Communism, not the bogeyman of Nazism.

For the most part this image is correct, however I think the artist is a bit confused. The SS ceased to exist in 1945. As paradoxical as it may seems someone having a different opinion from you isn't equivalent to the same type of intolerance as genocide

Even if you were right, which you aren't, that's completely besides the point. Intolerance of intolerance is a meaningless term that just mean whatever the person who gets to define "intolerance" wants. A term that can't be consistent in its very definition is the primary weapon sophists.

Nice. Saved.

>only through intolerance can we achieve true tolerance
Is that what I'm getting here?

You don't need sources when you're responding to a philosophical arguement unless you're mentioning someone else's theories. Furthermore, whether or not someome else has used an arguement before has no bearing on its strength or validity.

The arguement for being intolerant of "intolerance" is essentially an arguement against the rule of law. In such a world everything that is illegal but common in the wild would be allowed. Such as rape, murder, pedophilia, etc. If we can't be intolerant then we must, by necessity, tolerate the most abhorent acts.

Pic related, it's you.

Attached: IMG_20180503_210001.jpg (248x203, 9K)

this.

>Is there any truth to this?
What do you think, user, when someone is using their human right of free speech which will inevitably be used to attack their own ability to speak freely?

>They only use this so called argument to shut down those they oppose
this

Attached: UsefulIdiots.png (488x693, 98K)

e gas

Attached: ju.png (913x965, 445K)

This can be said about the values of any society. It's ironic though. when the main function of a group of people is tolerating oppositional groups of people.

THIS

Free Speech is overrated.

Attached: Boiling_Frogs.jpg (453x314, 39K)

>"intolerance" and "persecution"
Its called a survival complex faggot.

Attached: 1532406846644.png (500x281, 275K)

Great
Lets purge communists

It's a stupid argument because you could just as much reverse the roles - nazis saying "no libs"; then moderates saying "give libs a chance" then libs persecuting nazis.

Both are intolerant to their perceived enemies. Saying you have to be intolerant to your enemies is saying that it's just a matter of who wins. It's not a matter of tolerance.

There is nothing unnatural or wrong with hate. Hating niggers is a defensive mechanism desu.

Attached: 1531846045815.jpg (503x709, 128K)

It's stupid because it's not tolerance. Tolerance is putting up with oppositional views. If you shut down views because they don't fall in line with tolerance, you stop practicing tolerance.

>Literally having this little self awareness and calling yourself a (((philosopher)))

I'm absolutely convinced that Jews are just openly taking the piss now.

Not he argument.

Nazi view intolerance as acceptable.

Liberals reject this and argue that tolerance is valuable. Popper, however, argues that tolerance doesn't require tolerating intolerance. So, the liberal can tolerate the color of your skin. your gun rights, your right to speak out; but not your nazism.

Attached: rawles_.jpg (327x499, 30K)

ask em if they feel the same way about the open intolerance of islam

not shown: how respecting someone's right to have ideals automatically means they get the power to mold society to those ideals

In fairness people like you shouldn’t be allowed to speak
>nazi view intolerance as acceptable
No they didn’t. That’s meme history. They viewed Jewish subversion as intolerable

He's the type of guy you'd point to when showing how "philosophers" are just masturbating morons.

>nazism.
No such thing as nazism anyway lmao.

Nazis tolerate lots of different things: paganism, divorce, hate speech, people refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings. It's just a different list of the tolerable. The nazi list might be shorter or cover less important areas, but that's only a difference of degree.

>They viewed Jewish subversion as intolerable

Yup... they viewed intolerance as acceptable.

Attached: cringe.jpg (800x450, 52K)

>hate speech
Can you die?

Attached: 1494130955478.jpg (260x384, 17K)

Retarded because liberalism would be very anti-liberal to shut down political opponents. It also ignores the massive amount of left wing violence in Weimar Germany both against the NSDAP and the German government.

who defines what is tolerant or not

>liberalism would be very anti-liberal to shut down political opponents.
....No it wouldn't.

It is just lefties mental gymnastics. They are trying to achieve something like USSR with them dictating the rules, but they dont want to feel authoritarian so they just make this bullshit to feel all self righteous and say that their approach is totally justified.

It's a ridiculous rationale being put forth to justify persecuting people for their ideas, by labeling those they disagree with as persecuting others even if they have no evidence for it.

Basic problem is how do they know someone is promoting the idea of violence or persecution if they don't even allow the person to voice their thoughts and try listening to them?

I HATE HATE!!!11

EVERYTHING I DISAGREE WITH IS HATE!!!1

The definition of intolerance is totally arbitrary. Proponents of this type of tactic are subtly implying future violence will result from inaction regarding what they assert in intolerance. But, the burden of proof lies on the person to prove future violence will actually occur.

Free speech already has a caveat where speech which gives reason to suspect imminent violence is not protected. Yet, these liberals want to push for more. The "more" is essentially the censoring of opinions they don't like

Tl;dr fuck off kike

Attached: molonlabe.jpg (1800x1200, 114K)

What kind of nuance do you think we should have in our viewpoints? You bitch at us for not citing sources when talking off the cuff about our beliefs, but you didn't actually say anything about your own beliefs.

The Paradox of Tolerance is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen said.

First of all, it's a loaded question. It doesn't ask, "Why does tolerance need to be defended", it takes it as a foregone conculsion. This is especially bad because the "paradox" is itself an ANSWER to the loaded question it relies on, and the answer is it clearly doesn't, defending tolerance as a virtue is simply unfeasible, as the logic chain used in the "paradox" shows.

Tolerance as a virtue is unfeasible. That is what this shows. Tolerance itself will spring naturally because tolerance itself is natural when it acts to the benefit of the individual, which is often. If some ragamuffin steps on my shoe, is it easier for me to make an issue of it or to tolerate it? The latter, by far. I benefit from tolerance in this case because the effort expended, and the potential consequences of intolerance are simply not worth it. But tolerance as a virtue, what Popper is clearly talking about, is retarded. It preaches tolerance as a virtue, tolerance where intolerance is due. Tolerance where intolerance would be the better option. Which Popper's OWN reasoning shows just results in getting fucked over.

May as well call it the "Paradox of 2 + 2", where, as we know, 2 + 2 = 5, yet when you math it out, 2 + 2 seems to be equal to 4. Therefore we must continue to INSIST that the answer is 5. I fucking hate Popper and anyone who repeats this bullshit with a passion, it's so fucking stupid even a 10 year old could see it.

Another Shoah when?

Attached: jew_supremacy.png (800x1000, 478K)

Popper here implies that merely tolerating intolerance will lead to them taking power. That is such an ahistorical, magical thinking view of politics that it almost ridicules itself.

Attached: 6ED0D389-327D-49A5-B2A4-FF2975027AD4.jpg (212x198, 27K)

This. If the US wasnt such a little bitch when dealing with Saudi Arabia they would have gave them "freedom" already and we wouldnt need to deal with this religious shit.

>t. neocon

This. If only the US could stop funding Israel but no; there is too many inbreds convinced the magical carpenter would come back to pat their heads if they cram enough jews in one place.

not an argument, inbred.

You should be thankful I responded to your bait at all.

No, but Im surprised you knew all the letters.
Life must be hard when your parents are also siblings.

>Karl Popper
>Literally who?
SURPRISE
>Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in 1902, to upper middle-class parents. All of Karl Popper's grandparents were Jewish
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Saved. Just now, I was actually thinking of making something like this. Unfortunately, I suck at drawing.

Seems that intolerance is the optimal play then.

>Sees the infographics and doesn't read the sources
You're a special kind of stupid aren't you.

Attached: QaYqtd7.png (645x729, 90K)

but what if tolerance is a retarded value that doesn't provide to the communities and instead destroys them

what do we do then rabbi?

>is there any truth to this?
Replace the nazi imagery with muslims and you tell me.

Attached: 1530026135794.jpg (323x323, 15K)

This what HOPPE says we must do to create a libertarian social order, so to speak.

>tolerance
Tolerance they are speaking of isn't simply classes but of ideas. The idea that freedom of action and independence is good in itself. This isn't justified as there are many ideas that are destructive to people and to themselves. It is obvious that they should avoid believing these ideas. The most apparent being self-discipline. If people don't learn to control their desires they become a slave to them. This kind of slavery is forgotten about by the modern mainstream.

You cannot teach discipline and ways of improvement without becoming intolerant of those ideas contradicting it. However you also can't let the state decide what is true as they are self-interested and so will not safely guard it. We can promote ideas to the exclusion of others on a local level though.

It is best to seek what is true and good and live by it together, as a society. Do not shut out or deplatform dissent but definitely do not be tolerant of it if the need arises.

Attached: The Truth.jpg (960x355, 100K)

Infantile millennials sure love their cutesy cartoon shit.

exactly what I was thinking. Its pretty hilarious that these people actually think therye smart for knowing how to read a shitty faggy drawn comic made by some roastie

only an academic could argue about something so retarded. Every group has it's own goals and seeks to further their position at the expense of others. For the current "tolerant left", they further themselves at the expense of white males. The lengthy word salads used by the left are just to try and obfuscate the obvious which has always existed and will always exist.

Attached: 1532354800473.jpg (1160x979, 303K)

this makes sense. Where is tolerance towards white people that want to preserve their way of life???

It's fucking retarded. People post this shit and think they've got the end-all-be-all of rhetoric because they're quoting someone smarter than they could ever aspire to be, without even realizing that the exact same argument can be applied the other way round.

>No sources for a deductive argument
What should he have cited? Logic 101? Are you incapable of reasoning so it must be printed in book form before you believe it?

Next, define intolerance as anything opposed to the ruling body. Were the dissidents right? You'll never know!

After long observation, I think progressivism (encompassing intersectional feminism etc) boils down to an islamic attack on the west. Strip away all the bullshit and it looks like the goal is to further the ends of islam. That's what it seems they are doing.

Attached: 3fdd3dc8665bd0866c2b028c2d7e4df565174029f4fac1581be22eb6cbe7447e.jpg (750x483, 80K)

1 post by this id

anyways karl popper is overrated just like the rest of the pop culture thought leaders introduced to the public since the early 20th century

Not tolerating intolerance is the definition of intolerance, therefor making you intolerant
fucking leftist "intellectuals" don't even know the definition of a common word.

cults are known for redefining words. There's really nothing new about their tactics, they're just using them from a position of authority so people who don't want to rock the boat accept it and keep moving along.

Attached: 1511230327558.jpg (488x600, 84K)

The weak point here is they assume the "open society" is a good thing and must be protected.

>that image
i pray that isn't real

i agree with that image, we are the enemies of their system and they are right to want to destroy us because we want to destroy them

Ceaselessly extrapolating from extraordinary events in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, to try to arrive at some sort of "universal" truth about how all societies tend to behave, when really, you're dealing with too-few data points.

> Is there any truth to this? Would we do the opposite if we were in charge?
Absolutely, this is the nature of propaganda. I want people to pay millions and serve prison sentences for anti-white speech.

Should've been first.