Feel free to explain how this is wrong. inb4 leaf or whatever, that's not an argument

That's why for two centuries, U.S. law was all about liberty, not (((tolerance))).

Attached: SmuggiesCapitalistsAndFascists.png (2339x1493, 234K)

Didn't read it. Gonna kill you soon on the field.

I'd wear that "hippity hoppity abolish private property" t-shirt ironically. I've even red pilled my family and my girl at this point so people would get a laugh.

intolerance is within the eye of the beholder, one may say a nazi is intolerant and they are, of certain groups, but so is literally any ideology, the far left is intolerant of white people, males, anyone who doesn't ideologically allign with them exactly, and fetuses.

excuse me? we're trying to preserve western civilization.

Karl Popper was a jew

Because tolerance isn't a worthwhile goal in and of itself. Living in a well-ordered, healthy, and happy society >>> tolerance and if that requires a degree if intolerance then so be it.

It's the COEXIST conundrum.

You can be willing to coexist with them.

But, they do not have to be willing to coexist with you.

So, are you suggesting we go kill the Muslims?

Attached: autism.jpg (600x325, 177K)

DOES ANYONE HAVE THE EDIT? Where it's about communists instead?

Attached: DHZDuJ3UAAAgx0q.jpg (1079x728, 140K)

Its not wrong, but such ideals are what liberal society is built on and so they cant openly do away with them. They cant be practical about it and admit, as materialists do, that everything is based on the circumstances and conditions of the time, and absolute ideas like this are not useful. They have developed a set of morals which they use to feel justified in their crimes, and when these morals are inconvenient to them, they still have to at least pretend to follow them because not doing so would undermine their legitimacy. Undertand i dont even mean to imply it would undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of others, i mean they themselves would feel less assured of themselves if they violated these things, or were seen to violate them. The idealists mind is not rational, but it tends to follow various trends. Tied in to their belief that reality is their thoughts is the ability to ignore or forget their own transgressions against their own violations as long as nobody is around to remind them of it, because the tree was not observed to fall by anybody, it never made a sound, and thus really never did happen as long as they convince themselves of it.

I'm with this guy. That 5 mag limit tapco SKS is going to have the pin drilled out soon enough.

Have you ever read the Talmud?

Attached: Ben Shpairo 5.jpg (427x1200, 106K)

I've had parts read to me

"If it wasn't for the Islamic crescent, you wouldn't need the rest of the bumper sticker"
t. Mark Steyn

Attached: angry_birds_coexist.jpg (1280x688, 102K)

These are the people who want to force you to live in nonwhite neighborhoods and send your kids to school with other kids who are majority nonwhite, and on top of that you have to pay for it all and brown people get affirmative action.

Karl Popper was mentor of George Soros who influenced him greatly.
This should be enough for you to understand where his opinion belongs.

Today I put myself down as a mixed race person on my job application.. Because, well, at my last job I had no felonies and an associates, while the company hired on a felony with no education more money than me. I even trained the fucker. I guess they forget I also worked in finance so I was privy to how much everyone was making.

No more "White Male" on my applications. Now it's mixed raced.

>Popper
Why would I ever listen to a man named after the drugs queers take before sodomizing each other?

...

>It's only intolerant when we say so.
A FUCKING LEAF

>go to college
>think about being a scientist or something useful
>decide getting stoned is more important, but still want to be seen as an "intellectual" though
>become philosopher
>spend your life playing meaningless semantic games with vaguely defined words and get your dick sucked by whichever political side you're supporting at the moment
>die without contributing a single useful thing to society your entire worthless life

Attached: philosophy what i expected.jpg (958x568, 106K)

Because I can apply it to Karl Popper and Antifa as easily as it was applied to Hitler..

Attached: aaa.jpg (800x1000, 215K)

What's intelorance

Do you have the communist edit?

Attached: Captain_America_Comics_Vol_1_78.jpg (400x585, 79K)

heh

Attached: news.png (44x64, 4K)

The reason it's wrong is that tolerance in and of itself should not be anyone's goal. We do not tolerate a lot of things, like murder and rape. "Tolerance" is not an automatic positive, and acting like it is is just stupid. Intolerance is actually what keeps us from being shit-flinging, cannibalistic savages.

If you don't tolerate that which you despise, you cannot call yourself "tolerant". You're merely claiming to be while shutting down any views you deem "intolerant".

>implying tolerance is a virtue

Attached: 1550369175349.jpg (500x500, 56K)

Attached: tolerance 4.png (800x1000, 401K)

>If my retarded nation-destroying ideals aren't going to be accepted, then those who recognize the lunacy of my ideals and challenge them should not be allowed to have an opinion either!
There you go, you retarded fucking leaf b8poster

Attached: patriarchy.jpg (800x240, 15K)

so you admit that ISIS are just like you...

If you want the long rebuttal read John Rawls' work. He refutes it beautifully. But the tl;dr is this: not tolerating intolerance doesn't have a clear cut line and the intolerant behaviour can vary widely depending on who you ask. The solution is to tolerate the intolerant so long as they don't actively harm other people.

Attached: 1556236913779m.jpg (987x1024, 77K)

Thank you so very much!

>Bigotry is fine when we do it

Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

Lying is harmful.

i agree, we can't tolerate any agression or attempted agression in our societies
therefore jews, muslims, niggers and spics get the bullet

>What to do when those preaching tolerance also get to define tolerance as whatever they hate isn’t
Really makes you wonder, eh, faggot?

imagine reaching this far in the past to justify Trump fascism now.

If the people decide they want to be nazis are commies that's their right as members of a democratic state
you can't declare some ideas taboo just because it isn't what you want
its fascinating when leftists inadvertently support fascist actions like the suppression of free speech

You're right we should have speech codes and blasphemy laws protecting traditional society from social revolutionaries. Free speech is a ploy. There is no free speech when social pressure is involved. Enforce a moral society or it will degenerate.

It's more recent than actual fascism, stupid.

Wow, the hypocrisy. Tell me, what do you think about intolerant, supremacist hate groups such as the NOI and Hebrew Israelites? Should we be tolerant of them purely because they are of a 'oppressed minority?' Are 90s-style stormfags and alt-rightists only apart of this clause to the rule?

The short answer is Subjectivity: what you may find intolerable, others may not. It depends very much who has the power to decide.

The image is a blueprint for a dictatorship. All you're doing is handing the people in power at any given time an excuse to become increasingly Authoritarian.

As others have pointed out, it's not paradoxical, it is contradictory/hypocritical.
>"My intolerance is more valid than your (alleged) intolerance, so my intolerance will be backed by the law"

More importantly, it fails to address why people are turning to the Far Right in the first place (Liberal policies) and it adds fuel to that particular fire (increases resentment of Liberal/Left governments).

But I have absolutely no faith the OP or the Liberals and Leftists who favor Popper's ideal will understand any of this, or that they will learn from the failures of Liberal hegemony for the last 4 decades.

The other flaw in the Liberal idea is that everything except for intolerance should be allowed and encouraged. That is a recipe for social degeneration. It's how we've arrived at a place where male convicted sex offenders dressed in drag read stories to children in public libraries, for example.

Another problem is what could be called "Mission Creep". You might start off with the best of intentions, only silencing the absolute worst of the worst. But soon enough, the net is widened to an ever increasing list of people to be silenced. Power corrupts. Give people to power to shut down speech they don't like, and they inevitably use it opportunistically to silence political opponents, ideas they disagree with, etc...

*George Soros was a student of Karl Popper, and is perhaps the most influential exponent of his ideas.

Attached: 0134905fe1b479183badc6fbcf2e1822.jpg (1648x2189, 353K)

Attached: paradox of tolerance muslims.jpg (800x1000, 253K)

This is a great depiction of the modern left wing party in the US.

Jews are intolerant of whites. Therefore whites are not required to tolerate jews. Thanks for clearing that up.

I agree. Fuck you people.

Sounds like 1984 new speak to me. KYS Kike.

If only there were laws against libel and slander....

I'm waiting for a response, faggot.

It's not wrong. But it only acts as a tool, so the first question is when to use it.

Do fascists deserve that tool? Maybe. Some. If you're advocating the murder or removal of millions of people from where they were born and/or live, you probably cross that line into committing intolerable intolerance. I wouldn't say white nationalists fit that bill, though. They're not out to harm or displace anyone, so it would be within reason to be inclusive of them.

Freedom of speech.

if only america was fascist, but only if republicans were in charge

Attached: 1556763680907.jpg (554x586, 76K)

So it anyway my cousin does it all the time and puts it back.
They have no way of knowing.
Bring back the coat of arms.

wait, how is homosexuality in Nazi Germany not intolerant?
It would be the Nazi's tolerating them...

yes it's true, look at what's happening with the commies and liberals.

>left censors any speech that it doesn't like, which is a lot including a lot of normie tier cuckservative shit.
>normies get pushed to places like this
>get redpilled
>the ideas (((they))) oppose, garden variety cuckservative shit, actually becomes the fascism they are so frightened of

I love the absolute stupidity of the left. they create the monsters they fear the most and yet they're too stupid to realize this. fucking retards

No, because I vaule women.

Tolerance is a broad concept that realistically comes down to peoples individual preferences and human nature

Attached: 1507248597730.jpg (877x816, 62K)

If millions aren't deported then tens of millions are going to die in ethnic conflict. There were no stable multiracial nations because they cannot survive. Nations are people not magic dirt

It's not a factually a foregone conclusion that the tolerance of intolerence will lead to the extinction of tolerance. Popper simply presupposes this with no supporting data and then builds his straw man on top of it.

Dont focus on tolerance.

Left can't meme.

The major flaw in Political Correctness is the assumption that if you can change what people are allowed to say, you can change what they think and feel.

This is why so many Liberals and Leftists were surprised by the election of Trump, the Brexit vote, and are confused by the shift to the Right in much of the West.

I strongly recommend any Left/Liberal people reading this watch the documentary: "Things We Won't Say About Race That Are True" - by one of your political fellow-travelers who began to have serious doubts about the wisdom of political correctness:

youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU

Attached: f04425a6f794577abf5253bd310fd0c8.jpg (1000x666, 79K)

Karl Popper is the kike responsible for the social engineering that has destroyed this nation.
>piecemeal social engineering
that's all Popper, so you can thank that kike for the slow walk to destruction that has taken place in the US.

never forget, most of the ills of society found its genesis in a Jew.

Attached: Tolerance & Apathy.jpg (736x856, 198K)

Its called the Bill of Rights. Something only America has. And the globalist economists, lawyers, government officials, and insurance companies want the rights off the face of the Earth.

Cool self portrait dude!

He's right, tolerance is an illusion. Ideology is everything. Only those who admit their intolerance can take the first steps toward true morality. Intolerance is important but it must be principled and metered.

It's actually a little further than this goes, or Jow Forums goes. This thing's idea is "well, in order to have a tolerant atmosphere you have to get rid of Nazis." The Jow Forums idea is that free speech needs to be free no matter what.

But if you really think about this, what this "paradox" shows is actually just that tolerance isn't a real virtue. Beliefs have consequences, and not all beliefs are created equal. It's not that you can't tolerate the intolerant, it's that truth cannot coexist with falsehood, and certain values, once held, cannot coexist with other values. Disagreements over certain things just cannot be held in tension forever, they must be resolved, and they will be resolved, one way or the other.

He also doesn't consider that his preferred type of intolerance could fuel a reaction of the exact type he doesn't want. In other words: his policies may create more "Nazis" than they prevent.

Also, soon the day will come when technology makes this whole question irrelevant. The long term trend is that individuals will increasingly have more power at their fingertips to communicate and speak freely with others around the world.

When Popper came up with his post-WW2 theories, he didn't consider something like the Internet coming along.

Analyzing response...
Question detected
Response not valid
404

Attached: 1553799425260.jpg (645x729, 42K)

Your right we shouldn't be tolerant of the intolerant. Now go throw yourself out of a helicopter commie

Attached: Ready_Freddy.jpg (259x194, 10K)

made up quote

I love how all of these unemployed fags and trannies would of been killed off in the societies they bend over for

I always wondered why communists murder their revolutionary class so fast when gaining power, the one example is the Russian sailers who were happy to revolt to get off work but didn’t want to become full blown commies

Now I know why, these people are first to go in any sane government

Is the statement incorrect? If not, then who originally said it is irrelevant except to add more credibility

Yea in this case the intolerant are the people claiming to be tolerant, so...Also, having a decent amount of common sense is not intolerance, it's just common sense.

Attached: 1556187530775.gif (607x609, 754K)

That's just because you're fantastically stupid.

Nassim Taleb has a very excellent essay (despite his other stupid ideas) on "minority rule" on why the intolerant, intransigent minority ends up setting the rules that the tolerant, "whatever" rest of society ends up following.

Popper is a moron because positing "tolerance" as the foundational virtue of society is insane, and it doesn't tell you anything about when something that seems "intolerant" is actually valid political speech that you ought to tolerate. We have very little tolerance for child pornographers, and laws themselves are very intolerant to criminals. It's gobbledygook.

His schema is just a thin moral veneer for the powerful/oligarchy with propaganda apparatus maintaining a tight Overton window and getting people to vigorously persecute anyone who dares express "extreme" opinions. It bounds the field of discussion so that nothing that is actually contentious or strongly felt (which would appear "intolerant" of the status quo) gets expressed, and society can be managed more easily by its owners.

The only possible justification for this is if you believe that deluding people to produce peace is a case where the ends justify the means. But society's management has made it pretty clear they don't particularly care about their human livestock all that much, so fuck Karl Popper.

>The other flaw in the Liberal idea is that everything except for intolerance should be allowed and encouraged.
That should read: the other flaw is the Liberal idea that everything except for intolerance should be allowed and encouraged

That's belief is how you get people like Destiny arguing for legalizing Incest.

Imagine unironically shilling an infantile cartoon comic featuring an old fatfuck named pooper.

karl popper is a faggot and his entire argument is predicated on the assumption that a tolerant society is desirable

The irony is that if you pan the camera up the leg kicking hitler, you will see another hitler

>I win, am happy
>I lose, am sad
HURRR UR A HYPOCRITE!

yikes

Fag

you are just an extremist like them, almost exactly like them.

Mis-attributing it to someone isn't a good idea. It just makes the person presenting the quote seem ignorant or dishonest.

But yes, the statement itself is correct.

>>To be tolerant is to be intolerant
Sounds like some shit out of 1984. Just need to add on a couple more Leftist truisms:
>>Lies are truth
>>Mental illness is normal