The Tolerance Paradox

It's true.

Look at how people tolerated feminism and communists, and what they've done to society

this paradox is quite paradoxical. if any movement that preaches intolerances and persecution is outside the law then wouldn't you have to be intolerant and persecute them thus making yourself outside of the law.

Who defines what constitutes intolerance?

Hoppe debunked it
youtu.be/DdLlnqpAgHw

The left hand path follows a completley different epistemological belief system than us on the right.
Pic is from the leaked google internal docs from DaMore. The left, all governments, corporations public fugures ect follow a belief system that allows for "holding systems accountable for equitable outcomes".
From the Babylonian Talmud to pilpul to Tikkum Olam to the Hegelian Dialectic to Marxism to cultural Marxism, its all the same thing we are fighting, demons who hate this reality and seek to destroy it

Attached: 1524167747293.png (799x385, 43K)

He did , its right there in quotes .

Plato did not but Plato did record Socrates saying it

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

My jew nigger philosophy professor said the slippery slope analysis is a fallacy

it doesn't even make sense though since isn't "not being tolerant of the intolerant" in itself being intolerant of something? Which then makes those Nazi-Punchers the intolerant ones? It's circular and unsustainable. Either you're tolerant of everything including hateful rhetoric, or everyone's intolerant of anyone they disagree with, but you can't have it both ways in a functional society over the long term.

kek

Someone could draw the same comic with the roles reversed.
Basically you should tolerate people who are not intolerant of you specifically - those people you should not tolerate. Those people are your enemies.

If A and B are enemies neither A nor B should tolerate the other. If A and B do not tolerate each other, they are enemies.

Popper wasn't taken very seriously when he was alive. He's enjoying a resurgence now since falsifiability, much like Napoleonic code, did a shockingly poor job of predicting technocracy.
Tolerance is a position defined by its breaking point. No-one expects to build a lasting society on such an idea. It's a temporary virtue that's easy to take sides on, that focuses attention on banalities, while the pillaging of nations goes unchecked. The pros are just offering their necks to their oppressors in the hope that there's a pension at the end for them.

One problem

They give Islam a free pass to invade and take over, while saying all Nazis need to be killed

So they don’t actually believe any of that shit and just hate white people

>philosopher says something absolutely retarded

What else is new?

it's missing the part about the need of an absolute morality for this whole thing to work
basically, this paradox can't be applied to anything resembling reality
pretty sure Popper said it himself

This.
Leftists love using poorly defined terms for their rhetoric. Everything they say is only structured enough that they can use it but vague enough that it's hard for others to throw back at them.

>no one even mentioning how leftists happily allow a religion as intolerant as Islam to take over

Just stopping by to remind you all you’re retards

this isn't posted as often as it should be

the obvious question is "who defines what's intolerant"
but mentally ill lefties will never have this thought

Ironically the intro of my copy of the republic, begins with a Karl Popper quote.

Popper messed up science too. Read up on what he introduced in the scientific method and it removed it further away from philosophy into deeper materialism.

Attached: iu[1].jpg (570x719, 73K)