Thought I'd put that out there

Thought I'd put that out there.

Attached: freedom-to-destroy.png (2048x2048, 131K)

No it doesn't lmao how stupid are you?

wrong.
the police has the monopoly of violence.

Depends on what they mean by destroy. It doesn't mean you can kill or imprison people but you can deny them jobs or end friendships.

Which SJdubya said this?

i'll put this out there too:

Attached: memes.jpg (800x1000, 147K)

pretty sure it's assault to hurt someone over what they say, but try it fag end up in jail and i'll end up saying what i want but money in my pocket and you listening behind bars, fag

Freedom of speech means Comcast is free to throttle your internet too.

This isn't a real paradox you know, it's not even logic.

Getting someone fired, ruining their reputation, etc.

feel free to elaborate and debunk the commie sjw propaganda user

It's not a paradox, that's the debunk right off the bat. It claims itself to be a paradox a priori as though the claim is the argument. It's not a paradox.

how is it not a paradox user?

Sure but if you're already destroyed what do you have to lose, so you speak true, there is truth laying only in the depths of society

(Different user) It's not a paradox because it implies that if the many are tolerant than intolerance will become the new norm, while in actuality if everyone is tolerant they won't accept intolerant ideas because of their tolerance but will be tolerant of their rights to speak them. Tolerance and acceptance are often mislabeled as the other

oh, it's a semantics thing for you, i get it.

I'm the original user.
It's not a paradox because it's literally not a paradox, it's not even a logical statement. You can't just claim that things are paradoxes in order to consider your side the "le rational" one.
This is like some shit psuedo-intellectual empiricists would chug lmao. Get your rationalism up.

can you elaborate on why this isn't logic:

>Defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant

I think this was what the meaning of the OPs pic was.

That being said, when you start a witch hunt and normal people find out that it was over something stupid like not using someone's preferred pronouns or the kind of shit ANTIFA pulled, THOSE non witch-hunt people have the freedom to alienate snowflakes who are terrible company because they're too sensitive.

>i'm a feeble old man, we need to come together and remove all the things that scare me
>uhh help me, the evil people are coming for me

i thought freedom of speech was that others don't have the freedom to destroy what you say. those are completely conflicting. can i destroy anything you say?

>Lefties think harassment is a form of boycotting.
If you are neither the clientele nor would you be if you had expendable income how can one really be able to boycott anything?

>i'm an entitled youth, we need to come together and remove all the things i don't like
>uhh help me, the degenerates are cumming on me

>yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre

except that means it's not tolerance you're defending, you're just defending your own intolerance. this is pure propaganda what the hell. are these kind of images what you normals eat up? maybe i should listen to Jow Forums more

>yelling "this nigga eating beans" in a crowded theatre

checkmate you stupid faggot

lolwat.bmp

Entitled. That's just a buzzword. This guy has a mental complex resulting from his weakness, that makes him want to nicefy the whole world.
Old people like that are terrible. They should just lie down and die.

it's an idea that only exists because of how we express tolerance with the english language. you could avoid the issue altogether if you were extraordinarily verbose and used 5 paragraphs to describe what tolerance is and means.

it is not a paradox because it has nothing to do with logic. it has everything to do with brevity and the things unsaid.

(((Karl Popper)))
Gee, who could have guessed it?!

That's just incorrect.

i appreciate these posts in atypical ways.

>needs shitty cartoons and blatant rhetoric to back up his ideas that lack depth

How do semantics not matter?

OP you mean that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence

Dingus

>Deny them jobs

That just means there's no such thing as free speech under capitalism.

>end friendships

make better friends.