Karl Popper is/was a totally dead end philosopher of scientific discovery, not politics, who no one followed. His most influential work is being used as the voice of authority in this stupid little meme.
You can define tolerance and intolerance to mean anything. Same with persecution. And that's what we experience now. If you want the police to crack down on lawless neighbourhoods, you're intolerant, you're persecuting the marginalised. If you want to stop immigration, that's persecuting people who want to come here, it's being intolerant of different ethnicities and cultures. If you want to stop purposely confusing children about their sexuality and gender, that's intolerant and you're persecuting trans people. That's why you can get banned on the internet, fired from your job, or in some countries actual legal trouble for expressing these views: they're being intolerant of your "intolerance".
What Popper did was make a convenient excuse for what has become a real liberal intolerance.
>you can't tolerate people who push intolerance >anything that isn't my ideology us intolerant of reality and should not be tolerated
Dishonest fascism
The graphic completely misrepresents his position. He was talking about people who would shut down democratic debate, not people who disagree with with the current progressive cause.
>He was talking about people who would shut down democratic debate, not people who disagree with with the current progressive cause.
How is that any different? The progressive hegemony in power would have all the power to define what "people who would shut down democratic debate" means and what "democratic debate" means in the first place. Also lol @ the idea that the progressive cause is so amazing that you are literally forbidden from straying it in any real sense under the threat of jail time and death, no matter what.
essentialy it's all just the same shit given a different lick of paint. there is no such thing as free expression a free society or a free anything, the only functional difference between western liberal democracies and traditional authoritarian states is how much pretense they make about their facile claims to power or righteousness. these societies that espouse vague virtues of tolerance and acceptance will still crucify you if you go against their cultural dogma or say something that makes them ape out.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I feel like most people just have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between ideology in practice and rhetoric. Like western countries are patently authoritarian but people still believe that they are not because these authoritarian polities tell their populace that they are actually the most democratic of all the polities of the world and what people perceive as authoritarian about them is actually the minimum necessary measures that have to be taken to protect "democracy" against "nazis" and "rightwingers" in general.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Indeed it is so that people are completely and utterly fricking moronic Black personapes that have zero comprehension of anything, no abstract thinking abilities and massive gaps in their logical process/theory of mind. It's like expecting genius from a farm animal which is what the average goycattle essentialy is.
>power to define what "people who would shut down democratic debate" means and what "democratic debate" means in the first place
Even more, I've met people IRL that think the Greek "got Democracy wrong". Yeah...
2 years ago
Anonymous
I never understood how could any liberal claim that modern "democracy" is the spiritual descendant of ancient greek democracy when the only thing these two institutions share in any real sense is that there are people who vote on things. But what you always need to preface with a gay little PSA is that nations were invented in the 19th century and before the evil of nationalism descended on earth a subsaharan Black person could blend in without issue among iron age irish tribes so long as he spoke irish to some degree and followed their religion and customs.
>you can't tolerate people who push intolerance >anything that isn't my ideology us intolerant of reality and should not be tolerated
Dishonest fascism
well I mean your picrel is probably it. most people don't think twice about being mean to disabled people. according to most people, bashing gays or minorities or women isn't tolerated but picking on those with assburgers, schizophrenia, bipolar, borderline or plain down syndrome is never given a second thought, sometimes even encouraged. that's why we need to rise up.
No
I am in favour of censoring rightoids because i don't like them i don't need a justification
its because you're sensitive and another word for sensitive is gay. so you suck wieners, good to know.
>you can be free >you just can't disagree with us liberalists
Why does this always happen? This is more Stalinist than Stalin.
because liberalism is cancerous and people should learn to be less offended. being offended is a disorder.
>its because you're sensitive and another word for sensitive is gay. so you suck wieners, good to know
This but when a right winger hears something ""antiwhite"".
You can disagree with us, but when your disagreement is over our right to disagree with you, then there is a problem. Fascists, Marxist-Leninists, religious fundamentalists, etc. all should get the boot when they start pushing things in that direction. I don't see the issue. Those groups would literally kill us, all we are doing is censoring them.
That doesn't work. You've already seen what censorship does. You, instead, need to make sure you're extremists of choice win. That's how political parties work.
>We should regulate free speech to ensure certain views can't be expressed, lest it lead to a slippery slope >Obviously this power we grant to the government will NEVER EVER be used in a tyrannical way
Maybe we could set up a congressional committee to investigate any and all un-American activities going on.
>Obviously this power we grant to the government will NEVER EVER be used in a tyrannical way
Who else can own such power? Private contractor? They would follow the money and power, resulting either in same things government would do or even try to manipulate the government through the expertise.
>Who else can own such power?
No one can. That's the whole point. Freedom of speech is absolute. If you give someone the power to censor others you don't like, you're giving them the power to inevitably censor you as well.
This is such as stupid message. If you have egalitarianism as a positive principle, then you enforce it, which means inegalitarian positions are no tolerated. There is no contradiction. "Tolerance" i.e., "you can do and believe whatever you want" was just a way of selling gay rights without puritans feeling like they were losing something. Why dance around it? Some things in society cannot exist. You can't have laws and violent crime at the same time, either.
There are no countries on Earth that have a zero tolerance policy for criticism of any egalitarian ideals. At most, you might get a jail sentence if you really, really piss off authorities in for example Germany or Austria by repeatedly or avidly inciting racial hatred. In most other countries with hate speech laws, you generally get a fine.
No, he was a fricking hack. I'll give him some leeway because he wasn't American and non main characters don't understand free speech or how important it is but the fact of the matter is, he was wrong. When you start suppressing ideas and limiting what can be "tolerated" is exactly the point you get tyranny. Germany got Boogeyman Moustache Guy without having free speech at all. It comes down to this: You either have free speech or you do not have free speech, there is no in-between. Free speech means the right for people to say thing that you might not like, to say things that are intolerant. When you have people making direct calls to violence then sure, then you can do something about that. But the idea "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is moronic. If there is no fire, then you can't do that because you are endangering people. If there IS a fire, then you have a civic duty to scream "fire" at the top of your lungs because it is the truth and you are saving people. There aren't limits on free speech if what you are saying is the truth and only open and honest discourse can determine what is truth, the state should never be the arbiter of truth, that is exactly how you get tyranny. To be fair to Popper, if he was alive today to witness current events, he probably would have changed his stance to match what I said here but maybe not, old people don't like changing their minds.
There is no such thing as moderate islamists or political islam.
>You can admire a mass murderer pedophile and think this book who tell you holy war is a duty is right on everything but not be an extremist >Thinking your people have a right to exist can not be moderate however.
Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim, and it's not centralized.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is a way looser definition of "who is a nazi" at least these days and they are far less centralized
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nazism has a pretty narrow definition. It's fascism that's more diverse. Italian fascism for example wasn't as racist as Nazism. Neither was Metaxism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Do you mean ACTUAL nazis or do you mean people who call themselves nazis today or do you mean people who are called nazis by others today?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Actual Nazis, not just people for whom the word is used carelessly.
>there is no such thing as a "moderate nazi" however
Of course there is.
There are plenty of National Socialist who don't engage in violence.
Just as there are plenty of Liberals who subscribe to extremist views and engage in / encourage violence.
Reddit is down the hall and to the left.
NEXT!
That's not the whole of what makes someone moderate. It usually refers to someone's views, not just the measures they take to put them into practice. Nazism by definition cannot be ideologically moderate because its core principles are so extreme. Islam can.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Actual Nazis, not just people for whom the word is used carelessly.
Oh, in that case yeah, less moderated but if the metric here is "Nazis wanna gas the israelites" and some nazis don't then I would say that they were moderates and people like that definitely existed. The thing is though, there are no nazis alive today but there are a great deal of violent Islamisists going strong so the fact that some of them may be moderate... Well that's even worse isn't it? Because the extremists then have a shield of a "moderate" population to hide behind when they snackbar a crowded street or behead someone. Instead of rightfully just throwing them all out people then go "It's not all of them, it's not all of them!" and then to make it worse, the "moderate" ones often won't condemn the violence either. Another difference here that you are kind of dancing around is that the core tenants of Islam are WORSE than those of nazism. The main idea of nazism isn't "gas israelites" that's just what ended up happening whereas the core tenants of Islam ARE "kill the infidel". If you look here >(9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
This is a direct call to violence. You won't find any direct calls to violence in mein kampf.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>because its core principles are so extreme
pan germanism and corporatism, so extreme
2 years ago
Anonymous
>National Socialism has a loose definition of who is Nazi, and it's not centralized.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not an argument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim
No. It's very clear who is muslim and who is not.
And what is now called "nazism" (not wanting gays to touch your kids for instance) isn't centralized either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
See:
According to some Muslims, only Sunnis are the real muslims and shias are a bunch of idolaters. And vice versa
According to others, sufis are not muslims
According to some others, only Quranists are the true Muslims and the Hadith tradition and therefore sharia ought to be disregarded completely.
Some believe that you have to uphold the 5 pillars of faith to be a Muslim
Some say that all you have to do to be considered a Muslims is recite the shahada
There are even some who think that merely being a monotheist makes you a Muslim.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim
>fricking >islam
>has a "loose definition"
2 years ago
Anonymous
According to some Muslims, only Sunnis are the real muslims and shias are a bunch of idolaters. And vice versa
According to others, sufis are not muslims
According to some others, only Quranists are the true Muslims and the Hadith tradition and therefore sharia ought to be disregarded completely.
Some believe that you have to uphold the 5 pillars of faith to be a Muslim
Some say that all you have to do to be considered a Muslims is recite the shahada
There are even some who think that merely being a monotheist makes you a Muslim.
>You can admire a mass murderer pedophile and think this book who tell you holy war is a duty is right on everything but not be an extremist >Thinking your people have a right to exist can not be moderate however.
>Thinking your people have a right to exist can not be moderate however.
That's not the definition of a Nazi anon. Nazism, from its earliest days, was an ideology built upon ideas of Germans' racial superiority, expansionism, and taking on the rest of the world in war.
If the Nazi ideology had merely been "we have a right to exist", then the Nazis' could have easily accomplished this by staying in their own lands and ruling them as they saw fit. America would have had no interest in overthrowing them, France and Britain had no stomach for a repeat the Great War, and the Soviet Union would have been kept physically separated from Germany by Poland and the Baltic states.
2 years ago
Anonymous
national socialism is an economic model more than a philosophy, the belief in racial superiority, expansionism and war are not inherent to it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
moron alert
I can guarantee you have never read any NS literature because none of their points included that. you just make up nonsense based on your imagination and expect people to believe you
>there is no such thing as a "moderate nazi" however
Of course there is.
There are plenty of National Socialist who don't engage in violence.
Just as there are plenty of Liberals who subscribe to extremist views and engage in / encourage violence.
Reddit is down the hall and to the left.
NEXT!
>Really makes you think
Well, yeah, every time liberals argue against fascism (Hegelians of the right, according to Popper) they reinforce the fascist worldview, not debunk it. >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 and pistols.
>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 and pistols.
It's hilarious this argument is being used for liberalism against fascism when today these are exactly the behaviours typical of ~~*liberals*~~.
This doesn't work because fascists are the only ones that liberal democracies are actually afraid of because any ethnic majority is a potential fascist insurgency in their view. As soon as a neo-caliphate spearheaded by a minority group did anything to interrupt international markets they would get turned into dust. Western governments don't have this option with the Fascist demographic which is basically middle class ethnic majorities which are their tax cattle and thus can't be massacred.
Should have one for Christianity too. "Tolerance" of christcuckery literally destroyed cultures and exterminated entire ethnic groups over the course of 2000 years.
No. Neoliberalism is incredibly good at dealing with radical ideologies when things are generally peaceful, but it is horrible at dealing with paramilitary violence. Attempting to ban or crush these ideologies will only lead to their followers using paramilitary violence to force their way. In turn, neoliberals will be forced to turn to other radical ideologies with their own paramilitaries just to defend themselves. Then you end up in a situation with two groups of radicals and an impotent center trying to balance them. Neoliberalism isn't a weak system, it only becomes weak when you undermine it and force it into a situation it is ill-suited for.
Actual hard no to that, in the sense that outlawing (in the ancient Germanic/Roman sense of removing protection of law from) dissident rightists/populists/Trumpists/White nationalists/neoNazis, and selective state crackdowns on them, prevented Charlottesville from expanding into an emboldened minority with the ability to make political change and win concessions from power, or win power outright. The neoliberal institutions proved that they needed deputised political violence and state violence to win against what could be termed dissident rightists.
What has actually helped the dissident right lately is the new Cold War against China and Russia, since oops turns out the neolib power structure actually needs native Westerners to join them and not be a potential source of internal problems.
Which is why Russia winning in Ukraine will potentially lead to a repeal or major alteration to the point of effective repeal, when it comes to affirmative action. Also wokeness and forced trans acceptance are now at risk of being shitcanned since native Westerners (and immigrants, who aren't into that stuff either) are going to need to have Western countries be less abhorrent.
Yes, everything bad that happened in the 20th century (which, as we all know, was the only century where anything bad happened) was caused by Plato not liking Athenian democracy. What a fricking genius.
A paradox is not a logical argument; it's a paradox. Using a paradox as a logical argument in the favour of or against something is fallacious, and should be discarded.
I thought Popper was most well known for absolutely destroying logical positivism and arguing in favour of falsification verification with regards to the scientific method.
It lead to metaphysical naturalism which also happens to be my ontology of choice. Does anyone else know this? This board is full of religious people so probably not. I have 'The Open Society and its Enemies' on the shelf behind me but I've never read it because it's dense as frick and in order to understand it you need to be familiar with all the work it references which is basically every western philosopher of note going back to ancient Greece.
There's also no witty comic I can post about metaphysical naturalism that I'm aware of.
A better paradox within liberalism was brought up by the either ultra-conservative or Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt. How can liberal societies, who consider the individual to be the only social unit worthy of recognition and rights, induce any individual to die for the state? How can liberals justify the draft?
its gives you the ability to shut down other peoples ideas by bending the facts enough to technically make them look like they are intolerant towards others
>anime=la troon.
Kid, you are on IQfy, don't like it, frick off back to plebbit
Actual Nazis, not just people for whom the word is used carelessly.
[...]
That's not the whole of what makes someone moderate. It usually refers to someone's views, not just the measures they take to put them into practice. Nazism by definition cannot be ideologically moderate because its core principles are so extreme. Islam can.
>That's not the whole of what makes someone moderate. It usually refers to someone's views
ahhhhhh and you are the dictator of what makes peoples views moderate?? >Nazism by definition cannot be ideologically moderate
Why?
Not an argument.
>Not an argument.
Tell that to him ---->
Maybe if you include Oskar Schindler.
[...]
[...]
Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim, and it's not centralized.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just have eyes and a brain that function enough for me to know what things mean. Islam is a faith that like any faith has degrees of adherence and schools of thought. Nazism is a specific political doctrine.
GIFs aren't an argument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just have eyes and a brain that function enough for me to know what things mean. National Socialism is an ideology that like any ideology has degrees of adherence and schools of differing thought.
Additionally as Carl Schmitt correctly pointed out, all politics is theology.
>GIFs aren't an argument.
Correct, but these are
>anime=la troon.
Kid, you are on IQfy, don't like it, frick off back to plebbit
[...] >That's not the whole of what makes someone moderate. It usually refers to someone's views
ahhhhhh and you are the dictator of what makes peoples views moderate?? >Nazism by definition cannot be ideologically moderate
Why?
[...] >Not an argument.
Tell that to him ----> [...]
>ahhhhhh and you are the dictator of what makes peoples views moderate??
& >Why?
Both of which you failed to address.
NEXT!
2 years ago
Anonymous
You cant have moderate nazis because, well because you just cant ok!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Simpsons posting and incomprehensible buzzwords aren't an argument.
The view he's espousing (which is just a smokescreen for his israeliness, but whatever) is basically reactionary. He would destroy liberal democracy in an attempt to save liberal democracy from liberal democracy. I actually have liberal democratic principles, and I acknowledge that holding to those principles may lead to people using their liberties and using democracy to overturn liberal democracy. I simply am willing to accept that, and don't see the point in needlessly dragging on a charade of liberal democracy that involves constricting liberties and thwarting what people want, to the point where what is being called "liberal democracy" is neither liberal or democratic anyway, but there's now a thick fog of delusion and lying over the whole thing.
What the frick was Popper even advocating anyway? That extremist movements like Neo-Nazism be outlawed since they would seek the violent overthrow of liberal democracy?
Did it ever occur to him that outlawing an entire ideology usually just makes it more popular among the disaffected who just latch onto it? Take Bolshevism in Russia for instance, the more the Tsarist authorities kept trying to suppress it, the more popular it became until they were able to first overthrow the Tsar and then the Russian Republic in 1917.
ironically liberal democracy itself becomes an intolerant dogma in spite of its thesis because it has to brutally crush dissent to maintain the facade of its liberal qualities
Popper died years before this shitty graph was made, hell one of the reasons he made his autistic refutation method was to "prove" Marxism was pseudo science. Anyways, what you say about liberal democracies being intolerant was (and still is) a very common talking point in the far left
If holding to liberal democratic principles leads us out of liberal democracy, then ok. That's much better than destroying liberal democracy to maintain a diminished, mutilated facade with the name "liberal democracy" that few people other than simps believe.
This is just a clear proof that tolerance is self-defeating regardless of what you do to preserve it.
There's nothing paradoxical about this bullshit, it's only called a paradox because the concept of tolerance being flawed is not an acceptable conclusion to reach.
The same argument could be used against feminists, israeli bolseviks and Black folks.
If only the Germans were more intolerant towards the israelites there would be no 1918 revolution. If only European Americans had MLK arrested and executed the nogs wouldn't riot today.
These people shill against tolerance and promote violence against different beliefs but they don't realize that they also promote a neo nazi curb stomping on a troony during pride parade or men beating feminists into submission
>If only the Germans were more intolerant towards the israelites there would be no 1918 revolution.
Where does this myth originates from? German israelites were the most patriot.
>Where does this myth originates from? German israelites were the most patriot.
Quit playing dumb israeli agitator. One glance at 1918 revolution leaders names shows that almost half of them were israeli. And that's despite the fact that only about half a million israelites lived in Germany.
1% minority really overrepresented in treasonous behaviour
Which revolution? And what is your criteria for being israeli? And how do all israelites partake in such great conspiracy? Who pays for this perfect organization? How do they get organized? How do they ensure such perfect loyality? Why did more than 10.000 israelites die for germany? Why did israelites of different types argue over their goals if they are so perfectly aligned.
Your types underestimate the chaos, complexity of history. You will find simple answers elsewhere.
Nazis were the greatest traitor of all. Destroyers of western civilization. They left Britain, France and Germany in ruins. Murdering children and women for insane hatred while indulging in their disgusting decadence.
>I don't believe in tolerance unless it benefits me to do so
tolerance can never benefit you directly, its like charity, its not supposed to be for your benefit but someone elses >violence decides all things anyway
if nihilistic apes are left in charge then yes
If intolerant ideas win in a space of total free speech and total tolerance, that means that they are superior. Follow the will of the people, it is correct.
Obviously, yes. Consider a sophisticated dinner for adults. To ensure a free open and interesting discussion, there must be some ground rules. You dont insult the hostess. You dont poop on the floor. You do not insult the other guests. You do not demand that only you and those who agree with you gets to speak.
But those are exactly the "rights" demanded by your average chud
Why do leftists keep using this image but completely ignore and avoid the fact Popper was anti-marxist, anti-communist and said they were the same shit as nazism.
Popper sounds great but what is Popper in practice? >Germany, 1930s >we germans are civilized & tolerant people >but the great experiment of german civility and tolerance is at risk - from israeliteS! >their insidious ways will eat our society from the inside and all our tolerance will be for naught >you know what we have to do!
Rational people do not tolerate Popperites. Do not suffer Popperites to live. In b4 seething fascists defend their fellow Popperites/Nazis.
Karl Popper is/was a totally dead end philosopher of scientific discovery, not politics, who no one followed. His most influential work is being used as the voice of authority in this stupid little meme.
>who no one followed
George Soros is a well-known admirer of Popper.
you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about.
Open Society was nowhere cost to being Popper's most influential work. Logic of Scientific Discovery was.
You can define tolerance and intolerance to mean anything. Same with persecution. And that's what we experience now. If you want the police to crack down on lawless neighbourhoods, you're intolerant, you're persecuting the marginalised. If you want to stop immigration, that's persecuting people who want to come here, it's being intolerant of different ethnicities and cultures. If you want to stop purposely confusing children about their sexuality and gender, that's intolerant and you're persecuting trans people. That's why you can get banned on the internet, fired from your job, or in some countries actual legal trouble for expressing these views: they're being intolerant of your "intolerance".
What Popper did was make a convenient excuse for what has become a real liberal intolerance.
The graphic completely misrepresents his position. He was talking about people who would shut down democratic debate, not people who disagree with with the current progressive cause.
>He was talking about people who would shut down democratic debate, not people who disagree with with the current progressive cause.
How is that any different? The progressive hegemony in power would have all the power to define what "people who would shut down democratic debate" means and what "democratic debate" means in the first place. Also lol @ the idea that the progressive cause is so amazing that you are literally forbidden from straying it in any real sense under the threat of jail time and death, no matter what.
essentialy it's all just the same shit given a different lick of paint. there is no such thing as free expression a free society or a free anything, the only functional difference between western liberal democracies and traditional authoritarian states is how much pretense they make about their facile claims to power or righteousness. these societies that espouse vague virtues of tolerance and acceptance will still crucify you if you go against their cultural dogma or say something that makes them ape out.
I feel like most people just have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between ideology in practice and rhetoric. Like western countries are patently authoritarian but people still believe that they are not because these authoritarian polities tell their populace that they are actually the most democratic of all the polities of the world and what people perceive as authoritarian about them is actually the minimum necessary measures that have to be taken to protect "democracy" against "nazis" and "rightwingers" in general.
Indeed it is so that people are completely and utterly fricking moronic Black personapes that have zero comprehension of anything, no abstract thinking abilities and massive gaps in their logical process/theory of mind. It's like expecting genius from a farm animal which is what the average goycattle essentialy is.
>power to define what "people who would shut down democratic debate" means and what "democratic debate" means in the first place
Even more, I've met people IRL that think the Greek "got Democracy wrong". Yeah...
I never understood how could any liberal claim that modern "democracy" is the spiritual descendant of ancient greek democracy when the only thing these two institutions share in any real sense is that there are people who vote on things. But what you always need to preface with a gay little PSA is that nations were invented in the 19th century and before the evil of nationalism descended on earth a subsaharan Black person could blend in without issue among iron age irish tribes so long as he spoke irish to some degree and followed their religion and customs.
>cancerline
>you can't tolerate people who push intolerance
>anything that isn't my ideology us intolerant of reality and should not be tolerated
Dishonest fascism
>Jew
>opinion disregarded
intolerant chud
seething pedophile
Liberal rebranding of Error has no rights.
you've got the wrong one bro
kek
Based.
this is probably better than his thesis.
See
His argument was never so simplistic. His "intolerant" applied to people who use force instead of arguments.
wrong quote see
define intolerance/tolerance
What's the least-heinous idea that you're allowed to be intolerant toward?
Where's the line?
well I mean your picrel is probably it. most people don't think twice about being mean to disabled people. according to most people, bashing gays or minorities or women isn't tolerated but picking on those with assburgers, schizophrenia, bipolar, borderline or plain down syndrome is never given a second thought, sometimes even encouraged. that's why we need to rise up.
its because you're sensitive and another word for sensitive is gay. so you suck wieners, good to know.
because liberalism is cancerous and people should learn to be less offended. being offended is a disorder.
>its because you're sensitive and another word for sensitive is gay. so you suck wieners, good to know
This but when a right winger hears something ""antiwhite"".
Idea of death penalty I suppose.
No
I am in favour of censoring rightoids because i don't like them i don't need a justification
>you can be free
>you just can't disagree with us liberalists
Why does this always happen? This is more Stalinist than Stalin.
You can disagree with us, but when your disagreement is over our right to disagree with you, then there is a problem. Fascists, Marxist-Leninists, religious fundamentalists, etc. all should get the boot when they start pushing things in that direction. I don't see the issue. Those groups would literally kill us, all we are doing is censoring them.
That doesn't work. You've already seen what censorship does. You, instead, need to make sure you're extremists of choice win. That's how political parties work.
>We should regulate free speech to ensure certain views can't be expressed, lest it lead to a slippery slope
>Obviously this power we grant to the government will NEVER EVER be used in a tyrannical way
Maybe we could set up a congressional committee to investigate any and all un-American activities going on.
>Obviously this power we grant to the government will NEVER EVER be used in a tyrannical way
Who else can own such power? Private contractor? They would follow the money and power, resulting either in same things government would do or even try to manipulate the government through the expertise.
>Who else can own such power?
No one can. That's the whole point. Freedom of speech is absolute. If you give someone the power to censor others you don't like, you're giving them the power to inevitably censor you as well.
This is such as stupid message. If you have egalitarianism as a positive principle, then you enforce it, which means inegalitarian positions are no tolerated. There is no contradiction. "Tolerance" i.e., "you can do and believe whatever you want" was just a way of selling gay rights without puritans feeling like they were losing something. Why dance around it? Some things in society cannot exist. You can't have laws and violent crime at the same time, either.
There are no countries on Earth that have a zero tolerance policy for criticism of any egalitarian ideals. At most, you might get a jail sentence if you really, really piss off authorities in for example Germany or Austria by repeatedly or avidly inciting racial hatred. In most other countries with hate speech laws, you generally get a fine.
that pic is not what Popper said
fixed that for you.
No, he was a fricking hack. I'll give him some leeway because he wasn't American and non main characters don't understand free speech or how important it is but the fact of the matter is, he was wrong. When you start suppressing ideas and limiting what can be "tolerated" is exactly the point you get tyranny. Germany got Boogeyman Moustache Guy without having free speech at all. It comes down to this: You either have free speech or you do not have free speech, there is no in-between. Free speech means the right for people to say thing that you might not like, to say things that are intolerant. When you have people making direct calls to violence then sure, then you can do something about that. But the idea "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is moronic. If there is no fire, then you can't do that because you are endangering people. If there IS a fire, then you have a civic duty to scream "fire" at the top of your lungs because it is the truth and you are saving people. There aren't limits on free speech if what you are saying is the truth and only open and honest discourse can determine what is truth, the state should never be the arbiter of truth, that is exactly how you get tyranny. To be fair to Popper, if he was alive today to witness current events, he probably would have changed his stance to match what I said here but maybe not, old people don't like changing their minds.
Yet we (western Europe ) tolerate Islam, curious
you can be a muslim and not subscribe to extremist views, there is no such thing as a "moderate nazi" however
if there are moderate muslims, there are moderate nazis, you don't get to just pick and choose based on arbitrary bullshit, sorry.
Maybe if you include Oskar Schindler.
Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim, and it's not centralized.
There is a way looser definition of "who is a nazi" at least these days and they are far less centralized
Nazism has a pretty narrow definition. It's fascism that's more diverse. Italian fascism for example wasn't as racist as Nazism. Neither was Metaxism.
Do you mean ACTUAL nazis or do you mean people who call themselves nazis today or do you mean people who are called nazis by others today?
Actual Nazis, not just people for whom the word is used carelessly.
That's not the whole of what makes someone moderate. It usually refers to someone's views, not just the measures they take to put them into practice. Nazism by definition cannot be ideologically moderate because its core principles are so extreme. Islam can.
>Actual Nazis, not just people for whom the word is used carelessly.
Oh, in that case yeah, less moderated but if the metric here is "Nazis wanna gas the israelites" and some nazis don't then I would say that they were moderates and people like that definitely existed. The thing is though, there are no nazis alive today but there are a great deal of violent Islamisists going strong so the fact that some of them may be moderate... Well that's even worse isn't it? Because the extremists then have a shield of a "moderate" population to hide behind when they snackbar a crowded street or behead someone. Instead of rightfully just throwing them all out people then go "It's not all of them, it's not all of them!" and then to make it worse, the "moderate" ones often won't condemn the violence either. Another difference here that you are kind of dancing around is that the core tenants of Islam are WORSE than those of nazism. The main idea of nazism isn't "gas israelites" that's just what ended up happening whereas the core tenants of Islam ARE "kill the infidel". If you look here
>(9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
This is a direct call to violence. You won't find any direct calls to violence in mein kampf.
>because its core principles are so extreme
pan germanism and corporatism, so extreme
>National Socialism has a loose definition of who is Nazi, and it's not centralized.
Not an argument.
>Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim
No. It's very clear who is muslim and who is not.
And what is now called "nazism" (not wanting gays to touch your kids for instance) isn't centralized either.
See:
>Islam has a loose definition of who is Muslim
>fricking
>islam
>has a "loose definition"
According to some Muslims, only Sunnis are the real muslims and shias are a bunch of idolaters. And vice versa
According to others, sufis are not muslims
According to some others, only Quranists are the true Muslims and the Hadith tradition and therefore sharia ought to be disregarded completely.
Some believe that you have to uphold the 5 pillars of faith to be a Muslim
Some say that all you have to do to be considered a Muslims is recite the shahada
There are even some who think that merely being a monotheist makes you a Muslim.
There is no such thing as moderate islamists or political islam.
>You can admire a mass murderer pedophile and think this book who tell you holy war is a duty is right on everything but not be an extremist
>Thinking your people have a right to exist can not be moderate however.
>Thinking your people have a right to exist can not be moderate however.
That's not the definition of a Nazi anon. Nazism, from its earliest days, was an ideology built upon ideas of Germans' racial superiority, expansionism, and taking on the rest of the world in war.
If the Nazi ideology had merely been "we have a right to exist", then the Nazis' could have easily accomplished this by staying in their own lands and ruling them as they saw fit. America would have had no interest in overthrowing them, France and Britain had no stomach for a repeat the Great War, and the Soviet Union would have been kept physically separated from Germany by Poland and the Baltic states.
national socialism is an economic model more than a philosophy, the belief in racial superiority, expansionism and war are not inherent to it.
moron alert
I can guarantee you have never read any NS literature because none of their points included that. you just make up nonsense based on your imagination and expect people to believe you
>there is no such thing as a "moderate nazi" however
>there is no such thing as a "moderate nazi" however
Of course there is.
There are plenty of National Socialist who don't engage in violence.
Just as there are plenty of Liberals who subscribe to extremist views and engage in / encourage violence.
Reddit is down the hall and to the left.
NEXT!
The average Redditor is more unhinged and more inclined to supporting actual violence and war than the average Nazi.
the mean total of any given population will be moderate regardless of the ideology of the population, meaning that moderate nazis can and did exist
people this stupid actually exist wtf brahs
Lol no, it's a conclusion filled with problems that exist only because leftists need to have the moral high ground
Please keep bumping this thread, I wanna post a pic on this but its only on my laptop which Im away from
Why can't you just find it again and why the frick do you have a laptop like a woman and not a PC like a man?
>intolerance is necessary for survival
Really makes you think
>Really makes you think
Well, yeah, every time liberals argue against fascism (Hegelians of the right, according to Popper) they reinforce the fascist worldview, not debunk it.
>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 and pistols.
>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 and pistols.
It's hilarious this argument is being used for liberalism against fascism when today these are exactly the behaviours typical of ~~*liberals*~~.
Yes.
This doesn't work because fascists are the only ones that liberal democracies are actually afraid of because any ethnic majority is a potential fascist insurgency in their view. As soon as a neo-caliphate spearheaded by a minority group did anything to interrupt international markets they would get turned into dust. Western governments don't have this option with the Fascist demographic which is basically middle class ethnic majorities which are their tax cattle and thus can't be massacred.
Should have one for Christianity too. "Tolerance" of christcuckery literally destroyed cultures and exterminated entire ethnic groups over the course of 2000 years.
Based, Christianity needs its teeth back
Society needs to establish brazilian motorcycle cop squads to hunt down dangerous extremists that are a threat to liberal democracy.
Yes
Friend good, enemy bad
Yes.
No. Neoliberalism is incredibly good at dealing with radical ideologies when things are generally peaceful, but it is horrible at dealing with paramilitary violence. Attempting to ban or crush these ideologies will only lead to their followers using paramilitary violence to force their way. In turn, neoliberals will be forced to turn to other radical ideologies with their own paramilitaries just to defend themselves. Then you end up in a situation with two groups of radicals and an impotent center trying to balance them. Neoliberalism isn't a weak system, it only becomes weak when you undermine it and force it into a situation it is ill-suited for.
read at least 2 books (any subject) and turn 18 before posting again.
No
Actual hard no to that, in the sense that outlawing (in the ancient Germanic/Roman sense of removing protection of law from) dissident rightists/populists/Trumpists/White nationalists/neoNazis, and selective state crackdowns on them, prevented Charlottesville from expanding into an emboldened minority with the ability to make political change and win concessions from power, or win power outright. The neoliberal institutions proved that they needed deputised political violence and state violence to win against what could be termed dissident rightists.
What has actually helped the dissident right lately is the new Cold War against China and Russia, since oops turns out the neolib power structure actually needs native Westerners to join them and not be a potential source of internal problems.
Which is why Russia winning in Ukraine will potentially lead to a repeal or major alteration to the point of effective repeal, when it comes to affirmative action. Also wokeness and forced trans acceptance are now at risk of being shitcanned since native Westerners (and immigrants, who aren't into that stuff either) are going to need to have Western countries be less abhorrent.
What happens if Native Westerners don't fully buy in, or worse take advantage of it?
Yeah, and it should come as no surprise.
A contradiction of values or a paradox of values are doomed to fail.
Yes, everything bad that happened in the 20th century (which, as we all know, was the only century where anything bad happened) was caused by Plato not liking Athenian democracy. What a fricking genius.
A paradox is not a logical argument; it's a paradox. Using a paradox as a logical argument in the favour of or against something is fallacious, and should be discarded.
I thought Popper was most well known for absolutely destroying logical positivism and arguing in favour of falsification verification with regards to the scientific method.
It lead to metaphysical naturalism which also happens to be my ontology of choice. Does anyone else know this? This board is full of religious people so probably not. I have 'The Open Society and its Enemies' on the shelf behind me but I've never read it because it's dense as frick and in order to understand it you need to be familiar with all the work it references which is basically every western philosopher of note going back to ancient Greece.
There's also no witty comic I can post about metaphysical naturalism that I'm aware of.
>I thought Popper was most well known for absolutely destroying logical positivism
let's be real, popper is most well known for being a rave drug
A better paradox within liberalism was brought up by the either ultra-conservative or Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt. How can liberal societies, who consider the individual to be the only social unit worthy of recognition and rights, induce any individual to die for the state? How can liberals justify the draft?
its just fascism but with more mind gymnastics
its gives you the ability to shut down other peoples ideas by bending the facts enough to technically make them look like they are intolerant towards others
>Fascism is when you don't let people speak
you are as fricking moronic as popper.
please enlighten me what fascism is anime troon
>anime=la troon.
Kid, you are on IQfy, don't like it, frick off back to plebbit
>That's not the whole of what makes someone moderate. It usually refers to someone's views
ahhhhhh and you are the dictator of what makes peoples views moderate??
>Nazism by definition cannot be ideologically moderate
Why?
>Not an argument.
Tell that to him ---->
I just have eyes and a brain that function enough for me to know what things mean. Islam is a faith that like any faith has degrees of adherence and schools of thought. Nazism is a specific political doctrine.
GIFs aren't an argument.
I just have eyes and a brain that function enough for me to know what things mean. National Socialism is an ideology that like any ideology has degrees of adherence and schools of differing thought.
Additionally as Carl Schmitt correctly pointed out, all politics is theology.
>GIFs aren't an argument.
Correct, but these are
>ahhhhhh and you are the dictator of what makes peoples views moderate??
&
>Why?
Both of which you failed to address.
NEXT!
You cant have moderate nazis because, well because you just cant ok!
Simpsons posting and incomprehensible buzzwords aren't an argument.
=la troon.
Yes. Dilate.
No, I wasn't.
dont feed the tard (you)s
if he doesnt get any the underage will leave for a haplo autist thread to bait in
Yes, we shouldn’t tolerate leftism and liberalism. Heretics need to be arrested and executed.
The view he's espousing (which is just a smokescreen for his israeliness, but whatever) is basically reactionary. He would destroy liberal democracy in an attempt to save liberal democracy from liberal democracy. I actually have liberal democratic principles, and I acknowledge that holding to those principles may lead to people using their liberties and using democracy to overturn liberal democracy. I simply am willing to accept that, and don't see the point in needlessly dragging on a charade of liberal democracy that involves constricting liberties and thwarting what people want, to the point where what is being called "liberal democracy" is neither liberal or democratic anyway, but there's now a thick fog of delusion and lying over the whole thing.
moron here,
What the frick was Popper even advocating anyway? That extremist movements like Neo-Nazism be outlawed since they would seek the violent overthrow of liberal democracy?
Did it ever occur to him that outlawing an entire ideology usually just makes it more popular among the disaffected who just latch onto it? Take Bolshevism in Russia for instance, the more the Tsarist authorities kept trying to suppress it, the more popular it became until they were able to first overthrow the Tsar and then the Russian Republic in 1917.
ironically liberal democracy itself becomes an intolerant dogma in spite of its thesis because it has to brutally crush dissent to maintain the facade of its liberal qualities
Popper died years before this shitty graph was made, hell one of the reasons he made his autistic refutation method was to "prove" Marxism was pseudo science. Anyways, what you say about liberal democracies being intolerant was (and still is) a very common talking point in the far left
How prominent has National Socialism been in Germany since the end of the second world war?
If holding to liberal democratic principles leads us out of liberal democracy, then ok. That's much better than destroying liberal democracy to maintain a diminished, mutilated facade with the name "liberal democracy" that few people other than simps believe.
This is just a clear proof that tolerance is self-defeating regardless of what you do to preserve it.
There's nothing paradoxical about this bullshit, it's only called a paradox because the concept of tolerance being flawed is not an acceptable conclusion to reach.
yes. we must outlaw communism and anarchism
>outlaw communism
based
>outlaw anarchism
would do nothing because anarchy does not operate according to the rule of law but the absence of it
The same argument could be used against feminists, israeli bolseviks and Black folks.
If only the Germans were more intolerant towards the israelites there would be no 1918 revolution. If only European Americans had MLK arrested and executed the nogs wouldn't riot today.
These people shill against tolerance and promote violence against different beliefs but they don't realize that they also promote a neo nazi curb stomping on a troony during pride parade or men beating feminists into submission
>If only European Americans had MLK arrested and executed the nogs wouldn't riot today.
MLK didn't make anyone riot. That was Jim Crow.
>If only the Germans were more intolerant towards the israelites there would be no 1918 revolution.
Where does this myth originates from? German israelites were the most patriot.
>Where does this myth originates from?
Jews were massively overrepresented within Marxist leadership roles at the turn of the century. So much so that Marxism became a israeli conspirscy
>those sources
lmao
>Where does this myth originates from? German israelites were the most patriot.
Quit playing dumb israeli agitator. One glance at 1918 revolution leaders names shows that almost half of them were israeli. And that's despite the fact that only about half a million israelites lived in Germany.
1% minority really overrepresented in treasonous behaviour
Which revolution? And what is your criteria for being israeli? And how do all israelites partake in such great conspiracy? Who pays for this perfect organization? How do they get organized? How do they ensure such perfect loyality? Why did more than 10.000 israelites die for germany? Why did israelites of different types argue over their goals if they are so perfectly aligned.
Your types underestimate the chaos, complexity of history. You will find simple answers elsewhere.
Nazis were the greatest traitor of all. Destroyers of western civilization. They left Britain, France and Germany in ruins. Murdering children and women for insane hatred while indulging in their disgusting decadence.
the rates of israeli soldiers in the army were 2% lower than the general populace
Yes, fascists get bullet.
Communist can get away with a beating.
I don't believe in tolerance unless it benefits me to do so, so this is all a moot point and violence decides all things anyway
>I don't believe in tolerance unless it benefits me to do so
tolerance can never benefit you directly, its like charity, its not supposed to be for your benefit but someone elses
>violence decides all things anyway
if nihilistic apes are left in charge then yes
>if nihilistic apes are left in charge then yes
Well they are right now, is there anything else to say?
Well I have grown to hate those 'someone elses', so all the more reason to think this argument is utterly moot
Isn't that the guy who thought that Plato invented fascism AND communism and that evolution was a pseudo-science?
If intolerant ideas win in a space of total free speech and total tolerance, that means that they are superior. Follow the will of the people, it is correct.
So liars and propagandists don't exist and people are perfect?
The solution is very simple, you either have free speech or you do not and there is no gray area.
thoughts and belief are one thing, actions are another.
i can tolerate if people *think* gays people should be executed but I absolutely will not tolerate them executing gay people for simply being gay.
free speech isnt freedom of action, surely
Popper was israeli
Yeah and it makes you whine like a battered woman.
Obviously, yes. Consider a sophisticated dinner for adults. To ensure a free open and interesting discussion, there must be some ground rules. You dont insult the hostess. You dont poop on the floor. You do not insult the other guests. You do not demand that only you and those who agree with you gets to speak.
But those are exactly the "rights" demanded by your average chud
Why do leftists keep using this image but completely ignore and avoid the fact Popper was anti-marxist, anti-communist and said they were the same shit as nazism.
because they're not marxists and commies?
Because leftists don't actually read anything and their political ideology can be boiled down to whatever is trending on twitter?
Hitler was right when he said that the great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces its enemies to imitate it.
Popper sounds great but what is Popper in practice?
>Germany, 1930s
>we germans are civilized & tolerant people
>but the great experiment of german civility and tolerance is at risk - from israeliteS!
>their insidious ways will eat our society from the inside and all our tolerance will be for naught
>you know what we have to do!
Rational people do not tolerate Popperites. Do not suffer Popperites to live. In b4 seething fascists defend their fellow Popperites/Nazis.
Does this mean Pinochet did nothing wrong?