Popper seems to be a meme right now. I never really paid attention to him. Are the normies getting him right...

It seems like a means for justifying violence that protects the status quo.

>Karl Popper

>I do find it interesting that leftists have repurposed Popper's nuanced argument and apply it to natzies, but they don't do the same with the extremely retrograde and anti-cosmopolitan Islamist ideology.

We do. Maybe you don't seek out actual leftist critiques of Islam and aren't really exposed to media that would give you those critiques? Not even trying to be snarky, most socialists are as critical of Islam as they are of Christianity, and naturally so. It's more pertinent to speak on issues relating to fascism then it is to Islam tho, at least in the States.

No. A neoliberal capitalist ploy to distract idiots and lesser liberal ass kissers.

Yeah. If this is necessary to sustain it, the open society is its own enemy.

P O P P A
O
P
P
A

Do you mean Sam Harris or Bill Maher? These are a few left-leaning figures known for their critical stances on Islam. But they are few and far between. And the thrust of leftist politics in recent years has been one of appeasement and apologetics for Islamist extremism.

honestly who even cares

nobody is actually committed to total freedom for everyone. never happened, never will. when people advocate for it, its just politically convenient.

its more effective to talk about what a society wants as opposed to some impossible values they should maintain. most people dont care about having consistent principals, they just want to feel good living where they are.

Nobody significant is defending terrorists, its directed towards moderate Muslims who face the biggest backlash because of terrorism

Not to boil everything down to an aphorism, but generally, the left is wrong on Islam, but the right is wrong on Muslims

Isn't that shit taken out of context in the first place?

>Karl Popper

>moderate muslims
The left sure doesn't care for moderate fascists of any other kind. Makes you think.

I started reading Popper's The Open Society before I was jew aware, and it puzzled me to no end why he smeared Plato and Hegel with blame for the totalitarian atrocities of the 20th century, yet absolved Karl Max from criticism.
Now I know, the jew always covers for his co-ethnic.

is popper really jewish? god, that would make too much sense.

Based on equivocation. Tolerance of thought is different than tolerance of action. Free speech is different than free action. Furthermore, intolerance is performed in many ways, which are very unequal to each other. If I refuse to listen to someone, I am being intolerant. If i shoot them for what they say, I am intolerant. If I excommunicate someone for the color of their skin, I am being intolerant. If I fine someone for an action they took, I am being intolerant. Obviously, any society, even one that is generally regarded as tolerant, is a system of bother certain tolerances and certain intolerances. For a society to be completely tolerant about all things in all ways is to not be a society at all. But to say a society must be intolerant of some things in some ways is not a novel or importanr thought at all, for it is the very basis of society. The question is what should be tolerated and in what ways. In this, the American society is quite clear that all speech, and therefore all thought, is to be tolerated only so far as the law is concerned, and only to the point of action, where a new system of tokerances is continually molded by democratically organized legislation and judicial review. I've never read Popper, so I can't really say how his ideas agree or disagree, but any who use his name to support the idea that thought alone, and so also speech, can be actively curtqiled by the government engages in gross equivocation of the meaning of tolerance.

He dedicated a huge section to extensive criticism of Marxism, you sophist.

from his wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Personal_life

>jew aware
Sounds like someone needs a five knuckle sandwich.

This may make sense in a strictly dispassionate sense, but in practice humans always twist and manipulate these kinds of rhetorical arguments towards their own ends. This is easily primed for labeling an adversary 'intolerant' and then justifying all means of destroying them.

The idea is too paradoxical and vague to ever disseminate correctly without descending into chaos.

>threatening violence because you disagree with that user
Pretty pathetic.

bullshit idea made to please modern sensibilities
either you defend absolute freedom of speech or you simply defend censorship and don't care if people accuse you of being intolerant because tolerance is a meme

Who gets to define "intolerance" ? These days everything from reading certain books to sitting on a train the wrong way is considered intolerant.

>being a moralfag

You too.

My bad, I took you for someone with questionable morals; turns out you're just a lunatic.

everybody is a moralfag in some way, brainlet

this is only a paradox if you haven't defined "intolerant", and tolerant as well for that matter.
Ideas must be tolerated as far as our emotions being hurt, but not as far as being physically hurt. Thats all there is to it, no paradox there.

How historically illiterate do you have to be to think that Nazism spread through tolerance of extreme views? Absolute tolerance would preclude both most Nazi practices AND the government imprisoning people for their political opinions.

>want to live in a nice white country full of nice white people
>people literally want me killed for being a white nationalist
I guess I should commit genocide then, I can't tolerate intolerance.

The most liberal parts of the US are some of the whitest. You think the hippies weren't white? Europe and the US moved left far quicker when they were ethnic states or close to it.

This is not to say that I love unchecked migration and refugees everywhere, but the idea that races have intrinsic unchanging political leanings is a notion that dies with any knowledge of history.

>a five knuckle sandwich.

A fist has only four knuckles you goober

how can you disagree with this face?

being a "moderate" while you have a de facto armed bastard son that does all your dirty work is quite convenient

it allows you to have things like de facto blasphemy laws in western countries that are paid with the death sentence. and the left's answer to this is just more appeasement.

>You will never find a brilliant hot Catholic girl who writes about ethics and causality and have 7 children with her
Why live

>not having a thumb

>not being a moral nihilist

like this :^)

Why white?

The tolerance did allow the building up of the party's power though, which allowed Hitler to get rid of enemies violently

>reee kick them out!
is he the precursor to crazy man Hoppe?

Just read Feyerabend.
Why don't they ever read Feyerabend...

And if you want a grown-up critique of tolerance read Nietzsche and Zizek.

>read Feyerabend paper
>enjoy what i am reading
>suddenly he starts talking about alchemy and astrology as justified alternative sources of knowledge without justifying it in any way
did he actually write anything of value?

>We're tolerant because we're against muh nazzzzzies
Anyone on the center is a white supremacist according to feral leftists.

Jej.

sagan > popper

>pictoline

>Do you mean Sam Harris or Bill Maher?
More like Baudrillard.

Not gonna touch that pic but Popper's main achievement was falsification, which is a great thing for natural scientists but is being misapplied in many social sciences.

>punching with your thumb
lol

Popper is a fag and couldn't realize that tolerance was not a paradox it was just self defeating

Yes, of course, they are obviously saying the same. Retard.

Progressives think this justifies punching nazis, but it really just shows that tolerance cannot legitimize itself and needs to stay in private life, not public life.

They seem to forget it can go both ways as well.

tolerance itself is a massive fucking meme

I agree, Gas all Kikes

Does he really absolve Marx? I'm only a little way into the first book but he mentions in the intro that the three main thinkers he plans to tackle are Plato, Hegel, and Marx, which would suggest they all receive the same severe treatment, no?

> should he be read

For any student of epistemology, absolutely yes. That said, there's room for nuance in his open society. By "not tolerating intolerance", my interpretation of that is to allow the individual to express his views within the confines of existing society, but not to budge in terms of allowing their ideas to form matters of policy.

...

>Being scared of words and pictures

Why are Liberals like this?

>Does he really absolve Marx?
No, besides the fact he's a raging liberal, the whole thing he's most known for is his epistemological attack on the likes of Freud and Marx

Ignore anti-Semitic trolls

Can you point me in the direction of some leftist critiques of Islam?

Are critiques of Islam are, by definition, right-wing.

What is your definition of right-wing? Was Envher Hoxha right-wing?

Why is there a double standard between national socialism and communism?
They both killed millions of people, but only nazi's get pinned with wanting to repeat the crimes of their predecessors.

I am proudly intolerant and very much an enemy of the open society in all its forms.

Being a Naz-Bol is the definition of shitting where you eat

Every one of you is a Nahtzee until some poor woman takes pity on you and lets you bang her.

>as critical of Islam as they are of Christianity
>as critical

Jesus, dude. Christians aren't going around throwing acid in peoples faces, covering women up, and cutting off women's genitals. Christians may be wrong, and they may do some messed up stuff, but the two groups aren't even comparable.

If you think Christians are just as bad it's because you're coming from a Eurocentric perspective.

That doesn't work because intolerance isn't an objective trait. People nowadays will call you intolerant for using the word "denigrate" or questioning transgender bathrooms. Is that enough grounds to silence someone?

lmao, no. Popper thinks Plato was a fascist.

Is Plato not a fascist? I could see how some of his ideas in Republic could give that impression.

Define "Facisim"

Define "define"

No. Right and wrong are not subject to the calculus of convenience.

de·fine
>dəˈfīn
>verb

1.
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
"the contract will seek to define the client's obligations"
synonyms: explain, expound, interpret, elucidate, describe, clarify; More

2.
mark out the boundary or limits of.
"clearly defined boundaries"
synonyms: determine, establish, fix, specify, designate, decide, stipulate, set out;

It's hard to take anyone seriously who feels the threat of communism serious.

he is probably going with the "christianity only doesn't do these things because it was modernized" line of thought while ignoring that many modern ideas such as social justice, economic freedom or even fucking secularism came from the catholic church

If you were to seriously apply the logic here proposed, society wouldn't just get rid off Nazis. They'd get rid of Muslims. Yet oddly enough the groups that have such animosity for the former consider the latter wholly beyond scrutiny. What could be the explanation for this? Only that their motives are not as stated, that this is ultimately simple posturing, arbitrary ideology gone amok by a populace impressionable and loth to think critically.

Whoa... so this is the power of philosophy

>hot
i love ol' GEM, don't get me wrong—but that's a pretty strong word for someone who always looked like a bulldog. hell, i never thought iris murdoch was attractive enough to merit her numerous affairs, though i can sympathize why witty slept with her and not anscombe.

>intolerance must be outside the law

popper needs to check his fucking islamophobia

>What could be the explanation for this?

because if you can exclude muslims for creating sharia zones then you would have to exclude the hassidim too

Voltaire didn't actually say that.

That goes both ways

That's why California used to be a Purple state. Check the rates in which immigrants vote for leftist parties for muh benefits and muh bring the whole family over!

Hoppe is right you know.

Is Democracy: tgtf worth a read? I was surprised to find a link to the full .pdf on Hoppe's own website and I was thinking I'd make it the next book I read.

Prove it.

>The most liberal parts of the US are some of the whitest.
This is untrue. Maybe percentage wise it's true for some small states, but the real correlation there is with wealth and left leanings.

You look at places like West Virgina or Iowa, they are over 90% white and not especially wealthy, they're all red states.

Wasn't it said against Voltaire and originated in a biography of his detailing his detractors? I can't be bothered to google it (on my phone) and I'm not that user though.

Wasn't le drumpf's election pretty much decided by white people having the temerity to vote for him?

white people are a meme, trump won because the neoliberal mainstream narrative collapsed, russia and white people are just a red herrings to avoid confronting this fact

DEFINE TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE POPPER
RIGHT NOW