% Humanities

How can one determine the line between too little and too much tolerance? Does such a line exist?
No /pol/ stuff please.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling that you're fixing to unload your concealed slavshit weapon into a nigger's ass without provocation and without reason, in a public place.

That's it. Fuck your feelings; free speech is paramount to a top tier society.

Cool, I did not know that Popper made comics.

"not tolerating intolerance" is based on a suite of fallacies and not a single shred of credible reason

Doesn't Hoppe argue along similar lines that a stateless society would have to excise undesirable elements for it to work?

>have to excise undesirable elements
Are we talking about Nazis here, or "tolerant" societies?

And who is he that defines what is tolerant and intolerant?

>No /pol/ stuff please.
>He says as he posts a bait pic
Funny part is that if you substituted Nazism with Islam they'd invent a new hashtag for it and call you intolerant.

I mean in Hoppes case he was talking about a kind of free ancap society so undesirables would be people who were unwilling to work cooperative in society or who worked against the freedom of others or tried to erect a state.

This. The reality is that there is no such thing as "tolerance" or "intolerance" in a universal sense.

There is only the Overton Window, the range of socially acceptable and unacceptable ideas. The people who make comics like the OP are just trying to delegitimize ideas they don't like and push them out of the overton window.

It would be nice if society could remove intolerance, but the problem is where to draw the line. One could argue that people opposed to mass immigration from less developed countries are intolerant, and thus deserve to be excluded from society. Conversely, one could argue that mostly Muslim refugees are intolerant because of their views on the right to free speech, women's rights, and gay rights. It's highly subjective what constitutes intolerance and thus it is too easy to construe any views that contradict the mainstream or "official" opinion of something as intolerant.

>puts the kaiser next to hitler
Wtf dropped

I'm just saying that once you start talking about "removing undesirables" the ideological distance between yourself and the Nazis rapidly approaches zero.

What a stupid thing to say instead of actually addressing what the picture's about.

I don't think so.
Most of the world removes the undesirables of severe genetic malformations in utero. Over 90% of Downs Syndrome pregnancies are terminated. Political dissidents are an example of an undesirable social element that are removed from the society all over the world. Jailing people for hate-speech is a form of removing political dissidents from society.

define intolerance in an un-bias way.

When the guy in the comics says "let's give them a chance", he says it as if spouting Nazi views is the same as letting them be elected for office. Does the US have anything to prevent Nazis from running for office (despite having ran in the past)? Or do we just naturally assume "no one's going to elect them, they're Nazis"?

No. It's like freedom. One's free to use his freedom as he pleases as long as it doesn't trespass other people's freedom. That's one point of view.

About tolerance is about respecting other people's povs as long as they don't mean to harm you or destroy your own right to your own povs.

One example (of intolerance) would be persecution of homosexuality because I don't like them, muh morality and reasons. One example (of tolerance) would be fuck off with your likes and your morality and your reasons and mind your own business.

It's more of a sociological and moral stand though. Trying to apply the concept to political ideologies is nonsense. Hitler wasn't anymore authoritarian, partisan and "intolerant" than Stalin, Emperor Nero, Queen Elizabeth or Calvin's merry city council of Geneva. And from here one would get the
idea that only democracy is the good, righteous and tolerant political ideolology and form of government. Which is obviously a load of bullshit.

No, its not. There are two sides on the homosexuality debate

Those who tolerate homosexuals, but don't tolerate moralists who disapprove of homosexuality, and the other side

Those who tolerate the moralists but not the homosexuals.

This is true for every political divide. You saying that we have to permit homosexuality is just you pushing YOUR point of view on others for YOUR morality and YOUR reasons.

The position of tolerance, if such a position exists, would be the open debate of the two positions in an open forum of ideas.

The person who says "Your ideas are too dangerous to be discussed" is not the man of tolerance, no matter how obviously righteous or plainly evident they may appear to him.

What good is it to say "You may believe whatever you like, so long as you tolerate the things I tolerate, and do not tolerate the things I do not tolerate"

How is a society of socialists that doesn't permit fascist views any more tolerant then a fascist one that doesn't tolerate socialists?

How is a society that tolerates homosexuals, but not the Abrahamic faiths better then one that tolerates the the Abrahamic faiths but not homosexuals?

There is no such thing as universal tolerance.

Is communism intolerant? What about BLM?

Where does that put society though?

To me it seems like, fundamentally, a battle between Kant and Mill ethics.

And in the marketplace of ideas, fascism has all but lost and communism is losing. Where do we go, as a globalized world?

>How can one determine the line between too little and too much tolerance?
What we had 5 years ago.

That was the line.

We have to go back to 2012.

>Or do we just naturally assume "no one's going to elect them, they're Nazis"?
That's it.

>intolerance and persecution must be outside the law

And that pov is why the left will keep losing.

How so? What did we have 5 years ago?

I wonder what kind of shitstorm would ensue if one was to change the intolerant depiction to Islam and post it on social media.

Less culture of censorship and ideological crusaders.

why do retarded crybabies think that nazis are actually in a position to grab power if we don't arrest them for saying what they say?
also this

Keeping out the intolerant in a tolerant society doesn't work. Keeping out the tolerant in an intolerant society does though.

Odd, a friend of mine just posted a pop article about this on zuckerbook a few hours ago.
Is this a coincidence?

thank fuck for our constitution and the supreme court
Do you see why us burgers are so anal about it now?

your friend might be a shitposter on Veeky Forums, user. I would recommend cutting ties immediately.

Teenage level: Your freedom of movement ends where my nose begins.

Adult level: Your liberty within the mores of society.

Wise man level: Your liberty within the set of expectations the typical member of the society must fulfill in order to make it the best it could be.

Hitler and the nazis were just the result of a perfect storm of german autism and economic and military failure, that shit isn't going to happen again.

ascended elder god level: Your freedom of movement ends where my nose begins.

>any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside the law

ANY movement?

I'm tired of that "open society built on reason and liberty" shit. Think of Popper and the boys what you will, but they're terrible in political philosophy.

>wise-man
>muh legalism
Fuck off

Maybe
Naomi?

my namea jeff

Are you OP though?
Unless some shitsite like the Guardian posted an article on this, this cannot be a coincidence. The post was made two hours before this thread.

Im not a colossal faggot
Also, dude, there's 9 billion fucking people on this planet, its perfectly possible for this to just be a coincidence.

That is literal cognitive dissonance.

>that's legalism
Bad job.

>BRO JUST BE A SLAVE LMAO ITS FOR THE BEST
Is legalism.

>slave
To whom? Unless you are implying that man can be slave to the moral law. In which case, please, drop Stirner and grow up.

And it's still not legalism.

>HAHA IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOUR A CHILD
Stop reading Kant, it's rotting you.
That is legalism. Don't you have some dried, ground tiger penis to snort with your opium Con-fuck-off-Veeky Forums

>Kant is a legalist
Now you're just confusing me, seeing as legalism belongs to a completely different philosophical tradition.

You sound pretty angry, as well. Is everything all right on your end?

I didn't say Kant was a legalist. But yes, deontology can be essentially legalistic.

>deontology can be essentially legalistic
In what way?

> Where do we go, as a globalized world?

Finish building the nervous system of God and let autoimproving AI create systems of ethics that can account for an unimaginable amount of scenarios.

The "globalized" world is the crib for the birth of beings whose history will tower over humanity. Our importance will be mere dust and the scurrying of mice from the titanic steps of something far larger.

In a deontological utopia, the societal law is at least treated as the moral law.

Pretty sure that's meant to be Hindenburg

I always thought it was weird how much people on the left are obsessed with fascism and nazi.

hinden(((burg)))

>the societal law is at least treated as the moral law.
Other way round with Kant. The moral law is made into societal law.

Are you illiterate?

>hmm I wonder if this guy happens to be Jewish
>mfw one google search later

Are you? Or do you not see the difference between "the societal law is the moral law" and "the moral law is to become the societal law"?

There is no difference. You're misinterpreting my post.

rule 3 faggot

pls lurk moar

>we can't tolerate intolerance even though what we find tolerable as a society isn't a universally agreed upon thing lol
what kind of mental gymnastics is this

>There is no difference.
What. The first statement (your way of explaining the legalist philosophy, not mine) states that whatever is the law of society is also law of morality, that is, that morality is following the law of society be it what it is. The second statement (one of Kant's ideas in his description of the republican constitution, which derives its legitimacy not from pure suffrage, but from it being a borne out of the rational laws of ethics) says that the law of morality is to become the societal law, that is, that morality is contained in morality itself, and the societal law must be derived from the law of morality.
>You're misinterpreting my post.
In what way?

its called common sense
coming from having a healthy society

free speech sharters should be banned from here, their 3rd world shithole is like a free for all arena, their opinion holds zero value

You're still misinterpreting my post. I said that societal law is treated as moral law, as in societal law is not simply derived, but is moral law.

Define "intolerance" and "persecution". A law that makes political activity that is "intolerant" and "persecutive" illegal will eventually or immediately be used as a legal tool to shut down any opposition. Especially when some ideologies define themselves in such a way, that disagreeing with them is inherently "oppressive" (I.E feminism)

>I said that societal law is treated as moral law, as in societal law is not simply derived, but is moral law.
Yes. You did. Which is a misinterpretation of Kant. As I have stated.

Reddit is much more your speed my friend; perhaps you could return there?

>which is a misinterpretation
No it's not, redditor.

Our society tolerates both. No one is arresting westboro baptist guys for holding up signs saying to kill all fags.

you are the ~ONLY~ one in the room demanding that certain people shouldn't have rights. the other side will let you say whatever you please outside of very specific legal contexts, like being a government worker.

...

Pretty dumb comic.

What even counts as intolerance? If someone doesn't like gay marriage are they intolerant?

If someone disagrees with liberalism are they intolerant?

The irony with the meme "you can't tolerate intolerance" is that you end up with a society that doesn't tolerance dissidence at all. Which is literally the epitome of intolerance.

It's all just an indication to me that fetishising "tolerence" as a virtue is a terrible idea.

h\yeah I can see how you could say that if you were born 5 years ago.

tolerance is not attempting to rescind someone's rights. if you hate fags, you probably also oppose the rights they currently have and want them to be rescinded.

Then you cannot be both tolerant and intolerant of intolerance because you're advocating to remove rights of individuals who are intolerant

>the tolerant ones end up being destroyed
it's funny because it's exactly what's happening to Western Europe, and it's clearly not the far-right that is resposible

if you simplify everything as much as this comic things are bound to get stupid

Yeah but if the far-right stopped instigating all these terrorist attacks we'd be all better off.

when you are intolerant of fringe ideologies with broad support the Russian civil war happens.

Neither are people who want to have sex with children.

You saying we should put those fucks in charge if they say legalizing pedophilia will pacify muslims?

No. You don't get a free pass for being retarded when somebody else cashes in on a risk they've taken.

>How can one determine the line between too little and too much tolerance?
Depends on social stability. It's not so much that there's an ideal amount of tolerance allowed, as there is a specific amount necessary to reach certain objectives.
All out tolerance does indeed lead to no tolerance, but it's still very hypocritical for moderates to call themselves tolerant.

>cnn
Are they just looking for more shit to pile upon those "nazis", or are american really that egocentric?

>CNN suggests
so this is the power of fakenews

This. It's either all okay or none of it is okay. If you start drawing arbitrary lines then you'll never stop drawing arbitrary lines. It will be ridden with double standards until none of it is ok. I'd rather live in society where all free speech is okay. It's essential to have in a functioning democracy.

Only on Veeky Forums and only in America are manchildren such stubborn pedants that they can't understand socially accepted meaning of tolerance and intolerance for purposes of hearing out a person who fled the fucking Holocaust on his feelings about Nazis.

Meanwhile, they'll shitpost Gulag Archipelago, muh 100m, and "well my grandpa..." shit about the Soviet Union up and down

This entire thread is slippery slope: the discussion by people who think they're Logic and Reason Warriors despite having never read a philosophy text in their lives

Thankfully you came along and enlightened us. I bet you also believe that the slippery slope is a fallacy.

Now kindly fuck off to whence you came from.

>But when Muslims go around saying that they should control everything, that's fine. You have to tolerate that! Having 1 group control everything is only bad thing if that group happens to be white men!

The fact that the same side is simultaneously shunning "legalism" which apparently to that poster means "any fucking social mores at all" but also thinks literally any law put in place will inevitably lead to enforcement creep and oppression by default show their hand on being small minded imbeciles. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to understand how Nazis are different from other kinds of speech and literally every country that actually had to deal with the fuckers instead of just feed spam to real heroes understands this.

>Lol, just ban anything that challenges the status quo, what could possibly go wrong?

>change depictions of intolerance in the comic from nazism to islam
>watch the whole argument crumble

actually you could do that and I'd still agree with it, if you mean the particular muslims out for blood.
But they aren't really capable of getting as much grip on the general populace as the hateful people already belonging to the main population group.

>why do retarded crybabies think that nazis are actually in a position to grab power if we don't arrest them for saying what they say?
Because they don't want to police the behavior of nazis, they want to police the behavior of everyone else

If "Hate Speech" laws were enforced against Muslims, they'd all be in jail. "Hate Speech" laws are ONLY enforced against white people, nobody else.

For the left, anyone who actually wants to have borders is a nazi to be punched and violently silenced.

For the right, anyone who wants to abolish the very concept of borders is a deluded person to be debated.

The left has the aggression advantage, and they will prevail if this does not change.
Remember, history doesn't care about who was right, only who won.

Why can't liberals admit that they just want power? The range of good thoughts one can express publicly without fear are extraordinarily narrow. The problem is that liberals regard all freethinkers as criminals, or at least near to it.

My point is, free speech doesn't actually exist. As well it shouldn't. Ideas are weapons. When we stop warring over ideas, is when we will have devolved back into monkeys.

Freedom isn't real.

Yep. Furthermore, they keep expanding the definition of "Nazis" to justify more restrictive laws. Don't agree with gay marriage? Don't support transgenderism? Disagree with a "feminist" on any topic whatsoever? You're a Nazi and you need to be arrested otherwise you'll trigger another Holocaust.

now what would you define as hate speech? Quran and Bible quotes? You can't be serious. Even if they took those to heart you can't be punished for a thoughtcrime, neither can nazis, that is one of the fundamentals of democracy.

The line exists perfectly in the US. Enough tolerance for them to voice their viewpoint but a system set up that prevents authoritarianism by a single leader (such as checks and balance)