*unsheathes red-hot poker*

A dozen people said the exact same thing much more eloquently.

hate tolerance

I miss judged Karl Popper because of that gay comic.

If you don't want to tolerate someone's beliefs, go ahead. Hate them, yell at them, call them the worst names imaginable, whatever you want to do. However, when you start to censor people for disagreeing, or physically assault others for their convictions, you are clearly being a totalitarian and you must be stopped. Nobody's forcing you to tolerate others, but we won't allow you to assault others for their ideas. No exceptions.

interesting philosphy

Not ideas, actions. Rallies in which demonstrators come armed and call for ethnic cleansing is not a forum for the exchange of ideas. Also, US Courts have already, in the past, decided that speech meant to galvanize violence is prohibited anyways.

Furthermore, people who come to rallies armed and call for genocide aren't likely there for an explanation why their view point is inherently unAmerican, hateful and immoral. They are there to intimidate people.

Literally every ideology can be claimed to be intolerant and thus argued to be banned, every debate is worthless.
Just join whoever is in power and keep quiet so you aren't the next target.

calling someone unamerican is a compliment

>ayy lmao let's ban ideas that make us uncomfortable.
I've never read any of Karl Popper's work, but I'm sure this is a bastardization of it.

Who gets to decide what is an "intolerant" idea is anyway? I'm sure everyone can agree that Spencer's crowd in Charlottesville were people with evil intentions, but thigns are rarely this unambiguous.

Even then, it is these people's human right to be permitted to hold and express their beliefs. If people are concerned about the rise of "Unite the Right", then don't escalate the violence. You're not going to win in a pissing contest with Nazis.

It's okay as long as they're just gathering and talking. Your job is just to talk better. Once they start lynching people, you genocide them right back.

That sums up my beliefs and I'm fucking center right. I got bamboozled into disliking Popper by the OP comic's misstatement of his argument.

>Dislikes thing based on obviously biased description of thing
>Never bothers to figure out what thing is actually like
You are the problem. Thankfully, now that you're aware, you can stop being the problem in the future. This whole public discourse thing is great!

>I'm sure everyone can agree that Spencer's crowd in Charlottesville were people with evil intentions,
How can you prove that the literal Neo-Nazis in that crowd intended to partake in violence?

yeah the whole point of the argument is that liberal democratic societies don't need to be, and shouldn't be cucked

this obviously goes against everything that these antifa retards believe so obviously they're going to represent it

they're going to misrepresent* it

One thing I've noticed is that the far-Left tends to be much less organized than the far-Right.

>let's ban ideas that are "intolerant"
Okay so then who decides what's intolerant? The government? Is there a vote? What if someone takes issue with a certain idea that's been banned, are they silenced for sympathizing with intolerance?

It seems pretty intolerant to not tolerate intolerance tbqh.

yeah this is retarded

it's not what Popper was arguing for at all

it's actually another thing that he explicitly argued AGAINST

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question.

I watched the full interview that Vice did with their leadership. I know, I know, they're biased as fuck, or maybe even on the payroll of George "cash daddy" Soros. However, I remember the leaders of Unite the Right (the big skin head cunt for one) explicitly saying "we're not peaceful protestors", because they're willing to be violent if pushed. Many of them were saying that the Jews needed to be killed, disagreeing with Spencer's [obviously] bullshit "peaceful ethnic cleansing".

Apart from Baked Alaska, few of them are really hiding their true convictions.

Soros is a devout Popperite. He says so openly.
You need to look into Popper's writings on open vs closed societies to see Popper's true contribution to modern political discourse.

Pro tip: You won't like Popper again

care to explain?

I thought that popper was a based centrist

unless you're going to get into some /pol/-type shit

LMAO

jacobitemag.com/2017/08/18/putting-hardcore-politics-to-work-for-you/
jacobitemag.com/2017/06/14/political-violence-is-a-game-the-right-cant-win/

The exact is true.

>because they're willing to be violent if pushed
'If pushed', being the operative phrase here, ehich leads me to believe that they would only use violence if violence was used against them. Hell, I'm pretty sure some of them WELCOMED violence against them so they'd have an excuse.

It occurs to me now, though, that I may have misread your original post. I thought you were painting the whole rally as Spencer types.

The only time I have ever browsed /pol/ was on election night, and that was purely due to morbid curiosity regarding how they would react to the various developments.
I need to leave my apartment in a minute so I don't have time to write up a treatise on Popper but I would recommend you just google stuff concerning Popper's influence on Soros. the exact OPPOSITE*** is true

meh I'm not really into the "soros is the devil" kind of shit and you don't need to agree politically with your ideological influences (e.g.
Hegel would hate Marx)

Popper has influenced a lot on both sides of the aisle anyways

Open societies are good

Well clearly we're two vastly different "centrists", since Soros does in fact make my stomach churn (for reasons probably quite different than the """alt right""", in all its manifestations) burn churn nonetheless.
Open societies are neither good nor bad, but Soros's conception of open societies in not only bad, but downright maniacal.

If, in a nation that guarantees freedom of association and the right to bear arms, you get intimidated by a couple dozen inbred LARPers dressing up as Nazis or antifa, you need to give your head a shake... look at the size of the counterprotests.

Actually, you are going to win in a pissing contest with these "Nazis"; a couple thousand basement dwellers coming out into the light for the first time in a decade are not the Sturmarbteilung circa 1935...

>You're not going to win in a pissing contest with Nazis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

There's a fine line between widespread arguments for the moral propriety of murder, and actually organizing to incite (and eventually attempt) it. We already censor slander, libel, threats, IP infringement, harassment, public sex/nudity and similar fire-in-a-crowded-theater uses of expression. I don't see why genocide advocacy deserves special treatment.

The gap between the center right and far right is gigantic right now. The latter is trying to cannibalize the former. The far left is less successful at doing this, but if economic inequality increases enough, who knows.

this comic reminds me of something

Someone actually spent his time to make this

I think nobody argues that you should tolerate radical Islamists, they argue that not every Muslim is a radical Islamist. Nobody argues either that you shouldn't tolerate white people, just because a fraction of them are white supermacist.

I agree with both

Kys

What if Jews are genetically predisposed to be less tolerant? When it comes down to it that's a point a lot of nazis seem to make.

If you disagree with me, it means you think everything, even untolerance must be tolerated.
Thus, you must tolerate my opinion

(((Karl Popper)))