Is Karl Popper the greatest mind of all time?

So, does this mean killing communists doesn't violate the NAP?

I wonder what would happen if you changed the totalitarian imagery with islamic imagery and then posted it on twitter??

All the newcomers I see in my city don't see terribly tolerant. All I see when I look into their eyes is burning hatred.

An excellent question

To defend tolerance, we must end tolerance. Sounds reasonable to me.

I'm ok with nazis, communists, and Muslims all getting genocided

Lib retards don't understand that the reason I oppose this "intolerance of intolerance" is that it can be easily used to censor opinions the government doesn't want

Throw in liberals too.

>genocide nazis, commies and mussies.
>liberal western ideology becomes the new symbol of intolerance and evil
>people start becoming nazis, commies and mussies and disavowing the evils of the liberal era

Would be funny desu.

>muh objective morality
kys

Why not ?

Sometimes to maximize the desired results of a policy you need to restrain its application, otherwise adverse effects emerge.

See pic related for an example : if you want to get the biggest amount in taxes you must not tax at 100%.

What if this intolerance is not exercised by the government?

But there's literally no reason to implement such a policy in the first place. I'm going to use america as an example because I don't know about other countries, but neo-nazis and the KKK don't even wield enough political power to justify cracking down on freedom of speech, and its doubtful whether it will ever even get to that point.

why did redditors even need this infographic made, this is so simple a concept a child could understand it. I've always known unlimited "tolerance" is a false virtue. did people just get *that* brainwashed by the public school system into believing we live in la-la land? they're just now understanding that bad people who want to take their livelihoods away from them exist?

also this one is the more accurate than the "nazi" threat

>the absolute state of the moral high ground

What if it decreased the number of cases of use of violence related to the ideology ?

Also, the US is a particular case. What if you take Turkey's example with islamists?

Reduction of violence isn't necessarily a moral good.

Man, this is some serious-ass doublethink going on here.

What if most people agree that it is ?

>if you kill your enemies... you win??? WTF!?!?

>what if it decreased the number of violent cases
What proof do you have that it will have ANY effect on violent acts (which, by the way, are too minor of a problem to justify cracking down on freedom of expression.

>tolerance
What a bullshit cancer buzzword.

Consensus isn't any guide to moral righteousness.

I love and hate Veeky Forums for posts like this.

>somebody actually spent time making this picture

>heh just tolerate being invaded and displaced lmao

I don't have proof because these things cannot be examined in a controlled environment. I could compare statistics between the US and the EU, but since lots of other factors intervene...

But anyway it is an hypothesis to consider. It is not absurd either : if the organisations of some radical movement are dissolved and the expression of their ideas repressed, it prevents emulation, one-upmanship, echo chamber effects, and possibly the escalation of a conflict with other parts of society, that would lead some people into violent action.

>you must be intolerant to those who are intolerant
I.e. my ideas can't survive in an unconstrained free market.

Consider this: in order for Nazis to wipe out the tolerant, there needs to be some form of violence, otherwise that's just them winning people over with their arguments. Violence is already illegal. If a Nazi kills someone, they go to jail. So what are you saying when you want to jail Nazis just for speaking?

I love how this image depicts Hindenburg as naive and tolerant when he was in fact the opposite. Also the Nazis straight up broke the constitution and forced the parliament members to stay out of the Reichstag by threatening them with their SA thugs.

It isn't currently, but it can easily be.

Being intolerant of the intolerant makes us intolerant.

>somebody actually didn't have an argument and had to post this

Wasn't Popper a crypto-jew?
I bet he was part of the cultural marxism conspiracy.

If you're intolerant of the intolerant, then is someone who refuses to buy a wedding cake from a gay bakers because they want their food to be Kosher bannable from society?

>But there's literally no reason to implement such a policy in the first place. I'm going to use america as an example because I don't know about other countries, but neo-nazis and the KKK don't even wield enough political power to justify cracking down on freedom of speech, and its doubtful whether it will ever even get to that point.

People probably wouldn't care so much if they weren't going around killing people.

No because said intolerance of the intolerant only applies when one is part of the majority.

The fallacy is of course that liberal democracies aren't "tolerant" societies in any special way, they don't extend tolerance to anyone in their outgroup.
You might say that for the overwhelming majority of the population, the liberal state isn't a threat to their safety.
Fine, but the same applies to mussolini's regime.

It would have made more sense before the Syrian Civil War when we started seeing where the jihadis were getting their money, guns and lists of people to kill.

O N E
N
E

>one guy runs over people
>OMG CENSOR NOW
>Muslims turn Europe into a bloodbath
>hey now let's not get ahead of ourselves

Wew laddie do you really want to go down this road...

Setting aside that the fat pig who died was a childless leftist so who gives a fuck in the first place, 1 person killed=emergency?

Sand people were causing a ruckus in Europe long, long before the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis.

underrated.
by his own logic we should not tolerate his intolerance.

>popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/

>Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

the whale died of a heart attack.
complete coincidence.

You're right burn the constitution fuck having laws and shit

>you see? this one time they didn't believe he constituted a threat therefore all 10k other times we should censor people
brainlet

...

>Sand people were causing a ruckus in Europe long, long before the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis.

Where do you think they came from in the first place?

Oh man!

>He says he want to kill people.

>He gets power and starts killing people.

Oh my god. How could this have happened?

Begause we didn censor him :DD
Censor all beoble :DDDDDD

this applies to the situation as of now...how?

Like most terrible things in the modern day, this one is Britain's fault.

How indeed.

Anyone who is white should support them.

Again, what you said earlier applies to the situation as of now...how?

>OH GOD THEY'RE GOING TO GAS ME
Calm the fuck down you stiff. All they're wearing is the fasces and the black sun. If that scares you so much, BLM rallies with the fist should have you equally terrified.

Second, like the brainlet you are, you're ignoring nuance. The regular person now is much less hateful and intolerant than the one 80 years ago, else why did America fight against the Germs and didn't join them?

That artstyle is so fucking annoying. Especially because it's used to manipulate Popper's words into something he never ever claimed.

Remember fellas, fascism is so powerful all a person needs to do is skim mein Kampf and draw a swastika and the kikes will be evaporating in the chimneys within hours!

Just use your 2nd Amendment right to shoot them in self defense if they try and gas you. Problem solved.

>Austrian
The eternal Kraut haunts us still

Someone didn't pay attention to what happened in Germany since the Versailles treaty and forward.

>lose war due to resource shortages, shitty morale, factory worker strike at home and an overwhelming enemy force.
>enemies make you sign an almost unfair treaty plus have you take the blame for starting the war
>communist revolution happens in Bavaria, gets 500 people killed
>other communist revolutions happen in eastern Europe whom are being reinforced by the Soviets
>the same Soviets the newspapers already have made news stories about gulags and famines
>smaller inter-war wars happen
>A bunch of good times happen due to booming twenties
>some brown shirted bloke is talking a lot of shit
>economy crashes
>stories of how mothers end their entire families and then themselves due to how bad it is are circulating
>le ebin brownshirt becomes popular but not enough to win power.
>the establishment turns him into chancellor in hopes to control him and the people
>parliament building burns down
>chancellor assumes dictatorial powers and abolished all the other political parties and takes over.

But sure it was "too much tolerance to the wrong people" that put wrong people in power.

A little larping never hurt anyone.

>le ebin brownshirt becomes popular but not enough to win power
Well not enough power to take over but enough to put political progress to a halt if they wanted to.

>enemies make you sign an almost unfair treaty
>almost

>Someone didn't pay attention to what happened in Germany since the Versailles treaty and forward.

When Ferdinand Foch said "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years", he did not mean that terms were too harsh.

It was nice of history to completely vindicate him though.

No, he meant that they were in the shit middle, not harsh enough to weaken them sufficiently but not lenient enough not to breed contempt

Sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson stated it simpler; equality without compulsion.

Point was not "it was the treaty's fault"
Point was that the whole world had to go full SHTF before Hitler could take over.
All that was basically a long list of shit that piled up into the staircase Hitler climbed to power upon.

>it was nice of history to completely vindicate him though
I'm sure that the last thing Foch wanted was to be vindicated in this particular case.

Never underestimate the power of spite

>get hit by car
>die of heart attack

>modern KKK is 5-8k members, half of which are probably FBI plants at this point
>we're suposed to be afraid of nazis using their free speech to take over america
kek

What else is Ben "Empty My 9 in the Welfare Line" Garrison supposed to do with his time?

If you can't tolerate the intolerant then do you have to stop tolerating yourself?

The solution to this paradox is that the tolerance/intolerance dynamic is not particularly significant, and that political movements should be judged by their actual policy choices rather than grand axiomatic principles.

bash the fasc

>the open society

You must like Molyneux and Peterson.

I don't think either of those have made a full retard statement like "we must be intolerant to be tolerant to resist the intolerant who are a threat to the tolerant who must now be intolerant to resist the intolerant who are threat to the tolerant"

This argument could be used against anyone. Commies are just being "intolerant" of the rich, etc.

The best check against losing free speech is free speech itself. An authoritarian force would not be able to establish itself if the population is used to saying what they want.

Pre-Nazi Germany was authoritarian as hell.

Kikes are pretty intolerant of the existence of the white race so we shouldn't have to tolerate that and therefore should make the Holocaust happen, for real, for the first time.

lel

It's just bullshit to hand wave the contradictions of liberalism.

It's good in that it can show how his argument is pretty much bullshit. The liberal democracies claim to decide things by popular opinion so nazis are rejected but many countries would also agree with rejecting islam.

That's probably th dumbest infographic I've ever seen
>The only way to protect the status quo is to protect the status quo
Why play games with semantics about "tolerance" when anything outside your liberal and consumeristic worldview isn't inherently "intolerant" just "incompatible" with your lifestyle?

Should BLM be outlawed because of the texas shooting last year?

these losers have no power, all their orgs are infiltrated with feds and didn't they declare them terrorists?