Was popper right?

the problem is thinking tolerance is a virtue in it's own right.

Strictly speaking he's wrong because it's not even a paradox from most points of view. A small subset of a dynamical system can tip the balance in its own favor with little effort depending on a myriad of conditions. For example it takes a few predators too much to drive a whole biome extinct, but that is true as well of preys when you account for limited resources etc.

In society our resource competition is less tangible and predator-prey relations are not as trivial, but nevertheless the point still stands that it's not very surprising that a "fringe" contrarian group can quickly take hold of the whole thing. As for speaking of tolerance and intolerance directly, I don't think we ever had any society that truly considered "tolerance" in the sense he means it. No matter how much of a SJW/humanist/whatever pixie ideology a person is, there is always an Other to be opposed. He's speaking of a highly ideal civilization that has never existed, for the sake of arguing in favor of select intolerance. But we were always in favor of select intolerance all over the world, wtf Popper

why do leftists think that the right wants to genocide x and y? from what I've heard, all the white nationalist want is to be left alone. they only act out in violent ways when they perceive themselves to be under attack.

Sounds like Jews are living in your head rent free

He's right. Hate speech is not free speech.

Its proven that censoring Al-Qaeda and Isis online has lowered the amount of terrorist attacks. If we censored Alt-Right extremist views online, then attacks such as the latest Mosque attack could have been prevented.

>from what I've heard, all the white nationalist want is to be left alone.
lol you must be deaf

It would've been prevented if they weren't Muslim.
Stop being Jewish.

they make for good conversation

I've read the White Nationalist Manifesto and listened to Richard Spencer and I didn't detect any genocidal urges. It's pretty bizarre that you think that 8% of the American population actually desires genocide.

>Left alone
You mean they want to forcibly excise non-whites from 'white countries' and 'send them back' to a 'non-white country' solely on the basis of race?

Yes but thinking tolerance is some great virtue is fucking stupid. Why is tolerance put on a pedestal above purity, beauty, strength, bravery, etc.?
Why arent't people defending tolerance ever asked to give some explanation for this? It's just assumed this position is right by default. Absolute insanity.

Attached: 1541870667895.jpg (1200x916, 161K)

ISIS would've been prevented if USA hadn't destabilized the region.
Christchurch would've been prevented if refugee crisis hadn't happened.

We should genocide people like you for sure

>Christchurch would've been prevented if refugee crisis hadn't happened.
Fascism/white nationalism has been around LONG before the refugee crisis.

Social Darwinism is for cucks I hope you know that

>refugee crisis affecting new zealand
retard

There are plenty of peaceful solutions. Whites and blacks segregate naturally. Nobody wants a genocide.
You should stop getting your news from Buzzfeed.

Why should we segregate at all? Most people aren't spergs who blame others for all their problems

So who gets to decide who is intolerant? Sounds like fascism to me

LIBS BTFO EPIC STYLE!!!!!

Well with social darwinism cucks literally go extinct so it really isn't.

Define intolerance.

How can that be when it turns everybody into cucks

No, because there isn't a single well defined notion of "tolerance". All of this is to side step the age old issue of having to enforce one's own morality. Popper here is simply conjuring some vague notion of tolerance to justify his enforcement of morality without actually examining its substance.

Yes, USA was white nationalist for most of 20th century. It's not a big deal.
The shooter was Australian and he was concerned with white people as a whole, not just New Zealand.
It's not about blame, it's about wanting to live around people like you. I for example wouldn't want to live in Detroit or Zimbabwe, even if I had a lot of money, would you?

Okay so you're comfortable with trump/the next demagogue in charge of what is considered hate speech?

>Peaceful solutions
No, there aren't. What do you do when people reject your bullshit claims about nature and refuse to segregate? Do you just sigh and say you gave it your best shot? No, you want to forcibly remove them. That's violence, not peace.

Guessing little Timmy learned a new word today. Good on you, now learn what it means too.

White nationalism is not a problem if the entire country is white

>What do you do when people reject your bullshit claims about nature and refuse to segregate?

You can let those who don't wish to segregate alone as well. And let those who wish to segregate do their thing. It's hard to believe you are this stupid. It seems you are intentionally taking the most impractical interpretation of his statements rather than exercising even a little judgment.

I'd charge them if I could. But they control the rent.

What constitutes intolerance? Seems like this ideology could be easily used to dismiss any ideas which could be misconstrued to be intolerant.
I'm sure this is expanded upon in some of his actual writings. Any suggestions?

>Whites and blacks segregate naturally
I want to disagree with this point in particular. It's not a natural phenomenon at all, it's very much a socialized behavior. Let's consider children: in your argument, children are averse to interacting with other skin colors. However, in actuality, skin color is not a factor in how children interact (especially with other children) UNTIL they are taught, consciously or unconsciously, by their parents to have different reactions to different skin colors.

The Open Society and Its Enemies

>No, because there isn't a single well defined notion of "tolerance".
Exactly.
Not only that, but it's circular reasoning.
It's just "intolerance is unacceptable except for the intolerance I approve of."
Or: "I'm not intolerant because I don't classify being against the things I don't like as intolerance."

It's all circular reasoning to justify some kind of hypocrisy, rather than just being honest.

This just assumes whatever we tolerate now will always be tolerated. Or that tolerance is always good.

>However, in actuality, skin color is not a factor in how children interact (especially with other children) UNTIL they are taught,
do you have a source for this

White nationalism seeks to establish a nation for whites. It makes explicit claims about 'white lands' and posits the excision of non-whites from these lands as a justified means to achieving this goal. If, for whatever dumbfuck reason, you want to live only near white people, just find a white neighbourhood. That's a choice you can make.

How does one reconcile those in favor of segregation with those not in favor? For instance, a mixed-race neighborhood made up equally of those who want to segregate and those who don't. Is the impetus on the segregators to move away, or do they impose their will on the non-segregation people?

What a coincidence.

His argument ad reductio's itself.
Tolerance is a false ideal that stems from a false worldview, one based on the grand lie that is equality. No classes or groups are truly equal.

Attached: 1530018837271.png (800x1000, 401K)

I'm looking for it now. I read it in a psychology class a couple years ago, so hopefully it's still lying around

YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOWWW!

>White nationalism seeks to establish a nation for whites.
Yes.
> It makes explicit claims about 'white lands' and posits the excision of non-whites from these lands as a justified means to achieving this goal.
Yes. This doesn't mean they are going to kidnap white people and force them to live there. They can go off to the non-segregated lands if they want.
> just find a white neighbourhood. That's a choice you can make.
Except lacking political control of the area simply means that place too will be flooded by those they seek to leave. So a short term solution at best. You are extremely pedantic if you actually need me to explicitly spell out that if a group lacks political autonomy then they are not abler meaningfully propagate and live long-term. Do you really think the WNs are so naive they will not know this? Who are you seeking to convince?

This but for islam. Was Tarrant just following Popper's advice?

Thank you

I don't claim that there's a biological imperative for whites to hate black people. I'm just saying that the way black people are right now and are likely to be in the future, I'd rather not live around them.

There probably isn't a single solution to something like this. Ad hoc agreements and population exchanges I guess. The real answer is I don't know. For the WNs, they probably don't care.

This. Ultimately what he points out is that no society is truly tolerant. It's not a good end goal, and instead you have to focus on what is or isn't worth tolerating.

Find the thread featuring his phrenological failings.

>This doesn't mean they are going to kidnap white people and force them to live there.
Holy shit you are retarded. Of course white people are not going to be the victims of a fascist uprising. It's the non-whites that you are imposing violence on. Are you so blinded by your racism that you refuse to acknowledge that kidnapping non-whites from their homes and sending them to live somewhere else is just as immoral as doing it to whites?

Yes it is because it did world war 2 last time. If you can't find non-whites to kill in your country, you'll invade others to do it.

>. Are you so blinded by your racism that you refuse to acknowledge that kidnapping non-whites from their homes and sending them to live somewhere else is just as immoral as doing it to whites?

No, I'm so aware of human nature that I'm not going to pretend this stupid fucking social experiment is going to work and that it would be better to exchange populations than dwell in the internecine violence to make you coddled dipshits feel good about yourselves. You fucking failed. Multi-racialism (predictably) failed. How best to wind it up then?

Well segregation also fucking failed, so the only option left is race war and genocide. Are you a fucking moron?

I cannot find the paper, so please consider this only as lightly as all other uncorroborated claims.

>Well segregation also fucking failed

Fucking lol. Nations have been the most robust examples of human organization in history, capable of surviving through the fall of empires. That's not a failure, in fact it's the most successful model we have.
>Are you a fucking moron?
Okay, enjoy the violence then, rather than just giving someone their fucking space. Hope it's worth it.

Personally experienced this actually. I learned what racism was after having a black best friend for about a year and was horrified

I mean in the US. The US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have never in history been all-white nations. As long as white people are in these places, they're gonna have skirmishes with other racial groups. Segregation already failed here. You can also look at Cyprus or Israel-Palestine to see how hard it is to expel a new group once they've settled somewhere.

White nationalism and the Nazis are not the same thing. The US was a white nationalist country for over a century.

Of course.

Explain why

Fascists expressly want to conquer and exterminate. One should not tolerate this.

Those that don’t want to conquer and exterminate. IE the majority

Islam expressly wants to conquer as well, should we not tolerate Islam then

I'm personally not against letting the native population to stay and have their rights, but I think it's in everybody's best interest to limit immigration from 3rd world, so those countries can at least stay white majority.

We should not

Okay true. Solutions might be to partition of areas of the continent for them, particularly ones with low population density of non-whites to minimize population transfer. Or find repatriation in Europe. I don't wish to minimize the difficulty of actual population transfer, just that these people probably aren't going to stop, so we need to calculate the least harmful solutions.

Why? Because whites can't compete in a diverse environment?

You went from
>It can be solved peacefully
to
>We will force non-whites to leave 'our' lands
Do you understand that you are contradicting yourself? Violence is absolutely necessary for white nationalism to be implemented.

White nationalist are the most insecure milquetoast faggots out there. At least communists readily admit they want violent revolution.

No because there is no good standard for measuring what ideas are intolerable. which means that what becomes intolerable is simply what isn't convenient for the state under the religious tenets of political correctness.

Because non asian minorities agitate for the government to take stuff from white people and give it to them. 'affirmative action'

>Because whites can't compete in a diverse environment?

No, because what "compete" means is not what you think it means. It would be in our best interests to not have such a "competition".

They aren't going to stop, and they all have generational roots, so they're probably not going to leave. Israel-Palestine is also a good example of what happens when you transplant a large population into an area where another population already lives. Europeans already aren't too fond of tourists from America, mainly putting up with them because they spend money. How do you think the Euros would get along with the massive waves of displaced white immigrants, many of them poor?

So? That's a valid reason. Whites shouldn't have to accept competition from their colonizers

He's not. Im neither a fascist or nationalist but his whole analogy is plain hypocrisy to justify for what he wants.
There is no virtue in tolerance, and being tolerant means tolerating even the ones that might kill you. So just accept that you are not tolerant of everything since you dont accept everyone in the group for fucks sake.

This user explains it very well.

Attached: 1552673823031.jpg (500x602, 53K)

>At least communists readily admit they want violent revolution.
and they get patted on the head by the establishment like children

This. The "non-violence" line is just a propaganda trick to get milquetoast conservatives on board with a batshit agenda

This is it. The fact that tolerance is self-defeating demonstrates that it is a false god.

How so?

>Communism is the establishment
Topkek my guy. I bet you think boomer conservatism is the counter culture too.

Attached: 04f.png (608x675, 510K)

>Violence is absolutely necessary for white nationalism to be implemented.

Population transfers are not necessarily violent. You point was that it would be necessarily violent. We have a series of actions which would satisfy WNs without necessitating violence. Likely to be conflict with people that don't wish to go along? Probably and understandably. Is it necessary violence? No, one can theoretically satisfy the goal even if it doesn't happen.

>Those that don't want to conquer and exterminate. IE the majority
how fucking stupid are you

And how did all these non-whites get into white countries? Did they just fall out of the sky? No, there was a concerted effort to bring them here that was official in the EU, and unofficial in the US(catch and release laws which basically legalize illegal immigration) and in both cases it was imposed top down on a populace that not only opposed it but was never even asked. But opposing importing more Pakis to Rotherdam is "fascism" to you right?

But now that theyre here against our will I guess any attempt to send them back no matter how nonviolent and legal is "fascism" too?

Theyre all going back. Cry more.

Attached: butthurt.jpg (300x551, 30K)

the Ivy league schools are brimming with marxists

>"Yeah you guys just leave your homes now, we're sending you to a foreign country with unstable politics where your children don't speak the language because this land is for white people"
>likely conflict
You're a fucking moron

I don’t think you get the paradox
>this user explains it very well
And yet you still don’t understand the paradox. What’s the matter, you just wake up?

Counter culture is stuff that gets you arrested, communists get little opeds written in the NYT and make hollywood pictures about their heroes

(((pure coincidence)))

>the person you’re talking about is slightly Jewish

did you see /pol/ written somewhere faggot? why don’t you keep this bullshit there jesus. Get aids and die

Attached: 9493C1A1-7D5B-4598-BE2D-572D8A9C5DEF.jpg (1125x1136, 249K)

>You're a fucking moron

Are you disagreeing? The non-violent option is there. Whether both sides take it or not is another question.

>dont mention jews on my Yea Forums board
lel good luck with that

Except its not in question because both sides definitely wouldn't take it, and if they did, there would certainly be more violence on the non-native group which had been transplanted into sovereign territory by a white nation.

Alternatively we could give blacks one of the states that is already hugely black.

Popper only said you can be intolerant towards the intolerant if they're literally about to take over the state. What he suggested isn't the license for foaming at the mouth undergrads to beat up anyone to the right of Jeb Bush that people seem to think it is.

Attached: 1551924899519.jpg (1500x1333, 1.04M)

This isn't a paradox, it's a contradiction. Therefor it is invalid automatically.

you can't understand this post
can you?

Attached: 1472201298063.jpg (349x415, 31K)

Then you'd have to ask the white people to leave.

You are retarded. You are kicking people out from their homes under the threat of violence. That's not peaceful, you fucking dimwit.

White people are already doing that anyway, it's called 'white flight'.

Again the likelihood of it being taken is secondary to the fact it still exists. But to further the discussion I would like you to consider the violence that will be unfolding if we are not willing to compromise and instead continually force diverse groups into close proximity.

I would argue that there is more violence currently than would be if we were segregated. Note how the rise in crime coincides with forced integration of blacks with whites.

Attached: Bennett crimes.gif (800x544, 71K)

yes, but the thing is that now toleration is intolerance, the court of public opinion is outside the law. the libtards often decry others a nazis because they themselves are like nazis. saying this as a marxist, i'm not an alt-right guy

Also this. There is not "soft power" here, its coercion. Insisting on calling it something else is dishonest.