In which we continue our discussion of Karl Popper's paradox of intolerance

No one understands what a paradox is

popper is a shit tier thinker, worse than bertrand russell

you're right, it isn't a paradox, it is merely a contradiction

>Unlimited tolerance is suicidal
I feel like you need to prove this
>limited tolerance does not exist unless you seriously think that only tolerating people who agree with you is tolerant of anyone
What is to say that is the only mode of limited tolerance

He hasn't actually given or defended his particular morality, other than by trying to co-opt the banner of tolerance. Of course, he might expand on this in other writings, but why does he believe that tolerance is in general good and why does he believe his morality is deserving of the title?

State-sponsored ethnocide of European ethnic groups

tl;dr tolerance is gay as aids as a guiding value. Absolute tolerance is impossible. Using tolerance as a metric for a set of ethics seems like a race to the bottom of how homosexual, weak and effeminate can a society get.

No, it is a paradox. It may negate the word to some robot disguised as a human, but humans have to navigate the meanings, ignore the words themselves as obstacles.
Humans operate best as a liquid

Attached: 43EE7D14-8E49-4346-B072-B77B1039E99F.jpg (620x430, 22K)

Nothing makes retards on this site more butthurt than political moderates.

>Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in 1902 to upper-middle-class parents. All of Popper's grandparents were Jewish

>Bauman was born to non-observant Polish Jewish family in Poznań, Poland, in 1925

Based schizo pol poster

Attached: 4.png (112x108, 20K)

“Be like water, my friend” —-Bruce Lee

if tolerance is inherently subjective then unconditional free speech is the only moral position to take

Like Anglos need "paradoxes" to be prissy...

fucken based

>Go ahead and die at the hands of genocide. Don’t be a prissy

Based, go back to you board.

There ya go. Stirner “pilled”

There is nothing paradoxical about pointed intolerance of psychopathy, fraud, and corruption of the law by power-hungry freaks of nature, whether they're old-hat demagogues or newfangled robber barons. Unfortunately, the delusion that one will come out on top when chipping away at the democratic institutions that were set up to frustrate the despots that live among us is common as domestic violence. It is a dilemma, not a paradox, primarily of complacency, the dulling effect that inexperience with bad times has on finesse of judgment.

>system x tolerating tendencies that are opposed to system x is not in the interest of system x
How insightful.

this is all a blowhard way of saying that we should censor ideas that could supplant or damage the current order of the world
provemewrong

Don't laws against against murder suggest that we already don't tolerate intolerance?

Tolerance is just making a virtue out of indifference. Only people who aren't threatened by change can tolerate it. It's that simple.

This is why the lower class uneducated people are disdained as bigoted. Because it's them that the incipient slave class undermines and replaces.

liberals slowly re-discovering virtue and values, version 102389218

Popper is intolerant of intolerance, and therefor by his own logic must be destroyed.

yes, tolerance only makes sense with the background of something solid that can't be threatened by mere ideas

modern tolerance was invented by an empire on its cuspid, but as the empire degrades and liquidifies tolerance becomes meaningless and simply points towards shifting power differentials as society re-configures itself

Just seems like a bougie idiot making excuses to not care about working class since they usually arent the most "tolerant" bunch

just as the progressive left is doing it?

they are on the right side of history sweaty

All Popper is saying is "Mustache man bad. Never again!" Mustache Man IS bad, but this is just "Certain forms of speech or advocacy are immoral and must be suppressed" filtered through Progressive language. Mustache Man's badness also doesn't require society to implement increasingly stupid policies in the name of tolerance, or a perpetual shift of "Tolerant" towards "if you don't subscribe to my version of quasi-Maoism you are basically Mustache Man".

No, it isn't a paradox, it's simply a contradiction. The conclusion does not logically follow from the definitions. Your appeal to "humanity" fallacy doesn't make sense and only serves to show that you're wrong.

this, it's just progressives rediscovering classical values but having to twist them into the language of progressivism to find it palatable to implement

To expand, you can make a logical argument that does not allow ideas like "nazism" or something if you want to. But this system will not be a system of "tolerance" it will just be a logical system of acceptable ideas.
Take the set of all ideas. Partition it into two distinct subsets, the set of "allowable" ideas and the set of "not allowable" ideas. That's not a system of "tolerance" but it will still be a functional system. But you can't say "when we value tolerance it leads to a paradox" because that isn't true.
It's totally okay to not have tolerance as an ideal. You just have to accept that tolerance isn't your ideal. It doesn't make you evil.

yes, it's about tolerating ideas as long as they are inoffensive to the status quo, which has been what all societies have always done

>sweaty

Attached: 1552833379678.png (292x551, 307K)

First day on the chan, kid?

Obviously a subtle reference to Sweetie/Sweaty from Diary of a Wimpy Kid. You'd know that if you read.