[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 101 KB, 768x960, reallymakesyouthinkdoesntit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173375 No.10173375[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is this graphic correct /lit/? Should we tolerate intolerance? If so, why?

>> No.10173390

>>10173375

We should tolerate it to the extent we're able to counter it by rational argument and civil methods. After that point things get uncivil anyway no matter what, so we might as well be the first to become uncivil.

>> No.10173391

I'm Canadian and the new darlings of the left wing are muslims. Despite the fact that they are largely intolerant of progressive western ideal, we have to not only tolerate but accept them and their views.

Yet if a white Christian were to worship a pedophile and hate gays, women, dogs, etc. they would never be given a podium to speak, let alone placed on a pedestal and be immune from criticism.

For us to protect our progressive society, which was built by white people with western values, we have to not tolerate intolerant people who do not share our core values. Instead, Turdeau encourages them to immigrate or sneak through our borders by the thousands, because "diversity" (and they will be future Liberal party voters).

>> No.10173393

>>10173375
it's a great idea but it completely fails to mention that this only works if those who are arbitrating what is tolerant and what is not are completely just and rational.

>> No.10173394
File: 734 KB, 1600x1100, taradox_of_polerance.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173394

>> No.10173395

>>10173394
/thread

>> No.10173398

>>10173375
>asking the "you can't live action or 2d rule 34 that porn" board about morals
you can tell anglo countries just don't read.

>> No.10173402

>>10173391
>>10173394
The argument for tolerance of muslims doesn't include letting their views become the majority; in fact, it doesn't have anything to do with their views at all, it has to do with them practicing their religion. In a case where no rights are infringed, they have a right to practice their religion and it should be respected.
Fuck off back to
>>>/pol/
With you boogeymen

>> No.10173405

>>10173394
back to your /pol/ cave

>> No.10173420

>>10173375
We should tolerate intolerance but we shouldn't tolerate neonazis

>> No.10173422

>>10173394
White and based. Muslim apologists on suicide watch.

>> No.10173423

>>10173402
People aren't concerned about religious expression with Muslims, they are worried about violence and anti-western ideals.

But hey, I'm sure you would be perfectly happy with 51% of voters being Muslims from countries with "different values".

>> No.10173424
File: 83 KB, 850x400, quote-when-anyone-studies-a-little-or-pays-a-little-attention-to-the-rules-of-islamic-government-ruhollah-khomeini-65-37-66.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173424

>>10173402

>> No.10173429

>>10173402
Islam intends to become the majority.

>> No.10173434

>>10173423
>>10173424
>>10173429
It is retarded to believe muslim immigrants want to install the shit government they are immigrating from. Stay safe in your basements, though, just in case.

>> No.10173442

>>10173434
why are you projecting a racist eurocentric worldview on POC? we will never access what muslim immigrants REALLY want, just because they're here does not mean that they are like every other white person

>> No.10173445

>>10173434
There are already Sharia courts in Ontario and every western European country.

>> No.10173453

>>10173429
>Islam intends to become the majority.
Especially in western countries, where the youth tend to go to post secondary school for at least 4 years and delay having children (if they do at all) under the guise of financial security, fear of overpopulation, or the desire to still live like a teenager.

I'm 31 and very well-educated. All of my friends have a minimum of one undergrad degree, many have MSc degrees. The majority of people I know my age do not have children, few have one child and don't plan to have another, and only a couple have 2-3 kids.

To replace both parents and have a stable population you need at least two children. Meanwhile, Muslim families have 4-6 kids, which essentially equates to the fecundity of 10 white couples. They come here and have access to medical care, a very low infant mortality rate, welfare, and even baby bonuses, which encourage the survival of their children and their ability to have even more.

In the end, the most tolerant and educated people are not having children. The future is clearly not being perpetuated by the ideal citizens.

This is part of the reason I had two children while finishing my PhD. It was a terrible time in many respects, but I wasn't going to wait until my wife had fertility issues or time had run out and we could only have one child (with a high risk pregnancy). I just wish those /pol/ retards would realize they are actually hurting the race and social ideals they claim to represent and love. If you want to truly help western culture, disconnect from 4chan, become more of a normie, and have children. Stop making excuses and vilifying women.

>> No.10173454

>>10173402
Ok, Faggot. What is the difference between an ideology and a religion?
Let's say My religion is now Esoteric Hitlerism. Does that mean that I now have the right to free expression in your society now, even though my theoretical views haven't changed?
See that? I just disproved your shitty ill-thought out point because, your point was just apologia or your personal bias.

Everyone deserves the same rights, Fascist.

>> No.10173462

>>10173445
No there are not, but there have been Catholic and Jewish tribunals set up since 1991
>>10173442
You are accusing me of racism? Really stings, retard.
>>10173454
If you have a church approved by the US government, and your practice is not infringing upon the rights of others, you have the right to practice this religion. Read a fucking book instead of /pol/ infographics.

>> No.10173471

>>10173462
you are universalizing your own preferences and worldview on other people you have no clue about, it is bigotry and culturally insensitive

>> No.10173473

>>10173471
See your own post

>> No.10173483

>>10173462
>If you have a church approved by the US government
Oh look you added an unnecessary qualifier so that you didn't have to admit your wrong.
>your practice is not infringing upon the rights of others
Someone holding a political belief doesn't and cannot infringe upon others rights.
>/pol/ infographics
Everyone you disagree with isn't /pol/.

You're literally a bigot.

>> No.10173484

A society always tolerates some things and doesn't tolerate others. Shit like this is just a way of justifying the suppression of views that you disagree with. It would be better to simply be honest about what you're trying to do, rather than obfuscate under the guise of being "tolerant", but I get the impression our progressive crusaders truly they're "on the right side of history" and other such nonsense.

>> No.10173490

LOL

How the FUCK did Hitler "destroy" Wilhelm II?

The ordinary Germans who tolerated the Nazis were destroyed by the Allies who declared war on Germany not by the Nazis.

Retarded comic.

>> No.10173491
File: 11 KB, 236x302, LW.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173491

>Karl Popper

>> No.10173493

>>10173483
The image you are arguing about literally has pol in the file name. That "unnecessary qualifier" you added is called the fucking right to religion.
kys

>> No.10173494

>>10173375
Intolerant views don’t infringe on other’s rights, as long as you aren’t directly calling for violence with a credible threat, you should not be stopped.

>> No.10173497
File: 102 KB, 390x597, bwahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173497

>>10173390
>>10173391
>>10173394
>>10173395
>>10173402
>>10173422
>>10173423
>>10173424
>>10173434
>>10173442
>>10173445
>>10173453
mfw normies think any of this shit matters

>> No.10173499

>>10173493
Reminder that freedom of religion is a red herring and it’s just a subset of freedom of speech and freedom of association

>> No.10173503

>>10173375
Well since habitable,arable space is limited to certain parts of the earth. I would say that until we can all just go to our completley sustainable closed system spaceships, or time machines, its important to only be intolerant against intolerance, becuase the people that have a problem with "thing" will eventually bump into you.

But space is infinite and so is human ingenuity. So in the future when we can just fuck off deeper and deeper into outer space instead of dealing with these jerks.
Like the pilgrims or the jews did.

>> No.10173505

>>10173402
Islam is a totalitarian political ideology, not a religion.

>> No.10173506

So "tolerance" is such a weak thing that it will collapse if you let people publicly disagree with it?

>> No.10173507

>>10173493
The unnecessary qualifier is when you say only religions approved by the US government are real religions, you dingus.

>> No.10173513

>>10173507
Are you saying that Islam is not a religion?

>> No.10173514
File: 32 KB, 453x500, steve-knows-best.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173514

>>10173499
>mfw when people assign special ontological status to particular memes

>> No.10173518

Delete this fucking thread right now

>> No.10173517

I believe they are intolerant, ergo, they must be suppressed

>> No.10173520

>>10173513
You fucking idiot. You said "If you have a church approved by the US government . . . you have the right to practice this religion".
That statement would mean that only religions approved by the US government have the right to be practiced. Which is bullshit.

>> No.10173525

>>10173375
https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

Got this idea from here. Arguments behind this seem pretty solid to me.

>> No.10173528

>>10173394
This really nails it. At least concerning the political wing and teachings of Islam. #notall applies just as much to the larping unpolitical nazis as it does to the moderate muslims, even though the percentages per capita may be skewed in favor of muslims being less radical, in sheer numbers they are much more numerous and all you'd have to do is look up pew polls on how many of them want sharia implemented, how many say a woman should always obey his wife (over >50% for most countries on both counts, even western muslims though less so).

If you want to be consistent, you should apply it to this picture as well
>>10173394

Thinking the label "religion" as opposed to "ideology" makes any difference is just arguing semantics. I couldn't care less about that petty distinction regarding beliefs people hold, texts they abide to and hold up as the ideal and leaders they worship. On all of these counts, Islam and Nazism come very close, as is reflected by their respective followers. Just read the pew polls.

>> No.10173530

>>10173520
It is true though, because the right to religion ultimately stems from the state it is only fitting that the state regulates this right.
So either you want to be tolerant of all beliefs that might be considered religious, or you want the government to somehow forget that it approves and regulates mosques and ban its practice, which is a historically untenable position.

>> No.10173543

>>10173394
>>10173454
depends completely on what the person in question thinks constitutes a religion, and by "person in question," I don't mean you or me: I'm referring to the muslim/whatever individual we're talking about.

When someone says they're a gay tranny muslim and all that, they probably aren't following the religion and it's associated ideology too seriously. These aren't people who're going to be hiding bombs up their ass. Most people are religious in name only nowadays, it's a hobby. You're right to say that a "real-deal" religion pretty much comes with an ideology, but these aren't often real-deal religious people; that's the difference between ideology and religion here.

And if you're talking immigration, there's also the fact that the image wasn't suggesting that Nazis shouldn't ever be allowed into the country. Just that they shouldn't be able to voice certain ideals unconditionally.

>> No.10173545

>>10173530
>Believing the State should be the source of objective moral judgments on what Religions are acceptable.
Dude, if you were born in 30s Germany, you would be a fucking Nazi.

>> No.10173549

>>10173530
>It is true though, because the right to religion ultimately stems from the state it is only fitting that the state regulates this right.
You fatuous idiotic moron.

In the United States, there isn't a "right to religion" - there is a rule (the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution) that prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Your 'right to religion' does not come from government, it is innate to our beings as humans. Go and read classical liberal theory and come back when you have a better understanding of the assumptions made in the US Constitution and system and where they come from.

>> No.10173550

>>10173545
Ok buddy

>> No.10173557

>>10173549
Do you deny the US government regulates religious practice?

>> No.10173559

>>10173557
Yes.

>> No.10173570

>>10173559
Then you should read any article are Church law and tax exempt status.

>> No.10173591

>>10173570
1) You should read a book on grammar.
2) Granting tax-exempt status to an organization does not mean regulating an organization.

>> No.10173592

>>10173570

you can practice a religion without it being tax exempt you stupid fuck. The government doesn't say whats a religion it says who owes them money.

>> No.10173634

>>10173592
But this legitimates the religion. This is the difference between crazy cult and organization.

>> No.10173655

>>10173517
I think this is the most cogent point against this meme line of thinking
There can never be an impartial judge of tolerant vs intolerant viewpoints when it comes to legally defining these things. Who watches the watchmen and all that.

>> No.10173660

>>10173634

There are organizations who enjoy tax exempt status who many would consider cults. If this is true then logically the opposite is true as well. Government validation of fiscal status doesn't legitimize anything its's only bureaucracy. If the government said that all religions must pay taxes would they all cease to be valid? no, because that's stupid.

>> No.10173661

>>10173402
Look up Sharia Law and the demographics of Muslims who support it, including Muslims in Western countries.

>> No.10173931

>>10173434
Most Turkish immigrants in European countries voted to give Erdogan more power

>> No.10173937
File: 16 KB, 363x395, damn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173937

>>10173375
I'm a leftist economically and socially but even I believe in nostep snek policy. Violence must be employed immediately and swiftly as a defense to an identified threat. But if the threat is not properly identified, the violence is unjust.

Determining a threat is a huge gray area though. And then there's the problem of pre-emptive strikes, and identifying opponent strategies as an "inevitability," as a pretext for attack.

>> No.10173966
File: 404 KB, 604x574, 1508193619083.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10173966

>>10173394

The criticism in this image can be successfully leveled at both the right and the left.

Muslim violence and Islamist extremism is a problem, but it is a problem that has been largely manufactured by neoliberal imperialism and foreign/trade policies which deliberately destabilized the middle east and empowered extremists for the reason of A) seizing natural resources for a multinational private sector and B) Stopping the spread of secular leftism to these areas (this is why Reagan empowered the Muhajideen and depicted Bin Laden as a revolutionary hero).

This resulted in Wahabist ideology taking over the middle east and replacing an increasingly moderate Islam. I shouldn't have to point out that Iran in the 70s more closely resembled a Western nation than the theocratic shithole it has become. The truth is that the collapse of the Ottoman empire resulted in the middle east being gerrymandered to shit, and over the years reckless Western foreign policy has empowered far-right Islamofascist dissidents.

Now we're locking in the refugees with extremists, and guaranteeing that the next generation of Muslims will be more extreme than the last. This serves well the motives war mongers who want the middle East's resources as well as Christian right-wingers who literally believe the geopolitical circumstances build up to an inevitable holy war.

The truth is organized religions are a disaster for geopolitics as long as they embrace the twin dogmas of exclusive afterlife and inevitable holy war. An ideal world would not have Muslims, Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Shinto, Jains, Scientologists, whatever-have-you.

The world will be better when humans stop embracing these dogshit dogmas. But it's important to see that it's not just dangerous ideology but deliberate aggravation of extremism by secular economic forces which create these circumstances.


TL;DR
American fascism is a response to Islamofascism, and Islamofascism i the result of Western foreign policy. The world would be better without organized religion, but secular government still fucks shit up and aggravates extremism.

>> No.10174110
File: 31 KB, 441x450, 100835-004-0A003A0A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10174110

The tolerance paradox will always haunt liberalism. Even /ourguy/ Rawls couldn't solve it.

>> No.10174120

report all non-literature threads
https://sys.4chan.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=10173375

>> No.10174134
File: 129 KB, 817x506, DCgOoiYWsAACULd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10174134

>>10173661
But were Muslims always this way, or does this represent the rise of Wahabist ideology aggravated by Western foreign policy.

All religious groups taint secular political negotiations just like all material interests pollute moral precepts. Islam is no exception, and its extremism as of late has been aggravated by conservative Western interests, both on the economic (multinational corporations who want to get at the middle east's resources) and the social (Christians who believe in armaggedon in government) front.

>> No.10174147

It's anal autistic nonsense rationalization. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it is valid. This is the core of all anal autistic nonphilosophy, which depends on the trust of argument and reason for no reason and with no argument.
>>10173402
The argument for tolerance of neo-nazis doesn't include letting their views become the majority; in fact, it doesn't have anything to do with their views at all, it has to do with them practicing their tradition. In a case where no rights are infringed, they have a right to practice their tradition and it should be respected.
Fuck off back to
>>>/leftypol/
With you boogeymen

>> No.10174153

>>10173549
>Your 'right to religion' does not come from government, it is innate to our beings as humans.
Why, becuz u sed so?
>Go and read classical liberal theory
becuz le ded white dudes sed so?

>> No.10174162

>>10173375
The argument, at least as presented in the graphic, seems to be that because an idea could lead to the extinction of tolerance, it should not be tolerated. It's saying that the legality of a movement should be based on its potential consequences.

Then you shouldn't tolerate libertarians who believe Nazis should have free speech, because that could lead to the extinction of tolerance. And you shouldn't tolerate anyone who doesn't believe you should arrest libertarians.

Really why not just cut to the chase and put everyone you disagree with in the gulag.

>> No.10174309

>>10174162
I agree with you, but for the sake of argument how do you come back against someone who dismisses this as "muh slippery slope"

>> No.10174384

>>10173375
>>10173394
Who the fuck drew those black smudges on the pictures? Thought my screen was dirty for a second.

>> No.10174397

>>10174309
You don't if you want to maintain the premise that what society accepts, tolerates, and demonises are defined rationally rather than socially constructed limits.
Liberalism that tries to be rational fails, liberalism that stops being rational stops being liberalism (which it should admit).

>> No.10174508

>>10174134
It doesn't really matter what causes Islamic discontent, the most important thing is protecting our own citizens. After all, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the middle east was "oppressed" on a far greater scale than what goes on now, and yet European civilians in London or Paris were completely safe from any Muslim reprisal, so it's not as if terrorism is some sort of inevitable consequence of imperialism. You know to be honest, I've never heard of a Vietnamese or Indian terrorist attacking westerners, so there probably is something special about Islamic ideology that makes its followers extra violent.

>> No.10174658
File: 26 KB, 471x355, 1305800108224.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10174658

>>10174508
>I've never heard of a Vietnamese or Indian terrorist attacking westerners,

You do know there's a big population of Muslims in India, right? And why would you compare a race of people to an ideology followed by different races?

>It doesn't really matter what causes Islamic discontent, the most important thing is protecting our own citizens.

Spoken like someone who doesn't actually want to protect anyone.