/lit/ - Literature

>" ... suppression would certainly be unwise"

>>/lit/thread/12779359

>>12779359

Can someone define tolerance?

>>12780142
Who exactly are the tolerant tolerating? All major religions have intolerance for sin and unbelief as core beliefs, and right-wingers (at least half the population in Western countries and the majority in the rest of the world) tend toward hierarchy which could be said to be intolerant towards lessers and those who deviate from standards.
So basically both polarities of tolerance, unlimited tolerance and limited tolerance, are retarded. Unlimited tolerance is suicidal, limited tolerance does not exist unless you seriously think that only tolerating people who agree with you is tolerant of anyone (again, who are you tolerating?) Tolerance is a stupid concept and anyone who utters the term in a tone of anything but contempt is ignorant.

>>12780142
I wonder how he would feel knowing people use this as a weapon to be intolerant to those they disagree with, simply by labeling them intolerant.

>>12780172
>Can someone define tolerance?
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

so if Popper's ideas were enacted, and intolerance was intolerated by law, what happens when someone intolerant gets elected and has control of the definition of tolerance?

Seems like he's just using tolerance as a means of defending a specific status quo.

>>12780156
Looks like the jannies get to define tolerance

>>12780253
Intolerance wins. We kind of see this in universities.

rules protect freedom

No one understands what a paradox is

popper is a shit tier thinker, worse than bertrand russell

>>12780536
you're right, it isn't a paradox, it is merely a contradiction

>>12780183
>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?

>>12780172
State-sponsored ethnocide of European ethnic groups

>>12780142
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.

>>12780560
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

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

>>12780142
>Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in 1902 to upper-middle-class parents. All of Popper's grandparents were Jewish

>>12780595
>Bauman was born to non-observant Polish Jewish family in Poznań, Poland, in 1925

>>12780613
Based schizo pol poster

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

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

>>12780142

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

>>12780613
fucken based

>>12780685
>Go ahead and die at the hands of genocide. Don’t be a prissy

>>12780756
Based, go back to you board.

>>12780665
There ya go. Stirner “pilled”

>>12780142
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.

>>12780142
>system x tolerating tendencies that are opposed to system x is not in the interest of system x
How insightful.

>>12780142
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

>>12780142
Don't laws against against murder suggest that we already don't tolerate intolerance?

>>12780142
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.

>>12780142
liberals slowly re-discovering virtue and values, version 102389218

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

>>12783295
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

>>12780253
just as the progressive left is doing it?

>>12783522
they are on the right side of history sweaty

>>12780142
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".

>>12780595
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.

>>12783595
this, it's just progressives rediscovering classical values but having to twist them into the language of progressivism to find it palatable to implement

>>12783600
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.

>>12783620
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

>>12783534
>sweaty

>>12783657
First day on the chan, kid?

>>12783657
Obviously a subtle reference to Sweetie/Sweaty from Diary of a Wimpy Kid. You'd know that if you read.