/lit/ - Literature

>>14252677
It's airtight, but fails to take the final step: A tolerant society is a fantasy and "tolerance" should not be our highest goal.

>>14252677
Goebbels said "That they gave us, yes THEY US freedom of speech, that does mean in no way that WE should do the same for THEM. it only goes to show how dumb they are"
this is unironically a real quote (translation is mine tho)

>>14252677
it comes down to they are never able to properly define intolerance. it is just whatever they want it to be whenever they decide.

>>14252677
Exactly why I think that Islam has no place in western society. Thanks, Popper!

>>14252718
Your comment reeks of intolerance

>>14252718
also blacks and hispanics hate LGBT

>>14252724
Ohohoho what a paradox!

>>14252677
Why is tolerance inherently good?
Isn't the existence of any society contingent on forms of prejudice and intolerance? Isn't that the whole point of law and norms?

>>14252677
A lot of the fuss comes from what is defined as tolerant and intolerant. Case and point with >>14252718 and >>14252725 so its about as useless as saying "evil is bad"

>>14252677
"Repressive Tolerance" is classic Frankfurt School Herbert Marcuse. This kind of propaganda is designed solely for the purpose of pushing system collapse in Western societies specifically. It's a dead give away when someone is using the NSDAP as a scapegoat for their agenda.

>>14252716
This is the nature of tolerance vs. intolerance. All in-groups are intolerant by their nature of being an in-group. The Frankfurt Schools Herbet Marcuse who created this concept of "repressive tolerance" was also highly authoritarian (e.g. the Frankfurt School had a mantra to follow and not following it meant exclusion. Interestingly enough, Freud and his followers were almost identical in this form of structure and you can be sure Marcuse drew heavy inspiration from Freud). The bottom line is these people promote this kind of smoke screen to push their own agendas, which become rather easy to reveal once one spends a few minutes of research.

>>14252677
No. Bash the fash. Kill 'em all.

>>14252788
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Horkheimer

These 3 men and their movement control your entire mind. There is no Fascism in the Western world as we have seen, "Bash the Fash" usually translates into randomly assaulting anyone from Social Moderates to Paleoconservatives. It's simply an ideologically motivated tool to justify executions of dissidents in a moralistic framework.

>>14252787
yeah, i think a lot of the common parlance regarding tolerance and intolerance is really just a masquerade for in-group vs out-group

>>14252677
>"any movement that preaches intolerance must be outside the law"
>"we must be intolerant of the intolerant"
>doesnt that kinda make you intolerant, and thus outside the law?
>"shut up, my intolerance of intolerance isnt *actually* intolerance, bro"

Seems to me to be an example of how liberal and humanitarian proposals have their own destruction built into them. When you build a house on a shaky foundation, it’s easy to make it collapse.

>>14252819
The NSDAP fixation comes from the Frankfurt School which was heavily Jewish. Therefore, it is only logical that their entire existence is to combat anti-semitism while completely sweeping under the rug Jewish complicity in the Cheka, Israeli crimes, etc. Nazism in the 21st century generally just means Europeans that want border controls and systems that favor native cohesion rather than mass immigration, for example.

>>14252798
There were some serious differences between them. Adorno thought Marcuse and his ilk had some serious authoritarian tendencies, and the Marcuse’s followers used to harass Adorno.

>>14252836
Adorno was a member of Marcuse's clique but for sure he fell out of favor with the in-group. A similar situation happened with Jung when he was disavowed by Freud.

>>14252718
NOOOOO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT, ONLY A NAZI WOULD SAY THAT AND WE DON'T TOLERATE NAZIS, IT'S THIS THING CALLED THE PARADOX OF TOLERANCE YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T HEARD OF IT

>>14252846
Just the whole framing of the concept, "The Paradox of Tolerance" is the kind of critical theory newspeak drivel they promote to justify executions of political dissidents. "Repressive tolerance" leads to Katyń Forest.

>>14252677
>let in millions of muslims though

>It's only intolerance when others do it

Literally.

>>14252703
source?

>>14252677
And how does one calculate to what measure certain actions are intolerant, thus not deserving the protection of tolerance? Seems like the same problem with utilitarinism, not beaing really able implement this sort of utopia to human experience.

Also, what the others have said. Tolerance might not be of inherit value

>>14252677
It's all so tiresome.

>>14252865
https://www.sr-mediathek.de/index.php?seite=7&id=37143

>>14252702
Exactly. The argument is perfect, but fails to recognize that it’s not a paradox but a contradiction. Tolerance is a false god. Society should not be organized around tolerance but around love.

>>14252887
And how does one enforce two intolerant groups within one society if it is to be organized based on love?

i don't even need to read all the posts to know this thread is full of /pol/tards.

>>14252905
>i don't even need to read
We know.

>>14252895
you build a massive globo-homo-shlomo world government and police it with ultra-authoritarian totalitarianism but call it tolerance

>A GOOD SOCIETY CANT B GUD WITHOUT DOING THEM BAD THINGS SOMETIMES TO THEM BAD GUYS BECAUSE THEM BAD GUYS IF LEFT UNCHECKED WILL DO BAD THINGS

It's meaningless drivel that can be thrown around and repackaged in any way you want it to.

>>14252905
>OP asks for refutation
>anons provide
>"fUcKiNg /PoL/ tArDs"
Lame cop out.

>>14252911
That is "Repressive Tolerance", as outlined by Marcuse and the Frankfurt School at large. As to whether or not it has successes we are living the experiment in contemporary society. Judging from the growing suicide rates, discontent, attraction to extremist politics, and rejection of community I think it can be deduced as an overall failure.

>>14252905
Popper’s argument seems to demonstrate the inherent instability of liberalism more than anything else. You don’t have to be /pol/ to realize that.

>>14252905
social democrat here, still think popper is a hack

It never ends with "tolerance". Tolerance implies you don't like a particular group, but you let them do their thing regardless. The gays fought for tolerance for the longest time, they got it, and next thing you know you have to bake a cake - or else. Women simply wanted an equal vote, they want completely equal outcomes in all (pleasant) aspects of life and in all the prestigious jobs. Tolerance is just a stepping stone on the way to more power.

>>14252677
This isn't philosophy, only an unaware self-btfo that normalfags use as an intellectual cover for the basic human desire to force everyone around you to behave the way you want them to. As inane as
>without laws, there would be no criminals.

>>14252957
>without laws, there would be no criminals.
Normies will unironically use this line of logic to argue for legalization of drugs and abortion though

>>14252820
Well that's what the image/Poppers argument is trying to get at. The tolerance system carried to its rigorous conclusion that all, even the intolerant, should be tolerated, will destroy itself. It will tolerate its own destruction. This isn't fit for any system which claims supremacy, thus to preserve itself it AT LEAST has to be intolerant of what would destroy it.

The next step in thinking should be drawing the conclusion that no system, even the system of tolerance, can have a higher value than self preservation.

>>14252957
>>14252964
I dunno, malum prohibitum crimes, maybe.
Malum in se is here to stay. Even if there was no law against murder, we all agree that a murderer has committed a crime against humanity.

>>14252677
De Maistre argued something similar. All systems of government that are based on rationality (democracy and republicanism in particular) are by definition open for discussion, therefore doubtable, therefore instable. He argued for a kind of throne-and-altar monarchy on the basis of Divine Right that can't be up for discussion as the only stable form of government. The more I think about it, the more correct I think he is, at least regarding the "rational systems are by definition unstable" part.

>>14252982
>we all agree that a murderer has committed a crime against humanity
“Humanity “ isn’t a coherent enough body to have crimes committed against it.

>nazi ideas

Didn't they just flip flop populism ideas until they had enough power to go full retard?

>>14252989
You will see how even in our current system, it's a kind of taboo to discuss whether or not democracy is a good system of government. The only time the media will broach the subject is when things don't go their way (Brexit and Trump). Watch how normies get ready to light your funeral pyre as soon as you suggest a system other than democracy, or suggest changing the current system in a fundamental way by taking away the woman vote or giving only net-tax payers a vote etc. It's interesting how we are technically allowed to discuss the flaws of democracy or even potentially superior systems, but no one does it. It's one of the last taboos of this age.

>>14252677
Interesting that it has to be an infographic in order to have validity, using Nazism as a basis for intolerance.
>Should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance?
A purely subjective notion that really reigns from the majority rule of what is morally tolerant and intolerant, the Nazis were genuinely convinced that Jews were demon spawns.
>The answer is NO
Wow that was easy
>when we extend tolerance to those who are openly tolerant the tolerant ones end up being destroyed and tolerance with them.
That is a huge fucking jump in logic, clearly abusing the Nazis as a basis to strike fear and "sound logic" to this proposal. This conclusion has no sound foundation because it makes a lot of assumptions.
>Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside of the law.
He basically refuted himself by establishing the paradoxical absurdity that is the subjective majority's ideals and moral law.
This whole thing looks like it was taken off of buzzfeed.

>>14252677
There's more banned publications in modern day Germany than there was in the 3rd Reich. He's accusing his enemies over what he himself wants to do.

>>14253029
You could well imagine this infographic being made in Nazi Germany, using the Jews and their plot to rule the world as a stand-in for the "intolerant" of the pic.

>>14252971
The problem is such an unstable system isn’t worth pursuing in the first place. Tolerance can have no greater value because it’s value is negative for anyone looking to build a stable or healthy society.

>>14253066
What? Tolerance is valuable because it maximizes the freedom of all the subjects.

>>14253070
it restricts freedom of association for instance

>>14253038
this
>To re-educate Germany, the Allies last week adopted a typically Nazi device. The four-power Coordinating Committee decided to reduce to pulp all "undemocratic, militaristic and Nazi" literature, museum and library material, newspapers, films and war memorials. Tombstones were excepted.
>Here is how the Allies went about the suppression of ideas:
>Into Berlin's press camp breezed a pretty young ex-WAC introduced as Vivian Cox, an "expert" attached to the Military Directorate. Sitting on a desk and dangling her long, nylon-clad legs, Miss Cox answered indignant newsmen's questions in a pleasant Southern drawl. How would "militaristic" be defined, asked one reporter. Replied Miss Cox: "It's the way the Germans have of
waging war.". How would "democratic" be defined? Said Miss Cox: "Everything American people think and call democratic."
>Was the order different in principle from Nazi book burnings? No, not in Miss Cox's opinion.
>Just 13 years ago, the Nazis had confiscated and burned millions of "unGerman" books. The war had destroyed hundreds of thousands more.
>Now the Allied order would eliminate millions more. Pessimists could see the day approaching when Germans would have nothing left to read except perhaps some of Grimm's lighter fairy tales. Cracked one British officer to a U.S. colleague: "You people might yet be able to convert the Germans to your comics. . . ."
>The measure found its defenders. Said one U.S. official: "At least the Germans won't be able to read Clausewitz these long summer nights." Said a Russian: "If more of them were out ploughing fields instead of reading, there would be more food."
>But most observers condemned the order as a piece of unenforceable foolishness which would only increase interest in the verboten books, and martyrize Germany's nationalistic spirit.
>Time; Monday, May. 27, 1946:
>http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,776847,00.html

>>14253070
Stability and long term social health are fundamentally more valuable than whatever one-size-fits-all freedoms are being maximized. Tolerance is a net negative for any society even if it is a net positive for its subjects, and the former should always be prioritized.

>>14253078
If by that you mean you can't associate with intolerant people/organizations, then sure it's slightly restrictive. But I would argue the restriction affords more freedom than it restricts. In the case of the tiki torch protestors that got doxxed, I'm sure some got fired. That was restrictive, but only because there was doubly enough freedom for both the individual and their associated job to do what they please in way of their association. Individuals had the freedom to act outside of their association, and organizations had the freedom to act within their rights of disassociation.

Is the conclusion to abandon tolerance as a concept because it leads to a performative self-contradiction?

>>14253118
No, the conclusion is violence against [group you don't like] is justified because they aren't tolerant.

>listening to the "logic" of a dead white man
Yeah, no.

>>14253117
No I mean that I can't have a pub and hang a sign "no gays allowed" or "no women allowed". Under enforced tolerance you are denied the right to moderate your for example clientele or employees. Now of course there are ways to get around that(usually burying it under mountains of bureaucratic talk about company policy and aptitude test results), but it's childish.

>>14253125
Yep, tolerance as system is fundamentally maintained by violence. It’s more of a threat than it is an agreement.

>>14253102
Expand more on something being a net positive for subjects but a net negative for society? Interesting point with exploring

>>14253125
But that's exactly what makes it self-contradictory. Seems weird that a philosopher would advocate for a concept like that. Isn't Popper also the guy who staunchly criticized historicism exactly because it lead to a supposed self-contradiction? Getting some mixed messages from that guy.

>>14253137
I don't think you can really say that on solid ground. Fucking ISIS and Mexican drug cartel controlled regions are sustained by violence. University campuses are not. Lol.

>>14253159
Laws like the civil rights act are enforced by government, and political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

>>14253159
They are one hundred percent are. They’re the gatekeepers of social mobility, and they will deny it to you if you don’t stay in line. It’s a soft violence backed up their social position and institutional support, but it still amounts to little more than threats. The work they do to mobilize student groups towards the cause doesn’t help.

There’s something about it (probably the legitimacy it has) that’s honestly more unnerving that ISIS or the Cartels.

>>14252788