Thread 17955300

Is the Paradox of Tolerance just the liberal version of the Friend-Enemy distinction?

I hate this retard idea and people who state it like it is some kind of natural law

>>17955300 (OP)
The paradox only exists inasmuch tolerance is defended as a virtue instead of regarded as a concept.
The reason nazis and other ideologies should be rejected is because of their opposition to the Christian values that form the foindation of Western civilization (yes, even Latrinos and Africans). And there can be no law without the values to guide it.

>>17955338
>I hate this retard idea
Which one?

Karl Popper is in hell

>>17955300 (OP)
idk what's so paradoxical about it. It's the same idea as not fighting anyone unless they throw the first punch. "Oh, I thought you didn't like violence, yet you use violence to stop violent people? Bit hypocritical isn't it?" No.

>>17955300 (OP)
Karl Popper would've been a fascist if he was born a generation earlier
It's just defining your own ideology (capitalism) as "tolerance" and using state power to crush any alternatives, the far right ironically made many similar arguments against socialists, same state of emergency bullshit

>>17955300 (OP)
The paradox really only applies to people or groups willing to switch from words to violence when the chance presents itself, not to bigots in general.

>>17955378
Reading The Open Society and its Enemies, he seems quite open to capitalism being abolished by democratic means.

>>17955378
Capitalism is not an ideology.

>>17955300 (OP)
>your friends are... le good
>your enemies are... le bad
What is supposed to be so revelatory about the friend-enemy distinction?

>>17955440
Nothing. It's just the real truth hidden under a web of lies about the "international order" or human rights etc etc. Carl schmidt terrifies the Jews for this reason.

>>17955440
Drops the act.

>>17955300 (OP)
It's very funny, liberals are just willing to step over there being a contradiction at the heart of their ideology between tolerance being inherently good and tolerance being bad when I want to crush my enemies. Wow isn't that wacky, my ideology just has an unsolvable contradiction right at its core, wow that's cool, anyway, moving on.
This sort of thing would normally give people a pause, I guess liberals are just a special breed.

>>17955378
Karl Popper would be a Jew whenever he was born.

>>17955697
How is it a contradiction?
>I want a tolerant society
>Therefore I will tolerate everyone except for intolerant people, because if they gain power society will stop being tolerant
It's logically sound.

>>17955300 (OP)
This is a false-dilemma fallacy
You can defend tolerance, and also tolerate intolerant people. Everyone has the right to free speech, and not allowing all ideologies a platform to speak for themselves and compete in the free market place of ideas is what got the world into this divisive mess in the first place I think. A huge part of modern reactionary rhetoric is that liberals are the "real nazis" for this very reason, and now both sides suffer kneejerk reactions off of each other because we became too afraid to let people speak for themselves.

>>17955300 (OP)

>I'm tolerant of everything unless I claim it's intolerant of me. Then it's not allowed to exist.

Wow how original. You realize this is literally the same exact thing everyone else who's ever existed has also preached? Saudi Arabia, North Korea. You rely on the same exact blind brute force as literally every other regime that's ever existed. When liberals use the word "freedom". They mean freedom to be a liberal. Freedom to listen to this mumble rapper over that mumble rapper. In liberalism you don't have the freedom to be a non-liberal.

I have a question for all the "tolerant" people here. Name one group or idea you fundamentally disagree with or even view as dangerous but believe society should tolerate to grow, fester, multiply, and propagate itself. You can't. At the end of the day you only tolerate what you agree with.

>>17955734
>Name one group or idea you fundamentally disagree with or even view as dangerous but believe society should tolerate to grow, fester, multiply, and propagate itself
Non-Sequitur. Tolerating a group you fundamentally disagree with isn't going to automatically lead to said groups multiplying growing. Sometimes it could have the opposite effect
For example, I fundamentally disagree with NeoNazis, but not tolerating them, and simply dismissing them as fringe groups that should be shunned and not engaged with, has actually done more to make them grow in response vs simply tolerating them and opening dialogue with them. Nowadays, concise debunks of things like Holocaust denialism is starting to become easier to find because we're not dismissive of these groups anymore. 10 years ago it was harder to find content like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M960XckpK5s for example because nobody even wanted to give holocaust deniers the time of day. Sometimes it can actually be a good thing to tolerate groups you disagree with.

>>17955706
If it isn't a contradiction, then where is the "paradox" of tolerance exactly?
You don't get points for not understanding either the question or the answer. Popper believed the two points to be in contradiction, every liberal after him agreed, you are skipping to his conclusion which is to just step over the theoretical issue entirely and just embrace the friend enemy distinction, which is exactly what liberalism is against and "toleration" is the opposite of.

>>17955754
In case you're not just trolling and merely pretending to be retarded
One could easily argue the "Paradox" in question is a Falsidical Paradox because it represents a false-dilemma fallacy. Even in the context of Karl Popper's Open Society, he was merely presenting an argument, not asserting it as factual.

>>17955378
>your own ideology (free exchange of goods and services)

>>17955754
>just embrace the friend enemy distinction, which is exactly what liberalism is against
Liberalism obviously isn't against f-e distinction, as it sees the intolerant as the enemy.

>>17955734
I disagree with religions and russophiles, yet I tolerate them
Total nazi and commie death

>>17955300 (OP)

Everyone supports violence. They just pretend not to by using various word games, semantics, equivocation, euphemisms, creating degrees of separation and proxies between themselves and the violence, delegating their violence to other parties, and "plausible deniability". Even the Amish and Jains.

>>17955734
>Name one group or idea you fundamentally disagree with or even view as dangerous but believe society should tolerate to grow, fester, multiply, and propagate itself.
Christians. Also Muslims.

The concept of tolerance is a tacit admission that something is evil and anyone that claims tolerance is good is an even greater evil.

>>17955300 (OP)
Idk what that is but the tolerance paradox is just liberalism rationalizing breaking their own rules.
>you're free... BUT

>>17955300 (OP)
The paradox of intolerance is the acceptance that it's necessary to suppress your enemies even if your idelology was originally built on not suppressing anyone.
It's a concession that unlimited tolerance is non-functional in practice.

>>17955734
Conservatives.

>>17955734
The ZOG

>>17955734
Capitalism rat race to the end corpo bootlickers

>>17955734
>At the end of the day you only tolerate what you agree with.
That's a whole lotta projection, bro.

>>17956238
In short: hypocrisy

>>17955734
I don't agree with Quakers pacifism but there should be more Quakers
I don't agree with Amish condemning technology but there should be more Amish
I don't agree with the Mormons about drinking coffee or energy drinks being a sin but they should be fruitful and multiply in Utah

>>17956502

>I don't want my side to win. I want their side to win.

So why aren't you them?

>>17956730
I'm not worthy... to be with them.

>>17955732
>In liberalism you don't have the freedom to be a non-liberal
Then explain why so many men in the west attach themselves to extreme ideas?

>>17956743
Because liberalism is being enforced badly

the tolerance paradox feels llike it was named by someone who really wanted to contribute ANYTHING to humanity so he took an extremely obvious way of thinking, gave it a name and presented it as his own idea. absolutely pathetic to call this garbage a paradox. fuck whoever came up with it

>>17955300 (OP)
oof that is quite the islamophobic statement

>>17955741
>For example, I fundamentally disagree with NeoNazis, but not tolerating them, and simply dismissing them as fringe groups that should be shunned and not engaged with, has actually done more to make them grow in response vs simply tolerating them and opening dialogue with them
The exact opposite is true. Neo-Nazism grew rapidly when Musk gave them a huge platform.

>>17956958
>so he took an extremely obvious way of thinking
When was it formulated before Popper?

>>17956970
>when Musk gave them a huge platform.
What you're talking about are echo chambers, and these existed before Xitter, and it represents the opposite problem, where echo chambers make it more difficult for said dialogue to be opened through all the noise. I think it could be a double edged sword though if it becomes big enough because I also see these retards being called out more. Apparently Xitter has a feature where the community is able to provide context to certain baseless claims. I don't know how often that's used or how effective it is though, I don't use that website.

>>17956986
Xitter is very influential. People like Tucker Carlson and Dan Bilzerian are now hosting Holocaust deniers on their shows because that's what the X algorithm promotes

>>17956995
>. People like Tucker Carlson and Dan Bilzerian
AKA people that nobody in the real world takes seriously