He's right.

Tolerance is a spook.

>>508994206 (OP)
The wild logic pretzels of cowardly niggerloving leftoids

>>508994206 (OP)
Confederate eugenicists are retards peace

>>508994206 (OP)
>I don't like the other team

Pretty basic bitch "philosophy".

>>508994206 (OP)
Yes he's right we shouldn't tolerate niggers or jews. They are too intolerant to fit into a thriving multicultural globalist society like ours. Kind of ironic when you think about it.

>>508994206 (OP)
denounce the talmud

>>508994206 (OP)
This is where the tolerant become confused because they suddenly hate everyone.

>>508994206 (OP)
No, hes wrong you faggot kike. Youre fucken piece of shit nigger endoring and faggot promoting shitskin ruined society we have is the result of the bullshit paradox, yorue tolerant cocksucking goyim have been tolerant of the intolerant niggers, spics, and pajeets that hate, rape, kill, and stral from them no matter what they acquiesce. Youre a shill fed kike faggot who needs to kill themselves. Oh and mockery and zero tolerancr for Christians and anything traditional has created a society of limp dick goddless plastic boned faggot men with zero acumen for anything. Kill yourself you fucken faggot

>>508994728
>denounce the talmud

>>508994206 (OP)
If you have a real democracy then people will vote for nationalism
The Nazis even said, this shit is stupid, you’re just going to hand it all over to us anyway
So Jews like Popper proposed a bugfix after the war — just outlaw nationalism
One weird trick! In the same stroke they abolished democracy
Everything that is called “liberal democracy” today is actually Jewish dictatorship
In an actual liberal democracy, nationalism is free to flourish
All this paradox of tolerance bullshit is just the Jewish friend-enemy distinction
But in typical Jewish fashion it can’t announce itself openly and honestly

>>508994206 (OP)
>tolerate your subjugation, disposition and destruction or your intolerant

Might makes right.

>>508994206 (OP)
He is right: it's not physically possible to be tolerant of everything. Every society must be based on some form of axioms, and liberalism is no exception.
The only difference between liberalism and other societies, though, is that while other societies attempt to find some immutable objective truths and develop from there, liberalism has no core beliefs beyond "tolerant people are good" and "intolerant people are bad". Those beliefs are incredibly tenuous, poorly defined, rely on circular logic, and are thus very easy to manipulate.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, liberalism is so popular because powerful people can just call their enemies "intolerant", then justly (in a liberal's eyes) do whatever they want to take them out. Calling someone intolerant, going by liberal logic, means that their arguments, beliefs, and entire personhood can be disregarded in favor of spreading liberalism. It's part of the reason why leftists love using buzzwords - by calling someone racist, homophobic, transphobic, or whatever retarded buzzword they've come up with in the past couple weeks, liberals (especially ruling class liberals) can justify doing literally anything to silence anybody they disagree with.

>>508994206 (OP)
So if I can think of just 1 thing that they don't tolerate, then their whole worldview falls apart? How about killing your dog? I don't think a liberal would tolerate me killing their dog.

>>508994206 (OP)

>>508994206 (OP)
The US and Europe have been tolerant and accepting of others and what has that gotten them, they are now being wiped off the face of the Earth. If tolerence equals extinction of your culture and people why adopt it?

>>508994363
Based stirnerbro

>>508996146
Yes, unironically. There are no true liberals, only people with incoherent worldviews and an irrational hatred of people they don't like

>Source: The Open Society and its enemies: Karl R. Popper
>From wikipedia: Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in 1902 to upper-middle-class parents. All of Popper's grandparents were assimilated Jews; the Popper family converted to Lutheranism before he was born
By allah its all so tiresome...

>>508994206 (OP)
This just means eternal warfare, no?

>>508994206 (OP)
Gookmoot is a public figure and subject to American ridicule

>>508996146
>>508996408
The only way liberalism can survive is if the populace is told what they should be tolerant and intolerant towards. This is why evil people in the modern era have such a strong desire to control the media, education, and language itself - in a liberal society, the person who says what's tolerable and what's intolerable controls the entire thing

>>508994206 (OP)
He's lying.
Tolerance isn't a high minded virtue, it's a politically correct term for surrender.
Understanding that, what this kike is actually saying is "we must never surrender to make others surrender"
He's dressing it up because it's an extremely aggressive and warlike statement.
Warmongers pretending to be peaceful is an old trick. Tamerlane famously told a town not a drop of blood would be spilled if they surrendered. And then he buried them all alive.

>>508996667

Is this right?

>>508994206 (OP)
I just checked his early life section you'll never believe what i found out....

>>508996667
It isn't okay to say this, I implore, demand even, you low IQ scum to stop

>>508996667
Exactly. Every society is based on families and their shared traditions, values, beliefs, etc. If you give up your beliefs on a societal level, then you don't have a society anymore.

>>508994206 (OP)
You speak Spanish.

>>508994206 (OP)
He's right but in name only. The real problem with paradoxical tolerance comes from moral abdication and the acceptance of sin

>>508994206 (OP)
As an intolerant I must be intolerant to people who are intolerant to my intolerance. This is because if we were to tolerate people who are openly tolerant but intolerant to intolerance, eventually it will be the intolerance which is destroyed. So, even though I am intolerant, I do not tolerate intolerance. This is the paradox of intolerance.

>>508996761
And apathy is willful powerlessness.
Two groups capable of fighting yet don't are not practicing tolerance, they are practicing peace.
A group that has lost the ability to violence isn't being peaceful, it's harmless and has become prey.
You see this in the wild; two groups of animals will be close and only intermittently skirmish for food because an all out fight would at best result in a pyrrhic victory for one side.

>>508994206 (OP)
His people literally gun you down if you want to live in a white community. The Left is always projecting.

>>508994206 (OP)
There's no paradox. Tolerance isn't a virtue.

>>508994206 (OP)
Intolerance of leftists is good.

>>508994206 (OP)
Based. Now keep all the same words, but replace nazis with progressive lgbtq libshits.

>>508994206 (OP)
If it costs me my life I will drag the entire paradigm of this demented, corrupt world to the ground and rip its fucking throat out with my teeth.

>>508996968
>wyatt man

>>508997010
can't tell if bait. Plz explain.

>>508994206 (OP)
works both ways

>>508994206 (OP)
hes wrong and plagiarizing an early church father talking about why christians cannot tolerate evil and still love their brother

it's way simpler than people make it out to be
you just need to protect individual freedoms and you're good
as soon as you turn to a more "collectivist" *cough* tribal *cough* approach, the moment you put the group's freedoms above the individual, it's just a matter of time for the group to crush the individual, and the bigger group to crush the smaller group, until you get to authoritarianism/totalitarianism
As soon as you lose that moral compass it becomes okay to tax the rich for the sake of equality, to confiscate land for the sake of redistribution, to shut someone up because you don't agree, to turn the state into an oppressive, greedy and inefficient monster for the sake of providing people positive rights at the expense of someone else, etc.

>>508994291
>Soros, a holocaust survivor
that's certainly one way of phrasing it

>>508998795
Democracy falls into despotism

>>508998861
i didn't say anything about democracy, if 90% of the population agrees to persecute and exterminate a specific social group that's plenty democratic, but doesn't make it any better than Stalin sending people to the gulag, Pol pot erasing like 25% of his country's population, or a dude who says nigger out loud having his social life destroyed
It's the same soup reheated, the moral slippery slope starts as soon as you justify taking away individual freedoms

>>508999308
It's a quote from plato.
He argued that democracy caused exactly what you are describing in your first post.

>>508994206 (OP)
This is correct. It's like saying "we oppose violence" while getting violence with those who are violent. To be against violence is to use it to reduce the amount of violence. There's no need to cry hypocrisy when someone against violence shoots a spree shooter, it's the violence that was opposed and stopped. The intention of that violence to stop violence, the intention of the intolerance or intolerance, aren't conflicting and they're reasonable. It's hardly a paradox or hypocrisy, it's just known what words and concepts mean instead of assuming specifics to then get shitty about.

>>508994206 (OP)
Yes, he is. You'll enjoy when the side you oppose thinks the same too and actually do something to stop your intolerance instead of posting memes on the internet.

>>509002127
And then the people who say 'we oppose violence' start claiming that words are violence as an excuse to do violence.
Violence is an aspect of humanity, you account for it but you cannot wholesale stop it.

>>509003052
Once again, the end result of this thinking was deciding that the existence of white people was intolerance.

>>508994206 (OP)
Great, when are you going to wipe the kikes out, as they are the main harbingers of intolerance?

>>509004102
Karl popper is so overrated it's ridiculous.
Arguing that you can see the end result of all intolerance and therefore must be intolerant after arguing that knowing what you will know in the future is impossible and therefore cannot predict the future, in the same fucking book, is a massive contradiction.
Popper, like most jews, seems genetically predisposed to using logic tactically, that is thinking about only the point he is making, and failing strategically, or considering how they might conflict with his other positions.
This is why they always string short term victories together until the big picture turns on them.

>>509004051
So how long until you induge on your hatred? Go do something against the white man. Don't you worry, they'll bend over to take it

>>509004489
>seems genetically predisposed to using logic tactically
also known as pilpul

>>509004489
People who read "The Open Society and Its Enemies" as anything but definitive proof that liberalism is self-destructive and intrinsically flawed are genuinely retarded

>>509004549
Deportations are the white man doing something.
Don't worry, it will get worse. It has to; every white man who 'bends over and takes it' like you are suggesting goes extinct, leaving only white people prone to striking back.
Why do you think they are so gung ho on starting ww3? Gotta randomly draft all the intolerant white men and get them killed before that happens.

>>509004810
Most people think they are supposed to blindly agree with the author or what he is presenting and that not doing so is 'poor reading comprehension'
I read the book, comprehended it, and decided it was retarded.
>>509004657
Yes.

>>508994206 (OP)
Karl Popper spoke of this in reference to Marxism, so it is quite fun to watch Marxists try to turn it against Nazis.

>>509005154
This just lends credence to the idea that liberals, at least in this country, have only ever read harry potter.

>>509002127
>It's hardly a paradox or hypocrisy,
If the idea is "we oppose violence" it obviously is. To be against violence is... to be against violence. That means your moral system does not allow you to use it if that is indeed the goal. But, similarly to how tolerance is not a virtue, violence is not a vice, and ignoring the nuance of how violence can be righteous results in silly things.

>>509002127
>It's like saying "we oppose violence" while getting violence with those who are violent.
No, it's not. You either believe in what you claim to believe or you do not. Freedom of Speech protects even the people who speak out to abolish it, whether you like it or not. To suggest otherwise is effectively to agree with the people you claim to oppose, not only making you a hypocrite but also a liar. If you do not stand by your principles when they are tested then you have no principles at all.

>>509002127
That's part of the problem with liberalism. It's an intentionally vague philosophy based on broad platitudes and temporary, convenient definitions. You can't say something, get offered a total counterexample, say "oh yeah sure", then immediately forget about the counterexample. That's not intellectually honest, constructive, or intelligent but it's a hallmark of liberal thought and arguments.