% Humanities

Yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling that you're fixing to unload your concealed slavshit weapon into a nigger's ass without provocation and without reason, in a public place.

That's it. Fuck your feelings; free speech is paramount to a top tier society.

>>3259383
Cool, I did not know that Popper made comics.

"not tolerating intolerance" is based on a suite of fallacies and not a single shred of credible reason

Doesn't Hoppe argue along similar lines that a stateless society would have to excise undesirable elements for it to work?

>>3259412
>have to excise undesirable elements
Are we talking about Nazis here, or "tolerant" societies?

File: 1359125589748.jpg (28KB, 280x412px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 280x412px

>>3259383
And who is he that defines what is tolerant and intolerant?

>No /pol/ stuff please.
>He says as he posts a bait pic
Funny part is that if you substituted Nazism with Islam they'd invent a new hashtag for it and call you intolerant.

>>3259416
I mean in Hoppes case he was talking about a kind of free ancap society so undesirables would be people who were unwilling to work cooperative in society or who worked against the freedom of others or tried to erect a state.

>>3259402
This. The reality is that there is no such thing as "tolerance" or "intolerance" in a universal sense.

There is only the Overton Window, the range of socially acceptable and unacceptable ideas. The people who make comics like the OP are just trying to delegitimize ideas they don't like and push them out of the overton window.

It would be nice if society could remove intolerance, but the problem is where to draw the line. One could argue that people opposed to mass immigration from less developed countries are intolerant, and thus deserve to be excluded from society. Conversely, one could argue that mostly Muslim refugees are intolerant because of their views on the right to free speech, women's rights, and gay rights. It's highly subjective what constitutes intolerance and thus it is too easy to construe any views that contradict the mainstream or "official" opinion of something as intolerant.

>>3259383
>puts the kaiser next to hitler
Wtf dropped

>>3259421
I'm just saying that once you start talking about "removing undesirables" the ideological distance between yourself and the Nazis rapidly approaches zero.

>>3259425
What a stupid thing to say instead of actually addressing what the picture's about.

>>3259436
I don't think so.
Most of the world removes the undesirables of severe genetic malformations in utero. Over 90% of Downs Syndrome pregnancies are terminated. Political dissidents are an example of an undesirable social element that are removed from the society all over the world. Jailing people for hate-speech is a form of removing political dissidents from society.

>>3259383
define intolerance in an un-bias way.

When the guy in the comics says "let's give them a chance", he says it as if spouting Nazi views is the same as letting them be elected for office. Does the US have anything to prevent Nazis from running for office (despite having ran in the past)? Or do we just naturally assume "no one's going to elect them, they're Nazis"?

>>3259425

No. It's like freedom. One's free to use his freedom as he pleases as long as it doesn't trespass other people's freedom. That's one point of view.

About tolerance is about respecting other people's povs as long as they don't mean to harm you or destroy your own right to your own povs.

One example (of intolerance) would be persecution of homosexuality because I don't like them, muh morality and reasons. One example (of tolerance) would be fuck off with your likes and your morality and your reasons and mind your own business.

It's more of a sociological and moral stand though. Trying to apply the concept to political ideologies is nonsense. Hitler wasn't anymore authoritarian, partisan and "intolerant" than Stalin, Emperor Nero, Queen Elizabeth or Calvin's merry city council of Geneva. And from here one would get the
idea that only democracy is the good, righteous and tolerant political ideolology and form of government. Which is obviously a load of bullshit.

>>3259501
No, its not. There are two sides on the homosexuality debate

Those who tolerate homosexuals, but don't tolerate moralists who disapprove of homosexuality, and the other side

Those who tolerate the moralists but not the homosexuals.

This is true for every political divide. You saying that we have to permit homosexuality is just you pushing YOUR point of view on others for YOUR morality and YOUR reasons.

The position of tolerance, if such a position exists, would be the open debate of the two positions in an open forum of ideas.

The person who says "Your ideas are too dangerous to be discussed" is not the man of tolerance, no matter how obviously righteous or plainly evident they may appear to him.

What good is it to say "You may believe whatever you like, so long as you tolerate the things I tolerate, and do not tolerate the things I do not tolerate"

How is a society of socialists that doesn't permit fascist views any more tolerant then a fascist one that doesn't tolerate socialists?

How is a society that tolerates homosexuals, but not the Abrahamic faiths better then one that tolerates the the Abrahamic faiths but not homosexuals?

There is no such thing as universal tolerance.

>>3259383
Is communism intolerant? What about BLM?

>>3259536
Where does that put society though?

To me it seems like, fundamentally, a battle between Kant and Mill ethics.

And in the marketplace of ideas, fascism has all but lost and communism is losing. Where do we go, as a globalized world?

>>3259383
>How can one determine the line between too little and too much tolerance?
What we had 5 years ago.

That was the line.

We have to go back to 2012.

>>3259460
>Or do we just naturally assume "no one's going to elect them, they're Nazis"?
That's it.

>>3259383
>intolerance and persecution must be outside the law

And that pov is why the left will keep losing.

>>3259557
How so? What did we have 5 years ago?

I wonder what kind of shitstorm would ensue if one was to change the intolerant depiction to Islam and post it on social media.

>>3259574
Less culture of censorship and ideological crusaders.

>>3259383
why do retarded crybabies think that nazis are actually in a position to grab power if we don't arrest them for saying what they say?
>>3259394
also this

>>3259383
Keeping out the intolerant in a tolerant society doesn't work. Keeping out the tolerant in an intolerant society does though.

Odd, a friend of mine just posted a pop article about this on zuckerbook a few hours ago.
Is this a coincidence?

>>3259383
thank fuck for our constitution and the supreme court
Do you see why us burgers are so anal about it now?

>>3259608
your friend might be a shitposter on 4chan, anon. I would recommend cutting ties immediately.

>>3259383
Teenage level: Your freedom of movement ends where my nose begins.

Adult level: Your liberty within the mores of society.

Wise man level: Your liberty within the set of expectations the typical member of the society must fulfill in order to make it the best it could be.

>>3259383
Hitler and the nazis were just the result of a perfect storm of german autism and economic and military failure, that shit isn't going to happen again.

>>3259623
ascended elder god level: Your freedom of movement ends where my nose begins.

>>3259383
>any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution must be outside the law

ANY movement?

>>3259383
I'm tired of that "open society built on reason and liberty" shit. Think of Popper and the boys what you will, but they're terrible in political philosophy.

>>3259623
>wise-man
>muh legalism
Fuck off

>>3259613
Maybe
Naomi?

>>3259639
my namea jeff

>>3259640
Are you OP though?
Unless some shitsite like the Guardian posted an article on this, this cannot be a coincidence. The post was made two hours before this thread.

>>3259643
Im not a colossal faggot
Also, dude, there's 9 billion fucking people on this planet, its perfectly possible for this to just be a coincidence.

File: wow.webm (2MB, 508x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 508x480px

>>3259383
That is literal cognitive dissonance.

>>3259637
>that's legalism
Bad job.

>>3259655
>BRO JUST BE A SLAVE LMAO ITS FOR THE BEST
Is legalism.

>>3259657
>slave
To whom? Unless you are implying that man can be slave to the moral law. In which case, please, drop Stirner and grow up.

And it's still not legalism.

>>3259661
>HAHA IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOUR A CHILD
Stop reading Kant, it's rotting you.
That is legalism. Don't you have some dried, ground tiger penis to snort with your opium Con-fuck-off-/his/

>>3259664
>Kant is a legalist
Now you're just confusing me, seeing as legalism belongs to a completely different philosophical tradition.

You sound pretty angry, as well. Is everything all right on your end?

>>3259667
I didn't say Kant was a legalist. But yes, deontology can be essentially legalistic.

>>3259673
>deontology can be essentially legalistic
In what way?

>>3259549
> Where do we go, as a globalized world?

Finish building the nervous system of God and let autoimproving AI create systems of ethics that can account for an unimaginable amount of scenarios.

The "globalized" world is the crib for the birth of beings whose history will tower over humanity. Our importance will be mere dust and the scurrying of mice from the titanic steps of something far larger.

>>3259683
In a deontological utopia, the societal law is at least treated as the moral law.

>>3259432
Pretty sure that's meant to be Hindenburg

I always thought it was weird how much people on the left are obsessed with fascism and nazi.

>>3259693
hinden(((burg)))

>>3259691
>the societal law is at least treated as the moral law.
Other way round with Kant. The moral law is made into societal law.

>>3259699
Are you illiterate?

File: really makes you think.jpg (145KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1280x720px

>hmm I wonder if this guy happens to be Jewish
>mfw one google search later

>>3259703
Are you? Or do you not see the difference between "the societal law is the moral law" and "the moral law is to become the societal law"?

>>3259712
There is no difference. You're misinterpreting my post.

File: rule3.png (279KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1920x1080px

>>3259709
rule 3 faggot

>>3259716
pls lurk moar

>>3259383
>we can't tolerate intolerance even though what we find tolerable as a society isn't a universally agreed upon thing lol
what kind of mental gymnastics is this

>>3259715
>There is no difference.
What. The first statement (your way of explaining the legalist philosophy, not mine) states that whatever is the law of society is also law of morality, that is, that morality is following the law of society be it what it is. The second statement (one of Kant's ideas in his description of the republican constitution, which derives its legitimacy not from pure suffrage, but from it being a borne out of the rational laws of ethics) says that the law of morality is to become the societal law, that is, that morality is contained in morality itself, and the societal law must be derived from the law of morality.
>You're misinterpreting my post.
In what way?

its called common sense
coming from having a healthy society

free speech sharters should be banned from here, their 3rd world shithole is like a free for all arena, their opinion holds zero value

>>3259741
You're still misinterpreting my post. I said that societal law is treated as moral law, as in societal law is not simply derived, but is moral law.

Define "intolerance" and "persecution". A law that makes political activity that is "intolerant" and "persecutive" illegal will eventually or immediately be used as a legal tool to shut down any opposition. Especially when some ideologies define themselves in such a way, that disagreeing with them is inherently "oppressive" (I.E feminism)

>>3259747
>I said that societal law is treated as moral law, as in societal law is not simply derived, but is moral law.
Yes. You did. Which is a misinterpretation of Kant. As I have stated.

>>3259742
Reddit is much more your speed my friend; perhaps you could return there?

>>3259758
>which is a misinterpretation
No it's not, redditor.

>>3259536
Our society tolerates both. No one is arresting westboro baptist guys for holding up signs saying to kill all fags.

you are the ~ONLY~ one in the room demanding that certain people shouldn't have rights. the other side will let you say whatever you please outside of very specific legal contexts, like being a government worker.

File: 1499520741062.jpg (15KB, 240x250px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x250px

>>3259764

>>3259383
Pretty dumb comic.

What even counts as intolerance? If someone doesn't like gay marriage are they intolerant?

If someone disagrees with liberalism are they intolerant?

The irony with the meme "you can't tolerate intolerance" is that you end up with a society that doesn't tolerance dissidence at all. Which is literally the epitome of intolerance.

It's all just an indication to me that fetishising "tolerence" as a virtue is a terrible idea.

>>3259588
h\yeah I can see how you could say that if you were born 5 years ago.

>>3259822
tolerance is not attempting to rescind someone's rights. if you hate fags, you probably also oppose the rights they currently have and want them to be rescinded.

>>3259858
Then you cannot be both tolerant and intolerant of intolerance because you're advocating to remove rights of individuals who are intolerant

>>3259383
>the tolerant ones end up being destroyed
it's funny because it's exactly what's happening to Western Europe, and it's clearly not the far-right that is resposible

>>3259383
if you simplify everything as much as this comic things are bound to get stupid

File: file.png (270KB, 621x620px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 621x620px

>>3259900
Yeah but if the far-right stopped instigating all these terrorist attacks we'd be all better off.

when you are intolerant of fringe ideologies with broad support the Russian civil war happens.

>>3259900
Neither are people who want to have sex with children.

You saying we should put those fucks in charge if they say legalizing pedophilia will pacify muslims?

No. You don't get a free pass for being retarded when somebody else cashes in on a risk they've taken.

>>3259383
>How can one determine the line between too little and too much tolerance?
Depends on social stability. It's not so much that there's an ideal amount of tolerance allowed, as there is a specific amount necessary to reach certain objectives.
All out tolerance does indeed lead to no tolerance, but it's still very hypocritical for moderates to call themselves tolerant.

>>3259912
>cnn
Are they just looking for more shit to pile upon those "nazis", or are american really that egocentric?

>>3259912
>CNN suggests
so this is the power of fakenews

>>3259394
This. It's either all okay or none of it is okay. If you start drawing arbitrary lines then you'll never stop drawing arbitrary lines. It will be ridden with double standards until none of it is ok. I'd rather live in society where all free speech is okay. It's essential to have in a functioning democracy.

Only on 4chan and only in America are manchildren such stubborn pedants that they can't understand socially accepted meaning of tolerance and intolerance for purposes of hearing out a person who fled the fucking Holocaust on his feelings about Nazis.

Meanwhile, they'll shitpost Gulag Archipelago, muh 100m, and "well my grandpa..." shit about the Soviet Union up and down

This entire thread is slippery slope: the discussion by people who think they're Logic and Reason Warriors despite having never read a philosophy text in their lives

>>3260424
Thankfully you came along and enlightened us. I bet you also believe that the slippery slope is a fallacy.

Now kindly fuck off to whence you came from.

>>3259383

>But when Muslims go around saying that they should control everything, that's fine. You have to tolerate that! Having 1 group control everything is only bad thing if that group happens to be white men!

>>3260427
The fact that the same side is simultaneously shunning "legalism" which apparently to that poster means "any fucking social mores at all" but also thinks literally any law put in place will inevitably lead to enforcement creep and oppression by default show their hand on being small minded imbeciles. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to understand how Nazis are different from other kinds of speech and literally every country that actually had to deal with the fuckers instead of just feed spam to real heroes understands this.

>>3260422

>Lol, just ban anything that challenges the status quo, what could possibly go wrong?

>change depictions of intolerance in the comic from nazism to islam
>watch the whole argument crumble

>>3260446
actually you could do that and I'd still agree with it, if you mean the particular muslims out for blood.
But they aren't really capable of getting as much grip on the general populace as the hateful people already belonging to the main population group.

>>3259596
>why do retarded crybabies think that nazis are actually in a position to grab power if we don't arrest them for saying what they say?
Because they don't want to police the behavior of nazis, they want to police the behavior of everyone else

>>3260466

If "Hate Speech" laws were enforced against Muslims, they'd all be in jail. "Hate Speech" laws are ONLY enforced against white people, nobody else.

>>3259383
For the left, anyone who actually wants to have borders is a nazi to be punched and violently silenced.

For the right, anyone who wants to abolish the very concept of borders is a deluded person to be debated.

The left has the aggression advantage, and they will prevail if this does not change.
Remember, history doesn't care about who was right, only who won.

>>3259383
Why can't liberals admit that they just want power? The range of good thoughts one can express publicly without fear are extraordinarily narrow. The problem is that liberals regard all freethinkers as criminals, or at least near to it.

My point is, free speech doesn't actually exist. As well it shouldn't. Ideas are weapons. When we stop warring over ideas, is when we will have devolved back into monkeys.

>>3259501
Freedom isn't real.

>>3260472

Yep. Furthermore, they keep expanding the definition of "Nazis" to justify more restrictive laws. Don't agree with gay marriage? Don't support transgenderism? Disagree with a "feminist" on any topic whatsoever? You're a Nazi and you need to be arrested otherwise you'll trigger another Holocaust.

>>3260474
now what would you define as hate speech? Quran and Bible quotes? You can't be serious. Even if they took those to heart you can't be punished for a thoughtcrime, neither can nazis, that is one of the fundamentals of democracy.

The line exists perfectly in the US. Enough tolerance for them to voice their viewpoint but a system set up that prevents authoritarianism by a single leader (such as checks and balance)

>>3260501

Lol, the MOMENT you actually tried to enforce hate speech laws against Muslims, you'd be branded as Islamophobic, and you'd be arrested.

>Even if they took those to heart you can't be punished for a thoughtcrime, neither can nazis, that is one of the fundamentals of democracy.

Unfortunately, that's just not the world we live in. People are arrested for speaking out all the time. Even making a joke that somebody else finds "problematic" is increasingly dangerous.

>>3260514
You still haven't answered what you consider muslim hate speech.
after you've answered that do note that while I accept the argument I believe it is out in the open where the line should be drawn, it could be as far as >>3260508 for example.

>>3260501
For leftists, defending the bible and criticizing the quran are both hate speech.

For rightists, criticizing the bible and defending the quran are instances of free speech.

>>3260523
that is one strawmanny leftist you have there.

As long as the (((right))) people decide what is intolerance and what isnt.

>>3260531
Not sure what you mean.

>>3260508
It's a good system alright; too bad the US was literally founded by white nationalists though, so the system itself is too intolerant to tolerate.

>>3260544
>white nationalists
what an anachronism, besides who made it is irrelevant to its actual function anyway, that would be an ad hominem.

>>3260439
It all comes down to a subjective assessment of what is and is not "nazi" or hateful or whatever. Assessments made by humans. This is where you train of logic crumbles down. You admit that humans are fallible (thus we have nazis) yet at the same time want to give power to the same humans to decide upon what is appropriate speech or opinion to be held.


Next thing you know you're in a ghulag because you said something that's deemed incorrect.

>>3260552
>what an anachronism
In a way, sure.
What we do know is that the founding fathers wanted the US to be a country of white people.

>who made it is irrelevant to its actual function
You'd think that, wouldn't you?

>>3260439

But how do you tell if somebody is a Nazi or not? Who gets to decide? What if somebody holds opinions that you find disagreeable, but they have no swastikas, they don't venerate Hitler in any way, nor do they want to establish a new third Reich. Are they "Nazis"?

>>3259383
So ban all politics then.

>>3260560
well, it is irrelevant to the function, you'd have to look at the function itself to see if it is not conductive to a free and open society.

>>3260560
>You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Would you dismiss Pythagoras if you suddenly became aware that he was a white nationalist?

>>3260572
In the same way that the current US system isn't systemically racist, but PoC still claim it is simply because white people.

>>3260579
you can empirically assess whether something is systemically racist, however those empirical results are always open to interpretation.

>>3260579
>PoC
By which I meant a large proportion of the left.

>>3260578
Well I sure wouldn't.
But try to tell that to all the leftists trying to get rid of "old white people" from the pedestals, walls, and libraries of universities.

>>3260586
>however those empirical results are always open to interpretation
DAS RITE WHITE BOI

>>3259501
>One example (of intolerance) would be persecution of homosexuality because I don't like them, muh morality and reasons.
From some people's pov homosexuality is a mental decease.
So treating homosexuality as normal without limitations is like allowing a plague to spread freely.

>>3259418
Are you retarded or something?

Free speech should cover everthing somebody wants to argue about, except for the opinion that free speech shouldn't exist.

How is that concept so hard to grasp?

>>3260623
What about death threats?

>>3260629
How exactly is a death threat an opinion?

>>3260634
Well it could be your opinion that a certain person/group of persons should be put to death.

Going by Weberian conceptualization, I would say that anything that doesn't threaten the monopoly of violence should be tolerated in an open society.

So, in essence, this would mean that a person who held for example national socialist sympathies, would only be tolerated to the extent that he did not use violence for political means.

The Nazis didn't suddenly make Germany anti Semitic. A significant portion of the population was already hating jews.

Disliking jews was completely normal for the time in Western civilization. The Nazis just did something about it. they screwed up when they tried to take France and England's place as the dominant European power.

>>3260485
I do agree that at the end the only thing that matters is victory. Silencing the opposition is just part of establishing the foundation for authoritarianism.

>>3260491
Lets say they want power .. why WOULD they admit it ?

>>3260653
>Silencing the opposition is just part of establishing the foundation for authoritarianism.
Is it "authoritarianism" to silence those who want to do away with the very foundations of your country?
Talking about getting rid of borders, getting rid of the country's founding principles just because they were set out by whites, etc.

>>3260666

>Is it "authoritarianism" to silence those who want to do away with the very foundations of your country?

Would you have communists and Marxists arrested on that basis? Or are they "okay" for some reason despite being connected to the most murderous regimes in world history?

>>3260638
How is that a death threat?

>>3260678
>Would you have communists and Marxists arrested on that basis?
That would seem to be the logical choice given that they actively seek the destruction of the country.

>>3260682
How is it not?

>>3260691
It's not finding your pet or significant other with "ur next" written on her lifeless body, for instance

>>3260700
There doesn't have to be a prior victim to add credibility for it to be a death threat though.

>>3260705
A threat is no opinion either.

>>3260712
Just say you agree death threats shouldn't count as "free speech", no need to string this out.

>>3260723
Just say you agree opinions shouldn't count as "death threats", unlike death threats, no need to string this out.

>>3260736
The way you worded it made it seem like "the opinion that free speech shouldn't exist" should be the only exception to free speech.

>>3260743
And it's not threatening the right to live (i.e. it's not a death threat), but the right to exercise free speech.

Your point?

>>3260747
I think you should calm down and read before posting, jesus christ.

>>3260757
Is it because I said:
>A threat is no opinion either.
? Well, I did mean a death threat there.

I'll have you know opinions have a harder time putting people to death as opposed to getting them to shut up.

>>3260427
>I bet you also believe that the slippery slope is a fallacy.
Yes though that matters little because its such a useful tool in political arguments for all. Perhaps the biggest problem with it is those who use "slippery slope" type arguments can't even be bothered to explore other possibilities because it undermines the simplistic one way thinking of said argument.

>>3260555
>Next thing you know you're in a ghulag because you said something that's deemed incorrect.
This is an excellent example of the flaws common with slippy slope type thinking. For a long time in the US airing certain "incorrect" opinions could be followed by legal sanction (speech was protected prior to publication while receiving limited protection after publication), discriminating based on content faced few if any legal challenges, and the modern concept of low value speech allowed the government to remove ideas it disliked from circulation (see http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1948&context=public_law_and_legal_theory). The US did not slip into a dictatorship during that time. I'm not arguing for banning this or that, just against the notion that any limit on speech will automatically lead to to some sort of totalitarianism/authoritarianism. Slippery slope arguments are dangerous because you can skip right to the extreme (if X is deregulated millions will die), can paint any sort of alternative as taking a one way trip down the slope, and ignore other factors that may do things like flatten the slope. Some arguments for limiting speech invoke the language of the slippy slope (if X is allowed to speak then it will lead to Y therefore they should be limited).

Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is retarded. The "paradox" is only valid if you treat tolerance as a virtue, which it isn't. You're supposed to decide whether or not to tolerate something based on how harmful you consider it, not because tolerance is inherently good.

>>3259696
Everyone who disagrees with them is a fascist. So actual fascists are a useful scarecrow.

>>3259383

The problem is society should not treat "tolerance" as a virtue. Things either should be or should not be tolerated.

>>3259912
>charlottesvile

It was a copycat of Nice, a city that is so close to Barcelona they could be in the same country.

Concering the slippery slope: You can also argue that NOT banning intolerant views is a slippery slope that can lead to totalitarianism.

Thats why they teach in rhetoric classes to not use slippery slope arguments. It's basically a non-argument.
Also because you are kind of admitting defeat, because you have no arguments why the thing itself is bad, so you have to rely on arguing what bad things might or might not come from it.

>>3259383
Even if this comic wasn't a bunch of pseudo intellectual garbage attempting to justify censorship and actually made a valid argument, the people posting it are the same who label run of the mill Republicans as intolerant Nazis. It's nothing but an emotional appeal to strip away the rights of half the American electorate

>>3260422
>socially accepted meaning of tolerance and intolerance
So which people are given and deprived rights should depend on the whims of the fickle masses?

>>3261144
>people have the right to advocate for other people to have less rights than them or none at all.

>>3261187
I can't tell who, if anyone, you are accusing of doing this.

>>3261187
Nice strawman, but yes, they do.

>>3261219
>This is not a slippery slope that will end in dictatorship

>>3261226
Except it isn't, you fucking faggot. You make it sound like Nazis could ever achieve power again.

>>3259460
>>3259559
yep, that is it. the numbers of nazis in the usa is so hysterically low that they present no actual threat to american, democracy, free speech, or other tenants of our society. it is understandable for most americans to deplore ANY expression of nazism, white power, white supremacy, white whatever else you want to call it, but to act like they are hiding behind the corner or in your closet is just absurd.

let the brainlet nazis have their soapbox, no one is really listening. they won't attain positions of power in government nor will they garner a stronger following than what they have now. MSM and the state governments will ensure that.

>>3261229
And that argument can also be used against the opposite slippery slope "we can't ban certain opinions because then sooner or later we will end up in Gulags". "No you idiot, communists will never achieve power, duh."

And thus I have demonstrated how fruitless slippery slope arguments are.

Thanks for your attention.

>>3261229
Never say never.

>>3261245
Maybe in some really shitty 3rd country. But certainly not in the 1st world.

>>3261240
You're saying that authoritarian government will be avoided by implementing authoritarian policy.

>>3259383
Well there is no paradox in "tolerating the intolerant". Toleration only implies being able to allow something to exist. If someone were to simply practice some form of hate speech. said hate speech does not actually in-tolerate because it doesn't impede the liberty of others.

The comic employs a slippery slope argument, which sounds like a non-argument to me because no reason is actually give for why unlimited tolerance will actually lead to the extinction of tolerance.

The argument itself is paradoxical, because it argues for the extinction of tolerance... to preserve tolerance.

>>3259383
Tolerance and intolerance wouldn't exist if people learned to compromise and accept hearing "NO" every now and then.
in other words people need to stop being spoiled little bitches with a sense of privilege.

>>3259582
There are no tolerant Nazis, but there are plenty of tolerant Muslims.

>>3260514
Hate speech laws against Muslims are enforced literally everywhere (including all Muslim countries) except for the US.

>>3259460
>Or do we just naturally assume "no one's going to elect them, they're Nazis"?

Pretty much

>>3261238
>MSM and the state governments will ensure that.

And you know, the fact that 400,000 americans paid with their lives defeating that idealogy.

>>3261372
>hate speech laws are enforced in all muslim countries
Gonna need a source on that, anon.

>>3259383

"Tolerance" shouldn't even be an actual concept. There are good ideas and bad ideas. Using the philosophical and scientific tools bequeathed to us by our ancestors, we can determined what is what. Good ideas should be promoted. Bad ideas should be suppressed.

>>3261386
lol yes that too.

>>3259383
I think America has found a pretty good answer. The state doesn't have to do anything or make any move to shut them up, but they don't have to shield them from the consequences of others. The intolerant are losing their jobs, websites, search engine traffic, platforms for their rhetoric, etc. without the state lifting a finger. But even with all of these repercussions, the most damning, nullifying thing that could happen to our modern day Nazis
>>3261238
is our silence. What if those that descended on Charlottesville with a phalanx of shields and torches and weapons had been met with a bunch of bored cops and a big fucking nothing? No counter protest, no fight (and God damn, were they hoping for a fight), and little media buzz. Doubt we'd be talking about the fuckers. They wouldn't be getting the exposure they're craving, they wouldn't have the handy little recruiting tool we've all collectively handed them, and they wouldn't have the enthusiasm and fervor that action grants a movement. If all such gatherings were met with crickets, they'd fizzle out like a fart in wind. Now, if they wanna go all beer hall putsch and start an insurrection with armed sturmtruppen, then yes, fight them. Kill them. Crush them. Crush them all. But as anon mentioned, we are talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of white men. Hell! we're talking about a tiny fraction of racist white men! Most of them are Walt from Gran Torino, not Derek from American History X. We're gonna be fine, and more importantly, we're gonna be fine without compromising what makes this one of the greatest societies on earth.

>>3260638
That's like those who say people writing them "kill yourself" on Twitter is a death threat.

>>3260771
No, it's because you said "free speech should cover everything except for the opinion that free speech shouldn't exist".

>>3261507
Suggesting suicide isn't really a death threat though.
If you wrote "I'm going to kill you" it's very possible that people take that seriously.

>>3261519
Yeah but saying "I'll kill you" is different from "you should be killed".
Not to mention it really depends on the circumstances, how many times have we said "I'll fucking kill you" when we argue? And that doesn't even mean that we'll necessarily devolve into physical violence.

>>3261494
precisely!

>Now, if they wanna go all beer hall putsch and start an insurrection with armed sturmtruppen, then yes, fight them. Kill them. Crush them. Crush them all.

yes, then it would be acceptable to squash their cause. and it probably has already started, somewhat. i believe a handful of states are already placing those groups as terrorist groups due to the car attack in virginia. this is the correct procedure to get these kinds of folks off the radar without any additional bloodshed or bending of laws. they committed violence and the whole world has witnessed.

>>3261494
>the intolerant are losing their jobs
Isn't it illegal to discriminate against people for their personal beliefs when hiring?

>>3261584
yes but good luck getting enough compelling evidence for that one.

>>3261584
Tell that to the people who got fired for attending the unite the right protest in Charlottesville.

>>3261584
No. It's not. Who told you it was? Of all the protected classes (veteran status, gender, religion, etc.), political ideology is not included. We're hired and fired based on our beliefs all the time. A big chunk of conducting an interview is figuring out what you believe. If you say "I believe careful attention to employees and frequent performance reviews are the key to corporate success" to a hiring manager of a company that values self starters and independent action, you probably won't get the job. If you're on camera or some other record saying "Western Civilization has no room for faggots, mud races, or Jewish trickery and lies," you are not protected from a discriminating employer anymore than the hopeful interviewee that doesn't mesh with the corporate culture.

All of this is moot, of course, if you live in a "at-will" or "right to work" state. Technically, you still can't fire for race, religion, etc., but your employer can claim "I fired him because I thought his tie was hideous" and be completely in the clear.

>>3261532
>Yeah but saying "I'll kill you" is different from "you should be killed".
Depends on the context.

>>3261342
Who is Schindler?

>>3261719
True.

>>3261677
>who told you it was
this guy>>3261602

>>3261719
If somebody says "I think black people shouldn't exist" he is stating an opinion that another person can try to argue against and convince him otherwise.

"I am going to kill black people" is not an opinion but just telling people about a planned action.

>>3261726
I knew he was an industrialist, but was he even a party member? You made me wiki him. Not only was he a member of the Nazi party, but
>he joined the Abwehr, the intelligence service of Nazi Germany, in 1936. He joined the Nazi Party in 1939. Prior to the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, he collected information on railways and troop movements for the German government. He was arrested for espionage by the Czech government but was released under the terms of the Munich Agreement in 1938. Schindler continued to collect information for the Nazis, working in Poland in 1939 before the invasion of Poland at the start of World War II.
Holy shit. That's not an insignificant thing. Guy was a Nazi's Nazi.

>>3261746
right, and >>3261677 explained it in detail for you. i was a bit short and general with my post. it would be difficult to provide compelling evidence that you were fired due to your personal beliefs as private (and certainly most public) employers can state nearly any reason for doing so and be justified for it.

>>3259383
OP you dumb shit how are you supposed to convince a racist that he should stop being racist if he isn't even allowed to present his arguments.

>>3261756
>>3261726
This guy too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe

>>3261494
>>3261572
Agreed. Ironically, one of the reasons SA were organized and grew was to protect Nazi beerhall speeches from Rotfront attacks. Weimar Germany was a mess where everyone was punching everyone else for speech.

File: 20141219_joejihadi.jpg (122KB, 1550x913px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1550x913px

>>3260446
>change depictions of intolerance in the comic from nazism to islam
>watch the whole argument crumble

That isn't going to work post-Syria when we got to observe first hand in real time where the jihadis were getting their money, guns and lists of people to kill.

File: 6023501+_33d6a520bb383d9c905c38a08ce386e6.png (23KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 200x200px

>>3259383
>Tolerance is the goal of a society in itself
>If you disagree with me on the nature of genetic implications of behavior
>or the existence of race
>or the plausibility of a multicultural society being peaceful
>Then you're being """"""""""intolerant'"""""""""

File: 1493145730976.png (672KB, 584x553px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 584x553px

>>3261494

I agree, but freedom of speech as a legal concept and as a principle are two very different things. Americans who study their history look on the red scare and treatment of socialists/communists in the 1920's and 30's as a historical shame, with people being blacklisted and losing their livelihoods for their support of certain political movements. We now have people hunting political opponents to "out" them and create a substantial threat of bad press for any corporation of business that continues to support certain political positions or employ people who do - the journalists who went around looking for a bakery that would not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding or the recent firing of James Demore are two good examples. While strictly speaking there's nothing legally wrong with that occurring insofar as the first amendment is concerned, I think there's certainly a debate to be had as to whether or not this type of behavior can or should be continue. What use is a right that you can't exercise? If the first amendment exists on paper and yet exercising that right carries with it an extremely good chance that your life will be ruined, can that right really be said to exist in practice? If I say you're free to leave your house but if you do I'll take your house and family away, you can't really say you're free to leave your house, can you?

And I know that while the first amendment doesn't shield you from the consequences of what you say, it feels like the range of acceptable opinion is shrinking ever smaller. Brendan Eich was forced to resign because he donated to an anti-gay marriage campaign, Hobby Lobby/Chic-fil-a were boycotted as a result of their reaction to being obligated to provide forms of birth control they viewed as abortion, Demore was fired for opposing Google's form of diversity, etc. It's not right. Freedom of speech is a more important principle than just 'congress can't toss you in jail if you say something they don't like'.

>>3259441
>I'll just use a generic insult to reply to your argument, ha! Another debate won

>>3259536
I agree with most of your points but I want you to help me with something
>Moralists affect gay lives
Whereas
>Gays don't affect moralist lives

You could make an argument that it hurts moralists to see gays, which could count as agression, but it grinds a bit on me

>>3259383
Free speech is and must always remain absolute. Fuck your authoritarian bullshit.

To me this idea has 2 problems.
1) it never defines, nor it seems to be compliant to do so, a clear line that defines what is tolerable and intolerable. This pushes an idea into my mind: we can define tolerance in two parts, physical and mental. Then we find a fringe between the tolerable world and the intolerable.
>Tolerable actions but intolerable thoughts
i.e: writing a book justifying violent attacks
>tolerable thoughts but intolerable actions
i.e: killing those with intolerable thoughts
These events make it real hard to implement this ideology of intolerance against intolerants

2) it creates a dichotomy in which a society can never prosper, for, even with suppression and adoctrination, contrarians will always be present, and forcing a worldview of us vs them will make debate impossible.

>>3262196
>I think there's certainly a debate to be had as to whether or not this type of behavior can or should be continue.
Right to protest, get the fuck out of my America you freedom hating communist.

>>3260439
>ANYBODY WHO ISNT A STATIST SLAVE LIKE ME IS LE DUMB
>NAZIS ARE DIFFERENT FOR UNDISCLOSED REASONS (I DON'T LIKE THEM!) SO WE SHOULD PUNCH THEM HAHA
>>3262286
But you're the authoritarian

File: 1501055190997.png (171KB, 295x396px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 295x396px

>>3261421
>Using the philosophical and scientific tools bequeathed to us by our ancestors
You ACTUALLY think that this is what influences how we think about ideas rather than historical consequence (in this instance, Hitler losing the second world war), while browsing a history board. Nationalists were practically the SJWs and Nationalism the SJW ideology pre-WWII because it was a popularly accepted notion that peoples should have their own states, but now after the second world war Nationalism is being reviled in the West and the idea ethno states repugnant, to the extent that people espousing that thought lose their livelihoods and are socially ostracized, and you ACTUALLY GENUINELY believe this is the result of some progression of thought passed on from previous generations.

>>3261421
>philosophy
>science
Useless

>>3262497
>muh history is correct becuz im a stupid fucking ideologue

>>3259536
Excellent posts anon

>>3260422
Settle down commie

>>3259394
But how will I know it's just jesting or an actual death threat he will deliver on (before he delivers on it)?

>>3259538
>What about BLM?
not too many people are tolerant of being shot.

>>3259626
Unless we experience the same type of economic and military failure.

The problem we have from the alt right comes from precisely doing this, trying to shut them up and not addressing their points. Especially when it comes to race and IQ it's dismissed as if it's the most ridiculous thing in the world.
They are human, and they do have real concerns that should be addressed.
The far left is a bit different in that people are quite happy to address their points but they have so much institutional power that they can avoid ever seeing it/ if they do see it they can ban it.
So no, i don't think any kind of speech should be restricted.

>>3260424
I like how you snark without giving any real information or details of who you are talking about. Kinda like the people in this thread that say OP is a fallacy even though his argument is that he knows it is but is necessary to defend a value that the people he's intolerant towards wishes to get rid of. Kinda like executing a murderer to bring murder down it's also a paradox but people support it despite that because they believe it's necessary.

>>3259742
If common sense prevented horrible atrocities and the parties that encourage them you wouldn't have them in history.

I believe legally people should be free to say what they want (but probably not do what they want).

Socially if you act like an ass you should get treated like one (after all if you weren't completely serious about what you said then why did you say you were?).

>>3262741
Matey, if ww3 happens everyone's getting fucking nuked anyways.

>>3262762
Common sense doesn't prevent atrocities. Checks and balances do.

>>3262798
I hope you're right.

>>3259383
Commies wanna take my property and kill me thus physically removing them before they can act is self defense.

#PunchACommie

>>3262735
So they shoot back, bearspray, and so on, the unarmed?

>>3262735
The more niggers shot the better. No different than calling pest control to kill a rabid pitbull.

>>3262803
When have I ever been wrong before?

>>3262749
Problem is is their points are all about dismissing and not addressing concerns, so it's counterproductive whether or not you accept them. You either agree with them and be intolerant of others or not agree with them and be "intolerant" according to them.

>>3262825
Almost every post you make and probably will make in the future.

>>3259383
100% tolerance of words
0% tolerance of actions
Prove me wrong.

>make slavery illegal
>not a paradox

>kill murderers for murder
>not a paradox

>don't tolerate the words of nazis
>somehow a paradox

Seems more bias than reason.

>>3262832
Proof?

I can't believe everyone is siding witht he Nazis ITT. Fuck all of you.

This board has literally been taken over by racism and hatred. Fuck 4chan Fuck /pol/ and Fuck /his/.

>>3259693
that's an awful depiction then. he also hated hitlers guts though he did drop the ball all said and done

>>3262847
>siding with freedom of speech makes you a nazi
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, pal

>>3262855
this is bait >>3262847

Everyone already knows 4chan are nazis.

>>3259383
I gotta say that this might be one of the best humanities thread I've seen, not as bad as the other shit.

I'm not sure what to think about what's okay and what's not because each argument has it's merits. You could start drawing arbitrary lines because you don't like something or you could have people being harmed because of vicious language.
The US has generally had people either in the middle or on the 100% tolerance of everything on this issue. It's most likely either a "your rights end where other's begin" thing where harmful speech towards others is not allowed or a "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." where everything is okay.

>>3262827
It's not about them, it's about potential recruits.
And right now i don't see ANYONE even considering some of their points.

Alt-right are kinda like the people who are atheists but want Christians to follow this and that verse in the bible.

They're intolerant and despise tolerance and liberties of others and outright declares this multiple times, yet they want to be tolerated and be respected by others. Sure Christians probably do need to "turn the other cheek" and "be good to your neighbor" but it's undermines the lecture if told by people who's arguments they don't even believe in.

>>3259383
Hating another human or considering another human lesser is probably where you should draw the line.

File: Ine1AkaF_400x400.jpg (6KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x200px

>>3262885
>The alt right wants negative liberty where the actions of an individual are limited by group consensus to spare the majority from the consequences x action does
>This is a bad thing
Tolerance in itself is not a virtue, not allowing dialectic to move forward is not a virtue, and there is nothing intellectual about being anti-dialogical. The alt right never said they wanted to ban free speech, ever. There is a difference in limiting people's ability to act in certain ways and forcing the consensus of the masses through state enforced anti-dialogical laws.

>>3262904
Why? Can you prove that some human beings aren't lesser? Can you prove that human beings aren't better off living in seperate communities?
You're just rejecting the idea outright because it goes against your preconcieved notions, it hasn't worked so far and it isn't going to work.
/pol/ is growing larger and unless you bring them out, shine a light on them and prove them wrong them they will keep growing.

>>3262913
You don't even believe tolerance is a virtue yet you want people to be tolerate of you. You say limiting actions are justified for the stability of society but you always whine when they "justifiably" limit yours.

It's all hypocrisy wanting everyone else to follow rules you won't bother with.

>>3262942
Not everyone who believes in freedom of speech thinks all black people should be lined up against a wall and shot.

>>3259383
>Germany after WWI
>Hated Nazis
>But violent commies were worst
It wasn't tolerance it was crazy communist

>>3262941
Prove what wrong? Incas were superior to europeans. If you already knew about history you would realize how pathetic you look now.

>>3259383
I'd say when their "free speech" starts infringing on others personal and physical safety, then it's about time to draw that line.

I don't give a shit what you're talking about. If what you're saying makes you (or others) want to literally commit murder, you need to stop fucking talking.

File: FENTANYL AND DIABETES IS WHITE GENOCIDE.jpg (108KB, 700x686px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 700x686px

>>3262749
>The problem we have from the alt right comes from precisely doing this, trying to shut them up and not addressing their points.

It's because their points are fucking ridiculous conspiracy theories.

>>3262971
Then you point out how fucking ridiculous their theories are through debate, and cut down on their recruitment by establishing them as a bunch of retards.

>>3259383
I've never really understood why people try to critique the idea of tolerance by acting as though it means being tolerant of literally anything. Maybe it's partially the fault of people who used the word to describe their acceptance of disliked minorities, but you don't have to take everything at face value.
The image makes me think that maybe there really are people who just champion the idea of tolerating other people in general though, and not specific groups that deserve to be tolerated, which just sounds idiotic.

>>3262987
Everyone deserves to be tolerated so long as they don't get violent.

>>3262749
Calling people "stupid" on twitter is not a talking point. The sooner conservatives realize that, the sooner we can have an actual political debate with them. So far, all we've heard is "cry harder libtard snowflakes kek" and "we won you lost cry harder". The fuck am I supposed to do with that? I got better insults at recess in elementary school, for fucks sake. On the rare occasion that one of them brings up a legitimate political concern, they're not looking for an exchange of ideas. If you present them with facts or sources, they won't read them. If you try to point out fallacious reasoning, they call you arrogant knowitall. They don't want to debate, they want to whine. And I'm sorry but people with bigger problems are being ignored, so that I can sit here and listen to you whine about day to day annoyances that mildly irritate me. Get your fucking priorities straight if you want me to take you seriously, and try some basic human compassion for once. You get what you give, and if you're constantly telling me how little of a fuck you give about my problems, why the fuck should I care about any of yours?

>>3262979
>Then you point out how fucking ridiculous their theories are through debate, and cut down on their recruitment by establishing them as a bunch of retards.

How many Holocaust denial threads do we have here in the space of a week?

>>3262979
>then call them stupid lol
You've got to be shitting me with this circular line of reasoning.

>>3263023
Why do you think that nazis are a fucking fringe element? Because we learn about the retarded shit they do in school, not because of any sort of legal action being taken against them. The best way to keep people from flocking to their movement is to point out how retarded they are, not to fucking ban what they say all together.

>>3263023
You have got to be shitting me, he said to prove how stupid they are not just call them stupid.

>>3260245
Was one definition he fucked up while talking to someone live and he tried to clear it up just after.

It's fucking obvious when you see the 'exposeing evidence'
https://youtu.be/qgZRFWJMUgM

>>3262730
Doesn't matter whether you are joking or not. The law only concerns itself with harm done.

>>3263043
>the law only concerns itself with harm
AI OPEN THIS FUCKING DOOR YOU SILICON FUCK

>>3263003
It sounds more like you're stuck within your own echo chamber and for some reason you're trying to argue over twitter.
>i have all this evidence and all they can do is deflect with non arguments.
This is what it looks like to anyone who has an opinion about politics.
You have to address the "leaders" and "intellectuals" of the movement. For every article or book on american renaissance or TRS, why is there not an article or book calling them out on their bullshit? On their youtube videos why are there not comments or even response videos disproving them?
Most of the alt right was not raised to be racist, they were convinced and pushed into it.

>>3260623
No fuck off. Anytime you create a limitation on something it expands into all sorts of places where it was never meant to go. Just live in a system where removing freedom of speech requires extraordinary concerted effort by those who oppose it to eliminate it.

>>3259383
read agamben
one shouldn't suspend rights to guarantee rights.

>>3263063
..yeah, I can see how you'd read "they won't listen" (ive tried) as "i live in an echochamber" (i only listen to like minded individuals)...

>For every article or book on american renaissance or TRS, why is there not an article or book calling them out on their bullshit?
You mean why aren't there commenters on youtube screeching "fake news" at the top of their lungs on every video and not just the breitbart ones? There are theories being disproven all over the place. Your refusal to hear them doesn't negate their existence. It just means you heard it, dismissed it, shat all over the presenter, called them an idiot and declared yourself the victor. That's not an "argument" either. That's "x is wrong because y, ha ha I win you lose dummy".

If there is no substance to your argument, there is nothing to refute. And name calling and false equivalencies aren't "substance". They're filler so you can try to think of something clever while I get distracted defending myself against your personal attacks.

>>3263063
My mother is alt-right, by the way. Loving all the assumptions though. No wonder no one wants to listen to your ideas.

I think we should compromise and gulag both the "don't tolerate intolerance" liberals and the alt-right. Both of them can get what they advocate for others.

>>3262952
But we are talking about the people who do. As I said removing freedom of speech even towards alt-right is a conflict of values. But they don't have that value, and it's always infuriating for them to bring it up despite always trying to undermine it. If this was a world were everyone truly respects and values the freedom of others they wouldn't exist.

>>3263114
Could you rephrase this? You used a lot of "thems" at the end. I'm not sure who you're talking about.

>>3263098
I'm saying you live in an echochamber because you're bring up conservatives, breitbart and twitter as if that's what the alt right is.
I'm not alt right by the way, i used to be, i had to search hard but i did find enough evidence to make me shy away from them. But not enough to disprove them entirely, my end conclusion when it came to race and iq for example was "i don't know either way"
Which really isn't good enough if you want to shut the dialogue down.

>>3263116
"Them" meaning alt-right, neo-nazis, kkk, etc.

>>3263124
So I list 3 examples of forums where alt-right CAN be found, and you assume that those are the only ones I know of?

I don't live in an echochamber just because you don't like what I'm saying. This is why the arguments go in circles. If you don't like the points I'm bringing up, you call them "fake news" or tell me I'm living in an echochamber. I have tried to listen to alt right claims, I have tried to debate them, and there is no point. They all dissemble the same way you just did, and I say all because I've never debated an alt-right enthusiast and actually heard them consider my point. They're waiting for their turn to speak, and its usually just "you're dumb/ignorant/read a book lol" over and over again. Stormfront, BB, twitter, youtube, facebook, every page my mother follows ON twitter and facebook, imgur, alt right is everywhere and they're all repeating the same rhetoric with outdated facts taken out of context to prove some bias they concocted while drinking whiskey over their phone bills.

If there's a good point, I'll refute. But I'm not going to sit here and listen to some grown ass man call me "dumb" like he's a toddler. I've got better shit to do with my time, and better people to debate. If no ones listening, its because you're not saying anything. What you are saying is logically fallacious and misinformed, but what you're hearing is "you're wrong" and turning that into "ECHOCHAMBER REEEE". That's not my problem.

>>3262196
>the journalists who went around looking for a bakery that would not bake a cake for a homosexual wedding
See that one's a prickly situation. Yes you can say that the owner has the right to refuse on religious grounds. But if the customer was black instead of just gay and everything else was the same, the situation would have been seen as completely unacceptable.

>>3262372
Anon I don't think you understood what he said

>>3262798

Neither of those do anything to prevent it if the society itself is dangerous like the Mongols.

>>3263187
What fucking modern society is comperable to the mongols?

>>3263191
Half of africa?

File: 1502244550342.png (3MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1440px

>>3259460
>"no one's going to elect them, they're Nazis"?

look how stupid you are

>>3263193
You really think the most pressing issue for half of africa is whether or not nazis can say whatever they want?

>>3263206
Why is there broccoli in the background?

>>3263165
You're getting very upset at this, i'm just saying you have to actually go to their more high quality members to hear what is ultimately shaping the opinion of the average twitter drone.
Places like The Right Stuff, American Renaissance, alt right.com, and their youtube community (i was never involved in this so take it with a grain of salt) but that includes people like braving ruin, millenial woes, alternative hypothesis and probably the majority of the people in their recommended/subscribed lists.

>>3263206
>trump is a nazi
>trump has the power to do nazi shit, and not just general dumb shit

>>3263208

No, I was just saying that common sense/checks and balances don't really have any impact when the societies themselves are barbaric.

>>3263214
I see your point, but we're talking about non-barbaric societies here

File: 2Ib9iXY.png (289KB, 680x573px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 680x573px

>>3262942
Tolerance is not a virtue, it's something that is earned and is the reality people have to deal with. You tolerate what you don't like for the sake of others, that does not mean you tolerate EVERYTHING that people do.

Total positive liberty is a net loss for society as a whole, the one rule of Terrance I have that is absolute is freedom of speech. Dialogue is the only thing I think ought to be impervious to negative liberty.
>People have to tolerate me
Only what I say, they do not necessarily need to tolerate what I do to myself. We live in a society built around democratic principles of voluntary action and open dialogue, if you want to actually BTFO the Alt Right, being anti-dialogical will do the opposite because it legitimizes their points in the eyes of it's supporters.

>>3263222
>of Terrance
No idea what the fuck auto correct meant by this
Plz ignore

>>3263222
>BLA BLA BLA DEMOCRACY IS GOOD BECAUSE I SAID IT IS
Fuck off, phoneposter.

>>3259394

fpbp

File: 1488583500803.png (49KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x500px

>>3259383

Law-fag here. The "Nazi exception" is ridiculous. Here's a pretty good summary as to why:

https://www.popehat.com/2017/04/18/the-seductive-appeal-of-the-nazi-exception/

The OP's comic is a pretty blatant slippery slope fallacy, that if we allow an idea to be discussed then that idea will ultimately gain power. You know what happens when neo-Nazis protest and start talking about genocide? Everyone else ignores them or calls them idiots. You know what happens when neo-Nazis aren't allowed to protest or give speeches at their gatherings? The ideas don't fade away, they just stay underground and they get an addition sense of grievance and moral authority they didn't possess before.

>>3263516
THATS WHY YOU KILL THEM FOR BELONGING TO A MINORITY POLITICAL GROUP THAT I DISAGREE WITH
SEND THEM BACK

>>3259394
fpbp

>>3259599
First is a contradiction. The other is totalitarianism

>>3263212
>Just because our ideology are filled with idiots doesn't mean it is idiotic!
Sounds like a cult desu with the speak to someone higher bullshit

>>3263545
Every political movement is filled with idiots who don't even know any of the evidence they argue in support of.
>our
Didn't i say i wasn't part of this movement.

>>3259394
/thread

A very simple test that people believing the OP's picture fails is that they tolerate similarly intolerant belief systems.

>>3260623
And we have seen that with radical Islam suggesting free speech should not exist for blasphemy. Yet people are willing to tolerate that intolerance.

>>3260871
The slippery slope is applicable when it comes to limits of speech based on ideology. If you start to ban one ideology then there is no reason why that will not extend to other ideologies if the metric is simply "they are mean and nasty/bigoted/violence exists in their ideology". It is clear that the reason one ideology is targeted over others with the same kind of jingoism and violence and supremacism is because that one ideology is more reviled than the other. So it is not jingoism/violence/supremacism that is justifying the persecution of said ideology but purely the public opinion of that ideology.

If you had applied that 40 years ago then it would be communism which would be banned/persecuted. If you apply that 40 years from now who knows what it will be - it could well be atheism or irreligious given the increasing hispanic population of the United States and the fact that in Latin America a president usually bases the foundation of his support either on irreligious socialism or fervently religious conservatism. It is utterly naive and arrogant for any faction, left or right, to assume that they are destined to always remain in power and the mechanisms/over-reaches of power they commit will not come back to haunt them. This isn't some vague future affair but was witnessed first hand with the exchange of power between Bush Jr-Obama and Obama-Trump. All the surveillance or executive power-accrual Bush Jr established went, to the chagrin of the RNC, to a democratic president. And in turn Obama's continued accruing of power went over to Trump.

>>3263561
Sure but if the most vocal, most public of your members are idiotic then is really makes you think.

Neither did i imply that you were

>>3263516
This article is really fucking good. Also gondola > spurdo

File: National_capitalism.png (7KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 600x400px

>>3263206
I remember a thread in leftypol about that image. they actually used it in the elections period. this is the symbol they used.

>>3263644
>national capitalism
As opposed to what? International capitalism? State-level capitalism?

>>3263644
Who used it?

>>3262839
>Slavery
Infringes upon one's right to liberty, hence is punished with loss of liberty

>Murder
Infringes upon one's right to life, hence is punished with loss of life

>Being a Nazi
Infringes upon one's right to... not hear mean shit, I guess? Punished by having mean shit said to you? Now, if the Nazi tries to kill or enslave someone, or commit some other crime, then their rights are forfeit.

>>3263660
leftypol
>>3263667
>then their rights are forfeit
Unless someone is acting in self defence, even then they maintain their civil rights.

File: 920x920.jpg (54KB, 920x507px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 920x507px

>>3263660

>>3263693
Were they trying to give /pol/ a boner?

Usually try ti draw the line when others are directly and inherently harmed or affected by ones beliefs or doings

Well as I minority, I am happy that I live in Europe and that calls to exterminate or expell me are illegal.
>Does such a line exist?
There's no concrete line. That's why it's up to a court/judge to decide whether something was hate speech or not, just kike courts decide whether homicude was uninyentional manslaughter ir a murder.
>slippery slope
Well Europe have been having this laws since end of WW2 and it didn't get totalitarian or authoritarian over the decades. Au contraire the yuro countries that did get more dictatorial are the ones who don't care for hate speech laws or protecting minorities.
>inb4 my country is already totalitarian because I can't legally yell "Gas the kikes!"
Well, it's the same as calling USA totalitarian because felons are deprived from the right to vote. All countries put safety valves on individual's liberties, there's no absolute freedom of speech anywhere.
>inb4 Britain
I'm not a Bong and their gov is just doing legally what US gov has been doing to their citizens illegally.

Besides it's not like those laws are draconically executed by some Ministry of Truth forces. Most of the time you have to be loud in public for gov to actually take action.

>>3263767
Do europoors have some sort of constitution that says that people have the right to freedom of speech?

File: 1498164353700.jpg (95KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 850x400px

>>3259383

Why is fascism LITERALLY the secular satan to leftism? Why dont they just view it as shitty political system? Is it because they operate solely from a position of emotion?

>>3259691
You think legalism is about morality?

It's a pragmatic school of thought.

>>3264711
Most of the countries in yurop have "general freedom of speech" somewhere in their constitutions, but they also prohibit fascist/nazi (sometimes communist too) political parties in the same documents. Some of them forbid discrimination and hate speech based on natural traits like gender or ethnicity.
These laws were mostly made after the WW2 as a response to nazi racism and are generally treated by people as other reasonable infrigements of liberties (f.e. your freedom of movement is limited if you are in prison, your property can be forcefully bought by the state to lay a highway etc.)

But we have debates about this from time to time and American ideal of absolute free speech has its supporters.

File: 1502974747265.jpg (619KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 800x1000px

>>3259383
Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
You don't have to like what a person says but you have to tolerate that they have the right to say it.
You don't have to tolerate acts of violence though.

>>3265369
I think the limit is when people are encouraging violence explicitly.

>>3265375
If by encouraging explicitly you mean saying something like "We will kill X at Y time in Z place!"
maybe but simply being a racist douchebag while despicable shouldn't be illegal, putting aside the fact that making certain types of speech a crime is a slippery slope there is also the fact that bigotry is emboldend by censorship, it makes them feel like they are martyrs.
That said I have never been a big fan of the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater limitation to free speech either since it implies a level of control over people that I don't think exists, humans aren't cattle and aren't necessarily going to respond a certain way to certain words.

>>3265416
Encouraging violence explicitly: "X should be killed!", "X deserves to be burnt down!"...etc.

>>3265438
>Encouraging violence explicitly: "X should be killed!", "X deserves to be burnt down!"...etc.
I don't know, if that's the only requirement a large percentage of people would have to go to jail.

>>3265455
publicly*

>>3265375
The US already has laws against that. It's very narrowly defined and it only applies to when people encourage violence that actually happens.

>>3259383
>They want to take away our civil rights! Therefore, they don't deserve civil rights!
kek that's not how rights work

>>3265463
What?

>>3265740
Encouraging violence publicly explicitly.

>>3265762
Oh, So what like Madonna saying she wants to blow up the white house a few months back?
I still think shit like that is within peoples rights even if its a stupid thing to say.

>>3259623
Adult level:moralfag
Wiseman level: patriarchy

File: 1503166335105.jpg (285KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 800x1000px

>>3259383

>>3259394
FPBP

>>3259383
then they are intolerant. don't pretend that you are tolerant while being intolerant, admit that you are intolerant to a set of ideas.

>>3259383

>this marxist dogshit

Yeah, because suppressing the free expression of ideas is paramount to the integrity of a society is a real rich claim coming from armchair revolutionaries playing the long game and trying to destory society piece by piece in the hopes of establishing their communist utopia. Never mind that they either ignore or make excuses for these same ideas when they are expressed by their pet brown people, which is because of their self loathing and masochistic intersectionality retardation.

Seriously, how did this cultural marxist dialectic bullshit seep into the minds of normies?

>>3265788
Shit like that shouldn't happen.

>>3259383
Hindenburg didn't really wanted to "tolerate" Hitler, he was more or less forced to make him chancellor.

>>3259383
This comic's pretty dumb, desu, and I've seen in on social media a dozen times already.

You need to be intolerant to more than just intolerance. There are a load of self-destructive behaviors that lead to an unproductive and weak nation. We all know society would be better if we didn't have lazy people sucking up resources. We all know people would be better off if they didn't gamble away their savings. The problem is that if a society doesn't have a way on addressing these issues, or seems to be encouraging self-destructive behaviors, you'll wind up with people on the opposite end coming up with extreme solutions to these problems, which usually entail the use of force.

If you discourage self-destructive behaviors in a positive manner, you'll be less likely to have encounters with hyper-intolerance

>>3266063
Why not? It's just people venting, it may make them look like idiots but it certainly shouldn't be illegal.

>>3262762
What is common sense exactly?

>>3266456
basically memes

>>3266460
So common sense is something subjective? Then how can we determine free speech like that? Unless we lie to everyone and create the best meme

>>3266330
It's not like it should be illegal. It's simple. Trying to promote violent acts is the same as promoting violent acts. It's obvious when do people want to make it a satire, and when do people mean it seriously. What's the consensus on US?

>>3266212
Problem is "discouraging self-destructive behaviors" tend to equal "taking away their safety net and leaving them to die." Sure maybe you can argue that some people should be weeded out but have too much apathy and you'll end up like the Roman Senators that question why most of their population doesn't give a damn about the republic anymore (because the republic is associated with "people who are leaving them to die" and the only one that isn't doing that is the totally-not-a-king).

It's not enough to cut off their welfare you have to make sure all hard work gets rewarded and build an environment that can nurture them properly.

>>3265788
>Oh, So what like Madonna saying she wants to blow up the white house a few months back?

yes
The nation is taking death threats too lightly which allows the people who want to act on them to be galvanized. You can arrest Madonna but lets arrest the rest of them as well.

>>3266836
I agree. There generally is a heavy handed backlash to these situations once they get out of hand. I think it would be much more productive if families raised their kids with the moral strength and reasoning capabilities to avoid destructive behaviors. And actually leave it up to families. I never trusted the state to promote values.

>>3259383
wouldnt not tolerating intolerances lead to the nazi regime that doesnt tolerate intolerances that he doesnt want? is he fucking retarded?
>durr if we reduce the influx of ideas thatll sure stop us from becoming a society with a reduced influx of ideas

>>3266776
>It's simple. Trying to promote violent acts is the same as promoting violent acts.
Eh I'm not sure I agree but more importantly what specifically would be considered promoting violent acts? Is illustrating an interest or desire for something to happen the same as "Promoting it"? Like I can agree that if someone was to offer to pay another person to kill a third person than the first and second people are equally to blame for the death of the third but some loud mouth saying they want Trump dead isn't actually responsible if someone else makes that happen because that implies that anyone that the perpetrator lacks agency.

>>3262735
BLM is a based on a lie.
The blacks that are shot are justly shot.

>>3262839
What is wrong with nazism again?

>>3262847
I fear anti-fa and alt-left Marxists more than any so-called "nazis".

>>3262885
You don't know what "alt-right" means.

>>3262971
What points? You don't even know what the points are. Richard spencer is not the alt-right.

>>3263003
What are you even arguing, people like you scream about things like the russia conspiracy or spam debunked blacklivesmatter nonsense.

>>3263102
you don't even know what points are being argued.

>>3263126
None of those people are advocating for killing blacks least of all the alt-right.

>>3263165
what outdated facts? or are they just inconvenient facts.

>>3263206
how is trump a nazi? Nazis were socialists.

>>3263644
oooo capitalism is baaaad.

>>3265375
Islam does that. Nobody on the alt-right does.

>>3265416
whats wrong with racism? From a factual standpoint not a an emotional one.

>>3266850
who is them? and what are they saying?

>>3259383
Pictoline is utter shit