What did he mean by this?

fucking quote websites .

>>7713281
yeah he's definitely right. We both should tolerate the extremes of both sides and since we don't we live in a fractured and hostile society and it's really shitty.

>>7713308
>yeah he's right
>he's wrong though
U wot?

File: fycultural-marxism.png (330KB, 514x450px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 514x450px

>>7713281
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYu6qhd88_M

>>7714000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3_u-4HD_w

>>7713281
just read the essay ?

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

>>7714000
>>7714008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shMdHHYpLpY

>>7714254
where is this conversation from?

He meant that tolerance is impossible when the issue is anything that actually matters.

You can tolerate someone who eats different food than you, or wears a different kind of hat. You can't tolerate someone who has a fundamentally different view of what murder is than you do. Tolerance is useless.

Normally this would be a conservative realization but he diverts it from that by employing the term "liberating" and automatically assigning it the highest value (liberating means leftism.) Since leftism and rightism disagree, the only leftist kind of tolerance is that which only tolerates leftism. Pretty simple.

>>7713281
He elicits the slippery slope fa... conjecture.

>>7714438
I think what he's saying is more that tolerating opinions that prop up a structure which is inherently oppressive and actually has control over the opinions within it is not tolerance at all.

I'm not following how he assumes this lack of tolerance is supposed to actually occur outside of something indistinguishable from Fascism but I guess the ends justify the means for somebody this fervently indoctrinated.

>>7714485
Yeah but what would you be tolerating, then? What's the point of retaining any support of an idea such as "tolerance" in that case?

Tolerance is not for things you like or don't care about, it's for things you actively don't like and think are harmful, but that you're willing to allow to exist as long as they don't directly affect you. At least that's how I see it.

In a society that is interconnected and socialist like I suppose Marcuse is imagining, what kind of harmful, counterrevolutionary activity would you allow to exist without condemning or using the state to ban it?

>>7714254
Is there a written version of this so I don't have to listen to that stupid fucking Microsoft Sam voice?