/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22679924]

Refute this.

[Anonymous No.22679930]

I can't, I never read it I don't know what it is about

[Anonymous No.22679939]

>>22679924
A retarded cokehead roommate who worked on the Obama campaign stole my copy before I read it so I can't. But seeing as he was very interested in it I consider it prebunked.

[Anonymous No.22679950]

>>22679930
an open democratic society fosters its arch-enemies (fascists, anti democratic forces, etc) by its very nature. therefore an open society must censor its enemy to remain an open society

[Anonymous No.22679957]

>>22679950
commies and fascists get fucked
start your own country if you want a dictatorship

[Anonymous No.22679958]

>>22679924
Never read any Popper

"In philosophy of science, confirmation holism, also called epistemological holism, is the view that no individual statement can be confirmed or disconfirmed by an empirical test, but rather that only a set of statements (a whole theory) can be so."

1. If you are a holist about everything then the Open Society needs enemies
2. If you are a holist about concepts then that means that the Open Society actually exists in the world
C. Ready Player 1

[Anonymous No.22679968]

>>22679957
that's what popperian democracy is - a dictatorship to suppress....people who want dictatorships. it's a contradiction, and very jewish. I believe soros is a proponent of popperian democracy.

[Anonymous No.22679976]

>>22679924
nothing says an open society like a country that funds death squads to kill psychics and aliens

[Anonymous No.22679977]

>>22679976
proofs

[Anonymous No.22679995]

>>22679957
Actual commies don't want dictatorship. Millionth time. Marx was an asshole.

[Anonymous No.22680307]

>>22679957
You will never be a woman

[Anonymous No.22680560]

[Anonymous No.22680615]

>>22679995
What do actual commies want?

[Anonymous No.22680619]

>>22680615
they want a state where it's impossible to revolt against the ruling party
>>22680560
this reddit meme image forgets that popper didn't advocate for culling speech, just not allowing commies, fascists, and islamists to run for poltical office

[Anonymous No.22680631]

>>22679924
Early life

[Anonymous No.22680637]

>>22679924
marx and hegel were faggots. popper was right to shit on them. for people who want a dictator stalin daddy

[Anonymous No.22680642]

The Paradox of Tolerance is only ever invoked by repugnant, transparent people looking to absorb criticisms of their repugnant, transparent worldview. The type of person that sees things like "anti-racism" as benevolent penance for an original sin, whose humanitarian impulse is animated by a victimhood that is undermined by a crude power analysis that is employed when convenient, and ignored when convenient.

All of that is to say, it's only ever invoked by people who have not read Popper, and probably never will.

[Anonymous No.22680652]

>>22680619
>they want a state where it's impossible to revolt against the ruling party
we have that at home; every day it gets harder to be a DINK

[Anonymous No.22680653]

Does anybody know one (1) other idea this faggot had in his 2 volume 800 pg book? He might truly be that worthless, that he can be fully reduced to three words, but if thats the case we don't need a thread. Illiterate retarded Christniggers quote by chapter and line number, why can't you?

[Anonymous No.22680665]

>>22680652
No, just a state that uses democracy to install a non-democratic system in its place
not that the USA is democratic, since citizens united in 2009 opened up spending limits for billionaires it has become an oligarchy

[Anonymous No.22680669]

>>22680653
Imagine being this much of a retard that christians live in your head rent free on a completely unrelated topic
embarrassing

[Anonymous No.22680693]

>>22680653
The tolerance thing is only a small part of it, the bulk of the book is utterly, irrevocably, refuting Hegel, and to a lesser extent Marx. It's the reason Hegel is no longer a big fish in philosophy. Its a savage BTFO

[Anonymous No.22680706]

>>22680693
unfortunately in france and in leftist departments in the USA Hegel is still "taught"

[Anonymous No.22680811]

>>22679950
>an open democratic society fosters its arch-enemies
How is that any different from any society every?
>an open society must censor its enemy to remain an open society
Again, how is that different? Every society not only brings about it's own enemies but also needs to actually oppose them in order to survive.
"Naw, dawg, you should aid your enemies instead of opposing them."
Did some people actually believe this before reading the book?

[Anonymous No.22680850]

>>22679924
Originally published: 1945
...
It was first used in 1969 and finally decommissioned in 1989.

[Anonymous No.22680856]

>>22680560
>>22679950
If leftoid faggots weren't so concerned with seeming virtuous by using buzz-words all the time, they would just stop calling themselves democratic for that's not what they are. A true democracy must be ready to abolish itself when popular will demands it.

[Anonymous No.22680864]

>>22680856
>popular will changes in soviet russia
oops, not allowed to change opinions anymore

[Anonymous No.22680867]

>>22680856
Popper talks about this in depth in the book - once you take that historical teleology pill (which the modern left 100% has), you're done with being democratic or small l liberal or open minded.

[Anonymous No.22680873]

>>22680867
based. that's the difference between the book and the retarded meme image in >2268056

[Anonymous No.22680894]

>>22680864
Yes, nothing wrong with that. Democracy isn't something sustainable in mass societies anyway.
>>22680867
Popper and the book itself is fine, it doesn't propogate the ideas that people claim it does. The problem is that in public discourse it's entire use has devolved into justifying suppression of the opposition while simultaneously maintaining the appearance of "goodness"

[Anonymous No.22680900]

>>22680894
>Democracy isn't something sustainable in mass societies anyway.
we wuz kangz! kangz again!

[Anonymous No.22680913]

>>22680856
Strawman image. Only nationalists should feel shame for the actions of their ancestry, because only they hold pride in their ancestry anyways. Unfortunately many people are nationalistically oriented.

[Anonymous No.22680916]

>>22680913
faggot leftist detected

[Anonymous No.22680917]

>>22680867
>you're done with being democratic or small l liberal or open minded
And that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.22680921]

>>22680917
>islamists take over your state
nothing personnel kid, we're done with being democratic

[Anonymous No.22680943]

>>22680900
I'm not calling for a return to older types of government, I'm simply stating a fact. What we experiance today is a form of technocracy. Rules run contrary to popular will because our society is too complex and the population simply to big to appease the ever increasing different group interests without running the risk of revolt. There's no democracy, only a procces (No will, only rules).
>>22680913
Idiotic argument, nationalist feel pride about their ancestors in a way which honors, not them as people, but as spiritual guides for positive action towards a group goal. And whether you like it or not, nationalism has been the most successful way in fostering a healthy but large community beacause it guaranteed the maintenance of tradition and identity that thrived in the smaller communities of the past. The loss of national pride is the reason why contemporary people feel so alienated and not a loss of Labour value.

[Anonymous No.22680950]

>>22680943
>Rules run contrary to popular will because our society is too ashekenazi jewish
ftfy. japan and norway don't have this issue.

[Anonymous No.22680956]

>>22680811
>"Naw, dawg, you should aid your enemies instead of opposing them."
>Did some people actually believe this before reading the book?
Not that anon, but a big part of the book is devoted to analyzing the tension that exists within a society that permits freedoms which others might exploit in order to gain political purchase (to the end of ultimately undermining a great many freedoms altogether.)

According to the book, illiberal motivations run the gamut from theological to ideological, but each applies a kind of "historicism" that the book analyses. It begins with Plato, who preceded Hegel, who anticipated Marx.

The problem with historicism as applied by each is that it persists by way of hindsight bias, with the "determined" yet unfalsifiable conclusions baked into their descriptive analysis preceding the actual reality of any problem they encounter. Their descriptive analysis is incomplete, and constrains their prescriptive analysis as a result, biasing them in favour of irrational solutions to problems better solved by dispassionate, rational inquiry.

The policymaking of those in power is bent to the interests of irrational custom or ideological preference, at the cost of output and well-being (as compared to open societies). If we operate under the notion that a God exists with particular rules in a more theocratic country for example, it may needlessly constrain the course of our societies and preclude necessary interventions. Turkey and its current debt crisis is a good example of this, but this also applies to Socialist regimes who dissuade incremental "bourgeoise" reform and decry anything other than total decommodification as "utopian": capitalism's going to blow up anyway, why prolong the problem? Our historical analysis proves it with certainty, so prolonging capitalism is akin to prolonging suffering!

The allure of these ahistorical paradigms is great, however, precisely because they offer low-resolution solutions to those citizens who become alienated within open societies: open societies require increased individuation, and "rational" participation. They live and die by the whims of the populace, whose institutions become clogged up and divided as the populations they represent become more compartmentalized. To live in an open society is as existential as it is unsatisfying. It saps you of spiritual strength, and casts you into a sea of equivocation and uncertainty. Nonetheless, Popper's hope is that he can persuade the reader against radical ideologies and incomplete historical analysis by appealing to the shoddy analysis of the ideologies he critiques.

t;dr - it's an interesting book.

[Anonymous No.22680966]

>>22680956
good evenhanded post.

[Anonymous No.22680971]

>>22679924
>popper
>hegel
>marx
scum of the earth right there

[Anonymous No.22680974]

>>22680971
I'd take Popper over Hegel or Marx any day.

[Anonymous No.22680975]

>>22680971
ironic when popper destroyed hegel and marx's theories

[Anonymous No.22680987]

>>22680950
Every significant contemporary society is the same, including those too. Stop fantasizing about magic jews and look at what's actually happening. Japan in particular is one of the biggest victims of modernity. To feed the capitalist machine, Japan has forfeited all of its humanity. I know Japanese people, they tell me they work so much that having any kind of healthy relation with other people and even their own family has become impossible. Tradition is there only in its most vague form, a mere aesthetic that westerners drool over while ignoring the reality of its loss.

[Anonymous No.22680991]

>>22680987
>Every significant contemporary society is the same, including those too
fucking kek. you've clearly never been to either.
>my friends told me....
double kek
>magic jews
>triple kek

[Anonymous No.22680992]

>>22680991
Contend with what he wrote, faggot.

[Anonymous No.22680994]

>>22680956
It is exactly this kind of "rational" thinking that lead to the rsie of gender critical theory and troonism. I hope every male descendent of Popper makes the "rational" choice of cutting off their dicks

Captcha :J4SJW

[Anonymous No.22680997]

>>22680991
>Bro look at them. They have whores dressed in Kimonos outside shops and Pagoda themed restaurant and shit. Soooo traditional.

[Anonymous No.22680998]

>>22680987
Idiot American thinks actually civilized countires are the same as his basketball homeless shelter of a country
fucking retard

[Anonymous No.22681000]

>>22680560
Funny that these types of arguments always presuppose that the intolerant would win
If that's the case, then why shouldn't they
That just means they're better according to more people

[Anonymous No.22681003]

>>22680997
>>22680992
>EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN JAPAN HAS A CRIME PREVENTION ASSOCIATION, SOME OF WHICH ARE VERY ACTIVE IN DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION ON SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION AND WHOSE MEMBERS OCCASIONALLY PATROL THE STREETS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE POLICE DURING EMERGENCIES

um... that's anti semitic and racist. USA is same as Japan and Norway, goy. Trust the science.

[Anonymous No.22681034]

>>22680994
The reasoning isn't incorrect, ironically it also accounts for the institutions of scientism that beget irrational outcomes like gender-affirming care as it's currently being applied.

The fact remains, however, that opaque institutions lead to perverse ideological incentives that produce unproductive, uneducated populations. The books ideas still hold merit: slow-moving, accountable institutions are preferable to flexible, opaque ones held captive by the whims of unaccountable central authority.

I don't see why I should let the existence of trannies, especially now that we see the scientific consensus shifting against affirming care, dissuade me from preferring idle freedom to the pursuit of some other state of the world on the off-chance something positive emerges. I don't want to be a slave, nor do I want my wages forfeited by central authority or cut and committed to a stake in the ownership of some production. I want markets, I want religious freedom, I want institutions for dispute resolution that are transparent and consistent. Western societies, degenerate as they are, do these things better than other societies so far.

[Anonymous No.22681564]

>>22680856
It's about family.

[Anonymous No.22681588]

>>22680971
I'd take Hegel and Marx over Popper any day.

[Anonymous No.22681594]

>>22681588
you deserve ALL the upboats, comrade.

[Anonymous No.22681600]

>>22681003
based

[Anonymous No.22681608]

>>22680560
Projection

[Anonymous No.22681619]

>>22681608
it's a retarded image that a leftist made that isn't even accurate of what popper thought

[Anonymous No.22681890]

>>22679957
>start your own country if you want a dictatorship
that's what a commie or fascist revolution is, libtard. they come with their own constitution and a new name and everything.

[Anonymous No.22681900]

Hoary old social science commentary texts from 60 years ago should be instantly dismissed on those grounds alone

[Anonymous No.22681904]

Why does the paradox of tolerance make people so mad when it's just common sense? If you are for the status quo what reason if any would you have to tolerate people who want to seize power by any means necesary?

[Anonymous No.22681906]

>>22681890
revolution isn't by running for democratic office then outlawing elections
revolutions per se are fine

[Anonymous No.22681908]

>>22679924
Why is a leftoid society so patheticly weak that it cannot handle competition or criticism and feels the need to sensor everything?

[Anonymous No.22681927]

>>22681908
true liberalism means free speech for everyone, but not allowing communists or islamists or jews to get voted in then ban elections

[Anonymous No.22681955]

>>22681908
societies across the board from the reich to the land of the free feature censorship. if a "weak" society is one which fall apart it seems that strong societies are born from a mastery of censorship by means of masquerading as an open marketplace of ideas.

[Anonymous No.22681958]

>>22681927
Free speech does not mean free speech, it means the freedom of liberal speech. Get it right.

[Anonymous No.22681961]

>>22681908
You just described the archetypal trad society the rightwing worship.

Read something a little removed from all that

[Anonymous No.22681976]

>>22681958
no, it means free speech for literally everything except starting panic like yelling fire in a theater
that's how you know why democrats and labour aren't actually "liberal". they are marxist.

[Anonymous No.22681980]

>>22680642
Try forming an actual argument next time

[Anonymous No.22681991]

>>22681976
Karl Popper, not Marx, is the philosopher of the modern left. The Open Society is the Globalhomo bible.

[Anonymous No.22681995]

>>22681991
The One-Dimensional Man by Marcuse is the Globohomo bible. ftfy

[Anonymous No.22681996]

>>22681976
Labour was originally a socialist reformist party, but they don’t function anymore because the system won’t allow it. Not Marxist.
Democrats are the most undemocratic body in the country. Their stage of liberalism is wholly oligarchic.

Freedom of Speech granted by law isn’t the same as free speech. Both are not free of consequences.

[Anonymous No.22682002]

>>22681996
>consequences
Like what?

[Anonymous No.22682063]

>>22679924
Surprised no one posted Voegelin's thoughts on it.

1/2

[Anonymous No.22682067]

>>22682063
2/2

[Anonymous No.22682094]

>>22680943
>And whether you like it or not, nationalism has been the most successful way in fostering a healthy but large community beacause it guaranteed the maintenance of tradition and identity that thrived in the smaller communities of the past.
As showcased by the fascists and the nazis, American jingoism, Israel right now, the russofication of the USSR, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, ethnic/nationalist civil wars all over the planet...

[Anonymous No.22682099]

>>22679924

Isn't this just Schmitt for neoliberals?

[Anonymous No.22682113]

>>22682099
neolibs have no problems with muzzies invading, or a dictator unlike Popper, as shown by the cozying up with China
it's for classical liberals or paleoconservatives

[Anonymous No.22682118]

>>22682063
>>22682067
Literally reads like a shitpost from here.
>he's stupid! uncultured! Primitive!
voegelin was a fucking hack

[Anonymous No.22682193]

>>22682118
>voegelin was a fucking hack
Not as much as Popper. The Hegel volume is extra embarrassing because he has to resort to older shit translations of Philosophy of Right to make his arguments instead of just looking at the fucking German he was raised to speak and read.

[Anonymous No.22682213]

>>22682193
Did you go to uchicago or something? the letter posted is the verbal equivalent of a tantrum, a shitpost, and is the only real criticism of popper by voegelin since v. was too pussy (for whatever reason) to publish an actual reasoned critique

[Anonymous No.22682220]

>everyone has the right to freedom of speech, assembly, and expression
>the only exception to this are groups that seek to abolish these things for others
Hmm...

[Anonymous No.22682276]

>>22682094
Most of those conflicts are to acquire resources and land, driven by human greed, I don't see how nationalism is the cause.

[Anonymous No.22682312]

Popper's paradox of tolerance is a scientific tool, not a political one.
Guys, you are really became boring with your "bored edgy anti-edgy attitude", good edgy attitude is good, bad edgy is not.
Bad, good, refute!

[Anonymous No.22682325]

Guys, while we are on the subject of democracy and government.
I had the idea that with the advancements in AI, couldn't we replace for example the senate by an AI that is connected to a system where you can use an app on your phone, where the population could propose and vote for legislation that the AI would implement or reject proposed idea's/legislation based on financial feasibility.
You'd remove a lot of bureaucracy and corruption

[Anonymous No.22682338]

>>22682325
Sounds good, as long as me and my fellow rabbis, I mean fellow scientists get to write the AI

[Anonymous No.22682345]

>>22682325
>You'd remove a lot of bureaucracy and corruption

The irony is that it needs to pass through the bureaucratic system.

[Anonymous No.22682452]

>>22682213
No, but I've read Plato and Hegel and Popper, and Voegelin's comment about Popper not being able to accurately reproduce anything in Plato's Republic is on the mark. I find Voegelin tedious, but Popper's your standard libshit analytic retard who can't read an old author without bitching uselessly about how awful they are for holding us back from good progressive values. Like, for your cope about Voegelin just seething, did you not notice how Popper wrote a whole 2 volume book about how Plato and Hegel lead to fascism, Nazism and Sovietism? It's almost a blessing he remembered Marx's actual role at all, though it's dipshitted that he settled on Plato and Hegel instead of the infinitely more plausible Rousseau and Nietzsche. That he even considered his shitty book his contribution to WW2 is even more embarrassing, the fucker was coping over Wittgenstein actually helping by working in a hospital.

[Anonymous No.22682617]

>no one in this thread is part of the Popperian-Schmittian masterrace

Smmfh

[Anonymous No.22682626]

>>22681995
The One-Dimensional Man advocates for asceticism and against consumerism, hedonism etc (The Great Refusal) and is deeply pessimistic about technology, it runs contrary to the basic tenets of globohomo

[Anonymous No.22682631]

>>22682452
>Plato and Hegel lead to fascism, Nazism and Sovietism
But they do, don't they? He wrote a whole book showing how that's the case

[Anonymous No.22682635]

>>22682452
Read up on the Young Hegelians. Hegel was the primary driver of Marx's idea of dialectical end of history

[Anonymous No.22682644]

>>22682626
Eat the bugs, and don't forget to boost your local LGBTQ!

[Anonymous No.22682737]

>>22681980
It is an actual argument.

[Anonymous No.22682768]

>>22682644
Why can't a fag fuck somebody else in the ass but also have something unique to say about "consumerism, hedonism" etc? Some of my best friends are fags! They're a fine people!

[Anonymous No.22682927]

intolerance is natural you have to brainwash and propagandize people away from it

[Anonymous No.22683035]

>>22682631
No, and he wrote a whole book rather showing that he misunderstands Plato's arguments for moderating the desire for absolute political justice, a point literally emphasized in the strongest terms towards the end of the Republic, and picking fights with Hegel by using bad English translations instead of reading in German like he ought to, like a charlaton would.

>>22682635
I've read collections of the Young Hegelians, and 1) they depart from Hegel, especially on religion and political equality, 2) your point pretends that epigones that knowingly depart from Hegel is = to Hegel, and 3) "dialectical end of history" describes literally every political movement's self-undstanding, and isn't even really part of Popper's argument which is focused on the Philosophy of Right, not the Phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.22683042]

>>22683035
Marx was part of the Young Hegelians, along with Engels. It's interesting to see their development, even though I dislike both in general

[Anonymous No.22683079]

>>22682644
Marcuse fucking BAFFLES me. How could someone have such a brilliant critique of how everyone in modern societies are consumerist bugmen designed to be ineffective, and then support that exact same class of lumpenprole dregs? Imagine looking at the rise of the LGBT in the 60s and thinking it's a threat to liberal capitalism. Did he even understand his own work?

[Anonymous No.22683109]

>>22680560
>......

[Anonymous No.22683128]

>>22683109
did you teleport from 2015 to post this?

[Anonymous No.22683140]

>>22683128
more accurate to reality than the original image

[Anonymous No.22684406]

>>22682626
>against hedonism
He claimed that the proletariat is a sexually free class that is oppressed by the sexually conservative bourgeoisie. This wasn't even true during his lifetime. It was the bourgeoisie funding him and others to promote free love.

[Anonymous No.22684465]

>>22682644
10 years passed from the release of Eros and the release of One-Dimensional Man, this doesn't refute my post, ODM is a work of philosophical pessimism which is anathema to globohomo

[Anonymous No.22684474]

>>22682113
>paleoconservative
I’m paleoconservative and I would personally gas Popper and his ilk.

[Anonymous No.22684477]

So many dumb retards here commenting on a book they've never read. The Paradox of Tolerance is far from the only concept Popper discusses. Even if you disagree the Popper on the paradox of tolerance, Popper presents a number of other ideas that are meritous on their own.

[Anonymous No.22684481]

>>22684406
>>22683079
>>22682644
Embracing the orgasmic release of Eros is vitalistic and thus right-wing. Bugmen and Sois are afraid of the primal energies of sex and prefer the sexless, gray future of the pod.
To quote Ellul:
>I must admit also that the ideas of Marcuse strike me as drenched in the earliest phase of Hitlerist philosophy. There we have the one and only great revolution of irrationality which ever occurred, the great festival (the greatest by far): what it did to reinforce the state, technology, propaganda, and all the rest, is history. Any orientation of that nature will have the same results. That is why current invocations to irrationalism and to the mystique of revolution fill me with dread. For their only possible outcome was demonstrated by Hitler. The consequences of uncontrolled irrationality are inevitable and predictable. There is no intrinsic virtue in Eros, whereas there is a menace behind those dark forces which were unveiled and used solely for inflicting on mankind the worst disaster it has ever known. What Marcuse has done is sow the seeds of a new Nazism

[Anonymous No.22684488]

>>22684481
what the fuck is vitalistic about a guy shootinf a pozz load in another guy’s ass?

[Anonymous No.22684491]

>>22684465
>pseud thinks one dimensional man didn't agree with Eros and civilization
he literally says the same thing again in the conclusion of one dimensional man. Switching from class consciousness to race and sexuality

>industrial society.
However, underneath the conservative popular base is the substratum of the outcasts and outsiders, the exploited and per-secuted of other races and other colors, the unemployed and the unemployable. They exist outside the democratic process; their life is the most immediate and the most real need for ending intolerable conditions and institutions. Thus their opposition is revolutionary even if their consciousness is not.

Why pretend to understand??

[Anonymous No.22684494]

>>22684481
>What Marcuse has done is sow the seeds of a new Nazism
called globohomo kek

[Anonymous No.22684499]

I don't value tolerance and think it should go away.

[Anonymous No.22684500]

>>22684499
this, but for LGBT homos like this fag >>22684481

[Anonymous No.22684527]

>>22684488
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.22684532]

>>22684527
I like how all of these besides the actually gay ones are "we shoudn't kill them" tier
also, do you take medication? heard about 40 percent of gays have hiv

[Anonymous No.22684539]

>>22679950
This is true, democratic society need to censor authoritarian ideology because chances are these ideology will try to destroy it (which is a good thing btw)
>>22679957
These people won’t allow it.

[Anonymous No.22684546]

>>22679924
He does a pretty good job of presenting Plato as the OG totalitarian thanks to his regimented caste-system. Haven't read anything beyond that tho, and neither have most people in this thread.

[Anonymous No.22684574]

>>22680950
Birth rates are still low in Japan

[Anonymous No.22684577]

>>22680998
Means jackshit when people aren’t having sex and replacing the older population with newer people

[Anonymous No.22684582]

>>22684574
>>22684577
They have new subsidies for parents introduced last year. Get thee to Japan and get cookin'

[Anonymous No.22684584]

>>22681000
It’s just might makes right all over again

[Anonymous No.22684587]

>>22684582
That doesn’t imply they’re actually going to use them

[Anonymous No.22684590]

>>22684587
>not getting the joke
prospects aren't looking good for you increasing the japanese birth rate

[Anonymous No.22684592]

>>22679950
Misreading
>”I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”
>”But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”
>”We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

[Anonymous No.22684600]

Why are leftists pro-war, pro-corporate bootlickers?

[Anonymous No.22684602]

>>22684600
neocons went to the left

[Anonymous No.22684604]

>>22684602
They did, but card-carrying Marxists, Socialists, et al. are also pro-war and pro-corporate.

[Anonymous No.22684613]

>>22684600
Because the one's that aren't are usually deplatformed and silenced

[Anonymous No.22684616]

>>22684604
The one thing I liked about Bernie Sanders is that he was authentically socialist, no bullshit wars and definitely not corporate
I've always been partial to the theory that occupy wall street in 2011 spooked corporations enough to start pushing racial justice and somehow the old leftists that protested the Iraq war didnt exist anymore

[Anonymous No.22684619]

>>22684616
>The one thing I liked about Bernie Sanders is that he was authentically socialist, no bullshit wars and definitely not corporate
lmfao
Your guy's just another NGO-donating neoliberal stooge.

[Infinite Jest No.22684622]

>>22679950
Hitler and Stalin were democrats.

He is correct in identifying religion as problematic but Hitler and Stalin were not religious, they were democratic.

[Anonymous No.22684623]

>>22684616
The only reason why leftists protested the Iraq war to begin with was because Bush started it. It's nothing to do with the war itself; if Clinton had leaned on congress to invade, leftists would've supported it.

[Anonymous No.22684624]

>>22684619
>the ONE thing
I'm rethuglican, autist

[Anonymous No.22684625]

>>22684624
So a leftist.

[Anonymous No.22684626]

>>22684622
Indeed, and their leader is Demoncrat Antifer

[Infinite Jest No.22684627]

>>22684626
What does that mean?

[Anonymous No.22684629]

>>22684623
take the 1999 WTO protests. happened under clinton
can you imagine leftists doing this today

[Anonymous No.22684630]

>>22684613
There's a minority (usually around Gen X age with a few flower children that are still alive but haven't gotten wealthy in the meantime) that try to uphold the old civil rights larp. But when the cards are down, they all kowtow to totalitarianism in whatever form it takes, corporate or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.22684631]

>>22684625
Leftfist your mom's ass

[Anonymous No.22684638]

>>22684631
Total nigger death is the centrist option.

[Anonymous No.22684646]

>>22684638
That's what I told her after I took her to pound town

[Anonymous No.22685268]

>>22679950
I say fuck that. Let the people think. Let the people speak. Let the people argue. Truth will always triumph over falsehood if both are given open ground.

Only tyrannical cowards fear the free exchange of ideas.

[Anonymous No.22685277]

>>22684616
>The one thing I liked about Bernie Sanders is that he was authentically socialist, no bullshit wars
you might be right about that, but he's a coward who always toes the party line. There was not a peep out of him about big pharma during the Corona panic, not a goddamn word. He took the vaccine and shilled it like a good little sheep.
>I've always been partial to the theory that occupy wall street in 2011 spooked corporations enough to start pushing racial justice
Say more about this? I'm intrigued.

[Anonymous No.22685307]

>>22679950
>a society must become communist to fight communists
The supreme jewish intellect is nothing but gypsy magic. And they msde him a sir.

[Anonymous No.22685316]

>>22683128
Do you think that shit ended in 2015 for us euros?

[Anonymous No.22685322]

>>22679950
do tyrants fucking really? This is so blatantly self-contradictory you have to have a lobotomy to pronounce it, or else be a consummate liar.

[Anonymous No.22685630]

>>22679930
Brave and based post tbqhwy

[Anonymous No.22685647]

>>22684481
very stupid assessment from ellul who is frequently stupid

[Anonymous No.22685664]

>>22679950
It's a very simple rule. "Ideologies and rhetoric that hinge on the intolerance or repression of others will not be tolerated." That's it. That's the exception. If your reaction is to snivel "So much for tolerance then..." you have been rightfully filtered and are a testament to be unassailability of the system.

[Anonymous No.22685683]

>>22679950
So an open society is impossible.

[Anonymous No.22685690]

>>22685683
An open society doesn't mean it has to leave itself vulnerable to bad actors.

[Anonymous No.22685736]

I cant. Until somehow the state of affairs changes in the world, which it looks like it never will, hes right.

[Anonymous No.22685744]

>>22680560
If you don't believe that the majority are capable of maintaining a functioning society, why do you even support democracy in the first place?

[Anonymous No.22685873]

>>22680560
Karl Popper can suck my dick. What an irritating, moronic faggot

[Anonymous No.22685893]

>>22685873
Loving every moment Papa Popper makes fascists seethe.

[Anonymous No.22685906]

>>22685690
in order to make itself invulnerable to bad actors, it must submit itself either to state rule or mob rule. This is not an open society

[Anonymous No.22685913]

>>22685906
See: >>22685664
Filtered. What a great system!

[Anonymous No.22685918]

>>22685913
>Ideologies and rhetoric that hinge on the intolerance or repression of others will not be tolerated

go to reddit to see what that policy looks like in practice.

[Anonymous No.22685929]

>>22685918
Reddit doesn't practice that principle, but let's assume for a moment they did. Getting heckin' downdoots for an unpopular opinion, benign as it may be, is not repression. It's feedback. The upvote system works more or less as a popularity meter for someone's post, even if they claim it's to make sure the most "relevant" answers are the most visible. An open society means you're entitled to profess your ideas, not that you're entitled to positive feedback for them.

[Anonymous No.22685934]

>>22685929
By the way, I am not a proponent of the up/downvote system and I don't care for the incentives it creates.

[Anonymous No.22685942]

>>22685929
I’m not talking about the upvote system. I’m talking about the ability of mods/admins to ban whoever the choose to. All of them are simultaneously trying to be more progressive than the majority, which leads to any comment even remotely disagreeing with the prevailing narrative being deleted. This is fine on a social media site for dimwits and midwits, but it would be absolutely disastrous to implement anything close to this on a societal scale

[Anonymous No.22685954]

>>22685942
>I’m not talking about the upvote system. I’m talking about the ability of mods/admins to ban whoever the choose to.
Then we both agree reddit does not abide by the principle I stated.

[Anonymous No.22685955]

>>22685954
>Then we both agree reddit does not abide by the principle I stated.

It objectively does, in principle. If you ask for something that follows it in full, I state that nothing can possible follow it fully. It is like communism in that way. It can never be achieved because it assumes its own success.

[Anonymous No.22685962]

>>22685955
>It objectively does, in principle.
Dude, you just went on a tirade about how arbitrary the mods can be about bans.

[Anonymous No.22685971]

>>22685962
>Dude, you just went on a tirade about how arbitrary the mods can be about bans.

yes, and this is the consequence. The fact that this does not follow your beliefs in reality is the exact reason why it refutes it. Your dream cannot be achieved, and this is an example.

[Anonymous No.22685984]

>>22685971
An open society is not arbitrary about what it tolerates and does not. You're using an example of something that does not fit this principle as proof that the principle doesn't work.
Saying "but reddit!!" does not refute it. I don't give a fuck about reddit and I don't consider it an example of an open society.

[Anonymous No.22685989]

>>22685984
>An open society is not arbitrary about what it tolerates and does not.

neither was reddit, in its formal principles and rules. But by the dilution of language, it must become arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.22686001]

reading several books at the same time

[Anonymous No.22686022]

>>22685989
A single website's weak institutions causing it to fail up uphold this principle does not make a flaw in the principle itself. You can get banned from the pepsi reddit for saying coke tastes better. It's not a truly open society, it's a collection of forums that mods can run as petty kingdoms with little oversight or accountability. It's a trash website run by arbitrary mods and therefore irrelevant to this conversation. Why do you place it on such a pedestal?
>inb4 "But reddit said!!"

[Anonymous No.22686024]

>>22680642
cuck

[Anonymous No.22686037]

>>22679950
>the enemies are just people in your own country that don't like it
What a meme

[Anonymous No.22686096]

>>22679930
Plato was a proto-fascist, Hegel was a fraud, and Marx was admittedly right that 19th century capitalism was hell but he also had some disastrous ideas.

The throughline is a critique of what Popper calls historicism, the attempt to create a grand theory of history that can be used to predict the future and work towards a utopian society. Instead he argues that the future of societies is extremely unpredictable and any attempt to reform society all at once is doomed to fail. Instead we should focus on solving specific problems in the near to mid term and liberal democracy is the best tool for doing this.

>>22679950
That's not what it's about at all. I don't recall him saying anything like the first part of your post and the paradox of tolerance but you're referencing, although it's become influential (and arguably misunderstood), is only mentioned in a single footnote. I doubt you have read the book.

[Anonymous No.22686117]

>>22685893
You're terminally stupid. Popper and fascism are profoundly compatible. Fascism relies on massive state authority, and Popper lays out the case for precisely that. I oppose it because I love liberty instead.

[Anonymous No.22686153]

>>22686022
>You can get banned from the pepsi reddit for saying coke tastes better.

If this is your refutation, it still fails because those who are held to the standard of maintaining tolerance AND NOTHING ELSE are no less idiotic in their decisions.

No amount of “strong institutions” can prevent this. The people who are said to be agents of the democratic state also have the ability to manipulate democracy by censorship. This will always lead to corruption. Zero exceptions.

[Anonymous No.22686158]

>>22686153
Being a doomer is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.22686164]

>>22686158
Nigger

[Anonymous No.22686611]

>>22685316
Yeah, moslims are faggots like the rest of you oniöns boys.

[Anonymous No.22686635]

>>22684623
Doubt it. Society wasn't that polarized. Blair was basically British Clinton and there were massive protests in London.

[Anonymous No.22687582]

>>22685268
>Truth will always triumph over falsehood if both are given open ground.
How can anyone be this naive in current year? 4chan is about the most open ground out there for argument and not only does truth not "triumph," often the most absolutely idiotic ideas gain popularity here, e.g. Qanon. At best, free speech is one condition needed along with others (such as people having an incentive not to lie) for discourse to tend towards an accurate consensus.

[Anonymous No.22688259]

>>22684474
You're a faggot and you'll do nothing

[Anonymous No.22688263]

>>22685929
>is not repression
Aren't mass downvoted comments semi-hidden?

[Anonymous No.22688265]

>>22687582
You have an excellent incentive not to lie, since if you do it too often, you will absolutely die. Mind you some of those Qanoners drank bleach to get out of a little injection

[Anonymous No.22688351]

>>22685929
You seem like the kind of guy who'd unironically say "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences".

[Anonymous No.22688358]

>>22688351
And you seem like the kind of guy who wants to unironically be free from consequences

[Anonymous No.22688364]

>>22688358
I don't believe in freedom of speech. I think it's a silly idea at best and a disingenuous dog whistle at worst. There are only overton windows sliding around, there has never been and there never will be an intellectual environment that is truly an unfettered free for all for everyone.

[Anonymous No.22688385]

Has it ever crossed liberals’ minds that they wouldn’t have to worry about fascists and communists going mainstream if they just acknowledged and addressed their social and economic grievances?

[Anonymous No.22688387]

>>22688385
>anon realizes that ideologies are nothing but smoke and mirrors for the fundamental realpolitik and cynical maneuvering that underlies politics

[Anonymous No.22688410]

>>22688364
>doesn't believe in freedom of speech
>hates Reddit for its censorship

Least schizo righttard moment