Shared by lefty friends about the peace they want
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Tolerance doesn’t exist. It’s a gimmick sold by degenerates to let them fuck up your kids and call you bigoted if you don’t want your child to see feminine balls in a changing room.
This is a great example of why I hate philosophers. Tolerance is way too broad of a concept to make any meaningful statements on whether it's good or bad for society. At least not without specifying the exact thing you don't want to be tolerant of. You can very easily argue that free speech is a form of tolerance. We tolerate speech we don't like because we understand the dangers of placing restrictions on free speech.
The paradox of tolerance is something coined by Karl Popper, who leftists have been referencing a lot lately to try to sound smarter than they really are. The whole gist of their argument is basically, "We can be intolerant of the evil bigots while still claiming to be the tolerant and enlightened good guys."
Tolerance is bad. There is no argument.
Either something is unacceptable (i.e. intolerable) and so should not be tolerated.
OR
Something is acceptable, and does not need to be tolerated.
Tolerance is a weasel word that stands in for "things I think are permissible should be permissible, and things that violate my line of acceptable behavior should not" which is the exact same thing every person ever born believes.
Perhaps tolerance in the way that they use the word. But I don't allow leftists to define words for me. I prefer to use tolerance in its original meaning.
Which is nothing. Tolerance means you tolerate things that can be safely tolerable. Anything more is excessive anything less is retarded.
It's not a word that communicates any meaning. Other than "things are annoying but not bad enough for me to act on"
Which sure might be a fine meaning but it isn't a VIRTUE since every single person on planet earth has, and does, do that by default.
It's like trying to claim that "gas milage" is a Virtue of a car. "Oh it has gas milage!" Yeah no shit retard.
Thank you, this definition argument is eloquent and useful for the future.
Things can be unacceptable but still needing to be tolerated.
Someone's baby crying at an inopportune moment for example. You have a low chance of stopping it, and most actions taken will only make the situation worse for no gain. You don't tolerate the behavior of the parent, because they are in the wrong for not removing the baby from the situation, you tolerate the situation for your own sake.
Letting them control language and how words are used is just ceding ground to them endlessly. Needing to remove all nuance from how you speak to nail every single word and concept down to pure black and white nonsense is just admitting they have won and destroyed our ability to just understand something without spelling it out for a debate team.
By definition, if you accept something. It's acceptable OR you're a failure.
Tolerance can be meaningful. But its not a Virtue, at best is a descriptor and most generally it's a vice.
That's idiotic. I am tolerating your stupid opinions right now. That doesn't mean your freedom to express yourself is unacceptable.
That's actually incorrect and you're basing your understanding off the Commie's truncated version of Popper's idea. What Popper actually said was that you should only stop being tolerant at the point where the other side starts using power, force, or violence to get their way. Not merely for holding or voicing intolerant ideas. Lefties always leave that part out because without it, the quote serves them perfectly, and with it they know they're the ones being indicted by it.
I didn't claim to be describing the idea as Popper envisioned it. I said "their argument", as in the leftists argument. But thank you for adding that in.
What if those “evil bigots” are misogynists who want to marry kids at the age of 9?
I guess under no circumstances can we be intolerant to them
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that that is my viewpoint, but I'll go ahead and clarify that I do not support marrying kids at the age of 9.
Iraq just legalized marriage of girls at age of 9. Its a famous part of one of their religions.
"Tolerance" in the modern parlance always means either faggot shit, illegal immigrants, or criminal behavior (niggers)
Absolutely correct. I witnessed it first hand when Matthew Shepard was beaten to death in a methed out drug deal gone wrong. Of course you weren’t allowed to question any of the narrative surrounding the circumstances for the next two decades lest you be an intolerant bigot.
That's not true. Tolerance exists and society always tolerates it's harmless eccentric. Not all of them, just the few in number that don't cause issues. The point of tolerance is to not try to force homogeneity to the point of diminishing returns and damaging society in the process.
Again you’re buying the koolaid. “Tolerance” was always a weapon to shift the Overton window, that’s why “the few” never stay “the few”.
Trying to reduce the complexity of society at large down to a twitter sized post is never going to do you any good regardless of how much effort you put into perfecting it.
I'll take succinct truths over the walls of deception that regularly get posted by certain individuals here.
I'm not. It's like throwing out Free Speech, anti-war sentiments, and immigration restrictions because at some previous point the Left used these terms as weapons against society.
The left will weaponize anything, that’s not the argument. Tolerance as a concept is antithetical to a society and always destroys it. It’s arguing for cancer to spite healthy organs.