Shared by lefty friends about the peace they want
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (100)
sorted by:
The black guy is standing there with a look saying, "Why am I standing next to two faggots?"
I've got some bad news about the prevalence of homosexuality in the black community...
Insert "Nigga, you gay" meme
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.
Tolerance as a virtue generally implies self-restraint where appropriate. For example, if someone says something that pisses you off, you tolerate it to the extent that you don't chimp out and murder them over it. Or if you have children or family members that get on your nerves, you tolerate them rather than cutting them off or lashing out over petty matters.
There isn't really any need to redefine the word. Tolerance in its original meaning was already perfectly sensible
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.
Its not a virtue, but it is a necessity because we don't live in a perfect world where things always work out with logic and reason.
I gave you a concrete example of a situation where it is necessary for your own benefit, while you keep talking in philosophical circles.
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.
I got that, I'm just confused by why that was your response to my comment.
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”.
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.
But that's my point. You're criticizing Leftism's use of Tolerance. Tolerance is entirely reasonable. It's intended to be used with wisdom. Otherwise, you have unflinching absolutism that doesn't take anyone or anything into account outside of pre-made assertions. No society functions like that, and no society can. In fact, most societies are tolerant of their eccentrics because that's really all they are. Eccentric. Exceptions that prove the rule. A unique feature of a population.
It's a question of scale. You can tolerate mistakes, or obnoxious quirks because you know that they're not actively trying to cause problems.
The issue comes when we're demanded to tolerate active, malicious evil, masquerading as harmless quirks.
Yes, exactly. Tolerance levels exist. If a society has too fine of a tolerance it is basically ultra-fragile and can't adapt. If a society's tolerance is too broad, it will destroy itself.
Right, that was his original point - you can tolerate faggotry, for example, if it was in small numbers (i.e. during the 90s)
Since there was so few of them it was easy to tolerate them because they were tiny population that fucked off and did their own thing.
Now we no longer can do that. We have to take back the "weapon" of tolerance FROM them and draw strict lines on where those borders are. We shouldn't even TRY to meet their standards because their standards are always hypocritical and self-serving. Since we are in power we have to make sure the standards are defined OUR way.
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.
Okay, but what if your easy answer isn't even truth because you've had to ignore so much to arrive at it?
"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.
They're unironically correct though.
You cannot tolerate child raping cross dressing retard faggots, communists (but I repeat myself) and other degenerate scum.
They will destroy us unless we destroy them. The chain of suspicion and whatnot.
We basically have different tolerances. It's not a number that you can assign to certain ideologies, because the things we on the right/moderate "blob" tolerate different are different from the left.
The left tolerates
-- Demonizing white people
-- Demonizing absolutely normal people with no immediate problems (no mental problems, no "gender" problems, people who are content with their lives)
-- Glorifying troons, "gender as a spectrum" faggotry
-- Glorifying teaching this shit to kids, further muddying these views and confusing young kids who are meant to be focusing on learning basic subjects, which makes people who teach this shit to kids PREDATORS.
-- Wars, if it's meant to defend a perceived weaker party, even if the "weaker" party is absolutely worthless and pieces of shit themselves
-- Using other people's money to fund this shit
-- Using the government to force these beliefs down on our throat
-- Being racist against any monitority or so-called "protected class" that doesn't play ball with them.
The right tolerates: -- Almost all races and backgrounds if you again 1) Keep to yourself 2) Promote American values and 3) Not demonize the ethnic majority.
-- Some amount of degeneracy as long as you stick to making it a "don't ask, don't tell" sorta policy. i.e. I don't want to know about how many fucking times you get pegged by your wife's son.
And pretty much everything else is left up to the individual to figure out for themselves on the right. You are your own destiny. The right is actually very tolerant if you follow VERY simple rules, whereas the left requires a LONG list of shit you have to get in line with, akin with the way every fucking Communist government is run to this day.
the KKK member is on the wrong side
But the parties flipped whenever the Democrats historically did something that could be effectively used against them in an argument.
The parties flipped with Reagan, I mean Nixon, I mean Goldwater, I mean Roosevelt, I mean Hoover, I mean the other Roosevelt, I mean Taft.
^ Actual conversations I've had.
At some point, some how, some way, the Democrats stopped being the racialist party despite obsessing over it since Andrew Jackson, and somehow the Republicans became racialist, despite never obsessing over it on any platform, even under Lincoln.
The Dems have always been the racialist carrot & stick party. It's mostly carrot now, vs. stick, but once you envision it this way, there's no going back on the plantation.
Everyone was "racialist" until very recently. Hell I'd argue everyone is still that way, it's just had to go underground for the most part.
No one was a racialist until the 20th century. Fucking Nationalism is a modern concept. If they were anything they were theocrats, monarchists, and imperials.
Race was never a concept for political organization because it wouldn't make sense. There was no Finnish-Portuguese White Brotherhood Alliance of 1324 because that's retarded and doesn't make sense. At no point did Europe stop fighting wars with each other, in order to came together to form an international race-based socialist government. There was no White Commintern. People that don't have the same language, culture, religion, ethnic groups, economic interdependence, shared history, sense of self-identification, or geographical continuity are NOT going to form a political body.
Racialism is a modern, leftist, political construct that replaces the bourgeoise & proletariat with oppressor race and oppressed race.
Explain the wording of the immigration policy of this nation at its founding you filthy fucking liar.
Only in so far as nation and country (and religion too for a while) were synonymous throughout the overwhelming majority of human history.
Germans and Catholics were only debatably White.
Is that the definition you are using?
Absolutely not. Remember, most people lived under monarchies. Nations existed both without states, and between states. Feudalism didn't take nations of people into account. Hell, the Hapsburgs personally owned multiple states, and their subjects were many peoples and many religions. A state was claimed by inheritance from family, not whether or not a nation of people existed from it.
Right, but the funny thing is the KKK member has the same kind of mentality as a leftist. It's a type of identitarian-centrism, but instead of for white people, it's for anyone non-white and/or anyone who is a faggot.
That's why that Ryan Long skit is so good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg
four years later and it's still so good...
So is the cop & the confederate...
the redneck's head belongs on the right with maga hat, as well as the rednecks arms with the gun. the rednecks body does indeed belong on the left with the confederate flag
To be friends we need to have shared morality and culture
The left rejects nationalism and wants to mess with kids, peace isn't an option.
Ironically, the culture of 'tolerance' is what's allowed the left to have gained as much ground as they have. By abandoning it, they would be signaling to their opponents that all bets are off. And the artist was astute to illustrate which side is more armed. It's not going to end well for them.
There are no paradoxes. If your system has a paradox it is false.
You're misusing a couple things here in philosophy. Paradoxes do not exist in nature because nature is the only complete and consistent system within itself.
All logical systems will have a logical end-point. This is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. All logical systems can be either complete or consistent, but never both. Meaning: either you have a logical system that covers all things and gives inconsistent results (generating paradoxes in logic), or you have a logical system which gives you consistent results and has an explicit boundary of where it can be applied.
So yes, paradoxes exist in logic, but not reality. This is because no logical system can ever map to reality completely, so any that try will always have a paradox. Ideologies attempt rationally construct a political framework that covers all possible things that fall under politics (which can become everything). As such, unless your ideology has a point where it no longer applies, you will never have an ideology without a paradox.
I knew you were gonna come by with bullshit again. You are like the liberal newscaster saying "Hindenburg's (sic) Uncertainty Principle is why we can't accurately predict election results."
First it is Gödel's incompleteness theorems, not "Goodell's" theorem. Second it only applies to first order logical systems. Third the incompleteness theorem only says that a theory cannot prove itself. Any political theory is so far removed from ZFC that you pretending like it means anything in the realm of political frameworks is probably the most smooth brain thing I will read this entire year. It's like saying that you cannot use Newton's laws to calculate ballistics because the Standard Model cannot account for CP-symmetry breaking.
I corrected the spelling.
Besides that, I'm not asking you to mathematically prove a political opinion. I'm saying you're misapplying the concept of a paradox, and I'm giving you an example of a larger trend in sciences which shows that you can't have perfect mapping of any model onto reality. A paradox doesn't exist in reality because it's an issue with the model which is what you said, but you're assuming there's a model that won't have one.
No political theory is going to exist without an inconsistency, and you're never going to find or make one. This is especially true because you are attempting to map a theory onto reality which will never map perfectly, assuming you could develop a near perfect political theory, which you can't.
That is false, because reality exists. Just because our descriptions are inadequate right now does not mean they will always be so.
Reality exists, theory is an abstraction. You will never get to a complete understanding of reality, especially as a political theory, because political science is not a rational, material, science. Political Rationalism is wrong.
Then again, even if Political Science was a rational, material, science; just like what I was trying to get with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem; you still can't get to a theory of politics which maps to reality perfectly. Mathematics is not a good enough model to map completely to reality. Logic is not a good enough model to map to reality completely. It's why scientific revolutions exist.
Theory is a description. Each step towards the theory of everything, things get simpler, if more high energy. It is the same few laws repeated over and over again at smaller and larger scales. That is not abstraction, that is the opposite of abstraction. You were bringing up Conway's game of life the other day, so you should understand how simple laws can give rise to apparent complexity. If you know the state of the universe at a given point, you can calculate the state of the universe at any point in the future or the past. We are not there yet, but we will be, provided libertarian don't destroy all science funding or democrats give it all to the niggers.
It's only when you zoom out, and away from first principles that you get unsolved complicated crap like the Navier-Stokes equations.
"things get simpler" is not reality. You're talking about simplexity, but that doesn't have any relation to what you can understand as a homo sapien in regards to the universe. The universe is as it is, it does not have a requirement to conform to human intuition. What it could it simplify to may only be simple from a non-human perspective. And again, that is within the material universe. Politics is non-rational, and non-material.
You are attempting to conflate being reductive as a universal principle. Even this comment:
demonstrates your own ignorance. There's zero nuance in the statement. It's an attempted attack on me, a universal statement of all libertarians, a universal statement on all blacks, an assumption about the universal intent of all blacks at all times and all places, and an assumption that science can only be funded by the government. You've made a litany of assumptions because you believe that a perfect ideology can exist while being complete and consistent; thus, you can simply operate entirely off of thought-terminating cliches.
That's not reality. It's never reality. There is no ideology that will correctly map to the universe, and you will always have paradoxes in all models, particularly when dealing with non-material topics.
This is kind of like the idea that a computer could 100% simulate the entire universe. It doesn't matter how much you refine your language and ideas, a mental model will never 100% capture all of reality, especially not through written language.
You are confusing the information capacity of the universe with it's laws. A larger universe can simulate a smaller universe, even if it has identical laws.
We're not talking about a larger universe simulating a smaller universe. You actually claimed the inverse, that a smaller universe can simulate a larger universe.
Actually, as long as our “descriptions” are based on systems of logic, they will remain fundamentally “incomplete”, or in Gödel’s framing, there will always be true statements which cannot be proven true within any given system. That’s why it was such a mindfuck to mathematicians at the time and that’s also why it’s been practically ignored since
It's rightfully ignored because it is wrong. The proof is that the universe exists. Any paradox is equivalent to 1 = 0, which means if a paradox exists then one could exploit whatever system that contains it to destroy matter and eventually the universe.
? - the theorem is talking about systems of logic, a human created idea, not “the universe”, all that is demonstrated by your observation is that the universe must not be a purely logic-based system as we understand such a thing. Have you read much about it and what it actually says?
You mean like…the paradox of creatio ex nihilo?
Gödel* (though the idea of Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner publishing a work which “debunks logic” is pretty funny)
Fair enough.
It's another version of "Everyone who criticizes me is Hitler".
Progressives think of themselves as champions of virtue. Since they are the virtuous ones, those who are not like them must not be virtuous. Those Other People don't just have different values or lived experiences, they're evil. They have looked at the obvious and irrevocable virtue of Progressivism and knowingly rejected that virtue. You cannot reason with evil. You cannot compromise or negotiate with evil. You cannot coexist with evil. The only thing you can do is eliminate the evil.
You can only ingest so many messages of identity-based harm being everywhere before you start to really believe it. Social anxiety evolves into paranoia. The world becomes full of people who want to kill you for your identity. At that point, the only option left on the table is to strike first, killing them before they kill you. After all, your social media feed keeps telling you that this is a matter of life or death. If your lefty friends really meant this, they wouldn't be crying on Twitter; they would be arming themselves.
If religion is the opiate of the masses, then Twitter is crystal meth.
MUH PARADOX OF TOLERANCE
christ alive
you've spent the last 4 years demanding we celebrate that which you should be deathly afraid of asking us to tolerate.
Blacks use the word "faggot" the most lol. Its why democrats lost so much. Too much faggot pandering. 90% of the world doesnt like all this gay shit or avoid it or at best are neutral about it. All this pride celebrating and pandering is a tactical error that made legal immigrants, black males, poc males, and muslims turn against democrats.
The left's presentation of the paradox of tolerance is a lie. They would tell you they are intolerant of the intolerant, when they are actually intolerant of the intolerant of the intolerant. They defend the enemies who fired the first shot.
the paradox is that every group that acts on the paradox of intolerance becomes intolerant itself, which forces the rest of the tolerant society to become intolerant against said group.
which leads to an intolerant society (cause eventually no one tolerant is left, who can move against the intolerant).
somehow the left ignores it and sees it as a justification of being intolerant
Someone needs to edit the KKK member and put them next to then black guy and the cop taking a knee next to the rainbow fag. Make it much more accurate.
Go for it.
If we cannot come together then the left will need to accept their place as the fringe minority that the American people have absolutely rejected and can be safely ignored and purged from the govt
They need to keep this up. It's just going to turn the screws tighter
Ahh, this old chestnut. The one about we can only tolerate what makes us better than you, because we're better than you.
When I hear it, I can't help but think "Nah, don't shave your head, just do chemotherapy for the same outcome."
Get better.
I don’t have lefty friends anymore. They self deported.
Apparently in lefty friend land if they call you racist, you are supposed to stop everything & apologize immediately. If you fail to, they will go no-contact & hide in their safe corners of the internet.
A best friend told me he wasn't going to protect me from the riots four years ago. He and I wanted to make these cool theme design conventions. Puzzles, stories, and nerf battles.
He was one of my inspirations to move to Florida, both for the conventions and safety.
I told you dude, you need NEW FRIENDS.
I am pretty sure, the woke feminist left was never about "let's be friends". If they were, they would not have actively alienated men, whites and straights. Remember:
"Fucking white male"
"All whites are racists"
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"
"Front hole"
"Birthing people"
I can't believe they unironically advertise that you have to accept a paradox to understand their system.
No mercy.
I don’t know of any young people who support the democrats. Those large numbers may be as fake as Kamala’s votes in blue states.
Paradox of tolerance sounds exactly like what they are doing to Europe via open borders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
At least we know the trans one has a 41% chance to to attempt to leave the equation by itself.
The presuppositions underlying "the paradox of tolerance" are A) that being Tolerant is necessary and good, and B) that our view of what to tolerate is correct. When you analyze "the paradox of tolerance" with these identified, it simply reduces down to, "societies can decide and enforce their social landscape" which is a blindingly banal thing to say. It also means that whoever is in power can enforce social rules, which is also obvious. Luckily, this is also an invitation for dissidents like us to accrue power.