Speaking of the paradox of tolerance, here's a pretentious analysis of Dirty Harry I came across in the wild
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
I think Heinlein said it better.
"Violence is the Supreme Authority, from which, all other Authority is Derived."
Even Team America said it better.
"See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!"
But real men get this on an instinctual level. There are just certain behaviors that merit a violent response, real men know this. It's just that these day's we've delegated that response to the state, letting everyone else pretend this isn't the case and pretend they're more moral than the real men.
The Paradox of Tolerance, is just a way of handwaving away reality. Real "Tolerance" as they describe it doesn't exist. There are certain behaviors that cannot be accepted. Simple as. People just fight over what behaviors those are.
Let's just acknowledge the truth that most of the people calling for tolerance these days are calling for it strictly in whatever direction they want it to go and nowhere else.
It's becoming interchangeable with "sacrifice" and you are the one expected to make it.
In the name of making justice dispassionate and fair, but I think it should be clear by now that the government doesn't dispense justice much more fairly at all.
Even Mike Tyson of all people had some wise words: “Social media made you all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it”
And the notion that we've outgrown responding to unacceptable behaviors with violence is laughable. As you said, weve just outsourced it, to the government. The problem is that we delegated it to them and they fail to deliver. So sometimes, what's the expression, if you want something done right you have to do it yourself.
Yes.
If truth is not protected, it is drowned in lies.
So fuck off. We won. We are in control now.
(to the writer, not you)
The people who think the paradox of tolerance is in any way insightful are retards. Repost from my comment in the other thread:
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.
Exactly. Tolerance is not an objectively defined value. It’s just a simple verb.
The people who give it any credence are retarded leftists. These are the same people who think the bully who hits a student, and the student who hit the bully back, committed equally condemnable acts. Because they are so retarded they can't distinguish between aggressor and victim acting in self defense. They just see the act, not the context. It has to be some mental deficiency. They go through life incapable of processing certain truths or logic. I half wonder if they only see half the colors we do. Literally their worldview is so askew from reality that you wonder what else they are experiencing differently from fully functioning people.
I'm reasonably certain that the actual book in question that developed the argument 'paradox of tolerance' doesn't actually say what midwit liberals think it says. By this point, I'm going to have to track down a copy of the book and read the damn thing.
...which doesn't exactly sound like a bad thing. Going by some chapter synopsis, a number of chapters seem to go into how Marx was a fucking idiot, so it'll be entertaining, if nothing else.
Wouldn't be the first time that a major concept at the heart of Leftism and the Woke is them completely misunderstanding a legitimate thing and then parading it around.
Rape culture and Tabula Rasa are two others they do it to daily.
Rape culture being a prison thing and Tabula Rasa coming from???
Tabula Rasa was a legitimate Psychology theory in the mid 1900s for a handful of years. A lot of wild and downright evil experiments were done to try and prove it, and they consistently came up empty. So it was thrown away as a scientific approach to how humans work and think.
But the Left literally builds its foundation on the notion of it, its why they say things like "teach men to not rape," even though they don't use the actual term anymore due to its negative connotation.
It's a simple rhetorical device to try and give the Leftist an opportunity to say, "I should be in charge of the decisions of tolerance".
This is followed up with Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, whereby Harry Callahan becomes an absolute hero if he ignores the bank robberies and shoots someone in the head because they have a "Nixon Now" bumper sticker.
Step 1 of the narcissist playbook, make it about yourself.
Step 2, subjective blogging in order to support step 1 because facts are verboten.
Step 3, buttering up the readers to get them on side.
Yes we can hear your whining through every keystroke.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
These are the same people who tell you Paul Kersey,Death Wish,is racist despite the gangs are all some how mixed race.
I put this paradox under the banner of logical fallacy.
Since what is described as "tolerance" can be defined by the cultural norms of a certain society, what is marked as "intolerance" is entirely subjective to the society handling said "intolerance". The idea of what qualifies as "intolerance" is not absolutely transferable between societies, and such, no universal definition can exist so long as multiple societies cohabit this planet. With there being no concrete definition between societies, you can never properly define "intolerance", and therefore never be justified in your own intolerance towards "intolerance".
Declaring that some intolerance is necessary opens the door for conflation of what is deemed as intolerance based on other unrelated subjects. A good example of this would be the current year Marxists. According to the history books Nazis are the most recent examples of "intolerance", however these marxists view all forms of anti-neomarxism as akin to Nazism, therefore it's perfectly acceptable to them to be intolerant to people who are against neomarxism, because to them they are no different than "Nazis".
archive link
"Wait a second! Wicked sick extra-judicial killings probably won't pass the categorical imperative!" -liberal approaching the narrative sophistication of a Greek play.
It's down a ways, but total midwit death is on the list.
They won't pass a categorical imperative, and that's why we don't do it.
However, not a single killing in the first film was extra-judicial. Each of them were legitimate acts of self-defense.
It's been a few years since I've seen it, but I believe you. My main memory was the wicked sick aspect.
Justified force isn't barbaric, Scorpio-lover. Harry is only "Dirty" in the context of communist-infiltrated Hollywood.
They call him Dirty Harry because the cops make him do all the unpleasant jobs, not because he's a corrupt cop. They literally spell it out in the first movie when he talks the guy out of suicide.
I was critiquing the idea that we should be morally uncertain of Callahan instead of unmitigated supporters by using the idea of a dirty cop which is the only way this uncertainty can be claimed.
You're gay
The analysis isn't really wrong, but the part where he says, "the film forces the viewer to think on a philosophical plane, especially about Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance" comes across as a bit pretentious to me. The same reviewer also says that Dirty Harry may be fascist later on in that comment thread.
Humans have tens of thousands of years of feral instinct, a whole lot more than that if we count pre-human animals, and maybe only a few millenniums of civilization.
Its a supreme act of arrogance that only a Liberal could have to think that we can force evolution to happen at our desire and leisure. Its truly believing we can be God.
Back before men settled points of honor in courtrooms, they were settled in duels. Code Duello was the rules then, and back then you were a lot less willing to run your mouth if you had to back it with your life.
Even this wasn't enough, though. Duelling was outlawed eventually because too many powerful men were getting killed in duels.
That being said, this fucking pretentious dweeb wasn't stuffed into lockers enough in high school....
The film doesn't answer this because Dirty Harry is literally a response to the fact that the left-wing government has allowed crime to run absolutely rampant, including serial killing pedophiles. Callahan is more concerned with stopping evil than he is with virtue signaling to San Francisco's ideals.
THIS IS BECAUSE SAN FRANCISCO IS MORE CONCERNED WITH VIRTUE SIGNALING THAN STOPPING SERIAL KILLING PEDOPHILES
The film isn't asking who should be in charge of making determinations about intolerance. It's saying YOU are already in charge of that tolerance, and you are tolerating serial killing child rapists, while being intolerant to his gruff language. Harry isn't the mayor, he's a hero trying to save people within a broken system. Your broken system.
What's great is that the sequel to this movie actually addresses this concern. Harry ends of having to kill a conspiracy of corrupt cops that are assassinating judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and criminals because they are actual vigilantes and tyrants who made the decision of tolerance on their own.