Can you figure out the difference between Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance and the regressive tolerance version of it?

[anylolone]

That's by marcusa's spawn.

Now, for the surprise, here's popper's full formulation:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Funny thing they skip this part

In this formulation, 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 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."

Now here's herbert marcuse's repressive tolerance:

Fit's perfectly to popper's warning.

Updates

+1 y

Here's a bit extra:
img.ifunny.co/.../...aca06d388067f44a867a03_1.webp

[OddBeMe]

Funny how you're right, yet you dont want to tolerate illegal immigrants, Lgbt, etc…

[anylolone]

Why are you conflating pedos with LGBT, and illegal immigrants with legal ones?

It's not funny that I'm right, you could be too, just be principled and maintain internal consistency. This way it becomes quite easy being right.

I know you are allergic to it, but you can build up tolerance instead of wickermen.

[OddBeMe]

You hit the nail. Pedophilia is just urge. Pederasty is the criminal act.

Thats the difference. You lump everyone in without getting to the details. Maybe the “illegals” are fleeing the cartels funded by American drug addicts…

[anylolone]

Nope, pedophilia is a paraphilia.

I don't care about those who keep their paraphilia to themselves, gosh, technically how would I know they had it if they did?

So commonly we designate people who move in to "satiate" their paraphilia as having it, as past actions have great predictive power when it comes to future actions.

But hey, great red herring after that massive wickerman you built.

[OddBeMe]

So you’re for thoughtcrime. Not surprised.

[anylolone]

Literally the opposite of the second sentence.

Please learn to read and to be honest.

[OddBeMe]

So wanting a gun means you’ll use it..

[anylolone]

Again, you know how to read, stop building massive record breaking wickermen and try having some honesty.

Let me repeat, the only reason people have an internal world is in order to act, and the only reason people care about internal worlds of other things is in order to know how they will act.

Intentions only matter because of how much they correlate with results given our knowledge.

A bisexual chick who only ever fucks dudes is not the sort of chick I'll recommend to my lesbian friends and even if she's really bisexual, she's indistinguishable from a poser.

In other words, I've said this before, you understood it.

[ChefPapiChulo]

buddy you need picture books to explain things to you?

[anylolone]

No, but it's about you guys using pictures and missing critical parts of the text, you know, the actual argument instead of the preposition.

The argument that elucidates the preposition?

[ChefPapiChulo]

buddy a picture with like 30 words doesn't say much of anything. there is no argument. an actual argument is well said and has points with facts to support those points. this is just a few pictures, not an actual argument LOLOL.

[anylolone]

Actually, the second comment has the argument.
Not in it's whole, but at least the core parts.

Guess who did what? Oh, right wing libertarians also basically only use the second in response for the first.

Oh, and I can make the whole argument in one line:
Tolerance against those who would use violent force against your arguments is self-destructive.
Of course, it's rather condensed, but up there there's the full popper's preposition and argument, it's not that long.

[ChefPapiChulo]

its just nonsense buddy.

[anylolone]

Do you need more pictures? lol!

[ChefPapiChulo]

i need you to make some sense.

[anylolone]

So, do you need coloring or can it be black and white?

[ChefPapiChulo]

no you just need to start making sense buddy.

[anylolone]

this is the argument:


This is the preamble/premisse:

[ChefPapiChulo]

Lmao

[anylolone]

Easy, ain't it?

Want me to explain the difference of an argument and a preamble?
(could be somewhat be construed as a premisse, but let's call that a stretch and just approach from the preamble angle.)

[WhitneySnow]

No. I’m scratching my head reading this. He uses the word tolerance a lot.

[anylolone]

Read in sections, understand each separately.

Now compare the incomplete version peddled. (the first comic)

[WhitneySnow]

Sorry. I’m pretty smart but this goes over my head lol. And the pics are different in the two comics.

[anylolone]

Yes, they are on purpose.

I could explain, but I fail to see how adding more words would solve what you see as an excess of words. But I could try.

[WhitneySnow]

Tell me which side you’re on. The right or the left. That way I can evaluate what you’re saying more effectively. Cause I can’t tell if you’re in favor of what this guy Popper is saying or against it.

[anylolone]

I'm more than in favor of popper, he had his flaws, but he was great.

Also, that's not how understanding an argument goes, specially since I asked a question, didn't even made an argument. I'm center, by the way, as centrist as centrists come, like popper.

But if I'm to help you, I think it's useful to keep the order in which things are presented, as most people wouldn't have heard about popper or marcuse before being exposed to the first comic.

[WhitneySnow]

I definitely haven’t. Also is the comic meant to be funny? The words seem serious but their expressions made me laugh.

Anyway I agree that when people are intolerant and they enforce their intolerance with fists or pistols, the tolerant might need to use force to suppress them. But I think in general people on the left are being tolerant and people on the right are being intolerant.

[anylolone]

I don't think the comic is meant to be funny but I'm not sure.

It's supposed to be political propaganda, I think.

Oh, first comic was made by leftwing people, second by right wing people.

See, you are starting to understand, now you at least phrased Popper's paradox.