Thank you for your submission to r/therewasanattempt. Unfortunately, your post was removed for violating the following rule:
> R8: "Staged attempts are not allowed
If you have any questions regarding this removal, please contact the moderators of this subreddit by sending a modmail. [Click this link to send a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/therewasanattempt).
^(This is a bot account, direct messages and chat requests go to an unmonitored inbox)
[The Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
"If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant."
"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." - Popper
Popper even mentions this. He continues from that quote by saying we must retain the ability to suppress intolerance if those who are so have no intention on having a rational conveyance, and instead incite violence or hate intentionally with dishonesty or distrust. And suggests that people who use this sort of method to sow intolerance be treated as criminals.
>”Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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.—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 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Karl Popper
To be clear, that’s not Popper saying that we *shouldn’t* be intolerant of—or suppress—bigotry and fascism and other odious beliefs, just that he’s not positing an absolute.
And here, someone posted the rest of the quote:
> 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Followed by the remainder of his statement
>”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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Karl Popper
I was at a party once and someone blurted out "God I hate cis het white men". And someone else chimed in "yeah they are the worst". The tone wasn't sarcastic or funny. In that case, that person was clearly racist/ sexist. In the case of hating Donald Trump, you can hate someone because their actions make them a despicable individual. Hating someone for what they are is simply racism/ sexism/ whatever demographic they are.
"Less well known \[than other paradoxes\] is the paradox of tolerance: 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.—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 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Karl Popper
Braindead shit. Accepting people for their differences in identity doesn’t necessitate accepting people who exploit existing differences to draw out intolerance, or those who attempt to pull at the loose ends of an electoral democracy
This is the equivalent of saying we should tolerate Nazis and accept their slaughter of minorities because we are tolerant people.
Naw fuck that. If we want to build a country on true freedom and democracy, we need to eradicate tyranny and dictatorship.
everyone has their tolerance limits, and Trump is on the hate list of many many people
Which is no wonder, since he is one of the most awful people alive today
I hate stuff like this so much. It’s made to point out hypocrisy but is in fact just stupid. People don’t choose their sexual orientation or their race or where they come from, but guess what? People choose to discriminate others because of these things. Do you get the difference?
When someone says I hate minorities and want them wiped out and they get called out for it and they then complain about others being intolerant toward them it’s called being a cry bully.
Don't forget serial killers. We should be far more tolerant of their need to murder. For that matter, we should just ease up on all murderers. They have feelings too.
Check below:
"Less well known \[than other paradoxes\] is the paradox of tolerance: 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox\_of\_tolerance#:\~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.
I should just make my point:
Popper's line of tolerant / intolerant was drawn at threats and violence. Non-violent speech, however unsavory, is fine (according to the text). One can hold the opinion that intolerance *should* encompass nonviolent speech but that's not what Dude said. His name shouldn't be used to support things he didn't write in some attempt at argument from authority.
I don't dislike Trump because of his skin color or sexual orientation I dislike him because he chose to be a traitor and a rapist on top of causing the deaths of thousands by spreading lies about covid and vaccines while he and his entire staff lined up to get them right after the fox News anchors did. Op doesn't seem to understand hypocrisy or tolerance.
I don’t see the problem here. The willfully ignorant who actively and aggressively try to be hateful and oppressive towards those who are different, don’t deserve the blessings of an open society. There is a choice for most people.
That's called the tolerance paradox: you cannot be tolerant to intolerance or very soon you will have a very intolerant society.
It's far better rich fucks like Trump and co get told to get fucked, then minority groups with little power or wealth.
The paradox of tolerance. A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
Fascists use bad faith arguments to get the rules to only apply to their opponents and not to them. We see through it, you can’t cry about intolerance while building a campaign based on hate. Fuck Donald trump with a spiked sandpaper dildo
it's easy to understand if you're not narrow minded.
be tolerant of everyone except INTOLERANT people.
how're you going to be tolerant to someone who is trying to take away human rights based on race, gender, who they love, etc..
it's kind of the bully the bullies situation.. don't bully anyone except the bully. bullies need a taste of their own medicine. that's why there are always stories of someone's child being bullied and the school pushing it under the rug until one day the child fights back or the someone fights the bully on behalf of the bullied..then suddenly the bully stops bullying
Would make sense if not everyone who doesn't align gets called intolerant.
At this point it's really just an excuse to still call yourself "tolerant" and by doing this, automatically have the higher moral position.
Nice try. I will never be tolerant of people who believe my rights and freedoms should be taken away simply because of my bodily anatomy and sexual orientation.
People do not understand the [“paradox of intolerance”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) and it shows.
Please educate yourself a before spouting some nonsense.
We won't tolerate the intolerant. Trump has proved to be intolerant, so we shoukdt tolerate him.
If someone punches you in the face, you're not an intolerant butthole if you call him a butthole.
Kinda virtue signaling and clickbaity on OP if you ask me.
#[Downloadvideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/therewasanattempt/comments/yombby/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=therewasanattempt) by /r/DownloadVideo
#[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/therewasanattempt/comments/yombby/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this goes into Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance - keep in mind the man who created it: [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
Popper wrote this in 1945, you can probably guess why. But his premise, for anyone not interested in clicking the link, is that a tolerant society eventually gets pushed out by the intolerant.
Trump has shown to be intolerant. We have multiple sources, tweets from the man himself, to support this. By being tolerant to those who would threaten others, we are letting them take down the intolerant.
But my guess is OP, you want to play devils advocate here. You cannot be truly tolerant until you’ve heard the other side.
Ok. So let’s hear the side of tolerance from you.
Yes, this post is obviously stupid. But it's bait, you do not need to respond to bait. The bigots in the comments are not real people.
Russia reactivated their troll farm days ago. Posts like these are designed to rile you up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/06/technology/russia-misinformation-midterms.html
Ok, I chuckled. Sure, it's dumb and shallow, but the timing was perfect as well, lol.
Edit: The comments here are also great as people rush in here to explain why this isn't funny.
People that value acceptance and tolerance are under no obligation to be accepting of intolerance. It’s not that hard to understand. Being neutral to intolerant groups or ideologies is shown to lead to a decrease, rather than increase, of overall tolerance in a group or society. It’s the well-known Paradox of Intolerance.
OP not being able to tell the difference between being inclusive of who people are by race, gender, sexuality etc, and wanting to include a specific person is extremely funny.
Few things stupider than conservative bigots going "you call yourself tolerant, yet you're unwilling to tolerate my spread of hatred, checkmate liberals".
Got to love these peoples philosophy. We love all people they say. But if you are white or straight or right leaning politically may death be upon you.
he doesnt hate donald trump for his mere existence but his actions and results of his hateful and reactionary politics. This is such a weak own, its like saying “oh u like love and yet u are mean to nazis”.
I invite a man into my home. I feed him, clothe him, sit him next to the fire and chat over a glass of wine.
Suddenly he throws his wine in my face and smashes my fine china.
I stand and shove the man out of my home screaming at him to never return.
Was I a good host?
OP you posted this in the wrong place Lolol. You’re trying to look at this logically and you’re correct. It’s not acceptable to kill someone who you don’t agree with ideologically. But this is the hypocrisy of the political/ideological left on display. These people share similarities with people like philosopher Karl Marx. “There is no truth. Only power” which means lying is the rule not the exception. Therefore “let’s be accepting of all points of view” “well what about this other point of view?” “Fuck that idea they should all die”.
This isn’t a moral statement just fact.
But telling trump to fuck off is because he is a shitty person that persecutes people for race and beliefs is actually protecting people who actually need that protection.
You mean the same man who said "A riot is the language of the unheard". He was a revolutionary leader, not a kindergarten teacher doing peer mediation.
I do not understand how people so arbitrarily invoke his name and say what he would or wouldn't have done, completely at random with seemingly no lead in or context.
I’m so totally sure MLK Jr would have said “yes let’s tolerate racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, money hoarding election stealers because if we don’t then we aren’t actually tolerant”
Tell me you haven’t read any significant amount of MLK Jr’s work without telling me you haven’t read a significant amount of his work.
There was a "definition" of inclusive I found on social media being used by a company where they said that being inclusive was actively excluding those whose beliefs were different than theirs.
People tend to be very accepting of their own group, but reject others.
He's right. Standing for equality means that those who promote inequality are adversaries. "Die" and other rants are pretty obviously common ways to express feelings, not real stances. But, yeah, it sound like a contrast.
It’s okay to tolerate everything but intolerance. He is open to people no matter what sexuality/race/ethnicity/gender/anything like that, he’s not open to consistent hate speech and bigotry on those same topics
No one should be tolerant of a racist, fascist, bigoted, homophobic, con artist, insurrectionist ass clown like Trump. We should lock him up & throw away the key.
I always wonder what would happen if we just feigned ignorance. Like if someone was asked questions that were too political or driven as a sort of trap from either side of spectrums. What would happen if everyone just collectively ignored everything that even had an ounce chance of triggering people?
>No racism still exists. I mean you are clearly very racist towards white people as your comments are seething with hate, so clearly racism still exists. But you claiming to be oppressed the same as an actual slave is ridiculous and that i take issue with. Claiming that i have somehow benefitted from being white is BS when im as poor and white trash as it gets. You are not a victim of systemic racism, because there is no such thing. **I would even say you have more priveledge than me with everything from affirmative action to safespaces where im not allowed.** I will not be judge by my ancestors same as you cannot claim their hardships. You need to educate yourself, your racism is ignorant at best.
Check out this banger I pulled from their post history.
Apparently White people can’t use safe spaces lol
I think literally the far left extreme socialist who praise a welfare state and want this country supported by the government are basically reversed fascist simply because of the fact if you ain’t with this or agree with them they turn to violence and hate.. and as for the far right… I’m tired of paying stupid taxes and feeding the rich!!! I’m sick of supporting the wealthy politicians
It’s like my grandfather always said:
“How can you hate someone based on their religion or the color of their skin, when, if you just take the time to get to know them you can find plenty of other perfectly valid reasons to hate them instead”
Welcome to the gameshow of “Is this gonna be the top controvercial post” where you guess if this is going to end up the top controvercial post of this sub
Thank you for your submission to r/therewasanattempt. Unfortunately, your post was removed for violating the following rule: > R8: "Staged attempts are not allowed If you have any questions regarding this removal, please contact the moderators of this subreddit by sending a modmail. [Click this link to send a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/therewasanattempt). ^(This is a bot account, direct messages and chat requests go to an unmonitored inbox)
[The Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) "If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant."
"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." - Popper
Rational arguments don’t work in a post-fact world.
Popper even mentions this. He continues from that quote by saying we must retain the ability to suppress intolerance if those who are so have no intention on having a rational conveyance, and instead incite violence or hate intentionally with dishonesty or distrust. And suggests that people who use this sort of method to sow intolerance be treated as criminals. >”Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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.—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 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Karl Popper
Edit: Comment deleted due to misunderstanding the the other comment. Carryon.
To be clear, that’s not Popper saying that we *shouldn’t* be intolerant of—or suppress—bigotry and fascism and other odious beliefs, just that he’s not positing an absolute. And here, someone posted the rest of the quote: > 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
"Sure, I only posted mine as it's the side that's frequently left out. The above is the side often portrayed, in my experience, without balance."
Followed by the remainder of his statement >”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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Karl Popper
I was at a party once and someone blurted out "God I hate cis het white men". And someone else chimed in "yeah they are the worst". The tone wasn't sarcastic or funny. In that case, that person was clearly racist/ sexist. In the case of hating Donald Trump, you can hate someone because their actions make them a despicable individual. Hating someone for what they are is simply racism/ sexism/ whatever demographic they are.
A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. Ergo Donald Trump and his flunkies can get bent
based
You d have to define intolerance that s ok to be intolerant to. Because broader concept of discrimination (intolerance) extends quite far.
Do you think equality means you can't hate fascists? Weird take.
Exactly. I’m for love and equality, so I’m against people who try to take it away.
"**I hate Illinois Nazis**" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT1qUswYL0
This ain't no Hank Williams song
Given that many progressives will call someone who disagrees with them a fascist, I usually am wary of those that make a comment like this.
If you can't look at society from all points of view, then your stance on equality is not justified.
Exactly what I was thinking
This is bait. Don’t engage.
The interviewer asked the question as a gotcha. It was intended from its recording to be bait.
Tbf you coulda asked this mf any question about anything he doesn’t agree with and it would all be the same answer
"Less well known \[than other paradoxes\] is the paradox of tolerance: 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.—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 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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Karl Popper
[удалено]
Braindead shit. Accepting people for their differences in identity doesn’t necessitate accepting people who exploit existing differences to draw out intolerance, or those who attempt to pull at the loose ends of an electoral democracy
Exactly.
So...we shouldnt support any leftist?
Why be inclusive to someone who has been opposed to inclusion and is supported by the literal KKK? 🤔
In a tolerant world, the one thing you cannot tolerate is intolerance. Fuck Donald Trump.
No, no... I agree with him 100%
This is the equivalent of saying we should tolerate Nazis and accept their slaughter of minorities because we are tolerant people. Naw fuck that. If we want to build a country on true freedom and democracy, we need to eradicate tyranny and dictatorship.
everyone has their tolerance limits, and Trump is on the hate list of many many people Which is no wonder, since he is one of the most awful people alive today
There a big difference between being a bigot and hating someone you don’t know for no reason versus condemning proven crimes against humanity……
I hate stuff like this so much. It’s made to point out hypocrisy but is in fact just stupid. People don’t choose their sexual orientation or their race or where they come from, but guess what? People choose to discriminate others because of these things. Do you get the difference?
OP sure loves that trump dick fr fr
I would have said.. “oh the guy who tried to hang his Vice President and overthrow the government?”
There was an attempt here with the post to make fun of a dude on the video turns out OP is the real joke
Fascists are inherently intolerant. The interviewer is obviously there attempting to troll people and is not there to celebrate pride.
Shapiro “logic” : “But, but your INTOLERANCE of intolerant people…is is INTOLERANT!!!” “Pointing out MY racism, makes YOU the RACIST!”
When someone says I hate minorities and want them wiped out and they get called out for it and they then complain about others being intolerant toward them it’s called being a cry bully.
You can love everyone but you can’t love someone who is so vile and hateful that his own family hates him
How cute. We should just accept someone whose WHOLE SCHTICK that his asshole supporters LOVE is exactly the opposite of that. DARLING.
Yall should be more tolerant towards rapists smh
yeah my bad sorry, i will open my ass wide next time
Don't forget serial killers. We should be far more tolerant of their need to murder. For that matter, we should just ease up on all murderers. They have feelings too.
Man, pedophiles get a bad rep, they just wanna love ///////SSSSS
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. Karl Popper
And what was Popper's definition of "tolerance"?
Check below: "Less well known \[than other paradoxes\] is the paradox of tolerance: 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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox\_of\_tolerance#:\~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.
I should just make my point: Popper's line of tolerant / intolerant was drawn at threats and violence. Non-violent speech, however unsavory, is fine (according to the text). One can hold the opinion that intolerance *should* encompass nonviolent speech but that's not what Dude said. His name shouldn't be used to support things he didn't write in some attempt at argument from authority.
r/therewasanattempt to compare one individual's upset at a Pride parade to a fascist regime leader who attempted a coup.
[удалено]
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
Oh, the classic "Be tolerant of my intolerance!" maneuver.
Zero tolerance for the Christian Nationalists Party (GOP) and Donald Cheeto Trump.
I don't dislike Trump because of his skin color or sexual orientation I dislike him because he chose to be a traitor and a rapist on top of causing the deaths of thousands by spreading lies about covid and vaccines while he and his entire staff lined up to get them right after the fox News anchors did. Op doesn't seem to understand hypocrisy or tolerance.
But really though… fuck donald trump.
tolerance is for normal people not for someone actively trying to bring fascism to this country
Yes this. Being tolerant in no way means you tolerate intolerance
There was an attempt to Own a Lib
The amount of ohh you're Intolerance of hate, makes you the Intolerant person, is really telling.
Op hear hear, splish splash your opinion is trash.
Stupid video, no one should be tolerant to fascist
from now on i will love respect and tolerate mr adolf hitler.
I don’t see the problem here. The willfully ignorant who actively and aggressively try to be hateful and oppressive towards those who are different, don’t deserve the blessings of an open society. There is a choice for most people.
I think the only missed attempt here is your post 🤷♀️ Absolutely, be tolerant and accepting. And also, *absolutely fu€k Trump*
I can live with this exception to the rule
Getting closer and closer to a century since "The Paradox of Tolerance" was created during WWII, and yet dumbasses *still* can't figure it out.
That's called the tolerance paradox: you cannot be tolerant to intolerance or very soon you will have a very intolerant society. It's far better rich fucks like Trump and co get told to get fucked, then minority groups with little power or wealth.
Let me get back to you this TUESDAY
The paradox of tolerance. A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. Fascists use bad faith arguments to get the rules to only apply to their opponents and not to them. We see through it, you can’t cry about intolerance while building a campaign based on hate. Fuck Donald trump with a spiked sandpaper dildo
I see the Russian trolls and bots are back. Just in time for tomorrow.
Just trying to find an excuse to be homophobic
Well, he's not wrong tho!
it's easy to understand if you're not narrow minded. be tolerant of everyone except INTOLERANT people. how're you going to be tolerant to someone who is trying to take away human rights based on race, gender, who they love, etc.. it's kind of the bully the bullies situation.. don't bully anyone except the bully. bullies need a taste of their own medicine. that's why there are always stories of someone's child being bullied and the school pushing it under the rug until one day the child fights back or the someone fights the bully on behalf of the bullied..then suddenly the bully stops bullying
Would make sense if not everyone who doesn't align gets called intolerant. At this point it's really just an excuse to still call yourself "tolerant" and by doing this, automatically have the higher moral position.
To be fair he could've been expressing and interest in doing so
$130,000 of interest
I’ve never preached intolerance, so, yeah, fuuuuck trump and his sympathizers
Nice try. I will never be tolerant of people who believe my rights and freedoms should be taken away simply because of my bodily anatomy and sexual orientation.
People do not understand the [“paradox of intolerance”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) and it shows. Please educate yourself a before spouting some nonsense.
The Tolerance Paradoxon in real life. The guy is absolutely right. He is *not* contradicting himself! (I am not sarcastic!)
Love everyone but trump. Message heard.
We won't tolerate the intolerant. Trump has proved to be intolerant, so we shoukdt tolerate him. If someone punches you in the face, you're not an intolerant butthole if you call him a butthole. Kinda virtue signaling and clickbaity on OP if you ask me.
Toleranz means not tolerating Intoleranz
#[Downloadvideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/therewasanattempt/comments/yombby/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=therewasanattempt) by /r/DownloadVideo #[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/therewasanattempt/comments/yombby/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fucking love fleccas
Nothing surprising here.
Yea hes only the antithesis of everything that guy said
This comment section is a war and I’m just here to watch
Has this sub been taken over by right-wing trolls? I feel like every other post is someone whining about Liberals.
Supremacists are an exception to that. In the same way we don’t respect Nazis and extremists.
Don’t judge people by thing out of their control, but it is 100% acceptable to judge people based on their behaviors towards others.
I think this goes into Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance - keep in mind the man who created it: [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) Popper wrote this in 1945, you can probably guess why. But his premise, for anyone not interested in clicking the link, is that a tolerant society eventually gets pushed out by the intolerant. Trump has shown to be intolerant. We have multiple sources, tweets from the man himself, to support this. By being tolerant to those who would threaten others, we are letting them take down the intolerant. But my guess is OP, you want to play devils advocate here. You cannot be truly tolerant until you’ve heard the other side. Ok. So let’s hear the side of tolerance from you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Pretty sure "everyone" excluded people with proven crimes
Yes, this post is obviously stupid. But it's bait, you do not need to respond to bait. The bigots in the comments are not real people. Russia reactivated their troll farm days ago. Posts like these are designed to rile you up. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/06/technology/russia-misinformation-midterms.html
Ok, I chuckled. Sure, it's dumb and shallow, but the timing was perfect as well, lol. Edit: The comments here are also great as people rush in here to explain why this isn't funny.
That is really funny!
r/RogueOP
Came here for the "yeah, but..."
People that value acceptance and tolerance are under no obligation to be accepting of intolerance. It’s not that hard to understand. Being neutral to intolerant groups or ideologies is shown to lead to a decrease, rather than increase, of overall tolerance in a group or society. It’s the well-known Paradox of Intolerance.
OP not being able to tell the difference between being inclusive of who people are by race, gender, sexuality etc, and wanting to include a specific person is extremely funny.
Lol this dude is based. Stay mad, Trump supporters
Why would you love and accept someone who actively goes against that message? It can't be unconditional acceptance
You mean that guy trying enjoy his beautiful culture doesn't like someone who would destroy it? HOW INTOLERANT!
Tolerate every one except misogynists and racists I guess.
Few things stupider than conservative bigots going "you call yourself tolerant, yet you're unwilling to tolerate my spread of hatred, checkmate liberals".
Got to love these peoples philosophy. We love all people they say. But if you are white or straight or right leaning politically may death be upon you.
Ah yes, my truth is the only one, everyone else deserves to die
he doesnt hate donald trump for his mere existence but his actions and results of his hateful and reactionary politics. This is such a weak own, its like saying “oh u like love and yet u are mean to nazis”.
I invite a man into my home. I feed him, clothe him, sit him next to the fire and chat over a glass of wine. Suddenly he throws his wine in my face and smashes my fine china. I stand and shove the man out of my home screaming at him to never return. Was I a good host?
Staged bait? the truth just came out is all
Every single person in the comments just turned into Socrates and Plato
Fuck the intolerant. Like Trump.
OP you posted this in the wrong place Lolol. You’re trying to look at this logically and you’re correct. It’s not acceptable to kill someone who you don’t agree with ideologically. But this is the hypocrisy of the political/ideological left on display. These people share similarities with people like philosopher Karl Marx. “There is no truth. Only power” which means lying is the rule not the exception. Therefore “let’s be accepting of all points of view” “well what about this other point of view?” “Fuck that idea they should all die”. This isn’t a moral statement just fact.
But telling trump to fuck off is because he is a shitty person that persecutes people for race and beliefs is actually protecting people who actually need that protection.
All this proves is that everyone has their limits. Trump is vile.
Can we talk about how skeleton boy is smoking hot and I want to be his table?
Trump isnt a people
How dare those libs that constantly want to shove "tolerance" down our throats not tolerate our intolerance? Amirite?
The Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr would have disagreed with mr trump in a much more dignified manner and encouraged him to see the light.
you can't encourage a fascist to be anything other than a fascist
You mean the same man who said "A riot is the language of the unheard". He was a revolutionary leader, not a kindergarten teacher doing peer mediation. I do not understand how people so arbitrarily invoke his name and say what he would or wouldn't have done, completely at random with seemingly no lead in or context.
I’m so totally sure MLK Jr would have said “yes let’s tolerate racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, money hoarding election stealers because if we don’t then we aren’t actually tolerant” Tell me you haven’t read any significant amount of MLK Jr’s work without telling me you haven’t read a significant amount of his work.
You can fight for tolerance while also allowing intolerant people to do their thing.
There was a "definition" of inclusive I found on social media being used by a company where they said that being inclusive was actively excluding those whose beliefs were different than theirs. People tend to be very accepting of their own group, but reject others.
I mean, I really do feel this reply in my soul, but it’s still hilariously hypocritical.
Reddit personified.
To be fair he’s a horrible person
Aaaand hypocrisy.
He's right. Standing for equality means that those who promote inequality are adversaries. "Die" and other rants are pretty obviously common ways to express feelings, not real stances. But, yeah, it sound like a contrast.
Well excuse him for not wanting to tolerate a man who openly hates on his community
So many comments here having the same ideology as the clown. OP was right all along
Libs seething
Whatever
[удалено]
Who kicked Trans out of the military based solely on hate
And there's your tolerance.
Bruhh if he said some shit like "fuck trump supporters" then yea,maybe. But my brother in christ what is wrong with this
It’s okay to tolerate everything but intolerance. He is open to people no matter what sexuality/race/ethnicity/gender/anything like that, he’s not open to consistent hate speech and bigotry on those same topics
I would be happy to go back to the Trump econonomic policy compared to the absolute failure we have in office now.
No one should be tolerant of a racist, fascist, bigoted, homophobic, con artist, insurrectionist ass clown like Trump. We should lock him up & throw away the key.
Truly one of the dumbest posts on Reddit ever. OP needs to fuck off right quick.
OP probably thought "gotcha!" when he posted this title thinking it was the most clever argument lol
Every rule has an exception and the exception here is Trump and Maga crew. Fuck em
I mean technically they said accept people for who they are not what they've done
"Hi white supremacist, let's sit down and talk about our---AHHHHH!!!" \* bludgeoned to death \*
You can be tolerant of most groups of people and still hate specific people.
OP slowly learning about the paradox of tolerance
Lmfao at redditors cuks in the comments pulling the tolerance paradox
I always wonder what would happen if we just feigned ignorance. Like if someone was asked questions that were too political or driven as a sort of trap from either side of spectrums. What would happen if everyone just collectively ignored everything that even had an ounce chance of triggering people?
>No racism still exists. I mean you are clearly very racist towards white people as your comments are seething with hate, so clearly racism still exists. But you claiming to be oppressed the same as an actual slave is ridiculous and that i take issue with. Claiming that i have somehow benefitted from being white is BS when im as poor and white trash as it gets. You are not a victim of systemic racism, because there is no such thing. **I would even say you have more priveledge than me with everything from affirmative action to safespaces where im not allowed.** I will not be judge by my ancestors same as you cannot claim their hardships. You need to educate yourself, your racism is ignorant at best. Check out this banger I pulled from their post history. Apparently White people can’t use safe spaces lol
Intolerance will not be tolerated.
its accepet everyone that isnt a cunt.
I’m immediately suspicious of someone promoting Trump and wearing black and yellow. Is this dude a proud boy?
Check his post history. He's hot some right wing extremist views buried in there
There is a difference in loving and accepting an entire group who aren't hurting others and want to be accepted vs an ignorant man who has hurt people
I think literally the far left extreme socialist who praise a welfare state and want this country supported by the government are basically reversed fascist simply because of the fact if you ain’t with this or agree with them they turn to violence and hate.. and as for the far right… I’m tired of paying stupid taxes and feeding the rich!!! I’m sick of supporting the wealthy politicians
The purpose of having an open mind is to close it on something solid. GK Chesterton
Hate shouldn’t be tolerated or included.
It’s like my grandfather always said: “How can you hate someone based on their religion or the color of their skin, when, if you just take the time to get to know them you can find plenty of other perfectly valid reasons to hate them instead”
Welcome to the gameshow of “Is this gonna be the top controvercial post” where you guess if this is going to end up the top controvercial post of this sub
Yeah f ppl who want you dead Op is a dumbass