Literally asking for people to interfere with the court case…
Sounds familiar…
Won’t someone rid me on of this meddlesome priest?
deleted by creator
Hold him in jail NOW, no excuses
Remember, guys: defending free speech for Nazis is totally the best way to “preserve democracy”
I really wish more people understood the paradox of tolerance.
Tolerance is a social contract, not an ideal. If someone refuses to adhere to the contract, then they are not entitled to the benefits of it either. Hence, there is no paradox. When we say “be tolerant to all” what we mean is “please adhere to the social contract, and assume everyone else does so, until proven otherwise”.
deleted by creator
The paradox still exists. You described a system that is intolerant of the intolerant. That system is therefore not tolerant. The paradox is that no system can be completely tolerant… Because intolerance would have to be tolerated, which would make the system intolerant.
Your response would be like saying the boot strap paradox doesn’t exist because I haven’t invented time travel. But, I still need to fuck my grandma or else I never will! Wait…
It’s not a paradox to say “I will be tolerant of anyone who is also tolerant.” Whether that’s a good foundation for society to be built upon is subjective I suppose, but it’s not a paradox.
The paradox only exists in a society that claims to be completely tolerant. The society you’re talking about doesn’t claim to be completely tolerant, but it doesn’t solve the paradox of a completely tolerant society. It, in fact, proves the paradox as the intolerant have taken over the system and are not tolerant of all.
I’m making no judgment on the societal system. I also dislike the intolerant. And… people who want to do back in time to have sex with their grandmother!
Yes, but I and the person you originally replied to weren’t talking about an idealized society that tolerates everything and everyone. The paradox only exists when you take the idea to its extreme. It’s very easy to define a system where people are tolerant, and replying with “b-b-but that’s not truly tolerant” doesn’t help anyone here and only serves to muddy the waters.
The comment I responded to responded to this comment.
I really wish more people understood the paradox of tolerance.
Seemed like I could defend the paradox in a response that ignored the existence of the paradox when the OP was wishing more people could understand it. But sure, i muddied the waters.
paradox of tolerance
From Wikipedia…
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Someone needs to explain to me why that’s an absolute/assured (the italicized part).
That seems like one hell of an assumption, and not a foregone conclusion.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party
No, it can stay in a steady state, or if the majority of the population agrees one way it can move back towards tolerance.
because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party
I would argue the opposite. To be able to deal with intolerance you have to be even more tolerant to be patient of them and their opinions.
You’re making a false statement and a straw man.
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance, and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
I don’t think I’m using a straw man. The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical abstraction and I’m describing it within that context.
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance,
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
It’s true the same way that the boxer with one hand tied behind his back will lose a fight. All other things being equal, the side that limits itself will always lose because they deny themselves paths to victory the opposition can use.
they deny themselves paths to victory the opposition can use.
HOW we win, matters.
Not when the threat is existential.
I would argue, especially then.
So you’re saying a fascist dictatorship is preferable to a democracy that doesn’t tolerate fascists? I would say that is objectively false.
Those who want the benefit of the social contract without adhering to it will be dominant as they have an upperhand.
Those who want the benefit of the social contract without adhering to it will be dominant as they have an upperhand.
No, the intolerant won’t be dominant, because they will require everyone to follow them to have that power, and they won’t be followed.
The false premise doesn’t match the reality ‘on the ground’.
That’s what people on here take as facts. A paradox on Wikipedia. Get the fuck out of here. No one needs to read that uslesss garbage. Who defines what is or isn’t tolerate? “Nope, your being intolerant of (insert crazy fucking shit) off the the gulags with ya. These people are as bad as their far right counter parts and can’t even see it. Dripping with the same hate that they feel for the “enemy “
Wikipedia lists 17 different references from the last 70 years on this topic. It is not a new concept. It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
Your entire comment is either disingenuous or asinine.
It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
4chan is not America. Free Speech seems to work fine in America, we’re still here.
And it isn’t about absolute free speech, it’s about giving everyone a turn at the microphone. You can definitely disagree with what someone’s saying, but you should never stop them from trying to say it.
I mean, they should get to say what they want to say.
It’s up to us to recognize it as bullshit and rise above it.
deleted by creator
Unfortunately reality doesn’t work this way. A popular lie beats an unpopular truth. That’s a large part of why we can’t make any meaningful progress on addressing climate change.
No, no they should not. Nazi speech should be criminalized. Just like yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre. Nazi speech is even more deadly and destructive.
Yeah, they say the same things about pro-trans speech.
The problem is, when you start policing speech, you open up the floodgates for people to pick and choose what is right or wrong to say. If it’s okay to ban ‘nazi speech,’ then what’s stopping the next congress from banning ‘trans speech’ or ‘communist speech’?
Nah. It’s up to us, as a society, to work together to keep these ideas at bay through discussion. If we try to ban people from sharing these ideas altogether, it will create a Streisand Effect and give them more power than they would otherwise have.
Germany seems to be doing ok with banning it. And the rest of us aren’t doing so hot with allowing it.
Criticize Israel for a week straight, here. When your ban is lifted, tell us how much you love absolute free speech.
Lock him the fuck up. Enough already.
If you lock him up for this, he becomes a “martyr”. It needs to go through the process slowly for it to hit right. Give him enough rope.
While Trump deserves our ire and some jail time, I’m more concerned with what his popularity says about our society.
He’s a gift in some ways: he’s shown the true colors of our neighbors to us. If he makes it to the oval office again, so much would have to have gone wrong in the belt-and-suspenders approach being used right now.
I trust that there’s an end game to disqualifying him because that’s the only way we can buy time while figuring out how to address the ugly xenophobic truth about the future in the US.
I STRONGLY recommend reading Susan Faludi’s “stiffed” if you want a play book on where we’re headed (spoiler: it’s the 90s again, but worse because one of the lost boys could be POTUS again)
He’s a gift in some ways: he’s shown the true colors of our neighbors to us.
I’d be more thankful if there were way less “neighbors” showing their true colors right now.
Belt-and-suspendera approach? We’re barely using a drawstring to keep our pants up.
The Judge after a Right Wing Terrorist puts a bullet in his head: “Let this $10000 fine be a warning to NOT let this happen again!”
WHY IS THIS MAN STILL WALKING FREE
The judge created this. By slapping him on the wrist, ever so gently, he is absolutely going to get more of it.
Wise TF up judge. Jail. No posting anything about the trial, your court, or anyone involved. You are not dealing with a normal person. He’s a demented sociopath. You can not allow this.
Trump is a damn criminal fascist grifter. The day he leaves our lives, I’ll do a goddamn dance.
Be careful with what you wish for. Hugo Chavez once said “I am more dangerous dead than alive,” and he was right.
Edit: downvoted by first world peeps. Well, I really hope I’m wrong.
I think a lot of people would be willing to take that risk.
Apparently he’s behind rigging voting machines in the US!
At this point, with all of the bullshit his cult believes, he’ll become a martyr whatever happens (other than him winning). I don’t see this going anywhere other than fascism or a civil war, it’s just a matter of how long does it take to get there.
“Will no one arrest this turbulent judge?”
Please just vote this buffoon out. I beg of you as a European. Please vote him out and make him irrelevant in every way possible. Just stop this madness.
We did vote him out. 3 years ago.
Yes, but I meant next year. Because it’s like I’m in 2016 again. Everybody thinks Hillary is going to win and NO WAY anyone would vote for this loser. But with Biden this time.
We already did. He’s trying to get voted back in. I’m afraid nothing short of him not existing any more will release his death grip on the GOP.
nothing short of him not existing anymore
And the thing of it is is that this is exactly accurate. The man could die from anything and there would be a small but not insignificant crowd of people prepared to make him a martyr, claiming it was some “deep state” assassination
If it’s gonna happen regardless, maybe someone should defenestrate him.
Yeah, but at least they wouldn’t be able to vote for him any more. The hate he represents was there before him and will be there after he’s gone.
Weird hypothetical: what if he dies, but he’s still getting votes? My guess is that there’s a decent portion of his supporters that would vote for his corpse, maybe assuming it’s some conspiracy and that he’ll rise from the dead. I mean he wouldn’t be able to take the oath of office, but would congress have to invoke the 25th amendment if a dead person wins the election?
I’m sure he’d still get votes after dying, but not enough to actually be elected. If he died while the election was going on and won, I think the vice president would become president, just as if he’d died in office.
Ball gag this orange lard and throw him in solitary, Christ.
Do it yourself f-ing orange clown. Such a grift.
Anyone know the odds that the chud he keeps “reTruthing” is Russian?
If he’s not in America, he’s not much use to Russia. If he fled, the US would freeze his assets and seize his properties. All of his value would shrivel like his penis in a Siberian pool.
deleted by creator
I don’t know anything about how truthsocial works.
Is “retruthed” the same thing as “retweeting” (or whatever that’s called now on xitter), or is it closer to “liking” something?
Regardless, trump now thinks he’s found a loophole in the gag oder by letting other people post it and then boosting it somehow?
The article was super confusing to me.
It should be called repost, forward or redistribute. Retruthing is giving that stupid platform legitimacy.
