1d ago

Opinions on the internet

27 comments

It's more like:
"Besides finding it very important to follow the laws (regardless of what they mean or who they could benefit, but that's what many people think means being moral), I don't really believe in anything nor think about anything in depth, so I'm just gonna regurgitate the same propaganda you've been fed" -> 😁
anything besides that -> 😠

Absolutely fucking agree.
Except when it comes to landlords. Somehow those are always bad.

I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, and car pollution gives kids asthma, so we should ban cars.
- I think hurting children is wrong.
  I think hurting children is wrong, so children should be euthanized to ensure they experience as little pain as possible. /s

Never get into the details, that’s where the devil is.
- I should start just depicting my opinions as the Chad and other people’s opinions as the Soyjak and leaving it at that
  
  Insert one shibboleth, like one bit of information critically wrong intentionally. Make lists of users who point it out for HR.

"I am a socialist" vs "We need to round up anyone with glasses and kill them because they are bourgeoisie."
- Yes. Socialism is killing people with glasses.
- That's slander, he just hated nerds.
  Who doesn't? Fucking nerds.
- What about sunglasses? It's too bright outside of the basement, I need them to see!
  
  Kulac detected
- How very CPK of you
  
  California Pizza Kitchen?

The only thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance…
…I think it is morally sound to remove someone from society if that someone is an intolerant, fascist, greedy bigot. What constitutes as “remove” is contingent on how intolerant, fascist, and greedy the subject has exhibited themselves to be.
…murder is OK, in some scenarios.
- Murder is ok in self defense. Extrapolate as necessary.
- You misunderstand the point of this paradox. By default you become intolerant when you start "removing" people. it is explicitly not a justification for whatever action you claim moral superiority on.
  Since almost every political decision will affect at least some fraction of society negatively (even if it would ethically be for the greater good), you can carelessly throw this around to eliminate any opponents for this arbitrary tolerance reason. The only way to make sure the "removal" is fair, as a society absolutely needs these tools to function, is to clearly outline the case when it needs to happen and bring the barrier such that those capable of improvement do not get ostracized into further radicalization. And that barrier needs to be significant.
  You bring up "fascist", at which line does it happen? Genocide execution, support, inaction, Swastika wearing, illegal membership, legal membership of ultra radical parties, support of conservative oligarchs? What is greedy? Robbery, theft, tax evasion, corruption, cheating with the girlfriend of a friend? What is bigotry? You get the idea.
  
  It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
  
  It isn't a paradox, or it doesn't have to be. It isn't a seemingly false or untrue statement that belies a deeper meaning.
  It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
  Chemically tolerance means the limit at which something begins to degrade or an organism has to/begins to adapt. This is at least what I interpret with what is being brought up with tolerance of intolerance: when adaptation or degradation is required, the limits of tolerance have been reached.
  
  Turns out: morality is relative.
  
  I’ve never considered it a paradox, more of an irony.
  …but yes I was oversimplifying for funsies. “Bash the fash” as they say.

27 comments