"We're trying to create a safe and loving home."
"Wow, so what you're saying is you won't love me if I come in and release millions of angry wasps in your home? Have fun in your echo chamber, I guess."
"Just because you disagree that minorities should be wiped off the face of the earth doesn't mean you have to cancel me"
Maybe we should start an equally extreme movement on the left so that the centrist actually know what the centre is supposed to be.
"Minorities should be our supreme leaders, that enslaves the majority"
It's getting to this point. The left need to start arming themselves and agitate for what we want. The over the decades the right-wing shifted right. To counter this the democratic party shifted right as well in an attempt to court the "undecided" voters.
This has failed spectacularly and they just alienated their actual base. Now the country has shifted right and the true leftists are left with little to no representation.
We should all admit that both sides have a point. Let's all try to break out of our echo chambers.
Mostly because the echoing screams of suffering are getting a hit too loud in this chamber.
"In our latest innovation, we have added sound baffling to the echo chambers. The upshot is now people can hear themselves and nothing else, as requested. This helps narcissists keep out of others way and let people get on with their lives... What's the downside, you ask? Oh.... Well, the downside is that everyone else is predicted to suffer psychosis. Well, predict to suffer it 62% faster than now..... Anyways, mission accomplished!" /s
They appeal to tolerance because we value it, not because they do. Once they have power they won’t practice the tolerance towards differences in opinion they demand.
Once they have power they won’t practice the tolerance
Well duh. They don't even pretend to practice tolerance when they don't have power.
I'm just going to leave this in case someone needs to see it for the first time. 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.
The Paradox of Tolerance,
Karl Popper,
1945.
It's worth noting that what Karl Popper most likely meant by intolerance is something like "forbid their followers to listen to rational argument ... teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" rather than any broader meaning of the term, and is here explicitly giving credit to the value of rational debate.
Michael Jordan would’ve had greater success taking back the toothbrush mustache if he carried a rocket launcher.
I don’t know if it’s from WORMS but the over exaggerating weapons with the worm like head coming from the ground only bring me to that conclusion
Way to fail logic 101. An instigator is not equivalent to a responder, dumbass.
No, someone just living their life with a colorful shirt on IS NOT hurting you. People being with who they love DOES NOT hurt you. Grow up.
...is exactly the sort of brain dead take that let Nazis fester the first time round.
You don't give space to those who will take space away from others without cause.
Yeah, that was fairly unclear, which is why you're original comment has so many downvotes. Even this response is hard to parse. It sounds like you're saying intolerance of the intolerant is fine, since they cancel out. Which is, yeah, that's the sentiment.
You protect tolerance by not allowing intolerance. You can't have both things at the same time.