SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by Azuma Hazuki
Tolerance Is Not A Moral Precept.
This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
On Tolerance - For Everyone Who Needs To Hear This
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 320 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 29, @07:31PM (96 children)
Perhaps that is true of you - or not. Meanwhile, you can go on Youtube and find shit like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdX6aVzPgHs [youtube.com]
Maybe there are some white people in that crowd who have gone out of their way to be shitheads toward black folk, and they should be begging forgiveness. But, for a bunch of white people to get together, and basically apologize for being white? That is shit.
But then you fuck up with "We're judging you for your own sins."
You ain't got a clue. Just stop being so presumptuous, it makes you look like a woke fool.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dalek on Saturday April 29, @08:07PM (94 children)
I'm not being presumptuous. Once again, you're the person who thinks giving equal opportunity to Black people is an attack on white people. Again, you're the person who wants to kill everyone who disagrees with you. Here's that comment again: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=745579&sid=27952 [soylentnews.org].
Your response is b-b-b-b-b-but some crazy liberal said something stupid on the internet. I'm not interested in clicking random Youtube links you send me. But I know that with any group of a reasonably large size, there will be a few crazy people within that group. I'm not promoting their crazy ideas, and I condemn them when I see them.
Likewise, I'm not judging you because of what other conservatives say. I'm judging you by what you've said. These are the sins I'm talking about, that you want to kill everyone who disagrees with you and send them to Hell. That is exactly what you mean when you say, "Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out."
For some reason you don't think you should have to take personal responsibility for your own actions. Your response was a bunch of whataboutism, that there are some liberals who say crazy things. There are some liberals with crazy ideas, and they're wrong. But you're taking the crazy ideas of a few and saying it's what all liberals want. It's nothing more than an excuse to deflect from your own behavior.
When will you take responsibility for your own actions? When will you take responsibility for saying that promoting equal opportunity for Black people is attacking white people? When will you take responsibility for saying that you want to kill everyone who disagrees with you?
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 30, @12:46AM (22 children)
I don't know how you define "equal opportunity". I know for damned sure that giving a position to a black person, when there are white, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans better qualified, is NOT "equal opportunity". It is only "equal opportunity" when the black guy gets the position, because he/she is the most qualified candidate. The converse situations are all true as well - it is only "equal opportunity" when the Native American gets the position, because he is the most qualified for that position.
If you have a shred of honesty, you'll admit that I've always wanted the most qualified person in any position, and I don't give a damn what race/culture/ethnicity that person might be.
You're really hung up on that 20 million dead. Maybe it's past time for you to read that entire discussion. A progressive suggested that it might be time to go to war against conservatives. Put it all in context. Our last civil war cost .8 million American's lives - officially. I don't think all bodies were counted, but the official number is .8 million.
If there is another civil war in the US, there WILL BE many millions dead.
And, I certainly hope that most are progressives. The child groomers. The abortion rights people. The guys who feel they are justified competing in women's sports. The dumb sons of bitches who vote for Senile Joe.
Do you think the Catholic Church would accept me back into the fold? LOL - certainly you know the origin of that para-quote.
BTW - progressive isn't a race. Fuckwits on the left/progressive side of things want to call everything racism these days. Are you another fuckwit? Progressive is a mental disease, not a race.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @01:56AM (14 children)
It's a myth that there is substantial support for hiring someone who is less qualified on the basis of race. It's a common talking point, but it's false.
Let's talk about why there isn't equal opportunity. Let's talk about children who live in inner city neighborhoods and have to fear for their safety going to and from school. Let's talk about children who might have a parent in prison, where the other parent struggles to pay the bills. Let's talk about children who attend public schools in those inner city neighborhoods, where the quality of education is substantially inferior to wealthier areas, which diminishes the opportunity for those children to attend college and to be qualified for those jobs. By the numbers, the children living in conditions like that are disproportionately Black. They don't have equal opportunity, not even close. That is the lasting effect of segregation, decades after it was outlawed. There most certainly is not equal opportunity.
Those are not the words of a sane person, nor are they the words of a person who has a firm grasp on reality. Any person who is mentally healthy would say that we need to find some way to avoid turning to violence. They wouldn't cheer on killing people who disagree with them. I don't care if it's one person, 20 people, or 20 million people. This isn't about a number. It's about you wanting to kill people who disagree with you. You've completely dehumanized those people. I cannot fathom that a person who is mentally healthy would hold such views. Despite the vile things you've said, I won't respond in kind. Instead, I choose to forgive you for what you've said. Although I despise what you've said, I don't want to bring any harm upon you at all.
For your own good, please seek a psychiatric evaluation if you haven't already received one. You're not behaving normally nor rationally. Your words are not those of a healthy person. I sincerely hope you receive treatment and can improve your quality of life. I only wish I'd realized what's going on with you sooner. If so, I'd have chosen my words much more carefully in my previous comments.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 30, @03:40AM (13 children)
You lie, and you know it. The US government and all it's contractors have had hiring quotas for decades. Major corporations with or without government contracts observe those quotas. Even small businesses work to meet the quotas. Minorities often get the position, when better qualified people are available.
Doctor Ben Carson would disagree with you. Amazing, the things a person can do, if he just refuses to join the gangs.
I have a very firm grasp on reality. We don't live in a fairy tale world. Progressive/socialist/collectivist/Marxist/leftist people like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have demonstrated time and again what kind of world your fairy tales lead to. All that kumbaya bullshit leads to mass murder. One of the reasons that the Second Amendment is so very important.
But you keep telling those lies. Keep calling me a Nazi, or fascist, or whatever.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @09:15AM (6 children)
Let's revisit your solution to prevent mass murder.
Apparently you seem to think the way to prevent mass murder is by committing mass murder.
You're not even remotely making sense at this point, and that makes me very concerned for your mental health. I implore you to please seek psychiatric help. It's for your own good. Please reach out and contact a mental health professional, get evaluated, and get treatment. It might be very difficult to admit that you have a problem. There's an unfair stigma about mental health issues, and that's really unfortunate and awful. But any decent person would respect you and support you for seeking treatment. And I assure you that no matter how difficult it might be at the beginning, you'll feel better once you get help. From what I've seen from your posts, I am genuinely concerned for your mental health. Please seek help, for your own good.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 30, @11:51AM (5 children)
You seem to be obsessed with my posts - but you have totally failed to get the context I invited you to look at. A progressive said that maybe it's time for a civil war. I explained what a civil war would look like. I didn't threaten to start the civil war, I merely explained what civil war is. At this point, you're failing to make sense of rational statements, because you have chosen to ignore the context.
If the progressives start a civil war, and the conservatives put the progressives down, it's not murder. It is self defense.
Check you own mental well being. You're confused about a lot of things.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @07:12PM
When I say that I'm concerned about your mental health, I'm not doing that as an insult. I'm saying that because I am sincerely concerned about your mental health.
You claim that a progressive said they want a Civil War. I went back and checked. That's false. Here's the first post in that thread supporting a second civil war: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=27952&cid=745199 [soylentnews.org]. I went back and looked through jmorris' posting history, and I am quite confident they were not a progressive.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @10:42AM (3 children)
I am more interested in your dick, Runaway, and whether you have gotten it back from the Nigerian witches yet. Could you give us an update on the progress of the phallus recovery mission, so far?
Oh, and dalek is right, you are wrong about who drew first threat of blood. Definitely a deplorable conservative racist, like yourself.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @09:46AM (2 children)
Is this the reason Runaway never gets hired for any of those Firm Action jobs? He is disqualified through being dickless? I can see how for some jobs, that would be disqualifying, but the fact that Runaway cannot get jobs where this is not a prerequisite, suggests that he is being all reverse-discriminated because of his phallic deficiency. Look for birds nests, up in trees, Ruanway. According to the Malleum Malificarum, that is where the witches keep all the penises they have stolen. Yours might be amoung them.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:21AM (1 child)
Is it true that Runaway has no penis? Is this an irremediable condition? How long as it been like this? Is he the only one, or is that what happened to Tucker Carson, too? So many questions, so few answers.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:04AM
I just love it when dalek rips Runaway a new asshole! Not like it is that hard for any Soylentil to do the same. Except janrinok, who strangely seems to be protecting the racist asshole.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 01, @05:39PM (4 children)
Hiring Quotas are illegal in the US [dol.gov]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:25PM (1 child)
But how else can you account for Runaway NOT being hired for all those jobs, when obviously, being white, he was the best qualified? I fear you do not understand white privilege, and white fragility, adequately. Next!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @10:02PM
Maybe he wasn't hired for those jobs because he's a dumbfuck screw up with an overbearing sense of entitlement? Could that possibly be the reason?
<sneer>Yeah, I'm sure that is what the little runaway would like us to believe, but it just isn't true.</sneer>
Oh, rest assured, many of us here on SN are very well acquainted with the little runaway's over-weaned sense of privilege and hair-trigger "white fragility".
Indeed!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 01, @09:53PM (1 child)
Double speak notwithstanding, if the goals aren't met, the contractor won't get, or keep contracts. Hire a lawyer if you want to produce more and better doublespeak nonsense.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:23AM
Runaway Snowflake. Melting as his jerbs are taken away from him by blacks, and Hispanics, and women, and dogs, and robots, and incests.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 02, @04:57PM
You shoulda put a little more distance between those two thoughts.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @03:14AM (6 children)
Back at'cha, you fucking nazi traitor to America! I hope, like we all hope, that you live a long and peaceful life, and stop being such a violence-insighting asshole! Watch out for the Dark Brandon, Runsaway! He's gonna gitchya!!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @09:51AM (5 children)
Can anyone explain to me how this comment ended up being spam modded? Bueller?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:12AM (4 children)
I think it is part of janrinok's unguided spam mod program, designed to down mod [by a -10] anyone who does not swear fealty to him. Cf. Charles the Turd's inauguration. Brit bastards. One Ireland, one island, one people, and fuck the Anglish!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:41AM (3 children)
Scot's liberation now! Free the Stone of Scone! And #FreeC0lo!!!!1!!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @08:49AM (2 children)
I thought, according to turgid, that only British subjects were bound by law to not say anti-royalist, gay things. Or was that DeSanitas? So why was this comment spam modded?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:23PM (1 child)
Found the Brexiteer Royalist!! G'day, Janrinok!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 09, @06:21AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @04:10PM (70 children)
It's all context. If it's one crazy liberal saying mean things on the internets, then sure, that response is inappropriate. But if it's 50 million crazy liberals trying to kill poor Runaway and a lot of other people like him, then it's not. And well, given that Runaway is seeing groomers in every classroom right now, I'm leaning towards not appropriate. But neither do I consider this a significant sin. Maybe if Runaway threatens to personally murder a trillion crazy liberals with his bare hands. That's a lot of crazy liberals and we'll have to start the sin counter at that point.
My view is that this whole thing is crazy. The line should be drawn at a rational standard of causing harm not beliefs. It's not that hard. Someone has racism cooties doesn't mean that the forces of good need to be mobilized to isolate the contagion. Similarly, a trans in the classroom isn't a sign of the endtimes.
Despite all the whining about the scary January 6 protest, that's an excellent model for how to handle protesters who break the law. A terrible model is how the violent aspects of the Floyd protests were handled in the northwest US, in Portland and Seattle. People were allowed to commit crimes for months on end in Portland, and just take over a neighborhood for several weeks in Seattle. It's done now, but that helped escalate the craziness we see now.
Also, pick better leaders in the US. Trump is particularly bad, being a significant contributor to the all the protests I have mentioned.But we haven't had a decent president since Clinton. Let's fix that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @10:21PM (37 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @12:57AM (36 children)
Because it's merely an inflammatory term with no rational value.
You just showed it's you doing it. GOP didn't force you to rant about "insurrectionist".
You mean you've never been exposed before to people comparing the Floyd protests to the January 6 protests? Consider this your baptism then.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @04:15AM (35 children)
It's a description of both their intent and their actions on Jan 6th. Dismissing the attempted insurrection is what's both irrational and inflammatory. They have not been able to justify their behavior and you haven't, either.
> You mean you've never been exposed before to people comparing the Floyd protests to the January 6 protests?
No. I meant what I actually said and not your weird re-imagining of it. The GOP didn't distance themselves from the insurrectionists because they were righteous. I also did not will the GOP to force you to defend them or whatever that nonsense was you tried to pin on me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @05:36AM (34 children)
Thinking about it, I suppose I should have distinguished between a description and a crime. If you wish to describe them as penguins fishing in the Antarctic, it's just as valid IMHO as calling them insurrectionists. You have considerable freedom of speech. If on the other hand, you're calling for them to be prosecuted for a crime of insurrection - which is the very strong impression I've been getting since shortly after January 6, we have actual laws that must satisfied first.
Have you justified their behavior either? I don't see why it's supposed to be noteworthy that I haven't justified their behavior when you haven't either. If it really matters that much to you (and I doubt it does), then do it yourself. I get you're not defending them in any way, but I'm merely defending them against frivolous accusations of crime.
And I find your attitude irrational in other ways. The key one is that dismissing the attempted insurrection is the smart move. For example, consider this list of alleged rebellions [wikipedia.org] by Wikipedia (including the Seattle CHAZ and January 6 protests). Only two really were influential (the US Revolutionary War, and the US Civil War). Some others might have been preludes to the major rebellions (such as the War of the Regulators [wikipedia.org] or John Brown's raid [wikipedia.org]. But in general, the vast majority of these didn't go far historically. That's where I see the January 6 protest. We've had two years to see consequences of the protest, and there wasn't much. Hysteria like what you exhibit here is the worst effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @04:23PM (17 children)
No, I have not made your argument for you. Have you explained why they're insurrectionists?
> Hysteria like what you exhibit here is the worst effect.
Actually by your own standards this goes in my favor. Trump recently called on them to attack again and they refused. They thought they'd be heroes the first time around, now they know better despite your attempts to enable them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:46AM (16 children)
My argument doesn't depend on me justifying anyone's behavior.
What does "called on them to attack again" actually mean?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @09:19PM (15 children)
Maybe so, maybe no, but I'm not the one going to bat for them. That's a position you took up, though your inability to make your point without pushing the goal-posts together until they're touching raises the question of why you're even bothering.
> What does "called on them to attack again" actually mean?
I really don't believe you don't know what I'm referring to, and my free time is short.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:34PM (14 children)
I don't nor do I have interest in researching vague assertions. You couldn't even be bothered to quote Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @12:16AM (13 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @03:59AM (11 children)
Or shows that I'm not hot-headed about this subject. When your narrative disagrees with reality, it's not reality that's wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:54AM (10 children)
And what do you do when reality is wrong? Narrow it down! ”My take is that I’m right because your judgement of my narrative irrelevant unless an unspecified individual is ruled innocent, not guilty doesn’t count for my convenience.”
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @10:41PM (9 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @11:49PM (8 children)
Game, set, match.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:03PM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:18AM (6 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:14AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @06:55AM (4 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @07:06AM (3 children)
Perhaps next time you can something other than "shrug".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @07:42AM (2 children)
Insecurity, right there. Now we know specifically where it is. Not that it’s a big revelation or anything, since you’ve been counting the years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @09:51AM (1 child)
shrug
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:30PM
www.dictionary.com
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @06:54PM
Strange, that is the exact behavior of a prototype LLM AI! Khallow is a machine! (I knew it!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @01:53AM (15 children)
Khallow finds something irrational yet refers to the J6 insurrection as a 'protest'? Poor khallow, so shallow, very libertarian mm hmmmm!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:03AM (14 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @09:28PM (13 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:32PM (12 children)
They sound pretty stupid. But then that's been the thing for the last two years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:03AM (1 child)
<rolls eyes>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @09:53AM
[khallow excitement building!]
/
Definitely some excitement taking place.
/
Shit just got real.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:14AM (9 children)
That is the most sophisticated argument about the insurrection you've made for the last two years. Or maybe it's just the novelty of hearing a rebuttal that isn't substance-free pedanticism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @03:57AM (8 children)
When unsophisticated arguments work, we need to look elsewhere for the actual problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @04:25AM (7 children)
They haven"t, and you won't follow your own suggestion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @05:17AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @06:01AM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @10:40PM (4 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @02:46AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:01PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:37PM (1 child)
Heh, khallow is melting down, not sure why simple concepts like treason are so bloody hard for conservatives/libertarians. It saddens me to see adults acting like toddlers and defending the man that set them up and abandoned them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:34AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @11:40PM (16 children)
There aren't fifty million liberals who want to kill Runaway. Those fears are unfounded. I am aware of only one person who is actually trying to cause harm to Runaway, and that is the creep who ran the aristarchus account. Nearly everyone else, regardless of their political views, condemned that behavior and supported punishing aristarchus. But one batshit crazy person is not the same as fifty million liberals, and is hardly representative of what liberals think or want.
I'm not proposing that anything be done about Runaway. I am sincerely concerned about his mental health. His comments aren't a direct threat, however. But tolerance doesn't mean that I sit back and indulge his fantasies or pretend that this is a simple difference of opinion. No, I'm going to tell him that what he's saying is awful. It's not a simple difference of opinion like me arguing with you about what is an appropriate level of economic regulation. You might disagree with my views, but Runaway's views are objectively wrong and truly loony. When he expresses those views, it's appropriate to condemn them. When he discusses his paranoid delusions, it's appropriate to tell him that he's not being rational and that his paranoid delusions are lunacy. I fail to see why you might have a problem with this.
Lawless protests should be punished. That includes January 6, the protests in Portland and Seattle, and the truckers in Canada. There have to be consequences for breaking the law, and ideology of those breaking the law shouldn't change that.
While I think Obama did a decent job, I generally do agree with you on this matter. Congress is horribly broken, too. Having must-pass votes on massive bills that nobody has a chance to read is no way to govern. I know that you want there to be a high bar to pass new laws. That's exactly how Congress is supposed to work, where bills have to pass through committee, pass two houses and perhaps be subjected to many amendments along the way, and then become law either by the president signing them into law or Congress overriding the veto. It's a lot easier to sneak questionable things into rushed legislation than into bills that are properly vetted by committees and by both houses of Congress. Our leaders in Congress are truly awful, and we need to do better there, too. But I certainly am not looking forward to another Biden vs. Trump general election. Ron DeSantis is not the answer, either.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @01:14AM (15 children)
You already introduced a subjective component, interpreting a conditional statement as an absolute one. Here, it was quite clear that he was speaking of this enormous harm in response to a hypothetical enormous provocation ("a future with slavery in it looks pretty damned bleak"). The real mental health question would be how does he determine that these dire circumstances are near enough at hand to issue such a dire warning? Seems pretty thin to me though there are a lot of authoritarians out there.
It's the same with the January 6 protesters. They were protested for a point of view that had already bombed harshly in the courts. Sure, if they really had solid evidence of a fraudulent election, then storming the Capitol in the way they did would be reasonable and effective. But they didn't.
You're attacking the wrong part of the logic chain.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 01, @03:19AM (14 children)
That's twice that you're used the argument with the form of:
1) X would be a reasonable action if Y is true
2) Y isn't even remotely true
3) Therefore, there is no threat of X
The problem is that Y doesn't actually have to be true for X to occur. If enough people believe that Y is true, whether it is or not, then they may cause X to occur anyway. Y is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.
To give you an example of why this is wrong, let's say the following:
X = the Soviet Union launched a nuclear attack against the United States
Y = the United States has launched a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union
This was a real problem during the Cold War. Even if there is exactly zero chance of the United States launching a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, it does not guarantee that the Soviet Union would not use nuclear weapons. In fact, there was a very real risk of a false alarm leading to an exchange of nuclear weapons. The false alarm could be the result of such things as misinterpreting radar data or equipment failure. The result would be that they assume they were under attack, initiate what they believe was a retaliatory nuclear strike, and actually end up starting a nuclear war.
That cause of the false alarm would be different in your version of this argument. Instead, there are bad actors who are actively trying to convince people that Y is true for their own personal gain such as political power or monetary profit. Fact checking has been ineffective, and there are a lot of people who distrust fact checkers. Even massive censorship cannot guarantee that people will not wrongly believe that Y is occurring. Moreover, actively trying to convince people that Y is false might actually cause people to believe that Y is true. There is no reliable way to completely prevent people from falsely believing Y.
Although Y is not true, the risk of a false alarm is very real. As long as that remains the case, if there are people who are willing and able to carry out X, then the threat of X is also very real. That is why X is a concern, and why your logic is flawed. People like Runaway would not be preparing for X if they did not already believe there was a high probability of Y being true. Because the risk of a false alarm of Y cannot be fully mitigated, then it is logical to also address X.
Incidentally, if you've read my responses to Runaway, you'll note that I am not only critical of his desire to carry out X, but also about his belief in Y. Both of these are mental health issues. I do not believe it is healthy for Runaway to want X to happen, and he has stated that he would like it to occur. His belief in Y, which is paranoid and inconsistent with reality, is also very concerning.
My point is that because it is impossible to fully mitigate that people will falsely believe Y, we must also take the threat of X seriously. You can fill in the blanks about what X and Y are.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @06:11AM (13 children)
This basic bit of logic doesn't rule out that any of us could be a menace, thus X could occur for you too. Instead, we default in a situation where we have no evidence of threat to not being a threat.
So what should we be doing about scary people like you, dalek?
What is "Y" here. For example, Runaway speaks of it as:
Let's look at a real world manifestation of that. Title IX was used by the Obama administration to create a weird unconstitutional witch hunting court [reason.com] in colleges which receive public funding:
In other words, an unaccountable bureaucrat wrote a letter which then morphed into a coercion of universities to adopt weak legal processes for sexual assault cases, including suspension of due process, an illegal low threshold for evidence, and forcing crimes into civil court. This is naked authority by force. Colleges were forced to comply by the stranglehold that federal government had over their funding. Having said that, a fair number of colleges had their own Quislings who were just fine with that state of affairs and eagerly contributed to the problem.
Here's more of the abuses [reason.com] in question. Notice that it took a Trump official to reverse this gross injustice.
There's more where that came from.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 01, @07:21AM (10 children)
There is no one-size-fits-all version of authoritarianism. It comes in many different forms. Sometimes it's the end result of a process that starts with good intentions. Other times, the issue is that the ends cannot justify the means.
Many liberals view conservatives as authoritarian. They are concerned that banning abortion is part of a slippery slope to roll back many other freedoms. They are concerned that many conservatives want to establish Christian principles in law. They are concerned that border security is already seriously violating people's rights.
Let's talk about border security. It's one thing to stop someone at an actual port of entry to verify that they're actually authorized to enter the country. It's reasonable to verify that they're not bringing contraband into the country and that they pay any duty that they owe. That's reasonable. However, border security has gone far beyond that, where Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) claims the authority to stop people and verify they are legally in the country within 100 miles of a border or port of entry. That's a massive expansion of power, especially when ports of entry include airports with inbound international flights. Border security is an important issue for many conservatives, but the means to accomplish it are authoritarian. You shouldn't be able to suspend the Constitution within 100 miles of a border or port of entry.
What's the correct response to an unjust law? What's the correct response when you view an authority as illegitimate?
Runaway's comments have made it very clear that he considers violence and mass murder an appropriate response. The means he supports to accomplish his goals are wrong. It's one thing when combatants are killed on a battlefield. But he goes far beyond killing people who are engaged in combat. He's said he would like to kill all progressives. Obviously he's not directly doing the killing, but he has stated he supports killing all progressives. That's mass murder. That's wrong, and it's not something you should be defending or trying to justify.
That is not the correct response to authoritarianism. There's a difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness. Civil disobedience means following the law except the portions of the law that are unjust. There is precedent for this throughout history. In the Bible, Jesus followed the law ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's.") except when it was unjust. Martin Luther King didn't ignore the law and violate it whenever he wanted. There was plenty of civil disobedience, but it involved refusing to follow laws that were unjust. I strongly support jury nullification, which is effectively another form of civil disobedience. Juries should refuse to convict people when the law is unjust or the legal process is unfair.
You have a problem with the law? Fine. There are lots of ways to change it. Vote out elected officials who create bad laws. Circulate petitions to get those laws on the ballot If you have standing, sue and request the courts strike down the law. If you're on a jury, use your power as a juror to nullify the law. Refuse to follow unjust laws. Exercise your freedom of speech to inform people and to protest against unjust laws. And yes, refusing to follow unjust laws is legitimate, too.
The example you cite is a legitimately elected president lawfully appointing an official, and that official lawfully exercising his authority to change a policy. Don't you think that's very different from the lawlessness Runaway is supporting?
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @01:31PM (9 children)
To the contrary, they all tend to be one-size-fits-all. They just disagree on implementation and authority.
Keep in mind the subject of this journal - the principle argument is that tolerance is a sort of "peace treaty" which when abrogated, implies that the other side(s) can and must act in response in ways that would normally be wrong morally. Runaway's statements fit in that constraint - if 50 million progressives are mass enslaving the rest of the US, then their killing though wrong is an appropriate response to the end of tolerance.
My take is that there are several ways this could play out. The various authoritarian-leaning groups may eventually cool down - my take is that a lot of present day turmoil is driven by the stress of labor competition from the developing world combined with poor policy responses in the US. Second, that one or more groups cross the line and start attacking each other for real. I think some of the organizers of the January 6 protest may have attempted to provoke law enforcement into a battle (which would have crossed the line into insurrection for me). The scale and duration of such a conflict is beyond me at present, but it could eventually result in a civil war.
This is a sound argument, but there's a but. "Tolerance is not a moral precept." To apply morality to it is to miss the point of the argument.
Instead of pointless complaining about a potential future conflict that probably won't follow a moral path, let's look at preventative maintenance. My take is that there's several big things that would forestall any sort of large scale conflict: maintain equal treatment under the law, especially by identifiable ethnicity - this helps prevent balkanization [wikipedia.org]; reduce corruption - prevents what's happening now in Russia, for example; reduce regulation - especially the misapplication of one-size-fits-all law (minimum wage laws have helped devastate Puerto Rico which is greatly poorer than mainland US, resulted in about half the population immigrating to the US) and laws that aggressively harm economic/societal progress (the pharmaceutical gamble is a good example of this, all that regulation and it's still a lottery ticket [soylentnews.org] whether you get a viable drug); and sensible compromises on big conflict topics (immigration, crime and police, taxation and government spending, meddling in schools and personal lives, etc).
Finally, people should chill a bit. Runaway didn't go anywhere with his argument for when killing 50 million liberals was justified. But it was in response to other needlessly provocative arguments. Too often I read arguments about various groups doing the mean things. After all, the very first sentence of the journal is:
There's not much point about complaining about tolerating the intolerance, when you're part of the problem. No tolerance existed in the first place so it couldn't be turned off for alleged intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @05:34PM (8 children)
^
That is why so few bother engaging khalliw, at the end he just repeats his opinion like he just proved simething.
"No tolerance existed in the first place so it couldn't be turned off for alleged intolerance."
He just lives in a different reality where the KKK are ackshually democrats and J6 was some rowdy protesters. Khallow is a pure propaganda account, no care for discussion beyond a platform to repost their screed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:02AM (7 children)
That's a big reason I quote. Here, the telling line is
The intolerance in that quote is self-evident. When someone is this foaming in the mouth at "conservatives", they're intolerant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @05:04PM (6 children)
Sulk all you want, you're the one avoiding simple facts so you can preserve your precious world view. Thought you weren't a conservative, better check your mask it seems to be slipping!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:31PM (5 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:48AM
The facts have been repeatedly mentioned, khallow. You have just consistently refused, or been unable, to recognize them. You have been spanked. You can stop trying to argue, now. You have lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:08PM (3 children)
Playing dumb is not a good look, just makes you look dumb or sociopathic. We all know you're not THAT dumb, so that leaves slightly dim sociopath.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:11PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:46PM (1 child)
Calling out fascists has no blowback, unless the fascists gain full power and then you'll start hunting down your detractors. You don't have yo go full fascist tho, so many options for you khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:33AM
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:50AM (1 child)
Why does this keep coming up, raised by khallow? Is this what put an end to his Wingman business? The accusations of rape? (Kind of a Trumpy thing, after all) And the kangaroo court at a campus, where of course conservative young men are cancelled. More and more, I bethinks the man to be guilty, by means of a preponderance of unsolicited whinging.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @07:28AM
The very first reply was
Seems a lot of bad faith arguments out there - I'm both complaining too much and not enough. But I'm sure that with enough help from the stupidest people on the internet, I'll get the right levels of complaining on these weighty topics. BTW, have you considered doing a YouTube video on bungee jumping with piano wire? It'd be a good look for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @10:53PM (14 children)
Holy shit! You really think that sleazeball was a decent president?? You're as warped as Runaway! We haven't had a "decent" president since LBJ, and even that is a big stretch! Nixon/Humphrey was the beginning of the end...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:05AM (13 children)
Yes. Slick Willy wins first prize here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @04:38AM (12 children)
Ah ok, I didn't notice the sarcasm there, sorry 'bout that...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:33PM (11 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:56AM (10 children)
Right, if you actually believe it, that would make you cynical. Clinton is the same sleaze as Trump (He's not Slick Willy for nothing). They are still joined at the hips
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:13PM (9 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:33PM (8 children)
Hardly! He cooked the books, bailed out Wall Street, bought a line of credit from China, and gave us NAFTA, which fucked over Mexico's economy. And American inflation was roaring near the end of his term. The mild crash of 1999/2000 was Clinton's doing, not Bush's. Crooked as a three dollar bill. You're just believing what the tabloids are telling you. Johnson was far more responsible, and gave us better social services, and a decent space program, which Nixon and Reagan tanked soon afterwords
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @08:40PM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:09AM (6 children)
Ah, so now you revert to the old "everybody else was doing it" gag like that makes it okay. And then with all the cooked books you try to claim Clinton did it better because your phony "debt" appeared to shrink in the media polls. Please, pull the other one. At least you banker servants are non partisan. Your displayed naïveté is so very revealing... can't tell if it's for real, or if you're just spreading bullshit intentionally
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:19AM (5 children)
No, I'm making the obvious point that Clinton's accounting wasn't any more magical than anyone else's accounting in this stretch. The financial situation at the end of 2000 is more than just an artifact of Clinton accounting. Thus, Slick Willy despite his numerous and glaring flaws, and his illegal activities is still one of the best presidents of the past fifty years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:29AM (4 children)
Truly insane to believe such tabloid tripe. Like so many, you definitely fell for his "Slickness" and the media's projection of him
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @03:42AM (3 children)
Tabloid tripe that happens to be true. The state of the US budget is public knowledge and has nothing to do with how slick Clinton was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:59AM (2 children)
Not so.. You just like to believe comfortable lies. Little can be done about that
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @06:36AM (1 child)
What are the lies here? Because this is sounding a lot like those creepy Putin apologists [soylentnews.org] who keeps ranting about mean Western propaganda.
For example, is it not true that the US budget came close to breaking even in 2000 and that was at the end of a considerable period of economic expansion that lasted most of Clinton's administration? If not, then what is the truth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:02AM
Then the surpluses were gutted by the Bush tax cuts and massive increases in defense spending.
Republicans keep giving new tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations. Sorry, we can't afford 'em. The wealthy will just have to get by with the same tax cuts everyone else gets when we cut taxes for the lowest income tax brackets. It's just too expensive to give special tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations, and we can't afford it.
We can't afford to pay for more wars overseas, nor can we keep paying for developing new military technology. We'll just have to get by with the massive stockpile of arms that we already have.
We're also spending over 20 billion dollars each year for customs and border patrol. Sorry, we can't afford to pay for unconstitutional immigration checkpoints. We'll just have to get by with following the Constitution and only putting customs and border patrol officers on the actual border and at ports of entry. We just can't afford anything else, especially not more physical barriers along the southern border.
Republicans also want to add more restrictions for the various programs they refer to as welfare, adding even more requirements to verify that people are working. Enforcing these restrictions means that we have to spend money and hire more people to handle the extra administrative burden. Sorry, we can't afford to do so. We'll just have to get by with enforcing the restrictions that already exist on welfare. It's too expensive to add new regulations, so we'll just have to stick to the existing regulations, many of which were actually passed under President Clinton.
My point is that so-called fiscal conservatives aren't serious about balancing the budget. It's nothing more than an excuse to eliminate funding to programs that Democrats support. If they want Democrats to agree to cuts, the so-called fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party have to be willing to cut some of their own priorities. Reducing the deficit in a substantial way means that House Republicans are going to have to give up some of the things they want, too.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @08:50PM
Ground shifting under your feet? Kids these days make no sense? Are you turing into an old (racist) fart, Runaway? Maybe some one should punch you in the face. Or, alternatively, you could beg for forgiveness. Apologize to aristarchus.