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.
Agnes' Law:
Almost everything in life is easier to get into than out of.
(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