SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
Reply to: Re:Racism is not a touchy subject
Post Comment
Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
(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.