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:many faults with the argument
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:58AM
Lots of people lost significant health care options since the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
"Lots" is relative and very much an edge case.
Also there was an alleged attempt to install Trump as president despite the election results not being in his favor.
"Alleged" is the key word here. There's much more effort in the alleging than in the actual attempt. My take is that this is merely a 2024 election ploy.
If memory serves we're a month or two away from the grand jury deciding if they want to indict over the scheme.
Indict != convict. And there's a saying [barrypopik.com] about that:
"The district attorney could get the grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to,' one Rochester defense lawyer said."
Note the quotes that follow in that article are all from the 1970s and 1980s, and discuss prosecutor shenanigans in a grand jury situation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:58AM
"Lots" is relative and very much an edge case.
"Alleged" is the key word here. There's much more effort in the alleging than in the actual attempt. My take is that this is merely a 2024 election ploy.
Indict != convict. And there's a saying [barrypopik.com] about that:
Note the quotes that follow in that article are all from the 1970s and 1980s, and discuss prosecutor shenanigans in a grand jury situation.