Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’
Everything you need to know about the ‘one million march for children’ to stop the ‘indoctrination of children in public schools’
Nice false dichotomy.
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.
Idgaf what you think. You’re of the opinion that people who can’t even agree that certain members of our society are human and deserve basic rights should be sat down with and talked to?
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
Look up the tolerance paradox and think hard about that.
One person's nonsense is another person's importance.
None of these people on either side are going to just magically disappear because the other side doesn't like them.
If you want them to respect you enough to hear what you're saying (I'm assuming when you comment you actually want people to read it and consider what you're saying) you should do the same in reverse, even if you disagree with what they're saying.
Ignorance and Hate only leads to War and Death.
Jumping in to say: fuck the tolerance paradox.
There's no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn't matter if they're Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There's no paradox - there's acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The "paradox of tolerance" is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there's no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it's a recipe for radicalizing people.
I'm genuinely convinced the "paradox of tolerance" is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there's no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they're under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
Well said.
Glad to hear someone spell this out. Hopefully more people read it.
I've been saying it for a good while now, and almost never get much response -but it's worth saying anyways.
Please help spread this idea… It'll never be popular, but it's important. Far too few people get that, but words that ring true tend to stick with people down the line
There is a far cry between tolerance without limit and hating anyone that doesn't agree with you. I can give you a hint as to which side you have been arguing for in case you got confused along the way.
I know exactly in which side of the line I stand. You have one foot in both. Stop talking to me.
Cute. You involved yourself in my dialogue, not the other way around. You could have stopped responding at any point.
It is hard being presented with logical reason that disagrees with our emotional beliefs. Look up cognitive dissonance. It might help you reconcile the pain.
No, it's hard to have a conversation with someone who refuses to respond to what they are commenting to and instead responding to arguments spacecowboy didn't make. Funny that.
SC lead with a false dichotomy and then when I gave them a genuine opinion anyways responded with "idgaf what you think". At which point did you think I should have spent more time giving in-depth answers?
I don't mind answering a question if you have one and are engaging in good faith. If however you lead with bad faith arguments, then twist and dismiss my opinions, I will have to apologize in advance because in that case I won't spend much time on the responses either.
Was there something they asked that you wanted to know the answer to?
And when their stance is 'trans people shouldn't have rights' what's the middle ground there exactly?
It should be obvious that I was not advocating for a middle ground between two disparate stances on a single issue. I was advocating for choosing issues that we already mostly agree on.
In general, in a democracy, laws should not be created relating to issues that there is little to no agreement on. Trans rights is obviously one of the issues where there is little agreement amongst the population and laws, particularly national laws, should be avoided until there is a strong consensus among the population.
Realize you're getting a lot more downvotes than upvotes, but I just wanted to let you know you're not alone, in this way of thinking.
I am glad to hear it. Sometimes I wonder what happened to this mindset or if was it an illusion all along.