Kamala Harris continues to distance herself from Biden's "garbage" comment, telling ABC News she disagrees "with any criticism of the people based on who they vote for."
The label isn’t arbitrary when you’ve earned it by how you act. You have decided to arbitrarily label your opponent here as “intolerable” based on no evidence. Conservatives at large have been labeled “intolerable” based on their abject refusal to support basic protections of human rights and safety, bad-faith arguments, bait and switching, lying directly to the faces of their constituents as well as to other lawmakers who require an assumption of trust in order to operate, and actively and frequently calling for violence and murder against non-violent members of the out-group.
Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa, and overstepping those bounds causes the social contract to be voided. When you void your own social contract then you are personally responsible for whatever happens outside of the protection of that contract. Don’t want to get punched in the face? It’s real easy then, don’t tell me that my sister deserves to be murdered. Like will be met with like.
Conservatives at large have been labeled “intolerable” based on their abject refusal to support basic protections of human rights and safety, bad-faith arguments, bait and switching, lying directly to the faces of their constituents as well as to other lawmakers who require an assumption of trust in order to operate, and actively and frequently calling for violence and murder against non-violent members of the out-group.
This sentence contains the problem discussed at length in the wikipedia article and addressed in my original comment.
You’ve made a sweeping generalisation about conservatives, by applying a range of very specific behaviors to an entire out-group in a categorical and binary way.
To really dumb it down, some conservatives might just be idiots, and not actually intolerant. You’re seeking to weild the paradox of intolerance against them.
Whether or not you’re an idiot has little bearing on whether or not you’re able to treat other human beings like human beings. The golden rule is taught to preschoolers and they pick it up just fine. If someone’s argument regarding being a bigoted liar is “I’m actually too stupid to understand what tolerance means”, I have zero sympathy for them. “Keep out of my business and I’ll keep out of yours” is a concept so simple that animals understand it. You’re god damn right I’m going to wield the paradox of tolerance against idiots, because regardless of whether or not you’re doing it out of spite or doing it out of stupidity, you’re breaking the social contract and you will reap the consequences of such. If you’re so abjectly stupid that you don’t know what human rights are or how to respect them, then you have a duty both as a citizen and as a human being to educate yourself, and failure to do so excuses nothing.
You seem genuinely oblivious to how intolerant you are.
As though you have a list of “social crimes” and when you, being the judge and jury, find someone guilty of being intolerant they’re green lit to be “untolerated”.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the paradox of tolerance is mostly used as justification for not tolerating people you personally deem to be intolerant.
The label isn’t arbitrary when you’ve earned it by how you act. You have decided to arbitrarily label your opponent here as “intolerable” based on no evidence. Conservatives at large have been labeled “intolerable” based on their abject refusal to support basic protections of human rights and safety, bad-faith arguments, bait and switching, lying directly to the faces of their constituents as well as to other lawmakers who require an assumption of trust in order to operate, and actively and frequently calling for violence and murder against non-violent members of the out-group.
Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa, and overstepping those bounds causes the social contract to be voided. When you void your own social contract then you are personally responsible for whatever happens outside of the protection of that contract. Don’t want to get punched in the face? It’s real easy then, don’t tell me that my sister deserves to be murdered. Like will be met with like.
This sentence contains the problem discussed at length in the wikipedia article and addressed in my original comment.
You’ve made a sweeping generalisation about conservatives, by applying a range of very specific behaviors to an entire out-group in a categorical and binary way.
To really dumb it down, some conservatives might just be idiots, and not actually intolerant. You’re seeking to weild the paradox of intolerance against them.
Whether or not you’re an idiot has little bearing on whether or not you’re able to treat other human beings like human beings. The golden rule is taught to preschoolers and they pick it up just fine. If someone’s argument regarding being a bigoted liar is “I’m actually too stupid to understand what tolerance means”, I have zero sympathy for them. “Keep out of my business and I’ll keep out of yours” is a concept so simple that animals understand it. You’re god damn right I’m going to wield the paradox of tolerance against idiots, because regardless of whether or not you’re doing it out of spite or doing it out of stupidity, you’re breaking the social contract and you will reap the consequences of such. If you’re so abjectly stupid that you don’t know what human rights are or how to respect them, then you have a duty both as a citizen and as a human being to educate yourself, and failure to do so excuses nothing.
You seem genuinely oblivious to how intolerant you are.
As though you have a list of “social crimes” and when you, being the judge and jury, find someone guilty of being intolerant they’re green lit to be “untolerated”.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the paradox of tolerance is mostly used as justification for not tolerating people you personally deem to be intolerant.