457
Butterfly effect (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

Defederating from known arseholes isn't the same as a closed system with no means of rebuttal.

If a pub bars known trouble makers but still allows the general public in, then it's still a pub, as opposed to a members club.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Depends how u define trouble maker. If u define trouble maker as starts physical altercations then sure that's fare. But much of lemmy seems to have defined trouble maker as anything further right than whoever happens to have the loudest voice at the current moment.

    Edit: don't quote Karl popper to me go read the paragraph directly after the one that everyone likes to quote and u will get his justification for tolerating my speech. That's ignoring the fact that the paradox of tolerance applies equally as well as a justification for fascism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    A trouble maker isn't just someone who assaults people. A trouble maker is someone who insults other patrons, makes hateful remarks about or to them, or who acts as a sleaze making unwanted sexual advances. All of these things are reasonable to ban people for, to make a welcoming and enjoyable atmosphere for everybody else.

    You clearly view yourself as a victim, which is just fucking pathetic considering the right is the dominant political stance around the world.

    Quit being an insipid hateful toad and people will start tolerating you, engaging with you, and treating you with respect. Continue being one, and you'll just have to continue crying to yourself that nobody wants to talk to you and we're all just a bunch of meanies.

    As for your edit.

    John Rawls, for instance, argued that a just society should generally tolerate the intolerant, reserving self-preservation actions for only when intolerance poses a concrete threat to liberty and stability.

    Do the actions of the Republicans, ICE and CBP not constitute a concrete threat to liberty and stability? Does America look like a free and stable country to you? There are concentration camps, no due process, street executions without repercussion, mass protests, and threats of war upon neighbouring countries.

    How to deal with the paradox of tolerance is therefore clear, no tolerance for the intolerant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent