Thanksgiving Dinner

[email protected]

The paradox part of the paradox is that the tolerant are the intolerant.

This is what a paradox is.

a situation or statement that seems impossible or is difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics:

i.e. the tolerant (A) are the intolerant (B); the tolerant cannot be intolerant. A = B while A≠ B, yet both appear true. A paradox.

The result is a cascade that divides further and shifts power based on which tolerant group becomes the most intolerant of other’s ideas the most at the time; the ideologies meaning nothing in the end. The philosophy that the intolerant tend to have power.

In your cartoon, which starts with a question that immediately abandons any explanation of the paradox and then ironically just guides you on how to be participant in it, you eould see the paradox in effect if you go back just one step. Mein Kompf literally states how he was liberal and tolerant but had to cease that in order to stop the perceived intolerant for German nationalism. Is this a ideology you disagree with? Probably. But it doesn’t matter in the paradox.

Then becoming the intolerant himself, we know what happened next; power. Then the tolerant no longer tolerating him—EU and friends; power shifts to them. That’s the paradox. The intolerant is always the majority at the time; ideologies be damned. It’s a repetitive cycle conflicting itself—a paradox.

If you are coming from the perspective of an opposing ideology, you will of course not tolerate it. But that’s not the philosophical point. Subsequently, the red hats quote the exact same paradox inappropriately as well.

To approach it philosophically, as intended, you must first ask; what is currently considered intolerant in this society? You cannot have personal opinions influence it, else you have already missed the point. From there, you are able to ponder it appropriately. Philosophy is a thought exercise; not to be used as a ammunition of opinion battles. It is merely an observation to ponder and open deeper discourse.

Edit: Hey, y’all can oppose this comment, but in 1945 the conception of thought was established. If you have other ideas of that, you’ll need to propose a new idea instead of raping someone else’s idea as much as the other tribes

It’s really not complicated. It’s the point of it. You’re encouraged to expand on it with new ideas, not trying to reshape existing ones to suit your narrative. Philosophy 101.

[email protected]

Haha, I can. Thats the beauty of it. I can express an opinion. I’m well used to this place fallaciously assuming that a single opinion against the grain must mean an all out attack against the tree.

It’s a funny little tree that thinks itself the centre of the forest.

[email protected]

Fair, but if the cartoon is a rebuttal of the premise of the paradox, which would seem to be that we can’t call it tolerance unless it’s absolute, it’s a rebuttal I accept.

[email protected]

The thing is, I don’t think my fundamentals have changed at all:

The purpose of a government is to better the lives of its citizens
The constitution is a living document and was intended to be modified as time passes
Nobody is infallible. We can all misunderstand things
We shouldn’t change things unless there is evidence that things need to be changed (this is the conservative part)
You should strive for a moral viewpoint that everyone can apply equally. There is no us vs you.
Political parties are a detriment to the people
You should be able to vote for whoever you want. (George Washington’s viewpoint)
Compromise is generally good.
We should have the freedom to choose ideas
Work within the system to find what needs to be changed. Then, change the system to accommodate
Conservatives and liberals should agree on the end goal, even if they disagree on the me tbh is to get there.

I’m a bit of a centrist. I think we should always take the middle ground, after passing the options through a moral filter. In other words, the moral middle ground between genocide and don’t kill people isn’t to kill some people. It’s to not kill people at all.

I don’t like things like feminism, black history month, and pride month. However, I understand their importance. To me, female, black, and LGBTQA+ are just all people. They should all have human rights.

Don’t like feminists? Join them. The point of feminism is to create a world where feminism doesn’t exist. We’ll just all be humans. Black history is American history and it should be included year round. LGBTQA+ is fine so long as everything about it is consensual - and it is.

Don’t like the gays? Don’t be gay. You don’t have the right to infringe on other people’s human rights. We don’t need to make a big deal about it, or have a month of celebration. They should be able to just exist. My only objection to LGBTQA+ is porn. I should be able to choose between penis and not penis, but that is easily rectified behind the scenes.

I have viewpoints liberals hate: it’s okay to address the adverse side effects of marijuana (ie. Disproportionate imprisonment of a distinguishable subgroup — not subclass — of people). It should be okay to research marijuana. It is not okay to legalize it before the experts have sufficient data and have evaluated such data. The best way to battle climate change in transportation isn’t electric vehicles. Lithium ion batteries are unstable. The best way is to let me drive whatever car I want, and provide places to do so (ie. Race track that’s a toll road), and install public transportation. Then, you slowly take away lanes until there is only one lane and the shoulder to get by in case of an accident.

I have views Republicans hate. While I enjoy firearms, I think the second amendment interpretation ignores the precondition of the militia. The president should not be immune to criminal prosecution of any kind. Fascism because your “team” is on top is still not OK. Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one. Religion should not guide government policy.

Like, isn’t it better if things are data driven (and filtered for bias)?

Universal healthcare makes sense by the numbers. The more people you represent, the more leverage you have during negotiation. Sure, your taxes go up - but that’s how government works…

Fighting climate change makes sense. If climate is change is real and we ignore it, the world becomes nigh unlivable. If climate change is real and we do something about, life is better for all the organisms that live on earth. If climate change is false and we do nothing, cool. If climate change is false and we fight climate change, we can all breathe better. What’s the downside here?

Fines should not be a fixed amount. It should be based on percentage of income. $300 fine for some making $8/hr for 8 hours a day is, assuming average of 30.437 days a month, is approximately 15.5% of gross monthly income. Whereas if you make, say, $60,000/year assuming an average of is just 6%. And the actual spending power goes down drastically more, the less you take home.

Etc etc etc

[email protected]

I can’t speak to your family, but when you talk about the full group of people who voted for Trump (or even people that would self identify as conservativr) you’re talking about tens of millions of people. The idea that absolutely all, or even a majority of them, are explicitly aware of and OK with the people marching with nazi flags is something that can’t just be taken as fact.

That’s the core thrust of your argument, and it’s so obviously flawed to me that I honestly have a hard time engaging with it.

Likewise, guilt by association is something that doesn’t hold up at the mind boggling scales we’re talking about. Guilt by association isn’t ok in the far smaller scale case of associating the looters that took advantage of the BLM riots with the BLM rioters, right? It’s not ok on the scale of “darkies commit more crimes statistically, so they’re all criminals” right? So how can we lean on that so heavily with a much larger group that crosses all sorts of demographics lines?

Let me be clear: The ones that are aware, the ones that are literally sitting across the table (not simply a member of a mind bogglingly large amorphous group of vague political beliefs), the ones that are actually racist… fuck em. Garbage people.

But the assertion that literally every single person who made the shit ass choice to vote for the cheeto is just as bad as the marching nazis on his side is just a childish attempt to simplify a massively complicated situation involving many millions of people, all with their own personal lived experiences, priorities likely different from yours, differing levels and sources of news exposure, differing levels of education, and differing levels of political engagement.

This next part may sound condescending, but I hope you can believe that I don’t mean it to be:

Maybe that simplification is what you need to make it through the day. Fair enough. Maybe that’s what you need to not lose your mind having fruitless conversations with assholes. Fair enough.

But don’t delude yourself into thinking that’s any true solution for moving forward. It’s survival at best. Maybe that’s all you’re capable of right now, and that’s fine. Life was and continues to be rough without all this extra shit. Without taking it upon yourself to try and fix the gaping chasm of political divide.

Just don’t be surprised when these people you denigrate, ignore, blanketly label as the worst of humanity don’t have interest in working with you towards a better tomorrow. That’s the trade off.

There either has to be some attempt made to reach and turn these people, or we resign ourselves that this shit will continue to happen again and again.

[email protected]

That you’re putting so much effort into defending trolls and racist is certainly interesting.

If you want to imagine that I’m part of that group, despite me clearly saying otherwise across many many comments, I can’t stop you.

Claiming that I’m trying to defend “trolls and racists” when I’ve been direct and specific about my points across my many comments on this post is also flipping the equation to fit your outrage or point of view.

As succinctly as possible: Denigrating, insulting, putting down, and condescencion towards people with differing political beliefs (especially when it’s a group as large as the Trump voting base) is not a recipe for successful movement forward towards a better future for the United States. Whether that’s fair or not doesn’t matter to this point. Whether they’re all the fucking worst or not doesn’t matter to this point. You cannot ignore or other a group this size and then be surprised when they react negatively back towards you. Who started it also does not matter to this point.

It sucks that this is the case. It’s a great big pot of unfair bullshit stew. Why should anyone have to even give those assholes the time of day, etc.

But unless you expect these people to magically stop existing, some way to work with or around them will need to be worked towards. I’d prefer to think that we’re better than advocating for a purge or removing peoples’ rights en masse, so that means that some amount of meeting people where they are and engaging with them as other people will need to happen.

The only one who can decide if they’re up for that effort is each individual person, but if no one even tries this shitshow won’t change.

[email protected]

When I drive, i think about how often people are traveling to places they don’t want to go. If only we could all stay in our basements. If only we could be free.

[email protected]

Broad city is still being produced?

[email protected]

My family all gets along great - no obnoxious relatives, no buried conflicts surfacing, etc. I always wonder how many people’s Thanksgivings are like the extremely overworked sitcom trope and how many are just happy get-togethers.

[email protected]

about tree fiddy

[email protected]

No, but that show rocked.

[email protected]

Haha this meme is so Lemmy. “me good guy you bad guy”.

[email protected]

“but if you were so open minded why won’t you listen to Joe Rogan?” Actual point made by Trump supporting relative

Ech

One last time - the post is about racists. The comment is about racists. You’re the one trying to make it about anything else, which only serves to enable and legitimize racists. If that’s not your intention, I’d recommend changing your game plan, because so far, you look like an apologist for racists at best.

[email protected]

Correct, triggered racist.

Ellen_musk_ox

“but have you considered my racist opinions?”

Ellen_musk_ox

DAMNED LOCH NESS MONSTAH

[email protected]

You can, in fact, choose your family. You literally do not need them in your life.

Ellen_musk_ox

What if you showed us evidence for that actually working in any meaningful sense, in order to stop people enabling fascists?

[email protected]

It’s kind of fueling some self hatred in me.