Thanksgiving Dinner

[email protected]

Bro thought he could speak freely here lmao

[email protected]

I must have missed something if every single Trump voter was out there marching with the ones carrying the nazi flag. Maybe I should get my eyes checked, as I sure didn’t see tens of millions of people in those photos.

Stop misusing literally.

I understand what you’re getting at, but I vehemently disagree that guilt by association can be reasonably applied to the entirety of a group this fucking large. Has the same feel to me as being distrustful of every person with dark skin because of skewed crime statistics.

[email protected]

Attitude like this would make the problem worse, this is not how they see it and if they were to see this comic, it would push them away more.

[email protected]

And by the way, I appreciate your kinder gentle approach.

Although I’m just going full “these people will receive nothing from me”, and I have no intent to consider any other approach, yours is the healthier way no doubt.

[email protected]

I for one don’t like associating beards with racist and sexist Americans.

[email protected]

Hahahaha no sir

[email protected]

I wholeheartedly agree, don’t let those duck dynasty fucks ruin beard culture.

[email protected]

TL;DR;

Hyperbole and “black and white” thinking aren’t a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.

I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.

That’s…certainly…one of the takes of all time.

I’m personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i’ll highlight an important part for you as well.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

I personally wouldn’t attribute “open to rational argument” and “kept in check by public opinion” as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that’s just me.

Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.

A good example of a single person making a difference.

I’m genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn’t vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,

Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.

it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

A few things:

“Just decide” implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.

Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?

It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that’s a broad generalisation for no citation.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

That’s an extreme amount of projection.

Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you’ve specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.

and further down :

self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.

If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I’m sure it’s an interesting story.

Self-righteous, like “nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct” ?

Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.

It feels that way because you’ve set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn’t allow for perspectives that don’t align.

If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.

Example of nuance.

“A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I’m choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the ‘saveable’ bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions.”

Ech

For one, the snide “tolerant left” comment is never about any particular person or party - it’s a bad faith attempt to discredit valid critique of hateful or harmful actions, unreasonably demanding universal tolerance of everything, including intolerance.

Second, the comic is explicitly about racists, basically all of which are going to be trump voters, but that says nothing about any other part of that group. Extrapolating that to be an attack on all of those voters is flipping the equation to fit your own outrage.

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

[email protected]

Yeah, you’re right. We don’t want to offend any racists.

[email protected]

It actually comes from African-American culture and has a history that’s several decades old.

[email protected]

Especially when they get co-opted by Euro-Americans.

[email protected]

I’m not misusing the word. They saw Nazi flags flying and at best they thought

Well, I might not agree with what they’re saying, but they have a right to say it

Except that what a Nazi flag says is incompatible with what this country should be, with what these people who think themselves “patriots” profess to believe. You don’t think guilty by association is fair? Explain to me why not, please. In what way is “Yep, being on the same side as Nazis is fine” not just being a fucking Nazi? I will be positively floored if you can come up with a single reasonable scenario to convince me there’s any difference.

And don’t think this is in bad faith, either. If you can convince me you might just give me a fighting chance to forgive my family who went off the deep end. It is actually quite important to me, I’ve just given up there’s any hope of getting through to them after so long. Especially now he won.

[email protected]

No. It is consistent. Bodily autonomy for everyone. You don’t get to go into the populations as a plague rat and kill others with your idiocy, though. That impinges on their freedoms.

[email protected]

What if the angle would be that you understand the underlying needs and feelings that are being expressed as support for Nazism?

ObliviousEnlightenment

If there were an ethical way to get rid of or away from them, Id be down. As for reaching out, thats all well and good but I am not a politician and am under no obligation to be nice

[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