All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Karma does not persist […]
I’m not sure what you mean; if I look at your account, for example, I can see all of your past vote scores [1].
Anecdotally, I have personally encountered a bug where my Linux system couldn’t handle the EDID from the monitor — so that particular model of monitor didn’t function with Linux despite it working fine on Windows.
Also seems the most useful cause you get two colors for the price of one.
Given my personal preference for the Uniball Vision Needle (not pictured), I’ll go for 1.
HA, that’s so cursed. I love it.
Avocado tree?
An interesting alternative that I’ve found (for when making English breakfast or something similar) is to steep the teabag in the milk first before adding the hot water. I find that it cuts down on the bitterness and makes a much smoother tea.
[…] If you don’t support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people’s land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.
To me, it feels like you are conflating some things here: I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo. Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors, and I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them; but I don’t believe that a government should take action unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.
I could be wrong in my interpretation, but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don’t believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion. The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is
Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal
but that would depend on how you are defining “support”.
Zero. I believe that the negotiations of an employee’s market value are between the employee and their employer. I don’t believe that it is my responsibility to charitably subsidize a company through the subsidization of their employees’ wages.
Transphobic main dev […]
Do you have a source?
I swear, that text looks both blurry and sharp at the same time.
“The President has invited you to the Gulf of Laogai.”
How to Cure Fungus on Aquarium Fish
Am I going to be patient zero for an IRL Last of Us?
[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]
I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech [1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association [1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship [2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech [3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).
All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.
[…] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, [freedom of speech], freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. […]
[…] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, [freedom of assembly], and freedom of religion. […]
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. […]
[…] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?
It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.
Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.
[…] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]
I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?
Do they have any documentation for that behavior? If so, could you link it?