politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That is what you took from their reply? That’s a big projection without instead asking them a follow up of whether or not they had a solution.
So, fiivemacs, while I agree with your response - so you have a solution?
I don’t, personally because this stuff is deep rooted at this point
Complaining about something, check.
Offering nothing, check.
Yes, because I specifically said I don’t know what the answer is. Congratulations, inspector! Now you and the Scooby Gang can go try and find the solution you must have dropped somewhere because it sure as fuck isn’t in your response.
Complaining about something, check.
Offering nothing, check.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was explaining my comment.
I don't. Pointing out the irony that the 'sane side' is just as bad and calls for blood spilled.
In other words, you've never heard of the paradox of tolerance. It's fascinating stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It's not a paradox and it's not fascinating. It's linguistic horseshit. Allowing genocide is not fucking "tolerance" and any attempt to equate same with something like... for example... NOT allowing genocide is absolutely stupid.
Tolerance: "Ted's a bit of a loony with his religious rhetoric but it's not like he's a diddler or something."
Not Tolerance: "Ted's a racist asshole that calls for the genocide of all non-white races and acts politically to that end but we have to let it go. Also he's a diddler."
Don't diddle kids. I'm gonna write a song about that.
Wow, did you ever miss the point. The paradox of tolerance is effectively pointing out that tolerance isn't a suicide pact. When someone advocates for violence, the tolerant response is not "I'm sorry you feel that way. Have a Snickers bar." The only appropriate response is "you need to come with these uniformed people to a place where you can be segregated until you get rehabilitated." And if they won't go without violence, then violence is the only response to keep them in check.
That's why we talk about punching Nazis.
Calling it a paradox is failing to understand what a paradox is.
Again, it's just linguistic horseshit that adds nothing to any conversation.