And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.
Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.
Of course most of us don’t love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.
It isn’t how reasonable society works. It is how OUR society works. Can’t play by the rules of another game you wish you were playing, you will lose every time.
One that uses government funds to feed and house the homeless instead of using the police to punish them for being homeless and anyone who tries to help.
When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I’ll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.
You love it? You don’t look at this and think “This can’t possibly be how a reasonable society works”?
Not everyone agrees the cops should do whatever they want and sorting it out in court later is the way
The tools of oppressors can’t be used to stop oppression. --pdf
That’s like saying the tolerant can’t be intolerant of the intolerant, when in fact they have to be.
And it becomes even more viable when you consider that Popper’s idea is actually based off of a social contract.
Essentially, tolerance is based on a social contract to be tolerant to each other. If someone is being intolerant, they are explicitly and intentionally removing themselves from the contract. Ergo, they no longer fall under protections, and people can then be intolerant of their intolerance.
How people don’t understand this concept is incredible to me.
Pick One, possibly two.
There will of course be some who haven’t considered this perspective and some who disagree.
I’d put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.
The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.
Guns have been the tools of the revolutionary too.
Of course they can, that’s dumb.
Not with cops in US from what i heard. No chance.
Well that guy stood on Floyd’s neck is doing life, but someone really shoulda kicked that cop in the jaw.
But look at what it took. It was not the protests that did anything, that has been tried for decades, it was the riots.
Of course most of us don’t love it. A lot of us live in places where, due to concepts like gerrymandering, we have no political choice, so people have to resort to stuff like this. We love that people are fighting back, not that it has to be this way.
Yeah, moving somewhere else isn’t an option, but pow pow bang bang shooty shooty sure is!
Nobody is gonna stop you if you want to help homeless people move to a state that doesnt actively hate them
It isn’t how reasonable society works. It is how OUR society works. Can’t play by the rules of another game you wish you were playing, you will lose every time.
Exactly how a gun nut would think.
what reasonable society
One that uses government funds to feed and house the homeless instead of using the police to punish them for being homeless and anyone who tries to help.
so not this one
When it stops being illegal to help vulnerable people, I’ll stop cheering for folks who open carry firearms to deter cops that might otherwise try to stop them.
Where are you getting reasonable society from lmao
If we lived in a reasonable society, there’d be no need to deter the police.
And the key to getting to a reasonable society is for everybody to wear guns.