crapwittyname @ crapwittyname @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

462

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not intolerant, though. Except when it comes to the intolerant. It turns out that this is the correct, rational approach to take, cf. Popper's tolerance paradox.

It's not about idiots with shitty opinions, it's about people who believe other humans should not be allowed to exist, or should have less access to shared resources, because of their genetics. There was a pretty big furore about this in the mid twentieth century, where it was finally decided that these people shouldn't be given an inch ever again. And yet here you are, feeding them rope. Fuck Nazis. They don't deserve a platform.

I won't tolerate them, and you really shouldn't either. They already lost the debate. They don't need to be proven wrong again.

No, not at all. I'm saying that the op was complaining about religion, not faith. So talking about people who hate others due to their religion seems a bit off-topic.

I mean, I'm objectively not intolerant. Intolerance is measurable. Nazis who think they are being reasonable are demonstrably deluded.

There are absolutely people who hate people for being religious.

Can you point to one? I don't see any.

Careful- they only talked about hatred of religion, not the religious. A subtle but enormous difference.

The reason all opinions and beliefs can't be allowed is because these views are intolerant. Why should we tolerate them when they don't afford that to others based on their genetics? Fuck em.
Being a Nazi isn't a 'view', it's a hate crime. The only goal in engaging with these arguments is to try and change the arguers' belief system, and that won't happen very often in a public forum. What is there to gain by letting a cancer like that grow?

Good on you for being able to change your mind.

I personally will die before I place a tick next to a box that says' conservative'.

If a leader cannot make public communications with respect, the content of the message is irrelevant.

So that's not a rational view. Linus's style is irrelevant; you need to see if he is correct as that's all that matters really in deciding whether or not to dismiss his arguments. This goes for everyone from Aristotle to Andrew Tate.
If he's wrong in 99% of cases then sure, it's reasonable to dismiss him based purely on time constraints. But if he's rude and correct in 99% of cases then you need to listen up.

BuT iT dOeSnT wOrK lIkE tHaT

Someone else not liking it, sure. But if it's doing nothing about hateful speech and death threats then by continuing to use it you appear to be fine with that.

I love it. The gist is:

• hate speech is running rampant on your platform.
• you're doing nothing to stop it.
• here's our evidence.
• where's your e idence?
• why are you spending time and money on fighting us instead of on fighting the literal white supremacist death threats on your platform?
• telling us we've not sampled enough tweets while you're in the process of making impossible the mass sampling of tweets is...a bit rich.
• we're not intimidated by your threats
• your threats are also bullshit
• we're not gonna stop

It's a textbook example of "no u" in grown up language. Bravo.