Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
It's more like:
Absolutely fucking agree.
Except when it comes to landlords. Somehow those are always bad.
Never get into the details, that’s where the devil is.
Also the suggesting ways the world could be better that i haven't already done. Which is basically calling me an asshole and giving me more work.
This is why i try to be the most dirtbaggy disingenuous asshole i can at all times; that's me asking to be loved, and it genuinely works.
I should start just depicting my opinions as the Chad and other people’s opinions as the Soyjak and leaving it at that
Insert one shibboleth, like one bit of information critically wrong intentionally. Make lists of users who point it out for HR.
"I am a socialist" vs "We need to round up anyone with glasses and kill them because they are bourgeoisie."
What about sunglasses? It's too bright outside of the basement, I need them to see!
Kulac detected
Yes. Socialism is killing people with glasses.
It's a reference to the Khmer Rouge Genocide. This included people being killed for wearing glasses, speaking a foreign language, or anything else which indicated they were an intellectual.
That's slander, he just hated nerds.
Who doesn't? Fucking nerds.
How very CPK of you
California Pizza Kitchen?
It's the initials of the khmer rouge comunist party. Pole pot was the communist dictator that would kill you if you had glasses.
I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, and car pollution gives kids asthma, so we should ban cars.
I think hurting children is wrong.
I think hurting children is wrong, so children should be euthanized to ensure they experience as little pain as possible. /s
The only thing tolerance cannot tolerate is intolerance…
…I think it is morally sound to remove someone from society if that someone is an intolerant, fascist, greedy bigot. What constitutes as “remove” is contingent on how intolerant, fascist, and greedy the subject has exhibited themselves to be.
…murder is OK, in some scenarios.
Murder is ok in self defense. Extrapolate as necessary.
I know it’s been four days, but I just wanted to circle back to this and say this is great/I still’ve been thinking about it.
I just like how it brackets everything I said into two sentences. Love it.
You misunderstand the point of this paradox. By default you become intolerant when you start "removing" people. it is explicitly not a justification for whatever action you claim moral superiority on.
Since almost every political decision will affect at least some fraction of society negatively (even if it would ethically be for the greater good), you can carelessly throw this around to eliminate any opponents for this arbitrary tolerance reason. The only way to make sure the "removal" is fair, as a society absolutely needs these tools to function, is to clearly outline the case when it needs to happen and bring the barrier such that those capable of improvement do not get ostracized into further radicalization. And that barrier needs to be significant.
You bring up "fascist", at which line does it happen? Genocide execution, support, inaction, Swastika wearing, illegal membership, legal membership of ultra radical parties, support of conservative oligarchs? What is greedy? Robbery, theft, tax evasion, corruption, cheating with the girlfriend of a friend? What is bigotry? You get the idea.
This guy gets it!🍿
It stops being a paradox if you treat tolerance as a contract between parties in a society, instead of a principle. They break that contract and thus are no longer covered by it.
What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn't break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?
That's a different question. However society enforces norms. Personally I would prefer some consensus seeking mechanism.
Welcome to social contract theory.
It isn't a paradox, or it doesn't have to be. It isn't a seemingly false or untrue statement that belies a deeper meaning.
It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
Chemically tolerance means the limit at which something begins to degrade or an organism has to/begins to adapt. This is at least what I interpret with what is being brought up with tolerance of intolerance: when adaptation or degradation is required, the limits of tolerance have been reached.
It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.
As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a "removal" would be required.
the "paradox" as the user above pointed out, simply isn't a paradox at all:
"A" = "not A" is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.
and that's all that the "paradox" really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.
it boils down to "you can't have it both ways", and that is the intended meaning.
i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a "paradox" rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.
in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.
there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it's simply a logical conclusion.
it's kind of like the whole misunderstanding of "theory" vs "hypothesis" leading to the now-common "evolution is just a theory" among religious fundamentalists.
"it's just a theory" is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there's nothing hypothetical about it.
in a similar vein, the "paradox" is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.
and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word "paradox" they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.
and that assumption of "paradox = dilemma" is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.
popper called the conclusion "paradoxical", which isn't the same as something being an actual paradox.
i really wish they'd used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer...
Turns out: morality is relative.
I’ve never considered it a paradox, more of an irony.
…but yes I was oversimplifying for funsies. “Bash the fash” as they say.
