Even more problematic stuff

[Cunt]

Triggered by Seinfeld -- http://www.bustle.com/p/these-13-jokes- ... i-10191949

The writer seems to think that it's obvious that each of the items listed is plainly unacceptable today and they "need no explanation." Honestly, I went through the list and I can't see why they would upset anyone.

In each case, the 'joke' was funny exactly for the reasons the writer was bothered.

I recently heard (from a comedian) that the comics don't want everyone in a room to get a joke. They want about 80% of the room to 'get it'. That way, there is someone to laugh at I guess.

[Cunt]

Sargon of Akaad was punted off Patreon for hatespeech.

But it wasn't on their platform. Or his channel.

Their TOS expanded to punt him specifically. Now several others are leaving Patreon. (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson)

What if the SJW start getting VISA and MC to ban people from using their services for political reasons. There have already been some beginning accusations that VISA was partly responsible for mass shootings when the attacker killed people with bullets purchased with a VISA

[Cunt]

Oh look, freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib, after decreeing that she would 'impeach the motherfucker' (to her child first) and to the world, is then seen to be running away from reporters trying to ask her about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN0oFmpMzj0
That is some ladylike bravery right there!

[Cunt]

Pelosi said the wall was an immorality.

Holy fuck, how is that going to look when she goes home tonight, probably to a walled community, with (likely) a walled mansion inside of it?

I hope she gets to be the Democrat candidate for president in 2020. You almost couldn't find an easier target for Trump to beat lol

[pErvinalia]

Sargon of Akaad was punted off Patreon for hatespeech.

But it wasn't on their platform. Or his channel.

Their TOS expanded to punt him specifically. Now several others are leaving Patreon. (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson)

What if the SJW start getting VISA and MC to ban people from using their services for political reasons. There have already been some beginning accusations that VISA was partly responsible for mass shootings when the attacker killed people with bullets purchased with a VISA

Why do you hate the free market?

[Hermit]

Sargon of Akaad was punted off Patreon for hatespeech.

But it wasn't on their platform. Or his channel.

Their TOS expanded to punt him specifically. Now several others are leaving Patreon. (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson)

Four for the price of one.

[Cunt]

You know they are coming after visa next, right?

[Hermit]

You know they are coming after visa next, right?

Sargon of Akkad without a Visa card? You say that as if it were a bad thing.
Anyway, he died about 4000 years before credit cards were even invented.

[Cunt]

Sometime soon, those engaging in hatespeech won't be allowed to rent space on billboards or buy megaphones. I'm confident it won't go further than that though.

[Hermit]

Sometime soon, those engaging in hatespeech won't be allowed to rent space on billboards or buy megaphones. I'm confident it won't go further than that though.

Excellent.



There is a limit to tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. - K.R. Popper

[Sean Hayden]

"I feel like if you’re not homophobic anymore, you shouldn’t mind apologizing for your past homophobia again and again and again. I don’t want to hear a hostile retelling of how we didn’t hear your meager apology the first time."

[Cunt]

Sometime soon, those engaging in hatespeech won't be allowed to rent space on billboards or buy megaphones. I'm confident it won't go further than that though.

Excellent.



There is a limit to tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. - K.R. Popper

The 'THEY' who were intolerant of Alex Jones were social media corporations. Not exactly a shining example of anything more respectful than greed, dishonesty and promotion of vanity.

I can see clearly that they don't care about the harm false words might bring, or the awful things that might be said. They care about money, not morality.

Punting Jones was about marketing themselves as 'against harmful dishonesty'.

Alex Jones may have been harmfully dishonest (at least such could be argued)

Every day, I can find those same social media corps taking money to sell make-believe medicine.

Alex Jones may have big reach, but as far as harm, he can't come close to the harm done by 'Complimentary and Alternative Medicine'.

Not to mention the fact that they seem to have a bias against one side of the political spectrum. (if you can't see that bias, it's probably in your favour)

[Hermit]

Sometime soon, those engaging in hatespeech won't be allowed to rent space on billboards or buy megaphones. I'm confident it won't go further than that though.

Excellent.



There is a limit to tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. - K.R. Popper

The 'THEY' who were intolerant of Alex Jones were social media corporations. Not exactly a shining example of anything more respectful than greed, dishonesty and promotion of vanity.

I can see clearly that they don't care about the harm false words might bring, or the awful things that might be said. They care about money, not morality.

Punting Jones was about marketing themselves as 'against harmful dishonesty'.

Alex Jones may have been harmfully dishonest (at least such could be argued)

Every day, I can find those same social media corps taking money to sell make-believe medicine.

Alex Jones may have big reach, but as far as harm, he can't come close to the harm done by 'Complimentary and Alternative Medicine'.

Not to mention the fact that they seem to have a bias against one side of the political spectrum. (if you can't see that bias, it's probably in your favour)

If that is supposed to be some kind of argument in favour of unlimited tolerance, you failed.

[Cunt]

No, I'm just pointing out that the 'tolerance' example you are using isn't as simple as presented.

There are places for more, and less tolerance. The blogging sites (facebook, youtube, twitter, rationalia) will, and may, have different levels of tolerance for different things.

Enforcement of 'intolerance' doesn't bother me all that much. (an example is the moderation here, or on other websites) but one-sided enforcement is awful very quickly.

And I think it's because I do it, and recognize that everyone does.

So should there be a place of full tolerance? I like that the US has protected 'speech', but I really think they should have the 2nd amendment hump the first, and make a baby that is free speech in a device, allowing every citizen to tweet, and protecting their anonymity in certain cases.

[pErvinalia]

Sometime soon, those engaging in hatespeech won't be allowed to rent space on billboards or buy megaphones. I'm confident it won't go further than that though.

Excellent.



There is a limit to tolerance:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. - K.R. Popper

The 'THEY' who were intolerant of Alex Jones were social media corporations. Not exactly a shining example of anything more respectful than greed, dishonesty and promotion of vanity.

I can see clearly that they don't care about the harm false words might bring, or the awful things that might be said. They care about money, not morality.

Punting Jones was about marketing themselves as 'against harmful dishonesty'.

Alex Jones may have been harmfully dishonest (at least such could be argued)

Every day, I can find those same social media corps taking money to sell make-believe medicine.

Alex Jones may have big reach, but as far as harm, he can't come close to the harm done by 'Complimentary and Alternative Medicine'.

Not to mention the fact that they seem to have a bias against one side of the political spectrum. (if you can't see that bias, it's probably in your favour)

Why do you hate the free market?