And will only get even more bolder as a consequence. It’s quite fascinating how that shit head is exposing so many flaws in the current political system. And yet very little is done about it.
I wish it were only the political system, but it is also the social contract that is being broken.
Not everything in a society can and should be regulated by law. For example, we know not to cough or sneeze in someone else’s face, but to put our arm or hand in front of our face. It’s not a law and yet 99% of people know it and do it and call out people who don’t.
The US political system worked well for a while because there were do’s and don’ts that weren’t made into law, but every politician respected them to some degree. The GOP no longer respects anyone or anything, not an unwritten rule or even a written law, but they want to be respected, they want their rights to be respected.
This is not just happening in the US, I see it happening in the UK and Germany for example. Basic respect for each other is being lost more and more, between families, between neighbours, even between politicians. How do you get that back?
We don’t know how to deal with it as a society. We can’t have a law for everything. We depend on people and politicians to keep within the minimum social rules and follow an unwritten code, and we have nothing to punish them if they don’t and they just ignore these rules and spit on them.
It’s a double edged sword to build up this much shit. We saw with the court cases that nothing happened until one person decided to make a move. After that, the indictments came flooding in.
Someone needs to be willing to be the first one to throw his orange ass in jail for obstruction of justice and witness intimidation. But after that first person moves, I think we’ll see everyone move, and it’ll all collapse on him.
It’s certainly a flaw though, as you point out. Needing one brave person to stick their neck out to maintain rule of law isn’t great.
this should be a clear violation of the gag order. but it wont be. theyll be some hand waving and he wont be held to account. and no, a monetary fine is not justice.
The gag order was in reference to court staff only, wasn’t it? Didn’t the judge explicitly leave himself off it? I forget which judge this is, there are so many
honestly im surprised he didnt just outright threaten someone. it kinda feels like this is a desperate attempt at a mistrial.
how many judges would allow 'well, you only broke the intent of my rules not the letter, so ill let it slide this 3rd time'. its prolly zero... unless of course you know the intent of the defendant is to generate a mistrial or other incident allowing appeal.
Trump isn't a actually stupid. He's just an asshole and normal people don't get it.
But if the judge left himself off, and if Trump can make him adjust the order to add himself, or otherwise indicate that he's upset that he's being targeted himself, Trump can and will then argue that the judge is making personal decisions and ask try to make drama about recusing. Which won't go anywhere, but will ramp his followers up further.
Haha that’s so true. I have no doubt there are intelligent people around him who are trying to get him to be the evil genius that guy thinks he is, but there’s just no way he can do it on his own. Unfathomably stupid is the perfect description.
Lots of people are saying he’s the dumbest, maybe the dumbest that’s ever lived. Just the other day he was punching a baby, and the baby miraculously spoke its first words, calling him dumb. If Nobel had a prize for being dumb, he’d win every year. No one else can compare to his ultimate dumbness.
That was very stupid of the judge. Insults and mockery normally are just that. But when someone has a platform as large as Trump full of violent traitors, it turns into death threats pretty quick.
Judges have to be careful with their orders. They have a lot of power, but are always subject to review. No judge wants to see their orders overturned on appeal because of some action they took.
So while a judge absolutely can impose a broad gag order on Trump right away based on his past behavior, his lawyers get to appeal, and they have shown that their legal strategy is whining about every little thing until they get their way.
By doing out punishments in small stages, he can establish a clear pattern of objectionable conduct, such that when the harsher penalties come, his lawyers have a much worse position to whine from.
It’s amazing how many times I’ve seen historians say that this is exactly how historic examples of fascism come about. First people laugh and think 'that would never happen. It’s too absurd. Then as day turns steadily into night you look around and realize it’s there and it’s too late.
I have zero respect for anyone who continues to support the Republican Party, let alone Donald Trump. I can’t help but see the same gullible, immoral, selfish fools that supported the likes of Hitler in the early 30s.
Except this time it isn’t like there is someone who can swoop and stop it. It’s not like the EU is going to be in Washington DC rebuilding the country.
We’re the passengers and the people driving insist that there is no right side of the road, this is the right side of the road and you’re an anti-American commie for suggesting otherwise!!! /s
I think a lot of them do see it, but he pisses off the libs and seems to be promising to hurt the people they want to be hurt, so they are OK with that.
Are we just going to forget about the family separation border policies? Or the “it’s ok if grandma dies as long as we can go back to Outback Steakhouse again” treatment of COVID?
Also it wasn’t Hitler himself that architected the Holocaust. Him being in power gave power to even worse people. He was happy to go along with it, it just doesn’t look like he had any specific plans to actually exterminate the Jews when he was rising to power. So don’t think that Trump’s lack of any specific agenda means that such a thing won’t happen if he is in a position to enable it.
For a way too large group, his being unhinged bigoted rants are a selling point, not a liability.
For way too many others, they don’t care about his unhinged rants because he’s pledging to hurt OTHER people, not them.
The former are bad, but aren’t enough to sweep Trump into power. The latter, though, could help Trump attain power and then will act shocked when they get targeted.
His lawyers probably didn’t expect to juggle a dozen trials at the same time. That, and, no one even halfway competent would ever work for Trump. Most of his previous attorneys are codefendants in his criminal trials at this point.
Isn’t that in the Torah? I have never met a Christian who didn’t mix meat with dairy, that’s Judaism. Imagine Christian America if you told them they can’t eat cheeseburgers lmao. Actually, I think that might be the best way to beat religion in America. Ban cheeseburgers on religious grounds. Fat white balding men the nation over will revolt, once their arteries clear up from not eating burgers, that is.
Well, it’s in Leviticus. Which is in the Old Testament in the bible that these fuckheads still espouse. And before anyone comes along and says: “But, Jesus swept all that away!!!” Remember that wingnuts still cite Leviticus (20:13, to be precise) as justification for persecuting homosexuals.
That makes sense, thanks. It’s been a couple decades since I’ve set foot anywhere Christian, and I hope to continue that streak for a few more, so I’d rather ask you than a Christian 😂
Here’s the trick. Jesus swept away the conviction rules but not the sin rules. As in some things aren’t bad per se, they’re just rules to show your devotion. Jesus made is so you don’t have to do those things anymore.
Now, what’s bad and what’s an arbitrary rule? Who the fuck knows? It’s a free pass to have your own rules.
Exodus. Exodus is part of the Old Testament, along with Leviticus.
Leviticus (11:9-12) is where shellfish are banned, mixed seed or fabrics (19:19) It is where modern Christians cherry-pick their justifications on being anti-LGBTQ. (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)
Point is, they cherry-pick from the Old Testament when it suits them, and if you look at the rest of the rules in the books they reference that they ignore (e.g. tattoos, touching pig skin, eating pork, shellfish, etc. etc. ) it’s totally fair game to point out the rules they ignore in the same books as the ones they cite.
most Americans can’t even comprehend the rest of the world doesn’t have a walgreens on every corner let alone how we look on in horror while they defend the rational need to be armed
Tolerance is a social contract, not an ideal. If someone refuses to adhere to the contract, then they are not entitled to the benefits of it either. Hence, there is no paradox. When we say “be tolerant to all” what we mean is “please adhere to the social contract, and assume everyone else does so, until proven otherwise”.
The paradox still exists. You described a system that is intolerant of the intolerant. That system is therefore not tolerant. The paradox is that no system can be completely tolerant… Because intolerance would have to be tolerated, which would make the system intolerant.
Your response would be like saying the boot strap paradox doesn’t exist because I haven’t invented time travel. But, I still need to fuck my grandma or else I never will! Wait…
It’s not a paradox to say “I will be tolerant of anyone who is also tolerant.” Whether that’s a good foundation for society to be built upon is subjective I suppose, but it’s not a paradox.
The paradox only exists in a society that claims to be completely tolerant. The society you’re talking about doesn’t claim to be completely tolerant, but it doesn’t solve the paradox of a completely tolerant society. It, in fact, proves the paradox as the intolerant have taken over the system and are not tolerant of all.
I’m making no judgment on the societal system. I also dislike the intolerant. And… people who want to do back in time to have sex with their grandmother!
Yes, but I and the person you originally replied to weren’t talking about an idealized society that tolerates everything and everyone. The paradox only exists when you take the idea to its extreme. It’s very easy to define a system where people are tolerant, and replying with “b-b-but that’s not truly tolerant” doesn’t help anyone here and only serves to muddy the waters.
The comment I responded to responded to this comment.
I really wish more people understood the paradox of tolerance.
Seemed like I could defend the paradox in a response that ignored the existence of the paradox when the OP was wishing more people could understand it. But sure, i muddied the waters.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Someone needs to explain to me why that’s an absolute/assured (the italicized part).
That seems like one hell of an assumption, and not a foregone conclusion.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance,
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other’s ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.
Plus the concept we’re discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that’s a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.
But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.
The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who’s being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don’t think so.
And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant.
Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.
100% of people will not agree on what’s intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the “you’re intolerant” excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.
America’s worked fine so far on tolerance. It’s one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they’re wrong, but don’t try to silence them, and their ideas won’t gain traction, and they will not gain followers.
The center will not hold, if we’re trying to silence each other.
That’s what people on here take as facts. A paradox on Wikipedia. Get the fuck out of here. No one needs to read that uslesss garbage. Who defines what is or isn’t tolerate? “Nope, your being intolerant of (insert crazy fucking shit) off the the gulags with ya. These people are as bad as their far right counter parts and can’t even see it. Dripping with the same hate that they feel for the “enemy “
Wikipedia lists 17 different references from the last 70 years on this topic. It is not a new concept. It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
Your entire comment is either disingenuous or asinine.
It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
4chan is not America. Free Speech seems to work fine in America, we’re still here.
And it isn’t about absolute free speech, it’s about giving everyone a turn at the microphone. You can definitely disagree with what someone’s saying, but you should never stop them from trying to say it.
It’s true the same way that the boxer with one hand tied behind his back will lose a fight. All other things being equal, the side that limits itself will always lose because they deny themselves paths to victory the opposition can use.
No, no they should not. Nazi speech should be criminalized. Just like yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre. Nazi speech is even more deadly and destructive.
Yeah, they say the same things about pro-trans speech.
The problem is, when you start policing speech, you open up the floodgates for people to pick and choose what is right or wrong to say. If it’s okay to ban ‘nazi speech,’ then what’s stopping the next congress from banning ‘trans speech’ or ‘communist speech’?
Nah. It’s up to us, as a society, to work together to keep these ideas at bay through discussion. If we try to ban people from sharing these ideas altogether, it will create a Streisand Effect and give them more power than they would otherwise have.
Unfortunately reality doesn’t work this way. A popular lie beats an unpopular truth. That’s a large part of why we can’t make any meaningful progress on addressing climate change.
Blame it on teaching evolution, or video games, or moral decay, just whatever you do don’t blame it on how easy it is for unstable people to get a hold of machine guns.
A bump stock arguably makes it full auto, but it doesn’t make it a machinegun.
Arguably the reason this thread is confused is that the word ‘machine gun’ doesn’t refer so much to physical characteristics, but more to a usage: they’re meant for sustained covering fire rather than short bursts.
This guy is a fucking insane Christofacist piece of shit. Seriously, anyone who thinks mythology from the bronze age is a better source than hundreds of years of scientific discovery is deluding themselves. Our country is so fucked.
Side note: Machine guns shoot many bullets with a single trigger pull and have more stringent laws than other guns that require a trigger pull per shot.
While Trump deserves our ire and some jail time, I’m more concerned with what his popularity says about our society.
He’s a gift in some ways: he’s shown the true colors of our neighbors to us. If he makes it to the oval office again, so much would have to have gone wrong in the belt-and-suspenders approach being used right now.
I trust that there’s an end game to disqualifying him because that’s the only way we can buy time while figuring out how to address the ugly xenophobic truth about the future in the US.
I STRONGLY recommend reading Susan Faludi’s “stiffed” if you want a play book on where we’re headed (spoiler: it’s the 90s again, but worse because one of the lost boys could be POTUS again)
I really don’t know why everyone discounts the propaganda so much. I’ve been a broken record on this lately because, yes, we have assholes in vast numbers, but we also have a massive propaganda problem that is essentially creating a reality that doesn’t actually exist.
That’s not to say there aren’t hundreds of thousands of people who are just straight up racist hateful assholes, but a very large portion of the people who vote for Trump think they’re actually picking a good person… It’s infuriating, the criminal isn’t a criminal and ol Biden who the right has been attacking forever is somehow actually a criminal that no one can catch…
meidastouch.com
Top