InsanePeopleFacebook

4466 readers

73 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world

BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world

113

I shared about my aunt, now this is a coworker of mine. (infosec.pub)

submitted 3 days ago by WanderWisley@lemmy.world to c/insanepeoplefacebook@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The phrase "paradox of tolerance" is almost never used correctly; it's usually used to justify the stifling of speech, rather than the prevention of violence.

Violent resistance to fascism is justified, but that doesn't mean violence is ever anything but a tragedy. Are you happy that the allies killed loads of axis fighters in ww2, or sad that it was necessary? Bloodlust never brings peace even if it's supposedly for a good cause.

Kirk's killer's political affiliations remain as ever a matter of speculation, so calling it "infighting" is at best wishful thinking.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's a sentence in the middle of the paradox of tolerance that is universally fucking ignored.

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 most unwise.

That's from the original author, Karl Popper, in the piece in which he originally defined it.

Yeah, we're past that point when it comes to the state of the US federal government, but people consistently skip or ignore that part when it comes to shit that is in a less dire state.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Exactly, thank you for finding that quote; I never have the patience to go and look it up when this comes up.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Something to bear in mind as well, to your point about actions versus words is that at least this quoted portion is about "utterances". Like you said, it's not about telling people to stand down against shit like ICE, it's about people saying intolerant things, like Kirk was.

Better ways to fight that than censorship and murder.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Kirk's killer's political affiliations remain as ever a matter of speculation, so calling it "infighting" is at best wishful thinking.

If it was anything other than a conservative, we would 100% have known day 1. The fact that we still don't know should tell you everything you need

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

The authorities made definitive statements about it. The reason we don't know is because you don't trust the authorities. And fair enough, but it means there's not actually anything reasonable you'd accept as 100% proof, so no this doesn't tell you anything.