bss03

I'm all for persons voluntarily opting to have fewer (or no) progeny. Certainly, that is my intent.

But, Malthus was wrong on so many levels, and regulating reproductive activity even with the best of intent is going to be abused by eugenicists for genocide.

The already posted SK vid explains how the current social systems in most countries need at least replacement birth rates. It might be possible to have a society that could survive less-than-replacement birth rates, but I don't see how.

I'm a fairly open borders guy, but if you want to have near-zero immigration to avoid foreigners, the country HAS to improve the life of persons, particularly women, so that having children and raising them to adulthood is a activity that is more joy than stress. Otherwise, you'll go the way of South Korea.

Of course, the "correct" behavior is to not treat foreigners as other, but as "merely" different aspects of self. Then seek to integrate all tolerant persons that want to immigrate; likely through multiculturalism.

No. Dehumanizing the intolerant is not acceptable. People can change and be redeemed (albeit rarely).

Not that a Netflix special is that special, but TT has 3 Netflix specials, and I think all of them were recorded before @fter Midnight.

Yes, I was notified in the infosec.pub UI that today it was my cake day! 🎂

I'm not sold on the anarchist approach because I do believe their should be an authority that is capable of redistributing hoarded (by a minority) resources back into the commons, and said authority should be democratically controlled. In short, I think anarchy tends to devolve into warlord-ism as the selfish (non-socialist "libertarians", e.g.) choose to use violence to amass power.

I think a lot of hateful speech should be legal, tho subject to cultural isolation. But I also believe that there should be legal restrictions on speech, inciting violence should clearly be restricted, but I also think speech can be stochastic violence and that should also be restricted. I think it should be legal to insult and belittle and offend people, but not to dehumanize them, and I think dehumanizing people should be punished through the removal of political power. I think a democratically controlled State (e.g. the FCC) is a better way to implement these restrictions than a privately-owned corporate Capitalist structure (e.g. Meta, X, Skydance, etc.).

So say we all!

I believe it was a satirical "compromise position" between the two positions in the image, yes.

once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die

I don't believe this is universal; we have at least one reformed neonazi that is antifa now.

So, I'm all for taking away the political power of the intolerant, but I don't think we should kill them because they are intolerant, even proudly intolerant. Now, I do think it is much more likely that you will have to enact violence against the intolerant in defense of yourself or others, and if that happens to be fatal to the intolerant person I still find defensive violence justified.

You first! /s

Well, we've never had direct democracy in the U.S. The People didn't even vote for Senators for quite a while, and we still don't vote for President, much less all the legislation and regulation done at various levels of government.

That said, I don't really believe in unrestricted democracy anymore. I think the best solve for the "paradox of tolerance" is for intolerant persons to be prohibited from wielding political power, including the vote. I think the anarchist solve is non-binding democracy: a democratic decision, no matter how overwhelming, can't reduce the freedom on the minority (and even the people that voted for it aren't bound to it either, they voluntarily comply as long [or short] as they care to).

Your concern is valid. "Worry" is a useless activity. Prepare.

They might not explicitly call themselves republicans. They might be implicitly or explicitly backed by The State. But there is a growing number of people with weapons and unmasked hate for othered humans.