Those who want to hurt others … deserve to be hurt themselves.
…
May she get [hurt].
…
Yes, I stripped out some very important words, but those words don’t actually change the underlying problem: we are each wishing harm befall other people.
She wants people hurt; we want people hurt. We’re all getting exactly what we say we want.
By all means, marvel at her stupidity and bigotry, but please stop short of becoming her.
Oh oh, lets find common ground evwee bwaaddy! Peace and love! Turn the other cheek! Fuck off if you think that works. We have been pursuing that for decades. Reconciliation requires a sincere seeking of truth. It’s not in them, and will never will be for most.
“Becoming her,” would be attacking her because of where she was born, or skin color, or religion, or sexuality. We should attack her intolerance.
I don’t care if they are now naturalized citizens. They lied on any oath of loyalty to our constitution. They deserve the ICE treatment. They are a part of the world’s population that will succumb to strong men. They are those whom have enabled and carried out genocides throughout history. I have been them. I was raised like them. I know them.
If 1/3 of the world’s population cannot abide by social contracts of tolerance, then they should destroyed.
We are not becoming like them. We have to hit the bully in the face. The difference is that many of us will be completely traumatized by what we had to do to stop the bullying. We will weep and use our emotional pain to design better institutions and futures. Will they? Fuck no they won’t.
I want her to wake up. I have heard too many accounts like hers. Those accounts are depressing, because nearly 100% of them expressed that they would still support the politicians that harmed them.
As far as religion, I’d prefer if it didn’t exist, but I will tolerate people’s delusions if they don’t cause intolerance and harm to others. It is not inherent like skin color, but it is does create classes that get targeted by intolerant classes.
At some point, we must harm the intolerant by depriving them of liberty, or life. We have been entreating and begging for them to not be this way. Our “want” to hurt them is the culmination of our frustration and understanding of what their intolerance leads to. There is no fucking paradox here. That fury that we are feeling is the natural impulse to survive or die.
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Karl Popper’s philosophy calls for directly and actively suppressing the people you and I deem “intolerant”. The fundamental problem with his philosophy is that the Nazis are already in charge. Any method you use to suppress “the intolerant”, you give to the Nazis. It goes straight into their hands for them to use against the people they deem “intolerant”. Popper asks you to forge the tools of your own demise.
Thomas Paine’s philosophy breaks the cycle. He opposes fascism in general. When you instill Thomas Paine’s values in the general populace, you discredit yourself in their eyes as soon as you call for suppressing anyone.
Fascism that you happen to agree with is still fascism. Popper’s actual paradox is that he was a fascist.
“Fascism that you happen to agree with is still fascism.”
Do you truly believe that those calling for oppression against fascists, become fascist? We must be using different definitions of fascism, unless you’re saying that us making them the out-group is the same. That doesn’t ring true to me. Are there examples of this from history?
…
…
Yes, I stripped out some very important words, but those words don’t actually change the underlying problem: we are each wishing harm befall other people.
She wants people hurt; we want people hurt. We’re all getting exactly what we say we want.
By all means, marvel at her stupidity and bigotry, but please stop short of becoming her.
Oh oh, lets find common ground evwee bwaaddy! Peace and love! Turn the other cheek! Fuck off if you think that works. We have been pursuing that for decades. Reconciliation requires a sincere seeking of truth. It’s not in them, and will never will be for most.
“Becoming her,” would be attacking her because of where she was born, or skin color, or religion, or sexuality. We should attack her intolerance.
I don’t care if they are now naturalized citizens. They lied on any oath of loyalty to our constitution. They deserve the ICE treatment. They are a part of the world’s population that will succumb to strong men. They are those whom have enabled and carried out genocides throughout history. I have been them. I was raised like them. I know them.
If 1/3 of the world’s population cannot abide by social contracts of tolerance, then they should destroyed.
We are not becoming like them. We have to hit the bully in the face. The difference is that many of us will be completely traumatized by what we had to do to stop the bullying. We will weep and use our emotional pain to design better institutions and futures. Will they? Fuck no they won’t.
Parent comment wasn’t attacking her intolerance. Parent comment was wishing her harm.
Furthermore: “Religion” should not be a protected class.
As are you: You are wishing harm on her, not on her intolerance. This is the exact distinction I was trying to highlight.
I want her to wake up. I have heard too many accounts like hers. Those accounts are depressing, because nearly 100% of them expressed that they would still support the politicians that harmed them.
As far as religion, I’d prefer if it didn’t exist, but I will tolerate people’s delusions if they don’t cause intolerance and harm to others. It is not inherent like skin color, but it is does create classes that get targeted by intolerant classes.
At some point, we must harm the intolerant by depriving them of liberty, or life. We have been entreating and begging for them to not be this way. Our “want” to hurt them is the culmination of our frustration and understanding of what their intolerance leads to. There is no fucking paradox here. That fury that we are feeling is the natural impulse to survive or die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Thomas Paine understood the problem.
Karl Popper’s philosophy calls for directly and actively suppressing the people you and I deem “intolerant”. The fundamental problem with his philosophy is that the Nazis are already in charge. Any method you use to suppress “the intolerant”, you give to the Nazis. It goes straight into their hands for them to use against the people they deem “intolerant”. Popper asks you to forge the tools of your own demise.
Thomas Paine’s philosophy breaks the cycle. He opposes fascism in general. When you instill Thomas Paine’s values in the general populace, you discredit yourself in their eyes as soon as you call for suppressing anyone.
Fascism that you happen to agree with is still fascism. Popper’s actual paradox is that he was a fascist.
Thank you, I will read more about this.
“Fascism that you happen to agree with is still fascism.” Do you truly believe that those calling for oppression against fascists, become fascist? We must be using different definitions of fascism, unless you’re saying that us making them the out-group is the same. That doesn’t ring true to me. Are there examples of this from history?
Oh the downvotes you’ll get from not wishing ill on others.
Sure, the person above you only wanted them to get a dose of misfortune, but it still seems relevant to me.
The opposite of stupidity isn’t just the opposite stupidity.