Unfortunately, the solution to the paradox boils down to "Might Makes Right". The bounds of tolerance aren't set by a consensus, but by whomever has the Power to Yeet.

And while this game seems satisfying early on (Yeet the Nazis! Yeet the Tankies! Yeet the Radical Centrists!) you do get into a cycle of purity where you're yeeting anyone who questions whether the last guy who got yeeted deserved it.

That leaves us with the age-old Martin Niemöller verse:

"And then they came to Yeet me - and there was no one left to Yeet back on my behalf".

What is the appropriate degree of tolerance? How do you prevent it from expanding to include people who would dissolve the institution? How do you prevent it from collapsing into a state of cult-like obedience to authority? It's a balancing act and one that the individuals with the power to silence fringe communities rarely have an interest in performing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

Laws, courts, and a strong democracy my dude.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

I believe the answer lies in bureaucracy.

You're allowed to be intolerant but you gotta fill out just a bunch of paperwork to do so. And if someone to pay a fee, fill in several forms, submit to an ID chrck and wait 6 weeks just to get a literal N word pass, then yeet.

[–] _stranger_ 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Society needs a yeeting tree.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

The Yeeting Tree by Shel Silverstein. It would have had a better lesson.