this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
925 points (98.4% liked)

Funny

7672 readers
1565 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Num10ck 34 points 10 months ago (4 children)

ah yes the eternal debate on tolerance of evil.

[–] RadicalEagle 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think you can "love" someone without tolerating their nonsense. It's all about being willing to find a consensual way of interacting. Theoretically it may be impossible, but we can still try.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ironically this is the whole 'love the sinner, not the sin' bit that Christians love to use to excuse their own intolerance.

[–] RadicalEagle 4 points 10 months ago

Yeah, I think a lot of modern Christians are unaware of how masochistic and sadistic they really are. They get so hung up on the idea that they have a "get out of jail free" card that it justifies all the rest of their behavior, even when that behavior is explicitly called out in their manual lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I have an ex who cheated on me. I'm not holding on to anger about it, I do honestly hope they've found happiness, but I want nothing to do with them again and if they showed up at my door I would tell them to leave.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Yeah, the paradox of tolerance.

My favorite solution that I've heard, is to treat tolerance not as a moral imperative, but rather as a social contract.
Anyone who is tolerant will have tolerance extended to them. Those who are intolerant, on the other hand, can fuck right off.

[–] LwL 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, I've never really seen the paradox as a paradox for that reason. The question, rather, should be what precisely we require from the social contract. The old question of "where is the line at which point my freedom impacts your freedom". But no matter where that line is, it means that if someone spews hate, you're allowed to respond in kind

(Morally, that is. If it's covered by law then legally it should be handled through the justice system and responding in kind would fall under vigilante justice)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They did that in east europe (fucking off), founded ISIS, flooded an area with drugs and overran it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah the Internet has insulated people from how a society works. They can "fuck off"... to where? Somewhere they'll still vote and encourage people to follow their example? Somewhere without people telling them they're wrong where they can become more and more extreme?

It's like prison. Yeah let's take all the people that have a proclivity for crime and put them together. Then teach them to obey the system by using it to punish and traumatize them. After all, they deserve it. They'll realize that, any day now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The way I practice it is that everyone gets a basic level of tolerance. Free speech, basic human rights, and a low level of respect and decency. But until you treat others the same there will be a social friction wherever you go and eventually a hard line. Like, no, we don't want you in here if you're just going to be an asshole everyday. Come back in a week and we'll see if you've learned some self-control.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Secularly everything has to be a social contract because there is no moral authority.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, for your own moral behaviour, you'd be the authority...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

You're saying the same thing.

[–] zloubida 9 points 10 months ago (21 children)

To love someone is sometimes to say them that their actions are evil.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL 2 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Skeletor was the victim. He was the rightful heir.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

This comment made me realize how little I know about the He-man extended universe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

All monarchies are illegitimate, the warring nobles will not spared from the guillotine just because they look good in a leather loincloth and someone gave them a magic sword

[–] Sam_Bass 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Work your fingers to the bone what do you get

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Sam_Bass 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Boney fingers. Boney fingers

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I, uh… I don't get it 😅

In my defense my native language isn't English and I've got insomnia up the wazoo, so my brain is soup

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This did nothing to alleviate my confusion and I'm completely fine with that, because 🎶I owe my soul to the company store 🎵

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Rhyming is for conformists

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›