Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
There are most certainly rules to tolerance. One of the most important rules, in fact, is codified in something called "The Paradox of Tolerance." You should look into it.
Anarchy = no rules, not no leaders. There can easily still be leaders in the absence of rules, in fact it's almost guaranteed. People will still be revered for their ideas & deeds, same as now, it's just that what they say would be taken as good suggestions/advice, not rules.
Under anarchy, you are free to murder your neighbor if you wish. There are no rules preventing that. But then there is nothing to prevent your neighbor's friends from murdering you in return, either. Anarchy is freedom from constraints, but not from consequences.
Again, you are conflating two concepts. "Tolerance" is a philosophy. "Anarchy" is the state of a society. These things cannot be compared against one another any more than you can compare a color against a sound*. People can be tolerant of one another under Anarchy, under Capitalism, even under Socialism. Likewise they could just as easily be intolerant of one another under any of those. They are concepts which do not depend on one another.
The paradox exists because the fundamental precept for maximum tolerance depends upon a zero-tolerance policy (towards expression of its opposite), because 99.44% tolerance is sustainable, but 100% tolerance is not.
--Patrick
*which is to say you can compare aspects, i.e. you can discuss how "loud" they each are, but you cannot quantitatively measure their "loudness" against each other because they follow totally different schema.
figmentPez
Staff member
I had to block another friend on FB today because they were being a Republican asshole. This one I'd warned twice before, so I didn't even hesitate, despite that he used to be one of my closest friends in high school. I'd reblogged a post about how Biden does not have dementia, he has a speech impediment. My former friend replied to the effect of "well, that must be a new condition, because he didn't have it 2008 - 2016", so I blocked him. I'm not going to put up with prejudiced propaganda on my posts.
It's lovely how groper and abuser Kavanaugh is now - according to 538 - the "central", "moderate" voice on the SC, with 4 on his left and 4 on his right.
Having a life-long Council of Elders decide without any way to replace or contradict them is how Amazonian tribes make their rules. It maybe shouldn't be how the biggest democracy in the world handles it.
His interpretation of freedom of speech and religion in this speech is frankly sickening.
Having a life-long Council of Elders decide without any way to replace or contradict them is how Amazonian tribes make their rules. It maybe shouldn't be how the biggest democracy in the world handles it.
His interpretation of freedom of speech and religion in this speech is frankly sickening.
Simple House majority to impeach a judge or justice. Two-thirds Senate majority to convict.
As with the president. Impeaching is relatively easy, removal almost impossible.
We've seen that someone can be a fascist, sexist, racist, abusive liar and as long as he's the right political color people will stand by them.
Now, was I talking about Trump, Kavanaugh, or someone else?
All of them. You were talking about all of them.
Pretty sure tolerance had been a thing before teh 20th century.
It's literally what it spells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy#Etymology
People are just using it as a synonym for lawlessness. Like how they use "literally" to mean figuratively.
I'm not the one that brought up anarchy (when he meant lawlessness, apparently).
Well, maybe you can't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromesthesia
Which is why your assumption that i was confusing tolerance with anarchy is rather flimsy.
But if you allow people to be intolerant, then there isn't 100% tolerance, is there.
On a more serious note, the paradox guy makes it pretty clear it's not a zero-tolerance policy, and you can allow it as long as they're "prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument ".
But i find it silly like how i would find an argument that you shouldn't love hatred, and how that's a paradox because you can't be all loving unless you love hatred too.
seems to be working fine for me.
figmentPez
Staff member
Why are conservatives so damn proud of being stupid?
"We do not take an oath to a king or queen, or a tyrant or dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, tribe or religion. We take an oath to the constitution." - Gen. Mark Milley
GasBandit
Staff member
Today in "Are we sure this isn't the Onion?" news...
thehill.com
Charles Koch regrets his partisanship: ‘Boy, did we screw up!’
GOP mega-donor Charles Koch said he regrets his decades of partisanship and now wants to focus on bridging the political divide, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.In an interview shortly…
thehill.com
Get fucked ChuckToday in "Are we sure this isn't the Onion?" news...
Charles Koch regrets his partisanship: ‘Boy, did we screw up!’
GOP mega-donor Charles Koch said he regrets his decades of partisanship and now wants to focus on bridging the political divide, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.In an interview shortly…
You haven’t been subject to her gawdawful lies she spews on campaign ads over the airwaves.
Like @GasBandit said after 2016, they got their grenade. Too bad for them that shrapnel is nonpartisan.
Something I do like, while looking at the numbers: over 80% of those registered to vote in Maricopa County actually did vote.
Of course, I do have to point out that there were 20,088 voters (0.96% of those who voted) who either voted for an unqualified candidate (i.e., Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck), voted for too many choices for president (i.e., selected every option), or didn't even vote for President (i.e., left it blank).
Of course, I do have to point out that there were 20,088 voters (0.96% of those who voted) who either voted for an unqualified candidate (i.e., Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck), voted for too many choices for president (i.e., selected every option), or didn't even vote for President (i.e., left it blank).
figmentPez
Staff member
Has anyone, even one person heard real people asking about "What happens if the votes aren't counted by the time the Electoral College has to vote? And will that make Nancy Pelosi president?"
No? I didn't think so. Latest strawman argument from the disinformation machine. "People who are fact checking aren't doing their job by saying this won't make Nancy Pelosi president! See how bad fake news is!"
No? I didn't think so. Latest strawman argument from the disinformation machine. "People who are fact checking aren't doing their job by saying this won't make Nancy Pelosi president! See how bad fake news is!"
figmentPez
Staff member
Not according to the extreme right wing source "The Western Journal".
"The false narrative that invokes the 25th Amendment’s 'line of succession' ignores the language that indicates that the line of succession applies to vacancies in the presidency from the president’s death, disability, resignation or removal from office; it does not apply to a delay in counting votes or from a normal expiration of a term of office."
The fact that they put line of succession in quotes is laughable. Also, the article makes no attempt to answer who would be president under their hypothetical. If the 25th Amendment doesn't apply, then who do they think would be president? They don't say. They just say that the Electoral College will vote and a new President will be named, regardless, because that's the law. They're right, one way or another Congress and the Senate will choose a new President, and the office won't just be left vacant, but this whole this is just a strawman.
" The next thing your fact-checker would have to tell you is that the deadline for counting elector votes is set by law, and therefore a delay is not legally permissible. "
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Republicans arguing that something being in the law means that no one could possibly do otherwise....
The whole article, which I will not link, is just a long strawman trying to imply that Democrats are planning on stealing the election, and railing against the idea of a popular vote. It's pathetic...
Made a mistake today. I saw a random post in my feed talking about Prime Minster Trudeau and how during an interview he mentioned how we need to do "The Great Reset" and fell into a rabbit hole of people claiming that this is the goal of the COVID-19 scare in order to bring about a global fascist NWO. "See, it's not a conspiracy theory, Trudeau bringing up The Great Reset by name means he is all in on this globalist agenda to remove our freedoms!"
I was so confused I googled the term "The Great Reset" expecting it to be some dark web term, but it actually has it's own website from the World Economic Forum, going over why stakeholders need to look into a economic reset after the market showed failures due to the pandemic and what actions we can all take to prevent it all for the future. The conspiracy theory itself isn't that it exists, Trudeau was not mentioning some "deep state" word they are hiding from people and accidently blurted out. No, the conspiracy is that it's a globalist attempt for the elites to rule the world and turn us into sheep, I guess.
At this point I am honestly wondering if somehow time got ripped open and we merged with 1787 and the founding fathers were drafting and considering the Constitution, a lot of these people would scream "They are signing a piece of paper that will destroy our liberties and take away out god given right to support the crown! Stop The Steal! Down with the NWO! MCGA!"
I was so confused I googled the term "The Great Reset" expecting it to be some dark web term, but it actually has it's own website from the World Economic Forum, going over why stakeholders need to look into a economic reset after the market showed failures due to the pandemic and what actions we can all take to prevent it all for the future. The conspiracy theory itself isn't that it exists, Trudeau was not mentioning some "deep state" word they are hiding from people and accidently blurted out. No, the conspiracy is that it's a globalist attempt for the elites to rule the world and turn us into sheep, I guess.
At this point I am honestly wondering if somehow time got ripped open and we merged with 1787 and the founding fathers were drafting and considering the Constitution, a lot of these people would scream "They are signing a piece of paper that will destroy our liberties and take away out god given right to support the crown! Stop The Steal! Down with the NWO! MCGA!"
Last edited:
I learned my aunt is a fan of Trump. Not sure if you can say supporter necessarily since she's here in Canada, but anyway, it's not that surprising since she's:
-The type of Catholic that shoves it in your face at every opportunity and is very judgemental about it.
-Has protested outside abortion clinics.
-Her late husband wrote letters to the newspaper about the sins of homosexuality and she wrote a scathing, judgemental letter to a gay cousin who was getting married.
-Once judged me for moving in with a girlfriend but not getting married. I almost wanted to tell her all about the dirty pre-marital sex I was having, too.
-The type of Catholic that shoves it in your face at every opportunity and is very judgemental about it.
-Has protested outside abortion clinics.
-Her late husband wrote letters to the newspaper about the sins of homosexuality and she wrote a scathing, judgemental letter to a gay cousin who was getting married.
-Once judged me for moving in with a girlfriend but not getting married. I almost wanted to tell her all about the dirty pre-marital sex I was having, too.
I still don't get what religious people see in him. I have met Atheist's that are more "Christian" then Trump. Biden goes to catholic church every Sunday and can even quote scripture, while Trump goes golfing with his rich friends, and yet Biden is somehow the heathen here.