Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫
💀
@alyx@gameliberty.club
- Gender:
- Yes, I definitely have one of those.
- Sex:
- Yes, please!
- Clan:
- Hyūga
- Nationality:
- Martian
- Location:
- Neptune
- Occupation:
- Retired
なんで君はこれを読んでいるかよ
Just another random person passing by.
Oh hi.
The Alyx Vance must go this way anyway.
Gordon Freeman dies in All Dogs Go To Heaven 2.
I wasn't designed to be carried.
En Taro Igel!
Lift me up, let me go...
Joined Aug 2019
We need more cats.
@Bvst3r
That last equation is all wrong.
You should have:
Business woman + 🐶 = egg carton
You may also add:
Business man + 
= gay
@matrix
I don't believe you. Oh wait....
@mushroom_soup @bronze
I've managed to occasionally find fedi people unaware of the connection between jars and MLP, and then promptly went on to curse them with the knowledge. So don't worry, there are still ignorant people out there.
P.S. is that really the shooter's bedroom?
Just landed in L.A.
Boobs or it didn't happen.
Two dogs, one girl
Poophone.
I will not explain this post.
@puniko
Nethernyans 
Alyx Hinata 🇹🇩🚫💀
boosted
💀
boosted
@crunklord420 @Philoxenus @alyx @dave I think your interpretation, and the interpretation of all the random libs who cite the paradox of tolerance, is wrong.
The gestalt of the argument that people miss is that when you say "the interant cannot be tolerated and must be removed by force", the intolerant has a specific, inflexible definition that is required for this to be a paradox in the first place.
An intolerant man is not a man who says trannies are bad.
An intolerant man is not a man who says transitioning should be illegal.
An intolerant man is not even a man who seeks to build a political platform on the basis of rounding up the trannies.
An intolerant man is a man who meets tolerant (non-violent) opposition to his ideas with violence.
This is the actual explanation for the paradox, from Karl Popper, and not some random twitter retard, and it's information everyone already intuitively knows when it comes to other topics, such as pacifism. If a society attempts to maximize some trait, and that very trait can be exploited by an enemy to destroy that society, then no successful state can maximize that trait, by definition.
The gestalt of the argument that people miss is that when you say "the interant cannot be tolerated and must be removed by force", the intolerant has a specific, inflexible definition that is required for this to be a paradox in the first place.
An intolerant man is not a man who says trannies are bad.
An intolerant man is not a man who says transitioning should be illegal.
An intolerant man is not even a man who seeks to build a political platform on the basis of rounding up the trannies.
An intolerant man is a man who meets tolerant (non-violent) opposition to his ideas with violence.
This is the actual explanation for the paradox, from Karl Popper, and not some random twitter retard, and it's information everyone already intuitively knows when it comes to other topics, such as pacifism. If a society attempts to maximize some trait, and that very trait can be exploited by an enemy to destroy that society, then no successful state can maximize that trait, by definition.
@ThomasPaine
What I find strange about his snap, is that right after the joke, the camera pans to Will Smith and he's still laughing, but you can see the wife puts an annoyed face. So I wonder if in the immediate second after the camera pulls away, if she says something to Will Smith to push him over the edge. You can argue that it was just a very delayed reaction to the joke, but that feels odd too, unless Will is that much of a dumbass IRL, that it takes a while for his brain to catch up.
@emtm @dave @Philoxenus @crunklord420
>the problem with modern philosophers
Maybe we have a different understanding of the word modern, but I'm confident what you're describing has been a problem for longer than just modern times.
@furgar
I heard there was an IRL gangsta war on stage this year, so maybe it's not that bad.
@nosleep
Looks like it's saying "sox room" to me.
@dave @crunklord420
I think the LGBT movement perverted the meaning of the word "tolerate" and this twisted definition is what actually causes the "paradox of tolerance".
Just thought about this now, so maybe there's a flaw in my thinking, but I don't think tolerating something means accepting or agreeing with that thing in any way. It doesn't mean you can't criticize it or you can't actively show you disagree with it. It just means you don't get to attack an individual over who their are or what they think. You don't get to try to fire someone or ruin their life. You don't get to go on Twitter or Twitch and say "we need to cancel this fucker". You don't get to bully someone, you don't get to harass them, you don't get to do what so much of the internet has devolved into doing.
Tolerating someone/something should basically be the definition of the Christian saying: "hate the sin, not the sinner". Meanwhile, I think the LGBT movement managed to transform "tolerance" into "you can NEVER say anything bad about a homosexual or homosexuality, or else you're intolerant".
Their version of "tolerance" seems to have some amount of censorship and compelled speech in it. I think we need to return tolerance to "I'm gonna criticize the heck of what you do, but I won't try to kill you".
- Gender:
- Yes, I definitely have one of those.
- Sex:
- Yes, please!
- Clan:
- Hyūga
- Nationality:
- Martian
- Location:
- Neptune
- Occupation:
- Retired
なんで君はこれを読んでいるかよ
Just another random person passing by.
Oh hi.
The Alyx Vance must go this way anyway.
Gordon Freeman dies in All Dogs Go To Heaven 2.
I wasn't designed to be carried.
En Taro Igel!
Lift me up, let me go...
Joined Aug 2019
