It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.

This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.

As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a “removal” would be required.

What if the other party in question is of the opinion they didn’t break it, yet the other claims it has been. Who gets to decide it?

You misunderstand the point of this paradox. By default you become intolerant when you start “removing” people. it is explicitly not a justification for whatever action you claim moral superiority on.

Since almost every political decision will affect at least some fraction of society negatively (even if it would ethically be for the greater good), you can carelessly throw this around to eliminate any opponents for this arbitrary tolerance reason. The only way to make sure the “removal” is fair, as a society absolutely needs these tools to function, is to clearly outline the case when it needs to happen and bring the barrier such that those capable of improvement do not get ostracized into further radicalization. And that barrier needs to be significant.

You bring up “fascist”, at which line does it happen? Genocide execution, support, inaction, Swastika wearing, illegal membership, legal membership of ultra radical parties, support of conservative oligarchs? What is greedy? Robbery, theft, tax evasion, corruption, cheating with the girlfriend of a friend? What is bigotry? You get the idea.

This should be illegal. As a person who was once false flagged manually by network attribution. Of course the anti troll flagging network was itself socially destroyed by time and is frequently cause of scandals while nobody cares for me.

Add certain language patterns and political stances and you have an excellent oppressive tool.

The behavior the study is referring to, is actually result of reddit’s algorithms and human psychology. Often the contrarian view of whatever the post is about will automatically float to the top, no matter the topic, opinionated, factual or debunking, nature.

That is probably true, but doesn’t mean much when gaming is such a mainstream activity.

This is on-topic, because it happened at Microsoft’s event.

https://lemmy.world/post/27740032/16212983

For orientation you could use much subtler ways. There are models which look like a dumpster of random colors. For these it absolutely is only about cost savings, and I grew up from a time building 1300+ pcs models as a kid when Lego didn’t even have the colors for “orientation” and never had an issue. There are enough methods for orientation which don’t require using screaming lime and azure colors. There are enough shades of grey for that.

Lego’s tolerances are pretty good, and so are a couple of other non-counterfeit brands. They might be a bit “stickier”. Lego as an overall product is behind. The prices are not just high, rather borderline questionable. Color consistency is notoriously poor with certain colors, due to cost saving measures. They stopped using colored granulated plastics, and instead inject ink.

They charge premium licensing prices and deliver stickers while Cobi is able to print it properly. Cobi is pricey mind you, but they at least deliver. Lego has no proper lighting, which opened the market for Fun Whole. They butchered and killed their robotics line up of Mindstorns. Lego butchered their Technic electronics with compatibility breakage and forced app usage. Lego abuses the that brand to keep selling model cars with few functions. Lego abused the Technic brand to publish a Mars Rover which has a design failing suspension and zero chassis stability.

For cost savings, they fill the invisible insides with random colored blocks, drowning alternate uses.

Their product photos are misleading, with photoshopped headlights which don’t exist and other trickery.

Lego has likely a way too big catalogue, sells perhaps not enough of most, and goes quantity over quality.

The truth is, there are very well designed sets, with prints, no random colors, at acceptably high prices and they are adorable. And I would and maybe will purchase them and have done so not long ago. It’s the amount of crap which comes out. I often assume the Internet scandalizes Lego’s state, and of course they do, but when I walk past my local Lego shops, I see terrible designs, at ridiculous prices.

If Lego would position themselves as a mainstream brand at medium prices, nobody would bat an eye. It’s them often surcharging 50% above competition at lower quality which grinds people’s gears really badly.

HQ Lego Alternatives:

Military, aircraft, small cars: Cobi. Technic: CaDa has licensed premium lines like the AMG GT One . Models with Lighting: Fun Whole, but can near Lego pricing, with higher quality. Kids: Buy used Lego sets, don’t bother too much with lost parts, replace them on Bricklink.

And there is a few others. I listed only companies not ripping off duplicates. There is more good ones, and of course a lot of copycat companies.

The boss blind ability trigger joker for money.

All three of them, and many more in the background.

Commented here on this post: https://lemmy.world/comment/14631383

It isn’t an all that interesting post in the first place and many people claiming they are so stoic and smart they would whitelist by code inspect, for something which is a single click is wild.

Not everything has an alternative, and thankfully the core website works 95% wit adblock enabled.

It is a recent screenshot from overtake.gg, a sim racing community hub.

NTA. Her buying the last ice cream in the grocery store in front of you is a war crime by Geneva Convention and only setting her house on fire is the calmest response.

We need fact checkers more than community notes. Because disproving a claim takes a lot of time and skill, and notes will be abused for financial and personal gain in the long run. Perhaps it is also better to use the word content moderator instead of fact checker, as finding the ultimate truth isn’t possible, unless you just present a mathematical proof.

Imho the worst are those who crucify the patriarchy at every point, then a man chimes in to criticize calmly the words chosen are inappropriate for the given situation, or outright hurtful, then the radical anti-patriarchy combatants shut down that person as the most vile being they deserve to feel terrible. And that guy ill-adjusts, be it on a personal level of despair or combative misogyny, and the anti-patriarchy combatants continue their cycle, because clearly they were right from the get-go, men are misogynistic and don’t speak about their problems. Rinse and repeat.

Please, don’t be that type of anti-patriarchy fighter. It doesn’t matter that you describe yourself as super leftist progressive, if you behave like crap and reinforcing the worst of stereotypes.

Those generalizations are harmful indeed and should not be tolerated as it breeds Us vs. Them mentality. Just asking the person not to be offended when they have every right to be with “if you are not part of the problem” is the modernized “I am not racist, but” and “No, I meant the other type of foreigners, not you”. Misandry is a thing. Just because one comes from a misogynistic surrounding, doesn’t mean other experiences are suddenly not real.

People bound by unhinged radical feminists, and I do mean the Crazy-Karen-On-Video crowd, mutter every other second a misandric sentence. Of course this crap erodes your self-worth. You are literally being demeaned for absolutely nothing. Speak up to shut them up. If women find the energy to speak against harmful notions like, so should everyone else, if they see inacceptably demeaning behaviour which differs fundamentally from appropriate criticism.