lmmarsano

While the rollback of post Civil War reconstruction and tolerance of violent segregationists is definitely an instance of “tolerance of the intolerant”, you should read the article and source material it’s quoting more closely, because you’re contradicting the entire argument they’re making. Here’s the quoted passage again, but in full

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

As usual in political philosophy, the definition of intolerance is stricter and includes an element of rejection by force or imposition. From the passage, the type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

In that discourse where the philosopher is arguing that a free, open inquiry and rational argument is crucial to an open society, they unsurprising aren’t arguing for the suppression of exclusionary opinions. They’re arguing for a system of governance that protects freedom of individuals to debate (and denounce) each other.

So, tolerating segregationist terrorists in the post Civil War is a case of “extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant” as mentioned in the paradox. In contrast, a disagreement with someone who is not imposing their beliefs is not, and the paradox has no bearing.

Paradox of tolerance has no bearing on disagreements lacking imposition, and is used to defend open discourse, not argue against it.

Good job on not confusing corpocracy & corporatism.
People often miss plutocracy & kleptocracy.

checks alt text

(nothing)

This image needs a text alternative, though: the image’s text content is unperceivable to the sight-impaired, for examples, so the post isn’t web accessible.
It violates WCAG guideline

Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

As a consequence, it’s also unsearchable by the hidden text content, which impairs usability for everyone.

While I would love that, the more moderate republicans who argued to impeach & convict Trump last time were ousted, so that leaves the Trumpiest core to work with. GOP shittiness & general hostility to the government working in any sense for the American people can’t be underestimated. Plus, convicting Trump results in Vance replacing him.

I think some highly guarded optimism is warranted. Blocking hideous legislation and Trump appointments isn’t too bad of a check if they’re unable to pull off anything better.

See? No serious alternative.

What part of what you wrote contradicts anything written about democracy? The destruction & abuses you list could be far worse in governments with unchecked power.

Democracy isn’t a magic salve that instantly cures everything it touches. Liberal democratic institutions permit reforms through a nonviolent, deliberative process to address everything you stated. To check abuses of power that could end democratic, open society, they also limit government capacity to unilaterally impose swift, sweeping changes. The institution trades sweeping state power that’s riskier to abuse for more limited, checked, deliberative state power likelier to sustain the democratic system. You don’t get democratic reforms without that slow, power-constrained work to protect the system.

All that money the obscenely wealthy dumped into the elections didn’t get the results they paid for. Lack of action according to your timetable isn’t legal immunity.

While your criticism gripes about the problems we can observe, no one is discounting them. We are criticizing your failures to consider all the problems we can’t observe (because the system of limited government avoided them) and the strength of nonviolent, popular reform.

Your criticism looks like just griping that doesn’t seriously weigh the tradeoffs, which is fine to commiserate, but not a rational basis to weigh alternative systems of government.

A democracy can change those rules & technicalities, it just takes time & popular will.

As argued by the same person who articulated the paradox of tolerance (widely distorted on social media), an overlooked strength of liberal democracy is the institutional framework (driven by competitive choices of the people open to rational debate) to institute reform without violence. To check abuses of power by the state, the people need to sustain such institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments. They argued that strict limits on the power of the state limit bad or incompetent rulers from doing too much damage (eg, damage that outright ends a democratic, open society). Those limits on government with Democrats in legislative power are also why MAGA control of the legislature and executive hasn’t yet prevented elections and we don’t have to fight frequent revolutions to take back control.

Democracy can reform itself nonviolently, presidents can be prosecuted when they leave office, and you’re not suggesting a serious alternative, just grief lacking nuance.

Not how that works: without supermajorities in the legislature to override a veto or convict an impeachment, the president can still block all legislation.

Kind of wild how it’s always radio silence from the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” brigade in comment sections like this, where you have a centrist Dem using their platform to bash a progressive or leftist candidate just a couple days prior to elections

Starting from a counterfactual isn’t a strong argument. El-Sayed won the primary for a reason and gets massive support in similar comment sections from Democrats overwhelmingly agreeing that Stevens can go fuck herself.

How you divine who is & isn’t “the Vote Blue No Matter Who brigade” is the real mystery. Supporting commentary looks the same no matter who writes it, and it’s hardly needed when an upvote will do. Are you a mindreader? Do you consort with a higher power? Please show us your mystical, sagely ways.

It’s especially comical because Vote Blue No Matter Who unsurprisingly means doing that regardless of whom blue is. It doesn’t necessarily imply broadcasting commentary everywhere about it to your satisfaction.

It seems you’re agitating for some poorly articulated conflict in your deluded fantasy when the “Blue No Matter Who” crowd is embracing your candidate.

You may want to read more about how credit scores work and how to build credit in the US.
Reporting a payment (such as rent or utilities) to a credit agency doesn’t always require charging it to a credit card or paying fees.

Not sure how any of that works outside the US.

That just seems like more classic patriarchy.
Calling it psychopatriarchy makes it seem badass and gives it subversive appeal.
I could easily imagine right-wing social media running with it and squawking “pSyChOpAtRiArChY!!” with gusto like dumbass Beavises going “fire! fire! FIRE!”.
Not sure what that’ll do for public discourse.
Calling it before it happens.

The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society.

It’s literally not.
Repeating reductive shit they say on social media doesn’t make it true.
Your ignorance of the source material is telling.

There’s a Wikipedia article quoting part of it

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

explaining the various takes on it.
It comes from a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies about what I stated.

The type of intolerance the quote refers to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not force, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage.
That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.

Unsurprisingly, you shouldn’t expect philosophers who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society to defend forcible suppression of tolerant disagreements in it.
Colloquial intolerance isn’t the stricter intolerance they refer to.
We can observe intolerance of actual intolerance as posed in that book in action: we do live in a society roughly following the system that book was defending, assault (including that motivated by violent extremism) is a crime, and our society doesn’t tolerate it pretty much as I stated before.

Social media dumbasses butchered the idea into bullshit pop philosophy, and you aren’t winning any arguments by regurgitating shit that’s flat out wrong unless that argument is “How dumb is social media? Very.”

Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.

1. It’s a paradox, not a conclusion, and not your conclusion.
2. They were arguing about the merits of liberal governments over the unchecked power of totalitarian systems.
   Particularly, they called out the overlooked merits of intellectual freedom and political institutions structured to limit potential damage of government power through rational debate and deliberative, competitive decision-making.
3. The meaning of intolerant in philosophy is more technical than merely an opinion that disagrees with other ways: it requires literally prohibiting other ways by unjustified force.

Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.

To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.

Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they’re completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.

1. The paradox of intolerance is a paradox, not a conclusion.
2. The reductive conclusion social media dumbasses insinuate by invoking it is entirely wrong according to the philosopher who articulated the paradox.
3. Intolerant carries a more technical meaning in philosophy (at least to that philosopher) than a mere disagreement with other ways: it includes the element of imposing (by unjustified force) on society to literally prohibit other ways. People who do not force us to comply with their position are tolerant.

From the article (you didn’t read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)

[Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.

They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.

Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that “solves the problem” from people we disagree with. It’s pretty much accepting charity and doesn’t imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.

Explain what the disabled did to you to deserve shitty conduct from you.
Same for whomever upvotes you.

If you want to be an asshole, keep in mind whom you’re taking it out on, because it’s definitely not your critic.
Moreover, no one is immune to disability, and you could find yourself screwed over by that arrogant inconsideration you embrace.
I’ll gloat over the idiocy regardless, champ.

Anyone who purports to be leftist yet downvotes accessibility is the biggest hypocrite on the planet.
They’re all talk, but when it comes to concrete action here and now, that’s all they are: all talk, no action, hollow words, fake.

Bold to contradict the rash flights of popular judgement.
People hate the burden of questioning their own flawed, unreliable intuition when they can downvote instead to ease the burden right away.

Gotta admire that indifference to downvotes.

notice image full of text\ check alt text\ find

Oh, referring to you?

That is wholly inadequate for an image full of text.
Ain’t no way someone unable to read the image is going to get the whole thing.
Search engines won’t find anything by the “text” either.

Don’t cheat accessibility.
Do the text alternative properly.

Don’t you think it’s fucked, though, in terms of accountability & integrity of government authority? Some people might assume police authority belongs exclusively to the government and ultimately answers to the public through elected officials, yet here we have unelected private employers setting their conditions of employment and directing policy with no inherent duty to the public. That scheme seems at odds with basic premises of liberal democratic governance. Private employment of police officers isn’t necessary to assign public officers to beats at campuses with specialized policies.

Law enforcement is bad enough when accountable to the public. Despite the results, severing that accountability & governance is in principle unsound.

Did the statement say “calling other people to the room”? She was offered a foursome and said “no” to that. That doesn’t imply “no” to taking turns or an audience. The rest is your embellishment.

An argument showing the relevant legal standard for “lack of consent” (stated in the DA’s statement) is satisfied would be compelling. This isn’t.

Failing to review transcripts is substandard practice: serious fault in the DA there. However, unless significant allegations in the transcript are absent from the statement, it’s unlikely to resolve the statement’s contradiction of a crime.

A confident claim is not a conclusive legal determination drawn from alleged facts. According to the reported transcript, she was confident about the statement, too:

On the second day of the interview, Jane Doe reviewed the revised six-page statement. The transcript shows her adviser asked if she wanted her and another adviser to review the statement.

Before signing, the transcript shows Jane Doe said, “I’m very confident about this.”

When the only allegation recommending a criminal charge alleges facts that not only fail to support that conclusion but negate key statutory elements of the crime, that eliminates every prosecutable theory and legal basis for an investigation. Such a contradiction is not resolvable through further investigation. At least some plausible basis for a crime needs to be articulated for an investigation to justifiably proceed.

The DA gave the complainant notice of his determination and an opportunity to review it together. That was another chance to raise any allegations the DA could have missed & explain how they arrived to their conclusion when alleged facts reviewed so far didn’t support it. The complainant apparently waived the opportunity.

The “multiple things indicating lack of consent” are worse than you wrote, yet they don’t satisfy the element of the crime. A feeling lacking clear expression is not a fact supporting the legal standard; she had the liberty to reject, exercised it, and was met with compliance

According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped.

Shutting down events and distasteful language in snapchat obviously don’t qualify.

Much that you mention or that comes up in these stories is already in the statement, too. Some allegation that actually meets the legal standards is needed.

Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent.

She alleged cognitive capacity (understood what she’s doing), volition (willing choices), not incapacity to control her conduct, compulsion, inability to communicate willingness, expression of nonconsent, etc. Throughout the recollection, she was understanding, rejecting & accepting requests, choosing offers, conducting choices. She exercised autonomy.

The legal standard of “mental incapacitation” isn’t an incapacity to recall, it’s an incapacity to control one’s own actions (with conditions). Memory‑formation failure is not a loss of volitional control. People are still responsive to stimuli, can have full on conversations, can conduct willful choices. Their failure to recall it later is retrospective. That does not mean people weren’t cognizant at the time and making willful choices. The law doesn’t say black-out drunks lack a choice when they commit a crime. Dumber, less inhibited choices aren’t a lack of willing choice.

I doubt the structure of the law & its standards would support your suggested interpretation of “mental incapacitation”. It explicitly rejects voluntary intoxication, and she alleges legally significant capacity to understand & choose her conduct. New York already rejects intoxication as a defense for criminal liability. Consistency with that is unlikely to support constructions for consensual intoxication as a substantial incapacity to understand and control one’s own conduct (which would excuse liability).

It’s easier to get enraged without the burden of relevant facts.

Individuals who are accused of committing a crime must be prosecuted based upon evidence and not public opinion, especially not public opinion based upon false information.

Public opinion is easily misled, and reading the DA’s statement entirely changed my opinion on this matter.
I think any logical person would be compelled to draw the same conclusion in the DA’s position when presented the same facts & laws.
I suggest everyone read it before indulging superficiality.

Jane Doe’s account objectively determined criminal charges unviable.
The DA’s statement makes it quite clear that the facts alleged in Jane Doe’s signed, 6-page statement to police did not support “lack of consent” as defined in New York’s penal law.

Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual.

Under New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, lack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05.

Under New York State Law, “forcible compulsion” requires proof of the use of physical force to compel someone to engage in sexual conduct.

Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent.

Under New York State Law, “physical helplessness” occurs when a victim is unconscious or physically unable to communicate unwillingness to act.

Finally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe’s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act.

Her account (described in detail) eliminated every one of those possibilities.

No prosecutor’s going to pursue charges that don’t legally fit and reasonably expect a conviction.

Moreover, anyone who reads the account might be reasonably unpersuaded the events described constitute a crime.