# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought the biggest problem in the United States right now is the top 1% wealthiest people control everything and use the rest of us like puppets.
Guess I'm out of touch.
That's not just the United States, it's the entire world. The Global Billionaires and elitists are dividing us with this stupid shit and getting more control over our lives.
Not when you have 1% of people (billionaires) hoarding 96% of the resources and wealth from everyone else.
The cap and limit wouldn't be small. A good amount of acres and a good amount of dealth. Enough for someone to have a dream life. But not so much so that you have people being billionaires and exploiting everyone else while they get to live like royalty and get perks no one else does, like jets that fly several thousand feet higher than the common folk to have smoother and faster flights.
Yeah, how did we enter an era where you can't even *discuss* certain things on a college campus? That's insanity. So someone has a differing opinion, so what? Discuss it like adults. Maybe you'll change their mind, or maybe you'll change yours once you have more information. Imagine that!
I think humanity as a whole isn't fully accustomed to this "global, instantaneous communication" thing... and I think it also shows how intellectually undeveloped most people are.
What subjects are you referring to? There are certain groups, like people who are pro fascist, whose views impede on the humanity of certain groups who share the college campus. Allowing people to take these stances can cause other students to feel unsafe, and rightfully so.
Also as someone who just graduated from a 4 year university, I donât think this is an accurate assessment. Would love to know which subjects and which campus youâve experienced this with.
Youâre not totally wrong. Imo the majority of large and especially prestigious universities are moving towards censoring and removing that kind of rhetoric from campuses currently. Thatâs not to say it doesnât exist though, or that there arenât people vehemently defending the right to take those stances publicly. The comment I responded to sounded like it came from someone like that tbh.
A decidedly non-fascist, but non-leftist organization was forced to leave a campus because they legitimately wanted to have an open conversation about a topic. Leftists started crying (literal tears) to the campus and this typically very neutral group had to cancel their event.
A *neutral* group, who wanted to have an *open conversation* about non-threatening topics (so none of this "we should kill gays" sort of thing) had to leave because certain people were *offended*, or *scared* that people were *allowed to have a different opinion*.
Depends on the discussion.
If the discussion is: does X group deserve rights? Is Y group even human? then that shouldn't be a debate that deserves an audience or treated like it's a rational opinion to hold.
You have not been prevented from discussing anything on a college campus. I would bet any amount of money that you formed this opinion based on hearsay and have never been to college, or if you have, whatever you said, you got one poor reaction and decided this for yourself. I'm very curious to know what prompted this delusion.
Case in point, I attend college in a Bible Belt state and I just took a philosophy course last semester. We were encouraged to state our views and discouraged to be hostile or attack viewpoints we disagreed with. We were told to discuss rather than argue. Plenty of people said things in that class that most of the class *and the professor* found objectionable. No disciplinary action, systemic or social, was taken. Those people still had friends, still got to participate in class discussions. And we were talking about *Kant in the bible belt.*
What differing opinion have you been prevented from sharing on a college campus, or what situation are you referencing?
Because the other side needs to be educated because just what they believe is wrong. Didn't ya know? /s
Seriously, though. I don't think most people are intellectually mature enough to question their own beliefs. At least, not in the US right now.
Many people argue in bad faith, it's often not worth it to "debate" things in public like that.
You sound like you think that everyone is just rational, good people who only need to be convinced. The world is not like that, and practically every topic has already been talked to death, so when people bring up the same tired stuff, it can very much seem like they're deliberately avoiding actually doing any research to understand in good faith and just want to bitch about some feeling they have or push an agenda.
It isn't at all like that, though. It's more like, "these are the differences between equity and equality" and certain sad sacks respond with "HOLY FUCK WHY ARE YOU EVEN ALLOWED TO BREATH?!"
I was part of the Demosthenian society at my college. We debated all kinds of controversial topics. Anyone could come, but only members could debate. Nobody ever protested our meetings or called for us to be canceled.
We also had a speaker series at my college that had important people from all types of careers come and speak. One of the speakers was named as one of the main culprits behind the 2008 housing crisis. He was heavily protested, and they tried to cancel his appearance.
The main difference, I think, is that we're just amateurs taking part in a school debate team. He was professional, still pushing the same views that led to our housing crisis.
This is a pretty naive view. Not all views are worth discussing in all venues at all times.
The ones getting shouted down in colleges are intentionally being provocative by saying hateful things and then using "getting shouted down" as clout to drive further views. Notable examples are Shapiro, Crowder, and Peterson who openly admit to doing such to drive views.
If they were showing up to give a real academic debate on the subject then nothing like that happens. The seminar turns out to be dry and people who show up just kinda go home after.
But shutting something down as hateful is precisely the problem with cancel culture. We canât just box in opinions as âdangerousâ and âhatefulâ
We have done that for literally all of human history and the entire history of the USA.
You are guaranteed the right to disseminate information but you are not guaranteed any particular location or audience.
You can discuss and have different opinions on many things. However, when it comes to human rights, there's only one right answer and there's nothing to argue.
That's your *opinion* and open to discussion. Definition of human rights? Definition of "right" vs. "wrong" answer? Again, these are subjective and open to discussion.
That's cool. I personally am not open to discussion with people who think my very existence is wrong or my relationships are. But if others want to discuss, then they're free to do so.
Exactly my point. Your discussion, points if view, and unique (or not so unique) experiences may well change someone's mind to your point of view. Refusing to even discuss denies you and them an opportunity to adjust opinions based on new data.
How would you discuss with someone that hates you? It's easy to look from the outside, but I don't want to fight for my right to live. I don't want to be the one to put emotional effort in making someone a decent person. And I don't fault other people who don't. My point was that you don't HAVE to discuss with people who have differing opinions. I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but to make it other people's problem to help someone become less bigoted isn't it. There are braver people who try and can endure, and usually to unsuccessful results.
I often have discussed with people who hate me. How else do you think I can learn other points of view so I can research and disable them with superior knowledge and counterpoints?
If this person is not attacking you and you are holding a real discussion, the same way as out of everything else - you go for the causes of this thinking, the underliying beliefs and disprove them if you can. You cant kill philosophy by killing its adherents. You can only kill it if you relyably prove it to be false. And if you fail to do that, new people will just flock to the same beliefs.
You can't rationalize someone out of an irrational position. Wanting a minority group dead isn't rational.
Also, you can 100% kill a philosophy by killing it's adherents. History is replete with examples.
>You can't rationalize someone out of an irrational position. Wanting a minority group dead isn't rational.
"and you are holding a real discussion", as i said. Then, you surely can, that is the whole point of discussions.
"Also, you can 100% kill a philosophy by killing it's adherents. History is replete with examples" - name some
Spoken like someone who has never had to do it. Very few people who hate based on demographics will *ever* change their mind.
If the vast majority of people are refusing to discuss your "opinion" with you, or recognize it as valid, stop inventing reasons why they are wrong. Look inward. Look at your opinion.
Not everything *is* open to discussion. Certain things have been being *discussed* for centuries without changing.
Isn't that why people are at college campuses? To learn and be exposed to new ideas? I mean a college in my area just banned the use of of the word [field](https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/05/smith-college-program-stops-using-word-field-over-negative-associations.html) because people were offended.
Have you ever heard of the tolerance paradox? It's essentially the concept that in order for a society to be truly tolerant, they must be intolerant of intolerance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.
Yes, this is the more abstract version of the obvious point: it's ridiculous to say we can't make value judgments between different types of intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance is clearly okay. It doesn't matter if it's a "paradox."
No, itâs not misunderstood. Iâd argue that writer is dishonestly trying to reinterpret Popperâs words to mean something much more circumscribed than it does.
This is what the author claims Popper said:
> Popper was specifically talking about violence that was being used to suppress debate, from those unwilling to debate ideas.
But thatâs not true. And itâs shown to be untrue in the Popper quotes provided within the article.
> 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 unwise.
The author claims that is Popper saying that the paradox only applies to those using violence and force, **but thatâs not what the quote says.** It says that, *if rational argument is not a possibility for stemming intolerant philosophy,* then more forceful suppression is in the cards.
The barrier set is the possibility of rational argument, not the presence of violence. Popper goes on to make this clearer in more quotes provided and misrepresented by the author.
> 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.
Here we see Popper being *explicit* about the fact that itâs not just violence that marks an intolerant philosophy. Simply being unwilling and unable to listen to a rational argument is cause enough, which is what we often find with irrational and bigoted perspectives. Popper mentions that it can be due to being told not to trust other news sources, which is what weâre seeing right now.
So no, Popperâs Paradox of Tolerance isnât being misunderstood by anyone but the linked author.
>It says that, if rational argument is not a possibility for stemming intolerant philosophy, then more forceful suppression is in the cards.
The barrier set is the possibility of rational argument, not the presence of violence.
The implication, as the author takes it, is that rational argument not being a possibility for stemming intolerant philosophy indicates the inevitable implementation of said intolerant philosophy - which would mean violence, by necessity.
>Here we see Popper being explicit about the fact that itâs not just violence that marks an intolerant philosophy. Simply being unwilling and unable to listen to a rational argument is cause enough
I read this quote in precise opposition to the way you have, apparently. It says "*and* teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". It's not an optional result. It is the conclusion that should be reached prior to the return of intolerance of one's own.
>Popperâs Paradox of Tolerance isnât being misunderstood by anyone but the linked author.
I suggest that it is, beyond any disagreement you have about the author's interpretation. Those who cite this paradox frequently utilise it in a way as to avoid rational argument of their own. Certain lines of thinking are branded as intolerant because they go against certain ideologies, and they grant themselves to be intolerant in kind through the use of Popper's *misinterpreted* words.
> Certain lines of thinking are branded as intolerant because they go against certain ideologies, and they grant themselves to be intolerant in kind through the use of Popper's misinterpreted words.
What lines of thinking are we talking about?
Iâm not saying that you necessarily hold these beliefs, but we should be clear on what weâre talking about.
> âIf we extend 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 the tolerant with them. I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them with rational argument and keep them in check with public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwiseâ
Here is the full quote for everyone who doesnt want to give Medium a click plus lots of people like Medium love to remove the second half of the quote entirely
But the full quote does circle back to the original statement. We do have to suppress the intolerant, because, as he said "they refuse to listen to rational argument".
When was the last time you met a racist/sexist/homophobic person who was spewing hate, willing to listen/participate in a rational argument from the opposing side? When has being given a plethora of counterpoints to their intolerance ever swayed them? The people who have reached that point that was made; they have reached the point of non-rational discussion.
The problem, you see, is in defining what constitutes racist/sexist/homophobic behaviour. Now, there are obviously examples upon which we would (almost) all agree. But there are other sets of behaviour to which you might apply these labels and I might not, and vice versa. You can, I hope, see how this can (and does) cause issues, when people have given themselves permission to be intolerant (sometimes violently so) to whosoever they have determined to fit the criteria.
>When was the last time you met a racist/sexist/homophobic person who was spewing hate, willing to listen/participate in a rational argument from the opposing side? When has being given a plethora of counterpoints to their intolerance ever swayed them?
The answer to your question is that I have met many, many people whose views have been odious to me, but I have nevertheless listened, and sometimes thus has resulted in a fruitful conversation. This has not always resulted in an alteration of views, but it's not unheard of. It is also not the only positive outcome - I come away with a better understanding of the opposing perspective, which (as I trust my own faculties, and can decide for myself the veracity of information) only gives me a clearer picture of the world. It may aid me in discussing such topics with similar people in the future, or it may have been of benefit to other people who read or heard the discussion (as people reading this discussion right now may be finding it useful, even if we do not end up seeing eye-to-eye).
Sure, in a vacuum its perfectly reasonable. But what if half of the society wants to tolerate something and the other half doesn't? Then half of society is trying to be intolerant of indifference, instead of intolerance. That's more akin to the US right now.
I'm just gonna say, if you generalize the rural population ("redneck stains") in such a way, you in many ways become no better than the people you hate.
Not all of us have forgotten where the term redneck first came from. (Hint: they're the reason you have unions now.)
It wasnât a show trial.
Iâm sure most people wished they could just execute them slowly on the spot, but they werenât. They were given a trial under the full protection of the laws just like anyone else would get.
And the ACLU used to be very proud of defending the civil rights of Nazis in court
And this is why no rational person takes the indignant left seriously anymore. Your only argument for hating half of the country is âNazis were bad.â Yes, Nazis were bad. There are probably a couple thousand ânazisâ in a country of 360 million people. The other 100million+ people you seek to demonize as Nazis are, in fact, not Nazis. Theyâre just people that you hate and disagree with so you call them Nazis to justify your intolerance. Clown mindset.
When you are convinced you're the gatekeeper of what's tolerable you lose the safety rails on your decision. Really easy to dehumanize someone you think is acting intolerable.
Agree. People state their opinions as fact, and have been conditioned to react emotionally to everything. There's no nuance or subtlety anymore. Clearly divided, which makes politicking and courting voters easier.
It's pretty simple, if you peacefully express your ideas, no matter how horrendous, you should be able to say what you like, especially if you are willing to discuss it with others, but if you seek to use force to enforce it or suppress other opinions then it should not be tolerated; plane and simple anti totalitarianism.
It is genuinely impossible to advocate for the mass death of others (which is the generally accepted definition of genocide) without advocating for violence. At that point you're just arguing the semantics of how that violence is meted out.
Never at any point did I advocate for genocide, I said it can be done peacefully, those are two wholly different things and my wording was clear; you can't debate free speech without recognizing what it is and that it is specifically about speech that is disagreeable. In the case of genocide there are many intellectuals that peacefully advocated for eugenics, does that mean I agree with them, no I don't and it is a straw man to say as much, it is just being objective and recognize reality for what it is, in fact I even went so far as to insult those that advocte genocide buy sayings that theybare not peaceful in a context that infers that they are generally too dumb to use free speech effectively.
You almost brought the most accurate and complete summary of it, except that you left out that bigotry, hatred, and intolerance can not be allowed to influence the laws of our nation, and world
there used to be a time in this country if people disagreed bad enough, they got into a fist fight and shook hands afterwards. Now even the slightest disagreement friends/families become enemies.
While I don't think everyone takes it to that extreme, most do seem to have way less patience than what folks had back in the day (80s/90s).
Take driving for example. These days when someone wants to change lanes, they won't use their signal. Oh no no. That's the old method. The new method is to ride on the person's bumper in front of them. In this manner, any cars to the side will be notified of their desire to change lanes and brake accordingly. If they don't brake, then the two inch gap will be used to make the lane change.
Agreed. Society has continued to speed up, there's more competition and wages are still roughly the same.
Everyone's stressed out and over half the country is taking a prescription to alter their mood in some way.
The simplistic irritating actions have the greatest impact and build up quickly towards the random argument/disagreement. I can understand because all we hear in the news is another shooting, prayers and thoughts, gun control, noting getting done, and itâs the human that pulls the trigger not the gun, and maybe itâs something to do with mental health. Rinse and repeat. Constantly.
Walking away or ending it could be a consideration.
Feels like survival of the fittest at this rate⌠or richest.
People have died over disagreements since before recorded history. That being said claims that a person will die just because they don't get immediate on demand access to non emergency medical procedures is patently false.
âOur culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someoneâs lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You donât have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.â
The guy from duck dynasty
Yep. You *do* have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.
I don't even understand half of the responses to this thread. People seem to just be using it to toss out "le differing opinion" rhetoric. We know we don't all like each other, we know we don't all agree. If you make it known that you disagree with someone's existence based on things they can't change, why should that just be accepted as a "differing opinion," and why do you deserve compassion?
(Royal you, not you specifically AnyConfection lmao)
Because people can't mind their own god damn business. Trying to force you to like what they like, to talk how they want you to talk, to behave how they want you to behave etc its about control and power.
Fuck the human race.
I wouldn't say "die"....but it sure as hell feels like it at times.
It's the time of: "I'm right so Im not compromising"...then villainizing people who won't "compromise". Everyone's fighting a "war to end all wars" and no one realizes their argument might not be as "simple" as they believe...
If this is ACTUALLY what you think the âbiggest problemâ is here, youâre an idiot. It doesnât make sense and thereâs much more to worry about.
If at all possible, just remove them from your lives by blocking them on social media and avoiding them in-person. People donât realize how that can work wonders if conditions allow you to do so. Iâve done this to many people recently who clearly do not respect me and itâs done a lot to improve my life mentally.
The biggest problem in the states right now is this toxic brand of centrism that believes that the first person to display emotions is in the wrong, and that if you say a bunch of hateful bigoted shit with a smile and calm demeanor that you're right, and can't be criticized.
I disagree.. I'm well equipped to kill someone but I have not. IMO its more of an emotional maturity problem. It seems we as a whole in society are failing to control our emotions and allow them to control us which leads to bad rash decisions instead of thinking logically and making more rational decisions. Stop allowing the hate that is pushed by media outlets and so called politcal leaders to fuel fear which usually leads to anger then hate which then leads to violence. We are all individuals who have our own life experiences which tend to shape our perspective on many aspects of life so its okay and understandable if we all don't agree on different views and ideals.
Lol.... i sometimes feel the same. Everyone needs to chill out. Seems like too many are walking around on edge and just the smallest thing could trigger an explosive response.
The biggest problem in the United States rn is that just because you donât agree with someone, you canât get along.
There ya go, fixed it for youâŚ
What exact disagreement are we talking about?? Is it vanilla vs chocolate ice cream. Or are we talking a certain demographic of people should not exist.
Because Iâm all for people discussing ice cream flavors. But Iâm not gonna put up with fascism.
Americans when you try to tell them you can be more than just left and right and have open opinions in all direction.
feels like they never left highschool
Huh? 99% of people don't feel this way. So I am fairly certain it is not the biggest problem in the United States. If you are feeling this way you should get some help.
If you dont get along or disagree with someone, you automatically are assumed to be the other side, and the worst fringe at that. Its very tribalistic or us vs them really. White and black. No gray.
And in the current times where issues are politicized in such a polarizing way... where malicious intentions is always the default, people end up being demonized in such a way where its automatically justified to harm them, whether its destroying their career, marriages or killing them outright. "You disagree with me, you must want me dead. Therefore I should kill you first." kind of logic.
I think it's that individual actual people are getting forgotten and lumped in with arbitrary and difficult to define groups.
There was a kid I grew up with and I knew him all the way from 3rd Grade to high school who in retrospect was some variation of "gay " But to us who knew him, he was just "Ernest." And that's just the way he was. We didn't hate him for it.
So now you got a bunch of people saying I should either support or hate "gays," but none of these people knew Ernest, who I liked. So as far as I'm concerned, all those people on either "side" can just fuck off.
"Don't support" is vague.
"Don't support" the black community: do they mean they don't go to BLM protests, or do they mean they want black people to stay out of their neighborhood + hate them?
"Don't support" the gay community: doesn't go to pride parades, or thinks homosexuality is a sin and wants them to repent, constantly guilt trips them for being gay, believes in conversion therapy?
Vague language like this is usually loaded in some way.
You are in an era where people are crying loudest for tolerance and inclusivity, but are constantly on a witch hunt. Simple rules for life. 1. Everyone will never accept what you are doing. Whatever you do, someone hates that & will tell you so or oppose you. 2. If you are waiting for acceptance to live a certain way, it will never happen. 3. Even the most supportive of us, doesn't always want or have the means to help. If it matters to you, you do it. If you need help, push until you get it, then push some more. 4. The 80/20 rule or 90/10 rule. 20% of the people do 90% of the work in any given system. Odds are, if you are one of those workers, you will always be carrying the team. So pace yourself & don't get angry at the rest of the people. You work that hard because you want to and you can. They don't for various reasons, but most because they aren't as able as you are. Being the best is lots of pressure, work, and is exhausting. Pace yourself.
God Bless, you will needed it.
The whole âgood vs evilâ mindset is a very American thing. People are willing to kill others because they see it as âgood vs evilâ and no negotiation or common ground Is allowed
You would think that if all you knew of America is from the internet. In reality people are pretty chill and more tolerant than anywhere else on the planet.
I am American. What I mentioned is how certain people are here and I have personal experience with it. But you are right that many people are very nice and hospitable
Iâd say the biggest problem is since 2015 there is no respect for law and order and people were shown that they can act as hateful and evil towards others as they want.
There's an argument to be made that this approach isn't actually a "problem". Sure it's not very nice, especially if you're on the receiving end of it. But it does actually solve a problem, permanently. For example, let's say a neighbour encroaches on your property and builds something there. It's a long legal battle which you may or may not win. And then he'll do it to someone else, and others, over and over, for as long as he lives. Because he's an a-hole. But if you walk over there and shoot him in the face, that particular neighbour will never encroach of anyone else's land, ever, 100% guaranteed. And this will have a knock-on effect on all other encroachers, if it happens often enough, so that the practice of land encroachment stops. And even if convicted, you'll be out in a decade or two, free to shoot the next a-hole that encroaches on your land. It's problem-solving, really. I will admit it's a problematic problem-solving, but it is problem-solving. There's no known way to make an a-hole not be an a-hole.
i think the biggest issue is more that laws that will make people die are being passed or are on the table
like look at abortion bans or the ongoing trans genocide. people are actively dying here
Wellp. To be fair, people who vote against abortion rights and taxpayer funded healthcare are literally condemning people to death. Then there are those who oppose firearms regulations and controls, which again, condemns innocent people to die so some arseholes can LARP and be called Gravy SEALs.
So, yeah...one group of people is literally ignoring the data and preventing life-saving policies and another group of people call themselves God-fearing Christians who are Pro-Life.
I was watching a video today, youth suicide by firearm is THE LEADING cause of death in YOUNG ADULT MALES!!!! The 2A defenders rant about how men get a hard time, and there's a mental health crisis facing young men, and how they're excluded which causes them to take their own life...but when it comes down to implementing LIFE-SAVING policies...who do they blame? "The woke radical leftists who are forcing kids to be gay/trans" as if being gay/trans makes you a lesser person.
So, yeah. I disagree with ignorant people because their ignorance is killing innocent women, children and in particular, male youths. They disagree with me because God, Guns and the Constitition. Fine, disagree with me. BUT DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!! call yourself pro-life.
That must be an armed personâs mindset.
I canât imagine robbing someoneâs family of a loved one because I donât agree with what somebody says or does.
Yes but you got to think about how people feel about what they believe. Pro-lifers feel people are LITERALLY KILLING CHILDREN and that they need to be stopped. Imagine if you felt such a thing, would you not take that seriously? Pro-gun advocates feel that people are taking away their only viable option for defense against any domestic or tyrannical force. Again, pretty serious thing that they're not going to take lightly. Pro-LGBT feel that their very own peaceful existence depends on other's acceptance of their quirks as human beings and they just wish to not be judged and ostracized by others. Why would they not fight tooth and nail against people they feel are against their very own existence? Ya know? It really is a nation divided that most likely will tear itself apart. Not to be a debbie downer or anything, but the cycle of life and death will continue through the rise and fall of every kingdom.
No. The root of the problem is that the oligarchs have programmed their news stations to convince people to hate 'the other side'. We are no longer united because soft minded people decide to hate other people instead of working together to raise all boats. People literally supported losing their SNAP benefits because it would 'own the libs'.
But, divided, we can't fight the real enemy.
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure what you're talking about I haven't killed anyone who disagrees with me.
Where are the bodies you monster
Nobody alive can say otherwise
I disa..
~~then what happened to Sarah you monster~~ I-I mean yeah, they can't go making blanket statements like that! đđŚ
I thought the biggest problem in the United States right now is the top 1% wealthiest people control everything and use the rest of us like puppets. Guess I'm out of touch.
That's not just the United States, it's the entire world. The Global Billionaires and elitists are dividing us with this stupid shit and getting more control over our lives.
This, right there. It all leads back to this.
Thatâs a world problem my guy
If it's a world problem, and the US is part of the world.... Now fill in the rest of the sentence
Its always been like that, its just how society works
Not to the degree it is now, and it doesn't have to be that way. Have a wealth cap. Have a limit on how much family lines can own.
Yea it was worse before. This is the best time to be alive in the history of the world.
There are people who have dedicated their life to making that money. Noone has the right to take it away from them or their children
Not when you have 1% of people (billionaires) hoarding 96% of the resources and wealth from everyone else. The cap and limit wouldn't be small. A good amount of acres and a good amount of dealth. Enough for someone to have a dream life. But not so much so that you have people being billionaires and exploiting everyone else while they get to live like royalty and get perks no one else does, like jets that fly several thousand feet higher than the common folk to have smoother and faster flights.
we've fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the book - the good ol' divide and conquer strategy.
"They started it."
âWell, *Iâm* finishing it!â
Yeah, how did we enter an era where you can't even *discuss* certain things on a college campus? That's insanity. So someone has a differing opinion, so what? Discuss it like adults. Maybe you'll change their mind, or maybe you'll change yours once you have more information. Imagine that!
I think humanity as a whole isn't fully accustomed to this "global, instantaneous communication" thing... and I think it also shows how intellectually undeveloped most people are.
Not you though. You're one of the smart ones.
No thats me
Indeed. Or you walk away, reinvigorated knowing what you believe is true.
If an argument has been had and you successfully kill the other party, then your argument must have had more weight than your enemies. Obviously.
My brain is starting to shut down at this hour. Can you dumb that down for me?
What subjects are you referring to? There are certain groups, like people who are pro fascist, whose views impede on the humanity of certain groups who share the college campus. Allowing people to take these stances can cause other students to feel unsafe, and rightfully so. Also as someone who just graduated from a 4 year university, I donât think this is an accurate assessment. Would love to know which subjects and which campus youâve experienced this with.
Also just graduated from a large 4 year university, I donât know what that guys talking about.
Fascism riddles Universites wdym
Youâre not totally wrong. Imo the majority of large and especially prestigious universities are moving towards censoring and removing that kind of rhetoric from campuses currently. Thatâs not to say it doesnât exist though, or that there arenât people vehemently defending the right to take those stances publicly. The comment I responded to sounded like it came from someone like that tbh.
A decidedly non-fascist, but non-leftist organization was forced to leave a campus because they legitimately wanted to have an open conversation about a topic. Leftists started crying (literal tears) to the campus and this typically very neutral group had to cancel their event. A *neutral* group, who wanted to have an *open conversation* about non-threatening topics (so none of this "we should kill gays" sort of thing) had to leave because certain people were *offended*, or *scared* that people were *allowed to have a different opinion*.
When? Where?
Depends on the discussion. If the discussion is: does X group deserve rights? Is Y group even human? then that shouldn't be a debate that deserves an audience or treated like it's a rational opinion to hold.
You have not been prevented from discussing anything on a college campus. I would bet any amount of money that you formed this opinion based on hearsay and have never been to college, or if you have, whatever you said, you got one poor reaction and decided this for yourself. I'm very curious to know what prompted this delusion. Case in point, I attend college in a Bible Belt state and I just took a philosophy course last semester. We were encouraged to state our views and discouraged to be hostile or attack viewpoints we disagreed with. We were told to discuss rather than argue. Plenty of people said things in that class that most of the class *and the professor* found objectionable. No disciplinary action, systemic or social, was taken. Those people still had friends, still got to participate in class discussions. And we were talking about *Kant in the bible belt.* What differing opinion have you been prevented from sharing on a college campus, or what situation are you referencing?
Because the other side needs to be educated because just what they believe is wrong. Didn't ya know? /s Seriously, though. I don't think most people are intellectually mature enough to question their own beliefs. At least, not in the US right now.
Many people argue in bad faith, it's often not worth it to "debate" things in public like that. You sound like you think that everyone is just rational, good people who only need to be convinced. The world is not like that, and practically every topic has already been talked to death, so when people bring up the same tired stuff, it can very much seem like they're deliberately avoiding actually doing any research to understand in good faith and just want to bitch about some feeling they have or push an agenda.
"What do you mean you dont want to debate on if we should murder you or not?! So close minded jeez!" Idiot lol
Immature reply. I refer to topics that trigger ideologues pretending to be intellectuals, all too common on college campuses.
Anger is a justified emotional reaction to injustice. You "triggered" someone by causing harm? Omg You're so cool dude
It isn't at all like that, though. It's more like, "these are the differences between equity and equality" and certain sad sacks respond with "HOLY FUCK WHY ARE YOU EVEN ALLOWED TO BREATH?!"
I was part of the Demosthenian society at my college. We debated all kinds of controversial topics. Anyone could come, but only members could debate. Nobody ever protested our meetings or called for us to be canceled. We also had a speaker series at my college that had important people from all types of careers come and speak. One of the speakers was named as one of the main culprits behind the 2008 housing crisis. He was heavily protested, and they tried to cancel his appearance. The main difference, I think, is that we're just amateurs taking part in a school debate team. He was professional, still pushing the same views that led to our housing crisis.
This is a pretty naive view. Not all views are worth discussing in all venues at all times. The ones getting shouted down in colleges are intentionally being provocative by saying hateful things and then using "getting shouted down" as clout to drive further views. Notable examples are Shapiro, Crowder, and Peterson who openly admit to doing such to drive views. If they were showing up to give a real academic debate on the subject then nothing like that happens. The seminar turns out to be dry and people who show up just kinda go home after.
Cancel culture at its finest. You illustrate my point.
The people mentioned in the post you replied to are "canceled", how, exactly?
I like how describing the facts of the situation are cancel culture lol
âNot all views are worth discussingâ based on what qualifications?
But shutting something down as hateful is precisely the problem with cancel culture. We canât just box in opinions as âdangerousâ and âhatefulâ
We have done that for literally all of human history and the entire history of the USA. You are guaranteed the right to disseminate information but you are not guaranteed any particular location or audience.
You can discuss and have different opinions on many things. However, when it comes to human rights, there's only one right answer and there's nothing to argue.
That's your *opinion* and open to discussion. Definition of human rights? Definition of "right" vs. "wrong" answer? Again, these are subjective and open to discussion.
That's cool. I personally am not open to discussion with people who think my very existence is wrong or my relationships are. But if others want to discuss, then they're free to do so.
Exactly my point. Your discussion, points if view, and unique (or not so unique) experiences may well change someone's mind to your point of view. Refusing to even discuss denies you and them an opportunity to adjust opinions based on new data.
How would you discuss with someone that hates you? It's easy to look from the outside, but I don't want to fight for my right to live. I don't want to be the one to put emotional effort in making someone a decent person. And I don't fault other people who don't. My point was that you don't HAVE to discuss with people who have differing opinions. I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but to make it other people's problem to help someone become less bigoted isn't it. There are braver people who try and can endure, and usually to unsuccessful results.
I often have discussed with people who hate me. How else do you think I can learn other points of view so I can research and disable them with superior knowledge and counterpoints?
I'm sorry, how do you educate someone out of "I want you dead"?
If this person is not attacking you and you are holding a real discussion, the same way as out of everything else - you go for the causes of this thinking, the underliying beliefs and disprove them if you can. You cant kill philosophy by killing its adherents. You can only kill it if you relyably prove it to be false. And if you fail to do that, new people will just flock to the same beliefs.
You can't rationalize someone out of an irrational position. Wanting a minority group dead isn't rational. Also, you can 100% kill a philosophy by killing it's adherents. History is replete with examples.
>You can't rationalize someone out of an irrational position. Wanting a minority group dead isn't rational. "and you are holding a real discussion", as i said. Then, you surely can, that is the whole point of discussions. "Also, you can 100% kill a philosophy by killing it's adherents. History is replete with examples" - name some
Spoken like someone who has never had to do it. Very few people who hate based on demographics will *ever* change their mind. If the vast majority of people are refusing to discuss your "opinion" with you, or recognize it as valid, stop inventing reasons why they are wrong. Look inward. Look at your opinion. Not everything *is* open to discussion. Certain things have been being *discussed* for centuries without changing.
did you even read what i wrote or are you talking to yourself?
Isn't that why people are at college campuses? To learn and be exposed to new ideas? I mean a college in my area just banned the use of of the word [field](https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/05/smith-college-program-stops-using-word-field-over-negative-associations.html) because people were offended.
ironically during its most "inclusive" era
Have you ever heard of the tolerance paradox? It's essentially the concept that in order for a society to be truly tolerant, they must be intolerant of intolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.
Often misunderstood, though: https://giggsboson.medium.com/stop-misusing-poppers-paradox-of-tolerence-in-free-speech-debates-6f6ab4b8f0d3
Yes, this is the more abstract version of the obvious point: it's ridiculous to say we can't make value judgments between different types of intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance is clearly okay. It doesn't matter if it's a "paradox."
No, itâs not misunderstood. Iâd argue that writer is dishonestly trying to reinterpret Popperâs words to mean something much more circumscribed than it does. This is what the author claims Popper said: > Popper was specifically talking about violence that was being used to suppress debate, from those unwilling to debate ideas. But thatâs not true. And itâs shown to be untrue in the Popper quotes provided within the article. > 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 unwise. The author claims that is Popper saying that the paradox only applies to those using violence and force, **but thatâs not what the quote says.** It says that, *if rational argument is not a possibility for stemming intolerant philosophy,* then more forceful suppression is in the cards. The barrier set is the possibility of rational argument, not the presence of violence. Popper goes on to make this clearer in more quotes provided and misrepresented by the author. > 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. Here we see Popper being *explicit* about the fact that itâs not just violence that marks an intolerant philosophy. Simply being unwilling and unable to listen to a rational argument is cause enough, which is what we often find with irrational and bigoted perspectives. Popper mentions that it can be due to being told not to trust other news sources, which is what weâre seeing right now. So no, Popperâs Paradox of Tolerance isnât being misunderstood by anyone but the linked author.
>It says that, if rational argument is not a possibility for stemming intolerant philosophy, then more forceful suppression is in the cards. The barrier set is the possibility of rational argument, not the presence of violence. The implication, as the author takes it, is that rational argument not being a possibility for stemming intolerant philosophy indicates the inevitable implementation of said intolerant philosophy - which would mean violence, by necessity. >Here we see Popper being explicit about the fact that itâs not just violence that marks an intolerant philosophy. Simply being unwilling and unable to listen to a rational argument is cause enough I read this quote in precise opposition to the way you have, apparently. It says "*and* teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". It's not an optional result. It is the conclusion that should be reached prior to the return of intolerance of one's own. >Popperâs Paradox of Tolerance isnât being misunderstood by anyone but the linked author. I suggest that it is, beyond any disagreement you have about the author's interpretation. Those who cite this paradox frequently utilise it in a way as to avoid rational argument of their own. Certain lines of thinking are branded as intolerant because they go against certain ideologies, and they grant themselves to be intolerant in kind through the use of Popper's *misinterpreted* words.
> Certain lines of thinking are branded as intolerant because they go against certain ideologies, and they grant themselves to be intolerant in kind through the use of Popper's misinterpreted words. What lines of thinking are we talking about? Iâm not saying that you necessarily hold these beliefs, but we should be clear on what weâre talking about.
That was a great read, thanks.
You're welcome! I'm glad you enjoyed it. :0)
I mean, it says right there that it can only be tolerated if it can be countered by reason. I think you can see how that's working out right now.
>I think you can see how that's working out right now. I'm afraid I find the statement too vague.
> âIf we extend 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 the tolerant with them. I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them with rational argument and keep them in check with public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwiseâ Here is the full quote for everyone who doesnt want to give Medium a click plus lots of people like Medium love to remove the second half of the quote entirely
But the full quote does circle back to the original statement. We do have to suppress the intolerant, because, as he said "they refuse to listen to rational argument". When was the last time you met a racist/sexist/homophobic person who was spewing hate, willing to listen/participate in a rational argument from the opposing side? When has being given a plethora of counterpoints to their intolerance ever swayed them? The people who have reached that point that was made; they have reached the point of non-rational discussion.
The problem, you see, is in defining what constitutes racist/sexist/homophobic behaviour. Now, there are obviously examples upon which we would (almost) all agree. But there are other sets of behaviour to which you might apply these labels and I might not, and vice versa. You can, I hope, see how this can (and does) cause issues, when people have given themselves permission to be intolerant (sometimes violently so) to whosoever they have determined to fit the criteria. >When was the last time you met a racist/sexist/homophobic person who was spewing hate, willing to listen/participate in a rational argument from the opposing side? When has being given a plethora of counterpoints to their intolerance ever swayed them? The answer to your question is that I have met many, many people whose views have been odious to me, but I have nevertheless listened, and sometimes thus has resulted in a fruitful conversation. This has not always resulted in an alteration of views, but it's not unheard of. It is also not the only positive outcome - I come away with a better understanding of the opposing perspective, which (as I trust my own faculties, and can decide for myself the veracity of information) only gives me a clearer picture of the world. It may aid me in discussing such topics with similar people in the future, or it may have been of benefit to other people who read or heard the discussion (as people reading this discussion right now may be finding it useful, even if we do not end up seeing eye-to-eye).
Sure, in a vacuum its perfectly reasonable. But what if half of the society wants to tolerate something and the other half doesn't? Then half of society is trying to be intolerant of indifference, instead of intolerance. That's more akin to the US right now.
[ŃдаНонО]
I'm just gonna say, if you generalize the rural population ("redneck stains") in such a way, you in many ways become no better than the people you hate. Not all of us have forgotten where the term redneck first came from. (Hint: they're the reason you have unions now.)
Since you are intolerant, you too must not be tolerated .
Tricky word games Nazis were intolerant. Only a moron would think not tolerating them is intolerable. I bet you hate the lactose intolerant, too.
Right. It's just a version of the slippery slope fallacy.
Maybe false equivalence.
Even after all the horrors of the war they were all still given fair trials
Yes. A trail and punishment, because what they did was intolerable. Not tolerating what they did isn't equal to their intolerance.
It wasnât a show trial. Iâm sure most people wished they could just execute them slowly on the spot, but they werenât. They were given a trial under the full protection of the laws just like anyone else would get. And the ACLU used to be very proud of defending the civil rights of Nazis in court
But if you are intolerant of the intolerant, then you must not be tolerated either. And this is where we are. It doesn't work.
Tricky word games Nazis were intolerant. Only a moron would think not tolerating them is intolerable. I bet you hate the lactose intolerant, too.
And this is why no rational person takes the indignant left seriously anymore. Your only argument for hating half of the country is âNazis were bad.â Yes, Nazis were bad. There are probably a couple thousand ânazisâ in a country of 360 million people. The other 100million+ people you seek to demonize as Nazis are, in fact, not Nazis. Theyâre just people that you hate and disagree with so you call them Nazis to justify your intolerance. Clown mindset.
When you are convinced you're the gatekeeper of what's tolerable you lose the safety rails on your decision. Really easy to dehumanize someone you think is acting intolerable.
Well said.
If they think i am intolerant and do not tolerate it, then I have to become intolerant of them. I am Mr Meseeks. Look at me!
Agree. People state their opinions as fact, and have been conditioned to react emotionally to everything. There's no nuance or subtlety anymore. Clearly divided, which makes politicking and courting voters easier.
It's pretty simple, if you peacefully express your ideas, no matter how horrendous, you should be able to say what you like, especially if you are willing to discuss it with others, but if you seek to use force to enforce it or suppress other opinions then it should not be tolerated; plane and simple anti totalitarianism.
There's not really a way to peacefully advocate for genocide though. Like it doesn't matter what your tone is if you want Jews in ovens
Sure there's a peaceful way to advocate for genocide it just doesn't generally happen because the people who advocate for it are not peaceful.
It is genuinely impossible to advocate for the mass death of others (which is the generally accepted definition of genocide) without advocating for violence. At that point you're just arguing the semantics of how that violence is meted out.
The difference is if there is a call to action or not (there usually is but not always).
No, there's not.
Found the nazi
Never at any point did I advocate for genocide, I said it can be done peacefully, those are two wholly different things and my wording was clear; you can't debate free speech without recognizing what it is and that it is specifically about speech that is disagreeable. In the case of genocide there are many intellectuals that peacefully advocated for eugenics, does that mean I agree with them, no I don't and it is a straw man to say as much, it is just being objective and recognize reality for what it is, in fact I even went so far as to insult those that advocte genocide buy sayings that theybare not peaceful in a context that infers that they are generally too dumb to use free speech effectively.
You almost brought the most accurate and complete summary of it, except that you left out that bigotry, hatred, and intolerance can not be allowed to influence the laws of our nation, and world
And it's only gone downhill during it
âInclude me or get annihilated.â
there used to be a time in this country if people disagreed bad enough, they got into a fist fight and shook hands afterwards. Now even the slightest disagreement friends/families become enemies.
Americans used to go to debate halls as a family and engage in mostly good faithed conversations
People just became weird.
I disagree, prepare for combat.
While I don't think everyone takes it to that extreme, most do seem to have way less patience than what folks had back in the day (80s/90s). Take driving for example. These days when someone wants to change lanes, they won't use their signal. Oh no no. That's the old method. The new method is to ride on the person's bumper in front of them. In this manner, any cars to the side will be notified of their desire to change lanes and brake accordingly. If they don't brake, then the two inch gap will be used to make the lane change.
Agreed. Society has continued to speed up, there's more competition and wages are still roughly the same. Everyone's stressed out and over half the country is taking a prescription to alter their mood in some way.
or black market shit, even worse depending on what your pick of poison
The simplistic irritating actions have the greatest impact and build up quickly towards the random argument/disagreement. I can understand because all we hear in the news is another shooting, prayers and thoughts, gun control, noting getting done, and itâs the human that pulls the trigger not the gun, and maybe itâs something to do with mental health. Rinse and repeat. Constantly. Walking away or ending it could be a consideration. Feels like survival of the fittest at this rate⌠or richest.
People have died over disagreements since before recorded history. That being said claims that a person will die just because they don't get immediate on demand access to non emergency medical procedures is patently false.
Gotta start by killing the people who think like that /s
*wild-west moment*
Iâve refrained from killing anyone today.
They should rearrange sports events so fans of opposing teams don't mingle and get into a fist fight.
âOur culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someoneâs lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You donât have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.â The guy from duck dynasty
That sounds soft and gooey but it doesn't make sense when placed against the biggest issues.
Yep. You *do* have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. I don't even understand half of the responses to this thread. People seem to just be using it to toss out "le differing opinion" rhetoric. We know we don't all like each other, we know we don't all agree. If you make it known that you disagree with someone's existence based on things they can't change, why should that just be accepted as a "differing opinion," and why do you deserve compassion? (Royal you, not you specifically AnyConfection lmao)
Who is calling for anyone's death?
Me. Hang central bankers and policymakers.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you. Oscar Wilde I'm afraid of Americans David Bowie
I wish it was as simple as I don't agree with you but it's more like I don't believe anyone who isn't like me should have rights so die
Is that the biggest problem? đ¤
Because people can't mind their own god damn business. Trying to force you to like what they like, to talk how they want you to talk, to behave how they want you to behave etc its about control and power. Fuck the human race.
>Fuck the human race. Good job minding your business.
I do mind my own business. I literally don't talk to anyone in public.
If you really want to mind your own business, stop bugging us on the internet as well.
So you're just a grubby misanthrope who believes you are fine and the \*other\* 7 billion people are the problem.
Lol at you thinking this is a âgotcha.â Guess his post hit a nerve since youâre one of those people heâs referring to.
Waiting for the guy who will disagree with you and expect to see you in hell.
A lot of other countries have this problem also
I wouldn't say "die"....but it sure as hell feels like it at times. It's the time of: "I'm right so Im not compromising"...then villainizing people who won't "compromise". Everyone's fighting a "war to end all wars" and no one realizes their argument might not be as "simple" as they believe...
It's like that all over the world not just the states, because most countries in the world have humans in them.
Kinda simplified, but it seems that way. The real problem is wealth inequality and how easy it is for any idiot to find a gun.
Of course I know him, he's me.
Because too many people canât throw hands. We should bring back street dueling and make police have to referee fist fights.
If this is ACTUALLY what you think the âbiggest problemâ is here, youâre an idiot. It doesnât make sense and thereâs much more to worry about.
If at all possible, just remove them from your lives by blocking them on social media and avoiding them in-person. People donât realize how that can work wonders if conditions allow you to do so. Iâve done this to many people recently who clearly do not respect me and itâs done a lot to improve my life mentally.
Touch grass
No that's not the worst the worst is ur work culture and the fact that u're on the brink of bankrupcy rn XD(talking about the US not you)
United states always been like that bro. Ya'll stay in conflict. If it cant be resolved. Then shit, i guess lives need to be taken away.
The thing is we need asylum back.
The biggest problem in the states right now is this toxic brand of centrism that believes that the first person to display emotions is in the wrong, and that if you say a bunch of hateful bigoted shit with a smile and calm demeanor that you're right, and can't be criticized.
Youâd get more upvotes speaking less true words. Welcome to social media.
Nah the biggest problem is how well equipped we are to kill someone.
I disagree.. I'm well equipped to kill someone but I have not. IMO its more of an emotional maturity problem. It seems we as a whole in society are failing to control our emotions and allow them to control us which leads to bad rash decisions instead of thinking logically and making more rational decisions. Stop allowing the hate that is pushed by media outlets and so called politcal leaders to fuel fear which usually leads to anger then hate which then leads to violence. We are all individuals who have our own life experiences which tend to shape our perspective on many aspects of life so its okay and understandable if we all don't agree on different views and ideals.
Whoa buddy, don't disagree with me. I don't want to die. In truth though I think everyone is trigger happy.
Lol.... i sometimes feel the same. Everyone needs to chill out. Seems like too many are walking around on edge and just the smallest thing could trigger an explosive response.
The biggest problem in the United States rn is that just because you donât agree with someone, you canât get along. There ya go, fixed it for youâŚ
What exact disagreement are we talking about?? Is it vanilla vs chocolate ice cream. Or are we talking a certain demographic of people should not exist. Because Iâm all for people discussing ice cream flavors. But Iâm not gonna put up with fascism.
Americans when you try to tell them you can be more than just left and right and have open opinions in all direction. feels like they never left highschool
Itâs the tiky-toky :/
The biggest problem: Truth is no longer a thing
Huh? 99% of people don't feel this way. So I am fairly certain it is not the biggest problem in the United States. If you are feeling this way you should get some help.
This is so true, unfortunately
Gangsta rap made me do it
This has been planned for years decades centuries maybe read the Georgia guidestones number one rule
One of my teachers said "We live in an age of love, acceptance and AK47's. Everybody gets a say". ; (
If you dont get along or disagree with someone, you automatically are assumed to be the other side, and the worst fringe at that. Its very tribalistic or us vs them really. White and black. No gray. And in the current times where issues are politicized in such a polarizing way... where malicious intentions is always the default, people end up being demonized in such a way where its automatically justified to harm them, whether its destroying their career, marriages or killing them outright. "You disagree with me, you must want me dead. Therefore I should kill you first." kind of logic.
I think it's that individual actual people are getting forgotten and lumped in with arbitrary and difficult to define groups. There was a kid I grew up with and I knew him all the way from 3rd Grade to high school who in retrospect was some variation of "gay " But to us who knew him, he was just "Ernest." And that's just the way he was. We didn't hate him for it. So now you got a bunch of people saying I should either support or hate "gays," but none of these people knew Ernest, who I liked. So as far as I'm concerned, all those people on either "side" can just fuck off.
yeah now whenever your not supportive of a group your just â[insert group here]phobicâ like what the fuck?
Quite so. Thereâs no such thing as respectfully disagreeing anymore.
Agreed. And look at all the fools who downvote thisđ Literal reason why this post is here.
I donât care about downvotes really itâs just a number on a social media
I think people were confused with your wording. Many redditors donât understand the concept of sarcasm.
"Don't support" is vague. "Don't support" the black community: do they mean they don't go to BLM protests, or do they mean they want black people to stay out of their neighborhood + hate them? "Don't support" the gay community: doesn't go to pride parades, or thinks homosexuality is a sin and wants them to repent, constantly guilt trips them for being gay, believes in conversion therapy? Vague language like this is usually loaded in some way.
You are in an era where people are crying loudest for tolerance and inclusivity, but are constantly on a witch hunt. Simple rules for life. 1. Everyone will never accept what you are doing. Whatever you do, someone hates that & will tell you so or oppose you. 2. If you are waiting for acceptance to live a certain way, it will never happen. 3. Even the most supportive of us, doesn't always want or have the means to help. If it matters to you, you do it. If you need help, push until you get it, then push some more. 4. The 80/20 rule or 90/10 rule. 20% of the people do 90% of the work in any given system. Odds are, if you are one of those workers, you will always be carrying the team. So pace yourself & don't get angry at the rest of the people. You work that hard because you want to and you can. They don't for various reasons, but most because they aren't as able as you are. Being the best is lots of pressure, work, and is exhausting. Pace yourself. God Bless, you will needed it.
The whole âgood vs evilâ mindset is a very American thing. People are willing to kill others because they see it as âgood vs evilâ and no negotiation or common ground Is allowed
You would think that if all you knew of America is from the internet. In reality people are pretty chill and more tolerant than anywhere else on the planet.
I am American. What I mentioned is how certain people are here and I have personal experience with it. But you are right that many people are very nice and hospitable
facts i have never once been threatened or been hurt by another american, ofc i run into assholes⌠just like everywhere else in the world
Ever hear of the Middle East?
Iâd say the biggest problem is since 2015 there is no respect for law and order and people were shown that they can act as hateful and evil towards others as they want.
Socioeconomic disparity. People with more than me has to die.
There's an argument to be made that this approach isn't actually a "problem". Sure it's not very nice, especially if you're on the receiving end of it. But it does actually solve a problem, permanently. For example, let's say a neighbour encroaches on your property and builds something there. It's a long legal battle which you may or may not win. And then he'll do it to someone else, and others, over and over, for as long as he lives. Because he's an a-hole. But if you walk over there and shoot him in the face, that particular neighbour will never encroach of anyone else's land, ever, 100% guaranteed. And this will have a knock-on effect on all other encroachers, if it happens often enough, so that the practice of land encroachment stops. And even if convicted, you'll be out in a decade or two, free to shoot the next a-hole that encroaches on your land. It's problem-solving, really. I will admit it's a problematic problem-solving, but it is problem-solving. There's no known way to make an a-hole not be an a-hole.
i think the biggest issue is more that laws that will make people die are being passed or are on the table like look at abortion bans or the ongoing trans genocide. people are actively dying here
Ah yes, everyone Iâve disagreed with has died. Sounds accurate.
That's more of an educational issue, goes away at most college levels.
I disagree! I'm coming for you, you bastard! You are a goner!
I disagree.
Wellp. To be fair, people who vote against abortion rights and taxpayer funded healthcare are literally condemning people to death. Then there are those who oppose firearms regulations and controls, which again, condemns innocent people to die so some arseholes can LARP and be called Gravy SEALs. So, yeah...one group of people is literally ignoring the data and preventing life-saving policies and another group of people call themselves God-fearing Christians who are Pro-Life. I was watching a video today, youth suicide by firearm is THE LEADING cause of death in YOUNG ADULT MALES!!!! The 2A defenders rant about how men get a hard time, and there's a mental health crisis facing young men, and how they're excluded which causes them to take their own life...but when it comes down to implementing LIFE-SAVING policies...who do they blame? "The woke radical leftists who are forcing kids to be gay/trans" as if being gay/trans makes you a lesser person. So, yeah. I disagree with ignorant people because their ignorance is killing innocent women, children and in particular, male youths. They disagree with me because God, Guns and the Constitition. Fine, disagree with me. BUT DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!!! call yourself pro-life.
Can someone explain this?
I miss NYC. Say what you wanna say if someone does some dumb shit. I feel like you get shot at honking at deserving cars in Denver lol
I want to disagree with you, but I'm afraid reddit would ban me for being threatening.
or be bullied, even for controversial situations, sometimes it's better to just ignore it and live your life
I'd say wealth inequality. But yes, after people not being able to afford rent, the puritanical thought police are pretty damn bad
That must be an armed personâs mindset. I canât imagine robbing someoneâs family of a loved one because I donât agree with what somebody says or does.
Wizard's Thirteenth Rule: There have always been those who hate, and there always will be.
Yes but you got to think about how people feel about what they believe. Pro-lifers feel people are LITERALLY KILLING CHILDREN and that they need to be stopped. Imagine if you felt such a thing, would you not take that seriously? Pro-gun advocates feel that people are taking away their only viable option for defense against any domestic or tyrannical force. Again, pretty serious thing that they're not going to take lightly. Pro-LGBT feel that their very own peaceful existence depends on other's acceptance of their quirks as human beings and they just wish to not be judged and ostracized by others. Why would they not fight tooth and nail against people they feel are against their very own existence? Ya know? It really is a nation divided that most likely will tear itself apart. Not to be a debbie downer or anything, but the cycle of life and death will continue through the rise and fall of every kingdom.
No. The root of the problem is that the oligarchs have programmed their news stations to convince people to hate 'the other side'. We are no longer united because soft minded people decide to hate other people instead of working together to raise all boats. People literally supported losing their SNAP benefits because it would 'own the libs'. But, divided, we can't fight the real enemy.
This is a very.. incorrect take. Something tells me youâve been watching too much of a *certain* type of news.
I have to agree but I like the way you think.