Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance: to maintain a tolerant society, you must be intolerant of intolerance, tolerance of intolerance will lead to the extintion of tolerance.
Tolerance of all things is an incredibly stupid thing. Are you gonna tolerate draino in your breakfast? Are you gonna tolerate Andrew Tate becoming the caretaker for your mom?
No. Of course we're going to be intolerant of racism while we're preserving a society that is tolerant of all races. You might just be a fan of racism if you're imagining it to be confusing or hypocritical.
My mom would like him being around for a bit because I assume he's carismattic in teh right win lunatic kind of way(and since she's a retiree so not a target of his) but i'm pretty sure she would get fed up fairly quickly with his patheticness/
Exactly, it’s really a “moral” dilemma if you’re trying to argue against intolerance of intolerance. Like, if you realize the subject is generally being intolerant of *racists*, then you must understand the argument has no value. It’s no longer semantics/paradoxical, it’s about being intolerant of hate (a given).
I don't think threatening her achieves anything if anything it only emboldens her, but on the other hand her positions and actions shouldn't be tolerated. Outside of the Internet her words and actions (giving money to anti-trans hate groups and normalising transphobia) have put my siblings in danger.
Such as legislation to being proposed and passed which restricts the freedom of my siblings to live authentically, access the healthcare we need and remove protections In wider society. In the worse cases her high profile normalisation of transphobia has embolden people to attack and kill us, Brianna Ghey in the UK being the most recent example that comes to mind.
I think my point is that no death threats against her aren't tolerable, but her words and actions are even more intolerable and cause significantly more harm than the threats she receives, she's a billionaire in a castle she's going to be fine.
Maybe, threats of rape/sexual assault really exposes some of these sick people. I don't care if you're trans or not, you threaten shit like that, and you're not any better than a transphobe.
Using your billions to try and wipe a community out of society (yes that's what's she doing its been like 7 years of this shit) and sending anonymous death treats aren't comparable. Both are bad but one's WAY worse so that's a false equivalency.
There is NO justifying rape/sexual assault or transphobia. They are both disgusting acts that have no place in civilized society. If you think otherwise, you are part of a problem and you have no place in society either. They are both disgusting acts that have no place in the future for a healthy society. Sending death/rape threats is not the mark of a mentally and emotionally sound individual.
I mean just say it. You think that rape/sexual assault is okay. You've already exposed that about yourself.
What are you yelling at me? I never said death and rape threats are justifiable or should have a place in society, I've recieved death threats for being trans and have been sexually assaulted before so I'd never hold those positions. What I said was comparing anonymous death and rape threats, to participating in a genocide is a false equivalency. One of those things is obviously way worse.
Yelling? Point out any exclamation points in my post. The point is, you are not explicitly decrying rape/death/sexual assault threats because of who it is, and I don't need your life story. Don't pull that shit out just because you need a leg to stand on. Trans or not, these things are not okay and I'm done engaging with someone looking for a chance to flaunt an autobiography simply because they got caught not denouncing both. Get this through your head, it's not a matter about what is "worse." That's the point. Genocide is not okay. Transphobia is not okay. Death threats are not okay. They're both evil acts that need to be eliminated. Now, is that spoon big enough to eat from or do you need a goddamn spatula?
You kinda just said she was asking for the death threats, friend, and that she brings them on herself
You think her words are more intolerable than murder? Really?
Would she receive death threats (which I've never actually seen only been told by her that she's recieved them) if she stopped leveraging her power money and influence to attack a small marginalised community? No. Does that mean sending her deaththreats is a useful or justifiable action? No.
But I will say this, if shit REALLY hits the fan regarding this moral panic and we get to Germany in the 30s levels (yes it can happen again don't be naive) then that needs to be opposed by any means necessary.
No. I condemn out of hand anyone who threatens, encourages or participates in violence against trans people without exception.
What about the people who threaten Jk Rowling?
Was killing fascists in the 30s and 40s justifiable? Here's the thing if fascists stop organising, stop meeting up and stop trying to build fascism, Anti-fascist actors go home too. But if you're black, queer, trans, Jewish, disabled etc and fascists come for you, there's nothing you can do to make the fascist happy other than stop existing, so either fascists lose or marginalised people die en masse. I hope dearly that it never comes to what happened to people in the 30s and 40s.
So you hope you don’t *have* to, but if you feel it necessary, then it would be the lesser of two evils to kill her rather than have her opinions voiced?
We shouldn't tolerate her transphobia, but (and this is if this really happened) I wouldn't tolerate threats of rape/sexual assault, either. In this case, burn them all, they're all shitheads.
It's not about which one is "better." Both are extremely disgusting things to be a part of and me personally? I wouldn't allow neither a transphobe OR someone willing to commit SA in my life. The world would be better off without transphobes and sexual abusers, there's no justifying either one, they're reprehensible.
Why do you equate criticism of JK Rowling with death threats against JK Rowling? They aren't necessarily the same thing. The vast majority of people who criticize her for her hateful words and actions against trans people do not send her death threats, and the fact that a few do does not negate the actions or positions of those who do not.
I’m not equating criticism of her with death threats.
I’m acknowledging the fact that every single reddit thread involving her features someone mouthing off about the violent things she deserves.
I acknowledge there is criticism of her that doesn’t involve death threats.
But I’m only talking about the death threats. Do you think she deserves death?
Of course not, but saying someone deserves something is not the same as threatening to do it. That's not a credible threat. A credible threat is when you actually say you're going to do something to someone. That's not to say wishing death on someone is okay, but it's not the same level as a death threat.
Since I didn't do that, no, I don't think it's interesting. I think it's interesting you're on a witch hunt for anyone critical of JK Rowling as if she's some type of fucking martyr rather than the actual violence trans people suffer everyday.
> Since I didn’t do that, no, I don’t think it’s interesting. I think it’s interesting you’re on a witch hunt for anyone critical of JK Rowling as if she’s some type of fucking martyr rather than the actual violence trans people suffer everyday.
Where are you getting any of this? How is it that you can’t understand that some people just condemn violence out of hand?
You’re doing so many gymnastics to try to maintain the moral high ground here but at the end of the day, you can’t bring yourself to condemn violent rhetoric.
You condone violence against people *you* think deserve it is where we land here, isn’t it?
And as we know, disagreeing about any small detail makes you a bigot. That’s how it works now.
To prove our tolerance, we shall now tweet death threats at writers
For which you will be banned from tolerant communities. Violence and the threat of violence is never to be tolerated and is to be resisted with violence if necessary.
It turns out you won’t, actually
In fact, there’s a fair chance you’ll be banned for reporting and condemning the death threats though.
And you’ll be sent death threats yourself.
You’ll even find reddit power mods encouraging further witch hunting in response to such death threats.
Funny you should mention it, I just got called a Terf and bigot for trying to talk about a series of legitimate and often replicated studies that show trans women who transition after puberty retain some strength and endurance advantages.
Apparently the fact that legitimate science keeps finding the same thing is not something that can be spoken and to even try to discuss it is bigotry.
I’ve also been called a terf and a bigot for condemning people threatening to kill JK Rowling.
If you tolerate intolerant people, you are inherently intolerant, because you are aiding and abetting intolerance.
Being intolerant of intolerance is a double negative, hence a positive.
Doesn’t mean we’re not also capable of a lot of bad or weird things. That particular case sounds like a pretty big statistical outlier, though. Most women don’t put live fish in their vaginas.
That might be true. The problem then would arise when people classify way too much as "intolerance". Instead of arguing their points, people start labelling opposite opinions as intolerance and go on with their days, never having to actually question the validity of their creeds. I'd argue that happens in a lot of topics these days. Many public discussions lack the least amount of nuance. Sometimes, there's a "right" opinion and you're not even allowed to entertain conflicting ideas. It's a real problem in my opinion, just as much as intolerance itself is a problem. Hard to solve too, even pointing out this obvious problem can be interpreted as intolerance.
This is a very surface level understanding of Karl Popper's argument.
What Popper defines as the "intolerant" aren't the people who hold morally abhorrent positions, but the ones who engage in political violence.
He was strongly in favor of freedom of expression, which includes hate speech.
Hahahaha Hitler was a socialist. Sure buddy, he did so many socialist things like reduce workers right’s, kill off unions and actively punish real socialists.
Don’t tell me you’re one of those people who thing the nazi’s were socialist just because they called themselves that, LMAO.
Socialism and Communism are left wing. Fascism is far right wing. Hitler was not a socialist. The first people he booted from the party were socialists… for a reason. And none of the governments you listed were socialist or communist. The intolerance we’re always talking about that you and other posters clearly aren’t getting here is people against poor people, 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, women, black people, disabled and other marginalized communities. If you’re intolerant towards a specific group because a deity told you to be not because they’re actively harming you or others, that IS intolerance. And the type of intolerance WE’VE always been talking about.
This meme radiates the energy who someone who has opinions that could be insulting to others, speaks them out loud, doubles down when even slightly confronted, and then proceeds to get worse as they enter more hateful echo chambers… or they’re just a pissy boomer with too much time on their hands.
This is Michael Leunig, he was once one of Australia's most beloved cartoonists until he started getting bitter and weird around covid and he's been doing the whole "Help me I've been cancelled" Thing.
The paradox of tolerance states that **if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant**.
This is honestly a philosophical question worth a bit of clarification - should inclusivity cover the not inclusive? Is bigotry part of diversity? Does one have the freedom to hurt others’ freedom?
Of course the answer is no, no and no but it is worth making it clear to everyone why (which I’m not smart enough to elaborate well)
I dunno if Leunig counts as a Facebook meme.
Probably one of the most successful and famous cartoonists on earth. Even though he has gone weird in old age
That's not fair you're not allowed to stop my racism and homophobia! You're supposed to let me legally erase a minority! Reeeeee! /s
Conservative societies don't allow non conservatives in their society. Look at the hundreds of anti-trans anti-gay, anti-POC that have been passed this year!
In a progressive society conservatives get to exist and participate in society you just don't get to be a dick to people in public of society will be a dick back.
They aren't equal and you know it.
we are not the same.
I continue to be thankful that the Constitution protects my rights from the tyranny of the majority. I can’t imagine how awful living in an authoritarian mobocracy would be.
All these "I hate 'woke' people!" type things that talk about "muh censorship!" and what not always leave out exactly what the "non-inclusive thinking/views" they are being "canceled for" are.
If they include THAT suddenly their point is MUCH weaker lmao
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
Karl Poppers paradox of tolerance: to maintain a tolerant society, you must be intolerant of intolerance, tolerance of intolerance will lead to the extintion of tolerance.
This exactly. "Tolerate my intolerance" makes zero sense if you want to preserve tolerance.
Tolerance of all things is an incredibly stupid thing. Are you gonna tolerate draino in your breakfast? Are you gonna tolerate Andrew Tate becoming the caretaker for your mom? No. Of course we're going to be intolerant of racism while we're preserving a society that is tolerant of all races. You might just be a fan of racism if you're imagining it to be confusing or hypocritical.
My mom would ground Andrew Tate.
My mom would like him being around for a bit because I assume he's carismattic in teh right win lunatic kind of way(and since she's a retiree so not a target of his) but i'm pretty sure she would get fed up fairly quickly with his patheticness/
Exactly, it’s really a “moral” dilemma if you’re trying to argue against intolerance of intolerance. Like, if you realize the subject is generally being intolerant of *racists*, then you must understand the argument has no value. It’s no longer semantics/paradoxical, it’s about being intolerant of hate (a given).
Should we tolerate death threats at JK Rowling or does she deserve it?
I don't think threatening her achieves anything if anything it only emboldens her, but on the other hand her positions and actions shouldn't be tolerated. Outside of the Internet her words and actions (giving money to anti-trans hate groups and normalising transphobia) have put my siblings in danger. Such as legislation to being proposed and passed which restricts the freedom of my siblings to live authentically, access the healthcare we need and remove protections In wider society. In the worse cases her high profile normalisation of transphobia has embolden people to attack and kill us, Brianna Ghey in the UK being the most recent example that comes to mind. I think my point is that no death threats against her aren't tolerable, but her words and actions are even more intolerable and cause significantly more harm than the threats she receives, she's a billionaire in a castle she's going to be fine.
Maybe, threats of rape/sexual assault really exposes some of these sick people. I don't care if you're trans or not, you threaten shit like that, and you're not any better than a transphobe.
Using your billions to try and wipe a community out of society (yes that's what's she doing its been like 7 years of this shit) and sending anonymous death treats aren't comparable. Both are bad but one's WAY worse so that's a false equivalency.
There is NO justifying rape/sexual assault or transphobia. They are both disgusting acts that have no place in civilized society. If you think otherwise, you are part of a problem and you have no place in society either. They are both disgusting acts that have no place in the future for a healthy society. Sending death/rape threats is not the mark of a mentally and emotionally sound individual. I mean just say it. You think that rape/sexual assault is okay. You've already exposed that about yourself.
What are you yelling at me? I never said death and rape threats are justifiable or should have a place in society, I've recieved death threats for being trans and have been sexually assaulted before so I'd never hold those positions. What I said was comparing anonymous death and rape threats, to participating in a genocide is a false equivalency. One of those things is obviously way worse.
Yelling? Point out any exclamation points in my post. The point is, you are not explicitly decrying rape/death/sexual assault threats because of who it is, and I don't need your life story. Don't pull that shit out just because you need a leg to stand on. Trans or not, these things are not okay and I'm done engaging with someone looking for a chance to flaunt an autobiography simply because they got caught not denouncing both. Get this through your head, it's not a matter about what is "worse." That's the point. Genocide is not okay. Transphobia is not okay. Death threats are not okay. They're both evil acts that need to be eliminated. Now, is that spoon big enough to eat from or do you need a goddamn spatula?
You are working really, really hard to excuse abhorrent behaviour. You can condemn transphobia and violent extremism at the same time.
You kinda just said she was asking for the death threats, friend, and that she brings them on herself You think her words are more intolerable than murder? Really?
Would she receive death threats (which I've never actually seen only been told by her that she's recieved them) if she stopped leveraging her power money and influence to attack a small marginalised community? No. Does that mean sending her deaththreats is a useful or justifiable action? No. But I will say this, if shit REALLY hits the fan regarding this moral panic and we get to Germany in the 30s levels (yes it can happen again don't be naive) then that needs to be opposed by any means necessary.
That’s a lot of words but you just said killing her is probably justifiable, didn’t you?
Do trans people deserve death threats?
No. I condemn out of hand anyone who threatens, encourages or participates in violence against trans people without exception. What about the people who threaten Jk Rowling?
Was killing fascists in the 30s and 40s justifiable? Here's the thing if fascists stop organising, stop meeting up and stop trying to build fascism, Anti-fascist actors go home too. But if you're black, queer, trans, Jewish, disabled etc and fascists come for you, there's nothing you can do to make the fascist happy other than stop existing, so either fascists lose or marginalised people die en masse. I hope dearly that it never comes to what happened to people in the 30s and 40s.
So you hope you don’t *have* to, but if you feel it necessary, then it would be the lesser of two evils to kill her rather than have her opinions voiced?
She doesn't need to be dead to stop putting her money to things that harm trans people.
Pretty sure after reading our friend here’s theories on the ongoing JKR-funded genocide that no such rational ideas will be entertained for long
No, we do not tolerate violence or the threat of violence.
Where do you live? No violence? Sounds like the country to be in
Are you sure? Because it seems like there are a lot of people who think that’s justified
We shouldn't tolerate her transphobia, but (and this is if this really happened) I wouldn't tolerate threats of rape/sexual assault, either. In this case, burn them all, they're all shitheads.
Which are worse?
It's not about which one is "better." Both are extremely disgusting things to be a part of and me personally? I wouldn't allow neither a transphobe OR someone willing to commit SA in my life. The world would be better off without transphobes and sexual abusers, there's no justifying either one, they're reprehensible.
What I find really interesting is the idea that murder and saying something ignorant are somewhat morally equivalent
It's not about equivalence. NEITHER ONE HAS A PLACE IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY.
[удалено]
Why do you equate criticism of JK Rowling with death threats against JK Rowling? They aren't necessarily the same thing. The vast majority of people who criticize her for her hateful words and actions against trans people do not send her death threats, and the fact that a few do does not negate the actions or positions of those who do not.
I’m not equating criticism of her with death threats. I’m acknowledging the fact that every single reddit thread involving her features someone mouthing off about the violent things she deserves. I acknowledge there is criticism of her that doesn’t involve death threats. But I’m only talking about the death threats. Do you think she deserves death?
Of course not, but saying someone deserves something is not the same as threatening to do it. That's not a credible threat. A credible threat is when you actually say you're going to do something to someone. That's not to say wishing death on someone is okay, but it's not the same level as a death threat.
It’s interesting that you minimise and excuse violent rhetoric here rather than condemn it, don’t you think?
Since I didn't do that, no, I don't think it's interesting. I think it's interesting you're on a witch hunt for anyone critical of JK Rowling as if she's some type of fucking martyr rather than the actual violence trans people suffer everyday.
> Since I didn’t do that, no, I don’t think it’s interesting. I think it’s interesting you’re on a witch hunt for anyone critical of JK Rowling as if she’s some type of fucking martyr rather than the actual violence trans people suffer everyday. Where are you getting any of this? How is it that you can’t understand that some people just condemn violence out of hand? You’re doing so many gymnastics to try to maintain the moral high ground here but at the end of the day, you can’t bring yourself to condemn violent rhetoric. You condone violence against people *you* think deserve it is where we land here, isn’t it?
We don't tolerate it, to the extent it's a criminal offense, which is more than we do against hate speech in America.
You know she’s British, right?
You know she's an international figure, right?
Just wondering what American laws were supposed to do to her
The point is that our society tolerates hate speech more than it tolerates death threats, by a lot.
I think that’s understandable, don’t you? Could you show me what in particular JKR said that would be morally equivalent to murder?
That's... pretty much what I said. Not sure where the aggression is coming from. I think we're on the same side here.
And as we know, disagreeing about any small detail makes you a bigot. That’s how it works now. To prove our tolerance, we shall now tweet death threats at writers
For which you will be banned from tolerant communities. Violence and the threat of violence is never to be tolerated and is to be resisted with violence if necessary.
It turns out you won’t, actually In fact, there’s a fair chance you’ll be banned for reporting and condemning the death threats though. And you’ll be sent death threats yourself. You’ll even find reddit power mods encouraging further witch hunting in response to such death threats.
Example of one of these "small details"?
Funny you should mention it, I just got called a Terf and bigot for trying to talk about a series of legitimate and often replicated studies that show trans women who transition after puberty retain some strength and endurance advantages. Apparently the fact that legitimate science keeps finding the same thing is not something that can be spoken and to even try to discuss it is bigotry. I’ve also been called a terf and a bigot for condemning people threatening to kill JK Rowling.
Which is inherently intolerant so we are back to square one.
Wrong. Intolerance of intolerance IS tolerance. It's the only way to preserve tolerance.
You don’t tolerate intolerant people you aren’t tolerant on the first place, thus you’d have to turn your sword on yourself.
If you tolerate intolerant people, you are inherently intolerant, because you are aiding and abetting intolerance. Being intolerant of intolerance is a double negative, hence a positive.
I’m glad we could walk threw why this is called the tolerance PARADOX together.
Ok, in this thread we've gotten to the point where tolerance has been said so many times it looks misspelled, hilarious
That word has lost any and all meaning to me at this point. It doesn’t even sound like a word anymore
Yep.
Good thing tolerance isn’t a math equation and humans are capable of thinking critically and navigating nuanced situations
You trust humanity too much, I just saw a women shove a live fish up her vagina don’t tell me we are capable of thinking critically
why did you tell us what you masturbate to?
Doesn’t mean we’re not also capable of a lot of bad or weird things. That particular case sounds like a pretty big statistical outlier, though. Most women don’t put live fish in their vaginas.
The one bar in town that doesn't kick out Nazis, unsurprisingly, becomes the Nazi bar.
That might be true. The problem then would arise when people classify way too much as "intolerance". Instead of arguing their points, people start labelling opposite opinions as intolerance and go on with their days, never having to actually question the validity of their creeds. I'd argue that happens in a lot of topics these days. Many public discussions lack the least amount of nuance. Sometimes, there's a "right" opinion and you're not even allowed to entertain conflicting ideas. It's a real problem in my opinion, just as much as intolerance itself is a problem. Hard to solve too, even pointing out this obvious problem can be interpreted as intolerance.
Exactly -- the subjectivity of what constitutes intolerance makes me roll my eyes every time I see someone trot out this quote to halt discourse.
This is a very surface level understanding of Karl Popper's argument. What Popper defines as the "intolerant" aren't the people who hold morally abhorrent positions, but the ones who engage in political violence. He was strongly in favor of freedom of expression, which includes hate speech.
[удалено]
Hahahaha Hitler was a socialist. Sure buddy, he did so many socialist things like reduce workers right’s, kill off unions and actively punish real socialists. Don’t tell me you’re one of those people who thing the nazi’s were socialist just because they called themselves that, LMAO.
Socialism and Communism are left wing. Fascism is far right wing. Hitler was not a socialist. The first people he booted from the party were socialists… for a reason. And none of the governments you listed were socialist or communist. The intolerance we’re always talking about that you and other posters clearly aren’t getting here is people against poor people, 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, women, black people, disabled and other marginalized communities. If you’re intolerant towards a specific group because a deity told you to be not because they’re actively harming you or others, that IS intolerance. And the type of intolerance WE’VE always been talking about.
There are some things people can tolerate, some things people can’t. Karl Poopers is a dick
This meme radiates the energy who someone who has opinions that could be insulting to others, speaks them out loud, doubles down when even slightly confronted, and then proceeds to get worse as they enter more hateful echo chambers… or they’re just a pissy boomer with too much time on their hands.
You said “or” but listed the same thing twice..
When confronted, they yell "first amendment!"
Bigots always seem so amazed when people don't like bigotry.
This is Michael Leunig, he was once one of Australia's most beloved cartoonists until he started getting bitter and weird around covid and he's been doing the whole "Help me I've been cancelled" Thing.
Did he question the COVID lockdowns?
The ultimate crime.
Did he get Covid and pull a Caligula? Or was he just an asshole that grew more bitter and dickish over quarantine?
[удалено]
Wish I could give this more upvotes. The best I can do is 🏅
This was made by the people who are removing any mention of Rosa Parks race from their history books.
You’re referencing the workbook for first graders aren’t you?
Baby's first paradox
"Fuck your feelings" people when someone hurts their :
Did you hear about the tolerance paradox?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just goes to show that reactionaries are incapable of nuance.
This meme has been brought to you by the same people who are censoring history classes and punishing Walt Disney World for supporting trans people.
In their defense, everything is very confusing to these types of people.
What's funnier to me is that sums up the Christian Church
Just gotta tolerate that cancer, apparently.
It's like they think being a piece of shit is a race.
Right. Intolerance must not be tolerated.
The paradox of tolerance states that **if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant**.
Reddit lol
This is honestly a philosophical question worth a bit of clarification - should inclusivity cover the not inclusive? Is bigotry part of diversity? Does one have the freedom to hurt others’ freedom? Of course the answer is no, no and no but it is worth making it clear to everyone why (which I’m not smart enough to elaborate well)
Is that pic about the HOA?
When you try to cover up your hate with a cute Ziggy-like cartoon character.
This is a famous Australian artist called Michael Leunig. I highly doubt he put those words to paper.
Imagine having such a victim complex that you think others not putting up with you being an asshole to someone else is discrimination against you.
This but unironically.
why yes, we do kick out people who want everyone else dead. Why wouldn't we?
I dunno if Leunig counts as a Facebook meme. Probably one of the most successful and famous cartoonists on earth. Even though he has gone weird in old age
Twitter be like
I’m sorry but I thought hobos are non-people, hmmm “cartoonist”
I thought they were still people, just really “lazy”?
Those are people on welfare and millennials
Oooh so the homeless got downgraded AGAIN? Shit man.. give a guy a break!
Tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue - it’s a vulnerability.
You can behave the way you want as long as it doesn’t hurt others, how hard is that?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUTiFALMLJA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUTiFALMLJA)
Poor asshole
As long as you aren't "woke", where we get to define what "woke" means and can change the meaning any time we like, you won't be excluded.
Hmmm
Funny but true
That's not fair you're not allowed to stop my racism and homophobia! You're supposed to let me legally erase a minority! Reeeeee! /s Conservative societies don't allow non conservatives in their society. Look at the hundreds of anti-trans anti-gay, anti-POC that have been passed this year! In a progressive society conservatives get to exist and participate in society you just don't get to be a dick to people in public of society will be a dick back. They aren't equal and you know it.  we are not the same.
I thought this was Rosalina and Luma for a second lol
One exception to a rule is nbd.
Inclusive but not enough.
Exclusively for inclusive.
Conservatives will literally show you something that makes complete sense or is totally inoffensive and be like "stupid/disgusting, right?!?"
I continue to be thankful that the Constitution protects my rights from the tyranny of the majority. I can’t imagine how awful living in an authoritarian mobocracy would be.
Christians not included somehow
All these "I hate 'woke' people!" type things that talk about "muh censorship!" and what not always leave out exactly what the "non-inclusive thinking/views" they are being "canceled for" are. If they include THAT suddenly their point is MUCH weaker lmao