That’s the whole point of the paradox. Tolerance requires being intolerant to those who are intolerant. If someone won’t be tolerant of gay people, you shouldn’t be tolerant of them.
To put it more simply, tolerance is a two way street. If you aren’t tolerant of someone, then you shouldn’t be surprised when they and their loved ones are intolerant of you. If you’re going to hate gay people, don’t expect gay people and those who support gay people to like you.
Yep, they did
Here’s a brutal truth for you then. Being a raging, unapologetic jerk won’t progress your political goals. It’ll only make them harder to achieve.
Also, you’re a fucking asshole.
Until Stein vehemently recants her remarks about WiFi causing cancer, vaccine skepticism, and nuclear fear mongering – or the Green party completely disavows her and those remarks – it would be a total waste of time.
It isn’t my job as an engineer to tell “the only voice in politics that supports the science of climate change” to stop endorsing completely anti science positions. Nor is it on me to try and correct a willfully anti science party. They need to show good faith, and they’ve done nothing whatsoever to suggest any of that to me.
Did it? My understanding is that the draft and footage of their children dying in war is what reshaped the public opinion.
Genuinely asking though, it was before my time.
How does de la Cruz intend to stop arms shipments without any congressional representation to push legislation to do so?
If Congress says money must be spent on sending Israel weapons, then the president has to follow that in some capacity. The president could try to stop shipments, but that would result in a swift court case, and the president would be compelled to continue sending weapons. The executive branch has discretion in how to do so, but it unfortunately does not have the authority to end it.
You need Congress if you’re going to stop all shipments. Alternatively I suppose you could try to have the judiciary in your favor, but that means de la Cruz now needs the Supreme Court on her side.
It’s a complete misconception in American society and politics that the president can do anything. They’re certainly the most powerful single individual, but Congress is still much stronger.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation would be much better served trying to win Congressional races so they can push for bills to end weapon shipments. If they could take a number of strong Republican districts with their message, it would give them a lot more influence.
If voting third-party were purely symbolic, there wouldn’t be this many people on Lemmy trying to persuade us to not do it
This is a logical fallacy. If lighting myself on fire as protest were purely symbolic, then why are all of my friends persuading me to not do it?
Sometimes people trying to convince/persuade you against something isn’t because you actually have a point – but because your ideas will lead to harm.
Yeah the Nazis would’ve never come to power if everyone just abstained from voting instead of coalescing under one lesser evil /s
What else wouldn’t you do to stop a genocide?
“Your lack of support for Democrats may end up empowering people who will throw me in jail just for who I am”
“Stop being lazy and go improve a better party”
You’re entitled to your opinion dude, but you were a major dick here.
Trans people are not a monolith. There’s other trans people in this thread begging us to vote for Biden for their safety. Your feelings about being a rhetorical token are not invalid, but recognize that other people in your vulnerable group are legitimately crying out for help.
Either way, I’m glad I’m not one of your loved ones. Your own safety is one thing. Their safety is another.
I’m not going to support a genocide to stop anything!
Ironically, not even to stop a genocide. You’d rather two genocides happen than try to at least prevent one.
If the trolley is going to run over people regardless, and you have the option afterwards to prevent it from running over more people, the moral option is not abstaining.
I’m afraid all of us don’t have that much free time. But hey, if you can get them to stop being anti science and actually become a serious party, I’ll consider them.
Just don’t expect me to accept the Green Party’s many imperfections. If you don’t accept the Democrat’s imperfections, then you should perfectly understand.
You get it! We can’t fuck over vulnerable people. We can’t abandon minorities and LGBT people. Even if we let things get worse to the point of a societal collapse, a lot of people will die because of it – and societal collapse has not historically led to better societies down the road.
Lmao the green party isn’t going to do jack shit. They’re completely unserious about politics. They aren’t even trying to build up an infrastructure in all 50 states that lets them get suffused into local and state politics. They aren’t even aiming for Congressional seats, which would be necessary for an actual Green president to get anything done.
They’re just anti science grifters who think wifi causes cancer, entertain vaccine skepticism, and demonize nuclear energy – the latter of which could be a major asset to stopping global warming. Newer designs are even able to consume nuclear waste, meaning an anti nuclear position results in more waste than we would otherwise.
Engineer here, I just use whatever’s convenient. It’s handy to know both.
That said, I did confuse a poor coworker of mine this week when I was using bar for tank pressure and psi for the safety reliefs. That’s totally on me though.
I’m not sure I believe that after the brexit shit show