The paradox of tolerance is this: “Defending tolerance requires to not tolerate the intolerant”. It sounds like a paradox, but I don’t think it is, “tolerance” is just poorly defined.

The Cambridge dictionary defines tolerance as the “willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them”.

First of, this definition does not differentiate between behaviours that harm others and behaviours that don’t.

Secondly it is not clear what “accepting” means or rather what “not accepting” would entail.

Thirdly, it doesn’t cover racism, which is not about beliefs or behaviour, but identity.

And fourth: It doesn’t differentiate between accepting beliefs and accepting behaviours.

So, here is how I feel about the paradox of tolerance: Fundamentaly, I agree. We do not have to tolerate racism or homophobia etc. Personally, i think we should accept all kinds of beliefs, even that of bigots. We cannot make it a crime to have certain thoughts, only actions/behaviours should be punishable. For actions/behaviours my take is this: as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, it should be tolerated. Any behaviour that harms others, in turn, should not be tolerated.

Here’s the thing though, what do insults have to do with any of this? I will fight physical violence when I see it, be it racially, politically, or otherwise motivated, but why would I need insults for that?

The idea that you can get people to behave the way you want by insulting them doesn’t match my experiences. What usually happens is that it shuts down any kind of conversation, as the other side either disengages, starts insulting you as well, or resorts to physical violence. It also has a negative impact on how that person, and others, perceive you, and interact with you in the future.

I also disagree that insulting others is needed to not be a “doormat”. It is important to be capable of defending yourself, yes. But I have never found it to be necessary, or even useful, to insult others in order to achieve that.

You can analyze and justify them all you want, but insults are just a cheap way to make yourself feel superior to someone else.

I apologize, I did not realize “tankie” was a pejorative. I thought I had seen people on here use that term to refer to themselves, but maybe that was lemmygrad.

Insults only reflect the ugliness of the insulter, not that of the insulted, so I think it is generally best to avoid using them.

That being said, I don’t think that “citizen” has any greater impact than “liberal”. Honestly most people you’d insult using these terms probably self identify as such anyway.

I did? How do you define corruption?

What an incredible way to miss the point of my comment.

Corruption is an abuse of trust. You cannot abuse trust if nobody trusts you. Its not corrupt to transparently act in your own interest. Acting in your own interest is only corrupt if you claim/are supposed to act in the interest of others.

I also clarified that corruption in corporations is indeed an issue that is recognised and being combatted. Corruption in this case not being corporations acting in their interests, but individuals inside the corporation acting in their interest at the detriment of the corporation as a whole.

I guess you could say that by allowing a business owner to operate a business, a state implicitly grants power to that business owner.

Contrary to a public entity however, noone expects them to use this power in the interest of the people. Instead, the legal framework provided by the state explicitly allows businesses to act in their own interest.

This means that they can’t abuse anyone’s trust because no one expects them to act in their interest anyway.

Public entities are tasked by the people to act in their best interest. If they don’t do that, and instead use the power entrusted to them for their personal gain, that’s corruption.

Business owners only represent themselves. They are free to hire anyone, because they do not have any power that has been entrusted to them by anyone else.

And its not like an administrator of public entities cannot hire a friend, they just have to convincingly make sure that that’s actually in the people’s best interest.

For your 4th paragraph: this can actually qualify as corruption. The CEO is tasked with acting in the shareholders’ best interest. If they hire friends even though someone else would be better suited, that’s corruption. (Of course in the case you described, the CEO would hire a former employee, so they could argue that knowing your performance, you are actually the best fit for the position in their eyes) I have to do regular sensitivity trainings for that kinda stuff at my company. If I encounter an acquaintance during a hiring process, I have to report this conflict of interest, so that someone else may examine my decision. If I don’t, I can get fired and taken to court. This is because, yes, corruption is also possible within a private company.

:( I don’t drive because I want to, I drive because there is no infrastructure allowing me to get to work any other way.

You will find nice people and potential partners everywhere. Even if only 1% of people are “your type” in a country of a few million people, that’s still tens of thousands of potential partners. I’d focus on other factors instead.

It sure is easy to portray your country as successful, clean and beautiful if you don’t allow any free press to contradict you.

42 is from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, 69 is a sex position, 420 refers to weed

Considering Xi is a billionaire, this only makes sense.

Idk, I just like her and enjoy spending time with her 🤷

I know in Germany murder is still murder if the murdered person consented to it.

Also, an autopsy isn’t just “randomly cutting someone apart”. The point of an autopsy is to determine a person’s couse of death and doesn’t just involve cutting the dead person open. You being alive means that an autopppsy, by definition, cannot be performed on you.

What you want is someone to mutilate and kill you. I’m pretty sure you can find someone willing to do that.

Side note: I think you overestimate how long you will stay conscious when the blood starts flowing, painkillers don’t fix your brain running out of oxygen.

Humans have other senses besides sight you know? Taste, touch, smell and sound are all heavily involved in sex. And if you can sense them, you can imagine them. Do you need to see your partner to get aroused?

(Also, a majority of blind people have not always been blind, so I imagine many of them still also imagine what someone looks like)

Do they? I’m pretty sure only about one in three humans works in food production. I think it is reasonable for them to expect the other two to give them something for their food in return.

It’s nice to have something to eat.

No, I just have very different ideas what progress is.

Progress in my eyes is made when a society becomes more democratic, and when we solve conflicts without bloodshed.

In that sense, sure, the GDR was a step in the right direction, but nazi germany didn’t exactly set the bar very high.

The idea of socialism is nice, but you hardly have any progress if the system (be it built on free markets or planned economies) doesn’t work to improve ordinary citizens’ lives, but only to keep the powerful in power.

Personaly, I don’t care much about free markets or planned economies. I think the best approach, as so often, is a kind of blend, a social market economy that allows independent companies in a framework that protects workers, consumers and the environment.

Thing is, the specifics of the economic system aren’t important. What matters is that the people are the ones who decide them.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing a utopian society, but ultimatly you have no control over what happens in the far future (neither should you, future societies need to be ruled by future people).

The only thing you can control is the present and the near future, so what really matters aren’t the ends you strive for, but the means you employ while doing so.

Ah yes, my grandparents, the landlords. Wait hol’ up, they were working people, not landlords. GDR fucked them regardless.

“bUt tHAT wASn’T rEaL ComMunIsM” If neither the USSR nor China could achieve true Communism, then maybe it isn’t so much a realistic goal as a utopian ideal, a convenient justification for all kinds of crimes against humanity that occur in its pursuit.