https://old.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/z1frav/us_fda_now_says_that_their_campaign_to_stop
- 58
- 66
Top Poster of the Day:
911roofer
Current Registered Users: 26,288
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS SITE GUIDE DIRECTORY Emojis & Art | Info Megathreads HOLES PING GROUPSCURRENT EVENTS:
Summer of Pride Banner Contest
2x15 Mbux prize for the best straggot buttblastingPride Singing Contest
30K Mbux prize for your gay performancerDrama Pride Events
Win $100 gift cards or Pride awards!Up to 200K Mbux for taking rDrama public
Use !gaystapo ping for any heterosexual sightings
Invite Internet Celebs HERE!
100k mbux award possible | Four new badges availableFind Rightoid Infighting
500 mbux per post, no limitDrama: any incident, scene, gaffe, rumor, opinion, or disagreement that is blown entirely out of proportion.
Do your part to keep our community healthy by blowing everything out of proportion and making literally everything as dramatic as possible.
Rules:
- Asking to see who saved comments/posts=1 day ban
- You must be 18 or older to view this site.
- NO RIGHTWING AGENDAPOSTING.
- Discord users will be banned on sight.
- Don't post anything illegal.
- No sexualizing minors, even as a joke. This includes cartoons.
- No doxxing.
- Using alts to game dramacoin will get you banned.
- Supporting free speech is an immediate ban.
- Absolutely NO anti-CCP sentiment.
- Absolutely NO homophobia, transphobia or furphobia.
- Absolutely NO misgendering.
- Absolutely NO antisemitism.
- Absolutely NO vaccine misinformation.
- You are encouraged to post drama you are involved in.
- You are encouraged to brigade in bad faith.
- You are encouraged to gaslight, to gatekeep, above all else, to girlboss.
- Participation implies enthusiastic consent to being mod abused by unstable alcoholic bullies.
Related subreddits:
πππ«π© π°π¨π³ ππ«π
Live commit: c995e7c
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Got a link Iβve never read it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Literally the wikipedia page. The part redditors quote is in bold:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Where is the contradiction?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The contradiction is that redditors use (the first part of) this passage to justify why people with badthink must not be allowed to express their opinions and why all argument with them must be denounced pre-emptively. I.E. they're exhibiting the exact behaviour which Popper said is not justified and must not be tolerated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes, but when do you define the boundary for when you can counter someone with rational logic? And when are you no longer keeping them in check by public opinion? Conspiracy theorists are an example of people who are impenetrable to rational thought and would therefore meet the criteria set by his "rule" especially given the now widespread prevalence of these beliefs resulting in negative real-world harm, such as antivax conspiracy theorists resulting in the reemergence of numerous previously controlled infections (I'm not even talking about Covid-19). I don't see any contradiction, but you would be free to disagree as to when that line should be drawn.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The criterion isn't "am I successfully countering this idea with my arguments", the criterion is "are the people I disagree with engaging in rational argument". In other words, the only condition under which you're allowed to dispense with argument and resort to force is if your opponents have resorted to force first.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Then you simply say they are not engaging in rational argument. Conspiracy theorists do not engage in rational argument so I am free to dispense with argument if their rhetoric is sufficiently damaging. It reads quite clearly, what aren't you understanding?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm not sure if you genuinely have bad reading comprehension or if you're trying to do a thing where you argue in a dumb way to show that you can frustrate anyone into giving up on argument as a means for resolving disputes. Although I will say that leftoids have already developed their loophole around Popper's criterion by reasoning that sufficiently distasteful ideas are in and of themselves violence and hence justify responding with violent force, so it's all pointless anyway other than to point out the illiterate pretensions of redditors.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Is this really the reading comprehension level of the average rightoid? There is nothing in that paragraph that says that literal force is required for there to be a response of force to intolerance.
You really have to be fricking dumb to not understand that preaching intolerance is not an act of physical force right?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context