My mum was Catholic, and she had a horrible time because she got punished for her parents' divorce by her school. Apparently, it's a sin and woman should do what man yell them
First time hearing about the paradox of tolerance and yep, you can’t really be tolerant to the side that is intolerant. That would be reductive. Also I love the outro music! What’s it from? Honestly, just send me your playlist because it slaps hehe
The absolute smugness of people who present it, as if they came up with it, when they're more like a child that found a loophole in what their parents said in order not to eat their veggies. "You said I should eat the veggies on the plate, but if I put them OFF the plate, I don't need to eat them anymore!"
The ha det at the end made me happy cuz I’m currently studying norwegian and i usually don’t see a lot of it in the media i consume so thanks for adding that at the end
I think the large difference is that at the end of the day even if trump lost the election, his supporters would not have lost any of their rights under kamala. when trump is in office afab people need to worry about their rights to their own bodies, trans people need to worry about their healthcare, gay people need to worry about their marriage rights, etc. its why I struggle to debate trump voters because I know at the end of the day they don't really lose anything no matter the result.
@@skootergirl22 I'm not american nor do I agree with everything she has stated she would have done as president, my point was that trump went out of his way to attack the rights and healthcare access to minorities while kamala has not.
while not entirely related, it made me think of it even if just for a second. my engineering teacher, said something that rung in my ears for many years of my life. "failure isnt a setback it is a step to learn and succeed from, no matter how many steps" and this is a philosophy I hold for many things, there is never a perfect state, only an improving one. but it takes not being afraid of failure to take those steps without stumbling and at last reach your goal. that has nothing to do with politics but i thought of it.
My father was this kind of person, and most likely still is, but he's not in my life anymore, so I don't know. All I know is that despite being Canadian, he has said multiple times that if he could vote for the U.S. president, he'd choose Trump in a heartbeat and that hurts so bad to know. I call him my father, but he did transition, but got heavily invested in Q-anon and ended up saying he was brainwashed into it, and he detransitioned. But to me, that doesn't give him the right to tell me I'm wrong for living as myself just because he may have made the wrong choice for himself. People claim to be tolerant with a different opinion, and that's all, but that's not what's happening. In my personal experience, it's a way to catch people off guard, since typically people don't have the immediate definition of tolerance for just any argument they're in or the definition of an opinion, and you just end up not answering because what they're saying is so wrong and absurd, but you can't articulate why to them. Taking people's rights away because of religious beliefs, or using religion as a front to take people's rights away just so they can get more power and influence isn't right. Period. I don't mind people who are religious or spiritual. You believe in something beyond us? Great, cool for you. But that shouldn't be a reason people end up severely affected negatively, or dead. My parents used to say it should be a crime that there are less churches around now or religious schools where we are because they brought community. But what good is saying that when they're also the ones trying to tear so many communities apart. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
great video as always! i really admire you for being able to phrase everything such cogency ^_^ hope you and your bf stay safe these next few years ❤️🐈
I noticed on bluesky that they won't listen to reason and throw around a certain hate group if you dont agree with them while I've had civil conversations with a few who have a different opinion
This is why I got out of politics, I forgot how much I hated this bs haha. I heavily disagree with pretty much every opinion you have, yet I agree with almost every point you make. America as a country is so absurdly polarized that even the "normal" part of politics is bat shit insane. 🤣 Good video regardless, and very nice art.
I think they harrased my ex bf, who I don't talk to, till he reached out to me to tell me and to ask me to tell them to stop LOL didn't even watch the video. I don't have any respect for the kinda person who'd harrass someone's high school ex for drama content. and I'm not interested in people whining abt opinions I openly share as though its exposing someone lmao
@godlesssnowshoe I don’t know too much about politics, but do you also agree Furries are mainly left-wing and likes cute, adokrable, and compassionate things. While Anti-Furries are mainly right-wing and likes tough edgy, masculine, and sinister things? I can’t be the only one who views it like this
the furry fandom is majority leftist or at least left leaning but its not really because its based around cute stuff, it's because the fandom has always been and was started by LGBT folks and has functioned as a space to be as "weird", including being queer, as people want to be. conservatism opposes ideas that are outside the social norms they have constructed, and furries are very far outside that norm. hence people who hate us tend to be right wing, and people within the fandom tend to be LGBT or allys and therefore left wing. furries are also often attacked by mkre main stream right wing media to say "we hate gay/trans people" without outright saying as such, since over half the fanfom is LGBT in some way obviously there's outliers from this on both ends but the history of the fandom has definitely shaped the political landscape within it
@godlesssnowshoe well as a right-wing myself, PLEASE! Don’t stop being weird, most importantly don’t stop being compassionate! Some people do grow up in different backgrounds and some people who see furries or anything left-leaning or adorkable like just alienate some who ain’t used to it, but shouldn’t attack people or furries like you, trust me I was a big Cyberbully and as time passes I start to fully regret and appreciate furries for being who they are because *NO ONE on planet Earth* is as *compassionate and loving* as y’all guys, and we won’t get smth like this again if y’all disappear… We git fr gotta put politics aside and understand and find a good balance. I’m really sorry for being a bully in the past, thank u 4 being weird and compassionate
The intolerant are those who are unwilling to engage in rational civil discourse and instead use violence and suppression against their opposition. Popper said himself that suppressing the mere utterance of intolerant philosophies would be "unwise", so long as they are willing to engage in civil debate and not resort to violence. I put unwise in quotes because going by the previous statement they would actually be the intolerant. Using suppression or force against their opposition and being unwilling to engage in rational civil debate. This is the frustrating thing that leftists either leave out or fail to understand when citing 'The Paradox of Tolerance' because ironically they are using it to justify being intolerant of ideas when the whole point of it was to warn us of the dangers of this kind of behavior. Karl Popper did not do a good job in my opinion of articulating this point and thus left it open to miss use.
reitterating what i said in the other comment that 1. popper is not the only philospher to discuss the paradox i just found him personally intresting & a good starting point 2. any person with the capacity for forming opinions can hear someone make an argument they agree with and still disagree with other beliefs that person has. i state IN THE VIDEO (again) i dont really agree with poppers critisism of marx. 3. obviously i am not someone who is adverse to discussing these topic because i made a video on it and have been responding to comments lmao. my whole side gig is making content that is meant to discuss with people i often find pretty morally reprehensible. many of the people that ARE being not engaged with however ARE resorting to violence, or at the least activly encourging and supporting the violent actions of others in their own camp. i do not say violence in an abstarct sense but as in many men out right stating they are planning to rape women who are participating in 4B, people who particpated in january 6th, trump being a rapist and found guilty of sexual assault, people who commit hate crimes on the basis of gender or sexuality, people like Debi Pearl & those who follow her guidance and literally beat their toddlers, etc etc. physical violence. also last note- while popper was not someone i politically align with since i am a marxist, i think you are missing that (espcially for his time) he was rather progressive lmao. many of yall claiming to care about freedom or even being libritarians dont really extend those freedoms to others that you dont agree with. ie abortion, homosexuality, trans folks, other religions than your own, etc etc. popper was also in support pf religious pluralism, something the current american right sees as an immediate threat & that largley since the cold war has been rejected by our governments on anything other than a very surface level. and to allow critisim and discussion ALSO allows for critism and discussion of religion, something that is a repeated occurance on my channel to attempt to shut down- that any critical discussion of religion is inherintally discimtorory because it introduces the possiblity that their beleifs are wrong and i should just "leave it alone". ie- it seems like youre the one trying to prop a dead philospher up on a stick and say he agrees with YOU, when in reality his own statments would make it clear he does not align with either of our political values. however i didnt claim he did for the left in the first place, and stated in the 1st 5 minutes that he is not a marxist and i disagree with his critisism on marx!
@@godlesssnowshoe You may not be adverse to discussion on the topic, but what you call for is the state to use force to shutdown opposing voices for being intolerant. I explained why this is a key misunderstanding of what intolerance really is, and to that you say well you don't agree with Popper. That's fine, but then if you disagree with him you can't really be using his argument as a premise/justification since it disagrees with you. You bring up examples of individuals who are being violent, and I would agree with you that those people should not be tolerated. But you apply that to the rest of the MAGA movement of which the vast majority is non-violent and open to civil debate. That's where I disagree. You're right the Popper was progressive, though I don't really see how that's relevant, as I'm not a conservative. I do in fact care about the freedom of Gay, Trans and all religions (assuming they are nonviolent). An adult should be free to change their own gender if they so choose, I don't believe Transgender surgeries should receive public funding the same way I don't believe any healthcare should be publicly funded, that doesn't mean I'm against healthcare, it certainly doesn't mean I'm being violent or intolerant. You're right I likely don't agree with Popper on everything, I haven't read all of his books so I wouldn't know. I know he was principally a liberal, and he supported non-aggression. I have read the full excerpt of the paradox of tolerance, when I say he didn't support using force to suppress ideas that are nonviolent I'm not propping him up on a stick, I'm not making up anything about what he said. Frankly if he if he was a Marxist that supported suppression of speech I wouldn't care, it's just a fact that he wasn't.
the thing with the abject violence is that for those of us who are on the other end of it, it's become so common to support those actions or at least find them excusable that we don't KNOW who those people are. especially with people (more so _men_) saying the quiet part outloud on social media and saying to overly lie to women about BOTH their veiws and intentions with them. and even beyond that, people are allowed to have boundaries. someone who voted for trump at best sees my right to my own body as a person with a uterus & trans person as acceptable collateral damage, and at work actively agrees with trump & many of those in his former administration that I am insane, predatory, want to destroy america, etc etc. maybe that person just sees me as less important than wealthy Americans receiving tax cuts, maybe they do see me as subhuman but that will not result in violence, and maybe that person WILL translate those veiws into physical violence. NONE of those people respect me & as such i do not want to have them as personal friends and relationships, and I will not know WHICH ones of them want to hurt me until they do. it's similar to the "not all men" vs "all men" thing. yes, not all men will assault women. but its best to be weary because you don't know WHICH men will. to think of it as all men is to protect yourself.
You really don't seem to understand the paradox of intolerance, but rather the version used by twitter leftists and bread-tubers. Pauper actually argued that tolerance requires intolerance to be truly tolerant "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 most unwise." While Pauper follows this claim by stating "we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force." This refers to if the person being intolerant is committing acts of physical violence against others. Or if there is a reigime like the red one from the 40s which is forcing intollerence on the population by killing its opposition. The paradox of intolerance has nothing to do with having thanksgiving with your grandpa who voted for trump. In fact, I actually think cutting off friends and family who have supported you for years just because they voted for trump does more harm than good because it not only just reinforces the persecution complex of trump supporters; but also is (in my opinion at least) the reason the left sucks at making anti-trump arguments.
1st- its popper not pauper lol hes not british paper or a 1600s word for an impoverished man lol? & yes obviously the paradox was not written with trump in mind, popper died in the 90s. but the repeated attempt regardless of the context to guilt and force people to maintain relationships with them despite trump supporters clearly having no respect for the rights & well being of that person is just called fucking boundaries? its not discriminatory or wrong to decide you no longer want someone in your life because they do not respect your &/or others rights. also popper was by no means the only philosopher to talk about the tolerance paradox, he was simply very influential and personally interesting to me, & the end of the day i make content because i enjoy it, so talked about a person i found interesting. popper did not originate the term.
@@godlesssnowshoe @godlesssnowshoe I don't think its wrong for someone to make the personal decision to cut toxic people from thier lives. What im reffering to is when person A says "my friend is still my friend" and other people then use guilt by association fallacy to act like said person is awful for spending Christmas with their mom or something. If you want to cut trump supporters from your life on your own accord, and aren't being a dick about it that's totally fine. Its when someone tries to force me to make that decision that i have an issue.
Nice to see someone hates religion unironically , what’s the saying again? “Facts don’t care about your feelings” that plus why I am expected to coddle and respect an ideology that showed no respect for my own basic bodily integrity? Then tried to gaslight me into believing that’s acceptable? Why can’t we make up our own religion to get out of laws too
infinging on peoples rights to access medical care repeatedly deemed to be not only safe but life saving due to religious opposition is infact discriminatory. it is an action taken specifcially to target ONE group of people, and is being done in opposition to decades of research indicating it is nessasry and benificial treatment. at an absoutle MINIMUM it is science denial. IN GENERAL the government AND private companies should stay out of what healthcare someone recives. trans or not. insurance companies, private or public, already have too much say on who recives what treatment, often to the anger of doctors who have to fight them to cover necessary treatment and to the suffering of the people who need the treatment. trump is not a doctor nor is an insurance agent. their job should be to listen to the prescribing doctors & nothing else.
Even as a Catholic this is ridiculous, my rights aren’t something to mess with
My mum was Catholic, and she had a horrible time because she got punished for her parents' divorce by her school. Apparently, it's a sin and woman should do what man yell them
@ oh yeah divorce is a huge issue in the Catholic church, it’s awful your mom went through that
First time hearing about the paradox of tolerance and yep, you can’t really be tolerant to the side that is intolerant. That would be reductive.
Also I love the outro music! What’s it from? Honestly, just send me your playlist because it slaps hehe
its the same band as my usual outro music but i felt this song was more fitting lol, the band is moonwalker!
The absolute smugness of people who present it, as if they came up with it, when they're more like a child that found a loophole in what their parents said in order not to eat their veggies.
"You said I should eat the veggies on the plate, but if I put them OFF the plate, I don't need to eat them anymore!"
not these people saying WERE the bad ones when THEYRE the ones taking away thousands of peoples rights😓
The ha det at the end made me happy cuz I’m currently studying norwegian and i usually don’t see a lot of it in the media i consume so thanks for adding that at the end
I love how you explain everything! I also agree! I love your videos and hope you keep the good work!
I think the large difference is that at the end of the day even if trump lost the election, his supporters would not have lost any of their rights under kamala. when trump is in office afab people need to worry about their rights to their own bodies, trans people need to worry about their healthcare, gay people need to worry about their marriage rights, etc. its why I struggle to debate trump voters because I know at the end of the day they don't really lose anything no matter the result.
She's not that good either all
@@skootergirl22 I'm not american nor do I agree with everything she has stated she would have done as president, my point was that trump went out of his way to attack the rights and healthcare access to minorities while kamala has not.
okay neither is like George Bush or Mcain or whatever but I'd vote for either of them over trump in a heart beat lmao?
Trump is not removing gay marriage
while not entirely related, it made me think of it even if just for a second. my engineering teacher, said something that rung in my ears for many years of my life. "failure isnt a setback it is a step to learn and succeed from, no matter how many steps" and this is a philosophy I hold for many things, there is never a perfect state, only an improving one. but it takes not being afraid of failure to take those steps without stumbling and at last reach your goal. that has nothing to do with politics but i thought of it.
My father was this kind of person, and most likely still is, but he's not in my life anymore, so I don't know. All I know is that despite being Canadian, he has said multiple times that if he could vote for the U.S. president, he'd choose Trump in a heartbeat and that hurts so bad to know. I call him my father, but he did transition, but got heavily invested in Q-anon and ended up saying he was brainwashed into it, and he detransitioned. But to me, that doesn't give him the right to tell me I'm wrong for living as myself just because he may have made the wrong choice for himself.
People claim to be tolerant with a different opinion, and that's all, but that's not what's happening. In my personal experience, it's a way to catch people off guard, since typically people don't have the immediate definition of tolerance for just any argument they're in or the definition of an opinion, and you just end up not answering because what they're saying is so wrong and absurd, but you can't articulate why to them.
Taking people's rights away because of religious beliefs, or using religion as a front to take people's rights away just so they can get more power and influence isn't right. Period. I don't mind people who are religious or spiritual. You believe in something beyond us? Great, cool for you. But that shouldn't be a reason people end up severely affected negatively, or dead.
My parents used to say it should be a crime that there are less churches around now or religious schools where we are because they brought community. But what good is saying that when they're also the ones trying to tear so many communities apart.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Awesome video. I agree with everything you said :)
Me too ty
great video as always! i really admire you for being able to phrase everything such cogency ^_^
hope you and your bf stay safe these next few years ❤️🐈
man i hate the "it's just my opinion" defence of bigoted beliefs.
Does this also work for lefties as well?
@@skootergirl22its just my opinion that people should have rights - hope this helps
@@skootergirl22 what
girl name one bigoted belief common in the left. ONE
I noticed on bluesky that they won't listen to reason and throw around a certain hate group if you dont agree with them while I've had civil conversations with a few who have a different opinion
i intentionally ignore politics & discourse on bluesky i like my silly lil furry art so no opinion 🤷♂️
@godlesssnowshoe good idea I try to not gey involved but my mum speaks her own mind and I think I got that from her
After reading ur other comments on my channel I am honestly concerned what on earth ur considering to be a problem on blue sky tbh
You should do a video on your thoughts on Palestine
This is why I got out of politics, I forgot how much I hated this bs haha. I heavily disagree with pretty much every opinion you have, yet I agree with almost every point you make. America as a country is so absurdly polarized that even the "normal" part of politics is bat shit insane. 🤣
Good video regardless, and very nice art.
Yo the crooked animator called you out what do you think
I think they harrased my ex bf, who I don't talk to, till he reached out to me to tell me and to ask me to tell them to stop LOL
didn't even watch the video. I don't have any respect for the kinda person who'd harrass someone's high school ex for drama content. and I'm not interested in people whining abt opinions I openly share as though its exposing someone lmao
@godlesssnowshoe I don’t know too much about politics, but do you also agree Furries are mainly left-wing and likes cute, adokrable, and compassionate things.
While Anti-Furries are mainly right-wing and likes tough edgy, masculine, and sinister things?
I can’t be the only one who views it like this
the furry fandom is majority leftist or at least left leaning but its not really because its based around cute stuff, it's because the fandom has always been and was started by LGBT folks and has functioned as a space to be as "weird", including being queer, as people want to be. conservatism opposes ideas that are outside the social norms they have constructed, and furries are very far outside that norm. hence people who hate us tend to be right wing, and people within the fandom tend to be LGBT or allys and therefore left wing. furries are also often attacked by mkre main stream right wing media to say "we hate gay/trans people" without outright saying as such, since over half the fanfom is LGBT in some way
obviously there's outliers from this on both ends but the history of the fandom has definitely shaped the political landscape within it
@godlesssnowshoe well as a right-wing myself, PLEASE! Don’t stop being weird, most importantly don’t stop being compassionate!
Some people do grow up in different backgrounds and some people who see furries or anything left-leaning or adorkable like just alienate some who ain’t used to it, but shouldn’t attack people or furries like you, trust me I was a big Cyberbully and as time passes I start to fully regret and appreciate furries for being who they are because *NO ONE on planet Earth*
is as *compassionate and loving* as y’all guys, and we won’t get smth like this again if y’all disappear…
We git fr gotta put politics aside and understand and find a good balance.
I’m really sorry for being a bully in the past, thank u 4 being weird and compassionate
The intolerant are those who are unwilling to engage in rational civil discourse and instead use violence and suppression against their opposition.
Popper said himself that suppressing the mere utterance of intolerant philosophies would be "unwise", so long as they are willing to engage in civil debate and not resort to violence.
I put unwise in quotes because going by the previous statement they would actually be the intolerant. Using suppression or force against their opposition and being unwilling to engage in rational civil debate.
This is the frustrating thing that leftists either leave out or fail to understand when citing 'The Paradox of Tolerance' because ironically they are using it to justify being intolerant of ideas when the whole point of it was to warn us of the dangers of this kind of behavior.
Karl Popper did not do a good job in my opinion of articulating this point and thus left it open to miss use.
reitterating what i said in the other comment that
1. popper is not the only philospher to discuss the paradox i just found him personally intresting & a good starting point
2. any person with the capacity for forming opinions can hear someone make an argument they agree with and still disagree with other beliefs that person has. i state IN THE VIDEO (again) i dont really agree with poppers critisism of marx.
3. obviously i am not someone who is adverse to discussing these topic because i made a video on it and have been responding to comments lmao. my whole side gig is making content that is meant to discuss with people i often find pretty morally reprehensible.
many of the people that ARE being not engaged with however ARE resorting to violence, or at the least activly encourging and supporting the violent actions of others in their own camp.
i do not say violence in an abstarct sense but as in many men out right stating they are planning to rape women who are participating in 4B, people who particpated in january 6th, trump being a rapist and found guilty of sexual assault, people who commit hate crimes on the basis of gender or sexuality, people like Debi Pearl & those who follow her guidance and literally beat their toddlers, etc etc. physical violence.
also last note- while popper was not someone i politically align with since i am a marxist, i think you are missing that (espcially for his time) he was rather progressive lmao. many of yall claiming to care about freedom or even being libritarians dont really extend those freedoms to others that you dont agree with. ie abortion, homosexuality, trans folks, other religions than your own, etc etc.
popper was also in support pf religious pluralism, something the current american right sees as an immediate threat & that largley since the cold war has been rejected by our governments on anything other than a very surface level. and to allow critisim and discussion ALSO allows for critism and discussion of religion, something that is a repeated occurance on my channel to attempt to shut down- that any critical discussion of religion is inherintally discimtorory because it introduces the possiblity that their beleifs are wrong and i should just "leave it alone".
ie- it seems like youre the one trying to prop a dead philospher up on a stick and say he agrees with YOU, when in reality his own statments would make it clear he does not align with either of our political values. however i didnt claim he did for the left in the first place, and stated in the 1st 5 minutes that he is not a marxist and i disagree with his critisism on marx!
@@godlesssnowshoe You may not be adverse to discussion on the topic, but what you call for is the state to use force to shutdown opposing voices for being intolerant. I explained why this is a key misunderstanding of what intolerance really is, and to that you say well you don't agree with Popper. That's fine, but then if you disagree with him you can't really be using his argument as a premise/justification since it disagrees with you.
You bring up examples of individuals who are being violent, and I would agree with you that those people should not be tolerated. But you apply that to the rest of the MAGA movement of which the vast majority is non-violent and open to civil debate. That's where I disagree.
You're right the Popper was progressive, though I don't really see how that's relevant, as I'm not a conservative. I do in fact care about the freedom of Gay, Trans and all religions (assuming they are nonviolent). An adult should be free to change their own gender if they so choose, I don't believe Transgender surgeries should receive public funding the same way I don't believe any healthcare should be publicly funded, that doesn't mean I'm against healthcare, it certainly doesn't mean I'm being violent or intolerant.
You're right I likely don't agree with Popper on everything, I haven't read all of his books so I wouldn't know. I know he was principally a liberal, and he supported non-aggression. I have read the full excerpt of the paradox of tolerance, when I say he didn't support using force to suppress ideas that are nonviolent I'm not propping him up on a stick, I'm not making up anything about what he said. Frankly if he if he was a Marxist that supported suppression of speech I wouldn't care, it's just a fact that he wasn't.
the thing with the abject violence is that for those of us who are on the other end of it, it's become so common to support those actions or at least find them excusable that we don't KNOW who those people are. especially with people (more so _men_) saying the quiet part outloud on social media and saying to overly lie to women about BOTH their veiws and intentions with them.
and even beyond that, people are allowed to have boundaries. someone who voted for trump at best sees my right to my own body as a person with a uterus & trans person as acceptable collateral damage, and at work actively agrees with trump & many of those in his former administration that I am insane, predatory, want to destroy america, etc etc.
maybe that person just sees me as less important than wealthy Americans receiving tax cuts, maybe they do see me as subhuman but that will not result in violence, and maybe that person WILL translate those veiws into physical violence.
NONE of those people respect me & as such i do not want to have them as personal friends and relationships, and I will not know WHICH ones of them want to hurt me until they do.
it's similar to the "not all men" vs "all men" thing. yes, not all men will assault women. but its best to be weary because you don't know WHICH men will. to think of it as all men is to protect yourself.
You really don't seem to understand the paradox of intolerance, but rather the version used by twitter leftists and bread-tubers. Pauper actually argued that tolerance requires intolerance to be truly tolerant
"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 most unwise."
While Pauper follows this claim by stating "we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force." This refers to if the person being intolerant is committing acts of physical violence against others. Or if there is a reigime like the red one from the 40s which is forcing intollerence on the population by killing its opposition.
The paradox of intolerance has nothing to do with having thanksgiving with your grandpa who voted for trump. In fact, I actually think cutting off friends and family who have supported you for years just because they voted for trump does more harm than good because it not only just reinforces the persecution complex of trump supporters; but also is (in my opinion at least) the reason the left sucks at making anti-trump arguments.
1st- its popper not pauper lol hes not british paper or a 1600s word for an impoverished man lol? & yes obviously the paradox was not written with trump in mind, popper died in the 90s. but the repeated attempt regardless of the context to guilt and force people to maintain relationships with them despite trump supporters clearly having no respect for the rights & well being of that person is just called fucking boundaries?
its not discriminatory or wrong to decide you no longer want someone in your life because they do not respect your &/or others rights.
also popper was by no means the only philosopher to talk about the tolerance paradox, he was simply very influential and personally interesting to me, & the end of the day i make content because i enjoy it, so talked about a person i found interesting. popper did not originate the term.
@@godlesssnowshoe @godlesssnowshoe I don't think its wrong for someone to make the personal decision to cut toxic people from thier lives. What im reffering to is when person A says "my friend is still my friend" and other people then use guilt by association fallacy to act like said person is awful for spending Christmas with their mom or something.
If you want to cut trump supporters from your life on your own accord, and aren't being a dick about it that's totally fine. Its when someone tries to force me to make that decision that i have an issue.
@@baylordiamond8819 that is not remotely what was discussed in the video so why is that at all relevant ?
Ah, yes, the good old' "be friends with wannabe criminals, you can fix them that way"
Nice to see someone hates religion unironically , what’s the saying again? “Facts don’t care about your feelings” that plus why I am expected to coddle and respect an ideology that showed no respect for my own basic bodily integrity? Then tried to gaslight me into believing that’s acceptable? Why can’t we make up our own religion to get out of laws too
So much for the tolerant Left... I mean shame on them as well, I never liked them.
@@n0etic_f0x watch the vid lmfao
Sorry but stopping federal funding for transition surgery is not violence, it is not intolerance, it is not swinging at your face.
These surgeries quite literally save peoples lives, so yes it is "swinging at your face"
infinging on peoples rights to access medical care repeatedly deemed to be not only safe but life saving due to religious opposition is infact discriminatory. it is an action taken specifcially to target ONE group of people, and is being done in opposition to decades of research indicating it is nessasry and benificial treatment. at an absoutle MINIMUM it is science denial.
IN GENERAL the government AND private companies should stay out of what healthcare someone recives. trans or not. insurance companies, private or public, already have too much say on who recives what treatment, often to the anger of doctors who have to fight them to cover necessary treatment and to the suffering of the people who need the treatment.
trump is not a doctor nor is an insurance agent. their job should be to listen to the prescribing doctors & nothing else.
@@AshyFlashyyHow is removing childrens breasts and giving them puberty blockers (same stuff used to castrate predators in prison) saving their lives?
@@mintstitch2806 EXACTLY