Well that depends on the motivation for the bomb threat.

Also she was black. For some reason that’s important enough to be mentioned several times.

That would apply to any minority opinion as well, like supporting Palestine today, or being opposed to Japanese internment camps during world war 2 or opposing the Iraq war. Or being opposed to COVID vaccine mandates or school closures. People get cancelled for this stuff all the time, and being able to speak freely is critical to derailing social movements that go too far, which they always do. Anonymity is a double edged sword, where it holds people accountable for hate speech, but also provides security to express opinions that are contrary to prevailing narratives, things that desperately need to be said.

That depends if it’s your team or not, obviously

The only argument for the death penalty was back before long term prisons were available and someone was too dangerous to be released in society. The death penalty should be obsolete.

Better than being a bootlicker for one of the parties. If people could acknowledge fault with their side, maybe we could have honest dialogue and discussion instead of drones shouting unintelligible noise back and forth at each other according to the script from their party.

It’s not a very good litmus test to determine right and wrong because tolerance is subjective based on what you feel to be untouchable, inviolable topics. Those could be religion, gender ideology, sexual preference, free speech, right to bear arms, right to own property, right to bodily autonomy, right to associate, and so on, or some combination of these but likely not all of them. It varies with the individual, though most would agree on some of them. The paradox of intolerance should not be expanded to include too much, because it then becomes simply another tool for rhetoric. In the Bill of rights our constitution does a pretty good job describing which topics are off limits, I think.

Most of the time Paradox of intolerance is just an excuse to be a dick to people you disagree with, all while feeling good and justified about it.

No that was the tricolor variation that preceded this final design, and it actually did look like a Somalia flag. I think this one will be pretty well liked by pretty much everyone. The only people who won’t like it will instinctively not like it because of the taint of wokeness as a motive to change it. Whatever. But at the end of the day, it was a trash flag and everyone will ultimately agree that it’s better now.

As if people in here aren’t “othering” conservatives, severing ties with friends and family and encouraging others to do the same. Creating an other is apolitical, a tool used by Leaders to motivate their base. Landlords, millionaires, cops, managers and so on are favorite “other” groups used by left wing politicians. ACAB, death to landlords, references to guillotines and so on are evidence of this.

It’s very obviously scare mongering propaganda, and it’s working exactly as intended.

They just read different propaganda than you do, and the real truth is somewhere between Trump’s propaganda and what you are reading.

Hmm, well I’m not sure I agree that there is a big conspiracy or campaign, but I understand the logic.

How is calling someone a groomer related to fascism? Or is it just more of a correlation thing?

Lemmy moment

Are you being ironic? I actually can’t tell on Lemmy.

AMERICA BAD GUNS AND HEALTHCARE LMAO GOTTEM

Aldous Huxley described your vision of Utopia in brave new world. I think it’s ridiculous, unobtainable, and overall a terrible approach to society. Life is all about lasting and meaningful relationships, so any approach that views these as optional or outdated is broken before it even starts. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.

It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that’s what you want to do.

Because the solutions look different.