#(tolerance paradox etc)

[dw-flagler]

it has come to my attention that i have been really shitty the last few months about my stance on incest. i am so sorry to anyone I might have offended or made uncomfortable. I was ignorant about the examples of incest in the real world and the harm it can have on people, basing my real opinions on a hypothetical non-entity, and I apologize for any harm I may have caused by doing so. I have never nor will I ever condone any form of abuse, and if anything I said has ever implied that I do I am sorry to have said so

[starcurtain]

Hello! Wanted to say that I’ve really enjoyed your analysis on Aventurine’s theming - and yea big agree that part of the charm of the guy is that he’s a weird paradox (he got everything one should technically want, and he also lost absolutely everything he cares about) - and also I like your comment that he is, as a character, actually pretty obnoxious (it’s an odd character charm point to me)

Also your post on the way he interacts with the ladies in the cast kinda reminded me - I know folks tend to focus in Ratio’s note but I ended up zoning in on his convo with Acheron more than anything else - because a lot of Penacony is Aven butting heads with other aeon-touched people (Acheron, Sunday) - but Acheron seems like a fun foil because she also has a pretty double-edged metaphysical blessing that is associated with losing everything she loved, but she ironically hasn’t given in to full meaninglessness.

I think one of Aventurine's defining character traits is that he "tests" everyone he encounters to judge whether they are trustworthy or whether they are a danger to him (I guarantee you, he has some kind of mental ranking scale for how likely people are to dislike or mistreat him), and I think his being obnoxious is actually a direct offshoot of this.

Kakavasha clearly was raised with manners; he knows how to be polite and to tone down his responses to social situations as appropriate, which means that, in every other scenario, he is actively choosing to be obnoxious, even in situations where it seemingly won't benefit him (like talking back to the slave master or being too forward when first meeting Sunday, for example) because it allows him to gauge exactly how others feel about him and exactly how much they will let him get away with.

People who play along are potential allies (Robin, the Trailblazer) and people who act grumpy but actually tolerate the obnoxiousness are safe (Ratio, Sparkle, most of the rest of the Express Crew), while people who respond poorly (Sunday, basically everyone else Aventurine dealt with in the past, etc.) are forced into showing their true colors. If minor obnoxious behaviors can provoke them, then it means their core response to Aventurine is likely to be one of dislike and disrespect. He's just forcing that response from them out into the light sooner, rather than later, by being obnoxious from the get-go.

(And, to a certain extent, I think he also just finds it fun to be a bit obnoxious. Like, he's free to say and do whatever he wants now--who is going to stop him from being a brat if that's what he feels like doing?)

But on to Acheron... Yes, I do think there are a lot of parallels between Acheron and Aventurine (came from a doomed people, lost everyone, both determined to hold out against nihility and live just for the sake of living, "blessed" by aeons), but I think narratively speaking, the story puts Acheron in a different position when her tale entangles with Aventurine's: the surrogate big sister role.

Acheron's a very good parallel to Aventurine's sister in numerous ways: First, she essentially sacrificed herself to defeat the evil threatening her people, but is ultimately unsuccessful, resulting in the permanent loss of all she knew.

This loss also resulted in Aventurine's sister actually dying, while Raiden Mei experienced a symbolic death, taking on the name "Acheron" to evoke the Underworld, getting a ghostly, bleached white form, and prowling the river of nihility like a wandering spirit of the dead.

Second, the philosophy Acheron espouses is nearly identical to Aventurine's sister. When even as a child Kakavasha was doubting the value and meaning of life, his sister was the one constantly reaffirming that life has meaning, despite its hardships, and that continuing to exist is the way to honor those who have sacrificed for you. Just as Aventurine's sister expresses that people must hold on to faith, Acheron reminds everyone she encounters to cling to the last bit of color and light in their lives.

This ends up being echoed by the role of guidance that she plays for Aventurine, with him both directly relying on her for his continued survival:

And turning to her in his moment of greatest emotional need:

(Sound familiar? It should. This is the exact same question Kakavasha once asked his sister.)

But there's also a very, very nice visual parallel that goes on with Acheron and Aventurine's sister: the dusk rain that accompanies her.

For Aventurine, the rain has complicated emotional connotations. For the Avgin, it was desperately needed, life-giving water, and thus was considered a direct blessing from Gaiathra. Rain on Aventurine's birthday was the sign of his being favored by the aeon, and yet it also rained on the day he lost everything and had to flee from the only home he had ever known (conveniently also his birthday, dude this guy's life sucks).

Meanwhile, the rain for Acheron is equally complex--rain can bring life, the renewal of barren, lifeless lands... But we also see the rain accompany Acheron through her worst loss, the final collapse of her planet:

It also is said to rain constantly within the shadow of nihility, a lightless gray that washes away all that people wish to cling to.

For both Acheron and Aventurine's sister, the rain accompanies the end of their "lives," the backdrop to their ultimate sacrifices.

Yet it is also in the rain that they both send Aventurine onward, escaping from the cage of his destiny into a "better" life. From beneath the shadow of the storm, they both bid him to go and not turn back, freeing him and permanently changing the course of his life.

The rain that took everything from both Aventurine's sister and Acheron is ultimately what saves him.

It's all a very tidy and well-written parallel.

[arabella-strange]

lots of intense (and sometimes heated) takes On Here about what Ludinus thinks Bells Hells are going to think of this Downfall window, about what BH will actually think, about whether Luda or the Primes or Aeor is right -- lots of debates

What if the disagreement is the point?

Because what's clear to me is that there is no right answer for Aeor. There are entire schools of ethics and philosophy and justice and action/intention/agency devoted to debating what a "good" choice would be here -- good for the Primes, good for Aeor. Is it the Trolley Problem; is it meliorism; is it the law of unintended consequences; is it the categorical imperative or is it the paradox of tolerance; etc. etc. etc.

But what if Ludinus's goal is to sow division among BH? What if the point is that he doesn't care if he convinces all of them -- he just needs to divide them. What if he saw this recording -- saw the oh-so-close divisions and cracks and flaws in the bonds among the Gods that took them out of this plane -- and said, "Hey. Now there's an idea for how to clear the field!" Because I can imagine half the party being really moved by the way the Primes were trying to save some people even as they were trying to maintain a perspective beyond what any mortal could see; and just as easily I can imagine half the party being livid and unmoved by this impossible situation and determined more than ever that the Gods are just people who have high-level power, not perfect beings or omniscient ones or even ones who should get to decide what kinds of extreme solutions are okay and which are not. I can imagine a debate -- a heated debate, maybe even a fracturing one -- among Bells Hells.

And so I wonder (and I apologize if this is the rise of the fash in 2024 on my mind) if the division is the point.

[litfeathers]

Hunter thought the weekends in the Emperor's Coven were nice because he loved getting out of the castle to go on missions.

I’m just imagining him dealing with some criminal on one of those missions. He does his usual Golden Guard spiel, successfully catches them, etc etc.

And on the way to the Conformatorium, he is just the most UNSTOPPABLE INFO-DUMPING CHATTERBOX THAT EVER EXISTED BECAUSE THAT POOR BOY IS SO DESPERATE FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION AND HE LITERALLY CAN'T HELP HIMSELF.

“So…what do you do for fun? When you're not busy smuggling illegal fireworks, I mean.”

“Have you been a criminal for long?”

"I couldn't help but notice that your staff technique was a little sloppy. I'd watch your balance the next time you try to take a swing at a seasoned Coven Scout. Bend your knees a little to lower your center of gravity."

"You know, I've read that witches with red hair are more sensitive to pain, but paradoxically have a higher pain tolerance. Is that true, in your experience?"

"Psch, don't worry! Seven out of ten of Warden Wrath's prisoners are released after ten years. So yeah. Keep that chin up!"

“They say arsenic tastes like strawberry. Hmm. Wonder if that’s true.”

“…and that’s part five of my theory on how palistrom wood creates life. Now, if you will recall what I was saying about palistrom xylem fifteen minutes ago…”

By the time they reach witch jail, the prisoner is BEGGING to be locked away.

[unhelpfulfemme]

This may be a Bad Take but I think a lot less people would have issues with Padmé Amidala's RotS characterization if they realized that her role in that movie is largely symbolic and that Anakin's attitude towards her is meant to represent the inherent tension between liberty and security (which is clearly one of the main themes in a movie that has Anakin quote George W Bush as he falls to the Dark Side).

Padmé represents the best of democratic values: the capability to perceive everyone's inherent worth, the trust in state institutions, the morality, the benefits and drawbacks of resolving issues in a democratic manner and within the system (she often finds herself helpless in the face of corruption, for example). Padmé's ideals are the core of her character, to the point that she basically is her ideals. Basically, Padmé is to the Galactic Republic what Marianne is to the French Republic.

Now, you may have issues with a female character being used as a personification of a state or a political system, but not only is this a millennia-old narrative tradition, I also feel like you're probably barking up the wrong tree, because George Lucas LOVES using characters as symbols for abstract concepts: Luke as the Hero with a Thousand Faces, the Good vs. Bad Father dynamic with Obi-Wan and Vader, etc. This is completely on brand for the way George Lucas in particular constructs characters.

Even Padmé's most famous line, "So this is how Liberty dies," is indicative of this (and I love the concept of a former slave boy falling in love with Liberty herself).

Padmé dies because Liberty dies, not because she's a weak useless woman.

And Anakin's relationship to her potential death is very much... an indictment of reactionary politics and the War on Terror?

Anakin loves Padmé because she is fair-minded and understanding even when he doesn't deserve it, because she is tolerant, because she is kind, because she fights for justice, because she uplifts people. This is what he is in love with and what he is trying to preserve.

But in the face of nebulous threats, some real and some manufactured, he tries to save her by trampling all over what she stands for. And what she stands for is her. Therefore the very act of trying to save her is what ends up killing her, just like trying to keep your democracy safe by increasingly cruel and authoritarian measures inevitably kills it. Anakin claims that he loves her, that he's protecting her, but he is unwilling to listen to anything she has to say about it, just like plenty of people whose mouths are full of freedom but don't want to think about or apply the values that they are supposedly defending. What she believes no longer matters as long as she loves and comforts and uplifts him (and when she doesn't he goes into a rage).

Everything Padmé stands for, her very way of life and her very way of doing things, no longer exist at the end of RotS. She was becoming increasingly static and helpless during the movie because her way of doing things no longer works as the Republic becomes mired in cruelty and corruption, she cannot do anything but set foundations for an eventual rebellion and hope that a spark of hope survives. She can no longer survive in this new system, and it is in her nature to rather die than compromise herself in order to work within it. In a symbolic way, she quite literally cannot survive if she has to exist within it. She IS Liberty, and it would be a paradox if she survived. She dies and their children - another thing Anakin is fighting to protect, like many people who are "defending freedom" "for the children!!1!" - are made orphans, left to their own devices, forced to fight and rebuild things from scratch because she can no longer nurture them or protect them. This is a political metaphor y'all.

And in this reading, even Shmi's death ends up working better if you squint? Because even though Anakin's anger over her death stems from clear injustice and is fundamentally righteous, the fear and rage that this creates in him, and his inability to cope with it, is what directly causes him to both fear for Padmé's safety and to eventually smother her due to that fear. And to eventually become what he fears, killing Liberty, depriving himself of liberty in the process by becoming Sidious's blind slave, and literally destroying the future of an entire generation of (Jedi) children.

Now, I'm not saying that this makes a more psychological analysis of Padmé's character invalid or that this is the only role that she plays (for example, while Obi-Wan is the "good father figure" in ANH, he's clearly many different things across all the movies and clearly has an established characterization beyond that, and so does Padmé), but I think looking at it through this particular lens does make the choices made for her character less baffling and more indicative of the larger themes of the prequels.

[simonalkenmayer]

Tell me why humans can physically and surgically alter their bodies to show off their beliefs (circumcision, tattoos and piercings) their aesthetic preferences (a more straight smile or nose) to attract a mate like a bird (boobs butts tummy tucks, lifts) to be thinner, etc etc, but it’s somehow bad when trans people do it to feel less suicidal.

To me the latter reason is in fact the most valid.

Yet if someone has a surgical procedure to live six months longer, like having a tumor removed, we call them heroes.

So surgery to live longer is fine, but not if you’re trans.

Why?

Why?

Really. Why.

Why do you care so god damn much?

It’s disgusting hypocrisy counter to reason. It’s bigotry thinly disguised by falsehoods of spooky ominous trans people.

I’ve been a monster my entire life and trans people are treated worse than I am. I’ve slept in a graveyard more times than I can count. I could do it now safely and legally, but a trans person can’t pee in public in a locked room while minding their own business.

Humans are mad. TERFs are the new torch carrying mobs. And trans people are the latest creature in the tower.

Count me out of the bonfire.

I disguised what I was to hide. Trans people are braver than even I. TERFism isn’t feminism. It does nothing but reduce women to their genitals and femininity to a reflection of fate rather than an expression of identity.

Bigotry makes terrible people. Trust me. They live very shallow and empty lives. They see no complexity, no great tapestry, no fugues. No overlapping subtle patterns, no profound awe. They do not see reality. They see themself everywhere all the time, themself—being rejected or embraced over and over. It’s just feedback. They are robotic sensory response automata.

The only thing a tolerant person cannot tolerate is intolerance. It’s a paradox, so make a choice. I choose to reject intolerance. Therefore, those who are intolerant must be rejected. TERFs lack understanding. They lack compassion. They lack willingness to learn or think outside their own rigid ideas of themself. Therefore I reject them.

It’s very very sad…and incredibly boring.

Transphobes live in their own hell. Sadly they rarely realize it until it’s too late. Some might think that fine karma.

I certainly do.

[bodyalive]

Fatigue that improves with caffeine (as it forces increased cortisol secretion) or hydrocortisone intake may suggest transient (reversible) hypoadrenalism due to excess cortisol requirement. Unfortunately, hypoadrenalism is difficult to detect in blood work and is often normal even in patients with who are severely ill, unless suffering from pituitary or supradrenal tumors, etc.

One of the most important causes of reversible adrenal exertion symptoms in patients with chronic pain, is TOS CVH. TOS CVH causes high arterial brain pressures that lead to paradoxical systemic hypotension due to cerebral autoregulation. This will raise adrenal output to perform daily tasks, ie. raise blood pressure and cardiac output through the sympathetic system, often resulting in profound fatigue, and as a worst case scenario, myalgic encephalomyelitis, if it goes on over a longer period of time. Usually, years.

Patients who have fatigue that responds to caffine but who do not have chronic pain, should mainly look to their sleep, diet and training habits. If sleep and diet is ok, then cardiovascular health is perhaps the most important aspect. Poor cardiac compliance to physical stressors, ie. inadequate strength of the heart, will be compensated for by a raised sympathetic tone and raised adrenal output. Increasing sodium intake can also help, but this should not be done excessively, as the heart may not tolerate a greater blood volume until its strength has been increased. This patient group should stick to [no more than] one cup of coffee per day, preferably in the morning and avoiding high-carbohydrate meals in the evenings. Mental stress also influences, needless to say.

A good indication of improved heart strength is reduced resting heart rates, but also overall lower heart rates during activities. Training too hard too often will strain the adrenal system and make the problem worse than it was initially, so starting with a 45-minute brisk walk once to twice per week, then gradually "feel it out from there", can be appropriate.

[andreablog2]

The paradox of fake woke people is that people from the outside act like being a person of color, female, gay, trans, disabled etc all add up to some degree of higher respect or authority on issues in the fake woke sphere but it’s more like the more categories you belong to the more you’re expected to care about every little issue under sun and be a spokesperson for doing the right thing to a point of it being a burden and actually just ending up being racist. Like if you’re a straight cis white man nobody expects anything of you so you can just be racist and a piece of shit and it’s like nobody bats an eye but if you’re a black trans woman who has remotely controversial opinions people act betrayed and like you owe them something in exchange for their patronizing “tolerance” of you

[orchidbreezefc]

you know. we can and should talk about the paradox of tolerance and [link: the nazi bar story]. but i just keep thinking. those are very real projections of the future if you tolerate nazis being in your space until such a time as they make a fuss--which is, implicitly, tolerating a clearly-marked bomb until such a time as it has already exploded, on the off-chance it's a dud.

but the thing is, even if they don't make a fuss, allowing nazis in your space is violence. a nazi being in your discord server and having access to the members list and/or being able to see what people say is violence. a person wearing a t-shirt with an iron cross on it to your club meeting is violence. it is a threat. it is a statement intended to tell people they are unsafe.

a nazi being visible in a space and the implicit or explicit confirmation that the people in charge have not done and will not do anything about it is violence from them onto their jewish, romani, queer, etc. community members. it is at the very least permission of violence. it is at the very least standing aside and declaring open season.

refusing to take action to remove nazis may seem passive to you, but it is a statement. you're saying 'we'll allow people who want you dead near you on our watch and we won't do anything until they have already struck'. you're saying 'we care about rocking the boat more than you feeling safe or BEING safe in our space'. you're saying 'we value you as a community member equally to or less than the people who want you dead'. you're saying 'you cannot trust us. we will not protect you'.

[antiradqueer]

the whole radqueer community reminds me of the tolerance paradox; i think it may be useful for anti radqueers to look into, as i think it could be useful :] /gen

I hadn’t heard of the tolerance paradox until now but I absolutely agree. Radqueers try to be so accepting that they end up also accepting racists, nazis, etc. into their community.

[loominggaia]

What if a Lindist family moved to Matuzu, how are they treated?

Most of the world's Lindists live in Evangeline Kingdom, so I'm going to assume that's where they're immigrating from. Long story short: Matuzans and Evangelites don't like eachother. Their cultural values are incompatible, and this leads to a lot of conflict between them.

Most of Evangeline's culture is derived from its dominant religion, Lindism. Matuzu Kingdom is much more diverse, meaning there is no single religion that dominates its culture. Matuzan culture is tolerant of other beliefs.

However, there is a bit of a "tolerance paradox" when Evangelite Lindists immigrate to Matuzu Kingdom. These Evangelites believe that men are superior to women, fae and gaians are evil by nature, slavery is good for the economy, and nature should be prioritized over peoples' welfare. When they become Matuzan citizens, they gain the right to vote for policies (a right which they did not have in their homeland), and Matuzans get angry at them for changing the local policies to be more like their homeland.

Evangelite values disgust the average Matuzan, and are not compatible with current Matuzan law, which states that all peoples should have equal rights, slavery is illegal, and people should be prioritized over nature.

So, I imagine many Evangelites/Lindists have a hard time integrating into Matuzan culture. Maybe some don't integrate at all and live in insular communities, enforcing Evangelite ways, while others leave their old ways behind and fully immerse themselves into the new culture.

In the series, an Evangelite character named Evan was part of the latter group. He was like "this whole culture sucks ass, I'm outta here", left Evangeline territory, and completely uprooted his life, values, and religion to start fresh. He basically had to tear himself down and rebuild himself as a person, which is a very difficult thing to do. I think many Evangelites would lack the gumption he has, and might stubbornly cling to some of their ways.

I will add that Evangeline Kingdom is quite comfortable for all humans Lindists, or people who enjoy these cultural values, so they aren't likely to leave their homeland willingly. The ones who leave are already dissatisfied with Evangelite culture and desperate to distance themselves from it. So, they would be more willing to adopt a new culture. These are people like women, LGBT people, fae and gaians, Sylvanists or other non-Lindists, etc.

Evangelite culture caters mostly to male Lindist commoners, so they have little reason to leave. When they do, it's usually for economic/business reasons. (See: Edmund's cousin Lorenso, who moved to Folkvar Kingdom for his ranching business. He still loved Evangeline culture and didn't want to leave, but admitted that he can make more money in Folkvar land.)

*

Questions/Comments?

Lore Masterpost

Read the Series

[inner-muse]

I hope this does not come off as unkind because I really do appreciate your takes and posts, however some of your posts have left me confused on your opinions. For example, your latest two posts saying you criticize the Israeli government, but (while I think it is in bad taste) saying that The Onion's satiric criticism of the official twitter account for Israel is antisemitic while they are most likely criticizing the account for posting fake information, fake audios from "Hamas", to justify bombing Shifa hospital, etc. I'm genuinely confused and I do not mean unwell, and while you are not obligated to educate me, I would be very appreciative if you could.

Thank you for being respectful, I appreciate that a lot given for much toxicity there is when discussing the conflict

I have a hard time coming up with a good-faith reason you would need to explicitly know what my opinions are. It reminds me uncomfortably of the way people ask Jews for their opinion on Israel in order to determine if they’re one of the “good ones.”

I’m not on Twitter, so I have no idea what the Israeli government’s account has been posting or the context around it. I was only considering the contents of that particular post when I reblogged it.

I haven’t been following the details of that hospital bombing, but my understanding is that there’s no clear culprit and it’s just as likely to have been a Hamas missile that fell short and hit the hospital, not a deliberate Israeli strike.

I support the Jewish right to self determination in our ancestral homeland. I support Israel’s right to defend itself. I support Palestinians’ right to live in their own homeland. I do not support Bibi Natenyahu or his government. I condemn acts of terrorism. I condemn all innocent deaths. I yearn for a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution where everyone with a claim on that land coexists together. I do not think this is possible as long as Hamas exists — this is the Paradox of Tolerance.

[caffeineandsociety]

Every single bias and bigotry is perpetuated by convincing even many of their most fervent holders that they don't hold them. Ironically, it is in part the knowledge that bigotry is bad that helps to perpetuate systemic inequalities.

Why?

Well, the logic is simple. Bigotry is bad. Basically everyone knows that bigotry is bad. The baseline is to agree that bigotry is bad. To say otherwise is shocking. Upsetting. No one wants to be that guy. A lot of them know the paradox of tolerance/the nazi bar problem and thus will agree that the solution to dealing with A Racist or A Misogynist or whatever is to ostracize them because their bullshit does not fit in polite society.

Therefore, when you tell some random person that they just did A Racist/Sexist/Ableist/etc. Thing, they're likely to get defensive - because, no matter how socially condoned that thing is, because the baseline is to agree that these things are bad, it ends up coming off as "this is not a socially condoned behavior, this is not cultural and/or systemic, this is something only TERRIBLE HORRIBLE INDIVIDUALS could EVER do, get out of my bar before you drive away all the non-evil customers!"

The idea that there are levels between "absolute paragon of equality who never commits even the slightest microaggression" and "A Bigot looking to hurt people whose very presence as a person should not be tolerated by anyone" is completely alien to...a LOT of people.

It's a widespread problem, though I suspect this may be especially hard to shake in the US, because "go ahead, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, individual solution your way out of systemic problems, you can do it!" runs horrifyingly deep in our culture.

But worse than that, consider what individual biases may look like - they're usually obfuscated under one or more layers of abstraction. Plenty of people who call themselves good non-racist citizens still tend to move away from Black men on the bus - it's not because he's Black, they say, he just Looks Angry and Intimidating and Shifty. And the thing is - the overwhelming majority of people who would say things like that believe it! They well and truly believe that the "hostility" they sense in EVERY Black man they see has NOTHING to do with the fact that they're Black men!

And a lot of people who think that work in HR.

And if you call them on that bias, they will believe that you're accusing them of being UNIQUELY awful - not picking up common social biases, but the complete opposite, creating a new terrible evil idea in their individual horrible evil person brain.

This is why "racists dni" is such a ridiculous thing to put on a profile - some 95% of even the most aggressive capital-R Racists do not think they're racist; they will swear up and down that the way they treat people has nothing to do with race; the most they might admit to is "its Those People's damn culture, they're so loud and rude, I know they have the capacity to be perfectly fine people so it's not RACISM to say they need to clean up their act!" And those who will admit to it actually being about race? Keep coming up with new words for their belief system because "no, no, Racism Is Bad, I'm just, uh, a RACE REALIST!" (🤮)

It's deeply insidious how it works.

[redd956]

Writing Rhetoric: Paradox of Tolerance

Paradox of Tolerance: A society that is tolerant without limit will eventually fail or be ruined by the intolerant.

 The idea of the paradox of tolerance was started by the philosopher Karl Popper, but never received the term we used today until Michael Walzer wrote On Toleration

CW: Historical Bigotry, Nazis, Modern Bigotry

When Popper first created this term the intolerant of his time were the Nazis. To this day nazism is the still the most infamous embodiment of  the intolerant. 

What the paradox means is if a society that strives to be tolerant of others (accepting to differing demographics, safe for all walks of people, etc.), it will need to be intolerant to the intolerant (bigots, genocidal maniacs, etc.). Otherwise the intolerant will threaten too the tolerance of the society.

It is a difficult concept to grasp, but we see it often in modern times and have seen it throughout history too. Since Popper popularized the concept of the paradox, nazis are most used as an example of what this would look like. 

Even in finding this famous infographic about the paradox I also found propaganda. A steady reminder to do careful research, and keep a keen eye.

 Karl Popper doesn’t suggest we should censor or silence them. Instead he advocates to fight them back with reasonable arguments (or physically fight them if they are nazis) which brings us to RHETORIC and Modern Day Bigotry

Rhetoric

Now I bet you’re wondering what this has to do with writing rhetoric. Well rhetoric itself is complicated to explain, but it also includes the arguments and persuasion in writing. Often times when decoding the rhetoric of others unfortunate deep rooted bigotry may form, sometimes even subconsciously. I know I say things I don’t always mean that come from my subconsciousness towards my environment. 

The paradox of tolerance is in itself a rhetoric argument against bigotry. Of course bigotry is illogical, and most you’d ever find yourself debating in such topics simply will not listen to logic. However it is still nice, especially for writing, to have the paradox of tolerance on your side.

Modern Day

Today we see the need for the knowledge on the paradox of tolerance as bigotry levels waiver all across the world. Whether it be TERFs, Racists, Extremists, Anti-Semitics, and more; there is a lot of intolerance right now. It is best to know when setting up a server, forming an online friend group, creating a club, or maybe even running a society; to maintain tolerance we must be intolerant to the intolerant. Otherwise...they may crush us.

[feelyourno1z]

About Me I Guess

Noiz/Cy | 22 | AuDHD + other stuff, chronic pain & fatigue | Queer & Genderqueer/Transmasc | Taken | He/They Always down to talk to people, PLEASE feel free to talk to me about my SpIns!!! Spiritually sending all moots a high-five and slipping a piece of their favorite candy into their pocket <3

DNI: TERF, any kind of exclusionist, racist, endogenic/tulpa, suibaiter, etc. General bigotry and asshole BS isn't tolerated here

Special Interests:

Vincent Van Gogh, Wotakoi, Studio Ghibli, Snoopy, The Muppets, Tokyo Revengers, DMMD, Chainsaw Man, Paradox Live, Fairy Tail, Undead + Unluck, Gachiakuta, PomPomPurin, Game Grumps, Stardew Valley, JJBA, Marine Bio, World Building, Character Design, Art History, Greek Mythos, Bring Me The Horizon, Watsky, Pokemon B&W, Game Grumps, Dungeon Meshi, + more I’m sure I’m missing oops

[blazehedgehog]

What do you think of Resetera?

I don't go there anymore and haven't in probably over a year. Or, at least, not of my own will.

Three years ago, I wrote: "if there's another exodus, I'll be one of the first off the ship."

There wasn't an exodus necessarily, but I realized I almost never went to Era for news on anything and mainly stuck to a very small handful of threads in the community forum (the Sonic thread, the indie dev thread, etc).

I did not use Resetera like most people did. And then the moderators started massively overstepping their boundaries, letting their egos get in the way, and generally acting like the kinds of people that I left NeoGAF to avoid.

I have friends who still go there a lot. It's through them (and places like Twitter) that I tend to stay up to date on what's happening in video games. Occasionally, like once every four months, when they post something in the group chat to make fun of a power tripping moderator or an especially stupid poster, I'll click through, but I find it difficult to care about that place anymore.

There are too many high-strung drama queens running the asylum and a lot of them fall on the spectrum of "we should give bad faith actors a chance to sell their propaganda." The website is a drama machine and a victim of the paradox of tolerance.

It's also just a place where idiots are allowed to run wild. No discussion happens there anymore. Just braindead, surface level replies and a race to be the first to make an "epic dunk." Most people are posting in their own little vacuums, repeating the same thoughts over and over and over. If someone happens to have a bad take, then the thread will be dominated by an argument for the next 50 pages.

Nobody is making friends at Resetera. It is the purest form of an echo chamber I've ever seen.

A month or two ago, during one of the rare moments where I clicked through to Era, I noticed it had finally logged me out and I felt no desire to log back in and check my threads. That seemed like the final punctuation mark.

It is a bad place to be.