Popper coined the "paradox of tolerance"—that, in order to remain tolerant, a society cannot tolerate everything; in particular, it cannot show tolerance toward those who are intolerant, as their normalization inevitably leads to the demise of toleration in the public sphere.
We all have to be prepared to bite our tongues in order to make the world worth living in, but it has to be a negative feedback system—those who fail to restrain themselves must (at some point) be censured for the sake of the commons. We can argue all day about how much grumbling should be permitted before we issue the rebuke, but total individual freedom invariably destroys society; it's a tragedy of the commons.
As in, the "you should read Popper" comment was in response to somebody saying they though opting out of moderation/censorship was not good. I think Popper would broadly agree with this, and say that moderating out racism, transphobia etc is essential for good discourse.
This is all unfounded obviously, since Popper didn't ever use or write about social media.
Ah, an easy misunderstanding to make. The initial comment by ebisoka was not, in fact, in praise of moderation. The dog-whistle is the word "certain" near the end—insinuating that the Bonfire policy is to tolerate "racism and sexism" so long as it comes from minorities and is directed at the majority, following a quotation from the policies about how moderators may elect to ignore complaints of discrimination or inflammatory remarks when they are directed at majoritarian identities.
The CoC provides a justification for this decision—which, to elaborate on its rather simple framing, is that offensive rhetoric directed at minorities is qualitatively different from its inverse because it can incite racial violence and control the Overton window.* ebisoka doesn't consider this a worthy reason for the site's policies to admit to a biased moderation policy, but it's a deliberate nuance in the design that isn't captured in a simple description of the paradox of tolerance. (It's not an entirely problem-free policy, but the moderators aren't being instructed to ignore all abuse directed at majoritarians, just to be selective in what they tolerate. Antipathy is not quite the same as intolerance.)
Note also that ebisoka began the post with "these sites are easy to figure out," which suggests there is a multiplicity of sites like Bonfire that can be summarized (and therefore dismissed) purely on the basis of their Codes of Conduct. It's a fishing expedition for instances of affirmative action.
ebisoka put a lot of work into ensuring that post would slip by the radar for the average reader, but it's basically the same pattern of euphemisms that is guiding the Right's current crusade against DEI.
* Some strings attached. 1) Not as true in pluralistic societies or societies with near-equal splits; mostly a problem when the dominant group is vastly larger than the others. Hence other commenters remarking that this is a West-centric policy. 2) At the extreme end of the spectrum are places like South Africa and Zimbabwe, where the lingering populations of lower-class white people are subject to the double-whammy of lack of representation or advocacy in society and government, plus being the targets of resentment over colonialism.
ebisoka clearly came here to sow discord and pit groups of people against each other. Their comment history is very clear on that. What's really sad is that people took the bait right away.
From my memory, Trump wants actual plans for an invasion of Panama, wants to make Canada a state, and he wants to annex Greenland. All of these claims, are threats of war.
Well, I'm the original poster. I think all of these responses cover different aspects of the range of possibility - the US is turning away from the benefits of peace.
Well, I can absolutely get behind the statement that the tariffs don't promote peace.
FWIW, this was a real question I had, I wasn't among the downvoters. The part that I disagree with is that this is a deliberate/planned precursor to war. Donald Trump views his life (and presidency) as a series of deals and 'hard' negotiating tactics. War would be a failure of that.
His methods are misguided and a caricature of actual negotiation.
Believe it or not, the US is still a republic with diffuse power. While the president can have a whim to do something, the rest of the system still needs a reason to allow it. I don't think explanations that rely on total alignment with an individual personality are complete.
Preparing for a war and preparing to threaten it with good credibility are exactly the same thing. That is what the US and the USSR were doing when the end of life on Earth (or at least all life in New York or Moscow) was regularly bluffed against. In the modern world deliberate wars are quite rare, at least as the theory goes they are failed attempts at bluffing. Obviously no country would start a war without first trying to threaten it unless their intent was genocidal.
After the 1000th time of threatening the advisors will start to say, "we will look weak if it doesn't happen."
I have it on very good authority (Fox News if you want to know) that Trump just says these things.
With the stock market down 5 or so trillion dollars, I am sure the president is very busy using his renowned financial acumen to get things under control. He doesn't have time for war.
At least for part of your question; I recently ordered a suit from a danish"tailor (who gets their suits sewn in Portugal). The measurement process consisted of doing a 3D body scan, with minor manual measurements (such as deciding fit). You can then use your existing scan, to order new garments. But preferably, I would still like to consult the tailor in store, since there's more to fit than getting the size and length right.
120K people live in the city of Aalborg. And I refuse to believe that you can buy a house, at least one that doesn't require a significant amount of renovations for 260K DKK.
A very generous radius map search on Boligsiden reveal 4 andelsboliger at 250k kroner, so it’s obviously not possible to find a house at that price point.
Anecdotally I was not tought about Doggerland, and I don’t think it’s common knowledge.