No wonder people advocate defederating from hexbear, you’re basically spam. This is the second time you have responded to one of my posts, with the same line, and it’s not a response to the post.
I usually don’t interact with them, I just check out the sub from time to time. Some are actually pretty reasonable and have similar beliefs to Bitcoin maxis, calling out a lot of crypto scams, they just happen to also hate bitcoin on top of that 😂. I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a troll sub.
Weird, seems like the exact same concept but for social media, yet no one is here.
Thanks for clarifying about the other comment 😂 I honestly thought they said I would lose all my money if we were all on the same community, was genuinely confused.
I just don’t log in that often, still stuck on the Reddit juice. The paradox requires that society be maximally tolerant, if there is some level of intolerance and tolerance to authoritarian ideas, that’s just regular society, happens in every country, and is not an example of a country that is exclusively tolerant of all positions.
I don’t know of any country where someone can be openly pro fascist. I’m sure you could find some for me outside of western countries but that’s not the point. That is, unless you are one of those people that calls Trump supporters literal fascist, in which case I will say: I think Trump is a used car salesman, an idiot, a massive problem for the United States, but definitely not a fascist coming to take over America. But if you believe that, then I can see why you believe people tolerate fascism but unfortunately that is a false perception and I’m not gotta be able to talk you out of it in an online post.
Most countries have laws or social norms that restrict Nazis, no one claims he be tolerant of Nazis so the theory does not apply to that case. I also don’t see Nazis anywhere, there are some fringe groups, like there always has been, and more polarized politics, but you can’t ban polarized politics, that would be a police state.
Any problem that is a prisoners dilemmas will produce this “paradox”. But people don’t describe prisoner’s dilemmas as paradoxes because they resolve in some equilibrium. In a prisoner’s dilemma, if one party always cooperates and does not cheat or punish, they will be eliminated by competition willing to do so. So in my example, if a society prioritizes niceness, then the nice will be taken advantage of, and there will no longer be nice people. But this doesn’t actually happen, but it’s the same logic.
Karl Popper is a cool dude, I’m sure if I read his paper on this topic I would completely agree with his points, it’s still a relevant conversation to be had. I just don’t like the term paradox. “If you are too nice to people you will get taken advantage of” is not a paradox. The paradox is just a variation on that.
I’ve always disliked how this is described as a paradox. It only highlights a broader point found in many systems, a just system is never about “the good” outnumbering “the bad”. It’s about a balanced equilibrium, as are most relationships. Besides, allowing intolerance is not a tolerant act, that’s not the way we define that term. To make such a claim would be as ridiculous as a racist person saying they are practicing tolerance by not challenging or question any of their bigoted thoughts and instead just letting them play out.
As per the article, this is to be expected, so it doesn’t really mean anything, “SEC staff have traditionally used every possible comment and review period to delay making final decisions until those 240 days have elapsed, making Thursday’s agency filings expected.”
You are reading as though it is undisputed facts. One reason it is undisputed is because the victim is dead. For one it would be nice to see how likely it was he actually broke glass or reached inside. Was it clear video from a camera at the door? Or some grainy footage from a neighbor across the street? It doesn’t say.