The issue here is 'being intolerant of intolerance' requires you to decide what is and isn't intolerant.
Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people.
Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right
Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control
> A very oversimplified pro argument: if it wasn't for slavery, these families would have generational wealth and better social situations. African Americans in the US ARE disproportionately lower wealth/income and this has CLEAR historical origins.
I'm confused by the pro argument. My known lineage was not enslaved, but my grandparents immigrated with 0$, and my family has no generational wealth and we don't receive reparations.
Isn't being freed from slavery the same as being freshly immigrated with 0$?
Furthermore, there are tons of Asian immigrants that come from a third world country with virtually nothing, but become top earners because of their cultural values of education and filial piety
I've been using helix a while, and compared to vim, the bindings are not as time-efficient as vim bindings are, but I just can never get LSP to work quite right at neovim, so I use helix for code
Isn't it more in the interest of conquering rather than exterminate and destroy? If Ukraine were to surrender, I don't think Russia would continue to kill them all.
As a speaker of English, and Spanish, which has the adjectives after, I feel like putting the adjectives first is more expressive.
"A hot, juicy chicken leg" would sound less exciting if it was said "A chicken leg, hot, juicy" because the listener would first imagine the wrong chicken leg.
Let's take affirmative action for example. Giving people whose grandparents were negatively impacted by unjust laws more opportunities than other people.
Opposing this is not 'intolerance', it's an opinion in a debate about whether that is actually fair. It's an active debate and one side is trying to shut down opposition to their political goals and force their kids to say they're right
Trying to close all debate and push a narrative isn't democratic, it's authoritarian and one of the most common tools to oppress and control