@petit@social.ufeff.club @PonyPanda@freespeechextremist.com [email protected] It is this exact nativity which has gotten us to where we are today. It is saps who think like you which allow progressives and subversives to continue to operate. Yes, this sounds like what the left means with their "paradox of tolerance", but unlike them, good people don't believe in the sacredness of tolerance for out groups in the first place. Tolerance is only good insofar as it benefits your group. There is no paradox. Those who regard it as one only do so because they are slaves who let others decide the friend/enemy distinction for them. You appear to think it is "awful" to show intolerance towards enemies. In reality it is awful to tolerate your enemies more than you have to. The modern doublespeak of "tolerance" is not tolerance but subservience. Again, their mangling of the concept is why their "paradox of tolerance" exists. This becomes clear when it is recognized there can never exist a world where tolerance is in everyone's best interest. If you aren't free to pursue your best interests, which inevitably will conflict with those of another group, you are not being tolerated. You might say screw tolerance then. We should still leave everyone else alone. That idea, taken to its extreme would result in a utopia where everyone would be living in their very own pod, eating bugs, entirely disallowed from meaningful interaction with others. No exclusive groups, including families, will be permitted, since they threaten the ability of the system to enforce this ultimate principle. You can see this today with the disillusion of cultures. Oh, but of course the leaders, who may just happen to be disproportionately of a particular persuasion, based on merit alone I'm sure, will have special privileges, because you know, they're running this benevolent system. But never mind that, the whole of humanity is united. Isn't that grand? Suicide isn't even illegal anymore. No more dads to have daddy problems with. We're so free.

@BobRoss@pleroma.nobodyhasthe.biz @PonyPanda@freespeechextremist.com @Tim@pleroma.inumbra.xyz [email protected] >Friend and enemy distinction is what every problem boils down to. There is no friend and enemy distinction and can never be one. Any attempt at reductionism will fail because political problems are complex and people are multifaceted. This inability to reduce political complexities to two groups is why all "us vs. them" labels are misnomers: conservatives are not conservative; liberals are not liberal; progressives are not progressive; etc. The fact that colors are used to represent the groups (red vs. blue) should be a big hint that the distinction is arbitrary. This inability to reduce political complexities is why all groups are potpourris of unrelated views. The right to bear firearms is unrelated to family planning is unrelated to austerity policies is unrelated to minimum wage. Individuals are able to have views on all these things because they have values that interpret every question, but their set of values is unique to them and will have limited overlap with peers. Political movements are compromises by their very nature. Political groups change. What once was core to one party disappears. More shockingly, this process is gradual. American Democrats used to be the party of the war torn post-war south. Finally, the two main groups, "us and them" agree on far too much. If it wasn't really "us vs. them" how could they be in agreement on anything? The friend and enemy distinction does not hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. It is a fantasy.