JasSmith

That's coherent. Unfortunately most people who use it today literally mean "someone who disagrees with me." It really muddies the water because it's often accompanied by threats of violence. The net effect is raising the temperature in the room on both sides, because it's effectively dehumanising others who have perfectly valid political disagreements, and calling for their death.

The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.

Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence, suppresion, and censorship against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.

disagree, if political discourse can’t survive public debate, then it isn’t a very good political ideology.

They made it clear they're talking about spaces and topics not about politics. People who feel entitled and compelled to make everything a political culture war are insufferable. Made worse when they call everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi. The word has lost all meaning now.

You’re right but apparently that audience isn’t there anymore.

Before that, self driving will become good, and they’ll ban manual driving except for rural and remote areas.

This movie was a perfect storm of stupidity, narcissism, incompetence, and Hollywood. Maybe now we can have normal movies again written with nuanced women like Ripley, Sarah Connor, Beatrix Kiddo, and Trinity, instead of this atrocious Mary Sue slop.

The original can absolutely be enjoyed by younger generations without it needing to be changed. It has tons of great life lessons and allegories, if that’s what you want. It can also just be a fun kids movie. Disney altered it for the same reason they’ve been altering movies for more than a decade now: they HAD to have a Strong Female Lead who is smarter and better than the men at everything all the time.

I’ll be very happy when we discover with a high degree of certainty Earth-like planets. It will give humanity something to set its sights on. First probes then humans. Probably generational ships. All kinds of cool technology will need to be invented to enable that. I feel humanity needs a new space race.

I'm normally very pro capitalism but I'm worried that this time really is different to previous technological revolutions. Most people in the West work in office jobs now, and many of them are vulnerable with this technology. If this plays out like it could, and the majority of office workers are no longer needed, we're going to keep redistribution on a scale never seen before. This is nothing short of a political and social revolution. Such a transition could be quite violent.

If I lose my PiP

I asked for evidence that Starmer's plan would result in you losing PIP. I understand you losing PIP would be bad.