LengAwaits

I suspect we’re on the same broad page, but our means are vastly different.

I suspect the same and I appreciate you engaging with me civilly.

Your concerns about the situation being a slippery slope are understandable. We're discussing things that live on the very edges of basic, modern human morality. I recognize that this creates a lot of unease.

I don't hate the human. I would not kill baby Hitler if I had a time machine, as baby Hitler was not born evil.

My hate lies with what the human has become, the views the human has developed. I will not tolerate them. If that hatred, of those who outwardly espouse this level of murderous intolerance (and only those who do so), makes me no better than Fuentes, then I suppose I will gladly be that villain, if only so that others can continue to live their lives in peace. The violence and genocide inherent to the fascist ideology must never be allowed to take root. It is an existential threat to global peace that must be shut down with any and every means available. Peaceful means should always be prioritized where possible.

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

• Sir Karl Raimund Popper, speaking on The Paradox Of Tolerance.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but if you aren't familiar, Nick Fuentes believes (in his own words) the following:

“We need to eradicate Jewish stranglehold over the United States of America. … We will win, because unlike our opposition, we are willing to die for what we believe in … We’re in a holy war and I will tell you this. Because we’re willing to die in the holy war, we will make them die in the holy war. And they will go down.”

This isn't <a group of people I don't like> this is <a group of people who support the rape, murder, and genocide of people they don't like>. Nick Fuentes is a literal crypto-fascist. Fascists are owed zero tolerance, and the use of hyperbole to shock or scare them (or scare others away from falling in with them) is a valid tactic.

Oi Polloi - Bash The Fash

I'll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.

I trust Tesla's internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing's internal testing.

"We need to eradicate Jewish stranglehold over the United States of America. … We will win, because unlike our opposition, we are willing to die for what we believe in … We're in a holy war and I will tell you this. Because we're willing to die in the holy war, we will make them die in the holy war. And they will go down." - Nick Fuentes

Small Apartments.

Revisionism. Just last week you assured me that she was going to win, and that the republican party would collapse on itself. Hang on to your ego.

They do! They're where I leave all of my used motor oil, dead batteries, and bedbug-ridden mattresses.

Come on. Just because you can subvert their policies by dropping stuff there indiscriminately doesn't mean you should. Most of them say, right on the bin, that they're for donations of clothing and shoes only.

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf^

Too bad more people didn't have their minds changed by Paine's "Agrarian Justice". What a banger.

The trick is to pack up a big box full of stuff and give it to them all at once so they don't have time to look through it and refuse it.

They absolutely will refuse things they know they'll have a hard time selling, and trust me they have unique insight into what people want and don't love the idea of warehousing unsalable merchandise. Many Goodwill location's FAQs acknowledge that they refuse to take certain things. Salvo has a whole page dedicated to why they refuse certain things.