Sure ok. I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

The issues you’ve mentioned apply generally to fluoridation anywhere. It sounds like the reason why it’s not present in Quebec is that the resistance was better organised.

There’s fluoride in the water here in regional Western Australia, but I fear that’s probably the least concerning additive. I’ve never really thought much about it but apparently there’s chlorine in the tap water, you can smell it from time to time. If you think about it, things love to live in water and keeping it free of things like cholera must take some doing.

TIL I guess.

I’m concerned that using the correct form will make me look like an idiot though.

That’s interesting. I thought it was more or less universal. Any idea why?

Most people don’t think that much about politics.

A woman might have a husband who’s generally a good guy and doesn’t talk politics.

A few days ago he comes home and someone at work had been talking about how some Trump policy would be better for their industry. Husband is going to vote for Trump.

Woman Google’s Trump, sees his abominable attitude towards women, sees tiktok about cancelling partners vote, votes democrat.

Removed by mod

What a shit show, honestly.

IDK if I really want to know but I can imagine a mid-to-far-left party like the greens would have a lot of disparity in the views of members.

God that’s cringey. Do you practice that in the mirror? “We will not speak again. History will speak for me.” What does that even mean?

History will probably confirm that Americans on both sides of the political divide have become less tolerant, and find silly ways to justify their intolerance while being completely unable to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

My comment isn’t a personal attack. I was trying to demonstrate the problem with you using the paradox of intolerance as an excuse to be intolerant. While you’re using the paradox to be intolerant of out-group, out-group is doing the same to you.

Exactly what a trump follower would say.

That’s absolutely how Trump works.

You seem genuinely oblivious to how intolerant you are.

As though you have a list of “social crimes” and when you, being the judge and jury, find someone guilty of being intolerant they’re green lit to be “untolerated”.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the paradox of tolerance is mostly used as justification for not tolerating people you personally deem to be intolerant.

You understand that every conservative would use all sorts of labels to describe you right? Trump would refer to you as “the radical left”. He would also say you’re intolerant of his followers.

It takes a complete lack of self awareness to think that no one would label you in the same way you label others. Well done.

Conservatives at large have been labeled “intolerable” based on their abject refusal to support basic protections of human rights and safety, bad-faith arguments, bait and switching, lying directly to the faces of their constituents as well as to other lawmakers who require an assumption of trust in order to operate, and actively and frequently calling for violence and murder against non-violent members of the out-group.

This sentence contains the problem discussed at length in the wikipedia article and addressed in my original comment.

You’ve made a sweeping generalisation about conservatives, by applying a range of very specific behaviors to an entire out-group in a categorical and binary way.

To really dumb it down, some conservatives might just be idiots, and not actually intolerant. You’re seeking to weild the paradox of intolerance against them.

Of course it is.

That’s exactly how it’s being used here.

It’s just that you don’t want to tolerate the people this comment is targeting.

Good job ignoring the part about arbitrary labels.

Kenyon has not been charged with a crime and a police spokesperson confirmed he was not the suspect that officers were seeking as part of a theft investigation.

Hadn’t done anything.

Everyone loves invoking the paradox of tolerance because it makes you sound smart and progressive.

Paradoxically, it’s most often used as an excuse to be intolerant of some group that you have arbitrarily branded as intolerant.

I hereby pronounce you intolerant, thereby according to the docterine of the paradox of tolerance you are forthwith stripped of your right to be tolerated.

As always, the problem is nuanced and you need to consider carefully the extent to which you’re willing to tolerate what level of intolerance under what circumstances.

Nah. Loads of things just shouldn’t be privatised.

Oh please. Pathetic. This is the wet lettuce slap Musk was predicting.

Queue a big song and dance about corrupt courts stifling free speech and manipulating elections. Great opportunity to splash headlines everywhere about a lottery whereby you can win $1m by voting for Trump, because he’s a very rich and very successful businessman.

This whole shit show is cooked. There is no justice, honesty, or transparency. It’s just idiots pissing in each others pockets all the way down.

It really depends.

I’m in Australia so while I detest our conservative party leader (not presently prime minister but probably one day), he’s not really as abhorrent as Trump.

If someone very close to me who I care about quietly mentioned that they voted for someone as awful as Trump, that wouldn’t be immediate irrevocable dismissable from my “inner circle”, but it would certainly change how I thought of them.

Perhaps oddly, it would be a bit like someone saying they believed vaccines were harmful or that the earth is flat. They’re not stupid (necessarily), but there’s some complex and concerning psychological stuff going on.