Copyleft should be mandatory once a game passes 20 years old.

Of course an unjust man would be unjust. Truly a profound statement. One for the ages.

Good job on the inference. Now I'm just left wondering if you're being purposefully obtuse or just can't help it.

All right, I'll put it in as simple terms as possible, as you seem to need it.

I disagreed with that quote so intensely that I couldn't even bring myself to explain why. I just needed you to know that the act of sharing that quote, let alone coming up with it, was pure cringe. Seriously "in this moment I am euphoric"-tier. I mean "the unjust man"... just cmon. It's basically just telling you to be unyielding. Nothing but banal, vapid propaganda that could just as easily adorn the walls of the NSDAP as the NAACP.

"I simply asked if you have value." All right, let me "simply ask" you if colored people have value. Infer anything from that?

"Disagree with me!? Life devoid of value!"

Typical heckin wholesome leftist.

The right has done nothing but contract for the past 150 years. "Conservatives" have continually met leftists in the middle and conserved nothing. In my country even the state church allows gay and female clergy now. I'm not a christian, but that's the perfect example of the Right relenting even in their supposedly most sacred institution (though I suppose the bank has taken over that role for conservatives of the past century). Meanwhile, the Left has expanded at such a rate that the revolutionaries of two generations ago sound like today's reactionaries.

Are you quoting someone or did that pure cringe emanate from your own being?

"Misinformers" "Bad actors"

Do people actually take these terms seriously?

HE DOES IT FOR FREE (as in free beer)

Nonsense, we most certainly can. In fact, most countries "worked out" without ever needing to be tolerant in the first place.

Popper doesn't even acknowledge that this notion can be universalized, and then you're just back to square one with Carl Schmitt and the Concept of the Political.

Take your LGBT example. For that to work, you must be intolerant of, say, Salafis. Then the Salafi can respond that his in-group (the faithful, true to God, whatever) are being threatened by those who must necessarily be intolerant of him by nature of their own allegiance.

Thus you still end up with a value judgment despite Popper's veneer of neutralization and depoliticization. That's where the real philosophizing begins. How do you justify allegiance to one side of the friend/enemy distinction over the other?

Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler aren't just "some people", they are three of the most influential thought leaders of the (post-)modern Left. Foucault of course being joined by heavyweights like Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, de Beauvoir, Sartre, Barthes etc. etc. and so on and so forth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

The point of course being that this thread is full of idiots who have never even heard of the likes of Foucault or truly appreciate how badly they jumped the gun here (turns out there was still some "intolerance" left). Your cult of transgression and tolerance is not philosophically sound.

the far-right

who?

messages of hate, violence

such as?

intolerance

the tu quoque is almost too tempting here

pass legislation to justify their views

this is a joke, right?

Oh, and I didn't know people like Henry Ford and the 2nd Baron Trent were "far-left". I guess the horseshoe really does exist after all.
Stop beating strawmen, your ideological muscles are only gonna atrophy further.

And these are the people who would lecture about prejudice... Nothing but prejudicial bad faith in this entire thread.

Being a filthy reactionary, I was really hoping that the fediverse could become something like the reddit of 10 years ago, but it seems like the dyed-in-the-wool redditors couldn't help but bring their intolerance with them.

Thank you for actually bothering to stand your ground. God bless.