3 ms·
>> "including everyone actually means excluding some" Just to be clear, do you mean "everyone" could not fit in the space, by being all inclusive that some wou
by saycheese 10y ago
>> "including everyone actually means excluding some"
Just to be clear, do you mean "everyone" could not fit in the space, by being all inclusive that some would self exclude, etc.?
- njharman 10y agoEveryone includes those who would destroy whatever you're trying to do, to subvert it, etc. so if you want thing for "everybody" you have to keep out the terminally toxic. More gray, more of slippery slope are those who are hostile or even just annoying. Like do you exclude the lifers cause the feminists will fight or vice versa. You might feel neo nazis are right out (I'd argue 1. You must protect the freedoms of all to protect freedom of any 2. It is far better to have people like that out in open than hiding away). But what about wwii reenacters or war gamers. People think they are nazis for wearing the uniform or playing with toy tanks.
- derefr 10y agoThe question of hostile/annoying people is easier in communities where "tolerance" is one of the foundational social mores: where there's an expectation that everyone does their best to not annoy others, but also an expectation that everyone does their best to not be annoyed by others. In communities without this social more, it's very easy for things to degenerate into radical groups fighting to get on top in public-perception terms so they can demonize whatever group they oppose and get them pushed out of the community.
- l_t 10y agoI think the point is that some people just have mutually exclusive desires, and it's not possible (or practical) to satisfy both parties.