5 ms·
> "But the point is: who's to judge which ones are right and which one are wrong?" I address this. In fact, I explicitly say I agree. No one can be trusted to
by laughinghan 7y ago
> "But the point is: who's to judge which ones are right and which one are wrong?"
I address this. In fact, I explicitly say I agree. No one can be trusted to make that judgment. Hence, the need for a system that doesn't place absolute trust in anyone.
> "we want a system such that [...]" [...] I wouldn't really say this is guaranteed either
What? You wouldn't say what is guaranteed? You wouldn't say it's guaranteed that we want such a system?
- matz1 7y agoThe system has already exist, that is the one who can force (persuasively or physically) other their rightness get to decide. In this case cloudflare has the power to decide whether 8chan is allowed or not in their platform. If you think they are wrong then you have to gain power to be more powerful than them to override it (by gaining mass support, government support or any other means). I don't think it's possible to have any other system.
- laughinghan 7y agoYes, and part of that system can be a culture among those in power of tolerating anything but intolerance. My comment was an explanation of why advocating such a culture, as part of this system, is not an "evil [...] far worse [than "kill the jews"]".