That just seems like more classic patriarchy.
Calling it psychopatriarchy makes it seem badass and gives it subversive appeal.
I could easily imagine right-wing social media running with it and squawking “pSyChOpAtRiArChY!!” with gusto like dumbass Beavises going “fire! fire! FIRE!”.
Not sure what that’ll do for public discourse.
Calling it before it happens.
The paradox of tolerance is literally just about too much tolerance of the intolerant causing issues in society.
It’s literally not.
Repeating reductive shit they say on social media doesn’t make it true.
Your ignorance of the source material is telling.
There’s a Wikipedia article quoting part of it
[Less well known 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 [intolerant ideologies] 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.
explaining the various takes on it.
It comes from a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies about what I stated.
The type of intolerance the quote refers to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate.
They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.
The book’s thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism.
They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strength
Only democracy allows an institutional framework that permits reform without violence, and so the use of reason in political matters
and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.
Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage.
Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determine
How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?
They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.
They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not force, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage.
That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.
Unsurprisingly, you shouldn’t expect philosophers who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society to defend forcible suppression of tolerant disagreements in it.
Colloquial intolerance isn’t the stricter intolerance they refer to.
We can observe intolerance of actual intolerance as posed in that book in action: we do live in a society roughly following the system that book was defending, assault (including that motivated by violent extremism) is a crime, and our society doesn’t tolerate it pretty much as I stated before.
Social media dumbasses butchered the idea into bullshit pop philosophy, and you aren’t winning any arguments by regurgitating shit that’s flat out wrong unless that argument is “How dumb is social media? Very.”
Because you’re absolutely wrong about the paradox of tolerance?
Your butchered social media interpretation of it is not at all what the philosophers who articulated the idea meant by it or concluded from it.
Accordingly, someone who is not imposing their opinion on society with force is tolerant.
Contrary to your position, they would argue that beating a tolerant person over an opinion is a case of intolerance.
Such an appeal to force has no place in open society, and an open society is justified to not tolerate it.
To resolve your paradox, a tolerant, open society would be justified to drop Unfiltered Mama’s son into juvie.
Anytime someone brings up paradox of intolerance in the fediverse, the chance is very high they’re completely wrong about it and are regurgitating shit they read from some dumbass on social media.
From the article (you didn’t read or understand) quoting Karl Popper (extended with the rest of the passage)
[Less well known 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 [intolerant ideologies] 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.
The type of intolerance they refer to is the kind that uses force and refuses debate. They even explicitly reject that we should in general “suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies” as long as rational argument & public opinion still govern public choice.
The quote comes from a footnote in the book The Open Society and Its Enemies, whose thesis is that an open society (ie, liberalism) has stronger merits than the newer, trendier totalitarian political theories of the day predicated on teleological historicism. They approached this from their background in philosophy of science (emphasizing enterprises controlled by skepticism and free inquiry) to argue that liberal democracies are not inevitably doomed by totalitarian systems of power, because liberal institutions have an overlooked strength
Only democracy allows an institutional framework that permits reform without violence, and so the use of reason in political matters
and to keep totalitarian systems like fascism or communism at bay, we need to sustain institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments.
Even with the best rulers, unchecked power is likely to err and cause unbound damage. Instead of focusing only on selecting the best rulers, a better system of government might determine
How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?
They resolved that such a system should include strict limits on the power of the state and a special emphasis on intellectual freedom.
They were absolutely arguing in favor of more open discourse & deliberation, not less of it, to reform government without violence and restrict its potential damage. That means tolerating opinions we disagree with from people who don’t try to impose them with force.
Their discussion on public policy has no bearing on the democratic consequences accepting code that “solves the problem” from people we disagree with. It’s pretty much accepting charity and doesn’t imply you promote or agree with their views at all. Philosophers generally scoff at purity policing bullshit and genetic fallacies, especially those who emphasize free, open inquiry and rational argument as crucial to an open society.
Bold to contradict the rash flights of popular judgement.
People hate the burden of questioning their own flawed, unreliable intuition when they can downvote instead to ease the burden right away.
Gotta admire that indifference to downvotes.
A spokesperson for Cornell said in a statement on Tuesday that “the second-hand account of the question asked by President Kotlikoff in a January 2025 meeting in the letter is incorrect, based on a documented first-hand account.”
“The question ‘why did it take so long for the assault to be reported’ was directed at bystanders who did not use Cornell’s anonymous tip line, despite ongoing social media activity about the incident in October 2024,” the spokesperson said. “He was not questioning Jane Doe’s reporting.”
Nice.
I would be happy to add your links
There are probably better ones. As a web developer, you may know a few.
The technical guidelines are the most general covering every situation & technology including those unlikely here. We’re most likely dealing with Situation B in those guidelines
Situation B: If a short description can not serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content (e.g., a chart or diagram)
It states that following technique
G95: Providing short text alternatives that provide a brief description of the non-text content
plus an additional technique including any of
- G73: Providing a long description in another location with a link to it that is immediately adjacent to the non-text content
- G74: Providing a long description in text near the non-text content, with a reference to the location of the long description in the short description
suffices. In practice, that suggests (in order of practicality to minimize effort)
If a web accessible alternative exists (eg, the image came from a web accessible web page), then set the post’s URL field to its location and set the post’s alt text field to “comic as described in link”.
Otherwise, set the post’s alt text field to “comic as described in post body”, and set the post’s body field to a text alternative. The poster will probably have to transcribe the comic. Text recognition technology may assist in that task.
If the text alternative is short, though, then setting the alt text field to the entire text alternative suffices as described in technique H37.
submitted 2026-04-09 20:12:57 +0000
I will accept feedback (comments in this post) until Saturday, April 11, 2026 at 3PM EDT (19:00 UTC)
That was slightly less than 2 days.
How about basic web accessibility[1]: at the very least a text alternative[2][3] or link to a web accessible alternative?
It ought to be prerequisite to any web content.
All web interfaces allow setting alt text & URL fields when submitting/editing a post.
There is no valid excuse not to post web accessible content & enforce that as a standard, and it’s a basic sign of human decency/respect.
Starting from a counterfactual isn’t a strong argument. El-Sayed won the primary for a reason and gets massive support in similar comment sections from Democrats overwhelmingly agreeing that Stevens can go fuck herself.
How you divine who is & isn’t “the Vote Blue No Matter Who brigade” is the real mystery. Supporting commentary looks the same no matter who writes it, and it’s hardly needed when an upvote will do. Are you a mindreader? Do you consort with a higher power? Please show us your mystical, sagely ways.
It’s especially comical because Vote Blue No Matter Who unsurprisingly means doing that regardless of whom blue is. It doesn’t necessarily imply broadcasting commentary everywhere about it to your satisfaction.
It seems you’re agitating for some poorly articulated conflict in your deluded fantasy when the “Blue No Matter Who” crowd is embracing your candidate.