MN District Grants Opt-Out From LGBTQ Curriculum To Somali 🇸🇴 Families

[Killamenace78]

MN District Grants Opt-Out From LGBTQ Curriculum To Somali Families (MN)


The Liberals are going crazy in the Reddit

In my opinion if parents don’t want their kids learning about certain stuff it’s their choice to opt out why do liberals want people to be forced to learn certain things like lgbtq and trans

 

[Mayor]

This is in St. Louis Park a city that has a Somali woman as mayor, and Illhan Omar as their representative in congress. We're witnessing Futuh Al-Minnesota in real time

Someone needs to update this picture to be a Somali woman, they're the ones leading the charge

 

[Tiyeglow]

Always love seeing liberals turn into what they despise (totalitarian, xenophobic, intolerant, racist). Just like Dostoyevsky said in Demons: "Starting from unlimited freedom, you arrive at unlimited despotism".

 

[Mohmed]

Imagine if the white nationalist movement included the LGBTQ+ BS. You'll see a lot of masks be taken off when a Muslim or immigrant says something against the white liberals wishes.

 

[Pastoralist]

These people are a joke. If you don’t like man who likes man’s butt they’ll shift their whole agenda from diversity just to become racist.

 

[Lahaine]

Make a liberal angry and you would start seeing their true side they hide.

 

[Do]

Make a liberal angry and you would start seeing their true side they hide.

You can replace 'liberal' with white people in the West in general, regardless of their political orientation. Always fake smiling and sh*t...

 

[The alchemist]

Always love seeing liberals turn into what they despise (totalitarian, xenophobic, intolerant, racist). Just like Dostoyevsky said in Demons: "Starting from unlimited freedom, you arrive at unlimited despotism".

This behavior was always present among liberals, coined by Karl Popper as the "Paradox of Tolerance" - i.e., "tolerant" people have to be intolerant of "intolerant" people, or the tolerance in an "open society" might disappear.

Karl Popper was wrong since it is not a "paradox of tolerance." It is intolerant by default of what challenges its ways, so this notion of tolerance is a farce when described as a universal good or as a virtuous superior value held as a monopoly by the liberal West that thinks itself above acknowledging its discrimination because that is justified while another discrimination is not.

 

[The alchemist]

Popper admits that if these so-called tolerant people don't become intolerant -- the tolerant will lose. Saying their intolerance is justified, ours (Muslims) is not. You have this ceaseless delusion among the liberal West, thinking their intolerance is a default, not intolerant or discriminatory, purely morally justified. It's a hypocritical notion.

That is why you see they suddenly turn into pure vitriol towards Muslims when they used to appear mild-mannered when they championed the notion of let's fight together against right-wing intolerance. But they hate you on principle (or lack thereof) more than the conservative because Islam is intolerant of a lot of the tolerant assertions of liberals.

I will go as far as to assert a theory that liberals have used conservatives for intolerance of Muslims while using Muslims for the fight against conservatives. That conservatism is a failsafe for liberals. For Muslims, neither conservatives nor liberals are your friends (conservative is another form (civil religion based) of macro-liberal instrumentalization).

 

[Do]

This behavior was always present among liberals, coined by Karl Popper as the "Paradox of Tolerance" - i.e., "tolerant" people have to be intolerant of "intolerant" people, or the tolerance in an "open society" might disappear.

Karl Popper was wrong since it is not a "paradox of tolerance." It is intolerant by default of what challenges its ways, so this notion of tolerance is a farce when described as a universal good or as a virtuous superior value held as a monopoly by the liberal West that thinks itself above acknowledging its discrimination because that is justified while another discrimination is not.

Popper admits that if these so-called tolerant people don't become intolerant -- the tolerant will lose. Saying their intolerance is justified, ours (Muslims) is not. You have this ceaseless delusion among the liberal West, thinking their intolerance is a default, not intolerant or discriminatory, purely morally justified. It's a hypocritical notion.

That is why you see they suddenly turn into pure vitriol towards Muslims when they used to appear mild-mannered when they championed the notion of let's fight together against right-wing intolerance. But they hate you on principle (or lack thereof) more than the conservative because Islam is intolerant of a lot of the tolerant assertions of liberals.

I will go as far as to assert a theory that liberals have used conservatives for intolerance of Muslims while using Muslims for the fight against conservatives. That conservatism is a failsafe for liberals. For Muslims, neither conservatives nor liberals are your friends (conservative is another form (civil religion based) of macro-liberal instrumentalization).

You have such an incredible way with words, walaal.

When I first came across Karl Popper's Tolerance paradox in a beginner philosophy book about a year ago, I knew intuitively that the assumptions he was making were shaky but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Thanks for articulating it for me.

What do you even do for work or study to write like this???

 

[The alchemist]

You have such an incredible way with words, walaal.

When I first came across Karl Popper's Tolerance paradox in a beginner philosophy book about a year ago, I knew intuitively that the assumptions he was making were shaky but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Thanks for articulating it for me.

What do you even do for work or study to write like this???

Thank you very much. I'm not a philosophy major or anything like that. I'm a stubborn guy who thinks he can acquire all knowledge if he tries hard.

What I do is a secret (I'm sorry), but it has nothing to do with most of what I talk about on this forum. Here, I am merely a person with broad interests.

I came across Karl Popper because I wanted to grasp this idea of falsification. I had an intuition that this idea that he invented falsification seemed too far-fetched, given that most human thought is exercised in various ways every day. Induction, deduction, abduction, etc. But we usually don't pay much attention to the discerning underlying systems of these everyday natural mental tools for problem-solving (things we have known implicitly since ancient times). I sometimes do this. It can start from an intuitive suspicion that something is iffy, with given that I am stubborn, I often delve into something because I have an issue with it. Which forces me to learn about it through a very critical lens. So yes, I went into Popperianism because I had issues to settle.

It turns out, I was correct. The medical world had used a similar system to do their profession long before Karl Popper -- popped up, and improved the scientific method. It initially started with me also having an issue with how the scientific field oftentimes takes monopoly of the formation of the method itself, by always taking a modernist western-centric view of science history, not including its origin among Islamic scholars.

I know what you are thinking but I am not the contrarian type. I promise, lol.

 

[Keo]

This is why the Somali American diaspora is the most successful in the West, and I say this as someone who lives in the UK. This would never happen in any other Western country.

 

[Tiyeglow]

Popper admits that if these so-called tolerant people don't become intolerant -- the tolerant will lose. Saying their intolerance is justified, ours (Muslims) is not. You have this ceaseless delusion among the liberal West, thinking their intolerance is a default, not intolerant or discriminatory, purely morally justified. It's a hypocritical notion.

That is why you see they suddenly turn into pure vitriol towards Muslims when they used to appear mild-mannered when they championed the notion of let's fight together against right-wing intolerance. But they hate you on principle (or lack thereof) more than the conservative because Islam is intolerant of a lot of the tolerant assertions of liberals.

I will go as far as to assert a theory that liberals have used conservatives for intolerance of Muslims while using Muslims for the fight against conservatives. That conservatism is a failsafe for liberals. For Muslims, neither conservatives nor liberals are your friends (conservative is another form (civil religion based) of macro-liberal instrumentalization).

Great comment.


Reminds me of Nicholas Nassim Taleb's article about why the most intolerant wins regardless of which group/society.

 

[Do]

Thank you very much. I'm not a philosophy major or anything like that. I'm a stubborn guy who thinks he can acquire all knowledge if he tries hard.

What I do is a secret (I'm sorry), but it has nothing to do with most of what I talk about on this forum. Here, I am merely a person with broad interests.

I came across Karl Popper because I wanted to grasp this idea of falsification. I had an intuition that this idea that he invented falsification seemed too far-fetched, given that most human thought is exercised in various ways every day. Induction, deduction, abduction, etc. But we usually don't pay much attention to the discerning underlying systems of these everyday natural mental tools for problem-solving (things we have known implicitly since ancient times). I sometimes do this. It can start from an intuitive suspicion that something is iffy, with given that I am stubborn, I often delve into something because I have an issue with it. Which forces me to learn about it through a very critical lens. So yes, I went into Popperianism because I had issues to settle.

It turns out, I was correct. The medical world had used a similar system to do their profession long before Karl Popper -- popped up, and improved the scientific method. It initially started with me also having an issue with how the scientific field oftentimes takes monopoly of the formation of the method itself, by always taking a modernist western-centric view of science history, not including its origin among Islamic scholars.

I know what you are thinking but I am not the contrarian type. I promise, lol.

Thanks for sharing, I wish you well in whatever it is you're pursuing in real life now

 

[The alchemist]

Great comment.


Reminds me of Nicholas Nassim Taleb's article about why the most intolerant wins regardless of which group/society.

I think it is a fascinating article. But it fails about Islam, and the notion of pagans being more brilliant is also a joke. The rest, however, is perhaps applicable and gives good insight into the asymmetry of complex, relational systems.

I am familiar with other works of Nassim Nicholas Taleb and his expertise. He is very good at his field.

 

[Basra]