I got the same message on iOS Safari with no special config or UA switching (just an ad-blocker). I figure it’s a badly implemented feature. But holy shit I thought the browser wars settled out a long time ago and we had decent standards in place, guess we’re regressing back 20 years though.
Kenji Lopez-Alt has a cool video where he uses American cheese as the emulsifier to make some less-melty cheeses participate in a grilled cheese. I have been using it more for its emulsifying agents than anything lately: https://youtu.be/CD8UTr5mMVk?si=n5xOumvtBqromQtB
Not to mention meds to suppress expression of autism traits and behavioral therapies like ABA that make daily existence a constant effort. But hey, they make it less awkward for allistic people to share spaces with autistic people. Or god forbid, have them accept that some folks have different ways of engaging with the world.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance, and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
I don’t think I’m using a straw man. The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical abstraction and I’m describing it within that context.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
Their “Spanish for English speakers” course goes all the way through CEFR B2 proficiency. There’s no way to attain that in a year of HS Spanish unless you were in a Spanish-speaking high school, fully immersed. Some versions of the Spanish course (for other native languages) may not go as far, that’s just the one I’m working on.
With 50% less meat consumed, less plants need to be harvested, so less insects, rodents, snails, birds would die.
Also which is easier to sell to someone currently eating meat with every meal?
Didn’t he kill an employee with a box cutter? lol
I’d still rather hang with him than JP, you’re right on that.