It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.

People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.

It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).

Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.

What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.

The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.

Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.

Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.

Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.

I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.

I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.

However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.

I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.

It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.

You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.

If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?

It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.

The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.

That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.

I wouldn’t say murder falls under intolerance. It certainly can, but not all the time.

if you’re not actively hurting someone besides yourself, you should be tolerated.

Who gets to define what constitutes not actively hurting someone besides yourself? Is it just as defined by you or do other people get a say? What do you do when someone decides that not wearing a hijab or extra-marital sex is actively harming others?

I hope that illustrates why this is not simple at all. It’s incredibly complex.

And as I was saying in my initial comment, it’s literally impossible to objectively define tolerance. But, you have to choose to tolerate some things and not others (because they’re mutually exclusive). So you end up with different forms of intolerance of behaviors that you deem intolerant.

Along with that, we decide that intolerance for other reasons (ie, because of a person’s genetic makeup or mode of expression) is itself harmful.

And we decide that intolerance is acceptable for many other reasons. You don’t tolerate ignorant people. You don’t tolerate people who cannot arrive on time. You don’t tolerate people who are too rude. Intolerance of those aspects

Now we can find tune and dicker about where that line of injury is, and of course there are special cases where the alleged hurt is spread around and it’s hard to decide how to adjudicate that, but that’s what the law and all its apparatus is for, after all.

The special cases are the ones where it’s actually clear. The majority of the cases are where we struggle to know where to draw the line.

Not at all. I’m not talking about just things. I’m also talking about about people.

It is not simple to determine the extent to which to tolerate different groups of people. Unless you’re saying that you want to be equally tolerant of murderers, races, all religions, and people who like pineapple on pizza.

That’s built in to android now with Rcs which uses the exact same encryption as signal.

And funny enough, apple decided not to support it so now apple users are the ones who force it to revert to MMS.

It absolutely is because there are things that you where you cannot tolerate both oposing viewpoints. There’s also things that you do not want to tolerate.

Unless you believe it’s not okay to be intolerant of murder.

I hope that helps illustrate how it’s not just a rhetorical paradox. It’s a conceptual one too. Much of the time, it’s not tolerance vs intolerance. It’s picking between two flavors of intolerance.

I disagree with that. It’s human nature downvote something you disagree with when given an option.

It’s best to just acknowledge it and accept it to some degree while still encouraging users to upvote well written disagreements.

But don’t pretend that it shouldn’t also be used as a disagree button frequently. The two way voting system is a large contributor to what made reddit great. It has some drawbacks, but don’t expect that to change. It’s like asking lead to not be dense.

Whether or not it’s tolerance isn’t directly important.

The mistake that people make is assuming that tolerance is inherently good. It is to a certain degree, but there are many things that you do not want to tolerate. That’s where we want to be.

However, many people think of themselves as tolerant and find it difficult to make that conceptual realization.

That’s a paradox. You cannot tolerate everything. That’s why there’s no such thing as not being bigoted. It’s literally impossible to tolerate everything.

You just have to pick what things you’re not going to tolerate. Now if only we could always agree on what that is.

I agree. It’s absolutely absurd that would say something along the lines of “Fuck, I got r*ped, what do I do?”

I’m of the opinion that you shouldn’t censor any words. If you feel the need to censor it, then just don’t say it. If you want to discuss it, then be able to say it. You should be able to say something like “X called Y a nigger”.

I liked bestof at first. I’m not sure if it got more transparent or I just started to see through it easier but it stopped becoming the best of reddit. There was some good items, but it ended up being far too many long winded comments that were half correct but agreed with the dominant view.