He's making a joke. Lyre is a homophone.
Except that's not at all what the paradox of tolerance actually says. The people the original essay warns about are those who refuse to argue in good faith and shut down debate instead, i.e. exactly the ones who now shrill "paradox of tolerance!"
‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.’ —Orwell
Get off your computer and go do things with real people in the real world. Join a hiking club. Volunteer at your church or at a Habitat for Humanity build. Make some friends at your local gun range.
The internet can be a wonderful tool. It can't be your life. Touch grass and shake hands.
It's very easy to see this by observing women who have a financial incentive to be attractive. Long hair and 20-ish BMI are the standard anywhere extracting cash from men is the goal.
Leftists when conservative is banned from Facebook: "free speech does not mean you're entitled to a platform"
Conservatives: "ok, bet"
Leftist unemployed librarians: "wait no"
I mean, if you're paying attention at all you already knew that WOTC is 100% pozzed.
Stop giving money, clicks, or attention to companies that are openly hostile to your values.
This is awesome because Slavic women are amazingly hot and now they come with diversity points too. I got that jungle fever for some pale Russian redheads.
That "woman" has a bad case of MPB.
Is this the same AI that was so good at identifying pictures of gorillas?
Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law.
It says no such thing. The decision is not long or hard to read, and I encourage you to read it yourself: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison
Marshall argues unequivocally that testing laws against the Constitution is part of the responsibility of the courts, but nowhere does he say anything that would exclude other branches from the same duty- in fact, he explicitly asserts the opposite:
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. (emphasis added)
No. Every branch is obligated to respect the Constitution and to reject any laws which conflict with it.
The court is obligated to respect the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and is therefore obligated to resolve any conflicts between legislation and Constitution in favor of the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has not just a right but a duty to nullify unconstitutional legislation.
The point that's overlooked is that duty is not uniquely the Supreme Court's. Every government employee in every branch is obligated to follow the Constitution and to reject laws which violate it.
You cannot be shamed without your cooperation. Live proudly and laugh at the haters.
Morays are eels. Mores, pronounced the same way, was probably the word you wanted.
There are lots of words that can be verbs. I got nigged in traffic today and it pissed me off.
That's (D)ifferent. If you violate the vegan code then they take your powers away.
Wotc is irredeemably woke, but WoD is no better.