lmmarsano

It’s a very old web standard, and choice of client is frankly a matter of will, not a limitation of capacity. Capable clients exist, especially lemmy interfaces (that have supported setting it over 2 years ago) readily accessible to anyone from the web browser by navigating to their instance. Deficient clients shouldn’t guide content authoring practices anymore than Internet Explorer 4 should. If anything, client deficiencies should motivate rejection of deficient clients.

Moreover, spoiler (ie, the details & summary HTML element combination) is a newer feature with less mature accessibility (though still pretty mature) than alt text, though it’s pretty good for a more structured text alternative.

I’d suggest complaining to the client developer to pressure compliance and choosing a better client. Deficient clients also perpetuate structural inequity.

@cannedtuna@lemmy.world your downvote is not a valid argument whereas this comment is, and it reinforces the earlier point that the toxic culture at lemmy can’t stand valid criticism of deficient choices entirely within their control to the detriment of their own community & the wider public.

Did you read it or understand it? Social media butchers & misrepresents the paradox, argument, and basic definition of (in)tolerance as used in political philosophy. Tolerance is acceptance that permits an objectionable position or practice despite considering it wrong. Intolerance is a rejection that doesn’t permit, ie, literally prohibits. Here’s the full passage partly quoted in the article

[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 unjustified 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 can still govern public choice.

The philosopher who articulated the paradox was defending an open society that protects intellectual freedom & open discourse, not arguing for a society to limit it. They were also talking about systems of government.

None of that pertains to a civil disagreement lacking imposition of force: by definition the person in disagreement is tolerant, so it’s not a case of “tolerating the intolerant”. The paradox doesn’t apply.

Yes, edit post & fill the alt text field. Editing posts and setting alt text are standard features of lemmy web interfaces accessed by web browser.

Those downvotes are part of why lemmy has a toxic culture: hostility to web accessibility and basic decency that perpetuates structural inequity. Bluesky and other parts of the fediverse like mastodon are better about promoting web accessibility. Web accessibility is a tangible matter of fairness, equal access, and decency we can all directly provide or deny.

While the rollback of post Civil War reconstruction and tolerance of violent segregationists is definitely an instance of “tolerance of the intolerant”, you should read the article and source material it’s quoting more closely, because you’re contradicting the entire argument they’re making. Here’s the quoted passage again, but in full

[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.

As usual in political philosophy, the definition of intolerance is stricter and includes an element of rejection by force or imposition. From the passage, 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.

In that discourse where the philosopher is arguing that a free, open inquiry and rational argument is crucial to an open society, they unsurprising aren’t arguing for the suppression of exclusionary opinions. They’re arguing for a system of governance that protects freedom of individuals to debate (and denounce) each other.

So, tolerating segregationist terrorists in the post Civil War is a case of “extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant” as mentioned in the paradox. In contrast, a disagreement with someone who is not imposing their beliefs is not, and the paradox has no bearing.

Paradox of tolerance has no bearing on disagreements lacking imposition, and is used to defend open discourse, not argue against it.

Good job on not confusing corpocracy & corporatism.
People often miss plutocracy & kleptocracy.

checks alt text

(nothing)

This image needs a text alternative, though: the image’s text content is unperceivable to the sight-impaired, for examples, so the post isn’t web accessible.
It violates WCAG guideline

Provide text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need, such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language.

As a consequence, it’s also unsearchable by the hidden text content, which impairs usability for everyone.

While I would love that, the more moderate republicans who argued to impeach & convict Trump last time were ousted, so that leaves the Trumpiest core to work with. GOP shittiness & general hostility to the government working in any sense for the American people can’t be underestimated. Plus, convicting Trump results in Vance replacing him.

I think some highly guarded optimism is warranted. Blocking hideous legislation and Trump appointments isn’t too bad of a check if they’re unable to pull off anything better.

See? No serious alternative.

What part of what you wrote contradicts anything written about democracy? The destruction & abuses you list could be far worse in governments with unchecked power.

Democracy isn’t a magic salve that instantly cures everything it touches. Liberal democratic institutions permit reforms through a nonviolent, deliberative process to address everything you stated. To check abuses of power that could end democratic, open society, they also limit government capacity to unilaterally impose swift, sweeping changes. The institution trades sweeping state power that’s riskier to abuse for more limited, checked, deliberative state power likelier to sustain the democratic system. You don’t get democratic reforms without that slow, power-constrained work to protect the system.

All that money the obscenely wealthy dumped into the elections didn’t get the results they paid for. Lack of action according to your timetable isn’t legal immunity.

While your criticism gripes about the problems we can observe, no one is discounting them. We are criticizing your failures to consider all the problems we can’t observe (because the system of limited government avoided them) and the strength of nonviolent, popular reform.

Your criticism looks like just griping that doesn’t seriously weigh the tradeoffs, which is fine to commiserate, but not a rational basis to weigh alternative systems of government.

A democracy can change those rules & technicalities, it just takes time & popular will.

As argued by the same person who articulated the paradox of tolerance (widely distorted on social media), an overlooked strength of liberal democracy is the institutional framework (driven by competitive choices of the people open to rational debate) to institute reform without violence. To check abuses of power by the state, the people need to sustain such institutions that allow for open inquiry and grant all citizens extensive rights against their governments. They argued that strict limits on the power of the state limit bad or incompetent rulers from doing too much damage (eg, damage that outright ends a democratic, open society). Those limits on government with Democrats in legislative power are also why MAGA control of the legislature and executive hasn’t yet prevented elections and we don’t have to fight frequent revolutions to take back control.

Democracy can reform itself nonviolently, presidents can be prosecuted when they leave office, and you’re not suggesting a serious alternative, just grief lacking nuance.

Not how that works: without supermajorities in the legislature to override a veto or convict an impeachment, the president can still block all legislation.

Kind of wild how it’s always radio silence from the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” brigade in comment sections like this, where you have a centrist Dem using their platform to bash a progressive or leftist candidate just a couple days prior to elections

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.

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.