Removed by mod

I’m doing my part!

If this is the incident you’re referring to, then:

Updated Wednesday June 14 2:10 p.m. EST - San Francisco Police have provided this statement to Jalopnik:

“The SFPD is aware of the social media video showing an autonomous vehicle stopped in the middle of a road during a recent shooting incident in San Francisco. The autonomous vehicle did not delay police, fire, or other emergency personnel with our arrival or departure from this scene. Furthermore, it did not interfere with our investigation into the shooting incident.

Also, if the lives saved by autonomous cars are anywhere near as high as they’re supposed to be, isolated incidents are way more than worth it. Statements like “The very first time one of these things blocked emergency services, the whole project should have been shelved” are incredibly shortsighted and would result in orders of magnitude more deaths over time.

Guardian needs to speak for itself - I had a great fourth!

Agree with the general gist of the video, but wow that clickbaity title and image.

I didn’t see the post in question, but wanted to point out that this is an entirely too common misconstrual of Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.

The complete relevant portion from Popper himself (emphasis mine):

“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 unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

Somewhat ironically, censorship in the name of the Paradox of Tolerance more often reflects the actual intolerance that Popper was referring to, but that’s been co-opted in the name of justifying silencing people whose opinions you don’t like.

It’s your community, so do what you want with it of course, but it irks me when people use the “Paradox of Tolerance” to justify the exact intolerance Popper was speaking against. The Paradox of Tolerance is intended to encourage debate, not to be used as a cudgel against those you disagree with, however horrible their opinions.

Here’s an easy way to test if the Paradox of Tolerance is relevant:

1. Is the person with intolerant ideas refusing to participate in discourse? Paradox of Tolerance applies; intolerance is justified according to Popper.

2. Is the person with intolerant ideas participating in discourse but you don’t like what they’re saying? Paradox of Tolerance is irrelevant here, and you probably shouldn’t use Popper as a crutch when you censor their opinions.

Calling those you disagree with violent and unreasonable is a tale as old as time. Also note that supposedly Reddit has begun taking over private subs and replacing mods