Might as well say it out loud.
Might as well say it out loud.
评论
194-
-
Tolerance is a social contract in which people agree to not give each other shit over perceived differences. To be intolerant is to choose to opt out of that contract, in which case expecting to still enjoy its protections is fucking stupid. Which is to be expected from pedocons and their ilk, who are always acting in bad faith.
-
That's right. People must be treated according to how they treat others.
There's nothing more ridiculous and incongruent than a nazi beggin for the love and tolerance they deny to others.
-
Ah, the paradox of tolerance.
The problem here are also the people who insist on tolerating those who break the contract.
-
And they always use this, "it's a difference in opinions," defense like it makes any God damn sense, right? removed, basing your actions on said shitty opinions means you opt out of our tolerance so fuck off.
-
-
If this needs to be explained, then well... things are fucked up
/looks around/
Things are actually fucked up
-
Intolerance for intolerance has led to this. They just hide in their safe spaces spreading their hate unopposed.
-
Ahem, Tolerence for intolerence.
-
Guess you wanted to say that lack of intolerance for intolerance has led to this. Even I remember this idiotic tactic of "do something bad --> pretend it was a joke" and it was fucking working. Still is. Hate per se is not what has made societies ugly
-
We've had super-abundant tolerance for intolerance. We literally hanged people like Charlie Kirk at Nuremberg on charges of crimes against humanity and incitement to genocide.
-
-
-
Outlawed is wrong. Because we cannot trust those doing the outlawing and should be fucking clear. Do I even need to bring up the elephant in the room? You want to Outlaw disagreements with US foreign policy?
-
We hanged people at Nuremberg for incitement to genocide. Genocide is a crime with a very specific meaning. Yes, bad-faith actors can abuse a law prohibiting incitement to genocide, but the same can be done with any law.
Advocating for genocide is not free speech - it's attempted mass murder. Two people talking with each other and conspiring to kill someone else isn't protected speech - it's just conspiracy to commit murder. And if plotting to kill one person isn't protected, plotting to kill thousands or millions shouldn't be protected either. These people are plotting to commit genocide, and their intention is to use the power of the state as their murder weapon.
We need to prosecute attempted genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide as vigorously as we would any plot to kill any individual. But we have this weird blind spot where if someone plans to commit murder on a large scale using the state as the murder weapon, that somehow we don't recognize it as the same fundamental crime. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. Conspiracy to commit murder is conspiracy to commit murder. Whether the weapon is your own bare hands or the apparatus of a nation state. Advocating for genocide is nothing less than conspiracy to commit genocide.
-
I disagree with this take. The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren't killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions. They actually carried out a genocide, that's what they were guilty of.
I actually disagree with this relatively new movement that pushes for hate speech laws because they're something that's inherently arbitrary and subjective, and they can and will be weaponized to serve nefarious agendas. Principles like freedom of speech MUST be applied universally and fairly in order for them to mean anything. Freedom of speech exists to protect offensive, controversial, and unpopular opinions against censorship because what can be considered any of those things can change at any time.
For example, 60 years ago being racial equality was viewed as seemed very controversial and unpopular, but today? The opposite. However, in 60 years, public opinion on these views could flip again. If we pass laws that outlaw racist views as hateful, then it's very possible that these laws could be changed at any point in the future to outlaw anti-racist views as hateful. I don't want to ever live in a society where I'm being legally punished for arguing against segregation. Establishing such precedents is very dangerous and history has shown us that the consequences of these laws aren't always what they were intended.
I think the US freedom of speech laws as they are federally defined are the golden standard. They take into account all the reasonable exceptions, while maintaining a universally applied standard for everyone. If any individual turned their words into actions or clearly had the intent to take action then they'll be persecuted for their actions. That's the way it should be.
-
When I went to public school, we were taught this shit and it was drilled into us that it's very important to never forget any of it.
It's insane to see just how far our education system has fallen. American kids know nothing about any of this.
-
Ah fuck, this makes sense. I was against the "outlaw" bit but (as a US citizen) I think I'm seeing things a little skewed. I cede its an important step to preventing this kind of thing (a little late lmao) :(
-
You say that as our politicians at this you say that as our politicians at this very moment are claiming that those opposing genocide are advocating for genocide.
-
-
Outlawed is wrong. Because we cannot trust those doing the outlawing
People who hold that view are NEVER the target of extremist hate groups. Hate groups are always merely a talking point to them.
-
The government is not to be trusyed with outlawing opinion.
-
-
-
Paradox goes right the fuck away when you look at it in the context of social contract
-
Its the lone exception to itself. Thats why it gets a fancy name "The paradox of tolerance". To abide by the intolerant is to validate them, thus contradicting your own tolerance of others.
Its circular logic, and the only solution is it carve out one exception, intolerance of those who are intolerant of others
-
-
-
In this day and age, someone will lose their job over posting this on their Facebook while the nazis get to roam free
-
Which is why we should not support outlawing views as in the post. Everything else yes, illegalizing no, even in good times we should think that we can't trust those doing the outawing.
-
-
To quote something I said to a transphobe asking about where they can safely question "transgenderism"
And before you go off with, "So much for being tolerant of my beliefs!".
Tolerance is about preventing harm being committed onto others. Tolerance can not condone intolerance being committed against others. Intolerance always leads to harm being committed against others. Tolerance, by definition, cannot be tolerant of intolerance without becoming intolerant itself.
For example:
Me allowing you to openly critize my friends in the trans community without stepping in and telling you, "You're a bigot and your behavior is not welcome here." will lead to your behavior harming them by implicit acceptance of your behavior.
So, with kindest regards.
#You're a bigot and your behavior is not welcome here.
-
-
That they are disposable tools of the Rich and Powerful that will discard them and deny their rights as well if they achieve their goal. Which by all indications they are.
-
-
Or shot in the neck.
-
I think I fall more in the free speech absolutist camp on this one. Look at the UK and how they made saying "Support Palestine Action" a terrorism charge.
I get that it's a group that does protests and sometimes vandalism but imagine in the US if saying "Support Antifa" got you terrorism charges
-
Haha, imagine that. Never gonna happen right?
-
The key is you have a well-crafted law that actually makes specific things illegal. You don't create a shitty law that makes it easy to abuse. The law that the UK government is using isn't a well-crafted law that the government is abusing - the law was written to be deliberately vague to allow just this sort of abuse. The key is to write laws that can't be so easily abused.
Yes, you can whine that any law can be abused. But that's the same for ANY law. A particularly craven judge could rule that even a crime as straightforward as murder could apply to something completely nonviolent. But that doesn't mean we don't outlaw murder. There is no law that cannot be twisted by depraved individuals to apply to any situation whatsoever. But if you have a functioning court system, you prevent such abuses.
Or look at a crime like conspiracy to commit murder. That crime is mostly about speech - you're punishing someone for using their speech to plot the death of someone else. And yet we don't see governments vastly abusing prohibitions on conspiracy to commit murder to silence their political opposition. We don't see that because those laws were well written.
One obvious solution is to make conspiracy to commit genocide a harshly enforced crime. Are you running a political movement that intends to seize power and kill a bunch of innocent people? That's just conspiracy to commit murder on a massive scale. You're just choosing to use the state as your murder weapon.
Remember, we literally hanged people at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity and incitement to genocide - mostly for the things they said. We hanged people for their words, when those words were just parts of a plot to commit mass murder.
Conspiracy to commit murder is not protected speech, and neither should be conspiracy to commit genocide.
-
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can call for the genocide of a minority group all you want. Still a hate crime, and you should face charges because you are a threat to the peace of a healthy society.
-
-
Treat others as you want to be treated, let them enjoy their own hospitality.
-
Don't tell this to all these popular fake leftist commentators.
They were all crying like their own fathers were just killed when Kirk got Kirk'd.
-
It is self defense at this point. MAGA is being charged up for an attack. The corrupt politicians have found a tiny little percentage of the population to pour hatred onto. They can spew hatred and tap dance while their idiot followers look at the distraction and focus on them instead of the real problem of corruption and greed.
Intolerance is the answer here, but not necessarily or exclusively towards the deranged MAGAts. We really need to focus on the billionaires pulling the strings. Be intolerant of the wealthy having so much influence over these insane nazi wannabes.
-
I used to believe also this but then I found out who Daryl Davis was and now I understand the best way to beat hatred is the way he beat it. Even thought there might be psychopaths who are devoided of empathy but the percentage of people who have it is really low and knowing psychology you can also deal with them in a functional manner by teaching them that if they commit malice it will have a direct consequence. Violence always generate more violence and we as humanity have evolved and we can deal with these type of people please don't think this is the best way to deal with it.
-
What Daryl Davis does might work if you are talking about a very small group, but by the time it reaches percentage points of the population that method no longer works as the societal support structure grows from these vial ideologies, the weaker an approach based on societal influence. Eventually the only option left is violence as you have two opposing societies and can no longer pull "radicals" out of their hatred.
Just like with the Fascists of the early 20th century, the only option left was to expunge these hateful societies.
-
Yes but you have to always do it individually. You are seeing the world in very a bad light the majority is not like this remember there also a lot of people who didn't vote. Please don't be violent even thought it seems like it is the last resource
-
You're not wrong, but right now fascists are effectively in control of all the nuclear weapons and future tech. If things ever do spiral into a "hot" conflict, they have all the tools at their disposal to come after liberals. Which they are very desperately trying to instigate right now.
-
-
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
What really must be done is to bring forward serious discussion and not debate through memes
-
I love how you frame this as being binary. No time for memes, Captain! We must ride at dawn!
-
You see, memes are destroying the fabric of our reason and debate. It's time to stop laughing and start thinking
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER
-
-
Of course rational argument should be the starting point, and if you kept up, there have been and still are plenty of efforts to discuss. But, in the words of Karl Popper, who watched fascism overwhelm all reason:
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.
That's where we're at now: When the intolerant refuse to play by the same rules of rational argumentation, no rational argument can hope to change their mind.
-
-
Or shot...
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
I heard kirk converted to islam on his deathbed.
-
New shit post angle acquired.
-
-
Oh OK, never mind guys, the sky wizard that nobody has been able to provide a shred of evidence for existing for thousands of years says that we should pardon nazis.
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
-
-
What i find so amusing is that the most violent acts these people suffer are done by their ilk. Kinda fitting.
-
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
-
Why go from one extreme to the other? Everyone deserves human rights. Even the intolerant.
That doesn’t mean we have to tolerate their intolerance.
I don’t let toddlers hit me, but I also don’t punt them into the wall when they try to.
-
When Charlie Kirk's throat was disabled, it was uttering weasel words implying trans and black people were responsible for murdering children; justifying both random and political violence against them. Its a shame he couldn't have been stopped peacefully.
-
-
No, they still get human rights. Because that's how that works. They are universal. If they believe in them or support them is irrelevant. I don't like it either, but that's literally the foundation of the whole thing.
-
That's how it should work.
Alas, it doesn't.
I recommend reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Exact_formulations and considering that in your assessment. -
Human rights don't include the right to be an asshat and kill or call for the death of other people. They can keep their human rights intact while rotting in a prison cell for hate speech and hate crimes.
-
Yup. All correct. There's laws that deal with so that. The point is just that no matter what you do, no matter how horrible a person you are, you still have your human rights.
This is actually essential. Stripping people of their fundamental rights is in their playbook.
-
-
-
Remove the outlawed part and I agree
-
Disregarding the rule of law (due process, guilty until proven innocent, ...) is also suicide for society. So maybe banning certain speech is actually a good idea.
-
We have a felon in charge and masked gunmen kidnapping people in the streets. The rule of law left a long time ago dude.
-
feel free to speak your mind.
don't complain when you get treated like a piece of shit, when you act like a piece of shit.
-
That is a very intolerant position. Therefore, by the logic of this post, people who say things like "They must be ridiculed, ostracized, outlawed and if they still won't shut up, they must be beaten senseless" must be ridiculed, ostracized, outlawed and if they still won't shut up, they must be beaten senseless.
-
Yes, the resolution to the "paradox" of tolerance is that (a) "the intolerant" is anyone that would deny human rights to any other human (b) the intolerant must be denied political power since they will use it to create an intolerant society.
Tolerance doesn't justify political violence.
However, defense of self or others CAN justify violence against the intolerant. The threat of increased stochastic violence due to inflammatory rhetoric is not as clear as a person stating their intent to kill and then brandishing a firearm, but both can be mortal threats. At the very least acts of political violence CAN be justified by the actor to a jury of their peers. Denying a political violence can ever be justified (I'm looking at you Bernie) ignores history and supports every authoritarian regime.
I'm not saying that the Kirk murder was justified, but ... I'd be willing to hear a defendant out as a jurist or jury member.
-
There is no resolution to the paradox of intolerance.
What you're providing is an excuse to be intolerant. You say "I'm allowed to be intolerant to this guy because this guy is intolerant", but whatever excuse you use, you're now intolerant, and you deserve whatever punishment you think intolerant people deserve.
There's no special category for "people who are intolerant, but only intolerant to those they view as intolerant". There's the tolerant, and the intolerant. If you are intolerant, no matter how good your reasons, you're still intolerant. Thus, the paradox.
-
-
"Suck it. If you wanna be a facist pos i'll fight you over it."
see? like that. you don't have to actually be a nazi, or advocate for them. If you think its reasonable to fight only against peaceful people, and that violent people should always get their way (lest we ourselves resort to violence (egads!)). I'm not sure I agree.
-
"Suck it. If you wanna be a facist pos i'll fight you over it."
That sounds like a very intolerant position. According to the meme, I must now ridicule, ostracize and outlaw you. If that doesn't work, I'm supposed to beat you senseless, because that's what intolerant people deserve. Unfortunately, this would make me intolerant so someone is free to do the same to me.
-
-
It's not about tolerance. It's about conspiracy to commit genocide.
We all recognize that plotting and conspiring to kill one person is wrong. But somehow when someone starts plotting to kill a million people all at once, people like you come out of the woodwork and start hand wringing about freedom of speech. Conspiracy to commit a crime is not protected speech. Conspiracy to commit mass murder is not protected speech. Murder is murder whether you use a knife or the apparatus of the state. People who advocate for genocidal political policies should be treated no differently than those that plot to murder a single individual.
-
People like me who understand logic? This is about tolerance, and the paradox of tolerance.
People like you bringing your own bullshit baggage into the discussion and trying to derail it are the problem.
-
-
-
Just drunk argued with a MAGA fascist at the bar tonight. We were both hammered, so take it as you will. I was armed, and I presume he was as well.
We had a nice talk. No one challenged anyone, certainly no threats. Decent exchange of views, even if we danced around one another, walked the line. No one wanted a fight, and that's the take away. But I felt better with a 9mm in my belt. (A 9mm I'm well practiced at using.)
So. You can be a victim, or not. "Victim" has always been popular among liberals. "I'm oppressed!" Nice headline, sorry tombstone.
Anyway, that's what happened.
-
Getting hammered at a bar while armed and having an argument is not responsible gun ownership, full stop.
-
First of all, drinking while armed is as irresponsible as driving drunk.
Second, if you need to be armed to express your opinions, I don't think you need to be calling other people victims.
-
Christians have been masturbating about being victims ever since we stopped feeding them to lions. Perhaps we should start that up again.
-
As a Dane, I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage the pasty prick with the faux Viking shield to crawl back up the wrong hole his mother accidentally shat him out of while giving birth to the good twin.
This is gorgeous prose.
Thank you. Like Churchill, I'm a firm believer in the fine art of lovingly hand-crafted insults.
And slights, of course - but such delicate subtlety is wasted on Nazis. Then again, oxygen is wasted on Nazis, and they should really cease using any. To be fair to them, given their demonstrated cognitive capabilities, they're evidently already half-way there.