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.
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.
As a Brit, I salute your efforts in keeping the art of insult alive.
Unfortunately, sharp whit is wasted on these evolutionary deadends. The only thing fitting for them is being on the receiving end of "creative" activities that will make the writing hand tremble of the poor Swiss who is now compelled to add several new lines to the Geneva Convention.
That's incredibly flattering coming from the foremost modern practitioners of the mighty slight. Especially since I used to live and work in the UK - back when that was still possible, pre-Brexit - and indeed honed my craft on your fair isles.
Well, you know what the Canadian Colonies have to say about it: "It's never a war crime the first time". Or my personal addendum: "As per the Golden Rule, it's never a war crime when you do it to Nazis".
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.
And they always use this, "it's a difference in opinions," defense like it makes any God damn sense, right? Bitch, basing your actions on said shitty opinions means you opt out of our tolerance so fuck off.
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
What? They're literally doing it in public now, and it's clearly making everything worse. The world was a better place when these people were properly shamed back into the holes they came out of.
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.
Most of the evidence against Streicher came from his numerous speeches and articles over the years.[72] In essence, prosecutors contended that Streicher's articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews. They further argued that he kept up his antisemitic propaganda even after he was aware that Jews were being slaughtered.[73]
Streicher was acquitted of crimes against peace, but found guilty of crimes against humanity, and sentenced to death on 1 October 1946.
But these are two different things though. In this case Streicher was taking action. He was directly working for the Nazi party, and his job was to convince people that the Nazi crimes were not only okay, but they should be celebrated and expanded. His actions actively aided the genocide, he was a part of the Nazi machine. That's not a private citizen with personal opinions and beliefs.
That's very a big difference between him and some modern neo nazi who spends all day picking his nose, scratching his ass, and posting on 8chan about the world is controlled by the "joos". As long dickheads like this keep their vile views to themselves, then I don't think they should be legally persecuted simply for holding vile opinions. However, the moment their words turn into actions or the clear intention to implement neo nazi bullshit, then that's when they should get persecuted by the law.
Charlie Kirk gave material support (a significant amount, to the point where Trump himself admitted he wouldn't have won without him) to fascists. I think he himself would have balked at you suggesting that he wasn't active in getting the current regime to where it is.
And if the Trump administration were exterminating people in death camps and had been convicted in international criminal court then you would have a point.
As it is the administration is obviously ignoring its own laws and being disgusting with racial profiling when deporting immigrants in the country illegally, and grabbing legal immigrants and citizens through this overzealousness and rule/law breaking.
The US is not committing a holocaust against Hispanics. It is not committing one against the LGBTQ community either. Even if you believe that the US is capable of committing one here and that it is coming, it is not happening yet and so Charlie Kirk cannot be an execution for propaganda supporting mass murder/genocide that has already taken place.
Execution for crimes that will be committed in the future is execution for thought crime or execution for free speech.
There's two issues with your take here. First, I never even implied that Kirk wasn't a big Trump supporter, that was his whole shtick as a grifter. That's just obvious, and nobody is arguing otherwise. Second, is being a Trump supporter now enough grounds to justify killing people? I agree that Trump and MAGA are pretty Fascist in nature, however the fact remains that Kirk was a private citizen at the end of the day. He was not an elected official and he did not hold any public office. He was just an activist/grifter who made a career simping for Trump. Hate him all you want, I certainly did, but killing him or anybody over this sort thing is a huge red line that should never be crossed. There's a reason why societies throughout history that resorted to using violence for political discourse out of convenience rather than necessity are the ones always ended up being lead by a depraved tyrannical regime. There are many more lessons to learn from history than just acknowledging that Nazis are bad.
Kirk was directly tied into the Trump administration. He himself sent busloads of followers to help storm the capital. Kirk's jobs was to convince people that the genocidal plans of the Christian Nationalists are OK and should be celebrated and expanded. By the time you get to the level of power and influence of Kirk, you're not really a private citizen anymore. He was instrumental in getting Trump elected. Yes, he doesn't have a formal position in the government, but most of the charges against Streicher were for things that had nothing to do with the little bit of power he briefly had.
Kirk was a piece of shit, you're not going to find me defending him for what he did or stood for. My point is that the way he got killed is not acceptable. He shouldn't get honored or anything like because fuck him, but cheering the way he got killed is not okay either. He wasn't killed under the death penalty by the state, there was no due process, and there wasn't even a valid reason for his death. He was gunned down in broad daylight in the middle of a public crowd by some random guy who didn't like his political views... how is that not fucking crazy to you? Y
ou're trying very hard to justify it because you don't like him, but you don't seem to understand that this isn't about him specifically. I don't like Kirk either, but you're not going to find me trying justify this type of political violence because it sets a dangerous precedent that violence is an acceptable part of political discourse. Political violence is always a two way street. Just as you're trying to justify and cheer on this guy's death and how he was killed, you're making it more normalized and more likely that some conservative whacko isn't to shoot down some left wing figurehead, and they'll use the very same arguments and justifications that you're using now. If you can't accept someone like Hasan Piker or Nina Turner getting gunned down, then why would you cheer this on? If you condemn their deaths, but not Kirk's death or others like him, then you don't have any principles to stand on.
Sorry. Don't lecture to me about the dangers of political violence when we're talking about someone that actively championed literal genocide. In a just world he would have been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.
Kirk already engaged in political violence. He encouraged his followers to countless acts of violence. You're just mad when people dare to fight back against their oppressors. You call it a two way street, but it was already a one-way street. Right wingers are allowed to plot literal genocide, and the rest of us are supposed to just sit back and pretend it's just fine and normal.
No, sorry. Fuck everything about that. The world is a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the ground. He was a mass murderer.
And the Trump administration has not yet committed any Holocausts or genocide yet. At this point in time it is still "future crime". The Trump admin hasn't been convicted in the Hague of genocide.
Once Trump opens death camps and starts exterminating LGBTQ people, only then does Kirk rises to the level of Streicher. Until that point, it is execution for political disagreement and free speech. You don't have to like the guy in any way for that to be wrong.
We don't want to set a precedent that the best way to change someone's political ideology is to kill them to eliminate that ideology.
I feel like you're reading to me a yugioh trap card that only activates when our opponent summons a big monster. God, the waiting must be agony.
You don't have to like the guy in any way for that to be wrong.
I think death just makes you feel icky. Like, in general.
I don't care that Kirk died. I'm not saying it's a good omen for things to come, exactly, but I can't even pretend to give a shit. The world does not need him.
How so? I think there's a very clear distinction between the example he gave and what I was talking about. Streicher was a full blown Nazi party member and he held public office under their rule. His position in government is to actively enable a genocide through propaganda. That's not a private citizens with vile opinions, that's a public official acting on his beliefs directly. If Streicher was a private individual who held Nazi beliefs, he would have not been hanged for them because those are just his opinions, as vile as they may be.
In your original comment, the distinction you made was between speech and action, nothing to do with whether they were a private citizen or member of the government. Now in this comment you are claiming that speech ("propaganda", from your perspective) constitutes action. Are you trying to claim that hate speech & propaganda are "actions" if they come from an individual working for the state, but not from a private individual. As I said, your comments contradict each other in that sense.
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.
How do you not know it is not that way it is the other way. The right will get a pass unless they're in opposition to the ruling party, the left would be surppressed.
It is already like that, giving the administration the power to illegalize speech is beyond recklessly ignorant of the situation even before this shit show we have seen in the modern era from the end of Obama until now. Or we could say even from bush until now.
giving the administration the power to illegalize speech
Why would we give trump that power?
I mean, we could give him the power to illegalize nazi speech specifically. That would be fine. I bet he wouldn't use it.
I don't think you're thinking about this strategically. If you were playing magic the gathering, does hurting your opponent's life points mean they get to hurt yours now? Do you have to lower all your defenses so they can get a turn? No. We don't have to illegalize leftist speech either.
The administration already accuses non-fascists of being fascist, bad faith anti-Semitism allegations to a much higher degree than everyone else, and Biden was pretty bad himself. The man endorsed near blood libel against Hamas claiming he saw the evidence of 40 beheaded babies, that was not true and disprovable in real time, and he never corrected himself.
I do not play Magic the gathering, but I do follow current events enough to know that our politicians would accuse non Nazis of being Nazis while they are nazis or refuse to oppose nazis.
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
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.
In Germany it is in effect illegal to protest Israel and they unreservedly support them while they do the same thing to the Palestinians that were done to the victims of the Nazis. Gaza is literally a large ghetto Ala Warsaw. Starvation and all.
And Germany is a much smaller less diverse country than the United States, which has led to more divisive Politics as groups are played off of each other here.
I should not need to tell you that none of our politicians could be trusted with this power, not the least our current government. The most dishonest ever.
It absolutely has not been proven, I just gave you proof that it does not work. They are literally supporting fascists pursuing a final solution against their others as we speak and have been that entire 70 years. They also are on the cusp of losing the country to their far right back by Russia and now the US that will try to fix elections so they never leave power. That is not working, that is failing. On both counts.
They are literally supporting fascists pursuing a final solution against their others as we speak and have been that entire 70 years.
Not really. Maybe a marginal amount of them hiding in the shadows, but they've only become emboldened recently. Germany thrived for decades while having laws against flying flags with swastikas on them.
And I never said it was a perfect solution, just that it's better than the alternative. Which is to do nothing and allow the fascists to infect the politics of your nation.
You seriously think allowing the American politicians, our current Administration at that, decree what is hate speech and disallowed? You can't be serious. You think it would lead to better outcomes allowing the US president and his appointees to dishonor the First Amendment and decree what is hate speech?
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.
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.
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
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.
What if you're calling for group A to stop genociding group B and then your own government tries to spin that as you calling for the genocide of group A and then labels you a terrorist?
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dk3hUNOMVk Peaceful revolution is always better and remember when you attack them it confirms there biases and as leftists we know peace is always better. I take as an example my family who were really dysfunctional. I grew up in a family where there was domestic violence my father said a lot of racist stuff and I would always rebel against him. One time I socked him. My entire family ostracized me since that day and what I did was even become more violent. My father threatened calling the police even thought when I was little I saw him punching my mom. So it just was violence for a long time. I got a therapist that told me that maybe I needed to show even more love when violence was bound to happen and to this day my father realized what he was doing wrong and I tell you I feared for my life giving him love, because of all the terrible shit he did, but nowadays my family and me are kin to eye and we understand each other and they are literally changing and not saying or doing all of that bigot shit and what I realized is that when you fear someone is say the unexpected that you like him as a person even thought there is that thing in between you too right now and remember that most of them act in this ways because of fear and not pure hatred. People are too polarized so it's always best to find common ground, make them feel like people it is still possible the revolution, but remember if we start more violence it will become even worse to get to the goal of making a fair society for everyone, because when you are fighting nobody cares what you are fighting for in the middle of the fight, people will just try to survive and kill, so it's not feasible at all.
I think you have good points and I think its important that we have people doing the things you suggest. That said, Jesus fuck does it get exhausting doing that to strangers, and there are a fair number who will feign openness so that they can waste your time and trip you up. What happens is a lot of people who do it as amateur activism get burnt out and bitter.
Exactly! What we have to do is treat them just like a normal person and we will win them back. Tell them jokes, talk about the news, weather, whatever. They probably will start saying some not so good things but don't make a big fuss about just keep talking with them over time and then start showing them you're real personality without being aggressive and have a neutral conversation and with time they will understand how wrong they were all along it's a lengthy process and we sometimes might feel like we are not winning the fight but human personality is a thing that takes some time and effort to change.
I don't disagree with you. This is a terrible method to conduct political discourse. But of all the times I have discussed things with right wingers, I have only ever left the conversation stupider, and more angry. They simply don't listen.
Right wingers are fundamentally motivated by a firm belief that they are innately superior to everyone else. People of other races, religions, genders, sexual minorities, etc. are beneath them. This is all they really believe; the rest is just sophistry.
I'm not really hinting at anything, peaceful discourse has been attempted again and again with the right, they literally don't care and won't listen. It doesn't go anywhere.
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.
I've had plenty of serious discussion threads before. Those are a thing. Even then, I don't think I'd need to expand much more on the words better smiths have crafted. I'm but the student who learns what those have to say that actually did live through a rise of fascism and have the benefit of hindsight to comment on it. What could I possibly add to that observation?
Or is the point of your argument that we shouldn't create and enjoy humorous images about serious topics? Satire has always worked by appealing to humour in order to catch people's attention and draw it to the object of mockery. Making memes is a way to spread opinions by using something pleasant to carry them to the minds of people. And wouldn't you know it, the alt-right does it too, and quite effectively. Why should we abstain?
We can have both, and either can spark the other. We can have serious discussions below memes, if you want to have serious discussions. We can make light under a well-thought-out analysis. That barrier is in your mind alone. Consider this an explicit invitation, if you need onr: Debate me, contest my points, let us both become wiser by putting our logic to the test.
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.
The prophet banged little girls, god committed or ordered genocide multiple times. A toddler has a stronger moral compass than the god in the quran. Your god has no authority here.
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your [a]masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not [b]by way of [c]eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the [d]heart. 7 With goodwill [e]render service, as to the Lord, and not to people, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, he will receive this back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall leave as a free man without a payment to you. 3 If he comes [a]alone, he shall leave [b]alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall leave with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall leave [c]alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not leave as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to [d]God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an [e]awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
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.
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.
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.
Society makes suicide illegal. Think about it for a second. It's almost like the law is the wrong tool for the job. As if just declaring things banned doesn't do 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.
There's no contract, there's a social norm to be tolerant. And if you're intolerant you've violated that social norm. That includes if you're intolerant of the intolerant.
There is no paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Be respectful and be respected. Be kind and receive kindness. Be tolerant if you want to be tolerated.
Opt out of that contract and you will no longer be covered by it. You will reap what you sew.
If you attack someone, they get to defend themselves. You don't get to whine about them being violent against you. You earned that shit. And the rest of us get to laugh at you and applaud.
I know. I know. It's just so HARD to understand. For you.
Tolerance is not a contract. You're never required to sign anything and agree to the terms.
But, if it were a contract and not just a social norm, anybody who is intolerant breaks those terms, correct? That includes people who are intolerant of the intolerant?
You know someone has a great and logical argument when they say "Incorrect. Fuck off." It's definitely not a sign that they have no argument at all and are attempting to avoid admitting that.
No, I am tolerant of the intolerant. I believe they should receive all the same rights as I do: food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, UBI, etc. Political power is NOT a human right, it is a privilege and a responsibility. If you are intolerant, you don't get to use political power for any purpose. This resolves the paradox, preventing the intolerant from creating a intolerant society from a tolerant one.
Justification of (political) violence is really separate from the paradox of tolerance. Ideally, no violence would be required because none would be intent on and capable of denying someone else their bodily autonomy. Failing that, violence in defense (of self or others) is justified.
Whatever happened to the right of self defense? For example, Charlie Kirk was literally trying to kill me. He was actively attempting to do so. That isn't hypothetical or allegorical. Charlie Kirk literally wanted me dead, and he was taking active material material steps to advance that goal.
If someone busts into my house and tries to kill me with a gun, I'm allowed to shoot them to defend myself. But suddenly when someone like Kirk wants to kill me and thousands like me, it's sacred protected speech just because he's chosen to use the state as a murder weapon.
I am not sure what you wouldn't get about immediacy of threat in relation to self defense. There are very clear reasons that self defense involving lethal force is restricted to the immediate act, and that some of those restrictions are loosened only within your home.
Killing someone because you believe they will kill you or cause your death at some point in the future is not an acceptable way for a society to function.
You're right. It's a different crime. It's not self-defense in the immediate criminal sense. But Charlie was absolutely guilty of incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity. We've literally hanged people at tribunals like Nuremberg for doing the exact same thing that Charlie spent his whole career doing. In just world, Charlie would be indicted on crimes against humanity, convicted, and hanged for his crimes.
If those crimes had actually taken place you would most likely have my agreement, but right now it is a preemptive strike because some people believe a genocide it is coming and inevitable.
"Literally"? Did he shoot at you? Or did he try to stab you?
"That isn't hypothetical or allegorical"? No? Did he try to run you over with his car?
"Charlie Kirk literally wanted me dead" I'm sure he had absolutely no idea who you were. He may have wanted a whole category of people that includes you dead, but he wasn't actually trying to kill you himself, and didn't know you personally.
"it's sacred protected speech just because he's chosen to use " Yes, when someone uses speech it's different from when they aim a gun at you and pull the trigger. Is that surprising to you?
Sorry. Maybe you're just too comfortable as the member of a majority group, I don't know. But for those who are targeted, they can understand that a threat to wipe out a group you are a member of is no different than a threat to kill you personally. You're just engaging in sophistry.
Ah, so you agree I'm right. If you break the contract you're intolerant. Therefore, if you're intolerant towards intolerant people, you're breaking the contract and are not covered by it.
Don't try applying logic here. There is a small sect of people who believe they are the majority (and therefore right), because their views are blasted on small social media sites. Sites that they went out of their way to find in order to confirm their feelings, viewpoints.....biases.
Not only is this thought process incorrect, it's also keeping them a prisoner to their own confirmation bias.
"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.
That's how wars work, yeah. Someone attacks someone else, that person fights back, everyone condemns the defender and decries "both sides! Wah wah! Their defending themselves, how violent!"
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.
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.
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.
As a Brit, I salute your efforts in keeping the art of insult alive.
Unfortunately, sharp whit is wasted on these evolutionary deadends. The only thing fitting for them is being on the receiving end of "creative" activities that will make the writing hand tremble of the poor Swiss who is now compelled to add several new lines to the Geneva Convention.
That's incredibly flattering coming from the foremost modern practitioners of the mighty slight. Especially since I used to live and work in the UK - back when that was still possible, pre-Brexit - and indeed honed my craft on your fair isles.
Well, you know what the Canadian Colonies have to say about it: "It's never a war crime the first time". Or my personal addendum: "As per the Golden Rule, it's never a war crime when you do it to Nazis".
...Or fucking Russians. But I repeat myself.
Ten four, good buddy.
You know what? I'd have a scrap. Would you have a scrap?
Y'know, a donnybrook, a dust-up...
Patient: Just pull the fucking nail out.
Intern: No, that would definitely kill you.
Gears of war had it right. Kill nazi zombies.
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? Bitch, 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
No the lack of tolerance allows it to grow. If they were able to do it in public where it’s called out then it wouldn’t grow.
Instead it exists in echo chambers that cannot be countered.
calling it out is part of not tolerating it though. If they are always called out, they will begin to hide it.
What? They're literally doing it in public now, and it's clearly making everything worse. The world was a better place when these people were properly shamed back into the holes they came out of.
Okay... who are "they"?
Intolerant people.
Intolerant to whom or what?
This is a generalized discussion, it’s not aimed at any one group.
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.
I feel like you’re missing some pretext to Nuremberg and should look at what was going on in Germany in the years leading up to it.
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.
You are simply wrong in this case. We hanged Nazi propagandists, as we recognized that they were committing conspiracy to commit genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher
But these are two different things though. In this case Streicher was taking action. He was directly working for the Nazi party, and his job was to convince people that the Nazi crimes were not only okay, but they should be celebrated and expanded. His actions actively aided the genocide, he was a part of the Nazi machine. That's not a private citizen with personal opinions and beliefs.
That's very a big difference between him and some modern neo nazi who spends all day picking his nose, scratching his ass, and posting on 8chan about the world is controlled by the "joos". As long dickheads like this keep their vile views to themselves, then I don't think they should be legally persecuted simply for holding vile opinions. However, the moment their words turn into actions or the clear intention to implement neo nazi bullshit, then that's when they should get persecuted by the law.
Charlie Kirk gave material support (a significant amount, to the point where Trump himself admitted he wouldn't have won without him) to fascists. I think he himself would have balked at you suggesting that he wasn't active in getting the current regime to where it is.
And if the Trump administration were exterminating people in death camps and had been convicted in international criminal court then you would have a point.
As it is the administration is obviously ignoring its own laws and being disgusting with racial profiling when deporting immigrants in the country illegally, and grabbing legal immigrants and citizens through this overzealousness and rule/law breaking.
The US is not committing a holocaust against Hispanics. It is not committing one against the LGBTQ community either. Even if you believe that the US is capable of committing one here and that it is coming, it is not happening yet and so Charlie Kirk cannot be an execution for propaganda supporting mass murder/genocide that has already taken place.
Execution for crimes that will be committed in the future is execution for thought crime or execution for free speech.
Ah OK, so we have to let them systematically murder countless people before we can do anything. Got it.
It's not like we should ever learn from history, and try to do things differently this time.
And by the way, I'm not talking about extrajudicial killing. We were talking about Nazi trials.
There's two issues with your take here. First, I never even implied that Kirk wasn't a big Trump supporter, that was his whole shtick as a grifter. That's just obvious, and nobody is arguing otherwise. Second, is being a Trump supporter now enough grounds to justify killing people? I agree that Trump and MAGA are pretty Fascist in nature, however the fact remains that Kirk was a private citizen at the end of the day. He was not an elected official and he did not hold any public office. He was just an activist/grifter who made a career simping for Trump. Hate him all you want, I certainly did, but killing him or anybody over this sort thing is a huge red line that should never be crossed. There's a reason why societies throughout history that resorted to using violence for political discourse out of convenience rather than necessity are the ones always ended up being lead by a depraved tyrannical regime. There are many more lessons to learn from history than just acknowledging that Nazis are bad.
Kirk was directly tied into the Trump administration. He himself sent busloads of followers to help storm the capital. Kirk's jobs was to convince people that the genocidal plans of the Christian Nationalists are OK and should be celebrated and expanded. By the time you get to the level of power and influence of Kirk, you're not really a private citizen anymore. He was instrumental in getting Trump elected. Yes, he doesn't have a formal position in the government, but most of the charges against Streicher were for things that had nothing to do with the little bit of power he briefly had.
Kirk was a piece of shit, you're not going to find me defending him for what he did or stood for. My point is that the way he got killed is not acceptable. He shouldn't get honored or anything like because fuck him, but cheering the way he got killed is not okay either. He wasn't killed under the death penalty by the state, there was no due process, and there wasn't even a valid reason for his death. He was gunned down in broad daylight in the middle of a public crowd by some random guy who didn't like his political views... how is that not fucking crazy to you? Y
ou're trying very hard to justify it because you don't like him, but you don't seem to understand that this isn't about him specifically. I don't like Kirk either, but you're not going to find me trying justify this type of political violence because it sets a dangerous precedent that violence is an acceptable part of political discourse. Political violence is always a two way street. Just as you're trying to justify and cheer on this guy's death and how he was killed, you're making it more normalized and more likely that some conservative whacko isn't to shoot down some left wing figurehead, and they'll use the very same arguments and justifications that you're using now. If you can't accept someone like Hasan Piker or Nina Turner getting gunned down, then why would you cheer this on? If you condemn their deaths, but not Kirk's death or others like him, then you don't have any principles to stand on.
Sorry. Don't lecture to me about the dangers of political violence when we're talking about someone that actively championed literal genocide. In a just world he would have been tried and hanged for crimes against humanity.
Kirk already engaged in political violence. He encouraged his followers to countless acts of violence. You're just mad when people dare to fight back against their oppressors. You call it a two way street, but it was already a one-way street. Right wingers are allowed to plot literal genocide, and the rest of us are supposed to just sit back and pretend it's just fine and normal.
No, sorry. Fuck everything about that. The world is a better place with Charlie Kirk firmly in the ground. He was a mass murderer.
And the Trump administration has not yet committed any Holocausts or genocide yet. At this point in time it is still "future crime". The Trump admin hasn't been convicted in the Hague of genocide.
Once Trump opens death camps and starts exterminating LGBTQ people, only then does Kirk rises to the level of Streicher. Until that point, it is execution for political disagreement and free speech. You don't have to like the guy in any way for that to be wrong.
We don't want to set a precedent that the best way to change someone's political ideology is to kill them to eliminate that ideology.
I feel like you're reading to me a yugioh trap card that only activates when our opponent summons a big monster. God, the waiting must be agony.
I think death just makes you feel icky. Like, in general.
I don't care that Kirk died. I'm not saying it's a good omen for things to come, exactly, but I can't even pretend to give a shit. The world does not need him.
What you're saying here directly contradicts your previous comment.
How so? I think there's a very clear distinction between the example he gave and what I was talking about. Streicher was a full blown Nazi party member and he held public office under their rule. His position in government is to actively enable a genocide through propaganda. That's not a private citizens with vile opinions, that's a public official acting on his beliefs directly. If Streicher was a private individual who held Nazi beliefs, he would have not been hanged for them because those are just his opinions, as vile as they may be.
In your original comment, the distinction you made was between speech and action, nothing to do with whether they were a private citizen or member of the government. Now in this comment you are claiming that speech ("propaganda", from your perspective) constitutes action. Are you trying to claim that hate speech & propaganda are "actions" if they come from an individual working for the state, but not from a private individual. As I said, your comments contradict each other in that sense.
You should look into The Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem)
It's a good read, but it's not relevant to what I'm talking about
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.
A call to outlaw the far right is not a call to outlaw the left as well. You don't have to pretend that it is.
How do you not know it is not that way it is the other way. The right will get a pass unless they're in opposition to the ruling party, the left would be surppressed.
It is already like that, giving the administration the power to illegalize speech is beyond recklessly ignorant of the situation even before this shit show we have seen in the modern era from the end of Obama until now. Or we could say even from bush until now.
Why would we give trump that power?
I mean, we could give him the power to illegalize nazi speech specifically. That would be fine. I bet he wouldn't use it.
I don't think you're thinking about this strategically. If you were playing magic the gathering, does hurting your opponent's life points mean they get to hurt yours now? Do you have to lower all your defenses so they can get a turn? No. We don't have to illegalize leftist speech either.
If they ever try to, be very angry.
The administration already accuses non-fascists of being fascist, bad faith anti-Semitism allegations to a much higher degree than everyone else, and Biden was pretty bad himself. The man endorsed near blood libel against Hamas claiming he saw the evidence of 40 beheaded babies, that was not true and disprovable in real time, and he never corrected himself.
I do not play Magic the gathering, but I do follow current events enough to know that our politicians would accuse non Nazis of being Nazis while they are nazis or refuse to oppose nazis.
Yeah, and they were wrong. So, oppose Biden's, propose the other.
What you're describing is a logistics problem.
I'm a tad uncomfy with it myself, and eager to hear a better idea, but outlawing fascism is preferable to fascism.
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.
Germany felt the need to do it after WW2, and they thrived for ~80 years since.
In Germany it is in effect illegal to protest Israel and they unreservedly support them while they do the same thing to the Palestinians that were done to the victims of the Nazis. Gaza is literally a large ghetto Ala Warsaw. Starvation and all.
And Germany is a much smaller less diverse country than the United States, which has led to more divisive Politics as groups are played off of each other here.
I should not need to tell you that none of our politicians could be trusted with this power, not the least our current government. The most dishonest ever.
I just think it's wrong to disregard the entire concept when it has proven, in the real world, to work better than the alternative.
It absolutely has not been proven, I just gave you proof that it does not work. They are literally supporting fascists pursuing a final solution against their others as we speak and have been that entire 70 years. They also are on the cusp of losing the country to their far right back by Russia and now the US that will try to fix elections so they never leave power. That is not working, that is failing. On both counts.
Not really. Maybe a marginal amount of them hiding in the shadows, but they've only become emboldened recently. Germany thrived for decades while having laws against flying flags with swastikas on them.
And I never said it was a perfect solution, just that it's better than the alternative. Which is to do nothing and allow the fascists to infect the politics of your nation.
You seriously think allowing the American politicians, our current Administration at that, decree what is hate speech and disallowed? You can't be serious. You think it would lead to better outcomes allowing the US president and his appointees to dishonor the First Amendment and decree what is hate speech?
Hector, the Trump admin was doing this yesterday. They don't care what lows you're willing to sink to, they're already thirteen levels deeper.
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.
To quote something I said to a transphobe asking about where they can safely question "transgenderism"
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.
What if you're calling for group A to stop genociding group B and then your own government tries to spin that as you calling for the genocide of group A and then labels you a terrorist?
What if the government decides tomorrow that you posting on lemmy makes you a terrorist? There's no law that can't be abused by bad-faith actors.
Exactly
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dk3hUNOMVk Peaceful revolution is always better and remember when you attack them it confirms there biases and as leftists we know peace is always better. I take as an example my family who were really dysfunctional. I grew up in a family where there was domestic violence my father said a lot of racist stuff and I would always rebel against him. One time I socked him. My entire family ostracized me since that day and what I did was even become more violent. My father threatened calling the police even thought when I was little I saw him punching my mom. So it just was violence for a long time. I got a therapist that told me that maybe I needed to show even more love when violence was bound to happen and to this day my father realized what he was doing wrong and I tell you I feared for my life giving him love, because of all the terrible shit he did, but nowadays my family and me are kin to eye and we understand each other and they are literally changing and not saying or doing all of that bigot shit and what I realized is that when you fear someone is say the unexpected that you like him as a person even thought there is that thing in between you too right now and remember that most of them act in this ways because of fear and not pure hatred. People are too polarized so it's always best to find common ground, make them feel like people it is still possible the revolution, but remember if we start more violence it will become even worse to get to the goal of making a fair society for everyone, because when you are fighting nobody cares what you are fighting for in the middle of the fight, people will just try to survive and kill, so it's not feasible at all.
I think you have good points and I think its important that we have people doing the things you suggest. That said, Jesus fuck does it get exhausting doing that to strangers, and there are a fair number who will feign openness so that they can waste your time and trip you up. What happens is a lot of people who do it as amateur activism get burnt out and bitter.
Exactly! What we have to do is treat them just like a normal person and we will win them back. Tell them jokes, talk about the news, weather, whatever. They probably will start saying some not so good things but don't make a big fuss about just keep talking with them over time and then start showing them you're real personality without being aggressive and have a neutral conversation and with time they will understand how wrong they were all along it's a lengthy process and we sometimes might feel like we are not winning the fight but human personality is a thing that takes some time and effort to change.
What really must be done is to bring forward serious discussion and not debate through memes
It's been done, got nowhere
Do you see how poorly our conversation is set up right now? We are talking below a meme hinting at something and not really bringing up any discussion
I don't disagree with you. This is a terrible method to conduct political discourse. But of all the times I have discussed things with right wingers, I have only ever left the conversation stupider, and more angry. They simply don't listen.
Right wingers are fundamentally motivated by a firm belief that they are innately superior to everyone else. People of other races, religions, genders, sexual minorities, etc. are beneath them. This is all they really believe; the rest is just sophistry.
I'm not really hinting at anything, peaceful discourse has been attempted again and again with the right, they literally don't care and won't listen. It doesn't go anywhere.
before a peaceful or violent discourse you need a discourse to begin with and a meme is a really poor way to start a serious discourse.
I'm clearly speaking of outside this meme, I thought that was obvious
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:
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.
In a serious thread perhaps you wouldn't limit yourself to a quote but we are talking below a meme
I've had plenty of serious discussion threads before. Those are a thing. Even then, I don't think I'd need to expand much more on the words better smiths have crafted. I'm but the student who learns what those have to say that actually did live through a rise of fascism and have the benefit of hindsight to comment on it. What could I possibly add to that observation?
Or is the point of your argument that we shouldn't create and enjoy humorous images about serious topics? Satire has always worked by appealing to humour in order to catch people's attention and draw it to the object of mockery. Making memes is a way to spread opinions by using something pleasant to carry them to the minds of people. And wouldn't you know it, the alt-right does it too, and quite effectively. Why should we abstain?
We can have both, and either can spark the other. We can have serious discussions below memes, if you want to have serious discussions. We can make light under a well-thought-out analysis. That barrier is in your mind alone. Consider this an explicit invitation, if you need onr: Debate me, contest my points, let us both become wiser by putting our logic to the test.
Or shot...
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.
The prophet banged little girls, god committed or ordered genocide multiple times. A toddler has a stronger moral compass than the god in the quran. Your god has no authority here.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A5-8&version=NASB
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+peter+2%3A18&version=NASB
What i find so amusing is that the most violent acts these people suffer are done by their ilk. Kinda fitting.
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.
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.
Society makes suicide illegal. Think about it for a second. It's almost like the law is the wrong tool for the job. As if just declaring things banned doesn't do shit.
Vigilantes beating up the presumed bad people is not a good tool.
Never said it was
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.
The resolution comes when you understand that tolerance is a contract. If you don't sign that contract you are not protected by it. Is that simple.
There's no contract, there's a social norm to be tolerant. And if you're intolerant you've violated that social norm. That includes if you're intolerant of the intolerant.
That norm only applies to the ones that follow that norm.
Right, so if you're intolerant of anybody, including intolerant people, you're not following that norm.
Wrong.
You tolerate the tolerants, I tolerate you. You don't tolerate tolerants, I don't tolerate you.
And by default, everyone is tolerant until proven intolerant.
There is no paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Be respectful and be respected. Be kind and receive kindness. Be tolerant if you want to be tolerated.
Opt out of that contract and you will no longer be covered by it. You will reap what you sew.
If you attack someone, they get to defend themselves. You don't get to whine about them being violent against you. You earned that shit. And the rest of us get to laugh at you and applaud.
I know. I know. It's just so HARD to understand. For you.
Tolerance is not a contract. You're never required to sign anything and agree to the terms.
But, if it were a contract and not just a social norm, anybody who is intolerant breaks those terms, correct? That includes people who are intolerant of the intolerant?
Incorrect. Fuck off.
You know someone has a great and logical argument when they say "Incorrect. Fuck off." It's definitely not a sign that they have no argument at all and are attempting to avoid admitting that.
This isn't an argument. You deny the most basic foundation of human interaction in a functioning society, so you deserve no part in one. Fuck off.
No, I am tolerant of the intolerant. I believe they should receive all the same rights as I do: food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, UBI, etc. Political power is NOT a human right, it is a privilege and a responsibility. If you are intolerant, you don't get to use political power for any purpose. This resolves the paradox, preventing the intolerant from creating a intolerant society from a tolerant one.
Justification of (political) violence is really separate from the paradox of tolerance. Ideally, no violence would be required because none would be intent on and capable of denying someone else their bodily autonomy. Failing that, violence in defense (of self or others) is justified.
So you vehemently disagree with the meme because there's no escaping the paradox of intolerance?
I disagree with the "meme" but not for that "reason". Also, that "reason" is an untrue statement.
Whatever happened to the right of self defense? For example, Charlie Kirk was literally trying to kill me. He was actively attempting to do so. That isn't hypothetical or allegorical. Charlie Kirk literally wanted me dead, and he was taking active material material steps to advance that goal.
If someone busts into my house and tries to kill me with a gun, I'm allowed to shoot them to defend myself. But suddenly when someone like Kirk wants to kill me and thousands like me, it's sacred protected speech just because he's chosen to use the state as a murder weapon.
I am not sure what you wouldn't get about immediacy of threat in relation to self defense. There are very clear reasons that self defense involving lethal force is restricted to the immediate act, and that some of those restrictions are loosened only within your home.
Killing someone because you believe they will kill you or cause your death at some point in the future is not an acceptable way for a society to function.
You're right. It's a different crime. It's not self-defense in the immediate criminal sense. But Charlie was absolutely guilty of incitement to genocide and crimes against humanity. We've literally hanged people at tribunals like Nuremberg for doing the exact same thing that Charlie spent his whole career doing. In just world, Charlie would be indicted on crimes against humanity, convicted, and hanged for his crimes.
If those crimes had actually taken place you would most likely have my agreement, but right now it is a preemptive strike because some people believe a genocide it is coming and inevitable.
"Literally"? Did he shoot at you? Or did he try to stab you?
"That isn't hypothetical or allegorical"? No? Did he try to run you over with his car?
"Charlie Kirk literally wanted me dead" I'm sure he had absolutely no idea who you were. He may have wanted a whole category of people that includes you dead, but he wasn't actually trying to kill you himself, and didn't know you personally.
"it's sacred protected speech just because he's chosen to use " Yes, when someone uses speech it's different from when they aim a gun at you and pull the trigger. Is that surprising to you?
"I didn't plot to kill you, I just plotted to kill your entire family. You have no business complaining."
So, you think he literally knows your name and plotted to kill your specific family? Are you really that deluded?
Sorry. Maybe you're just too comfortable as the member of a majority group, I don't know. But for those who are targeted, they can understand that a threat to wipe out a group you are a member of is no different than a threat to kill you personally. You're just engaging in sophistry.
Bullshit. You are putting the attacker and the defendant in the same position.
Tolerance is a contract: if you break it, you're not covered by it.
Does that include if you break it by being intolerant of the intolerant?
The point was made already. You opted for not accepting it, that's ok.
Cheers
Ah, so you agree I'm right. If you break the contract you're intolerant. Therefore, if you're intolerant towards intolerant people, you're breaking the contract and are not covered by it.
Don't try applying logic here. There is a small sect of people who believe they are the majority (and therefore right), because their views are blasted on small social media sites. Sites that they went out of their way to find in order to confirm their feelings, viewpoints.....biases.
Not only is this thought process incorrect, it's also keeping them a prisoner to their own confirmation bias.
We should pity these simpletons.
"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.
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.
That's how wars work, yeah. Someone attacks someone else, that person fights back, everyone condemns the defender and decries "both sides! Wah wah! Their defending themselves, how violent!"
So, you disagree with the meme?
^ This is me on my first day of learning to care about something.
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.