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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
What i find so amusing is that the most violent acts these people suffer are done by their ilk. Kinda fitting.
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.
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.
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.
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) :(
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 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
The Nazis that were hanged at Nuremberg trails weren’t killed because of speech or beliefs, they were killed because of their actions.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Which is why we should not support outlawing views as in the post.
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.
It’s basically one side believes humans have the right to live, the other side literally doesn’t. Like right wingers fundamentally don’t believe in human rights because they only understand might makes right. And if you’re not “strong enough” to “take” your rights, you don’t deserve them. And they don’t pause to consider that they couldn’t run 100 yards, much less fight.
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.
Gears of war had it right. Kill nazi zombies.
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.
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.
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.
calling it out is part of not tolerating it though. If they are always called out, they will begin to hide it.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, the paradox of tolerance.
The problem here are also the people who insist on tolerating those who break the contract.
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.
Remove the outlawed part and I agree
Removed by mod
