Any proposed system that lets Nazis go unchallenged or insufficiently challenged because of 'norms' has fundamentally dysfunctional norms and over time will become indistinguishable from a Nazi-friendly system. That's it, that's the whole article.
-
-
It's a pretty dumb point, then. Would rather let marginal losers have their marginal loser opinions than hand the right to interpret rights to people who believe that opinions and beliefs are in themselves harmful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sure would be nice to live in a world where 'genocidal subjugation of outgroup is good actually' is a marginal loser opinion instead of an increasingly mainstream one i guess, lmk when there's directions to one and i'll move there
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Genocidal subjugation of the outgroup" is always popular, which is one of the reasons why we are very careful about declaring which groups and individuals are inherently threatening by their simple being.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xstntlprvrt69 @palecur and
And yes, we err on the side of tolerating some very nasty people because the floor has to be somewhere and we err on the side of toleration. Because once Nazis are deprived of rights, I am pretty sure the pearl clutchers of the world look for the next least popular group.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is, I should point out, _quite a wide gap_ between 'Nazis don't have rights' and 'It is uncultured/unkind to loudly oppose or shun Nazis'. I hope you aren't motte-and-baileying between those.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, I am fine with non-violent social consequences for Nazis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xstntlprvrt69 @palecur and
But I would still consider that within the ambit of toleration.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ah. Then it's a disagreement on terminology, then. That's roughly my own position, but I'd consider it not toleration. Just today I saw some chiding happen over what I'd consider fairly minor 'btw, this person is _pretty fash-adjacent_ in case you didn't know' stuff.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @palecur @xstntlprvrt69 and
Some folks have overgenerous interpretations of tolerance/geek social fallacy'd themselves into knots such that 'don't really amplify/hang out with subjugation enthusiasts' is, to them, a breach of ethical obligations to tolerance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Like, we can debate about what the social consequences of expressing unpopular political views should be. But I don't think that's what this article is talking about, or what most people understand by tolerance.
-
-
Hm. What do you think it is talking about, then? It seemed unambiguous that the point was "being open and accepting to fash results in fash takeover of the community, tolerance does not require this".
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.