It’s a shotgun people want to use to justify violence based on any definition they want. You realize christians have a persecution complex and could use the same argument? We can just actually dive into specifics of situations and find actual ethical positions.
Freedom of Speech is the idea that while everyone can talk, not everyone is worth listening to. The first person who should be ignored is the person calling for another to be silenced.
Religious school wants to teach creationism rather than evolution because it “goes against their beliefs” - law says they have to teach evolution because it’s part of the national curriculum (which in turn is science based) and are not allowed to give creationism equal weight.
Religious school cries foul, says the government is bigoted and discriminating against their religion.
Is this a case of intolerance that needs to be bashed?
In most sane places self-defense is allowed, so if someone is being violent you can use violence to stop them. Their really is only one use of this rhetoric - to break the Power Ranger rule and escalate from words to violence. You can find specific examples pretty quickly, but I know better than to point out the most obvious ones.
The issue is that it lets you skip some steps in justifying violent actions. There certainly are times that words can be enough to justify self defense, but they’re pretty narrow situations. In an academic sense it’s fine to use for analysis, but using it as a blanket excuse for violence is kind of weak.
A fascist going mask off to me kind of involves attacking people. Not everyone will have the same definition.
Assuming you’re talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you’ve found the ambiguity.
The statement is useless without actual definitions. So long as it’s being used like this, the definition of intolerance will keep slipping so political opponents can be targeted without considering whether you’re behaving morally.
Assuming you’re talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you’ve found the ambiguity.
Ok, yeah, this is what I wanted to get to. Otherwise we are just bouncing around vague ideas and I really didn’t see an end to it.
Shitty ideas have consequences. There are several examples in history. Notably the German Nazi party. Which resulted in a lot of violence, death, and torture of innocent people. Not to mention a war. And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.
At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.
Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.
And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.
It started from their belief that they could suppress people just because they didn’t like them. All they had to do was declare them “intolerant” of German society, and it became morally acceptable to force them out.
That mindset can’t arise when society broadly values freedom of speech. In a society where the speech of even the worst bigots is protected, those bigots lose support every time they call for silencing their victims.
In a society where Hitler can’t even call for censoring the Jews without pissing off the entire population of Germany, he certainly can’t get support to exterminate them.
Ok, so let me get this strait. After Hitler gets his political power by creating Jews as a common enemy. By convincing most German people he will save them. But before the holocaust start happening. Your personally going to step up to Hitler and say “Hey, have you considered not using or violence? You should not use violence because it is bad”. And then Hitler will slap his forehead in disbelief that he forgot that he could just not be violent?
I am not convinced this would do anything. I think you will get disappeared, but hey, if Hitler 2 comes up, feel free to try.
After Hitler gets his political power by creating Jews as a common enemy.
How?
Remember: in this hypothetical, German society values free speech. In this society, Hitler gains no more power than David Duke. Because he staunchly opposes the freedom of Jews to speak, he opposes the ideological principles of the nation, and never gains that power in the first place.
Most don’t. Most threats are toothless. Most angry words pass. Many people learn and grow, even from just words. Everyone is worthy of redemption. You’ve kind of chosen the worst result you can find to prove the rule, but genocides are more a result of pieces of shit getting into power more than words.
Regardless. Let’s roll with the nazi angle. Edge cases are fun.
At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.
I haven’t studied the rise of him well enough to give you a sane answer. Did he do a full Palpatine - just acted like a kind old man until he started gassing invalids? Or was it clear what his intent was? There’s obviously a line before pumping exhaust into sanitariums.
Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.
Direct threats are actionable, and there are times I’m okay violating my own rules mildly - if someone gives my niece or nephew shit for miscegenation I’ll be pretty close to violence.
I do give wide berth for expression, though. We’re also mixing something else here - the difference between individual actors you can have empathy for and a government meatgrinder.
The line for intolerance is between bad ideas and outright genocide and the line for the response is between mean words and guillotines. This is kind of my point, though, right? We need to have some function where we can define an ethical response to an unethical action.
I am kinda confused while reading your post. It sounds like we agree. I am not by nature a violent person. In fact, I would rather not punch anyone. The problem is that history shows clear a progression when it comes to fascists. Their ideas spread like a virus and people who have not been educated about it are easily convinced, even though there is a bunch of history and philosophical evidence that bad outcomes will happen. Once they gain power, that is it.
As I am talking with the OP, it seems like they think that violence is never necessary. I think this is incorrect. I think you agree with me on that point at least.
I think the punching should only happen if they have a big audience or if they are open and loud about it. Obviously try to educate them first. But at the end of the day, if they are just a normal person that doesn’t talk about their politics, and they salute a picture of Hitler before they go to bed. I am fine with that. They don’t need to be punched, they can enjoy society as long as they stay quite about it.
The problem isn’t the people, the problem is the idea. The people are fine as long as they don’t spread the idea.
I feel like intolerance is kind of a wildcard. The initial intolerance could be anything from asking an ignorant question to trying to start a genocide, and the responding intolerance is much the same.
It’s kind of like having a function that ignores the parameters and just gives a random response to intolerance. We agree because we’ve actually mapped the initial action to our reaction, so we know that with this input we get this other output.
Did I explain my objection well enough this time? I know it’s probably me not knowing how to explain it properly.
I’m asking for the nuance. I’m asking for the lines in the sand. I choose to primarily talk to leftists for a reason. The fact that a conversation about ethics is beyond the pale is nutter butters.
I mean, I get it. I’ve seen plenty of guys like you on the webs. Keyboard warriors who think they are tough minded, but somehow never manage to actually talk to a girl. Guys who are too scared to go to a Starbucks because the baristas intimidate them.
I mean, what are you going to do now your hero Andrew Tate is in jail?
Pointing out that you’re avoiding the argument isn’t exactly triggered. And I’m arguing in favor of non-aggression, so your attempts to hide your failings are worse than the initial gambit.
Since we’re leaving the definition of tolerance ambiguous this can justify the persecution of anyone.
Yes that does including being a piece of biggot
Even a tiny piece of ignorant fool.
It’s a shotgun people want to use to justify violence based on any definition they want. You realize christians have a persecution complex and could use the same argument? We can just actually dive into specifics of situations and find actual ethical positions.
But nah. That’s too hard. Let’s just band wagon.
All this time I thought it was written bandwagon, instead of band wagon
I don’t know why I put the space in, to be honest. I’d generally spell it without even if it’s wrong.
At least you didn’t hyphenate it
Its a different dynamic when those people are in power. I get what you are saying though.
It is. I’m digging into those, uh, extreme cases with another lemming at the moment.
Exactly.
Freedom of Speech is the idea that while everyone can talk, not everyone is worth listening to. The first person who should be ignored is the person calling for another to be silenced.
Care to give a specific example?
Mandatory
Religious school wants to teach creationism rather than evolution because it “goes against their beliefs” - law says they have to teach evolution because it’s part of the national curriculum (which in turn is science based) and are not allowed to give creationism equal weight.
Religious school cries foul, says the government is bigoted and discriminating against their religion.
Is this a case of intolerance that needs to be bashed?
The government could probably still get them on sexual assault.
In most sane places self-defense is allowed, so if someone is being violent you can use violence to stop them. Their really is only one use of this rhetoric - to break the Power Ranger rule and escalate from words to violence. You can find specific examples pretty quickly, but I know better than to point out the most obvious ones.
The issue is that it lets you skip some steps in justifying violent actions. There certainly are times that words can be enough to justify self defense, but they’re pretty narrow situations. In an academic sense it’s fine to use for analysis, but using it as a blanket excuse for violence is kind of weak.
I mean, if you can’t find an example that isn’t a fascist going mask off, then your just proving the point.
A fascist going mask off to me kind of involves attacking people. Not everyone will have the same definition.
Assuming you’re talking about violence in response to peaceful, if shitty, ideas then you’ve found the ambiguity.
The statement is useless without actual definitions. So long as it’s being used like this, the definition of intolerance will keep slipping so political opponents can be targeted without considering whether you’re behaving morally.
Ok, yeah, this is what I wanted to get to. Otherwise we are just bouncing around vague ideas and I really didn’t see an end to it.
Shitty ideas have consequences. There are several examples in history. Notably the German Nazi party. Which resulted in a lot of violence, death, and torture of innocent people. Not to mention a war. And it all started from a fascist ideology, just words.
At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.
Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.
It started from their belief that they could suppress people just because they didn’t like them. All they had to do was declare them “intolerant” of German society, and it became morally acceptable to force them out.
That mindset can’t arise when society broadly values freedom of speech. In a society where the speech of even the worst bigots is protected, those bigots lose support every time they call for silencing their victims.
In a society where Hitler can’t even call for censoring the Jews without pissing off the entire population of Germany, he certainly can’t get support to exterminate them.
Ok, so let me get this strait. After Hitler gets his political power by creating Jews as a common enemy. By convincing most German people he will save them. But before the holocaust start happening. Your personally going to step up to Hitler and say “Hey, have you considered not using or violence? You should not use violence because it is bad”. And then Hitler will slap his forehead in disbelief that he forgot that he could just not be violent?
I am not convinced this would do anything. I think you will get disappeared, but hey, if Hitler 2 comes up, feel free to try.
How?
Remember: in this hypothetical, German society values free speech. In this society, Hitler gains no more power than David Duke. Because he staunchly opposes the freedom of Jews to speak, he opposes the ideological principles of the nation, and never gains that power in the first place.
Most don’t. Most threats are toothless. Most angry words pass. Many people learn and grow, even from just words. Everyone is worthy of redemption. You’ve kind of chosen the worst result you can find to prove the rule, but genocides are more a result of pieces of shit getting into power more than words.
Regardless. Let’s roll with the nazi angle. Edge cases are fun.
I haven’t studied the rise of him well enough to give you a sane answer. Did he do a full Palpatine - just acted like a kind old man until he started gassing invalids? Or was it clear what his intent was? There’s obviously a line before pumping exhaust into sanitariums.
Direct threats are actionable, and there are times I’m okay violating my own rules mildly - if someone gives my niece or nephew shit for miscegenation I’ll be pretty close to violence.
I do give wide berth for expression, though. We’re also mixing something else here - the difference between individual actors you can have empathy for and a government meatgrinder.
The line for intolerance is between bad ideas and outright genocide and the line for the response is between mean words and guillotines. This is kind of my point, though, right? We need to have some function where we can define an ethical response to an unethical action.
I am kinda confused while reading your post. It sounds like we agree. I am not by nature a violent person. In fact, I would rather not punch anyone. The problem is that history shows clear a progression when it comes to fascists. Their ideas spread like a virus and people who have not been educated about it are easily convinced, even though there is a bunch of history and philosophical evidence that bad outcomes will happen. Once they gain power, that is it.
As I am talking with the OP, it seems like they think that violence is never necessary. I think this is incorrect. I think you agree with me on that point at least.
I think the punching should only happen if they have a big audience or if they are open and loud about it. Obviously try to educate them first. But at the end of the day, if they are just a normal person that doesn’t talk about their politics, and they salute a picture of Hitler before they go to bed. I am fine with that. They don’t need to be punched, they can enjoy society as long as they stay quite about it.
The problem isn’t the people, the problem is the idea. The people are fine as long as they don’t spread the idea.
I feel like intolerance is kind of a wildcard. The initial intolerance could be anything from asking an ignorant question to trying to start a genocide, and the responding intolerance is much the same.
It’s kind of like having a function that ignores the parameters and just gives a random response to intolerance. We agree because we’ve actually mapped the initial action to our reaction, so we know that with this input we get this other output.
Did I explain my objection well enough this time? I know it’s probably me not knowing how to explain it properly.
It’s really very simple.
Replace “tolerance” with “respect.”
If you don’t respect the rights of other people to exist, we have no reason to respect your right to exist.
Back in the day, “outlaw” was someone who had forfeited the rights of a citizen, and could be hunted down like a dog.
What counts as disrespecting someone’s right to exist?
Idolizing mass murder.
So the gals that send love letters to serial killers should get the rope?
Guess it really burns you that guys in jail are getting more play than you are, doesn’t it?
Don’t deflect. You said it’s very simple than chose another uselessly vague term.
Don’t deliberately ignore nuance to start internet arguments. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m asking for the nuance. I’m asking for the lines in the sand. I choose to primarily talk to leftists for a reason. The fact that a conversation about ethics is beyond the pale is nutter butters.
OOOh, guess I touched a nerve there.
I mean, I get it. I’ve seen plenty of guys like you on the webs. Keyboard warriors who think they are tough minded, but somehow never manage to actually talk to a girl. Guys who are too scared to go to a Starbucks because the baristas intimidate them.
I mean, what are you going to do now your hero Andrew Tate is in jail?
It’s sad in one way.
So, so sad.
Pointing out that you’re avoiding the argument isn’t exactly triggered. And I’m arguing in favor of non-aggression, so your attempts to hide your failings are worse than the initial gambit.