We do. It’s something like “I agree with equal rights in principle, but meaningful measures to implement it would be difficult and expensive and would really piss off the billionaires who pay for our campaigns, so the best we can do is lip service and some rainbow emojis in June. Be sure to donate and vote for us like your life depends on it, because at least we’re not actively trying to kill you. 🏳️🌈🐴”
I do agree, and it’s the only solution for the paradox of tolerance. We tried the “make them stay quiet about their bigotry, and it will fade away” tactic already, and all it did was make the bigotry fester under the surface until it erupted into what we have today.
If we overthrow the system and enact socialized medicine with therapy available to all citizens, maybe we could nip bigotry in the bud before it takes hold in a person’s soul, but once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die.
once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die
I don’t believe this is universal; we have at least one reformed neonazi that is antifa now.
So, I’m all for taking away the political power of the intolerant, but I don’t think we should kill them because they are intolerant, even proudly intolerant. Now, I do think it is much more likely that you will have to enact violence against the intolerant in defense of yourself or others, and if that happens to be fatal to the intolerant person I still find defensive violence justified.
Fair, I read the “should die” as “should be fought, and ultimately killed if necessary” rather than “should be rounded up and massacred.” I do think that the notion that people can change is more often used to excuse the bad deeds of unrepentant people than to actually redeem someone. Sure, people can change, and if they do, great, but if you avoid fighting them because you’re always holding out for a change that will never come, then you’re losing the chance you have to make real change.
I feel like to fight bigotry, you have to force them to be exposed to the truth. Like, force them live in inclusive communities, cut their old connections, let them build deep personal relationships with the people they hate.
It might sounds extreme, but that’s how faux news got them brainwashed in their little town at first place.
gee whiz can’t we find a moderate middle ground between these two extremist radical viewpoints?
We do. It’s something like “I agree with equal rights in principle, but meaningful measures to implement it would be difficult and expensive and would really piss off the billionaires who pay for our campaigns, so the best we can do is lip service and some rainbow emojis in June. Be sure to donate and vote for us like your life depends on it, because at least we’re not actively trying to kill you. 🏳️🌈🐴”
In short;
“equal rights except i’m dependent on cretin billionnaires and so i don’t do shit”.
I believe all humans are created equal and our political systems should reflect that, and anyone who doesn’t believe that should die?
I believe all humans are created equal and thus I hate them all and hope they all die?
You first! /s
Dang, brutal lol
Also happy cake day! (is that still a thing here?)
Yes, I was notified in the infosec.pub UI that today it was my cake day! 🎂
Big brain moment.
Not that I would agree, but it’s a solution for the paradox of tolerance…
Unironically, it’s how we won WWII. Imagine if we just had endless “peace negotiations” with the nazis instead. That surely would’ve went well…
“Meet me in the middle,” says the unjust man.
You take a step towards him, he takes a step back.
“Meet me in the middle,” says the unjust man.
– A.R. Moxon
I do agree, and it’s the only solution for the paradox of tolerance. We tried the “make them stay quiet about their bigotry, and it will fade away” tactic already, and all it did was make the bigotry fester under the surface until it erupted into what we have today.
If we overthrow the system and enact socialized medicine with therapy available to all citizens, maybe we could nip bigotry in the bud before it takes hold in a person’s soul, but once someone has decided to be intolerant, I believe it stays with them until they die.
I don’t believe this is universal; we have at least one reformed neonazi that is antifa now.
So, I’m all for taking away the political power of the intolerant, but I don’t think we should kill them because they are intolerant, even proudly intolerant. Now, I do think it is much more likely that you will have to enact violence against the intolerant in defense of yourself or others, and if that happens to be fatal to the intolerant person I still find defensive violence justified.
Fair, I read the “should die” as “should be fought, and ultimately killed if necessary” rather than “should be rounded up and massacred.” I do think that the notion that people can change is more often used to excuse the bad deeds of unrepentant people than to actually redeem someone. Sure, people can change, and if they do, great, but if you avoid fighting them because you’re always holding out for a change that will never come, then you’re losing the chance you have to make real change.
I feel like to fight bigotry, you have to force them to be exposed to the truth. Like, force them live in inclusive communities, cut their old connections, let them build deep personal relationships with the people they hate.
It might sounds extreme, but that’s how faux news got them brainwashed in their little town at first place.
So say we all!
Believe or die? Please tell me this is satire.
I believe it was a satirical “compromise position” between the two positions in the image, yes.
All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others?