Tolerance is a social contract.
Those who dont abide by it, try to use it as a weapon against those who do, to enable their intolerance to grow and spread.
Those who don’t abide by the social contract are a threat to society as a whole, and should not receive its protection.
Because you end up empowering them, and weakening society against them.
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical. For the garden of tolerance to thrive, the intolerant weeds must be ripped out of the soil and disposed of in such a way that they can not spread their seeds further, because if you don’t… nothing will thrive but the weeds.
That’s a very heavy responsibility though. And the abuse of it is the exact reason our founders gave us such an extreme right. Alas we were also supposed to maintain a healthy public dialogue and rewrite the Constitution every 20 years. Doing half the job doesn’t end well.
For the garden of tolerance to thrive, the intolerant weeds must be ripped out of the soil and disposed of in such a way that they can not spread their seeds further,
What does this look like?
That’s kinda the reason why I believe the solution to defeat intolerance is by talking directly to the intolerant and showing how they are wrong otherwise you’re just showing them you are the intolerant fascist. By attacking their freedom of speech your proving that you attack free speech. In history it seems that fascism arizes when there is injustice like how when the Germans were oppressed after WW1 it was the fascists that had a solution to the injustice. Mind you a not very good solution but when you are dirt poor humiliated forced to live in a land desimated by war the Nazi party was a pretty effective way to get back at the world that destroyed your home. Had we caught onto the injustice the Germans were facing we could have prevented the rise of Nazi Germany. Granted at the time the Germans would have told anyone who listened that it was the Jews that made everything bad happen but if your smart enough one could see past the hate and see exactly why these people are hurt to the point of blaming a religion and feeling the need to puff themselves as superior any nation could have caught onto that and become the hero the Germans made the Nazis out to be. Just look at any other regime like Soviet Russia or North Korea they rose because they had a issue and only evil people were around to wear the cape of a hero.
In an ideal world this would be enough, but you can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into. For your strategy to work, the intolerant have to be acting in good faith and listening to reason. And often, that’s the antithesis of bigotry.
Yes, the left has to counter hateful rhetoric with their own rhetoric and propose viable alternatives. Making the issue about freedom of speech, like this comic does, plays right into the hands of the right wing. They know they can win that battle, because most people are in favor of free speech.
That’s the part that made me uncomfortable as well. Sounds like a planty euphemism for violence. The rest I find agreeable.
I guess I should have made it more explicit then, since you think its merely a colorful euphemism and not a direct statement.
Words and feelings don’t defeat authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants.
Violence does.
You’d be sitting there with a swastika on your arm in a world without jews, roma, and gays, trans people, and far more… if good men and women didnt take up violence against the ideology of hate that these people push.
They don’t care about yours words. Your tolerance. They use them as toys for amusement, laughing as you exhaust yourself trying to argue against their ever increasingly absurd statements, and as tools to spread their intolerance and hatred.
You cant debate or compromise with them, because debating gives them false legitimacy and compromise does nothing but sacrifice society to advance their position and gains.
You should be uncomfortable that these people are emboldened to come out and make their speeches. to fly their flags. to hang their banners and to assault government buildings at the direct command of their masters.
They have no problem using violence to eradicate you and everything you hold dear.
and you being uncomfortable about it will do nothing but make them laugh. Because its not a matter of if they come for you, its when.
And if you insist on inaction and being the last one standing because you did not fight… well, you’ll be the final verse of a poem and no one will be left to speak for you.
Trying to paint this as hypocritical, as paradoxical, as cognitive dissonance, or anything else, is nothing but tools of soft handed approach for the intellectuals of the ideology of hate to try and carve a space of false legitimacy for themselves via compromise and exploitation of societies tolerance.
These people are a direct threat to everything we hold dear as a people, as a society, and as a species, and need to be treated as such.
Thanks for taking the time to almost radicalize me.
You do realize that these “authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants” use the exact same language when talking about you, right?
Thought is not a crime; ideas are not crimes; political leanings are not a crime; being a racist, nazi, facist, communist, socialist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe or whatever else is not a crime. The moment it becomes one, we start punishing people for what they believe which is IMO and the opinions of many others objectively wrong. You don’t do that. Even if you lose, you don’t become a barbarian. You fight the ones that act. You fight the ones that actually hurt people. Actions, not thoughts, are what is punishable in a civilized society, so take it easy, Big Brother.
You use “these people” and “they” a lot. You do know that the people you are talking about are individuals, right? Human beings like you? Hurt in maybe a thousand more ways than you. Embracing some terrible hatred to cover whatever brokenness they have. If someone is actually convinced that fascism is the way forward, you’re actually ok with enacting violence on them? If you really would be ok with hurting them for their beliefs, then you, my friend, are the one who will bring tyranny; just a tyranny of a different sort. A tyranny of your ideas, your definitions, and your “tolerance.” No better than “them.”
Oh look.
A tired attempt to frame nazi’s as poor persecuted victims by the liberals who are the REAL fascists… BOY THATS SURE ORIGINAL. /S
Did I mention liberals? I don’t recall mentioning liberals.
I make no attempts to justify their actions. People who do hurt others deserve to be punished, no matter their beliefs or motivations. However, you were extremely dehumanizing in your comment. Don’t do that. They are still humans. They are still worthy of sympathy, as all humans are.
Go be lovey dovy with your nazi beloveds in the afterlife.
You do realize that these “authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants” use the exact same language when talking about you, right?
Sure, because they are not acting in good faith and have absolutely no scruple to twist words and meanings.
To quote Jean-Paul Sartre:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Or to quote Göbbels himself (from his speech on December 4th 1935):
Wenn unsere Gegner sagen: Ja, wir haben Euch doch früher die […] Freiheit der Meinung zugebilligt – –, ja, Ihr uns, das ist doch kein Beweis, daß wir das Euch auch tuen sollen! […] Daß Ihr das uns gegeben habt, – das ist ja ein Beweis dafür, wie dumm Ihr seid!
Translated by DeepL:
If our opponents say: Yes, we have granted you the […] freedom of opinion before - -, yes, you [granted it to] us, that is no proof that we should do the same to you! […] That you have given it to us, - that is proof of how stupid you are!
Well said
Intolerance must be put down, with force. It is not hypocritical. It is not paradoxical.
The human capacity for cognitive dissonance will never cease to amaze me.
When I was growing up it was never about tolerating intolerance. It was about dragging it out into the sunlight so you could kill it. They have a right to say anything they want so we can make an example of them and they don’t go into hiding and do dumb shit.
Of course that depended on the mainstream leadership believing in democracy and not leaning into extremism. Because the GOP has switched sides on democracy it’s a liability now instead of a strength. A swing too far from the laws of England our founders meant to forestall.
What are you on about, mate? This is the same sort of rhetoric you see form the GOP, “Make America great again.”
Dude, they literally took the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent the election results from being certified. If the GOP didn’t want to back Trump after that I’d respect that. But they fell in line. They’re okay with that. Which means they are not okay with democracy. There’s no democracy without free elections.
Do you think I’m defending the GOP?
Well you’re either defending them or defending tolerance of them. So take your pick.
No, I’m accusing your “things used to be better” rhetoric for being the same as their “make America great again” rhetoric.
Amusing, when exactly was this utopian culture in existence because as far as I’m aware the last 2000 years of society directly disagree with you.
Who said anything about a utopia? I’m talking about one aspect, a belief in an American Democracy/Republic (I know the D word triggers some people out there and that’s not the conversation right now). If you read our founders writing they considered public debate to be the best way to maintain that project because the previous government would jail you for criticism. That’s it. That’s the reasoning and context. Nobody claimed it was perfect
I’m aware, what period of time are you speaking of.
You need to narrow down your founding fathers since approximately a third were openly and objectively anti democratic.
The period of time regardless of what era you choose is not as you portray it.
Narrow your argument says the dude who’s made 0 actual claims and instead chooses to do the old “you’re just wrong” approach straight out of the gate.
Thanks for the empty conversation
When I was growing up it was never about tolerating intolerance. It was about dragging it out into the sunlight so you could kill it.
This period of time has not existed in recorded human history point blank period.
We choose issues and we pursue those issues but that state of affairs where injustices are inherently dragged out into the light has never existed and certainly not in the United States.
Shit if you’re 60 you’ve lived through literal systemic racism which has existed for what 300 years and still exists. You’d also have lived in a time where a woman needed an adult male related to her to sign so she could get a bank account.
Take off the nostalgia binders boss.
Are you living under a rock?
What do you mean we’ve never dragged out issues into the light so they can be handled?
Antifa?
Martin Luther King Jr?
I’m done with this conversation, I’m losing brain cells by the second
Nope just on one.
I mean exactly as I said, you’re blinded by nostalgia.
Antifa?
That is certainly a question just not one anyone could answer, what do you have against antifa.
Martin Luther King Jr
Famously publicly assassinated for dragging things out into the light, good point…
I’m done with this conversation, I’m losing brain cells by the second
Well don’t huff gas then boss.
Not sure to what actually he’s refering to but he’s not wrong though. The foundation of ours “western liberal democraties” wasn’t really the ideal we have today about what democracy is or even worst it wasn’t either the preffered regime of a large part of the rulling classes at that time.
In order to not have an empty conversation :
“I don’t know what he’s talking about but he’s right”
Nah fam.
I’am pretty sure you get what I mean. I can’t speak in the name of the guy and since he didn’t developed his point or give references I can only assume what he mean’t and I can be wrong, yet the statement in itslef is not wrong.
I developed a bit more my point and gave you a reference that leads to more references if you find the subject interessting…
It’s kind of ironic from you to complain about and empty conversation and do the exact same thing right after.
They have a right to say anything they want so we can make an example of them and they don’t go into hiding and do dumb shit.
Well… that’s not very freedom of you.
I’m not the government. The amendment doesn’t protect their speech from mine.
This is one of the wisest things I’ve read.
You may have not read much.
Hey leave them alone. I like the idea that I might not be the dullest tool in the shed.
True. Social shaming is a very effective tool against this stuff. I draw a hard line at laws that stop it, but I see your point.
Of course that is freedom. It’s the freedom of association and freedom of speech of the people appealed by the words of these bigots.
No one is free of the consequences of their words.
Nice, dark touch: The last panel has two people being deported. They seem to form an SS rune.
It also loosely reminds of Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Hadn’t spotted the people in the background, thanks for pointing them out.
What is being done to you might as well happen to me feels like the core idea of solidarity. It is different from sympathy.
Hate speech is not the same as free speech. Free speech was for reporters to keep them from being jailed so it’s not even applicable for what this guy thinks he’s defending with that phrase.
That’s not entirely accurate. The first amendment mentions both freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of speech is for individuals sharing ideas, not just reporters. That applies both conceptually and legally. Hate speech is seen as a necessary exemption by many, because of the potential ramifications (see comic). That isn’t the same thing as saying free speech wouldn’t apply even without said exemption; even though it may lead you to the same conclusion.
If you don’t like the reprocussions and losing your job for yelling sexist or racist comments at people out in the world, that’s not what freedom of speech protects.
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech. We as citizens can boycott, bully, and harass hateful speech and should
It’s also worth noting that the government can’t limit free speech.
But it can and does! Go on Facebook and detail how you will storm and overthrow your state government next Monday at noon and see how long it takes for your speech to land you in jail. Or incite a stampede in a cinema by yelling “Fire!”. And that’s just two examples. Libel and slander are other examples where “just words” can get you in trouble with the government.
The idea of complete unlimited speech in the US is a fantasy. They clearly can and do draw lines at what you can and can’t say in public. The only question is where this lines are.
Yeah, fair. That’s a whole nother can of worms to this discussion where physical harm results from words rather than simply expressing abhorrent beliefs
Well, WW2 in Europe and it’s resulting horrors was basically the result of Hitler and Mussolini “simply expressing abhorrent beliefs”. That’s how they got into power in the first place and also how they got the better part of their population behind their insane dreams.
I agree with you there
Citizens have their own limitations when their response strays outside the realm of speech. Boycotts are fine—you have no obligation to buy what they’re selling. However, harassment is not okay, and bullying is not okay. These things are wrong (and coincidentally illegal) on their own merits, and not a justified response to someone else’s speech.
I wouldn’t go so far as saying bullying hateful and racist actors is illegal, but I think it’s a fair point that you have to use judgment and empathy when dealing with differing opinions
I’m with you on boycotting. Not with you on the abuse. Boycotting is not abuse. Though the bros with the cancel culture shirts seem to think so.
Hate speech is not the same as free speech.
“Free” is not a type of speech. It is the ability to speak. You can freely say all kinds of things. They could be hateful or not.
Germany has extremely harsh laws on language which promotes Nazis, but they clearly still have free speech. We can discourage hateful language and still maintain freedom of expression.
Yes it is possible. The problem is the amendment itself and the context in which it was written. Germany got to make their laws about it 150 years later, taking advantage of modern democratic experience. In 1792 it was extremely prevalent that governments would use any excuse to shut down political opposition. Thus the difference.
We should absolutely have evolved it by now instead of turning it into scripture.
Oh absolutely. It hasn’t changed well for the times.
We should absolutely have evolved it by now instead of turning it into scripture.
But you did and still have that very option. That’s exactly what the amendments are for! The first was enacted just a few years after the foundation of the US and the last was added in 1992. The US does have the tools to better safeguard themself against fascists if they want to. But of course that’s rather difficult when a big part of the GOP has absolutely no scruple to flirt with overthrowing the whole system.
It’s not just that. There are large parts of the US where they teach the Bill of Rights next to the Ten Commandments. Theoretically we could amend the first or second amendment. In reality I chose the word “scripture” for a reason.
Would you stick your hand inside the massive machine that is Americas laws and founding documents to fix those gears?
Unfortunately, I’m not so sure we can pause such a machine with all the other chaos that goes around us. Maybe it’s time America finally get their fucking hands out of every other country and start handling its own shit so we can stay a country instead of immanent collapse.
Would you stick your hand inside the massive machine that is Americas laws and founding documents to fix those gears?
That’s exactly what the amendments are for. And the last of them was enacted in 1992. So the tools are there.
The main problem is that a big part of the GOP have and will continue to betray everything the US has stood for if it means for them to keep a bit longer in power.
That’s a good point. We’ve made many good corrections as time has gone on.
What are some things that the GOP did specifically to make it harder to do amendments or that are trying to to do? It’s always good to name names and put things into specific words. Otherwise it’s just another loose, general statement without any real backing know what I mean?
It’s never a good time and the longer we wait the worse it gets. If a Constitutional Convention isn’t ratified then we can keep on going with the previous version. The biggest problem is one side has been working on locking up state legislatures and they aren’t going to play nice with representation at a convention.
And what is hate speech? When we start telling people what is and is not allowable to say, we set a highly dangerous precedent and move the game from black and white lines into shades of gray. Another shade darker is far easier to slip into than black from white.
Oh cool! Muddy waters!
I’ll just go ahead and stick this filter in here.
Hate speech: abusive or threatening speech or writing used to express prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.
Pretty simple, you don’t get to threaten, scare or abuse people with your words. That infringes on their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Shall we of course discuss the one grey area “or similar grounds” or was there another direction you’d like to take this?
lol No, I’ll take it another direction (mostly).
The definition you gave is already broad enough that I do not have to appeal to the “or similar grounds.” I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie. Their preferences or gender do not change that.) Under your definition, that would likely be called hate speech; but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don’t think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.
Here’s another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.
Here’s another from the post we are talking about: On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive. They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches. Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?
A good rule of thumb I found is this: When advocating for any increase in power, especially in government, imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy. Would you still want it to be used? I wouldn’t.
I’ve read enough you’re a douche and you refuse to accept reality because you think your perception is law.
Purposefully and knowingly causing someone true anguish and denying them of their identity is next to nazi shit imo. You’re a sack of human waste and no amount of water muddying you can possibly produce will stop us from identifying and calling people like you out.
Your perception of reality is subjective full stop. It is not objective. Therefor by stomping on others subjectives with your own you imply superiority.
Rot.
Hold up. The above comment called for literal violence, and I’m the one who gets this level of hate? I truly do not understand.
I agree that my perception is subjective, but since I don’t have any other that I can experience, I rely on my own first and foremost when mine conflicts with someone else’s. That seems logical to me.
EDIT: Hold up x2. “Causing them true anguish?” “Denying them of their identity?” WTF? How is that what I am doing? I think we’re losing perspective on what true anguish actually looks like here.
I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie.
Oh wow, who would have guessed that a free speech absolutist is a transphobe? Shocking!!!
but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don’t think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.
By denying them their gender you are denying their identity, hating them and treating them differently just because they are trans/nb and making them feel unwelcomed, unloved and hated, something you doesn’t do to cis people.
And all that is assuming you can even “tell” when someone is trans.
You’re not being honest, you’re being a self-centered bigot that clearly doesnt understand gender, neither trans nor non-binary people.
Here’s another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.
Ugh, here we go.
IQ is only ONE measure of skill/“inteligence” that is very limited and doesn’t mean much.
Also your example just shows you wouldn’t understand the meaning of the results of such study. If the data represent that a given ethnicity got lower scores that’s only the start of the study, you then have to go deeper to understand why. Is it because they are “less inteligent”, or is it because they are a marginalized group that receive less and poorer education? Is their education on par with the other tested ethnicity? How do another group of the same ethnicity on another conditions/country/whatever fare in the study? Etc, etc, etc.
On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive.
So what? Atrocities have been commited in the name of their religion throughout history, why should we care if the christian find it “offensive” that they are depicted in the wrong for the wrong thst they are still doing? They literally brought this upon themselves by allowing this hateful anti-LGBT behavior to still exist within them.
They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches.
Then they need to adapt to the times and start seeing LGBT as people like we are. Or they can go fuck themselves. One side is just trying to exist, the other is spewing hateful views and lies about them. There is no space for intolerance in society.
Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?
Yes. Either change your views and adapt or fuck off. If they don’t respect people they should not expect to be respected, no matter how much they convinced themselves they are right.
Oh go cry in your racist pillow that you can’t scream racisms at people on the street.
That slope sounds so slippery
Hmm… Can’t tell if you’re agreeing or sarcastically and incorrectly pointing out a logical fallacy. If you agree, cool. If not:
The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if one posits that the future events MUST happen as a result, not that they are likely to. If I take a step further down a literal slippery slope, I am more likely to fall but not guaranteed. If you start using hardcore drugs, you are likely to get addicted and lose a lot of money but again, not guaranteed.
That this would set a dangerous precedent is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. Courts frequently have to bear in mind the legal precedent of their actions because once you do something, its easier the next time. That is fact, not conjecture. It is easier to ratchet down on a freedom that is already jeopardized. No conjecture involved there. No slippery slopes involved. If we allow some speech to be censored, it becomes easier to censor other types of speech.
Image Transcription:
A comic by Jennie Breeden and Obby from site TheDevilsPanties.com.
The first panel shows a mustached person with short hair wearing a t-shirt and sitting at a laptop. A speech bubble rising from the laptop reads “I just don’t think you people belong in our society!”
The second panel shows a different short-haired person wearing a t-shirt, long pants, and sneakers, sitting on a park bench and looking at a mobile phone. A speech bubble from the mobile phone reads “Well, I don’t agree with what you’re saying, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.”
The third panel shows both people standing on the side of a street. The first person is holding a Bible and pointing across the road at a group of shadowed people carrying signs with hearts and pride flags. He is speaking to a crowd of people and saying “Your kind is a betrayal to God! You’re a drag on the whole country!” To which the second person is shrugging and responding “That’s appalling, but we can’t have free speech without the free marketplace of ideas!”
The fourth panel shows the first person standing at a lectern and wearing a suit with an American flag behind them and a shadowed crowd in front of them. They are saying “We will stop the woke ideology that’s destroying America!”. The second person is standing close to the foreground and shrugging, saying “Democracy needs this discourse, so let’s agree to disagree.”
The fifth panel shows the second person being dragged away by people in uniform while saying “Wait! Where are you taking me? You can’t just get rid of me!”. The first person is standing between the first person and an open paddy wagon, wearing a black uniform and looking smug as they reply “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Good human
Thank you, fellow human!
Sort of the same for multiculturalism. Only cultures that accept multiple cultures should be part of a multicultural society.
Yes. And “accepting” doesn’t mean love bombing for purposes of conversion, like evangelism/da’wah (only to reveal the nasty tenets after initiation into the group). And acceptance with the fundamental belief that women are subservient to men in some fucked up sense of divine order is not acceptance. If someone wants to call this an Islamophobic dog whistle, they need to get their hearing fixed.
The thing is, every culture has rightwing extremists that want to exploit that.
I’m not aware of a single one that’s all rightwing extremists, and any large enough is going to have some.
So? Then you leave those rightwing extremists that every culture has out of the multicultural society you want to live in.
This isn’t rocket science. Every culture branches out into different subcultures, and some of those branches even fight against other branches. The solution includes not treating all of the branches the same way, which would already be pretty insulting in and of itself to them.
Huh, sudden downvote after making this reply. Pretty revealing about the discussion, if any, that some people want to have. Shame most people outside of kbin.social were fooled into believing that keeping the source of the downvotes hidden is more valuable than showing it. It would be pretty revealing as well as transparent and could certainly hint about how some people really want to shape it, instead of leaving it as data only the admins can collect and process.
Nah, it’s because you’re replying to a week old comment thread and then made multiple edits bitching about it I’m just going to block and forget you exist
Thanks for confirming the degree of your character and how transient your attention span and ideological viewpoints are.
Thanks for the block as well, when I do it from my side it doesn’t prevent those I block from still reading my comments or creating subthreads to it, making it almost a necessary evil of last resort.
I think this is a very bad idea and leads to bad places.
The culture in China is extremely insular and the Chinese state is very focused on homogenising the country into a single culture.
Should Chinese people be not allowed to move out of China?
I think discriminating on immigration based on ethnicity is an appalling idea, even if it means that sometimes a person from a bad country immigrates to where I live.
That’s a good point, many countries have their own insular China towns as a result and their presence in those societies is very one sided. You even have China setting up extralegal police stations overseas, which shows the lack of respect it is fostering. I think discriminating immigration policiy based on ethnicities that would discriminate against you is quite reasonable, but that doesn’t mean someone from a bad country shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate to where you live, but that you have to make their ability to accept multiple cultures as the deciding factor, specially if you know they are coming from a society specially against it.
Ask Mongolia, Hong Kong, Tiber, or Taiwan how much they like you white knighting their homogenizing the country (and even that which really isn’t) into a single culture.
Is this an Islamophobic dog whistle?
If you hear the whistle, you’re the dog.
Woof :3
A person can see a dog whistle and know it for what it is without being able to hear it. Also it’s not only dogs who can hear dog whistles; some people just have exceptionally good hearing.
Or a former dog. I can remember the days of Bush Jr. regularly dog whistling to Evangelicals in his addresses, and unless you were a fundie or a former fundie, you would have no idea that his speeches had built-in supersonic Jesus whistles that only the evangelicals and evangelical survivors could hear.
There are plenty of Muslims and mosques that are multicultural. Religions are divided into different branches, and there’s no shortage of those that are multicultural. There’s also no shortage of those that are radicalized into bigotry and hatred. Take the US for example, there’s a fair number of Evangelical Christians who want to make the US into something that isn’t multicultural.
Faith is like baseless accusations. If you can’t fathom anything but a projection of your own insecurities, you probably aren’t going to contribute so much as you are going to create friction.
But if you really think I am an intolerant islamophobe by claiming that only cultures that accept multiple cultures should be part of a multicultural society, then if you are being consistent to any reasonable degree, just tolerate my intolerance by your own logic. You clearly want to be stepped on, regardless of how little my comment comparatively has to do with Islam. I think OP made a comic for you that you seem to have missed.
In the Republic, book VIII, Socrates identifies as democracy’s leading cause of corruption precisely that thing makes it seemingly so beautiful. In a democracy, citizens become inebriated with freedom (Euleteria). By making it the highest goal, people in a democracy end up leading democracy to its downfall.
True ca. 2400 years ago; still true today.
A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
- Alexis de Tocqueville
Our boy Socrates was 2200 years too early, he might have learnt from ours boys Charles Fourier, Bakunin, Marx and others that democracy is never an accomplished regime, it needs to be defended at all time in a ceaseless battle against the worst parts of mankind, against our own turpitude and weakness, it’s an everlasting revolution that dies as soon as it starts to be content with itself.
This comic is a good example of the Paradox of Tolerance. You can’t tolerate intolerance… it does not end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_toleranceTolerance of everything except intolerance, except that of intolerance. “Paradox” resolved.
No one ever gets the point until people start getting beaten, threatened, wounded, maimed or killed. They’ll keep arguing the details until there is an authoritarian government telling you what you can or can’t do or say.
Then everyone stands around wondering how it all happened.
Most regular people I know just want to live life and not really bother with anyone else in a negative way … in fact most people I’ve ever known would do something good for the other person if it meant it would help. Most people are just good and have a very good nature.
It’s the psychotic few billionaires and millionaires out there that want a world with authoritarian fascist government in power because it means those wealthy few get to keep all their money and if they do get their way, they can exponentially grow the wealth they already have. It’s all about money and power.
It’s all about a handful of morons who aren’t aware of their finite life that believe they can become temporary rulers of the world.
Some number of people are getting maimed, wounded, or killed. Do people have a threshold number at which point they decide it’s too much?
Usually hunger … if you look through history, change doesn’t happen in societies because people are poor, abused, imprisoned, impoverished or have a lack of luxuries … change often happens when people go hungry because at that point they all realize that if they have no food, they will die … and when they can see death, especially their own death, they no longer have anything to lose and will fight for some kind of change …
And even that want for change is dangerous because it can come in many forms … good change, bad change, fascist change, socialist change, democratic change, authoritarian change.
in your post the thing I liked the most, the most significant in my opinion, it’s
They’ll keep arguing the details
this is the sum of all the thread. there’s so much on this few words. in my understanding,vsums up perfectly what I’d describe as the paranoia feeding the knitpicking and the extenuating effort to manage the malice. thank you
Consider… what went wrong is that no one pushed back on Panel Two using the very same free marketplace of ideas.
Panel One: Fighting for everyone’s right to express themselves is fine. Good as it is.
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot’s arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot’s arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
I can’t believe no one thought of this. And here planned parenthood and the grieving families at funerals of vets have just been sitting by listening to the noise.
I’d say that’s tolerating intolerance and is the right thing to do. Once they switch to violence though, remember you have a robust right to defend yourself, your community and your loved ones.
But then you are called anti islamist or isla mophobic. Yes, i went there.
Calling people out on their BS is the right line to draw for me personally, but I still want that person to have the right to express their opinion. We just need to teach people that it’s ok to be wrong as long as you can admit it and learn from it. No idea gets processed until pushed from an opposing party.
Sitting back and doing nothing teaches nothing. Calling it appalling and informing the person why they’re wrong is the right step toward change. But if you can’t say it in a way that makes them hear you, then you’re doomed to have the argument all over again.
The past twenty years have demonstrated handily that logical debate simply does not work. What’s needed is the emotive/motivational form of argumentation that puts the speaker’s thoughts, beliefs, and intent at center stage and actually does work. Bonus points is that it works regardless of how well educated whoever you’re speaking to is so there’s no longer the educational barrier in place allowing meaningful conversation.
Hey, it’s @[email protected]! Nice to see some totally not satanic porn on lemmy!
Tag with @, not /u/
Changed it, thanks.
👉😎👉
Is that… a common concern?
It’s the subtitle of her webcomic: The Devil’s Panties - it’s not Satanic P0rn
Far too often people forget that Right to Free Speech is not your first right, and it is superseded by other human rights above it.
Your right to Free Speech only applies as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights to safety and freedom from prejudice, hate, harm, etc…
It’s not that complicated and yet countless people always fuck something so straightforward up.
It begins with free speech, then you skip a few years and suddenly trans kids are scared for their lives. Speech affects people and has consequence, it is not something to take lightly.
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want. Now whether we still have such a society is debatable. But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
So, how about we agree to disagree, mate? ; )
I weirdly agree as much as I hate racist wannabe genociders. I think freedom of speech is important even if it is hateful speech that I don’t agree with. I don’t think it should be up to the legal system to decide what’s okay to say and what isn’t. That’s a slippery slope that can quickly go badly with the wrong people in power.
That being said, I am most definitely going to look the other way if I see a person getting stomped out for being racist. I would personally make them feel unwelcome in anyway I could. I think it should be left up to the people to make it known that intolerant assholes get intolerant treatment, I guess is what I am getting at.
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want.
They aren’t only voting for their own fate but for the fate of everyone else. So 51% can doom everyone. That hardly seems fair.
But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
This always ignores how very dangerous uncensored words can be. Hitler is famous for his speeches and not for his military brilliance! So is Mussolini. They both abused lenient and weak democratic systems to talk their way into power resulting in the literal Holocaust and one of the most devestating war the world has ever seen.
I’ll bet that most who think they live in a free and democratic society do not actually.
The poor mod definitely needs an AI to help with moderation.
I wish that people made a better version of that picture, since it heavily distorts what Popper said (PDF page 232), that is far more nuanced and situational. I’ll quote it inside spoilers as it’s long-ish:
the paradox
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, 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 anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, exactly as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping; or as we should consider incitement to the revival of the slave trade.
A TL;DR of that would be “an open society needs to claim the right to suppress intolerant discourses and, under certain conditions, suppress them”. In no moment the picture makes reference to those conditions.
That’s important here because mechanisms used to curb down intolerant discourses can be also misused to curb down legitimate but otherwise inconvenient ones, so they need to be used with extreme caution, only as much as necessary; Popper was likely aware of that.
I agree with your criticism of the pic. Thank you for the quote!
