6 ms·

And who will decide what is not to be tolerated?

• KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Intolerance towards others will not be tolerated. Simple.
  • Fins 8y ago
    So while you are intolerant to Nazis (who you will define yourself) will you be making an exception for yourself, or will you not tolerate your own intolerance to wrongthink?
    • KozmoNau7 8y ago
      That discussion has been had so many times, it's not even funny. Of course you should not tolerate intolerance, that's not even up for discussion anymore. And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to attack them for acts, not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought.
      • js8 8y ago
        "Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought." I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act. On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as if it had a moral agency. So which is it?
        • KozmoNau7 8y ago
          Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history. If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.
          • Fins 8y ago
            So you do agree then, that if I find your intolerance of possibly perfectly fine (after all, why should your judgement of what is acceptable and what is not be any more valid than mine, his, hers, or that guy-over-there's) and at the very least in the US legal and specifically protected, I would have every right to take you out? Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at Germany.
            • KozmoNau7 8y ago
              Read what I wrote. I am 100% for free speech, it is one of the most important aspects of any free society. However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.
              • Fins 8y ago
                But that's not the question. The question is who decides, and how, what speech should have (negative) consequences. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you will provide consequences to those who you deem to be calling for something you do not agree with. Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.
                • KozmoNau7 8y ago
                  Ideally, the rule of law decides. Unfortunately it very often is susceptible to political and economic influences. And the courts are not in the streets, where the attacks happen. Far too often the police turn a blind eye to right wing incitement and violence (due to a large number of sympathizers in the police), so sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways.
                  • js8 8y ago
                    "sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways" Unfortunately, the actual history shows that doesn't show them the error, but is more likely to increase the resentment and resistance.