3 ms·

The really quick and dirty version: I can't tolerate (neo) Nazis because they want to harm queer people, Jews, disabled people etc. The people they want to har

by Dobbs 6y ago

The really quick and dirty version: I can't tolerate (neo) Nazis because they want to harm queer people, Jews, disabled people etc. The people they want to harm can't do anything to stop being targeted by (neo) Nazis. Nazis can stop being Nazis and then I'll start tolerating them. It doesn't matter if a Jew stops practising Judaism they will be targeted. It doesn't matter if a gay person is in the closet, they will be targeted. If a Nazi stops spreading Nazi rhetoric and performing Nazi actions they will be tolerated. See the difference?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway568468 6y ago
Do you mean that you wouldn't oppose harming or wanting to harm practicing muslims or christians as they could stop practicing? To be fair, I understand that your idea is mainly that there is a hierarchy in the level of intolerance. But there was some losses in explaining your idea in a quick and dirty way.
coldtea 6y ago
>Nazis can stop being Nazis and then I'll start tolerating them. So, it's OK to harass e.g. gay people? After all they can stop having sex with men and marry a woman. How about Christians? Muslims? Democrats? All of them can stop being what they are, so it's ok to harass them? Looks like a half-thought argument.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  That argument was specifically addressed ('it doesn't matter if a gay person is in the closet, they will be targeted'), but you're ignoring it. Also, there's a qualitative difference between harassing someone (purposeful infliction of harm on an individual) and mere dislike of their non-harmful consensual activity with others.
names_are_hard 6y ago
The idea that an attribute has to be involuntary to be tolerated is not a good one. In determining whether or not something should be tolerated, it being involuntary may be a contributing factor but cannot be required. If Nazis decided that they would not kill any Jews who renounced Judaism, or gay people who didn't engage in homosexual sex, how much less repulsive would their ideology be?

by Dobbs 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaway568468 6y ago

Do you mean that you wouldn't oppose harming or wanting to harm practicing muslims or christians as they could stop practicing? To be fair, I understand that your idea is mainly that there is a hierarchy in the level of intolerance. But there was some losses in explaining your idea in a quick and dirty way.

coldtea 6y ago

>Nazis can stop being Nazis and then I'll start tolerating them. So, it's OK to harass e.g. gay people? After all they can stop having sex with men and marry a woman. How about Christians? Muslims? Democrats? All of them can stop being what they are, so it's ok to harass them? Looks like a half-thought argument.

anigbrowl 6y ago
That argument was specifically addressed ('it doesn't matter if a gay person is in the closet, they will be targeted'), but you're ignoring it. Also, there's a qualitative difference between harassing someone (purposeful infliction of harm on an individual) and mere dislike of their non-harmful consensual activity with others.

names_are_hard 6y ago

The idea that an attribute has to be involuntary to be tolerated is not a good one. In determining whether or not something should be tolerated, it being involuntary may be a contributing factor but cannot be required. If Nazis decided that they would not kill any Jews who renounced Judaism, or gay people who didn't engage in homosexual sex, how much less repulsive would their ideology be?