4 ms·

I don’t quite agree on the principle. Maybe Eich isn’t beyond the pale but I think there are very few people who can’t think of ANY a belief someone would have

I don’t quite agree on the principle. Maybe Eich isn’t beyond the pale but I think there are very few people who can’t think of ANY a belief someone would have where they wouldn’t be willing to associate with them (say, neo-Nazism or advocating for a return of chattel slavery). I don’t think this is necessarily contradictory with the notion of being “tolerant” since some of these views would essentially make other forms of tolerance impossible if they were adapted by a majority. “I’m equally tolerant of minorities and people who believe those same minorities should be enslaved” seems like a muddled and nonsensical position.

rightbyte 3y ago
If we can't debate against nazism or slavery and win in the eyes of the audience, on democratic terms, I guess it is to late to be "intolerant of intolerance" and democracy has already failed. So what if one in a thousand (or whatever the number is) want to reinstate slavery? It seems like a nonsensical position to limit freedom of expression of everyone to quench a hypothetical Nazi takeover.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  As I recall democracy did fail to settle both of these questions and instead they were settled by force of arms.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    I guess the point I am trying to make is that the "out group" would have been abolitionists in the 1700s. I also didn't say that a democracy can't fail.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      That kind of depended where you where. In Pennsylvania among the Quakers not necessarily. But antebellum history can easily be viewed as a long, unsuccessful attempt to settle this question democratically at a national level.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- howinteresting 3y ago
  > If we can't debate against nazism or slavery and win in the eyes of the audience, on democratic terms, I guess it is to late to be "intolerant of intolerance" and democracy has already failed. Probably, yes. Democracy is bad at edge cases (Hitler was democratically elected) and undemocratic means must sometimes be used. Deplatforming is pretty mild as far as undemocratic means go. Such is life.

rightbyte 3y ago

If we can't debate against nazism or slavery and win in the eyes of the audience, on democratic terms, I guess it is to late to be "intolerant of intolerance" and democracy has already failed. So what if one in a thousand (or whatever the number is) want to reinstate slavery? It seems like a nonsensical position to limit freedom of expression of everyone to quench a hypothetical Nazi takeover.

emodendroket 3y ago
As I recall democracy did fail to settle both of these questions and instead they were settled by force of arms.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I guess the point I am trying to make is that the "out group" would have been abolitionists in the 1700s. I also didn't say that a democracy can't fail.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    That kind of depended where you where. In Pennsylvania among the Quakers not necessarily. But antebellum history can easily be viewed as a long, unsuccessful attempt to settle this question democratically at a national level.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
howinteresting 3y ago
> If we can't debate against nazism or slavery and win in the eyes of the audience, on democratic terms, I guess it is to late to be "intolerant of intolerance" and democracy has already failed. Probably, yes. Democracy is bad at edge cases (Hitler was democratically elected) and undemocratic means must sometimes be used. Deplatforming is pretty mild as far as undemocratic means go. Such is life.