4 ms·

> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an a

> We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. And who gets to decide who the intolerant parties are in an argument/dispute in order to justify the use of force against them? The quote you posted literally advocates for censorship, oppression and genocide of the other side, except since it's of those YOU view as being intolerant, so then it's somehow moral and OK for you to do it against them, but you wouldn't agree to that when the other party does it to you when they view you as the intolerant one. Because that's exactly what the Nazis did when they got into power: they removed the ones who they considered to be intolerant form their perspective, and it's exactly the rhetoric Zionists use to justify genocide in Gaza: they're just removing intolerant people so then it's morally ok.

saubeidl 1y ago
[flagged]
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      > intolerance was a point of pride for them Literally no party ever, not even the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ever thought "we're the bad intolerant guys and we're proud of it". On the contrary, they all thought they were on the right side of history and that all the atrocities they were doing, they were the right thing, done for the greater good. Nazi literally means "national" and "socialist" as in for the country and the working people, both words with good meaning behind them on their own, up until WW2. >Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look. What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        [flagged]
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >They did, however think "we will not tolerate the Jewish threat to our aryan volk" - i.e. an openly pro-intolerance ideology. I never said the Nazis weren't being intolerant, I just called you out for painting those you don't like as intolerant as the Nazis in order to justify using censorship and state force against them in the name of greater good. If we're gonna go after people for intolerance I expect a lot more proof of criminal wrongdoing and argumentation than just comparing them to Nazis since you're doing exactly what the Nazis did to justify their intolerance towards the Jews. >"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies Not sure how calling people who disagree with you as antisemites helps in any way since I never said anything in support for the Nazis or against the Jews. Edit: Answering to your reply from below here to not balloon the thread any further: >"I did not call you an antisemite, I pointed out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites." So your argument is: "I'm not calling you an antisemite directly, I'm just using a quote to describe your pattern of behavior as being antisemitic." ? Do you even hear yourself? Like I said before, you're the one who can't stop using Nazis as boogeymen and Jews as a humans shield in arguments all for the sake of emotional manipulation, then call people antisemitic when they disagree with you.
        saubeidl 1y ago
        [flagged]
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        [flagged]
        saubeidl 1y ago
        [flagged]

saubeidl 1y ago

[flagged]

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
[flagged]
- saubeidl 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    > intolerance was a point of pride for them Literally no party ever, not even the Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, ever thought "we're the bad intolerant guys and we're proud of it". On the contrary, they all thought they were on the right side of history and that all the atrocities they were doing, they were the right thing, done for the greater good. Nazi literally means "national" and "socialist" as in for the country and the working people, both words with good meaning behind them on their own, up until WW2. >Your behavior suggests either deep ignorance or malicious attempts at distorting the conversation in a right wing extremist way. Either way is not a good look. What behavior? Correcting your wrong takes with facts and arguments? Every point you brought up here I have disproved with arguments.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >They did, however think "we will not tolerate the Jewish threat to our aryan volk" - i.e. an openly pro-intolerance ideology. I never said the Nazis weren't being intolerant, I just called you out for painting those you don't like as intolerant as the Nazis in order to justify using censorship and state force against them in the name of greater good. If we're gonna go after people for intolerance I expect a lot more proof of criminal wrongdoing and argumentation than just comparing them to Nazis since you're doing exactly what the Nazis did to justify their intolerance towards the Jews. >"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies Not sure how calling people who disagree with you as antisemites helps in any way since I never said anything in support for the Nazis or against the Jews. Edit: Answering to your reply from below here to not balloon the thread any further: >"I did not call you an antisemite, I pointed out a common behavioral pattern of antisemites." So your argument is: "I'm not calling you an antisemite directly, I'm just using a quote to describe your pattern of behavior as being antisemitic." ? Do you even hear yourself? Like I said before, you're the one who can't stop using Nazis as boogeymen and Jews as a humans shield in arguments all for the sake of emotional manipulation, then call people antisemitic when they disagree with you.
        saubeidl 1y ago
        [flagged]
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        [flagged]
        saubeidl 1y ago
        [flagged]