Fuck off. They want to kill me for existing. I want to kill them because they want to commit murder on an industrial scale. If you can’t see a difference between those two things, then grab onto your ears and pull really hard until your head is removed from your ass you fucking piece of shit.
I don’t even know how to respond to this without being snarky so imma just head out.
I’ll just leave you with the fact that killing isn’t a solution, because the reasoning for the killing can easily be usurped and tainted. As history has proven over and over.
if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices
That is exactly what tolerating Nazi ideology within a society leads to. If you allow objectively harmful ideology on the grounds of balance or fairness, they are allowed to continue and eventually take over.
Even if you’re a 100% centrist, you should never allow anyone to undermine or remove basic constititional or human rights. Yet that is exactly what Nazis do. Tolerating them means tolerating that.
Everyone on the internet likes to talk like they’re G.I. Bot, which is frankly understandable these days. The fact that no militant opposition showed up and tried to kill Nazis means (to me) that maybe the concern about overheated rhetoric, while laudable in absolute terms, might not be the biggest practical concern.
People are blowing off steam. It just makes me sad that leftists seemingly prefer to vent at each other rather than go out and demonstrate.
I’m actually kinda sad a counter counter group didn’t show up and send some to the hospital. And I suppose I did get a little too into arguing about this, as to your point it’s just a bunch of anonymous people saying things they likely wouldn’t do.
I was just so taken aback that “hey maybe we shouldn’t take away peoples humanity” was something that the majority took issue with.
Here’s where both your logic falls apart. Any time you commit violence on someone else, even something as simple as punching them — you invite death to the table.
If we were more primitive we would stop sharing food with these people. Quite literally we would ostracize them from local community and they would simply wither and die. Do you think that’s a better outcome, morally, than simply killing them? Do you genuinely believe a quick death is worse than starving to death? Or dying due to preventable illness?
This wish-wash complacent bullshit is the reason the U.S. is where it is today.
Fuck off. They want to kill me for existing. I want to kill them because they want to commit murder on an industrial scale. If you can’t see a difference between those two things, then grab onto your ears and pull really hard until your head is removed from your ass you fucking piece of shit.
I don’t even know how to respond to this without being snarky so imma just head out.
I’ll just leave you with the fact that killing isn’t a solution, because the reasoning for the killing can easily be usurped and tainted. As history has proven over and over.
Bai
Because they’re fucking right and you don’t like that
Look up the paradox of tolerance.
if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices
That is exactly what tolerating Nazi ideology within a society leads to. If you allow objectively harmful ideology on the grounds of balance or fairness, they are allowed to continue and eventually take over.
Even if you’re a 100% centrist, you should never allow anyone to undermine or remove basic constititional or human rights. Yet that is exactly what Nazis do. Tolerating them means tolerating that.
The number of people conflating “we shouldn’t dehumanize people” with “tolerate the Nazis” has me questioning people’s reading comprehension.
Everyone on the internet likes to talk like they’re G.I. Bot, which is frankly understandable these days. The fact that no militant opposition showed up and tried to kill Nazis means (to me) that maybe the concern about overheated rhetoric, while laudable in absolute terms, might not be the biggest practical concern.
People are blowing off steam. It just makes me sad that leftists seemingly prefer to vent at each other rather than go out and demonstrate.
I’m actually kinda sad a counter counter group didn’t show up and send some to the hospital. And I suppose I did get a little too into arguing about this, as to your point it’s just a bunch of anonymous people saying things they likely wouldn’t do.
I was just so taken aback that “hey maybe we shouldn’t take away peoples humanity” was something that the majority took issue with.
We see eye to eye about that, rough em up a bit would be fine by me.
People don’t really enjoy nuance when they’re in their feelings about something. There’s room enough for everyone, it’s just a vibe mismatch imo
Here’s where both your logic falls apart. Any time you commit violence on someone else, even something as simple as punching them — you invite death to the table.
If we were more primitive we would stop sharing food with these people. Quite literally we would ostracize them from local community and they would simply wither and die. Do you think that’s a better outcome, morally, than simply killing them? Do you genuinely believe a quick death is worse than starving to death? Or dying due to preventable illness?
This wish-wash complacent bullshit is the reason the U.S. is where it is today.