• jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The paradox of tolerance is real, and not all things are equal.

    If you allow a group that wants to murder to organize, they will eventually murder.

    Banning genocide enthusiast groups doesn’t mean you also have to ban bird watchers.

    • FadoraNinja@lemmy.worldB
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, but given that police have tried to charge Cop City protesters with terrorism we need to be really careful and scrutinize any new laws designed to stop these groups and how it may be intentionally or unintentionally harmful to littigamate activism and protest.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why I’m generally very cautious about suggesting new laws to limit behaviour, and am more supportive of private action (e.g., companies firing Nazis rather than criminalizing being a Nazi). People that are left of center tend to forget that people that are right of center are often able to use the exact same laws written by those on the left to suppress progressive views.

        All of this ends up being a double-edged sword. You need to think of every possible way that a law could be misapplied, or can unintentionally cause harm, before moving forward. Because someone is going to intentionally misapply it for personal or political advantage.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Can we learn to discern between legitimate uses of a term and illegitimate ones? Can we accept it’s okay to call hate groups terrorists while their protesters are not? Can we accept reality for what it is?

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about what groups you ban in the beginning. It’s about the groups they’ll ban when your particular party is out of power.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I already know my politics will make me a target under fascism. It’s one of the reasons I’m so adamantly against it. It’s not just repugnant; I’m also the enemy. I say fight them hard because wresting control back from them will be far more difficult because of what they will do to entrench themselves if they gain power.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it’s not. The whole point of the tolerance nonsense is to silence racists while allowing minority groups to thrive. There’s nothing hypocritical about it and the fact that people think there is indicates a flaw in their thinking, not tolerance.

    • drphungky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The paradox of tolerance is based on some schmo’s personal article. It’s not backed up by any research, historical analysis, or anything other than the fact that it kinda feels good to think about because it gives us an excuse to other a group, ignoring that someone else will eventually other us. It’s literally only in the zeitgeist because it’s attractive, not because it’s right.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m okay with othering the people that want to literally kill me, my family, and my friends.

        People do this thing where they’re like “if we refuse to accept their mass murder plans, someone might refuse to accept our bird watching plans!” That’s stupid. We’re humans not badly written computers.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be othered, you have to be an ethnic group or a legitimate political group. So you’re implying fascism and Nazis are a legitimate political or ethnic group when you complain about being “othered”.

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are legitimately identified as a political group because they aim to have a say in politics. This can be true without their beliefs having any legitimacy.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That doesn’t make them a legitimate political group, either. By that logic, the Taliban and ISIS would be legitimate political groups, and they’re not. They’re considered terrorist groups and so are these fucking white nationalists.

            This isn’t hard. Common sense exists.