The Paradox of Intolerance

[Madmick]

Tolerating intolerant speech doesn't entail a capitulation to intolerance.

Otherwise, yes, most of us grappled with this paradox as pre-adolescents.

 

[Chromosome47]

This type of thinking is incredibly dangerous. This train of thought can eventually lead to a totalitarian regime controlling what is deemed intolerant, hence silencing all opposition. This is just another free speech hating "philosopher".

 

[Burning Hammer]

A free society will tolerate their free speech. Not their actions. We can easily out debate anyone in these radical ideologies.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Tolerating intolerant speech doesn't entail a capitulation to intolerance.

Otherwise, yes, most of us grappled with this paradox as pre-adolescents.

Fuck we just agreed. I hate tolerance now xD

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Glad you brought it up, and I think the solution is relatively easy in the case you're talking about. Just like judges have some room to apply the law more strongly and weakly, so do law enforcement and other groups. A hate group like this has repeatedly proven itself across the centuries to be a violent, and at times existential threat, and cannot be tolerated at all. That means stricter enforcement of peaceful conduct, taking a longer look at permits, giving them first consideration for handcuffs, more surveillance, etc. We have room to crack down on them within the rule of law, and we should be generous about it.

So would you agree with law enforcement applying the law more strongly toward black people and weaker toward whites? I mean one side is obviously more dangerous than the other. Why should your idea just apply to hate groups and not other groups?

The whole white supremacist thing is so overblown. Street gangs are exponentially more dangerous than white supremacy groups to the point where it makes them nearly obsolete. Yet it's the white groups making all the headlines because the liberal media chooses to ignore the more important problems while cramming their narrative down your throat.

 

[Fawlty]

So would you agree with law enforcement applying the law more strongly toward black people and weaker toward whites? I mean one side is obviously more dangerous than the other. Why should your idea just apply to hate groups and not other groups?

The whole white supremacist thing is so overblown. Street gangs are exponentially more dangerous than white supremacy groups to the point where it makes them nearly obsolete. Yet it's the white groups making all the headlines because the liberal media chooses to ignore the more important problems while cramming their narrative down your throat.

It's the existential threat. Society and the white supremacy movement are entirely incompatible.

 

[Higus]

So I agree the full quote is a lot more reasonable than the silly meme would lead you to believe.

Also worth noting, the quote basically articulated the rational basis on which the US defended itself from the spread of communism in the mid-20th century. It also applies just as well to antifa though you seemed to be resisting that notion in an earlier post.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

It's the existential threat. Society and the white supremacy movement are entirely incompatible.

That doesn't really answer anything from my post though.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Using the same logic, you should not be allowed to advocate for restrictions on free speech.

 

[Fawlty]

That doesn't really answer anything from my post though.

It does, because of the absolute incompatibility of white supremacy groups does not follow on to the black social movements generally, which is what I can safely assume you're implying. You asked why my idea should apply to white supremacy groups and not whatever other groups you are concerned about. If black supremacy, segregation, subjugation of white people, etc. go hand-in-hand with a movement, then they become more serious threats and need to be addressed differently. Evergreen College is an example of that. Your point about street gangs is a bad point, because street gangs are taken very seriously and virtually every gang member goes to prison.

 

[AviatorShades]

1. Allowing their ideas to be heard/debated does not obligate you to agree or enable those ideas. It's almost as if you fear their validity.

2. Nearly all of these "arguments" revolve around the shocking imagery of Hitler and Swastikas to marginalize white nationalism via association. In other words, they aren't arguments.

It's about equivalent to Asians in California suing against race-based college admissions because it's discriminatory towards their children, and you responding by posting a graph about the 30 million people Mao killed. WOW! I guess you win.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Germany was tolerant of Nazism because to the average hardworking citizen, it brought a lot more good than bad. Especially in the 30s up until 1938 or 39. Most of us would have voted for it in the beginning. It wasnt until the late 30s when things took a drastic turn.

 

[Higus]

So I agree the full quote is a lot more reasonable than the silly meme would lead you to believe.

Also worth noting, the quote basically articulated the rational basis on which the US defended itself from the spread of communism in the mid-20th century. It also applies just as well to antifa though you seemed to be resisting that notion in an earlier post.

I don't know if communism/capitalism is a good analogy to tolerance/intolerance dichotomy. All functioning societies have some elements of capitalist and socialist elements working together in some sort of balance. But the sentiment that some ideas are so bad that they must be stopped is pretty broad.
I'm a generally left leaning poster, but I abhor the Antifa tactics. But I get frustrated with the false equivalence of them to Neo Nazis. Think of it like this:
A Neo Nazi pushes an old woman in front of a speeding bus. An Antifa pushes an old woman out of the path of a moving bus. Some bozo tells you "both sides" are equally bad for pushing old women. Can you see the frustration?

 

[Gunny]

I don't know if communism/capitalism is a good analogy to tolerance/intolerance dichotomy. All functioning societies have some elements of capitalist and socialist elements working together in some sort of balance. But the sentiment that some ideas are so bad that they must be stopped is pretty broad.
I'm a generally left leaning poster, but I abhor the Antifa tactics. But I get frustrated with the false equivalence of them to Neo Nazis. Think of it like this:
A Neo Nazi pushes an old woman in front of a speeding bus. An Antifa pushes an old woman out of the path of a moving bus. Some bozo tells you "both sides" are equally bad for pushing old women. Can you see the frustration?

I think if you were a farmer from the Ukraine in the early 20th century there would be no question as to communism's intolerance. TBH you shouldn't even have to be. All it takes is an honest look at the historical record and it's an extraordinary blind spot if you can't connect the dots between communism and intolerance.

And are you sure you really want that Antifa analogy to stand as written? Those idiots are out macing ninety pound women and beating them with sticks. You just offered up a particularly creepy justification of that behavior.

 

[Armbars]

Certainly agree. You can not equate hate groups with those that come out to protest the hate group. Should German citizens that protested the Nazis be seen as equally bad as the Nazis? Of course not. It's the same as in Charlottesville and why Trump got it so wrong.

Now Trump tries to spin the white supremacist rally to be about confederate statues saying there were good people in that rally. If a good person was there and the group started chanting about Jews, that good person would have left.

You could use your exact logic there to explain why groups like antifa and blm are bad. But i don't expect you to.

 

[Bald1]

My first thought is that Islam is an intrinsically intolerant ideology. What to do then?

This is where my my mind went to.

The question for me is how active the intolerant ideology is in pursuing their goals, and can they be supressed? For example, the neo nazis of the world are a fringe group with no hope in hell of gaining mainstream support. As it should be. Fuck em. So let those ankle biters bitch I say.

On the other hand, there are at least a half a billion Muslims who would like to force their ideology down everyones throats. I think some people are ringing the alarm bells while focusing at the lesser issue. That's globally speaking at this time.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I think people don't realize the last couple of years with antifa acting like Mao's red guards. Or it could be that they are sympathetic to the violent advancement of leftist ideology.

Come on man....Red guards, that's a bit hyperbolic don't you think

 

[splendica]

Certainly agree. You can not equate hate groups with those that come out to protest the hate group. Should German citizens that protested the Nazis be seen as equally bad as the Nazis? Of course not. It's the same as in Charlottesville and why Trump got it so wrong.

Now Trump tries to spin the white supremacist rally to be about confederate statues saying there were good people in that rally. If a good person was there and the group started chanting about Jews, that good person would have left.

What you saw and heard from the mainstream media is one thing.

What happened is something entirely different.

And this is why Trump was right and the lying, deluded left are playing out falsified charades of reality to America's demise.

 

[IDL]

Come on man....Red guards, that's a bit hyperbolic don't you think

Obviously hyperbolic, but they are a thuggish Marxist group that bares a resemblance in role, although less organized. A poor mans red guard.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Obviously hyperbolic, but they are a thuggish Marxist group that bares a resemblance in role, although less organized. A poor mans red guard.

I find the comparison frankly ridiculous, I know my father in law who fled China in 67 and emigrated to Canada in 1970 would agree