The paradox of tolerance is about absolute/unlimited tolerance. One can set limits on tolerance and respect the human rights of the intolerant, it’s not mutually exclusive.
Btw, the combination of “X people don’t deserve human rights” and “those who don’t support taking rights away from X are equal to X” is especially atrocious.
If people break the law, we restrict their freedom. Many seem to oppose that idea nowadays, or at least claim to. There’s a certain irony in that. But yes, if an individual breaks the social contract in a manner deemed “against the law”, then certain rights are removed from them.
The tolerance paradox is bullshit. Source: Daryl Davis, the black dude who converted a ton (like over 80) KKK members by just being a tolerant human to them.
You have to tolerate the person, not the message. You can say “you’re a valid human being” and “the stuff that comes out of your mouth is actually terrible” at the same time. Doing anything else pushes all of those valid humans with bad ideas together and makes a big echo chamber.
He didn’t say we should just say gas them to death (like they’d do to some of us in a heartbeat), he just pointed out they deserve no right to be aggressive against minorities.
I see no issue there. If they want to be decent citizens there’s an easy solution to that; stop being a nazi.
Edit: I otherwise agree with your comment, as they probably need some deprogramming to actually achieve said solution.
So you’re saying for example a woman gets brought up in an environment where she’s raised as a nazi you think that it’d be acceptable for someone to rape and beat her?
I don’t really think you do, I’m not going to bother listing other examples but you get the point - what you’re saying is not only absurd but it’s clearly not what you actually believe.
All people are people, it’s that simple and there’s no more to it.
No, I was saying Nazis have a history of death and destruction, while people leaning towards democracy tend to be a little more gentle with their fellow man.
Nobody deserves to be beaten or raped and I certainly didn’t imply that.
You literally said they should have no rights, I get that you hadn’t thought about what you were saying but I really think it’s important to think about the implications of things we say.
I’d link that clip everyone always uses about the law Vs satan but it’s overused, surfice to sau dehumanising humans isn’t a thing good people do - and yes I know it’s popular to at the moment but when I was a kid everyone thought calling things gay as an insult was a great thing and we as a society grew from that so we can grow from this.
I obviously meant they shouldn’t have any rights to practice their nazism or do harmful things to whomever they dislike so much, not that they shouldn’t have any human rights.
I feel like this should’ve been fairly obvious given the context of the conversation. Human rights should always be the first concern no matter who it concerns. Do you think nazis feel the same way?
With all due respect, with just how many people are literally calling for violence in this thread, no, I didn’t connect those dots either. If you’re actually truthful about not meaning they shouldn’t have human rights, I’d strongly consider editing your previous statement. If you leave it, you’re feeding into the hate echo chamber that you actually seem pretty opposed to. Words have got to be specific, if you’re going to speak in absolutes, or people WILL misunderstand or mischaracterize you.
The first sentence you posted is exactly the thread that line of thought leads down. Disenfranchised people need to be talked to, met with empathy from the people they’ve been told are The Other. That’s the only way to destigmatize the two from each other.
“they’d do that to us in a heartbeat” is both wrong (not every person who entertains these ideas actually wants to kill anyone) and also not even a good point. If you want to improve the world noticeably, you have to be BETTER THAN not the same as. Go talk to a nazi, actually understand what they think and feel, and figure out where that disconnect is.
There’s no paradox if you look at it as a social contract. If you don’t uphold your part of the contract (tolerating others) then you aren’t entitled to benefits from the contract (being tolerated by others).
So, you advocate against human rights? Denying rights and dehumanizing according to people’s ideas is pretty nazi.
deleted by creator
The paradox of tolerance is about absolute/unlimited tolerance. One can set limits on tolerance and respect the human rights of the intolerant, it’s not mutually exclusive.
Btw, the combination of “X people don’t deserve human rights” and “those who don’t support taking rights away from X are equal to X” is especially atrocious.
I don’t believe that extends to denying them their basic human rights, though.
That depends on how much of the social contract a group is willing to break.
We benefit from knowing just how far nazis are willing to go to further their beliefs. And their efforts should be resisted in kind.
If people break the law, we restrict their freedom. Many seem to oppose that idea nowadays, or at least claim to. There’s a certain irony in that. But yes, if an individual breaks the social contract in a manner deemed “against the law”, then certain rights are removed from them.
The tolerance paradox is bullshit. Source: Daryl Davis, the black dude who converted a ton (like over 80) KKK members by just being a tolerant human to them.
You have to tolerate the person, not the message. You can say “you’re a valid human being” and “the stuff that comes out of your mouth is actually terrible” at the same time. Doing anything else pushes all of those valid humans with bad ideas together and makes a big echo chamber.
He didn’t say we should just say gas them to death (like they’d do to some of us in a heartbeat), he just pointed out they deserve no right to be aggressive against minorities.
I see no issue there. If they want to be decent citizens there’s an easy solution to that; stop being a nazi.
Edit: I otherwise agree with your comment, as they probably need some deprogramming to actually achieve said solution.
So you’re saying for example a woman gets brought up in an environment where she’s raised as a nazi you think that it’d be acceptable for someone to rape and beat her?
I don’t really think you do, I’m not going to bother listing other examples but you get the point - what you’re saying is not only absurd but it’s clearly not what you actually believe.
All people are people, it’s that simple and there’s no more to it.
No, I was saying Nazis have a history of death and destruction, while people leaning towards democracy tend to be a little more gentle with their fellow man.
Nobody deserves to be beaten or raped and I certainly didn’t imply that.
You literally said they should have no rights, I get that you hadn’t thought about what you were saying but I really think it’s important to think about the implications of things we say.
I’d link that clip everyone always uses about the law Vs satan but it’s overused, surfice to sau dehumanising humans isn’t a thing good people do - and yes I know it’s popular to at the moment but when I was a kid everyone thought calling things gay as an insult was a great thing and we as a society grew from that so we can grow from this.
I obviously meant they shouldn’t have any rights to practice their nazism or do harmful things to whomever they dislike so much, not that they shouldn’t have any human rights.
I feel like this should’ve been fairly obvious given the context of the conversation. Human rights should always be the first concern no matter who it concerns. Do you think nazis feel the same way?
With all due respect, with just how many people are literally calling for violence in this thread, no, I didn’t connect those dots either. If you’re actually truthful about not meaning they shouldn’t have human rights, I’d strongly consider editing your previous statement. If you leave it, you’re feeding into the hate echo chamber that you actually seem pretty opposed to. Words have got to be specific, if you’re going to speak in absolutes, or people WILL misunderstand or mischaracterize you.
The first sentence you posted is exactly the thread that line of thought leads down. Disenfranchised people need to be talked to, met with empathy from the people they’ve been told are The Other. That’s the only way to destigmatize the two from each other.
“they’d do that to us in a heartbeat” is both wrong (not every person who entertains these ideas actually wants to kill anyone) and also not even a good point. If you want to improve the world noticeably, you have to be BETTER THAN not the same as. Go talk to a nazi, actually understand what they think and feel, and figure out where that disconnect is.
There’s no paradox if you look at it as a social contract. If you don’t uphold your part of the contract (tolerating others) then you aren’t entitled to benefits from the contract (being tolerated by others).
Ohhh yeah. I see where you’re confused.
Nazis aren’t people.
deleted by creator