Defending Tolerance Requires Intolerance...

[Kellhound]

If you have problems distinguishing right from wrong when talking about nazism, your ethics are honestly quite shit. I'll never understand people that actually need a written manual on how to not fail as a human being. What kind of upbringing have you had that you're not aware of right and wrong? This is beyond just being obtuse, this is seriously worrisome.

Because right and wrong are beliefs, they are not physical laws. They can (and do) change and morph as the views of the masses ebb and flow.

[Slant]

Because right and wrong are beliefs, they are not physical laws. They can (and do) change and morph as the views of the masses ebb and flow.

Think something like this will change to being "right"?



Just so you know, that's scratch marks from inside a gas chamber in Auschwitz. Tell me in what fucked up shit piece of an excuse for a planet that is ever going to be "right"?

Get outta here. You're at the end of the line as far as your credibility goes. You're becoming insultingly obtuse by now.

[Kellhound]

Think something like this will change to being "right"?



Just so you know, that's scratch marks from inside a gas chamber in Auschwitz. Tell me in what fucked up shit piece of an excuse for a planet that is ever going to be "right"?

Get outta here. You're at the end of the line as far as your credibility goes. You're becoming insultingly obtuse by now.

It was collectively deemed ok by Germans, and the Japanese did similar actions during the same period. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, have all been accepted behavior at one point or another. I will say it again, morality is a human construct that is as changeable as the wind.

[Glorious Leader]

Because right and wrong are beliefs, they are not physical laws. They can (and do) change and morph as the views of the masses ebb and flow.

When did conservatives embrace moral relativism?

[Togashii]

When did conservatives embrace moral relativism?

Whenever it benefited them?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Except it is infringing on the rights of those that are intolerant.

I don't see "You cannot be criticized by others or face social consequences of your speech" anywhere in the constitution as an enshrined right.

Perhaps you can point it out for the rest of us?

You can say "Niggers, Kikes, and Muslims are all inferior, violent animals that need to be culled from this earth," and sure, I won't ask that the government arrest you for saying that. But me, and pretty much everyone else in this country, will tell you to fuck off with that shit. And if you can't find a platform to shout that opinion from, if you can't make anyone air your opinion, you can make your own, you can shout it from the front door of your house, and your freedom of speech will still be in tact even if everyone in the country refuses to host you. Shouting like a lunatic from your house your abhorrent opinions means your rights are still in tact.

- - - Updated - - -

Are those of you misconstruing the posts made by those that say that we can't be tolerant with those who hold intolerant views and arguing just to prove some inane point? It's certainly weird when those same posters don't have difficulties understanding this concept when it comes to religious extremism. Or are you now going to pretend that your tolerant towards extremists views as well?

They think that the "point" of arguing for tolerance is some kind of dick measuring contest for seeing who can be the most tolerant, and if you're intolerant of intolerant speech, that makes you a hypocrite.

This of course COMPLETELY ignores the motives behind aiming for tolerance, which is of course not wanting anyone's rights to be infringed upon, and to stop advocacy for rights infringement. The fact that their entire basis for pointing out hypocrisy is not even based in reality shows just how much they don't understand a single thing about it.

The constitution enshrines rights that cannot be infringed by the government. What they seem to have forgotten is that as long as they are not stealing, vandalizing, or assaulting you, people can call their opinion the scum of the earth, and that's their right.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

It was collectively deemed ok by Germans, and the Japanese did similar actions during the same period. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, have all been accepted behavior at one point or another. I will say it again, morality is a human construct that is as changeable as the wind.

Society improves and gets better. All of those things have been deemed to infringe on the rights of people over time, and have been internationally banned by a multitude of countries willing to enforce it. They're not coming back as acceptable. Even if one nation decides to go insane (like say what happened with Germany in the 20's, 30's, and 40's) it will be "acceptable" among the racists, bigots, Nazis, and other deplorables. But we see what happens when first world nations commit atrocities. The rest of the world decides to step in.

If the US ever becomes stupid enough to return to a time where making minorities second class citizens is acceptable social behavior, you can be certain that everyone else will step in to correct that mistake. And as powerful as our military is, taking on EVERY major world power would be a loss for us. And the person who can deal the most devastating blow to the US in such a situation would be considered the new world power.

Ever wonder why Russia is openly encouraging human atrocities in the US? They know it erodes our support from foreign nations.

[Kellhound]

When did conservatives embrace moral relativism?

Wouldn't know, I am not a conservative.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see "You cannot be criticized by others or face social consequences of your speech" anywhere in the constitution as an enshrined right.

Perhaps you can point it out for the rest of us?

You can say "Niggers, Kikes, and Muslims are all inferior, violent animals that need to be culled from this earth," and sure, I won't ask that the government arrest you for saying that. But me, and pretty much everyone else in this country, will tell you to fuck off with that shit. And if you can't find a platform to shout that opinion from, if you can't make anyone air your opinion, you can make your own, you can shout it from the front door of your house, and your freedom of speech will still be in tact even if everyone in the country refuses to host you. Shouting like a lunatic from your house your abhorrent opinions means your rights are still in tact.

- - - Updated - - -



They think that the "point" of arguing for tolerance is some kind of dick measuring contest for seeing who can be the most tolerant, and if you're intolerant of intolerant speech, that makes you a hypocrite.

This of course COMPLETELY ignores the motives behind aiming for tolerance, which is of course not wanting anyone's rights to be infringed upon, and to stop advocacy for rights infringement. The fact that their entire basis for pointing out hypocrisy is not even based in reality shows just how much they don't understand a single thing about it.

The constitution enshrines rights that cannot be infringed by the government. What they seem to have forgotten is that as long as they are not stealing, vandalizing, or assaulting you, people can call their opinion the scum of the earth, and that's their right.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

- - - Updated - - -



Society improves and gets better. All of those things have been deemed to infringe on the rights of people over time, and have been internationally banned by a multitude of countries willing to enforce it. They're not coming back as acceptable. Even if one nation decides to go insane (like say what happened with Germany in the 20's, 30's, and 40's) it will be "acceptable" among the racists, bigots, Nazis, and other deplorables. But we see what happens when first world nations commit atrocities. The rest of the world decides to step in.

If the US ever becomes stupid enough to return to a time where making minorities second class citizens is acceptable social behavior, you can be certain that everyone else will step in to correct that mistake. And as powerful as our military is, taking on EVERY major world power would be a loss for us. And the person who can deal the most devastating blow to the US in such a situation would be considered the new world power.

Ever wonder why Russia is openly encouraging human atrocities in the US? They know it erodes our support from foreign nations.

And when 3rd world countries do it, we ignore it. We generally ignore it in 1st world countries so long as the are not attacking major Western Powers.

[Felya]

Technically the definition of tolerance is more a long the lines of: "the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."

Yes, the willingness to tolerate intolerance makes it an oxymoron. You cannot tolerate intolerance and not be intolerant. By being tolerant, you are intrinsically opposite of intolerance.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And when 3rd world countries do it, we ignore it. We generally ignore it in 1st world countries so long as the are not attacking major Western Powers.

We've been pushing said countries in the direction of modern human rights, just not forcing.

[Zython]

And they in turn do not care what you think.

Well, that's their problem.

[Deianeira]

If the "peaceful ones" tolerate the extremists(like many not calling out extremist imams in their mosques), does this absolve them of any responsibility and make them still "peaceful ones" ?

If the "peaceful ones" view sharia law over the law of the western country they reside in, are they still integrated?

I hope you condemned all the participants of the alt-right movement that not only Did not condemned the nazis that was present but they happily walked beside them chanting antisemitic slogans and rascist filth. So i guess Trump was wrong that there was "Very good people" there since i have not seen anyone that was at the rally condemn any of the Nazis that participated.