You have a bar:
Nazi comes into your bar, you let him stay, because why not its just a single nazi. Nazi invites friends, those friends invite their friends, and so on. Now you a have nazi bar.
So, basically, if you tolerate the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually wipe out tolerance.
A more accurate way to say it is, “if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance.”
It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business. I just think a bar owner is free to kick people out for representing Nazis purely because it’s their bar and they can do what they want.
But X’s problem is a bit different from the Nazi Bar problem, in that you don’t really see the Neo Nazis on X sitting there minding their own business. You ONLY see them voicing their intolerance. Which of course, should not be tolerated.
It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business
it is a fallacy that the intolerant mind their own business. being intolerant is, itself, an active state, not a passive one, and one to be actively resisted. being intolerant involves choice, a choice to be intolerant. there is no “minding one’s own business” in being intolerant, as being intolerant necessarily involves minding the business of others ad then making the choice to react to it hatefully.
so your argument is, itself, spurious for it is fallacious in its foundation.
That was so fast, you make me rub my temples in pain, my guy.
So, people are people, they aren’t their ideals. People have more than one state of mind, they aren’t 2D cardboard cutouts (or drawings of red skull). Life would be easier if they were, I agree, but the world is more complex than that.
People are born into environments they have no control over. People are handed ideals before they know what they are. People learn from their environment. People change their minds about things. You literally wouldn’t bother commenting right now if you didn’t agree with me.
If a person is sitting peacefully, let them. If a person is taking any action to impede any other person’s ability to sit peacefully, then stop them. But don’t attack a person who is sitting peacefully, because they’ll probably want to attack you, or someone else, back.
Now call me a nazi again, and we can agree to disagree. Jfc.
That was so fast, you make me rub my temples in pain, my guy.
Good
People are born into environments they have no control over
Nobody is born a Nazi. That is a choice someone makes. And it’s a choice that has consequences.
If a person is sitting peacefully
Being a Nazi isn’t “peaceful.” There is no “peaceful” state of being a Nazi. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of the United Kingdom taught the world that 1936 when he tried to leave Nazi Germany sitting peacefully alone.
The difference between us is, I want Nazis to renounce their Nazi-ism. You don’t.
you’ve made another mistake: assuming you can read my mind. you can’t, of course. and, in making that assumption, not only were you wrong, you came to the wrong conclusion-- it’d be thrilled if Nazis renounced their beliefs.
However, in the meantime, neither they nor their beliefs should be tolerated, and you haven’t made any argument that compels me to believe otherwise.
and attacking me personally rather than my argument is a pretty weak ad hominem fallacy, as i’ve demonstrated. so is using the straw man argument about “changing their beliefs” rather than what we were discussing: tolerating them.
I don’t believe you’ll always be this way. I believe you can change
i suggest you stick with the facts rather than beliefs and logical fallacies. they make for a better argument.
A more accurate way to say it is, “if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance.”
If the intolerant could mind their own business and tolerate people they didn’t agree with, they literally wouldn’t be part of the intolerant. That’s the point: it’s a core part of who they are and we have to cut it out like a cancer to have a tolerant society. (Sorry for making you read the T-word so many times.)
The elongated muskrat is learning first hand how the Nazi Bar Problem works
excuse me but what the fuck is the nazi bat problem
You have a bar: Nazi comes into your bar, you let him stay, because why not its just a single nazi. Nazi invites friends, those friends invite their friends, and so on. Now you a have nazi bar.
For reference:
https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-kicks-nazis-out-of-his-punk-bar-even-if-theyre-not-bothering-anyone
A more accurate way to say it is, “if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance.”
It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business. I just think a bar owner is free to kick people out for representing Nazis purely because it’s their bar and they can do what they want.
But X’s problem is a bit different from the Nazi Bar problem, in that you don’t really see the Neo Nazis on X sitting there minding their own business. You ONLY see them voicing their intolerance. Which of course, should not be tolerated.
Tolerate tolerate tolerate. There.
Nazism—the attempt to organize the commission of genocide—is an act of violence and must always be responded to as such.
Nazism is never minding its own business.
it is a fallacy that the intolerant mind their own business. being intolerant is, itself, an active state, not a passive one, and one to be actively resisted. being intolerant involves choice, a choice to be intolerant. there is no “minding one’s own business” in being intolerant, as being intolerant necessarily involves minding the business of others ad then making the choice to react to it hatefully.
so your argument is, itself, spurious for it is fallacious in its foundation.
gtfo with your nazi apologism
The Paradox of Tolerance
That was so fast, you make me rub my temples in pain, my guy.
So, people are people, they aren’t their ideals. People have more than one state of mind, they aren’t 2D cardboard cutouts (or drawings of red skull). Life would be easier if they were, I agree, but the world is more complex than that.
People are born into environments they have no control over. People are handed ideals before they know what they are. People learn from their environment. People change their minds about things. You literally wouldn’t bother commenting right now if you didn’t agree with me.
If a person is sitting peacefully, let them. If a person is taking any action to impede any other person’s ability to sit peacefully, then stop them. But don’t attack a person who is sitting peacefully, because they’ll probably want to attack you, or someone else, back.
Now call me a nazi again, and we can agree to disagree. Jfc.
Good
Nobody is born a Nazi. That is a choice someone makes. And it’s a choice that has consequences.
Being a Nazi isn’t “peaceful.” There is no “peaceful” state of being a Nazi. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of the United Kingdom taught the world that 1936 when he tried to leave Nazi Germany sitting peacefully alone.
gtfo with you Nazi apologism
The difference between us is, I want Nazis to renounce their Nazi-ism. You don’t.
I don’t believe you’ll always be this way. I believe you can change. Godspeed.
you’ve made another mistake: assuming you can read my mind. you can’t, of course. and, in making that assumption, not only were you wrong, you came to the wrong conclusion-- it’d be thrilled if Nazis renounced their beliefs.
However, in the meantime, neither they nor their beliefs should be tolerated, and you haven’t made any argument that compels me to believe otherwise.
and attacking me personally rather than my argument is a pretty weak ad hominem fallacy, as i’ve demonstrated. so is using the straw man argument about “changing their beliefs” rather than what we were discussing: tolerating them.
i suggest you stick with the facts rather than beliefs and logical fallacies. they make for a better argument.
gtfo with your nazi apologism
If the intolerant could mind their own business and tolerate people they didn’t agree with, they literally wouldn’t be part of the intolerant. That’s the point: it’s a core part of who they are and we have to cut it out like a cancer to have a tolerant society. (Sorry for making you read the T-word so many times.)
When you find a nazi but you can’t find a bat.
Speaking of Nazis, are you able to provide any evidence whatsoever of Nazi activity on X?
Or is it more of a feeling you have?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-x-post-actual-truth/
This was very easy to find, I’m sure there’s more.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/22/1214619331/advertisers-leave-elon-musks-x-after-their-ads-appeared-next-to-pro-nazi-posts
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-musk-ron-desantis-2024-twitter/674149/
He’s clearly an anti-semite, or at least a sympathers. ‘Nazi’ is getting thrown around a bit too liberally