The “paradox of tolerance” has never legitimately stumped anyone. The initial act of intolerance broke the social contract, thus removing their right to tolerance themselves.
this is my favorite philosophical fact. You can only have a defined definition if that definition excludes things, otherwise it is not appropriately defined. And therefore broad.
If your opposed to calls to violence against those that are trying to take away trans rights that’s fine. I’m just curious about calling authoritarianism.
In calling for violence against fascists…who’s authority are we upholding?
Sure. That’s fine. I’m questioning how you call that authoritism. Would you call the black panthers this? After all they certainly did some violent things during the civil rights movements.
Wait… I’m sorry I have to respond again because this really just hit me. Did you really use GERMANY as an example of why you SHOULD NOT stand up to facisim with violence? GERMANY???
How did letting the facisim play out for ya there champ?
I wouldn’t be so proudly proclaiming “I’m German” as if that gives you automatic and universal knowledge, or authority, if you’d like, on, well, anything, if I were you, instead I’d get out of the way, humble myself, and go study some history.
“Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.” -Adolf Hitler
Have tolerant people to be tolerant towards the intolerant? This question has claimed the coherence of so many philosopher’s brains. Poor souls.
The “paradox of tolerance” has never legitimately stumped anyone. The initial act of intolerance broke the social contract, thus removing their right to tolerance themselves.
If only someone had taught them about social contracts, which only conditionally requires us to tolerate people so long as they tolerate us.
this is my favorite philosophical fact. You can only have a defined definition if that definition excludes things, otherwise it is not appropriately defined. And therefore broad.
The only thing I can come up with is you’re defending people’s personal freedom to be fascists?
Not being shot, at least.
If your opposed to calls to violence against those that are trying to take away trans rights that’s fine. I’m just curious about calling authoritarianism.
In calling for violence against fascists…who’s authority are we upholding?
Enforcing your preferred kind of politics with guns sounds like a bad idea. I’m German, we did that a few times in our history.
Combating fascism at embracing it are two wildly different things, any appearance otherwise is simply superficial
Sure. That’s fine. I’m questioning how you call that authoritism. Would you call the black panthers this? After all they certainly did some violent things during the civil rights movements.
What about the IRA?
Wait… I’m sorry I have to respond again because this really just hit me. Did you really use GERMANY as an example of why you SHOULD NOT stand up to facisim with violence? GERMANY???
How did letting the facisim play out for ya there champ?
The street fights in 1932 did not do much to prevent fascism, to say the least.
Sounds like they should have tried harder.
Sounds like they should’ve had guns
Probably.
Yes they did.
I wouldn’t be so proudly proclaiming “I’m German” as if that gives you automatic and universal knowledge, or authority, if you’d like, on, well, anything, if I were you, instead I’d get out of the way, humble myself, and go study some history.
This seems fine.