sorry i got my rhetoric ™️ wrong last time i am just attempting to illustrate the thesis of Tolerance is not a moral precept by Yonatan Zunger so check that out if ur curious thanks babes <3

[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretending that you can’t specifically outlaw explicitly violent and hateful bigotry without someone else outlawing your own peaceful ideology is the mother of all slippery slope fallacies and is almost exclusively trotted out by people who agree with a lot of the ideology of the bigots.

    There’s nobody forcing us to go down any “bad path” just because we protect minorities from extremists. Just like there’s NOT always two valid sides to an issue (see for example flat earthers, young earth creationists and other science deniers), you don’t have to ban democracy in order to ban fascism.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        violent and hateful acts of bigotry are outlawed and have been for quite a while

        Someone hasn’t been paying attention to all the laws deliberately victimising and discriminating against racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people, poor people, unemployed people and all immigrants (not just the undocumented ones) coming out of Congress, the white house and the states for the last 250 or so years 🙄

    • Melpomene@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People conflate “ban bad actions” and “ban speech” when discussing tolerance; separating those is important. We should ABSOLUTELY ban violence and refuse to acknowledge laws and systems that advocate for those things. We should be both vocal and active in our rejections.

      Speech is a separate issue. As stupid as antivaxxers are, as hateful as TERFs are, I don’t want government telling them they can’t speak. Any law we pass, we should ask ourselves how it might be abused by a bad actor. Better, at least to me, is to out and ruin anyone who expresses hateful, bigoted views.

      • Kit Sorens@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        To be clear, free speech does NOT protect from social consequence. Let them speak. Let them be ostracized, ridiculed, and demeaned for their hateful speech. Use your own free speech to ensure there are 10 voices of reason for every “loving” Christofacist telling them exactly what we took our stance for in 1865 and 1944. All humans are equal. All humans deserve life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and every soapbox is at once a platform and a social noose.

        • Melpomene@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          100% agree, and this is where I come out. Speak your mind as a fascist and get wrecked with social censure.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I had a dollar for every time I’ve argued with terfs about the stupidest of misconceptions, I’d probably buy a house…