Tolerance of intolerance is the death of tolerance.
So no, intolerant nazi shit should never be tolerated.
Comment on Know the difference
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 15 hours ago
Free speech: yes, even for Nazis advocating for evil shit. Throwing people in jail over words is stupid unless they meet the harm principle. The older US antifascists didn’t fight to weaken fundamental civil rights. In the Skokie Affair, some Jewish lawyers knew that offensive Nazi speech is not a credible danger, but that chipping away at fundamental rights is a danger that gives fascists what they want: those lawyers were antifascists.
That letter addressed the Village of Skokie’s ordinances that sought to prevent the Nazis’ demonstration. It explained that “…the Nazis are not the real issue. The Skokie laws are the real issue.” It pointed out that the ordinances were so broad that, “Skokie had already used the same law[s] to deny the Jewish War Veterans a permit to parade.”
It’s not hard to oppose fascists & advocate for free speech.
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
sobchak@programming.dev 11 hours ago
I think abstract support of genocide should probably be legal, I don’t think organizations, institutions, or people should be forced to tolerate it though. Anti-fascists being anti-free-speech in regards to pro-fascist speech seems ok and natural?
axexrx@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
If you allow nazis to keep promoting nazi ideas, you will inevitably have to fight more nazis at some point.
If ypu ban nazi speech as the one major caveat to free speech, then they will never be able to exist in large enough numbers that you HAVE to fight them.
Its the logical conclusion of the paradox of tolerance.
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 14 hours ago
That’s deluded speculation & the old antifascists knew that.
Better to see them right where they are.
Such legal compromises are trash. Look how they work for Germany: live police suppressing pro-Palestinian protests as anti-semitic, raids & arrests over calling a politician pimmel, internet patrols penalizing vitriol, insults, & satirical images of politicians showing fake quotes.
It’s a paradox without a single logical conclusion, and you likely misunderstood it.
Image :::spoiler text alternative
The True Paradox of Tolerance
By philosopher Karl Popper[^popper-source]
You think you know the Popper Paradox thanks to this? (👉 comic from pictoline.com)
Karl Popper: I never said that!
Popper argued that society via its institutions should have a right to prohibit those who are intolerant.
Karl Popper: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.
For Popper, on what grounds may society suppress the intolerant? When they “are not prepared to meet on the level of rational argument” “they forbid their followers to listen to rational argument … & teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fist or pistols”. The argument of the intolerably intolerant is force & violence.
We misconstrue this paradox at our peril … to the extent that one group could declare another group ‘intolerant’ just to prohibit their ideas, speech & other freedoms.
Grave sign: “The Intolerant” RIP
Underneath it lies a pile of symbols for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Black power. A leg labeled tolerance kicks the Gay Pride symbol into the pile.
Muchas gracias a @lokijustice y asivaespana.com :::
[^popper-source]: Source: The Open Society and It’s Enemies, Karl R. Popper
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
Agreed, but it’s still a tough line to draw. Here’s a scale:
We’ve got some problems, and it’s probably because of “someone”.
Aren’t the X suspicious? We should keep an eye on them.
All the X have rights but it’s their fault for all our problems.
We should give jobs to everyone before all the X.
We should expel all the X.
We should genocide all the X.
At which point is it ok for the cops to come have a conversation with you?