Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur
Bgugi@lemmy.world 1 week agoThat view is fine and dandy with an an omniscient lens of who’s the reactionary intolerant and who is the originator of intolerance.
Comment on Sooo... This is happening on Imgur
Bgugi@lemmy.world 1 week agoThat view is fine and dandy with an an omniscient lens of who’s the reactionary intolerant and who is the originator of intolerance.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Group A: “I am intolerant of (group) because they need to go back to their own country and not live in mine.”
Group B: “I am intolerant of (group) because they don’t tolerate other ethnicities.”
This guy: “but who was intolerant first?”
vas@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
Wrong question. It doesn’t matter who was “first”.
If the first group stops, the problem is gone.
If the second group stops, the problem is not gone but likely growing.
Bgugi@lemmy.world 1 week ago
You both completely miss the argument. Cile is strawmanning, vas is again viewing from the omniscient or opposing viewpoint.
Virtually all intolerants perceive themselves as victims. Permitting “intolerance of intolerance” is just accelerationist, “might makes right” ideology.
HP_Rubshaft@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
This just feels like an enlightened centrist take or worse, playing cover for bigotry.
Cile is less strawmanning and more exemplifying the absurdity of applying this mentality to literal Nazis and white supremacists.
Can you give an example of your assertion, historical or imagined, where we SHOULDN’T act against acts of intolerance due to some muddying factor?