please touch my-doc 🥺👉👈

[…] [Hyprland] is made by a transphobe and a large part of the community is also […]

Do you have a source?

How to Cure Fungus on Aquarium Fish

Am I going to be patient zero for an IRL Last of Us?

I agree, through the lens of unfetted capitalism, but, with adequate regulation, I don’t think this is a necessary outcome. Although, perhaps “unfetted capitalism” isn’t capitalism?

[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech ^[1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association ^[1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship ^[2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech ^[3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).

All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.

[…] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?

It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

[…] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]

I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

[…] Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them […]

Hm. Your statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis” is an important distinction; however, I think it also crucially depends on the distribution of nazis throughout the populace (assuming the society in question in governed by a majoritarian democratic system). The statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis”, I think, infers the potential of monopolistic behavior in that ownership of the market becomes consolidated in the hands of those who are nazi-sympathetic. In this case, assuming the nazis were a minority of the populace, the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition ^[1]; however, if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place ^[2], assuming they had a monopoly on power (as if they didn’t, it’s plausible that the minority with a monopoly on power would revolt), and I think it would be plausible that they would create a market regulating body that is favorable to nazi-sympathetic entities.

[…] not only does imprisonment do [social shunning] […]

I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).

[…] The thing is, these groups don’t start with hatred right off the bat. A normal kid might see a fascist organisation as some kind of boys club. Cool iconography, loyalty, camaraderie, whats not to like? The existence of this law will ensure that people are aware of the depravity of this ideology and reduce their ability to seduce recruits by deception.

Presumably, this is under the assumption that education and awareness are insufficient means to that end.

[…] Fascist organisations have been successfully recruiting, and it seems like they’re gaining momentum. Sure some bar might be able to keep skin heads out, but “soft” social intolerance very obviously is inadequate. […]

For my own reference, do you have any empirical sources to back up the claim that opinions sympathetic to fascism are accelerating? I’m not disputing your claim — I just like sources.

[…] [laws are] also a communication regarding what a society considers acceptable. […]

[…] the existence of the law is society standing together and sending a very clear message that some behaviors are unacceptable, a formalisation of social intolerance if you will. […]

That this isn’t necessarily true: For example, if a society is ruled by a tyrannical government, then there is a divergence between the laws imposed on the citizenry, and what the citizenry thinks is socially just.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you think the current government (USA) is fascist. If so, would you mind describing exactly why you think that? Do note that I’m not disputing your claim — I’m simply curious what your rationale is.

[…] i still thoroughly disagree with you […]

Would you mind outlining why?

[…] If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]

I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.

[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by “being Nazis”.

[…] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]

Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:

Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.

deleted by creator

[…] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”

I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:

I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.

Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It’s quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism ^[1], which I personally espouse.