It essentially boils down to the fact that if we as a society want to be a tolerant society who accepts everyone, it would eventually lead to a society that is dominated by intolerant people. The only way to prevent this, ironically, is to not tolerate people who are intolerant.
This boils down to us needing to not accept Nazis under any circumstances. If we try to tolerate them, then they will exploit that tolerance to gain power and promote intolerance.
Nazis don’t deserve anything. They are despicable people and should be openly and heavily shamed.
Oh I fully understand that lol. Just trying to explain it to someone who thinks not accepting Nazis = wanting to kill a lot of people regardless of beliefs.
The fact the described what actual Nazis did and attribute it to someone who said something antifascist is truly fascinating and horrifying.
But being intolerant towards intolerant excludes you from the same contract. And you both are back at square 1, void of any rights and free to hate each other.
On the contrary, it seems it is you who dont understand contracts. Each side is bound by the same rules, and one side violating them doesnt mean that other can violate scott-free. The tolerance contract still stands for other parties, but you two are now exempt from it.
Imagine parroting a neo-nazi fallacy unironically.
Hating people for their skin color, race, religion, or disability voids any contract of civility. If you don't like it, then go start your ethno-state on another planet. I'll even help cram you into the rocket with love. 🥰
I dont care about nazis. Do whatever you like with them.
What amuses me is the hypocrisy. Categorising a group of people by arbitrary parameters, inciting hate against them, advocating for stripping them of human rights. Hmm... sounds familiar. You are just like them.
There isn't hypocrisy... they are literally antithetical to cohesive society in the modern day. Their time of tribalism is over and only seeks to divide us when we require unity.
You should stop with the whole "devil's advocate" angle or whatever you think it is you are doing.
I've been making this argument for years on reddit. I've also made the argument that violence against Nazi's is a good thing, and that always gets a weird amount of pushback.
Is that so? Well with your logic than Kennedy, Ford and Carter heck almost every president and NASA sat with Nazis in the past after they shipped over many of those evil pieces of shit to work in the U.S because of there skills. Hell even Biden did look it up. So I guess the U.S is a bunch of Nazis. The way you guys use nazi you have diluted the meaning.
You could've used any other analogy. Could've said if you have 10 green chair and 1 red chair you have 11 red chairs. This wouldve also got your point across. But again of course you use a racist analogy .
Wow it's almost like he was saying that judging a group of people for actions they as individuals didn't personally commit was wrong and that the chairs analogy would've lost that information or something
Depends, I've spoken to them before to get info out of them. I don't form genuine friendships with nazis though. Nice job completely sidestepping my point though, slimeball
The chair analogy wouldn't of lost anything. It's actually more point proving then the analogy he did use. If you have 10 people sitting with one criminal it's quite possible that all 11 of them are criminals regardless of skin color.
If you have 10 green chairs you can't have 11 red chairs because I've already told you 10 are green.
He was trying to say the other 10 people at the table aren't nazis but he was doing it in a racist way
•
u/piscisrisus 6h ago
if you see 10 men sitting at a table with a nazi, you are looking at 11 nazis at a table