German authorities have raided the homes of 17 people in the state of Bavaria accused of spreading antisemitic hate speech and threats targeting Jews online.
I feel we just can’t agree on this argument online, and it’s likely because the line for tolerance differs on so many factors, history being a huge one.
I’m aware German laws exist to ban fascist symbols, likely as an ounce of prevention along the lines, “we won’t repeat another Hitler”.
It might take the US falling into a fascist state and being liberated to make us adopt such “drastic” measures as raids. Until then 1A has been routinely held up to protect hate speech so for now it’s up to us as a society to make a conscious decision what we’ll tolerate. We just have to be as vocal about it as the racists/fascists.
The raids were probably because of the threats and not because of antisemitic remarks. The first might get you arrested if you scream it in the streets, but threatening people should get you raided imho
If you want a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
If you want democracy, you must suppress anti-democratic ideas.
You have to fight for want you believe in, and not let antithetical ideas fester and subvert yours, just because they exploit your tolerance and use the space you give them to fight it.
Sure, but your methodology for determining what is an anti-democratic idea should be really tight, before you raid/arrest people.
No one wants murders in their society, but showing that they did that action is more important than stating that an action is wrong/anti-democratic/immoral etc.
In this case if they have evidence, they should be investigated as is being done.
My critique is on the general sense of tolerance/intolerance as that can be vague, although unjustified incitement of violence or violent action is a good place to draw a line. However what is a call to violence can be tricky to parse sometimes.
If you want a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate the intolerant
That doesn’t mean silencing anyone who utters “wrongspeak,” but authoritarians like you are pushing precisely that. “We shall decide who the intolerant are and they shall be banned from our tolerant society.” I would much rather live in a world where I had to listen to ignorant views like yours than be “protected” from them but never forced to figure out for myself why I disagree. Bigotry flourishes in darkness; the solution is to bring it out into the light.
But the actual content of what these people said hasnt been published so we dont knwo if they where callibg for vilence. Maybw they where just being hatefull?
This made me think because raiding peoples homes doesn’t seem right, but saying things like this definitely isn’t right.
In the end I think a inclusive society should exclude it’s exclusive elements.
I feel we just can’t agree on this argument online, and it’s likely because the line for tolerance differs on so many factors, history being a huge one.
I’m aware German laws exist to ban fascist symbols, likely as an ounce of prevention along the lines, “we won’t repeat another Hitler”.
It might take the US falling into a fascist state and being liberated to make us adopt such “drastic” measures as raids. Until then 1A has been routinely held up to protect hate speech so for now it’s up to us as a society to make a conscious decision what we’ll tolerate. We just have to be as vocal about it as the racists/fascists.
The raids were probably because of the threats and not because of antisemitic remarks. The first might get you arrested if you scream it in the streets, but threatening people should get you raided imho
That makes us no better than them tho.
No, it’s a ‘paradox of tolerance’ and that paradox is already solved
Quick someone post the social contract image
By already solved i assume you mean every philosopher throughput history has a different opinion?
No.
Google it. Or Bing or DDG… Put it into your search engine of choice.
I read the wikipedia
That’s what those fuckers want you to think.
So its ok when we silence a group of people for their beliefs but not when they do it?
If you want a tolerant society, you cannot tolerate the intolerant.
If you want democracy, you must suppress anti-democratic ideas.
You have to fight for want you believe in, and not let antithetical ideas fester and subvert yours, just because they exploit your tolerance and use the space you give them to fight it.
Sure, but your methodology for determining what is an anti-democratic idea should be really tight, before you raid/arrest people.
No one wants murders in their society, but showing that they did that action is more important than stating that an action is wrong/anti-democratic/immoral etc.
How do you suppose they should have proceeded instead?
In this case if they have evidence, they should be investigated as is being done.
My critique is on the general sense of tolerance/intolerance as that can be vague, although unjustified incitement of violence or violent action is a good place to draw a line. However what is a call to violence can be tricky to parse sometimes.
Removed by mod
That doesn’t mean silencing anyone who utters “wrongspeak,” but authoritarians like you are pushing precisely that. “We shall decide who the intolerant are and they shall be banned from our tolerant society.” I would much rather live in a world where I had to listen to ignorant views like yours than be “protected” from them but never forced to figure out for myself why I disagree. Bigotry flourishes in darkness; the solution is to bring it out into the light.
When those beliefs involve the eradication of anyone who isn’t exactly like you, yes.
So we should silence all the religouse fundamentalists as well?
Religious extremists advocating for violence should be, yes.
But the actual content of what these people said hasnt been published so we dont knwo if they where callibg for vilence. Maybw they where just being hatefull?
If they call for genocide? Yes, of course.
What makes you think society should just sit idly by and do nothing when people call for mass murder and genocide?