Your argument gets into a common neoliberal talking point about our institutions. That they are infallible and that any attempt at systemic change would destroy them.
I dont know who’se fucking posts you’ve been reading, but they clearly werent mine if thats your conclusion you came to.
But then again, given your general right wing argument style of “Its okay to do bad things as long as I agree with them, who gives a fuck about consequences down the road”, I’m not entirely surprised you are choosing to respond to a imaginary arguments instead of mine.
These were in your argument. I assessed them as part of a neoliberal argument.
You are still, ultimately, arguing for the destruction of our institutions by trying to give the people you agree with special privilege to do wrong that you agree with.
This gets at the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the paradox of tolerance is how should a tolerant society deal with intolerant people or groups. By reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty, we can resolve the paradox. If a group of people, such as fascists, decided to be intolerant, they have broken the social contract of tolerance. Having broken the agreement, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement. Thus their speech in the case of the targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not protected speech.
So denying the fascists the ability to use the mail in this way is not special treatment, but a refusal by society to tolerate intolerance. Ideally we would have systems in place to prevent disinformation campaigns, but we should rather have individuals exercising civil disobedience than nothing at all. There is no point in an institution such as the mail existing as it does now if it’s going to be used to deny people the fundamental right to exist.
My argument would be the same, That they would need to be punished severely to protect the institution of the US Postal Service, in order to prevent other bad actors from doing more of the same and destroying it from the inside.
Bad-faith actors do not care about being punished. The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life. We should not put institutions above the way of life that they are supposed to foster. To do so would defeat the purpose of the institutions.
You are as much a cancer and threat to our institutions as all the other bad actors.
The argument that sounds right wing is yours. edit: typo
I dont know who’se fucking posts you’ve been reading, but they clearly werent mine if thats your conclusion you came to.
But then again, given your general right wing argument style of “Its okay to do bad things as long as I agree with them, who gives a fuck about consequences down the road”, I’m not entirely surprised you are choosing to respond to a imaginary arguments instead of mine.
These were in your argument. I assessed them as part of a neoliberal argument.
This gets at the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the paradox of tolerance is how should a tolerant society deal with intolerant people or groups. By reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty, we can resolve the paradox. If a group of people, such as fascists, decided to be intolerant, they have broken the social contract of tolerance. Having broken the agreement, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement. Thus their speech in the case of the targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not protected speech.
So denying the fascists the ability to use the mail in this way is not special treatment, but a refusal by society to tolerate intolerance. Ideally we would have systems in place to prevent disinformation campaigns, but we should rather have individuals exercising civil disobedience than nothing at all. There is no point in an institution such as the mail existing as it does now if it’s going to be used to deny people the fundamental right to exist.
Bad-faith actors do not care about being punished. The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life. We should not put institutions above the way of life that they are supposed to foster. To do so would defeat the purpose of the institutions.
The argument that sounds right wing is yours. edit: typo