The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn’t playing fair. And they’re just biding their time until they’re in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you’re opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don’t see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
Second, I think it’s very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can’t attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn’t self-defense, and therefore it’s not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you’re opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don’t see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
… my guy have you not been paying attention
Slavery was only totally abolished in the 1940s with the end of peonage in Texas. People today still openly defend slavery. Florida’s new curriculum for public schools includes the idea that slavery was good for Black people because it ‘taught them valuable skills’. De facto enslavement happens by the selective enforcement of unjust laws combined with targeting of minority and impoverished communities combined with for-profit prisons and subminimum wage in conditions that would be illegal anywhere else.
We’re not that far removed from actual, literal slavery, and it’s not a leap to believe that a fascist regime would joyfully reimplement it.
Second, I think it’s very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can’t attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn’t self-defense, and therefore it’s not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
Again, that’s only valid within the context of a functioning state. That’s not a comment on morality, that’s a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
Again, that’s only valid within the context of a functioning state. That’s not a comment on morality, that’s a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
I’ve been directing my points at morality. I believe it is morally wrong to use such pre-emptive violence.
Well, the philosophy is based heavily on how the Nazi’s came into power. So maybe you should just look into that and see how it worked out for the other parties involved.
I think most people would agree they wouldn’t want to wait to get violent until after their opposition is sending them to camps.
This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
Also, the philosophy goes over this. They would wait until you aren’t in a position to fight back.
Listen trucknuts. Can I call you trucknuts? Intolerance of intolerance is the only way through. Otherwise we get only more extreme.
deleted by creator
I don’t own a truck so I’m not sure why you’d want to, but sure.
Why do you think intolerance of intolerance is the only way through? Assaulting your ideological opponents seems extreme to me. Does it not to you?
The idea of intolerance of intolerance is that your arguing opponent isn’t playing fair. And they’re just biding their time until they’re in a position where they themselves can just be blatantly intolerant without repercussion.
If you have enough people advocating for slavery, you can just flatout takeover and enforce slavery, and you have enough people behind you that it will be hard to speak out against it, because unlike you they definitely will be intolerant of opposition.
Basically, it seems extreme because the person on the other side is waiting until they have the numbers to get away with it. But by no means would they offer you the same courtesy if the shoe was on the other foot.
I have two concerns with this.
First, it seems to take for granted that the ideology you’re opposing has lots of people behind it, or at least has the potential to get lots of people behind it. But at this point in society, advocating for, say, the return of slavery is so far outside the realm of acceptance that I don’t see much of a gender of it spreading even if its supporters proselytized openly.
Second, I think it’s very dangerous to excuse violent behavior now on the grounds that you believe some unspecified person will inflict violence on you at an unspecified time in the future. In other words, you can’t attack someone just because you believe he and his buds are probably gonna jump you at some point later. Your purported ability to predict the future is not sufficient; that isn’t self-defense, and therefore it’s not a valid use of violence. This changes, of course, if the threat of violence is imminent and actually real at the time you attack them.
… my guy have you not been paying attention
Slavery was only totally abolished in the 1940s with the end of peonage in Texas. People today still openly defend slavery. Florida’s new curriculum for public schools includes the idea that slavery was good for Black people because it ‘taught them valuable skills’. De facto enslavement happens by the selective enforcement of unjust laws combined with targeting of minority and impoverished communities combined with for-profit prisons and subminimum wage in conditions that would be illegal anywhere else.
We’re not that far removed from actual, literal slavery, and it’s not a leap to believe that a fascist regime would joyfully reimplement it.
Again, that’s only valid within the context of a functioning state. That’s not a comment on morality, that’s a comment on civility (as in the quality of living in a civilized society).
I’ve been directing my points at morality. I believe it is morally wrong to use such pre-emptive violence.
Then I point you back to the mob boss example. Is that not sufficient advocacy for violence to warrant violence in return?
Well, the philosophy is based heavily on how the Nazi’s came into power. So maybe you should just look into that and see how it worked out for the other parties involved.
I think most people would agree they wouldn’t want to wait to get violent until after their opposition is sending them to camps.
Also, the philosophy goes over this. They would wait until you aren’t in a position to fight back.
I don’t know man, we’ve had a striking return to child labor being acceptable.