• ObjectivityIncarnate
    link
    English
    -22
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If you believe having certain thoughts/desires creates a justification for physical assault on that person by strangers, then you, objectively, do not believe “everyone [should] have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.”, since being legally protected against such assault is one such “basic right”, in all modern societies.

    So, if you’re on the left, as I presume you are, you are answering my question with a clear “no”, and proving that assertion to be a lie.

    Rights are not conditional.

    • TheHiddenCatboy
      link
      English
      107 months ago

      Ah yes, the old tolerate intolerance canard. Yeah nah, we’re past that, pal.

      You shouldn’t be mistreated because of something you are. You shouldn’t be hated because of something intrinsic to you, like being a woman, loving your own gender, being a minority, or feeling like you don’t belong in your own body. You shouldn’t be singled out for choices you make that don’t harm others, such as what you believe or don’t believe in, as long as you don’t get it in your stupid head to force others to believe as you do. In short, you shouldn’t be punished for who you are.

      But that doesn’t extend to those who choose to hate on others because they are cruel bastards who take pleasure in the pain of others. Fascists in general and Nazis in particular are the poster children for forcing others to believe as they do, and love punishing other people for who they are. Thus they are exempt from the rule ‘don’t punish people unless they are attacking others’…because they explicitly ARE attacking others. Since you don’t get this, you’re getting downvoted hard, as well you should.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate
        link
        English
        -77 months ago

        Ah yes, the old tolerate intolerance canard. Yeah nah, we’re past that, pal.

        Wrong. You can be intolerant without being violent. This ridiculous suggestion that if you aren’t physically beating people up, then you’re automatically tolerating, even advocating, their ideology, does not make any sense no matter how often you attempt this conflation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      87 months ago

      I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.

      If you believe having certain thoughts/desires creates a justification for physical assault on that person by strangers

      You probably believe this too. Unless you think laws against conspiracy and planning mass murder are a bad idea. If you and your friends plan to blow up a school, you may likely be assaulted by strangers (the police or other agents of the state, probably) if people find out.

      Identifying as a literal Nazi is planning mass murder with extra steps.

      It would be irrational, ahistorical, and generally a foolish idea to be like “we have to wait until he actually tries to murder someone before stopping his plans”.

      Rights are not conditional.

      This is a non sequitur that I guess is meant to sound profound.

      Legal rights have a ton of conditions.

      Other rights are poorly defined and are aspirational at best.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate
        link
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.

        No actual thinking would lead you to that conclusion.

        You probably believe this too. Unless you think laws against conspiracy and planning mass murder are a bad idea.

        Announcing a desire/plan to commit crimes should lead to arrest. Not vigilantism by random citizens.

        Identifying as a literal Nazi is planning mass murder with extra steps.

        Despite your violent fantasies, even if I conceded that, the response to such is arrest and imprisonment, not vigilante mob violence by random schmucks on the street.

        Do you truly not understand the path you’re setting out on, once you start advocating for vigilantism?

        The grand irony is that you’ve basically announced here that you’re willing to commit unprovoked assault on strangers. By your very logic, others are justified in beating you up for desiring to commit violent acts!

        This is a non sequitur that I guess is meant to sound profound.

        Non sequitur? Following “the left believes in basic rights for all, even people they hate” with “the left do not believe some people deserve to have the basic right not to be assaulted” makes pointing out that rights are not conditional, VERY relevant.

        It’d be more respectable if you simply admitted the hypocrisy, and that “the left believes in basic rights for all, even people they hate” is a straight-up lie.

        Since you don’t seem to understand what “rights” are: if it doesn’t apply to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, it’s not a “right”. Anything called a “right” that has conditions is not actually a right.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          07 months ago
          I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.
          

          No actual thinking would lead you to that conclusion.

          You seem awfully eager to defend nazis. If you were a nazi or closely allied, it would make sense for you to act as such. Thinking! Also you keep talking about “the left” as if you’re not a member, which sure makes you sound like a right-winger.

          Announcing a desire/plan to commit crimes should lead to arrest. Not vigilantism by random citizens.

          Wearing a nazi uniform or otherwise espousing their ideals is announcing a desire to commit crimes. Perhaps in a perfect world, we could delegate to the state’s monopoly on force. But some of those who burn crosses, etc. Additionally, passive acceptance of nazis emboldens them and endangers everyone. So, no. Vigilantism by random citizens is appropriate in response to “yo i want to kill a whole lot of people” declarations.

          The grand irony is that you’ve basically announced here that you’re willing to commit unprovoked assault on strangers. By your very logic, others are justified in beating you up for desiring to commit violent acts!

          It’s not unprovoked.

          Since you don’t seem to understand what “rights” are: if it doesn’t apply to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, it’s not a “right”. Anything called a “right” that has conditions is not actually a right.

          That’s not how rights work. You have freedom of assembly, but you can’t parade into your neighbor’s bedroom at 3am. Rights intersect.

          Also you’re being thoroughly savaged in the rest of these comments, and I have happier things to spend my time on.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate
            link
            English
            -17 months ago

            You seem awfully eager to defend nazis.

            I’m not defending Nazis, I’m attacking hypocrisy, and a particular type of which that is known to HELP Nazis (and any other extremists of the same type) in the long term. Experts on extremist movements agree on this, and even former members of such groups say it’s true. I’ve detailed all of this in a previous comment of mine, look under the break/line.

            Also you keep talking about “the left” as if you’re not a member

            I’m not. Most of my positions are left-wing, but I have no interest in considering myself a “member” of any political collective, and it’s precisely because of bullshit like this. I can espouse the values I believe in without having to be on a ‘team’. And doing so insulates me from being associated with the stupid shit my would-be ‘team’ does. It becomes an especially prudent tactic as collectives grow more radicalized, while I don’t.

            I also hate stereotyping and generalizing, so collectivism in general puts me off.

            Wearing a nazi uniform or otherwise espousing their ideals is announcing a desire to commit crimes.

            The proper response is still arrest, not vigilante violence from randoms.

            Vigilantism by random citizens is appropriate in response to “yo i want to kill a whole lot of people” declarations.

            Hard disagree. The evidence is clear–doing this is equivalent to prioritizing the dopamine rush that comes with feeling like you’re the hero beating up the villain, over the actual reduction of harmful ideologies. You feeling good is not more valuable than eliminating Nazism, sorry.

            It’s not unprovoked.

            Then neither is it when someone beats you up for advocating beating others up. You provoked them by saying you’re willing to attack them.

            Look at the comment I linked. Read the account of the former white supremacist, especially. You are playing right into their hands. Stop being so gullible.

            thoroughly savaged

            Sticking fingers in ears and deciding I must be a Nazi, because you don’t like the facts, is only “savaged” in a deeply deluded mind.

    • @HasturInYellow
      link
      English
      37 months ago

      So if someone threatens to burn down an orphanage while outside the orphanage screaming with cans of gasoline, should they be charged? Should they be put into jail? Because that’s the same free speech and free thought your advocating for and claiming the left is wrong for going in and beating the shit out of the dude. You’re delusional and possibly simply afraid of violence.

      Sometimes, the appropriate response to a threat is to REMOVE the threat with copious violence. As in Enders Game, “I didn’t want to just win this fight, I wanted to win all the future fights too.” Paraphrasing a bit there but you want to tolerate hatred and evil, to let it fester. The only thing fascists understand is direct force, so we will show it to them.