That’s right the intolerant broke the peace treaty. The centrists advocated tolerance. This is a call to silence dissent and criticism, that’s different.

Lol.

I have no respect for the term bigot as I have been called one for being antireligious in a pro-trans thread. But keep pushing a generic narrative that is anti-bigot. I’m sure it will never be used against you. It’s not like that’s a historic authoritarian tool to shut down critical speech.

Limiting Speech is a peace treaty that should only get invoked when it’s broken.

That’s great if you can trust the moderation/censorship team to use a rational definition of bigotry. But what usually happens is they begin to enforce the standards of an ever-closing Overton window, to the point that mere disagreement with the hive mind is considered bigotry.

The limits of discourse never stay “this far out”. Moderation distills this enforced consensus into a weird, unhinged fanaticism, one “deviant” at a time.

This meme isn’t about fighting or debating it’s about silencing, and silencing the middle ground. Not even those that oppose but those that question.

So call out bigots for being fake centrists. When you start attacking all centrists willy-nilly, then you’re doing the job of the bigots.

And yet the meme calls for the silencing of centrists. It’s in the fucking title.

Wenn du friedlich gegen die Gewalt nicht ankommen kannst, ist das letzte Mittel das uns allen bleibt Militanz

Ich denke exakt diese Worte werden von beiden/allen Seiten verwendet, die sich im Recht währen. Das macht sie am Ende alle moralisch gleich.

English:

If you cannot peacefully combat violence, the last resort that remains for all of us is militancy

I think these exact words are used by both/all sides who claim to be in the right. That makes them all morally equal in the end.

Might not be great, but you saw a point. So, hey if it works…

You both don’t realize the sheer volume of chuds. It’s great, until you realize it’s endless.

But it’s not a debate. They have no interest in listening to you,

Adam doesn’t debate Bob to convince Bob of Adam’s viewpoint. Adam debates Bob to convince their shared audience: Charlie, David, Edward, Frank, George, Harry…

When Bob is ejected from this forum, Charlie, (et al), never hear that debate and are never convinced of Adam’s views. They aren’t inoculated against Bob’s logic. When they come across Bob uncontested in another forum, they may be persuaded; they fall into his echo chamber. When they bring their half-formed ideas back to your forum, they are banned as apologists rather than debated.

Ejecting Bob makes your forum better. Adam debating Bob makes the world better.

But it’s not a debate. They have no interest in listening to you, any facts you present, nor presenting any disputing facts.

the debate is not for them. it is for potential impartial observer who just encountered the problem for the first time and is now forming an opinion.

unfortunately it is really hard, because since the onset of the machine learning generators the pile of crap is literally endless.

Satire is an avenue of argument though.

The response can also be a closed fist or the end of a bayonet.

Not a first goal, but still a time tested answer.

The response in this context is a preemptive: “not welcome here”. We’ve all heard what the fascists have to say, and it’s worthless. Zero tolerance for fascists.

He sounds like if a sundown town was a human being.

I mean…it’s literally not always a man. I get the point but that’s a terrible slogan.

I was recently reminded about the caveats that Germany has on the “no Nazi parties” rule. It’s truly insane that it’s essentially (this is hyperbole, but less than you’d think) “you can ban a party from running if they’re Nazis… As long as they call themselves Nazis, and they’ve won an election, and the leader is called Hitler, and the leader went to art school. All other parties must be allowed to run”

The people who came out against banning afd are the same ones who absolutely will not have the balls to do what you need to do to a nazi party you don’t ban in time as well.

I’d argue it’s not a paradox because it relies on two different definitions of tolerance.

• Tolerance 1: Intolerant opinions should be allowed to exist without criminal punishment.
• Tolerance 2: Everyone should treat intolerant opinions like other opinions for the purposes of platforming, how you feel about the speaker, etc.

Tolerance 1 is basically the kind of free speech principles adopted by most democratic societies and is probably necessary for such societies to remain free. Tolerance 2 is just silly. If you’re in a forum specifically for debating deplorable opinions, fine. But there’s no reason that a politics forum needs to cater to deplorable opinions.

“Paradox” doesn’t mean it’s impossible to resolve. Mathematical paradoxes, such as Gabriel’s Horn (a horn that takes up finite volume, yet you would not be able to paint it) or the Banach–Tarski paradox (where you can take a sphere, break it apart, and reassemble it into two spheres identical to the original), do have resolutions. They’re just not obvious and can be hard to get your head around.

The original Greek word directly translates to “against belief”, and basically means something unexpected. It doesn’t mean it’s logically contradictory, just that it might seem to.

So yes, the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox. It’s not obvious to all people what the resolution is, but explaining it as a peace treaty rather than an unchangeable moral imperative tends to work.

Sorry, tone doesn’t come across well. I can’t tell if you’re trying to correct me on a point, because I agree with you.

Found the apologist.