https://quran.com/ash-shuraa/40
The reward of an evil deed is its equivalent. But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, then their reward is with Allah. He certainly does not like the wrongdoers.
Shem‐Tov, Y., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2024). Can Restorative Justice Conferencing Reduce Recidivism? Evidence From the Make‐it‐Right Program. Econometrica, 92(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20996
It’s basically one side believes humans have the right to live, the other side literally doesn’t. Like right wingers fundamentally don’t believe in human rights because they only understand might makes right. And if you’re not “strong enough” to “take” your rights, you don’t deserve them. And they don’t pause to consider that they couldn’t run 100 yards, much less fight.
Treat others as you want to be treated, let them enjoy their own hospitality.
If this needs to be explained, then well… things are fucked up
/looks around/
Things are actually fucked up
Intolerance for intolerance has led to this. They just hide in their safe spaces spreading their hate unopposed.
Ahem, Tolerence for intolerence.
Guess you wanted to say that lack of intolerance for intolerance has led to this. Even I remember this idiotic tactic of “do something bad --> pretend it was a joke” and it was fucking working. Still is. Hate per se is not what has made societies ugly
No the lack of tolerance allows it to grow. If they were able to do it in public where it’s called out then it wouldn’t grow.
Instead it exists in echo chambers that cannot be countered.
Okay… who are “they”?
calling it out is part of not tolerating it though. If they are always called out, they will begin to hide it.
Gears of war had it right. Kill nazi zombies.
Ten four, good buddy.
You know what? I’d have a scrap. Would you have a scrap?
Y’know, a donnybrook, a dust-up…
I think I fall more in the free speech absolutist camp on this one. Look at the UK and how they made saying “Support Palestine Action” a terrorism charge.
I get that it’s a group that does protests and sometimes vandalism but imagine in the US if saying “Support Antifa” got you terrorism charges
Haha, imagine that. Never gonna happen right?
Tolerance is a social contract in which people agree to not give each other shit over perceived differences. To be intolerant is to choose to opt out of that contract, in which case expecting to still enjoy its protections is fucking stupid. Which is to be expected from pedocons and their ilk, who are always acting in bad faith.
Ah, the paradox of tolerance.
The problem here are also the people who insist on tolerating those who break the contract.
That’s right. People must be treated according to how they treat others.
There’s nothing more ridiculous and incongruent than a nazi beggin for the love and tolerance they deny to others.
As a Dane, I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage the pasty prick with the faux Viking shield to crawl back up the wrong hole his mother accidentally shat him out of while giving birth to the good twin.
This is gorgeous prose.
Thank you. Like Churchill, I’m a firm believer in the fine art of lovingly hand-crafted insults.
And slights, of course - but such delicate subtlety is wasted on Nazis. Then again, oxygen is wasted on Nazis, and they should really cease using any. To be fair to them, given their demonstrated cognitive capabilities, they’re evidently already half-way there.
As a Brit, I salute your efforts in keeping the art of insult alive.
Unfortunately, sharp whit is wasted on these evolutionary deadends. The only thing fitting for them is being on the receiving end of “creative” activities that will make the writing hand tremble of the poor Swiss who is now compelled to add several new lines to the Geneva Convention.
That’s incredibly flattering coming from the foremost modern practitioners of the mighty slight. Especially since I used to live and work in the UK - back when that was still possible, pre-Brexit - and indeed honed my craft on your fair isles.
Well, you know what the Canadian Colonies have to say about it: “It’s never a war crime the first time”. Or my personal addendum: “As per the Golden Rule, it’s never a war crime when you do it to Nazis”.
…Or fucking Russians. But I repeat myself.
What really must be done is to bring forward serious discussion and not debate through memes
Of course rational argument should be the starting point, and if you kept up, there have been and still are plenty of efforts to discuss. But, in the words of Karl Popper, who watched fascism overwhelm all reason:
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
That’s where we’re at now: When the intolerant refuse to play by the same rules of rational argumentation, no rational argument can hope to change their mind.
It’s been done, got nowhere
Do you see how poorly our conversation is set up right now? We are talking below a meme hinting at something and not really bringing up any discussion
I don’t disagree with you. This is a terrible method to conduct political discourse. But of all the times I have discussed things with right wingers, I have only ever left the conversation stupider, and more angry. They simply don’t listen.
I’m not really hinting at anything, peaceful discourse has been attempted again and again with the right, they literally don’t care and won’t listen. It doesn’t go anywhere.
I love how you frame this as being binary. No time for memes, Captain! We must ride at dawn!
Or shot in the neck.
Disregarding the rule of law (due process, guilty until proven innocent, …) is also suicide for society. So maybe banning certain speech is actually a good idea.
We have a felon in charge and masked gunmen kidnapping people in the streets. The rule of law left a long time ago dude.
feel free to speak your mind.
don’t complain when you get treated like a piece of shit, when you act like a piece of shit.
Society makes suicide illegal. Think about it for a second. It’s almost like the law is the wrong tool for the job. As if just declaring things banned doesn’t do shit.
Vigilantes beating up the presumed bad people is not a good tool.
Never said it was
No, they still get human rights. Battery that’s how that works. They are universal. If they believe in them or support them is irrelevant. I don’t like it either, but that’s literally the foundation of the whole thing.
That’s how it should work.
Alas, it doesn’t.
I recommend reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Exact_formulations and considering that in your assessment.
Just drunk argued with a MAGA fascist at the bar tonight. We were both hammered, so take it as you will. I was armed, and I presume he was as well.
We had a nice talk. No one challenged anyone, certainly no threats. Decent exchange of views, even if we danced around one another, walked the line. No one wanted a fight, and that’s the take away. But I felt better with a 9mm in my belt. (A 9mm I’m well practiced at using.)
So. You can be a victim, or not. “Victim” has always been popular among liberals. “I’m oppressed!” Nice headline, sorry tombstone.
Anyway, that’s what happened.
Getting hammered at a bar while armed and having an argument is not responsible gun ownership, full stop.
First of all, drinking while armed is as irresponsible as driving drunk.
Second, if you need to be armed to express your opinions, I don’t think you need to be calling other people victims.
That is a very intolerant position. Therefore, by the logic of this post, people who say things like “They must be ridiculed, ostracized, outlawed and if they still won’t shut up, they must be beaten senseless” must be ridiculed, ostracized, outlawed and if they still won’t shut up, they must be beaten senseless.
Bullshit. You are putting the attacker and the defendant in the same position.
Tolerance is a contract: if you break it, you’re not covered by it.
Does that include if you break it by being intolerant of the intolerant?
The point was made already. You opted for not accepting it, that’s ok.
Cheers
Yes, the resolution to the “paradox” of tolerance is that (a) “the intolerant” is anyone that would deny human rights to any other human (b) the intolerant must be denied political power since they will use it to create an intolerant society.
Tolerance doesn’t justify political violence.
However, defense of self or others CAN justify violence against the intolerant. The threat of increased stochastic violence due to inflammatory rhetoric is not as clear as a person stating their intent to kill and then brandishing a firearm, but both can be mortal threats. At the very least acts of political violence CAN be justified by the actor to a jury of their peers. Denying a political violence can ever be justified (I’m looking at you Bernie) ignores history and supports every authoritarian regime.
I’m not saying that the Kirk murder was justified, but … I’d be willing to hear a defendant out as a jurist or jury member.
There is no resolution to the paradox of intolerance.
What you’re providing is an excuse to be intolerant. You say “I’m allowed to be intolerant to this guy because this guy is intolerant”, but whatever excuse you use, you’re now intolerant, and you deserve whatever punishment you think intolerant people deserve.
There’s no special category for “people who are intolerant, but only intolerant to those they view as intolerant”. There’s the tolerant, and the intolerant. If you are intolerant, no matter how good your reasons, you’re still intolerant. Thus, the paradox.
No, I am tolerant of the intolerant. I believe they should receive all the same rights as I do: food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, UBI, etc. Political power is NOT a human right, it is a privilege and a responsibility. If you are intolerant, you don’t get to use political power for any purpose. This resolves the paradox, preventing the intolerant from creating a intolerant society from a tolerant one.
Justification of (political) violence is really separate from the paradox of tolerance. Ideally, no violence would be required because none would be intent on and capable of denying someone else their bodily autonomy. Failing that, violence in defense (of self or others) is justified.
The resolution comes when you understand that tolerance is a contract. If you don’t sign that contract you are not protected by it. Is that simple.
There’s no contract, there’s a social norm to be tolerant. And if you’re intolerant you’ve violated that social norm. That includes if you’re intolerant of the intolerant.
That norm only applies to the ones that follow that norm.
There is no paradox. Tolerance is a contract. Be respectful and be respected. Be kind and receive kindness. Be tolerant if you want to be tolerated.
Opt out of that contract and you will no longer be covered by it. You will reap what you sew.
If you attack someone, they get to defend themselves. You don’t get to whine about them being violent against you. You earned that shit. And the rest of us get to laugh at you and applaud.
I know. I know. It’s just so HARD to understand. For you.
Tolerance is not a contract. You’re never required to sign anything and agree to the terms.
But, if it were a contract and not just a social norm, anybody who is intolerant breaks those terms, correct? That includes people who are intolerant of the intolerant?
Incorrect. Fuck off.
