this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
158 points (99.4% liked)

196

18087 readers
1010 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
158
not a moral pr(ul)ecept (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

sorry i got my rhetoric ™️ wrong last time i am just attempting to illustrate the thesis of Tolerance is not a moral precept by Yonatan Zunger so check that out if ur curious thanks babes <3

[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Pretending that you can't specifically outlaw explicitly violent and hateful bigotry without someone else outlawing your own peaceful ideology is the mother of all slippery slope fallacies and is almost exclusively trotted out by people who agree with a lot of the ideology of the bigots.

There's nobody forcing us to go down any "bad path" just because we protect minorities from extremists. Just like there's NOT always two valid sides to an issue (see for example flat earthers, young earth creationists and other science deniers), you don't have to ban democracy in order to ban fascism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

People conflate "ban bad actions" and "ban speech" when discussing tolerance; separating those is important. We should ABSOLUTELY ban violence and refuse to acknowledge laws and systems that advocate for those things. We should be both vocal and active in our rejections.

Speech is a separate issue. As stupid as antivaxxers are, as hateful as TERFs are, I don't want government telling them they can't speak. Any law we pass, we should ask ourselves how it might be abused by a bad actor. Better, at least to me, is to out and ruin anyone who expresses hateful, bigoted views.

[–] GlitchyDigiBun 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be clear, free speech does NOT protect from social consequence. Let them speak. Let them be ostracized, ridiculed, and demeaned for their hateful speech. Use your own free speech to ensure there are 10 voices of reason for every "loving" Christofacist telling them exactly what we took our stance for in 1865 and 1944. All humans are equal. All humans deserve life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and every soapbox is at once a platform and a social noose.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

100% agree, and this is where I come out. Speak your mind as a fascist and get wrecked with social censure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

try explaining that to eg. the terfs

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

If I had a dollar for every time I've argued with terfs about the stupidest of misconceptions, I'd probably buy a house..