We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys. Isn’t it?

  • Scribbd
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    The tolerance paradox is the original topic here. And your definitely-not-talking-down-‘I hate brain damaged American progressives’ response introduced the topics of authoritarianism and censorship from your interpretation of the paradox. The original post was not about those things. It was about not giving bigots a place on this platform. And proposed that they should not be given any platform at all.

    Sure, my first response to you was a bit overboard and unnecessarily antagonistic. And you might have tried returning the energy of the original response in turn. I perceived your energy from the ‘brain damaged’-response, and tried to reflect it back. I might have overshot the intensity of it.

    Furthermore, I never said the war with the Nazis was started for humanitarian reasons; I said it was needed. I am not going to diminish the efforts of the resistance movements. Even when America decided not to join the war, it would have resulted in an armed uprising. I am just grateful for the sacrifices that were made for me to live in a society that allows free speech but knows the consequences of not doing anything to stop bigotry. We engage, I engage, I keep an open mind, and I talk to people. We encourage people to sort out their anger issues and misgivings. But at some point, our tolerance runs out. At some point, the social contract is broken, and a persistent bigot should not be given the luxury of tolerance.

    Where I live, if what I wrote in my original reply was written with full earnestness and I kept trying to spread those words, I would face consequences. Escalating consequences if I were not willing to change. Engagement is not in question here. There will be engagements. First within the community, then with consultants, and finally within a court of law.

    If you ask the bigots here, they will say that we are already living in a ‘tyranny of inclusion’. The constitution of my country has it written in its first article that discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any other basis is prohibited. And I don’t think I live in an authoritarian state. Sure, I might suffer from the ‘fish in the pond’ perspective. Still, I wanted to point out that the ‘false dichotomy’ is a perspective issue. But I hope we can all agree that the alternative is much, much worse.

    I tried guessing your location. Your responses of ‘they declared war on us […] Pearl Harbor’ and ‘brain damaged American progressives’ had me confused. So I looked at your comment history. And you are really not practicing what you preach. You keep invoking Daryl Davis as the saint of engagement, and you keep preaching about not talking down to people. I think that is all just self-serving nonsense now. All that so you can keep the engagement to talk down on people. Because the ‘brain damage’ you used here is not the first. And reading through some ‘[this is] subhuman trash’ responses makes me think you are not that open-minded yourself.

    So this will be my last reply on this subject. You can count it as a win if it pleases you. Have fun; I won’t be seeing you.