So, basically, if you tolerate the intolerant, the intolerant will eventually wipe out tolerance.
A more accurate way to say it is, “if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance.”
It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business. I just think a bar owner is free to kick people out for representing Nazis purely because it’s their bar and they can do what they want.
But X’s problem is a bit different from the Nazi Bar problem, in that you don’t really see the Neo Nazis on X sitting there minding their own business. You ONLY see them voicing their intolerance. Which of course, should not be tolerated.
It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business
it is a fallacy that the intolerant mind their own business. being intolerant is, itself, an active state, not a passive one, and one to be actively resisted. being intolerant involves choice, a choice to be intolerant. there is no “minding one’s own business” in being intolerant, as being intolerant necessarily involves minding the business of others ad then making the choice to react to it hatefully.
so your argument is, itself, spurious for it is fallacious in its foundation.
You have a bar:
Nazi comes into your bar, you let him stay, because why not its just a single nazi. Nazi invites friends, those friends invite their friends, and so on. Now you a have nazi bar.
The elongated muskrat is learning first hand how the Nazi Bar Problem works
excuse me but what the fuck is the nazi bat problem
For reference:
https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-kicks-nazis-out-of-his-punk-bar-even-if-theyre-not-bothering-anyone
A more accurate way to say it is, “if you tolerate the intolerant BEING intolerant, intolerance will eventually wipe out tolerance.”
It does not say you should be intolerant of the intolerant while they’re minding their own business. I just think a bar owner is free to kick people out for representing Nazis purely because it’s their bar and they can do what they want.
But X’s problem is a bit different from the Nazi Bar problem, in that you don’t really see the Neo Nazis on X sitting there minding their own business. You ONLY see them voicing their intolerance. Which of course, should not be tolerated.
Tolerate tolerate tolerate. There.
it is a fallacy that the intolerant mind their own business. being intolerant is, itself, an active state, not a passive one, and one to be actively resisted. being intolerant involves choice, a choice to be intolerant. there is no “minding one’s own business” in being intolerant, as being intolerant necessarily involves minding the business of others ad then making the choice to react to it hatefully.
so your argument is, itself, spurious for it is fallacious in its foundation.
gtfo with your nazi apologism
The Paradox of Tolerance
You have a bar: Nazi comes into your bar, you let him stay, because why not its just a single nazi. Nazi invites friends, those friends invite their friends, and so on. Now you a have nazi bar.
When you find a nazi but you can’t find a bat.