Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

1,709

Joined

2 yr. ago

[…] If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]

I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.

[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by "being Nazis".

[…] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]

Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:

Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.

[…] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”

I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:

I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.

Why not use their names?

Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It's quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism ^[1], which I personally espouse.

[…] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]

I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like "I wont allow you into my place of business". I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that's damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.

I don't understand the relevance of including the age in the headline. To me, it reads like the general counsel was objecting the access given to the DOGE rep because they are 23 years old. Yet, from what I can see, the article doesn't seem to outline any such objection.

Why would saying that someone lacks experience in something be ageism?

I think a distinction can be drawn between this and what Australia is reported to have done. Imo, this is an example of social intolerance, and I'd argue that there is a sharp distinction between that and policing behavior through the use of governmental force. So, I don't see this excerpt as being a supportive argument for Australia's new law; I see it as being an example of how the issue can be handled socially.

I don't think this behavior should be socially tolerated; however, I don't think it's a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.

[…] it doesn’t remove admins from the equation and users still have to choose an instance to be associated with […]

I think that's a fair point! At any rate, I do agree with you in that I think that users should be completely portable for a truly sustainable federated service.

[…] reaching for it as evidence that I might be confused is such a stretch […]

I suspect this statement is the source of all of this. When I sent this comment, I wasn't trying to do some "gotcha". I thought we were, in a sense, investigating together through documentation to try an find the right answer to the question. From my perspective, you provided an idea of what it could be, and I was trying to work with you to narrow down if that was for sure what we were looking for by providing some documentation that I came across. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence, or belittle you or your help. I simply thought we were brainstorming together.

[…] you replied to it 9 times. […]

I personally try to keep my responses atomic to the topic.

[…] It’s too late to complain about it now.

I'm not complaining, I just didn't understand what the point was that you were trying to make.

[…] a authoritative-looking post […]

What do you mean by this exactly? Is it synonymous with your usage of "objective resource"?

It reads like you intend for your post to be an objective resource for others to use, but then fall back to it being good enough for your subjective purpose when questioned about it.

First, what do you exactly mean by "objective resource"? Second, what makes you think that it's intended to be an "objective resource"? Are you saying that my use of citations gives you that impression?

If […] I didn’t think your second follow-up question was disingenuous […]

For clarity, it wasn't intended to be disingenuous. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I'm always trying to improve how I interact with others.

That was never my argument. I think you know this. […] Being reluctant to answer any more questions about a topic doesn’t mean I was wrong to provide an initial answer. It just means my bandwidth has been exceeded. […]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. When I read this:

I don’t even use Lemmy, so - in my opinion - you’re asking the wrong question to the wrong person.

I interpreted it to litterally mean that I shouldn't ask you questions about Lemmy because you don't use it. I interpret your statement that you don't use Lemmy to mean that you are less likely to have knowledge about Lemmy because you don't use it.

At any rate, this is moot, as I mentioned above that I cannot know, prior to you telling me, what your experience is. And furthermore, I didn't ask you anything. You volunteered an answer.