We're talking about the Daily Stormer here though. "Mildly sceptical over mass immigration" is putting it a bit too "mildly".

That being said, I personally lean towards allowing free speech without restrictions (with exceptions for things like extortion). I just wanted to remind us about the context in which the parent comment was written.

> The good thing about Popper and 'intolerance of intolerance' is with the moral high ground you can use whatever force is necessary while setting 'intolerant behavior' as a moving goalpost.

> Today it's 'mildly sceptical over mass immigration'. Tomorrow it's 'not advocating for free healthcare'.

"Neo-Nazi" is not anywhere close to the same category as "skeptical on mass immigration".

Skeptical on mass immigration represents a reasonable political position that is commonly accepted (as shown by how many Republicans with that position as part of their platform in the US).

Neo-Nazi represents a fetishism for Nazism, Fascism, and the idea that mass murder might be acceptable.

In todays climate, everyone who is not radical left is being called a Nazi.

Ben Shapiro has been called a Nazi.

You are arguing Weev, the Daily Stormer, and the people who call themselves Neo Nazis ... are not?

Do you have any proof their proclamation they are neo nazis is a lie?

You are aware it is literally named after a Nazi tabloid:

The Daily Stormer is named for the Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer, known for its antisemitic caricatures. This 1934 billboard for Der Stürmer reads "With Der Stürmer against Judea. The Jews are our misfortune".

Yes?

Please read the comments upthread. Meanwhile, we moved away from Daily Stormer to Popper, calling people names for various reasons, including Nazi for immigration skeptics. The discussion in this thread is not limited to Daily Stormer anymore, but revolves around radical left calling anyone not having 100% identical opinion Nazis.

Including Ben Shapiro, who is a guy that "wears a funny hat".

This article is about the DailyStormer. They proudly called themselves nazis.

You're moving the goalposts. Ethno-nationalists are not "mildly sceptical over mass immigration". They advocate for the mass murder or violent removal of every person they consider to be "non-white".

Even with a slippery slope, you can install fences to prevent people from falling down. Every society needs to have standards it adheres to, and you can't accept every idea, or as happened in America, the bad ones get louder, because the intolerant are not interested in a discourse, but rather enforcing their views on people.

The 2 cases you picked are poor, because in each case, there's evidence that people can use to make up their minds.

The great thing about tolerating intolerance is that you can have people shot in the streets and pretend it's nothing to do with you.

Every slope is slippery.

I dunno, that sounds like a crime though.

"You also had some very fine people on both sides."

Which leads to other complications. Who enforces the law when the police are the law breakers?

Depending on which school of though...

If you refer to peaceful methods, then look no further than Ghandi and MLK. Protest peacefully. Make them raise their fist. And record it, tell the stories, reduce their mandate.

If you come from Malcolm X's or IRA's point of view: assassinations, military-like strikes, and generally war.

I reserve judgement on which way is better.

Then of course there's Nelson Mandela. He started with peaceful means, came to the conclusion it was ineffective in his case and turned to violence. Later he refused opportunities to leave prison that would have required him to renounce violence. Ultimately, he didn't need to fire a shot after he was released but he would have done so with a clear conscience. Non-violence can be a moral choice, but so can violence in the face of great, violent injustice.

Of course, we're assuming asymmetric warfare here. No-one honestly believes FDR was wrong to declare war on Japan.

It depends. Do you regard your enemy as a good person doing a bad thing, or as a bad person doing a bad thing? If it's the former then teach them a better way a la MLK and Gandhi. If it's the latter, then teach them a better way a la Malcom X.

If you can see some compassion or love in your enemy's eyes, then every time they hold up their fist to beat you you should hold up a mirror.

Gandhi, not Ghandi.

Gandhi was most effective when the Indian armed forces rebelled.

MLK had Malcom X.

You need a good cop and a bad cop.

The Coast Guard.

Nah, those were Jews and communists. No crime shooting them.

/Godwin

Instead of doing that, how about we have laws against killing people, and then actually enforce them?

"Where is the line" for how much we should "tolerate intolerance" is a very easy question to answer.

The line is at current, US law. Break the law with your intolerance, via engaging in violent assault, and you should go to jail.