"But", you say, "they were intolerant first, so they are the ones who should not be tolerated!" From your perspective, sure. Maybe not from theirs, though. That gets you to a cycle of each side being sure that the other is intolerant, and therefore that their own intolerance is justified. Maybe this "paradox of tolerance" isn't the right way forward, even in the face of intolerance by others. You should be better than them, not imitate them.

Worse, if each side can think that the other side started it, well, what if the other side is right? What if you actually are the problem? Using the "paradox of tolerance" as your justification is a handy way to justify your own intolerance, and never have to examine yourself.

What I actually said is, first, when you don't tolerate intolerance, you become (at least in technique) similar to the people you are fighting. And second, don't be so sure that you aren't the bad guys. And the more absolutely sure you are that you're the good guys, the more I want you to back off and take a really hard look at whether that is actually true, because the bad guys can use exactly your logic (or at least gameskrishnan's) to convince themselves that they're the good guys.

This opening, along with your straw man in the second sentence, shows that you're not debating this topic in good faith.

It would be nice to think that every horrific event in history was simply a case of bad people knowingly doing bad things.

Sure, sometimes it is, when we're talking about a lone actor or despotic leader who just wants to bring about destruction and misery for their own pathological reasons.

But at least as often, everyone thinks they're the good ones fighting for a just cause. As has often been said here before, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. One person's liberating saviour is another's tyrannical occupying force.

It might be easy for us to look at 1930s-40s Europe and judge which side was right and which was wrong, but to an ordinary German or Italian citizen or soldier who didn't have a full understanding of what was going on, and just knew that their country had been economically depressed for too long, it wasn't so clear.

And in plenty of other major conflicts since then, the rightness or wrongness of each side is very hard to discern.

This is not suggesting that racism or bigotry is ever to be endorsed or validated.

But bigotry is usually an expression of a deeper distress that has nothing to do with the target of the bigotry. It's often just scapegoating for a largely unrelated problem.

By paying attention to what the real source of that distress is (e.g., post-WW1 misery), it's possible to respond to the real problem and prevent the bigotry and consequent horrors from developing at all.

> By paying attention to what the real source of that distress is (e.g., post-WW1 misery)

You think you have it all figured out and you 'get it' now. That's naive in my opinion. And I'm not talking about good and bad, some kind of universalist dualism that informs my every action; I'm talking about being concerned about my friends that may or may not fit certain views on human existence that fascist thought provides. At least try to get where I'm coming from instead of throwing out useless internet jargon ('strawman') without even understanding why I'm reacting so harshly.

I've spent over 7 years undertaking a variety of formal approaches to deep personal introspection, and I've never felt less like I can, or anyone can, "have it all figured out".

But one thing I've learned a thing or two about is the tendency to ascribe the greatest threats and wrongs to some easily-identified "other" without paying adequate attention to the failings and risks in our own group and within our own self.

For what it's worth I spend vast amounts of time thinking about what kinds of approaches to eradicating bigotry and oppression might actually be effective, and what role a humble individual as myself might be able to play in moving the needle over the long term.

To suggest that this is a matter I believe is "not going to hurt anyone" is about as wrong as you could possibly be.

If someone is consistently threatening violence at some point you need to make the determination about how to deal with that. You can of course do nothing about it but if the person eventually goes ahead and commits violence you now have a bunch of injured or dead people, which seems a worse ill to me than deplatforming.

Don't deplatform him. Investigate him. Get a warrant and find out who's listening to him. Find out what's going on in their private communications - are they making actual plans, or are they just talking?

Deplatforming is about the laziest and least useful possible response. As Fins said, deal with the violence (including plans to commit it).

To go back to the original article, though, it is interesting that they are banning white nationalist content. Does it mean that any other nationalist content is just fine. And can I start an Even[0] separatist movement on FB, calling for eradication of the whitey? We'll start with Russians, of course, but after them we're coming for you! /s

If I didn't have better things to do, a conspiracy theory of FB (they did elect Trump, as everybody clearly knows) being in cahoots with Stormfront and specifically calling out whites to stir resentment almost writes itself here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evens