The nazis preferred their country free of jews, and many, if not the absolute majority definitely the majority in power, were fine by that.

This is one case where an equivalence argument is actually valid. To be blunt: your view is dangerous and ought to be regarded as reprehensible by anyone who actually values a free society.

Paradox of tolerance, fellow human. If you allow Nazis, who are anti-tolerant, violently so ( and as you said, they'd remove all Jews), to do whatever they want out of tolerance, they won't respond in kind, they'll abuse that tolerance until they're in power and usher in their intolerance. You cannot be tolerant of the intolerant. Even Goebbels himself said it, they were going in the parliament as a wolf in sheep's clothing to destroy democracy from within with democracy's tools.

Furthermore, it's a bullshit false equivalency that a Nazi, who wants to at the very least discriminate people, is somehow equal to a random person who would get discriminated against. Or a racist and any random person. Those are not the same, and don't deserve the same protections.

Yes, yes. Popper always ends up trotted out by the people most interested in framing their censorious impulses as somehow above scrutiny.

Let's call this the paradox of rationalization: those quickest to engage in the behavior tend to be those whose motives for doing so are the least genuine and trustworthy. And anyone with access to the levers of censorship must earn a high degree of trust.

When did anyone suggest allowing Nazis "to do whatever they want"? Suggesting that people ought to be allowed to voice reprehensible opinions without fear of government locking them up isn't the same as suggesting they be allowed to do whatever they want.

It's not a bullshit false equivalency: every nazi is more or less just some random person with an opinion. Just like you and I are random persons expressing an opinion in this forum. At least, right up until they take action to commit violence--but that's a separate matter.

But can you either be tolerant of those who are not tolerant of the intolerant. I would group them similarly as bad or even worse.

> This is one case where an equivalence argument is actually valid.

Hardly. Being a Jew is an immutable trait. Being a Nazi is a behavior choice.

> This is one case where an equivalence argument is actually valid

Yes, absolutely, banning Nazism is 100% equivalent to killing Jews. Freedom of speech definitely depends on letting nazis spread their views. Declaring that nazis are bad for society is a dangerous view.

Totally normal things to say.

That isn't what I meant by equivalence; but you likely know that.

Well shit, I guess we'd better send Mel Brooks to jail for The Producers