Re:Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes
by mcpackieh on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @09:53PM
(#37156204)
In America it is legal to advocate for Nazism. This is legal and simultaneously a non-threat because our system of checks and balances prevents them from overthrowing the government. They are not denied their first amendment rights, and yet they're abject losers. The US government is simultaneously tolerant of them and not threatened by them.
The supposed paradox of intolerance says that silencing people who would silence you is the only way to prevent yourself from being silenced, but this is demonstrably not true.
Re:Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes
by Dan_Sylveste on Thursday August 17, 2023 @10:37AM
(#37162339)
We can see this so clearly on reddit.
They have eliminated 100% of conservative voices from the platform, as a result it's become a haven for leftist extremists who now openly and repeatedly advocate for moving 'beyond electoralism,' the meaning of which is well understood.
Re:Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes
by orwin on Tuesday August 22, 2023 @02:33AM
(#37219387)
I mean, I've read people arguing for 'Swiss democracy' and 'American ballots' (because you also vote on a restricted set of laws when electing state representatives) when they talk about going 'beyond electoralism', which to me id super fair. Can you explain what do you think it means?
The paradox doesn't apply to actors operating in good faith who simply disagree, but those whose intolerance extends to authoritarianism and violence in oppressing the free speech of their opponents, such as the Nazi regime that insipired it, and its truth seems self-evident. You'll have to explain to me how greater tolerance of the Nazis would have resulted in a better outcome for anyone (besides the Nazis) than intolerance of them in order to disprove the premise.