• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, I'll trot out my favorite example of engaging
the enemy being more effective than invective...
Daryl Davis - Wikipedia

I've heard of this guy. His approach seems to work to some degree. The non-violent approach of the Civil Rights Movement back in the day had strong appeal to the better angels of our nature, as Lincoln once put it.

Overall, America has made measurable progress in the area of civil rights, although it hasn't really been sufficient, and there are some signs of regression.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Overall, America has made measurable progress in the area of civil rights, although it hasn't really been sufficient...
Evolution beats revolution.
....and there are some signs of regression.
Progress happens in fits & starts.
And then too, there isn't agreement on just what's progress & what's backsliding.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
If you must ask this of me, then I suggest
remedial reading comprehension training.
You know, it's incredibly rude to assume that people disagree with your take not because they are rational beings who have come to different conclusions on a subject than you have, but because they're idiots who can't read and don't understand your writing.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Evolution beats revolution.

Yes, the non-violent, softer approach tends to be preferable over violent, aggressive methods. But humans still remain a violent species nonetheless. We haven't really evolved as far as some people would like.

Progress happens in fits & starts.
And then too, there isn't agreement on just what's progress & what's backsliding.

It's a tricky issue. On paper, we've had "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments clearly established (on paper) that slavery was prohibited and that all U.S. citizens were free and equal, regardless of race. Strictly speaking, that should have settled the matter right then and there, but lawyers and politicians find ways of using language to deceive and come up with all kinds of mendacious chicanery. That's how they came up with "separate but equal," since it was still considered "equal" (on paper).

Of course, we've made some progress since then, but there's always been this disconnect between an official policy of equality and non-racism, while seeing underlying signs of systemic racism just the same. There is quite a discrepancy between what is "on paper" versus what actually happens in the real world.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Likewise. Let me know if you ever discover what socialism actually is.
I've read many dictionaries' definitions.
Have you ever tried that? Or do you know
more than all those pesky lexicographers
who never consult you?
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You know, it's incredibly rude to assume that people disagree with your take not because they are rational beings...
No problem with sincere rational beings.
The other kind must be called on their mischief.
Ever felt the occasional spanking?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, the non-violent, softer approach tends to be preferable over violent, aggressive methods. But humans still remain a violent species nonetheless. We haven't really evolved as far as some people would like.
I prefer this approach than the violent one assigned me.
It's a tricky issue. On paper, we've had "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments clearly established (on paper) that slavery was prohibited and that all U.S. citizens were free and equal, regardless of race. Strictly speaking, that should have settled the matter right then and there, but lawyers and politicians find ways of using language to deceive and come up with all kinds of mendacious chicanery. That's how they came up with "separate but equal," since it was still considered "equal" (on paper). Of course, we've made some progress since then, but there's always been this disconnect between an official policy of equality and non-racism, while seeing underlying signs of systemic racism just the same. There is quite a discrepancy between what is "on paper" versus what actually happens in the real world.
I find the real world to often be much
better than government's "paper", which
is driven by progress in the populace.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
No problem with sincere rational beings.
The other kind must be called on their mischief.
Ever felt the occasional spanking?
That's the other, even worse assumption - that people do not honestly disagree with you, but do so out of some neferious, morally corrupt motivation, as if they were some kind of Satanic force of destruction.

It belies your desire for honest debate on a fundamental level when you characterize your opponents like that, because you no longer treat them like partners in a discussion worthy of respect, but nuisances and idiots to be squashed or dismissed.
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
Either I've been spending too much time on Reddit, or there is an uprising in a certain political agenda that I believe would lead us straight to fascism. It's typically known as the "woke culture". I'm sure it's been talked about on here before.

I recently saw a Reddit post where a guy sporting a Swastika on his shoulder got punched in the face by a black guy. Thousands of comments were praising this, and it worries me.

I got into a debate in the thread that followed, I voiced my opinion that physical resentment to nonphysical opinion is exactly what the problem is in society. I argued that attacking these narrow minded sort of people just creates hate all around: 1) The Neo-nazi being attacked is going to be reinforced in his hate people of color because of this experience, 2) Neo-nazi's and other racists and bigots that saw the video are going to have their hate reinforced also. 3) Anti-white racists (which also seems to be a growing thing) are going to have their hate reinforced seeing this "justice" in action. .... etc. ---- A non-violent approach to the Neo-nazi would've spoken more, it would've shown peace from the person of color's side and influenced some bigot opinions to think "PoC aren't so bad", it would've reinforced the idea into some Anti-white racists that peace is a better reaction, etc. The Neo-nazi that was attacked may have been so relieved that he could've become more trusting or accepting of PoC - or not, but whatever the outcome it would've certainly been better than the reinforced hate from being decked in the face.

The debate eventually escalated into freedom of speech, whether or not we should tolerate the intolerant in society. I argued that people shouldn't be attacked for their opinions, they should be kept in check by reason and logic. When the bigoted opinions are no longer willing to meet at the level of reason and become harassment, that's when retaliation is necessary. Simply wearing a Swatsika is NOT harassment.

-----

The main point I'd like to discuss is how important it is to keep freedom of speech truly free. We shouldn't silence anybody for any opinion. Opinions aren't threatening, actions are. If we are to limit what a person is allowed to preach, speak about, believe, then that's the fertile grounds for fascism. If you are familiar with 1984, I think the Thought Police would become a literal thing if we start arresting people for wearing Swatsikas, using wrong gender pronouns, voicing their dislike for homosexuality - just like if we started arresting people for wearing BLM symbols, identifying as non-binary, or voicing their dislike for Christianity. It's all the same.

Unlimited freedom of speech and nonviolent protest is how minorities speak for themselves, and it doesn't matter if these minorities are bigots, everybody deserves the right to stand up for themselves against what they believe is oppression. Once we start silencing people, where does it end? Once Father Government has control over the words we say then the next thing you know we'll be unable to speak against the government at all.

I'm not a very political person, but that's something I know for a fact. We need to stop this censorship crap. We can't be banning stand-up comedians for offending us, we can't be punching people in the face for wearing symbols that offend us, we can't be accusing people of being transphobic or racist for any little thing people say (that's harassment just as much as actual transphobia and racism is). The majority will always speak the loudest, but this doesn't mean the minority should have no say. Are we really becoming better as a society by doing this thing, or just remaining the same but turning the tables?

I certainly don't believe in unlimited free speech. Not in the public sphere.

At home or in a designated private setting like a debate site, I believe people are free to say what they like.

If you want to wear a highly offensive symbol like the reverse swastika that in my opinion is up to you, however if that attracts violent responses, then unfortunately you are party to your own victimhood. You are partly responsible for any attack made upon you. My sympathy for you would be minimal. I have no sympathy in general for those that spout or otherwise express hateful discrimanatory beliefs and suffer for it.

The freedom to live without of molestation persecution discrimination and suppression. Is far more important than the right to express your hatred and personal weakness in public. In my view.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It belies your desire for honest debate...
R.7d3597f38d52739b32bc8d7e3f042f14


In all seriousness....
If you really do want thoughtful discussion, stop playing
the game, ie, mischievous inferences, snark, pomposity.
You've never engaged me in any thoughtful conversation,
so complaining about being treated as a mere annoyance
rings hollow.
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
History shows us that Nazis never stopped by being treated with kid gloves or by being given a platform for their incitement of hatred and violence. They were almost only stopped with suppression and blunt force, and even then, it was only after they had killed and tortured millions of people.

I don't care if an actual Nazi gets punched for airing their pro-genocide beliefs in public; I'm far more concerned about the fact that it is still legal in many countries for the Nazi to publicly advertise incitement of violence up to and including genocide--which is exactly what one does when they proudly display Nazi symbols or repeat Nazi talking points in public.

Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and multiple other highly developed and prosperous countries ban Nazi symbols and speech in public, and for good reason. They also happen to be among the world's most free countries and are well ahead of the U.S. in multiple metrics of quality of life. Clearly, silencing Nazis--which doesn't even happen often enough in the U.S.--is far from being the cause of the currently undesirable status quo of U.S. politics.
Capital post. My respect to you.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't care if an actual Nazi gets punched for airing their pro-genocide beliefs in public...
This flirts with advocacy for violence in response to political speech.
How well does this work in your part of the world, where criticizing
government or Islam can get one imprisoned & tortured?

Another problem with it is who gets to decide when someone
deserves to be assaulted for speech? Such violence could be
towards anyone...BLM, atheists, liberals, conservatives, Democrats,
Republicans. The masses are diverse, as are their hatreds.

You change no one's mind by punching them....except to hate you,
& fight back. Why escalate hostilities?
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
This flirts with advocacy for violence in response to political speech.
How well does this work in your part of the world, where criticizing
government or Islam can get one imprisoned & tortured?

Another problem with it is who gets to decide when someone
deserves to be assaulted for speech? Such violence could be
towards anyone...BLM, atheists, liberals, conservatives, Democrats,
Republicans. The masses are diverse, as are their hatreds.

You change no one's mind by punching them....except to hate you,
& fight back. Why escalate hostilities?
Punching Nazi filth might be very satisfying, however I agree that it is still criminal, just highly understandable. Nazi scum after all advocate merciless horror. Quite different from BLM or atheist ideological narratives...
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Punching Nazi filth might be very satisfying, however I agree that it is still criminal, just highly understandable. Nazi scum after all advocate merciless horror. Quite different from BLM or atheist ideological narratives...
"Nazi scum" also advocate many things that appeal
to Ameristanian liberals, Antifas, & socialists.
Ref...
What We Stand For – American Nazi Party
Excerpted....
We also demand public control of all banking and credit institutions as well as all utilities and all monopolies, confiscation of all conglomerate holdings, cancellation of all usurious debt, comprehensive profit sharing in all basic industries, and the institution of a national program of interest-free loans for families, farmers, and small businessmen.
:
It is our goal that the Aryan republic be totally self-sufficient in energy, and that the types of energy it employs be non-polluting. Towards these ends, we demand a phasing out of all forms of energy which befoul the environment, such as coal, petroleum, and nuclear fission. To replace them, we demand an immediate and massive program to develop new, CLEAN energy sources.
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
I used to say 'No mercy for the merciless' but now I have mellowed. These Nazi thugs are still human. They deserve the respect for human dignity we all do. Even if they have no respect themselves. We are better than them.
 
Last edited:
Top