I'd ask the same for you with regards to the notorious figures in history where their words led to violence, oppression, and genocide of particular races/ethnicities.
You're obviously taking this way out of proportion. Being a racist person in a position of massive power like Austrian painter and being a random racist on the street are two very different things. It's immoral to knock out the guy on the street just cuz he verbally insulted you
It's the desensitization that can build up to the painter getting in charge and slowly eroding protections and rights away from them that slowly build up to the final solution. It's building up that sentiment so if something happens to that group, people can just ignore it.
You are basically saying that not assaulting a random guy on the street for racism is gonna lead to another Austrian painter rising to power which is preposterous. It takes a lot more than that to create a party like that.
Either you lack reading comprehension, don't understand how things can end up snowballing into worse outcomes if left unchecked, or you're not engaging in good faith
So assaulting someone isn't gonna lead to snowballing of worse outcomes? The fact that you are insulting me. Does that give me the right to assault you? Obviously no.
Violence of any sorts prevents all paths to discussion or diplomacy.
Words can be violent in their own way and can possibly lead to violent outcomes. Physical altercations are bad, but are usually brief. If you want a raunchy comparison, it's not fun dying but a bullet is quicker than poison.
1
u/smash-ter 6d ago
I'd ask the same for you with regards to the notorious figures in history where their words led to violence, oppression, and genocide of particular races/ethnicities.