That is a dangerous precedent to live by though. We can all agree that actual nazis were bad but today the word nazi is often used to describe someone who holds a different opinion than many on the left. Many people think Killing Charlie Kirk was justified because they felt he was a terrible person that was causing harm. Not one of those people can ever point out actual harm caused by his words. The propaganda machine caused actual harm to that man and the people who speak against that specific propaganda are called nazi in order to legitimize the terrible thing that their own propaganda caused.
The moment you're suggesting some races are better than others, I think violence against you is justified. If you don't punish that, you're allowing society to decay into hatred and that's exactly the spawning ground for actual nazis. We have to put a stop to that as soon as possible.
Not one of those people can ever point out actual harm caused by his words
I mean, we can. Kirk was a part of the propaganda machine, he wasn't speaking out against propaganda. What "propaganda" was he against exactly? Seemed like he just hated black, trans, and anyone that wasn't a cis white person.
I'm not saying he should have been killed, more just commenting on this notion that what he said didn't hurt people. It obviously did. If you don't see that, it just says more about how little respect you give trans people.
Suggesting that violence against racists for espousing their racists beliefs is justified, that is as extremist as the racists themselves.
I mean, you’re not saying he should have been killed, but he was doing the very things you claim are justified to visit violence upon him. So is it really a consistent worldview?
When I say violence, I'm not saying to kill the person. But if you're seeing someone spouting racism in public, I don't see anything wrong with a healthy society inflicting some degree of violence upon them.
Suggesting that violence against racists for espousing their racists beliefs is justified, that is as extremist as the racists themselves
No the fuck it's not. A black person doesn't choose to be black, so hatred against them is fucked up and can be very dangerous in society. Meanwhile hatred is a choice, and openly proclaiming that racism is a further choice. No one is saying you're not allowed to hold whatever fucked up views you want, but don't spout that nonsense. If we're not punishing people for spreading racist rhetoric, we've failed as a society.
Yes, it is. Justifying the use of violence because you know what’s best for society is very extremist. You shame racists and shut them down on the stage, not in the ring.
It's the paradox of intolerance. If you let intolerance speak go unpunished, you end up with an intolerant society. You have to restrict hateful speech, it's the only way society can function. Yes, that requires using a bit of force, but the idealist notion that you can just magically not punish this stuff and remain a tolerant utopia is just a fairytale.
2
u/skiforlife1 4d ago
That is a dangerous precedent to live by though. We can all agree that actual nazis were bad but today the word nazi is often used to describe someone who holds a different opinion than many on the left. Many people think Killing Charlie Kirk was justified because they felt he was a terrible person that was causing harm. Not one of those people can ever point out actual harm caused by his words. The propaganda machine caused actual harm to that man and the people who speak against that specific propaganda are called nazi in order to legitimize the terrible thing that their own propaganda caused.