Kalcifer

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you think the current government (USA) is fascist. If so, would you mind describing exactly why you think that? Do note that I’m not disputing your claim — I’m simply curious what your rationale is.

[…] i still thoroughly disagree with you […]

Would you mind outlining why?

[…] having corporations selling hard drugs is a terrible idea

What’s your rationale?

[…] If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]

I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.

[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by “being Nazis”.

[…] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]

Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:

Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.

deleted by creator

[…] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”

I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:

I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.

Why not use their names?

Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It’s quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism ^[1], which I personally espouse.

[…] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]

I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like “I wont allow you into my place of business”. I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that’s damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.

I don’t understand the relevance of including the age in the headline. To me, it reads like the general counsel was objecting the access given to the DOGE rep because they are 23 years old. Yet, from what I can see, the article doesn’t seem to outline any such objection.

Why would saying that someone lacks experience in something be ageism?

I think a distinction can be drawn between this and what Australia is reported to have done. Imo, this is an example of social intolerance, and I’d argue that there is a sharp distinction between that and policing behavior through the use of governmental force. So, I don’t see this excerpt as being a supportive argument for Australia’s new law; I see it as being an example of how the issue can be handled socially.

I don’t think this behavior should be socially tolerated; however, I don’t think it’s a good idea to police it through the use of governmental force.