"Paradox of Tolerance"

The paradox of tolerance means you can’t tolerate people who force their noses into other people’s business or lives. Be violent towards censors and people that try to force or threaten others.
 
That means “keep society free”, “use the damned filters”, “live and let live” are the general rules and goals to pursue. Different people have different interests. The existence of different interests doesn’t harm you. You don’t have to like it, just don’t go out of your way to attack it.
 
Using the paradox of tolerance to justify attacking and censoring others who aren’t screwing with you is literally the exact opposite of what it means.
 
This site has a “use the filters to avoid content you don’t like” culture. The twitter mob doesn’t.

@Barhandar
 
Calmly stating you want an ethnostate is still calling for an ethnostate. You don’t, by any means, “gotta hand it to them” for not yelling.

@Background Pony #8AE7  

 
Are you talking about actual neo-Nazis somewhere out there in the real world, or are you talking about the alleged “Nazi” users here who like being edgelords, want lots of porn, and/or just hate censorship on principle?
 
Because jumping from “doesn’t want Aryanne banned” to “wants to make a whites-only nation” is, if you’ll pardon my saying so, a very BP thing to do.

@Wellwater
 
Edgelords promoting nazi propaganda-adjacent artwork are still tools to spread a dangerous ideology, no matter how much they think it’s just edgy posting.

@Background Pony #8AE7  
So, all edgy vaguely-Nazi-ish posting is literally “calling for an ethnostate”, eh. Also, literally all anti-censorship voices are edgelords or actual Nazis.
 
I see the academic rigor and precise argumentation of the pro-censorship side is up to its usual standards today.
 
(That reminds me of the halcyon days only a few short years ago when one of the mods had “Littorally Hitler” in their personal title along with wave and swastika emojis. No idea which one it was anymore, but I thought that was pretty clever.)

@Wellwater
 
I know it’s super hard to understand, yes, but softening the edge of hateful rhetoric, believe it or not, makes it more palatable for people.
 
That’s why modern confederate advocates argue tooth and nail to claim that their ancestor’s slavery war was just “about states rights.” It’s just to make it seem like their mindset is legitimate.

@Background Pony #8AE7  

 
In other words, the closer people come to saying or even believing things that are acceptable to the general public but not to your refined sensibilities, the more vehemently, aggressively, and thoroughly they must be silenced for their hateful, violent, and completely unacceptable rhetoric?
 
“People who disagree with me on <important issue> are bad, but people who sound convincing are much worse, so I have to make sure no one hears what they say or they might start to agree!”
 
Yeah, it’s time for you to go back and re-read the original Paradox of Tolerance.
 
(Before you mention that <important issue> is important, every excuse made for censorship is important. The Great Firewall of China is there to protect against kiddy porn and dangerous terrorists, after all, and imprisoning anti-war protestors in WWI was done because otherwise the country might lose the war!)

@Wellwater  

 
yeah that’s how dogwhistles work actually

@Background Pony #8AE7  
Huh, that’s a new definition of the term.
 
AFAIK, the standard definition is something along the lines of “carefully-concealed language that signals to those in the know that the speaker is on their side without outing them to the general audience”. What you’re talking about is not that, since if random neo-Nazis are dogwhistling to each other I don’t think I care — that does not, by definition, make their movement any more successful. (It’s only useful if a politician uses it to scoop up some free support without suffering backlash for it, but there aren’t any politicians of any note on this site.)
 
In practice, the actual definition is more “carefully-coded language that half the opposing side hears like a piercing shriek right in their ears”, since every imaginable instance of possible “dogwhistling” seems to get reported on obsessively and with great vigor. But here again that’s not dangerous, except that it distracts journalists from more useful work. (Well, one could argue that the overreaction tends to give the impression that e.g. neo-Nazism is more powerful than it actually is, but whose fault is that, anyway? Must be those pesky dogwhistlers!)

Considering that I know of literally zero neo-Nazis, but have seen many open Marxists, Communists, and Socialists (Many of whom have gone on a long march through the institutions to get to key positions in society), I think that the panic over an ideology that died generations ago is patently absurd, insulting, and frankly worrying. All those resources and all those emotions really should be going to exterminating all Communist scum from civilization. No safe harbors for the literal most evil and murderous political/economic ideology in the history of humanity.
 
Remember, it’s been ruled that okay to say “Members of X ideology are scum”. To my current knowledge, this ruling is still valid.  

@Wellwater well, to be fair, ww1 was the first time a mass propaganda apparatus was being utilised by all sides.  
Literally no one knew how powerful it could be or if it could be counteracted on some level.  
Overreacting went far and wide in both directions.
 
 
@NounVerb I know a few from protesting against them a bit, and find they’re utterly irrelevant to Harmless outside the local level.  
There’s even a few odd duck (heh) outliers like Mike Blevins, who operates an orphanage.  
There’s really nothing to fear about them… unless of course… you are one yourself!  
….especially anyone who had sexual relations with April Gaede, aka the swastika tattooed Typhoid Mary.  
They off each other more than bystanders by far!

I think it’s worth noting that basically every country on the planet is an ethnostate except for a small handful of nations. Of the nations with european heritage who are multi-racial, these changes to being multi-racial happened extremely recently in history. For the US, it started with the changes to the 1965 immigration act.
 
Ethnostates are the norm. We expect to find Japanese people in Japan, Chinese people, in China, Nigerians in Nigeria, and so on.
 
The word Nation is related to the word Natal. Natal means birth. Nations are collections of people who are distantly related.
 
Close genetic relations are one of the only ways for large groups of individual creatures in the animal kingdom to be able to live co-operatively with each other. It’s the only way that Bee hives can co-operate, for example. They’re all siblings. Humans still only have instincts that program us for living in tribes of around 110 people and making war on other competing tribes. Anything that diverges from this pattern is something we have to work to teach and maintain.
 
I think that when evaluating ideas, it is useful to try to see what the merits might be. When checking for merits (how closely aligned the idea is with Truth, the way the world works), it is useful to look at how things have worked for uncountable years throughout history. Shallow, nice-sounding ideals might make you feel good, but you need to try to connect it with the truth at some point. Understand what’s being risked if you do so. Utopian ideology has killed an unbelievable amount of people over the last century. It has also destroyed many systems that were working quite well. It destroyed them because they weren’t working as well as a hypothetical perfect ideal would work.
 
If you’re going to conflate the idea of ethnonationalism with neo-nazis, then realize that most of the planet (notably, the places OUTSIDE where you’re probably posting this from) would count as non-white neo-nazis. This is a silly idea. With all due respect, if you’re going to make that conflation, I don’t think you’re intelligent enough to be worth listening to.
 
Before you start frothing at the mouth with having your cognitive dissonance highlighted, I’ll state clearly that I am not any flavour of national Socialist. If I’m reading the site ruling I posted on the 13th correctly, that means that it would be an offence to try to categorize me like that. Trying to move the conversation to this instead of discussing the ideas that were brought up is disingenuous. You’re doing that because on some level you know you can’t address these ideas. Therefore you’re trying to use verbal trickery to put someone on the defensive and change the subject.
 
Constantly re-framing the discussion to get people to stop talking about the ideas and spend the whole conversation saying “No! I’m not one of (insert maligned group here)!” is losing it’s effectiveness as people are catching on. People don’t care about your deflections anymore. Anyone who chooses to stick to the point and ignore the worthless allegations being thrown around as a smokescreen is scary, since the closest thing to a counter-argument people have against them has stopped being useful.
 
I’ve gone out of my way to search for conversations and debates with wrongthinkers over the years. It’s been very educational, and I’ve learned a think or two about how they generally go. I’ve also managed to un-learn some of the stupid pre-conceptions about certain keywords that I never actually realized I had.
 
I highly recommend it. It’s extremely educational, in that it helps how you think and evaluate information rather than just telling you what to think.

@NounVerb  
Human nature is the problem. Better bring out the CRISPR…

@NounVerb  
Ah, yes, that famous homogeneous and conflict-less nation-state, Nigeria

@NounVerb  

 
please actually google an African country before using it to support your stupid racist argument, kthnx
 
““A multinational state, Nigeria is inhabited by more than 250 ethnic groups with over 500 distinct languages all identifying with a wide variety of cultures.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria)
 
(also there was that civil war in the 1960s that resulted in a genocide that killed 3 million Igbo people so yeah)

@NounVerb
 
I have never before seen someone with two faces this blatant and I used to post in some shitty places, lol.

@Background Pony #CC03
 
When a country is full of different European ethnicities than it is racist and not diverse enough because they are all apparently “white” and the same, an Italian is the same as a German.
 
But when its an African country then we have to distinguish between “”“ethnicities””” just because they make one click-sound different than another. And every ethnicity is nothing more than one normadic tribe.  
Look at the list of those 500 distinct languages in Nigeria. Abon is spoken by 1000 people, Abureni spoken by 4000 people. Most of those “languages” don’t even have a written language. In practical terms, none of those have, because Nsibidi pictograms were used as decorations, not to write stories or share inforamtion. You really have to bend the definition a lot to count them.
 
And yes, black people in Africa have a long history of committing genocides and slavery. It was the colonialist who stopped them from killing and torturing and enslaving each other. Just like it was the Spanish colonialists who stopped the indigenous middle American tribes from cannibalism. Which got then written down in history books by the Anglos as horrific crimes against humanity (the colonialist empires loved to shit on each other), but over time it got acknowledged that those were lies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend_(Spain)
 
Have a nice time reading about the history of Africa and colonialism :)

@NounVerb  
Your history is bad and your argument is a white-nationalist talking point.

@Background Pony #FC15  
Africans and Native Americans only started raiding and enslaving each other when the Europeans came into contact with them because of material and trade incentives – in other words, a part of primitive capitalism, something Europeans were responsible for. Your talking point fails to acknowledge the bigger picture and continues trying to pinpoint blame for a specific group.

@BadgingBadger  

 
Are you talking about the “Europeans” in Saudi Arabia and across North Africa, starting shortly after the founding of Islam and continuing to the 20th century, who during that period traded millions of slaves?

@Wellwater  
Slavery has been a factor in ALL civilisations.
 
The diffrence, is the European slavery was chattled slavery on an industrial scale.

@Inucroft  
As I just mentioned, Arab chattel slave trading was on an industrial scale.

@Wellwater  
No. It really wasn’t…

It’s almost as if the people who want to push tolerance are the ones being intolerant.

@Wellwater  

 
What you’re describing is largely something impressive only because of the length of time it was carried out in, and not the explosive commercial violence of western exploitation in west Africa. By comparison, the European slave is only comprised of a small number of actors under fairly developed circumstances where as the Arab slave trade is a bunch of independent actors under far less economically developed circumstances. This analysis commits two enormous failures: one being it assumes the entire Islamic world was unified and wasn’t just a smattering of random dynastic kingdoms and deeply feudal fiefdoms where everyone acted mostly autonomous of one another, and that it merely examines the human totality while ignoring the time scale of it.
 
European enslavement on the other hand is smaller because it only occured during a very narrow range of time and was basically on the way out the moment it started in terms of historic scale. The Spanish kicking it off first in the 1400’s during the colonization of the Canaries Islands, and then by the 1600’s it was already illegal in mother France and any slave who stepped foot in mainland France was immediately freed. But even in despite of this churned out a very aggressive industry very densely focused. Even with the French having illegalized it at home, it was still very legal in the colonies and its sugar plantations were comparable to Dachau in the scale of their brutality and mortality. This is not to belittle the Cotton Kingdom of the southern antibellum US which was only just barely less harsh.
 
The trade itself being the acceleration of African enslavement as European traders poured guns and money into key African tribes to raid their peers to sell them into slavery. Slave raiding never reached such a peek in Africa than when the European slave merchants showed up looking for cheap labor for their plantations.