Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by Azuma Hazuki
Tolerance Is Not A Moral Precept.

This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.

Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.

This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.

tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @05:36AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01, @05:36AM (#1304148) Journal

    It's a description of both their intent and their actions on Jan 6th.

    Thinking about it, I suppose I should have distinguished between a description and a crime. If you wish to describe them as penguins fishing in the Antarctic, it's just as valid IMHO as calling them insurrectionists. You have considerable freedom of speech. If on the other hand, you're calling for them to be prosecuted for a crime of insurrection - which is the very strong impression I've been getting since shortly after January 6, we have actual laws that must satisfied first.

    Dismissing the attempted insurrection is what's both irrational and inflammatory. They have not been able to justify their behavior and you haven't, either.

    Have you justified their behavior either? I don't see why it's supposed to be noteworthy that I haven't justified their behavior when you haven't either. If it really matters that much to you (and I doubt it does), then do it yourself. I get you're not defending them in any way, but I'm merely defending them against frivolous accusations of crime.

    And I find your attitude irrational in other ways. The key one is that dismissing the attempted insurrection is the smart move. For example, consider this list of alleged rebellions [wikipedia.org] by Wikipedia (including the Seattle CHAZ and January 6 protests). Only two really were influential (the US Revolutionary War, and the US Civil War). Some others might have been preludes to the major rebellions (such as the War of the Regulators [wikipedia.org] or John Brown's raid [wikipedia.org]. But in general, the vast majority of these didn't go far historically. That's where I see the January 6 protest. We've had two years to see consequences of the protest, and there wasn't much. Hysteria like what you exhibit here is the worst effect.