Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.
In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.
Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.
Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.
The point is, if somebody has:
Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and
Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then
Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.
Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.
I agree with all you wrote, and it’s a good point well made. However, in the context of what it’s replying to, it could be interpreted as condoning the death penalty for extremists, which I disagree with, if it was intended that way.
I see what you mean, in my case I believe that the only viable options are debate then expulsion in extreme cases.
I know I was being somewhat brash when I wrote this (middle of the night where I am) and would likely omit the “or eliminate” part if I written again. I know that was a popular option durning the Nuremberg trials for some of the worst orchestrators but I’m always of the “We have to be better/there has to be a better way” mindset.
Death penalty, but more likely death in combat while trying to oust them from society. Like was done in WWII. These fuckers aren’t going anywhere voluntarily, it will take violence to remove them from society.
My point is less about what rights they might deserve, and more about staying informed and vigilant of the ideological capacities of human beings, including yourself.
Two counterpoints to this (although I like the spirit):the paradox of intolerance suggests that intolerance will easily spread if we tolerate it. So in a world where tolerance is abundant: intolerance itself should still not be tolerated.
In a way I feel this may be saying the same thing again, but when we speak of protected classes and human rights we generally think of immutable qualities assigned at birth. That is, it’s not okay to discriminate based on things such as skin color, height, sound of voice, heritage, language, race, disability etc. and you get the idea.
Modern ideas stretch this a bit, as sexuality and gender identity have recently (as in within the last century, and only then within more educated cultures) entered as protected facets of human expression due to our understanding of them as involuntary. Even an individual’s personal religion is universally considered to not be up for debate, even though each of the world’s religions are composed of transient beliefs that an individual is allowed to change whether they are comfortable with it or not.
Any group’s ideas for societal idealism do not and should not get these types of protections, because ideas obviously should change if a better idea is presented. It should be agreed upon that whatever utopia is (for however close the human race can get to it), it would need to be universally agreed upon by all living individuals as well as all possible human group permutations. This is seemingly insurmountably large, so some of us tried to take shortcuts by eliminating other groups, and to make a long story short you could say the world universally condemned these ideas as one of the first “global” acts.
The point is, if somebody has:
Willingly violated the social contract in defiance of available historical context and public information, and
Elected to voluntarily hold that an aforementioned Protected Class of people should be either eliminated or exiled (in service to making their version of utopia easier to achieve), then
Then this somebody has found themselves to be a member of the one group of people (a group founded on voluntary belief) that society at large would be better to either eliminate or exile.
Obviously debate is preferred but one cannot reason with somebody who believes deep down in another group’s inferiority.
I agree with all you wrote, and it’s a good point well made. However, in the context of what it’s replying to, it could be interpreted as condoning the death penalty for extremists, which I disagree with, if it was intended that way.
I see what you mean, in my case I believe that the only viable options are debate then expulsion in extreme cases.
I know I was being somewhat brash when I wrote this (middle of the night where I am) and would likely omit the “or eliminate” part if I written again. I know that was a popular option durning the Nuremberg trials for some of the worst orchestrators but I’m always of the “We have to be better/there has to be a better way” mindset.
Death penalty, but more likely death in combat while trying to oust them from society. Like was done in WWII. These fuckers aren’t going anywhere voluntarily, it will take violence to remove them from society.
My point is less about what rights they might deserve, and more about staying informed and vigilant of the ideological capacities of human beings, including yourself.