When does intolerance become ok?

[MrSquished]

It has to at some point. At some point evil can and will develop in a nation state. And everyone is too busy staying tolerant that nobody stops it and then it's too late. So when can we be intolerant to it?

I say that if Trumpists continue upon their path it will be soon. They are starting to go full evil - eating up the lies of the colluding Right Wing and Fox News for example. Thus at this point they all live in a totally alternate reality. That's when danger and evil really starts to happen. When people are that delusional, that depraved or that ignorant - it's just a short skip and a jump away to full blown shit shows. Delusion and anger mixed together = evil. That's where the right is headed.

I say intolerance to them will be ok in the not too distance future, if we want to learn from history and do the right thing.

 

[Atreus21]

When you're intolerant of conservatives.

 

[Victorian Gray]

When you're intolerant of conservatives.

You know an actual American conservative? Cool. They seem to be pretty much extinct these days.

 

[Atreus21]

You know an actual American conservative? Cool. They seem to be pretty much extinct these days.

Okay I'll rephrase. It's okay to be intolerant of any people you don't like. True tolerance lies in tolerating people who are easily tolerated.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

And you silly farts say that conservatives are fear mongering lol.

Thanks for the laffs

 

[1prophet]

If these two can get along there is no reason the rest of us can't.

Ginsburg And Scalia: 'Best Buddies'

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2014.
  
  Alex Wong/Getty Images
  Like many pals, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have a pretty good argument now and then, but not let it affect their close friendship.
  
  During their time together on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, a staunch conservative, and Justice Ginsburg, a staunch liberal, rarely found themselves on the same side of controversial issues. But in an era when political divisions drive many in Washington apart on a personal level, their disagreements remained intellectual.
  
  "We were best buddies," Ginsburg wrote after Scalia died on Saturday. The two first served together in the early 1980s on the federal circuit court in Washington, D.C., from which each was chosen to be nominated for the Supreme Court.
  
  They served together on the high court for more than 22 years, from when Ginsburg joined Scalia on the court in August of 1993, until Scalia's death.
  
  "They liked to fight things out in good spirit — in fair spirit — not the way we see debates these days on television," NPR's Nina Totenberg recalled on the NPR Politics Podcast.
  
  And Ginsburg admitted once that Scalia made her better. One night last year when the two justices appeared onstage for an interview together in Washington, D.C., Ginsburg talked about a time when Scalia showed her his dissenting opinion in a case before she had finished the majority opinion.
  
  "I took this dissent, this very spicy dissent and it absolutely ruined my weekend," Ginsburg said. She made some tweaks to her own argument.
  
  Their friendship was revealed that night, according to Totenberg, who moderated. "There were a lot of laughs. They really did a lot of jokes at each other's expenses and also to compliment each other," she said.
  
  As reported at the time, Ginsburg explained why she had fallen asleep during the State of the Union address just a few weeks before. She had vowed not to have wine with dinner that night: "Just sparkling water, stay away from the wine. But in the end, the dinner was so delicious it needed wine to accompany it."
  
  Scalia quipped, "That's the first intelligent thing you've done."
  
  Among other things, the two bonded over their love of opera. In 2013, a law school graduate from Maryland set their arguments to music.
  
  Ginsburg noted the performance in the statement she released to honor Scalia after his passing:
  
  Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: "We are different, we are one," different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots — the "applesauce" and "argle bargle" — and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his "energetic fervor," "astringent intellect," "peppery prose," "acumen," and "affability," all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grasp.
  
  Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

• 
  

 

[compuwiz1]

:triggered:
I don't want a liberal to ever talk to me about tolerance again because they are hypocrites. Until you practice what you preach, STFU!

 

[cytg111]

Its a fair point. If Nazi Germany should have nicked fascism in the butt before it became too late, when should that have been?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Certainly before that, after the long knives its game over.

But
https://www.google.dk/amp/s/amp.sla...hreat-to-american-democracy-is-the-right.html
And Trumps constant assault on the press, deconstruction of checks and balances, gutting the Mueller probe?
Red line, where is it?

 

[ch33zw1z]

When you're intolerant of conservatives.

The victim card, so fast.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I guess when that intolerance infringes on the rights of others it becomes not ok

 

[Victorian Gray]

Okay I'll rephrase. It's okay to be intolerant of any people you don't like. True tolerance lies in tolerating people who are easily tolerated.

Try again.

 

[Victorian Gray]

:triggered:
I don't want a liberal to ever talk to me about tolerance again because they are hypocrites. Until you practice what you preach, STFU!

ROFL.

 

[MrSquished]

it's a legitimate question. as it has happened many times in history when there is such divisiveness there has been a side of good or semi-good, and a side of evil.

 

[Atreus21]

The victim card, so fast.

Not trying to claim victim status. That's the domain of progressives.

Trying to point out that everyone loudly proclaims their principles until they actually feel bound by them. Then they appeal for exemptions, claim extenuating circumstances, etc.

 

[UNCjigga]

When you're intolerant of conservatives.

If you still haven't figured it out, Trump and his ilk have nothing to do with Christianity or conservatism.

But there's probably a lot you'll never figure out.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Intolerance of those who hate has always been ok.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not trying to claim victim status. That's the domain of progressives.

Trying to point out that everyone loudly proclaims their principles until they actually feel bound by them. Then they appeal for exemptions, claim extenuating circumstances, etc.

Heh. The govt has an obligation to protect free speech. That doesn't mean the rest of us should put up with fucking Nazis bringing their shit to our cities & towns. We have the right to counter protest.

 

[Atreus21]

it's a legitimate question. as it has happened many times in history when there is such divisiveness there has been a side of good or semi-good, and a side of evil.

If you truly think it's that simple, then you need to get out more, to say nothing of do some growing up.

There's no effort or maturity required in dismissing opponents as monsters. It's easy, lazy, and betrays a childish unwillingness to extend to opposing intellects and ideas the respect that you demand be shown to yours.

 

[Atreus21]

Heh. The govt has an obligation to protect free speech. That doesn't mean the rest of us should put up with fucking Nazis bringing their shit to our cities & towns. We have the right to counter protest.

I agree.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Intolerance of those who hate has always been ok.

That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.

Yeah, folks tend to eventually get pissed off at people who like to toss other people in ovens. It's a darn shame.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

If you truly think it's that simple, then you need to get out more, to say nothing of do some growing up.

There's no effort or maturity required in dismissing opponents as monsters. It's easy, lazy, and betrays a childish unwillingness to extend to opposing intellects and ideas the respect that you demand be shown to yours.

When someone espouses the same beliefs as those who have already proven themselves to be monsters, there is no need to be tolerant of the new bunch until they've proven themselves the same. Slap them down hard so, they don't have the chance.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Not trying to claim victim status. That's the domain of progressives.

Trying to point out that everyone loudly proclaims their principles until they actually feel bound by them. Then they appeal for exemptions, claim extenuating circumstances, etc.

Huh? Whuh?

 

[HomerJS]

That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.

No one has denied the right to say anything. But doing so comes with a risk of consequences. Free speech ain't free.

 

[MrSquished]

If you truly think it's that simple, then you need to get out more, to say nothing of do some growing up.

There's no effort or maturity required in dismissing opponents as monsters. It's easy, lazy, and betrays a childish unwillingness to extend to opposing intellects and ideas the respect that you demand be shown to yours.

you should read a history book because it seems you don't know a goddamn thing about the subject. jesus christ the idiocy on this board sometimes.