I dress like this in the summer as a nonbinary person

I just want to clarify, is this calling OP a tankie? (And if so, what am I missing)

For once I have nothing to say except:

I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them. I hate them.

From my reading, all the people doing blocking that I've seen were against my opinion and against the meme and were more inline with the centrist position. I would be happy to have evidence otherwise though

I still think it's easier than you would suggest. If you're willing, please bear with me as I have a lot to say in response (as you can see)

How about this sentence: "Chinese tourists are loud, obnoxious, have no respect for the places they visit, and are harming our city."

If they (the person in the example) think it's inherent to all Chinese tourists, then yes. It's racist. That easy. In this particular scenario, saing "the're harming our city" is particularly something i would investigate. Now you might ask "well how do you determine if the person thinks it's inherent?" And well... you can't. Not really. But if I respond to the person with "well, there might be things influencing youe experience. Not every Chinese tourist is rude, in fact a lot of tourists are rude worldwide", they can either respond by reflecting on the opinion and realize over a larger disussion that maybe it's just rich tourists in general that are rude, and the Chinese tourists that they've met have seemed somewhat wealthier... or they say "no, they're all rude it's just their culture." The latter response of course being a refusal to engage with the discussion. You can continue trying to convince them if it's a friend or family or you're just really persistent, but at a certain point... Some people will not change their mind in 1, 2, 5, 10, or even 100 discussions on the topic and it's better to say "I understand your experience, but you are factually wrong, and we won't consider your opinion for lawmaking and social outcomes"

Another example: "Whenever I read a story about an elderly Asian being attacked in my city, it's always by a black man."

Still pretty easy, I might ask for clarification if I heard that, but given the wording you've provided, it doesnt set off any dogwhistle alarms in my head. "Whenever I see a natural disaster in Florida on the news, it's always a hurricane" is a lot different that "Hurricanes only hit Florida" or "Florida only gets hit by hurricanes"

"Never engage" sounds nice but in practice that philosophy tends to lead to ever-narrower echo chambers.

If I gave you the impression that I was advocating for "never engage" I'm sorry but that's not my position, and it's seemingly not the position of many of the other people in the thread. No one reasonable is saying to exile people for disagreeing on a retirement funding policy, or whether it's better to put your child in sciences or arts, etc.etc. What is being said per the tolerance paradox is that intolerance should not be tolerated and the people that try to compromise between "everyone should have the same rights" and "I want to ban/hurt/endanger this group" or "this group's mere existence endangers our own" should go with them.

Because anyone who argues for something being not racist is seen as a suspected racist.

🧐

This kind of absolutism is why Leftism always descends into a circular firing squad imo.

I'm feel as thought most people in the thread have been rather nuanced. If nothing else, I feel I have been. The only "absolutist" thing being said is "bigotry shouldn't be tolerated". Do you mind providing an example of this that doesn't just point at the intolerance paradox?

Easy. Something is racist if it essentializes characteristics of a person or group, based on their skin colour or ethnic group; or if it makes derogatory assumptions about a cultural item/act/thing.

• "Jews are greedy" = Racist statement

• "Immigrants are violent" = Racist statement

• "Asians are better at math" = Racist statement

• "White people don't season their food" = I don't give a fuck personally (am white) but yes there is some level of racism in the statement

• "Dreadlocks are dirty" = racist statement

• "Israel is an genocidal state" = not a racist statement

• "People native to Tibet, the Andese, and the Ethiopian highlands are better adapted to high altitudes" = not a racist statement

• "white people have historically been more responsible for subjugating other races" = not a racist statement

Some things are worse than others, but the point isn't to just shun anyone who says something bigoted. It's to shun anyone who is bigoted and truly believes that they are correct so they won't engage with arguments that they are presented. Or to shun centrists who argue for "finding a middle ground" between the bigoted position and the correct one.

I fell down the alt-right pipeline in highschool, and now I'm a nonbinary leftist landing somewhere between social democracy and anarcho-communism. I of all people have to believe in not just sending bigoted people to the gulag... But the trick is that no matter what, democratic platforms shouldn't be given to those ideals. You shouldn't be able to run on a platform of blocking trans healthcare, deporting a made up number of ""illegal immigrants"" (undocumented migrants), or fucking "being a dictator on day one". And defending those acts also should be heavily looked down upon.

I was recently reminded about the caveats that Germany has on the "no Nazi parties" rule. It's truly insane that it's essentially (this is hyperbole, but less than you'd think) "you can ban a party from running if they're Nazis... As long as they call themselves Nazis, and they've won an election, and the leader is called Hitler, and the leader went to art school. All other parties must be allowed to run"

Thank you!

Sorry, tone doesn't come across well. I can't tell if you're trying to correct me on a point, because I agree with you.

To everyone pearl clutching in response to this correct meme with one of the following phrases:

• "That's how you create an echo chamber"

• "paradox of intolerance doesn't say how to fight fascism"

• "This is about silencing opposing thought"

I would like to take this moment to remind you that the paradox of intolerance isn't about exiling those who disagree on economic policy; it's about recognizing and directly opposing those who are trying to harm or disadvantage others and doing so in a meaningful way that will actually change the outcome. You can't debate Hitler out of doing a genocide, but you could have jailed him before he gained power.

Being too spineless to call out and fight intolerance enables fascism. The longer you live wrapped up in your civility politics, the overton window shifts further right, and it strengthens the fascist support. It happened in pre-WW2 Germany, and it's being repeated in dozens of countries worldwide. If you feel the urge to block me, go ahead...

...but know that this is your fault

Edit: spelling

Sorry, i dont want to be rude, but do you actually have any arguments other than gesturing at the article & giving both-sides-isms?

Hamas has committed war crimes, yes, however it shouldn't be ignored that Israel is currently engaged in terrorism, genocide, land grabs, torture of prisoners and more. Simply saying "both sides bad" lays the blame more evenly than it should be laid.

The article also mentions that Israel has started using it in their own propaganda videos. showing the triangle over targets as they're hit, and when you flip it like that there's a very clear implication of destroying the symbol of freedom... Which is to say, I still fail to see your ultimate point. You're just pointing at the news article and saying "SEE! THEY SAY ITS BAD!"

Could you provide some actual argumentation to go with that?

And just so it doesnt seem like I'm running, "Targeting reticle" would imply a weapon optic or similar, hence my confusion. "using it to mark targets" would have been clearer.

Asking you what you mean by calling the triangle a "targeting reticle" absolutely does not mean I don't know the topic at hand, its me asking you to clarify your argumentation.

What is this even in reference to? Do you care to elaborate on the propaganda you're trying to spew, or are you just expecting me to know the same talking points as you?

Now I might just be too stupid to understand what I'm displaying, but last I checked, the red triangle has been a symbol of pro-Palestinian support since the Palestinian Revolt in uhhhh... 1938. It's possible Hamas might have co-opted it, but then you might as well ban the Palestinian flag as well since that's the source of the triangle, and it has also existed since 1917, I'm failing to follow how this is a symbol of Hamas

True!

Except thats not even fully correct either. Hezbollah is also a political party with members who are 100% non-militant civilian members who are only politicians.

This is specifically talking about stores like crumbl cookies I think (appears to be what the cookie in the picture is). Very fancy, quite overpriced, pretty tasty, but kinda doughy in the center IMO.

People that complain about forced diversity are complaining about diversity. No one is forcing excessive diversity on you.

To be clear, that wasnt me you just responded to, but I was the one who asked you the questions. You seem to be making a lot of bad faith assumptions about my intent with those questions.

You're asking a rhetorical question in the hopes of getting a gotcha.

Well, it is rhetorically framed, but I was trying to see if you and I are both working with frameworks built on reality.

Your primary goal here is not to deepen any kind of understanding.

Again, ouch. The tone of the questions may have come across that way, but my intent is never to "gotcha"... You'll just have to take my word for it obviously.

If you did, you would be a lot more honest in your questions. You'd open up with a clear argument, based on specifics, with dates, people, events etc.

This is a forum on internet, not debate club. Like I said above, I'm sorry if my questions came across as being bad faith, but I'm not obligated to serve you a rhetorically perfect and fallacy-free set of questions, just as you are not obligated to engage with my questions if you feel they're trying to uh... "Gotcha"

If you did, you would be a lot more honest in your questions. You'd open up with a clear argument, based on specifics, with dates, people, events etc.

I'm not totally sure how I'm responding with catch phrases. Honestly, if nothing else I'd love for you to clarify this

You want a nuanced discussion that delves into the specifics of the geopolitics of the region? Start a thread that's not just diluted meaningless sentences, such as this nugget:

Why should the US president be in regular contact with the perpetrator of an ongoing genocide?

I'm sorry, I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but I can't tell if you're using the above as an example of a "diluted meaningless sentence" or whether it's meant to be a good question.

Ultimately, I don't feel I was acting in bad faith considering I was trying to evaluate your framework. If you feel it was done poorly, that's okay, you dont need to respond.

Also:

Who are "you guys"?