Well in the context of the original story, who is the Nazis? Is it the Chinese government putting peaceful Christians in jail? Or is it the Christians themselves who present a danger to society, thereby justifying their incarceration/disappearance. Seems like the answer should be obvious, and yet people don’t agree.
Nah that’s just a way to justify being intolerant while acting like you value tolerance.
Yeah? Did they throw you in jail for your beliefs? Or try to kill you? There’s a difference between expressing an ignorant or bigoted opinion, compared to infringing on someone’s human rights.
At this point the paradox of intolerance is used to justify intolerance more than it’s used to prevent intolerance.
While I don’t disagree with you, that isn’t at all what he said.
I got a feeling it’s just a particular religion. The level of moral and mental integrity in this thread is abysmal…
Lol that’s your takeaway? If you are against oppression except when it’s against people you don’t like, then you support oppression.
Sweden has some of the best policies for having kids: doesn’t cost anything, a year of maternity AND paternity leave for each kid you have, plus they straight up give you money. Birth rate is 1.45.
We don’t have a political party who stands for that, even though the majority of normal people want it, on both sides of the aisle.
In Minnesota they had a Somalian candidate for mayor who lost because of tribalism within the Somali community. Somalians from different tribes would not vote for him. So then some of the Somali leaders came together and said we are all Somali and should be voting together or we will not take power from the white people. More tribalism.
Did you read the article? It’s not quite that simple.
That only applies if you are the objective truth. If you are wrong, then it’s just another tool for bigotry, an excuse to ignore other opinions.
Yeah you are right. There have been a couple others, but quite a few attempts to ban various parties. I don’t quite understand the system and it’s possible that banning a party there isn’t near as big of a deal as it seems to me. If a party were banned in the united states, it would be very alarming. I think the only party ever banned was the communist party in 1950s, but even that is no longer really in effect.
No the court labeled afd as “confirmed right wing extremist” and someone else decided that that meant they couldn’t participate.
Who gets to decide who is a fascist and therefore doesn’t deserve to participate in democracy? What is the criteria for not deserving a voice? How do you define fascist? Maybe I’m cynical, but if you can eliminate popular political opposition by branding them as something, that’s a lot of motivation to brand them.
There’s only one political party in German history who banned other political parties. Just because you call a different party a fascist, doesn’t mean you get a pass to act like a fascist.
Well why didn’t she try that?
Any time you have a group of people who can’t be criticized because of their protected status, members of that group will abuse it.
I get the feeling that your entire identity is defined by opposition to America…
Uhh, seems like it’s way more “fashionable” for Europeans to bash the US if anything.