[jacquesm]

> What about white nationalists or separatists? People who want a white ethnic country with restricted immigration.

They have the vote, don't they?

> Are they outside our moral tolerance as well?

Well, they are outside mine so if that's how you roll you won't find yourself invited into my house because you'd be incompatible with whoever else I might invite and you'd be incompatible with me.

> AFAIU, a lot of these so-called Nazis are just white nationalists who want to assert their superiority, but not in a Hitler way.

Yes, all we want is a nice white place for ourselves, and the temporary problem of how to get rid of those who we find objectionable we'll leave to our friends over there.

Note that the one group needs the others if they are to get their way and so they openly support each other and to all intents and purposes might as well be seen as one group by outsiders.

[backpropaganda]

What if they propose a 100% peaceful process? Imagine something like apartheid, i.e. segregated schools, restaurants, etc. There is literally no violence here. Are people allowed to believe in a different set of political axioms (isolationism against multiculturalsim/diversity)?

Note that I'm talking about what stance government and its institutions should take against such rebellion, not who you invite to your private party.

Also, these are not my political beliefs. Just trying to see where the line is being drawn here.

[jacquesm]

> What if they propose a 100% peaceful process? Imagine something like apartheid, i.e. segregated schools, restaurants, etc. There is literally no violence here.

Are you kidding? A 100% peaceful process that will segregate society and return to the days we have fortunately left behind us and you believe that the perpetrators would not use force?

Majority decides that all people of color have to leave and they will just have to abide?

You're going to be in for a rude surprise if you think that would be without violence.

> Are people allowed to believe in a different set of political axioms (isolationism against multiculturalsim/diversity)?

Yes they are, but unfortunately for those people their beliefs are generally against the laws of most or all civilized countries where equality before the law is a very basic principle. What you are advocating is to create classes of humanity that are not equal before the law.

Even if you were to get a majority of a society to accept that there will be an immediate and violent response from the minority that you wish to dis-enfranchise. So there is no '100% peaceful process' to achieve this, that's a pipe dream.

> Note that I'm talking about what stance government and its institutions should take against such rebellion, not who you invite to your private party.

Yes, I got that.

> Also, these are not my political beliefs.

Then you're going to have to be very careful with how you express yourself lest someone mistakenly holds you to account for beliefs you don't have but wish to throw out there as some kind of academic exercise.

> Just trying to see where the line is being drawn here.

Where I deem it to be reasonable: the right for one group to exercise their freedom stops where that group attempts to limit the freedoms of others that they would like to claim for themselves. Symmetry is key.

[backpropaganda]

My conjectured proposal is both symmetrical and consistent with equality: any citizen X is allowed to open restaurant/school which only caters to class Y, for all X and Y. It sure allows apartheid, but there are no perpetrators here. It's perfectly symmetrical.

[jacquesm]

> My conjectured proposal is both symmetrical and consistent with equality: any citizen X is allowed to open restaurant/school which only caters to class Y, for all X and Y. It sure allowed apartheid, but there are no perpetrators here. It's perfectly symmetrical.

No, it is not symmetrical because the number of members of the various classes and their power dynamics are not symmetrical. This obviously would benefit the majority ruling, or in the case of outright apartheid the ones in power or wealthy at the expense of those without power or wealth.

So no, it is not symmetrical, in fact it is the same dumb and fallacious kind of reasoning that whites under the apartheid regime used to justify their position.

The law does not allow whites to create schools where blacks are not welcome any more than it would allow a school created by blacks where whites aren't welcome. Ditto for restaurants and if you wish to create such a society you will likely find that your view is a minority view that will not make you any friends.

[backpropaganda]

While I'm fairly conformist, and "won't make you friends" is sufficient for me to join the diversity bandwagon, I can imagine radicals not buying your counter-arguments. Groups like the altright truly believe that multiculturalism is the Worst Possible Thing Ever™, and fighting against it is noble even if that restricts their friend circle. Here's a Vox piece[1] where Renaud Camus explains much better than me on where altright are coming from. While I abhor violence and believe in Enlightenment ideals, I don't take diversity as an intrinsic good, and I think being against diversity is consistent with other Enlightenment ideals, and is not coming from a position of hatred or ignorance.

[1]: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/15/16141456/renaud-camus-th...

[jacquesm]

> I can imagine radicals not buying your counter-arguments.

That is because they are not going be be buying any counter arguments at all, regardless of merit.

> While I abhor violence and believe in Enlightenment ideals, I don't take diversity as an intrinsic good, and I think being against diversity is consistent with other Enlightenment ideals, and is not coming from a position of hatred or ignorance.

If you wish to stake out this position right 'on the line' that's your problem, not mine, it's not up to me to supply you with arguments for your feelings. I'm a bit surprised you would use an expensive word such as 'Enlightenment' and then use it to promote a radically un-enlightened position.

Whether diversity as such is an intrinsic good or not is not even up for discussion, diversity is the direct result of having a society where everybody is equal before the law. If you feel that is something that you could argue about you're going to have a hard time finding a country where you will feel comfortable.

As for the root cause: it need not be hatred or ignorance, there is a much simpler and baser emotion at work here: fear.

Ask yourself this: why is it that you feel that you could not share a country with people with a different culture from yours and with a different skin color than yours?

On another note, earlier you made it seems as if you were just 'asking for a friend' ("Also, these are not my political beliefs.") or speaking entirely in hypotheticals and now you actually admit that this is your own position after all. I'm super interested in how you got yourself into that position in the first place, I've yet to meet someone who openly admitted to such a stance so if you could please try to make me understand how you arrived at your position I'm most interested.