[js8]

They are NOT learning from their history. In fact (to quote from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...):

"I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

[KozmoNau7]

The lesson to be learned is that they did not strike down the fascists hard enough, while they still could.

Fascism must be met at all time with hard, Swift and decisive opposition, violent if necessary. There must be no tolerance for ideologies built on intolerance.

[Fins]

And who will decide what is not to be tolerated?

[KozmoNau7]

Intolerance towards others will not be tolerated. Simple.

[Fins]

So while you are intolerant to Nazis (who you will define yourself) will you be making an exception for yourself, or will you not tolerate your own intolerance to wrongthink?

[KozmoNau7]

That discussion has been had so many times, it's not even funny. Of course you should not tolerate intolerance, that's not even up for discussion anymore.

And no, you obviously shouldn't attack people for "wrongthink". You have to attack them for acts, not for thoughts. Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought.

[js8]

"Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought."

I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act.

On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as if it had a moral agency. So which is it?