[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?

[KozmoNau7]

Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history.

If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.