[banads]

Can you see how the former is a link in the same "chain of destruction"[1] as the latter?

[1]https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE

You may be disinclined to watch this short video, but perhaps you would be surprised to see that it actually gives strong credence to the problems which you are seemingly arguing against, and which I too care deeply about.

[cpursley]

> "take their jobs away and make it harder for them to survive"

This bit from that clip was especially poignant, thanks for sharing.

[d_e_solomon]

I'm fighting against speech that dehumanizes Jews, LGBT, Blacks, and so on; and ensuring that people who engage in it face consequences for that speech. This gets back to Hannah Arendt's paradox of tolerance.

[slowmovintarget]

First, it is Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance".

The conclusion his argument leads to is: In a tolerant society, attacking people because of their beliefs is not permitted (requisite intolerance).

You don't fight against speech, you speak against its ideas.

[banads]

Why do you focus so narrowly on "fighting" speech, rather than the ongoing actions that are dehumanizing humans of all types?

[cpursley]

So in order to fight intolerance you're being intolerant. Got it. Fight fire with fire.

[d_e_solomon]

At what point am I allowed to fight back? If someone advocates exterminating me, do I have your permission to suggest that their speech should have consequences? Or do I have to wait until I'm dead?

[cpursley]

Do you believe that most people getting "mob cancelled" right now are overtly advocating extermination? If so, can you provide a few examples so I can better understand your position?