Even if you accept that Nazis should be tolerated, being tolerant doesn’t mean infinite tolerance.
I think that falls under the black and white fallacy. Just because someone tolerates one thing, doesn’t mean they are obligated to tolerate everything.
Tolerance is a social contract. A pact.
We, socially, tolerate people who don’t violate the social pact. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone. Hurting anyone violates the pact.
The social pact is one of goodwill and non-harm, regardless of impact.
If you can’t keep to that pact, you forfiet any claim to tolerance because you, yourself, are not holding up the ideals of tolerance. Which include race, creed, religion, whatever, pick a (normal person) thing and we are ok with it!
We let our governments get away with breaking the pact, but… if we didn’t it would be a lot easier to enforce overall…
And we’d all be better off.
Nuanced tolerance, the true answer to the paradox of tolerance.
Accepting that people come to the wrong conclusions and want to express what they believe is the truth without them causing intentional harm.
I still prefer people who express that they want people like me to not exist over those that think the same thing while smiling to my face.
That way i can publicly call them out and express my own opinion of their words with equal freedom. I wish people like them also didn’t exist but here we are so we better try and get along or out of each others way.
Its implied causing harm or directly causing harm (by any means) that i draw my personal line.
One of my reasoning for this: “people born from sibling incest couples shouldn’t exist” can be said without hate to those people and its a slippery slope. “People with diseases shouldn’t exist i wish everyone was healthy” can sound like “people with autism should exist and thus not procreate”
I am autistic btw, with kids. Would prefer if everyone else also was.
The idea that Captain America is left is the funniest thing about this.
Cut him open and take the juicy red from inside!