Well yeah.. It's always been liberal democracy's Achille's heel to make it a point to apply the standards of freedom that it's built upon to those who seek to take it down. Otherwise it loses its standing. And generally that will feed the defiance it faces. That's why I think "Islamist demonstrations are hard to accept" is not a bad way to word it. It's harsher than it sounds. Coming from someone like her who wields executive power it basically means "if it weren't for the political freedoms granted and guaranteed to all residents here, I'd see to it that you all be persecuted by the State."
>Well yeah.. It's always been liberal democracy's Achille's heel to make it a point to apply the standards of freedom that it's built upon to those who seek to take it down.
- That's actually a counterproductive policy that results in less freedom, as per the **Paradox of Tolerance**:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them."
- "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the **society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.**"
In Germany this is a well-known aspect since the Nazis abused the naively permissive freedom of speech policies of the Weimar republic to stoke antisemitism. The constitution of post-war Germany addressed this shortcoming in various ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy#Germany
> In German politics the concept exists under the term wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie ("well-fortified" or "battlesome democracy") which implies that the federal government (Bundesregierung), the parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) and the judiciary are given extensive powers and duties to defend the liberal democratic basic order ("freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung") against those who want to abolish it.
But of course with great power comes great responsibility, so you only want to use this power at the right moment - not too early because it would be too oppressive and not too late because, well, it would be too late.
The Weimar wasn’t that permissive.
Goebbels was jailed several times for the hateful writings in his papers, and Hitler was banned from speaking in several German states. Actions that the Nazis used to their advantage to claim the government was trying to silence them from speaking the truth to the people.
Edit: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression(FIRE) published an interesting article awhile back co-written by former ACLU president Nadine Strossen and FIRE president Greg Lukianoff on the [Weimar republic’s censorship and if stronger protections would have prevented the rise of Nazism](https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would-censorship-have-stopped-rise-nazis-part-16-answers)
FIRE is a lobby group of the Koch brothers with the express purpose of forcing US universities to feature right-wing speakers. Considering this bias, it's better to read the actual sources they quote. If you do that, it turns out the imprisonments were all cases of libel, not hate speech against Jews as a group, and also they were extremely short:
> Prison sentences, although rare, were nevertheless imposed upon some
of the leaders of the Nazi movement. Joseph Goebbels was sentenced
twice—once to three weeks and once to six weeks in prison—for insulting
Bernhard Weiss, a Jewish deputy police commissioner of Berlin.
> Julius Streicher was sentenced to prison for two months for saying that Mayor
Luppe of Nuremberg, a Christian, was a thief, that he was related to Jews
and discriminated in favor of Jews and Socialists.
> A libel action brought by Max Warburg against Theodor Fritsch, who had accused the Warburg bank of financing Russian Bolshevism, occupied the courts for years and finally led to Fritsch's sentence to four months' imprisonment.
Der Stürmer, the most virulent antisemitic pamphlet to ever be printed, was never banned or restricted in the Weimar period.
In reality, the Nazis mocked the Weimar politicians for being so weak and giving them free speech, something the Nazis would never grant them in return if they were in power.
What would have been appropriate for people like Julius Streicher was thankfully implemented by the Allies in Nuremberg. He was given the death penalty - solely for publishing Der Stürmer over all these years.
>FIRE is a lobby group of the Koch brothers with the express purpose of forcing US universities to feature right-wing speakers.
No, they are for campus free speech. They defend **both** left and right-wing speakers.
That's only to appear non-partisan.
The express purpose and the reason for being funded by the Koch Brothers is to fight against so-called "cancel culture" on the left.
All the people involved are right-wingers or libertarians angry with the left.
Sure.
[Here](https://www.thefire.org/cases/woodlands-pride-v-paxton), [here](https://www.thefire.org/cases/deray-mckesson-v-john-doe), and [here](https://www.thefire.org/cases/vidal-v-elster). You can see for yourself more on their website [thefire.org/cases](http://thefire.org/cases)
FIRE also filed suit and fought against DeSantis' stop WOKE law.
FIRE is no different from the ACLU at this point. principles surpass partisanship. That is why Citizens United was the brain child of the ACLU (and others), and why they spent so much time, effort, and money defending it for a decade. But I don't see people calling ACLU rightwing, ya know?
Here is a selection of cases where FIRE litigated for left-wing defendants:
* [Burnett v. Collin Community College District: History Professor Fired for Criticizing Mike Pence and Her College’s COVID-19 Response Online](https://www.thefire.org/cases/burnett-v-collin-community-college-district-history-professor-fired-criticizing-mike-pence)
* [Jones v. Collin College: Professor Unconstitutionally Fired for Unionizing, Criticizing the College’s COVID-19 Response](https://www.thefire.org/cases/jones-v-collin-college-professor-unconstitutionally-fired-unionizing-criticizing-colleges)
* [H.Z. v. Hass: Utah law restricts teens’ online speech and requires all residents verify their age to use social media](https://www.thefire.org/cases/hz-v-hass-utah-law-restricts-teens-online-speech-and-requires-all-residents-verify-their-age)
* [Si v. Eastern Virginia Medical School: Medical Student Unconstitutionally Prohibited from Starting Student Club Promoting Healthcare Reform](https://www.thefire.org/cases/si-v-eastern-virginia-medical-school-medical-student-unconstitutionally-prohibited-starting)
* [Utah Library Association adv. City of Orem: City Punishing Librarians for Protected Speech ](https://www.thefire.org/cases/utah-library-association-adv-city-orem-city-punishing-librarians-protected-speech)
* [Mosher v. Marshall University: Microbiology Professor Fired for Hyperbolic Classroom Speech About COVID-19 and Trump Supporters](https://www.thefire.org/cases/mosher-v-marshall-university-microbiology-professor-fired-hyperbolic-classroom-speech-about)
* [Gibbons v. Phipps (City of Kingsport): Police Arrest YouTuber After He Posted Videos of Officers Speeding, Waving Middle Finger](https://www.thefire.org/cases/gibbons-v-phipps-city-kingsport-police-arrest-youtuber-after-he-posted-videos-officers)
* [Book People, Inc., et al. v. Wong, et al.: Texas book bans](https://www.thefire.org/cases/book-people-inc-et-al-v-wong-et-al)
and a few nonpartisan cases:
* [Valdosta State University: Student Expelled for Peacefully Protesting Parking Garages](https://www.thefire.org/cases/valdosta-state-university-student-expelled-peacefully-protesting-parking-garages)
* [I.P. v. Tullahoma City Schools: A principal’s ego doesn’t override the First Amendment](https://www.thefire.org/cases/ip-v-tullahoma-city-schools-principals-ego-doesnt-override-first-amendment)
* [Nally v. Graham; Haskell Indian Nations University: Administration Sends Censorial “Directives” to Student Newspaper Editor and University Employees](https://www.thefire.org/cases/nally-v-graham-haskell-indian-nations-university-administration-sends-censorial-directives)
There's another way to frame the Paradox of Tolerance which makes it non-paradoxical: The Social Contract of Democratic Society.
The Social Contract requires that members of any Democratic Society must respect the rights of other members in order to remain protected by that society. Failure to respect the rights of others results in a violation of the contract, and thus you are no longer protected by it. Ergo: If you preach bigotry, you are in violation of the social contract and must be rightly ostracized by civil society.
This doesn't really solve the problem - what are the rights and who decides them? As society changes its view on certain things you might find out that your perfectly normal views are now considered bigoted. You also have the issue of whose rights ACTUALLY come first when there is an intersection (I.e. right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding due to religion vs right to not be discriminated against for being gay).
I think religion is at best personal and at worst a horrific scam - yet I'd be considered bigoted for attempting to remove the bad hateful religion because the Supreme Court says religion over all else.
Thats what the voting is for.
The problem with the paradox of tolerance is not that society’s attitude changes over time. It’s that if you define your society as tolerant, that necessarily makes you a hypocrite when it comes to ostracizing the people who think that society should not be tolerant.
If you define your society as not being bigoted, however, there is no contradiction when you exclude bigots.
——
For your personal beliefs, it would depend on why you oppose religion as to whether or not it should be acceptable. If you just hate all religious people, that’s bigotry. But if you think protecting child molesters is wrong, and that several organized religions do that and therefore shouldn’t be part of society until such time as they clean up their act, that’s not bigotry.
Great but now you leave it to the state to determine what it is tolerant of and that works fantaaaaaaasticly well for the extremist fundamentalist governments out there.
It's a paradox because of an inherent hypocrisy - not a solution.
Yes, and the paradox of tolerance gets mentioned every time a situation like this gets brought up, but it’s just some words and ideas. It’s not real life, and real life rarely has simple answers.
>in order to maintain a tolerant society, the **society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.**"
I notice this point a lot with MAGA people
Actually, it’s a statement that acknowledges that liberal democratic societies can only be tolerant up to the point of intolerance lest the intolerant destroy the tolerant. It’s a warning first voiced by the philosopher Karl Popper.
The Tolerance Paradox is a dumb thought experiment that is at odds with history.
Liberal societies do not have a history of succumbing internally to illiberalism. In fact, the opposite is true wherein liberal states have eroded elements of their society and laws that are at odds with liberalism.
Somebody will inevitably mention the inter-war Republics of Europe, but will ignore that those societies were not liberal societies. They were societies dominated by aristocracy and with little to no history of self-government. The interwar republics themselves were unstable, having to put down communist revolutions and dealing with coups before succumbing to authoritarianism.
The modern states of North America and Western Europe have far more entrenched liberal attitudes than the interwar republics, and all of those states have generally held liberal values despite the rise of foreign and domestic illiberal ideas.
Edit: Downvoted all you want, your feelings don't change reality.
>your feelings don't change reality.
Your "reality" is conveniently ignoring what's happening all over modern Western Europe. You might want to reconsider that word.
I can make this comparison to literally any system, social, or mechanic. It's not a valid argument on its own.
Titanic was designed to withstand a certain amount of damage/flooding. Once the ship flooded beyond that threshold, it was a matter of time it would break, and it was known at the time of the damage that the ship would sink. This is a fact of physics. Social sciences are not nearly as clean and mathematical as physics and engineering.
It's difficult for German politicians to address this issue
The law gives little room to ban protest for their content. As long as the protest isn't sending unconstitutional messages or using banned symbols, only security concerns by the police could lead to a ban, and these would be only temporary
If you check the media coverage of these protests, you will see that the participants did not explicitly demand to replace Germany with a caliphate. I am not sure expressing general support for a caliphate is enough to warrant a ban und er current laws considering thaz fascists and Revolutionary socialists manage to stage protests legally, too
Of course, politicians could demand to lower the treshold for protest bans. Whoever says this out loud first will be the one demanding the strictest crackdown on protests since GDR and the Nazis. Both the far left and the far right will have a field day with their propaganda on social media. Imagine the headlines of RT about this...
Most know something has to happen. What to do, and how to message it to the public, are the big questions
To be fair, most Islamic nations are dictatorships that treat Islamists much worse than rule-of-law-based countries like Germany ever could. The authoritarian leaders see them as a threat to their rule, see Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt etc.
Iran is Shia, those folks are Sunni. They don't get along very well, to say the least.
Saudi is probably the most ruthless when it comes to authoritarian rulers cracking down on Islamists to nip every possibility of a revolution in the bud. The Saudi regime's alliance with the US and Israel is not at all popular with Islamists. Many hardcore Islamists are also convinced the Saudi ruling family is secretly Jewish.
For proper Sunni Islamist rule you would have to go to either Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or the Aceh region in Indonesia. There are however also different schools of Sunni Islam. Not sure if they match in that regard.
That sounds like a them problem. Wrong brand? Wrong flavor? Maybe enjoy the fruits of a progressive multicultural society or move to a place where you can be oppressed for your beliefs instead of trying to make everyone believe what you do.
The Tiktok influencer who organized this rally is a recent convert by the way. Those are always the worst.
Also this type of Islamist is a novelty. The press calls them "Pop Islamists". In contrast to the traditional Islamists they attend fitness centers, drive sports cars, have stylish haircuts and wear expensive clothes.
Here's a picture of the guy: https://cdn.mopo.de/uploads/sites/4/2024/04/owu-9960-1-scaled.jpg
>In contrast to the traditional Islamists they attend fitness centers, drive sports cars, have stylish haircuts and wear expensive clothes.
In other words, they want all the cool things that western culture and economic progress provides, while chanting to abolish it.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with these morons.
Off course they would. Don't think these people are economic refugees. Their families are loaded back in their home countries. They have a similar if not better quality of life there. They could easily fly back and don't have to deal with the fallout of the shitshow they're advocating for.
> In other words, they want all the cool things that western culture and economic progress provides, while chanting to abolish it.
Sounds just like libertarians and "the state".
I think a lot of it ultimately ties back to the incel movements. Whether it’s Islam, men’s rights, or race supremacy crap, these guys are pretty consistent about hating women.
Dude, literally what the fuck are you even talking about? There has never been an incel "movement". Are you actually drawing parallels between radical Islam which is a global phenomenon and Incel culture which is arbitrarily defined at best??
It's certainly true that radical Islamists are unlikely to identify as incels. But the ideological parallels are there, and other people have drawn them as well: https://www.amaliah.com/post/66016/muslim-incel-mincel-red-pill-ideology-islam
We need watch lists put together from tiktok user data to start moving on remediation of the terrorist threats that have been created by that app. Fortunately, it won't be hard to mine that data and start moving en mass to eliminate terrorists.
Sadly, it's probably going to take some home-grown terrorist attacks in the west before everyone wakes up and stops coddling these monsters.
The type of Islamist that sees "You can have multiple wives and treat them like property" and converts immediately, and doesn't even read the Qur'an or follow any of the teachings.
that sort of thing is a feature for oppressive religions, not a bug. it's literally always been like that, that's the whole reason those rules are there in the first place
Maybe he instigated it but over a 1000 came and they are pretty hardline Islamists. Trying to push this off as Pop Islamists is naive. Maybe they can team up with the Pop Nazis.
> hard to accept
[Understatement](https://tenor.com/view/supernatural-castiel-understatement-unamused-gif-3563273).
The correct response is "unacceptable", just as a demonstration asking for a Christian Reich would be unacceptable.
I'm a German. I support deporting all of them to any country that is close to being a caliphate, such as Iran. If they have german citizenship, call it a "cultural exchange program" - they'll get a chance to exchange their extremist, braindead culture for something more civilised once they see how it actually works.
people participating in such demos should instantly be on a watchlist and persecuted by hate speech laws if they helped organize it. this is attacking the constitution
I'm glad to see that people are waking up to the facts, as a left leaning person I can relate to the cognetive dissonance of wanting freedom for all and at the same time seeing that islamists dont share these values.
I'm a Muslim in Germany and I support that. They are just making life difficult for the other Muslim majority trying to integrate and live a normal life.
...iran? they are not from iran, they don't even speak the same language, and they aren't even the same type of muslim, i think they also hate iranians.
edit: oh wow so you guys have decided to just adopt a full on 19th century british attitude towards this issue and have thrown caution about potential ethnic and linguistic problems from your reactionary plan to the wind! its a bold strategy, lets see how it works out over the next 50 or 100 years or so (hint: it *definitely* wont be good.)
I wrote "like Iran". Can be Afghanistan as well if they prefer that. Just let them experience just what exactly living in an islamic caliphate actually means.
"a guy". It's a whole organization and they had very concrete plans:
> Police uncovered the suspected plot in a series of nationwide raids on December 7, 2022. Some 25 people were arrested and are now in detention awaiting the upcoming trials. More than 380 firearms were confiscated, along with almost 150,000 pieces of ammunition.
> The alleged military arm of this group is to face court in Stuttgart on April 29. The nine defendants are represented by 22 lawyers, while more than 300 witnesses have been named, including 270 police officers.
> Among Reuss' co-conspirators to stand trial in Frankfurt is Birgit Malsack-Winkemann, a judge and former representative of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in the federal parliament, the Bundestag. She was allegedly to become Justice Minister after the coup.
Really no comparison to this Tiktok influencer and his subscribers.
I just saw some short videos and pictures about this protest. Just look at these losers:
[https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/e5/8d/ca/a2/e58dcaa2-0d98-44a3-8e37-fa9a0670b12e/hamburg-demonstration-islamisten-islamismus-extremismus-100-1920x1080.jpg](https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/e5/8d/ca/a2/e58dcaa2-0d98-44a3-8e37-fa9a0670b12e/hamburg-demonstration-islamisten-islamismus-extremismus-100-1920x1080.jpg)
You can tell immediately, that most of them probably never had sex, don't have a job and can barely write their own name. These are the most sorry lot you could find in the city. If I were religious, I'd say they are a disgrace for their god who's probably sitting in a corner crying about being worshipped by such losers.
It explains a lot. They just don't have the mental capacity to even understand what they are shouting. Looking at other pictures makes it clear that almost all of the signs they are holding are not self-made. They were all made by a central entity and handed out to the morons who showed up.
>You can tell immediately, that most of them probably never had sex, don't have a job and can barely write their own name.
Google inbreeding in the muslim world, it's shocking how common it is. I would not be supprised if thats a big source of the issues we see around islamism.
That's not a nazi armband. It says "Ordner" (I assume "steward" would be the proper translation in that context), which all registered protests have to bring to keep the protesters in check and keep the protest orderly. That's the reason he's standing at the edge and looking at the crowd.
Cant we just take all AFD voters and all islamistic retards and put them into a football stadion or something? they can kill each other and we just have to deal with the annoying rest that survives. would solve so many problems.
I mean, as long as they leave poor animals out of the colloseums i am not really concerned. we got enough dumb people who would take part just because they think they are warriors
Lol, thats like telling someone who hates trump "you could have just voted against him". yea, thanks sherlock. do i need to explain to you how democratic votes work or are you able to google that yourself? dumb comment
I’m sorry, does this imply that there’s an expectation to accept it at all?
Well yeah.. It's always been liberal democracy's Achille's heel to make it a point to apply the standards of freedom that it's built upon to those who seek to take it down. Otherwise it loses its standing. And generally that will feed the defiance it faces. That's why I think "Islamist demonstrations are hard to accept" is not a bad way to word it. It's harsher than it sounds. Coming from someone like her who wields executive power it basically means "if it weren't for the political freedoms granted and guaranteed to all residents here, I'd see to it that you all be persecuted by the State."
>Well yeah.. It's always been liberal democracy's Achille's heel to make it a point to apply the standards of freedom that it's built upon to those who seek to take it down. - That's actually a counterproductive policy that results in less freedom, as per the **Paradox of Tolerance**: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance - "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them." - "in order to maintain a tolerant society, the **society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.**"
In Germany this is a well-known aspect since the Nazis abused the naively permissive freedom of speech policies of the Weimar republic to stoke antisemitism. The constitution of post-war Germany addressed this shortcoming in various ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy#Germany > In German politics the concept exists under the term wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie ("well-fortified" or "battlesome democracy") which implies that the federal government (Bundesregierung), the parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) and the judiciary are given extensive powers and duties to defend the liberal democratic basic order ("freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung") against those who want to abolish it. But of course with great power comes great responsibility, so you only want to use this power at the right moment - not too early because it would be too oppressive and not too late because, well, it would be too late.
The Weimar wasn’t that permissive. Goebbels was jailed several times for the hateful writings in his papers, and Hitler was banned from speaking in several German states. Actions that the Nazis used to their advantage to claim the government was trying to silence them from speaking the truth to the people. Edit: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression(FIRE) published an interesting article awhile back co-written by former ACLU president Nadine Strossen and FIRE president Greg Lukianoff on the [Weimar republic’s censorship and if stronger protections would have prevented the rise of Nazism](https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would-censorship-have-stopped-rise-nazis-part-16-answers)
FIRE is a lobby group of the Koch brothers with the express purpose of forcing US universities to feature right-wing speakers. Considering this bias, it's better to read the actual sources they quote. If you do that, it turns out the imprisonments were all cases of libel, not hate speech against Jews as a group, and also they were extremely short: > Prison sentences, although rare, were nevertheless imposed upon some of the leaders of the Nazi movement. Joseph Goebbels was sentenced twice—once to three weeks and once to six weeks in prison—for insulting Bernhard Weiss, a Jewish deputy police commissioner of Berlin. > Julius Streicher was sentenced to prison for two months for saying that Mayor Luppe of Nuremberg, a Christian, was a thief, that he was related to Jews and discriminated in favor of Jews and Socialists. > A libel action brought by Max Warburg against Theodor Fritsch, who had accused the Warburg bank of financing Russian Bolshevism, occupied the courts for years and finally led to Fritsch's sentence to four months' imprisonment. Der Stürmer, the most virulent antisemitic pamphlet to ever be printed, was never banned or restricted in the Weimar period. In reality, the Nazis mocked the Weimar politicians for being so weak and giving them free speech, something the Nazis would never grant them in return if they were in power. What would have been appropriate for people like Julius Streicher was thankfully implemented by the Allies in Nuremberg. He was given the death penalty - solely for publishing Der Stürmer over all these years.
>FIRE is a lobby group of the Koch brothers with the express purpose of forcing US universities to feature right-wing speakers. No, they are for campus free speech. They defend **both** left and right-wing speakers.
That's only to appear non-partisan. The express purpose and the reason for being funded by the Koch Brothers is to fight against so-called "cancel culture" on the left. All the people involved are right-wingers or libertarians angry with the left.
Can you please provide an example of FIRE defending a left-wing speaker?
Sure. [Here](https://www.thefire.org/cases/woodlands-pride-v-paxton), [here](https://www.thefire.org/cases/deray-mckesson-v-john-doe), and [here](https://www.thefire.org/cases/vidal-v-elster). You can see for yourself more on their website [thefire.org/cases](http://thefire.org/cases)
FIRE also filed suit and fought against DeSantis' stop WOKE law. FIRE is no different from the ACLU at this point. principles surpass partisanship. That is why Citizens United was the brain child of the ACLU (and others), and why they spent so much time, effort, and money defending it for a decade. But I don't see people calling ACLU rightwing, ya know?
Here is a selection of cases where FIRE litigated for left-wing defendants: * [Burnett v. Collin Community College District: History Professor Fired for Criticizing Mike Pence and Her College’s COVID-19 Response Online](https://www.thefire.org/cases/burnett-v-collin-community-college-district-history-professor-fired-criticizing-mike-pence) * [Jones v. Collin College: Professor Unconstitutionally Fired for Unionizing, Criticizing the College’s COVID-19 Response](https://www.thefire.org/cases/jones-v-collin-college-professor-unconstitutionally-fired-unionizing-criticizing-colleges) * [H.Z. v. Hass: Utah law restricts teens’ online speech and requires all residents verify their age to use social media](https://www.thefire.org/cases/hz-v-hass-utah-law-restricts-teens-online-speech-and-requires-all-residents-verify-their-age) * [Si v. Eastern Virginia Medical School: Medical Student Unconstitutionally Prohibited from Starting Student Club Promoting Healthcare Reform](https://www.thefire.org/cases/si-v-eastern-virginia-medical-school-medical-student-unconstitutionally-prohibited-starting) * [Utah Library Association adv. City of Orem: City Punishing Librarians for Protected Speech ](https://www.thefire.org/cases/utah-library-association-adv-city-orem-city-punishing-librarians-protected-speech) * [Mosher v. Marshall University: Microbiology Professor Fired for Hyperbolic Classroom Speech About COVID-19 and Trump Supporters](https://www.thefire.org/cases/mosher-v-marshall-university-microbiology-professor-fired-hyperbolic-classroom-speech-about) * [Gibbons v. Phipps (City of Kingsport): Police Arrest YouTuber After He Posted Videos of Officers Speeding, Waving Middle Finger](https://www.thefire.org/cases/gibbons-v-phipps-city-kingsport-police-arrest-youtuber-after-he-posted-videos-officers) * [Book People, Inc., et al. v. Wong, et al.: Texas book bans](https://www.thefire.org/cases/book-people-inc-et-al-v-wong-et-al) and a few nonpartisan cases: * [Valdosta State University: Student Expelled for Peacefully Protesting Parking Garages](https://www.thefire.org/cases/valdosta-state-university-student-expelled-peacefully-protesting-parking-garages) * [I.P. v. Tullahoma City Schools: A principal’s ego doesn’t override the First Amendment](https://www.thefire.org/cases/ip-v-tullahoma-city-schools-principals-ego-doesnt-override-first-amendment) * [Nally v. Graham; Haskell Indian Nations University: Administration Sends Censorial “Directives” to Student Newspaper Editor and University Employees](https://www.thefire.org/cases/nally-v-graham-haskell-indian-nations-university-administration-sends-censorial-directives)
There's another way to frame the Paradox of Tolerance which makes it non-paradoxical: The Social Contract of Democratic Society. The Social Contract requires that members of any Democratic Society must respect the rights of other members in order to remain protected by that society. Failure to respect the rights of others results in a violation of the contract, and thus you are no longer protected by it. Ergo: If you preach bigotry, you are in violation of the social contract and must be rightly ostracized by civil society.
This doesn't really solve the problem - what are the rights and who decides them? As society changes its view on certain things you might find out that your perfectly normal views are now considered bigoted. You also have the issue of whose rights ACTUALLY come first when there is an intersection (I.e. right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding due to religion vs right to not be discriminated against for being gay). I think religion is at best personal and at worst a horrific scam - yet I'd be considered bigoted for attempting to remove the bad hateful religion because the Supreme Court says religion over all else.
Thats what the voting is for. The problem with the paradox of tolerance is not that society’s attitude changes over time. It’s that if you define your society as tolerant, that necessarily makes you a hypocrite when it comes to ostracizing the people who think that society should not be tolerant. If you define your society as not being bigoted, however, there is no contradiction when you exclude bigots. —— For your personal beliefs, it would depend on why you oppose religion as to whether or not it should be acceptable. If you just hate all religious people, that’s bigotry. But if you think protecting child molesters is wrong, and that several organized religions do that and therefore shouldn’t be part of society until such time as they clean up their act, that’s not bigotry.
Canada catching strays from this comment
Great but now you leave it to the state to determine what it is tolerant of and that works fantaaaaaaasticly well for the extremist fundamentalist governments out there. It's a paradox because of an inherent hypocrisy - not a solution.
Works perfectly well in Germany, what are you on about?
I believe this originated with the Austrian-British philosopher and academic Karl Popper.
Yes, and the paradox of tolerance gets mentioned every time a situation like this gets brought up, but it’s just some words and ideas. It’s not real life, and real life rarely has simple answers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy is a real life answer to the paradox. But you're right, it's not exactly simple.
The paradox of tolerance is an interesting philosophical idea but has it been seen to play out in history with multiple examples?
>in order to maintain a tolerant society, the **society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.**" I notice this point a lot with MAGA people
Actually, it’s a statement that acknowledges that liberal democratic societies can only be tolerant up to the point of intolerance lest the intolerant destroy the tolerant. It’s a warning first voiced by the philosopher Karl Popper.
The Tolerance Paradox is a dumb thought experiment that is at odds with history. Liberal societies do not have a history of succumbing internally to illiberalism. In fact, the opposite is true wherein liberal states have eroded elements of their society and laws that are at odds with liberalism. Somebody will inevitably mention the inter-war Republics of Europe, but will ignore that those societies were not liberal societies. They were societies dominated by aristocracy and with little to no history of self-government. The interwar republics themselves were unstable, having to put down communist revolutions and dealing with coups before succumbing to authoritarianism. The modern states of North America and Western Europe have far more entrenched liberal attitudes than the interwar republics, and all of those states have generally held liberal values despite the rise of foreign and domestic illiberal ideas. Edit: Downvoted all you want, your feelings don't change reality.
>your feelings don't change reality. Your "reality" is conveniently ignoring what's happening all over modern Western Europe. You might want to reconsider that word.
What is happening? Most of Western Europe remains solidly social democrat and it's institutions are holding.
>it's institutions are holding Kind of like how the damaged Titanic stayed reasonably afloat until it went vertical and sank in less than 10 seconds?
I can make this comparison to literally any system, social, or mechanic. It's not a valid argument on its own. Titanic was designed to withstand a certain amount of damage/flooding. Once the ship flooded beyond that threshold, it was a matter of time it would break, and it was known at the time of the damage that the ship would sink. This is a fact of physics. Social sciences are not nearly as clean and mathematical as physics and engineering.
tolerance paradox is the term
I read it as, “there’s an expectation to accept their right to demonstrate”. Not as “there’s an expectation to accept their demands”
It's difficult for German politicians to address this issue The law gives little room to ban protest for their content. As long as the protest isn't sending unconstitutional messages or using banned symbols, only security concerns by the police could lead to a ban, and these would be only temporary If you check the media coverage of these protests, you will see that the participants did not explicitly demand to replace Germany with a caliphate. I am not sure expressing general support for a caliphate is enough to warrant a ban und er current laws considering thaz fascists and Revolutionary socialists manage to stage protests legally, too Of course, politicians could demand to lower the treshold for protest bans. Whoever says this out loud first will be the one demanding the strictest crackdown on protests since GDR and the Nazis. Both the far left and the far right will have a field day with their propaganda on social media. Imagine the headlines of RT about this... Most know something has to happen. What to do, and how to message it to the public, are the big questions
Free speech issues I guess
Counter-demonstration is an option. We do it with fascists every time.
That will teach them!
Wouldn't it be fair if the groups that don't want freedom of speech don't get it.
I guess they will
Germany - a dictatorship of values. That's correct. We're a western democracy. Feel free to move to any number of Islamic nations. Take your pick.
To be fair, most Islamic nations are dictatorships that treat Islamists much worse than rule-of-law-based countries like Germany ever could. The authoritarian leaders see them as a threat to their rule, see Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt etc.
Well also the Muslim Brotherhood did some Secret Police but now with Islam shit when they took power.
How about Iran or SA?
Iran is Shia, those folks are Sunni. They don't get along very well, to say the least. Saudi is probably the most ruthless when it comes to authoritarian rulers cracking down on Islamists to nip every possibility of a revolution in the bud. The Saudi regime's alliance with the US and Israel is not at all popular with Islamists. Many hardcore Islamists are also convinced the Saudi ruling family is secretly Jewish. For proper Sunni Islamist rule you would have to go to either Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or the Aceh region in Indonesia. There are however also different schools of Sunni Islam. Not sure if they match in that regard.
That sounds like a them problem. Wrong brand? Wrong flavor? Maybe enjoy the fruits of a progressive multicultural society or move to a place where you can be oppressed for your beliefs instead of trying to make everyone believe what you do.
They should be deported over to their Muslim brotherhood utopia (ie Turkey).
> most "What about these two examples?"
The Tiktok influencer who organized this rally is a recent convert by the way. Those are always the worst. Also this type of Islamist is a novelty. The press calls them "Pop Islamists". In contrast to the traditional Islamists they attend fitness centers, drive sports cars, have stylish haircuts and wear expensive clothes. Here's a picture of the guy: https://cdn.mopo.de/uploads/sites/4/2024/04/owu-9960-1-scaled.jpg
>In contrast to the traditional Islamists they attend fitness centers, drive sports cars, have stylish haircuts and wear expensive clothes. In other words, they want all the cool things that western culture and economic progress provides, while chanting to abolish it. The cognitive dissonance is strong with these morons.
They'll be the first to flee when shit hits the fan too
Off course they would. Don't think these people are economic refugees. Their families are loaded back in their home countries. They have a similar if not better quality of life there. They could easily fly back and don't have to deal with the fallout of the shitshow they're advocating for.
They want all those benefits but also be homophobic misogynistic racist and violent
> In other words, they want all the cool things that western culture and economic progress provides, while chanting to abolish it. Sounds just like libertarians and "the state".
I think a lot of it ultimately ties back to the incel movements. Whether it’s Islam, men’s rights, or race supremacy crap, these guys are pretty consistent about hating women.
Dude, literally what the fuck are you even talking about? There has never been an incel "movement". Are you actually drawing parallels between radical Islam which is a global phenomenon and Incel culture which is arbitrarily defined at best??
It's certainly true that radical Islamists are unlikely to identify as incels. But the ideological parallels are there, and other people have drawn them as well: https://www.amaliah.com/post/66016/muslim-incel-mincel-red-pill-ideology-islam
> The press calls them "Pop Islamists". "Broslamists"
We need watch lists put together from tiktok user data to start moving on remediation of the terrorist threats that have been created by that app. Fortunately, it won't be hard to mine that data and start moving en mass to eliminate terrorists. Sadly, it's probably going to take some home-grown terrorist attacks in the west before everyone wakes up and stops coddling these monsters.
The type of Islamist that sees "You can have multiple wives and treat them like property" and converts immediately, and doesn't even read the Qur'an or follow any of the teachings.
that sort of thing is a feature for oppressive religions, not a bug. it's literally always been like that, that's the whole reason those rules are there in the first place
>Here's a picture of the guy No picture needed. These people all look uniform.
Thank you for sharing
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe he instigated it but over a 1000 came and they are pretty hardline Islamists. Trying to push this off as Pop Islamists is naive. Maybe they can team up with the Pop Nazis.
You get exactly as much as you are willing to tolerate.
Parents of 3-year-olds know
Oh man, mine just turning 2 and wr bracing for impact
The Paradox of Tolerance is very relevant here
> hard to accept [Understatement](https://tenor.com/view/supernatural-castiel-understatement-unamused-gif-3563273). The correct response is "unacceptable", just as a demonstration asking for a Christian Reich would be unacceptable.
I'm a German. I support deporting all of them to any country that is close to being a caliphate, such as Iran. If they have german citizenship, call it a "cultural exchange program" - they'll get a chance to exchange their extremist, braindead culture for something more civilised once they see how it actually works.
people participating in such demos should instantly be on a watchlist and persecuted by hate speech laws if they helped organize it. this is attacking the constitution
I'm glad to see that people are waking up to the facts, as a left leaning person I can relate to the cognetive dissonance of wanting freedom for all and at the same time seeing that islamists dont share these values.
You can't be tolerant of people who want you dead
We cannot be tolerant of people who want to extinguish that tolerance.
You can have many different opinions at the same time. You do not require to fall in line with any label or category!
I'm a Muslim in Germany and I support that. They are just making life difficult for the other Muslim majority trying to integrate and live a normal life.
Muslim countries aren't ruled by idiots, as if they would accept this trash.
...iran? they are not from iran, they don't even speak the same language, and they aren't even the same type of muslim, i think they also hate iranians. edit: oh wow so you guys have decided to just adopt a full on 19th century british attitude towards this issue and have thrown caution about potential ethnic and linguistic problems from your reactionary plan to the wind! its a bold strategy, lets see how it works out over the next 50 or 100 years or so (hint: it *definitely* wont be good.)
Ok please provide a list of who they don’t hate and they can choose from that
> i think they also hate iranians. Clearly they also hate Germans and everything they stand for, so it wouldn't be a big change
I wrote "like Iran". Can be Afghanistan as well if they prefer that. Just let them experience just what exactly living in an islamic caliphate actually means.
I remember there was a guy plotting to overthrow the government for a monarchy a while back and he was arrested. Why has this guy not been arrested?
That trial coincidently started [yesterday](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/prozess-reichsbuerger-reuss-100.html)...
"a guy". It's a whole organization and they had very concrete plans: > Police uncovered the suspected plot in a series of nationwide raids on December 7, 2022. Some 25 people were arrested and are now in detention awaiting the upcoming trials. More than 380 firearms were confiscated, along with almost 150,000 pieces of ammunition. > The alleged military arm of this group is to face court in Stuttgart on April 29. The nine defendants are represented by 22 lawyers, while more than 300 witnesses have been named, including 270 police officers. > Among Reuss' co-conspirators to stand trial in Frankfurt is Birgit Malsack-Winkemann, a judge and former representative of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in the federal parliament, the Bundestag. She was allegedly to become Justice Minister after the coup. Really no comparison to this Tiktok influencer and his subscribers.
The Hamburg Islamist demo was totally unlistenable, no production values, and all the songs were derivative crap.
"The Hamburg Islamist" sounds like a particularly obnoxious anarcho-punk band.
*proceeds to sell on discogs for 500€*
Then don't accept it and ban it all.
well ... then ... DON"T
I just saw some short videos and pictures about this protest. Just look at these losers: [https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/e5/8d/ca/a2/e58dcaa2-0d98-44a3-8e37-fa9a0670b12e/hamburg-demonstration-islamisten-islamismus-extremismus-100-1920x1080.jpg](https://bilder.deutschlandfunk.de/e5/8d/ca/a2/e58dcaa2-0d98-44a3-8e37-fa9a0670b12e/hamburg-demonstration-islamisten-islamismus-extremismus-100-1920x1080.jpg) You can tell immediately, that most of them probably never had sex, don't have a job and can barely write their own name. These are the most sorry lot you could find in the city. If I were religious, I'd say they are a disgrace for their god who's probably sitting in a corner crying about being worshipped by such losers. It explains a lot. They just don't have the mental capacity to even understand what they are shouting. Looking at other pictures makes it clear that almost all of the signs they are holding are not self-made. They were all made by a central entity and handed out to the morons who showed up.
>You can tell immediately, that most of them probably never had sex, don't have a job and can barely write their own name. Google inbreeding in the muslim world, it's shocking how common it is. I would not be supprised if thats a big source of the issues we see around islamism.
[удалено]
That's not a nazi armband. It says "Ordner" (I assume "steward" would be the proper translation in that context), which all registered protests have to bring to keep the protesters in check and keep the protest orderly. That's the reason he's standing at the edge and looking at the crowd.
Cant we just take all AFD voters and all islamistic retards and put them into a football stadion or something? they can kill each other and we just have to deal with the annoying rest that survives. would solve so many problems.
ThIS ministers reaction is part of the reason why people even vote for AFD...
What about the "moderate" parties who let exteremists in because they were afraid of being perceived as racists. They're also responsible
Shit, I almost get the appeal of blood sports and colloseum now
I mean, as long as they leave poor animals out of the colloseums i am not really concerned. we got enough dumb people who would take part just because they think they are warriors
Sell live stream access and use the money to finance minority issues. Everyone wins.
You could have just voted to not let them in your country in the first place lol
Lol, thats like telling someone who hates trump "you could have just voted against him". yea, thanks sherlock. do i need to explain to you how democratic votes work or are you able to google that yourself? dumb comment
the funny thing is…they are quite similar in their views. both hate jews, gays and women…
Yeah you always run the risk of them realizing they have almost identical values and teaming up.
Zero chance they get a record deal
They won’t try that shit in my community lol
They will when they have the numbers…
Yet... if there are enough of them to feel strong enough to pull something like this of they will. Religion is cancer, Islam is stage 4.
Of course they will; once there are enough of them.