this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
266 points (98.2% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To me, this falls under the Paradox of Tolerance. Acts of hate should be strongly discouraged.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That doesn't work in this case since it applies to both sides. The rioting religious people and the Quran burners are both filled with hate.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

both filled with hate.

That doesn't make them equal.

For example, if you look at two people, one that is a Nazi and one that hates Nazis, they are both hating. But it's quite clearly due to said paradox of tolerance. Only one of them is the asshole.

edit: apperently the analogy wasn't quite clear.

One is an ideological organisation which is has been causing oppression of minorities for a thousand years up to this day with countless atrocities commited in it's name, without going into details ... the other one is a person with a book, matches and a message.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Okay so, which one is the nazi? The religious zealot willing to chop teachers heads off for "wrong teaching" or the person burning their "holy" books as protest?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

The religious zealot of course. I really didn't think I had to spell that out....

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions. Or are you arguing that killing someone for a symbolic insult to your world view is comparable to hating a Nazi?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions.

Obviously, yes.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions.

I'm still not sure which side you're talking about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Are you retarded?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

how does it applying to both sides make it not work?

yall act like you can either be fine with religious riots or be fine with inciting religious riots

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

"inciting" is basically just a fancy euphemism for "those people are violent in a very predictable way" in this case. It is not as if we are talking about someone holding a fiery speech, telling people lies until they are angry enough to become violent. They are violent in the first place. So predictably violent for so long in fact that people apparently make laws forbidding others from triggering the predictably violent people.

And yes, if you make those laws you are absolutely in favour of religious riots because you do what the rioting people demand which has rarely been considered a disincentive for any behaviour.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

β€œBoTh SiDeS aRe BaD!”

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be perfectly honest, no, both sides aren't equally bad, the one that burns the book isn't as bad as the one who tries to kill the other over it, at least not for the book burning (they might very well be for other actions they take). But both come from a position of intolerance.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Yes, there are issues where both major sides are bad. You don't always have to pick a side and 100% adopt their beliefs.