Cool but slippery slope
Edit: I feel like a lot of people dont get it. For an example if you ban nazis and they get power they can ban the left side or trans people(etc you get the point). Also just banning stuff can screw up things. Same with allowing hitting someone for their (flawed) ideology. You have to assume that your enemies and also yourself dont have morals. Nazis think they are the good side(idk actually, im not a nazi). Violence and banning things should only be used as an extreme measure.
Conceptual slippery slope arguments assume that because we cannot draw a distinction between adjacent stages, we cannot draw a distinction between any stages at all.
Example: "There is no essential difference between 199 and 200 grains of sand or 200 and 201 grains and so on. Thus, there is no difference between 1 grain of sand and 3 billion grains of sand.”
I think he means that it’s a dangerous precident. Opening the door to political violence not only makes your side look barbarous, but is also a potential justification for future political violence against an arbitrary group.
I hate Nazis, but we shouldn’t be punching people for saying stupid, hateful shit.
If your neighbours started saying your family needs to be put into gas chambers you’d laugh it off? Nazis believe in genocide. It is not a laughing matter. It is a threat.
Believing in racial superiority is as absurd as a flat earth, but in-order to be willing to punch someone, you have to take their ideas seriously enough to find them threatening, there-by legitimizing them [for the audience the Nazi is targeting].
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
If the rando is somehow having their verbal excrement backed by the state, then we can talk about violence, but that is not currently the case where I live, and in most of the world.
I don’t want to debate a Nazi about whether the emperor’s clothes are ugly or not. I’m going to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes.
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
That’s exactly the first scene of the Twilight Zone episode He’s Alive. Not that it proves anything as it’s just a fictional story but it’s the first thing I thought of.
An article that also comes to mind is Bartender explains why he swiftly kicks out Nazis even if they’re ‘not bothering anyone’. Basically, if you allow the “rando” Nazi’s a safe place to congregate they’ll tell all their friends who tell their friends and eventually your bar, town square, etc are the local Nazi hangout and the extremists start showing up. Now you have too many Nazis to safely and easily remove.
Now, you absolutely don’t need to use violence as your language of choice, what’s most important is that you make it loud and clear that trying to put down roots is going to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Cool but slippery slope Edit: I feel like a lot of people dont get it. For an example if you ban nazis and they get power they can ban the left side or trans people(etc you get the point). Also just banning stuff can screw up things. Same with allowing hitting someone for their (flawed) ideology. You have to assume that your enemies and also yourself dont have morals. Nazis think they are the good side(idk actually, im not a nazi). Violence and banning things should only be used as an extreme measure.
Nope. A Nazi is well defined.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
I think he means that it’s a dangerous precident. Opening the door to political violence not only makes your side look barbarous, but is also a potential justification for future political violence against an arbitrary group.
I hate Nazis, but we shouldn’t be punching people for saying stupid, hateful shit.
We should be mocking them mercilessly.
If your neighbours started saying your family needs to be put into gas chambers you’d laugh it off? Nazis believe in genocide. It is not a laughing matter. It is a threat.
Believing in racial superiority is as absurd as a flat earth, but in-order to be willing to punch someone, you have to take their ideas seriously enough to find them threatening, there-by legitimizing them [for the audience the Nazi is targeting].
Some rando standing on a street espousing the deranged ramblings of a long-dead dictator is not a legitimate threat in my eyes.
If the rando is somehow having their verbal excrement backed by the state, then we can talk about violence, but that is not currently the case where I live, and in most of the world.
I don’t want to debate a Nazi about whether the emperor’s clothes are ugly or not. I’m going to tell everyone the emperor has no clothes.
That’s exactly the first scene of the Twilight Zone episode He’s Alive. Not that it proves anything as it’s just a fictional story but it’s the first thing I thought of.
An article that also comes to mind is Bartender explains why he swiftly kicks out Nazis even if they’re ‘not bothering anyone’. Basically, if you allow the “rando” Nazi’s a safe place to congregate they’ll tell all their friends who tell their friends and eventually your bar, town square, etc are the local Nazi hangout and the extremists start showing up. Now you have too many Nazis to safely and easily remove.
Now, you absolutely don’t need to use violence as your language of choice, what’s most important is that you make it loud and clear that trying to put down roots is going to be more trouble than it’s worth.