Your argument gets into a common neoliberal talking point about our institutions. That they are infallible and that any attempt at systemic change would destroy them.
I dont know who’se fucking posts you’ve been reading, but they clearly werent mine if thats your conclusion you came to.
But then again, given your general right wing argument style of “Its okay to do bad things as long as I agree with them, who gives a fuck about consequences down the road”, I’m not entirely surprised you are choosing to respond to a imaginary arguments instead of mine.
These were in your argument. I assessed them as part of a neoliberal argument.
You are still, ultimately, arguing for the destruction of our institutions by trying to give the people you agree with special privilege to do wrong that you agree with.
This gets at the paradox of tolerance. Essentially the paradox of tolerance is how should a tolerant society deal with intolerant people or groups. By reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty, we can resolve the paradox. If a group of people, such as fascists, decided to be intolerant, they have broken the social contract of tolerance. Having broken the agreement, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement. Thus their speech in the case of the targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not protected speech.
So denying the fascists the ability to use the mail in this way is not special treatment, but a refusal by society to tolerate intolerance. Ideally we would have systems in place to prevent disinformation campaigns, but we should rather have individuals exercising civil disobedience than nothing at all. There is no point in an institution such as the mail existing as it does now if it’s going to be used to deny people the fundamental right to exist.
My argument would be the same, That they would need to be punished severely to protect the institution of the US Postal Service, in order to prevent other bad actors from doing more of the same and destroying it from the inside.
Bad-faith actors do not care about being punished. The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life. We should not put institutions above the way of life that they are supposed to foster. To do so would defeat the purpose of the institutions.
You are as much a cancer and threat to our institutions as all the other bad actors.
The argument that sounds right wing is yours. edit: typo
This gets at the paradox of tolerance
No, it doesnt. You’re again being disingenuous.
There is no paradox.
The mail carriers deliver the mail. They do not censor it based on personal feelings.
The christo-fascist movement seeks to use our own institutions against us to destroy our way of life
He says, literally trying to undermine the institutions by arguing to allow people to undermine them, as long as he agrees with their undermining
The argument that sounds right wing is yours
Yes yes, Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Your entire argument boils down not in favor of justice, accountability and integrity, but in favor of “Let people undermine things as long as I agree with it”.
They do not censor it based on personal feelings.
Fascists getting people killed with a disinformation campaign is not feelings. We do not have to tolerate intolerance in order to be a tolerant society. We can make the strategic decision to defend ourselves and our liberty from fascists who want to destroy us.
He says, literally trying to undermine the institutions by arguing to allow people to undermine them, as long as he agrees with their undermining
FYI I’m a woman. I’ll add my pronouns to my bio.
Eventually there won’t be a mail service if fascists kill us all.
Yes yes, Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
This is what your argument is doing.
justice, accountability and integrity
None of these ideals are embodied by a life-threatening disinformation campaign or those who would knowingly let such a campaign slide.
