There are no intermediate states. I might indulge in the idea that prior to committing an actual crime, people plan to commit crimes, and that that should be punished as a crime itself (and I’m aware that it is in the US, but that it’s pretty easily abused).
You’re either committing a crime or not. It really is binary. It can’t not be binary, because then no one can know whether they are in this hypothetical gray area of yours.
We can argue about crimes themselves, of course. I somehow doubt we’d argue much. For instance, you need not punch someone to commit a crime, raising your fist is itself criminal. You can’t incite riots. And Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer as far as I’m concerned… “self-defenders” don’t rush off to riots to defend themselves. Going to a riot is identical to being a rioter yourself, and they have for the duration of their crime forfeited any claim of self-defense.
But someone calling you mean names? Even the really bad ones? It’s not a crime, and it’s not some intermediate state between the two. And quite frankly I don’t ever want to live in a world where you manage to convince everyone else to let you run it as if that were the case.
The intolerants may be misinforming other people
Probably. But that’s not a crime. Or a not-quite-a-crime.
The solution is for you or someone else to correctly inform them. Nothing more is needed.
to have them rally their cause until they are enough to democratically set up intolerant rules.
This seems unlikely. But should it come to pass, then fix the rules. And if they’ve perverted the rules so thoroughly that this cannot be done within the framework of the rules themselves, then all their lives are forfeit. Tyrannical governments and their enablers deserve to die.
But you don’t get to preemptively do the same shit yourself under the theory that “they were going to do it first!”. And no, you’re not different since you’re doing it “for a good reason, unlike what they’d do”.
But someone calling you mean names? Even the really bad ones? It’s not a crime, and it’s not some intermediate state between the two.
It is actually a penal offense here in Belgium, and I wouldn’t bet we are alone on this. But independently of that, if someone I know uses intolerant slurs I will call them out on it.
But you don’t get to preemptively do the same shit yourself under the theory that “they were going to do it first!”. And no, you’re not different since you’re doing it “for a good reason, unlike what they’d do”.
I said that the intolerant behaviours should be called out, I never said that anyone should kill anyone else. You call them out if it is safe enough, otherwise you call the police
Life in Europe is pretty free imo. Except maybe for company managers who want to fire people for no good reason… How are the US more free?
At least here we can legally order beers at age 16, and spirits at age 18, that’s a good part of the freedom my silly European mind needs :D
Certainly if more people agree with you, that means you’re correct.
Certainly if the US law says saw, that means you are correct… If wantI was just bringing up the fact that using the law as a criterion in a moral discussion is a bit shady, as the law is not the same everywhere.
In fact randomly insulting someone on the street is not necessarily punishable (except if they are a public authority), but harassing people, or inciting other people to insult categories of people, like homophobic or racist propaganda, are punishable by law here.
I don’t really miss the freedom to create a openly racist club…
Nothing I’ve said should discourage you from doing so.
There is no action that is justified on your part. Taking action makes you more than intolerant, it makes you the criminal.
Taking action doesn’t mean committing crime.
Publicly calling out a bad behaviour and siding with the victim is taking action.
Filing a complaint at the police station, or encouraging the victim to do so, is definitely taking action.
It is part of the gouvernment’s mission to punish the formation of intolerant groups before threy become an actual threat to the safety of the people they are intolerant of.Indeed what you said
Not yet. But those who become upset when the “intolerant people” don’t stop what they’re doing, they usually get there sooner or later.
about the tolerance champions also apply to the intolerants.
If the government fails at this, then it’s time to consider taking action against the government itself.
Of course, this doesn’t mean litterally shooting the sheriff or the deputy, first there’s pacific demonstration, endorsing then voting for parties who plan to improve on that point.
Actual rioting comes only if all that fails.
There are no intermediate states. I might indulge in the idea that prior to committing an actual crime, people plan to commit crimes, and that that should be punished as a crime itself (and I’m aware that it is in the US, but that it’s pretty easily abused).
You’re either committing a crime or not. It really is binary. It can’t not be binary, because then no one can know whether they are in this hypothetical gray area of yours.
We can argue about crimes themselves, of course. I somehow doubt we’d argue much. For instance, you need not punch someone to commit a crime, raising your fist is itself criminal. You can’t incite riots. And Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer as far as I’m concerned… “self-defenders” don’t rush off to riots to defend themselves. Going to a riot is identical to being a rioter yourself, and they have for the duration of their crime forfeited any claim of self-defense.
But someone calling you mean names? Even the really bad ones? It’s not a crime, and it’s not some intermediate state between the two. And quite frankly I don’t ever want to live in a world where you manage to convince everyone else to let you run it as if that were the case.
Probably. But that’s not a crime. Or a not-quite-a-crime.
The solution is for you or someone else to correctly inform them. Nothing more is needed.
This seems unlikely. But should it come to pass, then fix the rules. And if they’ve perverted the rules so thoroughly that this cannot be done within the framework of the rules themselves, then all their lives are forfeit. Tyrannical governments and their enablers deserve to die.
But you don’t get to preemptively do the same shit yourself under the theory that “they were going to do it first!”. And no, you’re not different since you’re doing it “for a good reason, unlike what they’d do”.
It is actually a penal offense here in Belgium, and I wouldn’t bet we are alone on this. But independently of that, if someone I know uses intolerant slurs I will call them out on it.
I said that the intolerant behaviours should be called out, I never said that anyone should kill anyone else. You call them out if it is safe enough, otherwise you call the police
I’m not surprised, given that it’s Europe. Not exactly a bastion of freedom.
Certainly if more people agree with you, that means you’re correct.
Nothing I’ve said should discourage you from doing so.
Not yet. But those who become upset when the “intolerant people” don’t stop what they’re doing, they usually get there sooner or later.
Life in Europe is pretty free imo. Except maybe for company managers who want to fire people for no good reason… How are the US more free?
At least here we can legally order beers at age 16, and spirits at age 18, that’s a good part of the freedom my silly European mind needs :D
Certainly if the US law says saw, that means you are correct…
If wantI was just bringing up the fact that using the law as a criterion in a moral discussion is a bit shady, as the law is not the same everywhere.In fact randomly insulting someone on the street is not necessarily punishable (except if they are a public authority), but harassing people, or inciting other people to insult categories of people, like homophobic or racist propaganda, are punishable by law here. I don’t really miss the freedom to create a openly racist club…
Taking action doesn’t mean committing crime. Publicly calling out a bad behaviour and siding with the victim is taking action. Filing a complaint at the police station, or encouraging the victim to do so, is definitely taking action.
It is part of the gouvernment’s mission to punish the formation of intolerant groups before threy become an actual threat to the safety of the people they are intolerant of.Indeed what you said
about the tolerance champions also apply to the intolerants.
If the government fails at this, then it’s time to consider taking action against the government itself. Of course, this doesn’t mean litterally shooting the sheriff or the deputy, first there’s pacific demonstration, endorsing then voting for parties who plan to improve on that point. Actual rioting comes only if all that fails.