simple paradox of tolerance shit

Nah, misinterpretation. Censorship doesn’t stop shit. Suppression of intolerance means stopping it through coercion or criminalization.

we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal

Moreover, intolerance doesn’t mean the baby-brained notion on the internet of espousing offensive, exclusionary views. The nonviolent & noncoercive are still tolerant. Intolerance means rejection of rational discourse through appeal to force: coercive/violent action or incitement of it to overthrow a tolerant society.

for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

Karl Popper opposed censorship/argued for free inquiry & open discourse.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

Censorship (or willfully blinding ourselves to information) plays no part in suppressing authoritarianism, and it’s extremely moronic to pretend it does.

Viral infections are cured by eradicating them entirely or to undetectable levels. “Humanity is a virus” is not a condemnation of overpopulation but of humanity. Genocide would be inadequate to “cure” the planet of a “human infection”: only speciescide would suffice.

Lemmy has an odd fixation on ecofascism when that’s not implied. No form of government is suggested with the eradication of all humanity, only the absence of any. Any anti-anthropocentrism such as ecocentrism or a morality generalized beyond human welfare is capable of accounting for such thought.

People here tend to fixate on their pet theories that scapegoat capitalism for everything including that humanity’s drain on ecological resources exceeds Earth’s rate of regeneration without acknowledging that their alternatives don’t address the problem, either.

Although governments are far more able than individuals and firms acting singly to take action to protect the environment, they often fail to do so. The centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, where governments controlled production, had a particularly poor record on pollution control. Per capita mortality from air pollution in Eastern Europe (outside the EU) and China remains high relative to the EU and North America.

In particular, the Soviet economy—with constitutional guarantees to continuously improve living standards & steadily grow productive forces—caused disproportionately worse ecological damage than the US’s. All economic systems have the same capacity to degrade the environment & deplete stocks of natural resources. Without adequate policies to protect the environment, improving & maintaining living standards with the continuous economic growth necessary to do that threatens the environment.

Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants. The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans. Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes. Aboriginal landscape burning

may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats

More recently, they killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.

As long as people prioritize anthropocentric concerns without considering the environment, I find it an expedient starting point to remind them that exterminating all of humanity will end humanity’s concerns, too, while saving the planet from them. It’s a rhetorical move to stimulate more practical discussion. Around here, though, they never seem to get past that starting point, but instead protract in their useless debates over economic/political systems.

Your judgement seems baseless and irrational. Be better.

I really want to upvote this, but it lacks alt text. 😞