It’s the intolerance paradox in full view. Wilders should have been convicted and jailed years ago. A tolerant society must be fiercly intolerant towards intolerance.
Not sure if jailing him is the right solution, but after his Moroccan speech, he should at the very least have been barred from public office, as well as participating in any political parties.
At least that way, there is a strong deterrent to preventing politicians from spewing this kind of hate.
What exactly would you jail him for though?
While he is mostly spewing bullshit without coming with any real solutions, he isn’t actually doing anything ‘legally’ wrong.
It’s not a strawman if it’s fact. The point is that “legality” is not the only basis for action or lack thereof. Shit like that is what got us in this fucking mess.
What does the parent comment have anything to do with the intolerance paradox. The population is increasingly voting far-right, it’s terrible and has nothing to do with the paradox.
A shift of the public opinion at that scale doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It can only happen if society as a whole tolerates increasingly intolerant messages and behaviour. Those far right rat catchers wouldn’t have much of a platform, if they weren’t tolerated, and their supporters wouldn’t be nearly as brazen if they were told off wherever they dare to publicly state their support.
Ok, you jail him and maybe even his closest allies. What do you achieve with that?
Imo, at best you got a bunch of people protesting out in the streets, calling it political persecution. And at worst the party’s popularity might even increase, handing them an even larger victory.
It’s the intolerance paradox in full view. Wilders should have been convicted and jailed years ago. A tolerant society must be fiercly intolerant towards intolerance.
Yes. Tolerance is not an inherent virtue or anything, it is a contract between two or more parties. If one party stops honoring it, all bets are off.
Not sure if jailing him is the right solution, but after his Moroccan speech, he should at the very least have been barred from public office, as well as participating in any political parties.
At least that way, there is a strong deterrent to preventing politicians from spewing this kind of hate.
What exactly would you jail him for though? While he is mostly spewing bullshit without coming with any real solutions, he isn’t actually doing anything ‘legally’ wrong.
He was tried around 2008/2009 for hate speech and discrimination. He should have been convicted then.
The Holocaust was legal and not legally wrong.
There is quite a bit of a difference between genocide and some mean words about the Islam.
Yes, words can be harmful but the holocaust is quite a bit outside that scope.
Something that you probably understand, seeing as you came with this absolute shit strawman take.
It’s not a strawman if it’s fact. The point is that “legality” is not the only basis for action or lack thereof. Shit like that is what got us in this fucking mess.
What does the parent comment have anything to do with the intolerance paradox. The population is increasingly voting far-right, it’s terrible and has nothing to do with the paradox.
A shift of the public opinion at that scale doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It can only happen if society as a whole tolerates increasingly intolerant messages and behaviour. Those far right rat catchers wouldn’t have much of a platform, if they weren’t tolerated, and their supporters wouldn’t be nearly as brazen if they were told off wherever they dare to publicly state their support.
It happens because liberals are proven pussies, doormats, pushovers, and milquetoast chickenshit weenies.
Ok, you jail him and maybe even his closest allies. What do you achieve with that?
Imo, at best you got a bunch of people protesting out in the streets, calling it political persecution. And at worst the party’s popularity might even increase, handing them an even larger victory.
If he had been convicted years ago, we wouldn’t be in this situation today.