I mean it’s the whole tolerant paradox right. Why should we tolerate absolute douche nozzles to stay? To make things clear I absolutely despise the far right rise going on in Europe, and speaking from a Swedish perspective I feel part of it started with the rise of the right wing Swedish Democrats. But a big reason they got so much air time is because they were the only ones who talked about immigration at all, so they could entirely steer the conversation. Had the other parties actually come up with reasonable polices around immigration in the first place I don’t think SD would be as popular as they are now.
When you view things in the context of a social agreement, there is no longer any paradox.
If these people have broken the social agreement to be tolerant, they have then intentionally and explicitly removed themselves from that agreement, thereby opening themselves up to intolerance thanks to their intentional and explicit rejection of said tolerance.
It’s much the same way as outlawing worked in the old days - in the absence of a police force, you willingly agreed to follow laws that had been laid down. If you openly broke those laws in clear defiance of them, you could be removed from their protections. Ergo, you became “outside the law”, allowing anyone to harm or even kill you without legal censure.
Because if you clearly don’t want to be a part of an agreement, why should you have any right to benefit from it’s protections?
I mean it’s the whole tolerant paradox right. Why should we tolerate absolute douche nozzles to stay? To make things clear I absolutely despise the far right rise going on in Europe, and speaking from a Swedish perspective I feel part of it started with the rise of the right wing Swedish Democrats. But a big reason they got so much air time is because they were the only ones who talked about immigration at all, so they could entirely steer the conversation. Had the other parties actually come up with reasonable polices around immigration in the first place I don’t think SD would be as popular as they are now.
When you view things in the context of a social agreement, there is no longer any paradox.
If these people have broken the social agreement to be tolerant, they have then intentionally and explicitly removed themselves from that agreement, thereby opening themselves up to intolerance thanks to their intentional and explicit rejection of said tolerance.
It’s much the same way as outlawing worked in the old days - in the absence of a police force, you willingly agreed to follow laws that had been laid down. If you openly broke those laws in clear defiance of them, you could be removed from their protections. Ergo, you became “outside the law”, allowing anyone to harm or even kill you without legal censure.
Because if you clearly don’t want to be a part of an agreement, why should you have any right to benefit from it’s protections?
The only thing we do not tolerate is intolerance.
Everyone should be able to decide what country they swear allegiance to.