What did Democrats do wrong?

[arthwollipot]

Fondue?!

You bet she did.

 

[Helen]

I get where you're coming from, but there's a flaw in your logic.

If you are intolerant of those you deem intolerant, then those of whom you are intolerant should also not be expected to tolerate you. It creates divisiveness and impedes advancement all around.

Would you say that about the nazis in pre-war Germany? And claim that my logic was flawed if I said that you should not tolerate nazis? That argument belongs in purely philosophical discussions, where I would agree; in a formal logic argument, fine, then it's illogical, Otherwise? Definitely not

 

[Helen]

Oh, and another thing; my intolerance of the intolerant will not affect them - they already view me, a feminist and a Scandivaian type socialist - as lower than low, and a race traitor to boot, and have the most fascinating ideas about what to do with people like me, if they get a chance. So while I do understand some of the factors that drive their hatred, and pity them in some ways, I will not tolerate their open hatred, nor will I stop calling them out. Our supposedly acceptable far right party, Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden democrats, who are neither if those things), which is backing up our current conservative joke of a government, have told us, from the bully pulpit the conservatives have provided them with in our government, that Jews or the Sami can never be real Swedes, since their loyalties will always lie elsewhere. And other representatives chanted ausländer raus on election night.

And what about the march in Charlottesville? The Jews shall not replace us, should we be tolerant about that? Tolerance is no good; understanding and trying to change whatever led us to this very dark place, yes fine, but we have to call out fascism and nazism, there is no room for mealy mouthed tolerance when the echoes from the 30's stop being echoes and become the war cries of today. Their biggest enemy here today may be muslims but other than that, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Sorry about the ranting. I think I need to go lie down and think about woolly lambs and cardamom buns, and maybe consider taking up knitting instead of shouting from the barricades

 

[Hercules56]

We believe in a society that tolerates ethnic & racial & religious and national diversity.

That doesn't mean we also have to tolerate bigotry, prejudice, hatred.

Its absurd to suggest otherwise.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Now I'm just going to JAQ off.

Now I'm just going to conclude that your appeals for empathy were self-serving, bad-faith nonsense. An actually empathetic individual would not have written this.

 

[Susheel]

lots of people give it a shot anyway

Whether many of the east European migrants to Israel can still be considered Semitic would be in question. I have a feeling that a large percentage of the Zionists are non Jews from various, primarily evangelical Christians.

 

[johnny karate]

You don't need to make excuses, nor do you need to turn a blind eye. Tolerance is not acceptance, and it's certainly not celebration.

Just think about the logic Helen proposed, which you seem to agree with. Helen references the paradox of tolerance, which was a mere footnote within an entire body of work lauding the benefits of tolerance. But you've both extended it further than I think is reasonable.

If someone is actively seeking to do you harm, you should certainly not tolerate their aggression. On the other hand, if you perceive someone to be intolerant because they hold different views than you - even views that you and I might both agree are reprehensible - then you've given yourself permission to be intolerant of them. Thus YOU become the one engaging in intolerance. And since you are now the intolerant one, then nobody else should be expected to be tolerant of you.

From a game theory perspective, your approach is a grim trigger, and it's a losing strategy. Even worse is that the philosophical approach involved expects everyone to follow a grim trigger strategy, and it's a self-defeating highly unbeneficial approach.

Once again, the central premise here is that conservatives are not required to make any compromise or even the slightest effort to find any common ground. They have permission to do what they want and any refusal to accommodate them is a transgression.

They do not want tolerance, they want submission.

 

[dann]

A pretty good thread:

Stephanie on X, Sep 7, 2025
Biden-Harris used the armed forces against civilians for protesting genocide after they authorized the DoD to assist police, including the use of lethal force. Trump doesn't exist in a vacuum. Wake up.

Stephanie on X, Sep 7, 2025
I voted for Obama, and then he started violating our civil rights, and I saw that Democrats are merely Republicans in black face or female face or other identity face to fool enough of us into submission. Wake up!

Stephanie on X, Sep 7, 2025
Democrats have a longer record of building the police state than Republicans. Wake up!

Stephanie on X, Sep 7, 2025
And, how could anyone realistically believe that a corporate neoliberal party that participated in a genocide of mostly children could possibly save us from the monster they helped build? Wake up!

There are things Democrats are much too eager to 'tolerate'!

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, everyone remembers when Obama and Biden used the military to occupy U.S. cities.

Thanks for waking me up, Stephanie.

ETA: I like how the person demanding that I "wake up" is using a Nazi platform to spread her message.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Would you say that about the nazis in pre-war Germany? And claim that my logic was flawed if I said that you should not tolerate nazis? That argument belongs in purely philosophical discussions, where I would agree; in a formal logic argument, fine, then it's illogical, Otherwise? Definitely not

The problem here is the hyperbole. The nazis were an actual organized political party, and they openly and very clearly embraced a policy position of removing jewish people, romani, and homosexuals from their society entirely.

That's not the case with Republicans in the US. None of their policies target the elimination of any group of people.

You're rubbing racism and other bigotries all over anything that republicans do, while simultaneously pretending that the party doesn't already include people from pretty much every category that you think they're on the verge of genociding.

Seriously, do you think that if you just call "those guys" enough bad names and say that they're evil horrible people often enough, it will magically transform them into such? Or have you simply lapped up the propaganda that you've been fed, and assumed that your sources are always above reproach?

Look, Republicans are no peaches. Feel free to oppose their policies to your heart's content. But understand that Democrats aren't exactly moral superheroes either, and both parties have much to be held accountable for. At the end of the day, don't extend your manufactured hatred for one party onto regular people who don't actually have any loyalty to either stupid party. Don't demonize everyday people because they don't believe what you tell them they ought to believe, they don't do what you tell them they ought to do, and they don't adopt your preferred ideologies.

Youse all act like there are hordes of average people out there running around with pitchforks and ropes just looking for any chance to murderfy groups of people that you're just dead convinced they hate. In reality, what you're doing is inciting violence against normal citizens who haven't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ done anything to merit your harassment and vitriol.

 

[Helen]

Read up on the nazis in the early 30's. Look at what ICE is doing. Listen to the far right (in many countries) othering immigrants. Listen to the language of the far/alt/MAGA right in general. But you can of course go on playing it down, if you prefer. I won't.

 

[johnny karate]

The problem here is the hyperbole. The nazis were an actual organized political party, and they openly and very clearly embraced a policy position of removing jewish people, romani, and homosexuals from their society entirely.

That's not the case with Republicans in the US. None of their policies target the elimination of any group of people.

You're rubbing racism and other bigotries all over anything that republicans do, while simultaneously pretending that the party doesn't already include people from pretty much every category that you think they're on the verge of genociding.

Seriously, do you think that if you just call "those guys" enough bad names and say that they're evil horrible people often enough, it will magically transform them into such? Or have you simply lapped up the propaganda that you've been fed, and assumed that your sources are always above reproach?

Look, Republicans are no peaches. Feel free to oppose their policies to your heart's content. But understand that Democrats aren't exactly moral superheroes either, and both parties have much to be held accountable for. At the end of the day, don't extend your manufactured hatred for one party onto regular people who don't actually have any loyalty to either stupid party. Don't demonize everyday people because they don't believe what you tell them they ought to believe, they don't do what you tell them they ought to do, and they don't adopt your preferred ideologies.

Youse all act like there are hordes of average people out there running around with pitchforks and ropes just looking for any chance to murderfy groups of people that you're just dead convinced they hate. In reality, what you're doing is inciting violence against normal citizens who haven't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ done anything to merit your harassment and vitriol.

We have government thugs illegally abducting brown-skinned people and putting them into torture prisons. They voted for that.

We have a dangerous quack in charge of public health, threatening the lives of everyone. They voted for that.

We have an economy collapsing due to unhinged incompetence. They voted for that.

Kindly spare us your dishonest bothsidesism.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, and another thing; my intolerance of the intolerant will not affect them - they already view me, a feminist and a Scandivaian type socialist - as lower than low, and a race traitor to boot, and have the most fascinating ideas about what to do with people like me, if they get a chance. So while I do understand some of the factors that drive their hatred, and pity them in some ways, I will not tolerate their open hatred, nor will I stop calling them out. Our supposedly acceptable far right party, Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden democrats, who are neither if those things), which is backing up our current conservative joke of a government, have told us, from the bully pulpit the conservatives have provided them with in our government, that Jews or the Sami can never be real Swedes, since their loyalties will always lie elsewhere. And other representatives chanted ausländer raus on election night.

Well, I suppose you should direct your ire toward Swedish parties that you view as intolerant then. Rather than extending that to some exaggerated media portrayal of basic conservatives in the US. Spewing vitriol at foreign people based on a bunch of assumptions you've been handed by extremists engaged in propaganda isn't necessarily a great tactic.

And what about the march in Charlottesville? The Jews shall not replace us, should we be tolerant about that? Tolerance is no good; understanding and trying to change whatever led us to this very dark place, yes fine, but we have to call out fascism and nazism, there is no room for mealy mouthed tolerance when the echoes from the 30's stop being echoes and become the war cries of today. Their biggest enemy here today may be muslims but other than that, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Yep, Charlottesville. Absolutely atrocious that out of a country of over 300,000,000 less than 200 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ felt the need to spout hatred. Obviously, those couple of hundred that don't hold political office are going to murder and genocide the 120,000,000 who aren't white.

Sorry about the ranting. I think I need to go lie down and think about woolly lambs and cardamom buns, and maybe consider taking up knitting instead of shouting from the barricades

Look, I understand your irritation and frustration. But the approach you're advocating is not going to be effective, it alienates people that you should be seeking to ally, and it assumes that anyone who doesn't think just like you is evil and therefore deserves to be persecuted.

Your approach is identical that that which you purport to oppose.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We believe in a society that tolerates ethnic & racial & religious and national diversity.

That doesn't mean we also have to tolerate bigotry, prejudice, hatred.

Its absurd to suggest otherwise.

When you use the word "tolerate" what do you think that implies?

If you wish to be intolerant of bigotry, does that include bigotry toward... fundamentalist christians? Does your intolerance extend to black separatist movements in the US? Or to blatantly antisemitic muslim organizations chanting support for intifada? Does your intolerance include hyper-progressive partisans in the US who actively preach hatred toward conservatives and independents?

Do you actually choose to be intolerant of ALL intolerance, or do you accept intolerance with which you agree?

 

[Helen]

Well, I suppose you should direct your ire toward Swedish parties that you view as intolerant then. Rather than extending that to some exaggerated media portrayal of basic conservatives in the US. Spewing vitriol at foreign people based on a bunch of assumptions you've been handed by extremists engaged in propaganda isn't necessarily a great tactic.

Yep, Charlottesville. Absolutely atrocious that out of a country of over 300,000,000 less than 200 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ felt the need to spout hatred. Obviously, those couple of hundred that don't hold political office are going to murder and genocide the 120,000,000 who aren't white.

Look, I understand your irritation and frustration. But the approach you're advocating is not going to be effective, it alienates people that you should be seeking to ally, and it assumes that anyone who doesn't think just like you is evil and therefore deserves to be persecuted.

Your approach is identical that that which you purport to oppose.

Your far right republicans are far worse than our little goose steppers, and I have not been fed any lies by extremists, I follow what happens in the US closely for many reasons, not least because everything you do affects the rest of us, almost as much as it affects you.

It is quite possible that you are right, and that my approach doesn't work, but I know for certain that your approach does nothing. I will continue to try to right the wrongs I see, and to call out those who want to take away the human rights of others, and if you think my approach is as bad as theirs, you are simply wrong. But be a bystander, by all means.

 

[johnny karate]

Yep, Charlottesville. Absolutely atrocious that out of a country of over 300,000,000 less than 200 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ felt the need to spout hatred. Obviously, those couple of hundred that don't hold political office are going to murder and genocide the 120,000,000 who aren't white.

The Trump administration regularly spreads white supremacist propaganda.

The vice president follows multiple white supremacist social media accounts.

The president made an overtly racist conspiracy theory that threatened the safety of an entire town part of his campaign.

Your arguments would be more convincing if they weren't based on lies and obfuscations.

Look, I understand your irritation and frustration. But the approach you're advocating is not going to be effective, it alienates people that you should be seeking to ally, and it assumes that anyone who doesn't think just like you is evil and therefore deserves to be persecuted.

Your approach is identical that that which you purport to oppose.

Sure, these people voted for a bunch of fascist degenerates to burn down the country and threaten the lives and wellbeing of you and your family, but you must continue to coddle these people and never, ever do or say anything that hurts their feelings while they are given full permission to continue to do whatever they want.

 

[johnny karate]

When you use the word "tolerate" what do you think that implies?

If you wish to be intolerant of bigotry, does that include bigotry toward... fundamentalist christians? Does your intolerance extend to black separatist movements in the US? Or to blatantly antisemitic muslim organizations chanting support for intifada? Does your intolerance include hyper-progressive partisans in the US who actively preach hatred toward conservatives and independents?

Do you actually choose to be intolerant of ALL intolerance, or do you accept intolerance with which you agree?

Short answer, yes, we should be intolerant of all intolerance.

Longer answer, the people we're talking about are in the charge of the country. Who are the specific groups you reference in your counter example and what power do they hold to make them comparable threats?

Also, it should be noted that a short while ago, you completely dismissed Charlottesville as an aberration but are now bringing up these fringe groups as some kind of equivalent to what Republicans are doing.

Seems kind of dishonest.

 

[Helen]

@Emily's Cat; do I speak out about every sign if intolerance all the time? No. Do I have to, doesn't it count otherwise, should i be on the barricades about everything, or forever hold my peace? Of course not. If you find other things you feel are more important, you will have to take those on yourself. I see what I think are the greatest threats to our democracies and human rights at present, and call out those who pose those threats. The dangerous right wing are near the top of my list, since if they are allowed free rein, I doubt that we have any chance to stop climate change, which I see as the greates threat to us all. It will also become much more difficult to stop, and prevent, wars. Plus all minority groups will suffer. And so will women.

 

[Random]

When you use the word "tolerate" what do you think that implies?

If you wish to be intolerant of bigotry, does that include bigotry toward... fundamentalist christians? Does your intolerance extend to black separatist movements in the US? Or to blatantly antisemitic muslim organizations chanting support for intifada? Does your intolerance include hyper-progressive partisans in the US who actively preach hatred toward conservatives and independents?

Do you actually choose to be intolerant of ALL intolerance, or do you accept intolerance with which you agree?

Again, treat it as a social contract, "I don't attack you, you don't attack me". If someone wants to be a bigot and hate my race/creed/sex/political views/whatever while sitting in a cabin in the woods cut off from all communication sources, fine. If they try to ban me or my friends and family from owning firearms, using public restrooms, or eating meat on Fridays, then I am not obligated to "tolerate" them. What steps I might take in my "intolerance" can get complicated quickly, but the basic premise is quite simple.

 

[esquel]

The main tenet in my library is "Thou shalt not bother thy neighbor." Things that get in the way of using a library for its intended purpose and/or run counter to our guidelines are going to be shut down quickly.