I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. The view is nearly impossible to avoid in context. How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? To the point where assassinating political opponents is justified?

It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.

▲

tshaddox 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots.

"You shouldn't do anything unjustified" is an uncontroversial and useless prescription.

▲

the_gastropod 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

roenxi 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, yes. We expect most religious people to put up with society at large damning souls to an eternity of torment and whatever. And people are forever pushing economic schemes that result in needless mass suffering. Not to mention that for reasons mysterious warmongers are usually treated with respect and tolerance in the public discourse.

An idea being "harmful" isn't a very high bar, we have lots of those and by and large people are expected to put up with them. Society is so good at overlooking them it is easy to lose track of just how many terrible beliefs are on the move at any moment. Someone being a threat to democracy isn't actually all that close to the top of the list, although moving away from democracy is generally pretty stupid and a harbinger of really big problems.

▲

the_gastropod 5 days ago | parent [-]

The original quote I was responding to here was

> How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times?

The point I was trying to make is: this is not what’s happening. It’s not “anyone with a different belief”. But some people, Kirk included, literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people. That’s not a reasonable position we can just compromise on. That’s reprehensible dehumanization.

	▲	roenxi 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not inclined to believe Kirk actually advocated that. Where and when did he say that? I want to check what the context was. A quick search only turned up people apologising for spreading false stories about him.

▲

pixl97 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Extremists don't like to address the paradox of tolerance.

	▲	mkfs 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'm confused; are you encouraging violence against intolerant leftists, especially Communist?