@Background Human  
I assume your attempting to make an argument of some sort,going for the “racist white supremacy” implication along with some moms basement dweller trope. Yes very original. It doesn’t in anyway refute our comments or make a point of any substance but I’m sure it made you feel better. Personally I find the Idea of a white Ethnostate impractical,especially as I am half Honduran but I suppose you couldn’t resist typing it on the internet for some reason.
 
I tried to keep my comment on how tyrannical regimes appropriate social justice rhetoric neutral in terms of the left or right,I never said only one side used it,both play the game of “protection” and identity politics though since you brought up some identity politics I guess I could add I feel strongly that those who claim to be leftist tend to abuse the classification of hate speech for their own gain more.
 
I’m am sorry our comments triggered your need to use interpreted racism as a crutch to mock and deride down views that are apparently different from yours.

@Background Pony #9DA0  
@Antonyourknee  
“MA! The mean people on the Internet won’t let me have a white ethnostate!”

@Background Pony #9DA0  
Its a disturbing trend that many Dictatorships and tyrannical regimes from China to Venezuela all classify any rhetoric or speech that is critical of them or their ideology as “hate speech” and as such imprison or threaten dissenters in the name of “preserving the public good” and “protecting the people”. Its a trend that is entering the West as well I’m afraid.

@AmrasFelagund  
If you punish nonviolent disagreement, you’re not tolerant, even if you label that disagreement as “intolerance” to make the act sound more palatable- and even if you declare that disagreement would lead to violence. Using force to protect yourself or others from attack is okay. Using it to silence opposing philosophies is not. Enforced tolerance is quite often a friendlier name for tyranny.

Karl Popper said in 1945:
 
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, 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 unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
 
tl;dr: Blindly tolerating intolerance will lead to the death of tolerance itself.

That’s how I feel about everyone hating Katie Cook after Issue 26.

somethingsomething Sith deal in absolutes

That’s counterproductive.

We don’t take kindly to folks who don’t take kindly around here.

@Mildgyth  
I guess someone meant “not an effective source of protein” and it’s another tag for “needs source”. I’m not sure if I should remove it.

“not an effective source or protein”?

is that why you guys keep badgering people who draw the mane 6 as anything other than thin white cis girls

@Lurks-no-More  
I wasn’t playing anything, I just don’t think that what you said makes sense. Tolerance is a passive word, and does not imply effort to understand or change anyone else. It merely “tolerates” the views of others. To say otherwise is to weaken the literal meaning of the word and to violate the position it’s meant to take.
 
In order to be logical, it seems to me that tolerance should say, “Yes, you can be a Nazi, but I believe it’s a very intolerant position.”
 
A perspective that does something about injustice requires moral conviction, not vague and confusing talk about “toleration.”

@Lurks-no-More  
Okay. Despicable and idiotic people exist. And debating semantics is a terrible (but often inevitable) waste of time.  
To be clear: My comment was not so much addressing this image macro, but Thanotos Omega’s comment, which I found simplistic. Even despicable and idiotic people are more than simply that. As soon as you dismiss the complexity of (most) social issues, you have already contributed to the problems and solved none.

@AlsoSprachOdin  
Experience has taught me, at least, that there is no meaningful dialogue to be had with the people who bring up the whole “you must tolerate intolerance or you’re not tolerant, nyah!” thing. It’s not a honest inquiry, it’s an attempt at a rhetorical gotcha.

@Thanotos Omega  
Dismissal of inquiry and dialogue.  
Fuck that.

@Millennial Dan  
Do you think i will bite? cuz i won’t silly troll, Now come here so i can love and tolerate you Hugs <(^-<) Hugs

@Thanotos Omega  
Nah, I don’t think so.

@Millennial Dan  
Yes it does,

@Lurks-no-More  
Hmm… no, that doesn’t really make sense.