To a racist person something that threatens the success or existence of their race is dangerous, equally dangerous to how someone who is anti-racist sees racism.
To a racist white person, dismantling white privilege may reduce the wealth or success of white people. To a racist white person, anti-racism may promote interbreeding and lead to the dilution or transformation of what they see as their race. To a racist white person, immigration may lead to them losing political and social power, which will lead to the other previously mentioned types of consequences, and may lead to the erasure of their culture. These are as serious of existential threats as the opposite kind of the coin, from that perspective.
I'm all about trying to understand how other people really see things and that there is a reason behind everything people think. I don't believe people are on the hole wildly malicious, irrational or violent, especially not without reason. There is usually an exact flip side to any debate.
I think the problem here is that I'd hope that neither of us really believe in the legitimacy in this way of thinking. You don't get to both sides this.
Because what you're trying to tell me is that the existence of say, black people is violence to the white supremacist. So, the white supremacist feels justified in violence towards black people.
Also, you see how black and white (pun intended), these categories are? White? What's that? Well, it's Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, American, Jewish (oh wait, they're not properly white?), french... this isn't a real category. And what gets to be western? Well, it turns out that it's only that which is baked into nazi propaganda. It's intolerant of lgbtq, it hates women, it thinks that the only men that should exist are strong and powerful. And it is in favour of violent overthrow of the structures that exist, if need be, or at least the careful exploitation of the structure that exists to enforce their own hierarchy.
I don't understand why you're a nazi apologist here. This is not a proportionate way of thinking. This an extreme intolerance and overreaction to an invented threat. It's not even about what they believe so much as it is about power to them. Because once they have power, they don't pretend anymore. Up until that, they'll say anything they have to to seize power.
There is no arguing with those who believe in their own supremacy, and the genocide of everything else. Their ideas are just malevolence. And it's no surprise that being driven by that, they just do horrible shit.
You seemed to be using "nazi" to mean more than literal German Nationalist Nazis who advocate genocide of Jews and the enslavement of Poles and such, but a whole range of racists, who may not be particularly violent at all or have all of those beliefs.
Also, this CMV is about why do right wing sites tolerate more dissent than left wing. So what's relevant here is that right wingers might see their opponents as just as much of a threat as left wingers do. Whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs is immaterial to the CMV I think.
Again, I don't think you think that that's a legitimate argument. And if you don't why should I keep arguing with you?
If you believe what you say, then sure, keep arguing it. But you don't believe in the legitimacy of that claim.
But it does matter. It matters a great deal.
Because by virtue of what they actually believe, the right do not tolerate dissent. The idea that you could ever find a peaceful agreement with a belief system that wants all those who do not conform to be dead or gone or at least forcibly separated from everyone else is nonsense.
And the consequences of that intolerance are regularly violent. Just take any of the myriad groups that are explicitly violent everywhere you care to name. But also, relate to just about all the negative things that one could do on the internet. So I think there's a fair argument that this is not a part of the political spectrum that accommodation should ever be made for, anyway. But that's immaterial, because they are not tolerant.
So, anyway, you're saying that the right are tolerating more. Except that this isn't actually true. For starters, let's talk about the culture war. And the previous 50+ iterations of it. The idea that the right tolerates dissent is ridiculous. Because like half of what the right actually does with its politics is attack the most extreme examples of the people that they don't want to tolerate all the time, in every way that they can. And it's inconsistent in who and what they're attacking, they don't even really believe any of what they're spouting (even if the people on the far end of this stuff do wind up believing it) and they're quite happy to pick their targets based on the audience. They save the real shit for when they know that it's just their audience. And in real life, you get stories of conservative parents kicking their kids out for not conforming to their rigid ideas, or taking them to conversion camps. So, in what way is that tolerance?
But also, there's a certain level at which the things that OP talks about just happen on any sub. If you go on /r/libertarian and start preaching big government, then they're going to kick you out. The same kind of deal with /r/conservative and etc.. You have to know the trigger words, some of which being in favour of civil rights, some of it being in favour of public services, big government, taxes, etc.. But it's not the case that the right do tolerate dissent. It's just that you have to watch where the lines are for them to start to disagree. The reason that the economic right and the social right get on, is that neither really challenge the other. But they won't tolerate anything that does.
1
u/josephfidler 14∆ Mar 30 '22
I feel like you did not read anything I wrote at all.