That doesn't work. There are lots of people who are extremely intolerant to people who hold views that weren't very controversial a decade or two ago and are still widely held today; case in point, Brendan Eich (and the intolerant campaign that got him fired). "Unacceptable intolerance" is something that can have very different definitions from one person to the next, so it's not a useful test.
> It is not really that hard.
Drawing the line about what the limits of free expression are in an open society is a very hard problem. Saying it isn't is flippant and frankly wrong.
> The irony in this whole thing is, the more tolerant you are to an inherently intolerant ideology like white-supremacy, the less tolerant we become as a society.
That isn't true either, it can also show societal confidence that ideas like white-supremacy are wrong and that the light of scrutiny will make them look foolish.
I don't want to argue about this on HN, because I don't think this is the right forum.
You can argue all you want about how X was discriminated for having Y opinion and how it was not alright. I may agree with you on some instances, however, under no circumstance is is alright to:
1) Own another person
2) Discriminate based on something that people have no control over. Like race, sexual orientation, Gender etc.
3) Exploit somebody's helplessness for your profit.
No matter what age you grew up in, modern society has no place for such ideas. There may be other things that are debatable or in the gray area, but Nazi ideology isn't one of them.
If you don't want to talk about anything that's fine. However, this discussion is about speech about those ideas, not their actual implementation. You don't really seem to be distinguishing between the two.
That doesn't work. There are lots of people who are extremely intolerant to people who hold views that weren't very controversial a decade or two ago and are still widely held today; case in point, Brendan Eich (and the intolerant campaign that got him fired). "Unacceptable intolerance" is something that can have very different definitions from one person to the next, so it's not a useful test.
> It is not really that hard.
Drawing the line about what the limits of free expression are in an open society is a very hard problem. Saying it isn't is flippant and frankly wrong.
> The irony in this whole thing is, the more tolerant you are to an inherently intolerant ideology like white-supremacy, the less tolerant we become as a society.
That isn't true either, it can also show societal confidence that ideas like white-supremacy are wrong and that the light of scrutiny will make them look foolish.