*removed externally hosted image*
At various times, most social media platforms have received criticism for alleged failure to prevent distribution of copyright-infringing content. Few, however, have been threatened with widespread blocking more often than Telegram. In a row that seemed ready to boil over last year, Telegram was given an ultimatum by the Malaysian government; come to the negotiating table or face the consequences. A Malaysian minister now says that Telegram is ready to fight piracy.
Too bad Telegram isn't as ready to fight Nazi propaganda on their service, but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.
I rather have free speech, if you don't like Telegram then use something else.
Putting someone else's life in danger (unprovoked) is not a free speech
That's different, free speech is not about putting people on danger.
Ok, but it's what telegram has. So would you rather keep your "free" speech and put others in danger, or lose it to keep others safe?
Putting people in danger is banned in Telegram already, there is a line.
Tolerating intolerance leads to disappearance of tolerance.
With open dialogue, education and respect you can have both.
How does/can dialogue, education, and respect include intolerance? Isn't intolerance inherently disrespectful, uneducated, and non-dialogue?
It's with polarization that things spin out of control. When the left thinks the right are nazi's and the right think the left are commies, that's when people become less critical of themselves and hatred spirals into a civil war, and the one that's on top will do anything to prevent the 'enemy' taking over. Tolerating verbal intolerance is a good thing. That's why your own statement is tolerated, it's literally advocating intolerance (be it indirectly in favor of tolerance). I really don't believe your statement is correct. Tolerance leads to tolerance. Intolerance leads to more intolerance. Not tolerating intolerance doesn't make it disappear, it just makes people feel more strongly about it. When I cant think something or people look down on me for it, I am definitely gonna think it some more. Actual violence should of course not be tolerated. Ergo: is it ok to punch a nazi? No ofcourse not... unless the civil war has started yet and all tolerance is gone, but let's not go there.....
Just Google the paradox of tolerance. It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be.
Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct. If you wouldn't attack a nazi because they're not currently threatening you specifically then you won't develop any additional moral prerogative in time of civil war - you'll join them, because they're still not threatening you specifically, while fair and equal redistribution of resources will effect you. You don't have any sort of morality or ideology underlying your objection, you just think extreme things are bad because you're not given a choice.
You make a lot of assumptions
You literally talk in your other reply about how you'll join them. You can't just sit down and talk about how they want to kill the jews and you don't - your willingness to hear them out inherently legitimises their ideas as being reasonable and able to be reasoned about.
I know you don't fully understand how the way that you say something can be as informative as what you actually say, but I don't need to assume - you did actually tell me in your comment that you don't really mind nazis as long as they're not being violent towards you.
This is becoming quite bizarre. Reading back my comments I don't even know which line you are misinterpreting cause I don't think I've said anything that even comes close to your accusations. Of course I'm not advocating to join nazi's. I think you'd be better of sticking to what people actually say, or else every online conversation is going to derail as much as this one apparently already did.
You really don't understand that the things you say have meanings, do you?
I never said I don't mind them, and I also never said I'd join them. I'm just suggesting we keep the conversation going and settle things with words rather than violence. It's difficult to have a conversation when you are unable to understand a point someone is making. Not saying you should agree at all. It's fair to have a difference of opinion. But you just misrepresent what I'm saying, that doesn't really lead to an interesting conversation in my opinion, so I'm out.
I know the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I'm just saying that at the very least, it's not as simple as that. There are definitely grey areas, and IT IS complicated. You really miss the bigger picture if you say it's always ok to punch a nazi. I'd advise you to read up on the Spanish civil war, how that spun out of control, violence from both sides leading to more violence. You shouldn't just look at the act of punching a Nazi no it's own, you should take a helicopter view and see that a punch, will lead to counter punches, which will lead to potentially full blown civil war. You shouldn't pride yourself in taking a firm stance if doing so is ultimately counterproductive. So what's the alternative? The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences. And simultaneously trying to take away the breeding ground for fascism, for instance an upper class that's treating society as their farm animals, getting all the riches, while looking down on them from their high horses. Punching these people and limiting their freedoms is putting oil on the fire.