@tofugolem

But, we vilify people for having discussions with the "right". There was a call to fediblock an entire instance because one of their moderators wrote something on an entirely different site.

If you are willing to have dinner with a Nazi, that makes you a Nazi, right? No matter what you believe or how you behave.

At the end of the day, you will be excluded for who you include, it is unavoidable. But, you might not be included for who you exclude -- but if being included is something you want, excluding "the right" people might get you there.

@BoydStephenSmithJr
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
1 × -1 = -1

Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance
-1 × -1 = 1

@BoydStephenSmithJr
And here we go. The part where you claim that racists are the real victims here.

What part of my previous post did you fail to grasp?

Inclusion CANNOT include those who are intolerant. If you do, you become intolerant yourself. This is not a contradiction; it is basic logic, and I explained why in the previous post that went straight over your head.

@tofugolem I'm just claiming the picture in the OP can be taken either way. Everyone wants to exclude somebody, and people that try to include everybody get excluded *because* the include everybody.

I'm saying the image is a bad post, and a ambiguous sentiment if it has any meaning at all.

I agree that we cannot give political power to the intolerant and that we should strive to remove any political power they do have.

I think that they do still deserve human rights: food, shelter, health care, etc. Tho, some people do disagree with that. I think dehumanization is never okay; it's the tool of the oppressor.

@BoydStephenSmithJr @tofugolem I’m being a little glib here but I don’t mean to be antagonistic.

I’m guessing that, like me, you have something of a math background and tend to look for “edge cases” in statements and the one here seems very sweeping so you’re looking for a counter-example to “disprove” it.

However, having a preference is not that strong a statement and all the sign is saying, essentially, is “I prefer to be inclusive rather than exclusive” which isn’t vague or problematic IMO.

@mdreid @tofugolem I'm saying the choice isn't binary, and the wording on the sign implies it is. You are going to experience some of both, and picking more of one just guarantees more of the other, too.

I think that "the left" tends to exclude people that could be converted, while "the right" tends to include and convert people and then continue oppressing them. (... to the extent either side acts a monolith, which is very limited.)

I strive to be personally more inclusive than any group I associate with. But, if the group events have exclusions, I will honor and not subvert them. I recognize that some people / organizations have exclusions for safety and security reasons.