Heh. It's always funny how people like that don't see their irony of being "inclusive" of "all backgrounds" just after having made a long list of people who they will throw out immediately for vague transgressions that are based on rumors and innuendo.
because once you attempt to start to apply any label it becomes more and more vague. If I am a black man from South Africa who hates white people for perpetuating the Apartheid, am I welcome or am I a racist? If I am a man who's own father transitioned to being a woman and I no longer feel comfortable around trans-people because I lost my 'father figure', am I a transphobe or am I welcome? I understand these are deliberately obtuse examples. I bring them up because I never know where on the spectrum the line is drawn for these labels yet people will gladly declare somebody a 'nazi' because their dad watches Fox News. Even asking the question "when does somebody on the right go far enough to be considered a fascist?" often is met with the retort "defending nazis makes you a nazi".
True enough, but the likelihood that the person calling another person a Nazi is correct about the other person is so low that it’s much more likely they’re wrong rather than right. (This is true just statistically speaking.)
Absolutes are not usually very compelling nor very interesting, just as high improbabilities are usually neither compelling nor interesting.
potato-peeler · · focus · HN ↗
homarp · · focus · HN ↗
boxed · · focus · HN ↗
pebble · · focus · HN ↗
Which part is the vague transgression?
smithcoin · · focus · HN ↗
pebble · · focus · HN ↗
Just because some people calling someone a nazi are wrong doesn't mean everyone calling someone a nazi is wrong.
ovao · · focus · HN ↗
Absolutes are not usually very compelling nor very interesting, just as high improbabilities are usually neither compelling nor interesting.