DailyPUMA is confused. Did the Krazy KKK's and white supremacists attack others first, or were they impeded from marching first?
Obviously the idiot who used his car to mow down several dozen protestors and kill one person can pretty much plead insanity as their action was indefensible by any measure of civility, but what about what happened before?
Were the groups advocating their own views of pride and intolerance of others, blockaded by others, or not?
If the intolerants opponents had let the intolerants march, what would have happened? The intolerants would have been all over social media. Isn't that the best course of action, to actually let those be seen who have views that are most likely intolerant and unacceptable to the majority? Do we really want the intolerants of the world to scurry around in the dark and not be known?
If 100 intolerants march, and there are 10,000 people on the sidelines with their thumbs down, booing them, and capturing the intolerants on social media, would it be such an awful thing to show that the vast majority disagree with the intolerants?
Are intolerants supposed to assemble in private, or in public, because to say Intolerants cannot ever assemble (this rule would not apply to pedophiles, hackers, serial killers, drug dealers or murderers) is to become even more intolerant than the intolerables.
No comments:
Post a Comment