But I’m saying we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance. You’re the one saying we have to.

The opposite is in fact true. The fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance with their disinformation campaign. If they are not going to follow the agreement, then they are not protected by it. In other words, standing up against the fascists does not make us fascists. We should strategically defend our lives and liberties as needed. To do otherwise would make us complicit in our own destruction.

This is something we decide as a society. It’s about who we are as a people.

We should not factor in what fascists will do into our decision. Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to infiltrate and subvert any and all systems and institutions to their own ends. Instead we should focus on making systems and following best practices to prevent bad-faith actors like fascists from overturning our democracy.

No uneven application of the law would be required. This issue your argument is getting at is known as the paradox of tolerance. Where society is in the position of wanting to be tolerant while have to deal with intolerance. The resolution of the paradox comes from reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty.

Under tolerance as a social construct people agree to tolerate each other. If a group of people such as fascists decide to not tolerate another group of people, then the fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance. The fascists are no longer protected by the social contract of tolerance and their speech, in the case of the disinformation campaign, is not protected.

As a society, we should not tolerate intolerance. It is not enough to individually toss out the flyers as trash. There are people who could be mislead into denying trans people their fundamental right to exist.

Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. This Canadian women’s act of civil disobedience by refusing to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

We should stand up to fascists, even if there isn’t a law telling us to do so.

This is referred to as the paradox of tolerance. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is an incorrect resolution of the paradox. We can solve the paradox by reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty.

In this framing, everyone agrees to tolerate each other. If a group, such as fascists, decide to be intolerant to another group the fascists have broken the social contract of tolerance. The fascists are no longer covered by the protections of the social contract of tolerance and in the case of this disinformation campaign, their speech is not protected.

This is the minimum that freedom loving people should expect from their democracy. We should tolerate everyone, but not tolerate intolerance. Fascists do not have the right to deny groups the fundamental right to exist with their speech.

To be clear, gender affirming care is a collection of life saving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. That Canadian woman’s refusal to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign was a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

Having systems in place to prevent the spread of disinformation campaigns would be preferable. However, in the US we are in the verge of a christo-fascist takeover of our democracy. We may all soon find ourselves in the position of this Canadian woman. Acts of civil disobedience may be the last line of defense in preventing the worst outcomes of fascist policies. We should not dismiss her actions out of hand. Actions like hers may soon save people’s lives.

This is not about personal belief, but who we are as a society. We should want to live in a society where the fundamental rights of people to exist should be upheld.

Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. We should make the same strategic decision this Canadian woman did when she refused to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign and instead defend life and liberty.

We should not tolerate intolerance. It’s not enough to individually throw this away in the trash when a disinformation campaign could mislead the public into denying a group of people the fundamental right to exist.

Nor should we worry about what fascists would do. Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will always attempt to infiltrate and upend systems and institutions for their own ends. Instead our efforts should go to preventing bad-faith actors, like fascists, from taking over our democracy. Stopping the spread of disinformation campaigns is part of how we do that.

It has nothing to do with competency. We as a society should reject intolerance. It is very much the fascists problem that we do not tolerate their intolerance. The fascists have broken the social contract of tolerance and thus, in this case, their speech should not be protected by the social contract of tolerance.

You have the right idea.

Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will undermine any system or institution they infiltrate for their own benefit and purposes. So our efforts should be in building systems and engaging in best practices to prevent bad-faith actors, such as fascists, from taking power. We should not be concerned by what fascists will do when we stand up to them, because they will do it anyway. And standing up to fascists does not make us fascists.

Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. Denying gender affirming care to trans people is to deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. So refusing to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is not a arbitrary decision based on who is in charge. It is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty. This happened in Canada, but we should learn from this woman’s example here in the US.

Canada is a democracy. They can choose to change their system for the better. We should do the same in the US as well.

This is the paradox of tolerance. We resolve the paradox your argument is describing by reframing our concept of tolerance. When viewed as a social contract or peace treaty, we are able to tolerate each other and can refuse to tolerate intolerance. Under tolerance as a social contract, everyone in society agrees to be tolerant. If one group, say fascists, choose to be intolerant to any other group, the fascists are no longer protected by the agreement.

Thus we can reject fascist intolerance and bigotry while still tolerating each other. We can reject hate speech and targeted life-threatening information campaigns against lifesaving medical treatments while still enjoying free speech.

Also, fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to undermine our institutions for their gain no matter what we do. So our efforts should instead go to preventing bad-faith actors like fascists from taking power.

Banning gender affirming care is a direct threat to trans people. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments and banning it denies trans people the fundamental right to exist. Refusing to spread a life-threatening disinformation campaign in Canada or hypothetically in the US is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

We do not need to tolerate intolerance. Nor should we. Tolerance is a social contract or peace treaty. When one group, such as fascists, break that contract, they are no longer protected by that social contract.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A person’s freedoms do not end when they break laws, rather there are no laws against our freedoms. A person’s freedom to swing their arm ends at another person’s nose. The freedom of speech ends where a person’s right to exist begins. Allowing fascists to trick people into banning lifesaving medical treatments isn’t speech we should protect. As it infringes on the right of those people to exist who depend on those lifesaving medical treatments.

In the US, we are a nation of freedoms. We write laws to protect those freedoms. When the laws infringe upon our freedoms we change the laws.

We should want to see postal workers in the US do the same thing. Especially elected officials with responsibilities overseeing elections since the MAGA movement, a chriso-fascist movement, is attempting to takeover our democracy and start a genocidal dictatorship.

It’s not about having it both ways. This is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty. We do not need to tolerate intolerance nor should we.

Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. So the postal worker’s decision to not spread a life-threatening targeted disinformation campaign was a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

We should not base our decisions on what fascists will do. Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to infiltrate and undermine all of our systems and intuitions and bend the rules to do whatever they want. We should instead focus our efforts on preventing bad-faith actors such as fascists from overturning our democracy and instituting a christo-fascist dictatorship.

Also, I’m aware this happened in Canada. We should want to see the same thing happen this November 5th in the US when fascists attempt to overturn our democracy. We should want people in positions of leadership and power to say no.

You’re on the wrong side of history on this one, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about this. People who would otherwise agree on most things can have disagreements. That’s what is so great about democracy.

People in positions of leadership and power should stand up to fascists. We are heading into a crucial election on November 5th where a christo-fascist movement, known as MAGA, is attempting to overturn our democracy. Anyone in the position to say no to fascists who has the inclination to do so should should stay in that position for the upcoming election and say no to fascists.

No matter a person’s job, everyone should reject intolerance. This was a disinformation campaign designed to ban gender affirming care, a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. Such a ban would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. Postal workers should make the strategic decision to defend life and liberty by not spreading such disinformation campaigns.

A targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign like this is easily discernible from a personal letter. A person’s right to a apolitical, uninterrupted mail service should not supersede a group’s right to exist. A ban on gender affirming care, which was the goal of this disinformation campaign, would deny trans people the right to exist. The postal service should make the strategic decision to defend life and liberty by not spreading disinformation campaigns.

Regardless, we are facing similar problems in the United States. Fascists are infiltrating positions that oversee elections. We would do well to learn from this woman’s example.

We should not tolerate intolerance. Banning gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. We should make the strategic decision to defend life and liberty and not spread targeted life-threatening disinformation campaigns. Nor should we base our actions off what fascists will do. Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith factors will attempt undermine any system or institution that they can infiltrate. We should focus our efforts on preventing bad-faiths actors from taking power.