That's the real kicker there. That's where it started. I'm NOT an intolerant person. This all started when I tried to give some sense of realistic perspective to
@Cloud_Strife's somewhat distorted view of the world, and pointing out her proposed "solutions," were way too extreme. That was the point EVERYTHING I said was twisted, misinterpreted, and warped to evil, ulterior, and hateful I had never said, words were put in my mouth constantly, and my point of view, my socio-political allegiance, and all beliefs were declared, arbitrarily for me, completely in opposition to any truth at all. And, ironically, I only brought those matters of perspective to
@Cloud_Strife to help her cause, because it would have been doomed tragically on the rails it was already was headed.
I guess the issue I see is that we're equating "racist belief holders" with "victims of racist belief holders," or your preferred analogy. You are right, in theory, that intolerance can be institutionalized against demographics that don't deserve it. There are people alive today that have seen this when it was the law, and there are still vestiges of it left where it is modus operandi to judge PoC more harshly than you would someone who is white, even if it's no longer law.
But I don't think it's reasonable to say that intolerance of the intolerant is equivalent to intolerance of the victim. You're targeting a completely different result in both cases. The intent behind intolerance of the intolerant is to force tolerance. Your (general "you") choice to hate someone born black is less important, and less justifiable, than someone being hated for being born black. We
shouldn't tolerate that choice. The end result of not tolerating that choice is that all black people are tolerated at the very least, and protected from discriminatory harm.
If you are intolerant of black people, you're not serving a greater good. You're not making a more tolerant world. You're just hurting a demographic who can't help being what they are. You are creating an artificial lower class that deserves derision and discrimination. You're hurting someone, and that's the plain and simple goal. There is a winner and a loser, and the winner most often ends up being the demographic you're specifically part of.
If you're intolerant of racists, you're making a more tolerant world. You're making it clear that people can't target that demographic, that black people should be guaranteed equal footing. You're removing someone's power to hurt others. Your goal is to provide safety for everyone regardless of born differences.
It is much easier to not be racist than it is to not be black. Specifically, you learn to hate black people. You aren't born thinking they are lesser. You aren't born trying to legislate away their ability to succeed or even be independent. You can't learn to be a different skin colour. You are what you are, and you should be protected from harm.
People in the former category, the ones who are racist, will cite the latter's goal as being their own. They, too, are trying to make a "safer world." But this is demonstrably false. They are objectively trying to make a world that benefits them and theirs, with the Others deserving their lesser position in society.
You're giving legitimacy to their propaganda and platform by saying both forms of intolerance are equal.
