the streaming in an SS uniform […]

Do you have a source?

Just finished rewatching The Owl House for, like, the 3rd time.

"The President has invited you to the Gulf of Laogai."

please touch my-doc 🥺👉👈

Goodbye.

[…] [Hyprland] is made by a transphobe and a large part of the community is also […]

Do you have a source?

How to Cure Fungus on Aquarium Fish

Am I going to be patient zero for an IRL Last of Us?

Ehhh… if you mean one can port their post and comment history to another instance, then, no ^[1][1.1]^. If you mean one can port their account settings to another instance, then yes ^[2][1.1]^.

[…] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

I think you've made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech ^[1.1]^. Freedom of speech doesn't negate one's freedom of association ^[1.2]^; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship ^[2]^. Censorship requires active suppression of speech ^[3[4]]^; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren't actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one's distaste of them).

All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one's political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one's political philosophies derive from one's personal morals.

[…] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?

It may depend on what you mean by "beneficial", but, generally, I'm not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more "positive" than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don't feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I'm simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

[…] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]

I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

[…] Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them […]

Hm. Your statement "If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis" is an important distinction; however, I think it also crucially depends on the distribution of nazis throughout the populace (assuming the society in question in governed by a majoritarian democratic system). The statement "If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis", I think, infers the potential of monopolistic behavior in that ownership of the market becomes consolidated in the hands of those who are nazi-sympathetic. In this case, assuming the nazis were a minority of the populace, the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition ^[1]^; however, if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place ^[2]^, assuming they had a monopoly on power (as if they didn't, it's plausible that the minority with a monopoly on power would revolt), and I think it would be plausible that they would create a market regulating body that is favorable to nazi-sympathetic entities.