Here's a pattern you've probably seen:
- Racists/nazi shows up and says racist/nazi things
- Get called out for it and/or banned
- They claim they are unfairly banned "for disagreeing." They completely leave out the part about them being a racist nazi.
You know, that move. I've seen it more times than I can count and I bet you have too. They call disagreement with nazism "opinions you don't like", leaving out the nazism part. Any way of framing disagreements with them while subtracting out the actual content of what they say.
It's so common that I think it deserves a word. I know there are generic descriptions: e.g. "being a troll", but I think something specific to this particular behavior deserves its own word. That way it can just be identified and dismissed for what it is and not argued with.
I think your describing a type of logical fallacy but can’t quite pin down which one, https://youtu.be/pCg-SNOteQQ?si=SOFIkZBm1syuedfc this is a really short informative video on the topic and I would research Karl Poppers Paradox of Tolerance to get a better theoretical understanding of why their “opinions” are so harmful when they are not met with resistance.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/pCg-SNOteQQ?si=SOFIkZBm1syuedfc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
