Imagine if your five year old had a malignant tumor, and the doctor refused to do anything because he felt sorry for the tumor? You would pull out a shotgun and cleanse him from the Earth in order to get rid of his genes and improve the species. You would be required by law to do this.
And so, why should those who irrationally think we should spare the malignant tumor on society that is conservatism be treated any differently? Conservatives AND their fellow travelers should both be cleansed from society together in the conservative re-education facilities. We cannot afford even one conservative monster surviving. They will spread their evil ways and just come back to destroy humanity again in fifty or so years.
Actually you echo a valid view, just too extreme.
It is not conservatives, it is their intolerance that needs to be cleansed. We witnessed a mass temper tantrum by Republicans and conservatives when a Democrat won the White House. Republicans and conservatives decided that if the people wanted someone other than them running the country, then they needed to engage in domestic terrorism. It became their new platform. It was their collective intent to destroy our President and hand him his Waterloo. They even used words like 'insurgency' to describe their tactics. THAT is unacceptable. It is not THEIR country, it is OUR country.
I believe in an inclusive and tolerant society. But inclusion doesn't mean subservience or cowering to people that are anti-democratic and intolerant.
The philosopher Karl Popper said it best in his book 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' when he explained the Paradox of tolerance:
Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he realized that even a tolerant person cannot always accept another’s intolerance. For, if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argued that:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
"The Paradox of Tolerance," Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265 (Princeton University Press 1971)
It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
