> No. And besides, on the logic that it might make people angry or convinced of their delusional views
therefore we shouldn't do it is very poor reasoning.
Good thing that isn't what I suggested then.
> In the same way that naive tolerance does?
Define "naive" tolerance. Seems like you're either assuming the conclusion, or trying to persuade with loaded language.
> "Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with extreme brutality the nucleus of our new movement." (A Hitler at the 1933 Nuremberg Nazi Party rally)
>
> "If our opponents had been clever, considering that political weapons were so unevenly distributed, they could have undoubtedly found ways and opportunities to make our success impossible." (J Goebbels, 1934)
>
> "If the enemy had known how weak we were, it would probably have reduced us to jelly. It would have crushed in blood the very beginning of our work" (J Goebbels, 1934)
Ah, so if they hadn't been sympathetic or they had been able to read minds so as to discern the intentions of Nazi party leaders. Well that's totally reasonable then.
Honestly, precisely what expressions of intolerance do you think would have prevented the rise of the Nazi party? Everything you've quoted is devoid of anything concrete.
> Not in democratic society; can you point me to which Kantian thinkers (including Kant himself!) whose thought formed the basis of any modern state?
Irrelevant. The question is whether Kantian principles entail the relevant conclusion. We are beholden not only to government law, but moral law as well. Or do you think it's ethical or virtuous to violate the spirit of a law while following the letter of the law?
Furthermore, my claim is not that all opinions are equally valid and deserving of equal attention. My claim is that changing opinions by non-coercive means is right. Doxxing, violence, and online mobs are not right way to change opinion.
> I disagree, and as I said earlier, it's no crime to disagree with liberal dogma like this.
Not a legal crime, but nowadays it's certainly a social crime enforced by mob rule.
> But if we must go this route, what does violence say of structural violence, for instance?
That it can and should be alleviated by non-violent means, taking into consideration social inertia, ie. that it takes time for a message to propagate and persuade enough of the public. As Per MLK, violence begets violence. All the most revered figures of effective social change advocated non-violent means.
There is considerable debate whether the terrorism perpetrated by the suffragettes actually helped their cause. They clearly turned much of the public against the cause, and at best, they gained publicity for the cause, which was clearly possible to do via other means.