Thank you. All of these things are actually very well defined. Nazism, Fascism, Authoritarianism. These are not words that are just thrown around haphazardly and have no meaning. The ones who DO use them inappropriately are those whom they describe. It is a concerted effort to redefine or undefine them so there is no longer a word to describe them.

And this is the crux of the statement. Social contracts are group moral codes. The Nazis do not adhere to the terms of the contracts and thus are not protected by them.

By definition a legal framework is not a social contract. Technically there IS a social contract that we will agree to follow the laws, but not everyone does that one either. We violate speed limits, download media, burn crosses in front yards.

There are also many cases where laws do not cover the violations of a social contract. Slurs are protected speech under most circumstances, but that does not mean that there are no consequences to utilizing them in your vocabulary in public. You will never go to jail for it, but in using them you violate a social contract of tolerance, and thus the members of society around you should not tolerate your presence. If you pull a gun while using those slurs, that is a clear indicator that you intend harm, specifically on the people to whom the slurs refer. This violates the social contract of safety, which means that you are open to being harmed yourself by the members of the contract around you. They protect the safety of the members by preventing you from harming them. It is actually covered in the US laws and has been condoned by society. The “murder is wrong” tautology fails very quickly in the face of reality. Is it OK to kill someone who is actively raping an infant? How about if they have a knife to your partner’s or child’s throat? What about if they point a loaded gun at a crowd of unarmed protestors and are not a legally recognized peace officer? Your moral code determines where that line is, but everyone has a line. Do you condone Israel’s actions against the Palestinians? Let’s go for the good ole trolley problem. Do you pull the lever? Is that OK?

That would be “safety”. Just to be clear. And we do condone the harming and killing of those who mean to harm or kill us. Self defense laws, castle doctrine, capital punishment, etc.

I can see that point. I get the same thing sometimes when I casually defend social media companies censoring speech. That is why I usually do it like I did here; direct, verbose, and overtly unambiguous.

People do need to have an understanding that applying an ideal to all people does not mean that you condne the behavior of anyone in specific. I do, personally, hold the philosophy that social contracts need to be mutual and by nature cannot be applied ubiquitously. That is the essence and source of the Tolerance Paradox. That is the most easily digested version, but all social contracts hold the same paradox. Tolerance, compassion, inclusion, safety, etc. The only reason any of of them function is because we all agree on them. It is safe to drive becuse we all agree that that yellow line means we don’t cross it. We are safe standing on a subway platform because we all agree not to push each other onto the tracks. We are able to lead peaceful lives because we agree not to accost each other in public spaces. We are confident we can shop in stores, attend churches, spend time in parks, and move about in life because we include each other in our spaces.

Those who do not do these things forfeit the confidence they hold in those contracts. If you own a store or business and exclude some group, you should expect to be unwelcomed in the spaces of others. If you express hateful commentary or accost people, you should expect to be accosted and to not lead a life of peace. If you openly declare yourself as a threat to the health, wellbeing, and/or safety of other members of society, you are not owed any of those things. Period. That is the solution to the Social Contract Paradoxes. Those who are not party to them are not protected by them. It would be like if I signed a contract with a roofer to replace my roof and my neighbor started demanding they replace his roof too under my contract. They are not a party to the contract so they derive no benefit from the contract.

No, he is right. The only people ‘cosplaying’ Nazis are Nazis. If you are an actor on stage or film cast to play a Nazi then you are doing your job. If you don a SS pin and a swastika armband you are a fascist and actively advertising yourself as a threat to those around you (unless they look like you). This is “hate speech” which means that it is “free speech” and thus should be protected from government interference. It, on the other hand, can also fall under “fighting words” which are not protected. It all depends on context. In the context of a fascist wannabe dictator taking office who is openly promoting violence against minorities and showing blatant support of white supremacist groups like proud boys and KKK, it falls under the latter. It is also speech that removes ones self from the social contracts of “tolerance”, “compassion”, and “safety”. Just like any contract, the privileges and protections are only afforded to those who are a party to the contract. If someone goes out in a Nazi ‘cosplay’ and gets gunned down, beaten, savaged, spat on, or verbally assaulted they have no room to complain since they wore “speech” that said “I support or intend to do harm to those in my community and I am a threat.”