But, I love bashing the fash.
Sorry, that means you're just as bad as the fash. You should be engaging them on the marketplace of ideas, just like people did in WW II when they stopped the fascists with kindness and debate
Fascism was never stopped. Can never be stopped. Fascism is not a political ideology, it is an expression of human psychology.
If someone in your life is becoming a fascist, like is happening in many of our lives, do you get a gun and kill them? Does that solve fascism in your life? Perhaps you merely punch them until they stop being a fascist. Is this really actionable advice?
Fascism is growing because people are afraid of an increasingly uncertain future that they have no power over. Threatening them with violence will only make them more afraid and draw even more on what fascism offers them. The people in our lives need love, not violence.
As satisfying as it may be, the problem is that the fash gets back up after the bash. There was a pretty extensive study done on this in the 1940s, and they found quite a few methods for better handling the fash.
Well? Let's hear em!
Seems like a good spot for this:
Nonviolence works the same way: if you're engaging with someone / some group who isn't violent, there's an expectation that you'll also remain nonviolent. If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
From the German constitution:
Anyone who abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (Article 5 para. 1), the freedom of teaching (Article 5 para. 3), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of letters, mail and telecommunications (Article 10), the property (Article 14) or the right of asylum (Article 16a) to fight against the free democratic basic order, forfeits these fundamental rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.
Exactly. I don't get why this simple concept is so hard to understand. I've had many people claim Germany doesn't have freedom of speech since you are not allowed to salute Hitler. By invading other's rights, you give up yours. It's not hard to comprehend.
Love that, thank you.
Does the paradox of tolerance even exist?
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
If you dont tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate the group that hates a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group that hates the group of people until those people are gone
Because there is no way to become a tolerant society until one of the 2 groups is gone, the easiest way to become a tolerant society would mean getting rid of the easiest group you can get rid of.
Which group would be easiest to get rid off:
- Jews, communists, slavic people, Romani people, all races but one, people with mental and physical illnesses, LGBTQ+ people and poor people Or
- People with a specific ideology
Anything else wouldnt matter since the society will remain intolerant
PS: by "get rid off", i mean remove people from the group, not specifically kill
Does the paradox of tolerance even exist?
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
Exactly: there is no paradox there if you don't think of tolerance as an absolute. This blog post put it pretty well:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
What if they start by shouting "He's got a gun!" and then pulling a gun and firing at you? And then what happens if the news media reports the killing as "Brave hero defends neighborhood against armed criminal" while encouraging other people to behave in a similar fashion? And then what happens if the people shouting "He's got a gun!" and shooting, as an excuse to engage in a kind of localized ethnic cleansing or social repression, are members of and friends with the local police department?
How do you resolve the paradox of tolerance when you aren't in a position physical, social, or political of dominance?
A take on the paradox of tolerance that I really like is that tolerance is not a moral absolute: tolerance is a peace treaty and not a suicide pact, so its "protection" is only afforded to those who abide by the treaty and it doesn't mean tolerating everyone no matter what. Here's a blog post on this, and a relevant quote:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
This is slander and I will not stand for it: I bet Jadzia would be down for a nice fash bash
The sad thing is, this argument originates from fascists, they just managed to gaslight a whole generation of people that "hypocrisy" is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, and people should hold the moral high ground to a stawman version of their ideology.
Hypocrisy IS the worst thing to happen to humanity, but intolerance of intolerance isn't hypocritical, it's necessary.
A fascist's best friend is a placating liberal
Scratch a fascist and a liberal bleeds.
There's a name for this I just can't remember what it is.
It's all about following the social contract. If you break the social contract you are no longer protected by the social contract.
So if you walk around advocating for the harm of others, you've violated the contract and your rights are forfeit.
Obviously there's nuance but the point is there.
Maybe you mean the peace treaty thing? I mentioned it in a couple of earlier comments, here's a copy-paste:
Here's a blog post on this, and a relevant quote:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Maybe that's it. Sounds about right.
Don't be a dick and you won't have to deal with the consequences of being a dick.
So if you walk around advocating for the harm of others, you’ve violated the contract and your rights are forfeit.
I've yet to see a Talk Radio personality lose rights for advocating harm to others. On the contrary, they tend to receive enormous pay packages, national syndication, and A-list celebrity status as a result.
Perhaps you're confusing the "social contract" with "karmic justice". But people very rarely get what they deserve.
Fascism is intolerable and should be resisted by any and ALL means. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Fascism is intolerable and should be resisted by any and ALL means.
True. But also...
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.
Civil Rights leaders of the 1960s were routinely described as bigoted, fascist, and psychotically violent. This lead to a country-spanning crack down on civil rights organizing in the 70s and 80s, and the functional extinction of national movement by the 2000s.
We had a brief resurgence of civil rights protests following the Great Recession, which peaked with the BLM protests of the late 2010s. But media slanders quickly tarred these protest movements as violent and dangerous, while a rapid police response supplemented by our advanced national surveillance crushed the leadership in short order.
The Gaza protests were quashed even faster and with still greater violence, while news media had Palestinian peace marchers tarred as Hamas terrorists and Russian double-agents.
What do you do to resist fascism in a fascist nation, without being targeted and labeled a fascist yourself? What weight does the term "fascist" carry when it serves as nothing more than a label to legitimize state and vigilante violence?
Yeah fuck this apologist bullshit. The only good fascist is a fucking dead fascist.
Imagine not wanting to kill neo-nazis but be fine with Isreali war crimes, involving the genocide of many innocent lives
Call me the last fascist in hell then. Y'all can string me up for my crimes when we've eliminated all the threats. Keep your hands clean and I'll shut the door behind me.
At what point do our moral obligations directly conflict with the Rule of Law?
When does the need for doing The Right Thing™️ override the need for doing it The Right Way™️?
Before you answer just know that I know that I don’t know that I’ll ever know the full and complete answer to that question
In the grand scheme of ethics... Probably immediately. There's nothing about the police or the legal system that entitles them to moral superiority. They're just richer and have more time on their hands. Keep in mind the legal system is the same legal system that gave us citizens united, two calamitous wars in West Asia, and golden parachutes for rich criminals. They're just a system of exploitation that makes sure their favored corporations get to exploit everything and everyone while we're all too poor and hungry to fight back because they've made it sink or swim for us
I agree. Legal and ethical are not the same. Legal does not imply just.
