https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
It is necessary to be intolerant of intolerance.
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
573 points (100.0% liked)
196
667 readers
48 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Someone somewhere said something smart:
View Tolerance as a contract. If someone is tolerant of others, tolerate them too. But if someone is intolerant towards others, they don't get to be tolerated either.
I really dont understand how anyone can look at the modern era of politics without a consideration for game theory, it is so useful for resolving these more nebulous or philosophical idea when it comes to thought conflicts. If your 'opponent' is constantly escalating and you arent responding, you are functionally forfeiting. and we all know the fascists are escalating as often and as hard as they can. if you seek peace or de-escalation you have to negotiate, and they wont do that. if you seek neutral ground you have to respond with equal escalation. and if you want to win you have to apply overwhelming force.
most conflicts in politics are not zero sum like this so its not a useful tool most of the time, but fascists are literally out for the destruction of democracy by definition, its existential by nature.
Ah, you get what you give rule.
Fascism isn't a legitimate political ideology so there's nothing to tolerate. It's just genocide in fancy window dressing.
It's always good to point out that that is philosophy, not science (neither political or any other kind).
https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU?t=306 rowan atkinson (mr bean) has an interesting opinion about it, I'd recommend watching the whole video.
Random person: Hey Hitler, can you please stop doing the Holocaust. Hitler: Nein. Random person: Damn, guess I can't do anything. If I used force to stop Hitler from committing a genocide I would be just as bad, because everyone knows killing a Nazi who wants to kill every Jew and killing an innocent Jewish person are equal moral acts.
I honestly don't understand how people think like this. All they do is enable fascism and the imperial ambitions of more aggressive nations. As long as we live in a world with sovereign nations, some of those nations may do something extremely wrong that requires a war to stop, and that doesn't mean you just let them do it. Ultimately, war is bad but genocide is worse and sometimes sacrifices have to be made (exclusion existing for nuclear war, which would render humanity and most of life on Earth extinct).
Neoliberalism is how people think like this. In order to stop the wave of strikes, protests, and violent demonstrations for workers rights the capitalist ruling class started heavily pushing the doctrine that "All acts of violence are always morally wrong". They indoctrinate children into it through the education system and mass media. The intent was to stall the progress of workers rights movements in the long term, and it worked exactly as they intended.
You're correct, it's just a bit demotivating. There must be some way to reinvigorate the labor movement both in the United States and globally, but I'm not entirely sure how. I think the labor movement in the U.S. has recovered a bit from the massive damage that the Reagan administration caused it, but it's slow-moving.
People have taken the line "violence is not the answer" to the extreme. It is true that violence is rarely the answer. However, there are times when violence is the only answer, because words will literally never work.
"I want to take away your human rights."
"Actually that is bad so can you please not do so?"
"Oh I see it now, you're right, thanks for educating me!"
Fascism was not defeated in WW2 only Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Japan. Everyone forgot about fascist Spain and Portugal. What's more they even made deals with them. My country was left alone to suffer because the war was never against fascism.
Better to see WW2 as a war against fascist expansionism. But yes, Spain and Portugal were left to their own devices, and because of that, millions suffered under the rule of Franco and Salazar.
I can get people wanting a "one-size fits all" solution where we peacefully resolve all problems and the violent one are obviously evil.
But the unfortunate thing is, you do have to fight for "the right beliefs", and yes the right beliefs are technically subjective and this could be abused. But there's just no alternative to taking a specific stance and physically fighting for it no matter what.
"Peace in our time"
I heard this claim somewhere that the reason why Neville Chamberlain agreed to it was because UK was nowhere close to being ready for war. Something along the lines of having been instructed to secure peace at all cost.
In retrospect it's easy to see the Munic Agreement as a mistake, but I have to admit that I am curious if he had any real alternative.
The UK was nowhere close to being ready for war, but in truth, neither was Germany. Chamberlain made his decision with noble intentions, but in retrospect, even just strategically, it was still the wrong decision.
The nice way to beat fascism is to make it less appealing. When families live in precarity or in poverty, they start looking to blame someone. Sometimes it's obvious, like billionaires forcing workers to pee in bottles.
In response, the affluent elite utilize their resources to create a propaganda campaign to blame scarcity on already-marginalized groups (in the US and UK, the rising genocide of transfolk is an example). Hangry communities feeling insecure + Tucker Carlson spewing hatred every night leads to fascist action.
Note that it works because its instinctive. We don't like living in societies with more than a hundred people, even when it means we get infrastructure like running potable water or internet or electricity or food at our grocery stores so we don't have to farm and hunt, ourselves. We actually have to train ourselves to live and let live, and not start a centuries-long family feud every time someone cuts us off on the freeway.
Social safety nets and better standards of living can pull people out of poverty and precarity, so they don't feel they have to begrudge everyone outside their front door.
Otherwise, we're going to keep trying to organize labor, and in response, the companies are going to try to distract with hate campaigns. Remember Trump commandeered the GOP in 2015 and 2016 because he gave permission to hate while the other candidates wanted to just continue to quietly oppress with code-worded fears. Even if we quash Trump, they'll find new Mussolini-wanabes to back and worship, and eventually they'll start a civil war.
If we don't want the civil war, we need to make shit less bad for the 80% living paycheck-to-paycheck (or worse) and we need to reform elections so that their outcomes are better informed by the interests of the public (not the elite). Or at least that's what CIA analysts (retired) interviewed on PBS think.
Once civil war breaks out, though, or they're harassing marginalized people and committing hate crimes, yeah, feel free to [REDACTED] off the face of the earth. And anytime a law is passed or a rule is adjudicated that retracts a civil right, remember that is violence.
Have you ever heard the story of how people defeated mussolini by playing bowls?
Huh, the more you know. I thought they hung his body upside down. Must have been a fake AI image
I approve this message.
Governments are inherently fascistic entities. Ruling by so-called democratic majority excludes too many, even when you pretend that the way propaganda works doesn't completely extinguish the concept of democracy. We are all living in a conservative socioeconomic reality that for the most part has many many, many many fascistic elements.
No. States are inherantly authoritarian entities, but authoritarianism is not simply a synonym for fascism. Authoritarianism is essential to fascism and fascism is always authoritarian, but not all forms of authoritarianism are fascist.