Sort of the same for multiculturalism. Only cultures that accept multiple cultures should be part of a multicultural society.
If people vote for their own chains in a free and democratic society, they deserve to get what they want. Now whether we still have such a society is debatable. But I still fundamentally believe that any and all forms of censorship are the wrong way to go and will only accelerate the decline into totalitarianism.
So, how about we agree to disagree, mate? ; )
Consider… what went wrong is that no one pushed back on Panel Two using the very same free marketplace of ideas.
Panel One: Fighting for everyone’s right to express themselves is fine. Good as it is.
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot’s arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
Panel Two: Destroy the bigot’s arguments and describe to the public what society will be like if the bigot gets their way. Is that tolerating intolerance?
I can’t believe no one thought of this. And here planned parenthood and the grieving families at funerals of vets have just been sitting by listening to the noise.
Calling people out on their BS is the right line to draw for me personally, but I still want that person to have the right to express their opinion. We just need to teach people that it’s ok to be wrong as long as you can admit it and learn from it. No idea gets processed until pushed from an opposing party.
Sitting back and doing nothing teaches nothing. Calling it appalling and informing the person why they’re wrong is the right step toward change. But if you can’t say it in a way that makes them hear you, then you’re doomed to have the argument all over again.
The past twenty years have demonstrated handily that logical debate simply does not work. What’s needed is the emotive/motivational form of argumentation that puts the speaker’s thoughts, beliefs, and intent at center stage and actually does work. Bonus points is that it works regardless of how well educated whoever you’re speaking to is so there’s no longer the educational barrier in place allowing meaningful conversation.
Exactly. That’s how we were able to nip the whole global warming thing in the bud. Thank god rational arguments always prevail.
deleted by creator
Yes it is tolerating intolerance.
I’d say that’s tolerating intolerance and is the right thing to do. Once they switch to violence though, remember you have a robust right to defend yourself, your community and your loved ones.
But then you are called anti islamist or isla mophobic. Yes, i went there.
It’s literally up to you to use your words to fight their words. As soon as you try to ban words and speech it will immediately be turned around against you. If you cannot fight their words with your words that’s your problem not theirs.
So when they call for the mass murder of a group of people the only appropriate response is words?
If someone with a lot of followers said that their followers should kill you then the only appropriate response is to tell them not to do that?
We already have a class of speech called true threats. If it is actionable then it is illegal. If they have concrete plans for it then we have laws that criminalize it. If they’re just saying what they want to happen then you can call them monsters and show why what they are saying is wrong and terrible.
Ahh man! Where were you in 1933 Germany?
You first. Start speaking out against fascists instead of on their behalf.
Why would you assume that someone in support of arguing with fascists wouldn’t argue with fascists?
Because you don’t and we can see through your actions and context of the debate your true intent. You’re just some enabler defending fascists the way some milquetoast housewife defends her abusive husband after he was caught raping the kids.
You’re sick.
You can try to drop people in little boxes to suit your ideology, but it doesn’t work well on me. I’ve made it a habit to argue with bigots - particularly at work. There’s a surprising number of people that sound hateful but are just ignorant and curious.
That’s exactly what the Nazis you’re defending are doing, so I guess if you’ll defend genocidal maniacs doing the same thing, I’m entitled to it, too. Since freedom of speech isn’t about protecting others from tyranny but forcing others to be subjected to it simply because the tyrants are their neighbors – more accurately, a group you’re a part of.
I haven’t defended nazis and I certainly haven’t defended genocidal maniacs. Pretty sure I’ve said humans are humans, even ones with bad ideas and that robust self defense is a basic human right.
That’s exactly what you’re doing when you defend a bigot’s right to be a bigot, and no, you’re not going to backtrack or weasel your way out of the fact that you’re defending bigots and therefore a bigot yourself.
Bigot.
He’s not advocating for arguing with fascists. He’s advocating for validating fascists by hearing them out and treating them as though their shit ideas could ever have merit or that any of them have merit as people.
We’ve seen what happens when naive people tolerate fascists. You’re just trying to make that happen again.
I think you can argue with bigots without validating their ideas. I’m not arguing that you should, but I’m comfortable doing it. I’ve tried to cultivate a human first perspective of people and I don’t think I can pull off violence against someone for their words without damaging the compassion and empathy I try to live by.
I think you can argue with bigots without validating their ideas.
I think none of them will ever deserve an audience for their idiotic fascist bigot nazi ideas. Just because your sympathies lie with them, that doesn’t mean everyone else has to enable your bigot buddies to do what you hope they will.
Spoken like a true “both sides are bad” type of person.
What’s that? A nuanced world view? That’s illegal!
If your nuanced world view allows Fascists to spread hate, then it isn’t nuanced at all
That only works with people arguing in good faith…
Fascists never do that.
Sounds like a skill issue.
Skill?? What is this “get on my level” shit? They are trying to kill us.
The skill is debate and debunking. It should be fairly simple to show a serial lack of honesty and bullshit. If you can show that then it should be fairly simple to get people to stop listening and disconnect. Calling their words mean will convince no one. Do the work if you care so much.
It’s not a debate skill issue, it’s an education issue. What bad faith actors do when pretending to debate is just real-time trolling, they’re not interested in debate, and debating lends legitimacy to their idiocy. “Don’t feed the troll.” People need to educated enough that they themselves walk away from disingenuous debates and stop listening.
But you’re talking like debate will make the bigots stop.
Why would I claim the bigots would stop. I only claim that they would fail. They have the right to continue. They have the right to be wrong.
Watch “thank you for smoking” or read literally anything on persuasive argument. Exposing and publicizing these viewpoints does not make them less popular. Allowing the “alt-right” to have “free exchange in the marketplace of ideas” has only led to there being more Nazis or Nazi adjacent people now than there was before we did that. The “alt-right” isn’t even alt anymore, it’s the mainstream right-wing position.
People that think “oh well that’s only because we haven’t had the right argument” are completely ignorant of history. We didn’t defeat Hitler in “the marketplace of ideas”, and you won’t defeat Putin or Trump there either.
You sure like sticking up for nazis.
I don’t know what thread you’ve been reading but I’m sticking up for speech.
deleted by creator
Even when the phrase is used in gaming, it’s an admission of defeat.
“The game is messed up, but I don’t want to sound wrong.”
There’s a big overlap between gamers and fascists, due to Roger Stone and his WOW gold farming days.
It’s actually pretty interesting read, but I couldn’t find a good article on it now
Yup. Fascists don’t have the skills to argue in good faith, and no one should listen to anything any of them have to say. I hope no one makes that mistake in this thread by listening to you.
“Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
L + Ratio + get fucked fascist
You do understand the fascist has a definition right? It’s not just an insult you throw at people with ideas you don’t like.
By being a fascist apologizer, you’re choosing to side with the fascists.
This is your brain on authoritarianism.
Neither do red fascists (aka tankies).
A fascist is a fascist, and 99.9999% lie about if they are.
There’s no need to differentiate
In a thread about nazis, you can always count on nazi sympathizers to be like “buh whubbut commies?!?!?”
We Germans are doing just fine with laws against certain kind of statements since… y’know.
I don’t like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak to be seen but I think it’s fair game to outlaw the denial of the holocaust.I don’t like the overall trend of restricting certain kinds of language, especially on social media where some concepts are forced to be expressed through some kind of doublespeak
example?
Saying unalive instead of suicide or censoring words like rape to r*pe.
It’s mostly on TikTok and YouTube but it spilled into other platforms as well since users are uncertain what they can say sometimes.Thankfully with federation, we the people are in control of speech and not Nazis, so we can have environments where we not only openly talk about rape and suicide, but also advocate for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government AND ban Nazis and hate speech at the same time.
Because humans, as it turns out, are capable of exercising good judgement and common sense.
People-run environments that ban Nazis unironically have more freedom of speech than the corporate authoritarian garbage that doesn’t.
If that doesn’t show the free speech argument is just a disingenuous motte and bailey meant to trick people into arguing about free speech so no one directly addresses the hate, nothing will.
deleted by creator
If you cannot fight their words with your words that’s your problem not theirs.
People pretend like some perfect argument can defeat Nazis. You cannot fight gut emotions like fear, dread, and hatred with “reasonable” words and “rational” thought.
People aren’t rational, and they are easily pursuaded by things other than “the best possible idea selected by an objective evaluation of all available ideas from the marketplace of ideas”.
People aren’t robots, hatred and fear lean into their base emotions. It’s partially why cults exist.
There’s never really a perfect argument because we’re not beholden to rationality. Utilitarianism comes after treating people well for me, so even if an action would result in a better outcome I may find it unethical.
But inaction is still a choice that may be unethical or not depending upon the results.
Inaction to you might be me choosing a method I think is ethical but isn’t as effective as well.
You might have deluded yourself into thinking fence sitting or becoming a bystander is more ethical but it’s often not.
It’s usually the easier choice and requires the least amount of effort and immediate danger, which is why most choose it, but that is not at all the same thing as ethical.
If you walk away from the trolley lever, that’s still a choice and doesn’t save you from the dilemma.
It’s not fence sitting. I have a very clear ethical position and I’ll argue for it vociferously.
And the closest to moral answer is to kill the one person, but jump in front of the train myself. I don’t see much utility in such an extreme example.
I have a very clear ethical position and I’ll argue for it vociferously.
I think we’ve gotten a little vague here.
What’s your “ethical position”? Is it to platform Nazis?
There are two important factors here:
- Most nationalists (including Nazi) give no flying fucks about a rational discourse. If 2+2=4 hurts their precious fee fees, they say that 2+2=5 and no matter what you say will change it.
- Plenty Nazi capitalise on Brandolini’s Law. They know that it takes far less effort to utter bullshit than to refute it. In effect this means that people fighting against Nazi discourses through words will, as a group, get tired faster than the ones vomiting the Nazi discourse.
Because of those two factors, while I can certainly understand your point, I think that you’re being short-sighted when you say “that’s your problem not theirs”.
I do agree that there’s always a risk that mechanisms used to censor them might get misused against you. However I see this as a second risk that you need to balance out with the first one (the Nazi), and which risk is more relevant is heavily situational.
I’m not a big fan of
Poo-perPopper but I think that his paradox of tolerance is spot on about those two things. At least in its original version (not its “Disney version” parroted in social media). I’ll abridge it here: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 most unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, 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 anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists.
Emphasis mine. For further context check page 226 of his book. (PDF page 232).
The fact that it takes a lot more energy to debunk a claim is why I said you can take a few and show that they are disingenuous. Spend a bit of energy to show that they always talk bullshit so that they can be proven liars and easily discounted by anybody with a brain. The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause. They are few and far between but if people listen to what they say and nobody is around to disprove it or argue against it they gain a bit of power. They haven’t created more Nazis so you have the same enemies to fight against. Cut off the head of the snake by showing their claims to be disingenuous and lies.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
Taking a few and showing that they’re disingenuous doesn’t work well.
For a less rational audience, all that the Nazi need to do is to relabel their discourse; for example saying that they’re “the alternative right” instead of “neonazi”, or “anti-woke” instead of “alt right”. And, for a more rational audience, the nazi can point out that you’re generalising an attribute to the group based on properties of a few of them (“ackshyually, that guy is bad, but not all of us are like that!”).
In both cases, if you decide to not keep engaging, they can simply claim “see? He was left with no arguments!”. And they do this all the time.
The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause.
Fully agree with that.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
I think that our major point of disagreement is if those things are enough to keep the Nazi at bay. I think that often they aren’t.
the tolerance paradox
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people.
semantic satiation incoming
Thanks. I need to put my mental dissonance to words.
The solution is that it’s a social contract. I agree to tolerate your weirdness and quirks. You agree to do the same to myself and others.
By being intolerant (without a good reason), they break the social contract. Therefore they are no longer protected by it either.
I have been trying to point this out over and over and the milquetoast libs just double down and tell me to defend Nazis
deleted by creator
This doesn’t seem so much of a liberal thing but a social centrist thing. There’s plenty of people on the left that are socialist/communist but don’t care as much about social issues. I recall someone arguing that the people who wanted to kidnap Gov Whitmer were experiencing “economic anxiety”. You see it too with leftists who float the idea of working with MAGA hats for economic populism.
It’s like when people say there’s basically only one party or there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. From a purely economic perspective, sure, the differences are rather small. Pretty much just comes down to taxes. But the two parties are polar opposites when it comes to social issues. To say there’s no difference is basically ignoring the social aspect.
Enlightened centrist or liberal or apologist, it’s just cringe.
Mmmm, milk toast.
anyone telling you to defend nazi’s isnt a lib.
You’d think that’d be obvious and you wouldnt have to be told that, yet here we are, having to tell you the blatant fuckin obvious.
Yes they are. And they use every excuse in the book about how we mustn’t oppress ideas or else they’ll be oppressed in return. They can’t distinguish between freedom and responsibility.
Why am I stuck having to explain the OP comic to you?
Oh you sweet summer child.
Well then dont you want to explain what the “blatant fucking obvious” is? Are you gonna tell us that all the defenders of liberal democracy on the mainstream media fir the past 80 years were all Nazis? Are you gonna enlighten us to the Deep Dark Secret that even Whoopi Goldberg has swastika underwear?
Come on, educated us. Help us summer children to understand
You really need someone to explain to you that the guy in the comic is a drawing and is just a fable for making a point, and not a real liberal actually defending real nazis?
Someone else being a twat won’t make me violate my principles. I’m not good to others because they’re good to me. I’m good to others because they’re an end themselves, not a means to my ends.
And that’s completely your right to do. However, that is not what the tolerance contract covers. It goes beyond what most people would tolerate normally. Also, people cannot both break the social contract, and then insist you hold up the other end.
By example, I’ve previously had long debates over nazi Germany and Hitler’s economic recovery. I would even tolerate Nazis, if they followed the social contract from their side. Unfortunately, the various Nazis groups regularly break that contract. They then try and hide behind it, when others take offence.
Conversely, I also disagree with the “tankies”. They tend not to break the social contract however. This gives them the right to reasonable tolerance of them, and their views. They respect others, despite disagreeing with them. They, in turn, gain a level of respect in discussions.
Don’t get me wrong, I am tolerant of a lot, from purely moralistic reasoning. The social contract is a larger entity however. It formalises what many of us feel. It also shows us where the lines are, beyond which people are abusing our tolerance. It’s the larger social version of our internal morals.
I don’t find social contract arguments all that convincing, but we can just pretend my social contract is “no violence or you get fucked” and ignore that. Tankies are way easier to talk to than Nazis, though I don’t really find myself talking to nazis often - just run of the mill bigots. Anyone with consistent standards or ethics is fairly easy to talk to, even if we disagree.
In my personal life I tend to take on more than half of the social costs in some friendships and I probably do the same when arguing with certain types of people. I’m more tolerant than I strictly need to be, but I feel like treating people like that is necessary for me.
The social contract concept is over-used by people who try to make it cover too much. It becomes a one-sided contract of adhesion which you’re assumed to have agreed to simply by existing. This, however, is simple reciprocation—it’s more like a truce than a contract. It would be unreasonable to expect tolerance from others while refusing to grant the same tolerance to them.
Of course there is no obligation to be intolerant just because the other person is; you are free to make a better choice.
If you are good to nazi’s because they are good to you, regardless of what they do to others, Then your principles, and you as a person, are shit, and you should be treated as nothing but an infiltrator for their cause, because that is what you are.
I’m good to everyone because they’re humans. Even pieces of shit.
So you’d be kind and nice to Hitler?
I’ve actually answered this before. While you guys are arguing over who gets to peel his dick like a banana I’d slit his throat.
That doesn’t sound like being good to him.
Whatever you say, Nazi. Enjoy your contemporaries.
And enjoy your day.
Honestly these days if you say you tolerate someones ideas, but you don’t agree with them, then you are just called a ist word
There are levels of tolerance in there. E.g. I’m not gay. I have no interest in men. The idea of being sexual with a man is mildly repulsive to me.
With this, the bare minimum of tolerance is not actively working against the existence and legality of being gay.
Next is the “none of my business” level of tolerance. What happens between 2 consenting adults is down to them.
Above that is acceptance. Gay people have developed their own culture and community. While it’s not for me, I recognise that its existence and celebration makes our overall culture more dynamic and interesting. It also provides a lot of happiness to others. Accepting and rolling with that provides a lot of positivity to others, without significant cost to me.
However, if I was approached by a gay guy and propositioned, there is no issue with me turning them down. I try and be polite about it, but being firm isn’t being intolerant. (Luckily, most gay guys take being rejected a LOT better than some straight guys do).
Going back to your example. Going up to a black guy and expressing that, while you tolerate them not being a slave, you don’t agree with it. This is intolerant, it is an incredibly strong dog whistle of your tolerance is forced.
Conversely, if, during a debate on religion and it’s effects, you express your view that you accept people are religious, but don’t agree with it, that is better. The context is a debate, and you can explain your reasoning better. It also lacks the dog whistle element that makes it bigoted.
Basically, context matters, A LOT.
Thanks, really good thinking :)
I’ve found crystallising my morals into words and logic is useful. It both makes it easier to explain, as well as finding holes in my views. My moral framework has advanced significantly over my life. At no point did I think I was immoral, however, I have found significant flaws in my viewpoints. I’ve also found a lot of biases, which I’m mildly horrified that I ever held.
I’m still far from perfect, but aiming that way, as best I can.
The poor mod definitely needs an AI to help with moderation.
People love to forget that free speech was vital for their progressive paradise, it’s a cicle
If you implement measures for repressing speech today, those same measures will repress you or what you believe in today
It just takes too long for any one person to notice or care
Honestly most people have no idea what actually constitutes freedom of speech. Having social reprocussions for that speech has always been a thing. Being shunned for being terrible or having people use their property rights to remove you from their platforms is still freedom of speech in action. Freedom of Speech primarily exists to protect thw press and just means you can’t be jailed for what you say or have works of artistic or authorial merit censored by government.
Meanwhile we have people fighting to ban books from federal and state institutions. Teachers being fired for daring to use student nicknames and identifiers…
People crow “freedom of speech!” but too often they are spoiled, self important narcissistic children who just want to use some kind of schoolyard cootie shot nonsense to avoid anyone calling them on their shit. They don’t give a damn otherwise as long as they get to be comfortable and unchallenged and they are too often more than happy to attack the freedom of speech itself because they can’t handle seeing anyone else given access to it.
Freedom of Speech primarily exists to protect thw press
Freedom of Press is a whole separate thing. Freedom of Speech is about public discourse in general, not just speech by members of the press.
Apart from that, however, you’re on the right track.
I had almost forgotten how much I hate political “comics”.
You didn’t have to click on it, you didn’t have to comment.
Neither did you just now
Only one of you is complaining about the post
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nice, dark touch: The last panel has two people being deported. They seem to form an SS rune.
It also loosely reminds of Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
In the Republic, book VIII, Socrates identifies as democracy’s leading cause of corruption precisely that thing makes it seemingly so beautiful. In a democracy, citizens become inebriated with freedom (Euleteria). By making it the highest goal, people in a democracy end up leading democracy to its downfall.
True ca. 2400 years ago; still true today.
Image Transcription:
A comic by Jennie Breeden and Obby from site TheDevilsPanties.com.
The first panel shows a mustached person with short hair wearing a t-shirt and sitting at a laptop. A speech bubble rising from the laptop reads “I just don’t think you people belong in our society!”
The second panel shows a different short-haired person wearing a t-shirt, long pants, and sneakers, sitting on a park bench and looking at a mobile phone. A speech bubble from the mobile phone reads “Well, I don’t agree with what you’re saying, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.”
The third panel shows both people standing on the side of a street. The first person is holding a Bible and pointing across the road at a group of shadowed people carrying signs with hearts and pride flags. He is speaking to a crowd of people and saying “Your kind is a betrayal to God! You’re a drag on the whole country!” To which the second person is shrugging and responding “That’s appalling, but we can’t have free speech without the free marketplace of ideas!”
The fourth panel shows the first person standing at a lectern and wearing a suit with an American flag behind them and a shadowed crowd in front of them. They are saying “We will stop the woke ideology that’s destroying America!”. The second person is standing close to the foreground and shrugging, saying “Democracy needs this discourse, so let’s agree to disagree.”
The fifth panel shows the second person being dragged away by people in uniform while saying “Wait! Where are you taking me? You can’t just get rid of me!”. The first person is standing between the first person and an open paddy wagon, wearing a black uniform and looking smug as they reply “Let’s just agree to disagree.”
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜]
Let’s just murder anyone who doesn’t agree with us. This will surely lead to an orderly, civilized society.
Shout out to Popper.
Intolerating tolerating intolerance
