Important thread by @Teri_Kanefield, who wrote a fact-filled but cautionary post about the Trump ballot bans and got hammered by lazy thinkers for her trouble. https://mastodon.social/deck/@Teri_Kanefield/111717432190139189
I wouldn't say she was hammered, just had to deal with the usual sprinkling of fuckwits hot-taking without reading her article, and then a sprinkling of different fuckwits who have outcome bias and violently disagree with anything that upsets their retcon to a deux ex machina removing mangolini from the ballot.
Regardless, this angle was new to me, and I value that. It hadn't occurred to me that there may be a viable argument that the 14th amendment section 3 does not actually prohibit a former federal officer insurrectionist from appearing on the ballot.
> It seems to me that the fact that this provision exists implies that even if someone engaged in an insurrection, they could run for office under the 14th Amendment and hope that Congress will remove the disability.
@artemesia @dangillmor @Teri_Kanefield What about Popper’s paradox? Saying that if you want a tolerant society you can’t be tolerant to intolerant people? For me it’s similar to free speech- there has to be aa limit that cannot be breached. And safeguard from totalitarianism should be division of power within government.
The flaw in the paradox is how it uses the word "tolerant."
Do we tolerate obnoxious people? No. We block them.
Do we tolerate shoplifters? No.
Do we tolerate lawbreaking? Sometimes. For example, google the exclusionary rule.
When there are two crimes, the crime committed by the defendant and the crime committed by the government during the government's crime is deemed worse (usually) and the remedy is charge are dropped and the guilty person walks.
@Teri_Kanefield @artemesia @dangillmor Hitler came to power democratically, no? I suppose you gave this much more thought than me- so with all respect- I would like to have a mechanism to prevent that from happening again.
Enough people who are pro-democracy vote.
It's the only solutions.
Go to my blog menu and see the "to do" link under my resource tab
@Teri_Kanefield @ProfT @artemesia Just commenting to thank you, Teri. I recommend your blog to people alllll the time, since way back before Xitter went completely off the deep end.
@Teri_Kanefield @ProfT @artemesia Ah, but Hitler came legally to power, on a minority vote. (Plurality as you Americans like to call it.)
The non-democratic parties in the 1930s in Germany managed to take enough votes on the right and left, that forming a government without either Hitler or the Communists was near impossible. With government participation, control of some critical ministries, the Nazis managed to implement their first steps into dictatorships.
@Teri_Kanefield @ProfT @artemesia
(Which, these first steps BTW, sounded surprising similar to DJT m*sturb#tory fantasies for his next term in the WH and how he plans to turn certain Federal Departments into his personal revenge instruments.)
@Teri_Kanefield @ProfT @artemesia Your fault is to assume that the political system (which ever is at hand) will make sure that the 2/3rd that are pro-democracy will always make sure that democracy will survive.
Historical practice, and theoretical mind games have shown quite well, that this not the case.
A big enough minority, especially if it happens to be the plurality, can take control.
In the UK, literally >60% of the voters have voted non-Tory at the last general election.
@yacc143 @Teri_Kanefield @artemesia I thought some more and would like to raise couple of points:
1. Precedent- we can be pretty sure that democracy is better than autocracy (except for emergencies war...). Why repeat mistakes.
2. People are not rational. Large societal computer models allow bad faith actors to manipulate elections (see Mindf*CK by Chris Wylie - about Cambridge analytica), so outside interventon is needed to prevent this influence.
@yacc143 @Teri_Kanefield @artemesia
3.You are framing the intervention as either or. You ban all opposition or you don’t ban anyone. There are many democracies that have bans in place that are very liberal and healthy.
4. Autocrats always bring corruption and illegal activities. If you allow them to exist and prosecute only illegal acts- they will cry political witch hunt and gain more power- thus by allowing them to exist you are giving them
@yacc143 @Teri_Kanefield @artemesia effective immunity from theft. (There is no autocrat that is not stealing)
5. Erosion of democratic institutions. I have lived through two autocratic regimes in Croatia. Creating trust in public institutions after an autocrat destroyed it is extremely hard. And every autocrat will destroy free press, high education and independent institutions. Repairing the damage takes decades.
@yacc143 @Teri_Kanefield @artemesia
6. Tolerance and empathy for me are very different things- I can have empathy for anyone. And I agree that you can’t have enough. Tolerance is not unlimited. I’m a high school teacher- I have empathy and understanding for my pupils in all situations, whatever they do. I can’t tolerate violence or bullying. I have empathy for the violent pupil, but not tolerance. If I tolerated violence soon everyone would fight
Facts: There will always be bad behavior in a democratic society. There will always be opposition to democracy in a democratic society.
That is because (1) not all bad behavior can be criminalize and (2) not all crime can be detected unless the government becomes a police state.
Fact: People who can't tolerate the fact that there will always be be bad behavior and opposition will never live comfortably in a democracy.
1/
The so-called "Tolerance paradox" is a silly piece of nonsense that uses the word "tolerance" in two ways at once.
The only "paradox" is word play.
It is deployed by people who either (1) are fooled by it and think they sound smart or (2) are deliberately short-circuiting the. discussion by using a vague word to mean two things at once.
We have "free speech absolutist" who play the same game with free speech.
2/
Taking seriously the Tolerance Paradox is like taking seriously the question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" Zeno's Paradox.
From political psychologists: 1/3 of the population has an anti-democratic personality.
They exist on both sides of the political spectrum.
The challenge in making a democracy work is to construct a democracy that (1) remains democratic and (2) prevents that third from seizing control without using totalitarian methods.
3/
The problem is that 1/3 will try to delay anti-democratic methods, because, well, they are anti-democratic.
You cannot get rid of them. Not all are lawbreakers. But they all always sympathize with authoritarian methods.
"tolerating" them does not mean letting them hijack the democracy.
It means that you can't round up all anti-democratic people and imprison them without being anti-democratic.
This not a "paradox." It is a reality.
4/
@ProfT @Teri_Kanefield @artemesia
E.g. Germany technically allows banning a party. They have banned a party that considered itself the successor of the NSDAP. And that quite officially did not really want a democracy in Germany.
And the Communist party was also banned, as they wanted to overthrow the constitutional order.
But all in all, it's a highly controlled instrument.
@ProfT @artemesia @dangillmor
I had a little tirade earlier about that paradox.
I despise it. I've only seen it deployed to defend intolerance and to oppose rule of law.
It's as silly as Zeno's paradox. Fun, but silly.
According to political psychologist (date cited on my. blog; search for Karen Stenner) 1/3 of the population has an anti-democratic personality.
One trait of that personality is intolerance.
Tolerance like empathy makes us human. You can't have too. much.