Here someone is challenging my use of pro-fascist to describe the dead bird site. "Pro-fascist? Really?"
Yes, really.
-- Elon personally intervened to get the pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler, anti-semetic Kanye West reinstated.
-- Twitter is a haven for groups like White Lives Matter California, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group.
-- Musk has threatened to sue researchers tracking hate speech on the platform
-- The dead bird paid Andrew Tate $20k and End Wokeness $10k.
-- It paid $16k to Ian Miles Cheong, a far-right user has used Twitter to falsely identify an innocent Black man as the “number one suspect” in the shooting of two police officers
-- It has paid QAnon influencer Jacob Creech.
-- Elmo has called for the the QAnon shaman who particpated in the Jan. 6 riot to be freed.
-- He has defended the Jan 6 rioters, saying they were peaceful.
-- He reinstated Michael Flynn.
I could go on an on, but I would burn up way too much time because there are so many more examples.
My point is: Twitter most definitely welcomes, encourages and even pays for far-right extremist views that include anti-semitism, support for Hitler and nazis, and support for an illegal riot that saw multiple members of the Capitol Police brutally killed.
I stand by my description of Twitter as "pro-fascist."
@dangoodin I guess you could go on and on but if those are the best arguments you have, they're not really making your case.
You're generally describing the site taking a neutral approach to content, which is arguably anti-fascist.
You're complaining that the site isn't imposing its values, isn't dictating and strongarming, and that just doesn't jive with your claim that there's fascist things going on.
You can stand by your description all you want, but your argument undermines your claim.
@volkris @dangoodin a tolerant person does not tolerate ideologies that require the subjugation or murder of others. There is no paradox, tolerance is conditional on reciprocity.
@theothersimo that line of argument always struck me as pretty flawed, not because it's a paradox, but because it's logically contradictory.
Yes, a tolerant person tolerates.
No, there's no particular reason to pursue the contradiction for the sake of some reciprocity condition.
Instead it sounds like accepting a weaker claim for the sake of pursuing bias confirmation.
In other words, I would say that if you believe reciprocity is so important then let's just be honest and flat out say you are giving up tolerance for the sake of that goal.
@volkris The goal of tolerance is for the maximum number of people to enjoy the greatest possible degree of freedom. Allowing fascists to organize and publish kill lists deprives others of the freedom to not be killed by fascists. So I am absolutely throwing “tolerance” as an abstract personal virtue in a fucking dumpster when it comes to the goal of choosing to use a website that doesn’t pay Nazis to post incitement to genocide.
@theothersimo if that's your goal of tolerance then it's the wrong tool for the job.
It's like saying the goal of riding this bike is to get across the country as quickly as possible. That may indeed be your goal, but you should consider using a car or a plane instead, as the bike isn't so great at traveling quickly.
Allowing fascists to organize and such is tolerant. One may be understandably opposed to those things, but that's the reason to own intolerance.
YES! Throw tolerance in the fire! It's not what you're really after, so why insist on claiming to be tolerant here?
@volkris If you think you know a better way for basic human dignity to be shared as far as possible, other than treating as many as possible with basic himan dignity, then by all means share it with the class.
I reject your definition of “tolerance” as flawed and morally bankrupt, but if for the sake of argument I must use it, then yes I reject tolerance as you have misdefined it.
@theothersimo again I repeat, it's fine if this is your solution or the best solution, but in that case you should proudly own it.
Proudly say you're putting basic human dignity over tolerance, that tolerance is simply not as important as shaping a better society.
That just emphasizes how important the task is to you.
Why not?
@volkris I did. The goal of Humans Being Tolerated takes precedence over the foolish consistency of thinking that intolerant people should be indulged in their harassment and persecution of People Who Aren’t Like Them.
Punching Nazis is good and virtuous. Tolerance of mass murder is not a virtue.
@theothersimo but you're the one proposing intolerance here and I'm saying we should indulge your intolerance for the sake of your higher goal!
You refuse to tolerate people who call to question basic human dignity, and that sounds fine to me. I'm willing to indulge your intolerance because it seems like it's on a solid ethical ground.
Tolerance may not be a virtue, and that's fine, let's say that and emphasize that it's why you're not putting tolerance above basic human decency.
It's why you're rejecting tolerance, and that's fine. But you undermine your own cause when clinging to tolerance that you're simultaneously rejecting.
@volkris I’m not rejecting tolerance, I’m rejecting tolerance as you define it. I reject the notion that allowing my friends to be murdered is a form of tolerance, the same way I reject the notion that giving a vial of cyanide to Charles Cullen is a form of generosity. Tolerance and generosity turned to their own destruction are not virtues.
@theothersimo I've noticed that you spend a lot of time rejecting a common definition, but not really providing your own.
How do YOU define tolerance?
@volkris “tolerance” is a parameter of a community comparing it to an ideal state in which no one is targeted for harassment or violence just for minding their own business while being who they are.
@theothersimo but what IS it?
Not in comparison to something else; what IS tolerance to you?
@volkris tolerance means people being accepted with all their immutable characteristics, as well as ~other~ characteristics, provided that those other characteristics don’t include hurting others.
@theothersimo and you don't think you hurt someone you kick out of the book club?
@volkris Steve kicked himself out the moment he refused to abide by the private club’s rules. No one singled him out for unfair treatment. Maybe Steve is a fucking moron who thinks he’s entitled to courtesy from his neighbors that he would never extend to them, but his neighbors are not morons and know better than to waste their time arguing with him.
