π³π±
Remember the days when tolerance and appreciating new perspectives and differences of opinion were considered a virtue?
Peppridge farms remembers.
Intolerance is the only true tolerance, duh!
2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of two
Tolerance is absolutely a virtue for sufficiently intolerant definitions of tolerant.
I am not suggesting you should be tolerant of everything, No one needs to be tolerant of literal Nazis for example. But when everyone and everything that disagrees with you looks like a Nazi.....
@freemo @volkris I actually disagree with this, depending on what you mean.
When people say βtoleranceβ, they usually refer to either allowing people to speak, or not barring people from taking office.
Any ideology that bars people from speaking or holding office based on their beliefs alone will bleed into fascism given enough time and power.
Now to be clear, thereβs a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Listening to an idea doesnβt mean you should embrace it. But itβs possible to have enough discernment that you hear someone crazy say something crazy and say βthatβs crazyβ rather than βwhy isnβt he in jail yetβ.
Tolerance is simply how much you respect, care, and consider the opinions of people who arent like you.
Not sure I see the relevance. Being tolerant doesnt mean you have to be tolerant to the point of absurdity.
@freemo nobody said you have to be tolerant!
But if you're going to be tolerant then, yes, you have to be tolerant to the point of absurdity if it comes to that, by definition.
And that's a great reason not to be absurdly tolerant!
Well I was channeling the nonsensical notion that in tolerance would be tolerance but to be practical:
If you want to be a tolerance absolutist, to borrow Musk's term, then yeah you do have to be tolerant of even absurdity. If you want to claim such absolute tolerance, well, that might be rough, but it will involve tolerating a bunch of wacky stuff.
And that's why absolute tolerance is pretty unworkable in the real world.
In the real world, in most situations, we will be intolerant, and that is a good and healthy and mature thing so long as we draw the lines in appropriate places.
We should celebrate being intolerant of things that make the world, or our lives, or the situation worse.
Don't like Nazis? (whatever that means to you) Fine! You're probably going to want to be intolerant of them, and that's the right thing to do.
But it's the wrong thing to be reasonably intolerant of Nazis but claim that you're being tolerant.
No, be intolerant! And proudly say that you are intolerant of Nazis!
It's just Orwellian to try to rewrite the word for no particularly good reason like that.
I dont believe in tolerance absolutism.. on a personal level you should be tolerant sure, doesnt mean you need to tolerate everything.
Absolutes dont work in anything, ever, not even once.
@freemo Right, neither do I, and that's why I would say we both (and everyone else) need to be ready to proudly state that we are intolerant of certain things π
That's my point.
Rather than redefining tolerance we should all own the causes where we promote intolerance.
Everything is a spectrum, and almost always existing on either end is the worst place to be. You usually want to be in the happy middle for most things. Tolerance is no different.
For clarity, I'm talking about tolerance in public spaces. If you're running around cursing at randos in an airport, you should probably be removed. In a private space like a church, they should be allowed to gatekeep who gets to speak from the pulpit.
But in public areas or place colloquially viewed as "town square", we should have as much tolerance as reasonably possible.
You are talking about specific exammples of tolerance. and that is fine. But the conversation is just about tolerance in the general sense, not legality or anything like that. Or even tolerance in public space. Those are specific subsets that of course can have their own discussions.
When talkking about public spaces we do have free speech restrictions even in the USA, even on the side walk. They are referred to as time, place, and manner restrictions, then you also have calls to action and other aspects of free speech and tolerance.
@realcaseyrollins tragedy of the Commons there
Don't you think a political system that doesn't bar people from holding office who hold fascist beliefs will become fascist faster?
No, in fact quite the opposite. A political system that **does** bar people from holding office who hold fascist beliefs would be come fascist the fastest. In fact, the moment it passes the law that prevents them from holding office, at that very moment it has become fascist.
@Hyolobrika @volkris @realcaseyrollins
The democratic aspect is only one of the qualities that makes fascism fasism.
I dont maintain a personal definition of fascism. I agree with the dictionary on this term and find it sufficient.
Yup, tons of words represent a bunch of different and logically seperable things lumped together. In fact most words representing political movements or qualities thereof would fit that description.
Isn't it better to sacrifice some democracy to gain better protection against genocide and loss of liberty? Because I think life and liberty are definitely more important than democracy.
@Hyolobrika I think the first step in that question is being honest about what it’s doing.
Like you said, sacrifice some democracy. I’m glad you put it that way. So many people not only refuse to put it that way, but they deny that they are doing that in the first place.
We as a society can’t really discuss whether we want to make that trade off or not if we are refusing to call it what it is.
If such an exchange were actually possible, maybe.
In practice attempting to do so results in a loss of liberty and an increase in the risk. So such an equation does not exist in the world, even if hypothetically if such a thing could exist it sounds appealing.
@Hyolobrika keep in mind that there is a speech element to barring a person from office if you prevent people from expressing, through voting, their preference for that person.
This is one huge element in the current Trump drama that there’s a huge difference between kicking him off a ballot versus letting him take office if elected, but the two issues are being muddled together.
Being able to choose a leader to force their (and by proxy, your) views on people is power, not liberty. Liberty is control over your own life, not the lives of others.
It is literally a violation of liberty by definition.
Liberty is defined as "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views."
Therefore creating a government which by definition imposes restrictions on which political views can be agreed upon by a society and executed is, by its fundamental nature a violation of liberty.
#1 should almost always be allowed for the sake of liberty (except possibly when it comes to genocide; but that's an aside). And regardless, #2 I think is acceptable to regulate because it's about the internals of the government.
Where in the definition of liberty say its limited to the ability to talk about things, rather than execute them?
I don't think that contradicts the general principle of liberty.
Likewise if a *political movement* decides that *your kind* should die or otherwise be oppressed.
If I or someone else try to execute my view that you should die by attacking you, I think you are justified in self-defense, don’t you?
I should be, yes, presuming I didnt try to kill them first.
I don’t think that contradicts the general principle of liberty.
When someone is charging at you with a knife shooting them in a facce would be a reasonable violation of liberty (choosing the lesser of two liberties to deny when both are mutually exclusive)
Likewise if a political movement decides that your kind should die or otherwise be oppressed.
Thats not the definition of fascism. A political movement that wants a particular group dead may be fascism it may not, depending on if it has the other elements of fascism. A movement can be fascist and not have any group they want dead, likewise a movement can want a group dead and not be fascist.
So you arent going to advance your point for arguing for a completely unrelated point.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism
fasΒ·cism (fΔshβ²Δzβ²Ιm) n. 1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
(Emphasis mine)
I still donβt think having a perfect democracy is worth allowing that to happen.
To be clear, Iβm not in favour of suppressing fascist beliefs. Just not allowing them to have power.
Use a better dictionary, the free dictionary is one of the worst... try mariam webster or one of the more respected one.. the definition is similar but its a bit off here. Fashism doesnt need to be a dictator, only autocratic, which is usually dictators but not limited to it.
Also notice the part you highlight is listed as "typically" .. meaning it is **not** a required element of fascism, but common to many forms.
I always find definitional arguments to be a bit uninteresting, but FWIW the professional, trained historian, academic friends of mine have mentioned that fascism is basically a useless word historically because it doesn’t have a workable, agreed upon definition, so they sound like they would rather people just never use that word again unless maybe in reference to Mussolini specifically.
forcing a political view on someone, in and of itself, is not the definition of fascism.
But thats literally not the definition of fascism.. you keepy trying to wrangle words into meaning something it is not.. liberty is not limited to discussions and fascism is not limited to oppression
Since you are using fascism to describe things that dont meet the definition of fascism this is a suspect statement. Also "force" would need to be depicted here.. I mean we are talking a democracy where the majority of people want it, how is that forced? I mean i suspect you are arguing that the minority are forced by the majority... so isnt the "forced" part just democracy.. the only other part left is the fascism, which is generally undesirable I agree but you are proposing a system of fascism as a solution to prevent fascism...
Fascism has two components to be fascism.. 1) it must be autocratic, as meaning there is an absolute authority that cant be challenged (this may be a dictator but may take other forms) 2) it must put the nation above the individual.
If you enact a system of government where there there is no democratic process allowed to choose what is or is not fascist, and express that through vote, then it is autocratic in nature as it is an absolutely authority not expressed through vote... It is also designed to put the collective best interests of the nation above the individual liberty to choose, so it satisfies the second condition.
So you are literally proposing we make governments fascist as a proposal to prevent fascism.
>Fascism has two components to be fascism.. 1) it must be autocratic, as meaning there is an absolute authority that cant be challenged (this may be a dictator but may take other forms)
>...
>If you enact a system of government where there there is no democratic process allowed to choose what is or is not fascist, and express that through vote, then it is autocratic in nature as it is an absolutely authority not expressed through vote
Huh?
How is a feature of a political system that doesn't allow certain political parties to have power an "absolute authority"? What do you mean by that? When I think of an "autocracy" or an "absolute authority that can't be challenged", I think of a dictatorship or other form of strong government. "Can't be challenged" to me also implies some kind of suppression of speech challenging it, which I am not implying at all.
Are you suggesting that a fascist party that beleives in fascism and wants to bring it about would be allowed, but the actual "absolute authority" they want to execute would not? If so then I agree with you.
Or are you suggesting the very fact taht they WANT such a thing, should bar them from having office at all (that would be fascism and I cant support it).
Perhaps there was a miscommunication in your ask.
My grandfather (a WWII vet) had to walk that slippery scope to get to school, uphill, both ways, in the snow.
@Hyolobrika Not barring people from holding office, but there should be strict limits to the powers of someone holding office, or the majority of the people. I donβt even really think there should be an office to hold. Yes the individualβs life and liberty is more important than democracy. The individual's rights are not subject to a public vote. Giving fascists power is not promoting individual liberty.
It would depend on what exactly we agree "nationalist socialism" entails... wanting to commit genocide is certainly the **biggest** reason their evil, but it may not be the only one.
@freemo NO BUT DONβT YOU SEE TOLERANCE IS A PARADOX SO YOU HAVE TO BE INTOLERANT