🇳🇱
Remember the days when tolerance and appreciating new perspectives and differences of opinion were considered a virtue?
Peppridge farms remembers.
@freemo NO BUT DON’T YOU SEE TOLERANCE IS A PARADOX SO YOU HAVE TO BE INTOLERANT
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 “tolerance”, 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, there’s a big difference between tolerance and acceptance. Listening to an idea doesn’t mean you should embrace it. But it’s possible to have enough discernment that you hear someone crazy say something crazy and say “that’s crazy” rather than “why isn’t he in jail yet”.
Don't you think a political system that doesn't bar people from holding office who hold fascist beliefs will become fascist faster?
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.
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.
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.
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.
