You and I are on such vastly different platforms that you’re one of the few people I don’t think I can find any common ground with. Whereas I agree one’s own qualified rights end where others rights begin, I consider basic human rights to be absolute, and certainly not influenced by whatever political views you do or don’t share.
By extension, the abstracted opinion of “I think it’s funny that <a group of people I don’t like> <experiences something terrible>” is borderline fascism in itself, and your position is cancerous to any anti-fascist movement you’re involved in.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but if you aren’t familiar, Nick Fuentes believes (in his own words) the following:
“We need to eradicate Jewish stranglehold over the United States of America. … We will win, because unlike our opposition, we are willing to die for what we believe in … We’re in a holy war and I will tell you this. Because we’re willing to die in the holy war, we will make them die in the holy war. And they will go down.”
This isn’t <a group of people I don’t like> this is <a group of people who support the rape, murder, and genocide of people they don’t like>. Nick Fuentes is a literal crypto-fascist. Fascists are owed zero tolerance, and the use of hyperbole to shock or scare them (or scare others away from falling in with them) is a valid tactic.
We still disagree, but I genuinely appreciate the additional context you have to offer. I’m not wholly altruistic, I think Fuentes is a massive piece of human garbage.
But, he is human - and with that, is his right to human rights.
I don’t like him as much as the next person and that is an entirely subjective opinion, but levelling the same kind of hatred and lack of compassion effectively makes you no better than fanny balls Fuentes is. It’s a dangerously small leap from <I don’t like what this person stands for> and therefore sanctioning sexual assault, to <they don’t like what I stand for> and therefore sanctioning sexual assault.
I suspect we’re on the same broad page, but our means are vastly different.
I suspect we’re on the same broad page, but our means are vastly different.
I suspect the same and I appreciate you engaging with me civilly.
Your concerns about the situation being a slippery slope are understandable. We’re discussing things that live on the very edges of basic, modern human morality. I recognize that this creates a lot of unease.
I don’t hate the human. I would not kill baby Hitler if I had a time machine, as baby Hitler was not born evil.
My hate lies with what the human has become, the views the human has developed. I will not tolerate them. If that hatred, of those who outwardly espouse this level of murderous intolerance (and only those who do so), makes me no better than Fuentes, then I suppose I will gladly be that villain, if only so that others can continue to live their lives in peace. The violence and genocide inherent to the fascist ideology must never be allowed to take root. It is an existential threat to global peace that must be shut down with any and every means available. Peaceful means should always be prioritized where possible.
Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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 to suppress them if necessary even by force; 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 rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
The violence and genocide inherent to the fascist ideology must never be allowed to take root. It is an existential threat to global peace that must be shut down with any and every means available.
I think this is the rude awakening that a lot of people are going to need to learn. Again.
Fascism is an infection. It’s like gangrene, if you do not remove the limb, it will infect and kill the host.
A great question. I was going to call it a “thought experiment”, but as Wikipedia more succinctly calls it, a “philosophical concept”. I’m wary of jumping to the paradox of tolerance as a device to handwave away violence against anyone.
It’s an important point to consider and it raises vital questions that challenges my own argument, but ultimately the rights of the human override any philosophical ideals.
In this instance, I would much rather preserve the rights of any person - arsehole or not - rather than subject them to sexual violence because of a perceived difference in political opinion.
You and I are on such vastly different platforms that you’re one of the few people I don’t think I can find any common ground with. Whereas I agree one’s own qualified rights end where others rights begin, I consider basic human rights to be absolute, and certainly not influenced by whatever political views you do or don’t share.
By extension, the abstracted opinion of “I think it’s funny that <a group of people I don’t like> <experiences something terrible>” is borderline fascism in itself, and your position is cancerous to any anti-fascist movement you’re involved in.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but if you aren’t familiar, Nick Fuentes believes (in his own words) the following:
This isn’t <a group of people I don’t like> this is <a group of people who support the rape, murder, and genocide of people they don’t like>. Nick Fuentes is a literal crypto-fascist. Fascists are owed zero tolerance, and the use of hyperbole to shock or scare them (or scare others away from falling in with them) is a valid tactic.
Oi Polloi - Bash The Fash
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your insight.
We still disagree, but I genuinely appreciate the additional context you have to offer. I’m not wholly altruistic, I think Fuentes is a massive piece of human garbage.
But, he is human - and with that, is his right to human rights.
I don’t like him as much as the next person and that is an entirely subjective opinion, but levelling the same kind of hatred and lack of compassion effectively makes you no better than fanny balls Fuentes is. It’s a dangerously small leap from <I don’t like what this person stands for> and therefore sanctioning sexual assault, to <they don’t like what I stand for> and therefore sanctioning sexual assault.
I suspect we’re on the same broad page, but our means are vastly different.
I suspect the same and I appreciate you engaging with me civilly.
Your concerns about the situation being a slippery slope are understandable. We’re discussing things that live on the very edges of basic, modern human morality. I recognize that this creates a lot of unease.
I don’t hate the human. I would not kill baby Hitler if I had a time machine, as baby Hitler was not born evil.
My hate lies with what the human has become, the views the human has developed. I will not tolerate them. If that hatred, of those who outwardly espouse this level of murderous intolerance (and only those who do so), makes me no better than Fuentes, then I suppose I will gladly be that villain, if only so that others can continue to live their lives in peace. The violence and genocide inherent to the fascist ideology must never be allowed to take root. It is an existential threat to global peace that must be shut down with any and every means available. Peaceful means should always be prioritized where possible.
I think this is the rude awakening that a lot of people are going to need to learn. Again.
Fascism is an infection. It’s like gangrene, if you do not remove the limb, it will infect and kill the host.
What are your thoughts on the paradox of tolerance? At what point do you personally draw the line of not tolerating the intolerant?
A great question. I was going to call it a “thought experiment”, but as Wikipedia more succinctly calls it, a “philosophical concept”. I’m wary of jumping to the paradox of tolerance as a device to handwave away violence against anyone.
It’s an important point to consider and it raises vital questions that challenges my own argument, but ultimately the rights of the human override any philosophical ideals.
In this instance, I would much rather preserve the rights of any person - arsehole or not - rather than subject them to sexual violence because of a perceived difference in political opinion.
Good thing that’s not what it does, then