🇳🇱
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.....
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 🙂
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.
@volkris
Democracy is a crap system, which is why the the US constitution doesn't mention democracy a single time. It's a republic, meant to protect the rights of the smallest minority: the individual.
Fascism is simply corporatism, stated by Mussolini himself. We're already there in the US and have been for decades in my estimation, regardless of the party holding the reins.
@Hyolobrika @freemo @realcaseyrollins
A republic is a type of democracy. The proper term is a "Democratic Republic" ... you are thinking of r a"Direct Democracy" which is another form. There isnt just one type. and since there isnt just one type it is silly to try to say its a crap system since it isnt a single system, it is a category of systems.
@freemo
I'll have to disagree with you, you're still describing a republic with your phrasing. I don't like dealing with poorly defined terms, broadening "democracy" to include republics and anything between the two. In the US, representatives are voted for, yet the core system is still a republic.
Regardless, I'd argue the US has already slipped into corporatism, aka fascism, despite airs that voting still matters.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @realcaseyrollins
Of course im still describing a republic, a republic is a specific form of democracy, why would I not be describing a republic?
Did we slip into corporatism or fascism, those are completely different ideas with wildly different components, and there can be a lot of overlap there.
@freemo
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
- Mussolini
@volkris @Hyolobrika @realcaseyrollins
@ent have you ever considered the possibility that Mussolini wasn't actually that smart?
Except that it literally isnt. Mussolini was a lot of things, a political science expert he was not.
While fascism can of course be achieved through corporate power, that is not a requirement of fascism and is simply one among many ways to get there. They most certainly arent synonymous.
>Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American vernacular and legal parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. Corporatism is not government corruption in politics or the use of bribery by corporate interest groups. The terms 'corporatocracy' and 'corporatism' are often confused due to their name and the use of corporations as organs of the state.
@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net Maddening how frequently people misuse or confuse these terms. Or, for example, through ignorance find quotes grounded on their confusion and thinking them slam-dunks or good points.
Of course voting matters. We recognize the winners of votes.
You might not like the way votes turn out, and you might argue that corporations press us to vote certain ways, or that we are misinformed and so we vote based on misinformation, or you might raise a ton of other similar complaints, but at the end of the day the most important part stands:
We still respect the results of elections.
The people still get what they vote for, even if they may vote for a really really really really really really really stupid things based on really really bad influences, if you must.
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
fas·cism (făsh′ĭz′əm) 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 don’t think having a perfect democracy is worth allowing that to happen.
To be clear, I’m 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.
Your friend would not be within the norm for political science opinions.
> The ideological movements of Benito Mussolini (1883–1945) and Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) can be classified as paradigmatic instances of Fascism and National Socialism. There are enough similarities between these two schools of thought to justify calling it a single ideology, and one that contains a mélange of ideas that renders it unique in the history of thought.
>
> There are a number of headings under which this ideology (hereinafter simply referred to as Fascism) can beneficially be studied, and they include anti-liberalism and anti-Marxism, the veneration of the nation and state, the leadership principle, racism, the rejection of procedural and substantive justice, autarky (self-sufficiency), and corporativism.” — H.B. McCullough, Political Ideologies, Chapter 7, pg. 132
Notice that I used the plural 🙂
This is not merely one friend, but the prospective offered by many different working historians during their get togethers on, for example, the sidelines of conferences.
The fact that its more than one friend doesnt really change things. Our friends generally represent people of some similar character, and thus tend to agree and show patterns that do not reflect the general population.
The point is, Fascism is used quite often and found to be a valuable term among the overwhelming majority of political science experts. No doubt some may not like the term as well. I mean some electrical engineers hate using "j" for the imaginary number too :)
I think that's a good idea. Let's do that.
I mean, we certainly can't agree on a definition in this thread, nor (I've noticed) anywhere.
Actuallyt he definition both of us provided are pretty much in agreement. The big difference is rather small, yours said "dictator" when it should have said "autocratic" which includes dictators.
@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”.