🇳🇱
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.
@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
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
>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.
