Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that’s the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you’re being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
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.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don’t think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They’re going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say “No, force is bad!” they’re going to say “Suit yourself!” and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I’ll be condemned along with it.
That’s the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we’re essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they’re wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say “Aren’t you glad these people get to freely encourage each others’ bigotry?”
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I’ll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
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.
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I’m pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we’re talking about “censoring” is beyond rational discourse. If “Don’t use slurs, please” drives you to say “Fuck you, I’ll hang with the bigots then”, then tolerance can’t have been that important to you.
You don’t need to keep touching the stove to realise it’s hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they’ll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can’t “debate” without spewing hatred, then I shouldn’t have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.
Again though - you’re deciding what is “hateful” and “rational”. You’re assuming that everything you believe is “right”. They do the same. They think you’re spewing hate by calling them Nazis and bigots and saying you want them to die (which is fair, since you are).
The difference is they’re not calling for you to be banned and your viewpoints censored. That’s you doing that.
I’m not going to stand by idly while they encourage each other with calls to violence. I don’t want anyone to die at all, but they’re the ones advocating for it. They started this.
We all just want to live our best lives. We only ask that you don’t interfere with our enjoyment. When you do, we reserve the right to self-defense, the most natural right of all.
If you genuinely think that they’re fine to call for the death of my people, but I’m wrong to want to silence that sentiment, then you’re complicit in their violence.
Just leave us in peace. You can have your little circle of supremacy where you reaffirm how awesome you all are, as long as you don’t bother anyone else. That’s all we ask: Tolerance and respect for one another.
To use the current issue, no one is calling for violence against trans people though. That’s just something the trans advocate groups are pretending is happening so they can call for violence against “terfs”, as we’ve seen many times at women’s rights rally’s. It’s not the “terfs” bashing people, it’s the “allies” and “advocates”.
We only ask that you don’t interfere with our enjoyment
The irony is delicious. Biological women are asking that biological men don’t interfere with their enjoyment in sports, bathrooms, gyms, etc yet being told they’re transphobic nazi bigots.
No one is calling for the death of your people. This is a far left tactic as old as time - pretend and straight up lie that everyone else is attacking them so they can go on the offence themselves.
As I’ve said many times - if you find something offensive, ignore it and/or don’t engage with the person saying it. Block them. The answer to someone saying something you don’t like should never be to prevent them from saying it. That’s literal textbook fascism.
Yeah the irony of the people who call other people fascists just begging for censorship is hilarious. They don’t even see what they’re doing. They are the nazis in this situation. They’re the ones calling for violence against “terfs” and the murder of politicians and Supreme Court members.
Yeah, that’s the Paradox of Tolerance. Short version: If you’re being intolerant, why should I tolerate you?
To paraphrase Karl Popper: A society that values tolerance to the point of indulging those that oppose it will effectively be defenseless against that hate. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reason with them first, but we need to reserve the right to shut them up, by force if we have to.
Karl Popper, 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies
I do hope that you see how that same exact idea applies to all sides though, right? It’s basically saying that Nazis are allowed to use force to shut up the other side as well.
I don’t think the Nazis care about what I think they should or should not be allowed to do. They’re going to use violence, whether or not I hold a gun or a white flag. If I say “No, force is bad!” they’re going to say “Suit yourself!” and use it anyway. How am I going to stop them?
An ideology is worth only as much as the people defending it. If I am so concerned with the letter of the law if tolerance that I refuse to defend its spirit, I’ll be condemned along with it.
That’s the point of the paradox: If we deny ourselves the use of force, we’re essentially conceding that right to them.
This an ideological conflict. We each believe the other is in the wrong, so whatever rules the other attempts to impose have no bearing on us because they’re wrong. Hence: We should try rational argument first and hope to keep them in check by public opinion, but when that fails?
You can go stand in the middle and be proud of your enlightenend and nonviolent convictions. And when they next shoot up a gay night club or a black church, you can go and look the dying victims and their grieving loved ones in the eye and say “Aren’t you glad these people get to freely encourage each others’ bigotry?”
So when it comes to dealing with fascists, I’ll listen to the guy that watched the rise of the original fascists, the failure of democracy, and took notes
(ibid)
The problem is you’re not even trying the rational argument, you’re going straight to censorship and in doing so you’re steeling their resolve and converting more people to be against you.
It’s like the “just stop oil” people - by doing their stupid protests that only hurt regular people they’re hurting their cause and turning people against them.
Oh I have tried the rational argument often enough. I still do, where I see the opportunity. I spend way too much time trying to convince people of my point of view even when I’m pretty sure there never was any hope in the first place.
But the type of hate speech and stochastic terrorism we’re talking about “censoring” is beyond rational discourse. If “Don’t use slurs, please” drives you to say “Fuck you, I’ll hang with the bigots then”, then tolerance can’t have been that important to you.
You don’t need to keep touching the stove to realise it’s hot. Many platforms have tried the free speech angle and realised that it leads to an influx of hate, devoid of reason, and they’ll either introduce some moderation or have all other people leave because nobody wants concentrated vitriol on their feed, except for those toxic enough to thrive on it.
We can debate rationally when both parties are being rational. If you can’t “debate” without spewing hatred, then I shouldn’t have to waste my time playing by rules you never gave a fuck about in the first place.
Again though - you’re deciding what is “hateful” and “rational”. You’re assuming that everything you believe is “right”. They do the same. They think you’re spewing hate by calling them Nazis and bigots and saying you want them to die (which is fair, since you are).
The difference is they’re not calling for you to be banned and your viewpoints censored. That’s you doing that.
I’m not going to stand by idly while they encourage each other with calls to violence. I don’t want anyone to die at all, but they’re the ones advocating for it. They started this.
We all just want to live our best lives. We only ask that you don’t interfere with our enjoyment. When you do, we reserve the right to self-defense, the most natural right of all.
If you genuinely think that they’re fine to call for the death of my people, but I’m wrong to want to silence that sentiment, then you’re complicit in their violence.
Just leave us in peace. You can have your little circle of supremacy where you reaffirm how awesome you all are, as long as you don’t bother anyone else. That’s all we ask: Tolerance and respect for one another.
To use the current issue, no one is calling for violence against trans people though. That’s just something the trans advocate groups are pretending is happening so they can call for violence against “terfs”, as we’ve seen many times at women’s rights rally’s. It’s not the “terfs” bashing people, it’s the “allies” and “advocates”.
The irony is delicious. Biological women are asking that biological men don’t interfere with their enjoyment in sports, bathrooms, gyms, etc yet being told they’re transphobic nazi bigots.
No one is calling for the death of your people. This is a far left tactic as old as time - pretend and straight up lie that everyone else is attacking them so they can go on the offence themselves.
As I’ve said many times - if you find something offensive, ignore it and/or don’t engage with the person saying it. Block them. The answer to someone saying something you don’t like should never be to prevent them from saying it. That’s literal textbook fascism.