696
The paradox of tolerance (europe.pub)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/coolguides@lemmy.ca
161 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

You are kind of proving my point by wildly missing my point.

First here we are with the "you are a nazi" argument. You disagree with me, I'm automatically a nazi.

Second of all. If you read my comment again you'll clearly read that I advocate that tolerance is not the goal. I'm not saying we should "tolerate" nazis. I'm actually advocating for not tolerating not only nazis but a whole bunch of other people as well (I just don't feel the need to call them nazis for not tolerating them), because I think tolerance by itself is not the supreme golden rule that will make the society we live into the utopia we deserve.

But the point is that once you are true about this you should construct a more robust moral code that "nazis bad and everyone I don't like is a nazi", because that's just not going to get us anywhere. We need good people in our society. Not just thugs flying your favourite flag. And for that the definition of who stays and who don't shouldn't be a political tag. But the adherence to a robust moral code.

But obviously bad people who think they are good only because their political tag doesn't find this a very pleasant idea.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    You disagree with me, I'm automatically a nazi.

    No, I disagree with almost everyone.

    You argue that people supporting masked secret police disappearing people based on race doesn't necessarily make them a Nazi, and that argument makes you a Nazi. It really is that simple.

    You want to define "Nazi" as meaning only people following the exact political philosophy of the 1930s NSDAP, which is exactly how neonazis and other Nazi subtypes want it defined, as it keeps them from being banned for being Nazis.

    "Nazi" to most people means anyone supporting a militarized ethnonationalism, and especially anyone supporting the use of state violence against designated out groups. For the most part that means Republicans and their supporters, along with Zionists and their supporters, plus assorted independent neonazi factions that don't have those kinds of numbers. But yes, it also includes anyone looking at what those groups are doing and arguing they aren't Nazis, or ignoring that they're Nazis for social or business reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    My definition of Nazi in the modern sense of the world, (a neonazi we could say). Is that of a person who wants the state to have absolute power to enforce a reactionary society that will embrace a glorious past, exterminating every group of population that doesn't fit into this objective.

    By that definition, no not all republicans are nazis, some are, of course, many even, but not all, not by far. And obviously, not all people who deny your arguments about who is a nazi automatically becomes a nazi.

    It doesn't mean they are good people. But here is the thing, not every bad person is a nazi.

    You might be a very bad person, and still not a nazi.

    A problem with you way of seeing things, is that, is conveniently arbitrary. You can actually call absolutely anyone you like a nazi. That's a fast route for authoritarianism. Tou want to kill anyone? Easy, you say they are a nazi and their death is justified in your eyes.

    That's just bad. You can have a system that defines who is good and who is not by such an arbitrary system.

    Look at it this way. By your definition you are yourself a nazi. Because if I'm a nazi and I'm here you are sharing this space with a nazi, making yourself a nazi... See how easy is to label someone as a nazi by those definitions?

    No. Our moral system should be stronger, should be able to accurately determine if a person is a good person or not based on their actions, without any chance of arbitrary labeling any person as bad by the convenience of an authoritarian figure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Your inability (or more likely refusal) to understand simple concepts doesn't invalidate those concepts.

    There is nothing arbitrary about "people who support a militarized ethnostate" nor about "people who support state violence against a designated out group".

    No part of the "ten Nazis at the table is about sharing space, it's about it ignoring their atrocities and being friendly with monsters.

    If you want people not to say you're a Nazi, why don't you try just saying without any prevarication "masked secret police snatching people off the street because of their race is wrong, that's Nazi behavior and people who support it shouldn't be tolerated".

    You won't. Because you clearly do support that kind of behavior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Now you are just manipulating my arguments.

    As I never denied that people who support a militarized ethostate is a nazi. Nor denying their atrocities.

    What I say, and you deny is that not every person who voted republican support a militarized ethostate. Even if Trump is doing precisely that with their vote. Politicians lie and manipulate their voters all the time.

    The people you are describing is clearly nazi, and at no point in any comments I said anything different.

    What I've clearly said is that not every republican wants that. By my own knowledge of knowing republicans that doesn't want that. Believe or not, I know republicans that doesn't want secret police snatching people of the street because their race.

    Here comes some important concept, the reality you and me see is not the same that other people see. You and I see ICE actuations and we do see the SS. But there are people that doesn't see that, some of them genuinely don't think that they are doing that. Are they on the wrong? Yes, but not because they are nazis, but because they are missinformed and manipulated.

    A think that's very common in politics is the inability to see the crimes of "your party" and this happens to many republicans, they are just blind to the atrocities committed by Trump. Other see that atrocities, don't support them but still vote Trump for other reasons. Specially in a two party system people don't agree with 100% of what the party they vote do.

    Still, they are on the wrong for that. And I'm not saying they are good people. Some of them even not being nazis are bad people. Some of them vote republicans because they hate gay folk or trans folk. By definition homophobia or transfobia is no nazism even if it is as bad as nazism.

    The point you keep missing is that there is bad beyond nazism. And one of my main arguments is that that is precisely a very dangerous line of though because is a line of though that has a convenient ease to label truly good people as bad, and truly evil people as good. And that should never happen in a good moral system.

    Also, people don't call me nazi. You are the only one who calls me that. As any rational person who talks to me 5 minutes about any topic can clearly seen what's my political leaning. So I'm not really worry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    What I say, and you deny is that not every person who voted republican support a militarized ethostate.

    Given that the candidate they voted for was pretty open about his intentions to push for a militarized ethnostate, what you say suitable for fertilizing crops. At a bare minimum, every Republican Voter considers Nazism to be at least not a deal-breaker. And that brings us back to that table with 10 Nazis.

    The point you keep missing is that there is bad beyond nazism.

    No, I'm not missing that, it's just not relevant to your original argument (people who call out Nazis call everyone they disagree with a Nazi). Let's stay on topic here. Saying "people call everyone they disagree with a Nazi" and then giving two examples that are both totally valid callouts of Nazism is carrying Nazis' water. If you're making the same arguments against people calling out Nazis that Nazis make, then you're doing Nazis' work, regardless of what your intentions may have been.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Just a question for the fun on it. Those new nazis you create with you rethoric can also create new nazis?

    So there are the original nazis, we all agree there are nazis. Then anyone you think is too close to them you said they are alzo nazis. The famous table with ten nazis.

    Can those new nazis also create newer nazis if other people sit with them?

    And this newer nazis can also create even newer nazis when other people happen to sit with them, or saying that them being friends to a person who is friend of a person who is friend of a person who voted for an orange nazi, that automatically create other nazi?

    Where does the if you sit near a nazi you are a nazi ever stops? How degrees of proximity of the original nazi you consider enough so you don't think they are nazis?

    For real. A person who is a friend of a person who is a friend of a person who voted for Trump? Nazi or not nazi?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Now i know you're arguing in bad faith.

    For the second or third time in this thread: The other nine Nazis aren't Nazis bcs of their proximity to a Nazi, but because of their willingness to socialize with a Nazi.

    You're deliberately misrepresenting anti-Nazi arguments to try to defend people who are happily supporting Nazism. If you're not a Nazi you'll do til someone actually starts goose stepping and throwing out Roman salutes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago*

    Elon Musk is indeed a Nazi, if that's what your reference was about.

    My question is specifically about socialising voluntarily and friendly.

    I will make the question more clear.

    Person A = Donald Trump

    Person B = Person who voted for Donald Trump, doesn't self define as a Nazi, personally this person doesn't consider Donald trump a Nazi

    Person C = Person who didn't vote for Trump, thinks Trump is a nazi but is friends with person B. this person doesn't consider person B a nazi.

    Person D = Person who didn't vote for Trump, thinks Trump is a nazi but is friends with person C, knowing that person C is friends with person B.

    Person E = Person who didn't vote for Trump, thinks Trump is a nazi but is friends with person D, knowing that person D is friends with person C.

    All this people are willing to socialise with their friends, they know them, and they know their political stances (only A and B vote republican) and they know who are their friends with. How many of those people would you consider Nazis?

    Until now I understood that you would consider all of them nazis, also any subsequent friends of this little friendship chain. But feel free to correct me and tell me otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    By definition homophobia or transfobia is no nazism even if it is as bad as nazism.

    What the fuck did I just read? Nazis rounded gay and trans folks up and put them in death camps too.

    Get the fuck out of here, Nazi fucking scum.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent