Ohh, so we are presupposing a tolerant society? Then yeah, that would work. But to an extent that is an impossibly. Somehow the racists and fascists would have to wake up tomorrow no longer being those things and then no new person could become those things. Not sure how that would happen without violence of some kind. So you have a chicken and egg problem.
Somehow the racists and fascists would have to wake up tomorrow no longer being those things and then no new person could become those things.
Why?
Why do we need that sort of people to stop existing? Why do we need to exterminate them? Why do we need to load them up in boxcars and ship them off to death camps?
You’re not quite understanding that those racists and fascists only have those powers that society would use against them. When society decides that words alone can never justify a suspension of rights, that curtails the ability of the fascists who want that power much more than it affects anyone else.
When you demand the right to silence and suppress a fascist who offends you, you grant that same right to the fascist that you offend, and he gets to use it much more broadly than you ever would. When you defend that fascist’s right to speak, you strip him of his power to infringe on your rights, as well as the rights of everyone else.
Whoa there. It was your hypothetical of a tolerant society. I am just asking questions. Questions which you curiously didn’t answer.
Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don’t keep their ideas to themselves. They, on the other hand, they will kill me no matter what I do. Its not the only difference, but it is important one.
I like to say I have no problem if you want to salute a picture of Hitler every night. As long as you keep your ideology to yourself.
Also, it’s not about offense, it’s about outcomes. History shows that really bad stuff (genocide) happens when fascists take power. The bad stuff is also a logical outcome of their ideology, so we will never have a good fascists government or ideology. This has been covered over and over in philosophy, it’s a very well known thing.
Finally, the tolerance and non-violence arguments you are using empowers fascists and racists, not because they believe in those things, but because it is beneficial for a society to believe those things for fascists and racists to take power. Once they have power or while they gain it, it is easy enough for them to direct hate to a target group and get rid of the idea of tolerance and non-violence.
So what I am saying here, is you are making some new friends by posting this stuff. Yay!
Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don’t keep their ideas to themselves.
Hitler only used violence on public enemies that didn’t keep their ideas to themselves. You don’t seem to comprehend that whatever authority you grant yourself, you also give to the fascists. When you allow yourself to silence your enemies, you allow them to silence their enemies, including you.
History shows that really bad stuff (genocide) happens when fascists take power.
Which is why I am begging and pleading with you not to grant anyone that power, not even yourself. Because as soon as you claim it for yourself, you give it to them as well.
Do not wield a power you do not wielded against yourself.
Have I demanded a non-violent approach? I don’t think so. You have not identified an acceptable point at which violence may be used, which is why I haven’t discussed the possibility of violence.
So far, the actions you have discussed are far more egregious than those of the people you have identified as your enemies. So far, you are answering “unpleasant speech” with a physical attack. That is not a reasonable response.
So now we are just throwing away the hypothetical you brought up and you are just ad-homing me. Great! Well, I had hoped there was a good argument behind your edginess, but seems like it is just edge and inexplicably covering for fascists.
What did I say that was an ad hominem? You raised a point:
Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don’t keep their ideas to themselves.
I am rebutting the point that you raised. You indicated you would use violence if they didn’t keep their ideas to themselves. I took that to mean you would commit violence in response to their speech. My argument was that an inciting “speech” was not sufficient to justify a violent response, and that such a violent response is more egregious than the inciting speech.
That is not an ad hominem. I am not rebutting your argument on the basis of you being a bad person. I am arguing against the idea you raised, not you as a person.
Ohh, so we are presupposing a tolerant society? Then yeah, that would work. But to an extent that is an impossibly. Somehow the racists and fascists would have to wake up tomorrow no longer being those things and then no new person could become those things. Not sure how that would happen without violence of some kind. So you have a chicken and egg problem.
Why?
Why do we need that sort of people to stop existing? Why do we need to exterminate them? Why do we need to load them up in boxcars and ship them off to death camps?
You’re not quite understanding that those racists and fascists only have those powers that society would use against them. When society decides that words alone can never justify a suspension of rights, that curtails the ability of the fascists who want that power much more than it affects anyone else.
When you demand the right to silence and suppress a fascist who offends you, you grant that same right to the fascist that you offend, and he gets to use it much more broadly than you ever would. When you defend that fascist’s right to speak, you strip him of his power to infringe on your rights, as well as the rights of everyone else.
Whoa there. It was your hypothetical of a tolerant society. I am just asking questions. Questions which you curiously didn’t answer.
Listen, I will tell you a big difference between me, racists, and fascists. I only use violence if they don’t keep their ideas to themselves. They, on the other hand, they will kill me no matter what I do. Its not the only difference, but it is important one.
I like to say I have no problem if you want to salute a picture of Hitler every night. As long as you keep your ideology to yourself.
Also, it’s not about offense, it’s about outcomes. History shows that really bad stuff (genocide) happens when fascists take power. The bad stuff is also a logical outcome of their ideology, so we will never have a good fascists government or ideology. This has been covered over and over in philosophy, it’s a very well known thing.
Finally, the tolerance and non-violence arguments you are using empowers fascists and racists, not because they believe in those things, but because it is beneficial for a society to believe those things for fascists and racists to take power. Once they have power or while they gain it, it is easy enough for them to direct hate to a target group and get rid of the idea of tolerance and non-violence.
So what I am saying here, is you are making some new friends by posting this stuff. Yay!
Hitler only used violence on public enemies that didn’t keep their ideas to themselves. You don’t seem to comprehend that whatever authority you grant yourself, you also give to the fascists. When you allow yourself to silence your enemies, you allow them to silence their enemies, including you.
Which is why I am begging and pleading with you not to grant anyone that power, not even yourself. Because as soon as you claim it for yourself, you give it to them as well.
Do not wield a power you do not wielded against yourself.
Hey, I will stop being violent when there is no need to.
Speaking of which, did you want to answer my question about your hypothetical?
What would a tolerant non-violent society do with a bunch of fascists attempting to gain power to do violent activity?
If you have non-violent solution to this, I would happily change my stance.
Have I demanded a non-violent approach? I don’t think so. You have not identified an acceptable point at which violence may be used, which is why I haven’t discussed the possibility of violence.
So far, the actions you have discussed are far more egregious than those of the people you have identified as your enemies. So far, you are answering “unpleasant speech” with a physical attack. That is not a reasonable response.
.
So now we are just throwing away the hypothetical you brought up and you are just ad-homing me. Great! Well, I had hoped there was a good argument behind your edginess, but seems like it is just edge and inexplicably covering for fascists.
What did I say that was an ad hominem? You raised a point:
I am rebutting the point that you raised. You indicated you would use violence if they didn’t keep their ideas to themselves. I took that to mean you would commit violence in response to their speech. My argument was that an inciting “speech” was not sufficient to justify a violent response, and that such a violent response is more egregious than the inciting speech.
That is not an ad hominem. I am not rebutting your argument on the basis of you being a bad person. I am arguing against the idea you raised, not you as a person.
Ok, then what is your alternative?
You know what fascists will do when they gain power. They will use a ton of violence against their targeted groups. Way worse than punching.
Do you just let them do it?