The elephant in the room in many current attempts to encourage "diversity" is that a genuinely diverse range of opinions and/or beliefs ends up being not welcome at all.
Let’s be blunt, when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot. Of course nobody says that so directly- they use dog whistles so that people who are being attacked know to leave while the bigots retain a veinier of civility so they can radicalize others by saying “look how hostile and irrational that group got over my innocuous sounding statement.”
Maybe you think spaces would be better if we allowed unmoderated bigotry in the name of free speech, but a practical consequence is that when the bigots move in, the people that they are targeting go away. The end result isn’t “diversity of thought” and it was never intended to be- it just ends up being one more space where people get bullied into leaving.
"And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, “We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,” I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective."
- President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot.
> - President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot.
If you a actually read the article you quoted, the main argument he’s making is essentially “well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”. That may or may not be true on a college campus (and at a public college the argument is likely immaterial because a government run institution is, and should be, bound by free speech in ways that private forums are not and should not be).
Open source projects and technical communities are different- they have different goals, needs to operate under different constraints, and so should behave differently.
I have read it many times. I really like it, which is why I quoted it. I also think moderating communities is a hard problem and I don't think private forums should be open to all forms of speech. In fact I only read forums which are heavily moderated. What I disagree with is your statement that
"...when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot."
Supporting diversity of opinions and being a bigot are very different things. As can be seen with Obama. Labeling any one who disagrees with you on the topic of free speech as a bigot is A) rude, dismissive and B) not an effective argument. Its easy to think you're right when you assume the other side is racist.
> Its easy to think you're right when you assume the other side is racist.
The crux of my experience is that when the thing people disagree with you on _isn’t_ racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc. then they tend to directly name and openly discuss the subject of their disagreement. The general and innocuous sounding term “diversity of thought” tends to get brought out when the opinions themselves are one of those opinions that people don’t want to admit to so openly.
If people are going to disagree about a choice of software license, or technical architecture, or copyright assignment, or even about moderation standards and free speech, they tend to just directly name the thing they are disagreeing about (as we are now).
I’ll give some ground here and say that in some cases “diversity of thought” isn’t raised because the particular person raising the thought wants to say bigoted things, but at the very least it tends to get trotted out to defend speech that ends up driving people away because of either direct overt bigotry or, more often, a pervasive use of dog whistles.
You know it when you see it, and ultimately it’s going to be a call left up to whoever is moderating the community. Any attempt at a narrow or precise definition leads to disingenuous people exhausting the moderators with endless rules lawyering.
“well, they may be bigots, but you need to learn to argue with bigots if you want to make progress”
In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.
> In my experience, the more opinionated a person is, the less rational they are, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Most bigots enjoy arguing with you, but it doesn't change their opinions.
The implication here is of course that it is only worth talking to those that you can convert to your side, which is of course admitting that you are in fact opposed to diverse thoughts. Are you open to change your opinions or do you only expect others to adjust to your standards?
Of course those calling others bigots and using unionically using dog whistles like "dog whistle" is a very opiniated thing to do. Should we also take those things as a sign of irrationality and not engage with their ideas? Perhaps.
Sure, it's much easier to discount competing thoughts and opinions if you just discard them as bigotry.
If anyone is radicalizing others it is those that treat everyone that does not 100% agree with them as radicals that must be pushed out instead of as people.
What experiences do you have to the contrary? I’ve moderated a few community spaces and this has been the way it’s gone every single time it’s come up for me.
Have you reflected on the fact that all those community spaces have had one thing in common - you moderating them? Perhaps listening to peoples concerns about lack of diversity of thought instead of labeling them bigots would allow you to see things differently. Most people don't feel as strongly about controlling the discourse of others that they end up moderating any not to mention multiple spaces.
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
I find that somewhat short-sighted. Let's use a different example.
Imagine you live in a society that allows personal gun ownership. Obviously, in such a society you still don't want people running around shooting each other willy-nilly, so you make a law: shoot someone, go to jail.
Now imagine someone pulls out a gun and shoots you. Result: you're dead, they go to jail.
However, you'd really prefer not to be dead. So imagine that someone pulls out their gun to shoot you, but then you pull out your gun and shoot them. Result: they're dead, you go to jail. It's what the law says, after all.
This is undesirable to most people because it looks like you've been punished for defending yourself. So we'll change the law: if someone is pointing a gun at you, you can shoot them without going to jail.
Now imagine that someone pulls a gun on you, then you pull a gun to defend yourself, but then they shoot you anyway. Result: you're dead, and they don't go to jail. It's what the law says, after all: you were pointing a gun at them. Oops, it's equivalent to having no law at all! This is the worst form of the law so far, and it's also the same thing as the paradox of tolerance.
The way you solve this is the same way you solve the paradox of tolerance: you say that the initial aggressor does not receive any protections if their own weapons are used against them. This produces a result that matches people's intuitions. This also creates a lesser problem, where people try to toe the line of aggression and goad someone else into making the first move so that they can justly retaliate, but it's still a vast improvement on the situation that intuitively matches how people expect things to work, which just so happens to involve ethics that are conditional on the behavior of others. The condition in this example: violence is acceptable, if it's in self-defense.
EDIT: I see this is being downvoted, would anyone care to explain their reasoning?
The issue I have with this is that you are effectively strawmanning this by proxying an individual's code of ethics with a society's code of laws.
The laws of a society are imposed on you regardless of whether you want them. A person's code of ethics is adopted by choice. The law you are referring to is only unjust because it is being imposed on everyone. A devout monk can be a good person, while a society that forces you to behave like a monk would be tyrannical. The coercion is the difference.
I think you would agree that a person whose code of ethics includes "if I shoot someone, I will promptly report myself to the police for murder" is not an unjust condition at all. However, a society that forces you to live that way in a gun-loving society would be very unjust indeed.
a) someone being shot and someone pointing a gun are very well defined things while what is or is not intolerant is very subjective
and
b) unlike in your analogy, if someone expresses a opinion you consider intolerant then you are not dead, you can still defend your own opinion and counter theirs and most importantly you have not been harmed irreparably.
I don't agree at all with the gp or the use of the "paradox of tolerance" to shut down those you agree with, but I agree even less with discounting commings based on their length. Long from responses should be encouraged as they require the commenter to at least put in some time and hopefully some thought as well and also because many things are complex enough that shortening them just to please the twitter-brained loses vital details.
I think a lot of people on HN are just anti gun/very left wing, which may taint their judgement while your example was nice about the initiation of violence being the issue.
Why would I have an issue with people using guns as an example?
It doesn’t work nearly as well with knives, which other people aren’t totally defenseless against (or cars, which are hard to pull out of your pocket in response to someone pointing theirs at you).
Ok, so maybe I couldn’t resist being a little bit snarky, but really, it was a good example.
FYI: contrary to popular belief, these are mutually exclusive.
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." -- Karl Marx
Anyone who advocates disarming the working class and leaving it entirely defenseless against capitalism and the state apparatus it inevitably begets is not leftist, and I'm personally rather tired of pretending otherwise. Gun control advocates might be "left" of the far-right, but that's a stunningly low bar.
The paradox of tolerance was aimed at those who would with "fists or pistols" prevent others from sharing their views and was premised on the right of self-defense.
In historical context, it's seems squarely aimed at the paramilitary organizations of various movements popular around the 1930s or so who physically injured people for saying things they disliked.
Welcome to the messy uncodifiable reality of ethics and politics. You can pick a practical code with an exploit or you can pick one that lets you be cut down by anyone that doesn't go along with it.
Or you can try to fix the exploit. At least you can try to notice when people are exploiting it in the wild, which is to a first approximation "every time somebody cites the Paradox of Tolerance".
This is a misquotation. The entire quotation from Open Society is:
> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Note that Popper is not claiming that "fists or pistols" are a necessary condition for not tolerating intolerance: they're a final stage of said intolerance. Popper explicitly says that we might reserve the right to preempt intolerance before it reaches the point of its followers resorting to violence.
The whole paragraph makes it even clearer that he’s talking about people who would shut down free debate, starting with “denouncing all argument.” He’s actually talking about how progressives are today—ranging from declaring some topics beyond debate to “punch a Nazi.”
I think this is the paradox's greatest weakness: whataboutism :-)
Karl Popper is not talking about today's progressives, because he died in 1994. The closest extension we can reasonably draw does not include them either, because Popper exclusively identified totalitarian ideologies with reactionary beliefs[1].
It's very easy to use the PoT as a blunt weapon, and there are some embarrassing applications of it on the political left. But none are quite as embarrassing as suggesting that Popper might seriously entertain "free debate" with a Nazi.
I didn’t say he was talking about progressives today, I said what he talked about is applicable to progressives today. When Popper uses the word “tolerance” he’s talking specifically about people who don’t tolerate a free society with free debate, not people who express intolerant views. For example, the Trump voter who is intolerant of immigrants isn’t “denouncing all argument” about immigration. It’s progressives who do that.
I didn’t say Popper would entertain free debate with a Nazi. My point is that, under Popper’s framework, there’s a huge incentive to declare anyone you don’t like to be Nazis, and reframe speech as tantamount to threats to physical safety.
I've never met a progressive who "denounced all argument" about immigration. Instead, they seem tired of the same handful of (xenophobic) tropes that get trotted out during national discussions around immigration policy: immigrants as social burdens, as criminals, as drug mules, as "anchors" for some dogwhistled demographic replacement, &c.
Those tropes (and the reactionary politics that underlie them) strike me as precisely the kind of intolerance that Popper might have concerned himself with.
(Separately: it's unclear how progressives have satisfied the "intolerance of intolerance" condition here. Are you claiming that progressives have successfully won some on that front of the culture war? Current policy suggests otherwise[1].)
> none are quite as embarrassing as suggesting that Popper might seriously entertain "free debate" with a Nazi
(This really is a genuine question) who is to be allowed to determine if our opponents are that, and hence worthy of what one might call preemptive intolerance?
That is the eternal question. However, I will submit for consideration that the person we're talking about when we use the phrase "punch a Nazi" is, in fact, a neo-Nazi[1].
Dealing more abstractly: I personally think we are justified in practicing "preemptive intolerance" when the party in question (1) has a bad faith (not merely faithless) relationship with the "language" of our political systems, and (2) demonstrates repeated intent to employ the mechanisms of our systems to subvert them. Both conditions are necessary; the absence of the latter makes the individual a LARPer.
You are advocating behavior that is highly corrosive and fundamentally antithetical to the effective functioning of a healthy democracy.
Weimar Germany wasn’t fertile political soil for extremism because there weren’t enough people punching Nazis. In fact, the opposite — pervasive, normalized political violence gave cover to extremists who could then argue that they were justified in escalating their behaviors.
If I were to follow your own ethos (and to be perfectly clear, I do not), I should be advocating punching you in the street, as your ethos represents a bad faith attempt to undermine and subvert our political systems by using violence to control the words and ideas shared by others.
All I've done here is rephrased Popper's words, with some additional conditions. The fact that you don't like it mean that it's in bad faith; I've made no such presumption about you or anybody else in this thread.
And no, that's not what caused the decline of Weimar (and the rise of Nazism). Nazism was preordained by a confluence of political factors, including the need for an easy post-war scapegoat in the form of Jews and other outsiders. 20th century European Fascist movements follow a uniform pattern: the loss of face or sovereignty (Trianon, WWI), followed by irredentism and revanchism towards any group perceived as having either benefited (or merely not suffered enough). Those sentiments culminated in a concerted effort to use newfound civil freedoms to undermine the system itself, chiefly by directing a disposition for intolerance towards those easiest to vilify.
This is all in marked contrast to our current situation and historical context, one where liberal activism has consistently made America freer for increasingly large swathes of its population. We easily forget that you could have gone to jail in 1955 for buying a copy of Ulysses, or been fined for daring to eat a meal with a more privileged race. My sole interest has and will continue to be expanding those freedoms.
We need a new secular code-society, where we separate code from personal beliefs, and assign "societal points" only by merit.
The problem with tolerance and intolerance is, that a few people (a loud minority) think they're the universal good guys, even in cases where their "good thing" is incompatible with itself.
Karl Popper was talking about Nazis and Communists organizing street brawls and putsches, not people insulting each other on Twitter:
> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
As long as nobody is bringing pistols to tech conferences or starting fistfights in the hallways, Popper would not support excluding attendees for having intolerant ideas. Perhaps if contributors to your open-source repository are doxing and SWATting each other, putting lives at risk, then Popper would exclude them. But as long as they're just making offensive comments, Popper would not "claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force." (It might still be better to decline their patches so as to avoid being associated with them.)
I wouldn't go even as far as Popper, because his argument eats itself; as demonstrated in this thread, when people start applying his ideas, Popperism itself becomes an intolerant idea that, according to Popperism, we should suppress by violence. Moreover, any political position that advocates that the government take an action is advocating that some policy be imposed on the unwilling parts of the population by violence.
Much more sustainable is to suppress the violent actors and protect those who are merely calling for violence, while remonstrating with them to change their minds.
> not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Wow, this ironically sounds exactly like the people spouting off about needing to "fight intolerance" in the past couple years.
It's not about labels. Speech that singles other people or groups out for different treatment or is otherwise racist, sexist, etc is intolerant. In a just society, we simply ask that one makes one's point without throwing specific groups under the proverbial bus.
> Speech that singles other people or groups out for different treatment or is otherwise racist, sexist, etc is intolerant.
I think most people can get on board with that. The trouble comes when people start berating others for using words/phrases like blacklist, sanity check, backlog grooming, master, and spaz - just to name a few. 99.9% of people who use these words do not possess the mens rea of bigotry or intolerance.
E.g.: Right now, someone who read your comment is probably enraged on behalf of the people who have been hit by buses. Most of us know you mean no harm by it.
I’m glad you think most people would agree with me, but your follow up example seems a bit unfortunate.
You might not believe that language affects thought or behaviour, but saying so directly might arguably be a better way of making your point than singling out others who disagree with you.
I'm not sure what any of that is supposed to mean. You might be conflating my comments with someone else's because I'm not singling out anyone. Unless you're chafed at my use of your own words -- I assure you, it was meant as a kind word of caution and not as mockery.
> Popper was talking about a very specific case, where the intolerant exploit the tolerance of a society to physically take over that society and enforce their views. Until and unless you have evidence of that plausibly happening, there is no Paradox of Tolerance.
Considering what the USA is going through right now... well, I just have no words.
What Popper probably meant was something more akin to, “don’t be a pacifist when people are starting to resort to violence”. At least that’s my reading.
It’s also interesting that the more extreme version of the “paradox of tolerance” is very close to the legal reasoning used during the Red Scare to justify bans on communist parties.
Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is widely misunderstood to be a licence to be intolerant yourself. For the last time : it is not.
Popper was talking about a very specific case, where the intolerant exploit the tolerance of a society to physically take over that society and enforce their views.
Until and unless you have evidence of that plausibly happening, there is no Paradox of Tolerance. You can perfectly tolerate people who hate women, who hate men, who hate gays, who hate the rich, who hate the poor, who hate any and every religion, ideology, way of life, identity, worldview or personality type. You can tolerate each and every single one of them, you can tolerate infinite number of them, as long they don't try to make reality conform to what they preach.
It's well known in software that a data structure can have infinite readers, but the presence of even a single writer either necessitates that the data structure is completely private to the writer, or an explicit and consistent writing policy needs to be devised to coordinate the writer with the readers and possibly other writers. Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is a restatement of this basic observation in the context of human societies. You can have infinite tolerance and diversity, as long as not a single ideology or group "writes" their conflicting views to society. If you have a group that does that, then you must choose whether you will cede all control of society to that group, or to set a strong writing policy that is much less permissive than infinite tolerance.
Stop using an argument for tolerance as an excuse for intolerance.
> You can tolerate each and every single one of them, you can tolerate infinite number of them, as long they don't try to make reality conform to what they preach.
If you let them say whatever they want on an online forum without any moderation you’ll end up with Voat, or something similar. The intolerant views take over.
Argue all the philosophy you like, practical experience shows that every time someone tries an unmoderated forum in any medium it ends up a cesspit of intolerance.
I didn't know about Voat, sad that it was closed down. I would have loved to try it.
>The intolerant views take over.
This sounds to me like a you problem. You can very well admit that you don't know how to argue and shout back (in whatever style necessary to win), or that your views are so unpopular that you can't defend them unless to a supportive audience, but don't make this some sort of universal law or inevitable tendency. There is nothing about any view that makes it inherently more popular or appealing.
>a cesspit of intolerance.
This usage of 'intolerance' hints that you don't really understand Popper's sense of the word. Popper wasn't talking about what offends you, Popper was talking about people violently forcing you out of a society. There is no intolerance on 4chan or 8chan or any similar platform, literally everyone is allowed there, everyone is just an anonymous unique number. Only your own offence prevents you from participating, which is not anybody's fault. Every single "bad" tech platform, the ones that allow speech that mainstream progressive-dominated US companies love to rave about, only suffer due to external pressures imposed on them, the audience of those services very much like it, and they don't seem to physically force reality or other people to like what they like. The only one doing the forcing here are the self-appointed tolerance defenders, who are so so worried about tolerance that they are willing to freely dispence intolerance left and right to protect it. It's like how pro-war folks say that war protects and preserves the peace: It's indeed very true in a certain narrow sense, but you can't be doing it willy nilly, or you will risk destroying the very thing you claim you want to preserve.
I also don't understand why defending unlimited expresssion of views must imply defending unlimited expression of view without moderation. There is no reason why we can't moderate any ideology at all, see the subreddit r/themotte for example to see a place where everyone from radical feminists to white nationalists expressing their views in moderated threads.
> Popper was talking about a very specific case, where the intolerant exploit the tolerance of a society to physically take over that society and enforce their views.
Where they pose a danger of it.
If you let them do it before reacting, you've already lost, and that's the point.
Anyhow, it's not widely misunderstood, AFAICT, since when it is invoked it is invariably with the strong implication, and usually the explicit statement, that that is the threat being addressed. You might at times question the judgement behind the assessment of the risk, but that's not a misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance.
Whereas your use of “a group of people from multiple ethnicities, genders, sexualities and creeds” is code for:
> People who agree with my political ideology.
A woman of color that held heretical beliefs contrary to your orthodoxy would be no more welcome than anyone else.
It’s telling that you argue that your opponents are “people who want to silence, suppress and destroy anyone not part of the dominant group”, and then immediately turn around use that assertion to justify the necessity of silencing and suppressing those not part of your dominant group.
It would be extremely naive to think that fascism only happened in the 1920s-1940s.
Obviously, todays fascism looks nothing like that of the modern era, just as todays leftists are different.
But it’s back, poisoning our democracies and pushing the world into a new hell. Putin is a neofascist. I could tell you which Americans are fascists, but you all get touchy when anyone brings it up.
Ah yes, the crypto-fascism conspiracy theory - or the blackshirt scare.
There's fascists everywhere. They don't call themselves that, they don't organise under that label, and their views aren't particularly similar to historical fascism - but it's a serious threat! It's so powerful that they have to keep it a secret because they'll be cast out of polite society...
At least McCarthy actually found people spying for the USSR.
> They don't call themselves that, they don't organise under that label
Why would they? Much of our current mythology is based around slaughtering fascists in WW2. Why would anyone identify with that?
> their views aren't particularly similar to historical fascism
Hence the appellation of neofascism. There is a direct thread of political genealogy from the alt-right to the OG fascists, through the European Nouvelle Droite (inspired by Mussolini) and including figures like Steve Bannon who used to push the British BNP: a legitimately neofascist party. He also was buddy with Dugin for a while: a confirmed neofascist.
Read some fucking history and get stuck into the thought and theories of the far right if you want to play this game son.
> it's a serious threat!
Finally, we can agree! Look at the escalating far right violence in the US and Canada, and the erosion of the open society in Europe, and the current actions of Russia and China.
Or how about, instead of that, we recognize that the vast majority of people are not engaging in political violence, revolution, or physically attacking their political opponents, or any of these allegedly horrible things that you think are happening.
And instead of that, we should recognize that most people just want to do work at their workplace, have friends, and live their life, and are not apart of any neo nazi groups that are going to target minorities at the drop of the hat.
Most people, are just regular normal individuals, who are not engaging in horrible actions or attacks against others, and we do not need to be on a witch hunt to find the secret nazis that you think are hiding just around the corner.
My sibling in humanity. I beg you. Read about the history of fascism and its contemporary movements instead of just parroting ill informed bumper stickers, because you’re about half a step away from saying the that the Democratic Republic of Germany was democracy.
Piece of advice - if someone disagrees with you and you want to change their mind don't tell them they are ignorant of history and they get their ideas from bumper stickers.
> Remember, that the other word “nazism” is a short for National Socialism, a purely left based ideology. The two (fascism and nazism) had a good run together as the best friends since they didn’t have a lot of topics to fight about.
This is a grossly inaccurate framing. Hitler and his allies found the socialist party a convenient ladder to power, however were not themselves not particularly leftist. For them the ethno nationalist project was the focus, and eventually Hitler would consolidate his control over the party by literally stabbing to death the leaders of the worker centric wing of the party.
I wouldn't say National Socialism was purely left. It was economically extremely left-leaning and most of their social policies were extremely right-leaning. (Though, racism knows no political bounds... Stalin also practiced genocidal policies.)
It's true that Hitler thought the US's free market economy was a Jewish ideal, and he thought the economic free market incentives (in the form of huge government contracts) would only benefit Jews without efficiently producing war material. The Nazis did have a form of command economy as a result, which turned out to not be as efficient.
I mean, the economics of National Socialism aren't what people usually hate about it, they hate the authoritarianism where you were either their kind of socialist or they would beat you up and cast you out of society, even if you were some other stripe of socialist.
So they became nearly universally hated by fighting anyone who wasn't one of them.
It was ethnostate socialism. It was a command economy where industry was at the service of the people, but they had a perverse idea of who their people were and who they weren't.
It really was a left-wing economic model with extreme right-wing social policy, plus lots of genocide.
> It really was a left-wing economic model with extreme right-wing social policy, plus lots of genocide.
So it was a right-wing political model (with lots of genocide) that happened to have a somewhat left-wing economic model.
In economics, economics ranks above politics, but in politics, politics ranks above economics. And Nazism was (is) a political ideology, not a school of economics.
It's amusing to me that you comment complaining that fascists will seize power given the chance. I have seen the same thought process but pointing at wokism instead of fascism. The parallel is so strong I had to reread your post to double check which side you were arguing to support.
Well, you wasted no time whatsoever in playing the Nazi card.
If you're willing to hear a counterpoint: I disagree wholeheartedly with your worldview, and yet I support your right to express your views. See, I'm not looking to "silence", "suppress", or "destroy" you, even though I disagree with you. Please make a mental note that people like me exist and not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist.
I’m not talking about silencing people I disagree with in terms of opinion. I’m talking about fascists disagreeing that certain ethnic/sexual/gender groups should be alive or allowed to thrive, or have certain rights.
If you think holding views like that is OK, you walk, talk and quack like a fascist.
> I’m not talking about silencing people I disagree with in terms of opinion. I’m talking about fascists disagreeing that certain ethnic/sexual/gender groups should be alive or allowed to thrive, or have certain rights. If you think holding views like that is OK, you walk, talk and quack like a fascist.
That's a nice motte-and-bailey lumping together "should be alive" and "have certain rights". The former is a very specific kind of extreme biggot, and the latter can mean almost anything. You know, words have actual meanings and not everybody who disagrees with you is a fascist. You can look up the definition of the word "fascist" in a dictionary. The definition is a lot narrower than you think. A religious person who opposes abortion is not a fascist. An athlete who opposes trans womens' rights to compete in womens' competitions is not a fascist.
> A religious person who opposes abortion is not a fascist.
I’d call them a theocrat, but lets not forget the close ties between fascism and the church/new political-religious movements in Germany and Italy.
> An athlete who opposes trans womens' rights to compete in womens' competitions is not a fascist.
This one is nuanced because transgender folks being allowed to exist openly is still fairly recent, and openly in sports is more novel still. There are fascists in that camp for sure, but also a lot of reasoned debate needed to work out the cultural niche for trans people in this area. Unfortunately the left will seek to stop any debate, and fascists will poison the debate until trans people are bludgeoned into silence once more.
Holding a view is different than thinking the view is OK to hold.
AND, most people (you'd accuse of thinking the view is ok to hold) don't think these views *are* ok to hold, but are caught in a purposefully wide net.
Like, often we hear that:
* proposition 8 was fascist
* brendan eich is a fascist because he donated to it
* supporting brendan eich is fascist
I agree with marriage equality. (it is actually good conservatism, even!) But I disagree that prop 8 was fascist (and according to some that probably makes me a fascist as well)
The elephant in the room in many current attempts to encourage "diversity" is that a genuinely diverse range of opinions and/or beliefs ends up being not welcome at all.