• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    16 months ago

    Shitty ideas have consequences.

    Most don’t. Most threats are toothless. Most angry words pass. Many people learn and grow, even from just words. Everyone is worthy of redemption. You’ve kind of chosen the worst result you can find to prove the rule, but genocides are more a result of pieces of shit getting into power more than words.

    Regardless. Let’s roll with the nazi angle. Edge cases are fun.

    At what point in time would violence been justified to prevent the bad stuff from happening? Hitler was just using words after all, until he had enough power. Then, well, you know.

    I haven’t studied the rise of him well enough to give you a sane answer. Did he do a full Palpatine - just acted like a kind old man until he started gassing invalids? Or was it clear what his intent was? There’s obviously a line before pumping exhaust into sanitariums.

    Or are you of the opinion that violence should never be used? Like if we saw Hitler 2 coming, we should just talk about it and not do anything violent. Even if it means the same very bad outcomes.

    Direct threats are actionable, and there are times I’m okay violating my own rules mildly - if someone gives my niece or nephew shit for miscegenation I’ll be pretty close to violence.

    I do give wide berth for expression, though. We’re also mixing something else here - the difference between individual actors you can have empathy for and a government meatgrinder.

    The line for intolerance is between bad ideas and outright genocide and the line for the response is between mean words and guillotines. This is kind of my point, though, right? We need to have some function where we can define an ethical response to an unethical action.

    • deaf_fish
      link
      fedilink
      26 months ago

      I am kinda confused while reading your post. It sounds like we agree. I am not by nature a violent person. In fact, I would rather not punch anyone. The problem is that history shows clear a progression when it comes to fascists. Their ideas spread like a virus and people who have not been educated about it are easily convinced, even though there is a bunch of history and philosophical evidence that bad outcomes will happen. Once they gain power, that is it.

      As I am talking with the OP, it seems like they think that violence is never necessary. I think this is incorrect. I think you agree with me on that point at least.

      I think the punching should only happen if they have a big audience or if they are open and loud about it. Obviously try to educate them first. But at the end of the day, if they are just a normal person that doesn’t talk about their politics, and they salute a picture of Hitler before they go to bed. I am fine with that. They don’t need to be punched, they can enjoy society as long as they stay quite about it.

      The problem isn’t the people, the problem is the idea. The people are fine as long as they don’t spread the idea.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        I feel like intolerance is kind of a wildcard. The initial intolerance could be anything from asking an ignorant question to trying to start a genocide, and the responding intolerance is much the same.

        It’s kind of like having a function that ignores the parameters and just gives a random response to intolerance. We agree because we’ve actually mapped the initial action to our reaction, so we know that with this input we get this other output.

        Did I explain my objection well enough this time? I know it’s probably me not knowing how to explain it properly.

        • deaf_fish
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          Yeah, this makes sense. Would you feel better about the this: “It’s ok to punch fascists”? Using the common definition for all these terms. I know this is slightly different from what OP was posting about.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            It depends on the fascist? Common language suggests they’re, what? None of them have real political ideals.

            I’m good with punching people that use slurs or rhetoric to attack others,

            • deaf_fish
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              Fascists want power to hurt people. They think they are making the world a better place by “removing” a “bad” group of people.

              When do you start punching these people? If never, they are going to kill and harm a lot of people.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                16 months ago

                So, you start punching when they get credibly threatening. We let them be fucky and loud and when it gets violent or close to, we do damage.

                • deaf_fish
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Yes, I have no problem with that. I think we only need to target people who spread fascist ideology to a wide and/or large audience. The average fascist Joe, has very little reach and it would look bad if it seemed like random nobodies were being targeted.

                  Edit: When I say the average fascist Joe. I mean the average person who is a fascists. Not anyone named Joe. Sorry for any confusion.