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.
Karl Popper’s Paradox of Intolerance tells society that in order to avoid fascism, we must become fascists ourselves. We must annihilate our enemies, so that society is safe for us. The intolerance paradox is fascism. It’s just a form of fascism that “we” happen to agree with.
The Nazis didn’t think themselves the bad guys. They thought they were doing the right thing for their society. They thought they were protecting themselves, their kids, their way of life. They never bothered to consider the possibility that they would regret their actions just a few years later. They never considered that their grandchildren would despise them for their behavior.
My “alternative” is for everyone to consider the possibility of regret long before committing to violence. To promote the virtues of Freedom of Speech. To celebrate the exercise of our right to speak, in all its forms, even as we denounce what is actually being said.
We answer speech with speech; we answer violence with overwhelming force. A fascist should be able to scream in my face about how much he hates me and wishes I was dead. That same fascist should kill me if I escalate to violence before he does. If you want to destroy a fascist, you can wait until he crosses the line from committing “speech” to commiting “violence”.
Ok, so correct me if I am wrong. The moment right before Hitler 2 gives the order to start gassing the target groups, you will attempt to use violence to stop it. You will wait until then even though Hitler 2 has talked daily about how the target groups are less than human and should be removed from society. All of this talk while Hitler 2 is rising in power and people are starting to follow them blindly.
My friend, by the time you attempt to use violence on Hitler 2 to stop them. It’s too late. You are going to get killed by the police before you get close to doing anything.
If your intent is to minimize violence, this is your score:
A couple of fascists not punched: +10 points
An easily predictable genocide of millions: -10000000 points.
Total: -9999990
My score:
A couple of fascists punched: -10 points
Total: -10 points
If you got something that will get me down to 0. I am willing and excited to hear about it.
You will wait until then even though Hitler 2 has talked daily about how the target groups are less than human and should be removed from society.
Hitler 2 can go ahead and preach that as much as he wants.
All of this talk while Hitler 2 is rising in power
A society that shares my free speech values recognizes that “removing people from society” is an offensive act. They do not share his values, so he never rises to power in the first place.
Fascists can only rise to power when the people demand the right to remove their enemies from society. Which is exactly what you are doing. The powers that fascists need to cause harm are the exact powers that you are demanding for yourself. When you have those powers, so do they. When those powers are denied to you, they are denied to fascists.
A society that shares my free speech values recognizes that “removing people from society” is an offensive act…
Ok, so, we have Hitler 2. They have just formed their options about how they hate whatever group and want them dead. They then go to talk to others about how problematic this target group is. And then everyone just ignore them because they implicitly are aware what Hitler 2 is talking about will eventually lead to violence?
Replace “Hitler 2” with “Fred Phelps” of the Westboro Baptist Church, and you can see how that scenario turned out for Fred. Basically, yes.
In a society that values free speech, the idea of “how they hate whatever group and want them dead” is the antithesis of that philosophy. Any time he “talks to others” about the people he hates, they recognize he is preaching an opinion contrary to that philosophy. Consequently, they shun him, rather than follow him. They leave him to say what he wants, but his speech alienates people instead of helping him consolidate power.
Fascism is destroyed when nobody - not you; not Hitler 2 - has power to silence dissent.
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?
Karl Popper’s Paradox of Intolerance tells society that in order to avoid fascism, we must become fascists ourselves. We must annihilate our enemies, so that society is safe for us. The intolerance paradox is fascism. It’s just a form of fascism that “we” happen to agree with.
The Nazis didn’t think themselves the bad guys. They thought they were doing the right thing for their society. They thought they were protecting themselves, their kids, their way of life. They never bothered to consider the possibility that they would regret their actions just a few years later. They never considered that their grandchildren would despise them for their behavior.
My “alternative” is for everyone to consider the possibility of regret long before committing to violence. To promote the virtues of Freedom of Speech. To celebrate the exercise of our right to speak, in all its forms, even as we denounce what is actually being said.
We answer speech with speech; we answer violence with overwhelming force. A fascist should be able to scream in my face about how much he hates me and wishes I was dead. That same fascist should kill me if I escalate to violence before he does. If you want to destroy a fascist, you can wait until he crosses the line from committing “speech” to commiting “violence”.
Ok, so correct me if I am wrong. The moment right before Hitler 2 gives the order to start gassing the target groups, you will attempt to use violence to stop it. You will wait until then even though Hitler 2 has talked daily about how the target groups are less than human and should be removed from society. All of this talk while Hitler 2 is rising in power and people are starting to follow them blindly.
My friend, by the time you attempt to use violence on Hitler 2 to stop them. It’s too late. You are going to get killed by the police before you get close to doing anything.
If your intent is to minimize violence, this is your score:
My score:
If you got something that will get me down to 0. I am willing and excited to hear about it.
You are wrong
Hitler 2 can go ahead and preach that as much as he wants.
A society that shares my free speech values recognizes that “removing people from society” is an offensive act. They do not share his values, so he never rises to power in the first place.
Fascists can only rise to power when the people demand the right to remove their enemies from society. Which is exactly what you are doing. The powers that fascists need to cause harm are the exact powers that you are demanding for yourself. When you have those powers, so do they. When those powers are denied to you, they are denied to fascists.
Good, I am ready to learn.
Ok, so, we have Hitler 2. They have just formed their options about how they hate whatever group and want them dead. They then go to talk to others about how problematic this target group is. And then everyone just ignore them because they implicitly are aware what Hitler 2 is talking about will eventually lead to violence?
Is that right?
Replace “Hitler 2” with “Fred Phelps” of the Westboro Baptist Church, and you can see how that scenario turned out for Fred. Basically, yes.
In a society that values free speech, the idea of “how they hate whatever group and want them dead” is the antithesis of that philosophy. Any time he “talks to others” about the people he hates, they recognize he is preaching an opinion contrary to that philosophy. Consequently, they shun him, rather than follow him. They leave him to say what he wants, but his speech alienates people instead of helping him consolidate power.
Fascism is destroyed when nobody - not you; not Hitler 2 - has power to silence dissent.