821
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
821 points (97.5% liked)
Memes
45548 readers
2047 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I’ll never understand this moral handwringing about mob rule.
No one is burning witches. There’s no value to having a bunch of neo-nazi perspectives. They’re not useful, productive or worth platforming.
This. No fucking nazis that should be banned automatically whenever they try to start any community.
Fuckers can stay on true social or whatever the hell trump calls his platform and stay away from Lemmy.
You realize a major purpose of federation is so that content can't be censored so easily by a central authority? This isn't Twitter. If you need a safe space, the fediverse isn't for you.
This is exactly the space for creating all sorts of spaces. No one needs to federate with you here. It's up to instance owners and there's plenty of instances.
Nazi trash can stay entirely off any instance that I'm on and if they show up and nothing is done I'll go elsewhere. Period.
Congratulations! You have made an example of Godwin's Law!
/srs
I apologize if that came off as sarcastic, I genuinely just like it when internet phenomena happen. (Or other memetic funsies)You don't even recognize the danger you are complicit in creating.
Niemöller recognized it, when he said:
Thomas Paine recognized it when he said:
The problem with participating in a mob that attacks Nazis is that the mob isn't done when the Nazis are all dead. The mob is still around, still looking for enemies to oppress.
The idea that it is socially acceptable to oppress an undesirable group is the exact principle that allowed the German people to promote the mob rule of the Nazi party. By the time they realized what they had created, they were forced to support it, even if they were horrified by what they were doing. Anyone questioning the continued need for their mob found themselves an enemy of it, and thus targeted by it.
That's the problem with fascism. It is an extremely attractive idea. Fascism arises when we as a society determine we have the right to suppress anything we don't like, without bothering to consider that nobody is universally liked. When fascism runs out of enemies, it manufactures new ones out of its least liked supporters. The mob you create today is the same mob that will be lynching you tomorrow.
The solution that our grandparents and great-grandparents came up with reiterates Niemöller and Paine. They developed a philosophical principle best summarized as:
When Nazis are talking, the appropriate response is to talk back, not prohibit them from talking. When we ignore them, censor them, or impose silence on them, they win.
You could read Karl Popper's The Paradox of Tolerance.
There's no need to debate Nazism or Fascism with Nazis and Fascists. The education on it should come from historians and those otherwise educated in it.
When we censor Nazis we win. When we let them into our spaces we lose.
I've read it. I reject it.
The critical flaw in Popper's paradox is the assumption that society can accurately recognize and agree on the group of people who deserve to be shunned and silenced. Anyone subscribing to Popper's paradox can claim it supports their own position against the other. That's why it is a paradox.
Popper's paradox suggests that the only solution to fascism is another form of fascism. He suggests the only way to deal with an authoritarian regime is with another authoritarian regime. When both sides subscribe to Popper, they ultimately attack each other, to the death.
The Free Speech absolutist position does not have this problem. When both sides subscribe to free speech, they defend eachother, to the death.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend you while you say it, even as I yell at the top of my lungs that you are wrong and that nobody should be listening to you.
Karl Popper presented the paradox not to justify intolerance of the intolerant, but to show how reasonable, rational people were able to justify the atrocities committed in their name. Like all paradoxes, when we find that Popper's model is paradoxical, we must recognize that absurdity. We must not adopt it, but reject the model that created it, and find a new method that doesn't conclude in paradox. Free speech absolutism is one such approach.
You simultaneously reject it and believe he wrote it to prove how unsustainable it is?
You're entirely wrong. No ideas need to be shared where people don't want to hear them. You are free to speak and I am free to not listen. It's truly a beautiful approach.
Edit: I'd also like to add that the paradox Popper is referring to is that of tolerating intolerance. That's the paradox.
I reject the common interpretation of it, which is that "reverse fascism" is an acceptable response to "fascism".
I give Popper the benefit of doubt by assuming that when he called it a paradox, he was presenting a proof-by-contradiction. In normal circumstances, a model arriving at paradoxical conclusions is proof of the model's failure and a call for rejecting that model. If I assume Popper was not an idiot, I have to conclude that his paradox was not intended to support one form of intolerance over another, but was instead presented to demonstrate the subjective nature of fascism.
I think there is some confusion. Within the context of the paradox, those two sentences are mutually exclusive. The first one supports the paradox, while the second rejects it.
"No ideas need to be shared where people don't want to listen" is a call for censorship; for silencing offensive voices. For creating a space where nothing offensive will be said, on the basis that "nobody" wants to hear it. In suggesting that offensive ideas should not be shared, you are supporting Popper's paradox.
In the context of the paradox "You are free to speak..." Is a call for tolerating the intolerant. When you support my freedom to speak words you deem offensive, you are joining me in rejecting Popper's paradox.
Okay you clearly haven't understood it.
If I am free to speak intolerantly, you are tolerating me. You are tolerating intolerance. The paradox does not apply to your scenario.
It's called the paradox of tolerance. Tolerating intolerance is the paradox. So it says you can't tolerate intolerance.
That makes you intolerant. Your model has called for your own oppression.
I don't think you're missing my point. I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
The German People were following the paradox in 1935 when they denounced people who were interfering with their ideals. They were denouncing people who were trying to harm their ideal society. They were intolerant of those people who were pushing an "alternative" world view that wasn't conducive to the advancement of the public's goals. They felt these people had no redeeming qualities; that they were dangerous and disruptive to society. That they had nothing of any value to say, and that it was acceptable to suppress them. These dangerous, disruptive elements should be intolerated. They should be suppressed and destroyed, rather than allowed to interfere with the purity of German society.
If you present Popper's paradox to the German public in 1935, they will agree with its truth. They will use his philosophy to support their eugenics and genocidal programs: it is vitally important for the German people to fight back against the intolerance of these disruptive influences. Indeed, Hitler presented the same concept in Mein Kampf, and called for intolerance against those he deemed intolerant.
There is no objective truth behind the paradox. Popper's paradox works just as well for justifying your enemy's actions as it does for your own. For that reason, it must be rejected.
No it doesn't. This argument works only if you assume that "intolerance" is something that can be defined as "anyone against anything I'm doing".
If fascists were able to say "they're being oppressive of my desire to exclude them from our society" then that's not a flaw in the paradox but their reasoning abilities. Any philosophy is irrelevant then.
The argument boils down to "it's impossible to know if the opposing side is truly being intolerant." You say it is impossible. I say it isn't.
Close, but not quite. That situation does, indeed, arise, but what I am arguing for is a philosophical model that provides valid results even when applied by my worst enemy.
While we can certainly come up with any number of subjective characteristics distinguishing you from them, there is no objective distinction between your brand of intolerance and theirs. As the subjects of your intolerance, they have just as much a claim to declare you fascist as you have to declare them. The tragedy of Popper's paradox is that it absolutely requires, but does not give any guidance in determining who is the good guy and who is the baddie. In the form commonly presented, It just tells you it is a moral imperative to oppress your enemies. That's a big fucking problem when history eventually determines you were on the wrong side of the issue.
The free speech absolutist does not have this problem. He recognizes that he does not agree with his opponent, but he understands he is not empowered to silence his opponent. This is true regardless of who thinks themselves the good guy.
Popper's paradox calls for fascist reactions to fascism. Popper's paradox calls for the echo chambers and deepens the divisiveness that underpins so many of our societal problems today.
The deep divisiveness comes from the shitty ideas that should have been shunned long ago and instead were left to fester.
You don't care about instances loke Exploding Heads or their awful ideas because you're unaffected by them so you can hold these lofty perfect ideals instead of facing the reality of the situation.
Opposing and shunning hate speech is not fascism and your argument depends on pretending to be unable to see the difference between hate and disagreement.
Allow me to illucidate the simplicity of this in reality:
You continue to ignore historical precedence. Everyone want to think that they would have been Oskar Schindler, but the reality is that if you were a German in 1935, you would have supported the Nazis, just like the overwhelming majority of Germans.
The question isn't whether minstrel shows or homophobic attitudes are hate speech. The question is whether the people holding those opinions can speak them, or whether they should be censored and oppressed.
Silencing someone for holdong a politically incorrect opinion: hate speech.
I'm sorry I didn't realize I was talking to an idiot. That's my bad. That's on me.
"You, person who opposes Nazi ideology, would ackshually support it" Brilliant detective work there pal.
Edit: Also wanted to add but was busy. The Nazi party never achieved anything close to majority support. They peaked at 37% and were declining to 33% during the last free and fair election. No one likes Nazis. Not even Germans in the 30s and 40s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party_election_results