4 ms·

*for being fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide, but okay.

smhost 8y ago
hn has become such a dumpfest of cryptofascists thinking that they are 9000 IQ brain geniuses and that no one can see through what they're trying to do.
tux1968 8y ago
I don't think that's true. There are many cases of this happening where the person could not be called a fascist at all. (Look at the case of Sargon for instance). If you asked the Chinese government, i'd bet they feel 100% justified that the people on their blacklist are subversive and dangerous too.
sharpneli 8y ago
And in communist countries its for being bourgeois imperialists who are pushing an ideology that directly leads to oppression of the working class. Unless one basically says ”But the difference is that our ideology is actually correct and theirs is wrong”. That leads to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with that kind of oppression in itself, but only if the targets are the wrong targets.
dleslie 8y ago
A price of freedom and tolerance is that you must share it with people you don't like. And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - dleslie 8y ago
    Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible. > 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 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      People will, of course, disagree on where the threshold is where violence becomes acceptable. They'll also disagree that it's "violence" to refuse to enter into a business relationship with someone.
      - dleslie 8y ago
        Indeed, what constitutes violence isn't a universally shared understanding.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Do let me know when PayPal starts beating up customers as part of their offboarding process, and I will probably object to such behavior. It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument".
      - dleslie 8y ago
        PayPal drains linked bank accounts and locks funds. ;) http://www.paypalsucks.com/ http://www.paypalsucks.com/
- fixermark 8y ago
  > And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom. By, for example, refusing to give economic support or a privately-owned platform of speech or press inches to fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide. Inherent in the freedom of the press is the freedom to control what the press you own publishes, and inherent in the right to peaceably assemble is the right to refrain from assembling with those you do not choose to support (be that assembly one of common protest or simple commerce).
  - dleslie 8y ago
    Sure, that's something you could do. I'm wary because I believe that such behaviour tends to cut both ways, in the long run. I'm old enough to remember, and remain disgusted by, that LGBT organizations struggled to import goods or coordinate with financial institutions. Perhaps the act of suppressing wrong think is indeed cutting both ways, now. Conservatives are reaping what they sewed.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      This is my perception. And ultimately, if a group is so isolated that their situation becomes actually indistinguishable from oppression or occupation, we have law for that; The Civil Rights Act was passed in part because letting the market decide doesn't work when an entire town or state is racist. But society has a vested interest in people being judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin or their gender. Society has no vested interest in bolstering the strength of people who should be judged on the content of their character. Avoid the error of logic that conflates the tool with the use of the tool. Societal censure and giving people no more than what the law says we must give them is a completely appropriate response to the bigot, the fascist, and the misogynist.
      - dleslie 8y ago
        But to have our freedoms we must tolerate sharing them with those we don't like. For instance, if right wing populism gains ground will the use of economic pressure turn upon progressive groups, without legal recourse? The tools of oppression aren't necessarily bound by ideology, after all.
lykr0n 8y ago
More like having an idea that doesn't perfectly align with what the very vocal radical minority believes in. Actual fascists and what people call fascists online are worlds apart.

hn has become such a dumpfest of cryptofascists thinking that they are 9000 IQ brain geniuses and that no one can see through what they're trying to do.

tux1968 8y ago

I don't think that's true. There are many cases of this happening where the person could not be called a fascist at all. (Look at the case of Sargon for instance). If you asked the Chinese government, i'd bet they feel 100% justified that the people on their blacklist are subversive and dangerous too.

sharpneli 8y ago

And in communist countries its for being bourgeois imperialists who are pushing an ideology that directly leads to oppression of the working class. Unless one basically says ”But the difference is that our ideology is actually correct and theirs is wrong”. That leads to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with that kind of oppression in itself, but only if the targets are the wrong targets.

dleslie 8y ago

A price of freedom and tolerance is that you must share it with people you don't like. And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom.

ceejayoz 8y ago
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- dleslie 8y ago
  Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible. > 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 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. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    People will, of course, disagree on where the threshold is where violence becomes acceptable. They'll also disagree that it's "violence" to refuse to enter into a business relationship with someone.
    - dleslie 8y ago
      Indeed, what constitutes violence isn't a universally shared understanding.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Do let me know when PayPal starts beating up customers as part of their offboarding process, and I will probably object to such behavior. It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument".
    - dleslie 8y ago
      PayPal drains linked bank accounts and locks funds. ;) http://www.paypalsucks.com/ http://www.paypalsucks.com/
fixermark 8y ago
> And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom. By, for example, refusing to give economic support or a privately-owned platform of speech or press inches to fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide. Inherent in the freedom of the press is the freedom to control what the press you own publishes, and inherent in the right to peaceably assemble is the right to refrain from assembling with those you do not choose to support (be that assembly one of common protest or simple commerce).
- dleslie 8y ago
  Sure, that's something you could do. I'm wary because I believe that such behaviour tends to cut both ways, in the long run. I'm old enough to remember, and remain disgusted by, that LGBT organizations struggled to import goods or coordinate with financial institutions. Perhaps the act of suppressing wrong think is indeed cutting both ways, now. Conservatives are reaping what they sewed.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    This is my perception. And ultimately, if a group is so isolated that their situation becomes actually indistinguishable from oppression or occupation, we have law for that; The Civil Rights Act was passed in part because letting the market decide doesn't work when an entire town or state is racist. But society has a vested interest in people being judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin or their gender. Society has no vested interest in bolstering the strength of people who should be judged on the content of their character. Avoid the error of logic that conflates the tool with the use of the tool. Societal censure and giving people no more than what the law says we must give them is a completely appropriate response to the bigot, the fascist, and the misogynist.
    - dleslie 8y ago
      But to have our freedoms we must tolerate sharing them with those we don't like. For instance, if right wing populism gains ground will the use of economic pressure turn upon progressive groups, without legal recourse? The tools of oppression aren't necessarily bound by ideology, after all.

lykr0n 8y ago

More like having an idea that doesn't perfectly align with what the very vocal radical minority believes in. Actual fascists and what people call fascists online are worlds apart.