3 ms·

I think there are three problems with the title: 1. Clickbait exploitation. 2. Conflating people who have sought redemption from past deeds with those who are

I think there are three problems with the title: 1. Clickbait exploitation. 2. Conflating people who have sought redemption from past deeds with those who are jerks for other reasons. 3. Social fascism isn't the proper response to actual fascism. Throwing people away, instantly and permanently, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If people "can never change" when they clearly have, this isn't the sign of a decent, functional, nuanced, or tolerant society in touch with the meaning of words or self-awareness.

cultus 6y ago
It's pretty obvious that this new account is not arguing in good faith, but I'll take a stab anyway. 1. It's a literal description of what happened. He admitted to being a neo-nazi terrorist. 2. He has not sought redemption in any meaningful way, but has instead started a surveillance company. That his conduct has continued to be abusive just shows it is a permanent lack of moral character. 3. I think you might need to adjust your definition of fascism. The "social fascism" you describe dilutes the word of all meaning, which is probably your intent. He helped commit a terrorist act at the age of 17, and continued to be associated with Nazis for some time after. A tolerent and open society means that we cannot tolerate these kinds of people running surveillance companies with government contracts. The reasoning should be obvious. See also, Popper's paradox of tolerance.
- skdjsjkhfkdsjh 6y ago
  >It's pretty obvious that this new account is not arguing in good faith, but I'll take a stab anyway. Not to be a dick but a quick browse of both his/her and your first page of comments indicates you are likely to be the one arguing in bad faith. You have a range of comments on this topic all of which seem to be taking a hard line on one side of things. He/she has one comment on this topic and a range non-inflammatory comments on other topis.
  - cultus 6y ago
    I'll happily take a hard line on coddling Nazis. With some exceptions, my posts are very informative and tend to be well received. I have strong opinions, but I avoid personal attacks except in cases like these. It's also normal to have strong negative opinions on genocide. Every decent person does. It's also pretty obvious that you registered to argue in this thread about whether being nice to Nazis is good or bad. I imagine you wouldn't have wanted me to look at the comment history of your main account.
    - paypalcust83 6y ago
      Conspiracy theories and Godwin's Law award. Could you find something better to do please? Thank you.
  - paypalcust83 6y ago
    It's cool. People gonna people. And as civilization rips itself apart, it's easier and more convenient for most to find scapegoats, be divided-and-conquered, lose touch with reasonableness, and/or bikeshed than seek solidarity, strategy, and reason. "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"." - Orwell

cultus 6y ago

It's pretty obvious that this new account is not arguing in good faith, but I'll take a stab anyway. 1. It's a literal description of what happened. He admitted to being a neo-nazi terrorist. 2. He has not sought redemption in any meaningful way, but has instead started a surveillance company. That his conduct has continued to be abusive just shows it is a permanent lack of moral character. 3. I think you might need to adjust your definition of fascism. The "social fascism" you describe dilutes the word of all meaning, which is probably your intent. He helped commit a terrorist act at the age of 17, and continued to be associated with Nazis for some time after. A tolerent and open society means that we cannot tolerate these kinds of people running surveillance companies with government contracts. The reasoning should be obvious. See also, Popper's paradox of tolerance.

skdjsjkhfkdsjh 6y ago
>It's pretty obvious that this new account is not arguing in good faith, but I'll take a stab anyway. Not to be a dick but a quick browse of both his/her and your first page of comments indicates you are likely to be the one arguing in bad faith. You have a range of comments on this topic all of which seem to be taking a hard line on one side of things. He/she has one comment on this topic and a range non-inflammatory comments on other topis.
- cultus 6y ago
  I'll happily take a hard line on coddling Nazis. With some exceptions, my posts are very informative and tend to be well received. I have strong opinions, but I avoid personal attacks except in cases like these. It's also normal to have strong negative opinions on genocide. Every decent person does. It's also pretty obvious that you registered to argue in this thread about whether being nice to Nazis is good or bad. I imagine you wouldn't have wanted me to look at the comment history of your main account.
  - paypalcust83 6y ago
    Conspiracy theories and Godwin's Law award. Could you find something better to do please? Thank you.
- paypalcust83 6y ago
  It's cool. People gonna people. And as civilization rips itself apart, it's easier and more convenient for most to find scapegoats, be divided-and-conquered, lose touch with reasonableness, and/or bikeshed than seek solidarity, strategy, and reason. "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"." - Orwell