10 ms·
You can't dialog with fascist.
by Zardoz84 6y ago
You can't dialog with fascist.
- ericd 6y agoThe vast, vast majority of people who disagree with the left are not fascists. The urge to label them fascists and make them seem monstrous and unworthy of engagement is the impulse leads to civil war.
- redis_mlc 6y agoI think the GP was referring to the left/DNC. Not only will they not listen to reason, they burned our downtowns, just like Mussolini's fascists, or the Russian Red Terror, around WW2. Make no mistake, the left/DNC are Marxists and fascists. We are in an ideological civil war, and have been since 2012. Anybody who's studied history already knows this.
- cheschire 6y agoI agree, but I would suggest you use the same logic about labelling anyone in any part of the political spectrum then. Using terms such as "the left" might seem less antagonistic than calling someone a "fascist" yet come across just as harshly when read / heard by someone who hears "the left" preached in the 2 minutes hate of their preferred news source.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- FeepingCreature 6y agoYeah but nobody here said "you can't talk with leftists, they're all extremists and closed-minded." edit: At least nobody I've seen yet. People are probably gonna say it (this goes for any "it" as conversation length grows), but I'd expect it to be downvoted.
- cheschire 6y agoIndeed the assertion can be construed as part of the label itself. What I'm saying is that just because a person uses a label without additional assertions, there are many blanks filled in by the reader / listener based on their own daily inputs. So regardless of the HN crowd's restraint when using labels, the labels themselves can carry unintended implications.
- XorNot 6y agoPeople have been real happy to say "extreme left and extreme right" and yet mysteriously seem to have no idea who the extreme left actually is. Fascist is not just "extreme right" it's a specific political ideology or goal. The extreme left is therefore ??? Because while the US certainly has a small following of communists like how every country has a small following of everything, they're certainly not the group which attempted to seize the Capitol building on January 6.
- dexterdog 6y agoThat's exactly something a fascist will say about someone who he disagrees with but it's incapable of debating.
- SiVal 6y agoYou know, you can call those who disagree with you "fascists" while being the actual fascist who doesn't tolerate any dialog.
- pii 6y agoI know you are but what am i
- peepohpoopah 6y agoYou can dialog with fascists, monarchists, communists, anarcho-sydicalists, theocrats, trans-human techno utopianists, and those who welcome our insect overlords. You can't tweet at them though.
- dmingod666 6y ago1) What metric do you use to define fascists? 2) How do you determine that a specific person you're dealing with can be specifically categorized into that bucket? 3) Are you calling them that name because it accurately defines that person's identity and behavior or is it because this tag is a really easy tag to slap onto people so you can deal with them very easily without having to think too much.. Like if I call someone a simp, beyond me insulting him and conveying I don't like him, it doesn't really mean anything.. not like he's going to become one (whatever that would mean) because I called him that..
- laurent92 6y agoScience. Science is an excellent framework. This is where what you call “fascists” try to lead you all the time. We revert to science because leftist don’t recognize our lived experiences don’t seem to matter to you (e.g. a daughter raped by people who should have been already in prison, was liberated out of ideology, and said he had no good intention in our country), so we come back to statistics to try to sort the emotions out of rational thinking. It is as if leftists didn’t recognize our emotion towards the rape victim, so we come back to factual things. Science is an excellent framework, leftists are very good at it when it’s about criticizing the opponent, and we are very good at it when we want to criticize the PC of the moment. Now we need to converge. Please don’t despair. Please don’t give up discussing and trying to sort out truth from pollution.
- Griffinsauce 6y agoRailing against the word "fascist" by attacking "leftists" is not a very effective approach, especially if you truly seek unity. (which HN guidelines force me to have to assume here)
- refurb 6y agoIf you encounter a fascist in the morning, you encountered a fascist. If you run into fascists all day long, you’re probably the fascist.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoI mean, it is said that you are the average of the five people you know best, so this is probably correct.
- pii 6y agoWow, all these Mussolini fans. Who knew?
- smsm42 6y agoThere are usually two steps here: 1. Declare people who disagree with you fascists 2. Declare that it's impossible to dialogue with fascists Then it all becomes very easy.
- k4c9x 6y agoNo, it's: 1. Declare people that want a fascists form of government fascists 2. there is no 2. It's not word play, it's just facts.
- ttt0 6y agoYou mean like corporatism? I don't think I ever saw anyone arguing for that besides left-wingers. Not explicitly at least. Or do you mean fascist as a slur, ie. anything I don't like?
- lamp987 6y agoCorporatism isnt argued for by leftists. Far left especially generally strongly opposes class collaboration. So much so that Stalin declared Social democrats "social fascists" (see wiki article, its quite funny how retarded it is).
- albedoa 6y agoAre those really the only two meanings of fascism you can think of.
- smsm42 6y agoNot sure what you mean by "fascists form of government"? Something like Italy in 1924-1945? I don't think there's any political power that advocates anything like that, and I am sure that at least 99.999% of daily use of terms "fascist" and similar ones are not directed at people who advocate appointing Il Duce and advocating government after Mussolini's example.
- ncallaway 6y ago
- numpad0 6y agoMaybe that’s true. But you can program and neutralize would-be fascists with upvotes and downvotes. Like seriously literally.
- ttt0 6y agoA clear case of projection and most likely also a straw man. How else are you supposed to respond to a comment like this?
- brigandish 6y agoIt's an irony that the kind of free speech you appear to support (and please correct me if I'm wrong) existed in fascist states like Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, because, as Chomsky points out here[1] "Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked". I'd suggest you might try the other path, as Chomsky also suggests: > “If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech. > There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.” [1] https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE?t=408 https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE?t=408
- smsm42 6y agoIf you want a definite proof you're wrong, read this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a7489596.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-kl... This is the story of Daryl Davis, a black man who convinced 200 KKK members (yes, real violent racists, not just people who disagreed with you on tax rates) to change their ways. If a black man can do it by talking to KKK members, maybe it's after all possible for you to dialogue with your neighbor about tax rates?
- NaturalPhallacy 6y agoNevermind that Daryl Davis has literally converted over 200 KKK members: https://www.rt.com/viral/371340-meet-black-man-kkk/ https://www.rt.com/viral/371340-meet-black-man-kkk/ THAT is how you beat fascism. Not censorship. Lazy programmers trying censor via bits and bytes are never going to accomplish in a million years what Mr. Davis already has.
- caslon 6y ago200 people isn't very much. Twitter has 192 million users. Assuming (extremely generously given that twitter is on the Internet and has a userbase that skews younger) that twitter matches America's partisan divide, it probably has around 90 million users. It seems unlikely that at least a thousand people out of 90 million aren't gullible enough to be swayed by hellbanning.
- NaturalPhallacy 6y agoShow me proof that twitter censorship has converted even ONE racist/nazi and I'll entertain this notion. "it seeming unlikely" hardly compares to a man with 200 trophies to prove his method works.
- caslon 6y agoHellbanning has a history of working well for deradicalization of online communities that were a lot worse than twitter is; Jeff Atwood has a good post giving a brief look at the history of it: https://blog.codinghorror.com/suspension-ban-or-hellban/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/suspension-ban-or-hellban/
- NaturalPhallacy 6y agoThat's not proof that any one actual person was deradicalized, which was the metric. Mr. Davis has 200 examples. I'm only asking for one. His method works. The deplatformers' citation of their own platforms only proves that they control their own platforms, not that any extremist view was changed.
- glogla 6y agoJean-Paul Sartre has a good quote on this - he framed it around anti-semitism but it covers othes as well, it might as well been written about QAnon or COVID deniers: Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
- hef19898 6y agoToday they complain about being cancelled before going silent. Very good quote.
- NaturalPhallacy 6y ago>Today they complain about others who were silenced before they themselves are silenced. FTFY! Which ironically runs right into the famous poem: >First they came for the Communists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Communist >Then they came for the Socialists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Socialist >Then they came for the trade unionists >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a trade unionist >Then they came for the Jews >And I did not speak out >Because I was not a Jew >Then they came for me >And there was no one left >To speak out for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- hef19898 6y agoI am not sure what you opinion is. The poem you quoted is aimed at true, real, historically existing Nazis. So it is less applicable at people with somewhat similar views complaining about being called out. Calling them out and confronting them is exactly what the poem advocates for. The same goes for your post about tolerance towards intolerance. And then you complain about anti-white racism, which is not a thing. Care to elaborate?
- koonsolo 6y agoI partly agree with you. You cannot convince a person with an extreme view (see flat earthers for example). But I do believe you need to give reasonable responses to extreme views, to prevent others from becoming extreme. Calling someone "fascist" is in that sense never constructive. Reasonable views are hard to argue with.
- XorNot 6y agoJean-Paul Sartre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
- throwawaygulf 6y agoMarxists can't open dialog.
- roninhacker 6y agoYes, apparently not.
- lamp987 6y agostep 1: declare people you dont like fascists step 2: declare that you cant debate fascism step 3: ... step 4: censorship and violent supression time
- dang 6y agoPlease do not post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN. This thread is terrible enough without being pushed deeper into hell like this. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26432620.