4 ms·

> Why should we stop? Where I live (NW Europe) this sentiment is almost exclusively echoed by members of the refreshed "neoconservative/nationalistic" right win

> Why should we stop? Where I live (NW Europe) this sentiment is almost exclusively echoed by members of the refreshed "neoconservative/nationalistic" right wing parties. This is the 2nd post ignoring the fact that I have declared I am, in fact, not a member of such a group. Assuming that I'm lying, you'd be correct in holding your stance. Considering I am not lying, you are basically closing in the door to communication and possible expansions of subject matter from someone that's really not an extremist in any sense of the word.

glogla 5y ago
You might not be formally member of such groups, but if you are spreading their values and repeating their propaganda, you're working for them. That would make you de facto member even if you're not de iure member. e: and based on Paradox of Tolerance, shutting down communication with anti-system efforts might be the only way. You can't be tolerant to intolerance, you can't be democratic to anti-democracy, etc.
- ThalesX 5y ago
  Mind underlying where I am spreading the values and propaganda of 'refreshed "neoconservative/nationalistic" right wing parties'? I would like to not do such a thing if possible. I'm quite surprised that so many don't realize that there exists an entire category of people that are not radical, but do hold opinions on some reforms that should be taken, including the quote that started this conversation "our ineffectual administration".
  - glogla 5y ago
    I'm not saying you are. I'm saying that if someone says X and there's groups saying X than expecting that person to be part of that group is kinda normal and not some kind of character assassination. Speaking of ineffectual administration - I think it might be hard for some people to grasp that any bureaucracy is going to look inefficient. The point of bureaucracy is to replace ad-hoc decision making with a repeatable, documented, audited and justifiable process. Ad-hoc "the dictator decides" is always going to be faster.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > if someone says X and there's groups saying X than expecting that person to be part of that group is kinda normal Different groups can support the same policies for entirely different, and mutually exclusive reasons.

glogla 5y ago

You might not be formally member of such groups, but if you are spreading their values and repeating their propaganda, you're working for them. That would make you de facto member even if you're not de iure member. e: and based on Paradox of Tolerance, shutting down communication with anti-system efforts might be the only way. You can't be tolerant to intolerance, you can't be democratic to anti-democracy, etc.

ThalesX 5y ago
Mind underlying where I am spreading the values and propaganda of 'refreshed "neoconservative/nationalistic" right wing parties'? I would like to not do such a thing if possible. I'm quite surprised that so many don't realize that there exists an entire category of people that are not radical, but do hold opinions on some reforms that should be taken, including the quote that started this conversation "our ineffectual administration".
- glogla 5y ago
  I'm not saying you are. I'm saying that if someone says X and there's groups saying X than expecting that person to be part of that group is kinda normal and not some kind of character assassination. Speaking of ineffectual administration - I think it might be hard for some people to grasp that any bureaucracy is going to look inefficient. The point of bureaucracy is to replace ad-hoc decision making with a repeatable, documented, audited and justifiable process. Ad-hoc "the dictator decides" is always going to be faster.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > if someone says X and there's groups saying X than expecting that person to be part of that group is kinda normal Different groups can support the same policies for entirely different, and mutually exclusive reasons.