3 ms·
> One problem might be that we teach everyone about the dangers of fanatical explosive totalitarian movements like Hitlerism and Stalinism but not enough about
by kypro 3y ago
> One problem might be that we teach everyone about the dangers of fanatical explosive totalitarian movements like Hitlerism and Stalinism but not enough about “softer” creeping authoritarianism that is less easy to identify or oppose. Both are a risk but the strong man cult type is easier to mobilize people against.
This is entirely the problem in my opinion. When you talk to Europeans you'll notice they tend to be very concerned about the dangers of things like extremism and hate speech, but not at all about state authoritarianism. But why is that? I'd argue that today your life is much more likely to be ruined because you hold the wrong social opinions or political views rather than your neighbour denying the holocaust[1].
And there is an ugly righteousness developing here too. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to defend people's right to dislike Islam or be homophobic, for example. A lot of Europeans genuinely believe these views are so evil that people deserve to be punished for holding them.
But how can I really blame them? The media here constantly reminds us about the dangers of terrorist and and extremism. It constantly tells us how evil it is to hold certain opinions. And most people don't reason about this stuff from first principles. They just assume that the extremism is a threat so end up contributing to the problem by demanding the state does more to suppress our freedoms.
It's difficult to see this getting better and if it did it would be because we put equal effort into warning about creeping authoritarianism. Obviously this isn't going to happen, but that is the solution.
[1] I'll note that I'm referring explicitly to the illegality of holocaust denialism here. I'm not talking about people who deny the holocaust and are planning to commit mass murder. The difference here is someone who holds unfavourable views vs someone who's genuinely a danger to the public.
---
Legal note: I do not support any hateful ideologies, but I do believe people should be free to express views which may be considered hateful. My comments are not intended to undermine how awful holocaust denialism is in any way.
- hef19898 3y agoYour neighbor denying the holocaist, sticking with your example, are the people that would allow a government to become oppressive.
- api 3y agoHere’s an analogy: Populist demagogues becoming dictators or the rise of fanatical cult ideologies are like hurricanes and tornadoes. They can start quickly, hit hard, and do a ton of damage. They are also easy to spot and there are known ways to respond to them. Creeping bureaucratic authoritarianism and the slow erosion of democracy is like climate change. It ebbs and flows but mostly flows, but the trend is slow and on any given day it feels like everything is fine. By the time it gets bad enough to really hurt your democratic institutions are pretty far gone and the situation may not be easily recoverable. They’re also not mutually exclusive problems. As climate change progresses you can get more and stronger hurricanes. In the same way the erosion of democracy and the growth of unchecked autocracy creates a situation that is ripe for the rise of demagogues.
- kypro 3y agoThanks for sharing. I really like this analogy.
- jimmner 3y ago> And there is an ugly righteousness developing here too. I'm finding it increasingly difficult to defend people's right to dislike Islam or be homophobic, for example. A lot of Europeans genuinely believe these views are so evil that people deserve to be punished for holding them. Indeed, and I find it quite strange that it's usually the same people blindly defending Islam as are fighting homophobia. If they'd taken even a cursory glance at what Islam actually preaches, they'd see it's one of the most homophobic religions out there.