5 ms·

Seems like a typical mythos of most political movements these days, doesn't it? E.g., "the far-right is our greatest threat". And it's said that e.g., Russia th

Seems like a typical mythos of most political movements these days, doesn't it? E.g., "the far-right is our greatest threat". And it's said that e.g., Russia themselves is no great threat, they're basically an incompetent tinpot dictatorship with a ramshackle military easily beaten by us / our allies. It is the traitors within who "collude with Putin" who are the real problem.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
Intolerant groups are a special problem for societies that wish to be tolerant. A tolerant society must be specifically intolerant of the intolerant to keep being a tolerant society. It's a required bit of looking within to maintain a tolerant society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- starspangled 2y ago
  I wasn't commentating on the rationale behind the thinking or whether it is right or not, just that the idea of the internal enemy is not owned by any one political persuasion. Though I'm sure right-wing groups believe themselves to be tolerant of one-another and their allies and others with similar aims, and that groups that oppose them are intolerant and therefore must be met with intolerance. The paradox of the paradox of tolerance is that you can't claim tolerance by excusing your intolerance with the paradox of tolerance. Or said another way, one man's tolerance is another's intolerance.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
    Nah. The side that actively spouts racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and anti-trans positions is pretty clearly the intolerant one. This is not hard to see unless one is being willfully blind. Which is especially funny given this conversation is happening in response to giving Grok an intentional blind spot.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      Other side will call them intolerant racists too, it is also pretty clear to them.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Congrats, you've bought into the fascist's messaging.
        starspangled 2y ago
        No I haven't.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        https://graphics.social/@metin/113865450624948092 https://graphics.social/@metin/113865450624948092 https://archive.is/g6ElI https://archive.is/g6ElI The intolerance of others is a core part of the fascist playbook.
        starspangled 2y ago
        I didn't say it wasn't.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Creating a false equivalency between intolerance of the intolerant and intolerance of others / other groups is a key rhetorical device for fascists. Even if you've walked to this position through "logic" and a concept of perfectly spherical human beings [0], with no steps through fascism, you should be aware of how this position is used by fascists to give themselves a veneer of rationality while painting their opponents as irrational. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow To put it another way: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/578682-adolf-hitler https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/578682-adolf-hitler
orwin 2y ago
It's not though. The mythos of the liberals is way more personnalized, usually assigning moral failings to people who disagree eith them, something like "those people are dumb enough to be manipulated, we ought to explain thing slower/better" "we are on the reason's side". The fondamental attribution error is probably the fallacy for which liberals (authoritarians liberals especially) are the most susceptible to. For the leftist movements, the mythos will either go to a marxist or neomarxist "We oppose the billionaire/landlords/owner class, and must struggle together to put it down, educate yourself and those close to you" or to a more generic anti-system mythos. Furthermore, the left is often egalitarian, and the "traitor in our rank" mythos is mobilized to explain why you are not above X depite being (genetically for nazis, culturally for fascists) superior.
- starspangled 2y ago
  Those sound like enemies within, but what do I know? Liberals / leftists / whatever have non-personal internal enemies (white supremacists, ultra right wing, nationalists, etc), and right wing have external enemies as well as entirely personal internal enemies too. Right wing certainly talks about moral failings. Seems really difficult to quantify to the extent you can just say they don't. We can all come up with examples or handwaved anecdotes of any kind of enemy from any ideology really, so what actual metrics are you using to differentiate these things?
  - orwin 2y ago
    My bad, i shouldn't have used "left" or "right", it has different meaning in different part of the world. I'm not sating paranoia isn't present everywhere, i'm saying one one kind of political ideology use it as a building block of their ideology, and it is fascism. "We are (culturally/genetically) the best, but right now others seems better/won/took advantage of us. The only reason we are not at the top is because we have internal traitors (jew/blochevics/unionist/homosexuals/whatever float your boat). We have to eliminate those" Each time something like this is uttered to justify taking power away from court/parliaments, you'll be looking at fascism. Which can be used with capitalism or with communism (as production methods). The "internal enemy" as a reason to justify taking power away from the court/ignoring human right/taking power away from parliement is fascistic. [0] That's mainly how i differentiate the extreme centre from fascists, their justification. Von Papen/Schleifer removed power from the Weimar parliament because "people are dumb and did not understood how intelligent we are, so we can safely ignore their vote", then Hindeburg installed Hitler, who did the same thing, but stronger, and justified it with the "internal traitor" myth. [0] Trotsky called that "bonapartism", and argued that Stalinism was another heir of that ideology, but here, i think he is simply wrong (as usual), although it is interesting (where lie the fascism roots?). And now, writing about it, i will have to re-read him and think about it more, he might have a point, is fascism an evolution of bonpartism, with a more rigid hierarchical order? :/ fml.

sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago

Intolerant groups are a special problem for societies that wish to be tolerant. A tolerant society must be specifically intolerant of the intolerant to keep being a tolerant society. It's a required bit of looking within to maintain a tolerant society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

starspangled 2y ago
I wasn't commentating on the rationale behind the thinking or whether it is right or not, just that the idea of the internal enemy is not owned by any one political persuasion. Though I'm sure right-wing groups believe themselves to be tolerant of one-another and their allies and others with similar aims, and that groups that oppose them are intolerant and therefore must be met with intolerance. The paradox of the paradox of tolerance is that you can't claim tolerance by excusing your intolerance with the paradox of tolerance. Or said another way, one man's tolerance is another's intolerance.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  Nah. The side that actively spouts racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and anti-trans positions is pretty clearly the intolerant one. This is not hard to see unless one is being willfully blind. Which is especially funny given this conversation is happening in response to giving Grok an intentional blind spot.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    Other side will call them intolerant racists too, it is also pretty clear to them.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
      Congrats, you've bought into the fascist's messaging.
      - starspangled 2y ago
        No I haven't.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        https://graphics.social/@metin/113865450624948092 https://graphics.social/@metin/113865450624948092 https://archive.is/g6ElI https://archive.is/g6ElI The intolerance of others is a core part of the fascist playbook.
        starspangled 2y ago
        I didn't say it wasn't.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Creating a false equivalency between intolerance of the intolerant and intolerance of others / other groups is a key rhetorical device for fascists. Even if you've walked to this position through "logic" and a concept of perfectly spherical human beings [0], with no steps through fascism, you should be aware of how this position is used by fascists to give themselves a veneer of rationality while painting their opponents as irrational. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow To put it another way: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/578682-adolf-hitler https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/578682-adolf-hitler

orwin 2y ago

It's not though. The mythos of the liberals is way more personnalized, usually assigning moral failings to people who disagree eith them, something like "those people are dumb enough to be manipulated, we ought to explain thing slower/better" "we are on the reason's side". The fondamental attribution error is probably the fallacy for which liberals (authoritarians liberals especially) are the most susceptible to. For the leftist movements, the mythos will either go to a marxist or neomarxist "We oppose the billionaire/landlords/owner class, and must struggle together to put it down, educate yourself and those close to you" or to a more generic anti-system mythos. Furthermore, the left is often egalitarian, and the "traitor in our rank" mythos is mobilized to explain why you are not above X depite being (genetically for nazis, culturally for fascists) superior.

starspangled 2y ago
Those sound like enemies within, but what do I know? Liberals / leftists / whatever have non-personal internal enemies (white supremacists, ultra right wing, nationalists, etc), and right wing have external enemies as well as entirely personal internal enemies too. Right wing certainly talks about moral failings. Seems really difficult to quantify to the extent you can just say they don't. We can all come up with examples or handwaved anecdotes of any kind of enemy from any ideology really, so what actual metrics are you using to differentiate these things?
- orwin 2y ago
  My bad, i shouldn't have used "left" or "right", it has different meaning in different part of the world. I'm not sating paranoia isn't present everywhere, i'm saying one one kind of political ideology use it as a building block of their ideology, and it is fascism. "We are (culturally/genetically) the best, but right now others seems better/won/took advantage of us. The only reason we are not at the top is because we have internal traitors (jew/blochevics/unionist/homosexuals/whatever float your boat). We have to eliminate those" Each time something like this is uttered to justify taking power away from court/parliaments, you'll be looking at fascism. Which can be used with capitalism or with communism (as production methods). The "internal enemy" as a reason to justify taking power away from the court/ignoring human right/taking power away from parliement is fascistic. [0] That's mainly how i differentiate the extreme centre from fascists, their justification. Von Papen/Schleifer removed power from the Weimar parliament because "people are dumb and did not understood how intelligent we are, so we can safely ignore their vote", then Hindeburg installed Hitler, who did the same thing, but stronger, and justified it with the "internal traitor" myth. [0] Trotsky called that "bonapartism", and argued that Stalinism was another heir of that ideology, but here, i think he is simply wrong (as usual), although it is interesting (where lie the fascism roots?). And now, writing about it, i will have to re-read him and think about it more, he might have a point, is fascism an evolution of bonpartism, with a more rigid hierarchical order? :/ fml.