“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Emily's Cat]

Well, they are comparable, but dramatically different in motivation. Christianity and Islam are religions that are (at least in theory) about love and tolerance. Fascism is more along the lines of hate and intolerance, setting a de facto adversarial challenge to all comers that would likely be absent in a disagreement with a Priest or Imam.

The much larger issue is creating a breathalyzer controlled laptop. It's unnerving to see posts that one does not recall making, and there was evidently a comprehension issue on my part with caveman1917's query.
I'll just sit quietly over here...

No worries.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fascism by its nature is a naked threat to...well, everyone except fascists.

Islam by its nature is a naked threat to... well, everyone except muslims.

How is that different?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Agreed on one main point: it's not an issue of free speech or dissenting opinion with these cats. They are against basic humanity, IMO. Their extreme position warrants extreme response.

If I decide that in my opinion, you are against basic humanity, does your reason then grant me license to physically assault you?

 

[Thermal]

Islam by its nature is a naked threat to... well, everyone except muslims.

How is that different?

Because Muslims threaten no one, and seek to live in Peace with God (extremists aside, as always). I get your point, but fascists directly threaten the rights and well being of large chunks of the population. Their philosophy is based on hate; there really are no kind fascists, as there are kind Muslims. A few Islamophobes may irrationally think Muslims are a universal threat, but a fascist can be empirically demonstrated to be.

 

[Thermal]

If I decide that in my opinion, you are against basic humanity, does your reason then grant me license to physically assault you?

That's a fair question, and has been raised many times in different ways. I think the universally abhorrent nature of a fascist puts them into a unique category, shared with maybe child-raping advocates. It's not really a question of what one personally thinks is right or wrong; fascists are wrongness personified and the declared enemy every principle America is based on.

Hopefully you cannot demonstrate that I am the enemy of free people everywhere who unabashedly advocates denying the human rights of others? I can do so (arguably) with a fascist.

 

[varwoche]

That's a fair question, and has been raised many times in different ways. I think the universally abhorrent nature of a fascist puts them into a unique category, shared with maybe child-raping advocates. It's not really a question of what one personally thinks is right or wrong; fascists are wrongness personified and the declared enemy every principle America is based on.

Hopefully you cannot demonstrate that I am the enemy of free people everywhere who unabashedly advocates denying the human rights of others? I can do so (arguably) with a fascist.

Therein lies the problem. There are those in this country who think this way about people who work in abortion clinics, for instance.

 

[Mycroft]

Therein lies the problem. There are those in this country who think this way about people who work in abortion clinics, for instance.

Or gay people, atheists, people of different religions, communists, capitalists... Basically anyone who has a worldview that is profoundly different from other peoples.

Cripes, just check out the political forums here. Just the Democrat/Republican divide generates a huge amount of animosity, each believing the other to be dishonest, corrupt and evil.

 

[sadhatter]

That's a fair question, and has been raised many times in different ways. I think the universally abhorrent nature of a fascist puts them into a unique category, shared with maybe child-raping advocates. It's not really a question of what one personally thinks is right or wrong; fascists are wrongness personified and the declared enemy every principle America is based on.

Hopefully you cannot demonstrate that I am the enemy of free people everywhere who unabashedly advocates denying the human rights of others? I can do so (arguably) with a fascist.

If you acted on your view and I was there, I would physically step in to stop you as I believe violence against speech is wrong.

I'm not a Nazi or a fascist, how would you react to me?

If you wouldn't attack me as well it seems you ate only willing to attack if you know you will win, cowardly.

If you would then your group of people you would attack extends beyond fascists and nazis.

Your philosophy seems to put you in quite the moral conundrum.

 

[Thermal]

Therein lies the problem. There are those in this country who think this way about people who work in abortion clinics, for instance.

Or gay people, atheists, people of different religions, communists, capitalists... Basically anyone who has a worldview that is profoundly different from other peoples.

Cripes, just check out the political forums here. Just the Democrat/Republican divide generates a huge amount of animosity, each believing the other to be dishonest, corrupt and evil.

Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category. Gays, Republicans etc may be seen as 'bad', but none present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others; I think that makes a difference.

 

[dasmiller]

Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category. Gays, Republicans etc may be seen as 'bad', but none present a demonstrable and acknowledged threat to the rights and freedoms of others; I think that makes a difference.

If fascism were universally abhorred, then it would have no supporters and there would be no need to debate how to best oppose it.

 

[Belz...]

Very valid points when someone is trying to find the line, but the universal abhorrence of the fascist puts them in their own category.

Not as universal as you think:

Apparently fascism (like communism) was originally seen as a natural evolution of--and improvement over--liberal democracy. This was before the NSDAP ruined it for everybody with their racism and violent expansionism, of course.

So maybe it's time to reclaim fascism? Nationalizing of all major industry. Overcoming class differences by celebrating national unity. Encouraging assimilation of immigrants. Thanks to Hitler, fascism was never really given a chance. We know how communism turned out, but we should consider giving fascism another try.

Not at all. You asked whether we could come up with a better system. I think it's an interesting question, and I think the European experiments with fascism in the 1920s and early 1930s are a good starting point for discussing it. Especially considering that fascism really was seen at the time as a potential solution to the problems of democracy.

Today we think of it as a throwback, but then they saw it as a potential evolution in human affairs.
I think the experience of the Nazis has prevented several generations from actually looking at fascism with a critical eye, as a system of government that just like democracy tries to find the best combination of trade offs for the greatest good.

 

[Thermal]

If you acted on your view and I was there, I would physically step in to stop you as I believe violence against speech is wrong.

I'm not a Nazi or a fascist, how would you react to me?

Hold up- what do you think my view is? Did you read a little and fill in the blanks to suit your narrative? I don't advocate attacking anyone. And situationally, I would need more info to answer anyway.

If you wouldn't attack me as well it seems you ate only willing to attack if you know you will win, cowardly.

Ridiculous. One could attack someone (I don't) but hold off others who interfere. For instance, I step into/break up any fight I come across, and sometimes the friends of the fighters will try to hold me back ('It's not your business'), but without attacking me directly. Does this need more explanation?

If you would then your group of people you would attack extends beyond fascists and nazis.

Again, ridiculous. If your attack was as threatening, or more so, than whoever was doing the fighting, I would fully be within my rights to defend myself against you. If the situation was like Berkeley, which I see as more of a free-for-all, anyone not trying to get away was in it consensually.

Your philosophy seems to put you in quite the moral conundrum.

It does not. You create a simplistic false dichotomy; there are a dozen situational variables that would alter responses (and you wrongly base it on a view that I do not hold).

ETA: you asked in a recent post if I realize that I 'ate Orman and outgunned', could you clarify that?

 

[Thermal]

If fascism were universally abhorred, then it would have no supporters and there would be no need to debate how to best oppose it.

Not as universal as you think:

Yes, but I had said a few posts ago fascism is abhorrent to anyone but other fascists. Prob should have included that in the comment.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but I had said a few posts ago fascism is abhorrent to anyone but other fascists. Prob should have included that in the comment.

Gays are abhorrent to all homophobes. Fascism doesn't seem to be special in that regard.

 

[Thermal]

Gays are abhorrent to all homophobes. Fascism doesn't seem to be special in that regard.

True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.

 

[dasmiller]

True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.

First, I don't acknowledge the "special" here at all. But ignoring that for a moment, you think it's okay to violently suppress the speech of Group X if they're universally abhorred?

If so, it seems that such suppression (if successful) would imply that nobody would be allowed to defend Group X's ideology, so it should be pretty easy to get near-universal abhorrence of them. For pretty much any Group X.

 

[Thermal]

First, I don't acknowledge the "special" here at all. But ignoring that for a moment, you think it's okay to violently suppress the speech of Group X if they're universally abhorred?

If so, it seems that such suppression (if successful) would imply that nobody would be allowed to defend Group X's ideology, so it should be pretty easy to get near-universal abhorrence of them. For pretty much any Group X.

I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.

 

[dasmiller]

I do not. But I would consider an altercation between them to have some pretty extenuating circumstances, leaning heavily in favor of the anti-fascist. Often to the point of excusing the attack, a la jury nullification.

I don't understand your distinction here. Are you saying that violent suppression of a fascist's speech is unacceptable but forgivable?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because Muslims threaten no one, and seek to live in Peace with God (extremists aside, as always). I get your point, but fascists directly threaten the rights and well being of large chunks of the population. Their philosophy is based on hate; there really are no kind fascists, as there are kind Muslims. A few Islamophobes may irrationally think Muslims are a universal threat, but a fascist can be empirically demonstrated to be.

Christianity: Suffer not a witch to live, crusades, heretics... etc. No religion is free of its own bigotry.

It's not islamaphobia to recognize that the quran includes the concepts of jihaad against infidels, nor to recognize the risk to our way of life presented by adherents to sharia law. It's just as valid a presumption as claiming that all fascists are a threat. Or more to the point, just as *invalid*.

Why don't you back up your claim? Please empirically demonstrate that fascism is a universal threat. Once you've accomplished that, please provide us with a perfect method for identifying a fascist, without the risk of any false positives.

 

[sadhatter]

True enough. But gays are not universally abhorred; they are only so to homophobes. And the gay agenda does not include openly acknowledging taking rights away from others. So maybe still a little special.

But some believe it does, so when out yardstick is belief how do you differentiate? Other than " I'm right because you are wrong" which is nothing more than a school yard squabble.