Tolerance.

[SoulBiter]

Sad to see so many people claiming someone else is pushing hate while simultaneously using violence and intimidation to silence those they disagree with. Free speech is also speech you disagree with.

You think my post was violence and intimidation?!?!

If you don't use, or advocate, violence and intimidation to silence others that you don't agree with, then that sentence doesn't apply to you.

When people argue first amendment ONLY for white supremacists, it's not the first amendment that they are supporting. PLAIN. SIMPLE. FACT

I actually agree with your sentence above. If someone is a White Supremacist or Black Panther or any other fringe hate group, then there is a possibility that they only argue free speech only for their group, although I don't KNOW that they do that. But the same could be said for anyone that wants to silence others that they don't agree with. No one has to be part of or advocate for, any hate group to believe in silencing others they don't agree with and if they do, they are not supporting the First Amendment.

[Cail]

There has never been a single example in the whole of human history in which silencing a group based on their beliefs has worked out well.

[Fist and Faith]

When people argue first amendment ONLY for white supremacists, it's not the first amendment that they are supporting. PLAIN. SIMPLE. FACT.

When people start trying to prevent others from speaking out for ice cream and chocolate cake, I will clearly state that the First applies even to people speaking out for such things. IOW, we defend that which needs defending. It's easy to speak out against Nazism. It's not as easy for some to understand that it is important for a free society to let Nazis speak. Their right needs to be defended, in the hope that the overall right will be better understood. The evil ones are difficult to defend, but it is important to do so. "They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"

[Cail]

When people argue first amendment ONLY for white supremacists, it's not the first amendment that they are supporting. PLAIN. SIMPLE. FACT.

When people start trying to prevent others from speaking out for ice cream and chocolate cake, I will clearly state that the First applies even to people speaking out for such things. IOW, we defend that which needs defending. It's easy to speak out against Nazism. It's not as easy for some to understand that it is important for a free society to let Nazis speak. Their right needs to be defended, in the hope that the overall right will be better understood. The evil ones are difficult to defend, but it is important to do so. "They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"

This. A thousand times.

[Zarathustra]

double post deleted

[Zarathustra]

What is wrong with simply saying that white supremacist are wrong? Why must they also be protested? I think that the white supremacist have lost the argument a long time ago. The amount of fervor with which some people resist them, including riots that turned violent, is disproportional to the amount of influence that these racist have. I have never heard an idea that I dislike so much that it required me to show up armed with a club and wearing a mask. In fact, the protests only elevate the racists' status in society. It riles up their supporters even more and magnifies their effect beyond what they would have if they were simply ignored or mocked or criticized.

[Cail]

I have never heard an idea that I dislike so much that it required me to show up armed with a club and wearing a mask.

Because you're not a zealot.

Protesting with violence is antithetical to everything American. Silencing speech you disagree with is antithetical to everything American. But that's where we are. If we're at each other's throats, trying to make sure our team wins, we'll let our team do all sorts of horrible things. This is how the ruling class gets stuff by us.

It used to be that reasonable people could have reasonable discussions about things they disagreed about. Then the 24-hour news cycle demanded programming to fill 24 hours, and shoutfests like Crossfire normalized screaming at people who disagree with you. Reasonable discourse has gone out the window, and we're less for that.

[Skyweir]

When did tolerance become a negative undesirable? When did intolerance become to ensign standard of appropriateness?

I don't think anyone has said that tolerance is absolutely undesirable. Context matters. If you're tolerating everyone's rights, then it's great! If you are using "tolerance" to mean that we must approve of things that we don't approve, then it's a euphemism for something not so desirable.

Hahahahaha ..is the very definition of "tolerance". Its not "liking" or "promoting" its tolerating.

the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.
"the tolerance of corruption"
synonyms: forbearance, toleration, sufferance, liberality, open-mindedness, lack of prejudice, lack of bias, broad-mindedness, liberalism; More
2.
the capacity to endure continued subjection to something such as a drug or environmental conditions without adverse reaction.
"the desert camel shows the greatest tolerance to dehydration"
synonyms: endurance of, acceptance of; ...

I don't think anyone is making a virtue of intolerance. You have to recognize that there are code words for each side, words that are used for propaganda purposes. "Diversity" and "tolerance" are examples of such words for the Left (the Right has some too). They sound good, but don't really mean what they appear to mean on the surface. For instance, "diversity" is just code for different skin colors, not a diversity of ideas. The Left is all about appearances. They think it's great that people look different, but not so great that we think differently.

As much as some of your points I do agree with Z, I do not believe we can fairly ascribe intent to such a broad group as the innocuous "left". Sure there are some driving a hard agenda that would give credence to some of your assertions .. but an awful lot that don't.

Both sides of politics push their own agendas .. and I really dont think the blame game is adding anything of value ie the left did x .. the right did y .. it concludes after a perpetual circular argument of slagging off each others politics.

That is surely the realm of the Tank ..

Here we are looking at the value or lack of value of the pursuit of tolerance and intolerance, no?

As to the White Supremacy discussion .. its all about messaging. Yes counter protesters hold up message boards saying they are wrong. If in the rare circumstance that someone crosses the line, into criminal behaviour .. the wrong lies with the perpetrator of the criminal behaviour.

Not all who protest White Supremacy are violent. And not all that protest against a womens right to choose are violent. But there are always some fringe dwelling fucked up in the head shit that will bring and pedal violence and hate.

Just as Fist would fight for a White Supremacist's right to protest .. does not imply he agrees with their particular ideological sensibilities .. he tolerates it, in public anyway .. in the privacy of his home, he may not tolerate it. And I agree. We are the gods of our own homes, and we determine what is acceptable or not.

There are things I tolerate but do not enjoy or agree with.

As to protesting with violence .. that is not a right nor even related to tolerance .. and I agree with Wayfriend that mixing 1st amendment right with such activities is a non sequitur.




[/quote]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

When people start trying to prevent others from speaking out for ice cream and chocolate cake, I will clearly state that the First applies even to people speaking out for such things. IOW, we defend that which needs defending. It's easy to speak out against Nazism. It's not as easy for some to understand that it is important for a free society to let Nazis speak. Their right needs to be defended, in the hope that the overall right will be better understood. The evil ones are difficult to defend, but it is important to do so. "They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"

This is how I run The Tank. Maybe now people will understand it, and me, more clearly.

[Skyweir]

Doubtful but hey why not

[Cail]

Here's yet another example of the left's tolerance.

Sky, it's a common refrain that fascism is the domain of the far right. Historically maybe, but certainly not now. The clampdown on speech and ideas that don't conform is completely within the progressive left's playbook.

[Skyweir]

Here's yet another example of the left's tolerance.

Sky, it's a common refrain that fascism is the domain of the far right. Historically maybe, but certainly not now. The clampdown on speech and ideas that don't conform is completely within the progressive left's playbook.

Take a read of this article.. it astutely explores the elements and characteristics of fascism and addresses an allegation that the politically conservative Australian PM is fascist. I like this article.

A popular American book declaims against "liberal fascism". Yet one thing that unites fascists is their deep hostility to political liberalism, in all its forms.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.abc.n ... e/10118114

It takes observably defensible look at fascism as it is known to us historically, its unique meaning and its application in modern day politics.

One step further, fascists embrace the view that all life is struggle (kampf) or war: between the strong and the weak, within nations, and between the nations, races or peoples.

Politics is a continuation of war by other means. Ideals like equality, tolerance, progress, and pity are the ideological rationalisations of weakness.

Fascisms always appeal to myths of national or popular rebirth ("palingenesis"), leading scholar Roger Griffin claims

As for the elites, we must "drain the swamp" or, as Mussolini already said, "drenare la palude".

One final feature of a fascist (although, again, not she or he alone) is their feeling licensed to use language with scant regard for consistency, clarity or accuracy.

"If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth," as Benito Mussolini boasted, "then there is nothing more relativistic than fascist attitudes and activity."

When the end is so great, all means are good.

No one wants to be identified as fascist, so those that are, deflect by alleging they are not fascist, the other end of the spectrum. So in sum ..

Fascism is anti liberalism
Facism is anti media
Facism is pro propaganda (controlling the public narrative)
Facism utilises force, where necessary to control outcomes
Facism is pro survival of the fittest, and creates strong vs weak paradigms

Ideals like equality, tolerance, progress, and pity are the ideological rationalisations of weakness.
Facism often utilises or concocts "dire national emergencies.

.. [Facism] prioritise appeals to emotion, aesthetic spectacles and rallies, identification with a Strong Leader, and a divisive rhetoric of Us versus Them over reasoned public debate.

Facism almost always is associated with claims of conspiracy theory
Facism aims include state control, destruction of liberal institutions (like media and individual rights, particularly minority rights).

[Cail]

Thank you Sky for proving that you can find an article that will excuse anything. There's nothing astute about it whatsoever, it's just an apologist for awful behavior.

Silencing non-approved speech is fascism.

Intimidating speakers of non-approved speech is fascism.

Violent attacks against people who speak non-approved speech is fascism.

Indoctrinating the youth into an ideology that stresses intolerance for different beliefs is fascism.

Controlling the media so that any source that doesn't toe the approved line is marginalized is fascism.

[Cail]

Another example of the radical, violent left. Disgusting.

[Skyweir]

That IS disgusting

I disagree with your assessment of fascism for all the reasons provided above. I think the article indicates fairly what fascism may indeed not be and thus by implication identifies what characteristics in fact comprise it.

I see fascist commentary commonly disseminated from the Trump administration .. in fact youd have to be blind not to these days.

The descriptors he uses to identify immigrant applicants and of course illegal immigrants .. as vermin, bad peopke, dangerous people, terrorists, invaders, treating this phenomena as an attack on US sovereignty, his populist narrative, talking about this in terms of a national emergency, etc .. its all straight from the fascist play book.

[Cail]

And here's yet another example of the right making it clear that it wants nothing to do with hate. Cruz: "What Steve King said was stupid". Doesn't get much farther right than Ted Cruz.

[Skyweir]

Well there you have one Republican, Cruz.. calling out another Republican, King on Kings comments on white supremacy, biggotry etc.

So this doesnt demonstrate anything other than some republicans are bigoted, right wing populists .. King is a hard core republican.. and while not all republicans are spouting right wing fascist narrative .. some clearly are.

What was telling for me in this issue, was the lack of Republican voices calling King out. So Kudos to Cruz for taking a stand against such public statements.

That actually feeds nicely in to my view that its less a partisan issue and more an issue of extremes that exist on the fringes.

ie driven by what one could term right wing nutters and left wing nutters. Thats where radicalism, radical narratives and radical behaviours ie criminal actions like hate speech inciting people to violence and the commission of violence.