in before nazis twist this around and say we’re being intolerant
I read an interesting article once that said that in a tolerant society, the only way to keep it working was to become intolerant to intolerance if that makes sense.
It’s called the irony of tolerance or something like that. And it was written in the 1940’s. Give you one guess as to what inspired that article.
will claim and has claimed – in sincere belief – that they were only getting rid of the people who were intolerant toward them. The only way to pick out the claims at that point and decide who is accommodated is “Who do we like more? What kind of person do we innately like and want to reward, and what kind of person do we innately hate and want to punish?” This is the only way it has ever happened and the only way it will ever happen, ever, even if you live to be a trillion years old.
Popper is wrong. He is obviously wrong. “We can’t tolerate the intolerant” will always, with one hundred percent accuracy, map to “We can’t tolerate people the socially powerful dislike.” But the idea that we are tolerant and they are intolerant and so we can violate the principles we hate them for violating and it’s still all noble and righteous and good is just too satisfying. It’s too rewarding. It feels too good. Every single person without one single fucking exception will see themselves this way. The idea can never be cast off. It can never be defeated, and we can never move past it.
The cycle will never end. Humanity’s future is a flat, worthless, meaningless circle.
No, the way we pick out the claims is to look at who is advocating for discriminating against/deport/hurt groups of people for the sole reason said groups exist; and who doesn’t. That is objectively verifiable.
If you’re incapable of knowing the difference - especially if you feel the need to defend literal Nazis - that’s your problem, not mine. Stop claiming that your personal problems are “human nature”.
You are not and never will be capable of knowing the difference. You will only be capable of determining that the group you like is calling for “ethnic justice” and must be obeyed, while the group you dislike is intolerant and must be excised.
Your political foes will make the opposite conclusion based on their self-serving emotions. Then you scream at each other forever and ever. Everything becomes a popularity game. You mark the people you dislike as deserving of exclusion no matter what they said. We can literally see this entire process happening now. It does not stop happening.
The cycle does not end. Ever. There is no virtue and there is no restraint. Ever.
Yeah, I’ve found the guy who has a keen interest in making the people who oppose literal Nazis to be just as bad as Nazis. Also, one who believes that wanting to “defend people from bigotry” and wanting to “harm people for bigoted reasons” both stem from a desire of personal popularity, instead that from empathy and bigotry respectively. Good job.
Also, answer me these two questions:
Can you explain how “You aren’t allowed to call for discriminating against, deporting, or harmed black people for the sole reason that black people exist” equals “Black people should be discriminated against, deported, and harmed (no reason given other than them being black)”?
Does
“You aren’t allowed to call for discriminating against, deporting, or
harmed black people for the sole reason that black people exist”
target a specific ethnic group? If so, which one?
EDITED TO ADD: I’ve skimmed brazen’s blog, and I am now fully convinced that everything they do is for attention. Given that they’re throughly convinced that everyone does everything for attention and “status”, why should brazen consider themselves to be any different?
You are not and never will be capable of separating “call for harming black people for the sole reason that black people exist” from “people who want things that in my opinion are bad for black people” from “people who are weak enough that I affirm my social status by hating them.”
You are not and never will be capable of distinguishing Actual Nazis from people who are weak enough that you affirm social status by hating them. The only way to stop you is to say you don’t get to kick people out of society for being Actual Nazis, because the attosecond you gain that power you confuse the Nazis for everyone who’s weaker than you and disagrees with your status-politics.
Your questions are valueless. It means nothing that you define the category of people you hate and want to harm in such a way that it’s virtuous and pure to do so. Your opponents can also lie and engage in motivated reasoning. They can claim they only hate thugs and criminals while you hate white people. Both of you are lying. You hate members of your ideological outgroup who are too weak to make you stop hurting them.
The only way to stop their hypocrisy is to stop your hypocrisy. The only way to stop your hypocrisy is to say “Okay, FINE, because you cannot be trusted to tell the difference, you don’t get to kick someone out even if they’re actually waving a Nazi flag and heiling left and right. Because you can’t stop yourself from claiming everyone you don’t like is doing that.”
But your hypocrisy will not be stopped. You will annihilate our society’s protection against Nazis, in the name of fighting Nazis. Because you cannot ever stop or restrain yourself.
All is lost.
You still reat that all those statements have the same meaning, but are incapable to explain how. So, let’s try this again.
QUESTION 1: Explain how the following statements have the same meaning. (No “Oh, you SAY one, but in reality you MEAN the other-” argument. That’s irrelevant to your claim that both messages say the same thing; as such, trying to pull again that excuse will result in an immediate failure.)
You aren’t allowed to call for discriminating against, deporting, or harming black people for the sole reason that black people exist.
Black people should be discriminated against, deported and harmed. (No reason given.)
Since you also claimed that other statements all have the same meaning, you now must prove that. Q1b: Explain, exactly, how all the following groups are identical. (Again, the same limitation to Q1 applies here.)
People who “call for harming black people for the sole reason that black people exist”
People who “want things that in my [Aridara’s] opinion are bad for black people”.
People who “are weak enough that I [Aridara] affirm my social status by hating them.”
Now, you’ll probably deflect the questions by claiming.that I’ll just twist and lie about my opponents (exactly like my opponents and everyone else does, according to you) to have my way; or.by claiming that everything I do is not for ideology or morality, but for signaling “status” (like how, according to you, everyone does). In that case, allow me to ask one question: Why should we listen your opinion, when you’re someone who, by your own repeated admission throughout your own blog, is perfectly willing to say ANYTHING to put down the people who you dislike, and who isn’t interested in defending a specific position or your own morals, but solely to obtain satus and popularity among your peers?
You summarized me as the exact and literal opposite of my beliefs. You post on Something Awful, don’t you?
The answer to your questions is “Your question is invalid because you are lying about its premises and I know you are lying and I can fucking see you doing it.” You demanded I prove a falsehood I accused you of using!
It is in fact true that repeated, insistent assertions of the form –
“Literally all things said or done by all humans under all circumstances are examples of pure status-seeking behavior with no regard for truth or virtue, there are literally no exceptions to this, there is no good faith, all is doomed forever and ever.”
– do seem to contain themselves, along with all other discursive utterances, within their field of reference.
Which means that it’s actually reasonable for an interlocutor to ask: “OK, why are you any different? What exempts your own words and actions from the principles that you’ve just laid down? If I am to take what you say seriously…how could I possibly take what you say seriously, given that you’re participating in this discussion by emitting utterances, and apparently all utterances are worthless?”
I assume you have some kind of answer to this. And in fact I assume that getting a worthwhile conversation out of this line of reasoning is going to have to begin with that answer, since the answer would serve to provide some kind of asserted positive value that your interlocutors might use as a foundation for mutual intelligibility.
