this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
41 points (91.8% liked)
..:: tchncs ::..
1300 readers
1 users here now
Your friendly https://tchncs.de community! Discuss whats happening in the tchncs world and/or just use it as a community forum.
German and english allowed.
If you are looking for a way to support tchncs, please check out https://tchncs.de/donate
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Read up. Then punch a nazi. Don't need that shit anywhere in society.
They really should make an exception to the law for punching Nazis
While it's crucial to oppose harmful ideologies like Nazism, we must be wary of how we define such harmful groups. If we broaden these definitions arbitrarily, we risk encapsulating people who merely differ politically, diluting the term's significance and unjustifiably alienating individuals. In doing so, we inadvertently shrink our own communities, polarizing society to the extent where a moderate viewpoint might be mistaken for extremism. Right-leaning communities fall into this trap as well, resulting in fragmented realities where each group exists in its own echo chamber. This division deepens societal fissures and undermines moderate views, which, in my belief, are grounded in reality and thus instrumental in achieving balanced discourse.
You're not entirely wrong, but when we are actually talking about actual literal self-declared fascists who are obviously talking and acting fascistic, then it definitely does apply. This is a long way past any sort of grey area, dude!
This is where the need for nuance comes in. If we were dealing with a platform overrun by advocates for genocide, then defederation would be a reasonable step. But the lack of nuance creates an issue. If any perspective slightly outside your tolerance threshold is immediately labeled as Nazi, where do we draw the line? At what point on the right or the left spectrum does a viewpoint become unacceptable? The challenge lies in defining these boundaries and promoting dialogue without promoting hate.
LMAO, this post got downvoted, this fucking place. It's going to fail because of shit like this.
I feel like our definitions of success and failure are wildly different.
Soooooo here's a helpful hint to tamp down that utter confusion you seem to be having:
The guys who want armed guard genital inspectors in front of every bathroom are the bad guys.
Who exactly holds the authority to label 'the bad guys'? Sure, some actions are undeniably harmful, but does that warrant placing all perceived wrongdoers in the same category, from internet trolls to murderers? Is there no nuance or room for varying degrees of transgressions? I hope you can ask yourself if you're always on the side of righteousness, or might you be perceived as 'the bad guy" from another perspective? It's important to understand that the world is not simply binary, and such a mindset can dangerously oversimplify complex issues.
Realistically, whoever is the admin of the instance can decide to block another instance for any reason, or no reason at all. Admins of threadiverse sites are maintaining (and owning) these instances as a hobby. If they decide they don't want to look at content about penguins during their leisure time, they can just ... block them.
Since threadiverse is a bit less mature than the mastodon ecosystem, there aren't any "big" democratically owned and managed instances, so most people are stuck with benevolent dictator for life situations.
Edit: Also, if an admin doesn't want penguin content stored on their servers (which they pay for), it's a bit strange to say they must store content they don't like on what is essentially their personal machine.
What you are suggesting is that we, as a society, are incapable of discerning right from wrong and enforcing societal norms at all ever. Because who knows? Who has the power to determine these things?? hand wringing, pearl clutching
Let me tell you who: Anyone with two brain cells and a heart. Fascism has a clear definition. People who are being called Nazis because they openly hate and advocate for the genocide of trans people are being called Nazis because THEY ARE ACTING LIKE NAZIS.
We absolutely have no obligation to air their bigoted, make believe grievances in public. We have every right to shut them down and shut them up to protect vulnerable minority populations.
Stop JAQing off and pretending otherwise.
Nazis exist, and they are abhorrent. But is it fair to label the entire community of exploding-heads as such? Or, is it that the platform tolerates a broader range of discourse than you are comfortable with? Yes, Nazis may be part of the mix, but so too might be their staunch opponents. Assigning people to preconceived boxes based on assumed beliefs isn't conducive to understanding. While we concur on opposing Nazis, I refuse to disregard an entire group's perspectives because I may disagree with some. It's crucial to engage with opposing views for a balanced discourse, a principle applicable to everyone.
It is NOT crucial to engage in any kind of discourse with fascists who advocate genocide (aka Nazis)
And you know what you have if a "normal" person sits down to dinner with 10 Nazis? You have 11 Nazis.
There is no room for tolerance of Nazis, nor of those who coddle and enable Nazis.
So yes. It's fair.
Therein lies the problem, who says they're nazis? Just some person on the internet? I'll decide if someone is a nazi for myself, I don't need protection.
Their behavior being exactly consistent with the definition of fascism and their persistent genocidal intent toward minorities says they are Nazis.
You can't possibly be this stupid. It's not that hard to identify fascism.. Stop being disingenuous
No, it's not that hard, but I don't think I agree with your criteria for fascism or who "they" are. Like, who are you talking about? Everybody on exploding-heads? Anyone who calls themselves conservative? Literal nazis? Those are all 3 different groups with some overlap for sure, but that doesn't mean they're ALL inherently wrong. I don't agree with hasty generalizations and I think people need to start thinking critically and with nuance. Life just isn't as simple as you're trying to make it.
Bro everyone knows you don’t find nazis abhorrent. Fuck off.
Lol, don't hurt yourself proving my point now.
People who don't get their rocks off by investing more effort into hating the marginalized.
This isn't about me and this isn't about subtlety. On the whole LGBT+haters are nazi adjacent and they get a kick out of hating the marginalized, and they do it VERY LOUDLY.
Like literally it's the AMERICA FIRST!ers here that are now specifically hating on like the two or three trans people in each state who play sports, and like the maybe handful of total trans people in each state in comparison to state population.
Sounds to me like you group everyone who has an even remotely different viewpoint than you in to one category so you can easily hate and discredit them all without ever actually thinking critically.
You're just bringing up ideas you don't like and then creating a strawman character that you can hate. You know they think the same way about you right? Do you not see how this leads to misinformation and unnecessary hatred? Solving nothing and creating even more division is not something I will stand behind.
Sounds to me like you’re definitely a fucking nazi
Or maybe I'm moderate and would like to not feel like an extremist for trying to find the truth that's somewhere in the middle.
Paradox of Tolerance in action, right here.
Right, they never stated otherwise, but transphobic measures doesn't necessarily make one a nazi. It makes you awful but there are different kinds of awful than just nazism. The risk of calling everyone a nazi is that you dilute what the word actually means so that you risk generalizing and uniting the awful people instead of separating them based on their various horrendous opinions.
True but neither ideology deserves a spot at the table of civilized discourse. So it's a bit of a moot point.
It's not a moot point when we consider the fluidity of language and the potential for any group to manipulate terms to suit their interests. If someone can blanket-label their opposition as a 'transphobe' or, more extreme, a 'Nazi', it bypasses meaningful debate and eradicates the chance to understand differing viewpoints. This not only oversimplifies complex discussions, but it also fosters a lazy and destructive discourse that can fuel animosity rather than understanding. We need to be challenged. A tree that grows without wind will not have the strength to stand in a storm.
Imagine using the ammo of "complexity" and the subjectivity of language to defend wholly unsubtle people who explicity want others harassed/harmed/dead for being their authentic selves and that authenticity has absolutely NOTHIGN to do with them personally
The vast majority of people screaming about bathrooms in the US are in fact Nazis or nazi adjacent.
There is NO reason to dump that much hate on like two or three people per state unless you just enjoy the cruelty.
That's just ridiculous. Not all bad things are the same thing.
Read up on nazi policies towards trans people
All Nazis are transphobes, but not all transphobes are Nazis.
At best this is obnoxiously pedantic and at worst you provide cover for bigots so what are you getting out of this?
If we start going down the "all bad people are x" path without having at least some knowledge of why and how they're bad, we open ourselves to manipulation. Or irrelevance, if we dilute the term "Nazi" so much that when we call out actual Nazis no one listens.
We have to be truthful in our accusations. Especially in a case like this. Being a transphobe is, by itself, a horrible thing. We don't need to muddy the waters by throwing "Nazi" in there too. There are plenty of other, actual Nazis that can have that label.
Oh my god shut the fuck up. How many people do you think are rocking swastika armbands and are members of the nazi party? Like, none. Now how many nazis are there? It’s a descriptor, it’s a pejorative. Shut the fuck up prevaricators
Please explain how they differ?
Edit (2): TL;DR (and the first thought I had which then escaped me when I went to type my original reply but has now returned): The Venn diagram of Nazis and transphobes has massive overlap, but even those that don't fit in both are bad and harmful in their own right, so who are you really defending here?
And before you try
"Nazism wasn't about transphobia":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft#Nazi_era
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/
or
"Transphobes today have nothing to do with Nazism":
https://zeefeed.com.au/anti-trans-feminism-nazi-ideology/
https://socialism.com/fso-article/posie-parker-in-australia-terfs-nazis-and-the-fight-for-trans-liberation/
Edit (1) because sent too soon:
Not wanting to admit it to themselves and/or being wilfully ignorant in defence of their cognitive dissonance, nor you personally not liking it, doesn't make transphobes any less supporters of what is without a doubt a Nazi (if not Nazi inspired, which doesn't make it better) ideology, attitude, and behaviour.
Nazis, they are defending Nazis and want to pretend they are not.
That's why when you ask them to clarify they go quiet, because they know that means saying the quiet part out loud because, as you say, there is only one conclusion.
That Sartre quote again but with the relevant bit in bold:
What people don't get is that when someone is called a Nazi, it doesn't necessarily mean that they literally identify completely with Nazi ideology.
Rather it is about the pattern of behavior that is equivalent to the Nazi pattern of behavior.
For that to be true, people do not need to, for example, hate and want to kill Jews. "Jews" could be replaced by anything else, for example trans people, and it's still valid to call them a Nazi.
If one does not want to be called a Nazi, maybe don't try to get rid of a group of people that haven't done anything bad.
Slight tangent: It's been a recurring post on tumblr and mastodon that the Paradox of Tolerance is resolved when you consider tolerance to be a social contract rather than a moral standard. In that case, if someone does not uphold their end of the contract than the contract doesn't apply to them.
If you do not tolerate me, I do not have to tolerate you.
As Nazism is based on intolerance of other views, there is no requirement for tolerating Naziism.
The same applies to terfism. "Trans-EXCLUSIONARY radical feminism" is the acronym, it is a philosophy based on not tolerating trans people, and therefore there is no need to tolerate them.
Contrast to say, furries, who are weird but who are defined by their enthusiasm for something rather than an exclusion of other interests. Furries, as a group are covered under the tolerance social contract.
I really wish it was socially acceptable to punch a Nazi. Cops don't like that, so I don't do it.
.