There's a difference between speaking out against injustice when there is real risk involved, and speaking against a person because you don't like their views. Silence is appropriate in the latter case; or even better, express your own positive (in the logical sense) positions. Bloodless, priggish condemnation of individuals with fascist views makes fascism rise even faster than silence.
Anyone who claims they turned to fascism because they're angry people insulted fascists is not arguing in good faith.
Silence allows the messages of hatred to spread more loudly and more rapidly; if you leave fascists along they become emboldened and push the lines even further. We've seen this over and over, both historically and in America today.
>Anyone who claims they turned to fascism because they're angry people insulted fascists is not arguing in good faith.
I tend to agree, but I didn't make that argument. As an aside, bad faith is orthogonal to the argument, hence the existence of debate clubs. IOW, you could argue in bad faith for or against democracy, for or against fascism, etc.
>Silence allows the messages of hatred to spread more loudly and more rapidly
This depends. Any position can be weakened by what I call "badvocates", people are either personally despicable or who argue in ignorance, bad faith, or the ever-popular tactic (based on ad hominem) which simply asserts you are bad for believing a certain way. Sadly the impact of badvocacy is asymmetrical with fascism v liberalism, because the fascists intentionally embrace ignorance, non-sequitors, hypocrisy, personal attacks, whataboutism, and so on.
The badvocacy on the liberal side is particularly painful for me to see because its so avoidable. It's that strident tone, that indignant huff of impatience, its the moral certainty, the extremely judgemental social enforcement of rules where the only penalty is ostracism. In its own way it becomes a kind of fascism.
So, yes, speak the truth, call out others for speaking un-truth ("lying", sadly, is too narrow). But ultimately try to retain that common ground, the empathy that liberalism is famous for. This doesn't mean you can't be firm, or even use violence eventually. If it comes to that it means the violence comes regretfully, without hatred, hopeful that another course of action will arise. Fascism is pretty close to the "default" state of humans, which is why I think of it more as a regrettable regression than a moral failing, akin to having millions of adults pooping their pants.
There's a difference between speaking out against injustice when there is real risk involved, and speaking against a person because you don't like their views. Silence is appropriate in the latter case; or even better, express your own positive (in the logical sense) positions. Bloodless, priggish condemnation of individuals with fascist views makes fascism rise even faster than silence.
Anyone who claims they turned to fascism because they're angry people insulted fascists is not arguing in good faith.
Silence allows the messages of hatred to spread more loudly and more rapidly; if you leave fascists along they become emboldened and push the lines even further. We've seen this over and over, both historically and in America today.
>Anyone who claims they turned to fascism because they're angry people insulted fascists is not arguing in good faith.
I tend to agree, but I didn't make that argument. As an aside, bad faith is orthogonal to the argument, hence the existence of debate clubs. IOW, you could argue in bad faith for or against democracy, for or against fascism, etc.
>Silence allows the messages of hatred to spread more loudly and more rapidly
This depends. Any position can be weakened by what I call "badvocates", people are either personally despicable or who argue in ignorance, bad faith, or the ever-popular tactic (based on ad hominem) which simply asserts you are bad for believing a certain way. Sadly the impact of badvocacy is asymmetrical with fascism v liberalism, because the fascists intentionally embrace ignorance, non-sequitors, hypocrisy, personal attacks, whataboutism, and so on.
The badvocacy on the liberal side is particularly painful for me to see because its so avoidable. It's that strident tone, that indignant huff of impatience, its the moral certainty, the extremely judgemental social enforcement of rules where the only penalty is ostracism. In its own way it becomes a kind of fascism.
So, yes, speak the truth, call out others for speaking un-truth ("lying", sadly, is too narrow). But ultimately try to retain that common ground, the empathy that liberalism is famous for. This doesn't mean you can't be firm, or even use violence eventually. If it comes to that it means the violence comes regretfully, without hatred, hopeful that another course of action will arise. Fascism is pretty close to the "default" state of humans, which is why I think of it more as a regrettable regression than a moral failing, akin to having millions of adults pooping their pants.
I think that's why Scott Adams spoke up.
No, Adams was a big trump supporter.