Smith calls out progressives after Trump shooting
Smith calls out progressives after Trump shooting
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says progressive politicians need to tone down their rhetoric following the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. As Sean Amato reports, Smith’s comments are also under the microscope. #ableg #cdnpoli
You're viewing part of a thread.
There's a debate to be had about the extent to which society should pre-emptively resist fascism, be that extra-judicially or within the law. But there is simply no paradox.
Calling it a paradox implies that there's some contradiction between being tolerant in the sense of freedom of religion and expression - allowing people to peacefully exist whatever their background or identity - and the necessity (in order to main those freedoms) of resisting fascism. There isn't; there is no fundamental reason why you need to restrict individual freedoms in order to prevent fascism.
It would be much more productive if, instead of using the "paradox of tolerance" as a bit of a thought-terminating cliche, people declared what kind of actions they thought were justified and why. Is violent rhetoric which, for example, calls for the death of Trump justified? I have no idea if you think it is because you switched from the specific to the general so quickly. There's such a vast breadth of actions which people allude to when talking about the so-called paradox that some are bound to find broad appeal while some are bound to be extremist fringe stuff.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss.
I disagree with some of that. Individual freedoms do sometimes need to be limited, for example "freedom" to oppress or "freedom" to deny hiring certain races.
It's considered a paradox because by tolerating intolerance you allow intolerance to occur. And by being intolerant of intolerance you are allowing intolerance to occur.
The point of it is to highlight that intolerance is enabled by being too tolerant. We must not tolerate intolerance, paradoxically, in order to have a tolerant society.
The nuance being in what things are not being tolerated. Anarchist ideology is about abolishing hierarchy and building a completely egalitarian society, part of the work to do that means taking unjustly hoarded wealth away from the wealthy.
That's another example of how egalitarian and tolerant goals require some intolerant actions.
It’s considered a paradox because by tolerating intolerance you allow intolerance to occur. And by being intolerant of intolerance you are allowing intolerance to occur.
If your principles of tolerance are, "everyone should be allowed to express their identity, religion and opinions peacefully and calmly, as long as their views do not call for violence" then that allows people to express their view that a certain race is inferior. But it does not result in the end of tolerance (as this popular but wrong summary express).
It's only a paradox if you can only think of tolerance as being absolute, where any level of restriction on what people are allowed to do or express is "intolerant".
Individual freedoms do sometimes need to be limited, for example “freedom” to oppress or “freedom” to deny hiring certain races.
But these "freedoms" are not freedoms any liberal or advocate of tolerance means by "freedoms."
I'd go further than saying this is "the nuance"; this is the whole thing. Mentioning the paradox doesn't give any guidance in what to do; just directly saying "we shouldn't allow people to display swastikas" or " we should allow people to call for the assassination of presidential candidates" will result in a useful discussion.
This is exactly why it's sleepwalking towards fascism. Letting people openly express intolerant views, educate their children with intolerant views, meet up and shout intolerant views, sign up as political parties with intolerant views.... It leads to fascist takeover of democracy.
Sure they're playing by the rules of the liberals but they're exploiting every single advantage in terms of capital ownership and racial majority in order to "vote" their way to fascism.
There are laws that try to prevent this, but those laws are weak and the legislature is captured.
You fight them before they win the election, and if they do, and after they do.
Otherwise whoever has the most money and influence implements their vision for society, using the "dictatorship of the majority" to hurt marginalized people.
This is how liberalism enables fascism by not opposing capitalism and by not acknowledging that some freedoms need to be reined in
It leads to fascist takeover of democracy.
But you need evidence, or a strong argument, to determine cause and effect here. Sure, there's a scenario you can imagine in which intolerant views are shared, proliferated, spread among the population, gain support, gain votes, gain power. But there are many liberal democracies in the world, and most are still holding onto their liberal democratic principles. The USA is heading for fascism, which is certainly terrifying, but what about the UK? What about France? All the other countries? Even the far right in these countries is forced to be circumspect in their intolerance due to public opinion, and their probes in the direction of fascist rhetoric and policy are weak at worst.
And if you want to couch this as a "paradox" then you end up with the "paradox of democracy" (it's possible for people to vote for the removal of democracy). What you're saying is not that we need to resist fascism because fascists are violent and a risk to people's lives, but that we should resist fascism because they might be too convincing and get people to vote for them - and hence arguing that we should be less democratic in order to prevent their gaining power. So maybe you do think that's a paradox. But in practice the way democracies solve this is by banning parties which are a threat to democracy and by having a high bar to do so because otherwise that will be wielded against all sorts. It would certainly be wielded against people who "oppose capitalism" (this we know from history).
Once again, we find that there's a route through the "paradox" which neither capitulates entirely to fascists, nor capitulates entirely to the anti-democratic, illiberal tendencies of their most extreme opponents.
There are laws that try to prevent this, but those laws are weak and the legislature is captured.
And so we get to what I said originally: the "solution" to the so-called paradox is to have strong laws, for example a hard-to-modify constitution, which guarantee people's rights. The formulation doesn't have to be explicitly legal in nature to have a legal solution.
I think we're at an ideological impasse, you make some fine points and once again there are some nuances I could disagree with here but I can largely accept your argument and I find that it's consistent and valid from an (also valid) perspective rooted in liberal axioms.
I have an overlapping but different perspective that's more rooted in leftists axioms.
There are historical examples and counter examples in either direction.
Although the UK and Europe aren't as on much of a direct path to fascism as the current United States I think we probably have differing ideas on how fair and equal European society ultimately is (recognizing that we're painting very many different cultures and political landscapes with a broad brush). However you're not any less "correct" in your assessment as I am.
I sympathize with liberal ideals and that's probably why I'm ideologically more of an anarchist than just a more general socialist or communist (I say that but pragmatically and in my day to day life and in terms of political action I'm far from it on account of how far outside of the Overton window it is, which makes it difficult, and I'm not "noble" enough to disadvantage myself within our existing systems to live out my ideals, at least not yet without sufficient financial safety and the quality of life guarantees it provides).
However, I'm far more of a collectivist than an individualist as I get older, and personal freedoms and personal justice interest me less than freedom and justice for all. That's where the crux of our differences might be.
This turned out to be a thoughtful conversation, thanks.
Thanks yourself, I have a similar view of your position :)
I am undecided on collectivism versus individualism, and have been conflicted since a young age. As I get older I suspect both can produce good societies and bad societies and that, while I actually tend towards collectivism being the ultimate ideal, I don't see inconsistent approaches as being particularly viable, which is where current western collectivist politics tends to sit - there's no point, for example, in introducing rent controls. Either collectivise housing completely or work within the system to improve housing provision. Ultimately I think there are small advantages of (well-regulated) privatised housing (better choice), and small advantages in (well-managed) nationalised housing that are more significant, and that since the differences are fairly small, it's not worth trying to push through a poorly managed middle-zone in the hope of achieving the ideal when that looks unlikely.
This was a digression but it was easy to explain and is similar to my thinking on other things...
