Tim Minchin is totally tops. I hope he’s generally regarded in Oz as the national treasure he is.
3 Likes
To quote the motto of Le Canard Enchaîné , “La Liberté de la Presse ne s’use que si l’on ne s’en sert pas” (Freedom of the Press only gets worn out when it’s not used).
2 Likes
If we are defining “Nazis” as Nazis you have a point. But for those whose definition of “Nazi” amounts to everyone to the right of Eisenhower…no.
1 Like
Nice straw man you got there!
If only it had a brain.
8 Likes
Do you think we should tolerate Daily Stormer types? If so, then you need to explain why the existence of other ethnicities, cultures, and sexual identities should have their life, liberty, and property imperiled by such people. It’s not the job of the innocent to justify their mere existence to those who violate the golden rule (or NAP if you’re a right-libertarian) of society.
5 Likes
Why the panic? We just have to let things alone and not let bad ol’ government interfere. The market will sort it all out, just like in the 1930s and 1940s. Sure, there will be some “creative destruction” along the way, but in the end the supreme rationality of actors in the market will restore good political sense … at least until they and their living memories die.
5 Likes
Sad thing is that liberals and social democrats were willing to compromise with the nazis to keep some semblance of stability in Germany. That included attacking labor unions and communists. When push comes to shove liberals will always side with fascists to maintain order.
4 Likes
I’m glad to hear that you are tolerant of conservatives in general then. How about Trump voters? Are you tolerant of them?
Not liberals and social democrats who study history (sadly, still not enough). Fascism is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the last major outbreak left us with a wealth of evidence that it’s a bad idea thanks to the media and information technologies present at the time.
These days it’s establishment conservatives (as in the 1930s) and Third-Way politicians and those freedom-loving Libertarians who are willing to tolerate (in the sense of leaving their speech to stand unchallenged, supposedly in the name of free speech) right-wing populists and fascists in the name of comity, order and opportunism.
3 Likes
What do you mean by “tolerant”?
2 Likes
Specific threats and threats attempted should always be punishable by law.
It’s the difference between “Jews have too much influence on American foreign policy” (scummy, but legal) and “Let’s go trash Goldberg’s Pharmacy down the street” (absolutely illegal).
1 Like
Tolerant means there are no laws against it.
Well the fact that some liberals (as in neo/classical) are clinging desperately to any kind of normality in ideas like a President Oprah or Pence shows how far one will go to defend capitalism rather than letting it die and replacing it with something better. The last 70 or so years have been just a slow motion train wreck that’s only gotten faster since the end of the Cold War. It’s time to ditch the old order and actually build a better one.
4 Likes
Okay, since you asked, “How about Trump voters? Are you tolerant of them?”, I can now answer, I do not think there should be a law against Trump voters.
That Straw Man factory of yours is really pumping them out today!
6 Likes
And guess what the law says in respect to private citizens in terms of the former statement? We can do just about anything we like to whomever says such things short of any kind of violence. So I want this to be absolutely clear for you. The law isn’t what I’m discussing. I’m discussing society outside of law. We have a right and an obligation as private citizens to make such people who believe that minorities don’t have a right to exist peacefully as uncomfortable as possible. Whether or not you agree to this is really the question. And if you think private citizens shouldn’t exercise their right to make bigots as uncomfortable as possible then you have to explain exactly why (what’s your theory here).
2 Likes
As I said upthread:
Not wanting hate speech to be spread around = not authoritarian.
Not allowing hate speech in your home or business = not authoritarian.
Using the power of the law to disallow hate speech = authoritarian.
To you, are “right wing populists” and “Nazis” effectively the same thing??
2 Likes
Neoliberals and classical liberals are advocates of economic/market liberalism (in the sense of a lack of regulation on the behaviour of capitalists) – actually political conservatives in the current American and European context.
I’ll cop to being a Keynesian proponent of mixed economies like those in Scandinavia or Canada that include strong and sustainable capitalist elements, but these days in the U.S. that economic position makes me not the political liberal I self-identify as but rather a crazed “sohalist.”
5 Likes
Provided they do not initiate the use of force, I am fine with that.
(Edit)
If we are taking about those who have advocated just that, it’s one thing. If you are talking about people whom you think might possibly think that, it’s a big something else.
No, I’m not tolerant of them. It’s the right of anyone to not associate or give comfort to those who oppose them in society. Our society is built roughly on the idea of free association. If I don’t want to associate with Trump voters and if that personally offends them then that’s tough cookies. I’ve seen folks fight over college football teams worse than over voting for a particular political candidate, yet I don’t see any sport magazines with hot takes about “how about you tolerate your friend who likes Da Bears!”
3 Likes
It doesn’t matter whether they actually think that or I’ve assumed based on previous encounters. It’s an immutable right of private citizens and you should advocate for that right to be respected. The sword of free association cuts both ways.
3 Likes
