this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy.ca's Main Community

4083 readers
1 users here now


Welcome to the lemmy.ca/c/main community!

All new users on lemmy.ca are automatically subscribed to this community, so this is the place to read announcements, make suggestions, and chat about the goings-on of lemmy.ca.

For support requests specific to lemmy.ca, you can use !lemmy_ca_support@lemmy.ca.


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RelativityRanger@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Mills didn't live through fucking First and Second World War.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance : Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself out- side the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies: Volume 1, The Spell of Plato. Routledge, 1945

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant

Allowing people to hear different opinions is not unlimited tolerance.

[–] Typhoonigator@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Is that the only thing you can rebut out of all of that?

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It is the only relevant part.

[–] Typhoonigator@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Are these the kind of meaningful debates you have with MAGA?

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I get similarly silly stuff from the right, where they have readnheard of something but don't quite understand how it applies, eg:

"I guess you haven't read the Constitution!"

"Free speech is about government, not public outcry."

Such is life.

[–] Typhoonigator@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What's silly about the paradox of intolerance? Why does it not apply to defederating here? I don't grasp it's purported lack of relevance.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You are misunderstanding.

I'm not calling the paradox (or the constitution) silly, I'm saying they don't apply in this scenario.

From the snippet above:

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most imwise

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force ; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument ; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

In other words, yeah, if that instance starts getting people to be assholes to everyone etc, sure, tolerance does not mean we should let them do so here, that's the point of the paradox. But, as the author states, suppressing them without cause etc would be most foolish. Far better to try and discuss with rational argument first before resorting to "well, we don't want to talk to you because my MAGA uncle is a dick."

[–] Typhoonigator@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I disagree with you on this and various other points you've made here, but I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate your viewpoint.

[–] hdnclr@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Allowing a MAGA forum to coexist here isn't simply allowing "differing opinions" - their "opinion" is known, and it invariably moves us up the rungs on the ladder toward genocide. I say this as someone whose own parents are in the MAGA cult: defederate. Don't allow that ideology to fester in your community. Have individual discussions with the people in your own life to pull them back from the brink, if you feel safe doing so, but don't allow that growth in the petri dish that is your collective, or you will wake up with an infection. Set boundaries or get taken over.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

and it invariably moves us up the rungs on the ladder toward genocide.

Wow, that is a damn crazy assertion. And exactly why more discussion is a good thing.

[–] hdnclr@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, maybe you should open your eyes and see what trans people and immigrants in this country see: the clear escalation towards genocide both in their rhetoric, and in public policy aimed at separation and detention of the target groups.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, this sort of hysteria and screaming genocide is partially why people discredit the Left even when there are actual, real problems.

Is the treatment of illegal immigrants under Maga awful? Absolutely. But screaming genocide because it's the worst thing you know, well goddamn, now we just sound dumb. This ain't moving us to a place where we can figure things out. (You probably can't have everyone in the world who wants to go to America in America. Conversely, they are still humans and even if they are illegally in the country, sending them to an El Salvadorean prison is heinous.) If we aren't there to make the reasonable case, no one makes it.

It's like how the right complains that Christianity is under attack etc and they are persecuted for it. Is that true? No and it makes them sound insane. Are there actual arenas wherein things are harder or tricky for religious folks? Sure! (If you believe the Pope and feel abortion is murder, pretty hard to reconcile that with funding abortion etc.)

[–] hdnclr@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I will just leave you with the fact that the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has issued a warning for the US, and alsp has issued a particular warning for trans people in the US. If you're familiar with the stages of genocide, that may also help you to see clearly what is going on.

Whether you believe me or think I'm hysterical, i will still be preparing to leave this country at a moment's notice and be prepared to submit an asylum claim upon arrival in Canada. I don't think it gets more real than that.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Admittedly, the Lemkin institute is being pursued in court for misusing the Lemkin name and fragrant misuse of the word genocide. (They are also claiming there's now a genocide red alert in the UK for trans people.)

You could cite multiple groups like the heritage foundation etc that would strenuously deny anything of the sort is taking place.

[–] hdnclr@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I could certainly cite the Heritage Foundation, who are currently pushing for the FBI to define all transgender people as terrorists and lock us all up. That would definitely destroy any argument that anybody's trying to do a Genocide here, right?

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

When you hear a wild claim like that, it's worth double checking a primary source or, failing that, a reputable second hand source.

From page 3 of the full memo:

Note that this designation does not apply to all persons that are transgender, or their allies. It applies to those who: (1) believes that any opposition to transgender ideology is a violent and existential threat to the right of transgender people to exist and amounts to an imminent threat to physical safety; (2) believes that this fear justifies violence against those who refuse to affirm transgender ideology; and (3) takes, incites, or promotes violent action based on that ideology. All three criteria must be met. Individuals cannot and will not be investigated solely based on 1st Amendment protected activity alone.

While I don't particularly agree with their take, what's actually being proposed is adding transgender based violence to existing categories. The current categories are: race based, anti government/authority, animal rights/environmental, abortion and other.

Now, as far as I understand, vegans are not being locked up for being vegan, racists are still allowed to be racist, environmental activists are still okay to protest etc.

Could this be abused? Absolutely! And that is why it is stupidly important to be accurate. When we claim hysterical untrue shit, it makes everyone less likely to listen when things are actually dangerous. (We spent 4 years screaming fascist starting in 2016 and now when shit's actually getting scary, it is much harder to get people to listen because they've tuned us out. Boy who cried wolf etc.)

Edit: And like a goof, I forgot to link the primary source!

https://itsyourgov.org/investigation/oversight-project-unveils-case-for-new-fbi-domestic-terrorism-designation/

[–] hdnclr@beehaw.org 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I get that's what they're saying right now. And I even get how one might be able to go along with labeling "violent" rhetoric from trans people (with the particular example being those who believe that opposition to their existence is a violent threat) as terrorist. But I also have studied history and understand very well that this is one of the more common ways that the path towards atrocities begins, and that it's not just coincidentally possible for these policy proposals to be abused, it's likely the intent.

Why else would they also seek a blanket revocation of our right to bear arms?

I would also suggest looking at some of the talking heads who cheerlead for this sort of thing: people like Nancy Mace who use the word "Tranny" to refer to us, makes no distinction when calling all of us a threat, and openly call for us all to be institutionalized. Two sitting members of Congress have called for that, by the way. They're going well past the Heritage Program's proposal, because those mouthpieces' purpose in the propaganda machine is to prime the public for the next steps on the ladder. First the targets are rhetorically marked with rhetoric that depicts us as a risk to others, then we are subtly pushed out of public life - through things like bathroom bans and the repeal of discrimination protections, making it more and more difficult to go out in public or hold down a job; Then, the rhetoric begins depicting us as not just a risk, but as violent and dangerous, and the laws proposed are things that a "moderate" could feasibly entertain - just arresting members of the target group who might have used violent language, or might be involved in resistance activities against the government. Simultaneously, the loudest mouths start ramping up rhetoric calling for the removal of all of the target group from society, either by putting them in prisons or institutions or "camps". <--- you are here.

Not calling it what it is, is either a shameful act of cowardice or a pitiful display of ignorance. I just hope more people figure out what's going on before we start getting put in institutions.

By the way, by admitting that what I see happening looks a lot like historical examples of the steps towards genocide, it is possible to paint me as a terrorist under the proposed TIVE categorization. Just because I have an interest in staying alive and use my first amendment rights to call out this shit.