196

Someone somewhere said something smart:

View Tolerance as a contract. If someone is tolerant of others, tolerate them too. But if someone is intolerant towards others, they don't get to be tolerated either.

Fascism isn't a legitimate political ideology so there's nothing to tolerate. It's just genocide in fancy window dressing.

But intolerance to intolerance should be the last resort and not the default. You should try all the other methods of civilized discourse first.

It's always good to point out that that is philosophy, not science (neither political or any other kind).

https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU?t=306 rowan atkinson (mr bean) has an interesting opinion about it, I'd recommend watching the whole video.

These people never seem to realize that even at its most basic level, ensuring equal rights and freedoms requires a level of forfeiting individual freedoms. In order for everyone to have equal right to physical safety, you forego your freedom to punch them in the face without consequence.

These people go to talk about democracy, describe anarchy, then get upset when reality doesn't meet their expectations. Your expectations don't meet reality, bud.

Neoliberalism is how people think like this. In order to stop the wave of strikes, protests, and violent demonstrations for workers rights the capitalist ruling class started heavily pushing the doctrine that "All acts of violence are always morally wrong". They indoctrinate children into it through the education system and mass media. The intent was to stall the progress of workers rights movements in the long term, and it worked exactly as they intended.

People have taken the line "violence is not the answer" to the extreme. It is true that violence is rarely the answer. However, there are times when violence is the only answer, because words will literally never work.

Better to see WW2 as a war against fascist expansionism. But yes, Spain and Portugal were left to their own devices, and because of that, millions suffered under the rule of Franco and Salazar.

it's that you have to disprove it to everyone. the ideology that "our tribe is better than theirs" is a cancer in and of itself so the more people think that and are programmed to tell others the same thing, the harder you have to work you suppress it

Asking nicely and tolerance aren't the only other options or even necessarily the opposite of violence. Sometimes, it's just a necessary measure and last resort. Beating people rarely changes their mind, other methods must be used, like reasoning and education (preferably even before the person has gone fascist). Obviously, the reasoning isn't gonna work with everybody, in which cases you do whatever must be done to ensure safety.

Think of fascism as if it's a zombie pandemic. Once it's in progress, you save those that you can and liquidate those that are too far gone. But the real method against a zombie pandemic is to have preventative measures in place, like not letting Umbrella Corp. develop the virus in the first place.

More like "Germany plz stop occupying Czechoslovakia".

Much of Europe celebrated the Munich Agreement, as they considered it a way to prevent a major war on the continent. Adolf Hitler announced that it was his last territorial claim in Northern Europe. Today, the Munich Agreement is widely regarded as a failed act of appeasement, and the term has become "a byword for the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states."

"Ah, darts. We didn't appease the discourse hard enough. You can keep Czechoslovakia if you pinky-promise not to invade any more countries! If you do, we'll be forced, to, uh, you'll see, and you better believe we'll do it!" (Narrator: They didn't, in fact, do anything when Germany invaded Poland).

"If you could stop killing people by the millions in a mass cultural genocide, that would be great. Thx."

Millions of Nazis were permanently cured of fascism through the noble efforts of the Allies. :)

Replace the word with "fascists" and it makes so much more logical sense. And this is why wording matters

I heard this claim somewhere that the reason why Neville Chamberlain agreed to it was because UK was nowhere close to being ready for war. Something along the lines of having been instructed to secure peace at all cost.

In retrospect it's easy to see the Munic Agreement as a mistake, but I have to admit that I am curious if he had any real alternative.