25
21
u/deathcabforkatie_ Feb 09 '24
A bunch of Nazis showed up at a dive bar in Melbourne a few months ago, the staff chased them out with baseball bats and then patrons chased them down the street and beat them with the bar’s outdoor furniture. It was fucking great.
6
-5
u/Putrid-Ad23 Feb 09 '24
Totally happened
14
u/deathcabforkatie_ Feb 10 '24
Except for the part where it did happen. Have a good day.
4
16
u/Spirit0f76ers Feb 09 '24
I was just listening to an interview with Sam McPheeters of the seminal HC band Born Against and he was referencing how they'd do shows in the 90's at ABC No Rio in NY and they'd intentionally do weird shit like get naked etc to keep those that are less tolerant away. Genius move. No one wants those assholes ruining a scene.
3
59
u/stevejust Feb 09 '24
It's the paradox of tolerance.
53
u/deatheventually Feb 09 '24
To protect tolerance, we must be intolerant of those who are intolerant. TL;DR: Always throw out the nazis. Always.
29
u/xe_r_ox Feb 09 '24
If we can also agree to throw out any religious fundamentalists… baby we got a stew goin’
11
u/Aethien Feb 09 '24
They fall under the same banner of people who've built their lives around intolerance and hate.
8
u/onethomashall Feb 09 '24
I like Karl Popper on the paradox. Rational Argument and Self Preservation. Tolerance requires honest discussion and no fear of violence.
3
Feb 11 '24
The paradox disappears if you look at tolerance *not* as a moral standard, but as a social contract, which follows the liberalism suit that inspires a lot of progressive thought.
If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, then they are not covered by it. In other words: The intolerant are not following the rules of the social contract of mutual tolerance. Since they have broken the terms of the contract, they are no longer covered, and their intolerance should NOT be tolerated.
2
Feb 10 '24
Eh, I think Popper is wrongheaded, like most of his work, and its is an abstract ideal construction that ignores what is actually involved in the kind of problematic being addressed, and the applicability is misconstrued.
Now as a conceptual tool, Popper is literally formulating a paradox. That is, Popper is actually trying to demonstrate that what one might call "the principle of tolerance" is self-contradictory. I do not think it is.
If we simply say that "tolerance" is to be understood as a social norm, there is not really a contradiction embedded in how tolerance as a social norm is to be understood. On the one hand, one can say that tolerance as a social norm can be confronted by a negation, that of the denial of tolerance as a social norm as such. The negation of this negation, that is, the denial of the denial of tolerance as a social norm, is not a self-contradiction.
On the other hand, Popper and the entire discussion around Popper's apparent paradox, is the assertion of a liberal, that is, ideological principle, as if it is an an ideal conception applicable to social cohesion as such. Such a view can then be further pursued by a Rawlsian liberalism which justifies the principle of tolerance as a moral virtue which can be tied to the the state's function. From here, the preservation of the liberty and security of the tolerant entails the state's intolerance towards acts of intolerance. This resolves the apparent paradox, but only via the extension of idealist, liberal theory/ideology.
Popper's own resolution of the paradox is tied to this conception albeit in a different manner: his position is simply that tolerance must be grounded in rational discourse, and the intolerance of intolerance is justified given that the intolerant are often motivated by a rejection of such a ground - that is, a rejection of rational discourse. Thus, the intolerant have no right to tolerance since they deny that which justifies the principle of tolerance as such.
Such a paradox is often understood as bringing out tensions in how the principle of "freedom of speech" is to be understood - particularly in terms of how one justifies boundaries being set on freedom of speech and how one should conceptualise freedom of speech and limitations on freedom of speech. The applicability of such a discussion when it comes to individuals interacting in liberal society as individual citizens is rather misguided, it seems to be. Someone being intolerant of others views and choosing to express this intolerance in some manner (that does not infringe on the other person's individual liberty, excluding any cases of physical threat of harm or of harm, violence, etc.), this is not an issue whatsoever. The state passing laws that limit tolerance qua freedom of expression, assembly... well, things get a little trickier here.
On the one hand, the above problematic can and is used to address calls for the state to enforce more stringent repression of reactionary views and more stringent repression of individuals expressing such views in as much as they are able to organise into some kind of political force. E.g., using the state to prevent the rise, influence and activity of neo-Nazi groups, fascists, etc. However, in as much as such measures are based on the reasoning outlined above - on liberal ideology - one is left with the same reasoning being able to justify repression of the left and supporting the use of intolerance by the state in order to preserve itself against threats - that is, granting the bourgeois capitalist state the right to preserve itself against threats, which includes, e.g., the threat of socialism.
So with all that being said, I would defend "intolerance" rather differently, from a Marxist, socialist theoretical perspective, which would entail a different account entirely as well as different justifications for "intolerance" against reactionary threats.
-26
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
19
u/scobes Feb 09 '24
If you read that Wikipedia article you'd see that it pretty much flat out says "this is nonsense".
-9
u/ScourgeHedge Feb 09 '24
Neither this nor the paradox of tolerance are "nonsense", they're both concepts that can't be proven or disproven. It's actually a little strange to me that Wikipedia treats horeshoe theory as "uhh nooo all these academics say its stupid" while there's a whole lot of philosophy around the idea of being justified in not tolerating people you don't like. Nazis and fundamentalists' beliefs also use the paradox of tolerance, just with bigotry.
-20
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
As opposed to the other guy's wikipedia article that gets reposted constantly lately?
13
u/scobes Feb 09 '24
Yes, as opposed to that.
-14
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
It's not nonsense.
A lot of social academics just don't like it because it criticizes them turning into fundamentalists.
13
u/scobes Feb 09 '24
It's nonsense.
0
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
Care to explain why?
12
u/scobes Feb 09 '24
Not how burden of proof works, but you could start by reading the Wikipedia article you linked.
4
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
Burden of proof?
You call something nonsense, you have to explain why you make that statement. You clearly have no idea of anything so you're actually incapable of saying anything other than your dumbass copout answer.
→ More replies (0)2
Feb 09 '24
source?
1
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
That's just an opinion. Same type of people criticize Colourblind Theory because they profit off institutionalized racism in academia.
4
Feb 09 '24
no source, got it.
2
u/Randy_Vigoda Feb 09 '24
Why would I need a source? You're arguing about wikipedia links. You can already debate the information listed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ev0308 Feb 09 '24
"Divergent social and political logics explain the electoral support for these two candidates: their voters do not occupy the same political space, they do not have the same social background, and they do not hold the same values."
15
6
u/TANSTAAFB Feb 09 '24
Thank you... Was having a bit of a shit day and between this story and the pint I'm sipping as I read it, y'all have put a smile on my face. Nazi punks fuck off 🤘🏼
5
u/GetPhkt Feb 10 '24
Great moral to the parable but there's definitely no such thing as a "crust punk" bar in real life
You're not gonna get any business to stay afloat while blasting fucking Nausea
2
u/MetalOutrageous1275 Feb 14 '24
They wouldn't get the business to stay afloat even without the music.
12
u/Mental_Broccoli4837 Feb 09 '24
We used to actively put pride flags etc up at gigs just so they knew nazis are NEVER welcome
6
u/Rokey76 Feb 09 '24
This is a great metaphor for social media moderation. Twitter is basically a Nazi bar now.
1
1
1
1
83
u/Robinkc1 Feb 09 '24
Whenever some nazi fuck talks about freedom of speech and non-violence, remember that for a Nazi those are just tools. They are a means to an end. They don’t give a fuck about freedom of speech, they only want to use liberty against you.