Most nationalists (including Nazi) give no flying fucks about a rational discourse. If 2+2=4 hurts their precious fee fees, they say that 2+2=5 and no matter what you say will change it.
Plenty Nazi capitalise on Brandolini’s Law. They know that it takes far less effort to utter bullshit than to refute it. In effect this means that people fighting against Nazi discourses through words will, as a group, get tired faster than the ones vomiting the Nazi discourse.
Because of those two factors, while I can certainly understand your point, I think that you’re being short-sighted when you say “that’s your problem not theirs”.
I do agree that there’s always a risk that mechanisms used to censor them might get misused against you. However I see this as a second risk that you need to balance out with the first one (the Nazi), and which risk is more relevant is heavily situational.
I’m not a big fan of Poo-per Popper but I think that his paradox of tolerance is spot on about those two things. At least in its original version (not its “Disney version” parroted in social media). I’ll abridge it here:
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 unwise. But we should claim the right even to suppress them, 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 anything as deceptive as rational argument, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists.
Emphasis mine. For further context check page 226 of his book. (PDF page 232).
The fact that it takes a lot more energy to debunk a claim is why I said you can take a few and show that they are disingenuous. Spend a bit of energy to show that they always talk bullshit so that they can be proven liars and easily discounted by anybody with a brain. The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause. They are few and far between but if people listen to what they say and nobody is around to disprove it or argue against it they gain a bit of power. They haven’t created more Nazis so you have the same enemies to fight against. Cut off the head of the snake by showing their claims to be disingenuous and lies.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
Taking a few and showing that they’re disingenuous doesn’t work well.
For a less rational audience, all that the Nazi need to do is to relabel their discourse; for example saying that they’re “the alternative right” instead of “neonazi”, or “anti-woke” instead of “alt right”. And, for a more rational audience, the nazi can point out that you’re generalising an attribute to the group based on properties of a few of them (“ackshyually, that guy is bad, but not all of us are like that!”).
In both cases, if you decide to not keep engaging, they can simply claim “see? He was left with no arguments!”. And they do this all the time.
The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause.
Fully agree with that.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
I think that our major point of disagreement is if those things are enough to keep the Nazi at bay. I think that often they aren’t.
There are two important factors here:
Because of those two factors, while I can certainly understand your point, I think that you’re being short-sighted when you say “that’s your problem not theirs”.
I do agree that there’s always a risk that mechanisms used to censor them might get misused against you. However I see this as a second risk that you need to balance out with the first one (the Nazi), and which risk is more relevant is heavily situational.
I’m not a big fan of
Poo-perPopper but I think that his paradox of tolerance is spot on about those two things. At least in its original version (not its “Disney version” parroted in social media). I’ll abridge it here:Emphasis mine. For further context check page 226 of his book. (PDF page 232).
The fact that it takes a lot more energy to debunk a claim is why I said you can take a few and show that they are disingenuous. Spend a bit of energy to show that they always talk bullshit so that they can be proven liars and easily discounted by anybody with a brain. The people you are trying to convince are not the Nazis. They’re basically a lost cause. They are few and far between but if people listen to what they say and nobody is around to disprove it or argue against it they gain a bit of power. They haven’t created more Nazis so you have the same enemies to fight against. Cut off the head of the snake by showing their claims to be disingenuous and lies.
These are all things that do not require the power of law and force of government to silence people.
Taking a few and showing that they’re disingenuous doesn’t work well.
For a less rational audience, all that the Nazi need to do is to relabel their discourse; for example saying that they’re “the alternative right” instead of “neonazi”, or “anti-woke” instead of “alt right”. And, for a more rational audience, the nazi can point out that you’re generalising an attribute to the group based on properties of a few of them (“ackshyually, that guy is bad, but not all of us are like that!”).
In both cases, if you decide to not keep engaging, they can simply claim “see? He was left with no arguments!”. And they do this all the time.
Fully agree with that.
I think that our major point of disagreement is if those things are enough to keep the Nazi at bay. I think that often they aren’t.