So....given ideological developments I've had over the past year, I feel a need to address this issue.
First of all, I don't really believe in the paradox of intolerance in a traditional way. As I stated the last time I went into these views in detail, I think this is a postmodernist creation that justifies trying to ban views they don't agree with, and to some extent, the intolerant ones are the ones acting authoritarianly.
I mean keep in mind what tolerance is, tolerance is in the name: tolerate. You don't have to like something, you don't have to endorse something, you have to tolerate something that you do not like. My views are based on tolerance in the literal sense of the word. I don't believe anyone has to like someone, but they have to tolerate something. If people want to hold extreme and horrifying views, that's fine on their own...as long as they do not act on them.
I believe that trying to censor certain views as "too dangerous" or "they dont provide any value" as very short sighted. We are a country based on both freedom of speech and tolerance, and I do believe that violating freedom of speech also shows a certain level of intolerance toward certain views. Now, the views themselves can be intolerant. Like, bigotry, I don't support or endorse it, but I dont believe those views should be banned. I actually view such topics like I view religious extremism. I think religious extremism is dangerous. I think that it doesnt offer much value to society. I think that religious extremists are ILLIBERAL, as in, they want to get into power and force their views on people. For my entire life, we've been under real threat from religious extremists wanting to erode our constitutional freedoms in the name of their religion. I WAS one of these people. And thankfully I grew out of it. But for most of my life, we've had passioned debates between the religious right and the secular left, and ultimately the secular left won out mostly. We're seeing a backlash as these guys are making late wins and moving in an authoritarian direction, but still, no one except the most extreme SJWs want to BAN those views. And we probably shouldn't.
Like, as an ex christian, the worst thing you can do to christians is give them the perspective that you're persecuting them for their views. They WILL die on that hill. They WILL get more extreme. Their book literally tells them to die for their beliefs, and they will liken themselves to being thrown to the lions in the old Roman arenas if you try to persecute them. You dont wanna do that. Not only does that not work, it makes them more extreme. I think its actually healthier for society that we actually think these ideas through, and we try to change minds. Among younger generations, I think that the secular left won. Many millennials and zoomers are far less religious, and many who are religious in my experience have more liberal opinions. I believe that if the culture war comes down to the issues and logic and reason and fair debate, the left will win.
What doesnt work is this paradox of intolerance crap. Now you have these SJW types who will call the same old fundies we've been dealing with for decades "christofascists". It's like when the right calls everything they dont like communism, the left calls everything they dont like fascism. And a lot of them ARE trying to ban those views. You see it on reddit. THeres a reason theres barely any right wingers or fundie christians on reddit any more. The vast majority of subs ban them on sight. Hell, some of them will even ban me just for talking about SJWs doing the crap they pull and pushing back on it with a nuanced opinion. And it's just driving people to extremes.
Honestly, I do think the new left represents some seriouus threats on their own. You got illibral SJWs who want to ban anyone who doesnt toe their extreme line on the topic. And you also got communists who if they had power would be almost as bad as the nazis everyone says we should punch would be. You dont think that communists would purge millions of people if they had their way? My brother in christ, read a history book.
Honestly, I see nazis and communists (as in, tankies) as equivalent threats on polar opposite sides of the aisle. It's literally horseshoe theory at work, both are so extreme in the service of their ideology that they would not be able to function properly in a liberal democracy, threaten the democracy itself, and would likely kill millions of people.
Now, should those views be banned? No. I know some people would love to ban nazi views, but as I see it you might as ban the views of any revolutionary marxist as well if that's your approach. And from there, what of religious extremists? What of hardline SJWs? Ya know? Eventually you can get so ban happy on trying to ban ideologies you see as illiberal and threats that you ban anyone but yourself. And then given someone else likely has the power, you get banned too. In the name of "tolerance" or whatever. Where does it end? I know im pulling a slippery slope thing here but it really IS a slippery slope.
As I see it, people have a right to their views. it doesnt matter how crappy those views are. They could be a literal nazi or a stalinist for all I care. But...the line is action. If you commit action in service of your extremist views, thats where i draw the line. If you commit terrorism, youre done. You should go to jail and probably be barred fom political office. This includes all january 6thers, if people wanna know my stance on that.
What about a nazi running for political office? Well, I dont think they should be banned, but I would say this is where all of that DNC and media screwery should come in. These guys shouldnt be BANNED per se, but i would heavily discourage talking about such candidates and ensuring they remain fringe. I wouldnt be elevating them like the media did with donald trump in 2016. I think they should be suppressed kinda like the media did with bernie and far left candidates. Just...dont give them any institutional support, dont give the media coverage, pretend they dont exist.
Like, that's how you beat extremist ideologies while maintaining freedom. You try to keep them out of the overton window. You do this by making mainstream ideologies more appealing. You shift to accept moderate compromises and triangulate to keep the more extreme views out of the mainstream, and redirect most voters toward mainstream candidates. And hopefully those extremist views would be given less attention.
Take FDR. I always keep coming back to FDR. He was not only our most left wing president and the one who stood up to democratic corruption and for the worker. He was the one that gave us the new deal. But you wanna know what he also did? He saved democracy and capitalism. He saved us from the reactionary forces on the far right and the far left. Because of him, we did NOT repeat the path much of europe went down in the 1930s where they went full on during fascism. He also stopped us from going down the path russia did in 1917. Was perfect? No. Was his movement perfect? No. But ultimately he gave the people what they want in a productive manner and stopped us from going down the path of extremism.
Thats what we need today. We need another FDR. THat's why I liked bernie. And thats why i like yang and have views similar to yang. America has problems. But at the same time I'm condemning both the extreme right that is behind trump, but also a lot of former "comrades" in the bernie movement who have gone full marxist. You NEVER go full marxist, but why did it happen with those people? because of hillary and the DNC refusing to even let bernie into the overton window. The consequence of not giving people what they wanted in the first place is those people lose faith in the system and become more attracted to extreme ideologies that tell them that capitalism is a failure, liberal democracy is a failure, and we need something else more extreme. And thats where we are. Thats where the trump style populists are. And thats where the far left is. And thats dangerous.
It really is as JFK said, those who make peaceful progress impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Our overton window is coming apart at the seams because we're not able to establish a mainstream zeitgeist that resonates. We have a two party system, one is captured by extremists, and the other is milquetoast, and we're facing the very real threat of a trump second term with a much more authoritarian and openly anti democratic version of trump in his second term. This dude is sounding like hitler.
Again, the solution to this isnt to ban ideologies. The solution to this is to get us out of this rut and onto somewhere else. We have no need to ban extremist ideologies if we can instead isolate them and ensure they remain unattractive instead. We do this by winning over the majority of their respective voter bases with a more reasonable candidate.
It doesnt seem to be working on the right, right now, so generally speaking, we need the left to band together if only for the next election to keep those people out of office. And then hopefully in 2028 we can launch a counterattack where we end up electing more progressive candidates.
Ultimately for the left to beat the alt right, I think they need to go FDR again. Not toward "leftism" or "communism" but something more aligned with the likes of bernie sanders, or andrew yang, or myself, you know, those clusters of ideologies. Simply sticking with the status quo is gonna drive people to extremes. We a new governing philosophy that respects the rule of law and liberal democracy and tolerance....while also delivering for the majority of the american people.
Youre always going to have a handful of fringe extremists on both sides. We dont need to ban them to protect everyone else. We just need to ensure their ideas remain fringe by having "the center' (ie, the acceptable spectrum of sane ideologies ranging from liberal conservatism to social democracy) do a good enough job to maintain most voters.
Banning ideologies just leads to the same authoritarian IMO that we're trying to avoid.
No comments:
Post a Comment