Exactly. I believe the best way to fight fascism is to have open dialogue and expose repugnant ideas to the court of public opinion. This requires free speech. The initiation of force outside of self defence is amoral.
You could believe this, but that doesn't make it the proper way.
To be honest, we don't know how to stop these ideas. The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed the world.
It's scary to say but there are theories floating around from hundreds of years ago that were made by different philosophers about the nature of these.
For example, the paradox of tolerance is one of these theories.
I'm not saying we should be violent, I'm just saying we have absolutely no idea how to deal with this.
"The nazi party came into power with less than 40% approval and gained that power that nearly destroyed the world."
The Nazis first attacked and destroyed the free press and other free-speech institutions. Robust legal protections for free speech, and a culture of vigorously defending it, will prevent tyrants from gaining and maintaining power.
There is no 'paradox of tolerance'. The intolerant are intolerant, no matter which side they are on. Peaceful racists should have their say. We are all free to disagree and shun them. This isn't ivory tower. This is part and parcel of a free and open society.
I fear though that "Peaceful Racists" will spread to all conservatives. That > 60 million people could legitimately vote for a racist, xenophobic and sexist bigot seem to point out that these people are OK with racism, even if they're not active participants. Which is extremely disturbing.
From what I've read, anti-semitism, while it existed, wasn't mainstream in Germany as well. But the Nazis were "Peaceful Racists" at first (they changed pretty quickly) and seized power. I genuinely fear the same might happen in the US ...
If you fear that racism will spread to all conservatives than you really need to engage with them in respectful dialogue to test your hypothesis.
For example, you might be surprised to learn that the Democratic party was the party of slavery in the South and that the Nazi party used the Jim Crow laws as inspiration for their racist segregation and treatment of Jews. As shocking as this statement sounds, the Nazi party shares its ideological roots with the Democratic party. If you don't believe me please fact check it.
Lastly, I'd recommend reading Thomas Sowell and Dinesh D’Souza for a better understanding of what is conservatism.
What JUDEO-Christian values are you talking about? Those espoused by Donald Trump? Good Sir, conservatives voted for Trump DESPITE him being a manifestation of everything OPPOSITE to the values you speak of (liar, doesn't pay his debt, treats everyone else poorly, assaults women etc.). And if not for those values, what do conservatives stand for, really? Just a party of opposition/trolling liberals?
So who is being dishonest?
Let's drop the sham that not all conservatives will go down the terrible path of Nazism/White Supremacy in this current political climate. If not a certainty, from how Trump has been able to get away with one amazingly blatant political scandal after another, it shows just how its terrifyingly possible for that to happen. There is a path from A to B, and to ignore it is dangerous, disingenuous and dishonest
I never mentioned Trump, so your little rant makes no sense.
I'm talking about western values: private property, freedom of speech, the right to live.
These are historically conservative causes. These are judeo-christian values. How can a conservative be a Jew-hating Nazi while at the same time defending their values? It's a contradiction, it makes no sense.
In fact it's the left that is pretty much anti-Israel and pro-Palestine (like Hitler btw).
If you refuse to recognize my existence as an equal human being deserving civil rights, you give up your right to be treated in a civil manner by me. Violence has absolutely no place in arguments between people, but if one party's only intention is to wipe out the other simply for being different, it means the second party is driven to use all options, including violence.
One may give up right to be treated in a civil manner by you. That part's fine. You don't need to be civil towards people who are repugnant.
But it still does not give you justification for violence or threats. No, you are not "driven" to violence. If you are violent, violence is your decision for which you are responsible.
(We are not talking about self defense situation, we're talking about going to someone else's non-violent demonstration to stop it by force).
