Neo-Nazis march in Nashville, leave after being challenged
Neo-Nazis march in Nashville, leave after being challenged
The group left in a U-Haul box truck that was driven out of the county, police said, indicating the demonstrators were outsiders.
The group left in a U-Haul box truck that was driven out of the county, police said, indicating the demonstrators were outsiders.
A small group of neo-Nazis marched in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, on Saturday, drawing a few vocal opponents and ultimately leaving following a "challenge," police said.
The demonstrators, all men, wore red, long-sleeve T-shirts and black pants, and some carried black Nazi flags, according to verified social media video from the scene.
"Neo-Nazi demonstrators ... carried flags with swastikas, walked around the Capitol and parts of downtown Saturday afternoon," Nashville police said in a statement.
No arrests were reported, and the group left in a U-Haul box truck that ultimately exited greater Nashville, police said, indicating the demonstrators may have been from out of town.
"Some persons on Broadway challenged the group, most of whom wore face coverings," the department said. "The group headed to a U-Haul box truck, got in, and departed Davidson County."
You're viewing a single thread.
People need to start taking the paradox of tolerance seriously.
"How do I compromise with someone who wants to put me standing at a wall and shoot me? Stand sideways?"
The compromise is to put them in jail.
They want to kill you, so instead of killing them, just jail them.
I know it was rhetorically, just wanted to give that answer.
And how well did that work with Adolph Hitler? History seems to suggest that jailing would-be Fascist dictators only delays the inevitable, and tends to work in their favor by galvanizing their followers over the "injustice" of their incarceration. For moral and ethical reasons, I truly wish that were the appropriate response. History says it isn't nearly as final as the solutions these maniacs devise for their scapegoats.
Fascism doesn’t happen cause of single individuals, it’s caused by a country going through turmoil. Those individuals, that always existed, finally get a significant audience at that time.
If your talking about root cause fixes, you got to fix the decaying system.
The way I see it if very simple. The umbrella of tolerance only stretches over the people who agree to support it. If you are someone who subscribes to an ideology of intolerance you cannot expect to be protected by the very thing you are trying to eliminate.
I call it the treaty model, they broke it, so they're not under its protection.
Is there a general paradox of compromise, where the assumption that everything has a middle ground is wrong? The paradox of intolerance would be a specific example, but there is also the idea that common ground can always be found between two opposing sides.
For example someone against the death penalty because the courts keep putting innocent people on death row aren't going to compromise on some acceptable number of innocent people dying.
Edit: bunch of morons downvoting because they apparently assume the worst in someone being curious while still on topic. Someone answered that what I was looking for was the Golden Mean Fallacy.
Tolerance of intolerance breeds intolerance. It’s the ‘Nazi Bar’ scenario.
You run a bar. One day, a blatantly obvious Nazi comes in, be he keeps to himself and doesn’t bother anyone. A week later, he comes back but he has some Nazi friends with him. You notice some of your regular patrons get up and leave. Over time, the number of Nazis that show up to your bar increases while the number of regular customers dwindles to nothing. Without intending it, you now have a Nazi bar. If you’d have just kicked the first Nazi out, it wouldn’t have happened.
Yeah, I said I already knew.
Maybe the golden mean fallacy
That is it, thank you!
Is there a general paradox of compromise, where the assumption that everything has a middle ground is wrong?
If i understood your question right then i might have something close for you, rather than being called a paradox an informal fallacy called "argument to moderation"
The "Argument to Moderation" (argumentum ad temperantiam) is the fallacy that the truth always lies somewhere between two opposing positions.
While I understand that you actually wanted to ask about a specific theory, it did not come out very well.
The neo-nazis are everywhere, getting more and more in the open, and it's getting very scary for many people.
So I don't question why they buried you with downvotes.
I wish there was an easy solution to this problem, and I worry a lot about what is to come.
I don't understand why it did not come across well, as I was expanding on the paradox I already agreed with. You don't need to answer, just expressing thoughts since the message I intended to convey did not land.
Did asking about the death penalty from the opposition's standpoint instead of a proponent asking to compromise with just a few executions make it seem like I was disagreeing with death penalty opponents?
I used that example because I am personally opposed to the death penalty for that reason. No, I don't want to compromise on the death penalty any more than I want to tolerate intolerance because both allow for worse and worse actions from the evil side.
It's just a touchy subject right now, and it helps explaining yourself as much as possible before going into theory.
Like
I absolutely disagree with fascism, and am not here to argue about it. What I do want is to ask about a specific theory when talking about the implications of the paradox, which I understand, but want to start a meta-conversation about the deeper philosophy
Or something like that
Oh, I always associate those kind of intros with someone 'just asking questions'. Reminds me of 'not a racist, but...'
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't I guess.
Damned either way indeed. I think your original question was clear and people getting angry about it either have poor reading comprehension or critical thinking. Explaining yourself as much as possible before asking an innocent question is an undue burden that discourages people from learning more and is ultimately an ineffective defense against people who view others uncharitably by default.
There is a very easy solution to the problem but it requires the cuntservatives to kick the 'freedom caucus' to the curb.
Which won't happen.
There is also a very hard solution that we needed to employ in Germany a few years back.
If the right doesn't take the easy solution, we will have no choice but to take the hard.
I worry about the hard solution not being as straightforward as it used to be.
If the richest support the far right, it's going to be one hell of a war.
Possibly, but I'd at least hope that some of the military wouldn't support a fascist dictator. I mean its no guarantee but its still a hope.
For example someone against the death penalty because the courts keep putting innocent people on death row
I know it’s not the point of your comment but that’s not the only reason people are against the death penalty.
Doesn’t matter why in this analogy. Meeting in the middle between 0 and X innocent deaths, is still going to leave more than 0 innocent deaths. Which should be unacceptable to all non-sociopaths.
It’s illustrating the fallacy of assuming there is always a compromise in an argument. Sometimes there are, but not with Nazis or any intolerant groups, with the exception of intolerance of the intolerant, which is necessary to keep a society tolerant.
I just gave my own personal reason and did not imply it was the only reason.
That's probably the worst example you can give.
Why is that the worst example?