People will throw the fascism label around for all kinds of things, sometimes justifiably, but more often to over-dramaticize and get attention.
Overly broad over used labels can’t deserve zero tolerance. You might say that murder deserves zero tolerance, but what about murder of a person who is in a position where they are about to murder a large number of other people? Do you enforce your “zero tolerance” by doing the thing you label as “zero tolerance”?
You might say that genocide should be zero tolerance, but again - we’re getting into over-broad over-used poorly defined words. When does killing of members of a certain culture or group become genocide? Clearly, it’s killing more than one - but if the group is a small society of maybe 100 members, is it genocide to kill 50 of them? When the 50 of them are about to murder 1000 others, even though the 1000 are members of a society of millions? What’s the threshold of “about to” when it’s acceptable to take away the “murder” label and kill them anyway?
I won’t, if you need an academical definitions of fascism or genocide to be able to spot and fight them, better go to Reddit or 4chan for this kind of troll-y shit. Fascism is not tolerable, period.
1990 Berlin, I spent the day with a “Kein Fußbreit den Faschisten” punk, he didn’t have his mohawk “up” but he was vehament: “When you see a fascist you must beat him up” - which, to me, is missing the point - bringing yourself down to their level. Of course this was on the actual streets with actual fists, knives, bats, and firebombs where people were actually dying, and worse: being maimed for life - not some idealistic internet ranting.
So, yeah, rant all you like, but even if they are calling themselves Neo-Nazi skinheads all over again, don’t be killing each other on my lawn - thanks.
No. For an easy example, does fascism deserve tolerance?
First, define fascism.
People will throw the fascism label around for all kinds of things, sometimes justifiably, but more often to over-dramaticize and get attention.
Overly broad over used labels can’t deserve zero tolerance. You might say that murder deserves zero tolerance, but what about murder of a person who is in a position where they are about to murder a large number of other people? Do you enforce your “zero tolerance” by doing the thing you label as “zero tolerance”?
You might say that genocide should be zero tolerance, but again - we’re getting into over-broad over-used poorly defined words. When does killing of members of a certain culture or group become genocide? Clearly, it’s killing more than one - but if the group is a small society of maybe 100 members, is it genocide to kill 50 of them? When the 50 of them are about to murder 1000 others, even though the 1000 are members of a society of millions? What’s the threshold of “about to” when it’s acceptable to take away the “murder” label and kill them anyway?
I won’t, if you need an academical definitions of fascism or genocide to be able to spot and fight them, better go to Reddit or 4chan for this kind of troll-y shit. Fascism is not tolerable, period.
1990 Berlin, I spent the day with a “Kein Fußbreit den Faschisten” punk, he didn’t have his mohawk “up” but he was vehament: “When you see a fascist you must beat him up” - which, to me, is missing the point - bringing yourself down to their level. Of course this was on the actual streets with actual fists, knives, bats, and firebombs where people were actually dying, and worse: being maimed for life - not some idealistic internet ranting.
So, yeah, rant all you like, but even if they are calling themselves Neo-Nazi skinheads all over again, don’t be killing each other on my lawn - thanks.