[flagged]
> "If you and 9 of your friends have a dinner with a Nazi, there are 11 Nazis around that table."
It is risible that one would make that accusation, by the way.
If we're talking about actual Nazis and not "everyone I disagree with is literally worse than Hitler" insult inflation, then it necessarily follows that civil discourse is not available.
Why? Because they mass-murdered people like me.
So, tough luck. If you use your freedom to pick them, I'll use mine to refuse you.
The point is, it is not physically impossible for a member of <minority group> to participate in civil discourse with actual Nazis. It just depends on the specific Nazi in question.
The fact that you think that's a counter argument, indicates you have severely failed to consider my perspective.
I won't willing hang out with you if you knowingly hang out with them. If you try to force me to hang out with you, I believe you would be breaking the law.
Furthermore, if they were in my country, I'd have them arrested because membership of that group is outlawed here.
There is no possibility of civil discourse, not only between me and someone who wants me dead (which wasn't actually the scenario I was describing even though it was clearly what you described in the quote), but there is also no possibility of civil discourse between me and those who tolerate those who wish me dead.
If we meet IRL, and you try to defend actual literal Nazis, the most civil I'll be able to be is getting up and leaving, not any kind of discussion. It's hard enough to not be enraged right now, and here I have the benefit of an edit button and the emotional distance that comes with text.
Simply having a conversation with someone does nothing to help that person. If I eat at a restaurant with a Nazi, once we leave then nothing in the world will have changed.
Simply having a civil discussion with someone also does not mean that I approve of that person or their views. Most political discussions are inherently about disagreement.
If such a conversation means that you will think that I am necessarily evil, then I wonder why you think that.
If someone does something truly abhorrent, the appropriate reaction is to put them in prison. Whether or not to interact with that person is not relevant.
It seems to me like you are saying that the necessary obstacle to civil discourse is your own reaction to the situation. In my last comment I had assumed you meant the Nazi was the one who would not be able to remain civil. I guess I am opposed to emotional reactions when they accomplish nothing. Of course, overcoming our emotions is easier said than done, but it remains a goal of mine when it comes to anger and fear.
I'm pretty sure there is nobody on /pol/, or anywhere on the internet for that matter (short of some 95+ year olds), who was an "actual Nazi" who "mass-murdered people like you."
Sadly there are a whole bunch of people who self describe with that term (or its translation), and whose demonstrative behaviour matches the label to the greatest extent they can get away with.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and wears a badge saying "I'm a duck", why should I treat it as anything other than an actual duck?
* The paradox of tolerance
* The white moderate by MLK
* A useful idiot (applies to ideologies in general)
This is a description of how everyone else in the community would view your dinner party. You'd be "the guy who has Nazi dinner parties" to all your neighbors.
I'd recommend wading through Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco sometime this summer. Nice little morality play tucked into that book; hanging out with evil people because you find them interesting is a bad idea.
I can't say about communists, as there are so few around these days.
I dated one. Her description was basically the "People's Front of Judea" scene in Life of Brian — they're all in their own tiny rabbit holes, completely convinced all the other tiny groups are pawns, puppets, or stooges of capitalism.
There are many reasons to read something other than "I am reading this because I love and agree with every aspect of it". In fact, it is probably common knowledge that only ever reading stuff you wholeheartedly agree with is quite a bad idea. Echo chambers, social media "bubbles" and all that. Also, it can be good to build a tougher skin, can't it?
Are you seriously claiming that people should visit /b/ to avoid echo chambers? Have you been to /b/? I'd argue that it's probably more productive to change your perspective by hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. You're not being freed from your echo chamber by listening to people who support genocide.
My comment is meant more as a defense of 4chan as a whole. I have seen valuable information originate from their technology board, for example. I just don't want to see prejudice against any and all 4chan users. Blanket application of "guilt by association", which seems to be advocated in neighboring threads, seems horrible to me.
I just hope people will be willing to engage with any other person up to the point that they actively prove to you in person that they are a jackass. Trying to look for signs that the other person is secretly a jackass is not a great approach.
So you hit it right there.
Neither fascism nor communism necessarily include mass murder.
Naziism does.
ex: "Nazis eat food, you eat food, therefore you're a Nazi."
Doing something that all people do and are expected to do, on either side of the conflict, does not actually make a difference. Being a complete and utter jackass makes the difference.