If the silencing and persecution of minorities is not part of your definition of “the rise of fascism”, you should really gain a better definition of the “fascism” actually is.
Fascism is very well defined and it’s not what you wrote. Just look it up.
And while you’re at it, look up “paradox of tolerance”, too.
When a plane with 20 people on board is bound to crash into a full football stadium with 70.000 people, you’d be the guy who decides to not shoot down the plane because the 20 people shouldn’t be weighed against possibly thousands dying if it crashed into the stadium.
The moral codex in Western countries is to cause as little loss as possible, so the 20 people on board will count less than the thousands on the ground.
Accordingly there oppressed minorities using the Internet to communicate won’t be weighed against the millions of people who’d die in a new Holocaust, which is the final goal of the new fascists.
Fascism is well-defined? With all due respect, this is the kind of statement that betrays a lack of knowledge of the field. Fascism is notorious in political science for being poorly defined both as a system of government and as an ideology.
What constitutes as a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars ever since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915. Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that “trying to define ‘fascism’ is like trying to nail jelly to the wall”.
For convenience, we can use the Wikipedia definition, which clearly signposts the oppression of political and social minorities as key parts of the definition of fascism.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
“Paradox of tolerance” does not justify literally any oppressive act.
And yeah, if a plane with 20 people on board is on a glide path towards a stadium, I’m going to be pretty skeptical of anybody who’s just champing at the bit to shoot it down. If we’ve got the time to talk about it, we can evacuate the stadium, or get in contact with the pilot, or scramble a jet to take a look inside and confirm if the occupants are incapacitated, or nudge a wingtip so that it glides into a less populated area. All of which have a better chance of success and are less disruptive than firing an armed missile within civilian airspace. Your unwillingness to consider less extreme options will inadvertently end up empowering authoritarians and enabling the very abuses you nominally wish to prevent.
It’s a thought experiment. It’s not meant to inspire you to look for better options, but to illustrate the moral dilemma of sacrificing a fewer number of lives for a greater one.
I mean you don’t seem to have a good grasp on complex matters so apologies for bamboozling you, but you need to learn a lot more about real life before discussing these things.
True, that’s a drawback but one with less severe consequences for humankind than if we just let this rise of fascism continue.
If the silencing and persecution of minorities is not part of your definition of “the rise of fascism”, you should really gain a better definition of the “fascism” actually is.
Fascism is very well defined and it’s not what you wrote. Just look it up.
And while you’re at it, look up “paradox of tolerance”, too.
When a plane with 20 people on board is bound to crash into a full football stadium with 70.000 people, you’d be the guy who decides to not shoot down the plane because the 20 people shouldn’t be weighed against possibly thousands dying if it crashed into the stadium.
The moral codex in Western countries is to cause as little loss as possible, so the 20 people on board will count less than the thousands on the ground.
Accordingly there oppressed minorities using the Internet to communicate won’t be weighed against the millions of people who’d die in a new Holocaust, which is the final goal of the new fascists.
Fascism is well-defined? With all due respect, this is the kind of statement that betrays a lack of knowledge of the field. Fascism is notorious in political science for being poorly defined both as a system of government and as an ideology.
For convenience, we can use the Wikipedia definition, which clearly signposts the oppression of political and social minorities as key parts of the definition of fascism.
“Paradox of tolerance” does not justify literally any oppressive act.
And yeah, if a plane with 20 people on board is on a glide path towards a stadium, I’m going to be pretty skeptical of anybody who’s just champing at the bit to shoot it down. If we’ve got the time to talk about it, we can evacuate the stadium, or get in contact with the pilot, or scramble a jet to take a look inside and confirm if the occupants are incapacitated, or nudge a wingtip so that it glides into a less populated area. All of which have a better chance of success and are less disruptive than firing an armed missile within civilian airspace. Your unwillingness to consider less extreme options will inadvertently end up empowering authoritarians and enabling the very abuses you nominally wish to prevent.
It’s a thought experiment. It’s not meant to inspire you to look for better options, but to illustrate the moral dilemma of sacrificing a fewer number of lives for a greater one.
I mean you don’t seem to have a good grasp on complex matters so apologies for bamboozling you, but you need to learn a lot more about real life before discussing these things.