We have a new model in which we no longer have parties of government of right and left but rather a civic democratic party and an authoritarian populist party. There’s a good chance they’ll be contesting elections for a while, even as the authoritarian populist party is trying in various ways to end them or radically change how free they are.
Is it different somehow when you dehumanize the dehumanizers? I personally will not employ those methods, though I do understand the anger.
As has been pointed out to me, I think we are finding ourselves in a paradox of intolerance, wherein to resist intolerance, one must be intolerant of the intolerant.
I’m well familiar with that argument. I simply believe its sometimes counterproductive. It can create more, not less, of them. Does intolerance have a long pattern of successful results? Their intolerance, even in places like Russia, has failed to stamp out the LGBT community there. Fear is simply not as strong a motivator as some would like to believe, people do not have to do what it takes to survive. They also experience things like pride, which conservatism even encourages to a large degree.
While strategic intolerance is important, we certainly shouldn’t throw intolerance away and do 100% tolerance, I think we need a broader set of methods. That’s all. It’s that whole diversity thing, utilizing a broad array of methods and styles in the hopes of achieving broader success.
Fair points.