You don’t even recognize the danger you are complicit in creating.
Niemöller recognized it, when he said:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Thomas Paine recognized it when he said:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
The problem with participating in a mob that attacks Nazis is that the mob isn’t done when the Nazis are all dead. The mob is still around, still looking for enemies to oppress.
The idea that it is socially acceptable to oppress an undesirable group is the exact principle that allowed the German people to promote the mob rule of the Nazi party. By the time they realized what they had created, they were forced to support it, even if they were horrified by what they were doing. Anyone questioning the continued need for their mob found themselves an enemy of it, and thus targeted by it.
That’s the problem with fascism. It is an extremely attractive idea. Fascism arises when we as a society determine we have the right to suppress anything we don’t like, without bothering to consider that nobody is universally liked. When fascism runs out of enemies, it manufactures new ones out of its least liked supporters. The mob you create today is the same mob that will be lynching you tomorrow.
The solution that our grandparents and great-grandparents came up with reiterates Niemöller and Paine. They developed a philosophical principle best summarized as:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
When Nazis are talking, the appropriate response is to talk back, not prohibit them from talking. When we ignore them, censor them, or impose silence on them, they win.
You could read Karl Popper’s The Paradox of Tolerance.
There’s no need to debate Nazism or Fascism with Nazis and Fascists. The education on it should come from historians and those otherwise educated in it.
When we censor Nazis we win. When we let them into our spaces we lose.
I’ve read it. I reject it.
The critical flaw in Popper’s paradox is the assumption that society can accurately recognize and agree on the group of people who deserve to be shunned and silenced. Anyone subscribing to Popper’s paradox can claim it supports their own position against the other. That’s why it is a paradox.
Popper’s paradox suggests that the only solution to fascism is another form of fascism. He suggests the only way to deal with an authoritarian regime is with another authoritarian regime. When both sides subscribe to Popper, they ultimately attack each other, to the death.
The Free Speech absolutist position does not have this problem. When both sides subscribe to free speech, they defend eachother, to the death.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend you while you say it, even as I yell at the top of my lungs that you are wrong and that nobody should be listening to you.
Karl Popper presented the paradox not to justify intolerance of the intolerant, but to show how reasonable, rational people were able to justify the atrocities committed in their name. Like all paradoxes, when we find that Popper’s model is paradoxical, we must recognize that absurdity. We must not adopt it, but reject the model that created it, and find a new method that doesn’t conclude in paradox. Free speech absolutism is one such approach.
You simultaneously reject it and believe he wrote it to prove how unsustainable it is?
You’re entirely wrong. No ideas need to be shared where people don’t want to hear them. You are free to speak and I am free to not listen. It’s truly a beautiful approach.
Edit: I’d also like to add that the paradox Popper is referring to is that of tolerating intolerance. That’s the paradox.
