I agree with a lot of your content, but saying it's "provably" bad is a stretch. A lot of no-platforming increases the speaker's fame and perceived victimhood, particularly when their ideas are never steel-manned and addressed.
-
His video doesn't pose that asymmetry though. The 3rd part of his video is devoted to the differing ideological structures and subsequent consequences of fascist and anti-fascist violence. Part 5 develops that further by showing the logical conclusion of fascist violence.
He repeatedly used the device "'fascists' say x, but Nazis ended up doing y". This can be turned around in "communists say x, but Stalin killed millions". Couldn't he use his same logic to say that we should de-platform communists or anyone that's far-left?
-
-
I think the difference there is that the Nazis' genocide was entirely consistent with fascism. Stalin's wasn't consistent with communism. Stalin failed the ideological project of communism, Hitler achieved it for fascism. There is no good fascism, there could be good communism.
-
Fascism doesn't mean much more than ultranational authoritarianism. Not all fascist regimes committed genocide or were ideological like the Nazis. (not defending fascism) One could say that totalitarianism is likely in fascism and communism, which itself leads to atrocities.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The same logic of deplatforming then can't be applied to both ideologies because the ideologies and their logical conclusions are not equivalent. The point of "fascists' say x, but Nazis ended up doing y" is that fascists essentially lie, they dog whistle because they have to
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.