Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Tolerance- an apology

12357

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm rather amused by the view that it achieved anything. Facism in Europe was stopped by real battles (the kind where people die in agony trying to hold their intestines in) rather than a few people chucking stones at the police.
    Then again, if more people in Germany had been a tad more "intolerant" towards the Hitler boys those battles and the horrors of wWII could have been avoided.

    But perhaps those who defend their twisted version of "tolerance" so passionately think WWII was a small price to pay for carrying out the principles of tolerance towards everything, including unspeakable evil.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tolerance is just that - TOLERATING something, biting your tongue, putting up with it even though you think it sucks. Bottling up your feelings. Then the natural progression: pretending you think differently than you do. Lying. Maybe taking your frustration out by whacking tennis balls or the skulls of your fellow humans.

    This comes under the fourth definition of 'tolerance' at dictionary.com: "the act or capacity of enduring; endurance".
    This reminds me of a discussion way back when the Independent had it's own message board. 'Argument', it was called, and it drew a range of posters together. There was always someone from the BNP stirring, and getting plenty of abuse, much of it quite heated, in return.

    During one such discussion, an African poster called into question the notion of tolerance as you have done, saying that he resented the idea of being seen as something to be 'endured'. I put forward my own idea of tolerance as not an objective in itself, but as a 'bridge to understanding'. That unless you make the effort to respect another culture, and get to know it for yourself, you will swallow wholesale a lot of unfounded rumours about it. Judge Islam, for example, on the basis of what muslims say, not spiteful cant spun by Christian fundamentalists. There may still be grounds for argument, but they'll be solid grounds, not a miasma of rumours.

    'Tolerance' isn't bending over backwards, and it certainly isn't touching your toes and gritting your teeth in a false smile while fuming inside. It's just the basic recognition that we're all humans, however diverse our cultures may have become. Not every culture prizes tolerance as much as the next, but that's no reason, in my opinion, to become an intolerant culture.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    What it achieved was to raise national awareness about the Naziboys and send the message people wouldn't put up with it..

    Sent no such message I'm afraid. The actual message it sent was that the left were a bunch of thugs who weren't afraid to brick the police.
    I notice the Blackshirts didn't do very well and came to an end not long afterwards.

    I believe we call it World War 2, of which most historians feel Cable Street wasn't part
    Anyone who fails to be moved by citizens of different races, religions, ethnic backgrounds and political affiliations uniting against that scum need to rethink things a little. We certainly could do with that spirit nowadays.

    Regardless of arguing about the ultimate meaning of the term 'tolerance' surely anyone can see that allowing people, for instance, to hang up signs banning entrance to those of other races or sexual orientation would have a devastating effect on society and the country as a whole.

    But no matter. Even if there are years of unrest, destruction and misery, the advocates of this concept of 'ultimate tolerance' could sit on top of the smoldering ruins of a burnt building for a good vantage point and and think 'oh isn't it nice to live in such tolerant place'

    Basically you have three choices. Tolerating the extemists and arguing against them.

    Or you can do what you seem to suggest which is make bits illegal and claim your acting in a higher motive. Apart from the moral problems about state interference it also has the knock-on off actually increasing the support of normal people for them...

    There is a third option - which I hope that you wouldn't consider but which sadly is probably the most effective if history tells us anything. That is to arrest and execute the leadership, send the normal members to stalags to die, torture any who show inclinations to turn to the right and refuse to hold any democratic elections just in case they don't go your way.

    And to be honest I'm not absolutely sure that allowing catholic adoption agencies not to allow gays to adopt is going to lead to smoldering remains of burnt buildings...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Then again, if more people in Germany had been a tad more "intolerant" towards the Hitler boys those battles and the horrors of wWII could have been avoided.

    But perhaps those who defend their twisted version of "tolerance" so passionately think WWII was a small price to pay for carrying out the principles of tolerance towards everything, including unspeakable evil.

    Well personally I feel that anyone who takes up an armed revolt against the state whether that's Hitler or Chavez should spend the rest of their natural behind bars. But then tolerance to overthrow the state isn't really the type of thing I ( and I assume MoK or Kermit is talking about). And if the BNP or catholics get anywhere near doing so my stance may change (come to that as it will that we allow repulsive organisations on the left to exist as well if they come anywhere nearer to power than a few councillors and 1 MP).

    Still nice straw man
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The main result of the 'Battle' of Cable Street was that the BUF marched the next week instead and BUF support in the area went up.

    I'd like to see where you got this from. I'd also recommend reading up about The 43 Group.
    I'm rather amused by the view that it achieved anything. Facism in Europe was stopped by real battles (the kind where people die in agony trying to hold their intestines in) rather than a few people chucking stones at the police.

    There was a fascist dictatorship in Europe until the 1970's.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sent no such message I'm afraid. The actual message it sent was that the left were a bunch of thugs who weren't afraid to brick the police.
    The left? There were all kind of people there, not just "the left". Students, women, teachers, Jewish shopkeepers.

    Regardless of the battles with the police, it was a proud moment for all concerned. If only we showed the same backbone nowdays.


    I believe we call it World War 2, of which most historians feel Cable Street wasn't part
    From Wikipedia:

    "Nonetheless, membership fell to below 8,000 by the end of 1935. The government was sufficiently concerned, however, to pass the Public Order Act of 1936, which banned the wearing of political uniforms during marches, required police consent for political marches to go ahead, and effectively destroyed the movement."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists


    So not only the Blackshirts went into delcine well before WWII, but it was popular action (and more significantly) action by the government that finished them off.

    With flies nicely in the face of MoK and others' argument that by banning such people you make things worse.


    Basically you have three choices. Tolerating the extemists and arguing against them.

    Or you can do what you seem to suggest which is make bits illegal and claim your acting in a higher motive. Apart from the moral problems about state interference it also has the knock-on off actually increasing the support of normal people for them...

    There is a third option - which I hope that you wouldn't consider but which sadly is probably the most effective if history tells us anything. That is to arrest and execute the leadership, send the normal members to stalags to die, torture any who show inclinations to turn to the right and refuse to hold any democratic elections just in case they don't go your way.

    And to be honest I'm not absolutely sure that allowing catholic adoption agencies not to allow gays to adopt is going to lead to smoldering remains of burnt buildings...
    It's not as simple as that though. For instance, we are already tolerating fascist parties to exist. That in my eyes is a great act of tolerance, given recent history and what those people advocate.

    But a line can and must be drawn somewhere. Currently one such line is forbidding individuals from banning people from their premises because of the colour of their skin, ethnicality etc (and in a few weeks sexual orientation).

    That is the way things have been in this country for years and I don't see any popular revolts or massive surge in support of racists because a few cunts are not allowed to put a sign outside their pub reading 'no ni ggers allowed'. So that theory that by banning such individuals from doing such things we're making things worse doesn't wash.

    It seems to me that the immense majority of people in this country are happy with the current arrangements and that most of those who would like to allow individuals to ban anyone they want based on their ethnicity, race, gender or sexual orientation must be members of this forum. I certainly haven't come across any in real life.

    Then perhaps most people in real life realise that if we were to allow such things, towns and cities would be in flames within weeks.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sent no such message I'm afraid. The actual message it sent was that the left were a bunch of thugs who weren't afraid to brick the police.


    Not true. It showed that there was genuine working class resistance to fascism. I'm also put in mind of that quote from Hitler - something to do with if they'd been smashed on the streets they'd never have gained power. Can't remember it verbatim though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe we call it World War 2, of which most historians feel Cable Street wasn't part


    Actually Mosley was again very active after WW2. The 43 Group played a big part in stopping them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well personally I feel that anyone who takes up an armed revolt against the state whether that's Hitler or Chavez should spend the rest of their natural behind bars.
    Really?

    That's a really bizarre position.

    So you're saying if a country gets taken over by a bunch of derange lunatic fascist murdereres (such as Pinochet's regime for instance) the people shouldn't revolt under any circumstances and that you wish any who did was sent to jail for life?

    Why oh why would you think such a thing?????????

    But then tolerance to overthrow the state isn't really the type of thing I ( and I assume MoK or Kermit is talking about). And if the BNP or catholics get anywhere near doing so my stance may change (come to that as it will that we allow repulsive organisations on the left to exist as well if they come anywhere nearer to power than a few councillors and 1 MP).

    Still nice straw man
    Why a straw man? It's a very valid argument.

    I know the social circumstances were rather different but still:

    Britain: fascists opposed, fought on the streets and then restricted by the government = movement dies

    Germany: fascists allowed to exist and campaign freely= Third Reich


    What really makes me laugh the most is that if the BNP were to win a general election all the precious, altruistic and noble sentiments of tolerance some of you praise so highly and which would have allowed the BNP to gain power in the first place would be thrown out of the window by the naziboys, and all our rights to be tolerated by others would be stomped on by their jackboots.

    A better example of turkeys voting for Xmas I'm really hard pressed to think of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I haven't got time to go into all the details of yours and Blagsta's posts, but the wiki also seems to defeat your argument as it states it was declining in 1935 and the 'battle' of cable street wasn't until 1936.

    However the BUF was destroyed once and for all on 3 Sept 1939, when the circumstances changed. At the same time we temporarily removed lots of other civil liberties - security becoming more important than freedom when there were German bombers overhead.

    The fact that Oswald Mosely continued as a pretty marginal figure after the war doesn't change that fact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wiki is not really the best source of info. The BUF carried on after the war with big rallies around Bethnal Green. Read up about The 43 Group sometime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree - the wiki reference was to Aladdin's post (quoting from wiki) and I'm aware of the continued existence of the BUF.

    The point is that it was pretty marginal in the grand scheme of things and had no chance. Whilst attempts were made to revive (under a different name) the it the holocaust and recent history of Britain gave it no chance and actions of organisations like the 43 group had a marginal impact.

    Even some of its meetings were not really people in support of facism, but facism clinging onto the coatails of other policies. There were several big meetings, but these were more attended by people angered by what they saw as Jewish ingratitude in Palestine, when British troops were getting shot, than they were motivated by facism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One of the reasons it had no chance was that it was opposed on the streets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    One of the reasons it had no chance was that it was opposed on the streets.

    I'd say the holocaust and WW2 had a greater impact, but I suspect we'll argue until we're blue in the face and neither will change the other's mind
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course they had a greater impact. However one of the reasons was opposition on the streets.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree - the wiki reference was to Aladdin's post (quoting from wiki) and I'm aware of the continued existence of the BUF.

    The point is that it was pretty marginal in the grand scheme of things and had no chance. Whilst attempts were made to revive (under a different name) the it the holocaust and recent history of Britain gave it no chance and actions of organisations like the 43 group had a marginal impact.
    And yet, if the article is to be believed, by the time WWII arrived the movement was all but finished due to the actions of the government restricting it.

    Which kind of disproves all these apocaliptic warnings about fomenting fascism (or racism, or any form of bigotry and hatred) by banning it. From looking practical cases around the world, the opposite appears to be true.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Incidentally, can you extend on your comment about wishing that anyone who revolts against the State should be sent to jail for life? I'm really curious about such comment. Is this with democractically elected governments only or with all forms of State no matter how vicious they might be or how they got to power?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Nazis were fought on te streets by communists etc

    Main difference is that they won, and they won because they were far more popular, for various social and economic reasons.

    So I am not sure whether street battling is really that important in describing the differing success of fascism in various countries...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Incidentally, can you extend on your comment about wishing that anyone who revolts against the State should be sent to jail for life? I'm really curious about such comment. Is this with democractically elected governments only or with all forms of State no matter how vicious they might be or how they got to power?

    I should have made clear I meant against democratic Govt eg Germany 1923 and Venuezla 1992.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And yet, if the article is to be believed, by the time WWII arrived the movement was all but finished due to the actions of the government restricting it.

    Which kind of disproves all these apocaliptic warnings about fomenting fascism (or racism, or any form of bigotry and hatred) by banning it. From looking practical cases around the world, the opposite appears to be true.
    Gerry Webber provides the best estimates of BUF membership:

    1934 Feb 17,000
    1934 July 50,000
    1935 October 5,000
    1936 March 10,000
    1936 November 15,500
    1938 December 16,500
    1939 September 22,500

    http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm

    I guess it depends by what you mean by the word 'decline'.

    The situation in 1939 was such that it was reasonable to take action which shouldn't be considered in peacetime (eg the banning of various political groups and the internment without trial of their members). Other liberties were also restricted, eg through rationing, blackouts restrictions, restrictions on the right to strike, identity cards, censorship of newspapers etc.

    I would argue that the actions allowable when the entire state is under threat from an external aggression are not those which should even be contemplated in peacetime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote: »
    The Nazis were fought on te streets by communists etc

    Main difference is that they won, and they won because they were far more popular, for various social and economic reasons.

    So I am not sure whether street battling is really that important in describing the differing success of fascism in various countries...

    Of course its not the only factor, or even a major factor. It's a factor nonetheless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well personally I feel that anyone who takes up an armed revolt against the state whether that's Hitler or Chavez should spend the rest of their natural behind bars.
    I should have made clear I meant against democratic Govt eg Germany 1923 and Venuezla 1992.

    What about Neville Chamberlain ?

    He and his associates took up an armed revolt against the "democratic Govt. of Germany" in September 1939.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm

    I guess it depends by what you mean by the word 'decline'.
    Radically different figures and trend from those suggested in Wikipedia. I've no idea which one is closer to the truth.

    But one thing is certain in my mind. Without popular revolt against the fascists, by force if it comes to it, they are allowed to grow and flourish unchecked.

    All these much repeated claims that it's best to leave the BNP say and do what they want because they expose themselves for what they are and it works against them has yet to prove the case. On the contrary- it benefits them. Like it or not, the more offensive racial-stirring hatred bullshit they are allowed to peddle the more people they will turn. And all under the noses of those who say 'let them be they'll only expose themselves for what they are ha ha ha'.

    Until it's too late.

    As I said before I don't have a problem with the BNP existing if the don't incite racial hatred and peddle bullshit and lies with the sole purpose of stirring shit socially. But letting them do it assuming it can only harm them is foolish in the extreme.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    by force if it comes to it.

    Hmm...sounds like a very fascist thing to do imo.

    ETA:The BNP will never get big, let them be, always have and always will be the party who get tonnes of headlines for stupid, silly reasons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Hmm...sounds like a very fascist thing to do imo.


    What makes you say that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    What makes you say that?

    Forcing people to stick "in line" with a certain ideology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Forcing people to stick "in line" with a certain ideology.

    That's what fascism means is it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    That's what fascism means is it?

    No but it's a thing fascists do. If you're not part of the Volk then you can fuck off and die.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    No but it's a thing fascists do.

    It's a thing human beings do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    It's a thing lots of people do.

    I agree, so what's your problem?
Sign In or Register to comment.