There Is No Point to Invoking the Godwin Corrollary
I don't think Tiassa and Iceaura could understand this point, just as the nazis demonized the jews to the point that mass murder was acceptable, to the regressive anyone that they label as fascist increasingly should not be treated with civility or even like humans.
The funny thing is that while you can't support that statement, I doubt you even know what it means.
You should probably be careful about invoking the Nazis and Jews since your argument on racism, prejudice, and bigotry backs the Nazis.
Iceaura and I might have any number of disagreements, but one thing we are both generally capable of is sticking with what we have in front of us insofar as you might not like our projections of various policy, attiude, and behavior results, but deeply rooted within our assessments is a very basic, observable fact, which is
civilized society.
I refer to the range in which your position on supremacist bigotry operates as the
suicide pact; that is to say,
civilized society is not a suicide pact. We are Americans; our enshrined iteration is that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, taken from two Supreme Court decisions, Jackson's dissent in
Terminiello, 1949, and Goldberg's opinion in
Kennedy, 1963; the former poses the Bill of Rights as a suicide pact as an outcome of doctrinaire rejection of practical wisdom, while the latter asserts specifically that, "while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact".
Iceaura and I are looking at
function. And your inability to deal with this basic question brings a certain manner of impasse; at this point either Iceaura or I could tell you what is
functionally wrong with your advocacy for bullies. And either of us could point out that when asked to address this functional problem, you're not capable of doing so. I had occasion to consider the suicide pact
about a month ago↗, in discussing the proposition of the skin color you're born into being akin to willfully committing a sex crime. By the way, where does your scheme fall on that one? The proposition is that
being black is akin to committing a sex crime; what sympathy do I owe that argument? As I said at the time:
Many supremacists throughout these United States really are pissed off by the proposition against a suicide pact, but it is also a specific obligation of our Constitution except, strangely, our jurisprudence considers itself not formally obliged to that portion of the Supreme Law of the Land. To the other, securing the more perfect union, and the justice and public welfare it entails, for ourselves and our posterity is, in fact, a consideration conscientious statecraft is capable of empowering. Yet no matter how delicate or complicated we try to make the question, if our posterity wasn't important, nobody would appeal to it. There is no paradox, however, in supremacists attempting to simultaneously appeal to and undermine societal posterity; supremacism is, after all, antisocial behavior.
Which, in turn, is a bit more subtle than any pretense about American society you might invent for the convenience of your continued and effortless ignorance would account for.
You propose, for instance, to distinguish 'twixt a "liberal defense of equal rights even for those with despicable views" and "a defense of these despicable views", yet are incapable of recognizing the illiberal proposition of alienated rights.
In the United States, you have inalienable rights. You'll find American liberals continuing to assert that on behalf of our international neighbors who encounter our jurisdiction, in opposition to more conservative arguments pretending word games are sufficient to alienate inalienable rights.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact; your inalienable rights, common to all people, do not by the Constitutional purview include the alienation of other people's rights.
And it is specifically illiberal to require such alienation.
There is a reason you can't answer for it; there is a reason you have no way of dealing with the problem you assert; then again, that makes sense if we presume you don't actually think it's a problem. There is nothing in history that says coddling supremacism makes it go away. There is nothing in history that says letting "white people" run riot over people of color, or "men" so dominate women, will lead us through to equality and justice. And until you can explain how that works, all you're accomplishing is the advocacy of supremacism. Presently, Ockham would suggest such a result is, at the very least, just fine with you.
After all, inventing straw men, as you have, that fail to recognize between inherent condition (Jewish) and chosen behavior (political), is very much in vogue among supremacists.
But you cannot answer for your suicide-pact argument; Iceaura and I know exactly what we guard against in our society in this context, and there is very little difference 'twixt us on this count, and the fascinating thing is that you are either unwilling or utterly unable to actually countenance where your argument leads. And at this point there really isn't much purpose to playing your worse than useless games.
Meanwhile, no, your chosen politics―or the next person's, at that, dishonest right-winger or not―are not akin to being born Jewish. In the former Holocaust, one need not be a practicing Jew; indeed, one need not actually be Jewish, merely suspected. Interestingly, in the quarter-century I've attended the Gay Fray, any number of conscience assertions about queers did not actually require that the object of prejudice actually be gay; Christianists demanded the right to discriminate against
suspected homosexuals.
All you want is for the objects of prejudice and bigotry to suffer for the sake of supremacists. That's the only outcome of your advocacy for the bullies. And the problem is that simply in addressing the issue
someone will be offended.
• I know men who are absolutely offended by the proposition that they should not hit on random women in the street, or mall, or office, or wherever. And they always go with this idea that they're just "giving her a compliment" or "being nice", and it's not so much that it doesn't matter to them what she thinks, but, rather, the idea that she gets to think anything at all pisses them off.
Man says he's just being nice and giving her a compliment;
woman has no right to think otherwise. Now, I've encountered this argument before, and there is simply no way to engage this question without offending
someone for the perception of an accusation of sexism and prejudice. And that's an example of why you can't tell anyone where your pathetic sympathy for the bullies argument goes. When the range of people we're attempting to have a discussion with includes a determination to absolutely be offended under any circumstance, such that many can be observed
making believe° in order to convince themselves they are offended. It's also the functional problem about the #AllLivesMatter counterpoint:
(1) Disparate impact
(2) Response to disparate impact
(3) Denounce response as disparate impact
↳ Functional result: Addressing disparate impact in police lethality requires that we not recognize the fact of disparate impact, thus perpetuating the disparate status quo.
You would have society accommodate the disparate impact because the idea that someone is killing the wrong person for insufficient reasons seems inherently offensive. You would have society accommodate the fake "Ferguson effect" argument, because pointing out that it's false might make someone feel badly.
Nor is there anything new about this. You're pushing an ancient fallacy.
And as much as you want people to show sympathy to the racists and misogynists and other supremacists, you don't have a functional solution. Indeed, after all this you've pretty much made that part clear.
So here's the thing:
Maybe it isn't true, in your mind, that
all you want is for the objects of prejudice and bigotry to suffer for the sake of supremacists. Really,
maybe you really believe you're working toward functional justice and equality. I mean, sure,
I don't believe it, but on this point what matters is what
you think you're on about. Because the
functional result of your advocacy is the empowerment and perpetuation of supremacism, bigotry, bullying, and injustice.
In this range of issues, Iceaura and I tend to guard against dysfunction, genrally, and
antisocial insistence on dysfunction particularly. That is, he and I might disagree about solutions, but certain problems we seem to agree on.
____________________
Notes:
° See latter section, in re "lazy generalisation", of #3425351/4↗:
One way to explain it is that an accurate reply is still agitating, like the bit about the
swamp of crazy↱:
Yes, we might tell the boot outlet employee,
calling all people from Texas "swamp crazy" is kind of dumb, so why do you do it? That's the thing: She's offended at something she made up in order to be offended.
Somebody said something stupid; somebody else called it crazy; yet someone else decided that meant all _____ are crazy, and took offense. Oh, poor her, she just
must oppose such offense as she just invented.