Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
I feel we are definitely seeing this happen in our country. I don't know the context in which it was said, I do plan to look it up, but on its own it says a great deal. I know folks here have very different ideas of what (or who) is considered good and evil and am interested in what this quote looks like from your point of view.
And lets try to be civil about it and not devolve into name calling. I'm really tired of seeing grown adults regressing to petty elementary school behavior.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
Read Repressive Tolerance. This is exactly what Herbert Marcuse was teaching at the Frankfurt school. This is a component of Critical Theory, which spawned Critical Race Theory. It's all the same [BLEEP].
https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publicat...ltext.html
There is nothing accepting about progressive ideology. It's their way or the highway, and until the moderates wake up, it will be more of the same.
Like all of their ideologies, this dissertation starts reasonable and descends into totalitarianism wearing the mask of enlightenment. I really loathe these dudes.
Quote:While the reversal of the trend in the educational enterprise at least could conceivably be enforced by the students and teachers themselves, and thus be self-imposed, the systematic withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions and movements could only be envisaged as results of large-scale pressure which would amount to an upheaval. In other words, it would presuppose that which is still to be accomplished: the reversal of the trend. However, resistance at particular occasions, boycott, non-participation at the local and small-group level may perhaps prepare the ground The subversive character of the restoration of freedom appears most clearly in that dimension of society where false tolerance and free enterprise do perhaps the most serious and lasting damage, namely in business and publicity. Against the emphatic insistence on the part of spokesmen for labor, I maintain that practices such as planned obsolescence, collusion between union leadership and management, slanted publicity are not simply imposed from above on a powerless rank and file, but are tolerated by them and the consumer at large. However, it would be ridiculous to speak of a possible withdrawal of tolerance with respect to these practices and to the ideologies promoted by them. For they pertain to the basis on which the repressive affluent society rests and reproduces itself and its vital defenses - their removal would be that total revolution which this society so effectively repels.
To discuss tolerance in such a society means to reexamine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between violent and non-violent action. The discussion should not, from the beginning, be clouded by ideologies which serve the perpetuation of violence. Even in the advanced centers of civilization, violence actually prevails: it is practiced by the police, in the prisons and mental institutions, in the fight against racial minorities; it is carried, by the defenders of metropolitan freedom, into the backward countries. This violence indeed breeds violence. But to refrain from violence in the face of vastly superior violence is one thing, to renounce a priori violence against violence, on ethical or psychological grounds (because it may antagonize sympathizers) is another. Non-violence is normally not only preached to but exacted from the weak--it is a necessity rather than a virtue, and normally it does not seriously harm the case of the strong. (Is the case of India an exception? There, passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale, which disrupted, or threatened to disrupt, the economic life of the country. Quantity turns into quality: on such a scale, passive resistance is no longer passive - it ceases to be non-violent. The same holds true for the General Strike.) Robespierre's distinction between the terror of liberty and the terror of despotism, and his moral glorification of the former belongs to the most convincingly condemned aberrations, even if the white terror was more bloody than the red terror. The comparative evaluation in terms of the number of victims is the quantifying approach which reveals the man-made horror throughout history that made violence a necessity. In terms of historical function, there is a difference between revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evil--but since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? To start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressors, the have-nots against the haves is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the protest against it.
Comprenez enfin ceci: si la violence a commencé ce soir, si l'exploitation ni l'oppression n'ont jamais existé sur terre, peut-être la non-violence affichée peut apaiser la querelle. Mais si le régime tout entier et jusqu'à vos non-violentes pensées sont conditionnées par une oppression millénaire, votre passivité ne sert qu'à vous ranger du côté des oppresseurs.[3]
[rough translation: Understand finally this: if violence were to begin this evening, if neither exploitation nor oppression had ever existed in the world, perhaps concerted non-violence could relieve the conflict. But if the whole governmental system and your non-violent thoughts are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity only serves to place you on the side of the oppressors.]
That passage is about 3/4 of the way into his essay. He starts talking about the importance of of free speech and democracy, but ultimately concludes that the system in the US must be overthrown. So, you preach tolerance for the ideologies that are good (critical theory/socialism), and repressive ideas that are bad, like the American way of life. It's all [BLEEP].
Quote:Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.
Another quote from that passage. Anyone who doesn't support socialist ideology is a regressive. You have to understand that to interpret his works. And, please, don't make the mistake of thinking Herbert Marcuse was a nobody. He was extremely influential in the Frankfurt School. Their ideologies gained a foothold in Berkley, and have been spreading to all the universities around the world since. You can see their influence in all of modern dialogue, just reskinned to fit the next generation.
I believe the original quote came from Karl popper, and he was speaking about Nazis in 1930s Germany.
What the left is doing today is the second stage of the quote. They already have the right to speak their views freely, and they have progressed to demanding that anyone who questions minority sex and gender choices be silent. As conservatives, we have to push back against this. If we simply exercise our right to speak freely about our views of sex and gender, we are the good guys. But if we try to take away their right to speak, as it was in the bad old days, then we become the bad guys.
I'm on the fence about that. I used to feel that way strongly, but it's looking more and more like an impossible obstacle to overcome. The whole reason that NAZI's and Fascists gained power is to leverage the power of the state against communists (who were doing the same thing). I can see the right adopting a similar position. It's not ideal, but the left is tireless in thirst for dominance.
(11-06-2021, 10:44 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
Yes, that's is a good quote. Makes me think of another. And it's also important to remember that no one thinks of themselves as evil. Introspection and the willingness to question one's own assumptions is a key to not falling into the trap of hubris.
"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." -Epictetus
(11-06-2021, 06:22 PM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2021, 10:44 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
Yes, that's is a good quote. Makes me think of another. And it's also important to remember that no one thinks of themselves as evil. Introspection and the willingness to question one's own assumptions is a key to not falling into the trap of hubris.
"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows." -Epictetus
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding" - Upton Sinclair
(11-06-2021, 10:08 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
I feel we are definitely seeing this happen in our country. I don't know the context in which it was said, I do plan to look it up, but on its own it says a great deal. I know folks here have very different ideas of what (or who) is considered good and evil and am interested in what this quote looks like from your point of view.
And lets try to be civil about it and not devolve into name calling. I'm really tired of seeing grown adults regressing to petty elementary school behavior.
Not to be the grammar police, but I think you have too many “O’s” in the last word of the first paragraph
(11-06-2021, 07:39 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2021, 10:08 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
I feel we are definitely seeing this happen in our country. I don't know the context in which it was said, I do plan to look it up, but on its own it says a great deal. I know folks here have very different ideas of what (or who) is considered good and evil and am interested in what this quote looks like from your point of view.
And lets try to be civil about it and not devolve into name calling. I'm really tired of seeing grown adults regressing to petty elementary school behavior.
Not to be the grammar police, but I think you have too many “O’s” in the last word of the first paragraph
Let's not go there.
I was once told “You have the right to remain silent. Whatever you…” No, wait. Not that one.
Thanks for replying guys. This kind of got lost in the shuffle this week. It's been a busy one and we're just halfway through.
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." Sir Charles James Napier, India, 1851