(I apologize in advance if the contents of this post seem insensitive)
I originally didn’t want to make this thread, because it seems so…insensitive, but lately I’ve been thinking more and more on it and I want to know if I’m being unreasonable with this.
Is it a stretch to argue that people who are generally in favor of thoughtcrime are comparable to Nazis and other fascistic and authoritarian types?
I know the subjects are are completely distinct, we all know someone who is anti-censorship but fervently anti-Nazi.
But when you’re talking about advocating for the imprisonment of people over things like drawings, dolls, etc. over baseless, spurious, and preference-driven assertions regarding the content of said drawings are different and not comparable to things like the Nazis, and it might come off as insensitive.
But when you really break things down, it really doesn’t feel that different. A lot of people fail to realize that Nazis and fascists are generally socially conservative and believe in suppressing anything and everything that offends their idealistic status quo, even at the expense of individualism. This includes furthering the prejudices of the ruling regime and validating them on all levels, almost with the expense of human life and liberty being tantamount to solidifying to those how serious they take these ideals.
This is where the prospect of “legal moralism” and social authoritarianism arises and becomes inherent, wherein the application of force and power is directed in service of an ideological position, rather than a valid interest like harm or the prevention of it.
If we break down the core beliefs and principles of authoritarian regimes (like the Nazis or Confederates/Secessionists and theocrats), you find that they share a great deal of common ground but disagree on a handful of issues,with the brunt of their opposition to Nazis/fascistic regimes being based on “they’re not us and they were hostile to us, so we hate them”.
I’ve taken a lot of time to study the rationale behind fascism and authoritarian ideals in general, and quite frankly, I genuinely do not believe it’s a stretch to argue that if you support putting someone in jail over a fictional story or doll that does not harm someone, directly or indirectly, regardless of how offensive, vulgar, or distasteful that material may be, YOU are supporting fascism by imposing harm on someone.
I know that it’s far more nuanced, some people support criminalizing it because they believe it’s harmful and worth banning, but those claims are generally unproven and the conclusive evidence available suggests the contrary.
Most people who are introduced to these facts ease up on their positions.
But outside of those people, who are unconvinced of the reality, and even those who support said prohibitions, who knowingly and deliberately put their preferences and prejudices before reason (by ‘reason’, I mean conforming to reality and not trying to force reality to appear as though it’s in-line with your beliefs or biases), yeah. I’d argue that those people are no different than the segregationists during the Civil Rights era, as well as Nazis, even.
People need to realize how harsh and severe something like imprisonment can be, especially in the US where no consideration is given to the well-being of undesirable criminals.
But even with these types, these fascistic and authoritarian mindsets, they’re not just born in a vacuum or out of a desire to cause harm. It CAN be, but usually it isn’t.
These are people whose ideals and beliefs are sincere. The Nazis genuinely believed in all of the anti-semitic conspiracies which have promulgated throughout history for centuries, in addition to maintaining their war-like mentality with regard to social and political matters. They don’t humor liberal ideals because they view them as wrong.
The Nazis aren’t good.
Segregationists weren’t good. Anti-LGBT individuals aren’t good either.
But I base my standard of goodness on the type of harm they’re willing to not only tolerate, but perpetrate in the name of their ideals, which are like ours, but with opposing viewpoints.
They view sexual positivity as harmful to society.
They view LGBT acceptance (if not its mere existence) as harmful to society.
They view their morality as the only morality for society, preaching ideals of moral absolutism, rather than pluralism or even relativism.
It is this rejection of basic, long-standing principles of moral pluralism and relativism that makes them and their ideals, when imposed, so objectively harmful.
Adult-child sex is viewed as child sex abuse because of the harm inherent in its acts, and our interest in protecting children from abuse is validated by that observation.
Anything that is not that, by which I mean, the product of a real-life act of it, is not and cannot be regarded the same way, nor can this be overlooked, empirically or colloquially, without upending and undermining the interest in protecting them by extending those interest in areas that simply do not apply.