> conflating intolerance of fascism with demagogy

I'm not conflating, you are. If you use demagogy to show your intolerance of fascism, then you are still use demagogy. My country annexed a part of Ukraine, and do you know what propaganda says about it? I could tell you: it was not an annexation, because people of Crimea have chosen to go into Russia. I amused myself for sometime by trolling our patriots, and I know exactly how they think. They think that if one have a good moral reason to annex some land, than it is not an annexation. It is like if we have a good moral reason to execute a person, than it is not a homicide.

But this is not the way for a moral to work. If you asked Jesus would he think an execution is a homicide or not, how do you think he would answer?

> Remaining uncompromising in the...

It is politics. Politics is a mind killer. Either you are uncompromising, or you have a working mind. It is up to you to choose your side. Read Yudkowski some more, you'll learn that a rational mind must allow itself to think any thoughts, because thoughts do not kill people, it is people who kills other people.

I was born and grown in a country were "to remain uncompromising" was a government policy and the basis of propaganda. And being a teenager I learned that to think about something is not the same as to compromise. To speak about something without requirement to do a ritual of the two minutes hate is not the same as compromising. I see now what happens in USA, all this shaming, cancel culture and such, it seems to me that USA is going to learn the lesson of uncompromising position and the difference between uncompromising position and freedom of thought and speech. Do this, make your country into a totalitarian state and tell me would you like it that way. I have a loads of popcorn and ready to watch the coming show.

I'm deeply suspicious of zealots. You behave like one. You look like you are ready to kill for an idea. You are a dangerous person. Ideas are immaterial, you should be concerned more about people and less about ideas. My country suffered a lot because some people valued ideas more than other people. Believe me, I could detect ideological warriors by looking from Moon without optics, and you seems to me exactly like one of them.

> But that is so juvenile as to be completely ignored, and the appeal to rationalism principles from LessWrong in this example is just deeply absurd.

What are you trying to achieve making irrational claims to reject rational arguments? Do you really believe it would work? Do you think that if you call my arguments absurd I would abandon them? Or if you hint that my thoughts are juvenile then it would have no other way but to conform? Or if you accuse me of racism, when I didn't say nothing racist yet, it would change my position?

Try to reread our conversation, please. Try to find a place where I showed a support for Trump, or said something racist, fascist. You wouldn't find any. All I did is I rejected to do a ritual of two minute hate after hearing stimulus 'Trump'. I'm not a Pavlovian dog and not a Skinner's pigeon to react to a stimulus by a predictable way. Moreover I empathically reject to participate in a hate behavior, regardless of the chosen hate target. And no moral reasoning from your side would change it. And yeah, no demagogy, and even no rational arguments would change it, because my rejection to hate stems from my moral position.