The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How to tame your [Neo-nazism], a protest discussion
Automautocrates
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I think the Trump administration thread is getting a bit out of hand on this subject. So, lets bring it elsewhere.
It all started back in time immemorial.
It recently got started again with a man getting punched in the face, who so happens to be an unabashed Neo-Nazi.
Lets discuss! Gently.
https://youtu.be/9rh1dhur4aI
(I'm sorry if I'm bad at new topics)
It all started back in time immemorial.
It recently got started again with a man getting punched in the face, who so happens to be an unabashed Neo-Nazi.
Lets discuss! Gently.
https://youtu.be/9rh1dhur4aI(I'm sorry if I'm bad at new topics)
The dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution is one of the pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes.
-John Stuart Mill
-John Stuart Mill
+2
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
/thread
The man in question would gladly take the shield of discussion up until people are complacent enough and he/his movement have a chance at a hammer. He would then use said hammer to destroy entire communities and families.
Will it marginally empower people on the alt-right? Yes, but I dont think those people are stepping off their stones even if let be; are they not already being slowly empowered?
Maybe it should have been a tomato and not a fist but it seems to me that someone has to be the first one to throw a tomato, and I think people are laughing this guy down in large enough throngs to give a bit of mental stability to people who are downright scared out of their wits that these people are standing up and the crowd is just watching, not only watching but growing, all over the world.
-John Stuart Mill
Turds like this guy are too cowardly to every actually commit violence but they're more than happy to encourage it in others.
It seems difficult to assess whether an individual act of violence like this is a net good or net bad, as its future ripple effects are unknowable. But based on the general reactions I've seen online, I think this was more harmful than beneficial.
That's a pretty mighty burden you're putting on the people they want to harm to just take it lying down.
And if you don't want to be considered a nazi a) be aware that the word actually means somethng and b) stop agreeing with nazis.
(This is gonna be a long post, cool cats and kittens, so strap in)
Right off the hap, I'm gonna say I'm generally against vigilantism. I don't support people taking the law into their own hands to punish the people they feel are guilty and are not being adequately dealt with by our normal societal systems. This has a lot to do with my views on punishment as a form of justice (I believe in restorative justice, not retributive justice, because I'm a bleeding heart nonce I guess).
That said, those views come largely from a place of preserving a social contract and a societal respect for due process and the law. And those things, those social contracts, can in and of themselves be unjust and ineffective at helping people and being good for society. So I'm not against, for example, disruptive protests that may be themselves kind of illegal under the rote of the law, if they're necessary to fight against an unjust system and how it is harming people.
The difference, I suppose, comes from vigilantes simply ignoring the law because they feel it is insufficiently expedient or too cumbersome to be effective, and when activists perceiving the system being directly against them. It's one thing to step outside the law because you find it inconvenient, it's another to fight against it because it is harming you. In the latter case, extra-legal resistance or actions can essentially be a form of "self-defense" against oppression and on a case by case basis, could be dubbed as ethical.
So with all of that pre-amble, how do I feel about punching Nazis? I'm generally in favor of it, as someone who has punched more than a few Nazis in my day. Why? Because Nazis aren't just criminals. What we're seeing with men like Richard Spencer, an admitted white nationalist who claims credit for creating the "alt-right", is that in this new Darkest Timeline we're all living in they're not counter-culture renegades who have to live in fear of rebuke for their deplorable viewpoints. Not anymore. Now they're part of the establishment. They see the fucking President of the United States as one of their own, regardless of whether or not he is in his heart of hearts (a subject I don't care about debating).
Because they are now in this position of being able to operate in the open, nakedly shouting "HAIL TRUMP" and throwing Nazi salutes, and literally proposing stepping stones to genocide, without fear of rebuke, we're in a very dangerous place as a people. For a long time, being racist in America was political plutonium. You could say racist things, or have racist beliefs, or propose and create racist policies in government, but you had to do this whole fuckin' dance of pretending you're not yourself and actual racist.
For basically my entire lifetime, an important part of the identity of white nationalists and Nazis and other such folk is making sure they don't actually admit they're racist, and to defend themselves against accusations of racism with all kinds of convoluted pedantry, revisionist history, and made-up terminology. "I'm not a racist," a white nationalist might say, "I'm a racial realist".
But now, they don't have to pretend anymore. They have a white nationalist as President, at least as far as they're concerned. One of "their guys" is in power. So they're done pretending, they're done doing the dance, and that's incredibly fucking dangerous.
Now that they're part of the establishment, now that they have a President that caters to them, this isn't about censorship or chilling effects or the pacifistic ideals of fair political discourse.
There is no fair political discourse with fucking Nazis. There is no compromise to be found, no balanced discussion to be had. Their views have to be unacceptable to society. They cannot be rationally, calmly argued that hey maybe fucking genocide is a bad idea. They need to be fought. They need to be silenced. They need to be made to feel afraid, to believe there are serious and personally dangerous repercussions to these abominable things they believe.
That paragraph might scare some people. Conservatives, centrists, or overly diplomatic leftists might balk at that kind of statement and wring their hands about "slippery slopes" and the dangers of an oppressive leftist state where dissent is violently squelched. Except we are not in danger of an oppressive leftist state. We are under the direct threat of a narcissistic maniac and his legions of white nationalists who are now in charge of the federal government of the United States.
Nazis have the fucking nuclear launch codes. This can't be danced around.
So when people shuffle their feet and hem and haw about "oh but if we use violence we're just as bad as them..."
Bullshit. Are you proposing registries and internment camps? No? Then maybe we're not as bad! Am I suggesting we round these people up and gas them? Nope. But is it okay to fucking slug them in the mouth when they're billowing hateful insanity into the world, to make them feel afraid? Yes. Yes it fucking is. It's not just okay it's moral.
I'm not saying punch your dipshit uncle who says "All Lives Matter" at Thanksgiving. But fucking Richard Spencer? Yes, absolutely. Fucking let fly.
I know that there's some people who are already making nebbish huff noises, mentally if not verbally, and are trying to needle me for some kind of "hypocrisy" or "unfairness" or "slippery slope". I'm going to suggest to you, very strongly, that I don't care. Yes, it's absolutely okay to use violence to defend yourself from people who openly want to use institutional violence to destroy you and everyone you love.
Fuck Nazis. Punch every Nazi in the face. It's what Captain America would do.
It's really important to be circumspect in the use of physical violence, though. Because it pretty much never results in winning hearts and minds.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
and if this keeps happening they'll turn words into actions, and that is how we get streetfighting
i know we elected a goddamn racist nightmare but NAZIS ARE STILL FUCKING NAZIS. they are not part of the political discourse
and they moment you accept they are YOU are the one who's legitimized them not the guy throwing punches
Maybe shitfuckers like Spencer could stand to learn that if they want a race war they don't get to hide behind a twitter account forever
They just want to murder all the jews and take over the world, but, hey, that's your opinion and they're fine with that. Looks like you've got some growing up to do.
Spreading Nazi thought and promoting white nationalist ideals is an inherently non-peaceful act, therefore Spencer was not just standing on a street corner peacefully.
I WANT MY SCALPS
Ridiculous
This is not always the case. I do not think it was the case here. Now I see people who aren't fascists jumping to Spencer's defense! The political ramifications of each violent act have to be considered carefully before committing said act. The pros and cons have to be weighed, if there is time to do so.
If this is the case study we're using, what are the benefits and detriments of punching Spencer in the face as he talks? Some possible benefits:
-Get him to shut up in that moment, and temporarily stop him from spreading his message
-Potentially make others afraid of joining such movements or voicing such views
Some possible detriments:
-Generate sympathy for someone perceived as "peacefully" arguing their point being the victim of an "unprovoked" attack
-Give ammo to the fascist argument that leftists are the real tyrants, and allow them portray us as opposed to free speech
I think this was a bad decision! I think it is more likely to hurt the left's cause and aid that of the fascists'. I'm curious to know if those of you who approve of this action have a different set of pros and cons/are weighing the pros and cons differently, or if you disagree with the way I've framed the issue in general.
How is that ridiculous exactly? There isn't exactly a peaceful culmination to that train of thought.. that I know of?
-John Stuart Mill
The promotion of Nazi ideology is inherently an act of violence against the most vulnerable segments of American society as it is a promotion of an ideology that would see us exterminated wholesale.
The way to combat hate peddlers is to expose them for how silly they are. The Klan didn't get punched in the face, they were forced to walk around with their hoods up looking like idiots. At Neo-Nazi rallies there are more people protesting then actual Neo-Nazis.
If that's true then is it ok to beat the Black Israelites standing on street corners screaming about how they bred white people to be their slaves?
False equivalency, minority groups can't engage in racial injustice the way that white supremacists can because they aren't supported by a system of white supremacy that has existed for centuries.
Edit: also, the Klan ABSOLUTELY got punched in the face and chased off with rifles and shotguns and shit, what are you even?
I don't agree that you should respond to someone holding a philosophy of hurting people like you by actually hurting them.
I would not engage in this. I do not advocate engaging in this. If someone asked me whether they should engage in this, my position is a clear and unwavering "no!".
I would also not lift a finger to stop someone from punching a nazi who was in the middle of spouting nazi rhetoric.
It's ridiculous because it's nonsense
If you want to stretch and break the clear meanings of simple words in order to justify violence on your enemies, you might as well join the Trump administration
Advocates of genocide/terrorism should be met with violence before they can implement or incite it.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Punch them motherfuckers hard and often and sew their teeth on your shirt for buttons
On punching Nazis:
On @Captain Marcus and his continued concern for the welfare of Nazis:
I do not see it as a ridiculous or non-sense thing that he was saying. You haven't exactly enlightened me to the workings of your opinion on what he said, and I simply am asking you to maybe develop it a bit more, textually.
I do not want to stretch or break the "clear meanings of simple words", nor do I wish to justify violence. I believe my first real post in this topic is fairly clear in that I think there is a step of denigration in the public eye that sits somewhere between throwing a fist, and throwing nothing. Though I think I sit firmly in the camp of the status-quo and defense of the victim in this case also being beyond reason.
-John Stuart Mill
Real talk. At this point I'm fairly certain that before I die I'm going to see someone attempt to wipe Islam from the face of the earth. The only way to do that is to perform a genocide. I am fairly certain a guy instrumental in starting that process just sat his ass in the oval office.
It's a good fucking day to punch an outspoken and self admitted white supremacist.
Is it necessarily productive? No, but there's not much productive shit we can do to halt the decline at this moment, and it's seemingly getting rigged thus that we won't be able to do much about it in the future either.
I haven't been talking to you
I don't know what was in your first post in the thread and you didn't bring it up to me either
I took offense when someone else abused some words, and I explained myself pretty clearly when you asked for clarification—there's nothing else going on here
To be clear, I do think violence in opposition to such movements can be both permissible and necessary. Perhaps it is now! But you have to get into the weeds and determine whether the backlash causes more harm than good. If your action sways more people to the fascist side or pushes them away from the anti-fascists, getting that one fascist to shut up may not have been worth it. It's almost a mathematical question, in my opinion. Spencer has not been silenced by this action. He may have suffered a bruise on his head. Maybe he'll be too scared to go around saying shit like that again, but I doubt it; more likely he'll be emboldened and add rants about how violent the left is to his shpiel.
When you fight a war, PR has to be part of the war effort, especially given today's rapid mass communication. The battle "hearts and minds", or the consideration of optics, must be part of the struggle. The US military and others learned this while fighting militant Islamic factions throughout the world, we should not ignore their lesson or dismiss the dangers of backlash to violent action.
Do you think the attack on Spencer helped or hurt the anti-fascist cause?
edit- finished my second paragraph
You did quote me, so I assumed part of your response was towards me as well. I guess I don't see how that person abused words either?
-John Stuart Mill
I quoted you because you asked me a question about someone else's post and I answered it
If you don't understand my point yet, I don't think I can improve on what I've already said
It's not always about "hearts and minds" or the Greater Impact.
Sometimes it's about silencing that fascist, right now. Making that fascist feel afraid, feel silenced. When it's someone prominent like Spencer, I don't care what hem-hawing Twitter eggs think. I care what Spencer thinks, and if it works on him that's enough, because that's an impact worth it.
I feel very ambivalent to the "hearts and minds" or "bad optics" arguments.
Sure, there's nuance. But with Nazis, there's less nuance than many seem to suggest.
We don't need to assault them (yet) but making it so their actions have consequences (ostracization and rebuke from their neighbors) may do the trick.
When these sorts of people come into power you fight them any way that you can. Fists included.