It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
You're not the only person who lost family. Give it a rest.
This entire thread is glutted with Nazi this Nazi that, you’ll survive a single Nazi joke.
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
Your claim that we need to be kinder and more understanding of the alt right would probably be more convincing if you didn't immediately dismiss other people's own feelings.
I’m not being unkind, I’m just not going to browbeaten about making a joke about my own heritage. We talk about Nazis every other page but a joke? NEIN! I know y’all mean well but you’re being silly.
Cool, none of us are being unkind when we say sexist, racist, phobic geese don't deserve the time of day.
That’s a hell of a takeaway given a bunch of people just jumped on me for a joke. And I’m the unkind one for not apologizing for being jumped on? K. I swear there was a “we’re not going to break out the pitchforks over a joke” like ... literally last page lol.
I’m not being unkind, I’m just not going to browbeaten about making a joke about my own heritage. We talk about Nazis every other page but a joke? NEIN! I know y’all mean well but you’re being silly.
Okay, but what we're talking about when we say "Nazi" every page are actual neo-Nazis, exactly one-for-one what the alt-right is. That's serious, there's not a meaning for joke or hyperbole, at least when I'm using it.
These folks are fascist white supremacists who hate all the same folks and call for all the same things as Nazis. They are Nazis.
I find it dismaying that you seem to be reading it in any other less serious way.
I know you’re being serious about it. You’re so deadly serious about it we’re having a very serious conversation about a very tame joke.
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
Naturally, because I see my efforts as pushing in the opposite direction of another holocaust. Good guys won’t win by alienating all their potential allies and purity testing themselves into tiny internet bubbles.
As I’ve said before, I know people here mean well. We disagree on messaging and some finer points of ideology but we’re on the same team.
In reality your efforts are one step on the recruiting chain, whether you intend that or not.
That’s pretty wack, and almost precisely the problem. Double down upon double down until everyone not precisely at your level of intensity and ideology is the enemy. Proceed to wonder why the alt right is getting all these people, propose mass restrictions and purges, repeat as needed.
You essentially believe that you shouldn't have to apologize for any time others express concern with your statements while at the same time are very concerned that people are in some sort of loss spiral created by hurting the feelings of the alt right with their statements.
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
If you don’t have much beyond this sort of shit to add to the debate don’t bother posting.
I don't think anyone's saying marginalized people "should" gently educate their oppressors as in, have a moral responsibility to. Of course they don't. It's "should" as in, because a lot of privileged people won't listen unless we go to extreme lengths to protect their egos - and even then they probably still won't.
Why do the marginalized have to go through great efforts for the sake of the privileged? Why do queerfolk have to make sure they're polite to an asshole screaming slurs?
Shit, I'm sorry, that was an old draft. It was a bad argument, which is why I didn't (mean to) post it.
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
Naturally, because I see my efforts as pushing in the opposite direction of another holocaust. Good guys won’t win by alienating all their potential allies and purity testing themselves into tiny internet bubbles.
As I’ve said before, I know people here mean well. We disagree on messaging and some finer points of ideology but we’re on the same team.
In reality your efforts are one step on the recruiting chain, whether you intend that or not.
That’s pretty wack, and almost precisely the problem. Double down upon double down until everyone not precisely at your level of intensity and ideology is the enemy. Proceed to wonder why the alt right is getting all these people, propose mass restrictions and purges, repeat as needed.
I think it would be helpful if you gave examples of Progressive positions you think are more reasonable and Progressive positions you think are too fringe.
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
Naturally, because I see my efforts as pushing in the opposite direction of another holocaust. Good guys won’t win by alienating all their potential allies and purity testing themselves into tiny internet bubbles.
As I’ve said before, I know people here mean well. We disagree on messaging and some finer points of ideology but we’re on the same team.
In reality your efforts are one step on the recruiting chain, whether you intend that or not.
That’s pretty wack, and almost precisely the problem. Double down upon double down until everyone not precisely at your level of intensity and ideology is the enemy. Proceed to wonder why the alt right is getting all these people, propose mass restrictions and purges, repeat as needed.
Look, dude. In EVERY thread about racism/homophobia/alt-right shenanigans you are there. To dismiss, minimize, deflect and defend. Your first post in a thread about a terror attack was to try to split hairs and claim an anti-Semite was "just joking". Nothing about the attack itself. Just defending the right. It's all about tactics and all your tactics are "we should do less".
What you do serves as a vector for the alt-right because they get to point at you and go "Look! The Jew is OK with our antics, they're fine!" Your silence becomes consent becomes "the majority is with us". And that's not counting your continued defenses of every asshole that is ever mentioned.
You aren't combating them you're normalizing them.
+36
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
Naturally, because I see my efforts as pushing in the opposite direction of another holocaust. Good guys won’t win by alienating all their potential allies and purity testing themselves into tiny internet bubbles.
As I’ve said before, I know people here mean well. We disagree on messaging and some finer points of ideology but we’re on the same team.
I want to unpack this because I'm sincerely curious in what you feel like is the next step in this process.
I think a lot of this thread has been, "Is it possible for the left to do less to encourage the radicalization of gamers into the alt-right, specifically by being nicer to them or by being critical in a nicer way?" I'm not sure I agree with the idea that this can work, but if you assume it does, the way it sounds like it works is, 1) the left is nicer to those who disagree with them on issues of PC and inclusivity in games, 2) because the left is nicer, the at-risk gamers don't leave the group to go listen to the alt-right who will fill their heads with lies and hate, 3) over time the at-risk gamers gradually come to agree with the left when it comes to PC and inclusivity.
You might call these forums an example of that (you might not, but bear with me)--it's a place where we're not allowed to insult one another, where mods generally enforce a comparatively light tone (for the internet), and it's also a place where a number of conservatives credit many years of interaction here with changing their viewpoints in a more liberal direction.
But you, Frankie, seem to come at this from a different direction, because I don't think you would agree with step 3, with the part where people change their views over time to favor PC/inclusiveness. You're not trying to catch flies with honey (slow conversion through community and discussion as opposed to yelling and excommunication). It sounds like you're suggesting that if you don't alienate people from your community, that's enough on its own--and that not alienating them includes tolerating their viewpoints even when we disagree with them. Or maybe even sharing some of those viewpoints.
It seems to me that the strongest risk factor among gamers to be radicalized is having these anti-inclusivity ideas to begin with, and so if the goal isn't (long term or short term) to get them to give up those ideas, then you're not actually pushing them in the opposite direction of anything.
Am I wrong? What's the mechanism by which you feel you're helping to prevent radicalization here?
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
I feel arguments are being mixed. It can both be true that “the alt right doesn’t exist because of alienation from the left”, and that “alienation from the left is driving away potential allies who are also being recruited by the alt-right”.
My main concerns are: can the left recruit these people, and how. It might be my growing pessimism and depression (I got way worse after Trump won), but I feel the left in the US isn’t growing fast enough.
When I was a bullied kid I would sometimes attempt to protect other people by placating the bullies. @Frankiedarling's position makes some sense to me in that light.
It worked about as well as you'd expect.
(tagging you so you can correct me if I'm wrong, Frankie, not to call you out )
More broadly, your idea of "just be nicer" won't work on a mass level.
One, you can't control everyone. One black person having a bad day gets amplified to "Look! The blacks all hate us!" by the propaganda sphere.
Two, even if you DO control everyone it doesn't matter because they'll make shit up. Either an existing, mild statement will be cranked to 11, then THAT cranked to 11 (see: the MHW article) or they'll just invent something. It's not a debate there are no rules. It's a propaganda contest. In those, you win by knocking off as much reach and influence of the opponent's propaganda as you can, and distributing your own.
On an individual level, you can reach a lot of people, and like I mentioned earlier the best way to do that is going to vary. But it's easier to do that if their source of information isn't entirely bullshit first.
EDIT: for the ultimate example of best ways to do that vary: Richard Spencer. One punch, and the conversation shifts from "Let's interview this promising new right figure" to "Is Richard Spencer a Nazi and is it right to punch them?"
I am really unconvinced that deplatforming will work. That's basically what we did to racists. And so they just started using dog whistles. And then dog whistles of those dog whistles. And then surprise decades later when someone is willing to just be openly racist there is this huge pool of people who turns out are actually pretty racist still and raring to go.
Deplatforming absolutely works. It's just that fascists are good at finding new platforms, and found the internet as readily available breeding ground.
They actually aren't. That's why deplatforming works.
It's just social media has barely done anything about the issue so the vast majority of the alt-right or it's feeder streams has never been deplatformed.
+18
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
As far as I can tell, Frankie's position seems to be not "the Alt-Right is good" but "not every woman or PoC is as progressive as the average poster in this thread". The response is "just because a woman or PoC isn't protesting doesn't mean they don't privately feel uncomfortable." It's more similar to the earlier D&D-related conversation where someone posted "if I started going on a tangent about colonialism in my Saturday D&D game (which includes PoC and female players) people would be weirded out."
Personally, I don't know where exactly I stand here. I find Frankie's attitude too dismissive of possible harm, but at the same time I wouldn't want to DM a D&D game for the person who wrote that Monster Hunter World article posted earlier because I'd imagine they'd be judging me the whole time (if I had to choose, though, I'd pick them as a player over an Alt-Righter every time with no hesitation).
I don't think Frankie is saying the alt-right is good.
But most of this thread has been about the language the 'left' (Whatever that means) uses pushes moderates to the right, and what I understand Frankie's position to be is that the 'left' needs to soften its tone, and be less critical of the right, AND, in their own words, throw the occasional minority under the bus in order to appeal to moderates.
The thing is, I don't think it's true that the alt-right is getting allies because there's too much opposition to alt-right ideology. I think softening our tone, and being more permissive of racism and violence towards vulnerable people will only embolden the alt-right, and give them more power.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
+5
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I am really unconvinced that deplatforming will work. That's basically what we did to racists. And so they just started using dog whistles. And then dog whistles of those dog whistles. And then surprise decades later when someone is willing to just be openly racist there is this huge pool of people who turns out are actually pretty racist still and raring to go.
Deplatforming absolutely works. It's just that fascists are good at finding new platforms, and found the internet as readily available breeding ground.
They actually aren't. That's why deplatforming works.
It's just social media has barely done anything about the issue so the vast majority of the alt-right or it's feeder streams has never been deplatformed.
Deplatforming 100% works, and even when alt-right gollums like Alex Jones find some lesser platform to use than the more universal ones, their audiences shrink considerably.
The problem is, this leaves the fix in the hands of people who have show very little inclination to fix the problem: Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, et al need to have better moderation on their platforms. Twitter doesn't want to do it because by all accounts the management is either alt-right or alt-right sympathetic. Facebook and Youtube won't do it because profits. It feels like regulation is needed here, but I don't even know what that regulation would look like, and I don't think many current politicians have the knowledge of the platforms to write a useful policy.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I am really unconvinced that deplatforming will work. That's basically what we did to racists. And so they just started using dog whistles. And then dog whistles of those dog whistles. And then surprise decades later when someone is willing to just be openly racist there is this huge pool of people who turns out are actually pretty racist still and raring to go.
Deplatforming absolutely works. It's just that fascists are good at finding new platforms, and found the internet as readily available breeding ground.
They actually aren't. That's why deplatforming works.
It's just social media has barely done anything about the issue so the vast majority of the alt-right or it's feeder streams has never been deplatformed.
Deplatforming 100% works, and even when alt-right gollums like Alex Jones find some lesser platform to use than the more universal ones, their audiences shrink considerably.
The problem is, this leaves the fix in the hands of people who have show very little inclination to fix the problem: Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, et al need to have better moderation on their platforms. Twitter doesn't want to do it because by all accounts the management is either alt-right or alt-right sympathetic. Facebook and Youtube won't do it because profits. It feels like regulation is needed here, but I don't even know what that regulation would look like, and I don't think many current politicians have the knowledge of the platforms to write a useful policy.
Deplatforming in this context looks like going to the advertisers and saying "Your ad appears before a hate video on YouTube. Are you happy with that? Because I can take my business elsewhere if so".
Note the alt right will *immediately* start screaming about free speech if you do this. This isn't free speech at threat. Also more importantly it's not a sincere objection since they will cheerfully do it back to you.
+2
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
I know you’re being serious about it. You’re so deadly serious about it we’re having a very serious conversation about a very tame joke.
First, actual Nazis is serious business, I'd say, but second, this isn't really a conversation, serious or otherwise?
If it helps you grock it, I was doing my best to tell you "I get it, you're joking, that's kind of tasteless in a digital room full of people talking about the shit these kinds of folks do. I mean, you can continue to be tasteless if you want, whatever floats your boat, but it makes taking your side seriously pretty hard? Like, unless I miss my understanding of the forum we're in, it's meant for serious or at least more serious discussion and debate.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
I mean, in another context, some less serious discussion or place . . . I still would have thought it was a tasteless joke, but I'd be less appalled at "I can make Nazi jokes because my family died in the Holocaust".
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
"My son doesn't like the left because he thinks they don't like Monster Hunter due to reading a sensationalist headline from an alt-right attack article intentionally misrepresenting the point" isn't a refutation, its buying into the false narrative.
+27
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
+5
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
Do you care about upsetting people with your posts? I find your posts, and the posts of many other posters racking up 10+ agrees, to be pretty upsetting. Does that make you alt right?
I have not been convinced by you, or others, does that mean that my existence is "frustrating" or "telling" or a testament to anything in particular? Of course, I am also frustrated at not convincing other people.
I find refereeing here extremely unfair. Not to mention that parting shot. I mean, yikes.
It’s nigh-on impossible to deliver criticism in a way that doesn’t offend someone. You can be as polite and nice as possible and someone will still take it personally.
Heck, I am pretty sensitive and liable to taking criticism very personally. I believe it was in this thread, very early on, that I gave the example of when someone told me that one of my favourite books was anti-Semitic. They didn’t deliver this information in a cruel or offensive manner; as I recall, it was literally something along the lines of ‘just so you know, that book is heavily anti-Semitic.’ And I felt offended! I didn’t argue, because to be honest I didn’t have a good rebuttal, but I loved that book and I took the criticism personally, because I had in turn recommended that book to others, and what did that say about me?
There was no way that person could have delivered the criticism more kindly than they did. The only way I could have been happy at the time was if the person had been silent. But the ignorant bliss wouldn’t have ultimately been of any use to me.
I must confess that it took me quite a while to sit and muse on that criticism and to eventually reject the book as one of my favourites, but eventually I found less problematic books and formed a new favourite list.
And that’s what we can do; we can continue to enjoy the products, but under advisement and with knowledge that they’re products of their time. And in the meantime we can push for improvements to new products, which ultimately ends up benefiting everyone. Because I learned what anti-Semitic coded language existed and that helped me moving forward.
+4
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
It's not a debate there are no rules. It's a propaganda contest. In those, you win by knocking off as much reach and influence of the opponent's propaganda as you can, and distributing your own.
So, what's the main points for progressive propaganda, as in what should it be? I'm not just asking Phoenix here, though theirs is the post I'm quoting. What should we have as our quick-points to hit folks that are interested? What's our punchy line to sell folks on "progressivism is for you!"
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
Do you care about upsetting people with your posts? I find your posts, and the posts of many other posters racking up 10+ agrees, to be pretty upsetting. Does that make you alt right?
I have not been convinced by you, or others, does that mean that my existence is "frustrating" or "telling" or a testament to anything in particular? Of course, I am also frustrated at not convincing other people.
I find refereeing here extremely unfair. Not to mention that parting shot. I mean, yikes.
No, racism, sexism, and a host of other horrible views make people alt right. Which I’m sure you know yet you’ve opted to associate with merely upsetting other people.
The posts above were made in response to people lamenting the idea that not coddling the alt right is a losing strategy while simultaneously disregarding any concerns about posts made here. If you think this makes sense feel free to make the case for it. Otherwise I am very tired of being told that things I find offensive are immaterial but what some guy on r/the_donald cares about is of the upmost importance to respect.
Quid on
+13
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I don't think anyone's saying marginalized people "should" gently educate their oppressors as in, have a moral responsibility to. Of course they don't. It's "should" as in, because a lot of privileged people won't listen unless we go to extreme lengths to protect their egos - and even then they probably still won't.
Why do the marginalized have to go through great efforts for the sake of the privileged? Why do queerfolk have to make sure they're polite to an asshole screaming slurs?
Shit, I'm sorry, that was an old draft. It was a bad argument, which is why I didn't (mean to) post it.
I'll go back and amend my post, no worries @Calica
I think the importance is finding common ground. That's the foundation, that's where growth begins. Based on your post, I can tell you that you probably think worse of them than they do of you. I'm thinking here of the gaming guild I've helped run for the past 5-6 years. SJW jokes galore, so many memes and a plethora of non-PC related discussion. It's also a great group of people that's at least half made up of minorities and poc. The guild lead is from the Philippines. 3/5 officers are from Taiwan and Vietnam. Two black americans, one Egyptian, a handful of women and then like 8-10 of us straight white males. This is what's in my mind when I'm talking about this stuff.
They should be on our team. They're not fascists by any stretch, they're not even really right! But they want nothing to do with the left, and they think the left wants nothing to do with them. And given the thread here I can't really say they're wrong. The vast majority of people I've interacted with in my years gaming fit roughly the same profile. Plenty of assholes but the majority just people trying to fit in their community and have a good time, and almost universally I've found a poisoned well when it comes to the left, liberals and progressives. People consider them be sex-negative, prudish, anti-violence and oversensitive to pretty much everything. Projection? Sure, whatever. But reputation's a reputation, and there's a huge number of people--non-facist, normal, "moderate" people--who just want nothing to do with the left. And based off of my interactions with the "Left" on these matters in general (both here and elsewhere) the left doesn't want them either. It's easier to write them off and bundle them up in a nice, neat "alt right package".
That is the difference between us and the alt right. The alt right is a big tent. They're focused on finding common ground to draw people in. We categorically do not do that. We look for reasons to call someone out or shut them up or shut them out. And then we are surprised that they draw in the people we shut out or told were unwelcome.
In the end, I'm not trying to say there's this huge majority of good, honest, perfect people the left rudely and needless rejected. That's not it. I'm saying there's a huge number of people who could be on our side--not wholly, not bought in on every issue and point of ideology--but broadly and that would be awesome! Not everyone's going to be a fanatic, not everyone is going to be invested in it like you guys are, not everyone is going to be on the cutting edge and passionate about diversity and all that shit and they don't have to be. It is better that they're broadly on our side than on the other, and it is unnerving to me that we cannot recognize that. It is unnerving that we do not understand the word Compromise. The well is poisoned and it doesn't matter who poisoned it, we can deal with it or not and the prevailing opinion here is not.
I am so tired of this argument, and attempts in general to sanitise this as a purely ideological battle between the left and the right.
I'm speaking of my own experiences as someone in one of the many marginalised groups wanting better representation in gaming. I've encountered multiple incidents of homophobia, transphobia and racism in my time in online communities. I've left guilds because of other players making gay slurs and getting a response back from officers that was essentially 'look they're just joking around/it's just words/get a thicker skin', of seeing other players doubling down just from me asking them not to use homophobic or racial slurs. In real life, I've been assaulted less than 100m from my own front door because some random strangers took exception to me resting my head on my boyfriend's shoulder for a few seconds on a bus home, and actually decided to follow us off the bus with the explicit intent of beating the shit out of us. I've had to refute comparisons people have made between homosexuality and paedophilia (from members of my own fucking family!). I've lived through governments legislating against my very existence, and I'm watching the exact same thing happen right now with trans men and women.
And all of this has been against a low-level background societal acceptance of that being 'just the way it is'. So you'll have to forgive me if I take a very dim view of the assertion that marginalised groups do not understand the word Compromise. We absolutely do. And for the longest time we have understood it to mean 'accept that you are lesser than us, that you are less deserving than us, that you will never be allowed to have the same freedoms, rights and representation as us'.
And you'll also have to forgive me if my response to being told we need to compromise is a resounding 'fuck that shit!'. But I will be damned before I ask forgiveness for looking side-eyed at a self-identified straight white male who categorises this as diversity and all that shit.
I would ask though, using again your specific example of that guild, what exactly your response was to the 'SJW jokes galore, so many memes and a plethora of non-PC discussion'; did you (or anyone else for that matter) actually do anything to combat/nudge/adjust the conversation away from such things?
Well, I would ask, but I kind of already have an idea of what the answer would be.
I don't think you are discussing the same thing as Frankiedarling. There is a question of how we want the world to be, and a question of how to get closer to that ideal world. These are both important questions. But to argue that the way forward is not to immediately demand all of the conditions of our ideal world are met now, no equivocations, is not the same as arguing that we don't want the same ideal world.
I find it frustrating to have it thrown in my face that I don't care about minorities, LGBTQ, females, or what have you, simply because I don't think smiting down anyone who isn't sufficiently woke is the right way to build a more inclusive world. To act like my view of how to build that ideal means that what I really care about is supporting the status quo rather than the real issues. Which isn't to say my pain is the same as your pain. It isn't. But I don't need additional turmoil because I disagree on how best to achieve the things we both want. Disagree with me on how to do that all you want. But don't tell me I am a bigot because I don't think your approach works as well as mine.
If these were easy problems to solve then we wouldn't be having this conversation and racism/sexism/bigotry wouldn't be issues. But they are, and we are having it, which to me suggests that maybe we shouldn't act like it's so simple.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
It's very simple: that's never actually been the claim. The claim had never been that the left is solely responsible for the right. We regularly reaffirm that this white nationalism is a multifaceted multicausal issue with a shit load of causes both for the whole group, and for the individuals in that group.
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
This part right here? This is pretty condescending and has the stink of that sarcastic "I'm triggered" crap people do.
If "the left" is rejecting anyone from social circles or inclusion in events / playing things, it has everything to do with what an individual is projecting outward to the world. It isn't about sex or financial status or skin color, it's based on behavior and action toward others.
There's a thing going on where people want to talk about personal responsibility and such, but when that expectation to be responsible for the hateful things they do and say is turned on them they want a free pass or act like a victim over it. If you express unkind things toward people of color on the basis of they are people of color, don't be surprised when people of color or their friends stop inviting you to hang out.
I am really unconvinced that deplatforming will work. That's basically what we did to racists. And so they just started using dog whistles. And then dog whistles of those dog whistles. And then surprise decades later when someone is willing to just be openly racist there is this huge pool of people who turns out are actually pretty racist still and raring to go.
Deplatforming absolutely works. It's just that fascists are good at finding new platforms, and found the internet as readily available breeding ground.
They actually aren't. That's why deplatforming works.
It's just social media has barely done anything about the issue so the vast majority of the alt-right or it's feeder streams has never been deplatformed.
Facebook, Twitter and Google gave white supremacists the tools to create the alt right and profited greatly from their cultural ascendancy. Those companies (to varying degrees, Twitter most conspicuously) provided racists a safe space to flourish and connect with one another, gamers a safe space from which to harass others, and Donald Trump a safe space to spread a racist conspiracy theory and eventually get elected by others sympathetic to his racist, fearmongering worldview. Those companies pretended they were upholding the spirit of the 1st amendment while doing so. In reality, they made lots of money helping create a new fascist movement.
Deplatforming works, but social media companies must be forced into it. Nothing else would come close in terms of cutting the growth of the alt right movement, and no individual or group (either actual alt right people, from Milo to Jordan Peterson, nor "alienation" from the left driving people into the arms of the alt right) has contributed toward that growth more than Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Which makes sense, because they were making the most money off of that growth. There was a serious culture war going on, and they had a monopoly on arms sales. The country got fucked over in the process.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
I mean, I've been members of guilds like that, too. Where the dudes used slurs like tr**y constantly, and I was too embarrassed and uncomfortable to say anything. The one time I spoke up it was because a dude was saying PSTD was a fake illness and I argued with him about it. So it makes me wonder, how many of those ladies in your guild are uncomfortable with certain things, but say nothing in order to be "welcoming"? In order to be one of the guys? That's what I mean by not seeing women as people, that you have a space - like many spaces I have been a part of and must continue to be a part of as long as I am a working woman and a games enthusiast, and take part in any scene other than this one - and as long as it conforms to what makes men comfortable, that's the same as it being open to everyone. Because women's thoughts don't count for anything.
I have a friend on facebook who describes himself as "an SJW", who constantly makes posts about being irritated when a TV series or film gets a female lead, and describes the 80s as having better representation than modern film and TV. He believes we've already reached male/female equality. He's not a terrible guy. But like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience. That's what I mean by not accepting me as a fellow human. That my words can only be "real" to certain people if I'm a man.
Seems more than a little harsh to say "like with you, nothing I say to him means anything, nothing I say could possibly be true, even of my own experience". I haven't categorically rejected you or your experience. But everyone has an experience. You have yours, I have mine. When you disagree with me I don't think you're rejecting me and my entire experience. Disagreements are possible, in fact they are impossible to avoid. That's something you gotta live with in a world of individuals, that your experience can be considered, evaluated and found wanting.
Have women in my guild been uncomfortable in the past? Certainly. Some have left because of it. Some enjoy the environment and don't want it to turn into what they term "a PC guild". Women are not a monolith what can ya do.
Your link there is almost exactly what Im talking about though! Look at those magnificent fuckers! They're so good at this shit they're bringing in POC to white nationalist groups, while we're over here wringing our hands about pepe memes and the like. THAT is what we should be doing. Find an issue you share common ground in! Find ways to bring people in! It is utterly mindboggling to me how we can see what's happening, see the tactics our foes use, and still return to doubling down on "the executions will continue until morale improves".
Like, I get it. Our doctrine is our doctrine for a good reason. We don't want to compromise on shit because we don't want to tell anyone "you're going under the bus today so some entitled dudes can feel more welcome". And that is more than reasonable. But it's also not a winning strategy. At a certain point I think we have to realize that the majority of folks are never going to be quite "on the level", but we still want them broadly on our side. Warts and memes and all.
There is no compromising on whether or not someone is human and deserving of mutual dignity. Allies are utterly useless if they readily abandon you and actively campaign against the very core values you hold.
Again, no one has suggested grabbing the pitchforks over an insensitive joke. But I know I have zero interest in trying to court someone that thinks my wife being in a position of leadership is a societal failure.
So what does zero tolerance mean? What is the line that you think Reddit, etc all should be using to delineate acceptable content from unacceptable content?
The forum you're presently visiting is a good model.
You can't even talk about anime here, making PA forums precisely 3 points of evil worse than Nazi Germany.
So at the minimum, in addition to a worldwide PA forum we will require a Weeb Containment Zone.
I don't normally do this, but this is very goosey of you here.
EDIT: Like, I don't disagree with absolutely everything you say, but posts like that will definitely make people write you and the things you say off forever.
And I regret that, but it’s my family that died in concentration camps and I reserve the right to make light of it as I see fit. People can be adults about it or not, I can’t control them.
I am honestly surprised, then, at how cavalier you are towards the alt-right, considering their stated goals, and what they've done in the past. It definitely changes my understanding of what you've said, though I'm probably more confused now than ever. Your family suffered by the manifestation of the ideals and objectives that you're asking us to be more permissive towards.
I'm at a loss.
Naturally, because I see my efforts as pushing in the opposite direction of another holocaust. Good guys won’t win by alienating all their potential allies and purity testing themselves into tiny internet bubbles.
As I’ve said before, I know people here mean well. We disagree on messaging and some finer points of ideology but we’re on the same team.
I want to unpack this because I'm sincerely curious in what you feel like is the next step in this process.
I think a lot of this thread has been, "Is it possible for the left to do less to encourage the radicalization of gamers into the alt-right, specifically by being nicer to them or by being critical in a nicer way?" I'm not sure I agree with the idea that this can work, but if you assume it does, the way it sounds like it works is, 1) the left is nicer to those who disagree with them on issues of PC and inclusivity in games, 2) because the left is nicer, the at-risk gamers don't leave the group to go listen to the alt-right who will fill their heads with lies and hate, 3) over time the at-risk gamers gradually come to agree with the left when it comes to PC and inclusivity.
You might call these forums an example of that (you might not, but bear with me)--it's a place where we're not allowed to insult one another, where mods generally enforce a comparatively light tone (for the internet), and it's also a place where a number of conservatives credit many years of interaction here with changing their viewpoints in a more liberal direction.
But you, Frankie, seem to come at this from a different direction, because I don't think you would agree with step 3, with the part where people change their views over time to favor PC/inclusiveness. You're not trying to catch flies with honey (slow conversion through community and discussion as opposed to yelling and excommunication). It sounds like you're suggesting that if you don't alienate people from your community, that's enough on its own--and that not alienating them includes tolerating their viewpoints even when we disagree with them. Or maybe even sharing some of those viewpoints.
It seems to me that the strongest risk factor among gamers to be radicalized is having these anti-inclusivity ideas to begin with, and so if the goal isn't (long term or short term) to get them to give up those ideas, then you're not actually pushing them in the opposite direction of anything.
Am I wrong? What's the mechanism by which you feel you're helping to prevent radicalization here?
I think that anyone we shut out is someone the enemy welcomes (or tries to welcome or is now in a position to welcome) in, and I think that we give them that in far too easily. We are very quick to label and very quick to extrapolate intention/belief from relatively benign material. I think we make perfect the enemy of the good in that regard. We are more concerned about calling out, putting down and BTFO people than we are finding common ground and bringing them in. I would think the purpose of this to plain. You want people in your sphere of influence. You want people to be in a mindspace where you are not the enemy.\
For too many people we are already the enemy. We're no-fun, super cereal sex-negative ultra-sensitive joykills. An unearned reputation? Some of it isn't deserved. Some we certainly brought on ourselves. Either way, the well is poisoned and who poisoned it isn't exactly relevant. What's relevant is the solution. What's relevant is the way forward.
I want to bring as many people into the liberal mindspace as possible. I want it to be a friendlier place for people who aren't fully woke or with it. Hell, I'm probably one of those people. I don't think there's ever going to be this nirvana moment where we're all on the same page and everyone is of one mind. There's always gonna be a spectrum and I think that yes, you are going to have to tolerate viewpoints you disagree with. Because honestly some shit is small-fry if you're talking about Nazis, right? And the upside is, if they're in your mindspace you can work on them if you feel the need. They may even one day grow up to be only a smalltime shitlord and malcontent like myself!
Here's a glimpse into my mind on this: I grew up in a deeply religious environment that was dedicated to missionary work/proselytization. By definition the people engaged in that were dealing with people who agreed with almost nothing they themselves believed in. They eased people in. They attracted them with summer afternoon BBQs and shit. They took people where they were at. Some people ended up getting pulled in all the way (I hope they got out eventually!) and some people never did. But the people who didn't get in all the way? They stayed chill with them, kept in contact, kept inviting them to the appropriate events. And some of them just lingered in that space forever, happy to drop the occasional donation or introduce other.... er… prospects. SUFFICE IT TO SAY I'm glad that whole thing is in my past but I still admire their method, and I think they had a good idea going with taking people where they were at. They accepted that they had to work their way in from the outside, and that's something I am 100% convinced the left has forgotten. We talk like we're inside Noah's ark and it's a privilege to come aboard and those who don't want to can get fucked. \
EDIT: I hope that doesn't come off as "please copy this random ultra religious group", i'm just giving that as an example of what I'm thinking. I think that if people are in our mindspace that's a genuine good thing, and I want to get more of them in, and I think when they're on the outside that's categorically a bad thing, because they don't hear a word we're saying and it's all filtered through the enemy lens.
Frankiedarling on
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
Do you care about upsetting people with your posts? I find your posts, and the posts of many other posters racking up 10+ agrees, to be pretty upsetting. Does that make you alt right?
I have not been convinced by you, or others, does that mean that my existence is "frustrating" or "telling" or a testament to anything in particular? Of course, I am also frustrated at not convincing other people.
I find refereeing here extremely unfair. Not to mention that parting shot. I mean, yikes.
No, racism, sexism, and a host of other horrible views make people alt right. Which I’m sure you know yet you’ve opted to associate with merely upsetting other people.
The posts above were made in response to people lamenting the idea that not coddling the alt right is a losing strategy while simultaneously disregarding any concerns about posts made here. If you think this makes sense feel free to make the case for it. Otherwise I am very tired of being told that things I find offensive are immaterial but what some guy on r/the_donald cares about is of the upmost importance to respect.
Okay, that's what you're "tired of." What am I "tired of?" Let's try out a different "concern about the posts made here."
I am not the most oppressed homo but I did have my struggles with my sexuality when I was coming of age in the late 90s and early 2000s, which we may recall was not the best time for it. Correspondingly, I can say that the suggestion that the ~only~ way someone could possibly make posts like mine or other posts that I've found to be worth engaging with is because the poster doesn't care about minorities right to exist (italics always original) or because they are elevating symbols and abstractions over real lives or because they are objectively furthering alt right paradigms and etc. is personally offensive and gross. I am offended to have my group membership rhetorically used in that way, (largely by straight people might I add!), and I am also offended at what it suggests about what my own attitudes must be when read literally. I do not, in fact, hate myself.
So, that pisses me off. So what? I'm okay with the answer "who cares, you're being unreasonable." But that would make it clear who gets to use emotional language and whose feelings get to count.
(Spoiler: I'm not going to become alt right regardless of what you answer.)
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
I can only speak for myself then, and those back in the earlier pages who were agreeing with me I suppose as well.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
Do you care about upsetting people with your posts? I find your posts, and the posts of many other posters racking up 10+ agrees, to be pretty upsetting. Does that make you alt right?
I have not been convinced by you, or others, does that mean that my existence is "frustrating" or "telling" or a testament to anything in particular? Of course, I am also frustrated at not convincing other people.
I find refereeing here extremely unfair. Not to mention that parting shot. I mean, yikes.
No, racism, sexism, and a host of other horrible views make people alt right. Which I’m sure you know yet you’ve opted to associate with merely upsetting other people.
The posts above were made in response to people lamenting the idea that not coddling the alt right is a losing strategy while simultaneously disregarding any concerns about posts made here. If you think this makes sense feel free to make the case for it. Otherwise I am very tired of being told that things I find offensive are immaterial but what some guy on r/the_donald cares about is of the upmost importance to respect.
Okay, that's what you're "tired of." What am I "tired of?" Let's try out a different "concern about the posts made here."
I am not the most oppressed homo but I did have my struggles with my sexuality when I was coming of age in the late 90s and early 2000s, which we may recall was not the best time for it. Correspondingly, I can say that the suggestion that the ~only~ way someone could possibly make posts like mine or other posts that I've found to be worth engaging with is because the poster doesn't care about minorities right to exist (italics always original) or because they are elevating symbols and abstractions over real lives or because they are objectively furthering alt right paradigms and etc. is personally offensive and gross. I am offended to have my group membership rhetorically used in that way, (largely by straight people might I add!), and I am also offended at what it suggests about what my own attitudes must be when read literally. I do not, in fact, hate myself.
So, that pisses me off. So what? I'm okay with the answer "who cares, you're being unreasonable." But that would make it clear who gets to use emotional language and whose feelings get to count.
(Spoiler: I'm not going to become alt right regardless of what you answer.)
Correct the feeling of bigots does not matter. And given they contend no one else's feelings count, we're back at where we are where you claim it's a losing strategy to ignore how they feel but irrelevant how anyone on the left feels.
You can say you're not going to become alt right but you sure keep going to bat to protect their feelings. Whether or not you self identify with them doesn't change what your actions support.
It is spectacularly telling that the same people claiming the left alienates people are the same ones saying they don't care if they upset people.
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again
The next times it happens will be the first. Try getting alienated by things that actually happen?
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
Posts
The alt right doesn't exist because people on the political left alienated them. It exists because when asked to treat others with respect they refused.
That’s a hell of a takeaway given a bunch of people just jumped on me for a joke. And I’m the unkind one for not apologizing for being jumped on? K. I swear there was a “we’re not going to break out the pitchforks over a joke” like ... literally last page lol.
I know you’re being serious about it. You’re so deadly serious about it we’re having a very serious conversation about a very tame joke.
That’s pretty wack, and almost precisely the problem. Double down upon double down until everyone not precisely at your level of intensity and ideology is the enemy. Proceed to wonder why the alt right is getting all these people, propose mass restrictions and purges, repeat as needed.
Okay then. Disagree with that dumb nonsense.
If you don’t have much beyond this sort of shit to add to the debate don’t bother posting.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Shit, I'm sorry, that was an old draft. It was a bad argument, which is why I didn't (mean to) post it.
I think it would be helpful if you gave examples of Progressive positions you think are more reasonable and Progressive positions you think are too fringe.
Look, dude. In EVERY thread about racism/homophobia/alt-right shenanigans you are there. To dismiss, minimize, deflect and defend. Your first post in a thread about a terror attack was to try to split hairs and claim an anti-Semite was "just joking". Nothing about the attack itself. Just defending the right. It's all about tactics and all your tactics are "we should do less".
What you do serves as a vector for the alt-right because they get to point at you and go "Look! The Jew is OK with our antics, they're fine!" Your silence becomes consent becomes "the majority is with us". And that's not counting your continued defenses of every asshole that is ever mentioned.
You aren't combating them you're normalizing them.
I want to unpack this because I'm sincerely curious in what you feel like is the next step in this process.
I think a lot of this thread has been, "Is it possible for the left to do less to encourage the radicalization of gamers into the alt-right, specifically by being nicer to them or by being critical in a nicer way?" I'm not sure I agree with the idea that this can work, but if you assume it does, the way it sounds like it works is, 1) the left is nicer to those who disagree with them on issues of PC and inclusivity in games, 2) because the left is nicer, the at-risk gamers don't leave the group to go listen to the alt-right who will fill their heads with lies and hate, 3) over time the at-risk gamers gradually come to agree with the left when it comes to PC and inclusivity.
You might call these forums an example of that (you might not, but bear with me)--it's a place where we're not allowed to insult one another, where mods generally enforce a comparatively light tone (for the internet), and it's also a place where a number of conservatives credit many years of interaction here with changing their viewpoints in a more liberal direction.
But you, Frankie, seem to come at this from a different direction, because I don't think you would agree with step 3, with the part where people change their views over time to favor PC/inclusiveness. You're not trying to catch flies with honey (slow conversion through community and discussion as opposed to yelling and excommunication). It sounds like you're suggesting that if you don't alienate people from your community, that's enough on its own--and that not alienating them includes tolerating their viewpoints even when we disagree with them. Or maybe even sharing some of those viewpoints.
It seems to me that the strongest risk factor among gamers to be radicalized is having these anti-inclusivity ideas to begin with, and so if the goal isn't (long term or short term) to get them to give up those ideas, then you're not actually pushing them in the opposite direction of anything.
Am I wrong? What's the mechanism by which you feel you're helping to prevent radicalization here?
I feel arguments are being mixed. It can both be true that “the alt right doesn’t exist because of alienation from the left”, and that “alienation from the left is driving away potential allies who are also being recruited by the alt-right”.
My main concerns are: can the left recruit these people, and how. It might be my growing pessimism and depression (I got way worse after Trump won), but I feel the left in the US isn’t growing fast enough.
It worked about as well as you'd expect.
(tagging you so you can correct me if I'm wrong, Frankie, not to call you out
One, you can't control everyone. One black person having a bad day gets amplified to "Look! The blacks all hate us!" by the propaganda sphere.
Two, even if you DO control everyone it doesn't matter because they'll make shit up. Either an existing, mild statement will be cranked to 11, then THAT cranked to 11 (see: the MHW article) or they'll just invent something. It's not a debate there are no rules. It's a propaganda contest. In those, you win by knocking off as much reach and influence of the opponent's propaganda as you can, and distributing your own.
On an individual level, you can reach a lot of people, and like I mentioned earlier the best way to do that is going to vary. But it's easier to do that if their source of information isn't entirely bullshit first.
EDIT: for the ultimate example of best ways to do that vary: Richard Spencer. One punch, and the conversation shifts from "Let's interview this promising new right figure" to "Is Richard Spencer a Nazi and is it right to punch them?"
They actually aren't. That's why deplatforming works.
It's just social media has barely done anything about the issue so the vast majority of the alt-right or it's feeder streams has never been deplatformed.
I don't think Frankie is saying the alt-right is good.
But most of this thread has been about the language the 'left' (Whatever that means) uses pushes moderates to the right, and what I understand Frankie's position to be is that the 'left' needs to soften its tone, and be less critical of the right, AND, in their own words, throw the occasional minority under the bus in order to appeal to moderates.
The thing is, I don't think it's true that the alt-right is getting allies because there's too much opposition to alt-right ideology. I think softening our tone, and being more permissive of racism and violence towards vulnerable people will only embolden the alt-right, and give them more power.
There is historical precedence for this!
The nuimber of times we've refuted this claim only to see it pop up again and fucking again is beginning to alienate me!
Also idk what it's "telling" you, but I do know that the expression is shorthand for "I want to cast aspersions so that people know to nod the right way, but I don't want to make an argument" in pretty much the same way that "the x is increasing" just means you don't know how big x was or how much bigger it got, or "x comes at a time when y" is just a sloppy way to drag y into your argument without having to relate it to x.
Come on now! Don't be lazy.
What is telling to me is that person concerned with courting the alt right doesn’t care if they upset people with their posts. Pretty straightforward.
Meanwhile no one has actually posted any refuting evidence.
Feel free to actually cite things instead of making lazy claims, as much trouble as you have with that.
Deplatforming 100% works, and even when alt-right gollums like Alex Jones find some lesser platform to use than the more universal ones, their audiences shrink considerably.
The problem is, this leaves the fix in the hands of people who have show very little inclination to fix the problem: Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, et al need to have better moderation on their platforms. Twitter doesn't want to do it because by all accounts the management is either alt-right or alt-right sympathetic. Facebook and Youtube won't do it because profits. It feels like regulation is needed here, but I don't even know what that regulation would look like, and I don't think many current politicians have the knowledge of the platforms to write a useful policy.
Deplatforming in this context looks like going to the advertisers and saying "Your ad appears before a hate video on YouTube. Are you happy with that? Because I can take my business elsewhere if so".
Note the alt right will *immediately* start screaming about free speech if you do this. This isn't free speech at threat. Also more importantly it's not a sincere objection since they will cheerfully do it back to you.
First, actual Nazis is serious business, I'd say, but second, this isn't really a conversation, serious or otherwise?
If it helps you grock it, I was doing my best to tell you "I get it, you're joking, that's kind of tasteless in a digital room full of people talking about the shit these kinds of folks do. I mean, you can continue to be tasteless if you want, whatever floats your boat, but it makes taking your side seriously pretty hard? Like, unless I miss my understanding of the forum we're in, it's meant for serious or at least more serious discussion and debate.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
I mean, in another context, some less serious discussion or place . . . I still would have thought it was a tasteless joke, but I'd be less appalled at "I can make Nazi jokes because my family died in the Holocaust".
"My son doesn't like the left because he thinks they don't like Monster Hunter due to reading a sensationalist headline from an alt-right attack article intentionally misrepresenting the point" isn't a refutation, its buying into the false narrative.
Do you care about upsetting people with your posts? I find your posts, and the posts of many other posters racking up 10+ agrees, to be pretty upsetting. Does that make you alt right?
I have not been convinced by you, or others, does that mean that my existence is "frustrating" or "telling" or a testament to anything in particular? Of course, I am also frustrated at not convincing other people.
I find refereeing here extremely unfair. Not to mention that parting shot. I mean, yikes.
Heck, I am pretty sensitive and liable to taking criticism very personally. I believe it was in this thread, very early on, that I gave the example of when someone told me that one of my favourite books was anti-Semitic. They didn’t deliver this information in a cruel or offensive manner; as I recall, it was literally something along the lines of ‘just so you know, that book is heavily anti-Semitic.’ And I felt offended! I didn’t argue, because to be honest I didn’t have a good rebuttal, but I loved that book and I took the criticism personally, because I had in turn recommended that book to others, and what did that say about me?
There was no way that person could have delivered the criticism more kindly than they did. The only way I could have been happy at the time was if the person had been silent. But the ignorant bliss wouldn’t have ultimately been of any use to me.
I must confess that it took me quite a while to sit and muse on that criticism and to eventually reject the book as one of my favourites, but eventually I found less problematic books and formed a new favourite list.
And that’s what we can do; we can continue to enjoy the products, but under advisement and with knowledge that they’re products of their time. And in the meantime we can push for improvements to new products, which ultimately ends up benefiting everyone. Because I learned what anti-Semitic coded language existed and that helped me moving forward.
So, what's the main points for progressive propaganda, as in what should it be? I'm not just asking Phoenix here, though theirs is the post I'm quoting. What should we have as our quick-points to hit folks that are interested? What's our punchy line to sell folks on "progressivism is for you!"
No, racism, sexism, and a host of other horrible views make people alt right. Which I’m sure you know yet you’ve opted to associate with merely upsetting other people.
The posts above were made in response to people lamenting the idea that not coddling the alt right is a losing strategy while simultaneously disregarding any concerns about posts made here. If you think this makes sense feel free to make the case for it. Otherwise I am very tired of being told that things I find offensive are immaterial but what some guy on r/the_donald cares about is of the upmost importance to respect.
I don't think you are discussing the same thing as Frankiedarling. There is a question of how we want the world to be, and a question of how to get closer to that ideal world. These are both important questions. But to argue that the way forward is not to immediately demand all of the conditions of our ideal world are met now, no equivocations, is not the same as arguing that we don't want the same ideal world.
I find it frustrating to have it thrown in my face that I don't care about minorities, LGBTQ, females, or what have you, simply because I don't think smiting down anyone who isn't sufficiently woke is the right way to build a more inclusive world. To act like my view of how to build that ideal means that what I really care about is supporting the status quo rather than the real issues. Which isn't to say my pain is the same as your pain. It isn't. But I don't need additional turmoil because I disagree on how best to achieve the things we both want. Disagree with me on how to do that all you want. But don't tell me I am a bigot because I don't think your approach works as well as mine.
If these were easy problems to solve then we wouldn't be having this conversation and racism/sexism/bigotry wouldn't be issues. But they are, and we are having it, which to me suggests that maybe we shouldn't act like it's so simple.
It's very simple: that's never actually been the claim. The claim had never been that the left is solely responsible for the right. We regularly reaffirm that this white nationalism is a multifaceted multicausal issue with a shit load of causes both for the whole group, and for the individuals in that group.
If "the left" is rejecting anyone from social circles or inclusion in events / playing things, it has everything to do with what an individual is projecting outward to the world. It isn't about sex or financial status or skin color, it's based on behavior and action toward others.
There's a thing going on where people want to talk about personal responsibility and such, but when that expectation to be responsible for the hateful things they do and say is turned on them they want a free pass or act like a victim over it. If you express unkind things toward people of color on the basis of they are people of color, don't be surprised when people of color or their friends stop inviting you to hang out.
Facebook, Twitter and Google gave white supremacists the tools to create the alt right and profited greatly from their cultural ascendancy. Those companies (to varying degrees, Twitter most conspicuously) provided racists a safe space to flourish and connect with one another, gamers a safe space from which to harass others, and Donald Trump a safe space to spread a racist conspiracy theory and eventually get elected by others sympathetic to his racist, fearmongering worldview. Those companies pretended they were upholding the spirit of the 1st amendment while doing so. In reality, they made lots of money helping create a new fascist movement.
Deplatforming works, but social media companies must be forced into it. Nothing else would come close in terms of cutting the growth of the alt right movement, and no individual or group (either actual alt right people, from Milo to Jordan Peterson, nor "alienation" from the left driving people into the arms of the alt right) has contributed toward that growth more than Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Which makes sense, because they were making the most money off of that growth. There was a serious culture war going on, and they had a monopoly on arms sales. The country got fucked over in the process.
what the fuuuuuuuck
try not being a silly goose.
The claim was never that alienating people turns them alt-right. It's always been that alienating people fucking alienates them!
Good grief.
This is demonstrably untrue based on previous posts in this thread. Several people here think that alienating people turns them towards the views of the alt right, and that is the context within which other posts have been made.
You are quite simply wrong.
I think that anyone we shut out is someone the enemy welcomes (or tries to welcome or is now in a position to welcome) in, and I think that we give them that in far too easily. We are very quick to label and very quick to extrapolate intention/belief from relatively benign material. I think we make perfect the enemy of the good in that regard. We are more concerned about calling out, putting down and BTFO people than we are finding common ground and bringing them in. I would think the purpose of this to plain. You want people in your sphere of influence. You want people to be in a mindspace where you are not the enemy.\
For too many people we are already the enemy. We're no-fun, super cereal sex-negative ultra-sensitive joykills. An unearned reputation? Some of it isn't deserved. Some we certainly brought on ourselves. Either way, the well is poisoned and who poisoned it isn't exactly relevant. What's relevant is the solution. What's relevant is the way forward.
I want to bring as many people into the liberal mindspace as possible. I want it to be a friendlier place for people who aren't fully woke or with it. Hell, I'm probably one of those people. I don't think there's ever going to be this nirvana moment where we're all on the same page and everyone is of one mind. There's always gonna be a spectrum and I think that yes, you are going to have to tolerate viewpoints you disagree with. Because honestly some shit is small-fry if you're talking about Nazis, right? And the upside is, if they're in your mindspace you can work on them if you feel the need. They may even one day grow up to be only a smalltime shitlord and malcontent like myself!
Here's a glimpse into my mind on this: I grew up in a deeply religious environment that was dedicated to missionary work/proselytization. By definition the people engaged in that were dealing with people who agreed with almost nothing they themselves believed in. They eased people in. They attracted them with summer afternoon BBQs and shit. They took people where they were at. Some people ended up getting pulled in all the way (I hope they got out eventually!) and some people never did. But the people who didn't get in all the way? They stayed chill with them, kept in contact, kept inviting them to the appropriate events. And some of them just lingered in that space forever, happy to drop the occasional donation or introduce other.... er… prospects. SUFFICE IT TO SAY I'm glad that whole thing is in my past but I still admire their method, and I think they had a good idea going with taking people where they were at. They accepted that they had to work their way in from the outside, and that's something I am 100% convinced the left has forgotten. We talk like we're inside Noah's ark and it's a privilege to come aboard and those who don't want to can get fucked. \
EDIT: I hope that doesn't come off as "please copy this random ultra religious group", i'm just giving that as an example of what I'm thinking. I think that if people are in our mindspace that's a genuine good thing, and I want to get more of them in, and I think when they're on the outside that's categorically a bad thing, because they don't hear a word we're saying and it's all filtered through the enemy lens.
Okay, that's what you're "tired of." What am I "tired of?" Let's try out a different "concern about the posts made here."
I am not the most oppressed homo but I did have my struggles with my sexuality when I was coming of age in the late 90s and early 2000s, which we may recall was not the best time for it. Correspondingly, I can say that the suggestion that the ~only~ way someone could possibly make posts like mine or other posts that I've found to be worth engaging with is because the poster doesn't care about minorities right to exist (italics always original) or because they are elevating symbols and abstractions over real lives or because they are objectively furthering alt right paradigms and etc. is personally offensive and gross. I am offended to have my group membership rhetorically used in that way, (largely by straight people might I add!), and I am also offended at what it suggests about what my own attitudes must be when read literally. I do not, in fact, hate myself.
So, that pisses me off. So what? I'm okay with the answer "who cares, you're being unreasonable." But that would make it clear who gets to use emotional language and whose feelings get to count.
(Spoiler: I'm not going to become alt right regardless of what you answer.)
I can only speak for myself then, and those back in the earlier pages who were agreeing with me I suppose as well.
I've skipped over about 200 posts
You can also believe that alienating people makes them ripe for recruitment by the alt-right.
Correct the feeling of bigots does not matter. And given they contend no one else's feelings count, we're back at where we are where you claim it's a losing strategy to ignore how they feel but irrelevant how anyone on the left feels.
You can say you're not going to become alt right but you sure keep going to bat to protect their feelings. Whether or not you self identify with them doesn't change what your actions support.
If you believe that while simultaneously believing alienating people on the left has no effect then you are being grossly inconsistent.
being overtly hostile towards marginalized groups isn't a requirement for supporting attitudes and legislation that hurts those same groups
you don't need to be a member of the alt right to collaborate with them
so it makes no functional difference to me if one of those collaborators is 'alienated' by my attitude
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)