Who are the poor people that look bad because of the marchers at Charlottesville?
"Reddit Is Banning Nazi And Alt-Right Groups As Part Of A Hate-Speech Crackdown" (BuzzFeed News)
- Thread starter The Bear
- Start date
Not sure why you keep focusing on left wing whatever when Nazis are exactly comparable to ISIS far more than Antifa is (and by more I mean you can't compare Antifa to ISIS)
I don't understand your line of thought here. And by that I mean I think it's insane. Every group in the history of everything is like that. No matter what anybody calling themselves the left does, it will be representative of everyone on the left by people who hate the left. TBH the left does it a lot too but I'm not gonna go to bat for conservatives or Republicans. The left accepting left-wing extremism? What does that mean exactly?
You know sometimes I think the warped view people get about the modern Nazi movement is that its some kind of cos-playing group or reenactors like the ones we have for the civil war that its a group of just really big fans thats its just for the luls, but its not, its why we get all these apologist for them in discussions either that or the person themselves are one, know some, or agrees with their views.
You're creating an equivalence between people who want to use violence against innocent people due to their appearance, religion, or identity and people who want to use violence to prevent those innocent people from being attacked.
That's utterly ridiculous.
Alright, I must have read that wrong and apologize if so. At first glance it appeared that you were drawing comparisons between islam and nazism, as though to suggest that there are varying shades of both. But there is only one shade of nazi.
But I vehemently disagree on your comparisons between ISIS and "left wing extremism". Groups such as antifa exist as a counterpoint to resist extreme right wing groups (ie nazis) from growing their power. Do you really think if we all just stuck our heads in the sand and allowed these fascists to openly parade through cities and recruit people to their cause that they would just go away? Nazism is an absolute evil belief system, and they should rightly be afraid to assemble.
But by this logic the right should look bad because it has accepted right-wing extremism. *looks at current US political climate and does not see that reflected in electoral success*
Its actually very simple. The moment you start to have to twist and turn into a pretzel to rationalize the Nazi movement is the moment you should take a step back a realize what you are doing. They would love to kill me and my children and to that I say fuck them. There is no gray area here its very black and white there are no good Nazis, these assholes volunteered to join in on a terrorism ideology.
It is looking bad. That's why the left shouldn't drag itself into the mud.
Of course with Trump...
Don't ask me to explain Trump because I dunno.
I mean, you're not entirely wrong here. Just another way for those fence sitters and those who subscribe to the "both sides" argument to normalize and downplay White Supremacy and validate their own repugnant views.
Antifa's not in the white house. The tea party and Trump are. There are tea partiers that are confederacy apologists, that think that Charlottesville was a false flag conspiracy by Soros, and other pretty abominable things. There is no equivalent in elected office on the left. And Antifa's nowhere near as bad as the other groups you're bringing up.
I still can't understand why you have a rightfully hard line approach towards ISIS but say we need to ignore and laugh off the current Neo Nazi movement in the United States
looks like we found one of those mythical "very fine people"
I missed that post. My God. That comparison, BLM being black sepremecy?
And what injustices do white ppl go thru that white supremacistst gets compared to BLM?
Is these the types of debates, views ppl on that other forum complained they couldn't be a part of?
I hope not.
What's wild tho... is there are ppl out here who legitimately think this.
It might be bad form to pile on to a user after they've been banned. But I'm certainly guilty of doing the same thing, especially on the old site.
Different political views aren't necessarily what offends me, it's looking at a cesspool like t_d and crediting then with protecting American values. You can't have a shred of integrity if you say that with a straight face, and your American values are clearly much different from mine.
The claim about t_d having nothing to do with nazis is especially egregious. You don't need to spend a significant amount of time over there to see how false that is. They openly operate over there, using code speak when necessary to remain within the reddit TOS. Many users even use modified nazi flags as flair.
One of the fallacies that people like to peddle around is the whole "We need to let these people speak and engage them to try and change their beliefs". I don't think we need to waste energy on those kind of people. What we need to do is use our energy to convince more people that on are the left and moderate but leaning left to go out there and participate and vote. So shutting down subreddits and hate speech all over the internet is fine. Something I'd like to be done here.
This is an absurd whataboutism.
First of all, ISIL may have genocide in its platform, but Islam does not (and ISIL accounts for much less of Islam than Nazis do in America and elsewhere), whereas what do you think is the logical conclusion to white supremacists/Nazi ideology if not genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Secondly, Nazis are a subgroup of white people. You seem to be conflating people attacking Nazis as an attack on white people since you made the flawed analogy that with Islam. People hate ISIL. People hate Nazis. The solution to both is violence and deplatforming.
Not just everyone. Every object could be a Nazi. Watch out! Even intangible ideas could be Nazis.
Are you arguing in good faith? Because pretending that every single person you debate on this issue actually thinks deep down that everyone who tolerates Nazism for their own gain is a "Nazi," read, a Nazi who "deserves to die immediately," you need to accept more nuance into your discourse. We're all people. We're all trying to be empathetic. I've found the hard way that generalizations like this cut that empathy off at the pass.
The guy I quoted was basically saying moderates either are nazis, are friends with them, or agree with them. I think the accusation of accepting nuance failed there first.
But did he say the moderates that agreed with them were Nazis? Or was that your inference?
You could make an argument he was dog-whistling. But even then I don't think one faulty generalization justifies another.
I assumed saying a person "agrees with nazis" would make them a nazi according to most people in this thread.
That literally is not what they said... moderates are not mentioned anywhere in that post. If you're equating "apologists" with "moderates," that's on you.
Of course it's not literally what they said, they said this
How are you interpreting a rebuke towards moderates from that statement?
Years of seeing it used that way on the former forum. The phrase "moderate darling" was an insult till the very end and was used in conjunction with apologist.
I interpreted this post
To include "moderates." Is that really so maddening to understand that I wasn't "trolling."
To include "moderates." Is that really so maddening to understand that I wasn't "trolling."
I don't mean to be confrontational, but I think it takes a lot of gymnastics to wrangle that from their post, especially considering that right before that they posited that apologists might simply not understand how serious of a threat neo-Nazis are.
So in your opinion where would you draw the line in this case? Genuine question.
You interpreted it that way based on someone else's views on a different forum. Do you know the poster you quoted to have equated moderates with Nazi apologists?
You'd think "espousing Nazi ideology" would be enough criteria to classify someone as a Nazi...
I would say they are one and the same. That's why I felt he was accusing all "apologist" of being nazis.
This guy interpreted apologists as "fence sitters," "both sides," people.
I'm sorry if "moderate" was a line too far for this talk.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. For one thing, I wouldn't ever consider a Nazi apologist to be even remotely politically moderate.
Thanks for the clarification, it seems like we are in agreement then. However I must state that I rarely encounter self-purpoted moderates that actually argue in good faith and they seem to get suspiciously defensive when taking a strong and aggressive stance against white supremacists, I believe that is what most of the scepticism you're encountering stems from.
The turn this discussion has taken is confusing to me but this is my line of thinking as well.
^Agree.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/a-statement-on-engaging-members-past-conduct.1984/
Did I tell you folks that I love this place?
Please, please..... Never change.
Maybe that poster needs to read this thread:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/a-statement-on-engaging-members-past-conduct.1984/
Did I tell you folks that I love this place?
Please, please..... Never change.