Lol all I was saying is that it's gross that bigots like a certain book, and also ironic that they like that specific book. Not even close to policing what people should and shouldn't like.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Fascism, alt-right/nazis & the importance of de-platforming |OT|
- Thread starter IrishNinja
- Start date
I'm sorry I fundamentally disagree. Because I don't think there's much difference between Joe Rogan talking to an odious person, or if a progressive outfit like Vice does a report on them, or Louis Theroux doing one of his documentaries. And Theroux under the BBC did two specials on the Westboro Baptist Cult for crying out loud!
You're essentially arguing for the internet to be less free than old school talk radio.
Our education system has failed in this regard. So many Americans are clueless when it comes to the fact that speech meant to incite violence is actually illegal.
In what way is the statement unclear? Every person has a lot of different viewpoints and even if one or several viewpoints are so horrible, that they immediately disqualify their owner as a person (which certainly is the case with Nazis), other viewpoints may be fine and agreeable still. I never said that Nazis are "somehow not gross", what I said is that not everything the Nazis did was automatically bad, just because they were doing other abhorent things that make them shit people. Their policies on social security systems were an improvement to what we had before, but in no way does this excuse their inhumane acts and views (in other fields).
This is such an important read, especially for those who are usually averse to these conversations and who thinks that "the left" are mean and that if it wasn't for them, people wouldn't turn into nazis:
During and after Gamergate, I've seen so many fall into this trap and there are already a bunch of them on this site as well who are fulfilling the role of "alt-lite" because they feel that the left is mean, but the far-right people are nice and welcoming. You may even find some of these cases in this very thread.
IrishNinja I think this deserves to be in the OP if you feel like it
During and after Gamergate, I've seen so many fall into this trap and there are already a bunch of them on this site as well who are fulfilling the role of "alt-lite" because they feel that the left is mean, but the far-right people are nice and welcoming. You may even find some of these cases in this very thread.
IrishNinja I think this deserves to be in the OP if you feel like it
Last edited:
Also, free speech only applies to government institutions, private institutions don't have to adhere to it, and especially not the public.
People are free to protest against any person and any idea he has to offer.
The Joe Rogan Experience is not anywhere close to the same kind of media as Vice or BBC or Louis Theroux's documentaries. The former is a talk show and the latter is news. Investigative journalism. That changes the context radically, and really gets at what we're so against i.e. normalization of hate and prejudice. People should not be getting used to seeing these individuals, these groups in this context.
People aren't 100% good or evil.
Hitler was a vegetarian, loved his dog and was nice to his secretary. Is every vegetarian now also evil?
I'm pretty sure even a piece of shit like a KKK Grand Dragon loves his daughter/son very much just like nearly every other parent on this earth.
I don't think anybody (reasonable) would disagree with this at face value. But the devil is in the details. Who gets to decide what constitutes "Nazi ideals"? If this thread got to decide, that would be a WIDE ass net to cast if you're including people like Ben Weinstein and Joe Rogan as part of the problem. Patently absurd.
Right. That people are too stupid to understand the arguments and instead need those advocating for deplatforming to tell them what is and isn't right so they don't need to concern themselves with the arguments. I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Louis Theroux, though. He rarely offers an actual opinion on any given subject, merely shines a light on it. That's what most documentaries do - they document something, not act as a polemic for the host.
We don't give ISIS supporters a platform but folks deadass arguing that we should give Nazi/White Supremacists a platform. It's very telling.
Now debating that Nazis have some good points to make and like dogs....
Once again proving the point of the OP.
Yep, dipping out of this thread for my sanity.
Once again proving the point of the OP.
Yep, dipping out of this thread for my sanity.
I don't think we should "de-platform" anything. It's pointless and counter-productive. I think the left is scared of these "alt-right" views because they are recognized as the flipside of their own identity politics coin.
I would put my individualist, individual rights concepts against any of their bullshit...and I have no fear of them or their warmed over racist collectivism.
The idea that only the right wants the government to be small is false. Virtually everyone thinks the US government is a bloated bureaucracy that could be cut down significantly, they just want to cut it in different ways.
Nazis want an ethno state, rigid gender roles, and an authoritarian regime. How is any of that a good idea is beyond me.
Have i missed the posts where someone in here applauds an ethno state, rigid gender roles, and an authoritarian regime as a good idea?
You see, ISIS supporters (typically) have brown skin so..
Yeah, the right wants smaller government at the same time they fought to keep same-sex marriage illegal (a battle they lost), made it a law that a doctor had to show you a ultrasound before you could get an abortion, want to prevent trans soldiers from serving in the military, want to charge people with minor possession of weed with felonies, prevent felons from being able to vote, screen all government assistance applicants for drugs, break apart families due to immigration status, prevent local governments from providing a safe living location for some immigrants, prevent local governments from creating their own high-speed low-cost broadband networks, and the list goes on and on.
The small government argument has been a smokescreen and it has always been one. It's also tangential to this thread.
One point is that it's about not further emboldening the racists or supporting them in any way. Another point is that who in their right mind wants to be goody-good with the racists??
Only one group can be in the majority. What's inherently bad about it not being whites?
(This is assuming that the majority does not then go on to subjugate the minority, of course. That would be bad!)
Last edited:
Very comprehensive argument. Now i totally get what you're trying to articulate.
You might want to check your logic breh, because that's an embarrassing argument.
I think you and I know that Nazis are not known for their position on orphan pensions. They're known for, you know, systematically murdering millions of Jews. "Nazis were/are trash" is a pretty definitive statement, and you'd sound like an idiot if you said "yea but what about their progressive positions on welfare."
Does evil exist? I don't know. I wouldn't personally call the alt-right evil. They have an ideology and self interests, and are doing what they deem to be logical. I find their ideology odious and agree that we should do everything we can to advance our own interests and ideals which fly in the face of theirs. Specifically, confronting and stomping out their worldview by any means necessary. Fascism literally exists to exploit and destroy liberalism. Fascists understand how liberalism works, how liberal platforms operate, etc. They do not engage intellectually from a point of good faith, which is why inviting Milo to debate is a waste of time for instance.
Now of course, by restricting platforms on which they can (dishonestly) engage, you create sympathy for them. Punching Richard Spencer, and reveling in it, turns a lot of borderline far right men into alt right sympathizers or outright alt right members. So there's a catch 22 at play to a degree. But even still, stomping out the ideology is still essential, as is shaming them. Keeping your foot on the proverbial neck of fascism has to be done, because the alternative - free reign, or mainstream figures who give them life - is worse.
but nobody said every single view they had was bad. But you keep doing shitty comparisons where you think someone's racial views are somehow comparable to supporting pensions. You keep looking at the main pillars of their shittery and keep saying it's the same as supporting pensions.
As someone who lives in the Middle East, ISIS's ideas are almost as dangerous as Nazi ideas. They too want to build a state where they want people divided and be discriminated upon, though it's religious discrimination instead of racial discrimination.
But no one, certainly not we two, has contested that, it was about the idea that it is somehow bad if you like something that a Nazi likes.
Has that ever been the purpose of interviews, though? Isn't it about gaining insight and understanding? Certainly, the Louis Theroux documentaries with various mad groups, including Nazis and KKK members, aren't about being goody-goody, it's about understanding why they exist and what they believe - you see past the label and see them as humans. I don't really understand why Joe Rogan's different in this regard, just because he doesn't work for Vice or the BBC.
I never said deplatform them. I don't think anyone has ever said someone like Boogie should be banned by youtube or something.
What? No, I am absolutely not doing this, I was arguing why it is dumb to complain about someone who has a horrible world view happening to like something you like as well. I never said with a single word that the racial views are comparable to supporting pensions at all.
The whole strategy of the alt right is to make appealing, sugar coated arguments that sound kinda correct and take lots of effort and data to properly refute, so giving them a platform helps them spread their lies. Listeners need to do a lot of due diligence to get to the truth of some of their lies, which is why giving them a platform and not completely debunking them is dangerous. You have a guy like Rogan going "huh, that's actually kind of true" to these arguments and you've already lost.
Bud, it's not my job to tell you just how fucked up your statement was. But like, what's your endgame here. What are you trying to get at.
People are disappointed that Nazis like the book. No one is saying it's bad to like that book.
Not my logic. I responded to this faulty logic with more of the same.
Also i'm 100% with you on your definition of the problem.
But most of these asshats are not nazis yet. If your dealing with them as if they were nazis they'll turn around and run right into the arms of the few nazis in the back and strengthen their numbers even more.
Where do you draw the line on that line of thinking though? Surely you could apply the same thing to literally anything that you personally disagree with?
I know, I was agreeing with him and giving more validation to his point.
That's a question i would like to ask you to be honest. I don't know why you picked my post to throw a shitty drive by at.
guYoshi said it allready. No need to repeat it.
Not everything you disagree with has a stated endgoal of either forced relocation or genocide (both of which result in violence against their chosen enemy)
The biggest (and only, really) problem with this thread is how wide a net people are casting.
Yes, Nazism is not worth debating. Their very existence is practically a call to violence for their opponents, simply because of how abhorrent they are.
When you label every person whom you disagree with a Nazi, or even every person with some truly shitty views, you're completely skewing the situation. Nazis are an actual group with definable characteristics. It is not and should not be a catch all term. The term is being overused and that is the root of the disagreement.
No, because not everybody goes out and spreads sugar coated misinformation unsupported by data or facts.
And yet, on these boards and only two days ago or so, a number of people were very comfortable suggesting that we simply learn to accept terrorism. It was a sort of 'aww shucks, you've just got to accept stuff like that, because we live in big cities and that's that.'
Now, I understand why left leaning people don't want to get into that conversation. The very worst thing to be called is a bigot and to even dare approach the Augean Stable of muck that surrounds the issue (angry, isolated men that have nothing but hatred and feel marginalised so are swept up on a revolting ideology – sound familiar?) is to risk being called a racist, an alt-righter, a…………….nazi.
So, no, we don't give Isis a platform. But a lot of us ignore it. And if we're going to call out moderates for turning a blind eye to potential Nazis, let's do the same for those on the left side of the spectrum that don't want to confront uncomfortable truths.
There really is more than enough blame to share around.
It's not exactly hard to find pro-ISIS propaganda. Are you in favor of more heavy-handed policing of Muslim communities to stamp it out?
No one is accusing Rogan of being a nazi.
This thread is about the dangers of "middle of the road" people giving hateful speech a platform, however.
Kinda, sorta, yeah.. maybe ? Dude shot the shit with Steven Crowder for two hours last week and pretty much just both lamented about how annoying the left is.
yet Joe Rogan couldn't even challenge or find anything annoying about Steven Crowder's consistent hard right wing Youtube output ? Bro..
No one is saying Joe Rogan is a Nazi. He is not one. Probably. His podcast which he is responsible for is now a platform for white supremacists.
I strongly doubt the issue boils down to people getting antsy about the proper usage of the word Nazi.