I'm not bothered with you or anyone holding that view, it's the pushing/pressuring others on a forum to openly state they'll go and attack their neighbours violently, or else they're not really "doing it right". It seems like reverse trolling.
-
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.
Fascism, alt-right/nazis & the importance of de-platforming |OT|
- Thread starter IrishNinja
- Start date
I'm not bothered with you or anyone holding that view, it's the pushing/pressuring others on a forum to openly state they'll go and attack their neighbours violently, or else they're not really "doing it right". It seems like reverse trolling.
You know who Lindsay shepherd is? He was right about Bill C-16 and the consequences came faster than anybody expected.
Devil is in the details. He said unconsciously, he probably was referring to just some women among feminists, he was talking about conciling the feminist attack on masculinity in the west while defending cultures which are opressive against women at the same time. And, also, he said he believes that. That means he isn't saying that's true. It's his current opinion. It can change.
There are many other topics were he is much more taxative.
There is always an army of people willing to throw out of context quotes with missing parts to try to take Peterson down without confronting his actual ideas. I repeat myself, but I would love for the left to choose a champion and see how he defends identity politics against Petersons individualist speech.
I didn't comment about the gay marriage quote because I hadn't heard or read anything about it.
No, they arent.
This shit appeals to a certain kind of character. No random hapless innocent person can get 'taken for a ride' on this shit when they really don't believe in it.
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
These are the kinds of people who wont go nazi when its a minority movement, but are hedging their bets so if it does breakout, they can be fully on board, and if it doesnt, they can just fade back into obscurity. Until next time.
Last edited:
I'm not posting specifics
Posting a gif of a Nazi being punched, "risking your freedom", so we're to ask them outside before we punch them? That's what we're going to quibble? You're clearly advocating violence and asking others why they won't do the same, we can lose the specifics if that's what the hangup is.
I disagree. He actually believes what he says, talks pretty straightforwardly and is open to change his mind if proven wrong.
I get it I'm just personally past the point of quietly ignoring some of the people I've encountered over the last year.
It's very hard to find pro Isis propaganda on television, we sure as shit aren't having universities and the like hold auditorium meetings for them, we sure as shit don't see Bill Maher, CNN, and the plethora of other TV shows and personalities debating them for "just asking questions", and we sure as hell don't see "both sides" or "all opinions are of equal importance, and it's important we hear what they have to say in order to better understand them."
As for your second question, you guys are going to police our neighborhoods regardless of what we want because we're an "other".
Quite simply put the reason you not seeing a ISIS-Support defense force like you're seeing neo-nazi/alt-right/white supremacists is because ISIS wants to cleanse out white folks as well as others. Once white America is a target (real or perceived point in case....the original Black Panther movement), suddenly the whole meet in the middle aspect is out the window.
To me there is no difference between an ISIS supporter and a Neo-Nazi/Alt-Right/Skinhead/White Supremacist. And definitely not enough difference to be told by this country over and over again to tolerate them and "empathise" with them, and understand their perspective. Both groups could die tomorrow and I would feel about the same tbh.
No, I'm definitely not, but still unclear as to what it is you think I should do in that scenario - tear the Trump sticker off their car or steal their sign?
Exactly. Who doesn't want acceptance? We already know from studying gangs etc. that even if a group is horrible, in the right environment and right conditions otherwise good people will accept that type of company if it means they can feel accepted by a group and escape the personal issues befalling them with others (friends or family, whichever).
And ESPECIALLY if that otherwise bad group makes them feel empowered or gives them a sense of power. Most people just don't have the will of resistance to turn that down.
They are if they're children with absent/terrible parents who can't educate them on this kind of stuff. Don't forget children and teens are highly impressionable compared to someone in their late '20s onwards.
User Banned (3 Days): ResetEra does not allow advocating targeted violence.
Yes i advocate violence against nazism so we are clear.
Fantastic OP.
And just in time, the Onion strikes: https://www.theonion.com/white-supremacist-tired-after-long-day-of-interviews-wi-1822818329
And just in time, the Onion strikes: https://www.theonion.com/white-supremacist-tired-after-long-day-of-interviews-wi-1822818329
Just watched their global warming video. It is disinformative propaganda. Complete and utter bullshit. Things posing as education that are actually disinformative should not be shown to kids. Why would we allow our culture to stupefy children?
The man has stated that humans are hierarchical by nature, that feminists (and women) want Muslim men (and men) to dominate them.
His use of the phrase cultural marxism.
Given this coupled with his missunderstanding of the Canadian law that escapes my memory atm many (including myself) see a pattern that syncs very well into the alt-right line of thinking.
Yes because thats who we are talking about. Little kids.
EVERYONE has the will or resistance to turn it down. They choose not to.
I feel you man, I would definitely say they're pretty equal. Which is why this belief in America of giving Neo-Nazi/White Supremacists/Alt-Right a platform under the guise of "empathy", "understanding them", "a mere difference of opinion" is pretty much bullshit. Because everyone knows in their heart of heart that this country isn't going give ISIS a platform or humanize their beliefs, or dress them up in cheap Macys suits and call them "dapper", under the guise of "understanding them" or seeing their belief as a mere "difference of opinion".
Yup. There's also sociaized racism at play. Look at the Nytimes nazi-normalization article fiasco; we're trained to look at white America a as ultimately 'good' folks where its impossible for them to just be evil. We can talk them out of this abhorent ideas because, come on, they wear dockers and old navy polos.
But when someone is darker skinned speaking in a foreign language suddenly its easier to draw the line with, "Oh that guy, that guys a fucking problem, no redeeming him, gotta stamp em out to keep us safe"
But nobody took it out of context, it is what Peterson said. And he said it was a statement of fact too, not as a "opinion".
Why are you bothering to look for any excuse or scenario to make an excuse for Nazis? I doubt they would afford you the same courtesy if push came to shove.
Well, in the video I found on the internet, which is from a thread here at resetera, he says literally: 'I think it's their unconscious wish for brutal male domination, I do man, I...'
When he says 'I think', that's an opinion. Not a statement of a fact.
And the context is the paradox of feminism attacking western masculinity while defending foreign cultures which are oppressive against women. That's important. That's not the same as saying women like to be dominated by men. That would imply all women. That's something he would never consciously say.
I think you give people too much credit for completely following everything that happens.
One of the more common things I hear when I have conversations with people who are Trump supporters and I enlighten them to certain things like how for instance how AT&T when they gave $1000 to employees that it was money already owed to them after a labor settlement or how Carrier was still cutting jobs and going to Mexico or how coal is a dying industry that needs to be phased out if for no other reason than its an unsustainable business to keep a large workforce employeed the answer back is usually "well I don't know about ALL that, I just think it's good people are getting some extra cash."
Which fine I don't think any of us can really expect that the average American is going to be that invested in the stories behind the stories. Because once again, people are swayed by emotion, not facts. That's why when I have conversations about things like Charlottesville with people I genuinely view as reasonable human beings they will often point at ANTIFA as also a problem. Why? Because some of the shit they do in the eyes of an outside observer doesn't look right or fair either. Of course then they have to concede when I bring in the fact of how many people one side has killed over the other and that argument falls apart.
But honestly average people are not experts in every single aspect of what is currently going on in society. People are honestly surprised when I tell them Robert E. Lee was a staunch opponent of Confederate monuments and he'd sound like a bleeding heart liberal today if he were around seeing how much people are crying over the want of confederate flags and monuments. They are unaware that most confederate monuments were built during Civil Rights pushes as a direct reaction to spite the movement and think they're about heritage.
This is partially because of a failure in our schools to properly teach these things, but it's also frankly people who will claim to have more important things going on in their lives than to give five minutes researching why we still have confederate monuments when someone comes along and says "well it's about regional pride and genuflecting on our history."
I think it is in this way that one becomes complicit in something without fully realizing it. That they are honestly frankly not versed enough in a subject yet choose to support regardless due to a lack of information or a desire to hear said information, and that lack of desire can come from different angles. First, is just genuinely not giving two shits, just going based on feeling and then forgetting about it and focusing on something else. The other is when presented with contradicting information in the guise of being insinuated as a Nazi for instance tends to put up a defensive wall. If some stranger tomorrow walked up to any one of us and accused us of being a Nazi, I'd think we'd be a bit taken aback by that and likely not want to listen to what someone has to say beyond that. If you're going to start from the position that the person you're talking to is some sort of cartoon villain levels of evil, it's going to be hard to present yourself as anything other than a cartoon version of the boy who cried wolf. Because if you're going to paint everything under the sun as a Nazi then the term will quickly lose all meaning, which I think exactly plays into the Trump game of removing meaning from speech.
Yup, shit is so damn transparent. It's exhausting have the same "convos" over and over again. And it's not ever really a conversation, it's folks telling marginalized groups that everyone is human and other kumbaya, Disney channel come together, YA novel, shit that none of them really even believe.
Would you consider it a moral imperative to do so, or are there alternatives?
I'm not going to engage with someone who uses talking points straight from Peterson. Can you go read what C-16 is for yourself, and form your own opinion, please?
You guys are like cult members.
So you're just not planning on engaging in good faith at all. Got it.
Yes, he makes up shit that feminism doesn't actually do. Feminism doesn't defend foreign cultures that are impressive against women. You won't find any feminists defending Saudi Arabia. Peterson confuses people arguing for freedom of religion and against discrimination of Muslim people with defending issues on the treatment of women in the middle East. It's disengenious as fuck. Then again, you seem to still believe in his blatant misinformation campaign about C-16, so it's pretty apparent anything he says is gospel and you don't bother to research for yourself.
Unfortunately for you I listened to Petersons latest appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience just a few hours ago where he said exactly what I claimed. He's said similar things multiple times.
I know who she is. What happened to her does not prove what you think it does. She was not convicted of any crime and the university apologised and admitted that C-16 does not apply to what she did. If she was arrested and charged with a hate crime you might have a point. Alas.
Zero Books podcast are supposed to be having Peterson on soon so he will be challenged by someone who is actually qualified to debate his strawmanning of both Postmodernism and Marxism. It is not going to go well for Peterson as its blinding obvious he has not studied either topic in any depth.
Wat? I'm not making excuses for Nazis, what are you talking about?! I'm just highlighting a basic part of psychology that's beneath the surface of this kind of stuff. These are actions driven by emotion and pathological issues, and no I'm not using that as an excuse to say "they're just mentally disturbed." No, they're racists, but how someone becomes a racist to begin with is in that their comprehension logic is disrupted by being mentally disturbed, and asshats swoop in to take advantage of that.
So if someone who seems otherwise good looks like they're being red-pilled, you don't accuse them of being bigots, assholes etc. because all that's accomplishing is antagonizing someone who may not have been leaning that way before, but will lean closer to it after you're done ostracizing them simply because they're being communicated to by facists or neo-Nazis or whatever (and not even initiating that communication, at that). When you see that, you step in, treat the individual with some respect and try being optimistic about the situation. Reassure them they don't need to drift off to that other side, that you appreciate them and the fact they stand with you. Make them feel like they belong, because if you don't, the other guys sure as hell will.
If you can't see that you're letting your anger blind you from logic, and that's dangerous.
The innate will in its purest form, yes. But things like environment, peers, parenting, social status, education level etc. also influence that will of resistance. Those things can either strengthen it, or weaken it. That should be obvious.
And I mentioned kids because they're the most impressionable and indoctrinating them to a toxic philosophy will create new generations to carry the torch. That seems to be the biggest reason to push de-platforming, but some of ways some of the people here are framing it comes off like totalitarian censorship, which I don't support. There are better ways to marginalize hate speech and the people who practice it on the internet, I even listed them in earlier posts.
But those methods would require actual work with the various parties involved, including the websites, including government agencies, and would need to be implemented with the upmost of care. But at least they would be long-term solutions still allowing for freedom of expression, unlike the heavy-handed de-platforming which feels more like a stopgap or temporary measure.
Last edited:
Sugestion to the OT:
Academic definition of fascism, nazism, left, right, Antifascism. With bibliography.
Its a pain,but i think it would be good for the discussions
Academic definition of fascism, nazism, left, right, Antifascism. With bibliography.
Its a pain,but i think it would be good for the discussions
Excellent thread, OP.
But holy shit, the both-sides-ism that some people peddled. Sitting in the center is not wisdom, it's inaction. And one of these days you'll probably have to pick a side, and ask yourself which side of history you'll want to be on.
But holy shit, the both-sides-ism that some people peddled. Sitting in the center is not wisdom, it's inaction. And one of these days you'll probably have to pick a side, and ask yourself which side of history you'll want to be on.
Saying that Nazis, while detestable people, can still hold opinions that evaluated on their own are fine, is not defending them indirectly. The NSDAP is the most awful, devious, dehumanising, hateful political party there ever was and as far as I am aware, the Nazi regime was the most outrageously horrible government that has ever existed. Every single active supporter of this party is absolutely inexcusable and I would have a hard time being in one room with anyone who supported this party (and was not a child / teen at the time, because let's be honest: The children were indoctrinated like crazy). There is no defense for Nazis, at all. They can have opinions that on their own are fine, and claiming the contrary is irrational from my perspective. But having some opinions that are fine or even good does not excuse enabling or executing the greatest injustice in history known to me.
I was saying that it is insufficient evidence for calling someone a Neonazi that he argued for a conservative talking point with an argument that was invented by Neonazis, in particular, when this argument is very much consistent with what conservative people have come up with themselves, already. When I ask for evidence that someone is a Neonazi, I do not want some "this sets up all kinds of flags"-kind of talk, but proper evidence for racist and nationalist viewpoints expressed by the person.
My political leanings are quite clear hopefully and I would agree this would be helpful
Yep, straddling the middle doesn't place one above a conflict. Nor does it absolve one of the responsibility for choosing a side. By not choosing, they've made their choice. Since that's a jumbled thought that could be clearer, I'll quote someone who already said it better:
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
-Archbishop Desmond Tutu
I mean sure!
If we're pretending that racial discrimination is a mental disorder, and not the fruition of systematic tools put in place across society to enforce racial segregation that places one race above others, systems that are broadly allowed to continue by said race as it benefits them on a day-to-day level, thereby breeding this level of innate privilege as they begin, at some degree, to notice that the fallacies of their own superiority is but sweet nothings of "You're better than them" whispered into theirs and their families ears for centuries by the ruling bodies of the time (as it made them easier to control and oppress other races) as we are now living in an age where accessibility to both history and/or culture beyond your own teachings exist in almost every screen we have access to, and as such a multi-generational level of sustained hatred and bigotry is now, as if by impulsion, is choosing to reject the realities that they aren't the centre of the world.
You say you aren't, but mentally disturbed is what you are describing.
User Banned (1 week): Whataboutism, sexism, arguing in bad faith, prior warnings and bans for similar behavior.
Look I dont watch much alt right stuff like in the Tarantino thread they may have some dark stuff in their past, maybe even recent, dunnoh. But many denounce nazis and violence and racism only to be called alt-light.
The same happens with opponents of feminism they ask where is all the denouncement of extremists and unfair legislation from the moderates, only a token modicum while often associating with them?
The problem is going to altright funded platforms and trying to deplatform them there. Doxxing and harassing employers with lies and exaggerations.
U know someone gets a hostile ex that cheats accuses of physical abuse, rape and child abuse etc, and is proven innocent in court. Divorce may rape them anyway with hefty alimony and child support.
They go down MRA rabbit hole become alt are doxxed cant get employed. Suddenly jailed for not being able to pay child support. Raped in jail given hiv. And suddenly homelessness jail and sentenced to death.
Here's the point they say they deny the holocaust say genocide never was committed by nazis and that thats demonization. Such evil never happened. But they are pro genocide?
There are probably genocidal supremacists but there are also those who say genocide is wrong and merely use the word nazi to represent a false glorified idea of a group that never committed genocide. Based on the nonsense conspiracy of holocaust denial. Wouldnt be surprised if theyve tossed all the evil under demonization conspiracy and only follow some imaginary nonexistent mythical nazi.
All women is wrong but some( and some men)? Fifty shades doesnt help.
Soy harm is exaggerated but whether it is or isnt somewhat harmful would require detangling soy industry propaganda. Will watch vid.
Nazis are evil but at least some use conspiracies to believe their worse acts never happened. I dont know what they find in it but at least some wouldnt be so intent on denying genocide if they were pro genocide. The argument Im seeing is theyre arguing in bad faith but even so the followers would be attracted on wrong beliefs and oppose genocide.
Like say someone recruits talking about slavery how bad it is and how it never happened. How can they at any moment go slavery time boys with their misled followers?
Would be like Hillary saying mass deportation out of the blue there wouldnt be acceptance.
Just responding to this specifically, I disagree with you. They need to be ostracized, they need to feel ashamed of what they perpetuate. They aren't good people, I believe a deep sense of shame is the only way any change and healing is going to occur, they have to know they are wrong and why, if they ever feel like they can go back to those beliefs then that is a problem. They need to feel the hurt and fear they have instilled in other people. Shame is a great tool for these people because at the end of the day most everyone wants to be accepted as an upstanding person among their peers and community. You don't treat these people with respect, you treat them like dog shit because that is how they treat others and they need to know what that is like. Nobody just "drifts" to the other side and there is not any swath of good people in the "undecided" camp, they are either hateful or they aren't, or they condone hatred at the least.
Thats part of the problem such just leads to escalation.
Perhaps during the first conference u come armed with bats and crowbars against an unarmed crowd. Next one expect them armored and armed, prepared for self defense. This can quickly lead to deaths as it has already.
You can't have a reasonable discussion or compromise with a facist, bigot, racist, whatever, because they're inherently unreasonable. They've already forfeited rational thought, so the prospect of a rational discussion is both pointless and impossible.
And fuck Boogie. No! What in the hell can I learn from a guy who wants me DEAD because of the color of my skin? He must be crazy. Meet in the middle my ass.
And fuck Boogie. No! What in the hell can I learn from a guy who wants me DEAD because of the color of my skin? He must be crazy. Meet in the middle my ass.
It definitely will not stop nazism/ alt right beliefs. We have to remember they are fighting a war that doesn't exist. " minorities taken thier jobs, minorities taken thier women" ect. Fighting back militantly with force just gives them the war that they made up in the first place.
I was hoping he was going to walk into a lamppost. Knock some sense into himself.
Don't listen to him. There has been no issue with Bill C16 whatsoever besides the manufactured controversy by Peterson and his acolytes.
Sheppard's issue was with an over reaction by some college professors and staff.
I think you're misunderstanding me here; if we're talking about hardened people fully indoctrinated to being fascists or neo-Nazis, racists etc., then yes, I agree w/ ostracizing them. They've already had the time to make up their mind, and maybe ostracizing will prove to them the falsehoods of the things they believe fueling their hatred.
But, the type of person I'm describing is the sort who is being solicited by/communicated to by those sorts. They aren't perpetuating anything, except maybe talking points provided to them every now and then, but in a way that shows confusion. Hell, a lot of times they aren't perpetuating anything at all, you may just find out some alt-right fascist is talking to them or associating themselves with them, and you attack the person anyway. That's what needs to stop, or at least what you need to cut back on, because making enemies out of that type of person who is either staunchly or quietly on your side of the aisle when it comes to these issues, just pushes them over to the other side, and that's at least partly because of your own actions towards them.
And again, a large number of these impressionable ones, they're kids and teens, they're still trying to find themselves and make sense of the world. When kids feel like they're being punished, they tend to lash out, it's what they do. What you're describing is a perfect course of action towards grown people who are clearly indoctrinated in propagating hate, but is a very poor route to take with impressionable kids and teens who are being stealth-fed this crap by entertainment figures who otherwise shouldn't be putting this stuff in their content whatsoever, or fed this crap by fascists content creators whose material should not be accessible by these kids whatsoever but is because of virtually non-existent universal Standards & Practices and age-gating tools and protocols.
That's where you need to be focusing your efforts at, otherwise you're just cutting the snake's tail rather than its head.
Not disagreeing with any of that, but I do have a couple of points to bring up:
1): That type of systemic racism and privilege can be found in multiple non-Western countries as well. Look at India and its caste system. Look at Saudi Arabia where they actually have laws forbidding Saudi women from marring non-Arab men without their King's deposition.
This kind of stuff usually happens in any country where there's a homogeneous majority of any given group. There isn't a way to completely get rid of that, not that it is inherently bad unless it is being used in a way to actively suppress minority groups, which you outlined above, and that I agree with.
2): You can use education to mentally disturb someone by reducing their foundations of knowledge and faith to nothing, or feeding them conflicting information over periods of time. That's what I was getting at.
Last edited:
Wait wait wait, I'm asking you to back up the claims you were making. So your answer is "I dunno" because you don't watch a lot of alt right media. Sooooooo, how can you claim many denounce Nazis and racism?? And ignoring that contradiction if there are "many" why can you still not provide examples? Please point out the "very fine ones" for us.
These alt-right defense force out in droves last couple days. Gotta humanize them, they aren't all bad, what we've seen as their platform for years now isn't REALLY what they are all about guyz come on. Some of them even own dogs and are nice to them.
I'm just waiting for the "You know Jews hated Hitler too" line.
They won't ever feel that unless they realize why they are hurtful people in the first place.
And imo you are wrong about not treating people with respect. You don't have to be nice to them but you should always treat people with respect. You have to understand a lot of these people learned thier ways from thier parents. If you can break thier beliefs you can truly change peoples minds. And maybe if enough people showed basic decency and respect to where thier elders told them there were none. Who knows what will happen. Maybe not to themselves but thier children.
I know that all sounds very idealistic but I truly do not see a better way.
All this eye for an eye talk is truly saddening on a biblical level ... literally. You can't forcefully change someone's mind.
Should probably add that this isn't saying don't defend yourself.
Since many here (not necessarily you) are lumping in right-leaning people as being at best Nazi-neutral and at worst Nazi-helping, I don't think your point B stands concerning the world view of the leftist in here pushing for proactive violence. I agree that if Nazi's start the violence then the vast majority of people would shut them down as would the government, both left and right. My scenario was concerning the much championed "punch a Nazi in the face for talking" meme that's being pushed as if it's an ethical stance that would help the left shut down white supremacy. I believe it would do the opposite, and end up painting the extreme left as equivalently irrational as the alt-right movement. Whether or not leftists think that would be a fair comparison ("but genocide!!") is irrelevant, since the comparison would successfully be made to the vast majority of Americans regardless.
The parodox of claiming to be for the true principles of free speech while also wanting to limit who can come to their country and what they can do is pretty apparent.
I know it's fun to break things down to their basic, hypothetical elements, act like you "totally get it" and are "defending a principle that needs to be upheld", but it's just not looking at the full picture. I was in college once, I went down that road. I regret it. It's easy to look at all these complaints and "concessions" people have to make in order for society to move forward and think that there's something we're losing in the process. But we're really not. It's easy when your rights haven't been infringed upon, to look at any concession that's asked of you to be some kind of offense to your ultimate potential.
I can probably agree that there's a slight nuance that's obscured in this hard-lined stance. But when I examine the crux of the argument, I do not believe in the necessity of a "pure ethnostate". Under any circumstance. Science has proven time and time again that any arguments holding it up have been wrong or mislead. It's always rooted in fear, and fear has always been what's held humanity back.
That said, I'm not exactly sure about how we deal with it. I agree that there's no debate to be had: the debate's over. I'm not willing to "hash it out" or "hear what someone has to say" about it. But I do think people change their behaviors differently, so there might be more than one way to approach people who maybe aren't fully won over by the movement but are seemingly close to buying into the concept of a pure, white ethnostate.
I know it's fun to break things down to their basic, hypothetical elements, act like you "totally get it" and are "defending a principle that needs to be upheld", but it's just not looking at the full picture. I was in college once, I went down that road. I regret it. It's easy to look at all these complaints and "concessions" people have to make in order for society to move forward and think that there's something we're losing in the process. But we're really not. It's easy when your rights haven't been infringed upon, to look at any concession that's asked of you to be some kind of offense to your ultimate potential.
I can probably agree that there's a slight nuance that's obscured in this hard-lined stance. But when I examine the crux of the argument, I do not believe in the necessity of a "pure ethnostate". Under any circumstance. Science has proven time and time again that any arguments holding it up have been wrong or mislead. It's always rooted in fear, and fear has always been what's held humanity back.
That said, I'm not exactly sure about how we deal with it. I agree that there's no debate to be had: the debate's over. I'm not willing to "hash it out" or "hear what someone has to say" about it. But I do think people change their behaviors differently, so there might be more than one way to approach people who maybe aren't fully won over by the movement but are seemingly close to buying into the concept of a pure, white ethnostate.
OP
OP
thanks man, i got caught up in replying to legit stuff & trollish stuff yesterday & didn't take the time to say thank you to all ya'll showing love here, i do appreciate it & good looks for the participation as well
might fine strawman you've got there, thanks for this contribution
i don't know that anyone did? i thought most (myself included) simply said his hateful views get propped up by them
it's a roller coaster, but i expected as much making this topic
this is always the weirdest take to me: were you not around for most of the election cycle? trump got tons more press coverage, and was challenged throughout the primary & national debate as well. relevant to videos i had in the OP: he proved facts don't matter to a lot of people. if your method worked, engaging him with constant fact-checking should have stopped him early, yet...here we are
this is likewise an odd statement giving the centerism of CNN & such, but i do think you're forgetting the subject matter here is nazis and not the GOP itself
yes, the tremendous panels and discussions with shapiro and coulter sure have kept their views in the dark & thereby made them alluring
hell, maher had milo on for a gross softball session (and no doubt will again), yet here you are arguing that rather than legitimizing these views further, the real toxicity is not giving them more microphones
i'm going to assume this is another slippery slope mess that ignores this topic is literally about nazis and why their views should not be met with the same initial merit as, say, discussing public schooling vs private school vouchers
you'd think so!
thank you
i like it - the OP already needs some work, and i don't want too make it too massive but i may just spoiler tag it in there cause it's good info
agreed, and good to see you in here man
yeah, i say waiting for a #timesup type campaign for racism, we all know why that one's taking longer though
absolutely, and the way he addresses his subject matter is key here too - odd to see those 2 names juxtaposed
yeah, again i think that's an important distinction as well. it works in germany (due to their history) but that's not a door i'd want opened here
when those "ideas" are genetic superiority and genocide, no, they are not legitimate views. can a nazi hold & believe them? sure, but you're working backwards from the notion that all ideas are created equal, and thus deserve (initially) equal seats at the table. that's patently absurd.
if noam chomsky debated someone tomorrow on the existence of the armenian genocide, he'd only be lending that nonsense conspiracy theory merit.
i believe this is demonstrable untrue - yes, social media throws off a more traditional response, but if nazis were limited to gab, that really strikes you as a great recruitment ground....?
no, the initial alt-right growth came from tons of gaming sites abiding gg's hate campaign and huge places like reddit giving platforms to them & MRA type shit.
i'd wager the daily stormer's troubles have impacted things a bit too - again, you're assuming a meritocracy like marketplace of ideas will keep this shit from expanding, when that's clearly failed for a while now & moreover, this crowd has long since shown a propensity to not honestly engage.
there's a great bit in that video i keep pushing (controlling the conversation) that just shows how this crowd says blatantly false things to get get engaged & noticed by more folks, and how it's been working (because so many on the left are so certain if they just dunk on them a bit more & high five, that's how you shut these things down - despite all the evidence to the contrary)
i'm not about hearts & minds. i'm about shutting down avenues for nazis to recruit.
yes, numerous times - and that's a funny example to grab from, given that if the leftist groups would've stopped in-fighting and taken down that platform earlier on, things could have gone far differently...but the notion of fascism was somewhat new & a lot of folks didn't know what they were looking at
i wish we could say we'd learned a lot since then
peterson is absolutely the smart guy to quote from people who aren't particularly sharp, i figure
in a philosophical discussion, up front definitions are important - and i can see having one for fascism, though 13 pages later i don't know that there's been a lot of argument over the terms there? i also put the silly venn diagram in there to show this topic isn't about the nuances between white supremacists.
likewise, a left/right graph seems a bit wider than the discussion here, no? and given the antifascist nature of this topic...i'm not against slapping a few definitions in there, but to what end? what terms are confusing people here?
this is a larger topic as well, but: most americans are clearly not comfortable with racism being written into our country's DNA and the conversations that naturally fall from that.
the framework for that "both sides' nonsense is already there, we see it with ANTIFA SUPER SOLDIERS and other such headlines - or posts in here talking about "extremes on both sides".
i get your meaning here, but a lot of people are going to do that with your cause regardless. your argument here seems to be that if an action is unpopular or fits the pre-existing framework that both sides are the same to a % of folks, you shouldn't do it.
Can you give me an example where it HAS demonstrably worked? Because even in the GDR, with all the power of the STASI, it didn't work. Two years after the end of that regime, Neo NAZIs were everywhere in east Germany, burning homes of asylum seekers and whatnot.
Also, our quite reasonable hate speech laws nowadays did not work, see the rise of the AfD, which is basically Trumpism without the dementia.
I personally can not recall a single occurrence where de-platforming ever worked. The fascists just go underground, find other venues to communicate, if it's only their local sports bar.
I mean, yeah, it's making one feel warm and fuzzy inside and gives an amount of satisfaction if you report some Facebook hate group and it gets banned, but that's not combating fascism.
Educating people, getting people to go vote, taking to the streets and protest them, be visible and active - and, and at least this has proven to be effective: working to give poor people financial stability seems to be effective against fascist movements.
I mean he, I'm not really arguing against that kind of "activism", I just think it will not do much?
This is one particular take I've seen repeated here, on GAF previously, and elsewhere that I'm surprised you subscribe to. Abhorrent views like Holocaust and Armenian genocide denials, and even popular-but-silly nonsense like climate change "criticism", 9-11 truthers, and anti-vaccination nutsos are legitimate simply by virtue of the fact that they exist and have an audience.
Important academic and historical progress has been made by organizations (including the SPLC!) specifically publicizing dangerous viewpoints and then thoroughly dismantling them. Much of the modern academic consensus on both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide, for example, has developed from both a need and a desire to take down popular denial myths.
It's not "lending merit" to an idea to expose it to criticism, and exposing it to criticism certainly isn't the same as considering it equally valid.