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
I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else from this site's typical communist/socialist slant.
might fine strawman you've got there, thanks for this contribution
I am not comfortable with Jordan Peterson being painted as a Nazi.
i don't know that anyone did? i thought most (myself included) simply said his hateful views get propped up by them
So in this topic we had:
Attempts of thread derail by saying F 451 is an alt right book
Both sidesing
#NotAllAltRight
"We shouldn't be violent to Nazis" ie a group that advocates GENOCIDE
Discomfort about someone comparing a guy, who spreads Nazi conspiracies, to a Nazi
Amazing
it's a roller coaster, but i expected as much making this topic
I have to disagree with you OP. Not challenging these people is how we got Trump in the first place. You can't just act like these people don't exist.
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
For years the only acceptable viewpoint in mainstream media has been left leaning thought. With the exception of stuff like FOX News and talk radio, most celebrities and media outlets are openly left.
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
This idea that you should deplatform on their ideas alone is toxic, because now young people are listening to people like Ann Coulter, Mike Yianopoulos, and Ben Shapiro. These are new thoughts that haven't challenged before in the mainstream, and for many young people, they get ensnared by them quite easily.
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
Considering that the title of the thread contains "the importance of de-platforming," are you actually trying to say that nobody is advocating suppressing any views...?
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
Because being "middle of the road" when it comes to oppression is literally siding with the oppressors. This isn't a hard concept.
you'd think so!
You know what also turns a lot of people away from leftist causes? The normalization, rise, and empowering of fascists and nazis.
thank you
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:
IrishNinja I think this deserves to be in the OP if you feel like it
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
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.
agreed, and good to see you in here man
When the Clippers owner says racist shit, he lost his team.
Why do others get interviews and book deals or voted/hired into positions of influence?
yeah, i say waiting for a #timesup type campaign for racism, we all know why that one's taking longer though
louis theroux is intellectually so vastly ahead of someone like joe rogan or bill maher that it isn't even funny
absolutely, and the way he addresses his subject matter is key here too - odd to see those 2 names juxtaposed
So long as the government itself isn't doing the censoring, by all means, go after the platforms.
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
Sorry, but this is where you lose the semantic game you're trying to play. Engaging with an idea doesn't implicitly mean the idea is honest.
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.
The altright has been a growing movement, and would remain a growing movement in an alternate universe in which nobody ever "gives them a platform." This is especially true these days when there are no social gatekeepers - people create their own platforms via youtube and twitter or their own websites and don't need to be given one in order to create a fanbase. Back when there were gatekeepers your argument might work, but it simply doesn't anymore due to technology and the way people get their information and ideas.
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)
Bad ideas can grow whether the opposition gives them a platform or not, and if a bad idea has a growing base of followers it needs to be addressed directly if it's to be refuted, and if you care about changing the minds of the followers of that bad idea.
i'm not about hearts & minds. i'm about shutting down avenues for nazis to recruit.
Historically speaking, has de-platforming ever worked? Because in the Weimar Republic, it definitely didn't.
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
Lol, ok. Same guy who misunderstood C-16 so thoroughly, and proceeded to spread misinformation about it.
He's a real genius!
peterson is absolutely the smart guy to quote from people who aren't particularly sharp, i figure
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
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?
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.
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.