the book thing is a deliberate derailing. assume anyone on about it is just trying to perpetuate it, and stay on topic.
First off thank you for taking the time for reasoned responses. I was wary of the way you spoke in the OP but I'm glad you take the time to respond to so many in genuine ways. I'll try to respond to each section individually.
least i could do for the genuine replies in here, man
You changed the language from "honest" to "legitimate" and I'm unsure of where this leaves us. Nazism and altright certain aren't reasonable positions, which is the word I would use. But unreasonable positions can only be argued against through better reasoning. Violence is the other option and that simply isn't desirable in a democracy, and rightly so. Choosing to engage with a altrighter is the same to me as engaging with a climate science denialist. I view neither of these ideas as reasonable but because they have a wider audience I find it meaningful to address. They are an "equal seat" only in relation to how many people believe that idea. The more people that believe a crazy idea the more reason there is to pushing back. As for Chomsky, the armenian genocide is a topic which has no hold on American politics in the same way these other things do. If there were a strong, growing American movement based around denial of the armenian genocide, Chomsky might well decide it's worth his time to lay down the hammer on that bullshit and address it in some manner.
i did indeed, and used the words interchangably - i think it's paramount to express that not only does this view create direct harm (but in the present and of course historically), but it hinges around genocide & an ethnostate. if it seems to you as though i'm partitioning it off from the other examples (or the logic in debating them), that's deliberate as well.
another angle: if, in your example there, chomsky took it on himself to engage said crowd (who quite literally would not be trying to hear him), he's welcome to do so. i've no doubt some of the left's hard atheist crowd likewise enjoys the mastubatory practice of "debating" fundamentalists about any number of subjects.
the point of this thread, however, is that i think there's better ways to handle it. earlier, someone referenced an anti-hate group (now defunded) where a former skinhead was engaging nazis directly and trying to reform them. you'll never hear me say this guy's cause is without merit, as his experience & record speak for themselves. but given the alt-right playbook of a) arguing in bad faith and b) doing so simply to advertise on social media/recruit. i think the nature of the beast is different for a number of reasons and thus the response tactic.
I think a fairer characterization is that social media companies only cut off the altright when it threatens violence or harassment against individuals or groups of people - which is something they do regardless of one's political affiliation (Richard Spencer still has a twitter). You seemed to characterize it as them 'taking a stand', but I wouldn't. The system you propose only works due to the pure luck of public facing internet companies leaning left and liberals having more capital to invest online than conservatives, who are still largely stuck in older media forms. If public facing social media companies leaned conservative then we might well see leftists banned under your criteria of having "illegitimate" ideas, with "violent" leftists (i.e. nazi punching memes) ending up getting permabans. When you make a judgemental system based upon power structures, whoever is currently in power can use that rule to their benefit.
you're onto something here: i hope i've not mischaracterized my belief in large corporations & the benevolence of their actions. twitter, for example, literally only did the minimal amount after a ton of pressure from the left, and likely only because the ad revenue lost by booting a few overt nazis felt meager enough compared to the exodus their lack of action (with this issue as well as harassment) have caused their growth.
which is to say: i don't think publicly owned mega-corporations lean left, so much as the folks who patronize them. and i'm well aware of the right using these tactics as well - take, for example, the deplatforming gg tried forever on women like anita sarkeesian: in addition to numerous doxxing efforts, they mobbed together to get many of her videos (unsuccessfully) taken down.
there's this quote i like, that the left rises in the streets with popular support, while fascism simply walks into the halls of power, doors open. nazis know they're not going to win popular support, so they've a long history of aping the left's language/style/tactics. that said, taking tools off the table out of fear they'll be used against you never strikes me as wise, either.
I would argue that any effort to reduce recruitment has to involve propaganda rebuttals. You view the issue as being information control, but I think information control is a near hopeless endeavor at this point if we're to maintain a democracy and a free internet. Going down the path of censorship can have many unintended consequences.
are you defining censorship as private citizens trying to diminish harmful views? because there's a distinction to be made between that and the usual definition of gov't entities.
While it's true some % of people will disparage the extreme left as "violent" even if there was no violence, there has been violence. Those in the "middle" who haven't taken a stand can watch videos of leftist protesters doing violent things, and that in turn reinforces all the propaganda against the left despite only a small portion of it being true. It seems like your own argument is "people think badly of the left anyway and think we're violent, so let's actually be violent because there's nothing to lose." I think that's a deeply mistaken POV - there can always be much more to lose, especially in a society as free as America currently is.
i'm not trying to get into the place for violence in antifascism in this thread, for obvious reasons..the largest of which being: it's a tool of last resort, and is already way overblown in the media's desperate attempt to both sides uncomfortable issues.
to the former sentiment there, though: i mean, take a look at BLM. historically speaking, there's nothing surprising to the mass disdain for any movement of black liberation - however peaceful - but how many folks stopped at the name alone, and ran with shit like #alllivesmatter?
i think there's something awful about putting the jobs of both protecting themselves, justifying their existence and constant PR on any marginalized community, because of the average kneejerk reaction to the slightest hint of their struggle.
i say all that to say this: logically, it's the same as the anti-PC crowd crying that awareness of racism/misogyny etc caused this backlash that elected trump. if you're willing to believe a lot of folks responded to progress in addressing bigotry by voting for
the most open bigot in our lifetime, to what extent were they really "centerist" or in any way prepared to meaningfully join the conversation?
we've had generations deal with the evils of fascism, all met with similar talking points -
don't deny them a venue, you'll just push more folks their way. don't employ their forceful tactics (even in communities where their safety is at risk
), people will see you as the same as them. i posit that these age-old memes are rooted in nothing more than a desire to look the other way until it affects the speaker, who is often (speaking generally here, not of you directly) comfortable standing for not much at all.
