If people shout in my home or consumers in my buissnes, I have the right to show them the door. They don't have the right to just start a shouting contest anywhere they want.
-
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
"Talking" is an action. "Arguing" is an action. There is no neat speech/action dichotomy.
The only question is, does it endanger people? And de-platforming, that most American of activities *salutes the flag*, endangers no one. It's speech. Like all speech, it's also an action. But it's speech. And it's rightfully protected.
Freedom of speech is a protection from government action. You can kick whoever you want out of your hypothetical business.
In what is perhaps the first ever unapologetic triple post in the history of this forum, I'd like to express my amusement at the use of "doppel" instead of "double" in a conversation about de-platforming nazis.
I laughed.
Which is my point. So you don't need to give anybody a platform, if you don't want to, as long as your not part of the government.
Stupid german. Arg!
Exactly. Of course, you're going to need to choose whether you use your business to give a platform to the nazis, or the anti-fascists, or neither, or both, and, from there, your fellow citizens will determine how to use their own speech with regard to your business.
IrishNinja, thank you for the information you've provided and your dedication to this topic. It's incredibly informative.
I can bash both sides and not be considered a GOP supporter
And the regressive left is most definitely a thing
I can bash the fuck outta both sides and not be considered a alt righter aka a neo-Nazi
Like damn I'm Jewish so I don't condone those bastards in any way
antifa for example
They start useless protests much like Richard Spencer and then proceed to damage property or even hurt people
Other than that can't really think of one
You don't ever post anything of worth, you just talk about how BOTH SIDES are bad without ever actually saying anything. That's clue #1 there's nothing behind your beliefs.
P.S.: The support of Rigby is not a positive thing in a debate
So what, you allude to some minor property damage in run-of-the-mill violent protests and equate that to believers in ethnic cleansing?
If we want to be that pathetically stupid for a second, fine, Antifa has never killed someone at a protest. The Alt-Right has.
Not quite to the large scale but they do exist, although ironically are often arch-conservative in and of themselves, like homegrown (in the West) radical Islam, or the harassment campaigns by some Ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups trying to impose their standards on others who live among their communities.
The common thread is conservatism.
You shouldn't advocate for vigilante assaults for your own safety. Punching people for their opinion is immoral because it creates a situation where society can't function properly, which causes overall harm.
So if you want me to change your opinion, it's very simple, whatever someone's opinion, assaulting them extralegally MUST be immoral, as doing so breaks down trust in the safety that society provides, and by extension, creates further harm.
Look at countries where people can get away with vigilante assault and murder, would you rather live in a country with that kind of societal structure?
And if you believe punching a nazi for reasons other than self-defense is ok you've established a principle that violence is acceptable against persons of certain creeds. White supremacists and Nazis are acceptable moral targets for violence.
So the next guy comes along. And he's not like you. He's mad. And he knows he can commit violence against these people. So he does, and he ends up killing somebody. And maybe that's condemned, but really, all those other Nazis he punched, that was justified. And then his buddies take it a step further. And this isn't speculation - this is how it's worked every time before.
And what about when the people who you don't like come around to hit you? "But my ideology is correct!" They don't believe that and they don't care - all they know is that now, violence is proper and acceptable. And they graduate from low-level to high-level and it's exactly the same thing.
The principle here is key. If you don't hold a principle true in every case, you don't hold that principle. And if society lets that principle fade, then it's not a protection for anybody, and that's a hell of a lot worse than letting Nazis mouth off, because now they can do the things we actually consider them evil for.
I want racism and nazism gone as much as the next person. The problem is that I want it to actually go away. Violence, in that context, must be nonexistent or total. Either you convince them peacefully or you murder them all. Anything in between creates martyrs and gives them reason to dig in and resist (see: early Christianity, modern terrorism, etc.).
And even if that were wrong, I wouldn't be willing to implement violence. It violates key principles, and is contrary to a functional civilization. It has never ended well, in any case throughout history.
So if you want me to change your opinion, it's very simple, whatever someone's opinion, assaulting them extralegally MUST be immoral, as doing so breaks down trust in the safety that society provides, and by extension, creates further harm.
Look at countries where people can get away with vigilante assault and murder, would you rather live in a country with that kind of societal structure?
And if you believe punching a nazi for reasons other than self-defense is ok you've established a principle that violence is acceptable against persons of certain creeds. White supremacists and Nazis are acceptable moral targets for violence.
So the next guy comes along. And he's not like you. He's mad. And he knows he can commit violence against these people. So he does, and he ends up killing somebody. And maybe that's condemned, but really, all those other Nazis he punched, that was justified. And then his buddies take it a step further. And this isn't speculation - this is how it's worked every time before.
And what about when the people who you don't like come around to hit you? "But my ideology is correct!" They don't believe that and they don't care - all they know is that now, violence is proper and acceptable. And they graduate from low-level to high-level and it's exactly the same thing.
The principle here is key. If you don't hold a principle true in every case, you don't hold that principle. And if society lets that principle fade, then it's not a protection for anybody, and that's a hell of a lot worse than letting Nazis mouth off, because now they can do the things we actually consider them evil for.
I want racism and nazism gone as much as the next person. The problem is that I want it to actually go away. Violence, in that context, must be nonexistent or total. Either you convince them peacefully or you murder them all. Anything in between creates martyrs and gives them reason to dig in and resist (see: early Christianity, modern terrorism, etc.).
And even if that were wrong, I wouldn't be willing to implement violence. It violates key principles, and is contrary to a functional civilization. It has never ended well, in any case throughout history.
These people would commit ethnic genocide if given the chance, AND HAVE.
I'm okay with punching every single one of them.
I'm ignoring the rest of your post because it's the same talking points (almost copy pasted) that I've seen from the alt right.
You haven't explained how punching them gets them to stop spewing their hateful rhetoric. I want to actually stop them not create martyrs.
Last edited:
Nah, you need to explain why anybody needs to argue for their own humanity with genocidal ideologues.
You keep referring to that shit as "different opinions" and I'm gonna keep assuming you're one of them.
I'm not going to argue with a bad faith poster but during world war 2 we didn't half ass the violence. I am annoyed when people in general invoke ww2 and try to downplay it like it wasn't a deadly war.
OP
OP
imagine being privileged enough to really think politics is not generally about violence, or that hate speech cannot possibly be a threat (despite living in this era & seeing the rise of hate groups & hate crimes)
yeah, you're not wrong there
Spencer has said numerous times how he's (rightfully) afraid to leave without bodyguards, and just last week, how antifa's actions have caused him to cancel his tour
punching people is actually the least common anti fascist method, and clearly doesn't make for martyrs at that. your narrative about the dichostomy of violence isn't rooted in anything related to the topic at hand.
yeah, you're not wrong there
Spencer has said numerous times how he's (rightfully) afraid to leave without bodyguards, and just last week, how antifa's actions have caused him to cancel his tour
punching people is actually the least common anti fascist method, and clearly doesn't make for martyrs at that. your narrative about the dichostomy of violence isn't rooted in anything related to the topic at hand.
One example of how allowing a platform enough rope to gang themselves is the bnp (British national party). The bnp were starting doing well in a number of polls and got some council seats so they were brought onto the biggest political talk show in the uk. After that performance on the show which they where exposed the bnp are now a spent force and no longer relevant. By no platforming indicates you are to scared to argue your ideas. No platforming conversely actually gives more coverage to there ideas especially if there is a protest about it or there is a major kick off about it. You also open the door so you no platform one thing thrn why not no platform another and another and then what happens when a no platform is made for something you like? No platforming is a dangerous game to play and once you advocate for one thing you can't complain if it is advocated for something else.
OP
OP
this is a terrible post
1) your first example is political parties - yes, the GOP (here in the US) are floundering while in power, but despite the harm having open white supremacists in the white house is doing, a racist kleptocracy is not at all comparable to a group that openly advocates for an ethnostate via genocide
2) no, de-platorming does not show a fear to "argue ideas" - it wisely recognizes that the entire goal of the alt-right (the group this thread is about, despite your examples) is normalizing and recruitment. your mantra is a sucker's game when dealing with such efforts made in poor faith.
3) likewise, the notion that de-platforming - taking away the alt-right's recruitment and monetizing grounds - is somehow benefiting them, once again, is demonstrably untrue, especially given the events of this year alone. this poor logic is like saying protesting things makes them stronger, it's a defense of apathy rooted in nothing.
4) pretty much every subsequent line is a clear slippery slope fallacy. humans thankfully recognize context - this bit is every iota as dumb as saying if you don't boycott everything you shouldn't boycott anything, etc.
yes? are you here arguing that antisemetism deserves a platform, because it's an idea with as much merit as any other?
think about this a bit before dropping nonsense platitudes
Then you are arguing that the Labour Party in the U.K. should be no platformed as they have a problem that way and has been talked about from top to bottom.
A nonsensical platitude isn't worth exploring and not all opinions are worth sharing or having a platform for.
Richard Spencer quite literally stopped doing public presentations (due to incidents like this) where he had a platform to spread hate. It absolutely helped mitigate it.
OP
OP
okay? the democratic party out here often runs candidates demean civil rights efforts as "identity politics" - if they simply crossed the line and were unwilling to to purge themselves of open white supremacists (as the GOP is clearly okay with), they i'd vote 3rd party for life, regardless of living in a huge swing state.
if your party of choice can't do better than anti-semetic candidates, force them out or get a new party. these aren't like things you're trying to compare, but even so, this isn't difficult.
OP
OP
with respect to northern irish history: no, it's not a slippery slope, and again, the situations you're trying to compare are not analogous.
the vast majority of western society is okay with public figures losing their job if they use the n-word in a public venue (many of us are okay even if it's recorded in a private one). does this strike you as a "slippery slope"? would you argue that the "free speech" of this individual is more important than a society where it's not okay to openly use racist terms against blacks?
Im reading a book called "how to talk to a fascist" (Brazilian, probably no translation) and it saddens me how the description of a fascist, the way they proliferate and how they act fits perfectly to a great part of Brazilians. Fuck. There is so much hate everywhere withwith this fucked up political situation. Btw, we have right wing online spread fake news for at least 10 years in here. And people still believe them.
I mean, this is what the alt-right wants to do to the "undesirables" :
So, de-platform them.
Free speech is free speech and you face the music if you use free speech. You give people enough rope they will gang themselves as you have seen people losing there jobs and much more. That's in essence what it is. Free speech comes at a price in you can have free speech but you are still responsible for what you say. If you suppress it makes the problems worse and allow them to fester and become bigger than need too.
De-platforming someone isn't suppressing free speech is actually what you're attempting to describe in the first part of your post
OP
OP
that fucking sucks -but i've not read said book obviously, so any quotes/info you wanna post are welcome!
this is yet another in your string of terrible posts
free speech is most commonly defined as the state not suppressing speech, which seemingly no one here is advocating for - speech from private citizens (especially in public venues) does, however, have consequences, as you said, before running on with more empty platitudes. yet again, we've seen - both historically and currently - how wrong you are about how deplatforming very clearly doesn't grow or fester fascism.
you aren't even replying to anything specific in my (or others') replies to you, so i'm gonna assume you have no actual interest in this topic. have a good one.
Part of that music is people refusing to do business or engage socially with people who have revealed themselves to be working to spread evil. the point of the deplatforming discussion is to say, stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who have made it clear they are defined by hatred and are striving to gain the power to use it to inflict harm on others. when people show you who they really are, believe them.
OP
OP
Stormfront, the Internet's Oldest White Supremacist Site, Says It's Going Broke
The hate forum is making less than $2,000 a month, and insiders claim its main founder just retired. It's the latest blow to white supremacists online.
Daily Beast Apr 10, 2018
The hate forum is making less than $2,000 a month, and insiders claim its main founder just retired. It's the latest blow to white supremacists online.
Daily Beast Apr 10, 2018
Haven't read all 17 pages, not sure if this was addressed, but I kind of find it hilarious that the OP quotes Karl Popper. I've seen other lefties cite Popper without understanding him in full context.
Popper was in, many ways, the philosophical grandfather of the modern libertarian movement. Ayn Rand wrote the introduction to my version of the Open Society.
Popper would find many of the anti-freespeech, de-platforming lefties (who target relatively moderate people like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, etc) just as abhorrent as neo-Nazis.
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
He was a true liberal in the original sense of the word. He thought people advocating truly hateful ideologies should be treated like criminals and arrested, not that we should de-platform people we disagree with.
Popper was in, many ways, the philosophical grandfather of the modern libertarian movement. Ayn Rand wrote the introduction to my version of the Open Society.
Popper would find many of the anti-freespeech, de-platforming lefties (who target relatively moderate people like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins, etc) just as abhorrent as neo-Nazis.
"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
He was a true liberal in the original sense of the word. He thought people advocating truly hateful ideologies should be treated like criminals and arrested, not that we should de-platform people we disagree with.
When I read that statement, I see it as fully defensive of de-platforming. He puts the exception to the rule right there."for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument". This is currently the case, though it was achieved by a different means, which was the cultural momentum of the use of racism as a means of garnering votes to positions which supported the upper class and owners of capital. That political tactic has become systematically engrained in america and is the epitome of the feels over reals style of the modern conservative narrative.
So in addition to admitting to actually not reading the thread for any follow up, you don't feel fascism/white supremacy are hateful ideologies