Fascism, alt-right/nazis & the importance of de-platforming |OT|

xbhaskarx said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's okay, they're always welcome on the front page of the internet

Sampson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Err, that quote entirely supports the premise of this thread.

MotionBlue said:

Within reason, I think it better to let awful ideology see the public discourse. As it is all the easier to slay it. Pushing it underground only let's it fester and grow.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Richard Spencer has stopped making events at public institutions because Antifascist Action makes it "not fun''. Milo was not able to find a venue for his shitty freeze peach event, and had barely anyone turn up. Deplatforming from collective, private action works wonders and will continue to work.

MotionBlue said:

Remember; Reality has a liberal bias, and it is anathema to those people.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No it doesn't. You (assuming you're Canadian) live in a white supremacist settler country that has committed one of the only full genocides in history. Your government still has done nothing to compensate for the continued oppression felt by First Nation peoples. You, like many of us (myself included) benefit from a society that was based in racial oppression, dehumanising laws and imperialism as a state policy. Legalising weed isn't going to change that.

MadJakeChurchill said:

Richard Spencer has stopped making events at public institutions because Antifascist Action makes it "not fun''. Milo was not able to find a venue for his shitty freeze peach event, and had barely anyone turn up. Deplatforming from collective, private action works wonders and will continue to work.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Richard Spencer and Milo can't find a platform because everyone knows they are fucking idiots now. Only after they were allowed to open their mouths and prove it. Deplatforming is what gave them national attention in the first place. I don't really want to get dragged into this thread again, but I will respond as best I can.

MadJakeChurchill said:

No it doesn't. You (assuming you're Canadian) live in a white supremacist settler country that has committed one of the only full genocides in history. Your government still has done nothing to compensate for the continued oppression felt by First Nation peoples. You, like many of us (myself included) benefit from a society that was based in racial oppression, dehumanising laws and imperialism as a state policy. Legalising weed isn't going to change that.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't even know why you added the bold. Reality has a liberal/progressive bias because that branch of Politics readily accepts Science(at the moment, atleast...).

MotionBlue said:

I don't even know why you added the bold.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I didn't. That was you. Lol.

And you're 100% completely wrong about Richard Spencer. Have you even been around for his and Milo's prevalence in the last year?

Double post. Bad wifi.

MadJakeChurchill said:

I didn't. That was you. Lol.

And you're 100% completely wrong about Richard Spencer. Have you even been around for his and Milo's prevalence in the last year?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I made bold what I didn't understand. Why even mention legalizing weed in your post.

MotionBlue said:

I made bold what I didn't understand. Why even mention legalizing weed in your post.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's the one "liberal" thing I've seen from Trudeau that isn't performative like marching at Pride.

MadJakeChurchill said:

That's the one "liberal" thing I've seen from Trudeau that isn't performative like marching at Pride.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What about dog blowjobs tho...

Number of Completion said:

Err, that quote entirely supports the premise of this thread.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Earthstrike said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Popper is specifically calling out people who "begin by denouncing all argument" -- which is, by definition, the very concept of de-platforming.

For people who are legit neo-Nazis and the like, Popper's prescription was far more extreme. He said that people who actively incite violence and call for things like the re-institution of slavery, etc. shouldn't just be denied the right to speak, but should be treated like criminals and locked up.

Sampson said:

Popper is specifically calling out people who "begin by denouncing all argument" -- which is, by definition, the very concept of de-platforming.

For people who are legit neo-Nazis and the like, Popper's prescription was far more extreme. He said that people who actively incite violence and call for things like the re-institution of slavery, etc. shouldn't just be denied the right to speak, but should be treated like criminals and locked up.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To denounce means to publicly criticize or condemn, not to de-platform. That quote by Popper wholly supports the left's position, Sampson.

Gio said:

To denounce means to publicly criticize or condemn, not to de-platform. That quote by Popper wholly supports the left's position, Sampson.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Uh...?

Read it again. Note the words that come after denouncing. He's talking about rhetoric style, not tactics. De-platforming is effectively denouncing argument, because you wish the speaker to go away, not engage with them. If they are truly a heinous person, like Hitler circa 1928, then you should wish to see them locked up, not just de-platformed. Maybe someone like Richard Spencer falls into this bucket, but for someone like Bill Maher, or James Damore, or Bret Weinstein, or Richard Dawkins, or the many other relatively moderate people who have been the targets of de-platforming campaigns, that's not the case.

Sampson said:

Popper is specifically calling out people who "begin by denouncing all argument" -- which is, by definition, the very concept of de-platforming.

For people who are legit neo-Nazis and the like, Popper's prescription was far more extreme. He said that people who actively incite violence and call for things like the re-institution of slavery, etc. shouldn't just be denied the right to speak, but should be treated like criminals and locked up.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's a quote which advocates for suppression (and more) of "intolerant philosophies" where those peddling them are actively fighting against rational argument. Which is what this thread is about, not deplatforming "moderates".

MadJakeChurchill said:

That's the one "liberal" thing I've seen from Trudeau that isn't performative like marching at Pride.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The "Liberal party of Canada"has been a centrist party for most of history.

Sampson said:

Uh...?

Read it again. Note the words that come after denouncing. He's talking about rhetoric style, not tactics. De-platforming is effectively denouncing argument, because you wish the speaker to go away, not engage with them. If they are truly a heinous person, like Hitler circa 1928, then you should wish to see them locked up, not just de-platformed. Maybe someone like Richard Spencer falls into this bucket, but for someone like Bill Maher, or James Damore, or Bret Weinstein, or Richard Dawkins, or the many other relatively moderate people who have been the targets of de-platforming campaigns, that's not the case.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Maher is racist, Damore is racist and sexist, Weinstein is racist, and Dawkins is racist. These people pass for moderate to you? Please.

EDIT: I read your original post, and... there's a lot to break down. I strongly recommend you read through the thread. Educate yourself. Are people on the left really anti-free speech? What is "true" liberalism? Leftists argue that classical liberalism is inherently flawed and no longer tenable today, because the laissez faire approach tends to alienate those without wealth or power (aka poor and marginalized people). Yeah I'm goin off into a tangent but your entire premise seems off.

Gio said:

Maher is racist, Damore is racist and sexist, Weinstein is racist, and Dawkins is racist. These people pass for moderate to you? Please.

EDIT: I read your original post, and... there's a lot to break down. I strongly recommend you read through the thread. Educate yourself. Are people on the left really anti-free speech? What is "true" liberalism? Leftists argue that classical liberalism is inherently flawed and no longer tenable today, because the laissez faire approach tends to alienate those without wealth or power (aka poor and marginalized people). Yeah I'm goin off into a tangent but your entire premise seems off.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

AFAIK Dawkins hasn't professed any racist beliefs. Could you please cite where he has?

Gio said:

Weinstein is racist, and Dawkins is racist

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You couldn't be reaching any harder even if you tried.

The problem is, who get's to define what 'fascism' is?

If's rather easy to draw a circle around your own opinions and say anything outside that circle is beyond the pale.

As German and semi-organized Antifa "member" I always have to snicker at the American interpretation of the Antifa and the bullshit "Alt-Left" labels flying around.

It's always amazing to see people put so much more value on burning cars and broken windows, than actual human beings getting killed. This "The left is as bad as the right!" is out of control, even here.

Cranston said:

The problem is, who get's to define what 'fascism' is?

If's rather easy to draw a circle around your own opinions and say anything outside that circle is beyond the pale.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

People with an urge to deplatform others have no time for subtlety and nuance, or anything that requires more thought than hundreds of pages of Karl Popper's work condensed into one picture.

trashhero said:

You couldn't be reaching any harder even if you tried.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Clefargle said:

AFAIK Dawkins hasn't professed any racist beliefs. Could you please cite where he has?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Y'all, if this isn't prejudice towards Muslims...

Gio said:

Y'all, if this isn't prejudice towards Muslims...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Islam is not a race.

Gio said:

Y'all, if this isn't prejudice towards Muslims...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

He explains very clearly why he thinks Islam is an evil and a malign influence. He states that there is a literalism and fundamentalist requirement to Islam (unlike Christianity, which has gone through however many reformations). It is eloquently and clearly argued. He concludes by saying that he 'would never deprive anyone of their comfort' - so he has not the slightest intention of supressing the ideology, he simply dislikes it.

Your approach sums up everything that is utterly banal about the social media generation. You don't even spend a second thinking about what he is saying, the tone he uses, the way he has weighed up his words. Yours is simply a reflex reaction, like a doctor testing a knee, only your reaction is to spit out words like 'racist'.

Gio said:

Y'all, if this isn't prejudice towards Muslims...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

He speaks broadly of Islam sure, but he doesn't rag on muslims in that clip any more than he does Christians. He calls people that believe in Jesus "unintelligent" at the end.
In that same clip he said that he believes there are more fundamentalists in the Islamic world. I have no idea whether or not that is true, but it is a different thing than a racist statement

trashhero said:

Islam is not a race.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"That means it's totally fine to demonise these majority non-white people''. Try again.

MadJakeChurchill said:

"That means it's totally fine to demonise these majority non-white people''. Try again.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't think he's demonizing any more than he does when talking about christians. I've heard so many talks where he deplores the spread of Christianity and calls christians idiots and dangerous. He's spoken about American evangelical extremism and how it's scared him. He's tied nazism to Christianity in Germany I think. There is no doubt that he shits on Islam all the time, the thing is, he shits on Christianity as a profession. I don't think you can look at all of his published works and come away saying he demonizes Muslims. I think he has a serious issue with religion (understandably so).

MadJakeChurchill said:

"That means it's totally fine to demonise these majority non-white people''. Try again.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"I can't come up with anything but a blatant strawman". Try again.

trashhero said:

"I can't come up with anything but a blatant strawman". Try again.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The original post used prejudice, you jumped to race. Like you're used to doing this, or something.

MadJakeChurchill said:

The original post used prejudice, you jumped to race. Like you're used to doing this, or something.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Interesting use of the word 'original'. The post you're referring to was a reply to:

AFAIK Dawkins hasn't professed any racist beliefs. Could you please cite where he has?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Which in turn was a reply to Gio's claim that:

Dawkins is racist.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Dawkins isn't racist. He's anti-religion. Whether your religion consists of mostly white people or mostly non-white people, he will criticise it.

Gio said:

Dawkins is racist

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

MadJakeChurchill said:

The original post used prejudice, you jumped to race.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Your reading comprehension have definitely seen better days.

iapetus said:

Interesting use of the word 'original'. The post you're referring to was a reply to:



Which in turn was a reply to Gio's claim that:



Dawkins isn't racist. He's anti-religion. Whether your religion consists of mostly white people or mostly non-white people, he will criticise it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yup, that was me. And while I agree that Dawkins may harbor prejudice against Muslims, I don't think he ever espouses racism or is harder on Muslims than Christians. He's wrote endless tomes on the evils of Christianity and religion more broadly. He takes some potshots at Muslims and sure, he's overly broad sometimes. But volumetrically, he's spent so much effort attacking Christianity that it would be disengenous to portray him as being unfairly biased against Islam.

Obnoxious JoJo Fan said:

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

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Lol "many sides"

Eh?

IrishNinja said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Here's my problem with de-platforming as a solution (or rather, as the solution); it addresses the symptoms rather than the cause. If people can't become resistant to the sort of approach the alt-right are taking now, then we're going to face problems any time they find a platform or any time someone else tries to use the same techniques. We're living in a world where mainstream political organisations are singing the praise of the Nazis' approach to propaganda. While de-platforming can give a good short-term result, it sets us up for the same problems at a later time. That's exactly what we're facing now, in fact.

IrishNinja said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

So you're saying that the goal of a political movement is to further its political agenda? Wew, that's like super woke ( or wise, in your own words :) ).

Gio said:

Maher is racist, Damore is racist and sexist, Weinstein is racist, and Dawkins is racist. These people pass for moderate to you? Please.

EDIT: I read your original post, and... there's a lot to break down. I strongly recommend you read through the thread. Educate yourself. Are people on the left really anti-free speech? What is "true" liberalism? Leftists argue that classical liberalism is inherently flawed and no longer tenable today, because the laissez faire approach tends to alienate those without wealth or power (aka poor and marginalized people). Yeah I'm goin off into a tangent but your entire premise seems off.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I would encourage you to pick up a copy of The Open Society. It's a very long, and very dense book, and will take you much longer to read and digest then click bait news, but the ideas and arguments it contains about liberalism and those who threaten it are ultimately much more interesting and compelling. Of course, it's not kind to the left. About a third of it, for example, is spent trashing Marxism. Hence my original post about being baffled by the elevation of Popper. Like capitalists slapping Che on a t-shirt.

As much as I consider Dawkins to be an anti-feminist shitbag I also find that he is consistent in his criticism of religion regardless of ethnicity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

MadJakeChurchill said:

"That means it's totally fine to demonise these majority non-white people''. Try again.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Dawkins shits on white Christians as much, if not more so, than Muslims (brown or not, and I can guarantee you he wouldn't care for white Muslims either).

Clefargle said:

But volumetrically, he's spent so much effort attacking Christianity that it would be disengenous to portray him as being unfairly biased against Islam.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

TyrantGuardian said:

As much as I consider Dawkins to be an anti-feminist shitbag I also find that he is consistent in his criticism of religion regardless of ethnicity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Correct.

In any case, I'm not sure I see how Dawkins' views on race or religion are relevant to this discussion. If we could stop this derail that'd be great, thanks.

trashhero said:

Islam is not a race.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Bemoans a lack of subtlety and nuance.

Discounts anti-Muslim bigotry because Islam is not a race.

How about you take your own advice before you look any more moronic?

Alice said:

As German and semi-organized Antifa "member" I always have to snicker at the American interpretation of the Antifa and the bullshit "Alt-Left" labels flying around.

It's always amazing to see people put so much more value on burning cars and broken windows, than actual human beings getting killed. This "The left is as bad as the right!" is out of control, even here.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Are you going to apply to Antifa's Suoer Soldier Program?

Atrophis said:

Bemoans a lack of subtlety and nuance.

Discounts anti-Muslim bigotry because Islam is not a race.

How about you take your own advice before you look any more moronic?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Mod said to move on with our discussion. Don't know if you saw the post above yours

trashhero said:

r anything that requires more thought than hundreds of pages of Karl Popper's work condensed into one picture.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

There's a great passage in that very Karl Popper book that completely undermines the way that one quote is (mis)used. I'll leave it up to the reader to find which one!

Gio said:

Y'all, if this isn't prejudice towards Muslims...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I keep seeing this and I find it hard to be convinced.

Atheist man criticizes religions and their horrifically damaging effect on all of us collectively. As an Atheist myself, that's hard to disagree with.

Help me here: Criticizing the religion itself without being hateful to it's people in general or even individually- isn't calling it "Islamophobic" (a word that should and DOES carry a heavy weight) in instances of criticism really warranted? And also, we criticize the FUCK out of Christianity here in the states, and Christianity is not as dangerous, toxic, or without progress. For instance- I cant be beheaded in America for being an Atheist or Gay. Can we say that about the rest of the world? And I'll criticize a Christian directly to their face, especially when they start spittin some bullshit. Hell, criticism of Christianity is not only allowed here, it's pretty much encouraged from what I see. Yet I'm not demonized as "Anti-Christian", except from some salty ass Conservative.

How is that not hypocritical? Where is the bar?

And that (to me) is my only problem with my fellows on the left. There's a lot of noise surrounding what something is, and isn't, when it comes to defining a weighted term like "Islamaphobia", "Racist", etc. It muddies the water. It reduces the weight of the term. Criticizing beliefs and hateful, toxic views? That's not anything "phobic". It's criticism. The same as criticism of Israel's handling of the Palestine conflict is not "Anti-semitic. People suggesting that it is, are bastardizing not only the history of clear and blatant anti-semitism, but also dislocates the bar to what it actually is, and where everybody can agree. Or, it's the same as somebody having dreadlocks not being racist because they have dreadlocks. (I mean... Really?) Same thing: People suggesting that it is, are bastardizing not only the history of clear and blatant racism, but also dislocates the bar to what it actually is, and where everybody can agree. And of course, I know there's a nuance to everything, but the response to that nuance should not be binary.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry- didn't see the mod message, though I would say- Seeing as we're dealing with an "alt-right" movement here, It may just be me, but I think it's fair that if we're going to de-platform folks with shitty views, we deplatform the right ones, without being intellectually dishonest about WHO the right ones are. Richard Dawkins is not one of them.

IrishNinja said:

i don't really disagree with much of what you're saying here - yes, historically speaking, de-platforming is short-term, as nazi/fascist resurgence has clearly been a pattern - but in lieu of it, what are you proposing? it's the softest possible answer, and it already bothers so many liberals who ignore history think the "marketplace of ideas" will somehow address this (or worse, buy into memes about how such efforts somehow empower them)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm gonna point at Milo every. Single. Time. What would have been a tiny echo chamber of shit people, became a national platform over night, strictly because of the effort to de-platform him. He's a fucking pile of toxic sludge, that we all agree. But just like real toxic sludge, there's a certain way of disposing of it where it doesn't become a bigger problem. Do you seal that shit in a barrel and bury it among other toxic sludge barrels? Or do you dump it in the water supply? The Berkeley incident was exactly that. What was supposed to be a tiny, shitty echo chamber, became a national news platform for Milo to spit his filth.

I have a counter to that too, though- How can you know what your enemies are.. What their views are, if you aren't exposed to them? I took time to delve into shitty people like Milo, Sargon, Crowder, Southern, etc, to find out why these people are so bad. To me, it's not enough to read people bitching about them on a message board. You have to truly understand. So I did. And it's very fucking clear to me how shitty they all are. Geniously hideous people whom aren't here for the "conversation" they demand so much. That's not what they want. They're here to spread perpetuate discord. Not find common ground or understanding. That fucking bus left ages ago.

As a matter of fact, I highly encourage people looking into them. Context and all. It is then that they dont get to take a stance of ignorance. I did that once- "Guys, Jon tron just said some stupid stuff, let him apologize and move on!" but then I actually listened to him. Watched the debate with him and Destiny. Jesus fuck, what trash. But it took my actual exposure to those ideas to understand why they weren't only bad- but also that they shouldn't be tolerated.

Helio said:

Are you going to apply to Antifa's Suoer Soldier Program?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Nah, I'm just cashing on on their awesome Demonstration Wages. Being Antifa pays so well!

(That's actually something right wingers in Germany push, lol, they genuinely believe we get paid for it.)

Alice said:

Nah, I'm just cashing on on their awesome Demonstration Wages. Being Antifa pays so well!

(That's actually something right wingers in Germany push, lol, they genuinely believe we get paid for it.)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Of course you do! Why else would you fight fascism? To keep fascists from growing stronger and killing people in the name of purity? Preposterous!

IrishNinja said:

agreed - but elements of the left (especially atheists & "skeptics") have known issues with islamaphobia. imagine living in today's society and not seeing that somehow - but as was pointed out, this is a large enough topic in & of itself to warrant its own thread, and so dawkins defense force are encouraged to do just that

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hey we can move on with your thread if you drop the petty sniping. I'm not part of any "Dawkins defense force". I was simply asking for an example of his supposed racism and none was provided. That means I am a mindless defender of Dawkins or have "issues with islamaphobia"? We can do without the ad hominems while trying to have a nuanced discussion about divisive topics.