1. 4859


    Thats not what hes talking about, hes talking about legitimizing these people by giving them a platform to talk about and debate for shit like holocaust denial. These are very different situations.

    And since one of the prime ideologies for them is anti-intilectualism, facts dont matter. They dont use resaoned debate, they dont respond to facts, they argue from faith, like a religion, and their faith is hate. You cant give them a platform because they NEVER speak in good faith. Dismantling them with facts is pointless, because the people they are really reaching for when they get a platform, don't respond to facts.

    As Jean-Paul Sartre so well put.
    Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.

    They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

    THey know how stupid and easily contradicted their arguments are, they dont care, thats not why they are up on the platform, they are fishing.
  2. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    credit to mark bray:

    there's a lot more such instances, relative to the example you gave of east germany. naturally, as more recruiting went from the streets to the internet, tactics have had to adapt, but the spirit of it is similar.

    you're absolutely right about a lot here
    - yes, they do just hide underground or in less popular venues. you're not going to wipe an ideology out, but minimizing its chances to grow & recruit are the goal
    - likewise, your east german example points at another problem - most anti-fascist efforts are victims of their own success. when the threat is not out in the open, efforts to combat it die down (a few years from now, under the next administration, there will be a lot less interest in this effort - which will likely see less open appeal to alt-right/nazi values, but will no doubt benefit their cause)
    - i don't get where anyone here thinks i'm not a huge advocate of education, voting, protest, community efforts & such - i partake in support/encourage all of them, this is simply another venture worth discussing. when an authoritarian regime has emboldened said fascists, every effort to minimize that helps...so yes, reporting facebook groups or tweets seems a trivial action, but there's merit to working to make their recruitment efforts/platforms from which they spit their garbage harder to keep.

    thank you - also for reminding me that sartre's quote needs to be in the OP

    yeah, it's a weird notion that i'm saying the mere mention of nazi believes is like saying candyman 3x or something. obviously, SPLC & such resources are invaluable for knowing what we're up against, i'm saying don't engage them in a way that normalizes their views & clearly only serves to give their message another pulpit.
  3. iapetus


    No. Because I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm talking about people who are targeted by Nazis for this sort of divide and conquer attack. As the post I replied to makes clear, it's a well-formulated and very simple psychological attack, but in order for it to work we need to play our part and help the Nazis make it work, by jumping on people and turning against them. Me, I'm in favour of not helping Nazis.
  4. edgelord

    Banned Member

    So, I had a free hour this afternoon, and was about to pick up a book when I remembered this thread.

    I ended up burning it instead.

  5. 4859



    Dorothy Thompson:

    Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

    Believe me, nice people don’t go Nazi. Their race, color, creed, or social condition is not the criterion. It is something in them.

    Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t-whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi
  6. IrishNinja

    Member OP


    yeah, every transphobe i know ate up peterson's fear-mongering on bit
  7. Arkage

    User requested ban Member

    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.

    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 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.

    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.

    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.
  8. Kneecap


    Don't your words boil down to "the cure for hate speech is more speech"?
  9. Spaceships

    Banned Member

    • User banned (1 week) trolling and making disingenuous arguments despite past warnings.
    I'm serious. It's important to recognize the signs of someone becoming radicalized. You realize that there's literal nazis out there, right? This is long past being a joke and I'm right in the center of it all (I can drive to Charlottesville for lunch) so I hear about these things all of the time. The straight white male obsessed with bitcoin who scoffs at mass media and becomes obsessed with reading the Great White Male authors has become a major trope and it's becoming so frequent that I hear stories about them in coffee shops all over the place. This is the start of a major movement and it's important to recognize the signs so that people know when they need to help intervene on these people and spread positive messages.

    They're reading:
    • Dystopian Novels (Huxley, Dick, Bradbury, Orwell)
    • Anti-Media novels (Wallace)
    • Pro-Capitalist (Rand)
    • Bible
    • Old Philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, etc)
    • Self Help novels (toxic male ones, like Jordan Peterson or Tim Ferris)
    • Nietzsche (especially him)
    If you see anyone reading these books in a coffee shop, I dare you to ask them the questions you could use to spot a typical white supremacist. Ask them their favorite classical music artist and ask them their racial heritage. They'll have long answers prepared for both and will answer delightfully. Now imagine for a moment, that if you could just look down on this poor, obviously angry soul (probably reading Infinite Jest or Evola), and you reach out to him and you say, "Listen, I know it's hard. Life's hard. I know it's hard to lose your privilege, but it's time to finally think about PoC, LGBT+, and women and the persecution they face, too. It's not all about you." You could really reach out to these vulnerable kids with a message of love and unity and prevent them from becoming absorbed in hate. Offer to take them around an urban neighborhood and do some good, donate some time or something. Having one less nazi in the world is hardly something to take lightly.
  10. RoyaleDuke

    Banned Member

    Thing is no one is actually free in America, we are indebted to the corporations that own the politicians that are behind the government, and also foreign powers apparently.

    The notion that we are somehow special because we have guns, and booze, and perceived freedom despite the massive amounts of class and racial divides caused by rich white men, and white supremacists, as well as nazis, not to mention those people being in power, having a huge private military in the form of the Police. By the way Hitler and his cronies studied American racism very closely because they viewed it as very successful, this same view was also held by other horrible people that helped set up Apartheid.

    Right now are very serious times, there have been warning bells for a long time.

    I mean we sat for an entire year at 2:30 to midnight, we are now at 2 ,minutes to midnight. Thing is, this isn't necessarily always MAD, and if you read the documents that the boards of Atomic Scientists actually put out, they outline how this can be as simple as the next atomic explosion or atomic weapon based attack, whether this triggers MAD between nations at large, is entirely based on the conditions that occur. We've been warned that any kind of preliminary strike on NK will lead to War or Worse, Nuclear war, it would not surprise me in the least that if Donnie Don't decides to press the button, Russia isn't going to miss the chance to sling a few at us and maybe even our allies, say nothing happens when he uses a nuke, he gets flack and condemnation, America continues to crumble into chaos from the inside out rather than acknowledge long standing issues of racial and gender inequality, inequality between people of the LGBTQ, systemic racial injustice, and as further proof from the news today, they will continue the toxic prison incarceration culture, blanket labeling people, and killing any one that looks different or disagrees with them. I mean, the memo, everything that keeps happening.

    People wanna bury their heads in the sand but things are escalating at an alarming pace.

    As Hunter S. said in 2003, and again in 04.

    "I piss down the throats of these nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they lit or not. Fuck them." is a perfectly fine and perfect attitude to have.

    There is no middle ground with fascism, or nazis, or white supremacists, especially now that they are the majority party.

    We need to vote, we need to wait, we need to see what Mueller does, but at the same time a measured reaction to current events is a constant reminder that the old adage that when good men and women do nothing, evil triumphs.

    At the end of the day there isn't a whole lot we can do since violence is so anathema to people unless they are on the fascist side. The recent non-expulsion of a white supremacist threatening to shoot up the campus is proof enough, honestly when you actually start reading into history there is a narrative of suppressing white terrorism.

    Hmm. wonder why that is?

    I think I already know the answer.

    Honestly, I don't know how to fix it besides trying to get the dems into power for now, standing in solidarity with people that are likeminded against the incomprehensibly evil.
  11. Kneecap


    Oh really? I read most of those books, and i can tell you that i wouldn't appreciate someone prejudging me by the book i carried. Now, if upon seeing someone with a book, you have an honest curiosity about that person's opinion, by all means ask, or don't . But to seek out readers of books you don't agree with. Yikes. Btw, there's a lot to learn from nietzsche that isnt integral to right wing philosophy.
  12. RoyaleDuke

    Banned Member

    Stop this please. I read all of these as a younger man and I found that science fiction dystopia to be incredibly important, people misusing these books to justify what they see versus what the book is actually saying, is as old as religion.

    You can't start targeting people who read dystopian fiction or study old world philosophy. There is much historical context to be gleaned as well as interesting themes, like no one talks about the misogyny of 451, the obvious unhappy nuclear family of the 50s American dream vibe, the racism, and mass censorship of everything, the termination of anyone different. Brave New World, 451, Animal Farm, and 1984 stand as distinct criticisms of Fascism, the far right, and authoritarianism, but they are also distinctly products of their time in some ways in regards to rampant sexism and racism. I reread these books very recently, as well as much of Kurt Vonneguts work, and you know what no one talks about the disparaging, downright caricature depiction of people that aren't white in his work. Lovecraft is fantastic, except for when he decides to start talking about other races of people, which happens in his worst stories(red hook, Rats in the walls).

    I think the difference you will find between someone who is a neonazi reading something like that, is the interpretation and the willingness to point out the negative and call it out, but I am not above calling good writing, good writing. You must comprehensively criticize and comprehensively examine every literary work, intent is very telling. Huxley, and Orwell especially were concerned with fascism, I mean BNW predicted the rise of the oligarchy, the internet, propaganda, and social media itself before those kinds of things were even a concept.

    Rand is trash.

    Never read any peterson, wallace, or ferris though.
  13. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    the book thing is a deliberate derailing. assume anyone on about it is just trying to perpetuate it, and stay on topic.

    least i could do for the genuine replies in here, man

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  14. Arkage

    User requested ban Member

    I can understand your frustration in that there are many bad actors concerning debates, especially in the social media realm where longer debate forms are worthless in the face of short snipes declaring victory. And generally, facing down a crowd will hardly ever be successful, which is why I think a more officially sanctioned form of debate (with a rule system) is the best way to argue ideas despite the implication of providing a platform; that platform is dependent upon the reach of the belief system rather than any ethical basis. I wouldn't call this a masturbatory practice since debates such as these have changed my own mind on a number of issues, as I imagined they have for others. Granted these aren't debates concerning the validity of white supremacy, but I still think followers of these more extreme beliefs (especially followers with weaker affiliations) can be convinced out of their ideology through argument. Perhaps the difference is that on this note I am more optimistic than you are. Shutting them out completely leaves their followers to uncover the truth all on their own, which I think greatly limits their ability to dig out of bad belief system.

    Private citizens and companies can censor anything they like. My problem is more in the grey realm - like publicly funded college campuses in which speakers end up cancelled due to partisan controversy. If there's any place that should withstand rigorous, productive debate that exposes truth and falsehood, one would hope it be a college campus. Or public rallies white supremacists try to hold. They hold them in hopes that the left will start conflict - and cities denying them a permit pushes the ball back to power structures and vague language interpretations. I await the day for a conservative town to deny a permit for leftist rallies that they deem to be too aggressive toward conservatives - not that it would be a fair use of that language, but because the language gets to be so vague that it can be easily manipulated by those in power.

    I believe part of why Trump won was Hillary's inability to address his bigotry in a meaningful way. She marched people of color up on stage and always talked about how great they were, but never actually got the root of the problem, which is that Trump was blaming minorities for nearly all white people problems. She was following the path of "don't engage with Trump's rhetoric, just say it's horrible and then talk about how good minorities are." It wasn't a winning tactic for persuasion, which is much of what politics is about. Then instead of going after his specific claims, she goes after his supporters, which is an even worse move to make if persuasion is your goal (which it damn well should have been IMO).

    But for all my issues with Hillary I would say white centrist America is easily duped by racist-tinged arguments, especially if struggling economically. It's an age old tactic. While there is still less bigotry than there was in, say, the 60s, it's certainly not a post bigot country as made clear by Trump. And while I support anyone or any company's right to deny access to privately controlled venues/platforms, publicly funded college campuses and public marches should remain neutral ground. Otherwise it becomes a government sanctioned power play game.
  15. RoyaleDuke

    Banned Member

    Trump won because of the Electoral college Arkage .
  16. Vicious79


    Thank you for your answer. Look, I actually was there, multiple times, in Dresden and in Karlsruhe and other cities, actively protesting against NAZI rallies. I have some scars to show for that too, back from the 90s. And I still believe, and live that belief, that standing up, in person, to NAZI rallies is important and needs to be done, and now that I'm one year short of 40, I can do that not as often any more than when I was in my teens and twenties, because I have to care for my job and my family, there's something tragically ironic about this very example you brought up.

    Because it was an extremely pyrrhic victory. Look, yes, for the first one or two years, those NAZI rallies in Dresden became pathetically small. The Neo NAZI community tried to establish rallies in other places (mostly in really small towns) instead, however, only a very small amount of fascists showed up (because they were far away from major train stations), and they were mostly repelled by moderate left wing demonstrators, because for the extreme left, those places were also hard to reach.

    There was a feeling of superiority on our side for about three years.

    However, the facists used that time to reorganize, to make their message more palpable to the declining middle class, to the people who got left behind by globalization, to the elderly who could not pay their rent because of the decline of the german social system, they ditched all their Reichskriegsflaggen, they refrained from using the Hitlergruß any more, they grew some hair on their skinhead skalps, they let racist minority immigrants talk for them and they concentrated on a problem that was formerly also talked about by leftists and feminists: They came back as PEGIDA, the "Coalition of patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the occident". And those rallies grew in numbers rapidly. And it wasn't (and still isn't) so easy to speak out against them. They let actual Muslims speak for them. They let anti-muslim immigrants speak for them. And radical islamism IS a problem, expecially with our immigrant youths. They were intelligent enough to twist real problems we have with our migrant population that need to be adressed (preferrably from a left wing perspective, so, increase integration measures) and used them to spark hate and resentment. The refugee crisis after that led to a kind of perfect storm, and now we have the AfD (which during this time changed from some cringey fringe Euro-scared fringe party to the go-to extreme right wing shit it is today).

    For fucks sake, even my parents in law, who ARE immigrants and came here with my infant wife at the start of the 80s, fleeing from the russian regime in poland, voted AfD.

    To this day I am still wondering, if those ralleys at the beginning, where the Neo NAZIs walked around with their Reichskriegsflaggen and their clearly identifiable NAZI symbols and shit - would PEGIDA ever have happened? And if PEGIDA would never have happened - would the AfD still be a fringe party of eurosceptic weird Professors instead of being the alt-right powerhouse they are now?

    EDIT: And I know, most of you guys are only looking at this from a U.S. perspective. You all have to deal with a set of completely different problems, your black population that are descendants of slaves is not the same as our former major immigrant population of turkish people who came here willingly as guest workers and the million of refugees from syria and the people trying to pass as refugees from economically weak regions. The situation is very different. But I think we might learn from each other countries experiences.
  17. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    jesus, why are so many of y'all banned now? what'd i miss?

    also Arkage - you make some fair points (certainly about the failures of hillary's campaign) but while it's my fault for grabbing that example, it's steering us a bit off topic i fear.

    first off: your whole post was really informative. i hope your ban isn't long, i appreciated this contribution here.

    and...damn. you're not wrong about our different situations, but the experience here - of watching good, somewhat empathetic folks like up to vote for trump & co-sign all his bigotry/clear appeals to fascism, bad as that was, must've been a fraction of watching that happen. i literally wouldn't know what to do with that, man.

    i feel you missed a word or two in here - if i'm understanding you right, are you attributing part of their evolution to the antifascist efforts of the late 90's? i mean, as you said, catalysts like the syrian refugee crisis would've happened regardless, but you're thinking perhaps they wouldn't have been so prepared to organize & capitalize on it?

    because the causality here is an interesting argument, but you then gotta ask: okay, if they hadn't been shut down in their most visible form, what's the best case scenario there, that they'dve gone too far & forced state agencies to shut them down later? because if not, the alternative feels like visibility, the chance at more popular support, and still retaining infrastructure to jump on perfect storms like this.

    i think so to, and to that end: really hope you share more of your experience when you're back, man.
  18. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    okay, now that we're back - Vicious79 I'd love to hear more, man
  19. IrishNinja

    Member OP

  20. Jbourne


    The fact that YouTube allows PragerU commercials blows my fucking mind. I'm watching RLM and suddenly a 5-minute ad explaining why the gender pay gap doesn't exist starts playing.
  21. Vicious79


    Give me a few days, I‘m quite busy with work at the moment and finishing my PhD thesis. I‘ll reply this evening or within the next few days, ok?
  22. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    given the white supremacist group (republic of florida, no surprise they work with fellow shitheels league of the south) training the shooter in yesterday's mass killing, this topic seems timely

    sounds good man, take care of your stuff first - no hurry
  23. PepsimanVsJoe


    I was expecting this thread to see a bump.
    Honestly though, I'm in no condition to make a meaningful contribution. I'm done with anyone and everyone that continues to stan for or even "meet in the middle" with the Alt-Right. I'm fucking done.
  24. PancakeFlip


    When this happens and they are found out and exposed, don't they usually have a melt down and go full on nuts and post something blatantly uncivilized anyway?

    Yeah, great point here, this is where the difference lies, where an older supermeist will "devilishly chuckle to themselves and wait fo a more convenient time or target" the younger alt-right will lose the facade and freak out, completely exposing themselves.
  25. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    Salon: Antifa vs. Milo Yiannopoulos: Who won?

  26. Vicious79


    Yeah, I don‘t really get it either. They clearly do not lean to fascist ideals in any way, they even absolutely despise the PiS in Poland and the people who voted for that, however, they are extremely afraid of muslims and think taking in a million refugees was a big mistake made by chancellor Merkel. They also don‘t believe the AfD is an extremist party, and they are extremely wary of left leaning parties because of what they experienced in Poland under Russian rule.

    I think, if we wouldn’t have stopped marches where the scum was clearly identifying as scum, where they wore their symbols openly, where it was mostly NAZI skins and idiots looking like some 1935 caricature, they would not have seen the need to evolve, and they probably would not have been able to capitalize on the refugee „crisis“ like they did. The thing is, a few years after we stopped their marches, they came back dressed as normal citizens with a palpable message that was perfectly targeted at the fears that people had. „Europe should not cater to radical islamists ideologies“. This is a message that is absolutely true and understandable and I don’t think any sane person would think this sentence per se would be wrong.

    However, they used this and the backlash from the left (because we KNEW who the people behind this were and what their history was) to peddle to the latent xenophobia in east germany and massively capitalized on this. Actually, to me it felt like the perfect PR campaign, and they grew bigger and bigger, hell, at one point there were 15000 people, most of them completely normal people marching through Dresden. Then the AfD capitalized on this and the rest is history.

    We took away their platform, initially, yes, and it felt like a great victory, but their reaction was to grow their platform by making their message and their looks more palpable.

    I think they evolved in a way that they made themselves more palpable. They learned basic marketing, you might say. No one but extreme fascists would have marched with them back then, and they would not have been able to jump on the „perfect storm“ that the refugee crisis and the Cologne New Years Eve attacks agains women were, because even with that, no one but NAZIs would have gone out and marched with clearly identifiable NAZIs. With normally dressed people concerned about the Islamization of Europe who even put an immigrant on stage who writes nice books about cats solving crimes.... well.
  27. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    PhilosophyTube did an excellent piece on a lot of ideas covered in here, it's not short but man is dude thorough:

    that's a pretty nuanced take - i can see where forcing a change in tactics in time for such a perfect opportunity really set the table for something worse. that said, with where w are now, would you then posit to leave the current/more sophisticated groups alone for this very fear of unintended consequences?

    because the more common take is that by acknowledging them, one is somehow empowering them - despite all the evidence of them growing/rebranding etc from the shadows.
  28. Alcotholic

    Self-Requested Ban. Member

    I have to just say this guy is being a petulant child. What a racist dickwad.
  29. Vicious79


    The thing is... look, I'm 39 now. And I started to get into politics during the early 90s, when east german assholes started to burn refugee centers. When people hated on our turkish immigrants. It was a time where it was easy to identify those fuckers. And sane people found their actions abhorrent.

    For me, it led to me getting into the Punk Rock scene, sporting a leather jacket and green hair when that still meant something. If there was a demonstarion against right wing parties in Karlsruhe or in a city that could be reached via train in a day, I was there. And it was fucking great, there was always at some AJZ or some besetzen Haus (that would be a squatter controlled house, however in germany that was always a far left controlled thing) a concert afterwards, or a place to sleep. I met most of my girlfriends back then at those "happenings". And it felt fantastic. We were doing something against the fucking scum.

    I just wish now that it would have been effective. In the end, it wasn't. I desperatly wish for a way to make left wing politics more popular and more palpable for the masses. But that's not happening at the moment. The exact opposite is happening. The left has become more and more elitist and exclusive, and there are no alternative answers any more to the problems of the average middle class person, at leas here in germany. There's no aknowledgement that the middle class is shrinking. None at all. People get less and less children, and later and later in their lifes.

    I understand that the situation here in europe/germany is quite different than in the US, where especially black people are just fed up with the day to day racism they have to endure.

    I also feel fucking damn shitty, because I don't have the slightest idea what to do in this situation. I'm "old" now, I'm 39. All the things that I personally did backfired massively. I don't know how to "resist" any more.

    But well, fuck it. You guys are U.S. citizens, my experiences are not really comparable to yours. Your extreme right wing guys have their own news network, your Ku Klux Klan is much more ingrained in your republican party, and neither of your political parties seems to care about poor people.
  30. xbhaskarx


  31. IrishNinja

    Member OP

  32. Deleted member 15326

    Deleted member 15326
    User requested account closure Member

    lol get fucked Carl of YouTube
  33. Morrigan

    Armoring Moderator

    Oh lawd. If Sargon got taken down (hopefully permanently) because of other alt-right assholes reported him in some sort of "strategy" to make their own shithole, that'd be the best thing ever.
  34. Televator


    Get dragged into the hell of your own making, Sargon. Hahahahaha!
  35. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    right? it's like every time i see trash on twitter on about exiting to gab or the like before the next "purge", i'm like shit yeah here lemme hold that door for you

    also, cause this gif needs to be in more places

  36. Lime


  37. IrishNinja

    Member OP

  38. Televator


  39. Deplatforming them worked way better than giving them a stage and a mic thinking their views would be laughed at?! I for one am shocked!

    I still maintain anyone who makes that dumb suggestion that Nazi would essentially hang themselves bc their views would be laughed at and picked apart by society is either purposefully dense, naive about history or on some level believes in the ideology.
  40. NoRéN


  41. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    to quote another: "Huh. Almost like nearly 100 years of tactical history was right or something. #noplatformforfascists"
  42. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    Atomwaffen finally being called out by name by mainstream press

  43. Mr. X

    Mr. X

    Trump in the WH today used the term globalist. Giving these vermin a nod.
  44. Kodama

    Banned Member

    Deplatforming is the worst thing you can do IMO. Instead of people learning for better or worse from them, they will not even know of their existence and their potential for danger. Also it gives them the edge of being oppressed...
  45. Mr. X

    Mr. X

    You cannot be for real right now.
  46. BernardoOne


  47. IrishNinja

    Member OP

    i really should've put the OP in sparkles or something
  48. Aske


    I'm not quite so jaded (I don't think free speech does necessarily lead to its own destruction), but I'm certainly looking more carefully at my stance on the issue, and starting to come around to Karl Popper's argument. I am very, very leary about a government curbing the free exchange of ideas.

    My main sticking point is religion. I don't want to live in a society in which religious people are given the same protections as ethnic groups; not because I want to harass them, but because I think superstition is bad and should be discouraged. Obviously that's a whole seperate argument, but it's one of many grey areas that I feel should be protected from censorship. Enough people already conflate being anti-Israel with being anti-Semitic. I think it's crucial to be able to criticise religion and religious people (the circumcision debate is good example as to why) without falling foul of tolerance laws.

    But that being said, I obviously already draw the line at targeted harassment and fire-in-a-crowded-theater. I want to reconcile support for a desire to oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia in culture with my commitment to the free exchange of ideas. I'll be reading the arguments in this thread very carefully.
  49. Deleted member 15326

    Deleted member 15326
    User requested account closure Member

    Yes, those poor oppressed yet invisible white supremacists
  50. Kodama

    Banned Member

    I'm just imagining the mind of a skeptic. He hears bad things about Group, he tries to learn about group, but they have no platform to teach him about themselves. Said skeptic may feel they are being represented poorly and are victims of oppression, therefor taking them more seriously than they deserve. If we want that skeptic to truly learn what these people are, we need to let them communicate...