-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Fascism, alt-right/nazis & the importance of de-platforming |OT|
- Thread starter IrishNinja
- Start date
Such a discussion would be off-topic for this thread. If you want to try your own thread, then be my guest and we'll see how it goes. But do not post that in this thread.
I love this response. Let the idiots show up then show how small and irrelevant they are.
Ultimately they are a tiny, tiny minority of misguided people and most don't even consider neo Nazis and alt righters to be worth worrying about because they have no power and no influence among American society.
The efforts of certain people to categorize the whole or majority of conservativism or republican politics as the alt right is what I don't agree with.
This is no more reasonable than calling all Democrats lazy communists that want free income for everyone and drugs and not punishment for crime.
"But the alt-left!" is the alt-right tactic equivalent of playing possum. It's a last desperate attempt to run crying and hide behind moderates. This muddies the waters enough to reinforce the "both sides" notion permeated among moderates/independents, or politically apathetic people. When the alt-right can convince people that 'both sides are just as bad', regardless if they are the true insufferable shits in all of this, they pretty much gain ground.
It's a pretty smart tactic by those on the right, though. It muddies the water and gives a way for alt-right people to deflect and diffuse discussion when others have to waste words explaining how alt-left isn't a thing.
OP
OP
i hear this a lot, but given trump's policies and direct echoing of their talking points (especially post charlotesville) & the proximity of figures like steve bannon, steve miller, sessions etc i think both their influence & what they stand for aren't as easily dismissed. fascist rhetoric hasn't enjoyed nearly as large a place in the public eye as it has in recent years, and that doesn't seem to be dying down either.
fortunately, i don't see this very often - certainly not in this thread. i'd say it's not worth worrying about because the few folks stating such have no power and no influence among American society =P
mastefully done
yeah, hearing trump say it while praising the good folks "on both sides" was a moment of horror sandwiched by so many other moments that i think people don't put much emphasis on it, but it was surreal
It's important for people who identify with conservative politics but also who vilify racism, sexism, and fascism to simply denounce it outright and condemn it as unacceptable.
The troublesome part comes with people who consider themselves against illegal immigration. Given the two choices of political parties, only one of these is interested in moving the balance towards enforcement of the law. Some might consider any kind of deportation or penalty for illegal immigration to be racist or wrong, or even fascist/Nazi in nature.
Are these people who are against illegal immigration also for reforming the immigration process?
Yes.. Yes start a thread.
I bet there'll be claims that George Soros is somehow involved in all this.
That's a very broad topic and I'm sure opinions on individual changes would vary greatly from person to person..
But a vast majority of Americans support citizenship for dreamers, for example.
OP
OP
hey don't call me an alt-righter thanks
like hell im not even a GOP supporter
I think the point is that you were using their false equvilancy and made up language. You're not the only liberal/progressive/Democrat to have unwittingly adopted their propaganda on that front.
Not a Nazi! Just think Hitler was doing good things and the Holocaust was made up. Did you know he gave them swimming pools?????? I swear I hate Nazis tho.
(also holy shit why does he have a blue checkmark Twitter)
There is no need for a "de-platforming." Attempting to de-platform people you don't agree with—in a country where freedom of speech is a right afforded to everyone, no less—makes you the fascist.
Thanks for that garbage GOP talking point, guy with only 5 posts who set his profile to private.
People who want to stop Nazis are the real Nazis? Amirite?
One has to start somewhere. There was a time when you had only five posts, too. As for my private profile—I don't want my information on blast for the world to see. If that bothers you, I really couldn't care less.
That is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth.
Well, like you said in one of your earlier posts:
Not everything is for everyone. Perhaps access to large scale public forums is not for people who advocate for an ethnostate or espouse virulent racist views :)
If you're not an alt-righter then let go of the phrases and concepts that entered mainstream conversations as an effort to normalize neonazis.
These are pretty much the core reasons that equating the alt-right and any leftist movement that currently exists makes people assume the worst of your intentions:
- The phrase "alt-right" was invented as a rebranding attempt for neo-nazis, to quite literally depict fascism and bigotry as valid alternative opinions that exist within the spectrum of normal opinions that can be tolerated in society. there is no leftist organization attempting to call itself the alt-left. the phrase sprung up to try to draw a false equivalence between people who believe that fascism cannot be tolerated in normal society and those whose ideology revolves around bigotry.
- if you're someone who believes that violence is never justified and that punching out neonazis in the streets to make them afraid to be neonazis is wrong, then good news! leftist acts of violence are nearly non-existent and extreme left organizations have nearly zero power in western democracies. you don't need to spend energy worrying about them. the idea that punching out neonazis for being neonazis is acceptable is a fringe belief in essentially every country, while many western nations have seen resurgence in political success of right-wing parties running on platforms of hatred and nationalism. The risks of harm from leftist violence to anyone are so small that it should occupy approximately zero seconds of your thoughts unless you're a cop stuck working security at a pro-racism protest.
- On a basic moral level, don't try to equate random dudes who think richard spencer deserves to be punched in the face at every opportunity with people who think jews should all die and that non-white people are not people. Drawing a comparison argument between "being willing to punch out nazis creates a slippery slope where eventually protesting and rioting become synonymous" and that kind of religion of hatred is dangerous and irresponsible. There's an enormous difference between the core premises of saying that nazis deseve to be stopped at all costs and saying large swathes of people are not people. equating those concepts makes you complicit in the normalization of bigotry.
I'm not Google. If you are not going to enter a conversation with the bare minimum amount of knowledge to have a good faith dialogue then there is no point engaging with you
Good luck and I hope other people fall for your low quality bait attempts.
Free speech doesn't give them a right to exist on places like Reddit and YouTube. I'll fight as much as I want to get them removed from those platforms and that's not fascist in the slightest. We shouldn't have to tolerate intolerance.
They're free to organize rallies or go yell on a street corner to express their freedom of speech.
You replied to me essentially saying—and implying that I am—"people who advocate for an ethnostate or espouse virulent racist views," when they couldn't be farther from the truth. All I said was that trying to render people voiceless because you disagree with them is very much a fascist thing to do. I find this irony humorous given that the OP wants to fight supposed fascists with fascist tactics.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee you the right to a platform. Nor is being de-platformed a violation of one's first-amendment rights.
You're right—Amendment I doesn't give fascist—or anyone—the right to exist on private platforms. If Facebook, Twitter, et alii want to use their rules to shut down supposed fascists, they have that right. The problem comes from the fact that they don't apply their rules equally.
OP
OP
there's a strong need, actually - and the OP gets into a lot of that, and is totally worth your time
likewise, treating nazis & violet white supremacists as simply "views you don't agree with" is a tremendously poor take
100% wrong, and an admin addressed why on this very page - keep walkin
on that, we can agree - their recent policy update was another joke from a medium that allows & all but fosters open nazis fertile recruitment grounds
they really, really aren't
considering the complete garbage you constantly post i doubt that quite a bit.
And only alt-righters worry about that made up invention of the so-called "alt-left".
Biggest crock of shit i've ever heard.
And I am not even losing a millisecond of sleep over that shit. Fuck being equal.
OP
OP
that's a good question - minority groups that push large harassment campaigns, and organize violence & hate efforts? fortunately, like the alt-left, that doesn't exist
De-platforming is speech, and should be protected as such. If one person has the right to shout, other people obviously have the right to shout them down.
They use the word equal to mean normalization, which is not the same thing.
They want it equal so that they give off an image that they may have some kind of logical opinions because they know if large networks take their podium, they will look more like the bigots people describe. Conspiracy theories used to be only for wacky ass folks or people who like to get lost in the internet and since it has been entering people's social feeds through bots and ads, some people actually start to believe that shit.
This is the stuff all of us know already, though.
This is the stuff all of us know already, though.
I was wondering, if youtube ever gets turned into public service (i've heard that there is a possibility of that happening in the future, something-something-anti-monopoly laws), would de-platforming still be legal and/or ethical, from american perspective?
We're getting away from the point of the thread, though I would argue that de-platforming is an action, not speech. De-platforming is something one does, not says; this, for the same reason that shouting "Fire!" in a theater isn't just speech.
Shouting "fire!" in a theatre is, in fact, "just speech," but it's speech that presents a clear and present danger. De-platforming is "just speech" as well, and presents no such physical danger.
It's not. Shouting "Fire!" is a call to action, just as de-platforming is an action—and I believe there is danger in both.
What danger do you see in the speech ("calls to action") people are attempting to de-platform?