Sonicfox: "Fuck TERFS" (see threadmarks)
- Thread starter Professor Beef
- Start date
Thanks for explaining the subject to me. I totally have never, ever watched this video before in my life. Turns out I needed a man to give me 100% original content that I most definitely was not already aware of and viewed multiple times and find points of agreement in. Awesome, wonderful, thanks, cool. In all seriousness, it's legitimately hilarious that you literally discovered today someone whose content I've been consuming for a very long time lol
I'm not even expressing an opinion on whether it is okay to punch Nazis or not, so I have no idea why you posted that at me besides an inability or unwillingness to read my post. The thread has at all points been about literal Nazis, not center-right conservatives who get called Nazis or whatever. The user's whole point was to say that decrying violence against violent groups only benefits Nazis, not that people who do so are Nazis.
And I mean fuck, people are accusing others of enabling and strengthening Nazis by attacking them, so why is it off limits to make the same accusation against those who wag their fingers at such violence?
It’s not petty infighting. You aren’t going to change the mind of a nazi with reasonable thought and debate. I think that’s what people like you are missing. While you are maintaining decorum, they are fucking shit up. Do you not see the rise in violence?
Good for you, have a cookie. The video is for the other user; you were only CCed since you seemed to have missed the context of the discussion.
Your post was defending an user that not-so-subtly implied the person against punching Nazis was nazi-adjacent. There is nothing in your post I didn't or couldn't read (thanks for the veiled insult); I think it's you who is misreading the conversation you butted into.
I'm fully aware of the context. As I said, I'm not going to enter this discussion again. I mean, if the video didn't change your mind about the matter being as clear cut and morally black and white as you think it is, I have absolutely no hope of doing that, so there's no point to even trying.
Because other people doing wrong things doesn't excuse you for doing wrong things, and I literally addressed both extremes as dogmatic and problematic.
All of these points (and many more) are addressed in the video. Please watch it.
I didn't miss the context. You literally just decided that someone was saying something that they were not. The user said that they were Nazi-beneficial, not Nazi-adjacent. If you're going to talk irrationality, maybe consider the irrationality of insisting that the person who is saying that they're not doing X are, maybe, actually not doing X.
Also, what are you talking about change my mind? I can understand since you explained that you weren't linking that to me that it wasn't your intent, but at what point have I indicated that my mind was in any specific camp?
Just cop to it that you misunderstood a post and move on, instead of ~very rationally~ declaring that someone's intent is different than what they say it is. Assuming bad faith without just cause to do so is
i r r a t i o n a l
You now have a nazi out in the world that knows his shit is not tolerated everywhere.
And you got to see a nazi get wrecked, always brings joy.
Seriously. Richard Spencer isn't as much of a thing because he got punched.
That is 100% not what happened. Again, this is (literally) what happened (nearly word by word):
User A: "There's a middle ground between what I'm doing and advocating, and not doing anything".
User B: "What's the middle ground between being a Nazi and not being a Nazi?"
If you're really going to play ignorant about the implication (and entire motive) of asking that question, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
I'm not "insisting" on anything. It's you who keeps attacking my position when I've already explained exactly what I meant.
Basic logic? If you think it's perfectly OK to call a position "Nazi-enablers" I wouldn't exactly expect you to hold that same position. :D
Assuming everyone else's perception of "just cause" has to match your very own or else they're irrational is... well, I guess I don't have to literally spell it out for you.
I like that you put Nazi-enablers in quotations as if anyone actually had said that. I defended another user from claims that they were calling people Nazis, and explained that they were calling their tactics Nazi-beneficial. You're right that this conversation isn't really beneficial to continue, but not for the reason you think. It's not really beneficial because you have an axe to grind, for some reason, and all you really know how to do is lash out at people whose points you misunderstand.
Also, looking back, you had never addressed "both sides" as being dogmatic and problematic. You have never addressed the "nonviolence is beneficial to Nazis" point and have indeed never brought it up to criticize. The closest you come is to talk about people one-upping each other to be the most anti-Nazi, which hardly implies both sides. It's just kind of a funny position for you to take since you are talking about how it's obvious that the other user was calling people Nazis, and yet when it's fairly obvious that you were taking a specific position against only one side, it's clear that you are just taking a center position on the matter. Use this as a lesson to not assume a poster's intent in the future, especially when they tell you that your assumption is misguided.
Then perhaps look harder:
I mean, I can't fucking make it more "chill, both of you" than this.
-----
Well, I guess this kind of absolutely ridiculous condescension is one way to make sure I never engage with you in the future. Have a nice day.
You know, I'm looking at Huw_Dawson's post and I think you misinterpreted it Weltall Zero . Huw's post came across as "Won't someone think of those poor Nazis? We need to find a middle ground to avoid violence." The reply seemed to take issue with "both siding" the issue. Then you came in and accused the latter of calling anyone and everyone with a dissenting opinion a Nazi.
You did this in the Smash thread the other day. You misinterpret, fly off the handle, then you get angry with this smug "Ohohoho to think you can outwit me!" attitude. Chill, man.
You did this in the Smash thread the other day. You misinterpret, fly off the handle, then you get angry with this smug "Ohohoho to think you can outwit me!" attitude. Chill, man.
I think my biggest issue is that Weltall talks about how bad it is for progressives to go after each other, but when Weltall is told that they are misunderstanding what they said, Weltall accuses them of acting in bad faith. How is that beneficial for progressive causes? How is that not explicit infighting?
You got me on that, I misread and didn't notice that part. Sorry.
Not sure why you glossed over the topic of my intent after I explained that you were incorrect. It's not enough to just stop misinterpreting someone, you actually have to demonstrate contrition for making the mistake.
Glad he's unmuted, sucks the post got deleted.
I went down the rabbit hole of reading the posts from the people who were trying to get him banned from twitter... It's some real head in the sand level insanity to justify them being a TERF.
Christ on a bike! Political discussion in the US is warped. That wasn't my point at all.
Resorting to violence is breaking societal and political norms that have been built up over decades - the goal of the far right is to break down all the defences society has built up against extremist ideology. If you resort to violence, or encourage violence, you are helping these awful people in the long run just to make yourself feel good, or achieve some short term goal of forcing them to pay for bodyguards.
It's not "think of the nazis!", it's "how do we defeat these assholes in a way that reinforces the societal norms that are there to protect us all".
There's a really good example of a somewhat anarchic and chaotic way of making a strong political point recently, and it was the Extinction Rebellion protests in London. A powerful message spread via civil disobedience without a punch being thrown.
We just gotta talk to the Nazis, then they'll see the error of their ways! Silly me, when they were gassing Jews and bombing cities, why didn't we just think to sit down over coffee and hash it out?
You've found the secret, good sir!
That's not what he had said, like, at all, and you mischaracterizing and strawmanning it as such to hold the higher moral position is the exact issue I'm bringing attention to. And hopefully I don't have to point out the enormous hypocrisy of doing so in the same post you criticise me for "misinterpreting" another person's post!
OK, I'll play ball. When they demanded to know "what's the middle point between being a Nazi and not being a Nazi" as a reply to the notion of there being a middle point between not agreeing that it's OK to punch a Nazi and not doing anything, what did they mean, exactly? What was the point of that question, if we're assuming good faith on their part? What did they expect the other party to reply? What was the intention or the endgame here?
And please don't cop out with "I don't really know". If you claim to know their intent was not to smear the other poster, you surely must know what their intent actually was.
See above. Also, "telling people to stop infighting is also infighting" is really what you're really going with?
OK, let's go back over it because I don't even know what you believe to be my "mistake":
So we've estabilished the following:
- You take issue with me saying you're OK with person A calling person B "Nazi-enablers".
- You are, however, OK with them calling them "Nazi-beneficial" (as per the above).
Do we agree on that? If so, is the point of contention that you believe "Nazi-enabling" to be significantly different than "Nazi-beneficial"? Or that you misunderstood me as saying you, yourself, had called them "Nazi-enabling"? Or something else?
Good example of what I mean when I said US political discussion is warped.
It is not about being nice to nazis, it is not about reasoning with them. It is about crushing the entire neo-nazi movement without resorting to installing violence as a political norm.
This is really off topic for this thread, but I did get mentioned and then straw-manned to be a bloody nazi sympathiser, so excuse me for defending a non-violent view. Peacing out back to the UKPol Discord again.
I didn't defend them for the specific claim, I defended them from the claim that he was calling people Nazis. I gave no stance on whether what he said was acceptable. Also, I was calling you out for infighting because you are accusing another user of lying about what they intended to communicate. Assuming bad faith in other people is infighting. You're not merely telling people to stop infighting, you're doing so while making accusations of intent that inherently requires that they be lying for the accusation to make any sense.
Also, this:
"And please don't cop out with "I don't really know". If you claim to know their intent was not to smear the other poster, you surely must know what their intent actually was."
Nah fam, that's really not a valid take at all. Their inability to determine objectively what their intent was does not make your determination more valid. It means that the person is not making an assumption of intent. An assumption of intent that discounts what the user had actually said they intended to say.
Last edited:
For fuck's sake. The very paragraph you told me I ignored started with this:
"As if anyone had actually said Nazi-enablers" are your literal words, what you were taking issue with (and accused me of ignoring). Do you agree this was, in fact, said, or not?
If they're not making an assumption of intent, they cannot say another's person reading of their intent is wrong, especially when it's the only possible reading. It's really that simple. "I don't have a clue what they're actually saying, but I'm sure they're not saying this" doesn't fly, sorry.
You know full well there's no other possible way to read that intent but to smear the other party with some kind of "Nazi-" starting adjective.
Yes. I am saying that no one said the phrase Nazi-enablers, which, by quoting that text, you're implying. Enabler and beneficial are two words that don't mean the same thing, and enabler carries a significantly more negative connotation. Thus, I resented the implication.
Also, I called you out for ignoring that point not just because I objected to the use of "Nazi-enabler" but also because I explained that I was not defending them for that.
I can, because the user said that your reading of their post was incorrect. That is adequate evidence to say that your take on their post is incorrect or flawed.
Your logic is... really, really flawed here. I legit think you need to walk away for a while because this logic feels like spiraling.
EDIT: I misread your post, apologies for the miscommunication. But how do we eliminate fascism peacefully? It feels like focusing too much on this only plays to their "we're the real nazis" rhetoric.
Last edited:
I don't make a significant distinction between Nazi-enabler and Nazi-helpful, sorry. Feel free to split that hair if you want; I won't; especially not in the context of unjustly calling another user either of them.
As for your other point, it's been estabilished we disagree on what they actually meant (see below). As far as I can remember I didn't say you were defending them for calling another user a Nazi: I am fully aware you believe they called them Nazi-beneficial (and if I said otherwise, then I was wrong). That is still an opinion I would not expect you to hold at the same time as you hold that same opinion (that is, you would not think position A is even "nazi-beneficial", or could be appropriately called that, if you actually held position A; hopefully that's self-evident).
If someone says something that seems to obviously imply something, I call them out, and they say "I didn't mean that..." (literally, with the meek "..." at the end), then a) provide absolutely zero explanation about what they actually meant, b) leave the conversation entirely, and c) even the people defending them can't think of anything else they could possibly mean, then yeah fam, I'm going to go with my original interpretation. Occam's razor and all that.
Which, I mean, it's not even that horrible sin you're all trying to imply. We've all said things in the heat of the moment that we don't rationally mean: Godwin's Law is a thing for a reason. I just said "please don't do this". I don't know how that's controversial; hell, even if you believe they "only" called them "Nazi-beneficial".
Edit: I'm leaving the conversation, because it's taking far too much time for absolutely no benefit to anyone. Shit on me if you want but if nothing else please consider my original point and the one in the ContraPoints video: both positions have good points here, and we should not spend the energy squabbling among ourselves (and yes, obviously I'm guilty of that too) just because it's less unpleasant arguing with another leftist than it is with a centrist or fence-sitter.
Last edited:
He didn't actually leave the discussion. He replied that he didn't say what you claim he did, and then elaborated further by talking about certain behaviors that he felt benefited Nazis. He explicitly elaborated upon his post in a way that was more in support of my assessment than yours. You even replied to his elaboration. It's not that he left, or provided zero explanation, or even that people were unable to explain what he meant, because all of those are highly untrue:
1. He elaborated further and denied your assessment,
2. He continued to post in the thread after you made the accusation, and
3. Multiple people told you that they read the post to be a criticism of behavior the user felt was beneficial to Nazis.
All of these things are true. Just because you think his explanation is made in bad faith or you don't think the explanations are good or sensible, that doesn't mean that the explanations never happened.
Not going to argue further but I'll at least point out this is false. The only (and I mean only) post he made after "that's not what I meant" was:
This doesn't address at all what he originally meant when he asked about "middle ground between nazis and not nazis". It doesn't even reference that post; it was a response where he took issue with me calling the discussion "petty infighting".
Still a TERF though https://jezebel.com/the-atlantic-has-a-transphobia-problem-1833677331
You... do understand that neo-nazis punch, stab, throw fucking lamps, burn and shoot people, and that's why they are getting punched, right?
Nah we need to let them burn one more synagogue before we can be sure, it's the only way!
So SonicFox originally posted a tweet showing how the original tweet was reviewed and there was no violation. I guess they re-reviewed it and realized that SonicFox isn't white so they suspended him.
It really is. It's amazing (and humbling) that someone so young could be so wise.
Ugh. I was actually kind of shocked that Twitter had done the right thing for fucking once. Guess I should have known better. -_-
I hope they don't also realize he's gay and permaban him.
Ah wow. I didn't know she had those views. I am only familiar with her as a co-host of the new statesman podcast.
Well, he might be. Spencer is a scam artist making money off the concept of hate in order to, first and foremost, keep his pockets full and his life style rich, and he'll continue trying no matter how often he gets punched.
Now, that one guy who got punched out on the chicago subway and essentially abandoned as an example to what happens to nazis, now HE's not much of a thing because he got KTFO. And honestly, people like him are the ones I want to get the messsage that being a nazi will not be tolerated.
This is "it's not the racism that's the problem it's labeling people racist that's the problem" logic twitter is going with there except here it's transphobia.
I'm still wrapping my head around it.
White supremacists on Twitter - I sleep
Someone says TERF - Real shit?
Let alone that TERF isn't just a term that appears on a multitude of tweets, it's a fucking hashtag.
White supremacists on Twitter - I sleep
Someone says TERF - Real shit?
Let alone that TERF isn't just a term that appears on a multitude of tweets, it's a fucking hashtag.
Last edited:
12 hours ended a long time ago.
You might notice the original tweet is now unavailable.
I hope I can find where she said that. I'm guessing I'll be able to scan through the footage for it later.
Did she frame it as MK being hateful, or Sonicfox being hateful for playing the game as designed?
EDIT:
Well...
EDIT2:
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/0364bfc3-5adc-4aef-99bd-48c68daacc38?in=15:27:30&out=15:50:30
15:31:20 is when the TERF twitter Sonicfox debate starts.
Did she frame it as MK being hateful, or Sonicfox being hateful for playing the game as designed?
EDIT:
Well...
EDIT2:
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/0364bfc3-5adc-4aef-99bd-48c68daacc38?in=15:27:30&out=15:50:30
15:31:20 is when the TERF twitter Sonicfox debate starts.
Last edited: