Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

So to be clear, as long as it's not an immutable characteristic, it's fine. Punching someone for being an atheist, or a Communist, or wearing a hijab, or being bisexual and currently dating someone of the same sex, all fine.

If they try to impose their ideology onto others, it's debatable I guess, alltough I'd much rather trust the users who expressed violent feelings, than you to be the judge of that ^^ ironically.

... you're serious. You think it might be okay. Wow. How do you even define "imposing their ideology onto others"?

[dragdeler]

If they try to impose their ideology onto others

If their stated ideological goals exclude you from participation

(or some shmurble like that, it's not perfect either I could picture a political movement that is pretty confused about their stated ideological goals and has really murky messaging, that is not in consensus)



(you presumably never saw the edit it was very close in time together)

[None]

i don't recall having a straight-passing relationship as indicating a political desire for genocide

so, to be clear, to use your example, it's not the hijab, or the wearer of the hijab, but the act of wearing a hijab that causes a political desire for genocide

let's blow this out a little bit- is it the state of having put on the hijab, or the duration of the act itself where the political desire for genocide happens - like, is it constant while it's on, or is it while it's being put on? does the transmutative property of hate crimery extend to other bits of headwear, too, like are paperboys in their paperboy caps fomenting the political desire for genocide in their pubescent minds, or perhaps the genocide is kept in the throat when one puts on or wears a scarf (we must separate the two actions, remember?)? does the political desire for genocide intensify when the headwear is worn tighter to the head, or does it have more space to grow in, say, a ten gallon hat?

i propose this, then- everybody must stop having heads and then there will be no more nazism or political desire for genocide, as there will be no heads or necks to wear hats, scarves, or hijabs

(it might be the whole 'genocide' thing that people take offense to nazis about, by the way, or perhaps the fascism, neither of which are perpetuated by being an atheist, or communist, or being a straight-passing bisexual, or wearing a hijab)

---

RE: letting the law or the state handle it-

this works only when the law or the state works justly

[dragdeler]

Tbf there are eyrollingly annoying examples in the history books, like Paul Pot. That's why I think it's somewhat diplomatic to at least argue in broad principles that could apply to other situations than just the nazis were obviously evil...

It doesn't seem to have any traction anyway, even if they actually are not in any way shape or form sympathetic to nazism: The arguments just don't seem to click, the imaginary relating to this must be filled with other notions that prevent a mutual understanding or something. It's alarming that there isn't such a broad consensus about "nazi obviously bad" that nobody would bat an eye to hear ill wished upon them across diverse fora, so long as folks don't actually go around beating up people on a hunch. We are never actually arguing on a case by case basis when this comes up, (is that person of the public life an avowed fascist?),  we allways circle back to the broad strokes of: I find that discourse offensive - why would you take offense unless you identify with them.


Thing is I don't actually believe anymore that we have any user with truely offensive worldviews, I've come to believe that they are actually well meaning but very vulnerable to certain strategies of discourse... wait wait wait ok let's hear them out, what if we don't shoot the alien currently incubating who's species allready eradicated 3 whole space stations, let's think about this rationally surely there are some benefits to the other position we haven't considered yet

[Rolan7]

Doesn't matter what we actually said.  Some people read "fight Nazis" and read "I want to murder you".  It's VERY strange.

No, Max has repeatedly stated that he's entirely and literally for murdering people, and not just saying "fight Nazis". And again, he's not saying "only those who totally is provably aren't nazis in a completely unbiased and just investigation and trial" he is literally saying "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a nazi because the only reason they wouldn't disagree with me is that they are a nazi".

It's you who don't care what actually is being said here.

Big if true.  I do care about what is being said here, and that is Spin accusing me of desiring his murder when what I said is that murderers should be stopped.

I'd be deeply offended if I thought there was even a chance he honestly believed it.  He supports murder when cops do it, I don't support murder OR KILLING at all, and he fully knew that.

So why did he say it?  It's not surprising,  /pol/ and such have made an art of such tactics.  Innuendo Studios did some good videos on it, such as Never Play Defense.  Never state a firm position (it'll rightfully alienate moderates!), simply always accuse the targets of right-wing violence of being too violent in their attempts to survive.  It's a craven way to support murder, but that appeals to a certain kind of person who enjoys the status quo but is afraid to bloody their own hands.

Bonus: They can clutch their pearls about being "misunderstood" any time someone accuses them of having an agenda.  It's just a coincidence they support cops, corporations and the right to be fascist- they're totally centrist bro, they swear.
The more libertarian will even support that angle by promoting drug legalization or, gasp, the rights of sexual minorities.  Maximum Spin has been very supportive in the LGBTQ thread!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Of the people who smashed up Target's Pride displays.
First denying it even happened,
then claiming he knew all about it but it wasn't even bad, actually.

he just wants a calm and reasonable discussion y'all

The guy obviously has beliefs even if he won't say them.  That's fine.  People are going to be bigoted, it only becomes a problem when they can be open about it and organize violence...  Which is the situation we're literally in, now.

And even now some people feel more comfy arguing online that we should be forced to tolerate that intolerance, forced to listen to that speech, forced to be ever-so-polite as their more physical friends hunt us in the streets and bathrooms.  So much easier and safer to call for decorum, for politeness... for anything but self-defense.

Arguing that targets should accept their fate quietly is a pretty extreme position, actually.  What's the point of reasonable discourse if we can't call it out without being called "the real murderers"?  The equivocation is lazy, literally disgusting, and rightfully upsetting.

[dragdeler]

I hear you Rolan, and I wouldn't contest a word.


But what could be the agenda here if he is nefarious he is quite ineffective... Is there organised assaults on the forum to flood the narrative, ddos and dox the shit out of the world? (there are alt-right discord servers that do that) Seems to me we got 1 dude with an asinine concern for tone policing, and another one that fell into misinformation rabbit hole, and the two of them show up sporadically to voice their concerns, that make sense in a very superficial way. It doesn't seem like we're getting through to them, but they just come back from time to time to test their worldviews or because they are bored or something. I think that's ok.


If somebody feels unsafe in this forum I would be a little concerned what they are on about?? Can we maybe re-assess that impression? Because I'm pretty content with the overall "coverage" we have over here, if it skews too far right it's met with an appropriate amount of resistance of all colors. Centrism catches the occasional collateral slap, but we're not exactly an ideological cesspool.

[Micro102]

It doesn't matter how confident their hatred is. Just like it doesn't matter that the people committing hate crimes on random Jewish people around the world think they are justified because a country thousands of miles away that had a majority Jewish population committed warcrimes. They attacked someone because of immutable traits, not actions. A person cannot do anything about their immutable traits (hence the word, immutable), but someone can do something about their actions. And these two things must be treated differently. That's why we have a special category in law called hate crimes. The groups protected under hate crimes specifically have immutable traits (except religion but that's a whole other can of worms). We don't have hate crime laws protecting people with political opinions. Therefore someone who assaults a black person because they are black should get a heavier sentence than someone who assaults someone for wanting to assault a black person. We have already worked all this out in our legal system and the two are not equal.

And as far as I'm concerned, identifying yourself as a Nazi, a group that was going for global genocide, is an open declaration that you want to kill billions of people. And we should have laws against such much like in modern Germany, lest we let it spread and fester into another tragedy.

So to be clear, as long as it's not an immutable characteristic, it's fine. Punching someone for being an atheist, or a Communist, or wearing a hijab, or being bisexual and currently dating someone of the same sex, all fine. A politician, let's call him "Putin", putting political opponents in prison for refusing to "do something about their actions" which he considers unsocial, also fine. I mean, otherwise, you're just saying "my hate is right and your hate is wrong" again.

I lay out very clear established reasoning as to why hatred of an immutable trait and hatred of actions are different and all you can do is go "DUURRRR sO yOU ThInK ItS OK tO AttAcK aNyONe fOR TheRE AcTiONs?!?!". Try acting like a real person. I addressed your comments about how hating ideas and hating traits are just the same thing. At least acknowledge you were wrong and lead into a question without the strawmen and with some honest comparisons.

1. The hate speech laws, in Germany at least, criminalise inciting to violence - not self-identifying as a part of a group. You can still run a well-known neo-nazi pub no problem. It's that point that was made earlier: thought crimes are not actual crimes.

There are laws against depicting Nazis symbols and speaking positively about Nazis. They won't arrest you for being a Nazi, but they will for trying to spread it.

[Maximum™]

Always manages to surprise me when someone makes what should be an uncontroversial statement--nazis should not be tolerated--and the response is pushback against it, as though fucking nazis need to be defended, or their freedom to advocate for the eradication of various groups of people should be sacrosanct?

More to the point: killing a nazi risks making a martyr for their shitty cause, it's why I don't generally push for that, like I absolutely wouldn't raise a finger to save one, but it's too easy for their fuckwad compatriots to lie and reframe shit to make it seem like it was some sort of heroic death if they were offed.

Revealing them to be cowardly bitchbabies and making them afraid to utter their hateful bullshit in public by slapping their shit when necessary works much better.


Also, very amusingly the orange dumbfuck tried to file motions to dismiss for shit he wasn't actually charged with, which is just hilariously not how things work in so many ways.

[scriver]

Doesn't matter what we actually said.  Some people read "fight Nazis" and read "I want to murder you".  It's VERY strange.

No, Max has repeatedly stated that he's entirely and literally for murdering people, and not just saying "fight Nazis". And again, he's not saying "only those who totally is provably aren't nazis in a completely unbiased and just investigation and trial" he is literally saying "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a nazi because the only reason they wouldn't disagree with me is that they are a nazi".

It's you who don't care what actually is being said here.

Big if true.  I do care about what is being said here, and that is Spin accusing me of desiring his murder when what I said is that murderers should be stopped.

No, that's not it. Go back and re-read the context of this argument. You were the one who jumped to defend Max's violence and murderousness, and then you went on about there only being one reason one could want to argue against murdering nazis (being a nazi). You're saying murder is OK, and you're saying he's a person that's OK to murder.

[McTraveller]

Pretty sure this argument boils down to “It’s never ok to kill someone for what they are, but in some circumstances it may be tolerable to kill someone for what they do.”

What is getting murky is when you talk about worldviews - what do you do with worldviews that differ, that say it’s ok to kill for identity or principle? What do you do about those ideas that have not yet resulted in violent action, but merely promote it?

All I see are violent methods of “eliminating such worldviews” - basically the question is, can you kill an idea without killing the idea-bearers? Can you even “kill” an idea? This is one problem with politics…

[Lord Shonus]

Can you even “kill” an idea?

Yes

can you kill an idea without killing the idea-bearers?

Yes. If anything killing the idea-bearers makes killing the idea harder.

If you were to go back even to the early 1990s, you would be horrified at the things people casually said and openly believed. Even today's GOP is ahead of some of the self-described progressives of that era. Maury and Springer treated trans people as a "can you believe these thing think they're people?" freak show, and all of America watched and laughed. Assaulting somebody on suspicion of homosexuality was good clean fun.

Those ideas aren't dead yet, but they're dying. The current GOP culture war is losing badly on these issues, they just don't have any better cards to play.

Go back further still and your horror would only grow. By the time you hit the late 1970s you find that not all the performers in the films openly shown and advertised XXX theaters are adults, and this is legal. There's a wide chunk of self-described progressives that think this is a good thing, just one more obsolete taboo on the ash heap of history. Meanwhile interracial marriage can still get you lynched, and pay discrimination (today usually a factor of structural rot and unconscious bias) is open policy.

Those ideas are all but extinct - only a tiny minority would call them a good thing.

[hector13]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67209841

Republicans choose the next sacrificial lamb.

Emmers doesn’t have the support of Trump supporters, so expect another candidate in the next few days.

[Maximum™]

I'm still really confused about which Max is being said to be in favor of murder because it also sounds like said Max is then equivocating others with being nazis for wanting to fight nazis which is definitely not me.

I think the only way to solve this is for Maximum Spin and I to fight... to the death!

[sodafoutain]

No no, then you'd be fulfilling his point of wanting to kill nazis, or something.

[Maximum™]

Ah dammit, hoisted by my own petard or something!

To add though, I'm not just saying we should all run out and go beat up garden variety racists, though they are also despicable, they generally don't openly advocate for apartheid or genocide, but we have actual fascists running around, running for office, and running their mouths about how only white people should be considered people.

You don't just jump into the goose stepping salute throwing nazi fuck boat because you're a racist piece of shit, there are lots of racist pieces of shit who aren't open nazis or even klan members, though the line between kkk and gop is VERY blurry these days, and honestly they aren't nearly far enough from being 100% fascist to get any credit for the distinction.

No, you do it because you're an edgy bitchboy kid who listens to the shittiest people on the planet and thinks "yeah, I'm not disliked because of all of my many faults, ITS DA JOOS" seems like a valid point, and next thing you know you're in khakis with a fucking tiki torch and invading the capital.

Those cunts don't deserve the protection which everyone else does, they especially don't deserve the protections which their targets and sooner or later victims do.

If you hear "we should not tolerate nazis, and anybody proudly running their mouth off about this shit is inviting others to shut them the fuck up with a solid smack to the nose" and feel attacked, that's not on me yo, but if you feel concern about the idea of people fighting back against those advocating violence against vulnerable groups: stop it.

Ok, just stop, it isn't like we're just arbitrarily declaring "that guy is a fascist" there are people you can ask about who will openly and proudly tell you straight up they are fucking fascist fucks, at that point the proper response isn't 'well now, perhaps you're just mistaken about jewish people, let us reason together' because they want you to waste your time and energy doing that, they want you to help platform them by being seen treating them as serious people with positions worth arguing.

Very few people actually want to get smacked in the face for being a stupid fucking fascist, I guarantee you that not punching a nazi isn't going to work, and perhaps some will feel vindicated by the first punch... so you keep going until they agree to knock it off.

You cannot tolerate the intolerant or they will destroy your tolerant society.