Print

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

[Playergamer]

Going back further again: when people user the phrase "punching nazis" it generally refers to either Captain America punching them in WW2 or Captain Awesome Randomdude punching Richard Spencer recently, when you associate with alt-right shitbags you lose your "make nazi-like suggestions jokingly" rights, sorry, we need to be able to identify when people are actually pushing for those ideas because those groups are the ones trying to push just those sorts of ideas onto the political stage.

when people use the phrase "punching nazis" they generally refer to doing this. anyone who unironically talks about "punching nazis" instantly earns my ire, especially when you consider the huge amount of influence these groups have gained just by being punched.

i  mean, hell. if it would stop the rise of white nationalism and nazism, i'd be all for it, but attacking randoms who got pulled in by the memes doesn't do anything.

[EnigmaticHat]

Going back further again: when people user the phrase "punching nazis" it generally refers to either Captain America punching them in WW2 or Captain Awesome Randomdude punching Richard Spencer recently, when you associate with alt-right shitbags you lose your "make nazi-like suggestions jokingly" rights, sorry, we need to be able to identify when people are actually pushing for those ideas because those groups are the ones trying to push just those sorts of ideas onto the political stage.

I'm going to assume you're trolling by invoking "Captain Awesome Randomdude" and the word "shitbag" in the same sentence. Research at your own risk. That is all.

Horrifying stuff.

[alway]

i  mean, hell. if it would stop the rise of white nationalism and nazism, i'd be all for it, but attacking randoms who got pulled in by the memes doesn't do anything.

Source? Cause that statement seems to be the crux of the matter.

Regardless of how someone gets into white supremacist, ISIS, or similar extremist groups, whether it's for the memes, the sense of community, or because they're a true believer in the cause, they are still very much one of them. It could be equally argued that if such groups are *explicitly violent* you'll end up with much lower recruitment of idiots making the excuse they are in it 'for the memes,' and thus a much smaller group overall, which is much less likely to actually gain significant followings or power.

[EnigmaticHat]

This wouldn't even be an argument without the internet.  If you get on the subway and then shout "White Power!" it doesn't matter if it was a dare, you still did it.  No one is going to care why you decided to say that.

"Oh hey guys just burning this cross on my neighbor's lawn... ironically.  Lol get poe'd scrublords ex-dee."

[muldrake]

when people use the phrase "punching nazis" they generally refer to doing this. anyone who unironically talks about "punching nazis" instantly earns my ire, especially when you consider the huge amount of influence these groups have gained just by being punched.

What should be particularly worrisome about supposedly "anti-fascist" terrorists like this is that not only do they approve of "punching" (often actually assault with a deadly weapon) "Nazis," but their definition of "Nazi" is as fluid as a Usenet poster's.  It is essentially anyone who disagrees with them in any way.

[SalmonGod]

Going back further again: when people user the phrase "punching nazis" it generally refers to either Captain America punching them in WW2 or Captain Awesome Randomdude punching Richard Spencer recently, when you associate with alt-right shitbags you lose your "make nazi-like suggestions jokingly" rights, sorry, we need to be able to identify when people are actually pushing for those ideas because those groups are the ones trying to push just those sorts of ideas onto the political stage.

when people use the phrase "punching nazis" they generally refer to doing this. anyone who unironically talks about "punching nazis" instantly earns my ire, especially when you consider the huge amount of influence these groups have gained just by being punched.

i  mean, hell. if it would stop the rise of white nationalism and nazism, i'd be all for it, but attacking randoms who got pulled in by the memes doesn't do anything.

Do you believe it should be competed with on the "marketplace of ideas", as was the point we left off on this conversation last time?  Because I don't see it.

There is a shitload of ugly, dangerous bigotry that lies latent and passive in United States culture (don't know about everywhere else).  I can talk to just about any random stranger in public where I live, make them feel like I'm safe company, push the right verbal buttons, and out pops some really fucking ugly stuff.  But it stays under that combination lock right now, because it's taboo. 

And it didn't become taboo because it lost in the marketplace of ideas. 

It became taboo, because the "Eradicate all but the master race" type bigotry had its day, and people didn't like the result.  There was a massive global scale conflict over it, and they lost. 

And then the "We'll allow you to exist, but only if you know your place" type bigotry got shut down by the blatant threat of "No, sorry, not going to put up with that shit anymore, and it's going to get real if that doesn't get put away."

And we've made a lot of progress since then, because that taboo turned into something that could be leveraged to continually break down cultural and institutional barriers, and because it's held long enough for generations to pass as the memetic strength of pre-taboo institutions fade away.

But they're not gone.  It's not been long enough.  And all modern day white nationalists need to do is tap into those lingering cultural biases, marry them up with (amply availabe) contemporary social insecurities, and all that progress can easily be reversed.  There's an incredibly significant portion of people still today who will vehemently deny bigoted motives and never associate with groups like the KKK, but still engage in coded hate speech, spread suspicion about their target minority groups, and support anything that tangentially harms minorities.  You let those people know that all public space is now safe company and push the right verbal buttons, and that bigotry will not be so latent and passive anymore.

And all we have to do is ignore them.  Have faith that they'll be ridiculed out of the marketplace of ideas.  Surely that stuff is all in the past, and the people who will still buy into it are an old and dying breed.

Sorry, but I don't buy into it.  I see too much of it every day I leave my house, just waiting for its time to come again.  The only way I can see to stop it is the same way it got put away before.  Clear message of "We're not going to put up with that shit again.  Put it away, or it's going to get real."

And then we can continue the slower, more difficult task of kid-gloving the latent, passive stuff into irrelevancy.

What should be particularly worrisome about supposedly "anti-fascist" terrorists like this is that not only do they approve of "punching" (often actually assault with a deadly weapon) "Nazis," but their definition of "Nazi" is as fluid as a Usenet poster's.  It is essentially anyone who disagrees with them in any way.

This is a problem, though.  The above was written in a certain bravado style, but don't mistake that for over-eagerness or lack of responsibility.  Indiscriminate violence hurts everyone in every way.

[EnigmaticHat]

when people use the phrase "punching nazis" they generally refer to doing this. anyone who unironically talks about "punching nazis" instantly earns my ire, especially when you consider the huge amount of influence these groups have gained just by being punched.

What should be particularly worrisome about supposedly "anti-fascist" terrorists like this is that not only do they approve of "punching" (often actually assault with a deadly weapon) "Nazis," but their definition of "Nazi" is as fluid as a Usenet poster's.  It is essentially anyone who disagrees with them in any way.

I'm googling it and I literally cannot turn up a single person killed by Antifa?  Like typing things like "antifa killing" "killed by antifa" or "killed by anti-fascist" is literally just turning up antifascist people who were killed by neo-nazies... in other countries.  Hell, I looked up "list of antifa attacks" and I got... Berkley.  It wasn't even a list, it was just that.

Which is funny because I can find at least one person who was killed by a neonazi in America since 2017.

[muldrake]

This is a problem, though.  The above was written in a certain bravado style, but don't mistake that for over-eagerness or lack of responsibility.  Indiscriminate violence hurts everyone in every way.

Part of the importance of free speech even for terrible people with terrible ideas is that they can be challenged and eviscerated in public.  The problem with silencing even the worst people with violence is that nobody is exposed and immunized against terrible ideas like Nazism if they're forbidden.  They obtain a dark allure, such that those never exposed to these arguments or the arguments against them can be led astray, not in public, but in private.

It encourages groups with these opinions to become even more insular and cult-like, and when they successfully indoctrinate someone, they will also indoctrinate them with the practice of blocking out all criticism.  At that point, the person has been radicalized and convincing them otherwise is impossible, perhaps forever.

Additionally, the notion that every person who voted for Trump, even given an election with a catastrophically incompetent candidate like Hillary Clinton, is somehow a "Nazi" is ludicrous.

[alway]

This is a problem, though.  The above was written in a certain bravado style, but don't mistake that for over-eagerness or lack of responsibility.  Indiscriminate violence hurts everyone in every way.

Part of the importance of free speech even for terrible people with terrible ideas is that they can be challenged and eviscerated in public.  The problem with silencing even the worst people with violence is that nobody is exposed and immunized against terrible ideas like Nazism if they're forbidden.  They obtain a dark allure, such that those never exposed to these arguments or the arguments against them can be led astray, not in public, but in private.

It encourages groups with these opinions to become even more insular and cult-like, and when they successfully indoctrinate someone, they will also indoctrinate them with the practice of blocking out all criticism.  At that point, the person has been radicalized and convincing them otherwise is impossible, perhaps forever.

Again, same point brought up before by others, citation needed, as before. Thing is, Nazis didn't lose in the public spaces or 'the marketplace of ideas'. They lost after being bombed into the ground. And only after murdering millions. What do you think is different this time around? We know what they have to say: gas the jews, gas the gays, gas the liberals is not a novel idea that needs proponents. It's literally not an idea which, brought to fruition, can be tolerated or simply 'lived with' because it is explicitly violent and explicitly aiming to exterminate others, preventing them from merely living alongside it.

Additionally, the notion that every person who voted for Trump, even given an election with a catastrophically incompetent candidate like Hillary Clinton, is somehow a "Nazi" is ludicrous.

Cool strawman bro.

[SalmonGod]

This is a problem, though.  The above was written in a certain bravado style, but don't mistake that for over-eagerness or lack of responsibility.  Indiscriminate violence hurts everyone in every way.

Part of the importance of free speech even for terrible people with terrible ideas is that they can be challenged and eviscerated in public.  The problem with silencing even the worst people with violence is that nobody is exposed and immunized against terrible ideas like Nazism if they're forbidden.  They obtain a dark allure, such that those never exposed to these arguments or the arguments against them can be led astray, not in public, but in private.

It encourages groups with these opinions to become even more insular and cult-like, and when they successfully indoctrinate someone, they will also indoctrinate them with the practice of blocking out all criticism.  At that point, the person has been radicalized and convincing them otherwise is impossible, perhaps forever.

There will always be people who prescribe to any idea.  In this case, I would rather those people be relegated to insular, cult-like status.  I would rather they be radicals.  That means, by definition, that their ideas have no foothold in public space.

As for free speech itself... I'm a proponent of free speech in almost all cases.  But any noble ideal or rule of thumb can be extended to the point of dogmatic absurdity, and that's what I think this is.

Additionally, the notion that every person who voted for Trump, even given an election with a catastrophically incompetent candidate like Hillary Clinton, is somehow a "Nazi" is ludicrous.

This is ludicrous, I agree.

Edit:  Except for the catastrophically incompetent Hillary part.  I'm not a fan of hers, but that's not what I would call her.  And I don't know what that interjection has to do with any observation of the nature of Trump or his fan-base.  But yeah, I agree that the overly reactionary elements of the left that characterize anyone who voted for Trump as a Nazi are ridiculous.

[PTTG??]

This is a problem, though.  The above was written in a certain bravado style, but don't mistake that for over-eagerness or lack of responsibility.  Indiscriminate violence hurts everyone in every way.

Part of the importance of free speech even for terrible people with terrible ideas is that they can be challenged and eviscerated in public.  The problem with silencing even the worst people with violence is that nobody is exposed and immunized against terrible ideas like Nazism if they're forbidden.  They obtain a dark allure, such that those never exposed to these arguments or the arguments against them can be led astray, not in public, but in private.

It encourages groups with these opinions to become even more insular and cult-like, and when they successfully indoctrinate someone, they will also indoctrinate them with the practice of blocking out all criticism.  At that point, the person has been radicalized and convincing them otherwise is impossible, perhaps forever.

Additionally, the notion that every person who voted for Trump, even given an election with a catastrophically incompetent candidate like Hillary Clinton, is somehow a "Nazi" is ludicrous.

Is there any sign at all that Trump is better in his political career than Hillary was in hers?

[martinuzz]

The more interesting question rather than a 3 page godwin debate, is whether Trump is still alive, or murdered last night behind his computer.

COVFEFE

[scriver]

I don't see how this is even a debate. If a person said to me "I'm worried about Democrats literally talking about hiring antifa/Red Front for 'security' at their rallies" I would understand them. Antifa are not nice people, they're ironically eniugh fascist by the broad popular (and non-technical) use of the word. They do not exist for security but to create insecurity. How can you not see talking about hiring a right-wing militia, even if this is a complete hypothetical trend at this point, would be, is exactly the same kind of worrying to left-wingers? The creation of paramilitary units of political parties are not a worry-free thing.

[Virtz]

This is a problem, though.  The above was written in a certain bravado style, but don't mistake that for over-eagerness or lack of responsibility.  Indiscriminate violence hurts everyone in every way.

Part of the importance of free speech even for terrible people with terrible ideas is that they can be challenged and eviscerated in public.  The problem with silencing even the worst people with violence is that nobody is exposed and immunized against terrible ideas like Nazism if they're forbidden.  They obtain a dark allure, such that those never exposed to these arguments or the arguments against them can be led astray, not in public, but in private.

It encourages groups with these opinions to become even more insular and cult-like, and when they successfully indoctrinate someone, they will also indoctrinate them with the practice of blocking out all criticism.  At that point, the person has been radicalized and convincing them otherwise is impossible, perhaps forever.

Again, same point brought up before by others, citation needed, as before. Thing is, Nazis didn't lose in the public spaces or 'the marketplace of ideas'. They lost after being bombed into the ground. And only after murdering millions. What do you think is different this time around? We know what they have to say: gas the jews, gas the gays, gas the liberals is not a novel idea that needs proponents. It's literally not an idea which, brought to fruition, can be tolerated or simply 'lived with' because it is explicitly violent and explicitly aiming to exterminate others, preventing them from merely living alongside it.

Additionally, the notion that every person who voted for Trump, even given an election with a catastrophically incompetent candidate like Hillary Clinton, is somehow a "Nazi" is ludicrous.

Cool strawman bro.

So let me ask, where do you see these prominent "nazis" on the American political scene prescribing the ideas of genocide you've just described? Actual quotes if you may. Cause the term's been getting thrown around more and more lately, and any time I see anyone using the term, it's not directed towards someone actually suggesting "gassing the gays, jews and liberals" nor replacing democracy with a dictatorship. At best it's just directed towards someone who made a mildly racist, homophobic or nationalistic remark, because apparently you're not allowed to have typical irrational human tribalist biases (or even joke about having them) without being an evil nazi beyond all hope of redemption.

I'd also note that "nazi" stands for national socialist, and while your right wing is pretty nationalistic (as any is, really), it's about as anti-socialist as it gets, to the point where "socialist" is an insult on your political scene. A tendency I'm noticing in American politics is redefining words with negative connotations to mean people you disagree with and not yourself.

@SalmonGod: If that's your strategy, then how's that worked out for you last election? How effective has trying to shit talk the right into complacency actually been? The way I see it, all you're doing this way is pushing moderates away from the left and promoting escalation of extremist tendencies on both sides, all the while refusing to introspect in the slightest.

[Sheb]

Virtz: It's been pretty effective: look at the way the right manage to stain most of movements like BLM as terrorists so that anything to do with them is toxic.

Also, those nazis aren't prominent, no. And we'd like to keep it that way. Which is why some here expressed concerns with that bumfuck county guy.