Print

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

[Trekkin]

OK, cool, looking forward to specific examples of non-violent Antifa making changes and whatnot instead of repetitive statements. Also some ways that their violence does not empower the right.

Let's do it.

Given their informal nature, will you also accept examples of groups of people who have indicated allegiance to or endorsement of Antifa making non-violent changes?

I've got an interview to get to, so I'll be offline the next few days, but I did want to raise the possibility that Antifa helps primarily by getting people energized to fight fascism and putting them in touch with each other, and the non-violent benefits happen in contexts where wearing masks and announcing oneself as a member of a potentially violent anti-fascist group are not helpful. It may be that Antifa's reputation for violence is enhanced by identity in the group being a transient thing, proclaimed primarily in contexts in which violence is abnormally likely.

[Gentlefish]

Not when there is still potential for the government to be corrected through nonviolent means.  They have not started eliminating dissenters yet.

When they start jailing people for dissenting, and wholly own the press, all peaceful avenues have been lost, and it is time to punch nazis.

(When you go about punching nazis at THIS stage, it accelerates the failure mode, and promotes that stage.  We want to PREVENT that stage, not hasten its coming.)

So violence is acceptable when we reach mass killings and not a second sooner. Got it.

Report to the police? The ones in the KKK and other white nationalist groups? or the ones who abuse the system for their own sick sense of power? Maybe the ones twice as likely to abuse their partners?

My father was an officer before he retired. He did great things for the community. I cannot stress this enough. I love my father and the work he did. He was an outlier.

Whice supremacists have a name for undercover agents.

Maybe the feds? The FBI has a history of abusing their power. They wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr telling him to kill himself.  They drugged a man and then killed him in his sleep because he stood up for African-American rights.

The state is not your friend the minute you decide the status quo is not good enough. So people are, naturally, angry. And they're striking back. They're doing something because at least something is more than what the goddamn state is doing. In fact, the state is doing their damnedest to cover it up. Yes, it says republicans. But republicans control the state. And they want to actively minimize reporting of white nationalism. What's more, they're refusing to move on any action at all in response to these attacks. "Thoughts and prayers" is all we're getting, and so many people are done with that. They want to see something done, so they're doing it themselves. Because it's more than what the state is doing.

[wierd]

Not when there is still potential for the government to be corrected through nonviolent means.  They have not started eliminating dissenters yet.

When they start jailing people for dissenting, and wholly own the press, all peaceful avenues have been lost, and it is time to punch nazis.

(When you go about punching nazis at THIS stage, it accelerates the failure mode, and promotes that stage.  We want to PREVENT that stage, not hasten its coming.)

So violence is acceptable when we reach mass killings and not a second sooner. Got it.

Report to the police? The ones in the KKK and other white nationalist groups? or the ones who abuse the system for their own sick sense of power? Maybe the ones twice as likely to abuse their partners?

My father was an officer before he retired. He did great things for the community. I cannot stress this enough. I love my father and the work he did. He was an outlier.

Whice supremacists have a name for undercover agents.

Maybe the feds? The FBI has a history of abusing their power. They wrote a letter to Martin Luther King Jr telling him to kill himself.  They drugged a man and then killed him in his sleep because he stood up for African-American rights.

The state is not your friend the minute you decide the status quo is not good enough. So people are, naturally, angry. And they're striking back. They're doing something because at least something is more than what the goddamn state is doing. In fact, the state is doing their damnedest to cover it up. Yes, it says republicans. But republicans control the state. And they want to actively minimize reporting of white nationalism. What's more, they're refusing to move on any action at all in response to these attacks. "Thoughts and prayers" is all we're getting, and so many people are done with that. They want to see something done, so they're doing it themselves. Because it's more than what the state is doing.

You are looking for rationalization to engage in violence of your own.  that is not healthy.

You are likewise engaging in defacto character assassination, which is likewise not healthy.


Understanding that nazis and nazi sympathizers are, at their core, people who are terrified, and hide behind hate to shield themselves is essential to combating it, and the propaganda spread by it.  Fear that outsiders are eroding social norms. Fear that outsiders are stealing jobs and making natives destitute. Fear that speaking out about these perceived injustices results in censure, and possibly being jailed.

Again, these are emotionally based actions and decisions. They are not rational.  The only way to effectively combat them, is to alleviate those fears, and thus remove the perceived need to remove the "harmful others".

Engaging in similarly emotionally based actions and decisions, by punching these people in the face, only reinforces the worldviews that promote those dangerous outcomes.  Reiterating that you have emotion, and that something needs to be done (With strong implication that the "something" is punching those people in the face), is not rational discussion.

There are reasons why such actions should not be attempted at this juncture.  Sidelining those reasons because you have invective is not helpful.


Right now:

We need to concentrate of fixing the Executive branch.  The Executive branch oversees and gives marching orders (EG, policy) to various federal law enforcement agencies.  Those agencies are tasked with ensuring that state level agencies are in compliance, and are tasked with things like the much stated concentration camps, and illegal deportations of citizens.  Riling up the right-wing is not going to help with that at this time; It will add fuel to the fire, to help ensure the orange moron stays in office.  Unless that is one of your stated goals, you need to tone back on the violent rhetoric, and turn up the demand for proper legal process, and proper legal oversight.

To facilitate that goal, you need to be helpful and supportive to people who have fears (and thus are susceptible to the propaganda). You have to win their hearts and minds, so that they vote more responsibly this fall.  That means you have to avoid the urge to punch them.

[Gentlefish]

I am by no means engaging in rationalization to commit physical violence. I have not punched a single nazi. In fact, I rather hate the thought. I'm empathizing with the people targeted by those who want to do ill to them. They are the ones in danger, not straight white me.

I know where my line is.
We haven't reached that point. I hope we never will.

As for character assassination, every thing I quoted is backed up by historical evidence and statistics. Violence is violence, even state-sanctioned violence. I assume that is what you are talking about. When they start eliminating dissenters it will be too late for America to fix itself.
You do know we can be killed over a speeding ticket? If you think that's outrageous, understand there was a fairly publicized incident where a man was killed because he was caught selling loose cigarettes. This is the state of policing.

I am very careful to do my research. I want my arguments to be grounded in reason. That's why I include links to more readings. I'm not talking out my ass.

If not wanting to see people who actively want you dead, and taking actions to remove them from your community isn't rational, then I'm not sure what is, really. Especially when the system that, on paper, is supposed to help those people, is instead supporting those who wish to do harm.

These people still get out and vote. It hasn't helped. Elections have been tampered with and teased and pulled since at least Bush Jr. And it's only getting worse. Antifa exists because there is no trust the state will help them when they need it. And that distrust is not misplaced.

White Supremacists aren't terrified. They hate. They want to be on top, and will pursue any means necessary to get there. Yes, there's uneducated, scared people. That's why education is my most important political point. That will help with a lot of the problems. But not the leaders. They're greedy, vile people who want nothing else than to be able to exercise power over anyone they can.

[wierd]

White supremacists do in fact, fear first, hate second.

They are afraid of the following things:

1) Loss of hegemony. (EG, loss of being the default baseline group that dominates discourse, by being the dominant voice in political and social affairs.) The conception that their desires and wants will be suborned by another group's is terrifying to them.  As such, they feel the need to reinforce that hegemony. This takes the form of supremacist idealization.

That is the basis of this story, as is the basis for point 2 below:
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/06/748565568/mainstream-politics-long-has-traded-on-fear-of-a-non-white-america

2) Loss of cultural identity. (EG, dilution of ethnic purity/status, through intermixing with other demographics, to the point where they are no longer distinct. It is also the fear of loss of cultural norms, through the assimilation of cultural facets from other cultural groups.)  This ties in with the loss of hegemony fear. It is why they target interracial couples with such intensity, and also why they target outside ideologies with the same intensity.

3) Loss of health or life/vitality. (EG, they fear that there is a conspiracy out to remove the above two things from them [which will result in a stark reduction in their quality of living], that is controlled and orchestrated by the "others", and the only means at their disposal (since open discourse results in censure), is to remove the harmful others, before they can complete such nefarious plans.) This includes such things as affirmative action, which they view as specifically targeting the removal of white people from candidacy for positions they would otherwise be perfectly suited for, in favor of others, who may be less suited-- amongst other such concerns. (Such as the mainstream enabling of illegal immigrant labor, et al.)

At all stages, the hate is fueled by, and supported by, fear.

Specifically, irrational fear.

Former supremacists understand this intimately.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/456339-former-white-supremacist-calls-on-trump-administration-to-stop-using-fear-to

[SalmonGod]

You're not wrong.  But on the other hand, you're not making a very convincing argument that we should focus on alleviating the fears that motivate fascists, when you just described them as a fear of having to actually respect and tolerate other people while not living in a luxury bubble at the center of the universe.  That's not something I really care to validate in any fashion whatsoever.

You also rightly point out that demagogues know how to tap into irrational fears, but I don't think you give this the weight that it deserves.  Not all of them are fear-motivated.  Some are true believers, opportunists, or simply love stirring up the conflict.  There are very few antifa-sympathetic people out there who don't believe that it's really important to make this distinction.  There's more than just fear to the likes of Richard Spencer, and the vast majority of physical conflict antifa has been involved in to my knowledge have either been direct self-defense, intervention on behalf of someone else who's in danger, or targeting Richard Spencer-like high profile figures in attempts to drive them specifically out of the spotlight.  And in Richard Spencer's case, it worked, by his own admission... "just not fun anymore."

I do believe that outreach to people who are more innocently misled by swallowing propaganda or by toxic upbringing is really important.  And I have sometimes been the guy at other times to remind people that we need to be mindful that anger is a response to feelings of powerlessness, and we need to be mindful of that.  These points just aren't all-encompassing answers to the problem.

Anyway, yeah, I haven't got around to gathering up any stuff tonight.  Been kinda not very motivated to do so, though, after sluissa and nenjin basically said that it wouldn't matter to them anyway.  Because any group is exclusively defined by the worst thing any one of them does.

[wierd]

"Complacent wealth bubble" describes pretty much *ALL* of the United States, vis-a-vis our foreign policy.


But you also mis-identify my rationale here.  The idea is not to go "oh you poor million dollar babies-- It'll be OK, we'll always give you special attention!"

The idea is to help them move on from that, and into the more adult realization that not being the only voice is not a bad thing, and that the loss of the hegemony position is not a downward pull, but a great weight removed.  (When you are the hegemon, you are blamed for everything by everyone, all the time.  See also "Whitey on the moon", or rather, its converse association:  People of color suffer, but whitey on the moon; White people are to blame (for inaction) for the lack of quality housing, through neglect of others.  If whitey were not a hegemon, how would that have been whitey's fault?)

[McTraveller]

My biggest sadness with this whole discussion is that it highlights the prevailing sentiments of opposition and being against things, rather than being for things.

Instead of a society full of hope and possibilities, we're in an environment full of fear and "what can we do to stop X!?"  That applies across the entire political spectrum as I see it.

It's the not-so-subtle difference in worldview between "let's improve X" and "let's stop (the converse of) X".  I understand there is a place for both views, but they need to be in balance.  Right now I see very little balance, and that makes me tired.

EDIT: An example here is from the above discussion talking about the fears that drive far- and alt-right behaviors: if we focus on addressing the fears the resulting behavior is likely to vanish, but if we focus on trying to stop the behaviors it's going to be a drawn-out battle.  I would prefer most of the effort going to relieving fears, rather than most of the effort focusing on the bellicose.  Put another way - if you could make people comfortable, they are probably not going to behave aggressively unless they are just the type of people who like aggression.

Societies tend to get overly aggressive only when a large enough population feels like they are no worse off for being aggressive than they are for being passive; that is, people do enjoy aggression so to help avoid it you have to make it not worth the risk.  Right now we have a situation where the risks aren't enough to avoid the aggression: people feel they have nothing to lose, so aggression makes sense.

[Frumple]

You... can't alleviate many/most of their fears, though. Not without brutally fucking over lots of other people. What part isn't outright irrational is rooted largely in the thought of no longer being the group that gets to shit on people. The only way to alleviate that fear is to leave someone for them to shit on. Their discomfort comes from the existence of other people and said other people's lives becoming less of a heap of shit to live through. You can't fucking mitigate that without throwing someone under a bus.

[wierd]

this is an errant view:  The goal is not placation, but instead helping them move into a more mature mindset, which naturally mitigates the causes of those fears.

What you are discussing above is placation. I am not down with placation.


Mitigation is not placation.  Example:

A person has an irrational fear of frogs.
Placation: Ensure the person never encounters frogs.
Mitigation: Assist the person to overcome their fear of frogs.

The two are not the same thing. Please do not conflate them. Please do not assert improper equation.

[smjjames]

The problem is that addressing some of those fears involves doing things that other populations find horrendous or just aren't possible to solve or you'd have to solve in ways that are completely unreasonable like shutting down immigration entirely for them to feel better.

TBH, I'm not sure what their main fear is aside from the whole demographic transition, if theres any other fears that the far right and alt-right speak of, I haven't heard about them.

I suppose one could pay attention to rural plight and try to alleviate poor white rural people (not at the expense of others, obviously), but the golden age of manufacturing jobs in the 50's and 60's isn't coming back no matter how hard one tries, so, people have to figure out new ways to help that area.

edit: Frumple mostly ninja'd me, but yeah, the point is that you can't solve those kinds of fears without going full nazi.

Maybe we can create machines for them to shit on?

[smjjames]

this is an errant view:  The goal is not placation, but instead helping them move into a more mature mindset, which naturally mitigates the causes of those fears.

What you are discussing above is placation. I am not down with placation.


Mitigation is not placation.  Example:

A person has an irrational fear of frogs.
Placation: Ensure the person never encounters frogs.
Mitigation: Assist the person to overcome their fear of frogs.

The two are not the same thing. Please do not conflate them. Please do not assert improper equation.

Okay, you have a point, but how do we assist them to overcome their fear via policy? Trump's crackdown on immigration doesn't seem to be helping, only emboldening them, though obviously his rhetoric isn't helping either.

If their fear is immigration, I don't see a way of solving it via policy without straight up blocking all immigration or something or doing absurd things like only allowing immigration from europe or something.

As frumple said, alleviating their fears involves throwing someone under the bus, so, how do you alleviate their fears without doing that?

fakeedit: Actually, one obvious way is for the leadership at the top and prominent voices (Fox News, I'm looking at you) to not stoke the fear in the first place, but good luck getting that to happen.

[wierd]

Agreed, the use of fearmongering as a tactic is the exact opposite of helping.


Again, my preference for a course of action is this:

1) We must stop the harm. Allowing the demonstrations, and toxic dialogues on social media to continue enables harm to continue. These things must be stopped.
  1a) We must do this while ensuring that the message carried with that action, is one that emphatically states that it is OK to be afraid of other people, or things you do not have experience or familiarity with. because that is a natural reaction (The fear is not something to be exhaulted-- It is something to be overcome, not capitulated to. The fear is natural, but irrational. It is not wrong to feel the fear-- It is wrong to act on the fear.); The prohibition against hate speech is not against the people making it, but against the speech itself, because it foments violence. The goal is to prevent the violence, not to "shut people up."  This must be made tremendously clear. (One of the fears is the fear of censure. This fear must not be fed, but the activity must be stopped. This is the best compromise I can offer.)
  1b) We must be sure that this happens without invective being hurled around like fecal matter. Again, understanding of the causes of the fear, not condemnation of people for having it, and seeking to be free of it. (The desire to remove the "others" is a person seeking to be free of the fear, but in an ultimately futile fashion; There is no end to "difference"-- the post just gets moved closer and closer inward, until the person has murdered everyone else in paranoid delusional mass murder.) We offer them BETTER ways to become free of that fear. Ones that actually work, and dont involve killing people.

2) We must not fall victim to the same kinds of emotion-based action that causes the problem we seek to address. That is self-defeating at best, and wantonly destructive at worst. If we do get to the point where we must punch people, we will punch people because we have rationally chosen to do so, because all other means have been exhausted. Not because it makes us feel better.
  2a) Because of this, our actions need to be as dispassionate as possible, and focus on the active prevention of harm, not the willful causing of it.

3) People feel fear, primarily out of a lack of understanding, knowledge, or familiarity with a topic or subject.  Sometimes simple words are not sufficient to foster such understanding. Outreach programs tailored for this purpose have been shown to be effective. Such measures should be encouraged, in a genuinely helpful and welcoming fashion. Application of invective and being verbally abuse is counterproductive.

4) We need to get the Executive back under control.  It is under the direction of a leader that has adopted many of the pillars of white nationalism; 'Make America Great Again' calls these kinds of fears, and implicit 'solutions' immediately to mind. It is a harmful message, and needs to stop being proffered. We need to stop trying to deport american citizens, we need to stop trying to concentrate people of different skin colors out of irrational concerns that they are here illegally, or here to cause problems for other citizens.  The best way to do that is to remove the current leader; It is easier to remove him, and then correct the system internally, than it is to correct Trump's behavior, and get him to see the light.  (He should still be helped to see the light though, just not as president.)


Remember, Alleviate means to "reduce suffering".  Placation does not reduce suffering. The people with irrational fears continue to have those fears, and continue to suffer from them.  The only real way to alleviate that suffering is to mitigate the causes of their fears.

[smjjames]

Eh, Trump is probably too far gone and too stuck in his ways to see the light, whether as President or not as President.

Others like Sean Hannity and the other guy (forget his name offhand, blar) and other Fox News personalities you can't get rid of as easily as you could Trump, not without forcing Fox News to remove them and fear sells ratings too well apparently. Though changing the rhetoric at the very top would help though since Fox news is mostly echoing Trump (while Trump echoes them back in a strange feedback loop).

Seems like #4 is the best and most immediately effective way of calming things down because the leadership at the very top is so important. Of course, it would also help if the Republicans stopped being absolutely spineless.

[wierd]

Check the prior page.  You will find that I agree.

(Apparently the hyperlinks for messages are still borked up. I will quotey quote instead.

Right now:

We need to concentrate of fixing the Executive branch.  The Executive branch oversees and gives marching orders (EG, policy) to various federal law enforcement agencies.  Those agencies are tasked with ensuring that state level agencies are in compliance, and are tasked with things like the much stated concentration camps, and illegal deportations of citizens.  Riling up the right-wing is not going to help with that at this time; It will add fuel to the fire, to help ensure the orange moron stays in office.  Unless that is one of your stated goals, you need to tone back on the violent rhetoric, and turn up the demand for proper legal process, and proper legal oversight.

To facilitate that goal, you need to be helpful and supportive to people who have fears (and thus are susceptible to the propaganda). You have to win their hearts and minds, so that they vote more responsibly this fall.  That means you have to avoid the urge to punch them.