Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5653
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:13 pm UTC

"Being a {fill-in} is, in itself, a reprehensible action" is a dangerous precedent. No, I won't agree to that wholesale. I will agree that not calling somebody out on reprehensible actions when you are in a position to do so does endorse those actions. Endorsing those actions is an action in itself, but is not the original reprehensible thing.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7313
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:16 pm UTC

Again, it's the actual actions that warrant being punched in the nose, not the actions associated with the group that one belongs to. If these blacks riot, it's still wrong to punch those other blacks in the nose.

You're smart enough to see the difference between ' being black' and 'calling for genocide' .

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8887
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:23 pm UTC

What is the long term goal of the alt-right, neo Nazis and the like? Legitimacy. They know damn well that if the race war happened tomorrow theyd be outnumbered by everyone. So they want to break into the mainstream as an "acceptable" group and grow until the point where either violence would work or they are so powerful violence isn't even necessary. They will avoid actual violence, restricting theiur actions to discrediting the media and the government in order to supplant them as the legitimate source of information. This will be done through advancing conspiracy theories that discredit the government and "MSM" such as 9/11 truthers or especially holocaust "fact finding" or the like. They may ally with other groups that are theoretically incompatible if it means advancing this goal, whether it's antivaxxers and other alt medicines or even minority segregationists such as nation of Islam or possibly Hizb ut-Tahrir if it means delegitimizing government and media.

And as long as they don't advocate violence right now, it's legal. So then, how do you stop it?
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:24 pm UTC

ucim wrote:"Being a {fill-in} is, in itself, a reprehensible action" is a dangerous precedent. No, I won't agree to that wholesale. I will agree that not calling somebody out on reprehensible actions when you are in a position to do so does endorse those actions. Endorsing those actions is an action in itself, but is not the original reprehensible thing.

Jose
this is fucking absurd.

How far up the devils intestine do you need to be, Jose? Its not {fill-in}, my dude. Its a group of genocidal racists. As in if you want to be a Nazi, you must be a genocidal racist. Why...is that...so hard...to agree with.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8887
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:26 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
ucim wrote:"Being a {fill-in} is, in itself, a reprehensible action" is a dangerous precedent. No, I won't agree to that wholesale. I will agree that not calling somebody out on reprehensible actions when you are in a position to do so does endorse those actions. Endorsing those actions is an action in itself, but is not the original reprehensible thing.

Jose
this is fucking absurd.

How far up the devils intestine do you need to be, Jose? Its not {fill-in}, my dude. Its a group of genocidal racists. As in if you want to be a Nazi, you must be a genocidal racist. Why...is that...so hard...to agree with.


It's a reprehensible action, you know it and I know it, but how does the law decide which group is reprehensible?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:27 pm UTC

ucim wrote:"Being a {fill-in} is, in itself, a reprehensible action" is a dangerous precedent. No, I won't agree to that wholesale.

Nobody has asked you to agree to that wholesal, so what the fuck is your point?

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The police in Charlottesville didn't arrest them when they broke the law.


Then the police there have fucked up bigtime and the mayor should lose his job over this.
Great, and in the meantime we should just let them get away with terrorism?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And as long as they don't advocate violence right now, it's legal. So then, how do you stop it?

From an external perspective you lose the USA's fucking first amendment fetishism and make hate speech a crime. Given that that's not likely to happen, fucked if I know.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1641
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:28 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What is the long term goal of the alt-right, neo Nazis and the like? Legitimacy.


wrong legitimacy is one of several tactics, their long term goal is ethnic cleansing they're very explicit about this nice try though.

also they're already advocating (and perpetrating!) violence so you're really batting zero here.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8887
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Great, and in the meantime we should just let them get away with terrorism?


No? Who is getting away with terrorism; has the car driver not been charged with murder? Are we even having the same conversation here?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:44 pm UTC

A police officer is being investigated after posting a Facebook comment appearing to celebrate people being killed and injured during violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Conrad Lariviere, who works in Massachusetts' Springfield Police Department, commented saying “love this” on a story about a 32-year-old woman being killed and 19 others injured when a car ploughed into crowds during clashes between white supremacist groups and anti-racism campaigners.

“Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn’t block road ways,” he wrote below an article about those injured in the incident.


Referring to the driver of the vehicle, he wrote: “How do you know he was a Nazi scumbag? Stop being part of the problem.”


So, stick to legal channels and trust the police to do their job, eh?

Netreker0 wrote:
And nobody is worse than a Nazi, it's impossible.
Child rapists?
Hey, why be just one kind of monster?
Spoiler:
Hartmut Hopp, a one-time aide to Paul Schaefer, leader of a Nazi child sex ring that operated out of Chile for over three decades, has been jailed in Germany.

Previously convicted of crimes that included sexual abuse of 16 minors by a Chilean court in 2011, Hopp fled the Latin American country before the final ruling.

Hopp was the right-hand man of Schaefer, another convicted pedophile who, at a young age, joined the ranks of the Hitler Youth.

In 1961, Schaefer, having relocated to Chile, established a settlement called Dignity Colony. Hopp was considered to be the second in command of the settlement.

Located roughly 215 miles outside the capital of Santiago, Dignity Colony was a commune where residents were subjected to indoctrination, torture, rape and kept as child sex slaves for more than 30 years.

After the military coup against Salvador Allende — the first democratically-elected socialist president in Chile's history — Schaefer collaborated with dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Soon after, Dignity Colony was the scene of torture and disappearances of those who resisted the military dictatorship.


So ... hypothetical situation. Bunch of men with "death to jews" tattoos and "kill all n*****s" t-shirts show up near a centre for refugee women and children, hold up Nazi banners, march to the hostel-thingy, prepare precisely one Molotov cocktail each, throw one rock each to break the windows and then start throwing their firebombs in through the broken windows. As throwing a rock through a window that doesn't have anyone immediately behind it isn't a direct threat to life, you can't shoot them for that. As just *having* a Molotov cocktail isn't a crime, you can't shoot them for that. Any of them that's already thrown his bomb is not longer a threat to life (unless he's going to start hacking at fleeing residents with a machete or something) so you can't shoot him then either. Do you have to try really, really hard to hit someone who's *in the act of throwing* a firebomb *without* hitting any other member of the crowd, or wait until it's all over and then hope they all get arrested, or would it be okay to drive a cement mixer truck, snowplough, 40-tonne freezer truck or hail of bullets from an M60 through the lot of them? If you do wait and hope they all get locked away for a very long time and what happens is that about a quarter of them get locked up for a few days, is it okay to start shooting as soon as they light the first fuse at their next target, or do we have to sit and watch them burn down the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church as well and just hope they get arrested and locked away for a very long time for that?
If someone idolises a gang who kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered a lot of young women over a 10-year period, collects posters and memorabilia, wears their colours and owns the exact same types of weapon as they used and he's taking photographs of your sister in the streets and making notes on her movements and other habits and she happens to look a lot like most of the gang's victims, do you have to wait until her body's found, or is it okay to drown him now? I'm not aware of any such individual stalking my sister at the moment. I'm just asking, hypothetically.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:48 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
A police officer is being investigated after posting a Facebook comment appearing to celebrate people being killed and injured during violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Conrad Lariviere, who works in Massachusetts' Springfield Police Department, commented saying “love this” on a story about a 32-year-old woman being killed and 19 others injured when a car ploughed into crowds during clashes between white supremacist groups and anti-racism campaigners.

“Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn’t block road ways,” he wrote below an article about those injured in the incident.


Referring to the driver of the vehicle, he wrote: “How do you know he was a Nazi scumbag? Stop being part of the problem.”


So, stick to legal channels and trust the police to do their job, eh?

Netreker0 wrote:
And nobody is worse than a Nazi, it's impossible.
Child rapists?
Hey, why be just one kind of monster?
Spoiler:
Hartmut Hopp, a one-time aide to Paul Schaefer, leader of a Nazi child sex ring that operated out of Chile for over three decades, has been jailed in Germany.

Previously convicted of crimes that included sexual abuse of 16 minors by a Chilean court in 2011, Hopp fled the Latin American country before the final ruling.

Hopp was the right-hand man of Schaefer, another convicted pedophile who, at a young age, joined the ranks of the Hitler Youth.

In 1961, Schaefer, having relocated to Chile, established a settlement called Dignity Colony. Hopp was considered to be the second in command of the settlement.

Located roughly 215 miles outside the capital of Santiago, Dignity Colony was a commune where residents were subjected to indoctrination, torture, rape and kept as child sex slaves for more than 30 years.

After the military coup against Salvador Allende — the first democratically-elected socialist president in Chile's history — Schaefer collaborated with dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Soon after, Dignity Colony was the scene of torture and disappearances of those who resisted the military dictatorship.


So ... hypothetical situation. Bunch of men with "death to jews" tattoos and "kill all n*****s" t-shirts show up near a centre for refugee women and children, hold up Nazi banners, march to the hostel-thingy, prepare precisely one Molotov cocktail each, throw one rock each to break the windows and then start throwing their firebombs in through the broken windows. As throwing a rock through a window that doesn't have anyone immediately behind it isn't a direct threat to life, you can't shoot them for that. As just *having* a Molotov cocktail isn't a crime, you can't shoot them for that. Any of them that's already thrown his bomb is not longer a threat to life (unless he's going to start hacking at fleeing residents with a machete or something) so you can't shoot him then either. Do you have to try really, really hard to hit someone who's *in the act of throwing* a firebomb *without* hitting any other member of the crowd, or wait until it's all over and then hope they all get arrested, or would it be okay to drive a cement mixer truck, snowplough, 40-tonne freezer truck or hail of bullets from an M60 through the lot of them? If you do wait and hope they all get locked away for a very long time and what happens is that about a quarter of them get locked up for a few days, is it okay to start shooting as soon as they light the first fuse at their next target, or do we have to sit and watch them burn down the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church as well and just hope they get arrested and locked away for a very long time for that?
If someone idolises a gang who kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered a lot of young women over a 10-year period, collects posters and memorabilia, wears their colours and owns the exact same types of weapon as they used and he's taking photographs of your sister in the streets and making notes on her movements and other habits and she happens to look a lot like most of the gang's victims, do you have to wait until her body's found, or is it okay to drown him now? I'm not aware of any such individual stalking my sister at the moment. I'm just asking, hypothetically.
Consider, for a moment, free speech. QED.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5653
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Nobody has asked you to agree to that wholesal, so what the fuck is your point?
The very previous post asked me to agree with that wholesale.

My point is that, especially with groups you find reprehensible, you need to oppose them for the right reasons, lest you become just another violent populist shouting "I'm right and you're wrong!"

To oppose them, we must marginalize them. Take away their ammunition. Punching them in the nose for who they are gives them ammunition. If you are to punch them in the nose, it must be for what they do, and that reasoning must be clear to the world, so that you can get the support of the rest of the world.

I suppose another way of putting it is that you need to decide whether it's better for you to win, or for your principles to win, because if you win and surrender your principles doing it, you might as well have just joined them from the start, because you'll be in the same place.

And Sableagle - there is so much wrong with the reasoning in your scenario it's hard to start. Things are not considered in isolation.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:02 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:That isn't what the ad hominem fallacy is and I didn't accuse you of being that guy.

Well, considering that I never accused you of the ad hominem fallacy, as YOU were the one who asserted, I didn't have the strict definition on hand and was trying to articulate it from memory. However, since you find it so important to clarify, why don't you state the articulation of the statement that you find more accurate for everyone's edification?

And even if you were that guy, I don't think that would make you terrible; I just think it's an absurdly unworkable moral system.

Fair enough.

After reading through your previous post more closely, it's pretty clear to me that you're not putting any significant effort into understanding what I'm saying.


I think I understand pretty much everything you're saying. You think principles should be flexible. I disagreed. You think that you can have censorship built into a country and still have a country that is pluralistic and free (as you said, you can have some restrictions on freedom and not lose all freedom.) I disagreed, and in response cited the country you were thinking about, Germany, as a country that I find insufficiently free, and stated why, because I knew that you probably did not agree with me that Germany was insufficiently free. I also cited some countries that you (hopefully) would agree were insufficiently free, in order to make a pedantic point about what a huge range "not losing all freedoms" was, but I realize now that this was unproductive on my part.

You grossly misrepresent me in nearly every response.


Quote a response. Articulate how you felt I deliberately and grossly misrepresented you in that response. You don't even have to do that enough to prove the "nearly every" part of your assertion. Just give me three or more.

You just made a bunch of random assumptions about my unstated positions and ran with it.


If you feel that I did that, then please, articulate some of those random assumptions. I'll be honest, your responses kept me up a bit later than I expected and by the time of my last (large) response to you I was both tired and simultaneously processing some results that had finished an hour earlier, so if my response wasn't as careful as previous ones, I apologize for that. That being said, if you're going to make accusations like that, please make them with particularity, so that I can actually figure out what it is you believe I did wrong and clarify it--otherwise, it stops being a productive exercise and becomes more about you scoring some sort of point or venting. Which, I will acknowledge might possibly your main motive, but I will not make any assumptions either way.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:07 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:Consider, for a moment, free speech. QED.
The right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? The right to chant "No means yes!" on campus? The right to shout "Attack em! Flip that car! FLIP THAT CAR!" at a crowd of over 100 people blocking a road that was closed for an event but has since been re-opened? Oh, yeah, someone shouted that. Turns out not to have been much of a defence because the driver was deaf, but yes, someone not in the car's path did shout that.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:10 pm UTC

Being a nazi isn't something a person is, it's something a person does. Specifically, it is the action of advocating for genocide based on what a person is (there are other bits but they are less important).

I don't really care if someone else's moral code says sex is worse than murder. That person has a ridiculous moral code. I don't care if you think polyamory will be the downfall of civilization; scientific evidence does not suggest this so your opinion is moot and even if the scientific evidence weren't out there it's a silly thing to believe. I do believe people who advocate for genocide will be the downfall of civilization because that is their stated goal and what they did when they got the chance. There is a clear moral/ethical line in the sand. It doesn't matter what right wing Americans say about Muslims because we know for a fact they're full of shit on this topic.

All this "but what about people who disagree with you about whether genocide is the ultimate evil" handwringing distracts from living in a reality-based world. Like "what if they're wrong and you're right about Muslims," except, any informed person knows I am right so there's not anything to consider. At some point we must be able to know facts. We know nazis advocate genocide, because that is what they say. This is not really comparable to these ridiculous comparisons y'all keep bringing up; they would only be comparable if being gay meant "I intend to murder people who are not like me," but since that's not what the core definition of what being gay is we can dismiss your nonsense out of hand.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:10 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Nobody has asked you to agree to that wholesal, so what the fuck is your point?
The very previous post asked me to agree with that wholesale.

No, it didn't.

Agreeing to "being a Nazi is a reprehensible action" is not agreeing wholesale to "being a {fill-in} is a reprehensible action".

You're pulling the usual false-equivalence bullshit where you act like the specifics of the group being discussed and then make a statement that is applicable to some details as though it's therefore applicable to all of them.

"Being a gay person is a reprehensible action" is not remotely the same kind of statement as "being a serial killer is a reprehensible action", even if they both fit the same grammatical framework.

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Great, and in the meantime we should just let them get away with terrorism?
No? Who is getting away with terrorism; has the car driver not been charged with murder? Are we even having the same conversation here?
That was not the only act last weekend intended to intimidate or terrify a population of people. And if someone could have used violence to prevent the driver from murdering one person and severely injuring multiple others, would that not have been justified?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:20 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
ucim wrote:...but we're talking about hunting down {fill-in} because they are a {fill-in}, not because they did {bad thing}. As to the non-equivalence of being born gay (or black) vs adopting an ideology, ok, fair enough. Change "gay" in my example to "Christian" or "Muslim"; both of those are choices.

Shall we punch people in the face because they have chosen to be Christian? ...have chosen to spread their {insert opinion} agenda?

It's gotta be based on their actions, not who or what they are. Or am I still missing something?

Jose

The Nazis just committed domestic terrorism, and killed a woman. Go punch them in the face?


I do believe a Muslim entered a Gay nightclub with assault weapons and shot 100ish people in recent history. We should not be punching random Muslims in the face.

That doesn't mean "The Muslims committed domestic terrorism". It means a very deeply troubled Muslim bowed to the face of extremism and decided to take matters into his own hands.

Neo-nazis, white supremacists and so forth have existed for decades in the USA. Some of them, like the car driver last Saturday, or the Dylann Roof (Charleston Church) are deeply troubled individuals. But the actions of a few troubled people do NOT and never will define the whole group. Lest we fall into the same fucking fallacy that is endangering many minority groups in this country.

Extremist Neonazis are a problem. But the main problem is the "Extremist" part. Just as an Extremist Muslim is a problem (not because of the "Muslim" part of the description, but because of the "Extremist" part)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:21 pm UTC

ucim wrote:To oppose them, we must marginalize them. Take away their ammunition. Punching them in the nose for who they are gives them ammunition.
No...no it does not. They are Nazis. They literally want to kill millions of people. That is not a "defensible position" that would need "ammunition".

Stop ignoring my replies. I'm speaking to you directly. You are mischaracterizing what it means to be a Nazi and you seem to be pretending to not be aware of that just to make a point about how great your moral position is.

Puppyclaws wrote:Being a nazi isn't something a person is, it's something a person does. Specifically, it is the action of advocating for genocide based on what a person is (there are other bits but they are less important).

I don't really care if someone else's moral code says sex is worse than murder. That person has a ridiculous moral code. I don't care if you think polyamory will be the downfall of civilization; scientific evidence does not suggest this so your opinion is moot and even if the scientific evidence weren't out there it's a silly thing to believe. I do believe people who advocate for genocide will be the downfall of civilization because that is their stated goal and what they did when they got the chance. There is a clear moral/ethical line in the sand. It doesn't matter what right wing Americans say about Muslims because we know for a fact they're full of shit on this topic.

All this "but what about people who disagree with you about whether genocide is the ultimate evil" handwringing distracts from living in a reality-based world. Like "what if they're wrong and you're right about Muslims," except, any informed person knows I am right so there's not anything to consider. At some point we must be able to know facts. We know nazis advocate genocide, because that is what they say. This is not really comparable to these ridiculous comparisons y'all keep bringing up; they would only be comparable if being gay meant "I intend to murder people who are not like me," but since that's not what the core definition of what being gay is we can dismiss your nonsense out of hand.
this is precisely what I mean but apparently it needs to be spelled out.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Extremist Neonazis are a problem. But the main problem is the "Extremist" part. Just as an Extremist Muslim is a problem (not because of the "Muslim" part of the description, but because of the "Extremist" part)
jesus christ.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:23 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
ucim wrote:To oppose them, we must marginalize them. Take away their ammunition. Punching them in the nose for who they are gives them ammunition.
No...no it does not. They are Nazis. They literally want to kill millions of people.


Based on my experiences talking to them... not really.

For the most part, they want to revise history and make people believe that they didn't kill a bunch of people. Their primary talking points is denying the Holocaust... blaming Jews / Muslims / non-whites... that sorta thing. Kinda deplorable, but Neo-nazis (as a whole) haven't really been killing people in the past few decades. No more than say, domestic Muslim Terrorists for example.

I mean, Neo-nazis are racist fucktards who I hope remain a fringe element of the USA. But as a whole they aren't murderers. And honestly, the crazy part of America is that we let people believe what they want, assemble as they want. That's the entire point of the 1st Amendment.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:33 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote: If you can't make your point without resorting to blatant lies about the position you're arguing against, then maybe it was a shit point to begin with and you should stop trying to argue it.


You should consider your own principles and ask yourself how well you've lived up to them.

gmalivuk wrote:Making excuses for Nazis and spending most of your effort railing against the people who refuse to tolerate them might make you almost as bad, though.


gmalivuk wrote:Punching? I mean, if you ignore the sympathizer's car bomb and bullet to the head exaggerations, punching is pretty transparently what everyone else has been talking about this whole time.


I never made excuses for Nazis--either the ones who actually committed crimes against humanity, or the ones who claim to be their successors. I believe that we shouldn't abandon our principles the moment they become inconvenient. If we truly believe in free speech, then we have to defend it, even if it's hard, especially if it's hard. I understand why most people won't agree with me on this--it's incredibly hard to stomach the idea that the Constitution must guarantee the rights of people who would use those rights to agitate to take rights away from others.

I am not a Nazi sympathizer. To say so is a blatant lie. The fact that you say so and then lecture me about "blatant lies" makes you a blatant hypocrite. Bullets and bombs are not the same as punching, but they are difference of degree, not type. I understand that not everyone sees this the same way as I do. I can absolutely understand the argument that speech doesn't generally justify violence, but if the speech is really really bad, and the violence is very, very minor, then maybe we should be okay with it. It's a natural reaction. You're a lying coward who called me a godamn Nazi sympathizer. Don't you think I want to track you down, buy a glove, slap you with that glove shouting, "You have insulted my honor, and I demand satisfaction!" before punching you, repeatedly, in the face? On a gut level, I absolutely feel that this would be a far more just response to willful and intentional defamation than a one dollar judgment.

And that is precisely why we can't compromise on our laws. They are there to protect from those for whom violence is a way of life, but they're also there to protect us from ourselves in those moments when we're angry or hurt enough that abstract concepts like law and rights seem like such small things compared to lashing out at the person who wronged us.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:33 pm UTC

So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?

I mean, sure, it would feel good. I know I'd really enjoy punching a Nazi. But does it do anything else good? Because I can see a lot of bad things it does (legitimize "both sides are violent" claims, further polarize the nation, yield a bit of the moral high ground, not to mention opening yourself up to legal reprecussions).

Do you think punching Nazis hurts their movement? Like we can intimidate them into dropping their movement by being violent to them? That's basically the definition of terrorism, which is not only morally reprehensible, but also doesn't generally work except to escalate conflicts and raise awareness of your cause (and awareness of the anti-Nazi cause is not really an issue as far as I'm aware).

Is there some other reason to punch Nazis that I'm missing?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1178
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:35 pm UTC

Whilst your symantic argument is fascinating I think you are missing the point that, for those of you who are US citizens, your president has just declared that there is a moral equivalence between advocating and opposing fascism.

Although a scientist, not a historian, I understood that in 1941 the United States deployed an armed force that ''went charging at' the alt-right who controlled Germany at the time. As a result 407,000 of your citizens died defeating fascism. Nearly 400,000 of mine fell in the same battle.

Now. Your president thinks there is moral equivalence between fascism and those who would oppose it. A more interesting topic of debate would be, what can be done about this?
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:37 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Based on my experiences talking to them... not really.
natraj wrote:The people out on Saturday were actively calling for genocide, by the way. At repeated points throughout the day while I was caring for patients I was also treated to lots of talk about how my people should be killed en masse and how they were in fact going to kill us & wipe us all from the country. And then, by the end of the day, GUESS WHAT they murdered folks.
But maybe these are those """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""extreme nazis"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" and not those nice peaceful nazis you speak with.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8887
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:42 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

Not as effective as convincing everyone to laugh at them. That's sort of how we got rid of the KKK in the 50's; superman radio show made them the butt of all the jokes and no one wants to join something to be made fun of.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Draconaes
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Draconaes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:42 pm UTC

I'm a bit curious... what counts as a non-extremist nazi?

Are there groups of nazis out there condemning the violent nazis? Calling for peace and understanding (and not in a "Don't say nazis are bad, you are being intolerant of our intolerance!" kind of way)? Mourning the victims and decrying the statements made by "extremist" nazis?

What does a non-extremist nazi believe in? Why do they associate with other nazis? If it's just superiority of the white race, that doesn't really seem "non-extremist" to me, even on its own.

The comparison to Muslims/Christians/Etc. feels kinda weak.
Last edited by Draconaes on Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:44 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:feels kinda week.
hey now.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I can solve nothing but I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:45 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

I guess I'll just repeat myself since I addressed this point in my post:

MartianInvader wrote:That's basically the definition of terrorism, which is not only morally reprehensible, but also doesn't generally work except to escalate conflicts and raise awareness of your cause (and awareness of the anti-Nazi cause is not really an issue).


I mean, if a couple of Nazis punch a couple of BLM protesters, do you think that will ultimately scare the left or galvanize them to further action? Evidence so far certainly points towards the latter.

Do you disagree with me about this reason or is there another reason to punch Nazis?
Last edited by MartianInvader on Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

Draconaes
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Draconaes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:46 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
Draconaes wrote:feels kinda week.
hey now.


:D My apologies. I've corrected the typo, I meant not to slander you.

edit:
MartianInvader wrote:Do you disagree with me about this reason or is there another reason to punch Nazis?


Leaderboard highscores?

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:49 pm UTC

So...we're not going to unite against Trump, then? We're going to stand here insulting each other over our responses to hypothetical situations in which it might or might not be appropriate to punch a Nazi?

Great. Just great.

speising
Posts: 2080
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Trump presidency

Postby speising » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

That seems like an extremely naive hope. I can't claim to understand the mental processes of nazis, but i don't think it works that way with them. You cannot scare a violent hate group into hiding with that tactic.
Now, going out, in big, organized groups, and shooting every nazi on sight, that might have the effect you are hoping for, but somehow that's still not ok.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5653
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 16, 2017 5:59 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:Stop ignoring my replies. I'm speaking to you directly.
You mean, replies with gems like this one?
Weeks wrote:this is fucking absurd.

How far up the devils intestine do you need to be, Jose?
You're making my point.

Weeks wrote:Its not {fill-in}, my dude. Its a group of genocidal racists.
Are you talking about Muslims? They've been accused of this too. When was the last time Nazis killed Americans a thousand at a time?

When you can tell me the difference between the groups, you can tell me the action that has warranted the punch in one case but not the other. And if that's a good reason, then I'm behind you. But being a {this} is not a good reason, even if you hate anyone who is a {this}.

I get it. You hate Nazis. So do I. But hating somebody is not sufficient grounds to punch them, even if you think you have good reasons to hate them. And my point is punching them because you hate them is morally reprehensible. It's exactly the sort of populist tribalism that the alt-right is fomenting.

Punching them because they are about to shoot somebody is not.

Opposing Nazi ideology is a Good Thing, but punching Nazis is kind of the opposite of opposing Nazi ideology.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:00 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Netreker0
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:00 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Spoiler'd for thread derailment

Spoiler:
Netreker0, your series of strange novellas above began with some rather bizarre assumptions and accusations about my post which I'll briefly attempt to unpack. Firstly, you accused me of being unprincipled and tribalistic for allowing our hypothetical Nazi to be punched, without seeming to realize you're comparing me to actual Nazis, a group that turned unprincipled tribalism into a damn science, and you completely ignored the fact that I specifically stated that I support their right to boldly lay claim to a vile political and social ideology, but I will do nothing but watch gleefully as the consequences of their actions unfold. These assertions also imply that you think society should be inclusive to Nazis and racists, which...that's gonna be a hard no.

Secondly, you seem to think I was making a commentary about the legality of assault. I wasn't. In most circumstances, the assault on our hypothetical Nazi would be illegal. But legality and morality aren't mutually inclusive concepts, and your implications otherwise are,
ironically, at the core of fascist ideology.


First of all, thank you for making a thoughtful response that avoids petty name calling and blatant lies about my position. That puts you heads above most other responses I have gotten, and for that you have my eternal gratitude and respect.

Yes, you are right, I did not mean to compared you to actual Nazis (as in Hitler's fan club who actually carried out genocide.) The only comparison and point I meant to make was that merely advocating or glorifying some murderous philosophy, but for whatever reason never actually carrying it out, was in the eyes of the law less criminal than actually perpetrating violence on someone. And while I absolutely recognize that some speech that is completely legal can be completely immoral, I don't see that as justifying violence. I mean, if I had to compare punching a nun and punching a Nazi (as in the genocide advocate, not the guy who actually worked the camps), I would say punching the Nazi is slightly less immoral.

These assertions also imply that you think society should be inclusive to Nazis and racists, which...that's gonna be a hard no.


You're right. It's a hard no, as in "No, that's not true at all." I think society needs to tolerate Nazis, in the very basest definition of the word: To not violate their rights so long as they commit no crime. I have never stated that I think society needs to be inclusive to Nazis, and to say so is patently false. I am all for the people who photographed the Nazis, identified them, and pushed their employers to fire them. As I have stated, repeatedly, and apparently futilely, I completely support the First Amendment, and freedom of speech and freedom of association cut both ways. I support private property rights--if someone comes in with a shaved head and a swastika tattoo, you absolutely can and should tell them that you don't want their business. One thing I love about the freedoms we have is they give us a huge array of completely legal tools by which we can demonstrate to someone that they are absolutely not welcome here, and I believe wholeheartedly that we should use every one of those tools.

Also, can you please clarify what you mean by this:
But legality and morality aren't mutually inclusive concepts, and your implications otherwise are,
ironically, at the core of fascist ideology.


I don't think it means what you think it means. Just to clarify, mutually exclusive means they have zero overlap. Mutually inclusive means they have non-zero overlap, but does not necessarily mean they are identical sets. I believe that law and morality are mutually inclusive. I think rape is immoral, and I acknowledge that rape is illegal. Overlap. I think cheating on your spouse is immoral, and I acknowledge that it is not illegal. Non-overlap. I think smoking marijuana is not immoral, but I recognize that it's largely illegal. Non-overlap.

Now, if I am correct in assuming you misused the term, then your point is that fascism tried to equate morality with legality? If so, then that's not something I've really thought about before, but it's not an assertion that I find particularly dubious or controversial. If however I was incorrect, and you actually mean the mathematically definition of mutually inclusive, then I would absolutely love to hear more about your reasoning.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:01 pm UTC

Your president thinks there is moral equivalence between fascism and those who would oppose it. A more interesting topic of debate would be, what can be done about this?
Invite him round for dinner and a movie. Feed him well. Serve wine. Get him relaxed.
Put Schindler's List on. Record his reactions to it, in full. Share the recording.
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas might also work.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:03 pm UTC

"Nazis are peaceful people who just want you to believe Hitler did nothing wrong" uhhhhhhhhhh

MartianInvader wrote:Do you disagree with me about this reason or is there another reason to punch Nazis?


I think what many of us are saying is not "let's all go punch Nazis." It's "it is not morally reprehensible to punch a Nazi." Given that at least one person in this conversation said that punching a Nazi makes you WORSE than a Nazi, this is apparently something we needed to discuss. I do think it sends a strong "never again" message that people are trying to rally around now that we have open white supremacy in the white house and our political sphere. I don't think that it's a 1:1 corollary with someone of a different group being punched, but I would also believe some of them use it for political points and recruitment. I still think if you see a Nazi being punched and conclude "both sides!" you are engaging in lazy pattern matching rather than critical thinking on the topic.
Last edited by Puppyclaws on Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:08 pm UTC

ucim wrote:When was the last time Nazis killed Americans a thousand at a time?
Last time they could.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25826
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:10 pm UTC

speising wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

That seems like an extremely naive hope. I can't claim to understand the mental processes of nazis, but i don't think it works that way with them. You cannot scare a violent hate group into hiding with that tactic.
Except, the reduction in public appearances by Spencer after he was punched, and the fact that a bunch of people have now pulled out of Boston's freeze peach rally, would suggest you're just making that up.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

Not as effective as convincing everyone to laugh at them. That's sort of how we got rid of the KKK in the 50's; superman radio show made them the butt of all the jokes and no one wants to join something to be made fun of.


I think your latter suggestion is a far better solution to the problem. Punching only makes them a martyr inside of their own group. Similarly, trying to silence them only seems to make them grow stronger. This "Lets punch NeoNazis" thing is extremely short-term thinking. It seriously does more to hamper the viewpoint of the left (IE: ceding the moral high ground) than it does to counteract their movement.

If yall want to counteract the white-nationalism threat that is growing, you're gonna have to make a better large-scale political move than just punching a few of them.

gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

That seems like an extremely naive hope. I can't claim to understand the mental processes of nazis, but i don't think it works that way with them. You cannot scare a violent hate group into hiding with that tactic.
Except, the reduction in public appearances by Spencer after he was punched, and the fact that a bunch of people have now pulled out of Boston's freeze peach rally, would suggest you're just making that up.


Except Trump is beginning to rally the white-supremisist side by painting the "Alt-Left" as violent extremists. So physical violence only serves to prove Trump correct on this issue.

The effective technique this past week seems to have been taking pictures of these assholes and trying to figure out their identities. Risking your job and reputation by marching with the KKK / Neonazi groups is more effective than the threat of some non-lethal violence.

From my understanding, Spencer is still planning to make a new rally in Charlottesville. Except next time, I'm gonna bet he's going to armor up and be a bit more defensive (physically). The fact that he was physically assaulted doesn't seems to have hampered his spirits at all.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:18 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8887
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:16 pm UTC

Except when the internet misidentifies someone because they resemble one of the 6000 asshole there.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:18 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Except when the internet misidentifies someone because they resemble one of the 6000 asshole there.


I agree there's some risk there. But its a far better option than the physical confrontations in my viewpoint. All it takes is one picture of an "Alt Left" punching a Neo-Nazi and Trump's words become true.

At the moment anyway. Its a rapidly changing situation. If the alt-right becomes less timid about their viewpoints in public, then they may become proud to lose their jobs / whatever when they're unmasked. But for now, it seems like taking pictures of these people has given the group some amount of pause.

The big move this past week were Go Daddy and Google dropping the DNS name of one of those webpages for example. That's an actually useful move. All this talk about physically punching Nazis is not.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Liri, Yahoo [Bot] and 16 guests