Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:40 pm UTC

My general principle, and I thought the general principle of liberalism broadly construed, is that violence is only warranted to counteract violence (and may even then still be imprudent, even if it is morally justifiable). Showing up armed in counter-protest to armed protestors? That's warranted. Fighting back against violent protestors in defense of self or others? That's warranted. Fighting back against unjust police action? That's warranted. (Though again, any of these may, depending on context, be very imprudent; de-escalation is often the ideal tactic). But I saw a clip of someone identifying with Antifa explaining why breaking a Starbucks window is a symbolic gesture, and that's the kind of thing that embarrasses me on behalf of the entire left. Punching someone who's chanting "we will not be replaced by Jews!" is embarrassing too. (Honestly, a lot of the rhetoric coming from these Nazis, that quote included, sounds scared more than it sounds angry; scared of a delusional scenario, but still scared, of something that would be rightly terrifying if it weren't completely false). Punching someone who's yelling "I'm gonna break your big [slur] nose you [slur]!" is not embarrassing and is entirely warranted. But those last good people are done a disservice by those other people "symbolically" breaking shop windows under the same banner as them.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8865
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:52 pm UTC

Eh, I don't agree with using violence to defend against unjust police action. Violence only justifies it in the court of public opinion, even if post hoc.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:01 pm UTC

That's a reason why it would be imprudent. In cruder terms, it'd usually be a dumb move, only making things worse for themselves and their cause, but if it's in the face of truly unjust police violence it's not a morally wrong move.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby slinches » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:36 pm UTC

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but it seems that a key disconnect in the Antifa morality debate is that some equate hate speech with violence and others don't. In the first group's eyes, this justifies even the most aggressive of Antifa's violent attempts to stifle hate speech because the groups they are attacking initiated violence through their speech. The other group seems to believe that only physical violence or direct, actionable, threats of physical violence justify violence in defense. Thus, the second group sees some of Antifa's actions as immoral aggression against an ideology (even if it is a despicable and hateful ideology).

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:36 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Eh, I don't agree with using violence to defend against unjust police action. Violence only justifies it in the court of public opinion, even if post hoc.

Can you elaborate on this? Like I can see examples where violence was justified by the public. The Bundy family participants got away with terrorism. Hmm maybe I'm misreading what you wrote.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8865
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:58 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Eh, I don't agree with using violence to defend against unjust police action. Violence only justifies it in the court of public opinion, even if post hoc.

Can you elaborate on this? Like I can see examples where violence was justified by the public. The Bundy family participants got away with terrorism. Hmm maybe I'm misreading what you wrote.


Sorry yeah, ambiguous syntax. "It" being "unjust police action", assuming we are talking about the same thing (e.g. pulling over a person for DWB). Stupid cellphone. Generally speaking, if someone physically assaults the police in response to injustice, they couldn't have been all that innocent to begin with according to the public.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:01 pm UTC

slinches wrote:I've mentioned this elsewhere, but it seems that a key disconnect in the Antifa morality debate is that some equate hate speech with violence and others don't.

An easy way to sidestep that debate is just with the notion of proportional response.

Can speech be violent? If so, then you can counter violent speech with your own violent speech. If speech is so powerful then your own speech is powerful enough to counter it. Of course if speech is not violent, then don't counter nonviolence with violence; counter it with more nonviolent speech.

Is bearing (but not using) arms at a protest violent? Maybe, maybe not, but either way: counter people bearing arms at a protest by bearing your own arms in counter-protest. If just bearing them is violent force, then surely you should be satisfied with the same degree of violent force (just bearing your own arms) in response, right?

Where to draw the line of violence vs nonviolence is an immaterial philosophical dispute that misses the core point of not escalating conflicts.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8865
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:10 pm UTC

The problem with trying to always counter with equal force is that you are giving your opponent the advantage by letting them decide where to deploy violence and how much. Not to mention you don't know beforehand how much violence will be used.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby slinches » Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:16 pm UTC

I agree, Pfhorrest. Although, I don't think the morality/philosophy side of the debate is entirely immaterial. It finds common and divided ground so that each participant can understand other points of view. That ideological map helps plot a path to an agreeable outcome or identifies a roadblock that will prevent us from reaching one.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:39 pm UTC

I didn't at all mean to dismiss all philosophical disputes as immaterial (I majored in philosophy myself, that's the angle that's of most interest to me), just that that particular one is immaterial. (That's generally my approach to most seemingly-intractable philosophical problems: find some way to render the point of implacable disagreement moot, often by finding some assumption tacitly shared by both sides that gives rise to the apparent dilemma and then rejecting that.)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:49 pm UTC

I've been thinking about this for a while, since this discussion started with the Charlotteville stuff.

We, as the past two generations, have grown up being shown over and over the horrors done by the Nazis - in movies, books, photographs, letters, etc. Eisenhower himself wrote:
The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit [to Gotha] deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”
And yet there are people who willingly and gleefully align themselves with that monstrosity. I mean, you can argue that Germans in the 1930s and 1940s didn't really know what was going on until later, or that they slowly desensitized themselves to it, or whatever assuages their conscience, but the fuckers running around waving swastikas and shouting "Blood and soil!" know. They know what they are shouting for, they know what the fucking Nazis stood for, and what they did, and are willingly aligning themselves with that.

Understand that for a moment. Those polo-wearing douchbags are saying, "I want to personally help murder all people not like me; by cruel and despicable means; and I am proud enough of this fact that I am willing to come out in public to say it." That's not a philosophy, that's a sociopath.

And no non-violent solution works unless backed by a threat of force. MLK could not have been as powerful without the threat of Malcolm X. To continue with the Nazi theme, the Jews tried non-violent responses to the Nazis (going to the ghettoes, setting up the Judenrats, even some Zionists in Palestine worked with the Nazis in the hope that the Third Reich would give them Israel in exchange for help against the British). Because simply telling someone to get out of your neighborhood when they are telling you to your face they want to help murder you and your family is not going to work.

Standing there giving a Roman salute and shouting Seig heil is choosing to be a monster. You don't reason with a rabid dog.

ETA: Don't get me wrong, there is a place for the non-violent solution - in fact, its the only long term solution that works, by changing the narrative and removing the allies and support structure of the sociopaths. That being said, the violent solution is a short term fix that prevents the Nazis from gaining a foothold - like an immune response against an infection. First you need to remove the infection, then you inoculate the rest of the cells against it.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SDK » Fri Sep 08, 2017 1:50 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:And no non-violent solution works unless backed by a threat of force.

I agree with most everything that you said, except that I don't see how that necessarily requires civilian on civilian violence. The bit I quoted above sounds exactly like the role the government should (and usually does) play. Most other countries do not have the same Nazi problems the USA has because it's effectively illegal to be a Nazi in public. And for good reason! You showed why it should be illegal! As long as the government themselves are not the ones perpetrating the crimes (and one man in the White House passively condoning it is not even close to the same), they should be the ones to step in with the threat of force. If the population starts thinking that you're justified to use violence against people you disagree with, you're going to run into escalation and eventually civil war.

Long story short, unless you think civil war is inevitable, you should not be condoning citizen on citizen violence. You have power over the government. Use that first.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Zohar » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:37 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:the Jews tried non-violent responses to the Nazis

Lots of different Jews tried lots of different things. A lot of them tried to escape to safety. Many fought. Saying they all obeyed the Nazis ignores important groups of Jewish resistance.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:44 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:the Jews tried non-violent responses to the Nazis

Lots of different Jews tried lots of different things. A lot of them tried to escape to safety. Many fought. Saying they all obeyed the Nazis ignores important groups of Jewish resistance.


I'm not saying that they didn't (my great-grandparents were disappeared for being anti-Nazi labor organizers, one great uncle fled to the US, etc), I'm saying that acquiescence and passive resistance didn't work.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:34 pm UTC

SDK wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:And no non-violent solution works unless backed by a threat of force.

I agree with most everything that you said, except that I don't see how that necessarily requires civilian on civilian violence. The bit I quoted above sounds exactly like the role the government should (and usually does) play. Most other countries do not have the same Nazi problems the USA has because it's effectively illegal to be a Nazi in public. And for good reason! You showed why it should be illegal! As long as the government themselves are not the ones perpetrating the crimes (and one man in the White House passively condoning it is not even close to the same), they should be the ones to step in with the threat of force. If the population starts thinking that you're justified to use violence against people you disagree with, you're going to run into escalation and eventually civil war.

Long story short, unless you think civil war is inevitable, you should not be condoning citizen on citizen violence. You have power over the government. Use that first.

The power we have over the government works very slowly, unless you're talking about violent revolution. I And meanwhile the government is letting Nazi crime happen even if they're not openly participating, so your advice to let police handle it is a bit completely worthless.
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
sardia
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:24 pm UTC

http://www.npr.org/2017/09/04/548471325 ... icans-talk
Fun fact, people who use free speech arguments usually apply it to speech they secretly like.
Another topic Crandall explores is when and why people turn to free speech arguments to defend racist speech.

"People pull out free speech when they're defending racist speech, but not when they're defending simply aggressive, or negative speech," he says.

You'll never see anyone outside an ardent principlist defending an asshole's right to speech. They only pull it out for racist speech.

On its face, it's obvious. Of course you defend stuff you like. It's hard to separate why someone is defending speech outside Labratory conditions. So don't go around calling first amendment people racist. It's that some portions of them are biased.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:49 pm UTC

I've never seen anyone try to censor (with either legal or vigilante violence) people for just being assholes, though, so there wouldn't be much cause to bring up free speech. If someone is just being a general-purpose asshole, the response is people telling them to shut the fuck up or get the fuck out or generally saying mean things back at them, and when it does come to blows, people generally recognize that you don't have the right to break someone's nose (or have the police arrest them) for calling you fat and ugly, as much of an asshole thing as that may be to do.

When people start applying a special political label (like "hate speech") to generally mean things that people say and promoting vigilante justice or government censure against mean-speakers, you betcha people will come out defending their right to free speech. Until that happens though, yeah, of course nobody is, because there's no cause for it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T402550 4830720 (NAD 83)

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ivnja » Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:05 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I've never seen anyone try to censor (with either legal or vigilante violence) people for just being assholes, though

Westboro Baptist are the group that immediately spring to mind. They were the ultimate assholes, yelling at parents and families that their dead kids were going to Hell while they were burying them. They did get beat on a few times, iirc, and eventually there were laws passed (including by individual states, and by Congress for military funerals) to curtail their right to protest within a certain distance of a funeral. On the other hand, they did win a Supreme Court case 8-1 that upheld that protesting funerals in general was protected speech under the First Amendment even when what they're saying is vile. The ACLU has defended them and sued on their behalf in court, on First Amendment grounds (and has done the same for the KKK, among other groups and individuals).

They were also largely neutered through nonviolent means by groups such as the Patriot Riders blocking them from view. This tactic was viable particularly because Westboro Baptist were a small group that were "playing by the rules" by using nothing but speech - they were strictly nonviolent themselves, and in fact probably wanted folks to hit them or otherwise infringe on their rights so they could sue. It doesn't go as smoothly if the offensive speakers are willing to get physical.
Hi you.
She(?!)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:45 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:#NotAllNazis, right?
Hey; cool meme, bro!
Normally, when one member of a group does something evil, we don't blame the entire group. We blame the individual(s) who actually carried out the atrocity. The most obvious example being whenever there's an islamic terror attack in Europe or America, the hashtag #NotAllMuslims becomes extremely popular. But when it's a white nationalist that does something evil, then the whole group of white nationalists is blamed. It's a double standard that needs to be pointed out. I thought I could do that more succinctly by posting "#NotAllNazis".
Congratulations. You've Done It Again. "It" in this case is, of course, equating "Nazis" to "Muslims." I thought we'd had this discussion already this week.

Arsehole McVeigh blows up the creche in Oklahoma, it's #NotAllChristians but it was all Arsehole McVeigh. Arsehole O'Scumbag and friends call in a fake bomb warning to trigger an evacuation that concentrated innocent people around the real bomb, it's #NotAllChristians but it was the cIRA. Bunch of racist lunatics go storming into Jerusalem and massacre every man, woman, child and dog they see, #NotAllChristians but it was all Crusaders who didn't quit right there and then rather than carry on doing that. One cunt fires a rocket out of the Gaza Strip and blows a hole in a bit of desert or maybe breaks someone's windows, it's #NotAllGazans but he didn't build that thing in his bedroom without Hamas knowing about it. Don't blame the family from near whose home he fired it and don't blame the ambulance drivers, but you can blame him, his team, their OC and their chain of command. Someone does blame the ambulance drivers and hits them with white phosphorus, it's #Not AllJews and #NotAllIsraelis but that sort of thing doesn't happen by accident all that often. Scheisskopf, Mistkopf, Pingkopf and Assloch Von Hölle murder 6000000 Jews, 4500000 Slavs, 3000000 Poles, 400000 Serbs, 270000 disabled people, 150000 Roma, 150000 Freemasons, 15000 homosexuals and a few hundred thousand more civilians and it's #NotAllGermans and #NotAllWhites and #NotAllRightwingers but it bloody well was all 200000 Nazi bastards who took part in it. You don't equate Pastafarians with participants in the Srebrenica massacre or Buddhists with the legions that destroyed Carthage, do you? No? Then, hey, can we all accept that "not all Muslims are terrorists" is not the same as "not all Nazis are Nazis" and they don't have to either both be true or both be false? Can we accept that? Please?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25704
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:50 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Normally, when one member of a group does something evil, we don't blame the entire group. We blame the individual(s) who actually carried out the atrocity. The most obvious example being whenever there's an islamic terror attack in Europe or America, the hashtag #NotAllMuslims becomes extremely popular. But when it's a white nationalist that does something evil, then the whole group of white nationalists is blamed. It's a double standard that needs to be pointed out. I thought I could do that more succinctly by posting "#NotAllNazis".

Oh hey I'm just now seeing this.

Being a white supremacist is an inherit position of conflict and violence. By adhering to the beliefs, you are explicitly agreeing that people should be - at best - forcibly ejected from their homes and sent elsewhere, with no regard to their safety, security, health, happiness, or wellbeing.

The only people I've met who don't understand this are white supremacists.

So start talking, and talk clearly because I'm going to ban you unless you can explain yourself out of this one.

And no, "Devil's advocate" is no defense.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SlyReaper » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:39 am UTC

The only people I've met who don't understand this are white supremacists.

And liberals. Actual liberals, I mean. Not people who think they're liberal, but have forgotten what the word means.

Believe it or not, I happen to agree white nationalism is a bad thing, because I'm not an idiot. But if your starting point is that espousing an idea is equivalent to an act of violence, then we're not going to see eye to eye on how to deal with white nationalism, or any other ideology we consider toxic.

Go ahead and ban me. I almost didn't reply, because that threat pissed me off. Enjoy your ideologically pure forum.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25704
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:18 am UTC

Please do some reading on white nationalism. You understand nothing.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8865
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:27 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:But if your starting point is that espousing an idea is equivalent to an act of violence


So I'm thinking of starting the MurderSlyReaper club. We are totally nonviolent, although we constantly glorify violence and create all sorts of iconography where we brutalize SlyReaper. Don't worry, it's harmless fiction, we can always tell the difference. We teach our kids that SlyReaper is trying to rape our wymenz, and the best techniques for murdering SlyReaper, but again don't worry our culture has nothing to do with any attacks you may be on the receiving end of, and if a few kids beat you up, well, boys will be boys and it's not our culture's fault, it's yours for acting so dangerous, wearing clothes that anyone else would wear and traveling with your friends. We also want to enact policies that limit SlyReaper's ability to vote, but we promise it's for the public good and really, it's racist of YOU to suggest that an electorate that's only made up of non-SlyReaper would somehow not be as competent as one with everyone. We also advocate not letting SlyReaper into our neighborhoods and will boycott any business that does business with SlyReaper, and fight tooth and nail to prevent businesses from hiring SlyReaper for anything other than menial labor. We are also pushing for legislation that would make sterilization mandatory if SlyReaper even so much as looks like he's flirting with a non-SlyReaper. We also refuse to convict anyone who stabs SlyReaper, and when they do the entire town will come together to celebrate, but again we are totally non-violent and you can't judge us because of an entire mob of bad eggs.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:02 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:But if your starting point is that espousing an idea is equivalent to an act of violence


So I'm thinking of starting the MurderSlyReaper club. We are totally nonviolent, although we constantly glorify violence and create all sorts of iconography where we brutalize SlyReaper. Don't worry, it's harmless fiction, we can always tell the difference. We teach our kids that SlyReaper is trying to rape our wymenz, and the best techniques for murdering SlyReaper, but again don't worry our culture has nothing to do with any attacks you may be on the receiving end of, and if a few kids beat you up, well, boys will be boys and it's not our culture's fault, it's yours for acting so dangerous, wearing clothes that anyone else would wear and traveling with your friends. We also want to enact policies that limit SlyReaper's ability to vote, but we promise it's for the public good and really, it's racist of YOU to suggest that an electorate that's only made up of non-SlyReaper would somehow not be as competent as one with everyone. We also advocate not letting SlyReaper into our neighborhoods and will boycott any business that does business with SlyReaper, and fight tooth and nail to prevent businesses from hiring SlyReaper for anything other than menial labor. We are also pushing for legislation that would make sterilization mandatory if SlyReaper even so much as looks like he's flirting with a non-SlyReaper. We also refuse to convict anyone who stabs SlyReaper, and when they do the entire town will come together to celebrate, but again we are totally non-violent and you can't judge us because of an entire mob of bad eggs.

Fun fact, polling on nazis, white supremacy, and confederacy shows that other than nazis, the US is aOK with the other two. Support for Nazis is low, but support for white supremacy is higher, and finally, support for confederacy is pretty high. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lo ... e-statues/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ch ... -politics/

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Dark567 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Fun fact, polling on nazis, white supremacy, and confederacy shows that other than nazis, the US is aOK with the other two. Support for Nazis is low, but support for white supremacy is higher, and finally, support for confederacy is pretty high. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lo ... e-statues/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ch ... -politics/


Err not really, at least when directly asked about those groups. Granted polling does show support for keeping statues etc. but when people are asked about support for White Supremacy it polls pretty poorly.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content ... 202017.pdf
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:22 am UTC

Thanks, Dark567. I found that NPR/PBS NewsHour Marist poll interesting, and then concerning.

Looking at the race/ethnicity data on pages 12-17, the percentage of Latinos who "mostly agree" with the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists is much higher than the percentage of Whites. And in a really stunning plot twist, the percentage of African Americans who "mostly agree" with such groups is sometimes a bit higher than the percentage of Whites.

Perhaps at a certain point in a long telephone survey, some respondents just don't care anymore, and they stop listening to the questions and just answer with the first available option, over and over? Especially if English isn't their first language?

[Edited to say: Okay, the variance between the White and African American respondents' approval for the KKK, etc., was apparently within the margin of error:

Results are statistically significant within ± 2.9 percentage points. There are 859 registered voters. The results for
this subset are statistically significant within ± 3.3 percentage points. The error margin was not adjusted
for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.


There must be another explanation for the Latino results, though.

I also note that if 11% of 859 respondents were African American, then the sample size included fewer than 100 African Americans, so each answer constituted more than a percentage point of that subgroup's total replies. Hmmm. That's a pretty small sample.]

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Dark567 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:03 pm UTC

Yeah, when the polling is getting to the low single digits of support broken down by demographics, I don't think it will be easy to distinguish between actual approval or just noise in the sample. But the general point is that explicit support of white supremacy when asked is so low that we're having a conversation if its real or just noise and the US citizenship is not "aOK with white supremacy", at least explicitly. Implicit white supremacy? welll... You can't poll as well for that, but I think we know what the answer is.... * vaguely gestures towards the white house*
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 553
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby ObsessoMom » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:35 pm UTC

I do agree that the rejection of the KKK and white supremacy seems pretty resounding in that survey, overall, even if there's some other noise in there.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2538
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:30 am UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
The only people I've met who don't understand this are white supremacists.

And liberals. Actual liberals, I mean. Not people who think they're liberal, but have forgotten what the word means.

An actual Liberal?

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

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:37 am UTC

I think "white nationalism" encompasses a lot of belief systems and viewpoints. While I happen to disagree with all of them, I don't think someone saying, for example, "I'm worried about a black man taking my job" warrants violence against them.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Weeks » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:40 am UTC

Well like....why would you be "worried" about a black man taking your job
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: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby MartianInvader » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:50 am UTC

Weeks wrote:Well like....why would you be "worried" about a black man taking your job

The most obvious answer is because you're racist. My point is that merely being racist does not justify violence against you.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:45 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I don't think someone saying, for example, "I'm worried about a black man taking my job" warrants violence against them.
Saying that also doesn't make someone a white nationalist, so I'm not sure what your point is.
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)

morriswalters
Posts: 6946
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Retracted

Postby morriswalters » Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:26 pm UTC

He said racist, not white nationalist.
why would you be "worried" about a black man taking your job?
Another white man is exactly like you. White on white fears act on social fault lines like class, wealth, education and status. You might want those things, and not be willing to admit that the problem lies with you and not the people you are competing with. Finish the thought. Or rather don't.
Last edited by morriswalters on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5519
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Thesh » Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:29 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:He said racist, not white nationalist.

???

MartianInvader wrote:I think "white nationalism" encompasses a lot of belief systems and viewpoints. While I happen to disagree with all of them, I don't think someone saying, for example, "I'm worried about a black man taking my job" warrants violence against them.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8865
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:55 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
morriswalters wrote:He said racist, not white nationalist.

???


White nationalist is a subset of racist. Someone that espouses the ideology that openly states that non-whites be forced into a form of slavery, expelled, sterilized, or exterminated is a terrible person that probably deserves a punch to the face. Someone crossing the street when they see a young black man walking on the same side late at night probably has unconscious biases they'll never admit to, but is nowhere in the same league as the first guy, and probably doesn't deserve a punch to the face.

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Mutex » Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:58 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Thesh wrote:
morriswalters wrote:He said racist, not white nationalist.

???


White nationalist is a subset of racist. Someone that espouses the ideology that openly states that non-whites be forced into a form of slavery, expelled, sterilized, or exterminated is a terrible person that probably deserves a punch to the face. Someone crossing the street when they see a young black man walking on the same side late at night probably has unconscious biases they'll never admit to, but is nowhere in the same league as the first guy, and probably doesn't deserve a punch to the face.

None of which changes the fact that MartianInvader clearly said "white nationalism".

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8865
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:00 pm UTC

Ah yes, my mistake.

morriswalters
Posts: 6946
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby morriswalters » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:32 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:None of which changes the fact that MartianInvader clearly said "white nationalism".
MartianInvader wrote:The most obvious answer is because you're racist. My point is that merely being racist does not justify violence against you.
Perhaps he means something different, but I took it as all racism doesn't rise to the level of a white nationalist. Unless he says different I'll stand.

Mutex
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Antifa & neo-Nazi Ned in: "Too Many Violence?"

Postby Mutex » Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Mutex wrote:None of which changes the fact that MartianInvader clearly said "white nationalism".
MartianInvader wrote:The most obvious answer is because you're racist. My point is that merely being racist does not justify violence against you.
Perhaps he means something different, but I took it as all racism doesn't rise to the level of a white nationalist. Unless he says different I'll stand.

It was an example of something he thinks falls under the umbrella of white nationalism:
MartianInvader wrote:I think "white nationalism" encompasses a lot of belief systems and viewpoints. While I happen to disagree with all of them, I don't think someone saying, for example, "I'm worried about a black man taking my job" warrants violence against them.

Whether or not this is actually an example of white nationalism is another matter. It seems like a slightly odd thing for someone to say? People are usually either worried about immigration taking their jobs, in which case the "black man" bit would be irrelevant, or they're worried about non-white immigration (which would be white nationalism), in which case the "taking my job" bit would be irrelevant. I guess they could be concerned about both and that was how they expressed it.

ETA: I'm assuming the comment would be about immigration, but I'm not sure what it would be saying if it wasn't. "I don't want black people to get job interviews"?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser, sardia and 17 guests