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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 6:17 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.

Protip: read at least one entire post before typing a response about it

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.


This post clearly gives
someone saying, for example, "I'm worried about a black man taking my job"
as an example of one of the
belief systems and viewpoints
that
"white nationalism" encompasses
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: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Retracted

Postby morriswalters » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:19 pm UTC

I could cut up the post any way I like too. I'm telling you the way I took it. I'll retract if a future post contradicts me. As an explanation of my response to this.
gmalivuk wrote:Saying that also doesn't make someone a white nationalist,
Quite certainly that is true only sometimes, and for some people. Somebody to your left might not see that as a meaningful distinction. It seems that there are fewer and fewer shades of gray today.
Last edited by morriswalters on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:50 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 7:34 pm UTC

What exactly do you think "white nationalism" means?
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 7:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
I could cut up the post any way I like too. I'm telling you the way I took it. I'll retract if a future post contradicts me.
A past post already contradicted you, as I just explained. It's not cutting up the post "any way I like", it's using the words from the post itself to help explain the meaning to you.

As an explanation of my response to this.
gmalivuk wrote:Saying that also doesn't make someone a white nationalist,
Quite certainly that is true only sometimes, and for some people.
No, it is always true, for all people, because "white nationalism" means a thing which is distinct from "racism". You even acknowledged this yourself when you (incorrectly) said
morriswalters wrote:
He said racist, not white nationalist.
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: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Retracted

Postby morriswalters » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:03 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:What exactly do you think "white nationalism" means?
What I think it means isn't germane. By definition you have to be a racist to be a white nationalist. I'm fairly sure that any number of people believe that if you are racist you must be a white nationalist. Kinda the leftest version of 'you'll look alike to me".
Last edited by morriswalters on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:49 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 10:08 pm UTC

I'm not sure what your point is. That we shouldn't punch every white nationalist? No one is saying that we should.
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 10:48 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I'm fairly sure that any number of people believe that if you are racist you must be a white nationalist.
If you're fairly sure that any number of people believe that, can you point to, say, a single such person?

Because I for one have never in my life heard anyone claim that all racists must be white nationalists, and I regularly interact with people whose views are far to the left of pretty much anything that's been expressed here on the forum.
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: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Retraction

Postby morriswalters » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:49 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I'm not sure what your point is. That we shouldn't punch every white nationalist? No one is saying that we should.
It's easier to retract it and let it go, so I do just that. And why should I care if you punch white nationalists or not?

gmalivuk that is the dumbest thing I've been asked here. In my neighborhood liberals are pretty much an extinct species. I post only here. I don't want to be doxed, or otherwise attacked by any little gremlins of either persuasion. So I avoid most venues like the plague carriers they are. And while I am sure that you are in communication with the left, why would you think I would believe you are an reliable broker on matters such as these. I don't doubt your veracity, but I doubt your ability to reliably report on conversations about which you have a bias. And I have had an earful of how hard you push back when people don't toe your line.

In any case as I told Thresh, I retract my comment, it was an error on my part to respond. I will mark the posts accordingly.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:42 am UTC

"I'm not saying you're lying, but I think you're lying, though I have no evidence for my belief, and in any case I retract what I said earlier (but not this part about how you're wrong), so you can't engage me on it any more."
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
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

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

Postby Weeks » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:23 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
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.

For the record I believe for someone to be a white nationalist they must
1. be white
2. believe whatever country (or state or ...) they are in belongs to white people, and so white people should therefore have certain...power...over others in said country. Said power might include..."separating" themselves from other races. Or "separating" the other races from themselves.

If you're not white and you are worried about "a black man taking your job" you are racist, but not a white nationalist, due to 1. If you are white and you say that, you are also racist, but not necessarily a white nationalist due to 2 (we don't know that you want separation or whatever, just that you don't like black people). It just so happens that a person who is white and says things like those might also be a white nationalist.

It is, as it turns out, a different thing to say "I'm worried about a black man taking my job, so let's talk about how we can get those black men to not take our white people's jobs. Hitler did nothing wrong". I think that's more relevant to the discussion.

Going back though: I am not sure that being racist justifies violence against a person. But being of a certain race, or just having a certain color of skin, is enough for some people to be violent against others. Maybe I don't want to sit and take it if someone calls me a "spic"?
Image
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: 8860
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

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

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:33 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:
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.

For the record I believe for someone to be a white nationalist they must
1. be white
2. believe whatever country (or state or ...) they are in belongs to white people, and so white people should therefore have certain...power...over others in said country. Said power might include..."separating" themselves from other races. Or "separating" the other races from themselves.


Entirely possible to be white nationalist and
1) non-white but convinced you are white, or mostly white but in denial about black ancestry like every redneck that's "1/16th Cherokee"
2) non-white but somehow delusional that sucking up to white nationalists will be a good thing since you will be one of the lackey races
3) black nationalist and agree with white nationalists that blacks and whites should be separated, and should ally to exterminate the real enemy; Jews/queers/Jews/feminists/Jews/trans/did-I-mention-Jews. For example, just read up on Louis Farrakhan. Fuck Louis Farrakhan

This post had objectionable content.

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:"I'm not saying you're lying, but I think you're lying, though I have no evidence for my belief, and in any case I retract what I said earlier (but not this part about how you're wrong), so you can't engage me on it any more."
If I wanted to call you a liar I would have done so. You offered anecdote not evidence. I believe that you believe what you related. You'll pardon me if I choose not to engage on that basis.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:15 pm UTC

My anecdote apparently lines up with yours, though: neither of us can point to a single person who holds the view that all racists are white nationalists.

The difference is that you choose without any evidence whatsoever (anecdotal or otherwise) to nevertheless believe large numbers of people do in fact hold that view.
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
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 18, 2017 4:55 pm UTC

CW: sexual violence
Spoiler:
CorruptUser wrote:Fuck Louis Farrakhan, with the bladed dildo from Se7en.


Ugh. I've got to say something about this.

Regardless of how anyone feels about Louis Farrakhan, or Donald Trump, or any other political figure, I find the normalization of sexual violence through metaphors like this very, very disturbing.

I'm not out to censor anyone. Everyone is free to express their political views any way they wish, whether or not I approve.

But I am also free to say that I find all endorsements of sexual violence repugnant.

My strong negative reaction to such endorsements makes it hard for me to evaluate the legitimacy of whatever point someone is trying to make. When you force me to imagine someone being [um, victimized in a particularly horrible way--ObsessoMom came back to edit this for those who might not want the spoilered image in their heads], that metaphorical rape turns the metaphorical victim into a sympathetic figure--even though I may find his or her political views objectionable. That's a pretty counterproductive rhetorical strategy, wouldn't you say?

If the goal of political discussions is to win people over to your way of thinking, rather than just to indulge in a little no-holds-barred rage therapy, you might want to reconsider your tactics, CorruptUser.

[/soapbox]
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:30 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:I'm not out to censor anyone
We, however, are, so that particular text has been [stab]ed and [spoiler]ed now.

Edit: And CU's intervening post about it has been removed. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
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: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:14 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:My anecdote apparently lines up with yours, though: neither of us can point to a single person who holds the view that all racists are white nationalists.

The difference is that you choose without any evidence whatsoever (anecdotal or otherwise) to nevertheless believe large numbers of people do in fact hold that view.
I don't have to believe any such thing. All I have to believe is that the word is a convenient label. Brought out when you see someone you don't like. There is no clear line where a racist becomes a white nationalist. So if it suits people, anyone, anywhere, can be a white nationalist.

Which is what I would argue as my point. Not, can I show you that anyone ever said they believed that all racists were white nationalists. So in the case of your leftward friends, I'm quite certain it is a reasonable thing to believe they never said any such thing.

Shaming and demonizing however, are both used commonly. Too paraphrase you, this is the conversation I'm having.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25821
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 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:04 pm UTC

Demonizing racists isn't the same as believing they're white nationalists or calling them white nationalists, though.

morriswalters wrote:
So if it suits people, anyone, anywhere, can be a white nationalist.
I mean, sure, if it suits people they can lie about anything. It turns out you can just put words in any order you want. But the fact that I can say "Morriswalters is a Russian bot that helped fake the moon landing before doing 9/11 and rigging the 2016 election" doesn't actually change what any of those words actually mean.
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
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

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

Postby MartianInvader » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:11 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
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.

Um... your response to me got a lot of argument that seems somewhat unwarranted - it seems like a legitimate response to me. Sorry I was offline for a few days and couldn't answer until now.

So... what actually is the definition of White Nationalist viewpoints? I have a definition in my head, but I'm starting to think it's different from some other folks'.

What if the hypothetical racist above goes one step further and says "dark-skinned people are taking too many white jobs"? Or if they add on " and we should do something about it"? Do you think there can be such a thing as a peaceful white nationalist? At the very least, I think a lot of self-described white nationalists see themselves as peaceful, seeing their goal to be removal what they see as anti-white laws like affirmative action.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there's a whole spectrum of belief systems along the continuum from "not racist" to "racist" to "white nationalist" to "Nazi" (and I guess "White supremecist might live somewhere in there?), and if you try to draw a line and say "anyone expressing views past this line is okay to be violent towards", that line will inevitably end up very blurry. Especially because we have these labels like "White Nationalist" that encompass a set of rules, and many people are happy to assume that if you express any one of those views you automatically support all of 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
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 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:42 pm UTC

White nationalists ultimately believe there should be a white nation with laws that are designed explicitly to maintain the dominance of white people (and implicitly harm non-white people). Nazis are white nationalists, but also are anti-LGBT and believe the role of white women is primarily to produce white babies.
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

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:51 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Demonizing racists isn't the same as believing they're white nationalists or calling them white nationalists, though.
MartianInvader wrote:Especially because we have these labels like "White Nationalist" that encompass a set of rules, and many people are happy to assume that if you express any one of those views you automatically support all of them.
It appears the the op is at least in the same zip code as my original reply to you. I'll let him argue it. I certainly believe we should demonize racism. And block racist behaviors which really hurt people.

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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 3:16 am UTC

Thesh wrote:White nationalists ultimately believe there should be a white nation with laws that are designed explicitly to maintain the dominance of white people (and implicitly harm non-white people). Nazis are white nationalists, but also are anti-LGBT and believe the role of white women is primarily to produce white babies.

This thing Thesh wrote is accurate.

Meaning morriswalters is wrong - there is a clear line for when a racist becomes a white nationalist.

When a white person goes from *merely* treating other racial groups differently than white folks and starts believing said groups should just "go home" or similar, they are now a white nationalist.

Easy peasy.

Or I can just copy-paste Wikipedia.

White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[5] White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost.[4] Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race,[6] and some argue that it amounts to white genocide.[6]

White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism. Separatists seek a white-only state; supremacists believe that white people are superior to nonwhites,[4] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[7] Both subgroups generally avoid the term supremacy because it has negative connotations.[8]

Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence.
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
MartianInvader
Posts: 774
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

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

Postby MartianInvader » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:19 am UTC

Okay. Now my understanding is there are those in this thread that believe violence against white nationalists is justified. Does this mean that if someone tweets "I wish all blacks would go back to Africa and leave America for the white race", violence is now justified against them?

I'm not trying to straw-man here, I'm just honestly not sure if anyone is actually taking this position.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

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

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

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:56 am UTC

They are not. That is nobody's position. Happy to clarify for you.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8860
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

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

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:59 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote: Does this mean that if someone tweets "I wish all blacks would go back to Africa and leave America for the white race", violence is now justified against them?


I'd posit that they deserve a slap upside the head, but it is for the courts and legal system to administer justice, not vigilantes, because if I can punch people because I think I'm right, they will too. So no, racist tweets do not justify individual citizens to commit violence against the twit.

morriswalters
Posts: 6945
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

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

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:44 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Meaning morriswalters is wrong - there is a clear line for when a racist becomes a white nationalist.
There we have it, I'm wrong. Good deal.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

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

Postby Quercus » Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:59 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:Okay. Now my understanding is there are those in this thread that believe violence against white nationalists is justified. Does this mean that if someone tweets "I wish all blacks would go back to Africa and leave America for the white race", violence is now justified against them?

I'm not trying to straw-man here, I'm just honestly not sure if anyone is actually taking this position.


I don't believe anyone is taking anything close to that position, no.

My understanding of the "pro-anti-neonazi-violence" position here is something like the following (this is obviously not going to represent everyone's views, it's just my best attempt to summarise that position in this thread, with some of my own bias thrown in, because I don't think I can avoid that):

If the following conditions are met:

a) A white nationalist or group of white nationalists promotes their views in a way that is likely to pose a credible threat of violence against others (which given their views encompasses most ways apart from vague wishing)
b) The normal mechanisms of state-controlled violence do not act to reduce that threat, either because the actions of the white nationalists are protected by law, or the police choose not to act.
c) Actions including violence are likely to be more effective in reducing the threat than actions not including violence

Then, the minimum effective level of violence against that person/group by private citzens is morally justified (though should probably still be illegal).

In your example that tweet would fail condition a. If on the other hand, the tweet was "let's meet at x place at y time to talk about how we go about getting rid of all the blacks", that is a credible threat but would probably be protected by law, so forcibly preventing that meeting from taking place may be morally justified (i.e. the minimum effective level of violence), but severely beating everyone there wouldn't be.

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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:50 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:Okay. Now my understanding is there are those in this thread that believe violence against white nationalists is justified. Does this mean that if someone tweets "I wish all blacks would go back to Africa and leave America for the white race", violence is now justified against them?

I'm not trying to straw-man here, I'm just honestly not sure if anyone is actually taking this position.

If you're sitting at home tweeting, you need a dope slap but that's about it. I'm also not going to cry if you get fired.

If you're marching in the street with that, a punch in the face is an illegal act that still has moral justification.
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
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

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

Postby Weeks » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:01 pm UTC

This will all be rendered moot when that machine that lets you punch people over the Internet is finally invented
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
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3970
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

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

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:24 pm UTC

I find this "morally justified but should still be illegal" position people are talking about to be interesting and somewhat confusing, as in my mind what the law should be is conformant with ethical principles. To say that something should be illegal is to say that it's ethically impermissible (because that's why things should be illegal; if there's nothing ethically wrong with it, it should be legal). To say that something should be legally permitted is to say that it's ethically permissible (since if there's nothing ethically wrong with it, it shouldn't be prohibited). To say that something should not be legally obligatory is to say that it's ethically supererogatory. (And there are a lot of things that fall into that category: things that are ethically good, but not ethically obligatory, and so should not be legally obligatory.) And so on.
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
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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:32 pm UTC

The law should be conformant to moral and ethical principals, but that's a lot easier said than done. Not just because ethics and morals have grey areas, but also because the law is imprecise and courts have shown that they cannot be trusted to make those kind of judgement calls. So, it might not be immoral to punch a Nazi, but that doesn't mean it is better to legalize punching Nazis.

EDIT: In general, the times when violence is warranted anyway is when the police are unwilling or unable to protect you.
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

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

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

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:38 pm UTC

MartianInvader wrote:Okay. Now my understanding is there are those in this thread that believe violence against white nationalists is justified. Does this mean that if someone tweets "I wish all blacks would go back to Africa and leave America for the white race", violence is now justified against them?

I'm not trying to straw-man here, I'm just honestly not sure if anyone is actually taking this position.


I would like to further elaborate on this.

If Bob from HR posts that on his Facebook page I don't think anyone here (or elsewhere) is proposing that it is now OK to commit violence upon him. Most people probably don't want Bob to lose his job for it either (although it might be a little worrying coming from an HR professional... or anyone who has to interact with the public let alone hire people... I don't know why "HR" is the first thing that pops in my head for generic coworker). Which is not the same as "not caring" if Bob loses his job over it; people lose jobs all the time (and it's certainly less galling than e.g. a friend of mine who was fired today because "you just don't match the cultural 'fit' for this office") so I am not gonna be real put out if it happens, even if I might not make the same call myself. If instead of being an HR guy, Bob is the head of Twitter... well he has probably just done millions of dollars of damage to the brand, and since making decisions that are going to be to the benefit of Twitter is his entire job and instead he has just totally tanked the company, it makes sense that he might lose his job for it (especially since the best PR move to save the company is also him stepping down). And I only bring this up because this is a thing people often bring up in these hypothetical "But what if Bob said X would you think Y is OK then" scenarios.

The reason people are talking about the violence portion of these issues pretty much still goes back to Richard Spencer, a guy whose entire mission in life is to spread the word about white supremacy and who is a leader of the movement. Many people, representing "the middle" of American politics and thus including both typical Democratic voters and typical Republican voters took to spill a lot of energy/time/airspace about how awful violence is. This was coming from people who mostly "support the troops", think war (which they like to call foreign intervention) is at worst morally ambiguous, and kind of shrug about violence happening in their local communities and the world over. Even those for whom the previous sentence does not apply, nearly everyone agrees violence is justified in some cases. Which is why "Actually punching Nazis is good?" became a kind of meme; if you can agree it's all right we bomb Afghanistan, often hitting civilian or mixed civilian-military targets, it seems pretty dumb to be scolding others for having some schadenfreude about a leader of the white supremacist movement (an inherently violent philosophy that he is working to spread) getting socked in the face on occasion. Which was then somewhat willfully manipulated into a misunderstanding that "The left thinks it's OK to punch anyone they disagree with". I mean, if we can go to war with whole countries based on the actions of a few people, surely it's not the worst if the kind of ideologue responsible for the Dylann Roof shooting gets socked in the face, so bad that we need many many national newspaper columns about it?

So no, nobody thinks Bob from HR should have violence committed against him if he says that on Facebook. Many people in this thread (as I have read it) think that wasting a lot of ink and time on what happens to Bob if he goes to a rally in support of his belief and in the heat of the moment takes one on the chin seems like pretty weird behavior given how regularly police assault protesters and how little attention this type of thing is given by these same people. It doesn't really suggest the behavior of someone who is on the "not-Nazis" side of the equation. And when Bob's internet pals show up in Charlottesville in camo and vest with guns strapped to them and there is no equivalent show of paramilitary force on the other side (shield and sticks v. guns don't count, for me) and Bob's white supremacist internet friend Jack kills someone with his car well it starts to seem pretty shitty to worry about the entirely theoretical violence someone else MIGHT wish on Bob rather than Bob over there threatening violence (and I don't know that I buy that there's a peaceful version of 'I wish the blacks would go back to Africa and leave America for the white race').

OK, I think I've taken Bob as far as he can go.

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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:45 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:If the following conditions are met:

a) A white nationalist or group of white nationalists promotes their views in a way that is likely to pose a credible threat of violence against others (which given their views encompasses most ways apart from vague wishing)
b) The normal mechanisms of state-controlled violence do not act to reduce that threat, either because the actions of the white nationalists are protected by law, or the police choose not to act.
c) Actions including violence are likely to be more effective in reducing the threat than actions not including violence

Then, the minimum effective level of violence against that person/group by private citzens is morally justified (though should probably still be illegal).

It seems like it would be hypocritical to make this rule *only* be about white nationalists. Shouldn't it apply to any group that meets your criteria a), b), and c)?

And if we say violence is justified against any group that a) Promotes their views in a way likely to pose a credible threat of violence against others, b) Are not reduced by normal mechanisms of state-controlled violence, and c) Are more likely to be reduced through violence than non-violence, I'm pretty sure we just said that violence against antifa groups is justified.

Do you disagree, either with my logic or conclusion?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

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

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

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:52 pm UTC

I think b. is the point of disagreement I and most people would have in inserting Antifa in that. Antifa haven't intentionally infiltrated positions of power in police and government with the goal of spreading antifascism. Also largely disagree that a. applies to Antifa. This isn't the IRA or a paramilitary group.

nicklikesfire
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:20 am UTC
Location: CT, USA

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

Postby nicklikesfire » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:01 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:
I would like to further elaborate on this.

If Bob from HR posts that on his Facebook page I don't think anyone here (or elsewhere) is proposing that it is now OK to commit violence upon him. Most people probably don't want Bob to lose his job for it either...


I sure as hell do want Bob to lose his job over this. Especially if he is in HR, but really, no matter what his job is. I don't want to work with anyone who is comfortable posting racist messages in a public (or public enough) forum.

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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:08 pm UTC

Premise 1. There exist people who want to punch Nazis, White Nationalists, White Supremacists and other Racist Groups so much that they seek out said groups who are marching to punch them. For brevity's sake I will label that group "Antifa", but know that label is incorrect for a number of reasons outside the scope of this comment. Antifa represents a historic but also new violent opposition to Nazis. I say historic as there are gobs of historic examples of people violently opposing racists.... just not so much in the last few decades, at least not on this public of a scale.

Premise 2. There also exist Nazis (as above, using Nazi for brevity's sake though I know it's not accurate, outside scope, etc) who want to commit violence against certain groups for meeting certain racial qualities or, at best, forcibly eject said people from their homes and homelands (because if you're fifth generation in a place, that place is your homeland). They also want to do similar violence to people who oppose them (like Antifa)

Premise 3. Both groups are comfortable with violence.


From those premises, we can figure a few things.

1. Without Antifa, Nazis would have one less oppositional group and less fear of personal violence when marching.

2. Without Nazis, Antifa would..... watch Netflix and eat Cheetos.


My conclusion - It's really fucking hard for me to take the claim that "Antifa is as bad as Nazis!" seriously. As in, I think less of people making that claim. Way less. Best case is that I think of them like their children who don't know their shapes yet.

Worst case? They're either Nazis or Nazi sympathizer and collaborators. And from there I remind you of the "joke" - What do you call one Nazi and nine Nazi sympathizer? 10 Nazis.


(Oh, re:Bob. I'm personally willing to not do business with a company who won't fire Bob. I can find another contractor, bank, grocery, etc.)

Pfhorrest wrote:I find this "morally justified but should still be illegal" position people are talking about to be interesting and somewhat confusing, as in my mind what the law should be is conformant with ethical principles.
There are lots of things that I do not believe the Government should be involved in policing, and I believe Society should instead. Shunning White Supremacists, for example - making it difficult for them to find work and participate in society... that's not Government's job.

By the same token then, it drives home the seriousness of the situation - that is, to punch a Nazi is to say "I find your ideas so repulsive, so repugnant, so vile that I am going to willingly risk if not guarantee that I be sent to jail for assault in order to make my extreme displeasure known"

It's one thing to have a talking head on a TV somewhere call your beliefs vile.

It's quite another to be punched in the face.

And it's a third thing to see people treated as heroes for committing assault on you based on your beliefs.

"But isn't that just as bad as the people in the 50s and 60s who fought integration?"

Yes. It is. That's why it needs to not be Government's job, but societies. And one of the huge problems in the 50s and 60s were that the people committing the violent acts - and getting caught - were facing little to no jail time or punishment for extreme acts of violence.

That's typically not happening here. Someone punches a Nazi, that someone goes to jail, that someone is hailed as a hero. Government is staying out of it.
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
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

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

Postby Weeks » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:15 pm UTC

nicklikesfire wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:
I would like to further elaborate on this.

If Bob from HR posts that on his Facebook page I don't think anyone here (or elsewhere) is proposing that it is now OK to commit violence upon him. Most people probably don't want Bob to lose his job for it either...


I sure as hell do want Bob to lose his job over this. Especially if he is in HR, but really, no matter what his job is. I don't want to work with anyone who is comfortable posting racist messages in a public (or public enough) forum.
So much for the tolerant left...! *drowns in mayonnaise*
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
DaBigCheez
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

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

Postby DaBigCheez » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:19 pm UTC

Phrased like that, a facile surface reading makes it seem like there's an equivalence - "Nazis want a group to disappear or leave, Antifa want a group to disappear or leave, they must be the same!"

The difference, of course, being that "Nazis" / "White Nationalists" is a group of which you are a member by choice and action, and your race is...well...not.

I am now curious if this is what some people are thinking of when they draw an equivalence, or whether I'm giving people too little credit.

...or too much.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

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 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:28 pm UTC

Antifa doesn't even want people to stop being Nazis. They don't care.

They don't want people being Nazis in public. Where children can see them. Which is a very easy thing to do.

It's difficult to stop being black in public.
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
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

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

Postby Sableagle » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:33 pm UTC

Bob ... or, y'know, Martin, or whatever ... said something today along the lines of "You don't see black people in {this town}. They'd stand out. That's why he doesn't go into town." He pointed at someone else, who said he did, but only if he was carrying his passport. Bob / Martin / whoever then went on: "Have you seen that one mowing the lawn on the way home? He must be there once a week. He stands out doesn't he? When I see him I find myself drifting over, thinking: 'If I run over a n****r, will I get done?'"

Calling for violence? No. Expressing an intention to commit violence? No. Conspiring to commit violent acts? No. Consciously trying to make other people take less notice when white people commit violence against black people? In my opinion, no. If he runs his mouth in the wrong place and time, though, I'll be fascinated by some nearby topiary and witness nothing.

Are they dying out? Is there any info on that one? Are we turning into grumpy old racists more and more slowly, with a feedback loop that means the influences that cause the transition get weaker as the population shifts away from the ranting of old separatists, or are we still going along as ever before, losing our ideals and our standards to the attrition of a conflict-riddled and resource-stretched world full of others who long since profited by abandoning the principles that have held us back?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8860
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

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

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:48 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Antifa doesn't even want people to stop being Nazis. They don't care.

They don't want people being Nazis in public. Where children can see them. Which is a very easy thing to do.

It's difficult to stop being black in public.


1) One of the goals of hiding Nazis so "children can't see them" is that those children don't grow up to be Nazis. It's definitely on the lines of wanting there to be no more Nazis.

2) This is not a bad goal. Don't get me wrong I'm not bigoted or anything, <sarcasm>I mean some of my best friends are Nazis </sarcasm>, but overall they have a shitty ideology.

SecondTalon wrote:1. Without Antifa, Nazis would have one less oppositional group and less fear of personal violence when marching.

2. Without Nazis, Antifa would..... watch Netflix and eat Cheetos.


Devils advocate time.
1) Without minorities, Nazis would watch Netflix and eat Cheetos. Or some less awesome snack because Cheetos are vaguely Hispanic in origin. Also Netflix would be boring.
2) Without Nazis, less awful people would become society's dregs, and eventually people would become just as horrified at people who talk in theatres as they are towards Nazis today. Antifa would spend their energy on the people who don't pick up after their dogs, unless it's in a San Francisco park where Nazis will gather of course (best protest evar).


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests