2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Zardnaar]

So, waving a hakenkreuz, SS rune, or Black Sun rune doesn't make someone a Nazi?
Why else would someone wave a hakenkreuz?

To offend or draw attention to themselves.

Not going to be nitpicky about it like Patine though. If you're attending a far right rally waving it around that's good enough for me to call someone a Nazi.

 

[Patine]

To offend or draw attention to themselves.

Not going to be nitpicky about it like Patine though. If you're attending a far right rally waving it around that's good enough for me to call someone a Nazi.

As I've said many times, Nazi, or even Fascist, are VERY specific, narrowly-defined, and contextual terms, not broad-based, generic labels that it's appropriate to slap on to people sloppily, irresponsibly, and inappropriately. To make such sweeping applications of that kind of label, based only on flimsy criteria, allegations, and guilt by association, and feeling justified in applying arbitrary consequences worthy of the antiquated, obsolete label, is, itself, the pathway to the same type of thinking of actual historical Nazis and Fascists, as well as the old Red Scare McCarthyist/HUAC crowd.

 

[El_Machinae]

You responded by saying I'm blinded by my bias.

I am. I am outright saying that if someone claims to be antifa - without knowing anything else about them - you're more likely to give them a pass and be biased against the people they're acting against. I think it's problematic. It's why you straw-man, scare-quote, and mischaracterize the concern. You didn't authorize the people to commit violence in your name. You didn't vet them. Instinctively vouching for them is going to lose people when you vouch (or even defend) bad cases. Jesus, you're instinctively mocking the very idea that people claiming to be 'antifa' can over-step.

"I would support your opposition to fascism, but you aren't doing it in the way I like so I guess I'm going to sit this one out."

This isn't what I am saying. I'm saying that we should actually reign-in people who're "fighting fascism" inappropriately. Or, if we think that collateral is 'necessary' (and I actually suspect it is), then we describe and learn from it rather than denying it.

There is a very simple statement here

Antifa is a self-identification and there are going to be people who misapply violence (or intimidation) while wrapping themselves in the flag of 'antifa'. People's interpretation of that misapplied violence is going to be predictable based on their latent biases. So, don't be biased and recognize that you will lose people when they notice your bias. Let's flip it here.

So, waving a hakenkreuz, SS rune, or Black Sun rune doesn't make someone a Nazi?
Why else would someone wave a hakenkreuz?

I would go one further, if that hakenkreuz-waver feels like he's welcome or tolerated in whatever march you're in, you're probably sufficiently Nazi. If you swing fists defending him, you're in the wrong. And if one of your allies doesn't notice that you're marching with swastikas or thinks of your march as 'merely conservative', you've already lost credibility. Especially if you defend it.

"If you're in the right, then why did Person X feel welcome on your team?" is a powerful critique.

 

[Akka]

I am. I am outright saying that if someone claims to be antifa - without knowing anything else about them - you're more likely to give them a pass and be biased against the people they're acting against. I think it's problematic. It's why you straw-man, scare-quote, and mischaracterize the concern. You didn't authorize the people to commit violence in your name. You didn't vet them. Instinctively vouching for them is going to lose people when you vouch (or even defend) bad cases. Jesus, you're instinctively mocking the very idea that people claiming to be 'antifa' can over-step.

"I would support your opposition to fascism, but you aren't doing it in the way I like so I guess I'm going to sit this one out."

This isn't what I am saying. I'm saying that we should actually reign-in people who're "fighting fascism" inappropriately. Or, if we think that collateral is 'necessary' (and I actually suspect it is), then we describe and learn from it rather than denying it.

There is a very simple statement here

Antifa is a self-identification and there are going to be people who misapply violence (or intimidation) while wrapping themselves in the flag of 'antifa'. People's interpretation of that misapplied violence is going to be predictable based on their latent biases. So, don't be biased and recognize that you will lose people when they notice your bias. Let's flip it here.

You know, while I do agree with you overall, I find it rather frightening that the main argument you put forth is that supporting random beatings by whatever thug who dons a black shirt and claims he's fighting fascism, is that it risks alienating people that could have been politically convinced otherwise.

I'd like to think that supporting random beat-ups was in itself a problem, even if it actually didn't had any effect on political opinions. I suppose that you're using this argument because you think it's the one which will reach the guy you try to convince, but I really hope it's obvious that "it won't convince the people we want to convince" is not the actual, fundamental reason why you're saying that we shouldn't allow people to beat up others.

 

[Hrothbern]

This isn't what I am saying. I'm saying that we should actually reign-in people who're "fighting fascism" inappropriately

I have no other experience from antifascim committees in the 80ies in Amsterdam that proper "maintenance" was done to prevent the sharp edges, regardless the possible motives involved people could have. Like washing your hands not knowing precisely the bugs.

 

[El_Machinae]

I suppose that you're using this argument because you think it's the one which will reach the guy you try to convince, but I really hope it's obvious that "it won't convince the people we want to convince" is not the actual, fundamental reason why you're saying that we shouldn't allow people to beat up others.

No, not really.

I worry about us being at the stage where actual violence/intimidation has to be in the toolkit. I don't want it to be true, but I recognize that there's memetic poison out there that causes more damage being unchecked than checked. I think that liberals, over-all, don't recognize that naked violence and intimidation is in the toolkit of the right and that memetic poison can seep faster than it can be countered. And I also think that it is easier to police your own than 'theirs', because of human nature.

If a swastika feels welcome at a rally, then I think that expelling that swastika is necessary. Ideally getting 'them' to do it, so that there's some improvement in the dialogue overall. But just like with any self-defense scenario, you endeavor to use the minimal reasonable force. But just like with self-defense, you cannot err on the side of insufficient force. Conversely, if the swastika notices me beating up the wrong person, and then other conservatives do as well, I can fully expect them to accept the swastika's help in defending my victim from me.

The violence might be necessary, because the status quo is violence being done by the rightwing. Minimal reasonable force, but it cannot be underapplied. That means collateral damage, the same that happens if I permanently blind a mugger with a thumb in the eye. Grinding my thumb into his cheek would have gotten me stabbed.

 

[KaibaCorp]

Leftists have shown quite clearly violence is already in their toolkit. Especially this year, let’s not pretend they’ve been the passive side recently.

 

[aelf]

Once you make an argument that the alt-right and fascists can latch on to defend their cause, I think some self-reflection is in order.

There's also still a lack of examples of non-fascists being intimidated by leftists, so it's looking more and more like a strawman.

It's also looking more and more like a case of moderate's disease.

 

[El_Machinae]

Leftists have shown quite clearly violence is already in their toolkit. Especially this year, let’s not pretend they’ve been the passive side recently.

I know. And I'm agreeing that there was collateral.

Let's not forget, though, that Trump gassed a pastor out of her church for a photo-op and that the global warming crisis has gotten worse.

Me being unable to stop you from emitting destructively onto my property, because you'll use violence, is still violence. The violence is deep, committed, and ongoing. It's just institutional. So, violence might be necessary to stop it, because talking might not be.

 

[KaibaCorp]

Collateral. So what is the primary objective of every douche on the streets the past 6 months that was caught committing acts of physical violence?

 

[Zardnaar]

My theory is the alt right want you do use violence.

Don't play their game. It's like a child stamping their feet. Ignore them.

Don't like the game, don't play espicially if they've written the rules.

 

[GenMarshall]

No, not really.

I worry about us being at the stage where actual violence/intimidation has to be in the toolkit. I don't want it to be true, but I recognize that there's memetic poison out there that causes more damage being unchecked than checked. I think that liberals, over-all, don't recognize that naked violence and intimidation is in the toolkit of the right and that memetic poison can seep faster than it can be countered. And I also think that it is easier to police your own than 'theirs', because of human nature.

If a swastika feels welcome at a rally, then I think that expelling that swastika is necessary. Ideally getting 'them' to do it, so that there's some improvement in the dialogue overall.

This may sound idealistic, but I’d like to see groups do something and call out neo-Nazi infiltrators within their group and ask them to leave. Though the issue is that neo-Nazis and more militant Alt-rightists tend to more violent and will lash out if they’re told or forced to leave. Online, I see it with an issue of neo-Nazis and Alt-rightists infiltrating apolitical YouTube channels (the infamous Alt-Right Pipeline). Yes creators have the power to call them out and even telling them that they’re not welcome. The backlash they’d revive is at best they’re called a race traitor, a “misspelling of chicken”, or at worse revive death threats in their comments section, private messages, and emails.

QUOTE="El_Machinae, post: 15964322, member: 71642"]The violence might be necessary, because the status quo is violence being done by the rightwing. Minimal reasonable force, but it cannot be underapplied. That means collateral damage, the same that happens if I permanently blind a mugger with a thumb in the eye. Grinding my thumb into his cheek would have gotten me stabbed.

“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Collateral. So what is the primary objective of every douche on the streets the past 6 months that was caught committing acts of physical violence?

One train of thought would be opportunists seeking to cause chaos in the streets after sundown and taking advantage of a demoralized police force after the Defund the Police moment. Another theory I’ve heard about is that it may likely be pent up anger and rage that’s been exacerbated by the COVID lockdowns.

 

[AmazonQueen]

My theory is the alt right want you do use violence.

Don't play their game. It's like a child stamping their feet. Ignore them.

Don't like the game, don't play espicially if they've written the rules.

Thats fine until one of them is driving a car at you.

 

[El_Machinae]

“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” - Mahatma Gandhi.

And then the Right elected someone who literally claimed that 'an eye for an eye' is his favorite Bible verse*. That requires response.

All winning strategies of the iterative prisoner's dilemma involve punishment for cheating. Sure, occasionally testing for cooperation can sometimes win, but only if you get lucky

Spoiler My error :

*I was 100% wrong about Evangelicals in the weeks after that moment

 

[Akka]

No, not really.

Yeah, well, sorry but that's mental.

I mean, I agree that if it's in (actual) self-defence, violence might be acceptable in the toolkit. If someone makes actual hate calls or death threats or whatever which actually puts someone in danger and gets a mouthfull of fist, then I won't cry over him.
But when "collaterals" happens, my problem is not "that will not convince people", my problem is "collaterals happened". I don't consider that punching people who didn't actually deserve it is a nuisance and that looking bad is the real problem.
I mean, I understand that collateral could happen, and still the fight be worth it (it's not because civilians were unintentionally killed that it was wrong to fight the Nazis, to take the usual and safe example, or that some holding certain valuable principles could harm some people doesn't mean that these principles should be eschewed), but the problem of harming and innocent should always BE that you harmed an innocent, and NOT how harming an innocent is a liability to you.

Notice that's the root of my beef with our residents unhinged self-proclaimed anti-fascists : they care more about the dogma than the meaning, which is a close cousin of caring more about appearances than actual values
(you can call it more commonly "hypocrisy").

 

[Cloud_Strife]

But when "collaterals" happens, my problem is not "that will not convince people", my problem is "collaterals happened". I don't consider that punching people who didn't actually deserve it is a nuisance and that looking bad is the real problem.

It's so strange that you pipe up about this when it comes to fascist adjacents but say **** all when it comes to minorities being collateral damage, almost as if you don't actually care when it doesn't align to your free-speech absolutist desires

Edit:

Nevermind that tolerating bigots and their enablers is a position that puts minority lives in danger, inherently.

 

[Patine]

Once you make an argument that the alt-right and fascists can latch on to defend their cause, I think some self-reflection is in order.

There's also still a lack of examples of non-fascists being intimidated by leftists, so it's looking more and more like a strawman.

It's also looking more and more like a case of moderate's disease.

"Moderate's disease?" The stupidity and braindead nature of socio-political labelling in the modern day and age, especially to perpetuate the lie of the simplistic, binary, black-and-white, Neo-Manichaean viewpoint and all the ruinous, detrimental, and self-sabotaging and -destructive effects wreaked though it by ALL who participate in it, regardless of which "side," they are one (parentheses used advisedly, as the strictly two-sided view of affairs is a contrived, artificial, and disingenuous power scheme by short-sighted and treasonous ideologues, politicians, and pundits attached to BOTH American Duopoly Parties for short-term gain without care for long-term damage and the unravelling and disintegration of their own nation as result - and so very many - far too many - are falling for, and embracing with relish, this vile and destructive lie of an integral divide).

 

[Patine]

And then the Right elected someone who literally claimed that 'an eye for an eye' is his favorite Bible verse*. That requires response.

All winning strategies of the iterative prisoner's dilemma involve punishment for cheating. Sure, occasionally testing for cooperation can sometimes win, but only if you get lucky

Spoiler My error :

*I was 100% wrong about Evangelicals in the weeks after that moment

It's an Old Covenant verse. The Ministry of Christ, if properly followed and embraced, follows a VERY different theme and tenor. Not that the "American Evangelical," Movement are very astute at following Christ's Ministry at all - their doctrinaires and leaders are very obvious as the wolves in sheep's clothing amongst the flock they are, so one should dismiss them as being representative of Christian belief and values.

 

[Akka]

It's so strange that you pipe up about this when it comes to fascist adjacents but say **** all when it comes to minorities being collateral damage, almost as if you don't actually care when it doesn't align to your free-speech absolutist desires

I'm not responsible of your selective bias. The fact that you only are able to register "fascists' adjacents" when the subject is precisely about abuse spilling over innocent people kinda demonstrate the whole problem.

The neverending circle. You call whoever disagrees with you a fascist, so people see that what you call a fascist might in fact not be a fascist at all, and then you reason that if they don't see what you call "fascist" a fascist, it's that they are fascists themselves. Circular reasoning at its finest, but you seem to be too mental to ever notice.

Nevermind that tolerating bigots and their enablers is a position that puts minority lives in danger, inherently.

Case in point : "whoever doesn't agree with me is a fascist or an enabler or a supporter of them".
Nice little unfalsifiable bubble you built yourself here.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm not responsible of your selective bias. The fact that you only are able to register "fascists' adjacents" when the subject is precisely about abuse spilling over innocent people kinda demonstrate the whole problem.

The neverending circle. You call whoever disagrees with you a fascist, so people see that what you call a fascist might in fact not be a fascist at all, and then you reason that if they don't see what you call "fascist" a fascist, it's that they are fascists themselves. Circular reasoning at its finest, but you seem to be too mental to ever notice.

Quoted for posterity.

What do you mean by "[I'm] too mental"?

Come on, spit it out.