Antifa rocks!

[Cloud_Strife]

You are a prime example of the moderate that MLK Jr railed against and i struggle to see how your positions do anything but help enable the status quo and perpetuate the suffering faced by minorities.

So again i ask, how is your position functionally different from letting minorities suffer what they will when the end result is that they suffer all the same? And why should anybody give you the benefit of the doubt about your motivations or convinctions when you've made it abundantly clear that you hold the dignity and rights of bigots above the dignity and rights of minorities? In what way are you different from a republican who claims to be socially moderate yet still votes alongside their socially regressive counterparts, enabling the status quo and discrimination?

I am struggling to see how you are anything other than a roadblock to minorities safety, happiness, wellbeing and security in society and every answer you give is some form of attempting to justify the status quo, which isn't good enough for me and needs to change, so that minorities do not face the brunt of an uncaring, indifferent society.

If the suffering of actual minorities does not move you to seek changes whilst you simultainously are aghast at hypothetical bigots not being given enough tolerance, as well potentially bigot-adjacent people being targetted may i kindly suggest you likely have sympathies with the latter and care more for them and that you are functionally and in actuality an impediment to the former.

 

[Kyriakos]

Some people just don't care enough. It happens with every issue, not just minority-based ones.
In my view, if doable, the best thing would be to have enough voters to seek on the one hand tougher "hate-crime" laws, on the other not really touch the "freedom of speech" - not because I doubt many exploit said freedom, but because if it is diminished then it can be exploited by state actors, which is possibly more dangerous for the entirety of the population.
And yes, you can have diminished freedom of speech - eg Germany has various laws about nazi stuff - but that itself won't have to lead to limiting the number of nazis. Again you often see the opposite happening (including in Germany with the rise of fascist parties, though still in the minority unlike in Austria).
One has to assume that if somehow freedom of speech was limited in the US (compared to what it now is) the result wouldn't really be a decrease in the number of far-right activists/members. For starters in the US there isn't any legacy of ww2 war-crimes in the first place, so there is less shame attached to being a member of such a group.

 

[Rashiminos]

You are a prime example of the moderate that MLK Jr railed against and i struggle to see how your positions do anything but help enable the status quo and perpetuate the suffering faced by minorities.

So again i ask, how is your position functionally different from letting minorities suffer what they will when the end result is that they suffer all the same? And why should anybody give you the benefit of the doubt about your motivations or convinctions when you've made it abundantly clear that you hold the dignity and rights of bigots above the dignity and rights of minorities? In what way are you different from a republican who claims to be socially moderate yet still votes alongside their socially regressive counterparts, enabling the status quo and discrimination?

I am struggling to see how you are anything other than a roadblock to minorities safety, happiness, wellbeing and security in society and every answer you give is some form of attempting to justify the status quo, which isn't good enough for me and needs to change, so that minorities do not face the brunt of an uncaring, indifferent society.

That's just it. You're not struggling to see. You are miles away from what MLK Jr. preached or practiced. You still think violence is at all useful in accomplishing your goals. Your instructors are to be found in the tyrants of history if you choose that route: Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and yes, Hitler. Most of them failed in their lifetimes, but they knew a thing or two about using brute force to achieve their missions. Maybe you can punch fascists better than they hit their respective targets. MLK was frustrated that moderates would not march with him. Would not go to jail with him. Would not suffer AS HE DID when he exposed the various moral contradictions at work in the society of his time. He saw enough that he knew exactly what to show someone loosely tethered to that fence to inspire a movement. To do this, he also needed to move.

If the suffering of actual minorities does not move you to seek changes whilst you simultainously are aghast at hypothetical bigots not being given enough tolerance, as well potentially bigot-adjacent people being targetted may i kindly suggest you likely have sympathies with the latter and care more for them and that you are functionally and in actuality an impediment to the former.

The uniforms of bigots and targets are not so cleanly sown into the skin as you "kindly" suggest. Someone always wants a turn to crack the whip. Indifference is butting out of the argument and letting you have the fight you seem hell bent on having , and insisting I help rig in your favor to ensure there's no possible way it's rigged in theirs. What benefit of the doubt, what disparity in dignities?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And how can society move when anchors such as yourself exist to prevent that drift towards equality and tolerance? When "moderates" such as yourself advocate for at best a very slow change and at worst give bigots ammunition by defending the status quo? Don't kid yourself, he was talking about people like you.

The uniforms of bigots and targets are not so cleanly sown into the skin as you "kindly" suggest. Someone always wants a turn to crack the whip. Indifference is butting out of the argument and letting you have the fight you seem hell bent on having , and insisting I help rig in your favor to ensure there's no possible way it's rigged in theirs. What benefit of the doubt, what disparity in dignities?

And what if my fight is against bigots who would oppress me and other minorities? What if my fight is for society to treat me with the bare basic dignity expected of every human being? Your neutrality does nothing but help the bigot, they are counting on people like you to stand idlely by as they target groups that are vulnerable, as they try to spread their ideology of hate, as they work to make minority lives harder.

Imagine if i was to watch passively as an orthodox Jew gets jumped by a Neoi-Nazi and beaten up, would you seriously expect them to be content with an answer of "it's not my business, the benefit of the doubt etc..." even if you find this hyperbolic, this is how you will be viewed by minorities and their allies; as a bystander unwilling to and perhaps even afraid of helping and i have sneaking suspicion that you are one of those types that likes to complain about minorities being vocal about their complaints and issues.

 

[Kyriakos]

And what if my fight is against bigots who would oppress me and other minorities? What if my fight is for society to treat me with the bare basic dignity expected of every human being?

I like you, yet it isn't true that society treats anyone not in a minority by default with "bare basic human dignity". If that was so then you'd only have minority groups face social problems.
Basically, if you are different in a given setting, in whatever way (ie not just sexually/"racially") you may face very significant problems. Basic human dignity, very sadly, is not a given.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I like you, yet it isn't true that society treats anyone not in a minority by default with "bare basic human dignity". If that was so then you'd only have minority groups face social problems.

Minorities face problems that are often unique to their individual groups, for people of colour and other ethnicities, being subjected to racism is one of them, for religious minorities having your community be marginalised is one of them same for the LGBT community etc, you see where i'm going with this?

If society tolerates and does not punish heterosexuality but it does for homosexuality, bisexuality and being transgender, how is that not dignity being restricted to those that are not heterosexual and cis? And why do you get to stand back and not get called out for your passivity if you are doing exactly that? I realise it is confrontational but that is the only manner in which minorities can assert their rights and dignity; by reminding the majority, especially if violence or counter protesting is considered wrong.

 

[Kyriakos]

Minorities face problems that are often unique to their individual groups, for people of colour and other ethnicities, being subjected to racism is one of them, for religious minorities having your community be marginalised is one of them same for the LGBT community etc, you see where i'm going with this?

If society tolerates and does not punish heterosexuality but it does for homosexuality, bisexuality and being transgender, how is that not dignity being restricted to those that are not heterosexual and cis?

What you say is obviously true. But one doesn't need to be marginalized due to just the above factors, is what I am saying. A great many people are, and face bullying, for entirely different reasons. That doesn't make it any better.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What you say is obviously true. But one doesn't need to be marginalized due to just the above factors, is what I am saying. A great many people are, and face bullying, for entirely different reasons. That doesn't make it any better.

And would you not at least concede that it would be better to do something about that issue then to surrender to the old age position of "deal with it"? That position has done nothing to help minorities or the majority who are also bullied and is often used by people to excuse systemic oppression, disparities, laws, injustices, discrimination, bullying, rape, child abuse, corruption, etc.

 

[Kyriakos]

And would you not at least concede that it would be better to do something about that issue then to surrender to the old age position of "deal with it"? That position has done nothing to help minorities or the majority who are also bullied and is often used by people to excuse systemic oppression, disparities, laws, injustices, discrimination, bullying, rape, child abuse, corruption, etc.

I am not saying "deal with it". I just note that often there is what passes as indifference or callousness, when in reality it may just be that (many) other people just have their own issues to begin with - issues which also produce significant strife, not of incomparable level in most cases.

 

[Rashiminos]

And how can society move when anchors such as yourself exist to prevent that drift towards equality and tolerance? When "moderates" such as yourself advocate for at best a very slow change and at worst give bigots ammunition by defending the status quo? Don't kid yourself, he was talking about people like you.

You are not drifting in the direction of tolerance. You're a privilege lobbyist, just not the kind the status quo as yet promotes. Your fists give bigots more ammo than my words. The marks of transgressions are indented in faces of people you falsely swear up and down are fascists. You expect me to believe your lies.

And what if my fight is against bigots who would oppress me and other minorities? What if my fight is for society to treat me with the bare basic dignity expected of every human being?

Can you give that same basic human dignity?

Imagine if i was to watch passively as an orthodox Jew gets jumped by a Neoi-Nazi and beaten up, would you seriously expect them to be content with an answer of "it's not my business, the benefit of the doubt etc..." even if you find this hyperbolic, this is how you will be viewed by minorities and their allies; as a bystander unwilling to and perhaps even afraid of helping and i have sneaking suspicion that you are one of those types that likes to complain about minorities being vocal about their complaints and issues.

As far as I can tell, you already do. You expect me to celebrate it.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I am not saying "deal with it". I just note that often there is what passes as indifference or callousness, when in reality it may just be that (many) other people just have their own issues to begin with - issues which also produce significant strife, not of incomparable level in most cases.

Possibly, but perhaps then society should be more empathetic and sympathetic and not so willing to let intolerance and bigotry slide, that is all i ask for; a change in attitudes both legally and socially and yet i am faced with resistance and attempts to deflect from people who i know for a fact have the intellectual ability to understand and process that, yet do not for reasons that are simply untenable and unacceptable to me.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You are not drifting in the direction of tolerance. You're a privilege lobbyist, just not the kind the status quo as yet promotes. Your fists give bigots more ammo than my words. The marks of transgressions are indented in faces of people you falsely swear up and down are fascists. You expect me to believe your lies.

Ah yes, the priviledge of not being treated like a second class citizen by society, truly what a burden i and other minorities are placing on society and you. You aren't willing to fight for my rights, you won't even advocate for them with any sort of sincerity online let alone offline, you also give cover and defence to the same people who wish me ill, so yes unfortunately i must rely on Antifa to curb bigots because until the majority decide that bigots are a threat to society i have no other form of protection nor any recourse. Suffer what they must indeed.

Can you give that same basic human dignity?

I do not tolerate bigotry because that can easily lead to me being the next victim, i wouldn't expect you to understand that however.

As far as I can tell, you already do. You expect me to celebrate it.

I can only go by your own posts and attitude towards the issue.

If you do not like the reflection in the mirror i am holding up you should turn away and avert your gaze.

 

[Rashiminos]

Ah yes, the priviledge of not being treated like a second class citizen by society, truly what a burden i and other minorities are placing on society and you. You aren't willing to fight for my rights, you won't even advocate for them with any sort of sincerity online let alone offline, you also give cover and defence to the same people who wish me ill, so yes unfortunately i must rely on Antifa to curb bigots because until the majority decide that bigots are a threat to society i have no other form of protection nor any recourse. Suffer what they must indeed.

No, you are asking for "rights" no one in a just society ought to have. The 'right' to be titled as you please lest you bring your boot down. The 'right' to stomp journalists for covering what you wish they would not. The 'right' to control the sharing of thoughts lest a bigot have too much clout. You need a second-class citizenry, otherwise you will never feel safe enough.

I do not tolerate bigotry because that can easily lead to me being the next victim, i wouldn't expect you to understand that however.

I get that some people are legitimately threatened and fearing for their lives. Others become paranoid (that's the experience of actual white supremacy, paranoia). Cynical actors manufacture their own death threats.

I can only go by your own posts and attitude towards the issue.

If you do not like the reflection in the mirror i am holding up you should turn away.

The parts well-reflected in the mirror I do like. The cracks and holes..., they say it's bad luck, do they not?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Ah yes, the unfair assumption that i can go outside without being verbally or physically harrassed for a characteristic that i possess that i have no control over.

The unfair assumption, right or priviledge of being able to go outside and not having to worry whether this is the day i will bump into someone who will go beyond just harassing me and physically assault me.

Your positions are a joke, you defend bigots and their dignity more so than you would ever do for minorities and complain when called out about it, even worse you make excuses and apologetics for the status quo, the same apologetics that bigots then go on to co-opt to further attack minorities. I gave you opportunities to not double down, to not align yourself with bigots or to use the same excuses their fellow travellers use, yet you still do and i cannot assume in all good faith that you are merely naive, contrarian or truly believe in equality when you expect others to suffer for YOUR conveniance.

It is a pattern and i think you sympathise more with hypothetical conservatives and bigot-adjacent conservatives than you do with actual, living minorities who are demonstrably suffering, you place the formers dignity over the latters and that is unacceptable in a world which has had countless example of that leading to genocide, war, suffering, murders, rapes, child abuse, bullying, corruption, insitutional disenfranchisement, racism etc.

You are an enabler and you should be exposed for the hand-sitting moderate that you are.

 

[cardgame]

No, you are asking for "rights" no one in a just society ought to have.

Ah yes, the "special rights" chestnut. I bet you said the same thing when the Matthew Shepard Act was passed.

I get that some people are legitimately threatened and fearing for their lives. Others become paranoid (that's the experience of actual white supremacy, paranoia).

Okay, so you "get" that minorities are legitimately threatened and that white supremacists are paranoid of non-whites. But you're here posting with an attitude that says you don't get it at all.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I have no doubt Rashiminos would have been one of those people attempting to stymy and block segregation, interracial relationships, gay marriage, busing, equal pay, etc. It is through societal shaming and changes in law that these issues have begun to be dealt with.

Now he can't come out and say that he would openly oppose them, because society has gotten to a point where that will result in you being ostracised, so he'll just defend the status quo and be reluctant to advance any changes because to be open about it is to give the game away you see, to be open about his cavalier attitude is to invite others to speculate on his true feelings on minorities; that they should put up and shut up about the abuse they recieve from the majority as well as bigots.

 

[Rashiminos]

Ah yes, the unfair assumption that i can go outside without being verbally or physically harrassed for a characteristic that i possess that i have no control over. The unfair assumption, right or priviledge of being able to go outside and not having to worry whether this is the day i will bump into someone who will go beyond just harassing me and physically assault me.

A courtesy you, yourself, choose actively not to extend.

Your positions are a joke, you defend bigots and their dignity more so than you would ever do for minorities and complain when called out about it, even worse you make excuses and apologetics for the status quo, the same apologetics that bigots then go on to co-opt to further attack minorities. I gave you oppertunities to not double down, yet you still do and i cannot assume in all good faith that you are merely naive, contrarian or truly believe in equality when you expect others to suffer for YOUR conveniance.

I don't expect you to suffer so much as idle, you enjoy where you are. I do expect you not to avoid becoming akin to that which you deride. Invariably this means you can only see me as a bigot-lover.

Ah yes, the "special rights" chestnut. I bet you said the same thing when the Matthew Shepard Act was passed.

Try it out for about 60 years, then get back to me.

Okay, so you "get" that minorities are legitimately threatened and that white supremacists are paranoid of non-whites. But you're here posting with an attitude that says you don't get it at all.

I'll note that you spread some associations out from the parentheses I enclosed them in. Detours not intended.

 

[cardgame]

The ultimate tactic to defeat bigotry is to do nothing.

 

[Hygro]

It's very common to see something out of bounds and imagine it extends much further. (people be trippin') When I see this common thing Peuri is calling information laundering, I start to wonder how much of my own side is built on (accidental) lies. Is it all of it? Are we suckers with a false, and therefore unnatural and therefore evil ideology? And then my mind keeps going: were the Republicans right all along? Is Dick Cheney the good guy telling dark truths?

Which is BS. The Republicans aren't special. They do it too. And they're still bad, almost on purpose, and maybe not "almost".

I would ask my own team to not trigger my cascading paranoia with dishonest, wishful categorizing. But if it took me this long and truth and reality are what I care about, (not my identity, or acceptance in society etc, or even reconfirmation of my worldview*), it would be, dare I say ableist or privileged for me to ask such folks to cut that sh out. So then I wonder what I can do to steward the process to a better place, but I also wonder if maybe a bunch of people acting out on bad information is somehow a good thing and I'm just a blind man touching an "elephant of good" naming it bad for having a negative/mistruth part to its elephantine process.

*Of course I also do care about these things. But secondarily.

But then I remember the person who sees a mess trending towards optimal, then declaring the messiness the cause of its optimality and then actively trying to make it better by stop agents from trying to make it better, instead of taking the steps to make the mess better that actually were pulling it towards optimality in the first place which gave rise to the observation to begin with (duh). Reminds me of the time I was on a freeway protesting police shootings of unarmed black kids being pushed by an angry cop and I started telling him "it's all just a dance", you know, to chill it out, which of course backfired. Shortly after he aimed his ire at me specifically, started yelling and pushing his hands on his baton into my belly.

Which loops me back to the point of imagining things beyond what they are. If someone like me could be like "wow my own side is made up of really bad miscategorizations and I'm gaining a lot more wisdom seeing other points of view" and then, not check themselves, stay a little crazy, and then make the leap and join the other team, that would be a problem. And then I wonder how deep can it go? Republicans can gain numbers two ways: buy people (tax cuts), and let Democrats push their own out of the party with their own misbehavior. No one who isn't already there is joining them to learn to be better racists.

Do you understand?

No one joins the rightwing because the rightwing has good ideas. The join because they get bought or because there's a lot of mystery on their side, while their own side's loudest members are literally condoning and even finding ways to support violence based on lies. The Iraq War was violence built on lies. Well Saddam was WMD adjacent. Ooh, don't forget Al-Qaeda adjacent.

Andy Ngo was also doxxing people! I'm dubious. Ngo was building the brand of public figures who wanted to get read. That's not doxxing, that's advertising. Unless I'm wrong. I went off one tweet and the top reply (one of the "doxxed"), but certainly not on the analysis of the publication that linked to it.

I don't know when it happened but I thought the Republicans were bad in part because they were wrong and we were right. But if my own side can't identify true and false, and acts wrong in the name of right on truths that are false, my first instinct is to flip the script, and wonder, are we wrong and they are right?

And here's where it gets real tricky: right over on this greener grass promise are a bunch of useful actionable truths that make my life better. Right over the fence are basic wisdoms that sufficiently predictive where my own side's lenses failed me. A lesser mind would take that as proof that they finally "woke up" or found the truth, and would become a convert. I just know if you separate and survive, you will build your own useful and true knowledge and perspectives shared among your own, and that wisdom will grow and refine over time. It doesn't change that the top of their party is a racist pedophile signing off on huge buyouts that entrench and further enrich the already powerful. They do evil things on a grand scale, and use dirty tactics to achieve it. But it's so easy to go "they know so much, that which doesn't penetrate to my world, maybe I'm wrong about those bad things, maybe they a) don't do some of things, b) I'm wrong about what those things do, c) the rest aren't even bad." And then POW! You suddenly have faith. Faith that the low hanging fruits of seeing their point of view disprove your bias against their misdeeds and they're good and you're bad.

And just before I finish remembering their team is harboring the rise of hate crimes against trans-persons, separating and locking up children from parents as acts of terrorism to dissuade migrants, (related: having a labor secretary in charge of investigating human trafficking who was close to Epstein and also lost hundreds of migrant children), always writing new laws to print more money to give to already rich people, and actually fighting for catastrophic climate change, my mind wanders to the issue of the bad actors themselves. And then I think, the bad actors of my side don't invalidate my side, so then....

But aha I've already listed their crimes and it's obvious. And I know their tactics, my favorite of which is to accuse the other side of their own misdoings, which is why pizzagate was the harbinger to us "now" learning the 2016 story of the 90s Trump-Epstein connection. If they prematurely claim we're doing it, it's because they're already guilty. So no surprise. And then I go, goddamn, they really are that bad.

But I've just spent some 3 odd hours trying to detail a multiyear process I relive over and over again, because people on my own team seem to have no discipline on honest recognition of what's happening. Andy Ngo probably is not a doxxer. He didn't deserve to get attacked. And if we have bad morals (it's okay to attack people), and bad defenses of our moral stances (well it's because he is published next to bad people, plus grasping at doxxing straws), who are we to lead what's right?

I remember two things:

1) either I can agree with you, we can be immoral (pro-violence) and dishonest (pro-miscategorizing) to our ends. At which point, f-off, Democrats I'm going to cash in with the real bad guys. Let's steal some wells and sell the water back to them.

or

2) I remember that I'm to the left of all of you. My values are peace and truth, and I hope the path I clear is one you can walk later.

 

[Rashiminos]

The ultimate tactic to defeat bigotry is to do nothing.

I appreciate the sarcasm, unironically.