Punching Nazis

[Senethro]

There are two very distinct issues here, one about violence, the other about trolls like Milo:

1) Imo violence in the case of not self-defense (or not self-defense as a tenuous ground; ie people may think they have to be violent to avoid worse things, but this has to be examined on a case by case basis and isn't always true obviously) shouldn't be acceptable.
2) Milo is a really bad troll. As in garbage posting*. But he didn't just appear out of thin air; that the overall ludicrous media culture facilitates this idiocy from both "right-wing" and "left-wing" trolls, or even believers/swj/anti-swj is the issue here. Removing Milo alone won't mean anything; someone else will step forward to do the same or analogous. The whole debate from "both" sides is of a stupid and (by now) dangerous level.

*Maher, himself megalomaniac and sort of a troll (but not entirely one, and neither a fraud), was very correct in likening Milo to Coen's persona "Bruno", cause this looks like an act.

Infact i don't think i have seen any media figure there (not that i know many US media figures) present some opinion at the same time honest and commendable/caring. Another "right wing" jerk is that pro-Israel guy (don't recall his name, saw him on Piers--another jerk -- some thin jewish guy with black hair and glasses) who comedically attacks Milo arguing that Milo is the extreme while he is logical. No, this is another effect of having jerks and/or morons doing the debate.

Have you ever of the idea of a "stalking horse" in politics, where a junior politician raises a controversial issue on behalf of his party to see if public response is favourable? If it is credible politicians suddenly and slickly adopt it and were in fact behind it all along. The analogy is with a hunter walking behind his horse to get close to deer.

With the alt-right theres a sort of one man stalking horse thing going on with them using troll personas as the horse.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe with some of them, but others seem to just be career trolls only caring to make a name for themselves. It also happens with the analogous figures in the "left". Imo it isn't much about right or left, but about the current trolling climate and media culture that erodes serious discussion.

 

[Mouthwash]

Infact i don't think i have seen any media figure there (not that i know many US media figures) present some opinion at the same time honest and commendable/caring. Another "right wing" jerk is that pro-Israel guy (don't recall his name, saw him on Piers--another jerk -- some thin jewish guy with black hair and glasses) who comedically attacks Milo arguing that Milo is the extreme while he is logical. No, this is another effect of having jerks and/or morons doing the debate.

So have you actually seen anything trollish about Ben Shapiro or is that just your way of denigrating people without refuting them? I know you're very skilled at that.

^Maybe with some of them, but others seem to just be career trolls only caring to make a name for themselves. It also happens with the analogous figures in the "left". Imo it isn't much about right or left, but about the current trolling climate and media culture that erodes serious discussion.

I dunno, Shapiro's answer to that seems as mature, measured and nonpartisan as I've ever seen. But that would entail weighing arguments and logical reasoning and why do that when you can dismiss anyone on the other side of the culture war as subhuman?

(One has to wonder why the word 'troll' is used.)

 

[Kyriakos]

^That is the one, Shapiro. I only saw 3 videos of his, and already had enough with his jerkish attitude to others. He is way less intelligent than he thinks he is, and a bully himself (one video was of a book of his, against bullies, so it is ironic).
Sorry if that idiot is your idol.

 

[Mouthwash]

^That is the one, Shapiro. I only saw 3 videos of his, and already had enough with his jerkish attitude to others. He is way less intelligent than he thinks he is, and a bully himself (one video was of a book of his, against bullies, so it is ironic).
Sorry if that idiot is your idol.

Projection is an ugly thing.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah, you got me.

 

[bernie14]

That's not what a categorical imperative means and it's not what I said.

glad to hear that you don't feel morally obligated to go around punching people just because you don't like their speech.....but, but, but.... we are talking about nazis....(or fascists?, or proto-fascists?, or white supremacists?, or nationalists?, or republicans?.....or just jerks?)

What I said is explicitly in opposition to any rationalist position on the issue. Empirically speaking, the likelihood of protest leading to violence makes it unrealistic to support protest but be opposed to any protest that involve any amount of violence.

no, no, no....you are missing the point entirely....I have a pretty good sense of identity and self control and I don't pretend to be able to control the thoughts or actions of others....at least to me, that is sort of what this whole debate has been all about. perhaps this is because I don 't live in a fascist state after all.

 

[Yeekim]

Yeekim, what you've cited is the understanding of white supremacy that critics of that system of societal advantaging use in their analyses of unequal social systems.

White supremacists are people who argue for continuing and even enhancing the societal inequality that favors one racial group at the expense of others. Some of their proposals for how they would implement the continuation and enhancement of white supremacy border on Nazi-esque, but regardless, their mindset is grounded in a reprehensible view that one race is inherently superior to another.

Someone like Ansley, in your quote, would argue that a white person enjoys significant societal advantage simply by virtue of the "white supremacy" operative in, say, USAian society at large, but that doesn't make him a white supremacist, as metalhead is using the term.

That person would get to enjoy the conveniently placed label "white supremacist" the moment he disagrees with any action ostensibly aimed at eliminating/diminishing that "societal advantage".

 

[aelf]

glad to hear that you don't feel morally obligated to go around punching people just because you don't like their speech.....but, but, but.... we are talking about nazis....(or fascists?, or proto-fascists?, or white supremacists?, or nationalists?, or republicans?.....or just jerks?)



no, no, no....you are missing the point entirely....I have a pretty good sense of identity and self control and I don't pretend to be able to control the thoughts or actions of others....at least to me, that is sort of what this whole debate has been all about. perhaps this is because I don 't live in a fascist state after all.

You sound fittingly incoherent.

 

[bernie14]

You sound fittingly incoherent.

you confuse the ability to understand relatively simple concepts with incoherence….this is a great example of when groupthink takes over someone's thoughts….. after all, aren't you the one stating that a person's beliefs (in this case, whether one believes in the ability to protest peacefully) need to be based on the action of others? aren't you the one seeing these "proto fascists" (still waiting for some sort of realistic definition here) behind every bush, requiring some sort of violent response, since these people are incapable of reason? it seems wonderfully hypocritical that in some other thread you state that "Any blanket analysis of a major religion is bound to be false"….but the same does not hold true for an ideology?....and please, don 't try to justify your stance by claiming that after all, we are talking about nazis….that's just more hypocrisy on your part, considering you said this in other threads…

…..We're trying to identify a Trump voter who can be reasoned with. Both the wifully ignorant and proto-fascists aren't people you can convince through reasoning with them.

and

Come to think of it, are people actually asking us to reason with proto-fascists? I don't know in what alternate reality you'd expect that to work.

Maybe that's why sympathisers of Trump supporters keep saying that it's not the racism or fascism that turns these people on, but I'm still not sure if that's not just denial.

why don't you just admit that you would justify any violence and shutting down any speech of any kind that is just right to YOUR positions…..it is so obvious that that is where you are coming from….or am I wrong because you, of course, are the only one that can make accurate judgments of what others seem to be thinking?

 

[aelf]

Yeah, not going to entertain your fantasy. Not reasoning with a group = advocating violence on that group is just one of the logical leaps you made in that whole unhinged rant.

 

[Traitorfish]

If Bernie14 is so strongly opposed to violence, how does he justify what he's doing to the ellipses?

 

[bernie14]

Yeah, not going to entertain your fantasy. Not reasoning with a group = advocating violence on that group is just one of the logical leaps you made in that whole unhinged rant.

yeah, cuz you got nothing and that's not what i said....still, i am very interested, for the sake of this thread, how you define these "proto fascists" and where you draw the line on justifying political violence? (in the interest of rational discussion, i would recommend that you limit your scope to democratically elected representative government, not some communist utopia or some single party system where people are caned in the streets)

Actually, perhaps you have already answered that question in this exchange earlier in this thead....

Hehehe said: "Unchecked rise of the right wing"? And you think that political violence is the solution to the "unchecked rise of the right wing"? Have a happy punching then, I guess. But there is no way that is going to end well.

Aelf said: Yes, Trump and Bannon are in power because of the failure of democratic institutions to keep proto-fascists out of power. And the moderates will fail to check him, if most of them are even really interested in doing so.

however, you tend to be so evasive, you may have a completely different reason for answering "yes"

If Bernie14 is so strongly opposed to violence, how does he justify what he's doing to the ellipses?

obviously, i am not a writer....i have a real job. btw, does this mean i don't get a passing grade in your class?....i am so discouraged

but perhaps, if we may even further expand the definition of nazi to include grammar nazis, maybe i would reconsider my opinion on the whole matter...but then i would have give tim credit for punching jerks

 

[aelf]

Mad conservative thinks real job prevents good grammar and language skills. That's some Trumpkin-level thinking there. I guess nobody is surprised.

 

[bernie14]

So no response to your own words and no significant contribution to the thread....

 

[caketastydelish]

obviously, i am not a writer....i have a real job. btw, does this mean i don't get a passing grade in your class?....i am so discouraged

Some counterpoints:

First, there are many writers much richer than the vast majority of anyone on this forum will ever be. J.K. Rowling being one example, among countless others. Second, there are plenty of writers that don't reach mega star status, but make enough to pay the bills. I think that still qualifies as 'real job'. Third, there are lots of jobs that require solid writing skills, without being the job description being 'novelist'. You could work at as an editor. You could work at an advertising agency. You can create legal documents. Write technical manuals. The list goes on and on.

Finally, when someone points out your horrible grammar and the best you've got is something to the tune of "people with good writing skills are all losers" you are really talking out of your ass.

 

[Bootstoots]

Moderator Action: Grammar policing and derisive comments about other users' grammar are not allowed.

 

[Berzerker]

you aint winning a debate if you're griping about grammar

 

[caketastydelish]

You also aren't winning if you're griping about someone else's profession.

 

[Lexicus]

I dunno, Shapiro's answer to that seems as mature, measured and nonpartisan as I've ever seen. But that would entail weighing arguments and logical reasoning and why do that when you can dismiss anyone on the other side of the culture war as subhuman?

(One has to wonder why the word 'troll' is used.)

Do you really think that 'troll' is just a word for people 'on the other side of the culture war'?

What culture war are you talking about, exactly?