Punching Nazis

[caketastydelish]

Actual slavery is definitely more evil, but you still raise a valid point. Which is to say "they had a choice to work in those factories" is not completely true. They worked in those factories (with horrible work conditions, horrible pay, etc) because they had literally no other choice, and they would starve and die otherwise. To say they only worked those jobs because they refused to work somewhere better, or they were lazy in school would be entirely unfair.

 

[caketastydelish]

Anyway. as to the communist thing. We've been over this before, and I ended up getting a thread locked when I asked how come on CFC we ban only the far right but not the far left. Communists have killed literally millions. Communists, Anarchists, and other left wing extreme groups advocate violence, destroy private property, and all sorts of other unspeakable crimes. They use intimidation and racketeering to complete their objectives. They want to do away with the law, with material possessions, with private property, nation states, name it. These are *definitely* evil and dangerous people. To say they aren't just as bad as the Nazis would be coming from a very loaded, biased, and politicized standpoint. I mean be honest: If that's what you're going to say, this is all about pushing your agenda, rather than what's best for society as a whole.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So judging communism based on how it worked in practice is misreading reality, while holding on to some pie-in-the-sky vision of theoretical communism isn't? That's an interesting perspective.

EDIT: Basically, my stance is ideologies should be judged on how they actually worked when put into practice, not on what that ideology's supporters say it should have been like.

EDIT2: And by that measure, no ideology that has been implemented on a large scale has a very positive track record. Which is why my general stance is that any "ism" is poison and anyone who follows an "ism" dogmatically is a fool.

And all of this rationalization relates to you having not clue one what actual communism looks like and just talking out your butt how, exactly?

 

[caketastydelish]

Martin Luther King was successful because he offered a contrast to the "race war" that the white people were terrified of, and that seemed to be offered up any day by Malcolm X. So saying "look how great passive resistance is" as if it happened in a vacuum is disingenuous at best and open fraud at worst.

Gandhi was facing an entirely different issue that has no applicability to any current situation that I can think of off the top of my head.

No. Malcom X was a complete and utter piece of crap. So many things, I don't even know where to begin.

First, changing your name because of somebody's ancestors did something is the sign of a total crybaby. My last name is Jewish. I am not Jewish. There's not a single Jew in my family, and I've done extensive research. Did some Jewish person down the line force it upon us? Maybe. Who cares? Similarly, my first name is of Greek origin. There's nobody Greek in my family. Am I butthurt over it? No.

Second, he said a lot of things that were quite openly racist. I'm too lazy to dig up the verbatim quote, but he said something to the tune of "white people are a race of devils because only a race of devils could produce the Vikings which did a bunch of pillaging and looting, and whites were responsible for world war 1 and world war 2". Jesus Christ, that's all kinds of stupid. There were wars all over the world, not just in Europe. The Vikings were barbaric, but so were everyone else. If someone said to me "blacks are the devil because of the wars in Africa" I would pimp slap them in the face for being a racist, and I certainly wouldn't call them a civil rights advocate or supporter of justice.

The guy was an absolute fraud as well. He often talked about how smart and articulate he was- nothing to show for it. He couldn't even write his own autobiography- it was secretly (not so secretly anymore) written by someone else.

I actually read (some) of that unbelievable garbage before putting the book down because I couldn't stand it anymore. He went on and on and on about Harvard - an institution where Malcom X never even went to. He never got a degree of any sort from Harvard. He didn't even take classes at Harvard. So why mention it? The best justification you could give is 'Harvard was important to him and he cared about it'. First, I simply have a hard time believing this. Second, even if it's true, its irrelevant. I am a diehard Seahawks fan. Would I mention them time and time again in my autobiography? Probably not. Why? Because I am not a player for their organization. Nor am I a coach, on the training staff, manager, etc. Whether the Seahawks win or lose has absolutely nothing to do with me. An autobiography should be about your own life and your own accomplishments, not a bunch of steaming BS in a desperate attempt to appear to be intellectual.

I also think its very telling that Malcom X was killed by a BLACK man. Malcom X pissed off everyone he talked to, not just the white people. Do that enough and it will catch up to you. Malcom X was unpopular even among blacks.

Malcom X was an absolute turd and if he were alive today I would definitely punch him. If anyone knows where his grave is, I'd pee on it.

 

[Senethro]

No. Malcom X was a complete and utter piece of crap. So many things, I don't even know where to begin.

First, changing your name because of somebody's ancestors did something is the sign of a total crybaby. My last name is Jewish. I am not Jewish. There's not a single Jew in my family, and I've done extensive research. Did some Jewish person down the line force it upon us? Maybe. Who cares? Similarly, my first name is of Greek origin. There's nobody Greek in my family. Am I butthurt over it? No.

Second, he said a lot of things that were quite openly racist. I'm too lazy to dig up the verbatim quote, but he said something to the tune of "white people are a race of devils because only a race of devils could produce the Vikings which did a bunch of pillaging and looting, and whites were responsible for world war 1 and world war 2". Jesus Christ, that's all kinds of stupid. There were wars all over the world, not just in Europe. The Vikings were barbaric, but so were everyone else. If someone said to me "blacks are the devil because of the wars in Africa" I would pimp slap them in the face for being a racist, and I certainly wouldn't call them a civil rights advocate or supporter of justice.

The guy was an absolute fraud as well. He often talked about how smart and articulate he was- nothing to show for it. He couldn't even write his own autobiography- it was secretly (not so secretly anymore) written by someone else.

I actually read (some) of that unbelievable garbage before putting the book down because I couldn't stand it anymore. He went on and on and on about Harvard - an institution where Malcom X never even went to. He never got a degree of any sort from Harvard. He didn't even take classes at Harvard. So why mention it? The best justification you could give is 'Harvard was important to him and he cared about it'. First, I simply have a hard time believing this. Second, even if it's true, its irrelevant. I am a diehard Seahawks fan. Would I mention them time and time again in my autobiography? Probably not. Why? Because I am not a player for their organization. Nor am I a coach, on the training staff, manager, etc. Whether the Seahawks win or lose has absolutely nothing to do with me. An autobiography should be about your own life and your own accomplishments, not a bunch of steaming BS in a desperate attempt to appear to be intellectual.

I also think its very telling that Malcom X was killed by a BLACK man. Malcom X pissed off everyone he talked to, not just the white people. Do that enough and it will catch up to you. Malcom X was unpopular even among blacks.

Malcom X was an absolute turd and if he were alive today I would definitely punch him. If anyone knows where his grave is, I'd pee on it.

Yowzers!

 

[Honor]

No. Malcom X was a complete and utter piece of crap. So many things, I don't even know where to begin.

First, changing your name because of somebody's ancestors did something is the sign of a total crybaby. My last name is Jewish. I am not Jewish. There's not a single Jew in my family, and I've done extensive research. Did some Jewish person down the line force it upon us? Maybe. Who cares? Similarly, my first name is of Greek origin. There's nobody Greek in my family. Am I butthurt over it? No.

Second, he said a lot of things that were quite openly racist. I'm too lazy to dig up the verbatim quote, but he said something to the tune of "white people are a race of devils because only a race of devils could produce the Vikings which did a bunch of pillaging and looting, and whites were responsible for world war 1 and world war 2". Jesus Christ, that's all kinds of stupid. There were wars all over the world, not just in Europe. The Vikings were barbaric, but so were everyone else. If someone said to me "blacks are the devil because of the wars in Africa" I would pimp slap them in the face for being a racist, and I certainly wouldn't call them a civil rights advocate or supporter of justice.

The guy was an absolute fraud as well. He often talked about how smart and articulate he was- nothing to show for it. He couldn't even write his own autobiography- it was secretly (not so secretly anymore) written by someone else.

I actually read (some) of that unbelievable garbage before putting the book down because I couldn't stand it anymore. He went on and on and on about Harvard - an institution where Malcom X never even went to. He never got a degree of any sort from Harvard. He didn't even take classes at Harvard. So why mention it? The best justification you could give is 'Harvard was important to him and he cared about it'. First, I simply have a hard time believing this. Second, even if it's true, its irrelevant. I am a diehard Seahawks fan. Would I mention them time and time again in my autobiography? Probably not. Why? Because I am not a player for their organization. Nor am I a coach, on the training staff, manager, etc. Whether the Seahawks win or lose has absolutely nothing to do with me. An autobiography should be about your own life and your own accomplishments, not a bunch of steaming BS in a desperate attempt to appear to be intellectual.

I also think its very telling that Malcom X was killed by a BLACK man. Malcom X pissed off everyone he talked to, not just the white people. Do that enough and it will catch up to you. Malcom X was unpopular even among blacks.

Malcom X was an absolute turd and if he were alive today I would definitely punch him. If anyone knows where his grave is, I'd pee on it.

Pee is actually a great source of nutrients.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is, but the patch that's taller than the rest looks skitchy and everyone can see what's going on. If there's a ring of tall all around a circle of dead, then everyone knows what tree you routinely hide behind.

 

[Synobun]

Yes, and I agree with all of this. Your self is emotionally impacted by what other people do to each other, via empathy. The strength of the emotional impact is correlated with your own experiences. What I was asking was what evil was to you, personally. That is because I see evil as an emotional/biological process, rather than an abstract concept.

That isn't a meaningful observation to make. Many emotional and biological processes are interpreted as an abstract concept. Even if you were right that the perception of evil were biological, it wouldn't change a culture's definition of what evil is.

 

[Lexicus]

First, changing your name because of somebody's ancestors did something is the sign of a total crybaby. My last name is Jewish. I am not Jewish. There's not a single Jew in my family, and I've done extensive research. Did some Jewish person down the line force it upon us? Maybe. Who cares? Similarly, my first name is of Greek origin. There's nobody Greek in my family. Am I butthurt over it? No.

Totally different history, though. Probably no one kidnapped your ancestors and then whipped them until they answered to your current family name. Probably.

Second, he said a lot of things that were quite openly racist. I'm too lazy to dig up the verbatim quote, but he said something to the tune of "white people are a race of devils because only a race of devils could produce the Vikings which did a bunch of pillaging and looting, and whites were responsible for world war 1 and world war 2". Jesus Christ, that's all kinds of stupid. There were wars all over the world, not just in Europe. The Vikings were barbaric, but so were everyone else. If someone said to me "blacks are the devil because of the wars in Africa" I would pimp slap them in the face for being a racist, and I certainly wouldn't call them a civil rights advocate or supporter of justice.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether they were 'racist' or not, but clearly hating whitey isn't a particularly productive activity. At any rate did you know that Malcolm was, at least purportedly*, shot by a radical member of the NoI because he recanted many of these problematic stances he had taken earlier in life? He realized that nonviolence was the way to go, and was immediately killed.

*I say purportedly because I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the US government had killed him like they probably also killed the Kennedys and Dr. King.

 

[caketastydelish]

Clearly he should have never associated with them in the first place. Sleep with the dogs, wake with the fleas. Jesus, I'm glad he's gone.

 

[sophie]

Here's a different explanation, which I would like your thoughts on:

"Now of course you can turn this around and ask, well, if reaction was discredited by Hitler and Bull Connor, by race hatred and Jew hatred, why wasn’t left-wing radicalism discredited by Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot? If this is all about moral credibility and the company you keep, why did so many prominent historians and literary critics get to keep on calling themselves Marxists after every Marxist-Leninist regime committed mass murder on an epic scale? Why are Kipling’s politics or Eliot’s or Pound’s or even Heidegger’s considered so much more “problematic” and all-discrediting than the Stalinist strain in so much left-wing historiography and philosophy and criticism and art?

Because Marxism the political ideology is not the same thing as Marxism the critical theory.

In the same way that just because someone, say, applies Freudian critical theory to their literary analysis, doesn't at all mean that they find merit in Freud's science. It's the same with Marxist theory. A Marxist academic is applying a Marxian framework to a subject in order to analyze it according to the principles of critical theory. That doesn't necessarily mean that person in any way agrees with the ideology that descended from some of Marx's other tracts, nor does it mean they dream of a violent revolution bringing about a classless, stateless society.

 

[Mouthwash]

Someone may think that black people are genetically less intelligent, but that doesn't always mean that they want to bring back Jim Crow.

 

[Synobun]

Just because someone thinks that black people are genetically less intelligent doesn't mean that they want to bring back segregation.

Are you sure you want to go down that road?

 

[Mouthwash]

What road? I find those beliefs disgusting, just like I do shariah liberals or anthropologists protesting Halloween costumes.

 

[Hygro]

No. Malcom X was a complete and utter piece of crap. So many things, I don't even know where to begin.

First, changing your name because of somebody's ancestors did something is the sign of a total crybaby. My last name is Jewish. I am not Jewish. There's not a single Jew in my family, and I've done extensive research. Did some Jewish person down the line force it upon us? Maybe. Who cares? Similarly, my first name is of Greek origin. There's nobody Greek in my family. Am I butthurt over it? No.

Second, he said a lot of things that were quite openly racist. I'm too lazy to dig up the verbatim quote, but he said something to the tune of "white people are a race of devils because only a race of devils could produce the Vikings which did a bunch of pillaging and looting, and whites were responsible for world war 1 and world war 2". Jesus Christ, that's all kinds of stupid. There were wars all over the world, not just in Europe. The Vikings were barbaric, but so were everyone else. If someone said to me "blacks are the devil because of the wars in Africa" I would pimp slap them in the face for being a racist, and I certainly wouldn't call them a civil rights advocate or supporter of justice.

The guy was an absolute fraud as well. He often talked about how smart and articulate he was- nothing to show for it. He couldn't even write his own autobiography- it was secretly (not so secretly anymore) written by someone else.

I actually read (some) of that unbelievable garbage before putting the book down because I couldn't stand it anymore. He went on and on and on about Harvard - an institution where Malcom X never even went to. He never got a degree of any sort from Harvard. He didn't even take classes at Harvard. So why mention it? The best justification you could give is 'Harvard was important to him and he cared about it'. First, I simply have a hard time believing this. Second, even if it's true, its irrelevant. I am a diehard Seahawks fan. Would I mention them time and time again in my autobiography? Probably not. Why? Because I am not a player for their organization. Nor am I a coach, on the training staff, manager, etc. Whether the Seahawks win or lose has absolutely nothing to do with me. An autobiography should be about your own life and your own accomplishments, not a bunch of steaming BS in a desperate attempt to appear to be intellectual.

I also think its very telling that Malcom X was killed by a BLACK man. Malcom X pissed off everyone he talked to, not just the white people. Do that enough and it will catch up to you. Malcom X was unpopular even among blacks.

Malcom X was an absolute turd and if he were alive today I would definitely punch him. If anyone knows where his grave is, I'd pee on it.

And yet in all of that "so many things" none of it answered anything Tim said.

Except demonstrating by example the correctness of showing people's outsized concern for Malcolm X and thus the unlikely favor of MLKism....

 

[Honor]

That isn't a meaningful observation to make. Many emotional and biological processes are interpreted as an abstract concept. Even if you were right that the perception of evil were biological, it wouldn't change a culture's definition of what evil is.

I disagree. Indeed, I think it is the most meaningful observation that can be made. A culture's definition of evil changes all the time, as I demonstrated elsewhere. If it can be established that the root of our perception of evil is mostly emotional, the real basis of our opinions can be explored, and conversations will not be bogged down by what people think is purely rational discourse. It will not just be established that we differ in opinion, but why we do.

 

[Synobun]

I disagree. Indeed, I think it is the most meaningful observation that can be made. A culture's definition of evil changes all the time, as I demonstrated elsewhere. If it can be established that the root of our perception of evil is mostly emotional, the real basis of our opinions can be explored, and conversations will not be bogged down by what people think is purely rational discourse. It will not just be established that we differ in opinion, but why we do.

Man. I'll rally against assaulting people on the streets because of their views and will wave the pacifist flag until I'm forced not to, but the subject of whether or not the policies of a Nazi regime are rightfully considered evil isn't the best time to go into a meta-analysis of "the real basis of our opinions". Is the extermination and oppression of humans abhorrent? Yes/No?

 

[Honor]

Man. I'll rally against assaulting people on the streets because of their views and will wave the pacifist flag until I'm forced not to, but the subject of whether or not the policies of a Nazi regime are rightfully considered evil isn't the best time to go into a meta-analysis of "the real basis of our opinions". Is the extermination and oppression of humans abhorrent? Yes/No?

Yes, of course. I am not quoting your posts because the two of us differ in opinion on the evil of the Nazi. I am simply trying to make people see that right now, at this very moment, they may be the "evil" of other people by simply being themselves. Like homosexual people being evil to some religious people, or communists being evil to your run of the mill American, or Americans being evil to your run of the mill Middle Eastern. The Nazi were not evil to those people that believed in their policies. Understanding evil and why people are sometimes okay with unspeakable acts pertains closely to why people are mostly okay with punching the Nazi as well.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And yet in all of that "so many things" none of it answered anything Tim said.

Except demonstrating by example the correctness of showing people's outsized concern for Malcolm X and thus the unlikely favor of MLKism....

Thanks. I was wondering if anyone was going to point that out or whether I had to do it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Going down the "less intelligent" route isn't good. For starters, literally everyone is aware of people in his own "race" who apparently are... not intelligent to say the least.
Differences in intelligence can be vast, even in the same "race" or environment.

The issue likely has a lot to do with sub-cultures forming. Most people in any group tend to be part of a low sub-culture tied to it. Happens everywhere.