White Flight Redux: Self Segregation out of Irrational Fear.

[Lexicus]

More like: "we're going to kill you because of your race/religion/sexual orientation" vs "we're going to beat up all the nazis and btw, if you don't believe exactly like we do you're a nazi".

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't say that you could divide everyone into either "extremists" or "moderates". There's obviously all sorts of people who do not fit into either category.

I thought that'd be obvious!

That it's not obvious may be some indication as to how perversely Stalinist the discourse of "moderation" has become.

More like: "we're going to kill you because of your race/religion/sexual orientation" vs "we're going to beat up all the nazis and btw, if you don't believe exactly like we do you're a nazi".

What is it that these Nazi-punchers believer with such dogmatism, exactly?

Nobody has ever really been able to clear that that one up for me.

Presumably they've all done thorough research, but have decided that it would be rude to bury me in citations.

 

[Ryika]

One of the most fun and awesome Nazis in cinematic history!

What is it that these Nazi-punchers believer with such dogmatism, exactly?

Nobody has ever really been able to clear that that one up for me.

Presumably they've all done thorough research, but have decided that it would be rude to bury me in citations.

Not sure what exactly you're asking here, which beliefs are you talking about?
Do you not believe that there are people who want to be violent and label people as Nazis to justify their violence?

 

[Traitorfish]

Not sure what exactly you're asking here, which beliefs are you talking about?

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up. You said that anti-fasicsts label everyone who does not "believe as we do" a Nazi, so what do you think the beliefs in question are?

Do you not believe that there are people who want to be violent and label people as Nazis to justify their violence?

No. Was that a trick question?

Edit: Now, I do believe that there are people who are over-ready to resort to scrapping with the representatives of what they perceive as an incipient fascism, but I don't believe that they're simply fighting for the sake of fighting. I also don't believe that these people represent a majority or even the mainstream of anti-fascism, or that these people are responsible for most or even many violent interactions between fascists and anti-fascists. I don't even believe these people are mistaken in regards to doling out punches, so much as unduly willing to put themselves and others in harm's way. If I have any central objection to the fists-and-clubs school of anti-fascism, it's that immediately escalating every confrontation into a fist-fight tends to make anti-fascism and exclusive club for edgy young white males, which apart from being distressingly ironic, is contrary to building an effective popular movement. And, I think, most anti-fascists would agree with me on that point.

 

[Ryika]

I don't know. You're the one who brought it up. You said that anti-fasicsts label everyone who does not "believe as we do" a Nazi, so what do you think the beliefs in question are?

No, I did not say that, I said that there are extremists on the other side who do that.

It's the same thing like when you responded to warpus, for some reason you cannot read a post that is about the extremists on your side and not interpret it as if the person had called your whole side extremists.

In a discussion that starts like "This is a fight of good people against bad people!" (a simplified version of what Lexicus said), then the response is: "No, there are extremists on both sides." (a simplified version of what I said), and you go like: "So, can you prove that the other side is all extremists?!?!?!?" - that's an utterly ridiculous, incorrect interpretation of what has been said. Your reaction makes no sense at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I did not say that, I said that there are extremists on the other side who do that.

If you accusing people of holding dogmatic beliefs, but cannot tell us what those beliefs are even in outline, you're more or less openly admitting to constructing straw-men.

It's the same thing like when you responded to warpus, for some reason you cannot read a post that is about the extremists on your side and not interpret it as if the person had called your whole side extremists.

Could you not say the same about those who hear somebody use the term "Nazi", and imagine that the speaker means everyone to the right of Lenin?

In a discussion that starts like "This is a fight of good people against bad people!" (a simplified version of what Lexicus said), then the response is: "No, there are extremists on both sides." (a simplified version of what I said), and you go like: "So, can you prove that the other side is all extremists?!?!?!?" - that's an utterly idiotic and incorrect interpretation of what has been said. Your reaction makes no sense at all.

It would be, which is why I didn't express that reaction. What I suggested was, the tendency to describe anyone outside of a narrow Overton Window of "moderation" as an "extremist" is illiberal and anti-pluralistic. Whether or not this is what Warpus meant to do, his call to "empower moderates" against "extremists" set up this sort of opposition. Adding a qualification that you accept the existence of a space between moderation and extremism, while a reasonable response to my criticism, does not make that criticism absurd.

Is there a sale on straw-bales or something?

 

[Lexicus]

If I have any central objection to the fists-and-clubs school of anti-fascism, it's that immediately escalating every confrontation into a fist-fight tends to make anti-fascism and exclusive club for edgy young white males, which apart from being distressingly ironic, is contrary to building an effective popular movement. And, I think, most anti-fascists would agree with me on that point.

This one certainly does, and has written a few words about the young edgy white males putting other people in danger.

 

[Ryika]

If you accusing people of holding dogmatic beliefs, but cannot tell us what those beliefs are even in outline, you're more or less openly admitting to constructing straw-men.

I still have no idea what dogmatic beliefs you think I have accused people of. All people have a position on the political compass, and on the extreme end of the left there are some groups that call people at the center, even people on the center-left Nazis, because they are in their way. How would I know their exact set of beliefs? I see their actions, not their thoughts.

Could you not say the same about those who hear somebody use the term "Nazi", and imagine that the speaker means everyone to the right of Lenin?

Yeah. Doesn't mean the people who actually do cause people Nazis for whatever reason they see fit are any better, just because there are people on the other side who overplay the amount of these people. We're still talking about extremes here.

It would be, which is why I didn't express that reaction. What I suggested was, the tendency to describe anyone outside of a narrow Overton Window of "moderation" as an "extremist" is illiberal and anti-pluralistic.

But warpus did not do that in the first place, it's a failure of understanding of what he said on your part.

What he said was: "Stamp out extremists on both sides, empower the moderates in the middle".

In no way does he say that there are only these two groups, all he says is that out of the whole spectrum of groups that exist, he wants the extremists to be stamped out, and the moderates in the middle to be empowered. He says nothing about these groups in-between, and the interpretation that he claims that there is nothing in-between these groups, is, again, a failure of proper understanding on your part. He might just think that everybody in-between is fine where they are right now. You are adding additional meaning to what he said, because you did not think about it carefully enough to even come to that conclusion.

Is that really too difficult to understand for you?

 

[warpus]

That it's not obvious may be some indication as to how perversely Stalinist the discourse of "moderation" has become.

Wait, you don't think being moderate is a good thing? And it's tied to Stalin somehow? You will have to explain

 

[Lexicus]

All people have a position on the political compass

Political Compass Ontology. Interesting.

 

[caketastydelish]

On a far more basic level, "moderation" between "we're going to kill you because of your race/religion/sexual orientation" and "how about no" is garbage.

Anarchist groups are violent and destroy property as they riot. They should definitely be crushed. Have you seen their May Day riots? Arrest the animals.

 

[warpus]

To clarify, all Nazis = bad, most people who are against Nazis = good, people who show up to a rally with weapons = bad but not as bad as Nazis

Just so that it's super clear and all for all y'all who like to misread what I write and try to figure out all the things I could have meant that I never said

 

[Kyriakos]

I heavily dislike that actor, though it may also be due to his 1-d moron of a director in both the movies with him i've seen sequences of.

 

[Lexicus]

I heavily dislike that actor, though it may also be due to his 1-d moron of a director in both the movies with him i've seen sequences of.

You mean this actor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Waltz

I love him! Surprised you don't like him.

 

[Kyriakos]

You mean this actor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Waltz

I love him! Surprised you don't like him.

He is no Ralph Fiennes, nor (a compatriot of his, afaik) Armin Muller-Stahl

Though, as noted, maybe i just didn't like the script he had to work with, given i detest Tarantino and regard him as a hack.

 

[Lexicus]

Though, as noted, maybe i just didn't like the script he had to work with, given i detest Tarantino and regard him as a hack.

Oh, I don't care much for Tarantino either - his last good movie was Pulp Fiction. Still. Waltz' performances were about the only thing I enjoyed in the two movies (I assume) you were talking about.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, I don't care much for Tarantino either - his last good movie was Pulp Fiction. Still. Waltz' performances were about the only thing I enjoyed in the two movies (I assume) you were talking about.

Inglorious Basterds was two hours of people brutally murdering Nazis, therefore, a good film. My logic is as bulletproof as Nazis are not.

I still have no idea what dogmatic beliefs you think I have accused people of. All people have a position on the political compass, and on the extreme end of the left there are some groups that call people at the center, even people on the center-left Nazis, because they are in their way. How would I know their exact set of beliefs? I see their actions, not their thoughts.

You assert that Antifa have a narrow and dogmatic belief-system, and attack everyone who dissents from their belief system.

But you haven't been able to explain, even in the broadest detail, what that belief system is. You can't even tell us which corner of that silly political box-chart-thing they sit in.

So either Antifa are an incredibly close-knit secret society of dedicated carbonari, whose credo and strictures are guarded as strictly as they are maintained, and that seems unlikely given that they're mostly teenagers, or accusing people of being doctrinaire and intolerant is just what you're supposed to say when "they suck" doesn't quite cut the mustard. Like calling people "Nazis", I guess.

Yeah. Doesn't mean the people who actually do cause people Nazis for whatever reason they see fit are any better, just because there are people on the other side who overplay the amount of these people. We're still talking about extremes here.

You don't think that, in imaging hordes of baseball-bat wielding terrorists flooding the streets of Charlottesville, bursting forth from their dorms like orcs from the gates of Mordor, you may also be overstating the number of "extremists" in the anti-fascist movement?

But warpus did not do that in the first place, it's a failure of understanding of what he said on your part.

What he said was: "Stamp out extremists on both sides, empower the moderates in the middle".

In no way does he say that there are only these two groups, all he says is that out of the whole spectrum of groups that exist, he wants the extremists to be stamped out, and the moderates in the middle to be empowered. He says nothing about these groups in-between, and the interpretation that he claims that there is nothing in-between these groups, is, again, a failure of proper understanding on your part. He might just think that everybody in-between is fine where they are right now. You are adding additional meaning to what he said, because you did not think about it carefully enough to even come to that conclusion.

Is that really too difficult to understand for you?

If somebody says "destroy blue team, victory for red team", they appear to be setting up an opposition between blue and red. It is not self-evident, to the listener, that they acknowledge and accept the existence of green, yellow and orange teams, but have simply neglected to mention them. Particularly when the only purpose of their intervention was to remind a group of people specifically discussing blue team

After all, my objection, that this framing was anti-pluralistic, plays precisely on the assumption that Warpus is fully aware of green, yellow and orange teams, an that points out that his framing does not account for those teams; it encourages him to reconsider his framing for the very reason that his framing conflicts with what he knows to be empirically true. If he reconsiders but does not abandon his framing, if he qualifies rather than revises his framing, well, fine, not the response I was hoping for, but it's a discussion, not a contest.

Wait, you don't think being moderate is a good thing?

Not in itself. I believe that people have a responsibility to engage in moral reasoning, to work out right and wrong for themselves, and letting two other people work out their position and then placing yourself at the exact mid-point is a total abdication of that responsibility. And I think most "moderates" know that, I think that most moderates are capable of making moral judgement about things which matter to them personally, whether they come to moderate or immoderate conclusions. My objection is that they're so apparently reluctant to do so in regards to things in which they have no personal stake.

And it's tied to Stalin somehow? You will have to explain

My point is that "moderation", framed as salvation against "extremism", very often expresses an illiberal reaction to pluralism and open discussion. It sets often quite harsh and narrow terms on what is acceptable, what is respectable, and tars everything outside of those terms as radical and extremist, a fundamentally totalitarian distinction between "correct" and "incorrect" thought. What's the good of a liberal democracy, what is liberal or democratic, if it's been decided in advance what people are allowed to thing, and all that's left is bargaining over the details?

Besides-

Anarchist groups are violent and destroy property as they riot. They should definitely be crushed. Have you seen their May Day riots? Arrest the animals.

Some of you guys aren't even pretending not to be Stalinists.

 

[Lexicus]

Some of you guys aren't even pretending not to be Stalinists.

Funny how little things change whether you're referring to dirty hippies or counterrevolutionary wreckers and saboteurs, eh?

 

[Ryika]

You assert that Antifa have a narrow and dogmatic belief-system, and attack everyone who dissents from their belief system.

But you haven't been able to explain, even in the broadest detail, what that belief system is. You can't even tell us which corner of that silly political box-chart-thing they sit in.

So either Antifa are an incredibly close-knit secret society of dedicated carbonari, and that seems unlikely given that they're mostly teenagers, or you're pretty just making this whole line of argument up as you go.

I have not claimed anything about a "narrow and dogmatic belief-system", again, you're pulling these things out of your butt. All I have said is that the people who come together as Antifa generally share a number of political positions, if they didn't, then they wouldn't join Antifa. Nothing dogmatic about it, or at least I haven't claimed that it is. Again, you're interpreting things into statements that are simply not there. You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to the strawman that you've created in your head, and now want to pin me down on something that I never even came close to saying.

You don't think that, in imaging hordes of baseball-bat wielding terrorists flooding the streets of Charlottesville, bursting forth from their dorms like orcs from the gates of Mordor, you may also be overstating the number of "extremists" in the anti-fascist movement?

I've said on multiple occations that I think the violent groups on both sides are rather small in comparison to the overall number of people involved, so I think I'm fine in that regard. This does not change that a.) these people (on both sides) have a huge influence on the overall population by virtue of how visible they are, and that b.) the media are focusing entirely on those groups, and shape the narrative around those people, plus c.) all people looking for a violent confrontation are pathetic.

If somebody says "destroy blue team, victory for red team", they appear to be setting up an opposition between blue and red. It is not self-evident, to the listener, that they acknowledge and accept the existence of green, yellow and orange teams, but have simply neglected to mention them. Particularly when the only purpose of their intervention was to remind a group of people specifically discussing blue team

So just to recap. By your own analogy, if a person in a world where there are five teams, blue, red, green, yellow, and orange, says: "Destroy blue team, victory for red team." means that actually they think everybody but the blue team is in the red team, because they have not said: "All other teams are fine the way they are."? Yeah... I think you've lost me there. That makes no sense whatsoever. It's still just a statement about two of the groups involved that you've interpreted way too much into.

 

[Hygro]

I have not claimed anything about a "narrow and dogmatic belief-system", again, you're pulling these things out of your butt. All I have said is that the people who come together as Antifa generally share a number of political positions, if they didn't, then they wouldn't join Antifa. Nothing dogmatic about it, or at least I haven't claimed that it is. Again, you're interpreting things into statements that are simply not there. You're not responding to what I said, you're responding to the strawman that you've created in your head, and now want to pin me down on something that I never even came close to saying.

vs "we're going to beat up all the nazis and btw, if you don't believe exactly like we do you're a nazi".

So that's what Traitorfish has been responding to.

Have you really just minded him a strawman builder because that's your construction of other people, and not based on... what was actually said?