[RD] Why y'all always trying to defend Nazis?

[Ryika]

The point was to examine how sincerely moderates believe that fascists could remain peaceful. Of course, that's not a question they're willing to tackle.

I avoided that other thread for its silly premise, but let me tackle this question right here:
Moderates do not believe fascists ould or would remain peaceful. What a stupid assumption that is.

 

[inthesomeday]

Then why do moderates allow fascists to congregate openly? They used to call it collaboration when people who knew the fascists would be violent left them alone.

 

[luiz]

Then why do moderates allow fascists to congregate openly? They used to call it collaboration when people who knew the fascists would be violent left them alone.

Because moderates don't like playing thought-police. Moderates prefer to judge people by actions, not thoughts. The problem with "preventing fascists from congregating" is that someone would have to decide who is a fascist. There are no universally-accepted definitions for that. The people I consider fascists would not be the same as yours. I consider the left-wing dictator of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, to be broadly a fascist. Just like his predecessor Hugo Chávez. Yet they are idolized by notable left-wingers such as Jeremy Corbyn and Pablo Iglesias, who in turn probably consider a bunch of people to be fascists that I don't. So I prefer to let people congregate and express themselves regardless of their beliefs. If they get violent, then we arrest them. Violence is easy to define.

 

[caketastydelish]

All I can see is an example of why dictionaries should not be used to define academic concepts. Every single one of those definitions is wrong. Or at least useless.

Here's your problem: The definition of what words mean is by common use. Not by what snobby people in ivory towers think they "should" mean. Let me give a random example. What if, in 10 years from now, people started using the word "red" to mean what we would now call "blue" and vice versa? That's a silly random example. But if that happened then yes, the dictionaries would reflect that. Common usage by the majority of people defines what words mean, not what "intellectuals" like yourself think they should mean. Also, "useless" is a matter of opinion. They can say your definition is just as useless.

edit: as for civver_764: Richard Spencer himself denies being a Nazi. If we should not take him seriously when he says that, why should we take you? You are making the same arguments he makes.

 

[Camikaze]

Discussing "racism" in the abstract is pointless. There is only one system of racism that actually exists in the world, and that is white supremacy.

This is where the Americocentrism seems to kick in again. "In the US, [institutional] racism only exists in the form of white supremacy, ergo every other country in the world must be the same too". Do you seriously believe a similar dynamic cannot exist in societies without a direct 'white' power structure? That e.g. the Indian caste system or the Burmese oppression of the Rohinyga aren't things, or aren't marked by equivalent institutional indicia? Did the Rwandan Genocide not happen? Or it is just that they aren't important enough to be dignified with the word 'racism', because how could those lesser racial relations compare to the reflective imperatives of the white man? Or perhaps instead, it's that white people are just so important to the lives of these other groups that really those other relations are just incidents to be subsumed under the white global system, which should properly be viewed through the American lens?

Even the framing of it in terms of a monolithic 'white' is, as Traitorfish pointed out a few pages back, weird.

The entire world doesn't revolve around American racial relations.

(Perhaps the above is putting the point too harshly; but it is quite jarring to see such a nonchalant dismissal of the importance of problems outside the American bubble, in the same breath as you decry racism).

I suspect @metatron would see the attitude as more Anglocentric, rather than Americocentric.

 

[inthesomeday]

Because moderates don't like playing thought-police. Moderates prefer to judge people by actions, not thoughts. The problem with "preventing fascists from congregating" is that someone would have to decide who is a fascist. There are no universally-accepted definitions for that. The people I consider fascists would be the same as yours. I consider the left-wing dictator of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, to be broadly a fascist. Just like his predecessor Hugo Chávez. Yet they are idolized by notable left-wingers such as Jeremy Corbyn and Pablo Iglesias, who in turn probably consider a bunch of people to be fascists that I don't. So I prefer to let people congregate and express themselves regardless of their beliefs. If they get violent, then we arrest them. Violence is easy to define.

First of all, I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, I'm shocked and impressed you recognize the fact that someone in control of a state like Venezuela is not a leftist. I have a feeling, however, that you would've called him a socialist if we were discussing something else.

Edit: @Camikaze
It's true that there are many types of racism in the world. In the Philippines, the Moro and Ilocano people are frequently discriminated against by Tagalog-favoring institutions. Likewise, in East Asia, all of these groups are discriminated against as laborers and servants by lighter skinned Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people.

However, it is also true that white supremacy is the only type of racism that exists in the whole world-- meaning not that no other types of racism exist, but that white supremacy is universal, and that a white person can travel pretty much anywhere and still have more socioeconomic power inherent to their racial traits than any other race. East Asians, particularly Han Chinese and Japanese people, are close to this, but are still often racially discriminated against in the West.

 

[Ryika]

Then why do moderates allow fascists to congregate openly? They used to call it collaboration when people who knew the fascists would be violent left them alone.

What luiz said, plus in an open society I think that their opinions don't have a chance on the marketplace of ideas.

Which means that for most people, letting them speak is the best vaccine against what they have to say, plus society at large can openly discuss their ideas and discredit them. Some people who are susceptible to their ideas will join their side, true, but that will happen either way. I think if you hand them a victim narrative that they can abuse, then that will only strengthen their numbers.

 

[inthesomeday]

If someone is going to become a fascist because fascists tell them to, they'll do it no matter what medium the fascist uses. Fascists being allowed public forums actually strengthens them because, if unopposed, they learn that publicly organizing is okay.

This is what Antifa does. There's this right wing narrative that we are trying to prevent them from expressing themselves but we know and they know that they get plenty of expression anyway. Opposing their movements in public is actually about showing them that they don't belong and will be opposed wherever and whenever they try to act.

Fascists are bullies, emboldened by inaction and protection from their friends the police. The survivors of the Holocaust didn't say "hey now everyone remember to let everybody express themselves freely haha" they said we must be always vigilant and remember the warning signs.

 

[Ryika]

If someone is going to become a fascist because fascists tell them to, they'll do it no matter what medium the fascist uses. Fascists being allowed public forums actually strengthens them because, if unopposed, they learn that publicly organizing is okay.

They know that organizing publicly is okay because organizing publicly is okay, and you didn't do anything to stop them from thinking it is. All you've done is make them arm themselves.

This is what Antifa does. There's this right wing narrative that we are trying to prevent them from expressing themselves but we know and they know that they get plenty of expression anyway. Opposing their movements in public is actually about showing them that they don't belong and will be opposed wherever and whenever they try to act.

Yeah, you can tell yourself that, but then you have to ignore that half of the population thinks that you're violent, anti-democratic thugs.

Fascists are bullies

...he writes after literally explaining how he is part of the groups that decides who does and does not belong and then uses violence against those who he has decided don't.

The survivors of the Holocaust didn't say "hey now everyone remember to let everybody express themselves freely haha" they said we must be always vigilant and remember the warning signs.

Yeah, and you surely remember that far-left and far-right groups battling each other in the streets was one of the things that preceded Hitler's rise. Or if you don't, then maybe you should read some things about the time before the Nazi Party took power. It's a lesson in how to not handle that situation when you're on the left.

 

[Berzerker]

Cool, but just to check that you actually have a working system, are you able to name enough races to include 95% of human population by degree of relatedness?

You mean my 'system' doesn't work if 90% belong to named races? You just made that up, didn't you?

 

[inthesomeday]

They know that organizing publicly is okay because organizing publicly is okay, and you didn't do anything to stop them from thinking it is. All you've done is make them arm themselves.

It's because of people like you refusing to act that organizing publicly is okay for them.

Yeah, you can tell yourself that, but then you have to ignore that half of the population thinks that you're violent, anti-democratic thugs.

As much as the capitalist media might say that, people are smarter than you must take them for.

...he writes after literally explaining how he is part of the groups that decides who does and does not belong and then uses violence against those who he has decided don't.

Yes I alone am leader of the entire Left all hail me

Yeah, and you surely remember that far-left and far-right groups battling each other in the streets was one of the things that preceded Hitler's rise. Or if you don't, then maybe you should read some things about the time before the Nazi Party took power. It's a lesson in how to not handle that situation when you're on the left.

Haha! Wait are you actually arguing that if the Nazis had been completely unopposed on the streets then they wouldn't have come into power?

 

[Ryika]

It's because of people like you refusing to act that organizing publicly is okay for them.

Yeah, people who are not insane and value democracy.

As much as the capitalist media might say that, people are smarter than you must take them for.

That's hilarious, given that the MSM are probably being more charitable to you than most other places. Have you looked around the internet lately? Nobody is on your side.

Yes I alone am leader of the entire Left all hail me

Yeah, you're as much a wannabe bully as the fascists are wannabe bullies. Neither you, nor them actually have much power.

Haha! Wait are you actually arguing that if the Nazis had been completely unopposed on the streets then they wouldn't have come into power?

No, I'm saying that the street battles didn't help a bit, and instead just created more division in the left, which kept them from uniting into a strong enough opposition.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeah, people who are not insane and value democracy.

Who value it so much they utterly refuse to defend it?

That's hilarious, given that the MSM are probably being more charitable to you than most other places. Have you looked around the internet lately? Nobody is on your side.

We don't do it for public approval, we do it because it needs to be done. I believe the people are smart enough to one day understand that without us they would be much worse off.

Yeah, you're as much a wannabe bully as the fascists are wannabe bullies. Neither you, nor them actually have much power.

So what is your problem, as a pillar of centrist wisdom, with us tussling it out? Shouldn't you see it as a great service to your perfect republic?

No, I'm saying that the street battles didn't help a bit, and instead just created more division in the left, which kept them from uniting into a strong enough opposition.

This is in fact exactly what I asked, just with more steps. The quoted statement implies that, with the fascists unopposed in the streets, they would not have managed to take power.

 

[Ryika]

Who value it so much they utterly refuse to defend it?

You don't defend a democracy by acting counter to its values.

We don't do it for public approval, we do it because it needs to be done. I believe the people are smart enough to one day understand that without us they would be much worse off.

Yeah, that's what all extremists tell themselves.

So what is your problem, as a pillar of centrist wisdom, with us tussling it out? Shouldn't you see it as a great service to your perfect republic?

I don't have a problem with it, I find it pretty entertaining for the moment. But the potential danger of dragging in more and more people is certainly there.

This is in fact exactly what I asked, just with more steps. The quoted statement implies that, with the fascists unopposed in the streets, they would not have managed to take power.

No, that's just your instability telling you that violent opposition is the only opposition.

 

[inthesomeday]

You don't defend a democracy by acting counter to its values.

Fascists marching in the streets and the centrists would let them. This is why we need to act.

Yeah, that's what all extremists tell themselves.

Is that meant to be a slight against me? "Extremist"? Two hundred years ago they would've called abolitionists extremists. It's such a shockingly weak argument to say "oh yeah? Well, YOU are strong in your convictions. Haha stumped ya"

I don't have a problem with it, I find it pretty entertaining for the moment. But the potential danger of dragging in more and more people is certainly there.

How comfortable you must be to find entertainment in the battle for the future of POC safety.

No, that's just your instability telling you that violent opposition is the only opposition.

Twice now with the ableist ad hominem about my mental health. Shall I call you a masochist for welcoming fascist oppression so openly?

 

[Ryika]

Twice now with the ableist ad hominem about my mental health. Shall I call you a masochist for welcoming fascist oppression so openly?

Nothing ableist about noticing certain behavioral patterns that might or might not be part of a mental condition. However, I have not made a statement about any mental conditions that you might or might not have, because while I do think your posts do show some potentially paranoid tendencies, and yes, the views you express make me think that you're pretty unstable, how would I know anything about what caused you to be in that state? How would I know your mental state and the things that fuel that mental state from what you argue for on the internet? You might just be very young and caught in an environment with other extremists for example.

Fascists marching in the streets and the centrists would let them. This is why we need to act.

I'm not a Centrist.

Is that meant to be a slight against me? "Extremist"? Two hundred years ago they would've called abolitionists extremists. It's such a shockingly weak argument to say "oh yeah? Well, YOU are strong in your convictions. Haha stumped ya"

Of course you're an extremist. Not because you're "strong in your convictions", but because your views are one-sided, and don't mash with reality at all.

How comfortable you must be to find entertainment in the battle for the future of POC safety.

I find entertainment in the fact that you think you're part of the battle "for the future of POC safety". I probably shouldn't find fun in that, because that situation probably causes a lot of mental distress for you, but I can't help but to be amused by how ironic the whole situation is.

On the bigger scale, I find it utterly ironic how America as a whole was on a steady course towards a more equal and fair society, with more and more problems being addressed, but because the left has utterly lost the plot, the United States are now facing the potential reversal of that course if they don't manage to get back on track soon.

 

[inthesomeday]

Nothing ableist about noticing certain behavioral patterns that might or might not be part of a mental condition. However, I have not made a statement about any mental conditions that you might or might not have, because while I do think your posts do show some potentially paranoid tendencies, and yes, the views you express make me think that you're pretty unstable, how would I know anything about what caused you to be in that state? How would I know your mental state and the things that fuel that mental state from what you argue for on the internet? You might just be very young and caught in an environment with other extremists for example.

Exactly, so saying I'm unbalanced and insane is baseless ad hominem.

I'm not a Centrist.

Sure act like one.

Of course you're an extremist. Not because you're "strong in your convictions", but because your views are one-sided, and don't mash with reality at all.

How are my views one sided? What does that even mean? How do my views "not mesh with reality"? Does the word extremist mean someone whose views do not mesh with reality? Or does it mean someone who holds extreme views? Or are you using extremist as a label to belittle me from the comfortable cushy center?

I find entertainment in the fact that you think you're part of the battle "for the future of POC safety". I probably shouldn't find fun in that, because that situation probably causes a lot of mental distress for you, but I can't help but to be amused by how ironic the whole situation is.

I don't think you're using the word ironic correctly. Furthermore, you're right, not all POCs will be made any more or less safe by the fascists in the immediate future. But a lot of those guys would do things like, say, stab a couple of young Muslim girls on a train if they were allowed to run free.

I can already hear your response... "That poor Nazi just got made mad by Antifa. They should've let him have his way and he would've left."

On the bigger scale, I find it utterly ironic how America as a whole was on a steady course towards a more equal and fair society, with more and more problems being addressed, but because the left has utterly lost the plot, the United States are now facing the potential reversal of that course if they don't manage to get back on track soon.

The incarceration rates have been rising, the imperialist machine was gearing up for the next war, the Occupy crowd was mostly dispersing. The Pipeline was built, the Wall was in talks, the bathrooms stay rigid. Sure, we can marry each other, and all the schools got to hang up pictures of a black man for once. But reproductive rights kept getting rolled back state by state, and the border thugs kept shooting innocent people.

From a centrist, liberal, censored point of view, things were sure getting better. But you can keep blaming us Leftists for the fact they stay worse. It's very comfortable.

 

[Ryika]

Exactly, so saying I'm unbalanced and insane is baseless ad hominem.

I didn't call you either of those.

The only time I used the word insane was when I was talking about the groups that disagree with you, and I clearly identified two groups there. If you want me to be concrete, I do think you do not value democracy a bit.
The word unbalanced, I didn't use it once. I called you unstable, which I think you are. That's not a comment about mental illness, you don't require one to become unstable.

Sure act like one.

Maybe we're using different definitions then. In my book, a centrist is a person who always looks for the middle ground between two positions. I do not do that, and instead evaluate both positions and then position myself where I find the reasonable ground to be. That is, more often than not, somewhere in the center, usually in the center-left, but I arrive at that position because I have evaluated the arguments, not because I think being in the center is a virtue in itself.

How are my views one sided? What does that even mean? How do my views "not mesh with reality"? Does the word extremist mean someone whose views do not mesh with reality? Or does it mean someone who holds extreme views? Or are you using extremist as a label to belittle me from the comfortable cushy center?

Have you looked at your own signature lately?

I don't think you're using the word ironic correctly. Furthermore, you're right, not all POCs will be made any more or less safe by the fascists in the immediate future. But a lot of those guys would do things like, say, stab a couple of young Muslim girls on a train if they were allowed to run free.

Those who think they do their best to help POCs are the cause for the rise of the far right. That is irony as unfiltered as it gets.

I can already hear your response... "That poor Nazi just got made mad by Antifa. They should've let him have his way and he would've left."

No, the Nazis were already mad before. What this whole situation does is just to create more Nazis and thus increase their numbers.

The incarceration rates have been rising, the imperialist machine was gearing up for the next war, the Occupy crowd was mostly dispersing. The Pipeline was built, the Wall was in talks, the bathrooms stay rigid. Sure, we can marry each other, and all the schools got to hang up pictures of a black man for once. But reproductive rights kept getting rolled back state by state, and the border thugs kept shooting innocent people.

From a centrist, liberal, censored point of view, things were sure getting better. But you can keep blaming us Leftists for the fact they stay worse. It's very comfortable.

Okay, let's say you're right and things weren't going up, but instead on a steady decline. By acting the way you did, you've now handed your opposition the tools to make them decline even faster than before. How is that a better picture? Even under your own terms it looks bad.

But I do disagree with your assessment, you're picking out pet issues while ignoring the bigger picture. Some of them are really silly, too.

Like... what's wrong with building walls to keep illegal immigrants out? Absolutely nothing, a nation has the right and the obligation to protect its borders. The only thing bad about the wall is how expensive it is compared to how inefficient and ultimately useless it would be.

Hell, if you don't like the border police shooting people, a wall between them an the people who try to immigrate illegally, might actually stop that. Yeah, that was a joke.

Trans bathrooms are an utterly meaningless issue.

The bigger picture is that acceptance of trans individuals is higher than ever, gay and bi lifestyles aren't a novelty these days, the majority of people thinks equality of the genders as well as minorities of pretty much any type are important. If you don't like the laws that are made in that big picture, well, then you'll really dislike the dark ages that you're heading towards now.

 

[Hehehe]

If someone is going to become a fascist because fascists tell them to, they'll do it no matter what medium the fascist uses. Fascists being allowed public forums actually strengthens them because, if unopposed, they learn that publicly organizing is okay.

This is what Antifa does. There's this right wing narrative that we are trying to prevent them from expressing themselves but we know and they know that they get plenty of expression anyway. Opposing their movements in public is actually about showing them that they don't belong and will be opposed wherever and whenever they try to act.

Fascists are bullies, emboldened by inaction and protection from their friends the police. The survivors of the Holocaust didn't say "hey now everyone remember to let everybody express themselves freely haha" they said we must be always vigilant and remember the warning signs.

I've had this discussion on this forum before, but here we go again.

Oh, if only there had been someone violently opposing Nazis in Weimar Germany. Surely WW2 and the holocaust could have been avoided, right?

The fact is, Nazis did get violently attacked. Their rallies were attacked. It didn't matter. They simply started to form competing paramilitaries to defend their rallies. The Brownshirts didn't start the violence but they did engage and excel in it. They also escalated the violence. All of this "punch a nazi"-thing didn't do anything, even when it was directed against actual Nazis. What good is going to come out of it this time?

In fact, there's a case to be made that the violence is actually what gave rise to the Nazis. A lot of people did like Adolf Hitler, but most of them didn't. For the longest time, Nazis were completely marginal, until the rise of communism. Now try to understand the situation here: back then the Nazis weren't known for the holocaust, as they are today. Whereas Russia had had its communist revolution, and millions of people were starving to death. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Rottfront, Antifa's predecessor, and the paramilitary arm of the German communist party, was running wild. They were attacking everyone. People were afraid. Germans had experienced starvation before. You have to understand that back then, due to the treaty of Versailles, the German army had 100 000 men, whereas at their height, both Rottfront and the Brownshirts numbered somewhere around 3 million people. This, in my opinion, is what at least in part gave rise to fascism. People were tired of the violence. People were tired of all the street fights and whatnot. I loathe fascism, but in some sense I can understand why in such a situation people would want law and order, peace and stability.

TL;DR: Violence isn't a solution. I know you won't believe me, but I'm just saying, this won't end well

 

[Akka]

We don't do it for public approval, we do it because it needs to be done. I believe the people are smart enough to one day understand that without us they would be much worse off.

It's funny, it sounds exactly like the argument used by colonialists "we have a duty to civilize the inferior races, they'll thank us later".
Also, and I already warned you about that before, but if you're going to use unilateral argumentation because "it needs to be done", then you should really think twice about how such a reasoning could be used against you very easily.

Both arguments are typical of extremists : extremists hold as fact that they are right and are impervious to criticism (so they consider their action as justified without discussion) and because they are binary in their outlook (you're either with them or against them) and as such they simply can't comprehend there is a lot of people who could see both them and their foe as dangerous (in the mind of an extremist, if someone think that, it's because he was one of their foe to begin with).