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

[Hygro]

What are good things to have is subjective (although I'm not sure what "roughly good" means, outside the context of bedroom activities). I wasn't making an analogy anyway, I was just highlighting that whether or not something works (an objective observation) is completely independent of whether or not it's "good" (a subjective judgement).

"Roughly good": trending good. Acknowledging nuance, while still giving a value stamp. And yes, your point was clear and right (ends don't justify means) even if your examples added another dimension.

 

[inthesomeday]

Manfred, if you wanted to say, "just because something works doesn't mean it should be done" you should've said, "just because something works doesn't mean it should be done", instead of straw manning.

 

[Hygro]

Manfred, if you wanted to say, "just because something works doesn't mean it should be done" you should've said, "just because something works doesn't mean it should be done", instead of straw manning.

That's not a straw man. A straw man means he ascribed a position or view to someone that they didn't have; or an argument to someone they didn't make. He was demonstrating a dimension of logic combined with a visceral show-not-tell method to get you to change your mind.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Manfred, if you wanted to say, "just because something works doesn't mean it should be done" you should've said, "just because something works doesn't mean it should be done"

Why? Is the intellectual capacity of CFC so low that it can't grasp an incredibly simple point unless it's expressed in isolation, without any other distracting shiny sentences nearby? I mean that is almost verbatim the third sentence in my three sentence post.

instead of straw manning.

Oh... you realise that you're rather ironically strawmanning me there right?

(Also, I get that telling other people what they should and shouldn't do is kind of your thing, but for the time being I still have the luxury of deciding that for myself )

 

[Cutlass]

"Corneliu Zelea Codreanu."

—
face and name on t-shirt worn in Charlottesville by Unite the Right rally leader Matthew Heimbach; Codreanu was a Romanian fascist leader of the pogroms in Romania that killed tens of thousands of Jews during the 1930s and Holocaust

 

[inthesomeday]

I've always heard straw man in regards to an implied level of severity or an absurd comparison that draws an emotional reaction. Like if I said "hey wanna share that wealth" and someone said "psht no Stalin wanna gulag me?" I would've called that a straw man because they're implying a comparison between me and Stalin, regardless of the directness of the comparison. But I'm probably using that wrong, it's been a while since I did any serious debate stuff.

 

[Akka]

That's not a strawman.
A strawman is when someone misrepresent an argument and attempt to counter the misrepresentation as if it were the original argument (usually so he can argue against something that somehow look like the real deal, but which isn't and is easier to defeat, just like a strawman look like a human but isn't a human and is quite a lot easier to beat in a fight).

A strawman would be if you said "I'm straight, I don't like man as sex partners" and someone answered "so, you say that you don't like homosexuals ? Don't you think it's bad to be homophobic ?".

Or if someone said "your definition of racism makes no sense" and you argued "so you say you side with racists ?"

 

[El_Machinae]

View attachment 476486
It worked (Source: NPR)

Dude, if a press conference is not occurring for fears of violence, that's a bad thing. You have normal people scared to do their jobs.

This moral permission to assault someone who's been deemed a Nazi really does need to stop. It's losing the political argument, instead of winning it.

 

[inthesomeday]

If the goal is "no Nazis shall enter our community" then I think the goal has been achieved, regardless of the "political argument".

 

[Akka]

Until the time where someone you disagree with uses the same argument against you.

 

[inthesomeday]

I've been pretty explicit that I believe the Left has already been thoroughly repressed throughout the US, and am thus unafraid of this tradition continuing.

Also, that centrist oneliner doesn't really work in response to what I said. You mean when the same goal has been achieved against me? I just said I didn't care as much about arguments as about results.

 

[luiz]

I've been pretty explicit that I believe the Left has already been thoroughly repressed throughout the US, and am thus unafraid of this tradition continuing.

Also, that centrist oneliner doesn't really work in response to what I said. You mean when the same goal has been achieved against me? I just said I didn't care as much about arguments as about results.

Try this : we don't think you get to decide who has the right to free speech or freedom of assembly and who doesn't.

 

[inthesomeday]

Try this : we don't think you get to decide who has the right to free speech or freedom of assembly and who doesn't.

I don't, the government does. I disagree with the government.

 

[aelf]

Well, kind of. I'm advocating for the freedom of anybody to do things that don't endanger other people.

Ah, but when you think of "other people" it's from the perspective of the person you.

And I called it:

You're only advocating for the freedom of fascists as long as it doesn't take much effort and you know you'd be safe from the consequences.

The difference is that they don't have legislation on their side inside of America. Because as much as you're probably already typing something about Trump and the KKK after reading that first part, inside of the USA, fascists are a small minority that is spread all over the place. By pushing them all into the same area, you would make things worse.

You think it's safe right now; that's why you're fine with freedom for fascists.

 

[Akka]

I've been pretty explicit that I believe the Left has already been thoroughly repressed throughout the US, and am thus unafraid of this tradition continuing.

Also, that centrist oneliner doesn't really work in response to what I said. You mean when the same goal has been achieved against me? I just said I didn't care as much about arguments as about results.

If you cared about results, you would care about arguments. In a democracy, you win by convincing people (which is the part that seems to be quite forgotten these days), and if you use reasonings that can be turned against you, the convincing done might be the opposite of the results you aim for, and blow up in your face.

 

[luiz]

I don't, the government does. I disagree with the government.

Then change the government by democratic means. If you think you can impose your will on a democratically constituted government, guess what that makes you...

 

[Hehehe]

If the goal is "no Nazis shall enter our community" then I think the goal has been achieved, regardless of the "political argument".

Look, I'll try to level with you here. Let's say that everyone you think is a Nazi, is actually a Nazi. And let's say that everything is justified in the pursuit of the greater good. I'm not sure I agree with these things, but for the sake of argument, I'll take them as given.

What are you hoping to achieve via violence? I mean let's say you fight and win. What do you gain from this? Are Nazis gonna be all like "well **** me, I didn't think there would be violence in this whole Nazi thing! I guess I'll give up now!". Has violence been a great deterrent in the past (I'd like to direct you to my previous post). Look, that guy who has a swastika tattooed into his forehead is never going to agree with you. And he doesn't have to. You're competing for the middle ground, the centrists. I mean think about that clown who drove his car into that crowd of protesters. He did more harm to his movement than Antifa could ever dream of.

And just to clarify, above I was talking about politics in general. If there is a group of violent skinheads beating people up, then of course I approve of violence in legitimate self-defence (I assume we don't need to have an argument about what is legitimate self-defence? Protection from immediate harm, in a situation where violence is the only option)

You think it's safe right now; that's why you're fine with freedom for fascists.

So you think we should fight fire with fire? Fight fascism with fascism? Why would that make me feel better?

I think I'll go with liberal democracy, thank you very much. I mean if you think fascists are so very wrong, then can't you just give them rope? Let them speak and they will hang themselves with their words?

 

[inthesomeday]

If you cared about results, you would care about arguments. In a democracy, you win by convincing people (which is the part that seems to be quite forgotten these days), and if you use reasonings that can be turned against you, the convincing done might be the opposite of the results you aim for, and blow up in your face.

I'm not interesting in cooperating with this "democracy". There can be no democracy in politics without democracy of society and economics. No justice no peace, man.

Then change the government by democratic means. If you think you can impose your will on a democratically constituted government, guess what that makes you...

What? A fascist? Is that what you think a fascist is? Because there are a lot more qualifiers. And besides, this government doesn't even pretend to be democratically constituted.

A government cannot be changed by its own avenues of control.

Look, I'll try to level with you here. Let's say that everyone you think is a Nazi, is actually a Nazi. And let's say that everything is justified in the pursuit of the greater good. I'm not sure I agree with these things, but for the sake of argument, I'll take them as given.

What are you hoping to achieve via violence? I mean let's say you fight and win. What do you gain from this? Are Nazis gonna be all like "well **** me, I didn't think there would be violence in this whole Nazi thing! I guess I'll give up now!". Has violence been a great deterrent in the past (I'd like to direct you to my previous post). Look, that guy who has a swastika tattooed into his forehead is never going to agree with you. And he doesn't have to. You're competing for the middle ground, the centrists. I mean think about that clown who drove his car into that crowd of protesters. He did more harm to his movement than Antifa could ever dream of.

Except we aren't fighting for centrists. This very thread has shown me that you people aren't really worth "winning over" because you are afraid of taking action. We're fighting over those masses of people who aren't so arrogant as to eschew action but also haven't received the privileged education of the political spectrum. These people listen to those capable of representing their interests, and us Left and them Right are willing to be honest about what we think should be done. The people will choose their side based on ideology and action, not on method of discourse or elitist moral high-roading. The centrist lost the electoral, after all.

And just to clarify, above I was talking about politics in general. If there is a group of violent skinheads beating people up, then of course I approve of violence in legitimate self-defence (I assume we don't need to have an argument about what is legitimate self-defence? Protection from immediate harm, in a situation where violence is the only option)

If you can't see how the violence of white supremacist speech is just short of direct physical assault, then you need to educate yourself a bit about the experience of marginalized people in the US.

So you think we should fight fire with fire? Fight fascism with fascism? Why would that make me feel better?

If I had a nickel for every time I heard this horseshoe nonsense I'd be rich enough to start espousing it myself.

Ideologies are made of ideas, not methods of applying ideas. Fascism is an ideology, based in SPECIFIC IDEAS.

I think I'll go with liberal democracy, thank you very much. I mean if you think fascists are so very wrong, then can't you just give them rope? Let them speak and they will hang themselves with their words?

Fascists are very respectful of liberal democracy, that's true

 

[Yeekim]

I wasn't actually talking about "white people", there. I've been fairly explicit that I think "white people" has limited use as a historical category, that people are only meaningfully white so far as they are invested in (and able to invest themselves in) "white supremacy".

Well, that is internally consistent view I could agree with.
Sadly, that is not how these concepts are used and understood by, ~99,9% of people.

I'm not interesting in cooperating with this "democracy". There can be no democracy in politics without democracy of society and economics. No justice no peace, man.

So your aim is a violent revolution then?

 

[inthesomeday]

If legislatures are willing to amend the Constitution to prohibit private ownership and exploitation, with the specific aim of government to be a transition state that will eventually be abolished, I guess I could cope. Sounds pretty unlikely considering legislatures are actual puppets.