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

[Yeekim]

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.

Please remind me, what is the current electoral support of parties who wish to prohibit private property?

 

[Hehehe]

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.

Afraid of taking action? I've sworn my life to defend this country. I hope I won't ever have to, but if I do I will.

As for centrists, I guess it depends on your definition of center. But in a democracy, you usually need a majority to win. And, usually, to win the majority, you need centrists. My centrist ideology is liberal democracy, and that is what I will vote for, and I daresay that most people agree with me

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.

No, I just can't see it. If they're inciting violence, as defined in the law, then it's a police matter. Let them take care of it.

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.

Definition of fascism

1. 
   1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
   
   
2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

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

Yeah, they aren't. And that's why I don't want them abolishing democracy. If that actually, legitimately were happening then sure, I'd fight against them

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.

Ah, I see. You're fighting for the revolution, huh comrade?

 

[El_Machinae]

What's the goal here, inthesomeday, "I thought he was a Nazi" should become a legitimate defense against an assault charge?

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Was it called off because the organisers feared violence, or because they feared backlash? It's not uncommon, in Europe, for far-right demonstrations to be cancelled or simply curtailed because the fascists lose the nerve to confront a counter-demonstration, without any threat of fists or clubs. It's not self-evident, here, that the organisers buckled because they were spooked by the thought of a few gutter-punks throwing bottles, or because they were buckled beneath the display of overwhelming moral force in the numerous anti-fascist rallies that followed the events in Charlottesville.

Naturally, they're going to say that they're cancelling because of communist bully-boys, and naturally those who favour Nazi-punching are going to agree. Both of them have a reason to prefer that narrative. The latter, for obvious reasons. The former, well, in part because these macho boneheads can't publicly admit to bottling it in front of a bunch of effeminate rootless cosmopolitans. But more insidiously, because they want you to associate anti-fascism with disorder, and, therefore, if even only in a negative sense, to associate fascism with order. Don't validate them.

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 mean "white" as a positive identity, in this context. Obviously, as a merely descriptive term, "white" is a sociological or demographic category with no inheritant wickedness. (I probably should have used my scare-quotes around "white" to indicate the distinction.)

 

[Akka]

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.

Yeah, well, announce to everyone you know best, you're right, they're wrong, you'll enforce your own values and they all can screw themselves.
Remind me, why should I consider you the good guy again ? Why shouldn't consider you the actual threat ?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, well, announce to everyone you know best, you're right, they're wrong, you'll enforce your own values and they all can screw themselves.
Remind me, why should I consider you the good guy again ? Why shouldn't consider you the actual threat ?

Progressives: "Political democracy is insufficient without economic democracy."
Centrists: "that is literally the same thing as fascism".

 

[inthesomeday]

Please remind me, what is the current electoral support of parties who wish to prohibit private property?

Yeah, zilch. Although the CPUSA hasn't run a candidate in a while (they're a joke but they're closest to a "party who wish to prohibit private property"). Then again the support for a party whose literal only message is that the environment is good is also zilch. Support for a party that espouses an idea is one of the worst imaginable metrics for that idea's support among the Americans. We have essentially got two parties.

Afraid of taking action? I've sworn my life to defend this country. I hope I won't ever have to, but if I do I will.

If that means you're in the military then I'll respect your right to weigh in on taking direct actions a little bit more only because I know for most people joining the military represents a will to action. Of course, I disagree with the characterization of the military this way but I'll back off on that because I respect the fact that that is to you a choice to act. You're not afraid of taking action, so I'm sorry I characterized you that way.

However, I will counterpoint that a decision to inaction in the face of fascism implies either apathy or welcoming towards the fascists, and that if you're willing to consider giving ones life as the threshold of action, that centrist "civil discourse" is not sufficient action against such a threat as fascism.

As for centrists, I guess it depends on your definition of center. But in a democracy, you usually need a majority to win. And, usually, to win the majority, you need centrists. My centrist ideology is liberal democracy, and that is what I will vote for, and I daresay that most people agree with me

Again, political democracy is insufficient in a society with economic oligarchy.

No, I just can't see it. If they're inciting violence, as defined in the law, then it's a police matter. Let them take care of it.

Maybe you can afford to trust the police, but an organization that has repeatedly throughout history supported white supremacy, and indeed is a crucial part of white supremacy, at least in the US, has lost my trust to deal with white supremacist violence.

Remember the days when the police would turn a blind eye to (and often participate in) KKK lynchings. Then realize that mass incarceration as the new slave labor machine of the US directly relies on the work the police do.

Yeah, they aren't. And that's why I don't want them abolishing democracy. If that actually, legitimately were happening then sure, I'd fight against them

(Democracy hasn't ever really existed in a true/effective way but) If you're willing to argue against my assertions as threatening democracy, then why is not also the fascist ideology treated as threatening democracy when espoused on the streets?

Ah, I see. You're fighting for the revolution, huh comrade?

...Sure am???

What's the goal here, inthesomeday, "I thought he was a Nazi" should become a legitimate defense against an assault charge?

Well in a lot of states there are trans and gay panic laws. Zimmerman got saved by Stand Your Ground. Obviously I don't think these should be legitimate defenses, and nor do I think this should be, but when people who identify themselves as white nationalists or who openly associate with white nationalists are using shows of force and intimidation to oppress POC in their own communities, yes, I do think that force should be used to stop them in whatever capacity is necessary.

Yeah, well, announce to everyone you know best, you're right, they're wrong, you'll enforce your own values and they all can screw themselves.
Remind me, why should I consider you the good guy again ? Why shouldn't consider you the actual threat ?

How utterly unrelated to the quoted statement

 

[Akka]

Progressives: "Political democracy is insufficient without economic democracy."
Centrists: "that is literally the same thing as fascism".

I guess if you leave out all the parts where he says he doesn't care about the "convincing others" in democracy and how he is justified to enforce his opinion through violence, then yeah your strawman might work.

It's becoming a habit here, forgetting the actual problematic part to be able to strawman the hell out of someone's counter-argument. I can't help but to re-use my little example :

"murder is bad, and self-defense is murder"
"I disagree with you, that last part is insane"
"ahah, noble progressive says that murder is bad, bourgeois centrist think that saying that murder is bad makes someone a dangerous radical !"

 

[inthesomeday]

If we're calling out straw men, how on earth is "murder is bad and self defense is murder" in any way comparable to "racism is bad and institutional racial oppression is racism" especially when the latter has been very thoroughly explained and supported?

And no, in the immediate future, wherein Nazis are directly threatening peoples' communities, Antifa really haven't got time to try and convince every single liberal that only force will stop the Nazis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What's the goal here, inthesomeday, "I thought he was a Nazi" should become a legitimate defense against an assault charge?

No, but as a goal being a Nazi should make a legitimate self defense claim pretty simple. I think eventually we need to view this through the same lens as the supreme court accepted for obscenity. I'm not going to try to describe a clear boundary, but I trust people to know a Nazi when they see one. For example, if you are marching in a heavily armed column chanting "Jews will not replace us" and someone who shoots you says "I just defended my town against a Nazi invasion" I'm likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to say that they needed to let the Nazis shoot first, or that they aren't qualified to distinguish between a Nazi and a "free speech protester." I'm going to tell them "good job" and send them on their way.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, as it stands, we currently have not-quite-antifa liberals trying to convince other liberals that the violence needs to happen. That's usually not in dispute. It's the method and mechanism of titration that's being discussed.

 

[inthesomeday]

Just googled titration. How exactly does that word apply here?

Do you mean the way Antifa identifies Nazis? Because I'm inclined to agree with Tim. Identify a Nazi based on their acceptance of the elements of the Nazi ideology. Like Antisemitic paranoia.

 

[Akka]

If we're calling out straw men, how on earth is "murder is bad and self defense is murder" in any way comparable to "racism is bad and institutional racial oppression is racism" especially when the latter has been very thoroughly explained and supported?

Ah yeah, claiming strawman when making one ^^

Nobody ever said that institutional oppression wasn't racism. Well, at least *I* never said it (disclaimer : unless it was blatantly sarcastic, but I have no recollection of such a joke, but I make it just in case).
You're welcome to find any place, any time, where I actually said that.
What I DID lambast is the ridiculous attempt to claim that racism is only when there is institutional racial oppression, and that it's "not racism" if some black guy racially insult a white one.

And no, in the immediate future, wherein Nazis are directly threatening peoples' communities, Antifa really haven't got time to try and convince every single liberal that only force will stop the Nazis.

And if you don't bother to convince people and appoint yourself to vigilante justice, don't be surprised if they turn their back on you. I know, I know, you're used to being oppressed and all that.

(notice : I am not philosophically against vigilante justice, it's the practice which makes me very wary)

Edit : corrected the obvious mistake of "wasn't" into "was".

 

[El_Machinae]

Just googled titration. How exactly does that word apply here?

Do you mean the way Antifa identifies Nazis? Because I'm inclined to agree with Tim. Identify a Nazi based on their acceptance of the elements of the Nazi ideology. Like Antisemitic paranoia.

Well, the way Nazis are identified, yes. But more the appropriate level of violence required to concomitantly dissuade Nazis from engaging in violence themselves and not losing public opinion. Titration is adding enough reactant to bring to a very small threshold, but not crossing over. It ends up being a drip-by-drip process of adding more. This means that you need a mechanism to slow your flow as you get closer and closer to the goal, because not only the effect of each drip increase for every drip, but the threshold is way more teeny than you'd realize.

There's such a terrifically important legal hurdle here. You're literally agitating on changing the burden of evidence in an assault trial. "I thought he was a Nazi" then becomes the reasonable doubt, and that's a horrible place to put the line allowing assault.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, the way Nazis are identified, yes. But more the appropriate level of violence required to concomitantly dissuade Nazis from engaging in violence themselves and not losing public opinion. Titration is adding enough reactant to bring to a very small threshold, but not crossing over. It ends up being a drip-by-drip process of adding more. This means that you need a mechanism to slow your flow as you get closer and closer to the goal, because not only the effect of each drip increase for every drip, but the threshold is way more teeny than you'd realize.

There's such a terrifically important legal hurdle here. You're literally agitating on changing the burden of evidence in an assault trial. "I thought he was a Nazi" then becomes the reasonable doubt, and that's a horrible place to put the line allowing assault.

"I thought he was a Nazi" is not a valid claim. "Any reasonable person would have thought he was a Nazi" should be a valid claim.

 

[inthesomeday]

Ah yeah, claiming strawman when making one ^^

Nobody ever said that institutional oppression was racism. Well, at least *I* never said it (disclaimer : unless it was blatantly sarcastic, but I have no recollection of such a joke, but I make it just in case).
You're welcome to find any place, any time, where I actually said that.

I said it. Institutional oppression based on race is literally what racism is.

What I DID lambast is the ridiculous attempt to claim that racism is only when there is institutional racial oppression, and that it's "not racism" if some black guy racially insult a white one.

Lol it's not racism. I guess you could call it racial prejudice. I don't think racial prejudice is okay, either. I don't support just being mean to white people because of their race. But it's still not racism or racist to do so.

And even if we changed the definition to your agenda so that it was, it would be nowhere near as important to address as institutional racism.

And if you don't bother to convince people and appoint yourself to vigilante justice, don't be surprised if they turn their back on you. I know, I know, you're used to being oppressed and all that.

The Left is indeed used to that, so continually saying "LOL BUT I CALLED YOU A NAZI SO NOW I CAN PUNCH YOU???" doesn't really faze me. People have been violent against the Left for who they actually are for plenty of time so people just changing how they justify anti-Leftist reactionary action really isn't threatening to me. In fact, I could argue that people terming the Left "fascists" and being reactionary would be an improvement, because it would do a bit to destigmatize terms like communist, anarchist, and socialist, and would do some to move towards stigmatization of the word fascist.

(notice : I am not philosophically against vigilante justice, it's the practice which makes me very wary)

This is one of the most frustrating things liberals do. Philosophical support of something you don't support practically is literally pointless.

Well, the way Nazis are identified, yes. But more the appropriate level of violence required to concomitantly dissuade Nazis from engaging in violence themselves and not losing public opinion. Titration is adding enough reactant to bring to a very small threshold, but not crossing over. It ends up being a drip-by-drip process of adding more. This means that you need a mechanism to slow your flow as you get closer and closer to the goal, because not only the effect of each drip increase for every drip, but the threshold is way more teeny than you'd realize.

Again, public support comes second to the very pressing and primary function of Antifascist action: opposing fascism. Looking at historical context, when the Left opposed fascism in Germany the liberals condemned them as well. Indeed, there's an arguable point that, if the Left had the support of liberals, the Nazis might've been stopped. But forming a United Antifascist front does not make it the responsibility of the Left to only fight in ways acceptable to liberals, and indeed the rise of Nazism should be blamed on liberals for not joining the Left, rather than on the Left for not appealing to liberals. Sure, the liberals got to maintain their annoying moral high road, but the Nazis still rose and the Left did all they could to stop the Nazis.

To summarize, when analyzing the rise of the Nazis we should not ask ourselves "Why did the Left use methods that alienated liberals?" but rather "WHY DIDNT THE LIBERALS DO ANYTHING?!!!"

There's such a terrifically important legal hurdle here. You're literally agitating on changing the burden of evidence in an assault trial. "I thought he was a Nazi" then becomes the reasonable doubt, and that's a horrible place to put the line allowing assault.

I'm not worried about legality, to restate this, and my goal is not to change any laws in an evil legal system.

 

[Yeekim]

I wouldn't suggest abandoning political democracy in search of economic one.
Fascism may begin to look preferable at that point. Or in hindsight.
EDIT: These aren't just empty words either. I hail from Eastern Europe.
Glorious Red Army liberated these parts from fascism in WW2. This was followed by 50 years of even more glorious economic democracy. Today the place is chock full of fascists. At least according to some. How's that for a cautionary tale, huh?

 

[inthesomeday]

I wouldn't suggest abandoning political democracy in search of economic one.
Fascism may begin to look preferable at that point. Or in hindsight.

That's pretty rough that you think that. Let's try and define democracy. How do you define political democracy?

EDIT: These aren't just empty words either. I hail from Eastern Europe.
Glorious Red Army liberated these parts from fascism in WW2. This was followed by 50 years of even more glorious economic democracy. Today the place is chock full of fascists. At least according to some. How's that for a cautionary tale, huh?

The Soviets liberated Eastern Europe from the Nazis and then took the land and oppressed the people themselves, but if you could seriously call Soviet rule economic democracy I have to ask, are we talking about the same Eastern Europe?

 

[Akka]

I said it. Institutional oppression based on race is literally what racism is.

I think it's obvious it was a typo. I obviously meant "wasn't".

Lol it's not racism. I guess you could call it racial prejudice. I don't think racial prejudice is okay, either. I don't support just being mean to white people because of their race. But it's still not racism or racist to do so.

Lol it is. I've already spent enough time pointing how trying to redefine words so they fit one's agenda is disgusting, dishonest and manipulative.

And even if we changed the definition to your agenda so that it was, it would be nowhere near as important to address as institutional racism.

You're the one rewriting words to fit your agenda. Don't project on others.

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

This is one of the most frustrating things liberals do. Philosophical support of something you don't support practically is literally pointless.

So understanding your own morals and the complexity of putting them into practice is pointless ? I guess it's another notch in the blind dogmatism line.

 

[inthesomeday]

Lol it is. I've already spent enough time pointing how trying to redefine words so they fit one's agenda is disgusting, dishonest and manipulative.

Agreed. "Racism" is a very academic and historical term and thus the definitions of historians and the academia ought to be respected. Of course I do think that's elitist, but in a discussion about ethics words should have well defined meanings, and in such a historical discussion of racism I choose to use racism's definition as a historical term instead of whatever colloquial usage fits your agenda.

You're the one rewriting words to fit your agenda. Don't project on others.

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

A dictionary is not always infallible. Back in the 1800s dictionaries had a very specific lean towards WASP cultural conventions for terms like marriage, prayer, and other terms that might be politicized or had subjective, social definitions. Or perhaps a term like racism.

Fun fact, although this also does not really weigh in to the modern academic definition of the word, the first time it had recorded use was in 1902, in the passage "Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism."

The usage here serms to refer to a mix of both your colloquial and the accepted academic definitions of the word, referring to the opinions that result from segregation (or, inferrably, any other form of oppression). Also important to note is that its writer, Henry Pratt, was himself someone I would call a racist (pioneered Assimilation tactics) but who you might not (held no personal hatred towards the Native people, so he wasn't a racist, right?).

So understanding your own morals and the complexity of putting them into practice is pointless ? I guess it's another notch in the blind dogmatism line.

Moreso the idea of even pondering some action without thinking of it in a practical sense. Either you support something's application or you don't. Whether or not you support it in vague moral terms is ultimately unimportant in real world terms.