|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Just a random Question.
ANTIFA was/is a big thing in germany since like ever but i never heard of it in the US/this Tread until very recently. What happened? Is it just a new "inn"-word or why is it suddenly everywhere?
If you want my broad perspective, it is a result of the internet creating a global society before we even realized it. Political messages, radical ones in particular, are able to spread much more easily in a modern, extremely connected world. Just like how you can have an easy time finding a community for furries who are into building cars (just making shit up here as an example), you can find a full community of people who represent even the most crazy stuff.
|
I know what Antifa is, my question is why its suddenly famous in the US. I'm sure it existed for a while but in the US context it just feels like the new hot term for left extremism.
|
On August 17 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Just a random Question.
ANTIFA was/is a big thing in germany since like ever but i never heard of it in the US/this Tread until very recently. What happened? Is it just a new "inn"-word or why is it suddenly everywhere?
It's a scary sounding word that is easily applied to everyone who shows up to protest against white supremacists. Just think "socialism" in a protest context; the actual presence of antifa is negligible at best per the reports consolidating domestic terrors attacks.
|
Someone needed a buzz word to describe counter protesters and they popularized ANTIFA. It is sort of like civil rights leaders in the 1960s were associated with the Black Panthers, even if they had never been associated with the Black Panthers.
On August 17 2017 01:48 Velr wrote:
I know what Antifa is, my question is why its suddenly famous in the US.
Because people needed a group that was clearly not great to associate with the left and claim was responsible for every bad thing that happens at a left leaning event. See the use of communist as a way to discredit civil rights and union labor.
|
On August 17 2017 01:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Just a random Question.
ANTIFA was/is a big thing in germany since like ever but i never heard of it in the US/this Tread until very recently. What happened? Is it just a new "inn"-word or why is it suddenly everywhere? It's a scary sounding word that is easily applied to everyone who shows up to protest against white supremacists. Just think "socialism" in a protest context; the actual presence of antifa is negligible at best per the reports consolidating domestic terrors attacks.
Actually that's exactly what it's not, and that's why discussion here just circle around endlessly.
Not everyone who sows up to protest against racism etc is an antifa, that's an idiotic assumption to make. When i talk about antifas (and i made clear that the smallest part of the counter protesters actually were), i talk about a very specific group in that mass of counter protesters.
|
The neo Nazi group holds far more deplorable views than the counter protestors, and Trump didn't make that clear. Also, Trump said there are more than zero good people in the neo Nazi group, which is wrong.
Neo Nazis who walk around in military gear need to be monitored, and certainly if there are any trying to immigrate or visit the US, they should be banned. Questioning related to neo Nazism and white supremacy should be incorporated into citizenship and immigration vetting for all people form Europe.
|
Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that.
|
On August 17 2017 01:50 Nevuk wrote:
Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that.
I mean if you try to compare the intentions of Antifa and Nazis, you see how ridiculous it is to try and equivocate them.
|
United States43818 Posts
Antifa are, as far as I can tell, the kind of masked anarchist protesters who genuinely enjoy what they do. They're ideological only in as much as their ideology gives them legitimacy to rage against the other side. If for any reason they could no longer find fascists to rage against they'd switch to another ideology, the important thing for them is that they have an excuse to break shit. As an individual who believes in the legitimacy of the state I'm pretty much opposed to everything they do and wish they would stop inserting themselves into arguments where they're completely unwelcome. Like football fans who skip the match so they can get themselves drunk before it's time to go find people wearing the other team's colours to beat the shit out of.
Still, better an anarchist than a Nazi.
|
Nah, they have several good points but.. The execution, ugh.
|
On August 17 2017 01:50 Nevuk wrote:
Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that.
I completely understand the argument that fascism must be opposed in the most aggressive way possible. My objection is when always how often and when they decide to deploy that aggressive opposition.
Edit: also a lot of them are anarchist. But they also dont' want genocide, so I'll take few broken windows any day over Nazis.
|
On August 17 2017 01:50 Nevuk wrote:
Personally I think antifa may have a point, but I recognize I'm probably alone in the thread for thinking that.
I'm on a slightly more broad position where I see people like jacenoob talk about the hybris of the left who dare claim they have moral high ground and I'm like... Not sure how that is hybris.
(That's a bit too strong to be fair, I'm not a fan of moral high ground arguments in general so I wouldn't be in that case either. But to claim that there is some sort of equivalence between the right and the left in the US and we should treat both as equivalent and be surprised when one side (the right) is worse than the other... No we should not, and it should be patently obvious that we shouldn't.)
|
Canada11475 Posts
One side thinks one thing, the other thinks the other, each side wants to convince the other to agree with them. Not really sure why you're surprised by this or think it's a problem. Consider the alternative, Cruz wanting to repeal Obamacare, the Democrats responding "look, you do you man, it's all good".
The way you are framing this, and I don't know if you meant it this way- of course Democrats want Republicans to become Democrats- implies that the particular point of contention (Nazis and KKK) are inherently a part of the Republican package. What I'm seeing is no Republican other than Trump thinks this way. That is both sides don't want anything to do the KKK, but you're saying KKK is as a part of the Republican suite as repealing Obamacare.
I actually do expect conservative parties to argue conservative things and liberal parties to argue liberal things and green parties to argue green things- but I don't expect white supremacy to be one of those things. The disbelief in a denunciation of white supremacy should not be a matter of partisanship but of consistency in actions, words, and beliefs. I did not and do not care for Ted Cruz, but I do believe what he says in this instance regardless of my own politics- I really have no reason not to. I don't think my wishing he wouldn't be so... well, Cruz- has much bearing on the veracity of his statement.
edit.
My problem with antifa is once they get chanting, they are really, really bad at figuring out if they actually have lined up fascists in their sights. This time they got it right, good for them. Up in Canada they targeted fiscal conservatives and free speech advocates: Conservatives made up of blacks, Jews, Chinese Canadians- it would be hard to find a more repugnant group for the white supremacists (certainly none of them showed up to identify themselves) and yet this ethnically diverse groups was greeted by "No Nazis, no KKK!"
My concern then is paring these two things up: Nazis should be violently opposed- violence against Nazis is justified. And they are generally bad at figuring out who the Nazis actually are. The combination of two means they're going to lash out sometimes against Nazis (Charlotteville) but a lot of time against regular people- without a single Nazi on sight- most likely people that defend free speech
|
On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:
[quote]
You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow.
But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them.
He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it.
Also HE was right that there are biological reasons for why there are fewer women in tech (note that he never argued that those who are there do worse, he said multiple times that all women who are there are 100% as qualified as men). Google flat out denying this is simply denying actual science, which for me is absolutely shocking for this company. Check out this meta analysis:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/
(short summary but please read yourself): In conclusion, based on the meta-analyses we reviewed above, Damore seems to be correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms.
Another interesting link: I’m An Ex-Google Woman Tech Leader And I’m Sick Of Our Approach To Diversity!
https://medium.com/the-mission/im-an-ex-google-woman-tech-leader-and-i-m-sick-of-our-approach-to-diversity-17008c5fe999
|
On August 17 2017 01:50 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:48 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Just a random Question.
ANTIFA was/is a big thing in germany since like ever but i never heard of it in the US/this Tread until very recently. What happened? Is it just a new "inn"-word or why is it suddenly everywhere? It's a scary sounding word that is easily applied to everyone who shows up to protest against white supremacists. Just think "socialism" in a protest context; the actual presence of antifa is negligible at best per the reports consolidating domestic terrors attacks. Actually that's exactly what it's not, and that's why discussion here just circle around endlessly. Not everyone who sows up to protest against racism etc is an antifa, that's an idiotic assumption to make. When i talk about antifas (and i made clear that the smallest part of the counter protesters actually were), i talk about a very specific group in that mass of counter protesters.
I was answering his question in the context of the word's use in the US, not its actual meaning, though your condescending correction is well noted.
|
On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it.
This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize:
Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies."
Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him."
Welcome to corporate life.
|
The Google guy wasn't fired for bringing the issues to the company in a feedback forum though, he was fired for sharing it with a group that caused his memo to go viral while Google itself was facing an anti-discrimination lawsuit after nobody paid attention to his 10-page feedback form after the diversity meeting. Pretty sure he even said this himself.
Like if you had an internal memo about how gowning procedures at your company were a waste of time and had some evidence that parts of it might not be effective, then after people were suing you for infecting people with fungal meningitis you circulated the memo throughout the company and it got to the press.
|
On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:01 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 01:42 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:
[quote]
Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions. The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them. He did not bring these issues to the company because he wanted to promote his own poitical opinions, he did so because he was conviced that it was in the company's best interest to change their ways of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is fairly logical. Hiring a less qualified person because of his or her gender is harmful for the company. If an employee observes something that is harmful for the company it is absolutely reasonable for him to speak out about it. This keeps getting repeated, and it's clear that people making these arguments have never worked at a large company before. Allow me to summarize: Low level employee: "This company is going in the wrong direction, I disagree with management, I disagree with the corporate policies." Executives: "Who the fuck is this guy? Get rid of him." Welcome to corporate life.
Yup i've worked as a low up to mid level manager at a large multinational as salaried. Expressing such things is far from wise if you wish to keep your job.
|
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Edit : stupid tweet.
Daily Stormer, the Neo-Nazi website that was kicked off GoDaddy and Google, has found a new home in Russia: dailystormer.ru
|
United States43818 Posts
On August 17 2017 01:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +One side thinks one thing, the other thinks the other, each side wants to convince the other to agree with them. Not really sure why you're surprised by this or think it's a problem. Consider the alternative, Cruz wanting to repeal Obamacare, the Democrats responding "look, you do you man, it's all good". The way you are framing this, and I don't know if you meant it this way- of course Democrats want Republicans to become Democrats- implies that the particular point of contention (Nazis and KKK) are inherently a part of the Republican package. What I'm seeing is no Republican other than Trump thinks this way. That is both sides don't want anything to do the KKK, but you're saying KKK is as a part of the Republican suite as repealing Obamacare. I actually do expect conservative parties to argue conservative things and liberal parties to argue liberal things and green parties to argue green things- but I don't expect white supremacy to be one of those things. The disbelief in a denunciation of white supremacy should not be a matter of partisanship but of consistency in actions, words, and beliefs. I did not and do not care for Ted Cruz, but I do believe what he says in this instance regardless of my own politics- I really have no reason not to. I don't think my wishing he wouldn't be so... well, Cruz- has much bearing on the veracity of his statement.
You are aware that the Republican slogans included "America First", right? While I agree that Cruz and Rubio probably aren't okay with cross burning (as opposed to the likes of Sessions etc), this isn't a black and white issue for them. They've supported Trump and his policy platform, they're okay with some of this, the question is how dark the grey area needs to get before they bail. Actual terror attacks are clearly too far for them, and I'm glad of that. But ending "the war on police", the Republican code word for the Justice Department investigations into police departments that routinely abuse their minority citizens, that's also a component of white supremacism. So is disenfranchising minority voters. So are the attacks of birthright citizenship.
Like it or not, the Republican Party does not have a consistent record of repudiation when it comes to white supremacism. People who weren't okay with some parts of it would have left long ago. The same applies to people like me of course. There is a certain amount of poverty and inequality that I am apparently okay with, based upon my politics. Likewise my actions show that I consider trying to improve my own pension benefits from my employer to be a more worthwhile cause to devote my time on than the civil rights abuses I routinely mention here. I've accepted that, and if someone were to hold it against me I'd own it. The right should do the same when it comes to their white supremacism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
