|
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 03:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.)
What I need to know, is how can you defend trump, based purely on what he has done in office?
|
vox day's definition already seems to involve setting up an "ethnostate" . . .
|
On August 17 2017 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:46 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 02:05 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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 memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him. They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous. Even if we assume that he was speaking the scientific truth (a claim I disagree with but it's not really important), that doesn't change that he should have left those truths at home. He had a job to do and that job wasn't to bring the truth of the biological differences between men and women and how those makes it harder for women to code to light. Go to work, do your job, leave your politics at home. He never said that biology makes it "harder for women to code". This is an extremely important detail because that would make his memo both untrue and sexist. If he said or even hinted at such a conclusion he should absolutely be fired. What he said was that women are less likely to choose a career in tech because on average women prefer working with people over working with things. But once chosen they are as good as men. And that is well documented over many studies in many countries. But you see, if we replaced women with “blacks” that memo becomes super racist and no one would argue that he should be fired. So I feel safe in saying that it is super sexist.
Uhhh, what? The memo doesn't even make sense if you replace "women" with "blacks" for a hundred reasons. Nobody (in the modern age) argues that there's any significant biological difference between blacks and people of other races. And the biological part of the memo was the only part that was even specific to women; the rest dealt with diversity programs in general, Google's echo chamber, biases, etc. The primary barriers blacks face in obtaining tech jobs (i.e. socioeconomic factors) are completely different than the barriers that women face (i.e. interest for whatever reason, but likely one that Google has little control over).
Yes, if you make a document that cites no evidence or even logic but claims Group X are inferior, then that's racist/sexist. But that's not what Damore did, except according to people who either strawmanned or didn't understand his memo.
I find it interesting that the also left-leaning but very technical (lots of engineers fwiw) Hacker News reader base reacted very differently to the memo than this thread did. Basically, they were more evenly split with more people stating that acknowledgement of measurable differences != sexism. And like here, nobody arguing that the memo wasn't sexist is arguing that women are cognitively inferior. Which is also not what Damore said.
If you consider measurable differences in populations to be racist/sexist, then why aren't you championing diversity programs in the NBA for whites, Asians, and Hispanics? Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong?
|
On August 17 2017 04:01 IgnE wrote:
vox day's definition already seems to involve setting up an "ethnostate" . . .
Technically, multiple ethnostates (see point 10).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Semantics on terms with quite fluid definitions like "alt right" is a losing battle in my eyes. But perhaps what we could all agree upon is that by association with traditionally shitty groups such as the KKK, white supremacists. and Nazis, they taint any potential legitimacy that their "movement" might have.
|
Funny to see how Trump's "alt-left" is already taking off and being parroted. His whole fanbase is like some kind of Zerg super-organism, but instead of Kerrigan they put an overlord in charge.
|
On August 17 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.
I don't believe there is a recipe for preventing the rise of an authoritarian government. If people are generally uneducated, misinformed, or afraid for their safety, they will ask the government for protection in exchange for personal liberties. In this case, the American Left feels afraid, and they're willing to forfeit the civil liberty of free speech in exchange for safety from "Nazis". The truth of the matter, however, is that extremist right-wing groups make up a very small percentage of the population. Their presence is often amplified by the media, which is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back to the 1980s with The Order committing armed robberies and murdering Alan Berg, you'll see the same sort of media-fueled frenzy over white supremacists that eventually led to the Ruby Ridge fiasco. Ruby Ridge was a huge, blown-up incident that put a spotlight on white supremacists yet again.
Truthfully, I believe that because of the minuscule size of the KKK and Aryan Nation (not to mention their unpopularity among the general public) it is unlikely that they will be able effectively institute a dictatorship over the United States. I could see a scenario in which a left-wing dictatorship rises out of hysteria towards the 'threat' of neo-nazi groups, but even then, there is no centralized leader of the left who would be able to fulfill such a role.
Contrary to what you believe, most of the KKK membership and even neo-nazis do follow the rule of law, even if they resent it. They are often instructed at protests not to engage in illegal activity by their leaders. The young man who murdered a counter-protester obviously did not get the memo, or simply did not care. In my conversations with white supremacists, and in interviews that I've seen, their goal is not to kill every non-white, but apparently to have a community set apart from black people, Latinos, Arabs, etc., and keep their "race" separate from other races. The utmost extreme of the extreme-right are the ones who openly break the law and commit hate crimes by attacking people. This isn't to say that I am saying #NotAllNazis or am siding with white supremacists. I am very simply putting forth two propositions:
1. The actual threat from white supremacists is overblown to create a sort-of scapegoat for the left.
2. The right of people to assemble peacefully and express their views should not be infringed upon as an emotional response to a perceived threat.
The man who used his car as a weapon to take the life of a young woman will be held accountable, as he should be.
|
The threat of white supremacist taking over the country has alway been small. Their threat to communities around the country is ever present. It is hard to look at North Carolina and claim the threat of racism and white supremacy is minor.
And you are changing subjects. I never talked about their right to peacefully assemble. I talked about engagement in debate and the public discourse.
|
It's really amusing to watch the same people who scream about the dangers of islamic terrorism look at a nazi mow people down a la isis and go "It's no big deal, they aren't really a threat"
|
United States41995 Posts
On August 17 2017 04:14 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts. I don't believe there is a recipe for preventing the rise of an authoritarian government. If people are generally uneducated, misinformed, or afraid for their safety, they will ask the government for protection in exchange for personal liberties. In this case, the American Left feels afraid, and they're willing to forfeit the civil liberty of free speech in exchange for safety from "Nazis". The truth of the matter, however, is that extremist right-wing groups make up a very small percentage of the population. Their presence is often amplified by the media, which is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back to the 1980s with The Order committing armed robberies and murdering Alan Berg, you'll see the same sort of media-fueled frenzy over white supremacists that eventually led to the Ruby Ridge fiasco. Ruby Ridge was a huge, blown-up incident that put a spotlight on white supremacists yet again. Truthfully, I believe that because of the minuscule size of the KKK and Aryan Nation (not to mention their unpopularity among the general public) it is unlikely that they will be able effectively institute a dictatorship over the United States. I could see a scenario in which a left-wing dictatorship rises out of hysteria towards the 'threat' of neo-nazi groups, but even then, there is no centralized leader of the left who would be able to fulfill such a role. Contrary to what you believe, most of the KKK membership and even neo-nazis do follow the rule of law, even if they resent it. They are often instructed at protests not to engage in illegal activity by their leaders. The young man who murdered a counter-protester obviously did not get the memo, or simply did not care. In my conversations with white supremacists, and in interviews that I've seen, their goal is not to kill every non-white, but apparently to have a community set apart from black people, Latinos, Arabs, etc., and keep their "race" separate from other races. The utmost extreme of the extreme-right are the ones who openly break the law and commit hate crimes by attacking people. This isn't to say that I am saying #NotAllNazis or am siding with white supremacists. I am very simply putting forth two propositions: 1. The actual threat from white supremacists is overblown to create a sort-of scapegoat for the left. 2. The right of people to assemble peacefully and express their views should not be infringed upon as an emotional response to a perceived threat. The man who used his car as a weapon to take the life of a young woman will be held accountable, as he should be.
You're presenting a false choice between a Nazi totalitarian dictatorship and everything being great and saying that clearly we don't live under Nazi rule so why is anyone complaining. It's not that simple. Justice Department investigations into police departments under Obama repeatedly came to the conclusion that systematic racism within the police force leads to routine differences between the way white people and black people are treated by the police. Trump and the mainstream "non-racist" Republicans characterized these investigations as a war on police and pledged to end them. That runs contrary to your insistence that the authoritarian left want to silence everyone unlike the patriotic freedom loving right, and shows that the right are still firmly in the camp of preserving white privilege within America at the expense of everyone else. The Nazis are the foam on the crest of the wave.
You're separating the one guy who drove a car into protesters from the millions who liked/retweeted/forwarded memes about how awesome it'd be if a guy drove a car into protesters.
|
|
|
The justices department closed several departments protecting civil rights in education and other forms of government oversight. And at the same time they opened a new investigation into how affirmative action might be racist by throwing their weight behind a lawsuit against Harvard. And that law suits happens to have been put together by a guy who has tried challenge affirmative action as being racist to whites.
They don’t need a dictatorship. Just a slow return to pre-civil rights protections. They don’t need to promote racism, they just need to get the government to say out of racist’s way.
|
On August 17 2017 04:14 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
In our current culture, I don't see alt-right ideology being challenged on an intellectual level and debated properly. It seems to me like the left would rather say "Shut up bigots", and then claim some sort of moral victory, and because of this, the alt-right is gaining traction because they are explaining their ideas and making points virtually uncontested. It's not enough to simply go "Well, everyone just knows Nazism is bad, end of discussion." and if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.
From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts. I don't believe there is a recipe for preventing the rise of an authoritarian government. If people are generally uneducated, misinformed, or afraid for their safety, they will ask the government for protection in exchange for personal liberties. In this case, the American Left feels afraid, and they're willing to forfeit the civil liberty of free speech in exchange for safety from "Nazis". The truth of the matter, however, is that extremist right-wing groups make up a very small percentage of the population. Their presence is often amplified by the media, which is not a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. If you go back to the 1980s with The Order committing armed robberies and murdering Alan Berg, you'll see the same sort of media-fueled frenzy over white supremacists that eventually led to the Ruby Ridge fiasco. Ruby Ridge was a huge, blown-up incident that put a spotlight on white supremacists yet again. Truthfully, I believe that because of the minuscule size of the KKK and Aryan Nation (not to mention their unpopularity among the general public) it is unlikely that they will be able effectively institute a dictatorship over the United States. I could see a scenario in which a left-wing dictatorship rises out of hysteria towards the 'threat' of neo-nazi groups, but even then, there is no centralized leader of the left who would be able to fulfill such a role. Contrary to what you believe, most of the KKK membership and even neo-nazis do follow the rule of law, even if they resent it. They are often instructed at protests not to engage in illegal activity by their leaders. The young man who murdered a counter-protester obviously did not get the memo, or simply did not care. In my conversations with white supremacists, and in interviews that I've seen, their goal is not to kill every non-white, but apparently to have a community set apart from black people, Latinos, Arabs, etc., and keep their "race" separate from other races. The utmost extreme of the extreme-right are the ones who openly break the law and commit hate crimes by attacking people. This isn't to say that I am saying #NotAllNazis or am siding with white supremacists. I am very simply putting forth two propositions: 1. The actual threat from white supremacists is overblown to create a sort-of scapegoat for the left. 2. The right of people to assemble peacefully and express their views should not be infringed upon as an emotional response to a perceived threat. The man who used his car as a weapon to take the life of a young woman will be held accountable, as he should be.
Are there people in the thread saying the nazis' right to peacefully assemble should be infringed upon? Or is that just antifa?
|
On August 17 2017 04:34 Plansix wrote:
The justices department closed several departments protecting civil rights in education and other forms of government oversight. And at the same time they opened a new investigation into how affirmative action might be racist by throwing their weight behind a lawsuit against Harvard. And that law suits happens to have been put together by a guy who has tried challenge affirmative action as being racist to whites.
They don’t need a dictatorship. Just a slow return to pre-civil rights protections. They don’t need to promote racism, they just need to get the government to say out of racist’s way.
Yep, just like Sessions statement about how an anti-discrimination law did not protect gays.
Just causally make sure that everyone is aware that a law does not protect gays from discrimination. Not trying to fix it so it does no, just making sure that everyone knows that an opening exists.
|
I'm pretty sure peaceful assembly and Nazis are as self-contradictory.
White pride is a symbol of hate.
A German Swastika is a symbol of hate.
Hitler quotes in the context of right wingers is a symbol of hate.
How do hate and peace intertwine? Not. At. All.
I really cannot fathom why we are discussing whether the so called ANTIFA is as bad as the fucking KKK.
It simply is beyond me why people would argue for that with good faith.
Or why being clearly menacing as a white piece of used toilet paper is clearly something different from a menacing black person.
Well actually, the menacing black person is different because he's probably dead because someone white felt threatened whereas the white guy is defended by your fucking president.
It's just so beyond me.
|
A problem I see is that people like to make kinda lazy generalizations and assume that if you subcribe to some idea then you subscribe to all of the ideas that spawned from whatever ideological base the idea came from.
|
On August 17 2017 04:25 Nevuk wrote:
It's really amusing to watch the same people who scream about the dangers of islamic terrorism look at a nazi mow people down a la isis and go "It's no big deal, they aren't really a threat"
I kind of agree with this, but all sides all are guilty of it. Perceived danger is rarely in proportion with real danger (shark vs fridge) and it's not a new phenomenon (witch trial, McCarthy)
|
On August 17 2017 04:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 04:34 Plansix wrote:
The justices department closed several departments protecting civil rights in education and other forms of government oversight. And at the same time they opened a new investigation into how affirmative action might be racist by throwing their weight behind a lawsuit against Harvard. And that law suits happens to have been put together by a guy who has tried challenge affirmative action as being racist to whites.
They don’t need a dictatorship. Just a slow return to pre-civil rights protections. They don’t need to promote racism, they just need to get the government to say out of racist’s way.
Yep, just like Sessions statement about how an anti-discrimination law did not protect gays. Just causally make sure that everyone is aware that a law does not protect gays from discrimination. Not trying to fix it so it does no, just making sure that everyone knows that an opening exists.
Education about the civil rights movement and the tools that were used to repress blacks is just terrible in this country. And I was going to teach it. The school systems do not get into all the ways things like lending, real estate and college admission were used to keep blacks out of the systems of advancement set up in this country. They don’t connect the term “Equal housing lender” they hear after every ad for a mortgage to the civil rights movement. The systems we have in place to prevent that from happening are mostly invisible and we don’t explain it to our children. So they just assume that everything is fine naturally and all these new laws to prevent further oppression are unnecessary.
|
On August 17 2017 04:46 Slaughter wrote:
A problem I see is that people like to make kinda lazy generalizations and assume that if you subcribe to some idea then you subscribe to all of the ideas that spawned from whatever ideological base the idea came from.
If you pull from high controversial sources (like fascism) and are not willing to denounce that source and argue why you draw from it then perhaps you should get your inspiration someplace else?
Its just like the Charlottesville rally. Sure some people genuinely liked having the statue and wanted to show their support in keeping it in place, but once you get to the rally and see a bunch of KKK flags and Swastika's you go home and write a letter to the city council instead.
When you are walking next to them any claim of 'I'm not with these guys' kinda goes out the window.
|
On August 17 2017 03:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 03:53 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion. if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform. I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong. Your post was like a breath of fresh air. Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. And you and others think any defense of him should be framed in racism. What, you you don't think he's Hitler incarnate? Way to defend racism, you racist sympathizer. Antifa, on the other end, is the natural consequence when you think speech is violence and call for deplatforming. Time to own up to your own sins, I think. Next week on forgetting the violent riots after Trump's election and the threats and physical assaults from free speech events... (Actually, you're about the quintessential case of what ninazerg addressed. You aren't allowed to defend Trump in any way shape or form because "you voted for someone who gave racists boners and defend the giver of racist-boners even after racists killed someone." Ahem, using political violence to shut down the speech of others is the problem here. You, farva, are part of the problem here.) Sounds like you need a safe space where people won't bring up the fact that you voted for someone who emboldened Nazis. TL doesn't appear to be that place.
If you start out, buddy "we don't necessarily think that you're a racist," chances are you're dismissing the thought that any of his actions could be defensible. He'll do mostly things I disagree with, and a handful I agree with, and the difference between you and me is that I can tell one from the other. You're very interested tarring even reluctant defenders with the racism paintbrush, and thus emboldening antifa and sending moderates to the Trump 2020 camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
