US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8572

On August 28 2017 16:20 r.Evo wrote:

I think this needs a bit more highlighting because it very precisely explains how effective and dangerous this approach is.

These types of rallies aren't aimed at people opposing them, they're aimed at people in the grey, the zone in which people aren't 100% convinced of one the positions. Just like any extremist movement (even the so-called IS comes to mind) the intentions are mobilizing supporters and dragging in people who aren't currently related to the 'cause' by any means necessary - this includes installing false ideas about them in the population that will later be adjusted ("we're against capitalists! - Just kidding, we're against Jewish capitalists!") or riling up the opposition in an irrelevant direction.

The danger here lies in how incredibly effective this is, since the people openly opposing these movements oppose the movement itself and aim to show the public their resistance against this movement since they assume they're representative of the majority opinion. 'The left' (note how most just silently accept that 'the left' is against 'the Neo-Nazis' and very few people mentioning society being against them) in this case is obviously fully correct with this assumption at this point in time, but this leads to them not directing their messages at the same target audience - they're much more prone to ignoring the people in the middle, the grey, than the extremists they're opposed to.

What happens now is that his causes a rift across the part of the population that is technically opposed to the new movement. Some people aren't sure how to oppose their movement because after all these people are just voicing their opinion. Some people oppose them but (obviously) disagree with the methods of the extremists on the same side as they are which again leads to infighting. Some people take the stance that they feel the need to actually defend the new movement because of their interpretation of core values of the nation which they believe in (an absolute version of free speech in this case). The new movement is gunning for this specific framing since, in the US, it's safe to assume that this is one of the largest parts of the population if it comes down to it.

All of this boils down to a "bourgeois ", a civil type of resistance that will never be able to actually act (here the obligatory relevant Adolf quote on this). The new movement on the contrary isn't busy condemning those who commit extremist acts, it will celebrate them or push the narrative away. They're infighting to a much smaller degree because they frame themselves as surrounded from all sides and have a stronger ideological foundation. They can freely morph their position between "I'm just voicing my opinion" and "I don't want these other people to voice theirs" because the former is their best defense until the latter can be achieved.

On August 28 2017 17:37 Acrofales wrote:
Oh wow. This thread really spent two pages fighting over the false dichotomy instead of discussing the underlying issues? Ok. Have fun with this:

GH AND Danglars BOTH have to answer.

Fuck, kill, marry:

Stalin, Hitler, Al Baghdadi.

Go!

On August 28 2017 21:46 Danglars wrote:

It's this thread's red scare. You don't answer a dishonest question or defend free speech rights too hard, and three or four leftists think you harbor sympathies for nazis, white supremacists, and the KKK. And then it's framed that you refuse to answer. Pathetic. It's like my turn to be thread whipping boy (as previously designated for the 'vermin' moment).