|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
No my dude, what you fail to grasp is that it does remain the same disregarding of whether x should beat y, or y should beat x. The only difference being that if on the right side of the equation you will be fighting for justice, while on wrong you will be oppressed by bloody nazis, without realising that you are basically the same beast.
You’re so close to grasping that the paradox of tolerance means that you should be intolerant of people who want to kill people for their race or religion etc. which is why it’s morally okay to punch Nazis. The difference between the US in WW2 and Germany in WW2 is the fucking morality you dumb clown. The morality is the important part, doing violence to stop violence is not the same as doing violence because those inferior brown skins have it.
Are you some sort of freak pacifist?
|
United States42364 Posts
I’d add that moral trajectory matters as well as the objective current state of morality. The US in 1941 wasn’t great but it didn’t need a course correction using area bombing. Nazi Germany was getting substantially more expansionist and genocidal, it needed to be knocked off of its trajectory for the sake of all humanity. You can morally destroy it without feeling too bad about the harm done to the Nazis because there wasn’t an alternative. Whereas the US has a history of expansionism and genocide but also a mechanism by which it improves itself and a track record of getting less awful over time. The argument of the necessity of leveling US cities to prevent expansion into Mexico and ethnic cleansing of the population there fails because the US had already stopped doing that by itself.
It’s not that the US would never decide it needs an area for lebensraum and that the people living there already have to go. It’s that while the CSA may have had that as an explicit goal the USA specifically rejected it.
|
On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:On May 24 2025 02:57 Zambrah wrote:On May 23 2025 05:20 Dan HH wrote:The Trump admin just blocked Harvard from enrolling foreign students, that's not surprising or particularly interesting, it's exactly the kind of move we've come to expect from the vengeful fascists. What I do find worth talking about is the coverage, such as this sentence from the BBC which is a perfect example of sanewashing: The White House has demanded Harvard make changes to hiring, admissions and teaching practices to help fight antisemitism on campus. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05768jmm11oNow all of you here know why the fascists hate academia, you've seen them cry for years about knowledge making people too liberal, you've seen them fantasize and make plans about bulldozing it numerous times. We've talked about the letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard in which they demand DEI for fascist viewpoints. The antisemitism pretext for punishment only showed up after their refusal to become a brainwashing tool. But what does a person that lacks any of that context understand from that article? That: - the White House is concerned about antisemitism at Harvard - Harvard disagrees that it has a problem with antisemitism - one or the other could be right, idk Shit like sanewashing is part of why I think engaging with fascist fuckfaces in any capacity is bad and wrong. The only engagement a fascist should receive is a fist engaging their mouth. Attacking them doesn’t work, being charitable is actively harmful, working with them is just catastrophic. Stop talking to them, engagement with fascists beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone but the fascists. Their perspective isn’t valuable, it isn’t coherent or driven by morals or ethics or any sort of world view beyond whatever it takes to have power. Owning them on the internet is a stupid waste of time, debating them is worthless, fascists have nothing of value to offer the world and should simply be shunned or physically beaten into absolute social irrelevance, and we’re going to have to keep shunning them and beating their asses whenever they pop up. "Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone" That doesnt sound nazilike... at all... Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now. Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications  . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university?
There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else).
Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported:
https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkj
Please point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews.
|
On May 27 2025 01:11 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +No my dude, what you fail to grasp is that it does remain the same disregarding of whether x should beat y, or y should beat x. The only difference being that if on the right side of the equation you will be fighting for justice, while on wrong you will be oppressed by bloody nazis, without realising that you are basically the same beast. You’re so close to grasping that the paradox of tolerance means that you should be intolerant of people who want to kill people for their race or religion etc. which is why it’s morally okay to punch Nazis. The difference between the US in WW2 and Germany in WW2 is the fucking morality you dumb clown. The morality is the important part, doing violence to stop violence is not the same as doing violence because those inferior brown skins have it. Are you some sort of freak pacifist?
You are still failing to grasp that it doesnt mean that at all.
This is where we started:
"Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone"
this fits here doesnt it?:
"for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
"you should be intolerant of people who want to kill people for their race or religion etc" - do political views fit under "etc"?
Also who would you identify as fascists currently in US my dude? 1 person, 2, group of them, Trump voters, Tesla drivers?
"The difference between the US in WW2 and Germany in WW2 is the fucking morality" - this is prolly beyond your reach, but I'll try. The difference between US and Germany in WW2 is most importantly that Germany lost (now dont take me wrong I am thrilled they did, I am Polish so I would never be born if it went other way). This is what shaped morality. However if Germany won you would be HHing shit out of everything and hunting Jews right now, and I know that, because underlying principle is the same for you and nazis (dissent needs to be purged, not engaged with). How does it feel to be your own boogeymen?
"you dumb clown" - ביי מיר ביסטו שיין (love this song, still cant find movie I heard it first time in)
"The morality is the important part, doing violence to stop violence is not the same as doing violence because those inferior brown skins have it." - you know saying "be careful what you wish for"? Which side is currently actively violent? Which side have the means to say "paradox of tolerance" and start "doing violence to stop violence"?
"Are you some sort of freak pacifist?" - au contraire, however regarding this discussion I am just not a fan of hypocrites.
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
I highly, highly doubt hypothetical parallel history Zambrah would be going around heil Hitlerling, and hunting down Jews.
|
"you should be intolerant of people who want to kill people for their race or religion etc" - do political views fit under "etc"?
No, because fascists deserve a firm and consistent ass beating.
"The morality is the important part, doing violence to stop violence is not the same as doing violence because those inferior brown skins have it." - you know saying "be careful what you wish for"? Which side is currently actively violent? Which side have the means to say "paradox of tolerance" and start "doing violence to stop violence"?
The far right fascists
"The difference between the US in WW2 and Germany in WW2 is the fucking morality" - this is prolly beyond your reach, but I'll try. The difference between US and Germany in WW2 is most importantly that Germany lost (now dont take me wrong I am thrilled they did, I am Polish so I would never be born if it went other way). This is what shaped morality. However if Germany won you would be HHing shit out of everything and hunting Jews right now, and I know that, because underlying principle is the same for you and nazis (dissent needs to be purged, not engaged with). How does it feel to be your own boogeymen?
I dont understand how youre unable to understand that the history where everyone is hunting down jews for sport and our currently reality are not morally equivalent and that the reason our current, superior (though obviously very very far from good or perfect or tolerable in many aspects) reality exists is because of the way violence was wielded and why the way that violence is wielded changes the nature of that violence's effect on society and thus whether or not that violence is good.
"Are you some sort of freak pacifist?" - au contraire, however regarding this discussion I am just not a fan of hypocrites.
Okay, then by your own logic you consider yourself some brand of nazi adjacent
This is where we started:
"Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone"
this fits here doesnt it?:
Shit, youre right, I misidentified you as one of the bland centrists here, my last two responses seem to indicate that you actually seem to be the sort of far right freak I make an effort to ignore around here. My bad.
On May 27 2025 03:32 WombaT wrote:
I highly, highly doubt hypothetical parallel history Zambrah would be going around heil Hitlerling, and hunting down Jews.
I mean I might, social conditioning of a dominant power is one hell of a drug, especially in the sort of authoritarian racist anti-intellectual hell culture that Nazi Germany would have created, odds are much more likely that I wouldnt have ever been born though given the shade of brown one of my parents is.
|
On May 27 2025 01:11 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +No my dude, what you fail to grasp is that it does remain the same disregarding of whether x should beat y, or y should beat x. The only difference being that if on the right side of the equation you will be fighting for justice, while on wrong you will be oppressed by bloody nazis, without realising that you are basically the same beast. You’re so close to grasping that the paradox of tolerance means that you should be intolerant of people who want to kill people for their race or religion etc. which is why it’s morally okay to punch Nazis. The difference between the US in WW2 and Germany in WW2 is the fucking morality you dumb clown. The morality is the important part, doing violence to stop violence is not the same as doing violence because those inferior brown skins have it.
We have 0% confidence in your ability to adjudicate the thought crime of being a racist, Nazi, or fascist, and then carrying out your sentence of choice. Name two punchables. Who are they? Who's the last one you punched?
If you are not actually punching anyone, it means:
1) The issue you frothingly go on about is so rare that you never actually encounter it despite an overflowing willingness to do it,
2) You have had chances, but don't take them, due to talking big but from a place of moral cowardice ultimately, or
3) The whole thing was just virtue signaling bluster from the start.
If you are out there actually punching people, more power to you. It would make you immediately and significantly worse than anyone who you think is guilty of thought crime like being racist, or wanting to beat up black people, or wanting to kill people. That's why those of us in civilized society don't attack people, and we haven't crafted legal avenues for people to make citizens' arrests for thought crime, or citizens' punchings for same.
The state would not be happy with you. Not because it's fascist and controlled by your very targets and defending itself, but because civilization rejects such antisocial behavior and our agent through which we collectively reject it is the state.
In short, WW2 is over, you missed it, didn't contribute to it and can't make up for that now no matter how much you want to, and it was won by people who put people in camps on their last names, executed spies with military tribunals, partnered with and propped up the longest lived western dictatorship of the 20th century, and kept nuclear tech from allies despite prior commitments. It was won through profound moral strife. Its results are to obviate violence to resolve conflicts. Framing the most tumultuous conflict in history as pure good vs. pure evil, and invoking it to start shit that disrupts the order you live in - the safety of which you inherited from the sacrifices made in WW2 - because any time you punch the fash you're doing a heckin' WW2! - is absurd.
The US still had armed uprisings well into the 20th century before WW2. But we don't do that anymore. If you're one of those who didn't get the memo, a standard route was something like: Join the Weather Underground, bomb the Senate, then get pardoned by Clinton. The catch is normal people will recognize you having moral high ground approximately identical to that of Timothy McVeigh. Not so hot. The theoretically most racist person in history, if all they do is sit at home and play Warhammer all day, is less of a net negative than the damaged caused to the fabric of society by the slightest violent "antifascist."
|
United States42364 Posts
Violent antifascists don’t harm society.
|
On May 27 2025 03:32 WombaT wrote:
I highly, highly doubt hypothetical parallel history Zambrah would be going around heil Hitlerling, and hunting down Jews.
That's because you are seemingly on the same side, difference being, you are reasonable person, with your own opinions, willing to engage in discussion. Zambrah is holy light of truth, hence dissent is blasphemy, or as he calls it nowadays "paradox of tolerance".
On May 27 2025 03:38 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +"you should be intolerant of people who want to kill people for their race or religion etc" - do political views fit under "etc"? No, because fascists deserve a firm and consistent ass beating. Show nested quote +"The morality is the important part, doing violence to stop violence is not the same as doing violence because those inferior brown skins have it." - you know saying "be careful what you wish for"? Which side is currently actively violent? Which side have the means to say "paradox of tolerance" and start "doing violence to stop violence"? The far right fascists Show nested quote +"The difference between the US in WW2 and Germany in WW2 is the fucking morality" - this is prolly beyond your reach, but I'll try. The difference between US and Germany in WW2 is most importantly that Germany lost (now dont take me wrong I am thrilled they did, I am Polish so I would never be born if it went other way). This is what shaped morality. However if Germany won you would be HHing shit out of everything and hunting Jews right now, and I know that, because underlying principle is the same for you and nazis (dissent needs to be purged, not engaged with). How does it feel to be your own boogeymen? I dont understand how youre unable to understand that the history where everyone is hunting down jews for sport and our currently reality are not morally equivalent and that the reason our current, superior (though obviously very very far from good or perfect or tolerable in many aspects) reality exists is because of the way violence was wielded and why the way that violence is wielded changes the nature of that violence's effect on society and thus whether or not that violence is good. Show nested quote +"Are you some sort of freak pacifist?" - au contraire, however regarding this discussion I am just not a fan of hypocrites. Okay, then by your own logic you consider yourself some brand of nazi adjacent Show nested quote +This is where we started:
"Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone"
this fits here doesnt it?: Shit, youre right, I misidentified you as one of the bland centrists here, my last two responses seem to indicate that you actually seem to be the sort of far right freak I make an effort to ignore around here. My bad. Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 03:32 WombaT wrote:
I highly, highly doubt hypothetical parallel history Zambrah would be going around heil Hitlerling, and hunting down Jews. I mean I might, social conditioning of a dominant power is one hell of a drug, especially in the sort of authoritarian racist anti-intellectual hell culture that Nazi Germany would have created, odds are much more likely that I wouldnt have ever been born though given the shade of brown one of my parents is.
"No, because fascists deserve a firm and consistent ass beating."
"The far right fascists"
Yeah mate you still forgot to identify them...
"I dont understand how youre unable to understand that the history where everyone is hunting down jews for sport and our currently reality are not morally equivalent and that the reason our current, superior (though obviously very very far from good or perfect or tolerable in many aspects) reality exists is because of the way violence was wielded and why the way that violence is wielded changes the nature of that violence's effect on society and thus whether or not that violence is good."
Funnily enough I am still unable to understand, how you cant grasp the fact, that repeating nazi rhetoric desnt make you morally superior.
"Okay, then by your own logic you consider yourself some brand of nazi adjacent" - in what way this logic works my dude???
"Shit, youre right, I misidentified you as one of the bland centrists here, my last two responses seem to indicate that you actually seem to be the sort of far right freak I make an effort to ignore around here. My bad."
See this is the very effing reason you have no argument, you engage with what you believe a person to be, rather than with argument itself.
Edit: Oh my Kwark
On May 27 2025 04:08 KwarK wrote:
Violent antifascists don’t harm society.
Democrat Tesla owners can atest for that .
|
On May 27 2025 02:08 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:On May 24 2025 02:57 Zambrah wrote:On May 23 2025 05:20 Dan HH wrote:The Trump admin just blocked Harvard from enrolling foreign students, that's not surprising or particularly interesting, it's exactly the kind of move we've come to expect from the vengeful fascists. What I do find worth talking about is the coverage, such as this sentence from the BBC which is a perfect example of sanewashing: The White House has demanded Harvard make changes to hiring, admissions and teaching practices to help fight antisemitism on campus. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05768jmm11oNow all of you here know why the fascists hate academia, you've seen them cry for years about knowledge making people too liberal, you've seen them fantasize and make plans about bulldozing it numerous times. We've talked about the letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard in which they demand DEI for fascist viewpoints. The antisemitism pretext for punishment only showed up after their refusal to become a brainwashing tool. But what does a person that lacks any of that context understand from that article? That: - the White House is concerned about antisemitism at Harvard - Harvard disagrees that it has a problem with antisemitism - one or the other could be right, idk Shit like sanewashing is part of why I think engaging with fascist fuckfaces in any capacity is bad and wrong. The only engagement a fascist should receive is a fist engaging their mouth. Attacking them doesn’t work, being charitable is actively harmful, working with them is just catastrophic. Stop talking to them, engagement with fascists beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone but the fascists. Their perspective isn’t valuable, it isn’t coherent or driven by morals or ethics or any sort of world view beyond whatever it takes to have power. Owning them on the internet is a stupid waste of time, debating them is worthless, fascists have nothing of value to offer the world and should simply be shunned or physically beaten into absolute social irrelevance, and we’re going to have to keep shunning them and beating their asses whenever they pop up. "Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone" That doesnt sound nazilike... at all... Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now. Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else). Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkjPlease point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews.
I’m not familiar with your example but there are also lots of other examples of students chanting “from the river to the sea” and supportive statements of Hamas who has a history of murdering Jews. These can also easily be interpreted as nazi-esque behaviors of Jewish extermination. Is your objection to Trumps crackdown on free speech just that there’s also some innocents who didn’t say anything too objectionable and he needs to focus more on the people who deserve a punch in the face for their speech?
|
We know that being a violent murder mob that storms washington thinking that you need to defend "the country" is no crime for the trump admin. Even if you kill people.
I think it's time to claim that Trump has overstepped his constitutional rights and remove him and his staff from the whitehouse, as well as all the enablers in congress (D or R)
|
On May 27 2025 04:40 KT_Elwood wrote:
We know that being a violent murder mob that storms washington thinking that you need to defend "the country" is no crime for the trump admin. Even if you kill people.
I think it's time to claim that Trump has overstepped his constitutional rights and remove him and his staff from the whitehouse, as well as all the enablers in congress (D or R)
"Even if you kill people." not exactly shocking opinion from German dude .
|
On May 27 2025 04:40 KT_Elwood wrote:
We know that being a violent murder mob that storms washington thinking that you need to defend "the country" is no crime for the trump admin. Even if you kill people.
I think it's time to claim that Trump has overstepped his constitutional rights and remove him and his staff from the whitehouse, as well as all the enablers in congress (D or R)
The time for that was January 6th, lol, if we were a serious country his ass would've been gone ASAP
|
On May 27 2025 04:08 KwarK wrote:
Violent antifascists don’t harm society.
clownish ones though do, it was very easy for right wing media to nuke the word "antifa", definitely helps that americans have shit media literacy, but yeah antifa at least in portland were not very good. even before BLM and the proud boys / patriot prayer types started going on the street they were harassing book authors for including the words nazi in their (most definitely not pro nazi) books. the best way to stamp out neo nazis is to do what weve seen recently in the south and LA where mass movements of people come scare off the little shit heads carrying nazi flags. those were mostly random ass citizens not tolerating white supremacists, not strictly antifa members.
|
On May 27 2025 04:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 02:08 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:On May 24 2025 02:57 Zambrah wrote:On May 23 2025 05:20 Dan HH wrote:The Trump admin just blocked Harvard from enrolling foreign students, that's not surprising or particularly interesting, it's exactly the kind of move we've come to expect from the vengeful fascists. What I do find worth talking about is the coverage, such as this sentence from the BBC which is a perfect example of sanewashing: The White House has demanded Harvard make changes to hiring, admissions and teaching practices to help fight antisemitism on campus. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05768jmm11oNow all of you here know why the fascists hate academia, you've seen them cry for years about knowledge making people too liberal, you've seen them fantasize and make plans about bulldozing it numerous times. We've talked about the letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard in which they demand DEI for fascist viewpoints. The antisemitism pretext for punishment only showed up after their refusal to become a brainwashing tool. But what does a person that lacks any of that context understand from that article? That: - the White House is concerned about antisemitism at Harvard - Harvard disagrees that it has a problem with antisemitism - one or the other could be right, idk Shit like sanewashing is part of why I think engaging with fascist fuckfaces in any capacity is bad and wrong. The only engagement a fascist should receive is a fist engaging their mouth. Attacking them doesn’t work, being charitable is actively harmful, working with them is just catastrophic. Stop talking to them, engagement with fascists beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone but the fascists. Their perspective isn’t valuable, it isn’t coherent or driven by morals or ethics or any sort of world view beyond whatever it takes to have power. Owning them on the internet is a stupid waste of time, debating them is worthless, fascists have nothing of value to offer the world and should simply be shunned or physically beaten into absolute social irrelevance, and we’re going to have to keep shunning them and beating their asses whenever they pop up. "Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone" That doesnt sound nazilike... at all... Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now. Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else). Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkjPlease point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews. I’m not familiar with your example but there are also lots of other examples of students chanting “from the river to the sea” and supportive statements of Hamas who has a history of murdering Jews. These can also easily be interpreted as nazi-esque behaviors of Jewish extermination. Is your objection to Trumps crackdown on free speech just that there’s also some innocents who didn’t say anything too objectionable and he needs to focus more on the people who deserve a punch in the face for their speech?
That's okay, you don't need to have been familiar with it. Read the text, knowing that it was the sole reason a PhD student (Rumeysa Ozturk) with a valid visa was nabbed off the street and throw into a van by ICE and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong to dismiss the pretext that this crackdown has anything to do with antisemitism or protecting Jews from genocidal talk.
I can make this simpler for you, imagine there's a country, Shitstainia, that executes people for any and all rule-breaking. I point out that they executed a bunch of people for jaywalking and say that's not cool, and you counter by saying "well there's also examples of Shitstainia executing people for murder". You see how that's not an argument? The relevant part is the lower bound.
To answer your question, I wouldn't trust Trump or his administration to change a lightbulb. But I also wouldn't decry someone that advocated for the genocide of Jews facing consequences. That's irrelevant when the bar is as low as 'mild criticism of Israel'. It's incoherent to even give a second thought to the fairness and justice pretexts of the "empathy is weakness" people.
|
On May 27 2025 05:19 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 04:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 02:08 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:On May 24 2025 02:57 Zambrah wrote:On May 23 2025 05:20 Dan HH wrote:The Trump admin just blocked Harvard from enrolling foreign students, that's not surprising or particularly interesting, it's exactly the kind of move we've come to expect from the vengeful fascists. What I do find worth talking about is the coverage, such as this sentence from the BBC which is a perfect example of sanewashing: [quote] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05768jmm11oNow all of you here know why the fascists hate academia, you've seen them cry for years about knowledge making people too liberal, you've seen them fantasize and make plans about bulldozing it numerous times. We've talked about the letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard in which they demand DEI for fascist viewpoints. The antisemitism pretext for punishment only showed up after their refusal to become a brainwashing tool. But what does a person that lacks any of that context understand from that article? That: - the White House is concerned about antisemitism at Harvard - Harvard disagrees that it has a problem with antisemitism - one or the other could be right, idk Shit like sanewashing is part of why I think engaging with fascist fuckfaces in any capacity is bad and wrong. The only engagement a fascist should receive is a fist engaging their mouth. Attacking them doesn’t work, being charitable is actively harmful, working with them is just catastrophic. Stop talking to them, engagement with fascists beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone but the fascists. Their perspective isn’t valuable, it isn’t coherent or driven by morals or ethics or any sort of world view beyond whatever it takes to have power. Owning them on the internet is a stupid waste of time, debating them is worthless, fascists have nothing of value to offer the world and should simply be shunned or physically beaten into absolute social irrelevance, and we’re going to have to keep shunning them and beating their asses whenever they pop up. "Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone" That doesnt sound nazilike... at all... Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now. Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else). Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkjPlease point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews. I’m not familiar with your example but there are also lots of other examples of students chanting “from the river to the sea” and supportive statements of Hamas who has a history of murdering Jews. These can also easily be interpreted as nazi-esque behaviors of Jewish extermination. Is your objection to Trumps crackdown on free speech just that there’s also some innocents who didn’t say anything too objectionable and he needs to focus more on the people who deserve a punch in the face for their speech? That's okay, you don't need to have been familiar with it. Read the text, knowing that it was the sole reason a PhD student (Rumeysa Ozturk) with a valid visa was nabbed off the street and throw into a van by ICE and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong to dismiss the pretext that this crackdown has anything to do with antisemitism or protecting Jews from genocidal talk. I can make this simpler for you, imagine there's a country, Shitstainia, that executes people for any and all rule-breaking. I point out that they executed a bunch of people for jaywalking and say that's not cool, and you counter by saying "well there's also examples of Shitstainia executing people for murder". You see how that's not an argument? The relevant part is the lower bound. To answer your question, I wouldn't trust Trump or his administration to change a lightbulb. But I also wouldn't decry someone that advocated for the genocide of Jews facing consequences. That's irrelevant when the bar is as low as 'mild criticism of Israel'. It's incoherent to even give a second thought to the fairness and justice pretexts of the "empathy is weakness" people.
Yeah, no, this was "paradox of tolerance" thing. Enjoy.
|
On May 27 2025 05:19 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 04:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 02:08 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:On May 24 2025 02:57 Zambrah wrote:On May 23 2025 05:20 Dan HH wrote:The Trump admin just blocked Harvard from enrolling foreign students, that's not surprising or particularly interesting, it's exactly the kind of move we've come to expect from the vengeful fascists. What I do find worth talking about is the coverage, such as this sentence from the BBC which is a perfect example of sanewashing: [quote] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05768jmm11oNow all of you here know why the fascists hate academia, you've seen them cry for years about knowledge making people too liberal, you've seen them fantasize and make plans about bulldozing it numerous times. We've talked about the letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard in which they demand DEI for fascist viewpoints. The antisemitism pretext for punishment only showed up after their refusal to become a brainwashing tool. But what does a person that lacks any of that context understand from that article? That: - the White House is concerned about antisemitism at Harvard - Harvard disagrees that it has a problem with antisemitism - one or the other could be right, idk Shit like sanewashing is part of why I think engaging with fascist fuckfaces in any capacity is bad and wrong. The only engagement a fascist should receive is a fist engaging their mouth. Attacking them doesn’t work, being charitable is actively harmful, working with them is just catastrophic. Stop talking to them, engagement with fascists beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone but the fascists. Their perspective isn’t valuable, it isn’t coherent or driven by morals or ethics or any sort of world view beyond whatever it takes to have power. Owning them on the internet is a stupid waste of time, debating them is worthless, fascists have nothing of value to offer the world and should simply be shunned or physically beaten into absolute social irrelevance, and we’re going to have to keep shunning them and beating their asses whenever they pop up. "Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone" That doesnt sound nazilike... at all... Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now. Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else). Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkjPlease point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews. I’m not familiar with your example but there are also lots of other examples of students chanting “from the river to the sea” and supportive statements of Hamas who has a history of murdering Jews. These can also easily be interpreted as nazi-esque behaviors of Jewish extermination. Is your objection to Trumps crackdown on free speech just that there’s also some innocents who didn’t say anything too objectionable and he needs to focus more on the people who deserve a punch in the face for their speech? That's okay, you don't need to have been familiar with it. Read the text, knowing that it was the sole reason a PhD student (Rumeysa Ozturk) with a valid visa was nabbed off the street and throw into a van by ICE and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong to dismiss the pretext that this crackdown has anything to do with antisemitism or protecting Jews from genocidal talk. I can make this simpler for you, imagine there's a country, Shitstainia, that executes people for any and all rule-breaking. I point out that they executed a bunch of people for jaywalking and say that's not cool, and you counter by saying "well there's also examples of Shitstainia executing people for murder". You see how that's not an argument? The relevant part is the lower bound. To answer your question, I wouldn't trust Trump or his administration to change a lightbulb. But I also wouldn't decry someone that advocated for the genocide of Jews facing consequences. That's irrelevant when the bar is as low as 'mild criticism of Israel'. It's incoherent to even give a second thought to the fairness and justice pretexts of the "empathy is weakness" people.
I’m following Rayzda’s point that Trump could just as easily subvert the “paradox of tolerance” to insist we should crackdown on free speech for those critical of Israel. In fact that’s basically what he’s doing. You seem to be far more forgiving of Trump than myself since you seem to be mostly concerned that the relative metaphorical jaywalkers don’t get caught up in the crossfire whereas I think the crackdown is bad full stop.
|
On May 27 2025 05:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 05:19 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 04:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 02:08 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:On May 24 2025 02:57 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Shit like sanewashing is part of why I think engaging with fascist fuckfaces in any capacity is bad and wrong. The only engagement a fascist should receive is a fist engaging their mouth.
Attacking them doesn’t work, being charitable is actively harmful, working with them is just catastrophic.
Stop talking to them, engagement with fascists beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone but the fascists. Their perspective isn’t valuable, it isn’t coherent or driven by morals or ethics or any sort of world view beyond whatever it takes to have power.
Owning them on the internet is a stupid waste of time, debating them is worthless, fascists have nothing of value to offer the world and should simply be shunned or physically beaten into absolute social irrelevance, and we’re going to have to keep shunning them and beating their asses whenever they pop up.
"Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone" That doesnt sound nazilike... at all... Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now. Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else). Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkjPlease point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews. I’m not familiar with your example but there are also lots of other examples of students chanting “from the river to the sea” and supportive statements of Hamas who has a history of murdering Jews. These can also easily be interpreted as nazi-esque behaviors of Jewish extermination. Is your objection to Trumps crackdown on free speech just that there’s also some innocents who didn’t say anything too objectionable and he needs to focus more on the people who deserve a punch in the face for their speech? That's okay, you don't need to have been familiar with it. Read the text, knowing that it was the sole reason a PhD student (Rumeysa Ozturk) with a valid visa was nabbed off the street and throw into a van by ICE and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong to dismiss the pretext that this crackdown has anything to do with antisemitism or protecting Jews from genocidal talk. I can make this simpler for you, imagine there's a country, Shitstainia, that executes people for any and all rule-breaking. I point out that they executed a bunch of people for jaywalking and say that's not cool, and you counter by saying "well there's also examples of Shitstainia executing people for murder". You see how that's not an argument? The relevant part is the lower bound. To answer your question, I wouldn't trust Trump or his administration to change a lightbulb. But I also wouldn't decry someone that advocated for the genocide of Jews facing consequences. That's irrelevant when the bar is as low as 'mild criticism of Israel'. It's incoherent to even give a second thought to the fairness and justice pretexts of the "empathy is weakness" people. I’m following Rayzda’s point that Trump could just as easily subvert the “paradox of tolerance” to insist we should crackdown on free speech for those critical of Israel. In fact that’s basically what he’s doing. You seem to be far more forgiving of Trump than myself since you seem to be mostly concerned that the relative metaphorical jaywalkers don’t get caught up in the crossfire whereas I think the crackdown is bad full stop.
Walk me through this cause I'm not sure either of you understand the term. What you're saying is that we should tolerate intolerance because otherwise someone will crackdown on something that isn't intolerant under false pretense. Which is what they're doing anyway regardless of what we do.
|
On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 05:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 05:19 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 04:34 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 02:08 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 00:47 BlackJack wrote:On May 26 2025 08:43 Dan HH wrote:On May 26 2025 08:22 Razyda wrote:On May 25 2025 09:37 Zambrah wrote:On May 24 2025 20:26 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
"Stop talking to them, engagement with [...] beyond stomping them into the dirt will never work out for anyone"
That doesnt sound nazilike... at all...
Regarding all the free speech comments, I remeber asking ages ago, if people would be as comfortable with free speech limitation if Trump was in power. Question itself was rhetorical, if it werent though I guess answer is provided pretty much on daily basis now.
Never heard of the paradox of tolerance, huh Oh I heard, even more so, I understood the implications . See paradox of tolerance is something you can use in identical way as "purity of race", or "salvation of souls". Let me give you example: I guess your opinion about Trump crackdown on pro Palestinian protests is that it is a bad thing? Trump however may claim that those are intolerant towards Israel and because of that: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." or: "tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another's differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society." Now, are you still in favour of nazi like rhetoric in the name of tolerance? Because you see it is much easier for Trump to declare himself "The Tolerant One" then say "paradox of tolerance" and proceed Zambrah stye, than it is for... Zambrah. We're not discussing which color is the prettiest, there is an objective truth. We don't have to pretend there is anything worthwhile in the claim that someone writing in their school paper that maybe Israel razing cities to the ground isn't great is being intolerant. This isn't a game. It's really quite simple. When someone punches a lesbian for entering the women's bathroom while having short hair, people (with empathy) are upset about that because it's unjust. Not because it breaks some sacred non-violence principle. Calling 'punch a nazi' hypocritical would require that latter option of being the argument, but it isn't. Look at the Presidents of the Ivy League universities testifying before Congress that couldn’t say that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their student code of conduct. It’s doubtful they would have been as tolerant of speech that called for lynching their black students or exterminating their trans students. There’s no explanation to be more tolerant of speech to genocide Jews that is based on some objective truth. Surely there is a little hypocrisy in the idea that we should meet Nazis with violence but students that call for the annihilation of Jews need not even be disciplined by their university? There would be, if that were the argument, but it's not. I'm perfectly okay with deporting foreign students that call for the genocide of Jews (or anyone else). Here's the essay that got the student that I referenced in my previous post deported: https://www.tuftsdaily.com/article/2024/03/4ftk27sm6jkjPlease point out to me the call for the genocide of Jews. I’m not familiar with your example but there are also lots of other examples of students chanting “from the river to the sea” and supportive statements of Hamas who has a history of murdering Jews. These can also easily be interpreted as nazi-esque behaviors of Jewish extermination. Is your objection to Trumps crackdown on free speech just that there’s also some innocents who didn’t say anything too objectionable and he needs to focus more on the people who deserve a punch in the face for their speech? That's okay, you don't need to have been familiar with it. Read the text, knowing that it was the sole reason a PhD student (Rumeysa Ozturk) with a valid visa was nabbed off the street and throw into a van by ICE and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong to dismiss the pretext that this crackdown has anything to do with antisemitism or protecting Jews from genocidal talk. I can make this simpler for you, imagine there's a country, Shitstainia, that executes people for any and all rule-breaking. I point out that they executed a bunch of people for jaywalking and say that's not cool, and you counter by saying "well there's also examples of Shitstainia executing people for murder". You see how that's not an argument? The relevant part is the lower bound. To answer your question, I wouldn't trust Trump or his administration to change a lightbulb. But I also wouldn't decry someone that advocated for the genocide of Jews facing consequences. That's irrelevant when the bar is as low as 'mild criticism of Israel'. It's incoherent to even give a second thought to the fairness and justice pretexts of the "empathy is weakness" people. I’m following Rayzda’s point that Trump could just as easily subvert the “paradox of tolerance” to insist we should crackdown on free speech for those critical of Israel. In fact that’s basically what he’s doing. You seem to be far more forgiving of Trump than myself since you seem to be mostly concerned that the relative metaphorical jaywalkers don’t get caught up in the crossfire whereas I think the crackdown is bad full stop. Walk me through this cause I'm not sure either of you understand the term. What you're saying is that we should tolerate intolerance because otherwise someone will crackdown on something that isn't intolerant under false pretense. Which is what they're doing anyway regardless of what we do.
Except there is intolerance. You’re just insisting on ignoring the thousands of intolerant Hamas sympathizers and “from the river to the sea” chanters that would like to see Israel annihilated to tunnel vision on this one example you’ve selected of a very mild criticism of Israel.
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 05:13 Husyelt wrote:clownish ones though do, it was very easy for right wing media to nuke the word "antifa", definitely helps that americans have shit media literacy, but yeah antifa at least in portland were not very good. even before BLM and the proud boys / patriot prayer types started going on the street they were harassing book authors for including the words nazi in their (most definitely not pro nazi) books. the best way to stamp out neo nazis is to do what weve seen recently in the south and LA where mass movements of people come scare off the little shit heads carrying nazi flags. those were mostly random ass citizens not tolerating white supremacists, not strictly antifa members.
It’s almost impossible to prevent right wing media doing that to be fair. Or the left, or the social media outrage bubble in general to be fair.
There’ll always be some arseholes who can take even the most sensible idea going and run with it to idiotic places.
What you describe is generally the idea, and I think most who involve themselves in such movements or protests wouldn’t be that hardcore who identify as Antifa, but just people who are anti-Fascisds because well, it should be the default.
Punching a Nazi is certainly on the table for some, but ideally it’s your plan C or D after general ostracisation, or collectively making it known that shit isn’t welcome in whatever community you’re in.
You don’t have to deprogram a Nazi or rewire their soul, just make it difficult for them to be one in public, or to politically organise.
I recall where a Warhammer 40K tournament in, I believe Spain had some bloke show up in proper Fashy gear. Tournament told him to GTFO, they don’t want that shit at their tournament. Then the ‘I’m for free speech and honestly not Fascist-sympathising’ crowd were complaining on the interwebz, as they do.
Then Games Workshop themselves made a statement, firmly but rather politely telling the intolerant they don’t want to be associated with them, and don’t want their business.
Which, fair fucking play there. It is certainly a problem with the hobby, satirical and critical universes that use Fascist iconography will invariably attract the ‘wow, Fascism is cool!’ types, although 40K is particularly bad for it.
There’s plenty of ways to be intolerant to the expressing of the views of the intolerant without punching them, although time and a place for that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
