|
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 |
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.
Id argue we're basically past this point, shit like Kanye releasing a song called Heil Hitler, Elon openly nazi saluting and right wing media trying to pretend it wasnt, gestapo ass ICE behavior, fascist behavior isnt being ostracized properly, we're at the point where they need to feel unsafe for being open and out nazis in public.
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do.
There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’
This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that.
When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue.
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 08:20 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +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. Id argue we're basically past this point, shit like Kanye releasing a song called Heil Hitler, Elon openly nazi saluting and right wing media trying to pretend it wasnt, gestapo ass ICE behavior, fascist behavior isnt being ostracized properly, we're at the point where they need to feel unsafe for being open and out nazis in public.
Kanye is clearly an unwell man, I think people view him through that prism. Not saying he should be given a pass, just he’s not much of a plausible Nazi recruiter, he’s the equivalent of rubber-necking a car crash.
Agreed on Musk, if ever there’s a guy who might actually benefit from a good shit-kicking it is him. It’s for his own good!
But that aside, yeah. If anything I found the reaction in some quarters far more disgraceful than Musk’s actual salute. I find it entirely plausible that Musk was being le edgy shitlord, a role he also fucking sucks at despite being so desperate to nail it, than any real espousing of genuine sentiment.
But it was clearly a fucking Nazi salute, to claim otherwise in this instance somehow makes you more contemptible in my eyes than Musk, and believe me, to my sensibilities that is fucking hard to do.
|
On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:[quote] 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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue.
Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead?
|
On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead?
How about clubbing them over the head with a blackjack?
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead?
That can also be an elegant solution, but for a very particular problem.
Something less common now thankfully, although sadly seemingly replaced by racist invective, but being the wrong religion in the wrong area, or even mixed-religion couples used to be frequently intimidated out of their homes by myopic morons from both sides.
If some group turned out in solidarity around these homes and made it clear this wasn’t acceptable, and the intimidation ceased, great. If that wasn’t sufficient I’d have no great issue with a few punches being thrown around.
Granted, my example involves a level of initial intimidation that often goes beyond mere speech, so there is that difference there.
As I said earlier, it’s not particularly desirable to me, and I’d have pretty damn egregious behaviour be my personal red line for when I’d consider it appropriate.
Having concerns about immigration, no. Most other things, no.
|
On May 27 2025 08:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead? How about clubbing them over the head with a blackjack?
Nah a little too extreme for calling for the genocide of Jews. Gotta save that one for the real Nazis, like people that have bought a Tesla or voted Republican in the last 6 months
|
On May 27 2025 08:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 08:20 Zambrah wrote: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. Id argue we're basically past this point, shit like Kanye releasing a song called Heil Hitler, Elon openly nazi saluting and right wing media trying to pretend it wasnt, gestapo ass ICE behavior, fascist behavior isnt being ostracized properly, we're at the point where they need to feel unsafe for being open and out nazis in public. Kanye is clearly an unwell man, I think people view him through that prism. Not saying he should be given a pass, just he’s not much of a plausible Nazi recruiter, he’s the equivalent of rubber-necking a car crash. Agreed on Musk, if ever there’s a guy who might actually benefit from a good shit-kicking it is him. It’s for his own good! But that aside, yeah. If anything I found the reaction in some quarters far more disgraceful than Musk’s actual salute. I find it entirely plausible that Musk was being le edgy shitlord, a role he also fucking sucks at despite being so desperate to nail it, than any real espousing of genuine sentiment. But it was clearly a fucking Nazi salute, to claim otherwise in this instance somehow makes you more contemptible in my eyes than Musk, and believe me, to my sensibilities that is fucking hard to do.
Its less any actual belief in the values and more the comfort with associating oneself with those values, like I dont think JD Vance has any real values or beliefs, but by virtue of prostrating himself before Trump and the alt right Republicans he feels that society is adequately welcoming to his beliefs.
Anyone who thinks that throwing a seig heil in public will result in anything other than an ass beating should be an indication that we need to start considering that people need an assbeating, its never too early, we're experiencing that its like when society goes all "hnng, but violence against nazis is too much!" they start to get too comfortable and start spreading their fascist bullshit directly.
Thats why I take a fairly hard line stance on violence against nazis, because they'll take an inch and suddently they've taken miles and are deporting random brown people to prison labor camps and thats not a risk I believe society should be playing with. I get the distaste towards violence, both in the act and in the recognition of the state of things that would necessitate it, but its an important tool to keep the worst aspects of human history from repeating.
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 09:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 08:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:[quote] 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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead? How about clubbing them over the head with a blackjack? Nah a little too extreme for calling for the genocide of Jews. Gotta save that one for the real Nazis, like people that have bought a Tesla or voted Republican in the last 6 months
Has anyone in this thread expressed any kind of support for vandalising Teslas?
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 09:28 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 08:42 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 08:20 Zambrah wrote: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. Id argue we're basically past this point, shit like Kanye releasing a song called Heil Hitler, Elon openly nazi saluting and right wing media trying to pretend it wasnt, gestapo ass ICE behavior, fascist behavior isnt being ostracized properly, we're at the point where they need to feel unsafe for being open and out nazis in public. Kanye is clearly an unwell man, I think people view him through that prism. Not saying he should be given a pass, just he’s not much of a plausible Nazi recruiter, he’s the equivalent of rubber-necking a car crash. Agreed on Musk, if ever there’s a guy who might actually benefit from a good shit-kicking it is him. It’s for his own good! But that aside, yeah. If anything I found the reaction in some quarters far more disgraceful than Musk’s actual salute. I find it entirely plausible that Musk was being le edgy shitlord, a role he also fucking sucks at despite being so desperate to nail it, than any real espousing of genuine sentiment. But it was clearly a fucking Nazi salute, to claim otherwise in this instance somehow makes you more contemptible in my eyes than Musk, and believe me, to my sensibilities that is fucking hard to do. Its less any actual belief in the values and more the comfort with associating oneself with those values, like I dont think JD Vance has any real values or beliefs, but by virtue of prostrating himself before Trump and the alt right Republicans he feels that society is adequately welcoming to his beliefs. Anyone who thinks that throwing a seig heil in public will result in anything other than an ass beating should be an indication that we need to start considering that people need an assbeating, its never too early, we're experiencing that its like when society goes all "hnng, but violence against nazis is too much!" they start to get too comfortable and start spreading their fascist bullshit directly. Thats why I take a fairly hard line stance on violence against nazis, because they'll take an inch and suddently they've taken miles and are deporting random brown people to prison labor camps and thats not a risk I believe society should be playing with. I get the distaste towards violence, both in the act and in the recognition of the state of things that would necessitate it, but its an important tool to keep the worst aspects of human history from repeating.
Agreed.
I don’t think society at large has a particular Nazi problem right now. And by that I mean like, absolute dyed in the wool lunatic Fascists being a particularly huge segment of society
The problem is much more people not recognising it, or indeed being active useful idiots and enabling it. Or adjacent enough to be harmful.
And not taking an absolutely hard line is definitely part of it.
It’s a preposterously naive worldview IMO. ‘Hey man you ever heard of free speech? Good ideas will win in out in the free marketplace of ideasTM and we can just win some debates and it’ll be fine’.
It doesn’t work. It hasn’t been working for quite some time. I’ve some pretty strong core ideological views but one thing that does hugely influence them is ‘what actually works to actualise them?’
I’d much rather live in a world where repugnant, bigoted worldviews could just be ostracised by political enfranchisement, or spirited debate and cease being impactful, I really would.
We don’t live in that world, there’s so, so much evidence we do not but yet people insist that is how it is. Generally the same people who say socialism is utopian and unrealistic incidentally.
|
I don’t think society at large has a particular Nazi problem right now. And by that I mean like, absolute dyed in the wool lunatic Fascists being a particularly huge segment of society
The only disagreement Ill have here is that I think we have a relatively large fascist problem right now, not strictly literal nazis (though those also obviously feel very emboldened lately.)
We may have different classifications for what qualifies as a particularly large problem, for me if I compare it to cancer, I consider it to be a large problem around stage 1b - 2, where yeah its not overtaking everything yet, but youre going to need some more serious treatment to deal with it, probably have surgery to remove the tumor, some adjuvant chemo maybe, and while its not nearly as bad as a stage 3 - 4, I would consider those stages to be in the WW2-beyond-hope side where its going to be wide scale war/casualties to solve sized problem.
Trump and the ICE gestapo-ing about, the rise of like the AfD, other far right loon parties gaining popularity and power, the western world feels very much in that stage 1b - 2 to me, and I can see a very real path towards the later stages without firm action.
|
United States42364 Posts
On May 27 2025 07:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 05:13 Husyelt wrote: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. 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.
I heard it said that there is no satire of fascism, no matter how direct and cutting, that can’t be proudly adopted by sufficiently media illiterate fascists.
|
United States42364 Posts
On May 27 2025 09:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 09:21 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead? How about clubbing them over the head with a blackjack? Nah a little too extreme for calling for the genocide of Jews. Gotta save that one for the real Nazis, like people that have bought a Tesla or voted Republican in the last 6 months Has anyone in this thread expressed any kind of support for vandalising Teslas?
Dunno if I’ve said it but yeah, vandalize those Teslas.
|
On May 27 2025 09:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 09:21 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead? How about clubbing them over the head with a blackjack? Nah a little too extreme for calling for the genocide of Jews. Gotta save that one for the real Nazis, like people that have bought a Tesla or voted Republican in the last 6 months Has anyone in this thread expressed any kind of support for vandalising Teslas?
People in this thread have expresssed support for assassinating politicians, shooting CEOs in the back, arresting anti-vaxxers.. do you think torching Teslas is where they would draw the line? The biggest objection to vandalizing from this thread came from not being able to know if the owner or the Tesla is indeed a Republican or a progressive environmentalist that bought the car years ago.
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 09:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 07:14 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 05:13 Husyelt wrote: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. 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. I heard it said that there is no satire of fascism, no matter how direct and cutting, that can’t be proudly adopted by sufficiently media illiterate fascists.
If it exists I’ve yet to find it. If Judge Dredd can’t do it I’m not sure what possibly could
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 10:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2025 09:33 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 09:21 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 27 2025 08:54 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 08:32 WombaT wrote:On May 27 2025 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 06:17 Dan HH wrote:On May 27 2025 05:58 BlackJack wrote:On May 27 2025 05:19 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
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. It’s a catchy chant that one to be fair. Younger me certainly didn’t know the more unfortunate connotations, I just thought the wording was because it rhymed. Wouldn’t be in my repertoire anymore, as now I do. There’s a pretty simple solution to that, which is communicating ‘look lads and ladettes, we know many of you feel strongly on this topic, but that chant isn’t cool and here’s why. Henceforth we will still allow vibrant and occasionally fractious discourse, but we will discipline those who continue to chant this.’ This is even assuming the issue is as remotely prevalent and serious as is claimed in some quarters, but even if it was not and relatively rare I’d be in favour of something like that. When it’s the state imposing not just that, but quelling the idea of protest full stop, I think it’s natural to focus on that as the bigger contemporary issue. Your solution is elegant but have you considered punching them in the face instead? How about clubbing them over the head with a blackjack? Nah a little too extreme for calling for the genocide of Jews. Gotta save that one for the real Nazis, like people that have bought a Tesla or voted Republican in the last 6 months Has anyone in this thread expressed any kind of support for vandalising Teslas? People in this thread have expresssed support for assassinating politicians, shooting CEOs in the back, arresting anti-vaxxers.. do you think torching Teslas is where they would draw the line? The biggest objection to vandalizing from this thread came from not being able to know if the owner or the Tesla is indeed a Republican or a progressive environmentalist that bought the car years ago.
Poll: Do you support various acts of vandalism on Teslas?Yes (14) 78% No (4) 22% 18 total votes Your vote: Do you support various acts of vandalism on Teslas? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Well, let’s see.
I think it’s asinine, and you’re effectively punishing people for purchasing choices often made for environmentally conscious reasons at the time, and Elon Musk turning out to be a megacunt isn’t really on them.
I’m alright personally with assassinating politicians or CEOs for the record, context dependent. I think vandalising Teslas is fucking stupid.
|
United States42364 Posts
The Tesla brand is inextricably the Musk brand. If I got a cool swastika tattoo in 1920 then by 1940 I’m getting a cover up. If I buy a Tesla in 2012 then by 2022 I’m selling it. Anyone not selling it can be reasonably judged as either supportive or tolerant of Musk.
It’s also a tangible way to harm him. His wealth, largely built on the Tesla brand, led to his position as an unelected fascist lurking in the Oval Office snorting ketamine. If people stop buying them because they’re afraid of the vandalism that’s an absolute win in the fight against fascism. The world would be a better place today if people had started years ago.
You might say “if people sell their Tesla that just means someone else buys it” but resale value matters. Teslas having shitty resale value makes them less desirable which again hurts Musk directly. Also if people who don’t want to be affiliated with Musk are getting rid of them then that helps ensure the owner of a vandalized Tesla is a card carrying Nazi.
This is a very clear case of business = money = fascism. He literally used Tesla shares as collateral to buy X to promote literal Nazi propaganda.
I do it (in a video game) and so should all patriotic Americans. It’s easy, free, and good for your soul.
|
I give people with a model S, 3, X, and Y (also, yes, those are the Tesla models because Elon is the most cringe, divorced white 12 year old man) a pass because I don't know how long they've owned their car. Anybody with a Cybertruck should have known better.
|
https://tl.net/forum/general/532255-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4849
Here’s the link of some of the Tesla vandalizing discussion
KT_elwood said Tesla owners should have seen elons coming so it’s their own fault if they own a Tesla and they need to “up their insurance and buckle up”
Zambrah said his only objection was that a car is a big purchase and not everyone can afford to buy a new car just because Elon is a nazi. Presumably this wouldn’t be an issue for torching Teslas at a dealer so i assume that’s fine
Similarly Drone who is not at all radical said “torch a Tesla dealer, sure” but don’t torch random teslas because they might be owned by leftists that bought them years ago
Kwark seems to have a pretty glowing endorsement for torching swastikars, in video games.
Gahlo seems ok with it as long as it’s a cybertruck.
So that’s like 5 people? Is there a # you’re looking for? Not that many active users on thread these days
|
Northern Ireland24644 Posts
On May 27 2025 10:31 KwarK wrote:
The Tesla brand is inextricably the Musk brand. If I got a cool swastika tattoo in 1920 then by 1940 I’m getting a cover up. If I buy a Tesla in 2012 then by 2022 I’m selling it. Anyone not selling it can be reasonably judged as either supportive or tolerant of Musk.
It’s also a tangible way to harm him. His wealth, largely built on the Tesla brand, led to his position as an unelected fascist lurking in the Oval Office snorting ketamine. If people stop buying them because they’re afraid of the vandalism that’s an absolute win in the fight against fascism. The world would be a better place today if people had started years ago.
You might say “if people sell their Tesla that just means someone else buys it” but resale value matters. Teslas having shitty resale value makes them less desirable which again hurts Musk directly. Also if people who don’t want to be affiliated with Musk are getting rid of them then that helps ensure the owner of a vandalized Tesla is a card carrying Nazi.
This is a very clear case of business = money = fascism. He literally used Tesla shares as collateral to buy X to promote literal Nazi propaganda.
I do it (in a video game) and so should all patriotic Americans. It’s easy, free, and good for your soul.
The Musk of ye olden days didn’t remotely present how he does now. Outside of sad individuals like myself who kept track perception tended to be neutral thru positive for most folks.
Punishing regular Joe and Jane for a purchase made in an entirely different context is daft.
There are other ways to punish Musk. Delete your Twitter account, buy elsewhere. Play Path of Exile better than him.
If we were to go with the fear angle, restrict it to recent models released when it became glaringly obvious the kind of man he was.
If we’re going that direction, which I don’t personally really agree with anyway. If you’ve proudly bought a Cybertruck and stuck a MAGA sticker on it, it says something for your politics.
If you’ve some Tesla you bought 10 years ago before Musk went mask off, can’t afford a new car and someone burns it out like what’s that doing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
