u.s. politics: faygo to the polls

[TrueMetis]

35 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

 

Anyone who thinks the idea of allowing Nazis a free voice* is designed to win over Nazis is really not getting the argument. I'll try again:

 

*with important restrictions re:direct calls to violence/illegal activity.

I have no idea what you think you're responding to in my post.

[Bonnot OG]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, it is.

You mean inciting violence, not provoking.  If you want to have an argument about whether their ideology is incitement - which the courts have made an exception for - that's fine.  But that exception does not entail allowing citizens to respond with violence, for patently obvious reasons.

You're right, I'm clearly unaware of the nazis ideology and what it prescribes.  

No it is not. How the fuck are you going to say preaching an ideology that has the end game being genocide is not an act of violence or promoting an act of violence? and how the hell are you going to say that using violence against them when they are spewing such bullshit or their buzzwords is unprovoked given what they follow and want to achieve?

Yea, people shouldn't get angry at people saying jews will not replace us, having nazi flags, throwing up the nazi salute, screaming blood and soil, saying heil trump or heil victory.


We know what nazis did in world war II. Them rallying with those flags, screaming their bullshit slogans and screaming homophobic, racist and anti semtic slurs is going to piss people off, and it is all done to intimidate people. So don't you dare say responding to that with violence is unprovoked. 

They planned Charllotesville and were telling other white supremacist groups to use violence there  After Charllotesville they were  and have been encouraging those same white supremacists groups to direct energy at “soft targets,” aka liberal and social justice groups that refuse to fight back against their violence. Why do you think they went to attack clergy members, ya know, people who are non violent?

You are falling for their bullshit. You think their words aren't violence and aren't inciting violence, and you think attacking them when they are trying to intimidate people is unprovoked. 

[GAROVORKIN]

4 hours ago, WinterFox said:

Is the fact that those Russians went to absurd lengths to avoid conflict with Nazis just not connecting then?

The non aggression  pact between  Russia and Germany was done with the  knowledge on both side that eventually  they would  be fighting a war against each other, down the road.  

 

[Sivin]

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Erm?

Stalin was one of the very earliest political figures warning of Hitler's danger, which makes sense when you remember that the Nazis made their bones beating up people voicing the corrosive ideology of...communism. And Molotov duly made the rounds like crazy trying to get other nations to form alliances. But the other nations, though generally alarmed at Hitler's rise, were as or more concerned about the Soviets and, having read Mein Kampf, also understood that Hitler's entire raison d'être was the Conquest/enslavement of the east and destruction of communism, so they declined all Russian overtures. The thinking was to let these 2 ideologies have a crippling war with each other and then if possible gather up the remains. So, we get Munich, which you will remember was news to Stalin, whose representation was not invited. 

So having identified the general idea of aiming Hitler in his direction, Stalin practiced realpolitik and we get Molotov-Ribbentrop. But that never happens without Munich.

Now, as for nations who tried very very hard to stay out of the war, there was one which violated all their mutual protection treaties and let WWII rage on for 2 years, meanwhile being the Nazis biggest trading partner and contrary to myth NEVER chose to oppose the Nazis on any kind of ideological or moral basis, but this is not a very popular reminder.

I was referring to the post Molotov-ribbentrop state of affairs, when Stalin refused to act on any of the abundant evidence that a Nazi attack was imminent so as to avoid upsetting the beast. 

I'm not sure how what you've said contradicts my point anyway. A lot of people were pointing out that Nazism was dangerous. Maybe if enough people had listened Europe might have been spared another world war.

[Bonnot OG]

8 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Nice return, I hope Dr. King would be glad to know that 47 states don't commemorate his efforts on the same day they jerk off to a traitor's failed campaign to keep black men and women as chattel. 

 

I love that white Canadian guy is trying to say use MLK's methods. Guess he ignored how King said a riot is the voice of the unheard. Probably ignored this bit of mlk as well

"I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direst action” who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Also MLK's death shows that it doesn't matter how much non violence you use, white supremacists will still kill you.

[IamMe90]

On 3/31/2017 at 9:42 PM, DunderMifflin said:

 

5 hours ago, Inigima said:

I've wondered since the election if I would need to flee the country for my own safety because of neo-Nazis and their ilk. This is not theoretical for me or for millions of other people. I think a lot of you still regard Nazis as an abstract thing, a concept of evil to be reckoned with rhetorically. They are not. They are a real physical force, they are alarmingly powerful all the way up to the most powerful office in the country and maybe the world, and they want me dead.

I'm glad people are out there punching Nazis. The instant they think they can, they will do a lot worse than that to people like me. And people like you will let them. So spare me your platitudes.

 

8 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Dude, everyone else already is taking advantage of violence as a tool.  If you want to be the guy that's telling your oppressed allies "keep suffering a little longer, remain holier than thou, take the high road, etc" so be it.  I don't think anyone is calling for the execution of white supremacists or anyone bass on political ideology.  But there are a lot of us saying 'fuck you' to the notion that these people need to be defended.  There are a lot of us wondering why this is the hill you're choosing to die on.

 

And yes, I believe that anyone that voted to repeal the ACA is a violent person and I can see no reason to think otherwise.  They have literally threatened friends and family of mine with pain, suffering, and likely an earlier death than need be.  And then when this same administration calling for this coddles these fucking white supremacists that would love to see my family dead or gone I have absolutely zero fucks given for anyone trying to defend them or call for moderation or anyone ringing the 'both sides' bell.  One of these sides has already conducted genocide.  Go fuck yourself.

 

4 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Just wanted to let you know that I hear you, Ini. I have no time for the spineless shitheads either, because history has shown multiple times that when it comes right down to it, they'll just stand aside as people like you and me are slaughtered and then they'll retroactively justify their inaction in their own heads by saying we somehow brought it on ourselves by being "too Jewish" or "too gay."

 

I am gay and I would most likely be pretty high (not on the top, though) on the list of people to eliminate were the Nazis to gain political power in the US. I have a chronic disease and have worried about whether or not I would be able to afford the medication I need to live were the ACA repealed. I believe all of these things are a real concern and I worry about them frequently.

And yet, I do not think that vaporizing all neo-nazis off the face of the country in an unorganized, unregulated, and fractured civilian militant effort is a good idea in any way, shape, or form. Nor do I believe the same of people who wish to repeal the ACA. Not just for moral reasons, but for practical reasons as well. How many innocent people would get killed as collateral? And would it work? Would this really permanently rid the US of neo-nazis? Or people who are ignorant and wish the ACA weren't in effect?

And because what, their organization's stated view explicitly advocates violence? Last time I checked, North Korea's government has put out official videos depicting the total destruction of New York City. Where were all of you calling for us to prematurely nuke them off the face of the Earth them, damn the consequences? And that isn't even a free speech issue.

And before anyone says "no one's advocating that," it's been advocated numerous times throughout this thread, and many people have rushed to the defense of these people. And what's worse, if anyone has the gumption to disagree about where the lines of acceptable use of violence, self defense, and free speech start and end, that person has been consistently and without fail called a nazi sympathizer, a coward, privileged, or a "spineless shithead." Even if we actually agree that using violence in defense of violence by hate groups is totally justified, the fact that some may disagree about the level of justification behind premature violence (either to the extent that this is okay in principle, or to what extent the current activity of neo-nazis in the US actually invokes the right to self-defense in this sort of manner for their targets), earns these people (on the "wrong" side of this debate) those monikers. 

This thread used to be an awesome place to read and digest a lot of intelligent and well-educated peoples' nuanced political views and disagreements. As of late, it appears to mostly consist of tribal political fist pounding, personal insults, and implications of the moral fortitude and character of strangers based on disagreements on edge cases of ethics that do not have easy answers. That's sad. 

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

I love that white Canadian guy is trying to say use MLK's methods. Guess he ignored how King said a riot is the voice of the unheard. Probably ignored this bit of mlk as well

"I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direst action” who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

 

God, you love strawman.

Please find where advocating for non-violence is acceptance, or where MLK would have confused the 2. Moreover, he too was very used to people trying to conflate the 2. There are literally a hundred or more quotes from him about this, but I'll keep it simple:

"Nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation."

And meanwhile I'll let you get back to fighting prejudice/citing my colour and nationality as means of explaining/diminishing my argument. I mean, what would a Canadian know about fighting Nazis. Well, I mean aside from having done it for twice as long as the U.S, with much higher proportional participation/casualty rates and, oh yeah, actually declaring war on them for ideological reasons as opposed to being business partners until literally given no choice. But do go on, all agog over here.

[GAROVORKIN]

5 hours ago, WinterFox said:

I was referring to the post Molotov-ribbentrop state of affairs, when Stalin refused to act on any of the abundant evidence that a Nazi attack was imminent so as to avoid upsetting the beast. 

I'm not sure how what you've said contradicts my point anyway. A lot of people were pointing out that Nazism was dangerous. Maybe if enough people had listened Europe might have been spared another world war.

Stalin was a damned fool to  trust Hitler in the first place. Given how Stalin badly treated everyone its no small wonder they were hesitant to give him bad news and any intelligence on what germans were about todo to Russia . Other big mistake he made Purging his Generals  and officer core in 1937. 

Had the Weimar Republic's  economy  not collapsed , Hitler  and his Nazis would never have come to power . The Depression and the collapse of the world economy  was a huge boon to him and the Nazis. Even so ,Von Pappen and the Social  Democrats helped clear  the way for Hitler  by allying with  the Nazis thinking that they could control Hitler. A huge blunder as it turned out. 

[Sivin]

14 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Given what he actually faced, I don't think he'd flinch too much. 

The fact that half a century after his murder the government of his nation is still run by men who see anyone different than themselves as undesireables to be eliminated doesn't put a horrible shadow on his accomplishments to you?

7 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

I love that white Canadian guy is trying to say use MLK's methods. Guess he ignored how King said a riot is the voice of the unheard. Probably ignored this bit of mlk as well

"I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direst action” who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Also MLK's death shows that it doesn't matter how much non violence you use, white supremacists will still kill you.

Actually, while I disagree with his commitment to non-violence in all but the most extreme threat to one's life I think JA has more firstand experience with experiencing racism than I do myself.

[Bonnot OG]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Because I understand the definition of an act of violence?  And because what they want to achieve is very different than what they're actually achieving, and I'm far more interested in combating the latter than the former.

People should totally get angry.  They should get outraged.  They should not, however, advocate violence and attack people that are trying to work alongside them.

I deign to dare.  Responding with violence is unprovoked.

So...you're argument is these clergy members are just as "naive" and complicit as you're depicting me to be.

That's right, after over a decade studying politics the retarded nazi groups in America are the ones whose bullshit I'm falling for.

You aren't trying to work alongside anyone. You are trying to finger wag and denounce people for using violence as a form of direct action against a very real threat.

You understand an act of violence yet ignore the calls to commit acts of violence from the ideology of nazism. 

Nope, I brought the clergy up to show that they will attack non violent groups and actively seek out to target them over people who will crack them in the face with a pipe, a bat, their fists, spray them with pepper spray or mace, pull a gun on them etc. The most peaceful group there was the first target of theirs. They showed that they don't care about peace, that they are only about violence since they are following a doctrine of violence. 

You clearly are falling for their bullshit lol. They say they aren't being violent and are just about free speech. You are king of on board with that by thinking violence against them, if they aren't being physically violent, is unprovoked, yet you also acknowledged that they are provoking people with their speech and symbols. Their speech is inciting violence and the symbols have a history of violence behind the imagery.  And Charllotesville proved that they will respond violently even to the most peaceful of protesters. They don't want 
dissent, even if it is peaceful. 

[TrueMetis]

25 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

And meanwhile I'll let you get back to fighting prejudice/citing my colour and nationality as means of explaining/diminishing my argument. I mean, what would a Canadian know about fighting Nazis. Well, I mean aside from having done it for twice as long as the U.S, with much higher proportional participation/casualty rates and, oh yeah, actually declaring war on them for ideological reasons as opposed to being business partners until literally given no choice. But do go on, all agog over here.

I'm not sure I would call Canada's decision to declare war an ideological thing. If it was I don't think we would have turned away the St. Louis.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

You aren't trying to work alongside anyone. You are trying to finger wag and denounce people for using violence as a form of direct action against a very real threat.

Yes, I totally am trying to say violence is not the answer at this juncture.  Explain to me how this ends?  Let's say you have carte blanche to deal with the nazis however you so desired.  What violence is acceptable?  When is it not acceptable to commit violence against those expressing such views?  What's the extent of this violence?

[Bonnot OG]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yes, I totally am trying to say violence is not the answer at this juncture.  Explain to me how this ends?  Let's say you have carte blanche to deal with the nazis however you so desired.  What violence is acceptable?  When is it not acceptable to commit violence against those expressing such views?  What's the extent of this violence?

Why isn't it? When's the best time for violence against them? When it's too late and they are controlling every single position of the government and the courts? When they are putting the first batch of bodies of the marginalized in ovens?

 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

9 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Why isn't it? When's the best time for violence against them? When it's too late and they are controlling every single position of the government and the courts? When they are putting the first batch of bodies of the marginalized in ovens?

 

I'm genuinely interested to know what you think happens after violence is used? Do you assume that everyone will just down tools and go back to their lives? 'Oh well I didn't expect those guys would attack us.. I'll stop being racist then'. Is that realistic?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Why isn't it? When's the best time for violence against them? When it's too late and they are controlling every single position of the government and the courts? When they are putting the first batch of bodies of the marginalized in ovens?

 

I think, for a start, it's when every government apparatus outside of Trump isn't admonishing their actions - and even the DOJ under Jeff Sessions is investigating Fields' attack as domestic terrorism.  Do I trust that investigation to be as intense as it needs to be?  No.  But any basic understanding of the CRM would elucidate how far we still have to go until it's time to take up arms.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

 

Anyone who thinks the idea of allowing Nazis a free voice* is designed to win over Nazis is really not getting the argument. I'll try again:

 

*with important restrictions re:direct calls to violence/illegal activity.

A foolish notion. The analogy is too limited. What happens when the devil uses that shelter to seize control of the whole forest? Where do you hide then?

Giving white supremacy a free voice just gets you more white supremacy. You let nazis speak, you just get more nazis.

The root of the foolishness of the idea expressed in that quote is that it cannot seem to grasp the idea that the law can protect and nurture the things that will attack it.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Shryke said:

A foolish notion. The analogy is too limited. What happens when the devil uses that shelter to seize control of the whole forest? Where do you hide then?

And what's the answer?  Because what it seems to be here is preemptive violence against the devil before it's seized much of anything - at least in any discernible way than it has in the past - beyond the rambling of our insane president.

19 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Giving white supremacy a free voice just gets you more white supremacy. You let nazis speak, you just get more nazis.

And what happens when you don't let nazis speak?  You get less nazis?  Even though I agree enough is enough and it's time to crack down on these groups, that's not borne out empirically, and makes very little sense logically.

20 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The root of the foolishness of the idea expressed in that quote is that it cannot seem to grasp the idea that the law can protect and nurture the things that will attack it.

Erm, the entire idea of law is to "protect" things that will attack it (granted, not "nurture" - but I fail to see how the law nurtures nazis).  That's the entire concept of an adversarial system.  The foolishness of this quote is that it implicitly attacks the entire system of due process.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

[...]

And before anyone says "no one's advocating that," it's been advocated numerous times throughout this thread, and many people have rushed to the defense of these people. And what's worse, if anyone has the gumption to disagree about where the lines of acceptable use of violence, self defense, and free speech start and end, that person has been consistently and without fail called a nazi sympathizer, a coward, privileged, or a "spineless shithead." Even if we actually agree that using violence in defense of violence by hate groups is totally justified, the fact that some may disagree about the level of justification behind premature violence (either to the extent that this is okay in principle, or to what extent the current activity of neo-nazis in the US actually invokes the right to self-defense in this sort of manner for their targets), earns these people (on the "wrong" side of this debate) those monikers. 

This thread used to be an awesome place to read and digest a lot of intelligent and well-educated peoples' nuanced political views and disagreements. As of late, it appears to mostly consist of tribal political fist pounding, personal insults, and implications of the moral fortitude and character of strangers based on disagreements on edge cases of ethics that do not have easy answers. That's sad. 

Just wanted to publicly say how much I appreciated this post, and how much it reiterates my own sentiments.

[Seli]

4 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Dante I don't  think your Ignorant , not in the least.   

as to the additions to you commentary .  That will do. 

 

During world war II the Nazis were  the bad guys and their   whole  political philosophy. was obscenity and perversion    and had to be crushed into into the ground .  Had we not destroyed them , they would have destroyed us and millions more beyond . We might not be here  having this argument had they won    So we had the right to destroy them because it was war and we were justified .  in WWII were definite good guys and bad guys. Unfortunately, after the war the US military   employed nazis to build an intelligence networked to counter the Russians at the start of the Cold War  and there was of course Operation Paper Clip.

 

So US government became Nazi like after WWII, and therefore people these days don't have to worry about the raise of Nazis because they will never get to power?

That doesn't seem to be the most logical line of thought.

5 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

...news flash , your not  if  you treat anyone who doesn't tow your particular line or agree with you with contempt and belittling  insults .

Toe the line; the expression is toe, not tow :)

[butterbumps!]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Finally, what are your solutions beyond this nebulous defense of violence towards Nazis?  I proposed early in the week classifying white supremacist groups as terrorist organizations.  Since we already do this with foreign organizations, I think it's the most pragmatic cause to get behind.  The courts have already made abundantly clear how they feel about curbing any free speech or assembly, but this is the most plausible argument I think may gain traction.  As far as I can tell, those arguing it's cool to commit violence against nazi protesters are too busy alienating those that are on their side to propose any realistic way to combat the problem - let alone specifically articulating what their support for unprovoked violence entails.

I'm on board with this too, and am really interested in how it could come to fruition.   It occurred to me after looking at the link you provided last thread that the whole key to it is about the foreignness of the organizations.    The reason we can do this now with little trouble regarding foreign organizations is because they aren't protected by the Constitution, so this solution becomes more difficult when the problem is domestic.  It does seem neat and pragmatic, but it looks like it comes back down to the same discussion of Constitutionality and First Amendment rights anyway, doesn't it?   I'm also keen to understand how something like this could be constructed so that other sides don't weaponize categorization like this against causes they don't like/ feel threatened by/ already crow about being "genocidal" or "terrorist" (such as a Pence would say of abortion, or "conservatives" say of BLM).