• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why do Nazis get free speech apologetics while BLM gets finger wags?

gfxtwin

Member
The only time I see any reasonable free speech advocates getting vocal about protecting nazis' rights to speech is when antifa is physically attacking them.

They also speak up when someone like Milo or Coulter is banned from speaking, but conservative trolls like that, assholes they may be, are not nazis and deserve to have a public university appearance if only to allow students to challenge their ideologies.
 
The only time I see any reasonable free speech advocates getting vocal about protecting nazis' rights to speech is when antifa is physically attacking them.

They also speak up when someone like Milo or Coulter is banned from speaking, but conservative trolls like that, assholes they may be, are not nazis and deserve to have a public university appearance if only to allow students to challenge their ideologies.

Would you consider Milo outing trans students in public acceptable casualties?
 

Not

Banned
We're still visual tribalists. A lot of white people think "racism" is when you think to question privileged class systems that are based on race. Not, you know, what racism actually is, because they've never experienced it.

Hence, "Generalizing all wh*te p*ople?! Holy SHIT have you ever considered that YOU might be the racist?"

Then they expect the person questioning the race-based class system to stagger back and reconsider everything, awed at how wrong and misguided they are when faced with this groundbreaking observation.
 

RRockman

Banned
Look at that poor Nazi, he's basically me, if I didn't know how to keep my racism bottled up. :'( Poor young man.

He doesn't know that you're not supposed to kill all of the Jews yet. You're only supposed to be suspicious of everything they do and say.

Meanwhile, that black will never be me. Because my empathy for another human being begins and ends with their melanin count. If he got shot he was a criminal. Yeah, 11 year-olds can be criminals, dumbass. It's just the most likely thing. Listen, stupid, use your brain. Black on black crime. There's a reason they're poor. I met a black person once and I could tell he was dumb.

Wait, don't punch me, free speech free speech free speech free sp--!

(The Nazi gets up and goes home. The police ignore him forever)

(The next day, a black woman says the wrong thing on TV and is fired)

That's the game kids. Pack it up, we're done here.
 

gfxtwin

Member
Would you consider Milo outing trans students in public acceptable casualties?

Did he out her? I thought he harassed her as well?

Regardless, I would still let him speak if only to put him in a position to publicly take responsibility for his actions/be forced to reconcile that kind of clear unethical behavior and some of the other crazy shit he says. After all, that's how he was bested before (saying the shit bordering on being pro-NAMBLA that lost him some of his clout and made him less of a public figure).
 
Did he out her? I thought he harassed her as well?

Regardless, I would still let him speak if only to put him in a position to publicly take responsibility for his actions/be forced to reconcile that kind of clear unethical behavior and some of the other crazy shit he says.

Except that never happens. What happens is a mass outing of vulnerable students who are then harassed to the point where they have to leave their education for their own safety.

The "Debate" you want is one-sided. These people do not debate. I cannot say it enough. These people do not debate. They are not affected by responsibility. They have no basic human empathy. Letting them speak only gives their lies and hate a platform. You are playing into their hands.
 
The only time I see any reasonable free speech advocates getting vocal about protecting nazis' rights to speech is when antifa is physically attacking them.

They also speak up when someone like Milo or Coulter is banned from speaking, but conservative trolls like that, assholes they may be, are not nazis and deserve to have a public university appearance if only to allow students to challenge their ideologies.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Milo and Coulter being paid for this appearances?

I think there's a difference between demanding they be allowed to speak, and demanding they be paid to speak.

Also considering Nazism inherently calls for the culling of inferior peoples, isn't the Antifa attacking them a form of self defense?
 

gfxtwin

Member
Except that never happens. What happens is a mass outing of vulnerable students who are then harassed to the point where they have to leave their education for their own safety.

The "Debate" you want is one-sided. These people do not debate. I cannot say it enough. These people do not debate.

Where is the evidence to suggest he would do something like that on that scale? Has he harassed any transgender students since the last time?

Also see my edit. The good thing about Milo being more of a public figure is it increases the odds that some of the crazy shit he does or says will do him in.
 

Extollere

Sucks at poetry
Because of this:
kN14sBK.png

There is your answer. I think subconscious racism plays a part in this. They look at certain groups gathering together and think "oh they're causing trouble" and "you want equality, I can understand that, but why do you have to protest and make a big deal about it?" etc, etc... A whole lot of people who claim they aren't racist simply haven't examined their own behavior and reasoning enough to understand and combat their own biases.
 
Where is the evidence to suggest he would do something like that on that scale? Has he harassed any transgender students since the last time?

Also see my edit. The good thing about Milo being more of a public figure is it increases the odds that some of the crazy shit he does or says will do him in.

What more could he possibly do to get him done in?

Get someone killed?

I would rather he not get someone killed.
 
Did he out her? I thought he harassed her as well?

Regardless, I would still let him speak if only to put him in a position to publicly take responsibility for his actions/be forced to reconcile that kind of clear unethical behavior and some of the other crazy shit he says.
Milo is a hatemonger not remotely interested in honest, good faith dialogue. No person of good intention has anything to gain by giving him a venue in which to speak.
 

felipeko

Member
Honestly, it would be interesting if someone actually had a well thought out, non-racist reasoning for why they support free speech for those advocating racial genocide but not for those advocating for fair treatment by the state.

If such a thing were possible
Here's my try (not an American btw):

I value freedom of expression above almost all else. Almost because i value non initiation of violence more. If one individual or group is being violent, you do have to fight back.

I value freedom of expression because from my understand people, including myself, must be free to speak their mind, so it can change others and be changed. I agree that some speech is harmful, but i find banning good speech far more harmful. And while there's some speech that most would agree is harmful, i prefer to not set a precedent where a speech people disagree can be banned, as it can lead to good speech being banned.

So, my point is: i must defend the right to bad speech so i can have the right to my good speech.

That's why i argue in favor of the Nazi's right to speech. But that does not mean i don't disagree with their speech, i do, a lot.

Now i hold BLM to the exact same standard of free speech. I do believe they have the right to it, and defend that, and i also believe they have the right to shut down a freeway (not sure what your law says about it, but i still think it is a worthwhile right).

But... Just because i agree that they have the right to it, and i do agree with what i think it is the message they want to convey, that i agree with the way they are doing it. I think blocking a freeway is not the best approach to be heard, but in no way is worth a death by car.

So it is possible that i could criticize BLM more then the Nazi, not because of the content of the message, but because the way it is being passed. Nazi's ideas are despicable, and most people around me already agree with that, there's just not much point in discussing it.

MBL on the other hand, makes it harder for people to discuss their ideas if they do things that people disagree with. I understand that maybe it's the only way to have their voice heard, i don't think it is, it's just that change in public consciousness happens slowly. It still is better than nothing i would say, but doing things that will make people angry is not the best way to get them to listen to you.
 

Not

Banned
Also considering Nazism inherently calls for the culling of inferior peoples, isn't the Antifa attacking them a form of self defense?

Yes, and it would be seen that way by the media and authorities if the people being attacked in response to threats of racial culling were brown. Full stop.
 
I think it has to do with the fact that those on the right are incessantly deplatformed, so the free speech arguments are a natural respomse. The Right doesnt seem to push deplatform of BLM because they instead engage in attacking BLM motive/purpose etc so free speech isnt as much of a concern.
 
Here's my try (not an American btw):

I value freedom of expression above almost all else. Almost because i value non initiation of violence more. If one individual or group is being violent, you do have to fight back.

I value freedom of expression because from my understand people, including myself, must be free to speak their mind, so it can change others and be changed. I agree that some speech is harmful, but i find banning good speech far more harmful. And while there's some speech that most would agree is harmful, i prefer to not set a precedent where a speech people disagree can be banned, as it can lead to good speech being banned.

So, my point is: i must defend the right to bad speech so i can have the right to my good speech.

That's why i argue in favor of the Nazi's right to speech. But that does not mean i don't disagree with their speech, i do, a lot.

I have a question. Do you know what Nazism is?

At what point do you make a move against Nazis organizing? Only once they've gained power? Only once they start shoving people in ovens again?

The ideology of Nazism is inherently violent.
 
Did he out her? I thought he harassed her as well?

Regardless, I would still let him speak if only to put him in a position to publicly take responsibility for his actions/be forced to reconcile that kind of clear unethical behavior and some of the other crazy shit he says. After all, that's how he was bested before (saying the shit bordering on being pro-NAMBLA that lost him some of his clout and made him less of a public figure).

I mean it's easy enough to say that when you yourself are not at risk or a target. People like Milo face no real consequences for their actions and in many cases actually fail upwards. This is in part facilitated by defense on both the left and right.

We see that it is largely right wing student groups inviting hate speakers to campus with the express purpose of endangering other students. These people don't have ideologies; they are instigators. Verbal roaches.
 

Not

Banned
Here's my try (not an American btw):

I value freedom of expression above almost all else. Almost because i value non initiation of violence more. If one individual or group is being violent, you do have to fight back.

I value freedom of expression because from my understand people, including myself, must be free to speak their mind, so it can change others and be changed. I agree that some speech is harmful, but i find banning good speech far more harmful. And while there's some speech that most would agree is harmful, i prefer to not set a precedent where a speech people disagree can be banned, as it can lead to good speech being banned.

So, my point is: i must defend the right to bad speech so i can have the right to my good speech.

That's why i argue in favor of the Nazi's right to speech. But that does not mean i don't disagree with their speech, i do, a lot.

Now i hold BLM to the exact same standard of free speech. I do believe they have the right to it, and defend that, and i also believe they have the right to shut down a freeway (not sure what your law says about it, but i still think it is a worthwhile right).

But... Just because i agree that they have the right to it, and i do agree with what i think it is the message they want to convey, that i agree with the way they are doing it. I think blocking a freeway is not the best approach to be heard, but in no way is worth a death by car.

So it is possible that i could criticize BLM more then the Nazi, not because of the content of the message, but because the way it is being passed. Nazi's ideas are despicable, and most people around me already agree with that, there's just not much point in discussing it.

MBL on the other hand, makes it harder for people to discuss their ideas if they do things that people disagree with. I understand that maybe it's the only way to have their voice heard, i don't think it is, it's just that change in public consciousness happens slowly. It still is better than nothing i would say, but doing things that will make people angry is not the best way to get them to listen to you.

In a vacuum, you're almost correct. If both of these parties were part of the same class and wanted goals that weren't separated by extremes as disparate as "wanting to kill people" and "not wanting to be killed," this would be a fair assessment.

It's hard for me to believe though, after the Kaepernick saga especially, that it makes any kind of difference to white people how a black person says something they don't like.
 
If they're blocking freeways, maybe they hate freeways? I don't know.

Maybe you should look at why they feel they need to block freeways, and what their message and arguments are. Because if your objection to them blocking freeway is hypothetical deaths, I have to ask why you value hypothetical lives over actual black lives.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
It's typical "know your place" Racism. Aka white supremacy.

Black people asking for things is rude.

White people saying whatever the fuck they want is allowed.
 
If they're blocking freeways, maybe they hate freeways? I don't know.

Oh hey, a troll.....and it only took four pages. Or your ignorant to the plight of black people in America when they have been saying wrong with America for the longest. Both conclusions are terrible and sounds you need to be educated.
 

Madame M

Banned
Maybe you should look at why they feel they need to block freeways, and what their message and arguments are. Because if your objection to them blocking freeway is hypothetical deaths, I have to ask why you value hypothetical lives over actual black lives.

I don't think blocking a freeway saves any actual black lives. In fact, it may put many more black lives in danger. Getting on a freeway is pretty dangerous. It also invites a visit from the police which can also be dangerous.
 

Slayven

Member
I don't think blocking a freeway saves any actual black lives. In fact, it may put many more black lives in danger. Getting on a freeway is pretty dangerous. It also invites a visit from the police which can also be dangerous.
Are you serious?
 

Aselith

Member
Because racism is the status quo and BLM is trying to change things. The moderate likes to keep the status quo despite how bad it is.
 

gfxtwin

Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Milo and Coulter being paid for this appearances?

I think there's a difference between demanding they be allowed to speak, and demanding they be paid to speak.

Also considering Nazism inherently calls for the culling of inferior peoples, isn't the Antifa attacking them a form of self defense?

I would agree that not paying them but still allowing them to speak is an ethical thing to do but I have no idea how that can legally happen (maybe it does, I haven't heard of it though). If a university took that stance, though, I could see it being used against them by the speakers, unfortunately.

As for Antifa punching Nazis, it's kinda tricky. TBH I shed no tears for punched nazis and kinda enjoy watching the videos of it happening. But I think the levels of violence involved should be considered. A nazi rally is itself a form of social violence, but is taking it to the next level by physically assaulting them into bloodshed always a good idea? I don't know.

Something that concerns me is how white extremists are trying to blend in more these days. But what if a creepy white dude is brutally attacked by antifa but it comes out he has no connections to white supremacy and is just mentally ill? That and a high increase in violence in general makes antifa look like violent thugs and that could work against them in some ways, but if there is a situation where assaulting people who are clearly "race realists" is the only way to send them back to their duplex to stew in their hatred along with their "identitarian" roommates, maybe that isn't an unethical thing. Even though I can understand the argument against unprovoked attacks on them, I personally don't think I can condemn it.
 

felipeko

Member
I have a question. Do you know what Nazism is?

At what point do you make a move against Nazis organizing? Only once they've gained power? Only once they start shoving people in ovens again?

The ideology of Nazism is inherently violent.
Yes I do know what it stands for.

I make a move when they are being violent or making moves to take my freedom. If their ideology can get them to power, I don't think it can be helped.

But I think freedom is such a good concept that I have no doubt you can always have the majority agreeing on it. If people fight for freedom first and always, it can't be taken away. If people make concessions, even if for just one time, there's just no guarantee. The hardest part of the freedom is not having people agree with it, it making them understand that it is non-negotiable.
 

Slayven

Member
I would agree that not paying them but still allowing them to speak is an ethical thing to do but I have no idea how that can legally happen (maybe it does, I haven't heard of it though). If a university took that stance, though, I could see it being used against them by the speakers, unfortunately.

As for Antifa punching Nazis, it's kinda tricky. TBH I shed no tears for punched nazis and kinda enjoy watching the videos of it happening. But I think the levels of violence involved should be considered. A nazi rally is itself a form of social violence, but is taking it to the next level by physically assaulting them into bloodshed always a good idea? I don't know.

Something that concerns me is how white extremists are trying to blend in more these days. But what if a creepy white dude is brutally attacked by antifa but it comes out he has no connections to white supremacy and is just mentally ill? That and a high increase in violence in general makes antifa look like violent thugs and that could work against them in some ways, but if there is a situation where assaulting people who are clearly "race realists" is the only way to send them back to their duplex to stew in their hatred along with their "identitarian" roommates, maybe that isn't an unethical thing. Even though I can understand the argument against unprovoked attacks on them, I personally don't think I can condemn it.
Who had mentally ill on the bingo board?
 

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
Now we just need a Nazi speech apologist and we'll have completed the cycle of irony.
 

Kebiinu

Banned
but then when someone says "white people" as an actual joke they lose their damn shit

You see it too, right? Even on the first page ITT you will almost ALWAYS see a poster get upset at "white people" or "sounds about white", detracting from the issue at hand because their privilege was targeted. It's such a weird hill to fight for.
 
the sooner people realize the american right, far right and nazis aren't acting in good faith. they are not interested in debate. they only want the freedom of speech insofar as they can use it to spread hate and silence/oppress minority groups.

i think it applies elsewhere but i can only speak for my country.
 
the sooner people realize the american right, far right and nazis aren't acting in good faith. they are not interested in debate. they only want the freedom of speech insofar as they can use it to spread hate and silence/oppress minority groups.

i think it applies elsewhere but i can only speak for my country.

neither are the middle and left.
 
I think until recently it was a perception issue.

KKK, Neo-Nazi, etc were hated but viewed as irrelevant dumbasses( they actually ran far deeper and wider however)
But also a decent chunk of people think its their right to say whatever dumbass stuff they want to unless it is directly acted on.

They also generally had more peaceful marches[in these days obviously](for multiple reasons, 1 being that they themselves typically like to stir shit up at Black focused protests and no other groups really sabotages them either)

Meanwhile BLM typically has a strong message that can't really be ignored despite how hard people try.
However many regard them as extremely disruptive even times without getting sabotaged, also due to the fact that BLM is and has to be more active because of what they are protesting against.
add to that that typical white Americans are generally supportive of the police(unless they themselves are in trouble ) so that is basically a conflicting issue from the very start.

And the Alt-Right... many are just ignorant don't understand what it actually is.
I myself have had multiple family members thinking it was just a way to further vilify average Republicans.
Thankfully that Vice special was a perfect thing to show these people to get a general understanding of the situation.


This is just the opinion of someone who loosely followed this stuff for years but really started to pay attention after Trump became President.
 

felipeko

Member
In a vacuum, you're almost correct. If both of these parties were part of the same class and wanted goals that weren't separated by extremes as disparate as "wanting to kill people" and "not wanting to be killed," this would be a fair assessment.
A party can want whatever it wants. If the rules are good, the game will be fair. That's why i argue that liberty is the best rule. Nothing beats being free.
It's hard for me to believe though, after the Kaepernick saga especially, that it makes any kind of difference to white people how a black person says something they don't like.
Uhm. Hard to disagree with that being racism. I think his protest was great, would like to see more of that.
 

gfxtwin

Member
What more could he possibly do to get him done in?

Get someone killed?

I would rather he not get someone killed.


How would he get someone killed? Is any evidence of him being responsible for something like that?



Milo is a hatemonger not remotely interested in honest, good faith dialogue. No person of good intention has anything to gain by giving him a venue in which to speak.


I'm not so sure that he can't be bested in public debates though. If someone who was really insightful and really put in effort to understand his psyche and personal life had an in-depth conversation with him I think he would say something stupid, similar to how Kamau Bell got Richard Spencer to admit he hated black people on CNN (satisfying, after his attempts to do imply the opposite before to save face).

But not enough people who oppose milo want to do the work to understand how someone like that thinks. Shutting him down kinda fuels him. I think the best approach is to allow him to speak at campuses, but only if philosophy or psychology professors are on stage with him and moderate a civil town hall-style format to keep him in check.



I mean it's easy enough to say that when you yourself are not at risk or a target. People like Milo face no real consequences for their actions and in many cases actually fail upwards. This is in part facilitated by defense on both the left and right.

We see that it is largely right wing student groups inviting hate speakers to campus with the express purpose of endangering other students. These people don't have ideologies; they are instigators. Verbal roaches.

I've been a target of bigots before due to my "effeminate" way of expressing myself.

Is it true that Milo faces no consequences for his actions? He sure seems to have less media presence to me since his man/boy love comments.
 
Top Bottom