-
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?
- Thread starter CornBurrito
- Start date
CornBurrito
Member
"Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement." - Adolf Hitler
You can stop an ideology from gaining power through use of force. Look at how the US has meddled in communist nations in the past. Or how the US funded Islamic extremists in the past, allowing that ideology to gain power. You saying "it can't be helped" if an ideology rises to power is kind of... blind to history and current affairs.
You don't think it's possible to be mentally ill in a way that you kind of appear mentally ill and also not be racist? That's not a good bingo play, as I've seen people who that description applies to pretty accurately. Not everyone who is mentally disturbed is racist. Hell, not even everyone who is white and a sociopath is racist.
I said goddamn
People are quick to bring up mentally ill to give these people a pass, it is a tiresome trope at this point
IrishNinja
Member
yeah , think we all know
The only thing? Nope.
This movement? Sure.
But having a fool proof way to stop this kind of movement is very hard if you don't have a population that values freedom highly.
You can also stop an ideology from gaining power by having a better one. Look at how US has held it's ideology through history.
I'm sure you can fight ideology with force, it will just be bloodier and happen over and over again.
What does this line of conversation have to do with American double standards on Nazi rallies versus black activism?
CornBurrito
Member
Are taxes theft? Just want to know what strain of "freedom" I'm dealing with.
And how does your freedom group handle fascism and its continuing rise to power? More hand-wringing about how we need to respect the fascists?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean the answer to this one is reasonably obvious
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
In that case I apologize for that assumption.
Milo doesn't get as many or as high-profile engagements now as he had been, but he still gets them.
No. State having monopoly of force in order to maintain freedom and justice is good.
No, you can criticize it and discuss/preach how there are better ways, just like they do. If they fight, you fight.
CornBurrito
Member
Apologies, but I find this seriously naive and I cannot agree with it.
The State should never have a monopoly on force. That's why we have a Second Amendment.
A monopoly on force is not conducive to justice.
MaximumSpider
Banned
The rules as they exist in practice are not good. But thank you for contributing a thought-out attempt at a rationale of the side that doesn't make sense in order to further strengthen the one that does. If those are your intentions.
I understand. I will hold no bad feelings about it.
What i mean by that is that the state - not individuals - should be the one holding people accountable for their crimes by the use of force. I understand that people should have the right to protect their freedom from the government. But i don't believe people should be able to initiate violence against one another.
IrishNinja
Member
yeah, that's the more pertinent question right there, good on you for being so brave here
these are the real answers here
god, what a shitshow of a person/view
yes, next question
rest assured, the fox news crowd & those against critical thinking/eager to lump anything into #bothsides/horseshoe theory nonsense have already done so with antifa a while back, and were all too happy to have something other than BLM to point at as the real problem
Me neither. IF the police were impartial to race-based class and actually treated everyone the same.
You're talking about when anyone calls white terrorists "lone wolfs" or mentally ill" instead of calling what it is. I agree, but to be clear I was talking about something different.
Not much, I tried to address that point in my first posts ITT, but the one you quoted was more of a response to a somewhat different conversation that also got brought up.
And I know it must be frustrating to see that he still has any level of success. Even got some ok book sales, smh.
Because it doesn't actually contribute to a systemic pattern of actual, tangible harm to the majority of people who are identified by societal consensus as "Caucasian."
If white people think their own race is maligned on the level of the races that were designed to be restricted, disenfranchised, and treated as subhuman by a culture white people ESTABLISHED, they need to get out of their bubble and experience what it's like to not be white somehow. Whatever that entails.
The First Amendment only grants you protection from government persecution. A private citizen can slap a Nazi's shit if they feel like it and it isn't an attack on the First Amendment, it's an attack on a Nazi.
Antiochus
Member
The much more interesting question not raised by the topic creator: Should the most direct protest actions of Black Live Matter, such as blocking roads and traffic, be considered a form of free speech protected under the 1st Amendment, while merely the hate speech from neo-Nazis and white nationalists (assuming they only voice the speech and not conduct any other action) be considered a form of violent, threatening action that should not be protected at all under the same standard?
Trolling. He can't answer why he would be against BLM protesting. Because BLM is protesting ACTUAL LOST LIVES. So he claims to care about the hypothetical ambulance saving hypothetical lives; but asking him about the actual black lives lost leaves him with no out. And he knows it.
One advocates for genocide of non whites and the other for the preservation of human life. Nazi ideology and political speech is inherently advocating violence by its nature.
The comparison is disingenuous and insulting.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
One is a violent ideology that cannot survive without subjugation and violence, the other advocating for justice and equality.
MHWilliams
Member
Giving them more room to talk is exactly what they want. It doesn't matter if you shut them down in debate. Someone pointed out Spencer admitting their aims on CNN via Kamau Bell: what do you believe that accomplished? Barkley did the same. Spencer is still here preaching his dogma quite openly.
New York Times: Last September, Patrik Hermansson, a 25-year-old graduate student from Sweden, went undercover in the world of the extreme right.
If you call Nazism just another idea, you are mainstreaming it. Simple as that.
So if you want to allow for a free expression of those ideas in the name of being civil, by all means.
But don't try to place yourself as some sort of upstanding fellow. Allowing ideologies like Nazism to go unchallenged is morally bankrupt. They want you to say that they're just ideas. They want you to allow them to speak openly in public at length. They want debate, because debate normalizes them. Doing so for intellectual purposes isn't better, unless you're going to spend most of the fiber of your being "debating" them tooth and nail.
But to spend all your time and ire focusing on protest blocking a street while allowing Nazism - an ideology whose open adherents want "peaceful ethnic cleansing" - free reign? It's disgusting. You are not a moral actor. It is, in few words, simply shameful.
New York Times: Last September, Patrik Hermansson, a 25-year-old graduate student from Sweden, went undercover in the world of the extreme right.
If you call Nazism just another idea, you are mainstreaming it. Simple as that.
So if you want to allow for a free expression of those ideas in the name of being civil, by all means.
But don't try to place yourself as some sort of upstanding fellow. Allowing ideologies like Nazism to go unchallenged is morally bankrupt. They want you to say that they're just ideas. They want you to allow them to speak openly in public at length. They want debate, because debate normalizes them. Doing so for intellectual purposes isn't better, unless you're going to spend most of the fiber of your being "debating" them tooth and nail.
But to spend all your time and ire focusing on protest blocking a street while allowing Nazism - an ideology whose open adherents want "peaceful ethnic cleansing" - free reign? It's disgusting. You are not a moral actor. It is, in few words, simply shameful.
Genocidal speech is violent, threatening action. The end-game of this ideology is the violent & systematic killings of "undesirables".
Let's see. BLM is advocating for equality and justice reform, and the alt-right and Nazis are advocating for shit like this:
What do you think...
radios shipping overview
Member
People are afraid of their own internalized racism being outed at some point. They're worried that they'll be the next to get a knuckle sandwich. So they let their own tendencies fester while they concern troll and speak up in the name of free speech. Meanwhile, they could be acknowledging and confronting the inherent biases they grew up with and dealing with them openly, but they think doing that will make them vulnerable.
Prototype Viktor
Member
Subconscious racism isn't a thing. Not anymore and hasn't been since 4,000 years ago at least
Discomfort. They'd have to take a side. And they know on some level that they do have privilege that others do not based on their skin color and/or birth. And they are afraid to have to face that.They desperately search for a middle ground which doesn't exist, so they don't have to do anything more that spout both sides bullshit. Its just worse to me on some level that you're perfectly willing to stand aside idly while clearly hateful people try to do evil things to people that arent like them.
White people who think they are criical/skeptical and don't think they are racists and white moderates who don't speak up about injustices because of how inconvenient are also to blame.
So the problem isn't white people.
It's white conservatives.
Prototype Viktor
Member
We'll erect a statue of her and place it all over Interstate 10
in the road of course
if your legitimately asking, she was some old lady who died on the highway BLM were blocking. i guess she became some sort of symbol for white folk of how black people were inconveniencing people. Basically they were using her as a rallying cry for black people to sit in the corner and not protest
Nana Ruth is fictional.
A Nazi ran over and killed people with their car.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I'm all for BLM protesting.
But thanks for referring to the question I've never been asked!
They also bring fire arms to protests. Which they fire at people openly and with minimal consequences.
They also fatally stab multiple people on trains in Portland.