7DollarHagane
Banned
This is only true when the holders of power are altruistic.
What if there was no first amendment and Richard Spencer was the one deciding what hate speech was defined as?
-
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.
considering opposition to feminism, black lives matter, LBGT rights, as just differen
- Thread starter Crossing Eden
- Start date
- Status
This is only true when the holders of power are altruistic.
What if there was no first amendment and Richard Spencer was the one deciding what hate speech was defined as?
TestOfTide
Banned
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
That's Nazis for ya. They do and say whatever the fuck they want until they actually face consequences in response. In this case he faced the consequence of getting punched in the face as her deserved to have happen to him.
Hopefully this becoming a meme also encourages more people to stop respecting the Alt-Right. The reason he's afraid of it becoming a meme isn't simply because "oh no I'm the laughing stock of the internet", but more "fuck now every time I say this shit in public someone else will want to beat the shit out of me because my ass getting beat has become memetic".
You say that we're underestimating things when A.) We literally just had a government takeover by white supremacists and Nazis, and B.) People on GAF, and in this very thread, dismiss hate as just a harmless difference in opinion. It isn't just the numbers, it's the apathy by people who should know better and be better.
Also, the Nazi is afraid of espousing his views publicly? Good. A punch did what fucking talks have obviously failed to do.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Then people would fight like we are now.
This idea that you can't or shouldn't fight to change something that's been decided is spineless and ignores how progress has been made throughout history.
Darryl M R
Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
My late grandfather would be proud
This would only be valid if "hate" was equivalent to "against the system", which it would only be within a fascist regime.
In a valid democracy, hate is obvious and clear. America just allows it, to a fault.
7DollarHagane
Banned
The government was taken over by Nazis and white supremacists? Is this now taken as fact?
TumblingHippo
Member
Friends from other countries are baffled by how the USA often lets people think that hate speech is a human right.
I used to be one of those kinds that thought "if all speech is protected than the good speech will always be protected" but naw, that isn't how it's been at all.
Hate speech gets the protection while peaceful speech or speech about equality and love gets criminalized. Hate speech gets all the benefits of this protection and it needs to be squashed.
I used to be one of those kinds that thought "if all speech is protected than the good speech will always be protected" but naw, that isn't how it's been at all.
Hate speech gets the protection while peaceful speech or speech about equality and love gets criminalized. Hate speech gets all the benefits of this protection and it needs to be squashed.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Trump, Pence, Bannon, Sessions, Spicer
7DollarHagane
Banned
The real problem is relying on people who have been given power to decide what speech is valid and what is not. That changes with time. Simply giving everyone the freedom to speak and decide for themselves what to accept or reject isn't subject to the whims of those who are given power.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
But nobody's saying he should be shot in the head so why are you even trying to take the argument and put it there? I've had to ask why you guys keep going down this slide and racing back up the ladder to wheeeeeeee your way back down it again at least three times in this thread now.
I know you've seen the questions I've asked prior. They apply to you too.
Just because you grew up in a rural area and managed to escape doesn't make your devil's advocacy any more righteous or well-thought-out. Not in the current climate or context.
There's a general inability to appreciate the differences in weight regarding both opinions and actions in this thread, which is part of the problem at its core. Nazi beliefs don't carry the same weight as basic fiscal conservatism. Punches aren't the same as gunshots. They don't hold equivalence in any other aspect but in this devil's advocacy you're pushing that serves no real benefit.
Trump's announcement of candidacy speech commenced by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers.
A year and a half later(ish) Steve fucking Bannon heads his transition team.
There is much more along that road, but is this not obvious enough? The White House now officially prioritizes the rights of whites over non-whites. Not just systemically, like it used to. It's fucking official.
If you disagree, please tell and show me why this isn't the case.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Then the people would rise up and once again show that that isn't acceptable in anyway shape or form. Not to mention, the two situations are not equal. A world devoid of hate speech is objectively better than a world that allows hate speech.
This is a great point, moderates are ALWAYS concerned solely about the protection of hate speech yet also complain when liberals protest.
It is by anyone looking at the politics of the people involved. Just because white supremacists wear suits doesn't mean they aren't white supremacists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
But they're gonna come back even stronger!!!!!!!!! Not if we take action ourselves to keep fucking them up at every turn to make it known that their ideology is unacceptable. Resist them, don't enable them.
Gotdatmoney
Member
I think most people grasp we can't go out and punch or beat the living shit out of anyone who says shit we think is vile. But like, I don't feel bad this guy got punched. I wouldn't feel bad if he got punch 50 more times because he is human trash supporting view points that lead to the deaths of millions of people. Asking whether the world really needs the black race. I don't sympathize with him, I wont even entertain the slippery slope argument like what he is saying is not obviously racist, dangerous and inherently threatening. He was threatening people with ideals and rhetoric and now that he got punched in his stupid face he is all scared about people threatening him. Because that's how cowards act, talk big but the first sign of retaliation frightens them.
I don't buy the idea that we are suddenly losing our way because we don't care a Nazi got his shit kicked in. We have law and order and the person that punched him will be properly dealt with for assaulting an individual. We don't tolerate vigilantes, but that doesn't mean we aren't all thinking "this fucker honestly deserved to be punched for this bullshit :/"
I don't fear some loss of humanity because of that.
I don't buy the idea that we are suddenly losing our way because we don't care a Nazi got his shit kicked in. We have law and order and the person that punched him will be properly dealt with for assaulting an individual. We don't tolerate vigilantes, but that doesn't mean we aren't all thinking "this fucker honestly deserved to be punched for this bullshit :/"
I don't fear some loss of humanity because of that.
Not disputing this, but can you give an example?
If a KKK rally were to be held in Canada, it would be shut down if it became broadcasted to police.
Is that okay? Yes or no?
And this "who decides what is okay" middle of the road shit isn't valid. Again, any speech that seeks to deny the rights of anyone else is hate speech. That, at least, should be factual.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Exactly. As was said by someone more salient than me, tolerance is not an untouchable moral standard; it's a social contract that, when broken, should lead to consequences up to and including declared war. Nazis breach this particular social contract automatically by being intolerant to anyone who isn't a straight white person. A punch in the face is the least these shitstains deserve.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
Heh. Results!
Say shit. Get hit.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
B-b-b-but punching him isn't going to have any effect! It will just get him sympathy!
Nah, it didn't get him sympathy, it got millions laughing and pointing at the Nazi getting his bell rung, and it scared this douchecanoe from being so willing to publicly speak about the execution of other races the way he was.
It had the exact opposite effect of all the pearl clutchers predictions. The more of these clowns that end up swallowing their teeth the better.
But he said criminalized. Or is he just using that to mean criticized?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
bubububu
Do the world a solid, punch a nazi today.
Not adressed to me, but might as well answer it.
I'm Polish and have relatives who lived through WW2. My grandma told me countless stories of Gestapo coming to their house and beating her father to a bloody pulp, because they suspected her brothers were hiding in the woods and fighting as partisans [and they were]. I've been educated on the topic of the Holocaust in school, I've listened to the survivors of the death marches, I've been to numerous death camps, as here in Poland you're never too far away from one.
By all means, I am more aware of dangers posed by nazism than 99% of Americans.
And I still wouldn't have punched that piece of shit. I'm baffled at the response to it. You gave a fucking neo-nazi an opportunity to play a victim. And not an imaginary stance, where they spin their rhetoric about fall of white civilization, but a genuine assault.
You're not gonna get less Nazis. Quite the opposite, you will see them emboldened. They love violence, it's their favourite tool.
And I don't want violence to become a part of political discourse in any way however small. I don't want anyone to hijack the tragedy suffered by the generation of my grandparents and use it to legitimize beating someone up, even if that person is grade A scumbag. I don't want it, because we don't have to resort to this.
You're not fucking Indiana Jones, you're not living in the '30 Germany, you're not living in the times of war. There are so many ways you can resist such idealogy, so many ways you can speak against and supress it. Why in modern democracy celebrate the most crude of them all?
There is no reality where America is in danger of becoming Third Reich. Not even close.
Anyway... I don't intend to debate, just wanted to say how I feel about it.
Of course! Check out the book it came from, The Open Society and Its Enemies
This is more or less explained in the full quote:
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. 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."
Bobby Roberts
Banned
And he can try playing it.
It's up to you whether you want to entertain his victimhood alongside (or even at the expense of) people who will be (and already are) victimized by his friends in government.
You don't have to.
Do you think he's a victim?
I mean, I wouldn't have rushed up and suckered him either. I'd have probably been the smartass asking about hipsters or whatever, if we're role-playing people in the video. But again: I'm confused as to why the lack of sympathy for this neo-nazi getting hit in the head is so alarming to people, as much if not moreso, than the fact he and his friends are occupying the White House.
It's a strange misplacement of concern, from my standpoint. You don't have to say "I'd have hit him too" or "they should all get sucker-punched as soon as they step out in public" in order to watch this piece of shit get memed and say "good."
Chie Satonaka
Member
I don't think you understand how systemic and institutionalized racism works. and I think statements like this are the some of the biggest roadblocks to progress in this country.
Moderates strike again!
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Man someone should dig up the graves of all those WW2 soldiers and tell them that they had it wrong all along and should've just talked to the nazis.
He was perpetuating hate. And at some point, yes we do.
Because read above, he's now afraid, that's a good thing, a nazi is afraid to spread nazism and has been humiliated and turned into a laughing stock. no one's hijacking the tragedy.
Look at the history of Trump's cabinet and current law proposals.
Black Americans have lived under the oppression of violent white supremacy since before Nazi's were even a thing. We still do to this day. You may disagree, but the use of nazi is a conflation with the term white supremacy. That is what Richard Spencer was punched for. White Supremacy.Which is a thing in America today, and has been a thing in America for centuries
This line of logic is getting really old. It's full of holes. It assumes Nazis are the majority and somehow more powerful and influential than everyone else who would come out against them.
LudicrousSpeed
Member
Look at how police treat Black Lives Matter protests. There's a long history of police basically treating those protests as an excuse to bust some skulls, firing tear gas and flashbangs at peaceful protestors.
You could say "police are just bad at their jobs", but they don't seem to have the same problems when dealing with groups that are mostly white.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Who cares if he plays victim? I didn't punch him, I don't care whether he feels targeted by the world because one dude punched him in the face and we are laughing at him.
When the school yard bully who probes and probes and pushes around people on the playground finally gets his face beaten in, are the other kids really concerned with how he feels? Do they really care that it's wrong to punch someone so much so that they sympathize as opposed to simply stating, "I wouldn't have done it but this guy had it coming?"
Because that is literally all this is. It's nothing complex like all of you are making it.
7DollarHagane
Banned
If the cost for keeping that power away from people like Rodrigo duterte is having to protest when the KKK crawl out from under their rock, I think we should take it.
When people say that punching nazis let's them play the victim, who exactly are they meant to be playing the victim to? Other than other nazis, who is this hypothetical non-nazi person that sees a nazi get hit and immediately says, "Oh that poor nazi. I thought they were pretty bad before but if people are going around hitting them I guess we should kill all the Jews"?
Chie Satonaka
Member
Said it before, I'll say it again:
The Right has weaponized the Left's "tolerance at any cost" moronic rhetoric, and now we have Nazis walking around in the street being Nazis.
Spencer should be terrified to go out in public.
Apparently, there were just legions of people who were just one step from becoming Nazis, and watching one of them being punched was the last straw.
The Right has weaponized the Left's "tolerance at any cost" moronic rhetoric, and now we have Nazis walking around in the street being Nazis.
Spencer should be terrified to go out in public.
Apparently, there were just legions of people who were just one step from becoming Nazis, and watching one of them being punched was the last straw.
You don't live in Weimar Republic, where violence was a part of poltical discourse long before Nazis came about. You live in a modern, democratic society where you have a choice, where you have other options to resist them.
As for the rest of your strawman argument. Meh. I've lost family to the Germans. I honor their sacrifice every day of my life. I hope I never have to lower myself to the level of those who killed them.
Again, just my opinion. Feel however you want about it. I'm not American, just a Polish guy watching this from the other side of the ocean.
How About No
Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
Looks like punching Nazis does, in fact, work.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Looks like the "you could have saved him with words but instead you lost him with violence" side of the argument has its first celebrity spokesman in Sarah Silverman.
Which is disappointing.
Spencer getting sucker-punched in the middle of an interview doesn't invalidate, or eliminate, those other options, which are still in use by the majority of people attempting to combat the fascist element taking over our government. It's not an either or. It's people who are using other options, exercising their choice not to sucker-punch nazis on live television, seeing someone hit Richard Spencer in the face and being okay with it.
I think it's just as unlikely that people who weren't inclined to sock up neo-nazis on the street are suddenly going to do so because they saw a meme on twitter, as it is Nazi ranks are going to swell in response to the "victimization" of Richard Spencer.
Which is disappointing.
Spencer getting sucker-punched in the middle of an interview doesn't invalidate, or eliminate, those other options, which are still in use by the majority of people attempting to combat the fascist element taking over our government. It's not an either or. It's people who are using other options, exercising their choice not to sucker-punch nazis on live television, seeing someone hit Richard Spencer in the face and being okay with it.
I think it's just as unlikely that people who weren't inclined to sock up neo-nazis on the street are suddenly going to do so because they saw a meme on twitter, as it is Nazi ranks are going to swell in response to the "victimization" of Richard Spencer.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Then why are you so confident America can't go down the same path?
Violence has always been part of political discourse in the US, it was just one-sided. Fighting back isn't inherently bad.
There arguably IS a reasonable enough perspective that is critical (maybe not necessarily opposed, but critical) of BLM, post-modern Feminism, etc.
It might sound a bit like this:
"While basic human rights and an end to systemic oppression is important, I have family members who are police and contribute lots of positivity to the community. They are not racist and question authority and are striving to make policing more compassionate and have been for years and years, not just as a reaction to BLM. Also, just because you are a person of color who is a BLM activist and feminist doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to being a more ethical person than me. Your life does not matter simply for being black, it depends on your character. You can be a woman and person of color advocating for those things and still be a terrible person."
And so on. Things like that could probably be seen as legitimate points.
Fucking off anyone who critiques the social justice movements as though they are a nazi isn't productive. It's simplistic and doesn't require any skill or nuanced understanding of psychology or the complex events that can shape human perspective. Obviously someone who speaks with alt reich rhetoric when disagreeing with post modern social justice is a piece of shit, but you also have to take into consideration that not everyone in poor rural communities is a bigot, and they don't see themselves as privileged either (and they might be right).
An argument could potentially be made that some who advocate social justice are not inclusive enough and are quick to be judgmental and discredit someone's humanity simply because they say one thing that sounds like a disagreement.
From what I can tell, much of the conflict stems from there still being a debate between rural communities and cosmo/college towns/ etc over how to define racism, sexism, privilege. It's possible that it's not because rural peeps are backwards hicks as much as it has to do with fighting racism in a different style (more connected to christian morals, or wanting to exist in a transparent community, lack of cultural awareness, feeling like your culture/way of life of being a waspy, conservative, country person is under attack, etc).
Of course, there are also plenty of culturally backwards rednecks too, lol, but you have to remember that not everyone who has a disagreement w/ the social justice movement is one, or a nazi. I'd imagine that to them, hearing about microagressions being a form of oppression (for example) is like listening to someone whine about trivial things. There isn't as much of a holistic understanding that something like that stems from an esoteric, systematic form of inequality because they don't see it where they live.
And, as we learned in this election, people like that are EVERYWHERE and the electoral college can work in their favor. Maybe the best way to fight oppression for now is to have conversations with reasonable Trump supporters about why they voted for him and to make an effort to reach understandings and show them why/how their position is harmful instead of responding in a way that they interpret to be hostile, like shoving a dog's nose in shit. As tiring as it is to take on the role of educator so much (I feel for the POC who are STILL being put in a position of having to explain why their culture matters. It's 2017), it's important to remember that right now we are dealing with a large, fragile population of the country who can still effect the outcome of elections.
It might sound a bit like this:
"While basic human rights and an end to systemic oppression is important, I have family members who are police and contribute lots of positivity to the community. They are not racist and question authority and are striving to make policing more compassionate and have been for years and years, not just as a reaction to BLM. Also, just because you are a person of color who is a BLM activist and feminist doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to being a more ethical person than me. Your life does not matter simply for being black, it depends on your character. You can be a woman and person of color advocating for those things and still be a terrible person."
And so on. Things like that could probably be seen as legitimate points.
Fucking off anyone who critiques the social justice movements as though they are a nazi isn't productive. It's simplistic and doesn't require any skill or nuanced understanding of psychology or the complex events that can shape human perspective. Obviously someone who speaks with alt reich rhetoric when disagreeing with post modern social justice is a piece of shit, but you also have to take into consideration that not everyone in poor rural communities is a bigot, and they don't see themselves as privileged either (and they might be right).
An argument could potentially be made that some who advocate social justice are not inclusive enough and are quick to be judgmental and discredit someone's humanity simply because they say one thing that sounds like a disagreement.
From what I can tell, much of the conflict stems from there still being a debate between rural communities and cosmo/college towns/ etc over how to define racism, sexism, privilege. It's possible that it's not because rural peeps are backwards hicks as much as it has to do with fighting racism in a different style (more connected to christian morals, or wanting to exist in a transparent community, lack of cultural awareness, feeling like your culture/way of life of being a waspy, conservative, country person is under attack, etc).
Of course, there are also plenty of culturally backwards rednecks too, lol, but you have to remember that not everyone who has a disagreement w/ the social justice movement is one, or a nazi. I'd imagine that to them, hearing about microagressions being a form of oppression (for example) is like listening to someone whine about trivial things. There isn't as much of a holistic understanding that something like that stems from an esoteric, systematic form of inequality because they don't see it where they live.
And, as we learned in this election, people like that are EVERYWHERE and the electoral college can work in their favor. Maybe the best way to fight oppression for now is to have conversations with reasonable Trump supporters about why they voted for him and to make an effort to reach understandings and show them why/how their position is harmful instead of responding in a way that they interpret to be hostile, like shoving a dog's nose in shit. As tiring as it is to take on the role of educator so much (I feel for the POC who are STILL being put in a position of having to explain why their culture matters. It's 2017), it's important to remember that right now we are dealing with a large, fragile population of the country who can still effect the outcome of elections.
Also this. White supremacy as it's been practiced in America is not a Nazi-like phenomenon in that it flared up due to a multitude of worst-case political scenarios before being defeated in a war and relegated to fringe thinking afterwards. It is one of the defining ideals on which America always has been and continues to operate on. Our normal citizens protect its existence and propagation on the basis of trying to uphold intangible ideals no matter who Nazis physically hurt in the process.
BLM: "We would like our lives to be treated equally as the rest"
You: "Well there are some legitimate arguments against that"
Gotdatmoney
Member
This isn't a reasonable opposition to BLM. This is a fallacy built up to paint BLM as whiners. You'll have to do better man.
Yahoo becomes astonished as Tumblr becomes relevant...
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I think you should reread this and consider if it seems like you are sympathetic toward minority causes or not
EdibleKnife
Member
BLM is not about eliminating police. So bringing up a critique about how someone has a cop in the family that is good people means nothing in the grand scheme of the movement. And the lives of black people do matter because they are human like every other human. Claiming that is not a challenge of being more ethical or seeking entitlement. Neither does stating that Black Lives Matter absolve any actual criminal of reasonable punishment for their crimes nor does it deny that black people are more holy than white people. This is not a legitimate argument because it fundamentally misses the point of who BLM is for and why it exists. Same with the dig at feminism. Women are entitled to their bodies and experiences because they are people. Yet this entire "legitimate argument" ignores that these movements ONLY exist because of active and dangerous discrimination and abuse of these groups in the physical and civil arena.
I'm sorry if I missed it, but how does that in any way counter what I said?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked