But they are objectively wrong so...
Tbh, I don't consider these issues less extreme. They're all symptomatic of hate, intolerance and a lack of empathy.
-
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.
Trump press conference: Alt-left, Robert E. Lee = Washington, #NotAllAltRight
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
But they are objectively wrong so...
Tbh, I don't consider these issues less extreme. They're all symptomatic of hate, intolerance and a lack of empathy.
I mean really. There are things to seriously debate with conservatives...when it comes basic human rights they do nothing but hold back the potential of humans. Full stop.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Is this going to be the new thing?
GOP: "Look. If you let us have everything we want, then maaaayyyybbbeeee we'll do something about the Nazis."
GOP: "Look. If you let us have everything we want, then maaaayyyybbbeeee we'll do something about the Nazis."
In politics we have reached a point where the conservative party has given us Trump, the Tea Party, and is farther right than it has ever been. Reasonable conservatism is non-existant in our current political climate, and if you cannot recognize that you have not been paying attention and you are exactly the type of uninformed self-proclaimed "moderate" that Finale Firework painted you as.
Don't pretend that the Dems haven't tried reasonable compromise numerous times over the last decade.
But they feel uncomfortable around people that are different, and what if I need to shoot like a hundred of them? Also god is law, so ladies, get in the back.
Lol that is sure as fuck what this argument sounds like.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
What "new thing", they've been doing this shit forever. "Just let US control the USA and we'll fix everything and make it right for everybody.... that is rich and white and Christian. Everybody else, boostraps bitches!"
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
I know that.
Just looking ahead is all.
Knowing Republican lawmakers, they're figuring out how to craft bills that curb hate speech, but also require abortion clinics to shut down.
CountAntonius
Member
The Cash family is awesome.
Beautiful
Nazies hijacking "freedom of speech" is quite telling.
Anyone who identifies as "ISIS-aligned" would be arrested, immediately, for supporting terrorism. I don't think it matters how watered down their message is. The same should be true of nazis and white supremacists. They should be treated by our government the same way an ISIS sympathizer would be treated....as a terrorist, stripped of their rights, and thrown in jail.
I agree these nazis feel emboldened because they feel protected by their government. That needs to change. They need to fear making their beliefs known. They need to fear posting their hateful shit online from behind keyboards. They need to fear assembling together. They need to believe that at any moment, the FBI could bust their door down and arrest them. Only through absolute rejection of these beliefs at all levels of our government and society will we be able to rid ourselves of this filth.
thecouncil
Banned
lol. this is what i was trying to get at earlier. like, ok? take down that other statue if you need to?
i only see the left suggesting that Confederate statues are taken down while the right, in retaliation for some reason, has suggested removing statues of civil rights leaders and former Presidents. and then they complain about slippery slopes.
Certain groups human rights are not bargaining chips. That is some privileged shit even suggest that
What would that comprise be like "You won't get health care women, but you can get 25% off at any CVS for food items"
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
How true is this though? There are people who could be considered sympathizers of IS that may be under surveillance but are free.
Apparently it needs to be reiterated to "decisions" that this isn't supposed to be a debate, and is not a matter of political rhetoric. It's goddamned Nazis. One "side" wants to wipe away entire populations for no rational reason. That's not something that's supposed to be difficult for moderate conservatives or any other decent human being to immediately and vehemently oppose. It's not a bill beong talked out on the floor where compromise is expected. There is no compromise with that mindset and it's something that ought to be wholly separate from the other examples you mentioned.
If you need to make compromises to get someone to get on board with decrying Nazis, then something is already fundamentally wrong with that person. This isn't policy. This isn't politics. This is humanity, for fuck's sake.
If you need to make compromises to get someone to get on board with decrying Nazis, then something is already fundamentally wrong with that person. This isn't policy. This isn't politics. This is humanity, for fuck's sake.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Imagine Trump making a statement like that, or having cred like that. He could never make a statement anything remotely close to that. The Cash family's statement exhibits the morality and decency that should be required of a president.
I agree, it's too far-out of a hypothetical to really even compare here.
I disagree, because I'd rather they show their faces and tell us their names so it's easier to get caught if and when they try something. What I absolutely can't tolerate is their presence in our government and law enforcement.
TheCochese
Banned
Peace in our time.
Yeah, no fucking peace for those who try to oppress, intimidate, or exterminate.
Yeah, no fucking peace for those who try to oppress, intimidate, or exterminate.
Let me clarify.
You don't see them trying to assemble in public, let alone trying to assemble armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. You don't see them posting ISIS support in open message boards, let alone having entire websites dedicated to ISIS supporters.
These people communicate via the dark-web and encrypted messaging. They are driven into the dark where it's difficult to recruit because they are terrorists. They live in fear of being arrested, and, as you say, they are likely under constant surveillance.
I think nazi's should be treated the same.
The problem is being open about it and recruiting go hand in hand. If people aren't afraid their beliefs will land them in legal jeopardy, then it's easier to recruit people. Hell, the reason the movement has grown is because they feel emboldened enough to speak openly about it. At the moment, this is beneficial to us, as it allows them to keep an eye on them as you said, as well as find out who they are. But in this fantasy world I have where they are treated equally to ISIS, that would not be an option for them. They would be scattered to the wind and driven underground. A majority of them would likely abandon their support in fear of their lives being ruined, while the die-hard supporters would be forced to live in the darkness and eat shit.
Those are not elements to compromise on. Those are issues that conservatives are fundamentally wrong about.
You are right, the fight against Nazis and hate SHOULD be bipartisan. Any reasonable conservative is already speaking out about the Nazis or white supremacists, and should, without any need to politically pander to them.
I completely agree. I would still extend that list to other violent groups which want to dismantle our society like the Black Bloc / Antifa, but there has to be a start somewhere. And Nazis are a good point to begin with.
However, we would still have to decide how open our society should be. Banning groups and thoughts outright maximizes the danger of overextending that reach, see Turkey's liberal use of the term "terrorist" to suppress free speech and to jail journalists.
It is a delicate balance... and I am in favor of declaring hate speech not being free speech. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany and it should be everywhere.
That's probably where all this is leading to.
Hope people don't mind this post being quoted for probably the thousandth time, but god damn
Isaac Otherworld
Member
I 100% agree with this. Nazis and the KKK absolutely need to be treated this way in the future if this country is going to survive.
I was wonder if they were going to touch on it
Same terror attack that happened on American soil Saturday?
Finale Fireworker
Member
This is a thoughtful post and there are some things I want to take the time to properly respond to. Much of what you say is true and I want to be clear about my intentions with the post and the philosophy I have when it comes to discussing politics in general as opposed to this particular thread.
The first thing I would like to do is clarify my use of the word moderate, which I attempted to declassify by my use of quotes around the term. The political moderate does, absolutely, exist. These people have feelings that are not entirely encapsulated by either party's platform and vote in accordance to the issue at hand versus the politicians themselves. I believe that most people actually fall in this category, although it is a separate issue that most of these people don't actually vote.
In my time as a newly woke denizen of the leftward movement, I've spoken to lots of people who clearly have beliefs that would be foolish to try to assign to polar identifiers of a spectrum. I know many "conservatives" with extremely progressive social policies. I know many "liberals" who are pro-gun (not uncommon here in Maine). This is why people identify as "independents" - they don't want their ideas to be a subscription to an ideology. They want to own their own beliefs, not borrow them from parties or figureheads. These people, true political moderates, would ideally be who most people are talking about when they are discussing the concept of centrism.
There are numerous individual issues where it's possible to take multiple perspectives and arrive at moderate conclusions. Many hot-button issues actually allow for nuanced opinions and beliefs. But others do not.
In 2017, terminology has been weaponized. Self-described "moderates" are increasingly not moderates. Their web presence is undeniable. People with clear and outspoken views trot into comment sections and online threads and attempt to give their alarming ideas an illusion of normalcy. Sometimes they go even further - you see posts on Twitter and Reddit where people say "As a black man," or "As a Democrat," or "As a woman," and then say something that only the most deeply-indoctrinated self-loathing masochist of their demographic could possibly believe.
When nationalist sympathizers, misogynists, race warriors, and people absorbed in Trump's cult of personality attempt to play the both sides angle, they are attempting to normalize and rationalize their disruptive and divisive views.
So I will admit that I am becoming frustrated with people who attempt to take a moderate position on subjects where there is no acceptable range of moderacy. The subject of this thread in particular, about the president equating actual Nazis and white supremacists with people whose collective identity amounts to opposing Nazis and white supremacists, does not allow a moderate position. You either believe people who stand against hatred are as bad as people perpetuating and perpetrating hatred or you know there is a difference.
If somebody attempts to take the "moderate" position on this subject matter, they lying to us or to themselves. They are either entirely uninformed on what actually happened or they are attempting to legitimize destructive hate movements by claiming to be something they are not: ordinary.
In a regular conversation with a regular person, political discourse is best conducted inquisitively. You should ask people questions. What do you believe? Why do you believe that? But what about this scenario, would you feel the same way? It is almost impossible to convince somebody of something by force. You must equip them to come to their own conclusion and hope you've compelled them to see what you believe by asking them questions designed to make them reflect.
An ordinary person, dare I say a moderate, responds well to this method of conversation. It lets them express themselves, unpack what they think, and answer to it in stride. Rather than be met with opposition, they are offered a sincere opportunity to express themselves. I would offer this luxury to anybody I believed was genuinely interested in conversation. This happens very rarely online.
On Twitter once, a feminist tweeted the importance of teaching the accomplishments of female scientists in schools. Somebody responded with "name one woman whose made a meaningful contribution to science." The woman named several, detailing their accomplishments and accolades. The troll responded again with "sounds like we don't need to tell people about them in schools then."
The intellectually dishonest person is not interested in having a conversation. They are interested in proving you wrong. They want to embarrass you, or upset you, and nothing you say matters to them at all. I have wasted so much energy trying to talk to these people. I did it during GamerGate, I did it during the primaries, I did it after the election, but I will not do it today. It is exhausting. It is energy wasted. I will no longer dignify the troll with my attention.
Everything I've said above does present a quandary: how do you know what somebody believes without talking to them? How do you know if they are a troll or if they are just misinformed? How do you know if somebody is open to learning something new or might have something insightful to offer you?
Truthfully, you can't. Not online. Not without trying to talk to them. And when you try, you risk enabling and validating a troll or an edgy political zealot who is now delighted to slam somebody they do not respect. After years of giving everyone a chance, and in the political climate we now live in, I cannot continue to give everybody the benefit of the doubt just to be made a fool of.
This doesn't mean I disregard everything somebody says that isn't already what I believe. Quite the contrary. I maintain that every attempt at dissent must begin with inquisition and you must be accommodating to your opponent before you can attempt to reach them. But I am incredibly discerning with how much credit I give people related to subject matter and conversational context. We are in a thread about something that is all over the board, the news, and social media. It is a firestorm that is far from extinguished and the information around anyone at any given time should be overwhelming.
So, this time, I was not welcoming to the platitude. I felt compelled, above all else, to expose them. In my experience, they were either misrepresenting themselves or were undermining the severity of the conversation from an under-read POV. Because if I'm going to engage with somebody on a conversation like this, I need to know who I'm talking to. No matter what somebody believes, I need one thing from them: sincerity.
The poster I went off on, to their credit, expressed sincerity. When faced with the challenge to admit themselves as immorally pragmatic or simply out of the loop, they confessed to their error. This is admirable. It is something it is a pleasure to see. This is a person we can talk to.
The end result of any conversation I have is rarely to make somebody see the world exactly as I do. I do not need to exactly agree with people I ally myself with. There is lots of room for disagreement and moderacy and debate within the realm of worldview and I accept that truth before I begin any conversation. But if I am going to have that conversation, I need to expect the same from my partner. I need to know they are in it to explain themselves thoughtfully and respect my response.
Conversations should end when each party has accepted a new perspective whether or not it affects their personally held opinion. I can appreciate other perspectives and even support them politically even if my own opinion is different.
But there is no room for this when it comes to white nationalism, Donald Trump, and the humanity of Americans.
I hope that this responds to your concerns in some way. I would not have responded the way I did in most other contexts. I sometimes find force appropriate. This was one of those times.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
I wish I could "favorite" posts. I need this in like a folder I can look to as reference when I need to dismantle some "both sides" fuck.
Absolute minimum effort there.
Isaac Otherworld
Member
Alex Jones went full on "The 'nazis' in Charlottesville were all a bunch of jews in disguise."
Like I know he's a hateful far right media figure, but I had no idea the guy was that much of a piece of shit and that blatant of an antisemite.
lol. this is what i was trying to get at earlier. like, ok? take down that other statue if you need to?
i only see the left suggesting that Confederate statues are taken down while the right, in retaliation for some reason, has suggested removing statues of civil rights leaders and former Presidents. and then they complain about slippery slopes.
This sooo reminds me of the argument I would hear from my own family before gay marriage was legalized.
If we let gays get married, what's next? Marriage to more than one person? Marriage to animals?!!!!
I don't think those nazis are gonna like being called Jews.
thats how you denounce. Trump could take a note or two.
In his mind, everything is a conspiracy. Nothing is sacred. No matter how irrational, illogical, or batshit insane, he will craft an excuse to blame the left, the jews, the blacks, the dems, Soros, etc...
fluffydelusions
Member
This pic is amazing. If anyone hasn't been following it's people trying to turn themselves in for bringing down that confederate statue in NC
PeakPointMatrix
Member
This pic is amazing. If anyone hasn't been following it's people trying to turn themselves in for bringing down that confederate statue in NC
Hahahaha!!! Holy shit.
That is why worrying about the term is a waste of time, it will morph into whatever they need it to be. And if not the term it would be something else
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Is that turning into a Spartacus moment?
This pic is amazing. If anyone hasn't been following it's people trying to turn themselves in for bringing down that confederate statue in NC
I'm Spartacus.
Mattlikewhoa
Member
This post is wonderful! Seriously, I needed this!
The Jackdog
Member
Something i havent understood since the term "antifa" started getting thrown around.
why is anti-facism being used as a bad thing?
why is anti-facism being used as a bad thing?
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Because you need a permit to protest Nazis threatening Jews and chanting "Blood and Soil."
Because the fascists have convinced the idiots that antifa are the real fascists.
This pic is amazing. If anyone hasn't been following it's people trying to turn themselves in for bringing down that confederate statue in NC
That's awesome.
But what happens though? Do they all get fined?
There exist some truly heinous antifa organizations but they're still not equivalent to neo-Nazis or KKK.