Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Well, that's the impression the media wants everyone to get.
They don't cover the protests where nothing gets damaged.
-
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
Well, that's the impression the media wants everyone to get.
They don't cover the protests where nothing gets damaged.
KonradLaw
Member
Yeah, but that was one guy. It's not like the entire group rioted. Plus he was a white guy, and media tend to paint those as lone psychos instead of symptom of problems of entire ethnic group.
They also tried to beat a kid to death right next to a police station with zero consequences.
That double standard is the premise of the thread.
andythinkpad
Member
I am all for BLM grassroot support and punch a Nazi, but please don't fucking block a bridge.
Ninja Scooter
Member
More violent than actual Nazis?
It's hard to talk about a double standard existing when the premise gives two vastly different scenarios.
A double standard would be if people condemned BLM blocking freeways but not white supremacists blocking freeways, or alternately if people condemned BLM for carrying tiki torches and chanting about ethnic cleansing but not white supremacists who were doing the same.
White supremacists do worse things and get off lighter though. The disparity in action is actually what's so damming.
What about the group that pepper sprayed counter protesters?
Or the group that beat an unarmed black man with metal poles?
All this took place at the same protest.
Ninja Scooter
Member
The fact that BLM are put anywhere near the same category as Fucking nazis and white supremacist should tell you all you need to know.
What do white supremacists do that is worse than blocking freeway traffic? Maybe whatever that you're talking about is a better comparison to blocking freeway traffic than carrying a tiki torch and/or chanting slogans.
Because blocking traffic gives an excuse for equivalence . Also everyone equivocally more or less denounces nazis etc . The question is are they allowed to air their viewpoints and the is has pretty strong definitions of free speech (yes I'm aware of hate speech vs free speech) but the us in general is much more tolerant constitutionally than say Germany uk etc .
So now you have two sides protesting one an inconvenient truth some ppl want to sidestep another a wrong but if the inconvenient truth ppl take it further then the ppl who don't like what they're saying respond .
Also I've always been a believer in you can't force someone to change their opinion an especially not thru violence and I'm aware some of gaf agrees with me some doesn't .
With the nazis they're walking around talking crap . so ppl are confused on how to respond . Ppl in power not condemning it in equivocally also doesn't help .
For example I'm perfectly within my rights to say something obnoxious and wrong such as I find anyone above 6 feet or under 5 5 to not e worth my time and I don't wanna associate with them . It's a stupid thing but I'm allowed to say it . The normal balance is PPl in authority will immediately condemn me but that is what's lacking currently
So now you have two sides protesting one an inconvenient truth some ppl want to sidestep another a wrong but if the inconvenient truth ppl take it further then the ppl who don't like what they're saying respond .
Also I've always been a believer in you can't force someone to change their opinion an especially not thru violence and I'm aware some of gaf agrees with me some doesn't .
With the nazis they're walking around talking crap . so ppl are confused on how to respond . Ppl in power not condemning it in equivocally also doesn't help .
For example I'm perfectly within my rights to say something obnoxious and wrong such as I find anyone above 6 feet or under 5 5 to not e worth my time and I don't wanna associate with them . It's a stupid thing but I'm allowed to say it . The normal balance is PPl in authority will immediately condemn me but that is what's lacking currently
Kill people
llien
Member
A lot of what's going on in USA is hell of a confusing to me. (e.g. "our police is corrupt, racist and filled with white supremacists").
So we have:
#1
A bunch of ultra right is parading around, chanting preposterous shit, but not formally breaking any law. (that being legal is a US thing, you can't do that in most western countries)
It is legal, but it is shit, it isn't right.
#2
They are countered with violence by ordinary citizens. That is not legal in US, Police (and sometimes Army) has exclusive rights on legal violence. (it sounds cynical, I know, but that's the way it is)
It is not right, it is illegal.
#3
BLM shuts down a freeway, which is in conflict with laws.
It is not right. it is illegal.
I think it comes down to what you think about laws and law enforcers of your country.
If laws are broken and law enforcers are corrupt, you are fighting against the system and hence:
#1 is wrong
#2 is right, it MUST happen to fix #1
#3 is right, because no other ways work
But if you don't think system is broken or police is totally corrupt, it is:
#1 is wrong
#2 is wrong
#3 is wrong
So essentially you are saying that "so called liberals" do not think system is broken or police is so corrupt.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The ideas is that there are a lot of self-proclaimed liberals who are willing to concede that the system is broken and police are corrupt, but as they themselves are not affected and feel they never will be, they are more upset by things like BLM protests than by marching, murderous Nazis.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
Lol yep.
IrishNinja
Member
imagine being so comfortable that having a freeway temporarily blocked strikes you as a high moral evil, rather than, you know, a short disruption aimed at pointing out actual atrocities
Sounds about white.
Let's all gather around to marvel at the fact a human in 2017 wrote this sentence.
Big Baybee
Member
It's just another day on the internet.
Chuckie
Member
This shit is not funny. Stop playing dumb and say what you wanna say.
Edit: Glad you got banned. I had started to write a screed about how gross it was that you were getting off with a sassy tag.
Wow.
This post needs to be enshrined as some of the dumbest words ever written on Gaf.
I can't fathom how blind you would need to be to make this even slightly genuine.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
People trying to play dumb about how harmful white supremacy is really can't feign ignorance anymore. The internet exists, there's hours worth of researchable documents and this thing called common sense that would tell you that white supremacy is absolutely not some benign thing where people are just saying mean chants, it's a violent movement.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
toastyToast
Member
There is no right way for black people to protest
Holy shit. My man MLK wasn't just ahead of his time, but also ours FFSBecause of this:
I feel like there's something people aren't really talking about, and I'm not really sure how to articulate it properly? It's easy to just go "well, this is racism," but I also think there's a particular element that people aren't really talking about?
So, the base assumption about the apologist types is that they're okay with supporting bigotry. It's why people are like "they're really just racists," or whatever, but I think that's inaccurate.
I live in Kansas. No shortage of homophobia here. But the Westboro Baptist Church wasn't really tolerated, despite having views that are, to some degree, shared by other people. All things being equal, you'd expect that not to be the case. You'd expect them to have loads of apologists. But they didn't.
And I think that's because there's... a different factor at play here, that isn't examined for a whole host of reasons?
I grew up in a conservative community. Most of the communities I have lived in over the years lean conservative. Many of them are heavily populated by people with ancestry in England or Scandinavia. And there's a degree of "keep to yourself-ism" that goes on in these communities and families (I'm not saying they reflect those locations as they are now; a lot of this is descended from people who left those countries in the 1800s). I can see it reflected every Thanksgiving when the ~100+ members of my family get together to celebrate.
But there's this big... sense of not rocking the boat? Not disrupting things As They Are? And it kind of overrides a lot of rational response to things. Family not talking about That One Thing That Happened, refusing to seek psychiatric help and just trying to tough it out instead, stuff like that.
In these communities, there are just certain things you just don't do, things that disrupt life, even when there's seedy shit going on underneath it all. Hell, something weird happened in my house before we bought it, and my parents refuse to find out what it was because they're worried that might change things somehow. There are certain topics that get people to change the subject fast. There's a big thread of "that has nothing to do with us," of minding one's own business (and then, of course, lots of gossip about it at potluck on Sundays). Stuff like that.
So when you have people smashing windows or confronting police, or challenging the status quo in some way, or blocking roads, there's a push back. There's a desire to pretend nothing bad is happening.
I think it's something you see reflected somewhat in shows like Twin Peaks, which is all about a seemingly idyllic town actually having some seedy underbelly. Sometimes, like with Hot Fuzz, it's played for laughs. It's an exaggerated take on this whole "let's pretend nothing bad happened, and anyone who rocks the boat is a bad person" psychology.
I think it's about tangibility. When someone does something concrete, like breaking windows, that's a tangible, negative effect. It's perceived as being a lot more impactful than, say, racists doing their dog whistle shit.
Obviously that's not true. The racists are doing something far worse than breaking windows. Disrupting traffic is tangible. It's perceived as disrespectful/rude/rocking the boat. Saying the fourteen words, to that same kind of uncritical mind, is just someone having an opinion. It's not seen as disruptive, even though it leads to things which are far, far worse.
If it was as simple as racism, we'd see people like the Westboro Church members have the same kind of defense. We don't. So I don't think we can chalk it up to being exclusively based in racism. What we see, time and time again, is that a lot of white communities really just don't like people rockin the boat.
I'm not trying to say "you're all wrong, I'm right," just that I think this is a factor people don't consider in these discussions, and even if we somehow managed to get everyone agreeing, 100%, that racism is wrong, people would still respond negatively towards the tactics employed because it violates cultural norms.
What you'll find is a lot of people saying "everyone's entitled to their opinion/i wouldn't complain about BLM if they didn't get into fights all the time." There's a perception that violence and destruction is the bad thing. Therefore, nazis marching around saying that other people should die is seen as "it's reprehensible but it's okay," while antifa showing up and punching people in the face or anarchists smashing cars in portland or what have you is "they're awful people, causing so much destruction."
I personally don't have any kind of statistics about meetings from any of these groups, so I don't know if nazis are inherently more or less violent than BLM. It'd be interesting data to see, but my gut instinct is that BLM is nowhere near as violent, and the media's just a bunch of assholes, distorting truth for clicks.
The actual effect of what the nazis want is worse, but there's a deeply-rooted belief that people can believe whatever they want, and interfering with expression is what's the moral wrong. So violently interfering with someone's expression or ability to get to work on time is perceived as wrong, while protecting someone's thoughts, no matter how offensive (look at the left's defense of the cross covered in piss or the dude who got a government grant for doing horrifying artwork with knives and dicks), is seen as protecting liberty, and therefore an inherent moral good.
The biggest problem with American psychology, I think, is that it remembered the liberty part of the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause, but forgot the other two. People have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness. People using their liberty to negatively impact other lives and the pursuit of happiness? That shit shouldn't fly. Fuck the nazis.
So, the base assumption about the apologist types is that they're okay with supporting bigotry. It's why people are like "they're really just racists," or whatever, but I think that's inaccurate.
I live in Kansas. No shortage of homophobia here. But the Westboro Baptist Church wasn't really tolerated, despite having views that are, to some degree, shared by other people. All things being equal, you'd expect that not to be the case. You'd expect them to have loads of apologists. But they didn't.
And I think that's because there's... a different factor at play here, that isn't examined for a whole host of reasons?
I grew up in a conservative community. Most of the communities I have lived in over the years lean conservative. Many of them are heavily populated by people with ancestry in England or Scandinavia. And there's a degree of "keep to yourself-ism" that goes on in these communities and families (I'm not saying they reflect those locations as they are now; a lot of this is descended from people who left those countries in the 1800s). I can see it reflected every Thanksgiving when the ~100+ members of my family get together to celebrate.
But there's this big... sense of not rocking the boat? Not disrupting things As They Are? And it kind of overrides a lot of rational response to things. Family not talking about That One Thing That Happened, refusing to seek psychiatric help and just trying to tough it out instead, stuff like that.
In these communities, there are just certain things you just don't do, things that disrupt life, even when there's seedy shit going on underneath it all. Hell, something weird happened in my house before we bought it, and my parents refuse to find out what it was because they're worried that might change things somehow. There are certain topics that get people to change the subject fast. There's a big thread of "that has nothing to do with us," of minding one's own business (and then, of course, lots of gossip about it at potluck on Sundays). Stuff like that.
So when you have people smashing windows or confronting police, or challenging the status quo in some way, or blocking roads, there's a push back. There's a desire to pretend nothing bad is happening.
I think it's something you see reflected somewhat in shows like Twin Peaks, which is all about a seemingly idyllic town actually having some seedy underbelly. Sometimes, like with Hot Fuzz, it's played for laughs. It's an exaggerated take on this whole "let's pretend nothing bad happened, and anyone who rocks the boat is a bad person" psychology.
I think it's about tangibility. When someone does something concrete, like breaking windows, that's a tangible, negative effect. It's perceived as being a lot more impactful than, say, racists doing their dog whistle shit.
Obviously that's not true. The racists are doing something far worse than breaking windows. Disrupting traffic is tangible. It's perceived as disrespectful/rude/rocking the boat. Saying the fourteen words, to that same kind of uncritical mind, is just someone having an opinion. It's not seen as disruptive, even though it leads to things which are far, far worse.
If it was as simple as racism, we'd see people like the Westboro Church members have the same kind of defense. We don't. So I don't think we can chalk it up to being exclusively based in racism. What we see, time and time again, is that a lot of white communities really just don't like people rockin the boat.
I'm not trying to say "you're all wrong, I'm right," just that I think this is a factor people don't consider in these discussions, and even if we somehow managed to get everyone agreeing, 100%, that racism is wrong, people would still respond negatively towards the tactics employed because it violates cultural norms.
What you'll find is a lot of people saying "everyone's entitled to their opinion/i wouldn't complain about BLM if they didn't get into fights all the time." There's a perception that violence and destruction is the bad thing. Therefore, nazis marching around saying that other people should die is seen as "it's reprehensible but it's okay," while antifa showing up and punching people in the face or anarchists smashing cars in portland or what have you is "they're awful people, causing so much destruction."
I personally don't have any kind of statistics about meetings from any of these groups, so I don't know if nazis are inherently more or less violent than BLM. It'd be interesting data to see, but my gut instinct is that BLM is nowhere near as violent, and the media's just a bunch of assholes, distorting truth for clicks.
The actual effect of what the nazis want is worse, but there's a deeply-rooted belief that people can believe whatever they want, and interfering with expression is what's the moral wrong. So violently interfering with someone's expression or ability to get to work on time is perceived as wrong, while protecting someone's thoughts, no matter how offensive (look at the left's defense of the cross covered in piss or the dude who got a government grant for doing horrifying artwork with knives and dicks), is seen as protecting liberty, and therefore an inherent moral good.
The biggest problem with American psychology, I think, is that it remembered the liberty part of the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause, but forgot the other two. People have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness. People using their liberty to negatively impact other lives and the pursuit of happiness? That shit shouldn't fly. Fuck the nazis.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I think people block high ways is a dick move. That said if no ones life in danger and the cause is just, who gives a shit. Then I'm in Europe and I have job security.
I think BLM have every right to demand reform and should do what they need to to gain attention. We can all agree a protest at a library is dumb, but a highway will get you more attention.
I can understand that frustrations of the people on the highway. The US workplace is not the same in Europe. If I'm delayed once or twice in Europe, no biggie. It's not considered a legal reason to fire someone. In the US in a lot of states it is. So you can be fired for pretty much no reason.
Really for the people on the highway it comes down to, does your protest have greater importance then my livelihood? I think in this case, yes. The amount of cops who get away with murdering black people for the flimsiest reasons, evidence and justification is astounding.
The point of a protest like this is not to hurt you. If it does, then I'm sure someone at some point will say sorry, but lives are being lost. If you don't like the highway being blocked then get on board, pick up a sign and support us.
The real problem is the people on the highway aren't who you want to join. It's the people at home watching the news. The problem with that (and how i'm bring it back to OP's question) is that the Media has in my opinion and instituionalised system of racism, just not in the way you think. The News has no unbiased regulatory body. It is free to manipulate a story any way it see's to profit from it. Either in ratings or adds, or even politics. When there is no regulation of the News media, then the people running the show, mainly a bunch of crusty old white dudes with less than modern views on race, can do whatever they want.
That's the problem in the USA. Everyone wants freedom, even corporations.
I think BLM have every right to demand reform and should do what they need to to gain attention. We can all agree a protest at a library is dumb, but a highway will get you more attention.
I can understand that frustrations of the people on the highway. The US workplace is not the same in Europe. If I'm delayed once or twice in Europe, no biggie. It's not considered a legal reason to fire someone. In the US in a lot of states it is. So you can be fired for pretty much no reason.
Really for the people on the highway it comes down to, does your protest have greater importance then my livelihood? I think in this case, yes. The amount of cops who get away with murdering black people for the flimsiest reasons, evidence and justification is astounding.
The point of a protest like this is not to hurt you. If it does, then I'm sure someone at some point will say sorry, but lives are being lost. If you don't like the highway being blocked then get on board, pick up a sign and support us.
The real problem is the people on the highway aren't who you want to join. It's the people at home watching the news. The problem with that (and how i'm bring it back to OP's question) is that the Media has in my opinion and instituionalised system of racism, just not in the way you think. The News has no unbiased regulatory body. It is free to manipulate a story any way it see's to profit from it. Either in ratings or adds, or even politics. When there is no regulation of the News media, then the people running the show, mainly a bunch of crusty old white dudes with less than modern views on race, can do whatever they want.
That's the problem in the USA. Everyone wants freedom, even corporations.
excelsiorlef
Member
WBC is a really bad example to hinge your observation on. They don't just preach anti gay stuff, they also go on disrupt funerals of US soldiers among others. Plenty of homophobic groups that aren't as out there do in fact get support purely on the basis of being anti-gay.
Also it's always tricky invoking homophobia when talking about racism because white people can be gay, white families can have gay children... etc...
And white people not wanting the boat to be rocked goes part and parcel with racism.
astroturfing
Member
ummm what the fuck at that post... i'm actually getting angry. thats about as racist as one can get...
GhostTrick
Banned
Because when you dig a little bit, you'll see that some of these people are sharing more with the one they give a pass than the oness they condemn.
Basically: Hypocrisy.
Basically: Hypocrisy.
Sometimes it's not the same people saying both things (not saying there aren't any hypocrites that do do that).
I for one don't think violence should be the answer to a conflict. Even if the opponent is a neo nazi. Of course violence should be used as self defence, but not as an aggressor.
Of course some people like to pretend that todays Nazis are the same as the ones during WW2. "We defeated them with violence before, so why shouldn't we do it now?" Maybe because it's not the same situation in the slightest.
The really dangerous racists and white supremacist arent the ones wearing swastikas and white hoods (not saying those aren' tdangerous too), those are the stupid ones because they made themselves visible. The really dangerous are the ones wearing suits amd silently inacting their hateful believes.
I for one don't think violence should be the answer to a conflict. Even if the opponent is a neo nazi. Of course violence should be used as self defence, but not as an aggressor.
Of course some people like to pretend that todays Nazis are the same as the ones during WW2. "We defeated them with violence before, so why shouldn't we do it now?" Maybe because it's not the same situation in the slightest.
The really dangerous racists and white supremacist arent the ones wearing swastikas and white hoods (not saying those aren' tdangerous too), those are the stupid ones because they made themselves visible. The really dangerous are the ones wearing suits amd silently inacting their hateful believes.
HazySaiyan
Banned
I can't believe this is a real comment
llien
Member
Well, stats that I know is, Russia. About 100 "wrong race or ethnicity" murders annually. (also the most numerous "skinhead" movement in the world). I suspect it's much worse than anything that is going on in US. Somewhat offtopic here.
Well, I would still (unless I am convinced that corruption levels in US police are really so bad that riot is the only option) , but not because of cultural norms. Violence is a desperate measure appropriate only in desperate situations. (an opinion, of course)
I think we got to a very important point.
On the one hand you have a risk of something very terrible.
On the other hand, you have an actual issue of happening violence and destruction.
And then you ask yourself, is violence and destruction justified, just because it is nothing compared to how terrible are things that COULD happen?
Another thing is, "are we getting anywhere with it?".
Exactly what do you achieve with destruction? I'd say, nothing good.
What do you achieve by beating up pro-nazi protesters? Perhaps it will discourage them from showing up. Likely it will discourage them from walking around (alone) with swastikas. So they'll hide in the end. That is pretty much maximum one could achieve here (you can't fix minds).
But isn't it better achieved by making it illegal? Wouldn't it be better for anti-nazi protests to demand outlawing nazis?
KarneeKarnay
Member
It is. You'd be shocked at the amount of people who will complain if you inconvenience them in the slightest for a good cause.
My favorite was it taking an extra 30 secs to fill in a form, on a form you already had to fill in. It's a cross between racism and how selfish can a person be. BLM may be blocking a highway, but people have died and nothing is being done.
It's worth your inconvenience. White Supremacists might not be inconveniencing you physically, but their message is hate and violence and that should be worse. Fuck sake.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Education on racial equality is filtered through white, middle-class people with inherent white supremacy that they have refused to acknowledge. They think that equality is not talking about it. So when BLM bring up issues around US race relations, their response is to go deaf and talk about one race bull. However when Nazis come to town, the inherent verbal and mental violence does not affect the white moderate and can only see the superficial content of their words; not the prescriptive and distressing elements that are inflicted on POC.
Because hypocrisy is something we can easily conjure up for our sake, that is why.
How someone defends nazis then turns around and equates BLM protesters with looters is beyond reason. Simple hypocrisy, or double standards.
Personally, I draw the line of physical violence. No one has a right to be an attacker in any situation, except for literal self-defense. Laws should be made against wearing nazi symbols/spreading that ideology, so cops can be called on them. Besides, here in our country, we are reaching a point where the current semi-dictators shaped the public discourse into a state where being liberals or speaking a foreign language will soon be cause for someone hitting them. That is fucking terrifying.
How someone defends nazis then turns around and equates BLM protesters with looters is beyond reason. Simple hypocrisy, or double standards.
Personally, I draw the line of physical violence. No one has a right to be an attacker in any situation, except for literal self-defense. Laws should be made against wearing nazi symbols/spreading that ideology, so cops can be called on them. Besides, here in our country, we are reaching a point where the current semi-dictators shaped the public discourse into a state where being liberals or speaking a foreign language will soon be cause for someone hitting them. That is fucking terrifying.
Heck no. At that Nazi rally we saw a group beat a black man with poles and boards, one punch an old woman in the face, one of them shot toward a crowd, and of course one murdered a woman and tried to murder scores others. That was one single demonstration by them.
Messofanego
Banned
KarneeKarnay
Member
This should probably be the only thing posted in this thread from now on. Everyone get on board.
As others have said, the inconvenience of traffic is a more pressing concern to some people than systematic oppression.
Or in other words they're selfish cunts (or explicitly racist, but I'm referring more to supposed centrists).
Or in other words they're selfish cunts (or explicitly racist, but I'm referring more to supposed centrists).
I kind of agree, but the post you used as an example is called out several times over the next page.
CyclopsRock
Member
They both get free speech apologists, they both get finger wags.
7DollarHagane
Banned
The idea of free speech sometimes including speech that's dangerous or repulsive to society isn't new, is it?
I seem to remember having these debates in high school/ grade school years ago about how the government can't block speech Alone even if the ideas expressed are disgusting, and the reasons why.
Because if the government can't lock up the Nazi for saying his hate in public, the government also shouldn't be able to lock up the angry protestors in front of trump tower or the white house as long as neither one actually takes action or hurts anyone.
That's how I always understood it, we shouldn't leave "illegal speech" in the hands of people's interpretation because it's too easily abused.
Am I wrong about this? It seems like so many are against the notion of free speech these days and see it as only a racist dog whistle.
I seem to remember having these debates in high school/ grade school years ago about how the government can't block speech Alone even if the ideas expressed are disgusting, and the reasons why.
Because if the government can't lock up the Nazi for saying his hate in public, the government also shouldn't be able to lock up the angry protestors in front of trump tower or the white house as long as neither one actually takes action or hurts anyone.
That's how I always understood it, we shouldn't leave "illegal speech" in the hands of people's interpretation because it's too easily abused.
Am I wrong about this? It seems like so many are against the notion of free speech these days and see it as only a racist dog whistle.
Dandy Lyin
Member
Because racism.
I think free speech "apologists" are justified in the casse of, for example, Colin Kaepernick.
I also think finger wags are more than justified in response to Nazis. I think this thread asks why people feel the opposites are also justified.
You seem to be ok with them, are you here to explain why?
(I'm leaving out the bridge blockers because they're at least debatable. Kaepernick had plenty of flack and is no less valid for the conversation.)
