|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I know you can do better than another ad hominem attack on me OF You think that we just need to listen to Nazis and see if their views on exterminating what they believe to be human vermin are worth considering and then we'll all get along just fine. I don't think stating the fact that you aren't the brightest is an ad hom at this point.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Punching Nazis is extremely cool and good though. gently caress 'em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You think that we just need to listen to Nazis and see if their views on exterminating what they believe to be human vermin are worth considering and then we'll all get along just fine. I don't think stating the fact that you aren't the brightest is an ad hom at this point. I think we can talk to them and make them change their views on mass genocide yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
I respect pacifists because they have a coherent ideological position that they advocate for consistently and in the face of great adversity. Even if I don't agree with them. Hell a lot of them even recognize the same problems I do and are willing to put themselves in harm's way to solve them rather than using violence. But that isn't you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I respect pacifists because they have a coherent ideological position that they advocate for consistently and in the face of great adversity. Even if I don't agree with them. Hell a lot of them even recognize the same problems I do and are willing to put themselves in harm's way to solve them rather than using violence. Then what am I then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I didn't say they shouldn't be monitored by the police and be arrested for hate crimes. I said that they shouldn't be beaten up by the general public for fear of radicalising them or making them gain sympathy in the eyes of others. If they commit crimes that relate to racial or religious hatred they should arrested, convicted and be placed in jail. I completely agree with you, but the police are still disproportionately focussed on beating up minorities. Think of the huge battle over Anjem Choudry having his passport revoked vs Tommy Robinson, noted illegal immigrant, being a free man despite inciting violence and beating people up at horse races. Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Then what am I then? If you seriouspost more often we'd know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
"Oh wow 40+ posts in the past few hours I wonder what hap-" *sees that Intrinsic Field Marshal has been posting* "Oh well that explains things." Seriously stop arguing with this idiot. This exact same conversation has been held at least twice before and it's gone the exact same way each time because he's not arguing in good faith. And I doubt there are any spectators in the wings that you're convincing to not support Nazis so it's not really doing anyone any good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:Then what am I then? No idea, but you're not a pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Disingenuous Nazi Sympathiser has a ring to it. gently caress off and cry into your Sargon shrine IFM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:"Oh wow 40+ posts in the past few hours I wonder what hap-" How am I not arguing in good faith?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
I think we should jerk off the Nazis and make them cum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I think we can talk to them and make them change their views on mass genocide yes. And how many Nazis have been dissuaded so far?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:How am I not arguing in good faith? Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I just don't believe in using violence against people. I don't know why the University of Florida even let Spencer speak in the first place when he is an open Neo-Nazi in the first place. Honestly it would better if people just no platformed Nazis instead of trying to beat the poo poo out of them. So, what you're doing here, right here, is a bad-faith argument. It's specifically a "motte and bailey" argument. You have a motte, "we shouldn't be hitting nazis", and a bailey, "violence is bad." You put forward the motte first, saying that we shouldn't be hitting nazis; then, when presented with evidence that hitting nazis might actually be good, you retreat back to the bailey, and, when people broadly agree with you on that, you treat it as if we agreed with you regarding the motte. Using violence against people is indeed a bad thing, and we shouldn't be doing it. But war exists. It's a thing that happens. Your country and way of life probably exist because someone in your past was willing to be violent (ironically, probably specifically against actual loving nazis). Self-defence, which is also violence, is another one that I doubt you'd be willing to go against. There are situations where violence, while still a bad thing, is entirely justified, and attempting to say we shouldn't be doing violence in those situations is purposeless ideological purity bullshit. Violence is indeed bad. We agree on that; let's put that aside. Stop retreating to it when we challenge your actual arguments. We're talking specifically about violence used to prevent violence. You say that fighting back against nazis encourages more of them to become violent. Would you like to provide literally any evidence that this is the case? Because we've shown that, historically, fascism failed to get a foothold specifically because of violence used against them. Unless you'd like to concede that you're not arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
IFM. It's not about deconversion, it's about decreasing their influence. If they get leg space they will just become emboldened and grow. There are plenty of lower class white people who can't wait to blame all their problems on the blacks, Jews, gays etc. and all they need is a little courage. We can't allow that.
Midig fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Where’s that “fill nazis with cum” photo from the Florida State nazi speech?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Would you idiots stop engaging the literal 4channer troll
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Where’s that “fill nazis with cum” photo from the Florida State nazi speech? Found it: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:Found it: I can't see that being helpful or pleasant for anyone involved honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Somfin posted:So, what you're doing here, right here, is a bad-faith argument. It's specifically a "motte and bailey" argument. You have a motte, "we shouldn't be hitting nazis", and a bailey, "violence is bad." You put forward the motte first, saying that we shouldn't be hitting nazis; then, when presented with evidence that hitting nazis might actually be good, you retreat back to the bailey, and, when people broadly agree with you on that, you treat it as if we agreed with you regarding the motte. I dont really understand what arguing in good faith or bad faith means really. Your probably right that I may be arguing in bad faith but I'm not sure if I understood the concept rightly I guess. I understand why using violence in wars is a necessary evil and why the police using violence is an necessary evil, I just dont get why the general public using violence against Nazis is a necessary evil. Shouldn't they be at least deplatformed or censored before violence is used against them? I don't know. I just don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Violence is a form of censorship. Specifically it is the form employed against people using direct organization to spread their ideas. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I just dont think punching Nazis is going to dissuade them from being Nazis. Maybe trying to convince them not to be Nazis would be a better off idea. *cracks knuckles* Alright boys, time for a day of sincerity-posting on /pol/
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I don't know. I just don't know. This much is very true, so maybe stop posting for a while, because you don't know poo poo. Though feel free to keep posting that one skinny loving weirdo if you want him to be mocked. This is a YouTube mock thread after all, so that's why I assume you're posting him over and over and not because you agree with him, right? Yet you seem to get pretty mad when people do mock him. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Hitler, in a early 1930s speech posted:Only one danger could have jeopardised this development – if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement. As for why argument is rarely effective: Jean-Paul Sartre posted:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I dont really understand what arguing in good faith or bad faith means really. Your probably right that I may be arguing in bad faith but I'm not sure if I understood the concept rightly I guess. I understand why using violence in wars is a necessary evil and why the police using violence is an necessary evil, I just dont get why the general public using violence against Nazis is a necessary evil. Shouldn't they be at least deplatformed or censored before violence is used against them? I don't know. I just don't know. Corvinus fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
if debate worked nobody would've ever heard of the nazis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
nazis in both italy and germany cut their teeth and in some ways became prominent through regular scuffles and street fights with socialists & unions. It served to strengthen their movements, not weaken them. I find arguments grounded in violence against nazis therefore unpersuasive. Violence breeds violence and is antithetical to democratic norms. They'll just be back again, hungry for more and with their paranoid fantasies confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Sheesh, IFM's really proud that they learned to spell "ad hominem".
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:nazis in both italy and germany cut their teeth and in some ways became prominent through regular scuffles and street fights with socialists & unions. It served to strengthen their movements, not weaken them. I find arguments grounded in violence against nazis therefore unpersuasive. Violence breeds violence and is antithetical to democratic norms. They'll just be back again, hungry for more and with their paranoid fantasies confirmed. Those nazis were combat veterans prepared to die who knew how to organize and how to run a battle. The chuds are cowards why cry and beg into video cameras.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
You cannot convince the alt-right and similar demagogues with arguments, because at the very core of their ideology lies the belief that liberal open societies, i.e. those who base themselves on a concept of equal citizens coming to policies through discourse, are something to be abolished. They're basically fully immunized against being reasoned with. While they engage in public discourse, they only do so while they're still a minority. And when they do, they do it to basically use the freedoms liberal societies provide their citizens against those liberal society themselves. To put it in a catchy slogan their strategy for open societies ("aka the establishment") is, Subvert. Control. Destroy. Violence does not convince them that they are wrong either. It does, however, hinder them. And that's not really a novel concept because ultimately all of our policies are backed up by the use of force to, uh, enforce those policies. You might not dissuade any nazis if you ban their rallies, dissolve their organizations, seize their assets and arrest their members. But you take them out of the picture and that is ultimately what is important. The issue with lefty "Punch a nazi!" memes isn't that it's rude to nazis or that it won't convince them. The issue is that in America the state is apparently unwilling or unable to combat the nazis itself (as it should do).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:nazis in both italy and germany cut their teeth and in some ways became prominent through regular scuffles and street fights with socialists & unions. It served to strengthen their movements, not weaken them. TheDeadlyShoe posted:I find arguments grounded in violence against nazis therefore unpersuasive. Violence breeds violence and is antithetical to democratic norms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
The threat of violence is the foundation of democratic norms as they currently exist because all currently existing states perpetuate their societal structures under threat of violence by the state. Your concept of normativity is built on implicit violence and often enshrines and glorifies systemic violence. If you want to change that you need to do a shitload more than not punching fascists. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
yeah i mean look at trump and his base all whining and calling reality "fake news".
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:nazis in both italy and germany cut their teeth and in some ways became prominent through regular scuffles and street fights with socialists & unions. It served to strengthen their movements, not weaken them. I find arguments grounded in violence against nazis therefore unpersuasive. Violence breeds violence and is antithetical to democratic norms. They'll just be back again, hungry for more and with their paranoid fantasies confirmed. That's one way to spin socialists and unions trying to protect society from fascist aggression I suppose. Nazis will always be violent because their stated goal is to kill undesirables. In the absence of am anti-fascist resistance force they don't just call it a day and go home, they go to where the undesirables are and commit violence against them. You'll notice they tried to do this is Charlottesville (walking through mostly black neighborhoods and skulking around synagogues in their dumbass nazi polo shirts), and if antifa hadn't been there to stop them who knows what they would have done. It's telling that the debate is always focused on anti fascist violence, as though the fascists are peaceful bystanders. If some nazi thugs come round looking to intimidate and assault people, kicking their asses is community self defense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The threat of violence is the foundation of democratic norms as they currently exist because all currently existing states perpetuate their societal structures under threat of violence by the state. Likewise the necessity of fair democratic government is to prevent the masses from getting so pissed off at the aristocracy that we start breaking out the guillotines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:I dont really understand what arguing in good faith or bad faith means really. Your probably right that I may be arguing in bad faith but I'm not sure if I understood the concept rightly I guess. I understand why using violence in wars is a necessary evil and why the police using violence is an necessary evil, I just dont get why the general public using violence against Nazis is a necessary evil. Shouldn't they be at least deplatformed or censored before violence is used against them? I don't know. I just don't know. Arguing in good faith means, if someone refutes one of your arguments, you acknowledge that it was refuted; either by bringing a counter-argument that unseats the refutation, or accepting that your argument was defeated and adjusting your views to match, and noting that you have done so in a way that the person who refuted your argument can understand. Arguing in bad faith means abandoning defeated arguments without resolving them either for yourself or for the person arguing against them. It also means that you're arguing with the intent of finding the solution to an unresolved problem, with the understanding that your mind could be changed by sufficiently good arguments. As to your part about violence: As people have been saying in the thread, it's more important to contain the existing violence than it is to mitigate the creation of future violence. Like how it's important to build proper fencing to prevent wolves from attacking the sheep, but if a wolf attack is currently happening, driving the wolf off is far more important than building a fence. Yes, if preparation had been made, if deplatforming had been done, if censorship was imposed, the nazis probably wouldn't be actively hurting people. Hindsight is wonderful. Right now the nazis are actively hurting people, and hurting them back, driving them off, scaring them with the one language that they understand (violence), is more important than figuring out an ideal solution. Once we don't need to deal with nazis actively hurting people, once they're driven back into the woods, we can think about building proper fences. Also, watch Mississippi Burning for why we can't always rely on the police. E: Actually just watch Mississippi Burning because it's a loving good film Somfin fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Violence breeds violence and is antithetical to democratic norms. They'll just be back again, hungry for more and with their paranoid fantasies confirmed. Says the person living in a state that has been in a state of nigh on constant conflict since the 1940's. All institutions are founded in either violence or the threat thereof.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Nazis will radicalize just fine on their own. De facto acceptance and tolerance will only lead to them being emboldened and will strengthen their resolve no matter how much you shake your head and tsk tsk at them. Until one of them does go Timothy McVeigh 2.0 no matter what you do. Just to note, this is just punching/slapping/band-aiding the symptom. The real issues to these groups runs deeper and treating it at the root requires far more work and understanding (yes, and empathy) than this. Look at groups like Life After Hate. Now I'm not saying don't defend yourself and others, but just know that you aren't really going to solve poo poo in the long run just quelling the symptoms. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
It is true that ideological suppression involves more than simply boots in faces, but I still find that to be an entirely appropriate response to the kind of fuckboys who are running around waving swastikas in public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Just to note, this is just punching/slapping/band-aiding the symptom. The real issues to these groups runs deeper and treating it at the root requires far more work and understanding (yes, and empathy) than this. So we should take a more marxist view of things and fix conditions in a general sense. The fact is a system that keeps producing Nazis is a broken system already. It is not in the interests of the upper class, nor the capacity well meaning groups like the one you mentioned, to change that system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:So we should take a more marxist view of things and fix conditions in a general sense. The fact is a system that keeps producing Nazis is a broken system already. It is not in the interests of the upper class, nor the capacity well meaning groups like the one you mentioned, to change that system. Definitely. But saying that we should treat the cause and not the symptoms is ignoring that the symptoms are causing real, lasting harm. Breaking up nazi demonstrations, preventing them from collecting into tumors and metastasizing into a cancerous network, is still valuable because the longer we leave them alone the bigger and harder to remove they get. The more harm they do and get away with doing, the braver and stronger they will become. A single punch, played over and over, celebrated by everyone outside their bubble, makes it that much more difficult for them to spread and recruit. It's hard for them to pull off the 'hero of the white race' look when what people know them for is making GBS threads their pants and crying on national TV. Violence against the nazis is about containment of a symptom run amok, not curing the cause of that symptom. Education, counselling, rhetorical victory will all have an effect two or five or ten years down the line, but until then something needs to keep the cancer from spreading too far. Somfin fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Ok cool the derail inter field man wanted happened. good job dude. Grade A baiting and such. Anyway I found Freedom toons today. God awful "animation" and "voice acting". Ive seen better cartoons from 2003 newgrounds. Also thier opinions suck too. https://youtu.be/5uqclSGwDVw
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 01:52
|
|
