You're viewing a single thread.
That's a big different between the left and the right.
The right want certain people to have certain basic rights.
The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.
That's why I call myself "so far left I got my guns back". Even though I have no guns. If wanting everyone to have their needs met is anything other than basic human decency I don't know what you'd call it.
Conservatives are just mean people with nothing better to do than hurt others. Like people who pull wings off bugs.
You should uhhhhh
Get some guns
Unless that's illegal in your country... Because that means you're probably okay in November if things go fashy elsewhere.
I live in Canada and guns aren't really a thing here. But when we have an election I might get some because I loathe conservatives.
My formerly conservative mother is becoming more and more "apolitical", because the right often wants to do things solely for the sake of hurting others, and the "reasons" looking more and more like just excuses to her my bullies made up to justify their actions.
The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.
Does the left believe those they hate should have the right not to be physically assaulted by strangers?
Sure doesn't look like it in here, lol.
Tolerance is a social contract upheld by all who are tolerant. If someone violates that social contract, say, a nazi, then they are not governed by the social contract.
One cannot tolerate the intolerant.
Intolerance must be met with expulsion and force to maintain a civil society.
That means you, get off Lemmy.
Intolerance does not require violence. Equivocating a lack of on-sight violence with tolerance/advocacy is absurd.
So, no. You don't believe that is a right. Rights are things that apply to all people at all times, you know. If you believe certain people do not have the right not to be physically assaulted by strangers, then you do not believe in that right, period.
Thanks for pointing out that "The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated." is a lie.
The distinction is that everyone has a right to defense, not to "never get punched no matter what". If someone is running at you with a spear, then you're entitled to defend yourself before the spear actually impales you. The same goes for credible threats to genocide your people.
One does not need to be a pacifist in order to respect the rights of others.
Your user history is disgusting. You’re constantly contentious. You pick fights with others, ask them to cite behaviors you have or haven’t exhibited. No one is gonna do homework for a bad faith actor. I would be surprised if you had any friends who would willingly talk to you in real life.
And yeah, if you got hit out there in real life, I would laugh while you would rub your jaw. I celebrate nazis getting hit.
That’s the kind of person you are.
You could change, but we both know you’re not going to.
You’re just gonna keep on playing your slimy little cryptofascist game, and try to trick people who don’t see your shenanigans.
And you will never ever enjoy the comforts of a sincere human relationship.
Your user history is disgusting. You’re constantly contentious.
I disagree with things when I have good reason to, and I back up every position I take. That's more than I can say for you. And your type is always the first/only to lob personal insults, in response to your position(s) being challenged, making this accusation a particularly amusing bit of projection.
You pick fights with others
Correcting a false statement is not picking a fight. It only seems that way to people so embroiled in identity politics that they've lost the ability to distinguish between a challenge to their politics/assumptions, and a personal attack.
No one is gonna do homework for a bad faith actor.
I've not asked anyone to 'do homework'.
I would be surprised if you had any friends who would willingly talk to you in real life.
That must be because your definition of "friend" is 'someone who agrees with me on everything and never contradicts me', and you're projecting that onto me, after I've demonstrated the willingness to engage someone in disagreement.
I have plenty of friends. I don't require my friends to agree with me--I welcome challenges to any positions I hold, that's how they get corrected/revised/strengthened over time. The only prerequisite is that the challenge must be of substance--if it's standard ideologue far of emotional arguments, or just repeating talking points you've done no original thinking about, you're not going to get anywhere with someone who actually uses their brain.
I get the distinct impression you've never "steelmanned" an argument in your life.
And yeah, if you got hit out there in real life, I would laugh while you would rub your jaw.
This makes you a bad person, objectively.
I celebrate nazis getting hit.
I'd rather strike the ideology than the individual, especially given what I've learned in my research about how 'punching Nazis' literally helps them in the long term. (see the comment I posted immediately prior to this for details/citations)
That’s the kind of person you are.
It's truly indicative of your political extremism that you're labeling me a Nazi, just for contrdicting you.
You could change, but we both know you’re not going to.
I've changed my positions many times over the years. Thing is, it requires a challenge of substance to do so. Lobbing personal insults and calling people Nazis for having the temerity to contradict you? Well, that ain't it, sunshine.
And you will never ever enjoy the comforts of a sincere human relationship.
This really is pathetic, you know? To create this ridiculous fantasy in your mind about how, since I've contradicted you, I must be the biggest loser you can conceive of. Extra little bit of irony is that I received one of my SO's frequent (we're both on the mushy side, I'll admit) expressions of love, just as I was reading the above sentence.
Now, just because it's funny to me, I'm going to show you my political compass and 8values test results, knowing you will have no idea how to integrate the absurd assumptions you've made about me, with them. I predict you'll accuse them of being fabricated; after all, denial is generally the easiest way to hide from inconvenient truth.
https://i.imgur.com/ra1ix0n.png
https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=61.5&d=60.6&g=64.5&s=75.2Rich white boy with ADHD detected. Dude was right and your paragraphs are actually proving his point about your post history. What's it like being a "nuh-uh" parrot?
Rich white boy with ADHD detected.
"I'm racist, classist, and as a bonus, also bigoted against those with mental illness" is not the comeback you think it is.
I'm correct, you know it, and you're mad about it. That's why you insult me instead of pointing out a single flaw in anything I said.
No dude, nobody has to argue with you. You're just obnoxious. You might be able to put words in the mouths of your family and friends, but literally nobody online has to entertain your bullshit. Enjoy staying generally unliked I guess
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't care if bigoted ideologues like me. Your whiny personal insults are meaningless to me. The fact remains that if my arguments were flawed, your replies would be hammering my arguments instead of lobbing your impotent personal attacks.
The funniest part is that people like you actually feel morally superior after an exchange like this.
You have no idea what ideologue means. There's no morals or honor here dude, just an internet board. You have a disgustingly inflated sense of self worth and you seem genuinely unlikable. I can't imagine you ever listen to anyone anywhere before butting in with hardline sweeping generalizations, your input is generally worthless, and you're more concerned with being right than being correct.
write me a better essay next time
Intolerance of the intolerant is the cornerstone of protecting one's freedoms.
Intolerance does not require violence, so your insinuation that a lack of physical assault constitutes tolerance is not, at all, a counter-argument.
Does a nazi being assaulted bother you? If a nazi doesn't want to be assault by decent people then they shouldn't be a nazi. Tolerating a nazi is advocating for genocide.
Arguing that there is no spectrum between full-fledged advocacy and on-sight violence is quite foolish.
Intolerance does not require violence. That is why in any modern society, criminals are imprisoned, not beaten to death by a public mob.
Curious that there is a Nazi problem in almost every modern society then isn't it...
Of course there's a spectrum, I never said we had to beat all of them to death. But anyway society is too tolerant of nazis, which is why they are embedded in police and political positions, they aren't imprisoned enough, so in the mean time they can get punched by decent people if they want to be open nazis.
in the mean time they can get punched by decent people
No. That's how society ultimately devolves into chaos. Setting a precedent of it being okay to just attack people on the street based on their politics is a very dangerous one. Think about what position you'd be in if your politics were the minority, and this 'it's fine to beat up people with politics I don't like' idea was actually firmly in place.
Again, you can be extremely intolerant of Nazism and similar disgusting ideologies without physical violence. Do not conflate intolerance with violence, nor a lack of violence with tolerance.
Also, below is detailed a more pragmatic reason for why 'punching Nazis' just straight up doesn't 'work' long term, as a strategy for combatting Nazi ideology:
It may feel cathartic and satisfy primal urges for retribution, but in the long run, 'punching Nazis' doesn't hurt the neo-nazi ideology, it helps it. Feeds the persecution complex, turns the guy you beat up who didn't physically attack you first into their martyr. Gives them more fuel to rally around and further radicalize them into wanting revenge.
Prioritizing a cheap, temporary thrill over real, lasting change for the better is ultimately self-serving, and not in service of your cause; ironically, it completely undermines it.
On a purely pragmatic/practical level, it's a bad idea, if your goal is to oppose Nazism.
Experts on extremism/terrorism etc. are all saying the exact same thing.
See for yourself: (emphasis added)
In the case of violent counterprotest tactics — e.g., punching Nazis — experts on extremism say it is likely only to aid the white supremacists’ cause.
The most commonly stated argument in favor of physically disrupting white-supremacist rallies is that society can’t give an iota of legitimacy to these groups. To allow them to spread their message of hate is to offer them a platform to recruit and to glorify their cause. What this logic leaves out is that it may well be the case that hate groups are better able to recruit and glorify their cause when they are able to engage in violence, regardless of how that violence starts, according to researchers in the field of countering violent extremism, or CVE.
“On the one hand, I don’t think these expressions should go unanswered,” David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University, said of the recent white-supremacist gatherings. “But you’re essentially giving them exactly what they want when you try to confront them directly.” That’s because these groups’ efforts to recruit and mobilize supporters rely on a very specific strategy that benefits greatly from violent conflict.
In the U.S., explicitly white-supremacist groups know they are vastly, vastly outnumbered by everyone who hates them — their paltry numbers being an easy thing to forget in the age of social media and especially so this week, in the wake of a real-life white-supremacist murder. So their only hope for relevance is to maximize every potential bit of media coverage. And the best way to do this is to create media moments: scary, evocative images like the torch photos from last weekend, but also as many violently photogenic confrontations with counterprotesters as possible. Producing violence is an underlying, often unstated, goal of many white-supremacist protests and gatherings.
When violence does break out, videos of it race through the internet’s white-supremacist underbelly, serving as incredibly valuable PR material. It doesn’t matter who gets the better of a given confrontation: When the Nazis get punched, it’s “proof” that anti-fascists or liberals or [insert minority group] or whoever else did the punching have it in for “innocent white Americans just trying to protest peacefully.” When the Nazis punch back, it’s proof that their enemies are, to borrow a word from alt-right parlance, “cucks” who are easily bested in the streets. Even when white supremacists lose street fights, they win the long game.
This sort of tactic, said Jeffrey Kaplan, an academic researcher and the author of a number of books on terrorist movements, “is a constant in terrorism or any form of asymmetric warfare,” whether the group in question is jihadist or white supremacist or whatever else. Kaplan, who is an incoming professor at King Fahd Security College in Riyadh, summed up the extremists’ logic like this: “Our numbers are paltry, we are despised by our countrymen and we couldn’t get a date for the life of us, but any action that has enough impact to strike at the heart of the enemy by getting media coverage is a major triumph.” Violent confrontations allow extremists to make a tantalizing offer to the angry, disillusioned young men — they are almost entirely men — whom they hope to groom to become tomorrow’s haters and killers: We are part of a movement to change the world, as you can see from this latest video that movement is working, and you can be a part of it.
Schanzer laid out a fairly straightforward alternative: Counterdemonstrators should respond assertively, vociferously, and in far superior numbers — but at a distance from the extremists themselves. This tactic both prevents the sort of violent conflict American hate groups want, and has the added benefit of drawing at least some media and social-media attention away from the smaller hateful gathering and toward the much larger counterprotest.
“Violence directed at white nationalists only fuels their narrative of victimhood — of a hounded, soon-to-be-minority who can’t exercise their rights to free speech without getting pummeled.” “I would want to punch a Nazi in the nose, too,” Maria Stephan, a program director at the United States Institute of Peace, told him. “But there’s a difference between a therapeutic and strategic response.”
...when mouthpieces for white supremacist ideology are physically assaulted on camera, it becomes a powerful validation of their victimhood complex: in their minds, plain evidence that white people are indeed under attack, and motivation to spread a call to violent response with renewed zeal. This “punch felt round the world” was a great boost to the “alt-right” cause. If you aid and comfort neo-Nazis, which is exactly what punching them in the face does, you are no better than they are. Real life isn’t a fucking Quentin Tarantino movie.
When I was a neo-Nazi skinhead over 2 decades ago, I got beat up as often as I beat anyone else up. It never made me any less violent. In fact, we used to pile into vans and drive from Milwaukee to Chicago for the thrill of brawling fellow devotees of romantic violence like the guy throwing the punch in this video. We lived for violent opposition. We thrived on it. Violence of any sort, no matter how it may be rationalized, is the bread of hatred. We put mustard on that shit and gleefully gobbled it up and clamored for more.
Back in the 1930s, there were gangs of communists who routinely brawled the Nazi brownshirts in the streets of Germany. Their contemporaries would have us believe that if there were more communists who brawled harder than they did back then, that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. As a former neo-Nazi, I can attest to how important it is to have violent opposition in order to maintain the hatred necessary to hurt people. The communist gangs helped Hitler’s National Socialist party come to power not only by galvanizing their own members, but more importantly by serving as a crucial ingredient in the overall atmosphere of fear and loathing that led the German general public to look to the Nazi party for order.
I understand your view and there is merit to it. But it misses the point. It's not 'politics I don't like' in general, it's naziism, the belief that some races are more deserving of life than others, aka dehumanization, and the belief that genocidal policies should be enacted to protect the ethnostate.
Society doesn't tolerate a person threatening someone's life with intent to carry out the threat, Naziism is an explicit threat to people's lives and should be seen as such. I agree simply punching them isn't the answer, but their beliefs should not be allowed to be espoused and must be resisted at every stage.
I literally disagree with none of this, except for the part where you say my view 'misses the point', since the point you're providing in contrast literally is my point, lol.
Nazism and extremism of all types SHOULD be challenged and resisted, emphatically, at every opportunity. But it is not the place of random citizens to manifest that challenge in the form of violence. Nor does the evidence show that doing that is effective in reducing/eradicating the incidence of said extremist ideology in the population. In fact, the evidence clearly shows it does exactly the opposite.
We have to have the resolve to do what actually works, even if it doesn't give the same instant gratification as it does to slug someone in the face who is says and believes shitty things.
Do you believe someone who wants en masse ethnic cleansing shouldn't be physically assaulted by strangers?
If you believe having certain thoughts/desires creates a justification for physical assault on that person by strangers, then you, objectively, do not believe "everyone [should] have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated.", since being legally protected against such assault is one such "basic right", in all modern societies.
So, if you're on the left, as I presume you are, you are answering my question with a clear "no", and proving that assertion to be a lie.
Rights are not conditional.
Ah yes, the old tolerate intolerance canard. Yeah nah, we're past that, pal.
You shouldn't be mistreated because of something you are. You shouldn't be hated because of something intrinsic to you, like being a woman, loving your own gender, being a minority, or feeling like you don't belong in your own body. You shouldn't be singled out for choices you make that don't harm others, such as what you believe or don't believe in, as long as you don't get it in your stupid head to force others to believe as you do. In short, you shouldn't be punished for who you are.
But that doesn't extend to those who choose to hate on others because they are cruel bastards who take pleasure in the pain of others. Fascists in general and Nazis in particular are the poster children for forcing others to believe as they do, and love punishing other people for who they are. Thus they are exempt from the rule 'don't punish people unless they are attacking others'...because they explicitly ARE attacking others. Since you don't get this, you're getting downvoted hard, as well you should.
Ah yes, the old tolerate intolerance canard. Yeah nah, we're past that, pal.
Wrong. You can be intolerant without being violent. This ridiculous suggestion that if you aren't physically beating people up, then you're automatically tolerating, even advocating, their ideology, does not make any sense no matter how often you attempt this conflation.
I think you're a Nazi or similar and that's why you're so upset.
If you believe having certain thoughts/desires creates a justification for physical assault on that person by strangers
You probably believe this too. Unless you think laws against conspiracy and planning mass murder are a bad idea. If you and your friends plan to blow up a school, you may likely be assaulted by strangers (the police or other agents of the state, probably) if people find out.
Identifying as a literal Nazi is planning mass murder with extra steps.
It would be irrational, ahistorical, and generally a foolish idea to be like "we have to wait until he actually tries to murder someone before stopping his plans".
Rights are not conditional.
This is a non sequitur that I guess is meant to sound profound.
Legal rights have a ton of conditions.
Other rights are poorly defined and are aspirational at best.
I think you're a Nazi or similar and that's why you're so upset.
No actual thinking would lead you to that conclusion.
You probably believe this too. Unless you think laws against conspiracy and planning mass murder are a bad idea.
Announcing a desire/plan to commit crimes should lead to arrest. Not vigilantism by random citizens.
Identifying as a literal Nazi is planning mass murder with extra steps.
Despite your violent fantasies, even if I conceded that, the response to such is arrest and imprisonment, not vigilante mob violence by random schmucks on the street.
Do you truly not understand the path you're setting out on, once you start advocating for vigilantism?
The grand irony is that you've basically announced here that you're willing to commit unprovoked assault on strangers. By your very logic, others are justified in beating you up for desiring to commit violent acts!
This is a non sequitur that I guess is meant to sound profound.
Non sequitur? Following "the left believes in basic rights for all, even people they hate" with "the left do not believe some people deserve to have the basic right not to be assaulted" makes pointing out that rights are not conditional, VERY relevant.
It'd be more respectable if you simply admitted the hypocrisy, and that "the left believes in basic rights for all, even people they hate" is a straight-up lie.
Since you don't seem to understand what "rights" are: if it doesn't apply to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, it's not a "right". Anything called a "right" that has conditions is not actually a right.
I think you’re a Nazi or similar and that’s why you’re so upset.No actual thinking would lead you to that conclusion.
You seem awfully eager to defend nazis. If you were a nazi or closely allied, it would make sense for you to act as such. Thinking! Also you keep talking about "the left" as if you're not a member, which sure makes you sound like a right-winger.
Announcing a desire/plan to commit crimes should lead to arrest. Not vigilantism by random citizens.
Wearing a nazi uniform or otherwise espousing their ideals is announcing a desire to commit crimes. Perhaps in a perfect world, we could delegate to the state's monopoly on force. But some of those who burn crosses, etc. Additionally, passive acceptance of nazis emboldens them and endangers everyone. So, no. Vigilantism by random citizens is appropriate in response to "yo i want to kill a whole lot of people" declarations.
The grand irony is that you’ve basically announced here that you’re willing to commit unprovoked assault on strangers. By your very logic, others are justified in beating you up for desiring to commit violent acts!
It's not unprovoked.
Since you don’t seem to understand what “rights” are: if it doesn’t apply to EVERYONE at ALL TIMES, it’s not a “right”. Anything called a “right” that has conditions is not actually a right.
That's not how rights work. You have freedom of assembly, but you can't parade into your neighbor's bedroom at 3am. Rights intersect.
Also you're being thoroughly savaged in the rest of these comments, and I have happier things to spend my time on.
You seem awfully eager to defend nazis.
I'm not defending Nazis, I'm attacking hypocrisy, and a particular type of which that is known to HELP Nazis (and any other extremists of the same type) in the long term. Experts on extremist movements agree on this, and even former members of such groups say it's true. I've detailed all of this in a previous comment of mine, look under the break/line.
Also you keep talking about "the left" as if you're not a member
I'm not. Most of my positions are left-wing, but I have no interest in considering myself a "member" of any political collective, and it's precisely because of bullshit like this. I can espouse the values I believe in without having to be on a 'team'. And doing so insulates me from being associated with the stupid shit my would-be 'team' does. It becomes an especially prudent tactic as collectives grow more radicalized, while I don't.
I also hate stereotyping and generalizing, so collectivism in general puts me off.
Wearing a nazi uniform or otherwise espousing their ideals is announcing a desire to commit crimes.
The proper response is still arrest, not vigilante violence from randoms.
Vigilantism by random citizens is appropriate in response to "yo i want to kill a whole lot of people" declarations.
Hard disagree. The evidence is clear--doing this is equivalent to prioritizing the dopamine rush that comes with feeling like you're the hero beating up the villain, over the actual reduction of harmful ideologies. You feeling good is not more valuable than eliminating Nazism, sorry.
It's not unprovoked.
Then neither is it when someone beats you up for advocating beating others up. You provoked them by saying you're willing to attack them.
Look at the comment I linked. Read the account of the former white supremacist, especially. You are playing right into their hands. Stop being so gullible.
thoroughly savaged
Sticking fingers in ears and deciding I must be a Nazi, because you don't like the facts, is only "savaged" in a deeply deluded mind.
So if someone threatens to burn down an orphanage while outside the orphanage screaming with cans of gasoline, should they be charged? Should they be put into jail? Because that's the same free speech and free thought your advocating for and claiming the left is wrong for going in and beating the shit out of the dude. You're delusional and possibly simply afraid of violence.
Sometimes, the appropriate response to a threat is to REMOVE the threat with copious violence. As in Enders Game, "I didn't want to just win this fight, I wanted to win all the future fights too." Paraphrasing a bit there but you want to tolerate hatred and evil, to let it fester. The only thing fascists understand is direct force, so we will show it to them.
Does the left believe those they hate should have the right not to be physically assaulted by strangers?
You mean like this?
Or maybe like this?
Or maybe you mean like this?
What kind of idiotic response is this? This is basically what's happened here:
Me: Do you/your 'party' believe X is wrong?
You: Look at these examples of people with different politics doing X!Who asked about those guys? I'm talking to you guys.
Fact 1: In all modern societies/civilizations, it is considered a basic right to not be physically assaulted by strangers.
Fact 2: Rights, by definition, are not conditional.
Fact 3: The assertion was made that "The left want everyone to have the same basic rights. Even if they are hated."
So, I asked if the left adheres to the assertion in Fact 3 with respect to the right in Fact 1.
It's a simple question. Can you answer it honestly?
I did answer it honestly. The honest answer is that it's the right that have been regularly physically assaulting people... and approving of it.
Your question is what is dishonest because you must know that's true.
