How online communities can foster hate.

[Rhythmcs]

Facts don't work either, unfortunately. They also make said person more defensive and more entrenched.

IDK, though, I think that framing is doing 99% of the work with deepities like these. I have to ask again whether or not we would have to limit ourselves to only moderately opposing white supremacy in order to be reasonable, honest, factual, not emotional, and less than excessive. Just how much do we have to validate the white victimization complex, as the organizing principle of white supremacy, in order to avoid becoming extremists, of some kind, presumably the wrong kind?

[Alan V]

Facts don't work either, unfortunately.  They also make said person more defensive and more entrenched.  

IDK, though, I think that framing is doing 99% of the work with deepities like these.  I have to ask again whether or not we would have to limit ourselves to only moderately opposing white supremacy in order to be reasonable, honest, factual, not emotional, and less than excessive.

Stating the facts isn't about moderation or about winning necessarily.  People usually need time and repetition to learn, or to unlearn incorrect assumptions. Some people never learn, which is when others have to take other measures.

In online forums, we are limited to conversations.

[Dānu]

[Rhythmcs]

You can see how this notion of giving the eliminationists time probably doesn't sound great to their targets..least of all on the hope that they may one day learn something that they have not learned at any point before in their lives and...if we're being blunt, there's no credible expectation they will or even want to learn?

Do you see what I mean about framing?

[mordant]

Seems that history does move in cycles. Hopefully it will end on idiotic propaganda not with another world war.

I've come to believe it's nothing but cycles of fascism and relative freedom. The amplitude and time scale vary -- some parts of the world only move between miserable and hopeful -- some can take many generations to only briefly exit totalitarianism, etc. Fascism tracks with the concentration of wealth, democracy with semi-equitable wider distribution of wealth. But the only way we've found to efficiently build wealth is capitalism, which has its own problems, most notably its need for endless growth at all costs, the tendency for wealth to be hoarded by a few, and the rapid consumption of resources without regard to sustainability. Also of note, the plentifulness of fossil fuels was a rare and likely non-repeatable instance of cheap energy which is now drawing to a close.

All of this is driven by human nature, which I regard as fixed and immutable. There's even an argument that once a species achieves a certain level of technology, evolution stops altogether, removing even some hopeful (very) long view of human "improvement", because rather than adapting to the environment, we start adapting the environment to suit ourselves (and our short-sighted goals).

[Szuchow]

Certainly. Mine does not include people opposing fascists or other similar scum.

My take on this issue is that assessing hate groups as such and effectively opposing them is much more subjective and difficult than you are maintaining, that's all.

My underlying assumption is that because of our shared human nature, we all have the capacity to behave very poorly in certain situations.  Extremists beget opposing extremists.  Just look at how Israel is behaving against terrorists right now as an example.  Are they just responding to a hate group, or have they become a hate group themselves?

There is a psychological concept called an enantiodromia.  It is the tendency of things to change into their opposites.  It is not just that we oppose something awful, but how we do so that is important.

And my take is that it is really fucking hard to become as oppressive as fascists or religious fundamentalists and cries about extremists begetting extremists is nothing more than "enlightened centrism*". Fascism is as extreme as political ideology can get but unless people who oppose it (which is basically anyone with shred of decency) start lynching the scum then there is no equivalency between them whatsoever; one group want to enslave rest of the people where rest is resisting it which is perfectly reasonable.

*

[Szuchow]

I think Alan is talking about not becoming as awful as our opposition.  We do have to be sure we don’t become as oppressive, hateful, unreasonable, etc. as we counter our enemy.

Here's the thing - even opposing fascists with force does does not make opposing group as awful as them. One group stands for white supremacy, ethnic cleansing and authoritarian mode of government while other is against aforementioned. How equivalency between those group is even possible?

[Szuchow]

Seems that history does move in cycles. Hopefully it will end on idiotic propaganda not with another world war.

I've come to believe it's nothing but cycles of fascism and relative freedom. The amplitude and time scale vary -- some parts of the world only move between miserable and hopeful -- some can take many generations to only briefly exit totalitarianism, etc. Fascism tracks with the concentration of wealth, democracy with semi-equitable wider distribution of wealth. But the only way we've found to efficiently build wealth is capitalism, which has its own problems, most notably its need for endless growth at all costs, the tendency for wealth to be hoarded by a few, and the rapid consumption of resources without regard to sustainability. Also of note, the plentifulness of fossil fuels was a rare and likely non-repeatable instance of cheap energy which is now drawing to a close.

All of this is driven by human nature, which I regard as fixed and immutable. There's even an argument that once a species achieves a certain level of technology, evolution stops altogether, removing even some hopeful (very) long view of human "improvement", because rather than adapting to the environment, we start adapting the environment to suit ourselves (and our short-sighted goals).

I would rather call them cycles of oppression and freedom as fascism is relatively new invention. Also cycles of oppression would last for much longer though it obviously depends on place and social class to which one belongs. 

I wouldn't say that human nature is fixed and immutable. There is simply no political will to try anything else and why would it be when "elites" reap where they did not sown and take the fruit of other labors for themselves. I see the problem in neoliberalism achieving Gramscian hegemony that is being deemed to be common sense and not just another ideology - that's why it is so hard to fight it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How does that work, then?  To avoid becoming white supremacists, should we only moderately oppose white supremacy?

Qouth Nietzsche:

He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wars are notoriously great examples of man's inhumanity to man, unless you limit your discussion to well-justified wars and ignore the many mistakes made in their execution.  And yes, there will always be controversial calls which will be discussed endlessly.  At a point, we lack all the information required to draw conclusions about such problems.

I reject any comparison of forums to wars fought against this or that enemy. No one on a forum is drafted. No one on a forum is offering his or her life for an ideal, or even killing to save themselves. Mistakes made here can surely harden one's antagonist, but this ain't Normandy.

Fighting fascism with words isn't hate speech, it's disagreement. If that rustles some jimmies elsewhere in the ideosphere, maybe they shouldn't toss around terms like "snowflake" so much.

[Mathilda]

How does that work, then?  To avoid becoming white supremacists, should we only moderately oppose white supremacy?

Be reasonable, honest, and factual, not emotional or excessive.  That's all.  It's not rocket science.

Sure that works if you are also debating people who are reasonable, honest, factual and neither emotional or excessive. But what about when you aren't?

What if the other side is being completely dishonest and deliberately evoking people's fear and hatred by appealing to their ignorance and prejudices? They do this while trying to claiming they just  want a reasonable debate and have legitimate concerns. And each time they win they push for something else more extreme that now seems reasonable. Before you know it, your rights have been debated away.

I'm sure we all recognise the tactics we see described in this youtube video.



Also of relevance is half way through this video about what each side thinks is the purpose of debate.

https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM?si=iymX1EMB1qSsiizH&t=302

[Mathilda]

Seems that history does move in cycles. Hopefully it will end on idiotic propaganda not with another world war.

I've come to believe it's nothing but cycles of fascism and relative freedom.

I also think that there are cycles of oppression. History and economics is full of cycles corresponding to lessons falling out of living memory. People that were alive the last time fascism was being fought are now all dead.

The shocking thing about fascism is that it can sound reasonable at the time. For example, all the gay men and trans people sent to Nazi concentration camps weren't released after the war but were sent to normal jails to carry out their sentence instead. Very few people would willingly vote to live in a fascist state. It comes about through lies, divisive politics and the Overton window being gradually shifted rightwards over time.





To see how far it's shifted, watch this short modern video of two extreme leftist politicians discussing Mexican immigration.

[Rhythmcs]

How does that work, then?  To avoid becoming white supremacists, should we only moderately oppose white supremacy?

Qouth Nietzsche:

He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

Jokes on the abyss, I love that shit. 

So far, we've come to the idea that we probably shouldn't normandy the reich just yet.  That's disappointing.  I understand, ofc.  I'm guessing it's somewhere closer to calling them subhuman trash who can't be trusted around a child for all the grooming.  Thieves who intend to overthrow our government so they can loot our country.  Eliminationists that seek to eradicate our race.  Literal baby eaters powering their drug filled orgies with fetus fuel.  Because if someone was doing that.....we should do something to stop it.  That's an existential threat.  

The overton window has shifted so far that we're starting to believe that we could not, in good conscience, do what must be done.  That we're all now hostages to these fucking loons.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The overton window has shifted so far that we're starting to believe that we could not, in good conscience, do what must be done.  That we're all now hostages to these fucking loons.

Oh, I'm not against harsh measures; another quote I keep in mind as well is Mencken: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

I think the police should have opened fire on 6 Jan, but I also think that violence is only justified is specific instances.