Political Violence

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He dug up the quote from like two weeks ago, I gave him context.

 

He asked for a quote, I gave him the quote. I explained that it was a misunderstanding in the thread. He didn't read the full thread so I had to reiterate what the disagreement was. 

 

How is this digging myself deeper? I'm just posting the proof he's refusing to dig up himself so I'm not a liar because apparently he was just sleepin' when that comment walked. 

 

But when I keep hearing sheet about you thinking the government should be harder on media, about you having issues with Democracy, about how people would be happier with less money if they had "control over their nation". It sounds like authoritarian standpoint. Again, I'm just explaining what was explained to me so vla1ne doesn't strawman me as a SJW who calls everyone a Nazi.

 

And yes I acknowledged that you weren't all the way there yet, hence the word SYMPATHIZER.

Well, you should have caught on from Dad's comment that I was screwing around

 

Government should be harder on Media hot takes presented as fact 

 

People are happier with less money if they have more control, that's why

 

1) Higher prices for more domestic manufacturing polls in the green

 

2) Why even democrats and Indies who like Trump's economy (60% approval means atleast some dems do) still want him out

 

Sometimes the green isn't everything

 

Gridlock sucks, I'm annoyed that the left can judge shop and stop policy for months even though they're eventually gonna lose. Ie

 

Travel Ban

 

Does that make a Fascist? I don't know, not really super into labels, but I'm ok with you calling me on if it makes you feel better :)

 

I'm certainly somewhat authoritarian, but, you've got me in the wrong quad if you think I'm a Nazi

[Proto]

 

Does that make a Fascist? I don't know, not really super into labels, but I'm ok with you calling me on if it makes you feel better :)

 

 

I'm certainly somewhat authoritarian, but, you've got me in the wrong quad if you think I'm a Nazi

I haven't called you a fascist once, I haven't called you a fascist sympathizer since you clarified that it's a joke (again, diagnosed autist here, I take words at face value.) and I haven't called you a Nazi once or implied you were one, ever.

 

I'll talk with PMs about your INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL BELIEFS because it's got nothing to do with the thread.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I haven't called you a fascist once, I haven't called you a fascist sympathizer since you clarified that it's a joke (again, diagnosed autist here, I take words at face value.) and I haven't called you a Nazi once or implied you were one, ever.

 

I'll talk with PMs about your INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL BELIEFS because it's got nothing to do with the thread.

Yeah don't worry about it, I was just musing about where I lie in those last lines

[Sunshine Jesse]

As long as Antifa is beating the funk out of racists then I have no issue with them. No, I won't change my mind. Not if they kill a racist either. That's just one less racist in the world.

 

And if you can sympathize with the racists, you can get your ass beat too. I don't care what color you are. No tolerance for intolerance.

 

You wanted extreme? Here you go. I will NOT change my mind on that.

Now that you seem to know firsthand where the most extreme facets of your side comes from, you can apply it to the other side, and hopefully begin to figure out just why this train of thought is so funking stupid.

 

You're smart enough to try that at least, right?

[Dad]

Now that you seem to know firsthand where the most extreme facets of your side comes from, you can apply it to the other side, and hopefully begin to figure out just why this train of thought is so funking stupid.

 

You're smart enough to try that at least, right?

What part of "I won't change my mind" didn't you get?

 

I will NEVER tolerate racism. Period. Don't ask me that question again.

[Phantom Roxas]

The man decided to debate a black supremacist, and peacefully did so. He's already got more peaceful resolutions under his belt than antifa, and he's somehow banned from more places as well. He's banned for his views, while antifa is allowed to roam the campus with baseball bats attacking anybody who might be a nazi. I expect nothing less from universities at this point.

 

Never said he was a good person. I said he cares more about people than antifa does.Even with the domestic violence charge he STILL cares more about people than antifa does. One innocent person harmed by him, vs dozens on the antifa side. my point stands. like him or not, he's not leading in body count, and he's fully capapble of peaceful debate (and has done so numerous times), he's a sheet person, who's still leagues ahead of antifa on the morality scale.

 

Okay, seriously, "black supremacist"? Explain to me how the heck that guy was a "black supremacist"?

 

You seem to be conflating general opposition to white supremacy with Antifa. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, and he also participated in Unite the Right, which did result in murder. He's banned for his views because they explicitly advocate for murder, genocide, and slavery. This isn't about attacking people who "might" be Nazis. This is about pushing back against people who are Nazis. You should expecting nothing less from universities, because banning Nazis is the appropriate course of action.

 

I don't know, not really super into labels

I don't particularly like roxas, and I certainly don't like his views, but we've been able to keep a decent convo going without mod interference. How about just leaving our section to us. If it's "toxic" to you, I got a solution, don't visit it and post in it!

 

You never really posted there, not frequently atleast. Roxas and Wharheit were the resident leftists in debates with Jesse and Speedroid occasionally coming in. If you're pissed that it's spilling out of debates, warn the sheet out of that. It shouldn't happen and I'm guilty. But I don't see why a bunch of people who can't be bothered to post in debates wanna tell us how to run it

I can post several other examples from this thread alone. Proto's use of "fascist" is hardly any different from the utter disdain with which you constantly use "leftist", so you can stop pretending that you're not into labels.

[Sunshine Jesse]

What part of "I won't change my mind" didn't you get?

 

I will NEVER tolerate racism. Period. Don't ask me that question again.

 

Then don't change your mind, just empathize.

 

Apply your train of thought to those who would do the same to you and tell me if it really makes any less sense.

 

I don't care how much you posture about your views to feel stronger than you really are. I want to see you learn something, and I want to learn something from you. Do it for my sake, if you can't do it for yours.

[Proto]

Then don't change your mind, just empathize.

 

Apply your train of thought to those who would do the same to you and tell me if it really makes any less sense.

 

I don't care how much you posture about your views to feel stronger than you really are. I want to see you learn something, and I want to learn something from you. Do it for my sake, if you can't do it for yours.

why are you asking someone to empathize with people who literally want to kill them and have them expelled from the country

 

hello? do you not see the issue here?

 

surely the black grandparents in that church, the black victims of dylan roof and the holocaust survivors in the synagogue should've just turned the other cheek and everything would be alright.

[Dad]

Then don't change your mind, just empathize.

 

Apply your train of thought to those who would do the same to you and tell me if it really makes any less sense.

 

I don't care how much you posture about your views to feel stronger than you really are. I want to see you learn something, and I want to learn something from you. Do it for my sake, if you can't do it for yours.

You want me to empathize with racists?

 

You expect me to feel sorry for the people who want me and my kin dead for the color of my skin?

 

What do you want me to learn? Their history? Their lifestyle? You want me to go out to the next local KKK meeting and make buddy buddy with them before they hang me?

 

funk you.

[Phantom Roxas]

Then don't change your mind, just empathize.

 

Apply your train of thought to those who would do the same to you and tell me if it really makes any less sense.

 

I don't care how much you posture about your views to feel stronger than you really are. I want to see you learn something, and I want to learn something from you. Do it for my sake, if you can't do it for yours.

 

Okay, so say I wanted to learn from someone like Richard Spencer. What is there to learn from someone who thinks that African Americans contributed nothing to society, claims that "If Africans had never existed, world history would be almost exactly the same as it is today", and that they in fact benefitted more from slavery? Why should I learn about denouncing Jews, and learn his false belief that white people are somehow a "marginalized" community?

 

At most, perhaps I could learn how to came to hold those beliefs, but his beliefs are inherently based in what is provably false, so the beliefs by themselves hold no positive value. Richard Spencer said that he wants an ethnostate, even calling it a "safe space" for the white race. He believes his views are the norm, simply because he is the one who holds them. What I would want him to learn, I would feel I would have to dumb down certain information. I tutor elementary school students, but I rarely feel that I need to "dumb down" what I'm teaching them, because those students all show themselves readily capable of learning the material. All I have to do is help them realize that. With Richard Spencer, trying to help him learn anything would be worthless, because he believes he knows all that he would ever need to know.

[Sunshine Jesse]

tfw people don't know what empathy actually is

 

why are you asking someone to empathize with people who literally want to kill them and have them expelled from the country

 

hello? do you not see the issue here?

 

surely the black grandparents in that church, the black victims of dylan roof and the holocaust survivors in the synagogue should've just turned the other cheek and everything would be alright.

I want him to empathize so I can learn just why supporting violence is different for his case when his opponents think his side is doing the exact same thing.

 

Haven't you seen some of the things that people use to support their views? 1488? The white genocide narrative? "Anti racist is code for anti-white"? Things of that nature?

 

It makes just as much sense from their perspective as it does from his own perspective. Their beliefs are entirely justified to them, and their intentions aren't entirely out of malice.

 

Why is this important? My response to Roxas will explain that. 

 

You want me to empathize with racists?

 

You expect me to feel sorry for the people who want me and my kin dead for the color of my skin?

 

What do you want me to learn? Their history? Their lifestyle? You want me to go out to the next local KKK meeting and make buddy buddy with them before they hang me?

 

funk you.

There's nothing about empathy that means you have to feel sorry for them. Being able to empathize with their views might actually make you angrier once you fully realize why they hold them. You might direct your anger elsewhere, but that's better for everyone involved.

 

Okay, so say I wanted to learn from someone like Richard Spencer. What is there to learn from someone who thinks that African Americans contributed nothing to society, claims that "If Africans had never existed, world history would be almost exactly the same as it is today", and that they in fact benefitted more from slavery? Why should I learn about denouncing Jews, and learn his false belief that white people are somehow a "marginalized" community?

 

At most, perhaps I could learn how to came to hold those beliefs, but his beliefs are inherently based in what is provably false, so the beliefs by themselves hold no positive value. Richard Spencer said that he wants an ethnostate, even calling it a "safe space" for the white race. He believes his views are the norm, simply because he is the one who holds them. What I would want him to learn, I would feel I would have to dumb down certain information. I tutor elementary school students, but I rarely feel that I need to "dumb down" what I'm teaching them, because those students all show themselves readily capable of learning the material. All I have to do is help them realize that. With Richard Spencer, trying to help him learn anything would be worthless, because he believes he knows all that he would ever need to know.

 

It's not about changing anyone's mind, it's about figuring out where the real problems are and trying to fix those instead of just murdering each other. We need to address just why these beliefs make so much sense to people like him and why they think they can actually be striving for a greater good that isn't just a blanket assumption that they're delusional, horrible monsters.

 

My point is that violence for political ends doesn't deal with the actual underlying problems, and until you deal with those problems, they'll just keep coming back. Political violence is not only bad from a moral standpoint, it's straight up not pragmatic in the slightest, no matter the context.

 

I also think people here vastly underestimate just how powerful a victim narrative can be for strengthening a group no matter what the aims of the group are, but that's another matter entirely.

[Dad]

tfw people don't know what empathy actually is I want him to empathize so I can learn just why supporting violence is different for his case when his opponents think his side is doing the exact same thing.Haven't you seen some of the things that people use to support their views? 1488? The white genocide narrative? "Anti racist is code for anti-white"? Things of that nature? It makes just as much sense from their perspective as it does from his own perspective. Their beliefs are entirely justified to them, and their intentions aren't entirely out of malice. Why is this important? My response to Roxas will explain that.  There's nothing about empathy that means you have to feel sorry for them. Being able to empathize with their views might actually make you angrier once you fully realize why they hold them. You might direct your anger elsewhere, but that's better for everyone involved.  It's not about changing anyone's mind, it's about figuring out where the real problems are and trying to fix those instead of just murdering each other. We need to address just why these beliefs make so much sense to people like him and why they think they can actually be striving for a greater good that isn't just a blanket assumption that they're delusional, horrible monsters. My point is that violence for political ends doesn't deal with the actual underlying problems, and until you deal with those problems, they'll just keep coming back. Political violence is not only bad from a moral standpoint, it's straight up not pragmatic in the slightest, no matter the context. I also think people here vastly underestimate just how powerful a victim narrative can be for strengthening a group no matter what the aims of the group are, but that's another matter entirely.

You don't get it. Nor will you. If you know and understand that racism is an inherent problem, but you're willing to sit back, tolerate it, for the sake of a "deeper look into the problem", you spit in my funking face.

 

Mine, my ancestors, and theirs too. This violence from me ain't political. It's personal.

 

Zero tolerance for intolerance. I don't care why they hold racist views. I don't care where it stemmed from. I don't give two soggy shits about them or learning from them.

 

I will NOT. Tolerate. Racism.

[Sunshine Jesse]

You don't get it. Nor will you. If you know and understand that racism is an inherent problem, but you're willing to sit back, tolerate it, for the sake of a "deeper look into the problem", you spit in my funking face.

 

Mine, my ancestors, and theirs too. This violence from me ain't political. It's personal.

 

Zero tolerance for intolerance. I don't care why they hold racist views. I don't care where it stemmed from. I don't give two soggy shits about them or learning from them.

 

I will NOT. Tolerate. Racism.

Oh, no, I don't tolerate it. I just want to actually deal with it and the issues that arise from it, and think violence just makes all of it worse. I don't "tolerate" it at all, at least in the communities I'm a part of.

 

I guess the fact that it's not personal gives me that luxury.

[Proto]

tfw people don't know what empathy actually is I want him to empathize so I can learn just why supporting violence is differenont for his case when his opponents think his side is doing the exact same thing.Haven't you seen some of the things that people use to support their views? 1488? The white genocide narrative? "Anti racist is code for anti-white.

I already understand these things Jesse, why do you think I was able to pull Gavin out for the doubletalking Nazi points he has. If you want me to fight these ideas bring me them in an actual study, bring me actual evidence and I'll treat it with some serious doctrine. I think there are better ways to deal with it then literally just giving the Nazi the mic and letting him say whatever he wants to say.

 

I support deradicalization, I do not support giving PAID SPOKESPERSONS for violence against my people upmost civility. There are more white people in the world then ever before simply statistically, and equating VOLUNTARY birth choices with genocide is some of the most obnoxiously stupid ideas that I've ever seen. Is the fact that Barack Obama was born from a white womb a "white murder" if white birth rates declining is genocide? These ideas don't make the slightest bit of sense if you examine them with the very slightest bit of scrutiny yet we're expected to take them seriously?

[Sunshine Jesse]

I already understand these things Jesse, why do you think I was able to pull Gavin out for the doubletalking Nazi points he has. If you want me to fight these ideas bring me them in an actual study, bring me actual evidence and I'll treat it with some serious doctrine. I think there are better ways to deal with it then literally just giving the Nazi the mic and letting him say whatever he wants to say.

 

I support deradicalization, I do not support giving PAID SPOKESPERSONS for violence against my people upmost civility. There are more white people in the world then ever before simply statistically, and equating VOLUNTARY birth choices with genocide is some of the most obnoxiously stupid ideas that I've ever seen. Is the fact that Barack Obama was born from a white womb a "white murder" if white birth rates declining is genocide? These ideas don't make the slightest bit of sense if you examine them with the very slightest bit of scrutiny yet we're expected to take them seriously?

i mean yeah that's cool and all but i never said anything about that lmao

 

My problem is with violence, specifically, the idea that it was justifiable, and especially the idea that it's somehow better depending on the target.

 

Also, the fact that the ideas are stupid doesn't matter. Any idea can gain traction regardless of how obviously wrong it seems at first glance. We've seen this multiple times and will continue to see it in the future, because that's how the spread of information works.

 

That's another matter entirely though.

[Proto]

My problem is with violence, specifically, the idea that it was justifiable, and especially the idea that it's somehow better depending on the target.

Alright then, so if say someone who's a white nationalist executive orders something saying that the descendants of slaves no longer have their birthright. Is that not an act of violence? I mean not everyone's got somewhere to go so they're staying put, and if they stay put the police comes and tries to forcibly deport them, and if theres any resistance it might lead to killing them.

 

Violence does not STOP being violence when its carried by the state and the above is the type of policies that white nationalists support. Their whole platform is violence against black Americans which is why I am not opposed to violence being used against them. Pacifism doesn't work when the enemies duty is to expunge you, because neutrality =s them getting a free swing at your rights.

 

Also violence does literally work, Spencer is irrelevant as hell and he entirely blames antifa for it.

[cr47t]

To clear some things up from earlier because the thread moves faster than my day does
 

I can't tell if you're memeing me, you can click on the hyper links you know

 
You used Breitbart several times as well as Daily Wire and Daily Caller. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't lend my attention to fake crackpots. (The "crackpots" referred to are Breitbart and co, not you.)
 

Please reread my comments. I don't support violence, nor do i much care for groups that do (proud boys included) but if it comes down to it, the proud boys are all about reactionary violence. they support fighting yes, but they go to the violent groups, wait till those groups get violent, and then fight back. they wait for others to start fights, it's the entirety of their strategy. Do i support it? no, but when you have one group that initiates violence, and another that only swings when you swing first (i know, they go to the people who swing first, point still stands that they only attack attackers) one group is clearly going to be the better option. if nobody's swinging, then neither will the proud boys (in the clips of your twitter montage link, the videos in question have been edited down to make it look like the proud boys started it, I've seen full videos of three of them, and heard police reports for two of them. so far as i know, they have yet to be shown as the instigators for any of them.). On the other hand, even if nobody's swinging, antifa will swing first. while i support neither, one group is clearly the worse option.

 
Reactionary violence is still violence all the same. (Self-defense is different.) Even if Antifa starts these fights and PB only ends them, like you say, that doesn't make Proud Boys neccesarily "better" than Antifa, just "not as bad". (I like to think there's a difference.) I'm glad you cleared up you support neither, but I still don't agree that one is better than the other. If a person was put in a room and asked to choose between PB and Antifa, no matter how worse one is than the other, the best option is still to walk out the door and not choose either, because the way I see it, anyone who engages in violence for any reason, is not worth my time.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You want me to empathize with racists?

 

You expect me to feel sorry for the people who want me and my kin dead for the color of my skin?

 

What do you want me to learn? Their history? Their lifestyle? You want me to go out to the next local KKK meeting and make buddy buddy with them before they hang me?

 

funk you.

You've already stated multiple times you won't change your stance and now there's this. It might be best for you to avoid this topic in the future because I'd rather not have to dump punishments on people.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

LOL

 

Asks for sources without realize the links are hyperlinked, then complains about the source. If you move those goalposts any faster you're gonna break the luminal barrier. Also if you were  here in good faith cr47t you could find non-breitbart sources for all those attacks, but you're not here. The entire purpose was to find some figleaf to hid behind. But you do you

Also violence does literally work, Spencer is irrelevant as hell and he entirely blames antifa for it.

If Violence works, will violence against Democrats work?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

If Violence works, will violence against Democrats work?

And there it is. Surprisingly, this one small point is one I find very interesting.

 

Because that's the thing I think Jesse and Vlaine both have been talking about partially as well. See...both sides think they're right. So if it's "okay" to use violence against one side then it would be "okay" to use violence against the other. Of course no one likes violence on their side so the crux of the issue is simply...It just doesn't seem right to use a tactic and then complain about the same exact tactic. Yes, perhaps it's different because on one side it's "violence because of racism" and the other is "violence against racism" but no matter what there's someone who thinks they're morally right being physically attacked. So it's not something I feel is so easy to separate into right and wrong in as clean cut ways as being presented usually.

Not to mention that violence even against the "wrong" side usually ends up causing problems for innocents as well. Either directly or indirectly.

Violence begets violence.

[Proto]

 

If Violence works, will violence against Democrats work?

If democrats ever straight up advocate violence against someone solely based on their race, sex, mental capacities or whatever then go ahead beat 'em up, I'm not partisan on this issue. I think it's rather fair to say that if people push ideologies that exist only to harm people within the community, then people within the community should be able to contest with whatever force they deem to be necessary. If your ideology is violence amongst residents and those residents decide "nah, funk off." That should be allowed.

 

By the way don't strawman me, I'm not advocating for violence against the average Republican or anyone with conservative views, I'm simply advocating it against a group that is not only highly affiliated with the KKK, but also as their entire platformed defined by "we want every black and brown person out of this funking country".

 

Like, seriously? If there's a party that goes "yeah get all white people out of this country" then I'll support punching them too. Because they're suggesting violence on a political level and you're simply retaliating with violence before they get to that point.

 

Bigotry is the line in the sand. I'm not sure what's so hard to get. Ya'll had your chance for peace with MLK and you didn't get the message, which means okay, we're done with the peace now that you still haven't stopped, we're gonna get our knuckles bloody.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I think the democrats eagerly support the murder of defenseless children. So wouldn't violence be justified?

You're strawmanning yourself here. 

And there it is. Surprisingly, this one small point is one I find very interesting.

 

Because that's the thing I think Jesse and Vlaine both have been talking about partially as well. See...both sides think they're right. So if it's "okay" to use violence against one side then it would be "okay" to use violence against the other. Of course no one likes violence on their side so the crux of the issue is simply...It just doesn't seem right to use a tactic and then complain about the same exact tactic. Yes, perhaps it's different because on one side it's "violence because of racism" and the other is "violence against racism" but no matter what there's someone who thinks they're morally right being physically attacked. So it's not something I feel is so easy to separate into right and wrong in as clean cut ways as being presented usually.

Not to mention that violence even against the "wrong" side usually ends up causing problems for innocents as well. Either directly or indirectly.

Violence begets violence.

Right, I think the Nazi are filth, but when you start saying violence works, what's stopping me from employing it against other groups I'd rather see gone?

[Proto]

I think the democrats eagerly support the murder of defenseless children. So wouldn't violence be justified?

You're strawmanning yourself here. 

Right, I think the Nazi are filth, but when you start saying violence works, what's stopping me from employing it against other groups I'd rather see gone?

I mean you wouldn't be the first, there are so many attacks on abortion clinics it's not even funny. But I don't want to debate the philosophy of abortion in this thread and you are welcome to make another thread if you wish to stretch the argument that far out.

 

You can do it individually if you want to risk the jail time, if you wanna gun down whoever you want, you do you. I'm just saying why I personally advocate for Antifa and why I believe that it's valid in this. I draw the line simply at beings who wish death and discrimination upon other people and I'm arguing my viewpoint. Like saying that you should "hold violence" until a certain point is ultimately privilege in the fact that you're probably not going to be the one who's suffering through their doctrines. Like if someone came through with their philosophy being "Deport Melkor and ban him from the United States" would you be offended if people entertained that speech as equal to every other piece of speech?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 Like if someone came through with their philosophy being "Deport Melkor and ban him from the United States" would you be offended if people entertained that speech as equal to every other piece of speech?

No? Why would I?

[Proto]

No? Why would I?

Because it's an attack on you by someone who'd never met you that is being validated by your peers simply because they don't understand the sheer absurdity of the situation and probably don't know you personally. Those who proposition it think of you as not a human and everyone around you either seems to agree or not care about this well, blatant political threat against your life personally that is undeserved.

 

That's a bit how watching people readily defend Richard Spencer/Alt-Right/The Proud Boys feels as a black person, personally.