Pros and Cons of Punching a Nazi Just Square in the Dick

[pacobird]

Because that's what we need to be looking at. Not the jackbooted Hugo Boss Nazis of 1939, but the terrorists and radical communities of 2017.

So, the Nazis of 1923?

Anyway, the alt-right encourages the comparisons with literal Nazis themselves.

[Büge]

[zaratustra]

Let's reframe and consider this a moment, Mongrel. If you, as in you personally, walked by a jackass that catcalls your wife as rudely as possible and then calls her a dumb cunt for ignoring it... Wouldn't you punch him?

My wife is what's termed "multi-racial" in our enlightened 21st century society. My son, too.

Richard Spencer is not just "catcalling" them. He has literally written essays on the subject of why they shouldn't exist.

[Rico]

For my part, mostly it's that through not only content but sheer volume of posting this thread feels like just a big philosophical exercise when that is a luxury many of us absolutely do not have.

[Mongrel]

I have to say that I'm not comfortable with the "If you're not with us, you're with the Nazis" vibe of hostility I've gotten today. I mean, no one's said that outright, but it sure seems like that subtext is there. I'm on your side guys, you can put the pitchforks away.

It's less social pressure and more bewilderment.

Let's reframe and consider this a moment, Mongrel. If you, as in you personally, walked by a jackass that catcalls your wife as ludely as possible and then calls her a dumb cunt for ignoring it... Wouldn't you punch him?

Speech can and *absolutely* is a cause for a justified violent response.

Depends on why the guy is saying that. Is he just an asshole or is that bait? Am I a man, or a bull?

Now, knowing something is bait might not change whether or not dude gets a punching, but it might.

I don't know why this is so bewildering. I want to win, not get danced around like a marionette.

But I mean, what if I WERE a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist? Would that be "bewildering"? Would I then be a valid target for derision? To have such views dismissed?

Are we so quick to forget that the most successfully prosecuted wars of the twentieth century were nominally defensive wars, where the enemy had been allowed to strike first? (and Dylan Roof is not a Causis Belli). That the most successful and lasting social movements and revolutions of the twentieth century, ones which achieved the most, were based on philosophies of non-violence?

[Mongrel]

Because that's what we need to be looking at. Not the jackbooted Hugo Boss Nazis of 1939, but the terrorists and radical communities of 2017.

So, the Nazis of 1923?

Anyway, the alt-right encourages the comparisons with literal Nazis themselves.

Eh, that's closer at least, but again non-Nazi modern history matters just as much here. This is a hybrid movement and ignoring half that movement's origins is going to lead you down the wrong path.

In any case, do you think that rounding up all the Nazis of Germany in 1923 and beating them them as a preventative measure would have changed much? Honest question, not rhetorical.

But I will say this. The Alt-Right is not encouraging Nazi comparisons the way other neo-Nazis do. The comparison to trolling is more apt than comparisons to earlier neo-Nazi coded speech and dogwhistles. The Alt-Right is trying something sort of new. They are like the evil versions of people who argue "Well, we've never actually had Communism in a democracy".

Well, not entirely new - there's certainly an American heritage for suave pseudo-enlightented racism. Historically that's been the most successful kind of racism. Would punching the scientific racists of 1880 have solved anything? Again, honest question.

The Alt-Right are not operating in a vacuum here. There's an audience for these views, a big one judging from the recent election. Convincing that audience matters quite a bit and punching out smooth-talkers Rorschach-style who do not yet *appear* to have done anything (this is where all that flimsy plausible deniablity comes in) might not actually convince anyone except those already predisposed to agree with you. What happens if rising escalation on both sides starts to be seen as an honest-to-god Race War? Is that going to lead to a great outcome?

[Mongrel]

Actually, here's a really big question.

What would you do if the Alt-Right continues to advocate hateful racist policies, but uses the peaceful non-resistance techniques developed and previously used by the left in an effort to win the political victories needed to actually advance their hateful cause in legislatures?

Are you prepared for a scenario like that?

Are we not still in an era where the right has been winning hearts and minds while the left has consistently failed to do so?

[Mongrel]

I mean, if nothing else, can you imagine how MAD leftists would be? "You! You... you can't do that! That's our technique!"

Not if we've abandoned it because punching people was more satisfying.

Holy fuck it would be a strategic masterstroke for the Alt-Right and dear god I hope they don't figure that out.

[Blossom]

The Alt-Right are not encouraging Nazi comparisons because the Alt-Right are neo-nazis attempting rebranding. Don't fall for it and don't let them set the tone of the conversation.

[zaratustra]

[Mongrel]

Pretty much.

And as recent years have also shown, tone and style seem to matter a hell of a lot more than substance.

[pacobird]

Because that's what we need to be looking at. Not the jackbooted Hugo Boss Nazis of 1939, but the terrorists and radical communities of 2017.

So, the Nazis of 1923?

Anyway, the alt-right encourages the comparisons with literal Nazis themselves.

Eh, that's closer at least, but again non-Nazi modern history matters just as much here. This is a hybrid movement and ignoring half that movement's origins is going to lead you down the wrong path.

The only thing the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco really had in common was the mass murder of opposition. This movement deserves the "Nazi" monniker because it's more racist/racial supremacist than Italian Fascism or Spanish Falangism (take a moment to process this!) but it barely matters because these ideologies are all built on a will-to-power grounded in bloodshed and little else.

In any case, do you think that rounding up all the Nazis of Germany in 1923 and beating them them as a preventative measure would have changed much? Honest question, not rhetorical.

Yes.

But I will say this. The Alt-Right is not encouraging Nazi comparisons the way other neo-Nazis do. The comparison to trolling is more apt than comparisons to earlier neo-Nazi coded speech and dogwhistles. The Alt-Right is trying something sort of new. They are like the evil versions of people who argue "Well, we've never actually had Communism in a democracy".

They are nothing like this. Neo-communists argue a Communist state could be achieved without widespread state violence and repression (though I think this view is at best deeply naive). What is Spencer's plan for creating an all-white utopia out of a country where over 100 million non-whites currently reside?

White nationalism is not evil because multiculturalism is inherently good. It's evil because it advocates bloodshed as an end to itself.

Well, not entirely new - there's certainly an American heritage for suave pseudo-enlightented racism. Historically that's been the most successful kind of racism. Would punching the scientific racists of 1880 have solved anything? Again, honest question.

Yes, it did. What do you think the labor strikes back then were actually like? How do you think industrialists justified the conditions that they were striking against?

The Alt-Right are not operating in a vacuum here. There's an audience for these views, a big one judging from the recent election. Convincing that audience matters quite a bit and punching out smooth-talkers Rorschach-style who do not yet *appear* to have done anything (this is where all that flimsy plausible deniablity comes in) might not actually convince anyone except those already predisposed to agree with you.

Of course there's an audience for these views. There always has been. What's "new" is the fearlessness on their part; you had the luxury of living in a world where the Fascist Right appeared impotent, but that's because the ideology was persecuted, not because it was unpopular.

#makeracistsafraidagain

What happens if rising escalation on both sides starts to be seen as an honest-to-god Race War? Is that going to lead to a great outcome?

"Race War"? It's not a race war just because one side claims to be hoisting the banner of white people.

[Mongrel]

The Alt-Right are not encouraging Nazi comparisons because the Alt-Right are neo-nazis attempting rebranding. Don't fall for it and don't let them set the tone of the conversation.

Eh, I think they're playing a bit of a double game there. "Dogwhistle" is overused to death, but if it deserves to be applied anywhere, it's in describing the alt-right.

[pacobird]

I mean, if nothing else, can you imagine how MAD leftists liberals, who nobody expect to be helpful in a violent struggle against fascism anybody would be? "You! You... you can't do that! That's our technique!"

ftfy

[pacobird]

The Alt-Right are not encouraging Nazi comparisons because the Alt-Right are neo-nazis attempting rebranding. Don't fall for it and don't let them set the tone of the conversation.

Eh, I think they're playing a bit of a double game there. "Dogwhistle" is overused to death, but if it deserves to be applied anywhere, it's in describing the alt-right.

In 2012, Alternative Right published an article entitled "Is Black Genocide Right?"[8] It stated that the black race "has contributed almost nothing to the pool of civilization" and asked "whether Black Genocide is something worth considering"; after drawing widespread criticism, the article was deleted from the site.[9]

thinking_emoji.jpg

[Mongrel]

Yes.

There's actually a pretty lively and reasonable debate happening in the comments and replies there.

They are nothing like this. Neo-communists argue a Communist state could be achieved without widespread state violence and repression (though I think this view is at best deeply naive). What is Spencer's plan for creating an all-white utopia out of a country where over 100 million non-whites currently reside?

White nationalism is not evil because multiculturalism is inherently good. It's evil because it advocates bloodshed as an end to itself.

You're making too much of the comparison. The key is that the Alt-Right is capable of pretending to not desire violence or repressive state mechanisms, even though these would of course be a part of any racist all-white regime.

Yes, it did. What do you think the labor strikes back then were actually like? How do you think industrialists justified the conditions that they were striking against?

The people who were actually formulating the theories were not the ones down at the street brawl with the strikers and breakers. That's several steps removed. Getting into the labour crossover there is I think taking us too far off topic, so let's just let this be.

Of course there's an audience for these views. There always has been. What's "new" is the fearlessness on their part; you had the luxury of living in a world where the Fascist Right appeared impotent, but that's because the ideology was persecuted, not because it was unpopular.

#makeracistsafraidagain

Consider the possibility that this will not work the way it used to. Trump was the "hope" candidate, and Hillary the "Fear" candidate, remember?

"Race War"? It's not a race war just because one side claims to be hoisting the banner of white people.

I'm talking about how well the idea can be sold. See my posts above on the possibility of the right co-opting leftist techniques.

[Mongrel]

The Alt-Right are not encouraging Nazi comparisons because the Alt-Right are neo-nazis attempting rebranding. Don't fall for it and don't let them set the tone of the conversation.

Eh, I think they're playing a bit of a double game there. "Dogwhistle" is overused to death, but if it deserves to be applied anywhere, it's in describing the alt-right.

In 2012, Alternative Right published an article entitled "Is Black Genocide Right?"[8] It stated that the black race "has contributed almost nothing to the pool of civilization" and asked "whether Black Genocide is something worth considering"; after drawing widespread criticism, the article was deleted from the site.[9]

thinking_emoji.jpg

Yeah, we already know they want genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.

What if they decide to get there by seizing political power using peaceful means traditionally used by the left?

My reply to Zara's image etc.

Donald Trump just won the fucking election using this bullshit for fuck's sakes.

[pacobird]

Consider the possibility that this will not work the way it used to. Trump was the "hope" candidate, and Hillary the "Fear" candidate, remember?

ARE YOU FUCKING FOR REAL RIGHT NOW

[Mongrel]

Consider the possibility that this will not work the way it used to. Trump was the "hope" candidate, and Hillary the "Fear" candidate, remember?

ARE YOU FUCKING FOR REAL RIGHT NOW

Have you seriously not encountered this trope previously?

Or do you think that I believe in that, and that the quotation marks mean nothing?

[pacobird]

Please explain how Donald Trump's message can be interpreted as "hope" that is in some way antithetical to "fear". I don't know any Trump supporters who would characterize their support of him as "hopeful", at least further than hope that his presidency could alleviate their fear.

This wouldn't even serve to discredit him if you could show the fear was rational!