Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Jun 28th), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Il ferroviere, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2D: Estonia vs Spain (Jul 5th), Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

US Politics thread

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

Re: US Politics thread

#17721

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 24th, 2020, 3:51 pm

I believe to get the working class to vote left they need to click with other margainlized people. It's like clicking with coworkers. They all have one thing in common. They are poor and are being exploited, and they hate that. They can talk to each other on that topic and then they will slowly become empathetic towards each other.

I'm becoming less and less of a fan of reform though because they will always get reversed when a different party comes in.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17722

Post by St. Gloede » June 24th, 2020, 6:09 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 3:03 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 9:50 am
Pretentious Hipster wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 12:32 am
Looks like it's over for The Hill. Krystal Ball made a PAC and took over a third of the money raised. Saagar supports and has fascist views.
Both well-known facts before the show even started, nothing will fundamentally change - though Robinson will likely not be back on, and some people on the left may be more weary/critical of the shows function/purpose.
The left should adopt some of Saagar's social/cultural politics, then maybe some actual workers instead of academics and managers would vote for leftist parties. Don't agree with him on weed, but restricted immigration and patriotism is just self-destructive to denounce. NJR seems to denounce common sense as fascism. SAD!

Rising is great show! (l)
Restrictive immigration policies is not Fascism ... There's a difference between having small asylum quotas and strict standards of entry and putting people in camps ... This is that weird thing when you believe the Fascists as the common sense players again Dolwphyn. As everyone on the left keeps saying: "Process their applications and either accept or deny them". I think AOC's point was: "You shouldn't have 10,000 ICE agents with guns you should have 10,000 case workers" (paraphrased).

As for patriotism ... there are so many forms and understandings of what this term means. I agree that the left shouldn't dismiss patriotism and reclaim it as working for the people of the nation, but the way patriotism is usually used is just vile and disgusting form of effective mass control.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17723

Post by St. Gloede » June 24th, 2020, 6:12 pm

Pretentious Hipster wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 3:51 pm
I believe to get the working class to vote left they need to click with other margainlized people. It's like clicking with coworkers. They all have one thing in common. They are poor and are being exploited, and they hate that. They can talk to each other on that topic and then they will slowly become empathetic towards each other.

I'm becoming less and less of a fan of reform though because they will always get reversed when a different party comes in.
Don't get sucked down the Leninist rabbit hole, that way lays cultish craziness that is often near-impossible to tell apart from fascism. It is a bizarre "force or kill everyone into submission" mindset masquerading as empowerment.

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17724

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 24th, 2020, 6:31 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 6:12 pm
Pretentious Hipster wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 3:51 pm
I believe to get the working class to vote left they need to click with other margainlized people. It's like clicking with coworkers. They all have one thing in common. They are poor and are being exploited, and they hate that. They can talk to each other on that topic and then they will slowly become empathetic towards each other.

I'm becoming less and less of a fan of reform though because they will always get reversed when a different party comes in.
Don't get sucked down the Leninist rabbit hole, that way lays cultish craziness that is often near-impossible to tell apart from fascism. It is a bizarre "force or kill everyone into submission" mindset masquerading as empowerment.
No worries won't be a tankie. I just think making change with that is more effective. Bring a socialist government to set a foundation, and then make it a stateless society. I would use councils to not make it completely state-run.

I wouldn't do gulags either. That being said, people like Bezos and Musk should be in jail for criminal negligence from what they've done during the virus. I would definitely be a lot more strict with white collar crime.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17725

Post by St. Gloede » June 24th, 2020, 8:34 pm

Pretentious Hipster wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 6:31 pm
No worries won't be a tankie.
Good. :cheers:
I just think making change with that is more effective.
What do you mean by "that"? A coup followed by a temporary totalitarian transition state? If so, that is not only inefficient at leading to the end goal, but directly counter-productive, as a violent coup against the general will of the people has to focus has to be put on keeping the population submissive and unable to have a voice/power, or else it would collapse. The next step then is that those unwilling to carry out the necessary precautions, i.e. camps, mass-killings, etc. are traitors - and as there could be no direct democratic accountability (aside of within the minority with privileges), and with so much power placed on the top - any standard opportunists can quickly claim to the top.

(sorry if I'm completely misreading you here)
Bring a socialist government to set a foundation, and then make it a stateless society.
Just for clarity: Which definition are you using for state there? The Marxist definition of one class maintaining power, the anarchist definition of top-down rule, the more common definition of monopoly on violence or the idea of a government?
I would use councils to not make it completely state-run. I wouldn't do gulags either. That being said, people like Bezos and Musk should be in jail for criminal negligence from what they've done during the virus. I would definitely be a lot more strict with white collar crime.
The general message of keeping people such as Bezos criminally accountable is likely not something anyone will disagree with, and alternative power structures to the state is also quite good - but I am worried you are potentially placing hope in a method that just can't succeed - and which tends to lead to some pretty harrowing consequences.

*As you saying you would be a lot more strict with white-collar crime I might have misunderstood you quite severely, however.

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17726

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 24th, 2020, 9:03 pm

I'd most likely want a general strike to happen first. I think the best strategy, and what I'm starting to do now, is to start talking to people about far left and even marxist principles without directly mentioning that. My coworkers are POC. For the younger ones I mention to them how shitty work can be with exploitation, and that it could be directly connected with their race as well (I like to say that literally all of the seniors in the home where we work are white). A revolution might have to happen if all else fails, but yes it would be incredibly messy.

If America wants to change stuff through a reform, then so much of the system will have to change. The media is a big one. I mean, the Onion and Hard Drive are legit considered one of the best news sources now. That says a lot right there. There needs to be a budget cap placed on elections. That way the oligarchy won't have practically full control on who gets to have the most attention. Get rid of superdelegates. That is some technocratic level stuff. It's funny, for a country that loves to "spread" democracy around the world, they should have a bad idea of what it is.

I meant the marxist definition of state.

As for white collar, I just noticed that many get away scot free for it. The wall street crash of 2008 was a great example. Enron is another as well. The thing Elon Musk did just took it way too far. He might have literally killed people. He illegally opened his factory during covid, and it caused an outbreak in that factory. This city had another good example recently. The CEO asked people to take a vacation day one day a week, but to keep working in secret. That way the company has less expenses to do. This means that the employees lose their vacation days, and they were told that they would lose their jobs if they don't agree with this. What happened to the CEO? He wasn't even pressured to step down.

Through an economic perspective I would do something similar to Cuba in the end. I would have the "needs" be centralized, with your money given only for the "wants". The economy for the "wants" will be worker co-ops. It will create some competition to keep it healthy, but that system will make it a lot less exploitative.

Keep in mind I'm still learning a lot. Just going through some theory now :) Doing a combination of light reading, and finding podcasts that do analysis of marxist-leninist theory and their books. The Das Kapital one woke me up.

User avatar
Mario Gaborović
Posts: 3439
Joined: Apr 11, 2014
Location: Pančevo
Contact:

#17727

Post by Mario Gaborović » June 24th, 2020, 9:09 pm

This morning someone deleted my post in which I advocated murders of dictators, fascists and autocrats generally, such as

Edited by Peaceful Anarchy

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24711
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#17728

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » June 24th, 2020, 10:03 pm

Mario Gaborović wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 9:09 pm
This morning someone deleted my post in which I advocated murders of dictators, fascists and autocrats generally, such as

Edited by Peaceful Anarchy
I edited out your post. Someone else deleted your other post, but I agree with that decision.

This is not an appropriate topic for discussion on this forum and will lead to either shitposting or investigation by the police forces of those fascists. No good can come of this discussion. We're pretty damn lax with moderation (maybe too much?) please respect this decision.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17729

Post by St. Gloede » June 24th, 2020, 10:47 pm

Pretentious Hipster wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 9:03 pm
I'd most likely want a general strike to happen first. I think the best strategy, and what I'm starting to do now, is to start talking to people about far left and even marxist principles without directly mentioning that. My coworkers are POC. For the younger ones I mention to them how shitty work can be with exploitation, and that it could be directly connected with their race as well (I like to say that literally all of the seniors in the home where we work are white). A revolution might have to happen if all else fails, but yes it would be incredibly messy.

If America wants to change stuff through a reform, then so much of the system will have to change. The media is a big one. I mean, the Onion and Hard Drive are legit considered one of the best news sources now. That says a lot right there. There needs to be a budget cap placed on elections. That way the oligarchy won't have practically full control on who gets to have the most attention. Get rid of superdelegates. That is some technocratic level stuff. It's funny, for a country that loves to "spread" democracy around the world, they should have a bad idea of what it is.

I meant the marxist definition of state.

As for white collar, I just noticed that many get away scot free for it. The wall street crash of 2008 was a great example. Enron is another as well. The thing Elon Musk did just took it way too far. He might have literally killed people. He illegally opened his factory during covid, and it caused an outbreak in that factory. This city had another good example recently. The CEO asked people to take a vacation day one day a week, but to keep working in secret. That way the company has less expenses to do. This means that the employees lose their vacation days, and they were told that they would lose their jobs if they don't agree with this. What happened to the CEO? He wasn't even pressured to step down.

Through an economic perspective I would do something similar to Cuba in the end. I would have the "needs" be centralized, with your money given only for the "wants". The economy for the "wants" will be worker co-ops. It will create some competition to keep it healthy, but that system will make it a lot less exploitative.

Keep in mind I'm still learning a lot. Just going through some theory now :) Doing a combination of light reading, and finding podcasts that do analysis of marxist-leninist theory and their books. The Das Kapital one woke me up.
Ah yes, I recall you saying you were torn between (anarco?-)Syndicalism and Marxism-Leninism before. Powerful unionization able to cripple the economy is a necessity in any healthy economy - otherwise it is only the capitalists that can really do so. It is also a great way of ensuring that people are made aware of the antagonism between the their interests and the interests of those who profit off of their labor, while also having so much power over their lives. If you're managing to get more people to recognize this, great work!

I have to ask though - why the focus on Marxism-Leninism? Be very vary of what they are saying/implying - when pushed you will almost always encounter a mindset of oppressing all who disagree and removing power from the people. I would also warn you of taking what they say re: Marx with a grain of salt (read the source) just as you should take anything Marx/Engels says about any other Leftist movement with a grain of salt (they were notoriously dishonest about essentially any perceived opposing force - to the point of fabricating the story of Bakunin being a Serbian spy, or Engels pretending Marx discovered surplus labor value or "scientific socialism"). Just always read the source, even if the person trashing them is someone you respect. It can be a case of dishonesty, or simply misunderstandings, lack of knowledge and/or distrust (i.e. reading the worst possible interpretation into every statement).

-

The end game of a mixed socialist economy, with basic needs provided for and "wants" being taken care of by a co-operative market sector, is also a nice and easily defended stance (granted, anti-Marxist, at least traditional views on what capitalism is - the Marxist analysis is quite flawed IMO and misattributes features/functions that can be good or bad as fundamental pillars to be overcome - i.e. markets = capitalism, a very frustrating view/definition). Seems like you essentially want Social Democracy with Mutualism replacing Capitalism.

Just a final point to this - especially as you are already interested in Syndicalism - there are more ways to power than reform vs. revolution - neither of which are overly likely. Of course these terms are thrown around so much that they can mean literally anything but if the idea is:

1. Elect nice people and they will save us
vs.
2. Support nice people to overthrow the government and they will save us

That just won't happen - or at least, it hasn't happened so far, and nothing indicates that it will. You need to change the economic power within the society first. That can in part be done within democratic processes (which may or may not be called reform), i.e. building out the public sector - but that can be taken away with an election - building union power while at the same time strengthening the necessary co-operative sector - and leveraging consumer power (the idea that there is no ethical consumption is a myth) is all necessary.

The less the capitalist class owns, and the more people are not dependent on them to live - the more freedom they have to act as a political opposition to them (without fearing for their livelihood), and the less power the capitalists have to put the public in a hostage situation where it is lower standards of living or economic exodus. It is usually when the economic power changes that real change happens - this is primarily how capitalism replaced feudalism - even in the cases were there were coups they had already gained the economic power to pull it off. Prefiguration is essential.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17730

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 3:55 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 6:09 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 3:03 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 9:50 am


Both well-known facts before the show even started, nothing will fundamentally change - though Robinson will likely not be back on, and some people on the left may be more weary/critical of the shows function/purpose.
The left should adopt some of Saagar's social/cultural politics, then maybe some actual workers instead of academics and managers would vote for leftist parties. Don't agree with him on weed, but restricted immigration and patriotism is just self-destructive to denounce. NJR seems to denounce common sense as fascism. SAD!

Rising is great show! (l)
Restrictive immigration policies is not Fascism ... There's a difference between having small asylum quotas and strict standards of entry and putting people in camps ... This is that weird thing when you believe the Fascists as the common sense players again Dolwphyn. As everyone on the left keeps saying: "Process their applications and either accept or deny them". I think AOC's point was: "You shouldn't have 10,000 ICE agents with guns you should have 10,000 case workers" (paraphrased).

As for patriotism ... there are so many forms and understandings of what this term means. I agree that the left shouldn't dismiss patriotism and reclaim it as working for the people of the nation, but the way patriotism is usually used is just vile and disgusting form of effective mass control.
The point Is that social conservatism or right-wing populism Is not fascism. And much of It Is common sense. But to co-operate with people holding such views, or holding them yourself as I do, Is apparently just fascism according to NJR.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17731

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 3:55 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 6:09 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 3:03 pm


The left should adopt some of Saagar's social/cultural politics, then maybe some actual workers instead of academics and managers would vote for leftist parties. Don't agree with him on weed, but restricted immigration and patriotism is just self-destructive to denounce. NJR seems to denounce common sense as fascism. SAD!

Rising is great show! (l)
Restrictive immigration policies is not Fascism ... There's a difference between having small asylum quotas and strict standards of entry and putting people in camps ... This is that weird thing when you believe the Fascists as the common sense players again Dolwphyn. As everyone on the left keeps saying: "Process their applications and either accept or deny them". I think AOC's point was: "You shouldn't have 10,000 ICE agents with guns you should have 10,000 case workers" (paraphrased).

As for patriotism ... there are so many forms and understandings of what this term means. I agree that the left shouldn't dismiss patriotism and reclaim it as working for the people of the nation, but the way patriotism is usually used is just vile and disgusting form of effective mass control.
The point Is that social conservatism or right-wing populism Is not fascism. And much of It Is common sense. But to co-operate with people holding such views, or holding them yourself as I do, Is apparently just fascism according to NJR.
You are misunderstanding the critique. No one has claimed social conservatism = fascism, the claim, which I find 100% true
is that right-wing populism essentially always borders and houses fascism. It essentially always builds on hatred of the others, scape-goating immigrants, enforcing traditional values, limiting rights, promoting nationalism/patriotism, etc. They may not go as far as wanting a totalitarian state, but it is certainly fascism light.

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20257
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17732

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 25th, 2020, 4:25 pm

I think you missed Saagar in Joe Rogan's pocast where he starts talking about the Frankfurt University indoctrinating the elite and turning them into Cultural Marxists. It was first used in nazi germany, and was called Kulturbolschewismus, or Cultural Bolshevism.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17733

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 5:33 pm

Also, as this argument has been misconstrued a lot, the issue posed about Rising is not that a left wing populist is sharing the stage with a right wing populist - it is about the sanitision of the latter, and more dangerously the idea that these two groups are joined as an "us" against the establishment "them" - which essentially leads you to thinking Trump is closer to your interests - and that he is not more dangerous than your regular establishment Liberal.

To be clear, this is a nuanced issue: It can be argued that this goes both ways and that the left can bring people over - which is true and then we can look at the trade off - but that is in terms of sharing a stage, focusing on shared issues, etc. (even if it leads to possibly sanitizing extremist/violent/oppressive views). It is certainly a good idea with regular right wingers and conservatives, as it is neccesary to reach out to the people they reach - the problem really starts when you make really dangerous ideas seem acceptable, such as using violence against protestors or keeping asylum seekers in concentration camps instead of processing and approving/declining their applications.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17734

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 5:36 pm

Pretentious Hipster wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 4:25 pm
I think you missed Saagar in Joe Rogan's pocast where he starts talking about the Frankfurt University indoctrinating the elite and turning them into Cultural Marxists. It was first used in nazi germany, and was called Kulturbolschewismus, or Cultural Bolshevism.
I don't recall that, but then again I don't understand the relevance?
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17735

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 5:40 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 3:55 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 24th, 2020, 6:09 pm


Restrictive immigration policies is not Fascism ... There's a difference between having small asylum quotas and strict standards of entry and putting people in camps ... This is that weird thing when you believe the Fascists as the common sense players again Dolwphyn. As everyone on the left keeps saying: "Process their applications and either accept or deny them". I think AOC's point was: "You shouldn't have 10,000 ICE agents with guns you should have 10,000 case workers" (paraphrased).

As for patriotism ... there are so many forms and understandings of what this term means. I agree that the left shouldn't dismiss patriotism and reclaim it as working for the people of the nation, but the way patriotism is usually used is just vile and disgusting form of effective mass control.
The point Is that social conservatism or right-wing populism Is not fascism. And much of It Is common sense. But to co-operate with people holding such views, or holding them yourself as I do, Is apparently just fascism according to NJR.
You are misunderstanding the critique. No one has claimed social conservatism = fascism, the claim, which I find 100% true
is that right-wing populism essentially always borders and houses fascism. It essentially always builds on hatred of the others, scape-goating immigrants, enforcing traditional values, limiting rights, promoting nationalism/patriotism, etc. They may not go as far as wanting a totalitarian state, but it is certainly fascism light.
You know, when you really think about It, Is not social democrats really Stalinist-light?
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17736

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 5:49 pm

In terms of NJR, he also made that really clear:


I recently wrote about a book called The Populist’s Guide to 2020, by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, who co-host the Hill’s show Rising. The book’s premise is that today there is a rising kind of “left populism” and a rising “right populism” and that these can be described as part of one tendency and share “a single idea,” namely that “American families, workers, and communities which built this country still matter, they deserve a voice, and they are the future.” There is a populist movement, they write, as seen in “working class uprisings across the globe, from Donald Trump’s election [to] Bernie Sanders’ campaign.”

Reading the book, I found the idea of “left populism” and “right populism” being a unified “working class politics” to be deeply troubling. After all, once you get past abstractions like “families are the future,” what is “right” populism? Who are the right-wing populists? Well, they tend to be authoritarian nationalists who say the word “workers” a lot but are actually deeply xenophobic and militaristic. Are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders part of the same movement? Centrists have often claimed this! Are they right?
But Ball’s actual argument against my position does not hold up—or rather, she does not offer an argument against my position, because the argument she makes is against something I do not believe. Ball begins by correctly quoting my conclusion, which is that right-wing populism is the enemy of the Left and we should not partner with it. She then defends the show Rising itself, and her decision to co-host with a “right-wing populist.” She says that she “fundamentally [does not] believe the left benefits from isolation, deplatforming, and a refusal to engage.” She says that she and her co-host have debated fiercely and disagree on many things, such as the use of military force against protesters. She defends the idea of having a diversity of viewpoints, and hashing things out with those who don’t agree with you. “Engagement is better than burying your head in the sand,” she says.

I do not find this a particularly compelling rebuttal, because I agree with it entirely. I’ve always advocated debating people with abhorrent views. Some leftist publications ignore conservative books, pretending they don’t exist, while I spent ages meticulously engaging with the texts to refute their arguments. I’ve even gone on Rising itself to debate with Enjeti! I am pro-engagement and pro-argument. (If I was against having arguments on principle I doubt I’d spend so much time getting into them.)

What I think we need to do is distinguish between “engaging people” and “softening/sanitizing their views.” And what I objected to about Ball and Enjeti’s book is not that it contains disagreements between the Right and Left—actually, the book is almost all about things they agree on—but that it presents “right-wing populism” as if it is simply a “polite disagreement” away from “left-wing populism.” Yet it doesn’t actually define clearly what “right-wing populism” is. As I asked previously: Who are the right populists? What do they actually believe? Ball and Enjeti argue that there is a “right populist movement” in this country. Well, can we name some people in that movement? Enjeti cites Tucker Carlson as an example. Okay, Tucker Carlson is a racist concerned with preserving an “ethnic majority.” Who else? Is Jair Bolsonaro in this movement? Is Donald Trump? In the book, Ball and Enjeti speak of “our” politics. Their argument is that the “populists” should think of themselves as part of one “rising” tendency. “Our vision,” they say, is of “two parties united,” and “the ideas that animate us are quite simple, and center around a single idea.” Both Bernie’s campaign and Trump’s election are described as part of a “working class uprising.”

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17737

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 5:55 pm

Biden's numbers are insanely good right now.

Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17738

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 5:59 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 5:40 pm
You know, when you really think about It, Is not social democrats really Stalinist-light?
No?

I don't really get the semantics game.

Is your issue really just that dangerous, racist authoritarians who enjoy rounding up the "others" in camps and support violence against political protestors should not be compared to fascists?

Why?

They use Fascist rhetoric, fascist logic, fascist violence, and often they are just openly Fascist. If the Social Democrats started advocating for camps, political violence, etc. you could make that case.

But again, is your issue genuinely just that really dangerous ideas that borders on Fascism are not Fascist? There is a truism there that, ok, no, they are just borderline Fascist, not openly totalitarians - but what does this change/detract from the argument at hand, ie that sanitizing dangerous authoritarian views is, well, dangerous?

Is your disagreement with the labels, or are you covertly defending the ideas?

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17739

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 6:07 pm

The funny thing is that Krystal Ball is actually progressive and viciously disagrees with Saagar on e.g. immigration and military deployment domestically.

There is over-lap between populist left/right voters on economic issues, and many people with conservative views are also left on economics.

Are we still having the "platforming" discussion in 2020? SAD!
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17740

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 6:09 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 5:59 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 5:40 pm
You know, when you really think about It, Is not social democrats really Stalinist-light?
No?

I don't really get the semantics game.

Is your issue really just that dangerous, racist authoritarians who enjoy rounding up the "others" in camps and support violence against political protestors should not be compared to fascists?

Why?

They use Fascist rhetoric, fascist logic, fascist violence, and often they are just openly Fascist. If the Social Democrats started advocating for camps, political violence, etc. you could make that case.

But again, is your issue genuinely just that really dangerous ideas that borders on Fascism are not Fascist? There is a truism there that, ok, no, they are just borderline Fascist, not openly totalitarians - but what does this change/detract from the argument at hand, ie that sanitizing dangerous authoritarian views is, well, dangerous?

Is your disagreement with the labels, or are you covertly defending the ideas?
BE CAREFUL ST.GLOEDE THERE IS A FASCIST HIDING UNDER YOUR BED!
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17741

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 6:21 pm

Why are you acting this way?.

You come across as extremely deceptive and dishonest here. Why?

I really hope this is just misunderstanding upon misunderstanding but you are posting like this at all, you refuse to give straight answers and I don't und stand where you are coming from.

So again, what is the issue you are actually arguing against? Are you just trying to protect people with semi-fascist views from any comparisons to Fascism? And if so, what is your motivation and how does it counteract the broader argument?

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17742

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 6:31 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 6:21 pm
Why are you acting this way?.

You come across as extremely deceptive and dishonest here. Why?

I really hope this is just misunderstanding upon misunderstanding but you are posting like this at all, you refuse to give straight answers and I don't und stand where you are coming from.

So again, what is the issue you are actually arguing against? Are you just trying to protect people with semi-fascist views from any comparisons to Fascism? And if so, what is your motivation and how does it counteract the broader argument?
I'm stating obvious facts. You seem to want to categorize a very diverse set of ideas as fascist-adjacent.

Rising is great show with two interesting perspectives. NJR seems to be uncomfortable with over-lap with the "fascist" side the actually exists. And think Ball is legitimizing Saagar through co-op despite her often vehemently disagreeing with him.

Anyhow, for those interested Ball/NJR are having a debate on System Update about the subject.

All arguments could be reversed off-course, why is not Saagar the useful idiot who sanitize "far-left" ideas.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17743

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 7:54 pm

Once again you dodged the question and continue to act in extremely bad faith. Do you believe what you are saying?

What diverse opinions am I calling Fascist adjacent? This is what I'm calling you out on. You are standing up for political violence and concentration camps - or at least you are doing everything you can to not address's it and associate with with general conservative values. If throwing a sum seekers into concentration camps, instead of processing their applications is standard social Conservative values I don't really know what to say.

Also: Stop misrepresenting the argument so dishonestly. The critique was Ball and Saagar coming together to write a book where they claim g they were the same movement, part of a working class uprising, represented by Sanders and Trump.

I also love the outrage of calling people who are pro-concentration camps Fascist adjacent, and won't have these fine people sullied, but went full out and tried to claim I was associated with Antifa for not thinking they should be labelled a terrorist group just a few weeks ago. That is going far, far further, and the hypocrisy is just bizarre.

Did you even see how careful I was to distance social conservatism, advocacy for straight immigration, etc. from Fascism above, or how I already made the last point you are making...

I know you said you just skim... But come on.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4231
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17744

Post by Onderhond » June 25th, 2020, 9:51 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
the claim, which I find 100% true is that right-wing populism essentially always borders and houses fascism.
I think this is a grave misrepresentation though.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17745

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 9:52 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 7:54 pm
Once again you dodged the question and continue to act in extremely bad faith. Do you believe what you are saying?

What diverse opinions am I calling Fascist adjacent? This is what I'm calling you out on. You are standing up for political violence and concentration camps - or at least you are doing everything you can to not address's it and associate with with general conservative values. If throwing a sum seekers into concentration camps, instead of processing their applications is standard social Conservative values I don't really know what to say.

Also: Stop misrepresenting the argument so dishonestly. The critique was Ball and Saagar coming together to write a book where they claim g they were the same movement, part of a working class uprising, represented by Sanders and Trump.

I also love the outrage of calling people who are pro-concentration camps Fascist adjacent, and won't have these fine people sullied, but went full out and tried to claim I was associated with Antifa for not thinking they should be labelled a terrorist group just a few weeks ago. That is going far, far further, and the hypocrisy is just bizarre.

Did you even see how careful I was to distance social conservatism, advocacy for straight immigration, etc. from Fascism above, or how I already made the last point you are making...

I know you said you just skim... But come on.
Don't know why you all of a sudden is talking about concentration camps? Did the fascists graduate to Nazis in just a few hours? :o
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17746

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 10:12 pm

What?! The concentration camps were a part of my argument from the beginning ... The Trump administration are sending asylum seekers to concentration camps right now, instead of simply taking their application, processing it and then decline or approve it.

Where you unaware?

Also: Concentration camps are not unique to Nazis... The Brits invented them, the US had them during WW2 (and paid reparations to the detainees). This is a bizarre and frustrating conversation. Are you just generally unaware of this or just having a laugh?

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17747

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 10:27 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 10:12 pm
What?! The concentration camps were a part of my argument from the beginning ... The Trump administration are sending asylum seekers to concentration camps right now, instead of simply taking their application, processing it and then decline or approve it.

Where you unaware?

Also: Concentration camps are not unique to Nazis... The Brits invented them, the US had them during WW2 (and paid reparations to the detainees). This is a bizarre and frustrating conversation. Are you just generally unaware of this or just having a laugh?
Is it now you are going to say that concentration camps is different from extermination camps? Despite the fact that people automatically associate "concentration camp" with the holocaust? :rolleyes:

You can support more humane treatment at holding facilities and still support restrictive Immigration laws. But regardless, what does Trump have to do with the fact that populists share populism In common? By the way, you know there were a honorable Neo-liberal that had the same policy and his name was Obama.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17748

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 10:30 pm

Onderhond wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 9:51 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 4:17 pm
the claim, which I find 100% true is that right-wing populism essentially always borders and houses fascism.
I think this is a grave misrepresentation though.
How?

Maybe we can find an exception, but generally right wing populism is based on nationalism and fear/hatred of the "other".

Obviously there's always a question of degree, and some are fairly harmless comparatively, but the idea of a hegemonic cultural (or racial) supremacy tends to be looming. Though of course, the dog whistles have gotten cleaner in some cases.

Perhaps there is a major right libertarian populist movement out there focusing on entrepreneurship and racial/cultural inclusivity I am not aware of, but it is the Nationalism that is the trend we have seen across Europe, and which is usually used as a synonym with Right-Wing Populism.

So again, there is a question of degree, but right wing nationalism, especially when it takes on, as it usually does, clear authoritarian trains, does border fascism (and tends to harbour actual fascists). It is obviously not as extreme or bad, hence "borders/adjacent". In terms of why the Fascist-comparison is brought up it is because it is important to showcase exactly what kind of rhetoric and goals they are using, and the dangers of going further and further down that road.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17749

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 10:54 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 10:27 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 10:12 pm
What?! The concentration camps were a part of my argument from the beginning ... The Trump administration are sending asylum seekers to concentration camps right now, instead of simply taking their application, processing it and then decline or approve it.

Where you unaware?

Also: Concentration camps are not unique to Nazis... The Brits invented them, the US had them during WW2 (and paid reparations to the detainees). This is a bizarre and frustrating conversation. Are you just generally unaware of this or just having a laugh?
Is it now you are going to say that concentration camps is different from extermination camps? Despite the fact that people automatically associate "concentration camp" with the holocaust? :rolleyes:

You can support more humane treatment at holding facilities and still support restrictive Immigration laws. But regardless, what does Trump have to do with the fact that populists share populism In common? By the way, you know there were a honorable Neo-liberal that had the same policy and his name was Obama.

1. Erm... Yes... What the flying hell, Dolwphin?! Why the eye roll? Why the dodge? Why the dishonesty?

2. Yes, you can of course be supportive of humane treatment at holding facilities and support strict immigration laws?

What does this have to do with anything at all? This seems insane... Why are you saying such random things?!

... Reading this with the worst possible interpretation, which you incite with your rhetoric and behavior is almost sickening. It seems you are defending concentration camps and stand against human rights? What the flying hell?

Do you really not understand? Are you joking? Trolling? What is this?

What you do when an asylum seeker comes is that you let them apply for asylum and then reject or approve them. You do not send them to concentration camps...

You are just overlooking this fact, call them holding facilities and in doing so excuse the violation of their human rights.

You are a supporter of violence and oppression if this is your intent.

I truly hope this is not true... But my god. Why? Why would you lie/conflate like this? Just answer the question I have been asking all along: why?

2. 1. You think populism is one thing? You are all over the place with this. Dodging, dodging, dodging. You were pressing on Right Wing Populism being Adjacent to Fascism - I point out violence to opponents, concentration camps, othering, etc. You claim I make diverse ideas into being Fascist-adjacent - I make it specific - you want back to the beginning again... And you never even answered the question: why are you doing this?

To answer you, as I don't dodge: Right Wing Populism is generally a dangerous, insidious hatred of the other, promotion of nationalism, state violence and, once it gets strong, and increasingly terrifying state - left wing populism is a higher minimum wage, worker protections, healthcare, etc. They share a disdain for neo-Liberals, but for very different reasons. There is really no shared political project.

2.2. Yes, though he was hiding it, Trump revels in.

-

Again I hope this is misunderstanding upon misunderstanding, and you being flippant and funny, but this whole discussion is simply incredibly sad.

You seem run to defend inhumane abuse and racism. You seem happy to call everyone Antifa, but unwilling to even concede that right wing nationalists have any worrying overlaps or similarities to Fascism... And call any of them Fascist-adjacent... Oh no you didn't.

So yeah, I hope you are trolling - or something else hot lost in translation... Otherwise... I just can't believe this shit.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4231
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17750

Post by Onderhond » June 25th, 2020, 10:57 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Maybe we can find an exception, but generally right wing populism is based on nationalism and fear/hatred of the "other".

Obviously there's always a question of degree, and some are fairly harmless comparatively, but the idea of a hegemonic cultural (or racial) supremacy tends to be looming. Though of course, the dog whistles have gotten cleaner in some cases.

Perhaps there is a major right libertarian populist movement out there focusing on entrepreneurship and racial/cultural inclusivity I am not aware of, but it is the Nationalism that is the trend we have seen across Europe, and which is usually used as a synonym with Right-Wing Populism.

So again, there is a question of degree, but right wing nationalism, especially when it takes on, as it usually does, clear authoritarian trains, does border fascism (and tends to harbour actual fascists). It is obviously not as extreme or bad, hence "borders/adjacent". In terms of why the Fascist-comparison is brought up it is because it is important to showcase exactly what kind of rhetoric and goals they are using, and the dangers of going further and further down that road.
Especially in its current form, for most people it seems to be simple apathy. It's not so much that they fear or hate the "other", it's that they don't care much about the problems of others and the populist left is making that very hard for people nowadays. So yeah, they end up siding with the party that lets them not care, but they don't necessarily agree with all the actions, thought and directions of their leaders (who are indeed much closer to fascists).

I do agree that it leads to more fascist regimes and that it's generally a very worrisome evolution, but for many it's not something that starts out of hate, more out of a feeling of "just leave me be".

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4361
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17751

Post by Dolwphin » June 25th, 2020, 11:06 pm

There you go with your strange hyperbole again. Holding facilities for asylum seekers are not fascism. It Is not violence, but rather common sense. Everything Is fascism according to you hence my jokes In this thread.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17752

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 11:13 pm

Onderhond wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 10:57 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Maybe we can find an exception, but generally right wing populism is based on nationalism and fear/hatred of the "other".

Obviously there's always a question of degree, and some are fairly harmless comparatively, but the idea of a hegemonic cultural (or racial) supremacy tends to be looming. Though of course, the dog whistles have gotten cleaner in some cases.

Perhaps there is a major right libertarian populist movement out there focusing on entrepreneurship and racial/cultural inclusivity I am not aware of, but it is the Nationalism that is the trend we have seen across Europe, and which is usually used as a synonym with Right-Wing Populism.

So again, there is a question of degree, but right wing nationalism, especially when it takes on, as it usually does, clear authoritarian trains, does border fascism (and tends to harbour actual fascists). It is obviously not as extreme or bad, hence "borders/adjacent". In terms of why the Fascist-comparison is brought up it is because it is important to showcase exactly what kind of rhetoric and goals they are using, and the dangers of going further and further down that road.
Especially in its current form, for most people it seems to be simple apathy. It's not so much that they fear or hate the "other", it's that they don't care much about the problems of others and the populist left is making that very hard for people nowadays. So yeah, they end up siding with the party that lets them not care, but they don't necessarily agree with all the actions, thought and directions of their leaders (who are indeed much closer to fascists).

I do agree that it leads to more fascist regimes and that it's generally a very worrisome evolution, but for many it's not something that starts out of hate, more out of a feeling of "just leave me be".
Maybe you misunderstood me? I am not saying that people who vote for X party is Fascist-adjacent, I'm saying those that spread the fear of others, advocate for violence against protestor and want use cultural supremacy and unity to get people in line have a dangerous overlap with Fascist ideology.

So, yeah, I think we are in complete agreement. :cheers:

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17753

Post by St. Gloede » June 25th, 2020, 11:29 pm

Dolwphin wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 11:06 pm
There you go with your strange hyperbole again. Holding facilities for asylum seekers are not fascism. It Is not violence, but rather common sense. Everything Is fascism according to you hence my jokes In this thread.
Why are you lying?

I haven't even called ANYTHING fascism in this thread... I even started by dismissing the idea that Social conservatism, wanting strict immigration, etc. was fascism or Fascist-adjacent - highlighting clear, specific issues.

Yet you only lie and strawman.

What have been jokes? Your support/defense of concentration camps? Was Auschwitz ok the first few years? That is the serious implication if you are offended the term concentration camps are used to describe concentration camps despite, for you, bringing up the image of death camps.

Asylum centres are ok, concentration camps are not ... Give them case workers, process their applications, approve or decline. You keep defending inhumane practices...

I'm calling out your disturbing remarks, and if you are now claiming the "joking" defense... Great.

You never answered my question of why you only argued semantics instead of the real issues.

Is it, because, as you say above, it is common sense?

I hope you are trolling.

User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 1119
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#17754

Post by Kublai Khan » June 26th, 2020, 5:59 am

I started reading John Bolton's book. I'm still in the first chapter, but it's constantly reminding me what a horrible idiot Bolton is. I guess he's a smart enough idiot to jump off the sinking SS Trump and try to make a buck, but he doesn't seem to realize that he's not much smarter or more ethical than Trump.
Owner of three platinums:
  • FilmTotaal top 100
  • IMDb's 1980s Top 50
  • IMDb's Animation Top 50

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4231
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17755

Post by Onderhond » June 26th, 2020, 6:22 am

St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 11:13 pm
I'm saying those that spread the fear of others, advocate for violence against protestor and want use cultural supremacy and unity to get people in line have a dangerous overlap with Fascist ideology.
Well yes, but if you equate those people with "right populists", you're cutting some serious corners and are missing the point why most people end up in that group (or are considered to be part of that group).

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17756

Post by St. Gloede » June 26th, 2020, 7:46 am

Onderhond wrote:
June 26th, 2020, 6:22 am
St. Gloede wrote:
June 25th, 2020, 11:13 pm
I'm saying those that spread the fear of others, advocate for violence against protestor and want use cultural supremacy and unity to get people in line have a dangerous overlap with Fascist ideology.
Well yes, but if you equate those people with "right populists", you're cutting some serious corners and are missing the point why most people end up in that group (or are considered to be part of that group).
I'm not sure what you mean I'm afraid. I never equated Fascists with Right Populist, I made the same claim you did. Could you clarify what you mean?

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4231
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17757

Post by Onderhond » June 26th, 2020, 8:39 am

Well, you didn't equate them, but "borders on and houses" sounds very much alike. I get the semantic differences, but pragmatically they could just as well not be there. It's exactly this type of branding that currently causes lots of frustration and pushes people away from the left, regardless of people's own political or personal beliefs.

Most right wing populism isn't all that dangerous, it just becomes dangerous because these people have no other place to go and end up with dangerous leaders.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17758

Post by St. Gloede » June 26th, 2020, 9:08 am

Onderhond wrote:
June 26th, 2020, 8:39 am
Well, you didn't equate them, but "borders on and houses" sounds very much alike. I get the semantic differences, but pragmatically they could just as well not be there. It's exactly this type of branding that currently causes lots of frustration and pushes people away from the left, regardless of people's own political or personal beliefs.

Most right-wing populism isn't all that dangerous, it just becomes dangerous because these people have no other place to go and end up with dangerous leaders.
So you are saying we can't point out that promoting hyper-nationalism, violence against protestors, stripping people of their rights and sending them to camps and more casual othering is Fascist-adjacent because it might turn people away?

Just to be clear, this is of course not how I would approach someone who holds these views, be they a fascist, national conservative, etc. I would, of course, be pointing out the damage these things are doing and poke holes in their logic - at least if they were honest and forthright, many try to hide it, in which case it is their dishonesty that must be unmasked.

Calling someone a Fascist is very unlikely to change anyone's mind - nor is simply saying their views are Fascist-adjacent - that is a very bad and silly strategy - but I don't see what this has to do with anything written or said here. This was, as far as I knew an issue where Dolwphin was outraged of any comparison of dangerous Fascist adjacent ideas to Fascism, and the dangers of sanitizing these ideas - the Fascist label is not really relevant - the issue was that Dolwphin was more concerned with the labels than the issues at hand - and thus it turned into a bizarre and sad semantics discussion.

This is obviously not a place with a lot of Fascists (hopefully not any), and extremely few people who side with far-right extremist violence and vile othering (I had though just 1 - though Dolwphin is making me unsure now ...) so we shouldn't be required to sugar coat our language or pretend comparisons don't exist not to hurt their feelings.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4231
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17759

Post by Onderhond » June 26th, 2020, 10:21 am

St. Gloede wrote:
June 26th, 2020, 9:08 am
Just to be clear, this is of course not how I would approach someone who holds these views, be they a fascist, national conservative, etc. I would, of course, be pointing out the damage these things are doing and poke holes in their logic - at least if they were honest and forthright, many try to hide it, in which case it is their dishonesty that must be unmasked.
I guess this gets to the core of my point, because "poking holes in their logic" is about as effective as talking to a Christian about leaps of logic in the bible. Logic barely works because the real problems aren't being addressed in these discussions. Many people just feel their feelings are not accepted or heavily frowned upon, so with that valve closed the steam comes out somewhere else. And if you push back against that, it just leads to more polarization.

We had another one of those public debates just recently in Belgium, regarding the statues of Leopold II. Really nobody gives 2 fucks about statues, but suddenly they were branded symbols of racism and people were quick to form two camps. One camp wanted them gone because racist, another didn't want them touched because history. You can have endless discussions with the latter camp, but if you're going to go at it with "logic" you'll end up nowhere. Doesn't mean those people are overtly or inherently racist though, they just hate the idea of adapting to appease the feelings of others, which is a constant narrative the left is pushing.

Can't have Easter anymore because other religions, can't have "Christmas" markets because it shuts out the Muslims, can't have Black Pete because it's racist. Can't have Fawlty Towers because racist, can't play Mario Bros because misogynist etc etc etc. A whole bunch of harmless things that needs to "go" to appease the feelings of others, but don't end up fixing anything at all. And it's pushed into their face constantly by others, while they themselves have their own stuff to deal with. Because believe it or not, white, straight males may have all the privilege in the world, it doesn't make them all that happy.

So yes, these people may end up siding with people who border on fascism, but if you don't want them to, you'll have to talk to them about different things. And those conversations are currently blocked by unrealistic leftist idealism. Which I guess is why some people argue there's blame on both sides.
St. Gloede wrote:
June 26th, 2020, 9:08 am
This is obviously not a place with a lot of Fascists (hopefully not any), and extremely few people who side with far-right extremist violence and vile othering (I had though just 1 - though Dolwphin is making me unsure now ...) so we shouldn't be required to sugar coat our language or pretend comparisons don't exist not to hurt their feelings.
I would say that because there are many left-leaning people here, it's better to get the language and tone right, because being left doesn't mean being civil in discussions and being absolved from adding to the bigger problem. On the contrary.

As for Dolwphin's rhetoric, I am a bit surprised you're not picking up on the sarcasm when applied. That's pretty much a starting point for all these types of discussions (online).

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 10846
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17760

Post by St. Gloede » June 26th, 2020, 11:53 am

True re: "poking holes", I should have added talk about things they care about and how they can achieve better lives for themselves, their loved ones, etc. It depends a lot of the person and you can take people away from harmful views in many different ways. Some may just need love, compassion, etc. themselves.

All I meant to show above is that, if you meet someone with abhorrant views you don't instantly make them feel bad/attack them, but see how you can show them that the idea is bad. (Is this clarified now?).

However, I don't see/understand what you advocate here. It seems to be you are saying "Don't address the issues". Is that correct? If people can't point out that X is problematic for X reason without there being two counter camps automatically, the second one can't be reached by reason, what can we really do here? Are you just saying appeal to their emotions? If so, sure, please do.
Doesn't mean those people are overtly or inherently racist though, they just hate the idea of adapting to appease the feelings of others, which is a constant narrative the left is pushing.
By some definitions that could fit under "racism", but yes, of course, people react when confronted with change, regardless of how minuscule, and in large part because the right can push the bizarre narrative of "appeasement".
Can't have Easter anymore because other religions, can't have "Christmas" markets because it shuts out the Muslims, can't have Black Pete because it's racist. Can't have Fawlty Towers because racist, can't play Mario Bros because misogynist etc etc etc. A whole bunch of harmless things that needs to "go" to appease the feelings of others, but don't end up fixing anything at all. And it's pushed into their face constantly by others, while they themselves have their own stuff to deal with. Because believe it or not, white, straight males may have all the privilege in the world, it doesn't make them all that happy.
Is most of this remotely true though? I know there was a massive debate re: Black Pete, and of course there are bizarre acts by stations and at times governments that make no sense, but in general these are complete non-issues of no relevance or truth to them blown up by right-wingers. We can't control all the people in the world. This is what I don't understand about your logic here. If someone makes a case that Mario Bros is sexist - how can we stop that, and why would we want to stop freedom of speech in this way? Why can't someone make their case that it is, and why would this mean people shouldn't play it anymore? It is just really bizarre to me.

I understand and know how this is used by the right to make people angry - i.e. the left is coming for your video games ... there is a war on Christmas ... etc. But there isn't. It is lies - and if people will go crazy if someone critiques something they like ... What do you want people to do?
I would say that because there are many left-leaning people here, it's better to get the language and tone right, because being left doesn't mean being civil in discussions and being absolved from adding to the bigger problem. On the contrary.
Why would being left mean being civil? I don't understand this paragraph. If your point is that the left can be to confrontational and use rhetoric that makes people feel attacked - absolutely. Rhetoric is extremely important, and need to be used to alienate as few people as possible and bring as many people as possible onboard.

I disagree with the first half however - language and tone should be adjusted to who you are dealing with, the place you are in. If you are saying my tone or language was not right or not civil in this thread I respectfully disagree. Obviously the tone changed as the conversation progressed. Towards the end I used the method you seem to advocate, i.e. appealing to emotions - but obviously, it got more and more clear he was being purposefully deceptive.
As for Dolwphin's rhetoric, I am a bit surprised you're not picking up on the sarcasm when applied. That's pretty much a starting point for all these types of discussions (online).
Was all of it sarcasm? His posts were so insane I hoped he was trolling/joking about all of it. I can't really separate what was sarcasm/trolling and what isn't because of this. All of it was about defending atrocious and dangerous views, or more specifically: all of it was deflecting away criticism by picking semantics he disagreed with, conflating terms and strawmanning everything. I would be very happy if he just had a bad day and wanted to troll.

Post Reply