Again on the intolerant 'left' ...

[McBell]

Is the issue one of intolerance towards nativism and bigotry or how that intolerance manifests?
At what point does tolerance become facilitation?

Am I correct in thinking you are basically asking where to draw the line on "tolerance"?

 

[idav]

That was when it went downhill?

Yeah once him and Trump were established as BFF's.

 

[Nakosis]

Is the issue one of intolerance towards nativism and bigotry or how that intolerance manifests?
At what point does tolerance become facilitation?

I can be tolerant of another opinions, I can even be tolerant of their beliefs. That doesn't mean I have to be tolerant of their actions.

So what actions do I choose not to tolerate? Those actions which restricts the rights of others.

 

[LuisDantas]

So what does it mean to tolerate counterposed values? More specifically, what does it mean to tolerate such things as Confederate monuments or white supremacist mobilizations?

That one does not much care for certain values, it seems to me.

 

[Stanyon]

Humans still have their natural methods for correcting social behavior, and that is social shaming, we have to repeatably display that their behavior is not acceptable.

I think you have me on ignore but here it goes anyway:
I'd say you are overestimating the power of social pressure, there are a number of very serious individuals in the U.S., Europe, the U.K., Russia, etc. that couldn't give one rats behind what the rest of society thinks of them- they aren't all teenage kids going through a phase.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think you have me on ignore but here it goes anyway:
I'd say you are overestimating the power of social pressure, there are a number of very serious individuals in the U.S., Europe, the U.K., Russia, etc. that couldn't give one rats behind what the rest of society thinks of them- they aren't all teenage kids going through a phase.

I think you need to read more history books. We already know non violent resistance works to bring social and political change, especially when used against violence. I mean you can debate that if you like but history would prove you wrong. In fact it may be the only way to bring on such changes while still preserving human rights.

 

[suncowiam]

Or is Trump not emboldening race superiority, but lefties mistakenly believe so?
And their reaction is causing white nationalists to become more active?

Trump doesn't directly do so, but he sure doesn't mind the votes from white nationalists.

Lefties tend to exaggerate certain issues, but that shouldn't completely nullify their concerns.

I have heard from various nationalists including leaders that they feel strongly that Trump's platform gives them a bigger voice. Is it coincidence that more are active now that Trump is president? I don't think so.

I don't believe Trump is a pure racist but he likes to "win" no matter the costs.

 

[Sanzbir]

Is the issue one of intolerance towards nativism and bigotry or how that intolerance manifests?

Be tolerant or intolerant all you want. Just don't bring violence into it or else you lose. The people out there going and "punching Nazis" seem to not realize that they are simply taking the place of the Spartacist League in this repetition of history.

At what point does tolerance become facilitation?

When the words of bigots become actual acts of violence, then it becomes facilitation.

Attempting to violently suppress it before that fact is just ignorance of history's repetitions and the Streisand effect, and a failure to think through what violent suppression of bigotry does.

I'd counter-ask when does intolerance of intolerance become facilitation. Because a lot of intolerance I see these days towards the intolerant reminds me of the Spartacist League, whose violent opposition to German Nazis, culminating in the Reichstag Fire, only helped empower the Nazi Party in its rise.

History repeats itself. So when does playing at neo-Spartacist become emboldening the neo-Nazis??

And their reaction is causing white nationalists to become more active?

Nope

Or yep, because that's exactly what the white nationalists are saying is happening.

Reminds me of the whole Osama bin Laden thing back in the day. There was a lot of speculation then as to what his motives were, despite the fact the man clearly outlined his motives and documented them in video for all to see.

Why do we need to question why the neo-Nazis are becoming more active when they are openly telling us??

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because a lot of intolerance I see these days towards the intolerant reminds me of the Spartacist League, whose violent opposition to German Nazis, culminating in the Reichstag Fire, only helped empower the Nazi Party in its rise.

It's not quite fair to blame the German Communists since they were both violent with each other. Hitler seized on the fire, which was done by one man, as an excuse to persecute Communists.

 

[Sanzbir]

It's not quite fair to blame the German Communists since they were both violent with each other. Hitler seized on the fire, which was done by one man, as an excuse to persecute Communists.

Indeed. But history repeats itself. It's one thing to be a communist and cause violence with Nazis in the streets back then in Weimar Germany with no historical context.

But to do it now, when we know what happens as a result, to do so knowing full well that history repeats itself, is another matter. And the neo-Nazis now need just a Reichstag Fire to pin on Antifa and they will be able to gain popular support just as they historically did.

It's one thing to have no idea what will happen.

It's another to have clear historical examples, in many places of the world, as to how you can empower dictatorships by trying to violently oppose their ideologues in the streets, turning the common man against you, and still engage in the same tactics that, time and time again, we've only see empower fascists.

History repeats itself but no one ever seems to want to use it to avoid the repetitions. It's woefully irresponsible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Indeed. But history repeats itself. It's one thing to be a communist and cause violence with Nazis in the streets back then in Weimar Germany with no historical context.

But to do it now, when we know what happens as a result, to do so knowing full well that history repeats itself, is another matter. And the neo-Nazis now need just a Reichstag Fire to pin on Antifa and they will be able to gain popular support just as they historically did.

It's one thing to have no idea what will happen.

It's another to have clear historical examples, in many places of the world, as to how you can empower dictatorships by trying to violently oppose them in the streets, turning the common man against you, and still engage in the same tactics that, time and time again, we've only see empower fascists.

History repeats itself but no one ever seems to want to use it to avoid the repetitions. It's woefully irresponsible.

This isn't a case of history repeating itself as we're not living in the same conditions of early 20th century Europe. There is no Fascist or NS party about to gain power or in power. Radical politics in America are very much a minority view.

 

[Sanzbir]

This isn't a case of history repeating itself as we're not living in the same conditions of early 20th century Europe. There is no Fascist or NS party about to gain power or in power. Radical politics in America are very much a minority view.

Indeed, conditions are not the same. But the conditions on the street are rather similar. Fascists marching in the street and communists marching in the street seeking to fight the fascists.

We've seen time and time again that this emboldens the fascists.

Thus to seek out violent conflict with fascists on the street is woefully irresponsible, at best.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Indeed, conditions are not the same. But the conditions on the street are rather similar. Fascists marching in the street and communists marching in the street seeking to fight the fascists.

We've seen time and time again that this emboldens the fascists.

Thus to seek out violent conflict with fascists on the street is woefully irresponsible, at best.

The alt-right aren't really Fascists. It's an umbrella term for a bunch of different viewpoints, many of which don't agree with each other. They mostly don't like each other and their "movement" will end up collapsing on itself. There is no unified or otherwise Fascist movement in America of any consequence.

 

[Sanzbir]

The alt-right aren't really Fascists. It's an umbrella term for a bunch of different viewpoints, many of which don't agree with each other. They mostly don't like each other and their "movement" will end up collapsing on itself. There is no unified or otherwise Fascist movement in America of any consequence.

Sure. But then violence is not justified regardless. Either it's not what the detractors make it out to be, in which case violence is unnecessary and immoral as there is no threat, or it is what the detractors make it out to be, in which case violence will only empower their movement.

Either way, whether there is a Nazi movement or not in America, the response of violence is incorrect, which is the only thing I really want to underline.

 

[idav]

Or yep, because that's exactly what the white nationalists are saying is happening.

Oh my why didn't someone say so, white nationalists are blaming liberals for enabling them then it must be true and have nothing to do with one of the most bigoted presidents in history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh my why didn't someone say so, white nationalists are blaming liberals for enabling them then it must be true and have nothing to do with one of the most bigoted presidents in history.

You get a frubal for using "bigoted"!
(I know this is your design.)

 

[Sanzbir]

Oh my why didn't someone say so, white nationalists are blaming liberals for enabling them then it must be true and have nothing to do with one of the most bigoted presidents in history.

They aren't blaming liberals, they're blaming specifically Antifa for helping them. That doesn't mean the president has no effect, but the president having an effect doesn't magically mean that Antifa's violence has no effect. There can be more than one causal effect!!

Surprisingly, this world contains nuance and there are multiple effects for bolstering different groups.

Right now white nationalists are claiming that Antifa's reaction to them is the best thing ever to promote their cause. They're pretty open about how excited they are to capitalize on Antifa's violence.

Ignoring the words of what the white nationalists are actually saying about what motivates their bases is as foolish as those people who insisted that terrorists just "hate our freedoms" instead of simply listening to the videos wherein the terrorists clearly outlined their goals and motivations.

It's just shear ignorance when a group is openly telling you their motivations and even their tactics and yet still, you insist you know their minds more than they do. How on earth do you counter a movement without paying attention to what they are doing and saying?? Do you want to lose??

If you want to beat them, listen to the bigots. They're telling you their motivations are Trump and Antifa alike. Don't believe them on the former and disbelieve them on the latter. They're giving away their entire game plan to anyone smart enough to listen.

one of the most bigoted presidents in history.

This claim genuinely confuses me in looking at history as a whole. Really?? Only a year ago we had a president who wanted to profile Muslims when considering firearm ownership, without their due process rights. seven years ago we had a president who was against gay marriage of any kind. Nine years ago we had a president who wanted, again without due process rights, to profile Muslims for the right to board a plane. And not even half a century before now we've had fairly openly racist presidents.

It seems like you're showing up to the party late, and suddenly acting as if the status quo we've been protesting for years is somehow new. But no, it's not. That's the way things have been for a while, and for some reason it took Trump for anyone to begin to care about these things.

 

[idav]

They aren't blaming liberals, they're blaming specifically Antifa for helping them. That doesn't mean the president has no effect, but the president having an effect doesn't magically mean that Antifa's violence has no effect. There can be more than one causal effect!!

Surprisingly, this world contains nuance and there are multiple effects for bolstering different groups.

Right now white nationalists are claiming that Antifa's reaction to them is the best thing ever to promote their cause. They're pretty open about how excited they are to capitalize on Antifa's violence.

Ignoring the words of what the white nationalists are actually saying about what motivates their bases is as foolish as those people who insisted that terrorists just "hate our freedoms" instead of simply listening to the videos wherein the terrorists clearly outlined their goals and motivations.

It's just shear ignorance when a group is openly telling you their motivations and even their tactics and yet still, you insist you know their minds more than they do. How on earth do you counter a movement without paying attention to what they are doing and saying?? Do you want to lose??

If you want to beat them, listen to the bigots. They're telling you their motivations are Trump and Antifa alike. Don't believe them on the former and disbelieve them on the latter. They're giving away their entire game plan to anyone smart enough to listen.



This claim genuinely confuses me in looking at history as a whole. Really?? Only a year ago we had a president who wanted to profile Muslims when considering firearm ownership, without their due process rights. seven years ago we had a president who was against gay marriage of any kind. Nine years ago we had a president who wanted, again without due process rights, to profile Muslims for the right to board a plane. And not even half a century before now we've had fairly openly racist presidents.

It seems like you're showing up to the party late, and suddenly acting as if the status quo we've been protesting for years is somehow new. But no, it's not. That's the way things have been for a while, and for some reason it took Trump for anyone to begin to care about these things.

I don't buy their claim, Antifa didn't make them rally in the first place. They rallied because of Trump and Antifa was a reaction to that.

I don't know why the claim confuses you, Trump will go down as the most controversial president in history. He makes Bush Jr look like a saint and something is twilight zone when he starts making sense.
George W. Bush criticizes Trump's policies at GOP fundraiser: report

 

[Sanzbir]

I don't buy their claim, Antifa didn't make them rally in the first place. They rallied because of Trump and Antifa was a reaction to that.

Antifa, which has been holding protests since the inauguration, was just protesting in response to the Charlottesville protest??

Riiiiiight.

Antifa, who recently went to a non-Nazi free speech rally to protest the "Nazis" there led by an Indian Dalit man, is only reacting to the Nazis?? Really??

I don't know why the claim confuses you, Trump will go down as the most controversial president in history. He makes Bush Jr look like a saint and something is twilight zone when he starts making sense.
George W. Bush criticizes Trump's policies at GOP fundraiser: report

It confuses me because I didn't see any protest or noise at all coming from people when Democrats held similar or even the same position. Are the bigots on your side excused in their bigotry?? If they are, then why the double standard?? If they are not, then where was your voice when they called for "No Fly No Buy", demanding that a list that profiled Muslim Americans be used to strip away their rights without due process?? Where were you when the last president became the president to deport more immigrants than any other in American history?? I voiced disagreement with such things. Did you??

It just seems like, to me, a person neither left nor right, who has cared about such issues for many years now, that you're only jumping on the bandwagon now because the bigots in charge aren't your bigots.

But you really think he was the worst in history?? That's the main part that confuses me the most. Worse than, for instance, the man who supported the Soviet regime and enslaved Japanese Americans on the grounds of race??

 

[idav]

But you really think he was the worst in history?? That's the main part that confuses me the most. Worse than, for instance, the man who supported the Soviet regime and enslaved Japanese Americans on the grounds of race??

Worst remains to be seen, I said most controversial.