What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Kirran]

But what does this have to do with the alt-right? You've got people like Richard Spencer *****ing about how his free speech is being compromised while he calls for the 'peaceful' ethnic cleansing of black people. Sorry but no matter how many 'peaceful's you attach to that it's still an inherently intolerant & violent process - and free speech does not cover hate speech. I love how people in the 'alt-right' hark back to the good ol' glory days of their grandparents when society was more conservative & white than it is now and people shot Nazis but now it's all 'oh, we're not being tolerated for our racist & oppressive views and I find that offensive'. Sorry, but if you're calling for the removal of an entire ethnic group from society or if you hold politics sympathetic to this position then a few punches is the absolute least of what's due to you. I don't condemn the rioters in any way. They should not have to sit back and pretend the prattlings of yet another white supremacist should be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Neo-nazi & other white nationalist views need to be kept on the fringes where they belong and can do as little damage as possible. Irrational, intolerant politics like the 'alt-right' deserve only an intolerant response and I've lost too much patience with Western politics to be able to pretend otherwise any more. It's because of people like Milo and Spencer being allowed into the mainstream that minorities are going to face the biggest attacks on the rights they've fought for decades to gain - after people on the right have spent years whining like spoiled little brats because they've had the legal option to discriminate taken away from them and they can't face another day not being able to deprive other people of their rights.

I pretty much agree with you here. I think it might be poor strategy to try and shut down Milo (does everyone call him by his first name cos his last name is so hard to spell?) in this way, but I have nothing by sympathy for the impulse. I don't really have any particular feelings about him as an individual, but he is certainly supporting toxic narratives, regarding women's rights, "racialism" etc.

 

[Laika]

You seem to be missing what is in practice the primary function of protests and rallies, which is to get people together, get them confident, get them networking with each other and increase awareness. It's more about spreading the movement and inspiring the people who come, the people they know and sympathisers than it is about getting the latest member of the elite sitting in the White House or 10 Downing Street to pay attention.

I know what you mean as a mass movement has to go through stages of growth and protests and rallies can help do that- but only as a means for something bigger. When it becomes an ends in itself "increasing awareness" means reducing left wing politics to something people can sell. Wearing a coloured wrist band or che t shirt is not "raising awareness"- its being trapped within the narrative in which our political views are something to be passively consumed within capitalism as an oppressive and exploitative sydtem.

The left has to escape the idea that moral outrage changes anything and actually build lasting ideologically coherent, politically disciplined movements that can get things done without the appealing to government. The government didn't give a dam when it was full of people who said they like democracy or individual freedoms. Carrying on the same tactics when the government doesn't like democracy or liberty is pretty nonsensical.

 

[Kirran]

I know what you mean as a mass movement has to go through stages of growth and protests and rallies can help do that- but only as a means for something bigger. When it becomes an ends in itself "increasing awareness" means reducing left wing politics to something people can sell. Wearing a coloured wrist band or che t shirt is not "raising awareness"- its being trapped within the narrative in which our political views are something to be passively consumed within capitalism as an oppressive and exploitative sydtem.

The left has to escape the idea that moral outrage changes anything and actually build lasting ideologically coherent, politically disciplined movements that can get things done without the appealing to government. The government didn't give a dam when it was full of people who said they like democracy or individual freedoms. Carrying on the same tactics when the government doesn't like democracy or liberty is pretty nonsensical.

Sure, consumerism can appropriate anything. But that doesn't mean nothing real is happening within the progressive movement (broader) and the leftist movements (narrower).

And yeah, things change, people adapt to the circumstances. There are grassroots groups, and hopefully they'll grow. But scathing condemnation of the ignorance of those not using those tactics is unlikely to achieve anything.

 

[Notanumber]

But what does this have to do with the alt-right? You've got people like Richard Spencer *****ing about how his free speech is being compromised while he calls for the 'peaceful' ethnic cleansing of black people. Sorry but no matter how many 'peaceful's you attach to that it's still an inherently intolerant & violent process - and free speech does not cover hate speech. I love how people in the 'alt-right' hark back to the good ol' glory days of their grandparents when society was more conservative & white than it is now and people shot Nazis but now it's all 'oh, we're not being tolerated for our racist & oppressive views and I find that offensive'. Sorry, but if you're calling for the removal of an entire ethnic group from society or if you hold politics sympathetic to this position then a few punches is the absolute least of what's due to you. I don't condemn the rioters in any way. They should not have to sit back and pretend the prattlings of yet another white supremacist should be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Neo-nazi & other white nationalist views need to be kept on the fringes where they belong and can do as little damage as possible. Irrational, intolerant politics like the 'alt-right' deserve only an intolerant response and I've lost too much patience with Western politics to be able to pretend otherwise any more. It's because of people like Milo and Spencer being allowed into the mainstream that minorities are going to face the biggest attacks on the rights they've fought for decades to gain - after people on the right have spent years whining like spoiled little brats because they've had the legal option to discriminate taken away from them and they can't face another day not being able to deprive other people of their rights.

Were they being forced to go and listen to him?

If he is a racist he should be ignored, I have no problem with that.

If he is talking nonsense he should be laughed at, I have no problem with that either.

 

[Laika]

Sure, consumerism can appropriate anything. But that doesn't mean nothing real is happening within the progressive movement (broader) and the leftist movements (narrower).

And yeah, things change, people adapt to the circumstances. There are grassroots groups, and hopefully they'll grow. But scathing condemnation of the ignorance of those not using those tactics is unlikely to achieve anything.

I'm fine with that.

My original post may have been more severe that it needed to be- but its tricky to balance this all out. I thought it was more useful for a leftist to attack other "leftists" to demonstrate that it is not true of all on the left wing as many conservatives on the forum would have it. They need evidence that their views are not representative of the whole lot and there is a diversity of opinion.

 

[Kirran]

I'm fine with that.

My original post may have been more severe that it needed to be- but its tricky to balance this all out. I thought it was more useful for a leftist to attack other "leftists" to demonstrate that it is not true of all on the left wing as many conservatives on the forum would have it. They need evidence that their views are not representative of the whole lot and there is a diversity of opinion.

Yeah, that's a fair point. It does need to be done. I think there needs to be a balance in this - the left needs to be open to dialogue and, in its more moderate elements which are still engaged with the political process, compromise with the conservatives and the mainstream and moderate right. But I really think there should be a genuine rejection of the alt-right and other far-right groups.

EDIT: Interesting thing that showed up on my Facebook feed, which seems to basically be in line with what I'm saying that this is bad strategy -

ok, so, again, I come from the future, I've seen this play out before in Venezuela so let me spell this out for you...

Do not support violence in protest, this only fuels the other side's argument. "Look what they did" they'll say to rally up their people into more violence. Protest can never be violent because it de-legitimises the cause.

We'll fall into their trap if people act like this. People be smart. These are the first 11 days, who knows what's around the corner?

 

[habiru]

Well, President Trump needs to put some of Obama's laws into effect.


I’m referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That’s nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday.

What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, “is or will be temporarily visiting.” So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.
Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President | The Huffington Post

The fusion centers, created under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama, consist of special teams of federal , state and local officials collecting and analyzing intelligence on suspicious activities throughout the country. They have been hailed by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as “one of the centerpieces” of the nation’s counterterrorism efforts. Homeland Security 'fusion' centers spy on citizens, produce 'shoddy' work, report says


And so we should be thanking Obama for making it easy for President D.J. Trump.

 

[Laika]

Yeah, that's a fair point. It does need to be done. I think there needs to be a balance in this - the left needs to be open to dialogue and, in its more moderate elements which are still engaged with the political process, compromise with the conservatives and the mainstream and moderate right. But I really think there should be a genuine rejection of the alt-right and other far-right groups.

I agree on that too. The difficulty is in trying to seperate the issues that feed into people supporting the far right from the solutions. I think the way to beat the far right is to win over its supporters by addressing the most immediate concerns that can be backed up by evidence (and aren't fake news, conspiracy theories, etc). They have to know they've got our attention and offer a viable alternative minus the racism, etc.

 

[Kirran]

I agree on that too. The difficulty is in trying to seperate the issues that feed into people supporting the far right from the solutions. I think the way to beat the far right is to win over its supporters by addressing the most immediate concerns that can be backed up by evidence (and aren't fake news, conspiracy theories, etc). They have to know they've got our attention and offer a viable alternative minus the racism, etc.

I suppose I agree with you. But I do it very cautiously.

So much of it is about group identity and getting into the narrative etc. Can be hard to shake that, because they've bought into this idea of who they are and what their politics are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Provide evidence that Milo intended to do anything other than speak politically before you claim it is "worth closer examination".

You're the one who made the claim, remember? I'm asking you to back it up.

They've already been provoked. They are just waiting to retaliate until full force will be reasonably justified. One of these days some antifa retard is going to brain someone with a stick the wrong way, and they will die. No one will like what happens after that.

So no matter what the left does from here on out, the alt-right has already been provoked?

That is what happens in group actions, the group activity takes responsibility. I don't care how many were passive participants. The protest turned violent and dangerous to shut someone up. They don't want responsibility? Stop thug antifa, redundant there, from ruining it. Or leave when they get violent so the thugs don't have the safety of a crowd to hide in. Lots of options besides tacit support.

The other day, a member of the alt-right shot up a mosque in Ste-Foy, Quebec. He killed 6 people. How should your concept of collective guilt apply to the rest of the alt-right movement in that case?

 

[Laika]

I suppose I agree with you. But I do it very cautiously.

So much of it is about group identity and getting into the narrative etc. Can be hard to shake that, because they've bought into this idea of who they are and what their politics are.

I saw the second half of your post btw. My attitude to political violence is that people shouldn't play around with it. There are circumstances where it may need to be used (preferably as a last resort) but the extent to which conservatives are under the impression they are already under attack means they may use violence against us (believing it to be in "self-defence" based on sheer level of Mis-information). They are in a McCarthyist hysteria about "the left" and they need to settle down. Saying violence does happen, should be used in certain instances but is wrong in specific cases may address their concerns by admitting it is possible but clarifies the position that it's not desirable.

It's a Mexican standoff basically. You have to talk them down over time and get them to relax enough and trust you. Or at least that's what I'm aiming for. The fear of violence is often worse than the violence itself.

 

[Sha'irullah]

By Marxist standards rioting is not even the pre-school of ideologically motivated violence. Ideologically, they're basically still in diapers and throwing a poorly planned and ineffectual tantrum within the cot of constitutional protections of bourgeois democracy.

I do not believe Leftists as a whole understand Marx as a whole. I took my time to study him and evaluate him and even reject him for his assertions. Marx is very fond of violence as a means to an end and views it as an inevitable aspect of social progression. He is by no means Hitler advocating for extermination, he merely views it as an evolutionary aspect of governance or lack thereof.

A lot of us right-wingers like tossing words like Marxist, socialist or commie around which I apologize for. They tend to be somewhat ignorant of philosophical socialism compared to socialism in historical practice.

 

[Kirran]

I saw the second half of your post btw. My attitude to political violence is that people shouldn't play around with it. There are circumstances where it may need to be used (preferably as a last resort) but the extent to which conservatives are under the impression they are already under attack means they may use violence against us (believing it to be in "self-defence" based on sheer level of Mis-information). They are in a McCarthyist hysteria about "the left" and they need to settle down. Saying violence does happen, should be used in certain instances but is wrong in specific cases may address their concerns by admitting it is possible but clarifies the position that it's not desirable.

It's a Mexican standoff basically. You have to talk them down over time and get them to relax enough and trust you. Or at least that's what I'm aiming for. The fear of violence is often worse than the violence itself.

Glad you caught it! Yeah, that makes sense to me.

Of course, during this entire process, while these multifaceted negotiations are going on, we haven't got like these two solid groups across a political divide from one another. People's views shift, and progressive ideas do spread and become more common as societal dialogue and progression continues.

So in a way we're kind of just keeping that dialogue up, trying to reduce violence and letting more people shift left and existing leftist and progressive groups to organise, gather their resources, set up more grassroots initiatives, keep working to help people.

There are notable areas in which such organisation is lacking, and we can learn from the organised right-wing groups.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What leftist politics are you talking about? The political mainstream has been moving steadily to the right for decades. Reagan and Nixon would today be considered far left radicals, and Eisenhower a virtual commie.

No, the left has always advocated peace, tolerance, social justice, civil rights, &c. It's the right wing that's fearful, reactionary, intolerant and authoritarian. The left may be disorganized, even chaotic, but its the right where you'll find most of the violence.

The left has always moved further left and authoritarian for decades now. They have always been the beacon of racism, manipulation and fear mongering.

The right has always been stagnant and trying to endorse a society where people are judged by their individuality and the promotion of freedom.

To compare Nixon, Reagan and lump them with Eisenhower is truly showing a complete lack of knowledge of the political realm. Leftist economics advocate for top-down control and neither Reagan or Nixon practiced this in great degree. Then you have EIsenhower who is the most inactive president of all time perhaps; that was his greatest criticism. The guy literally let social matters stand on their own and be resolved by the people.

Us right wingers want free markets, minimized federal government, less regulation, and the decentralization of economic power. These have been or selling points and common practices. While leftists want more federal power.

Do you even understand the difference between left and right politics? Look at the complaints of Republicans and their political leanings in practice. Why do you think we want to thrust corporate powers to the free market? Because we know they can't survive with their shady practices.

 

[Kirran]

Leftist economics advocate for top-down control.

This is a very underinformed generalisation. Most of the far-left in particular is very much in favour of bottom-up organisation. It often comes down to 'We'd rather the people run things than the state, but we'll take the state over unaccountable corporations and the rich'.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

The problem is, that the political process has lost any respect it might have once had ( which was never much) The remaining ways of raising political issues, include various stages of assembly, protest, marches and almost always lead to some degree of riotous behaviour when these are thwarted.
This is the same whether the issue or target is left or right or which county it takes place in.

Trumps dictatorial take it or leave it stance allows no argument.
He is destroying the normal political processes and is proud of it.
The result is inevitable. and will certainly pass from peaceful demonstration to violence.

It can not be brought to an end by counter violence, as that always stokes the fire even further.
Neither side will give way, and the population at large can not be defeated. It will only end were Trump to change his ways or be removed. People suffering from NPD (or worse still Agressive NPD) do not change their ways

 

[Revoltingest]

Rioters break windows, set fire to force cancellation of Breitbart editor's UC-Berkeley talk

We do all agree that we cannot allow political speech to be threatened in such a manner, correct? No one wants to see similar actions towards leftists, or, the grace of god forefend, blood in the streets. Yet, it seems those are the only places this can go, if allowed to continue.

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

In the case of UC Berkeley, students need a good stern
lecture about civil discourse, tolerance, & open mindedness.
They should be both shamed & taught.
Anyone committing an illegal act should also be prosecuted.
No special snowflake exemption.
Does management there have this in them?

Ref....
UC Berkeley cancels right-wing provocateur’s talk amid violent protest

Note...
Where I live, some leftish students were quite violent, eg, bombing the local FBI office.
But these were a small minority. The vast majority were peaceful.
We must be careful not to demonize all a Berkeley.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This isn't about what is in their ideologies, but where is the failure in instilling propriety in presenting theirs and opposing that of others.

Except those two issues are tied directly together.

The issues at play here are similar to those involved in the recent incident where Richard Spencer got punched:

One of the major issues with today’s revival of white supremacist views is normalisation. Unafraid, these social media-savvy, well-profiled racists get prime time from otherwise respectable papers and news sites. They can walk in the streets, wielding placards and yelling at people of colour.

As many South Africans who’ve fought against racist oppression have noted, fighting for justice doesn’t just mean undermining racist laws. It also means undermining a social climate that breeds and accepts racist beliefs. This climate leads to harmful actions later. A climate where such beliefs are normalised is worth undermining (note how this reads like a moral rule). This is not about censoring racists, but about whether we want racists to feel comfortable in our society.

The 'punch a Nazi' meme: what are the ethics of punching Nazis? | Tauriq Moosa


All your posts in this thread have taken the approach of normalization: Yiannopoulos' views are merely "political speech" and not an element of a culture of racism. Your objection to the protest has been on that basis.

There are really two elements to the ethics of what went on in Berkeley:

- were the protesters right to try to stop Yiannopoulos from speaking?
- was it right to use the methods that they did?

I'd say that the answer to the first question is yes: racism is something that ought to be opposed. Your objections to the protest are mainly focused on an idea that the protesters didn't have the right to try to stop him from speaking.

The answer to the second question is trickier. That's where I think the real discussion is to be had, but you seem stuck on that first question: if I understand you correctly, you think it would have been wrong for the protesters to stop the speech even by completely legal means; at least, that's what I'm inferring. Is my understanding of your position right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is, that the political process has lost any respect it might have once had ( which was never much) The remaining ways of raising political issues, include various stages of assembly, protest, marches and almost always lead to some degree of riotous behaviour when these are thwarted.
This is the same whether the issue or target is left or right or which county it takes place in.

It's also worth asking how much respect white supremacy is due at all.

Trumps dictatorial take it or leave it stance allows no argument.
He is destroying the normal political processes and is proud of it.
The result is inevitable. and will certainly pass from peaceful demonstration to violence.

Especially relevant to this story: the people had no say in the appointment of the founder of Breitbart to Trump's cabinet and National Security Council. Arguably, protesting a publuc appearance of the current editor of Brietbart gives the people a chance to make their views about this known.

 

[Notanumber]

The problem is, that the political process has lost any respect it might have once had ( which was never much) The remaining ways of raising political issues, include various stages of assembly, protest, marches and almost always lead to some degree of riotous behaviour when these are thwarted.
This is the same whether the issue or target is left or right or which county it takes place in.

Trumps dictatorial take it or leave it stance allows no argument.
He is destroying the normal political processes and is proud of it.
The result is inevitable. and will certainly pass from peaceful demonstration to violence.

It can not be brought to an end by counter violence, as that always stokes the fire even further.
Neither side will give way, and the population at large can not be defeated. It will only end were Trump to change his ways or be removed. People suffering from NPD (or worse still Agressive NPD) do not change their ways

The problem for the political classes is that in the past they have been able to tell us what they wanted us to know.

With the internet and social media, that is no longer the case.

This is why they so concerned about what they call ‘fake news’.