Antifa and Black Lives Matter vs. KKK and Neo Nazis:A battle of false equivalence

[Scammel]

Wait - you thought I was suggesting the enactment of Nazi policy should be protected? Glad to clear this one up; it's just the expression in favour of Nazism which is and should be protected. Again, the expression of your desire to kill people for protected speech is itself protected, but of course you should be locked up with all the other murdering fascists if you actually did so. Apologies if that was unclear.

 

[Sadib]

Wait - you thought I was suggesting the enactment of Nazi policy should be protected? Glad to clear this one up; it's just the expression in favour of Nazism which is and should be protected. Again, the expression of your desire to kill people for protected speech is itself protected, but of course you should be locked up with all the other murdering fascists if you actually did so. Apologies if that was unclear.

Why are you against me killing Nazis?

 

[bobjr]

My posted point was that if they can be shamed or talked out of the mindset that should be the priority, but there's a point where they're too far gone and it'll only hurt innocent people.

 

[Pikachu52]

Rights aren't to be hand-waved away when it's socially easy, because people need those same rights when it gets hard - especially minorities.

True. But it's highly questionable whether espousing Racism, white supremacy and other forms of hate speech ought to be considered a "right" or should fall within the ambit of protected free speech. Outside the United States, that question is generally answered in the Negative.

Check out Article 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

The International Covenant on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, article 4 is even more explicit:

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cerd.pdf

It's very easy to support the "free speech" rights of hate speech when you are not the target of that speech and you don't have to live with fear of what that hatred might mean for you. The view that "Rights aren't to be hand-waved away when it's socially easy" sounds noble on paper, but it's highly flawed in that it elevates hypotheticals about the consequences of so called censorship ahead of the needs and actual experiences of the victims of groups like Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

 

[windwakemeup]

True. But it's highly questionable whether espousing Racism, white supremacy and other forms of hate speech ought to be considered a "right" or should fall within the ambit of protected free speech. Outside the United States, that question is generally answered in the Negative.

Check out Article 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights:



The International Covenant on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, article 4 is even more explicit:



http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cerd.pdf

It's very easy to support the "free speech" rights of hate speech when you are not the target of that speech and you don't have to live with fear of what that hatred might mean for you. The view that "Rights aren't to be hand-waved away when it's socially easy" sounds noble on paper, but it's highly flawed in that it elevates hypotheticals about the consequences of so called censorship ahead of the needs and actual experiences of the victims of groups like Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

I agree with you, and I find it really disturbing how many people nowadays are willing to fight for the "rights" of Neo-nazis but then stay silent or respond negatively when minorities try to fight for their rights... and, someone on here said earlier that they feel safer with Neo-nazis than with "leftists." To that person: you might want to figure out why. Hint: it's because you probably aren't a minority that would be threatened physically, mentally, or emotionally by neo-nazis.

This is also good to put here:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

 

[The Admiral]

Nazi ideology is violence in itself. Antifascist violence is self-defense. If you don't understand that, get out of the ****ing way so you don't get hurt.

For those who want a more "intellectual" look at things, we call upon Karl Popper -- a man who, by all means, wanted to be even-handed and who advocated for being a tolerant person. He broached an argument in The Open Society and Its Enemies, volume one, that stated that, if we choose to tolerate everything, eventually we will be forced to tolerate intolerant ideals, to a point that includes those ideas that demand the destruction of others or even tolerance itself; as such, as he put it, "[w]e should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." The "so much for the tolerant left" people are idiots. The destruction of Nazism or white nationalism or whatever you want to call it this week -- of intolerance, simply speaking -- is the path of greatest tolerance, despite appearances.

edit: Also, I forgot to post this the first time, but for reference, I don't like the violence-first order either. Plenty of people genuinely do not know what they are following along with or the consequences of their beliefs and some of them can be talked to. Of course, people who organize marches? Not so much. People who have jumped around between several philosophies that share similar threads, for years? Also probably not so much.

 

[Sadib]

My posted point was that if they can be shamed or talked out of the mindset that should be the priority, but there's a point where they're too far gone and it'll only hurt innocent people.

That's when you put them down.

 

[Scammel]

This is also good to put here:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

It's a good comic, and I agree with everything it says. I mean, I'd argue that it's not the best approach to combat these ideologies (sunlight/disinfectant and all that) but it certainly doesn't contradict a word I've said.

It's very easy to support the "free speech" rights of hate speech when you are not the target of that speech and you don't have to live with fear of what that hatred might mean for you. The view that "Rights aren't to be hand-waved away when it's socially easy" sounds noble on paper, but it's highly flawed in that it elevates hypotheticals about the consequences of so called censorship ahead of the needs and actual experiences of the victims of groups like Neo-Nazis and the KKK.

It's certainly not an easy or straightforward trade-off, especially as the benefits are inherently nebulous and complex while the converse seems appealing simple, i.e. Nazis don't espouse their views - at least in public. The difficult onus on those like myself is to ask what the perceptible benefits of free speech are and what theoretically goes wrong without it.

Here's a good start:

Restrictions on hate speech seek to protect the physical security of citizens by proscribing certain declarations that could lead to violent acts. What they don’t do is limit the spread of hate. What’s more, unless democratic values are upheld, with an independent and objective judiciary, prosecutions for hate speech can open the door to abuse.

Free speech for Nazis makes them immediately identifiable and immediately targetable for nonviolent backlash, perhaps as set out in the comic above. Censoring them doesn't stop them, but merely makes their spread invisible. It also risks emboldening them from a different angle - it's easy to possess delusions of being a freedom fighter when your enemy is state censorship, not public opinion. If it's illegal to espouse these views, you'll never convene in public, and you'll never see the mass, peaceful counter-rallies that reaffirm the basic human commitment to opposing Nazism.

Europe embraces hate speech laws with a passion, yet is much more racist across the board than the United States. This particularly the case with anti-Semitism despite, for example, anti-Holocaust denial laws. European Muslims subscribe to much more conservative and theocratic belief than those in the US, despite high-profile hate prosecutions. Yes, the US's specific historical trajectory leaves it with massive problems with institutional prejudice against black people, but it's also a colossal integration success story that western Europe can only dream of. Correlation doesn't always equate to cause, but it's certainly not a leap of faith to suggest that free racist speech has enabled it to pick up massive social stigma that enhances integration.

if we choose to tolerate everything, eventually we will be forced to tolerate intolerant ideals

You're incorrectly equating tolerance with non-censorship. Just because it should be legal to espouse a particular view doesn't mean it should ever be socially tolerated. Ban it for long enough, and you risk not only forgetting how to effectively combat it, but also how virulent it is in the first instance without intellectual challenge.

 

[windwakemeup]

"Dialogue is for reasonable people acting in good faith. Dialogue is between two acceptable positions. “Taxes need to be raised” vs. “taxes need to be lowered” is grounds for dialogue. “Taxes need to be raised” vs. “Jews should be thrown in ovens” is grounds for a beating." <Source>

Funny how you are defending literal nazis and not the people harmed by them.... Nice priorities!

 

[Scammel]

What if you think you’re punching a Nazi, but you just hit a white guy with a shitty haircut?

Run.

...We’re discussing morality.

The self-righteousness of idiot thugs is a thing to behold.

You literally don't pay attention to basic history, do you? Remember, Germans laughed at Hitler before he gained popularity, because he was allowed to spread his hate.

Hitler, the man who rose from relative insignificance to national prominence after his incarceration?

 

[windwakemeup]

The self-righteousness of idiot thugs is a thing to behold.

you might want to figure out why you are defending neo-nazis. Hint: it's because you probably aren't a minority that would be threatened physically, mentally, or emotionally by neo-nazis.

I will repeat what I said: do you fight this adamantly for the rights of minorities, or are you too privileged to do that and instead go on a pokemon forum to defend literal nazis?

also, punching an evil person with ideas such as "kill jewish people and minorities" is moral.

EDIT: Nice pulling my pre-edited post and not the actual post jack***

 

[Scammel]

Nice pulling my pre-edited post and not the actual post jack***

Edit it faster, then. I think my point about Hitler is nicely made.

I will repeat what I said: do you fight this adamantly for the rights of minorities

I'm fighting for those exact same rights now. It gets much harder to defend the rights of minorities if you can't defend those same rights when it's more socially difficult.

are you too privileged to do that and instead go on a pokemon forum to defend literal nazis?

*Side eye to camera*

 

[Mordent99]

IMOHO, nobody but an actual Nazi would support their rights.

Nazis are horrid, vile animals who deserve to be chained in a very smelly sewer.

And equating them with ANY American group is an abomination.

 

[satopi]

Criminals still have rights (like the right to remain silent) and most of them are just as bad, if not worse, than Neo Nazis. There's certain rights for all people and if there aren't, we're just as bad as them who say, "Minorities/anyone who doesn't believe in or fit my ideology have no rights!" I'm in no way privileged at all besides for being born in a wealthy country and getting free schooling and lunch, amongst a few other things us Americans/Westerners take for granted. I'm not defending Neo Nazis at all (they practically hate me) but I'm not going to say they don't have rights at least by their nationality.

 

[bobjr]

I don't know, people arrested for minor drug charges are considered criminals and I would put them way below Nazis on terrible people lists.

Besides, like what people have been saying there's a difference between a group of people who are part of a culture or look alike, and those who come together to genocide those cultures.

 

[Teruhn]

There is no moral equivalence between violent Nazis and violent anti-fascists. One is being violent to marginalize others while one is being violent to protect others - no one demonizes soldiers fighting for a country with strong ideals, so why would individuals be demonized for the same end result?

Unpopular opinion:
Outside of self-defense, there is literally no reason to punch a Nazi/Klansman. Violence begets martyrdom which further propagates the disease that is bigotry and racism. The correct response to bigotry is social annexation. Get them (peacefully) fired from their job. Get them (peacefully) cut-off from the community. Make it clear that they are welcome back at any time they wish to espouse their vitriol, but make it doubly clear that racism and bigotry is not to be tolerated in America, or any civilized society for that matter. Make it clear that gatherings of bigoted individuals will not be condoned. Make them huddle in darkness, afraid of their ideals being made public. While this will backfire in some cases, in the majority of cases the "weekend warriors" that only spout bigotry when it suits them will hopefully change their ways.

The rest will be left penniless and silenced, while maintaining everyone's rights to free speech. In fact, this is the literal modus operandi of antifa - out fascists so that communities can shun them. "Violent" antifa is a mythos propagated so an orange humanoid can keep from walking back a statement he has way more pride in than he should.

 

[Mordent99]

I'm not defending Neo Nazis at all

Yes you are.

Unpopular opinion:
Outside of self-defense, there is literally no reason to punch a Nazi/Klansman.

I'd say there was plenty of reasons to do so, and far more reasons to SHOOT one.

 

[bobjr]

The question is when is it self-defense? We've seen a lot of leaked chats for these Nazi rallies where they talk about violence, including running down people in cars. Does defending against threats like that count?

 

[satopi]

I don't know, people arrested for minor drug charges are considered criminals and I would put them way below Nazis on terrible people lists.

Yeah it's always a gray area when you use the word "criminal". I was thinking more of the convicted pedophiles, drug lords, and murderers.

Besides, like what people have been saying there's a difference between a group of people who are part of a culture or look alike, and those who come together to genocide those cultures.

Old Day America. Which is why we shouldn't be advocating violence. Killing every last known Nazi isn't solving the problem, Nazism is an ideology that attract weak minded individuals who want a sense of belonging like local gangs. I think Scammel was trying to say we should do what that group Life After Hate is doing which is hearing their views, talking them out of their beliefs, and understand that people can change.

Yes you are.

I'm defending them because I said they have rights based on their nationality? If you took the word, "Nazi" and replace it with "Blacks/Asians/Hispanics", you'll see why it's stirring the trouble, not improving it. I'm black and I'm quite sick of fueling the stereotypes that blacks are violent thugs who can't use their head. It's better to defuse and tackle out the stereotypes then to make their point clear. There's reasons why ISIS celebrate when the media report their attacks and tell everyone how sick and disturbing the group is (which they are) but they use that as propaganda for their new recruits. "See, the enemy hates us! And they're painting our god Allah in a bad light, saying all Muslims are bad because of our beliefs, they don't want you there. All you have is us." Fighting racism with racism just as fighting violence with violence isn't solving the problem at all or making either side look better.

The question is when is it self-defense? We've seen a lot of leaked chats for these Nazi rallies where they talk about violence, including running down people in cars. Does defending against threats like that count?

Inciting violence. They have evidence of plotting violence against innocents. The police have enough force to take down the terrorists. That is a hate crime, which is against the law. Remember the Boston Massacre shooter... but that guy's still kicking unfortunately.

 

[Scammel]

There is no moral equivalence between violent Nazis and violent anti-fascists. One is being violent to marginalize others while one is being violent to protect others - no one demonizes soldiers fighting for a country with strong ideals, so why would individuals be demonized for the same end result?

Unpopular opinion:
Outside of self-defense, there is literally no reason to punch a Nazi/Klansman. Violence begets martyrdom which further propagates the disease that is bigotry and racism. The correct response to bigotry is social annexation. Get them (peacefully) fired from their job. Get them (peacefully) cut-off from the community. Make it clear that they are welcome back at any time they wish to espouse their vitriol, but make it doubly clear that racism and bigotry is not to be tolerated in America, or any civilized society for that matter. Make it clear that gatherings of bigoted individuals will not be condoned. Make them huddle in darkness, afraid of their ideals being made public. While this will backfire in some cases, in the majority of cases the "weekend warriors" that only spout bigotry when it suits them will hopefully change their ways.

The rest will be left penniless and silenced, while maintaining everyone's rights to free speech. In fact, this is the literal modus operandi of antifa - out fascists so that communities can shun them.

It's as if I created an alt account that became sentient. Couldn't have put any of that better myself.