Civility in OT

[bostjan]

I just think condemning neo-Nazis marching on the streets of America in broad daylight should be something of a slam-dunk for someone of ANY political orientation

This is America, land of free speech. It's always a bit of a complex issue when it comes to people expressing themselves in a way that is very wrong, but we are supposed to be tolerant of people's legal right to hold whatever political views they wish to have. Yet, I think we've been down this conversational road numerous times. I just think that goes to show that it is possible to be in a place, politically, where you are anti-Nazi, but, at the same time, pro-free-speech enough to think that actively condemning neo-Nazis only for their political beliefs is wrong.
And that comes right back to my point earlier, that we, as a society, have largely divided ourselves into "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to pretty much any opinion. If you tolerate something, you don't necessarily agree with it.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Hey, if you want to point me anywhere in particular, I'm all ears.
[...]
Idunno. Maybe I am looking at the wrong places, I mostly read the Times, WaPo, and various financial media outlets, but I feel like the GOP has been very reluctant to take on Trump when he's taking some of his more overtly racist-seeming positions, and while I strongly suspect that's pure electoral calculus more than it is sympathy with his positions, I just feel like he's been able to shift the boundaries of whats acceptable a fair amount in the past 18 months. I'll be happy to read anything you suggest, however.


Actually, yeah - over and above his policies on illegal immigration, the Trump Administration is imposing the most restrictive policies and quotias on legal immigration that we've seen in something like 40 years. The most simple explanation is the administration is trying to reduce immigration in ALL forms as far as they can.

Ben Shapiro's show is a great place to start. I would highly advise you look back through the catalog and listen to a couple of the episodes that aired following these types of events if you're ever looking for some background noise while you're doing housework or something. Even more abrasive hosts like Steven Crowder are still extremely vocal about their disdain for those types of people.

The Times and WaPo are very heavily left leaning publications, so it makes sense that they'll omit that kind of stuff. You need a balanced intake of news; I tend to listen to more conservative podcasts and I read mostly liberal print media. If you average out the two, it feels like you're getting a decently covered view of current events.

I'm not versed enough in the TA's changes pertaining to legal immigration to have a well informed discussion, you may very well be correct; but even if I was, that isn't really what I came to this thread for.

I wouldn't say that there is a "a high level right-wing conspiracy to keep mexicans from getting into the US", but there are certain groups with that agenda, such as the white supremacists Drew mentioned who marched in Charlottesville, that Trump refused to condemn. And far right fringe elements such as former Trump strategist Steve Bannon (founder of Breitbart) is definitely a nationalist and most probably, based on his actions, a racist, though I don't have hard proof of that.

So while I wouldn't suggest that there is an overall conspiracy on the part of conservatives, keep in mind that it only take one turd in the punch bowl to spoil the punch.

He did condemn them, in same breath that he condemned the antifa presence. Which is exactly what he should have done imo. The outrage that that comment generated absolutely perplexes me. Bannon is also no longer in the white house so I'm unsure of why he's relevant now. But again; I'm not really in this thread to discuss political issues.

Using this thought process is an exercise in futility, in my opinion; because no group people would ever be pure enough.
The Clintons are as corrupt as it gets, but that doesn't sully the entire democratic party- just those that are involved in the corruption. And now we're back to 'us and them'.

"Jews. Will not. Replace. Us" lol. I almost forgot about the Charlottesville losers.

 

[Drew]

This is America, land of free speech. It's always a bit of a complex issue when it comes to people expressing themselves in a way that is very wrong, but we are supposed to be tolerant of people's legal right to hold whatever political views they wish to have. Yet, I think we've been down this conversational road numerous times. I just think that goes to show that it is possible to be in a place, politically, where you are anti-Nazi, but, at the same time, pro-free-speech enough to think that actively condemning neo-Nazis only for their political beliefs is wrong.
And that comes right back to my point earlier, that we, as a society, have largely divided ourselves into "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to pretty much any opinion. If you tolerate something, you don't necessarily agree with it.

Isn't that kind of the tolerance paradox, though? That a belief in tolerance doesn't actually require you to tolerate intolerance, even if at first blush it might seem like it would, because intolerance represents the negation of tolerance?

 

[Drew]

Ben Shapiro's show is a great place to start. I would highly advise you look back through the catalog and listen to a couple of the episodes that aired following these types of events if you're ever looking for some background noise while you're doing housework or something. Even more abrasive hosts like Steven Crowder are still extremely vocal about their disdain for those types of people.

The Times and WaPo are very heavily left leaning publications, so it makes sense that they'll omit that kind of stuff. You need a balanced intake of news; I tend to listen to more conservative podcasts and I read mostly liberal print media. If you average out the two, it feels like you're getting a decently covered view of current events.

I'm not versed enough in the TA's changes pertaining to legal immigration to have a well informed discussion, you may very well be correct; but even if I was, that isn't really what I came to this thread for.

Re: legal immigration, here's politico on the subject: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/30/trump-legal-immigration-republicans-378041

So... I don't own a TV and have never listened to a podcast in my life. I'm not sure which Ben Shapiro is, but either way, is there a moderate conservative print source that you like? Sorry man, I know I'm kind of a heathen in that respect, but I need another time-sucking hobby like I need a hole in my head.

Still, if you're seeing that, then I'm really happy to hear that. The Trump administration is dog-whistling like crazy towards white nationalists, and I'm glad it's not just the left that's sickened by that.

EDIT - by the way, again, it's a pleasure to talk with someone on the right not merely interested in trolling.

 

[tedtan]

He did condemn them, in same breath that he condemned the antifa presence. Which is exactly what he should have done imo. The outrage that that comment generated absolutely perplexes me. Bannon is also no longer in the white house so I'm unsure of why he's relevant now. But again; I'm not really in this thread to discuss political issues

Well, he sort of condemned them, but only after he received a LOT of pressure to do so from his own party, while still insisting that there were a lot of good people on both sides. But that is Trump, not the republican party or conservatives; specifically Trump.

keep in mind that it only take one turd in the punch bowl to spoil the punch.

Using this thought process is an exercise in futility, in my opinion; because no group people would ever be pure enough.
The Clintons are as corrupt as it gets, but that doesn't sully the entire democratic party- just those that are involved in the corruption. And now we're back to 'us and them'.

"Jews. Will not. Replace. Us" lol. I almost forgot about the Charlottesville losers.

When I said that I was thinking in terms of the current administration, not entire political parties. I'm with you in that there are good and bad people on all sides of an issue and in both parties.

I tend to look at issues rather than parties, and find myself agreeing with people from each party at times because I've yet to find a party that I can agree with across the board.

 

[BlackMastodon]

This is America, land of free speech. It's always a bit of a complex issue when it comes to people expressing themselves in a way that is very wrong, but we are supposed to be tolerant of people's legal right to hold whatever political views they wish to have. Yet, I think we've been down this conversational road numerous times. I just think that goes to show that it is possible to be in a place, politically, where you are anti-Nazi, but, at the same time, pro-free-speech enough to think that actively condemning neo-Nazis only for their political beliefs is wrong.
And that comes right back to my point earlier, that we, as a society, have largely divided ourselves into "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to pretty much any opinion. If you tolerate something, you don't necessarily agree with it.

I know I'm risking blowing up this thread and possibly getting banned but I've had more than a few tonight and seeing this, I really feel the need to say:
Absolutely fuck that.

The first amendment/freedom of speech allows a person to say what they want without being jailed for it, it doesn't save that person or give them a shield from any sort of backlash for their opinions. So when a neo-Nazi comes around and says I need to respect their dogshit opinion because freedom of speech bro, fuck that. They deserve to get punched in the face and spat on and persecuted back to the shitty hole from whence they came. To even entertain neo-Nazis and their beliefs, especially in a country that actively fought against the Nazis for their beliefs and the fact that they committed absolute atrocities and genocide, they deserve no respect or debate, they can fuck right off. There is absolutely no reason to be tolerant of intolerance of that kind, paradoxical as it may be.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

I know I'm risking blowing up this thread and possibly getting banned but I've had more than a few tonight and seeing this, I really feel the need to say:
Absolutely fuck that.

The first amendment/freedom of speech allows a person to say what they want without being jailed for it, it doesn't save that person or give them a shield from any sort of backlash for their opinions. So when a neo-Nazi comes around and says I need to respect their dogshit opinion because freedom of speech bro, fuck that. They deserve to get punched in the face and spat on and persecuted back to the shitty hole from whence they came. To even entertain neo-Nazis and their beliefs, especially in a country that actively fought against the Nazis for their beliefs and the fact that they committed absolute atrocities and genocide, they deserve no respect or debate, they can fuck right off. There is absolutely no reason to be tolerant of intolerance of that kind, paradoxical as it may be.

Sure, but they should have the right to spew their dogshit opinion.
It's tough to interpret exactly what bostjan meant with that line, but it seems to me that he isn't saying that you need to 'entertain their beliefs,' more so that they should have the right to expose themselves through their own speech.

A phrase I see thrown around all the time is "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences," which is fundamentally true, I think.
I don't think you should be able to go jump some guy and get off scott free because 'lol he's a white supremacist.' But I do think that if you grab yourself a torch, start marching down the street and ranting about minorities, and your employer happens to notice and decides that you aren't a good fit for the company; that's fine.
You don't need to be down with what they have to say but you need to be down with them being able to say it. Hell, they're even doing you a favor by sticking a flashing neon sign over their own head reading "HEY I'M AN ASSHOLE, YOU SHOULDN'T ASSOCIATE WITH ME!" They weed themselves out.

The part that concerns me, and why I think free speech is so important (and only part of this post that's remotely on topic), is because it's really difficult to evaluate exactly where the line is. There are so many different factors that all roll into this that make it such an extremely sticky subject; what exactly was said? What's this person's history like? What was the context? Were they provoked? Did the whole thing even happen? Which report is accurate, is this even the right quote? Who gets to determine intent? I hate that this topic always boils down to 'haha nazis' because that's the most cut and dry example there is. You'll be hard pressed to find someone who would defend neo-nazis. BUT, if you start targeting people based on the dumb shit that they say rather than the dumb shit that they do, you throw yourself headfirst over a very slippery slope and before you know it, you may end up being the fascist.

Human speech and communication is incredibly nuanced and if you start policing what people can and cannot say, especially with how over the top incendiary social media is about literally everything; you are going to net innocent people.
Look at how tone-policing has already seeped into the discourse. I am extremely against illegal immigration, and I am 100% for doing whatever we need to do to axe that problem entirely. It's getting ridiculous here in California.
But I can't share that opinion, because the internet outrage machine has correlated 'anti illegal immigration' with 'racist.' Imagine how much worse it would be if physical violence was an accepted response rather than name-calling.

 

[bostjan]

I know I'm risking blowing up this thread and possibly getting banned but I've had more than a few tonight and seeing this, I really feel the need to say:
Absolutely fuck that.

The first amendment/freedom of speech allows a person to say what they want without being jailed for it, it doesn't save that person or give them a shield from any sort of backlash for their opinions. So when a neo-Nazi comes around and says I need to respect their dogshit opinion because freedom of speech bro, fuck that. They deserve to get punched in the face and spat on and persecuted back to the shitty hole from whence they came. To even entertain neo-Nazis and their beliefs, especially in a country that actively fought against the Nazis for their beliefs and the fact that they committed absolute atrocities and genocide, they deserve no respect or debate, they can fuck right off. There is absolutely no reason to be tolerant of intolerance of that kind, paradoxical as it may be.

Oh, I agree. I just draw the line at condemnation. A punch in the face, to me, is well short of that. Ruining someone's day is less drastic than ruining someone's life.

 

[BlackMastodon]

@Ordacleaphobia see I don't really take comfort in the fringe far right groups outting themselves by using free speech to show the world how terrible they are, it's more of a silver lining that we know we don't have to associate with them and can fire/not hire them for work because of those opinions. It's a much more sobering realization that these types of people exist in the information age where we can so easily see into what's going on in the rest of the world. Seeing those kinds of ideals being spread in western democratic/first world countries is even more troubling to me, and I'm not talking about cracking down on illegal immigration for this point, I mean their other fringe ideas like white ethno-states, etc.

This is pretty counter to @bostjan's point, though, since it sounds like he's saying people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their speech/protests/rallies, which I don't agree with. If a video goes viral of a guy screaming at Latina women in a Starbucks or whatever and him assuming (maybe correctly, I don't know the context or their lives) that they're illegal immigrants and going off on borderline racist rants then I think an employer has the right to fire them and not tolerate those kinds of actions and publicity. I know work and personal lives are separate but we live in a world where we generally represent our employer even when we're not at work given the shift in certain industries to cultivating positive work cultures.

So to jump back towards the main topic here, it's quite obvious that there's much more nuance to free speech than other black and white issues.

 

[bostjan]

Just for clarification (feel free to disagree based on semantics, I only wish to clarify my point, since it's come up twice now):

Condemn (verb, transitive): to sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.

My context here was from within the legal realm. Perhaps I took the original statement out of context, but I don't think anyone should be legally punished nor put to death over their ideology. I'm pretty sure that's exactly the context of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

If your employer wants to fire you for being a Nazi, I have no problem with that. If your neighbour wants to punch or slap you for idiotic statements you make, that's all fine in certain contexts as well. If we want, though, to go so far as to put people to death or imprison them for their political affiliation, then that's a firm hell no in my book, even if they wish to believe in Nazi-ism, human sacrifice, or even listening to Metalcore (I kid).

 

[BlackMastodon]

Thanks for the clarification, didn't realize you meant condemn in terms legal repercussions. On that we're in total agreement then.

Hey shit, did we just have a civil exchange about politics?

 

[Drew]

Hey shit, did we just have a civil exchange about politics?

Right?? High fives all around!!!

(To be fair, I also misread what bostjan meant, as well, with the legal/civil repercussions distinction not being clear to me either. Even then, I'm a little more inclined to be extremely leery of permitting hate speech, because words can have consequences).

I also disagree on the condemnation of antifa - the false equivalence Trump is drawing there is that violence in the name of racial intolerance veering into advocacy of ethnic cleansing is akin to violence intended to stop violence in the name of racial intolerance, because violence is violence and the reasons for it don't matter. And I don't think that's true. I think the courts agree with me, as well, if anything can be gleaned by the neo-nazi trying to press charges against a black man who had fought back after getting jumped and had drawn blood (while in the process of himself getting beaten to a pulp) for "assault," which the courts promptly tossed.

While I still have some issues with the ALCU's position on this, I think a lot can be gleaned from the fact that they've publicly stated that as a matter of policy they will no longer defend the first amendment rights of neo-Nazis who show up at rallies with body armor, weapons, and pepper spray. There's a clear distinction, I think, between using your first amendment rights, and intentionally TRYING to start violent confrontation, and I think that's what we saw in Charlottesville, and unfortunately our president didn't see fit to draw this distinction in his remarks, himself.