FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Askold on March 29, 2019, 08:13:50 am
-
This is an interesting video and seems accurate based on any of the Alt-Reich "debates" I've seen on the net.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4
I haven't watched videos from this Youtuber but now I'm interested in seeing the rest of their stuff.
-
That guy's great. You absolutely should check out the rest of his stuff. You won't be disappointed.
-
I just started watching his videos. They're very good and at the same time make me feel helpless.
The alt right has become very powerful on cheap attack and no defend Ill go low to force you to go high debate tactics, and liberals fall for it everytime.
I don't really know the right way to win an argument against them since they win if you engage them, or they win if you don't.
It seems the only way to win is to sink down to their level but you end up losing yourself that way.
-
The thing is, if you're too fixated upon having the high ground, then people who aren't can take advantage of you. I'm not worried at all about "losing myself" when I call an alt-righter a mentally sick, inbred, obese Ugly American stereotype.
Well, that may be because I've never been a particularly uh, committed person to the high concept ideas.
-
I'm going to have to criticize the video on a few things. I don't think its ideas should be rejected out of hand, and it's an interesting watch, but let's not simply take it at face value.
And just for the sake of convenience, I'll give timestamps.
3:03 OK, there are two things wrong here. Right-wingers aggressively disagree with one another all the time. There's even an entire Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism) about the disputes between neocons and paleocons, including some pretty vicious mudslinging e.g. Pat Buchanan characterizing neocons as warmongering imperialists and David Frum calling paleocons bigoted, unpatriotic subversives. It also expresses a false dichotomy, saying that "Engelbert" making a "Charlemagne" argument or vice versa somehow proves they're insincere about their beliefs. But that's not how it works. People can sincerely hold ideas that seem contradictory to their overall political persuasion, but that doesn't mean they don't sincerely believe what they say. For an example, Jon Stewart has admitted to holding some conservative views. You don't have to adhere to an ideology 100% to be sincere about believing it. So his accusations about lack of candor fall flat.
6:02 And here we have the "is a dogwhistle for the Jews" argument. Not "can be", is. Which implies that nobody can criticize certain things without being an anti-Semite. I think he might be joking here, but I haven't seen the rest of his videos, so I don't know for sure. To flip things a little, there are right-wingers who say that any criticism of Israel is a dog-whistle for anti-Semitism. Yeah, some is, but not all of it. Plenty of Israel's critics don't have anything against the Jews, and are just genuinely opposed to, say, its settlements in the West Bank. The same goes for people criticizing postmodernism, globalism, or George Soros. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
13:18 Let's not pretend feminists never physically attack people who upset them. Andy Warhol got shot by a feminist over a misunderstanding. I could point to plenty of incidents where one or more leftists have gotten violent. Now, I'll agree that a Nazi is probably more likely to stab you, but let's not pretend offending leftists is automatically "safe".
13:30 There are a few things I disagree with around this timestamp, but I don't think most of them are necessarily flaws with the video. Maybe I could have a friendly discussion with him about them, if he deigns to respond to my (hypothetical) comment. But the bit about "conservative rhetoric" seems to indicate that he's conflating "conservative" with "alt-right", when there are quite a few conservatives who hate the alt-right, and the alt-right is known for being very critical of more mainstream right-wingers. Or maybe I'm just being an idiot and not getting something.
17:10 /leftypol/ has left the chat.
Now, to clarify, I don't hate this video, and I think it makes some interesting points. Hell, since I haven't seen any of this guy's other videos, maybe there's some context I'm not getting. These are just some thoughts I have about the video. And I'd be happy to discuss them with you.
-
I quite liked this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Luu1Beb8ng
-
Dude, there may be occasions when someone uses dog-whistle language accidentally but eventually a pattern forms and you'll come to the conclusion that it really is a dog-whistle and not just a coincidence.
-
Andy Warhol got shot by one feminist - one radical feminist dingbat.
While numerous, numerous people have gotten hurt, killed and maimed by far right wing thugs that the right wing celebrates and makes excuses for.
-
Dude, there may be occasions when someone uses dog-whistle language accidentally but eventually a pattern forms and you'll come to the conclusion that it really is a dog-whistle and not just a coincidence.
True, true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the concept of dog whistles, I'm just saying we shouldn't automatically assume somebody is using one - even if they use terms or discuss topics often associated with them.
Andy Warhol got shot by one feminist - one radical feminist dingbat.
While numerous, numerous people have gotten hurt, killed and maimed by far right wing thugs that the right wing celebrates and makes excuses for.
Personally, I'd have gone for "hurt, maimed and killed". Makes a little more sense that way.
But back on topic. Solanas is just the first example that came to mind. I have plenty of others. Like Assata Shakur, a cop-killing terrorist. Or Donna Hylton, who helped torture and murder a man back in 1985. West (and later reunified) Germany had Rote Zora, a radical feminist terrorist organization that was active for more than twenty years.
And I'm sorry, but you don't get to play your "the right is worse!" card. Not when the question is about whether feminists commit violence, as opposed to any kind of relative judgment.
-
Did any of those "feminists" try to blow up a federal building (Timothy McVeigh)? Did any of those "feminists" shoot children and unarmed people on an island (Breivik)? Did any of those "feminists" shoot up a black church (Rooff)? Did any of those "feminists" slaughter Muslims in New Zealand? Did any of those "feminists" shoot up a Sikh Temple?
Assata Shakur is a black supremacist group. Donna Hylton was involved due to money. Rote Zora were radfems and had a lot of non-mainstream wonk issues like genetic engineering and nuclear power.
So yes, I DO in fact get to say the right is worse. Keep your WHATABOUTISM to yourself.
-
Did any of those "feminists" try to blow up a federal building (Timothy McVeigh)? Did any of those "feminists" shoot children and unarmed people on an island (Breivik)? Did any of those "feminists" shoot up a black church (Rooff)? Did any of those "feminists" slaughter Muslims in New Zealand? Did any of those "feminists" shoot up a Sikh Temple?
Assata Shakur is a black supremacist group. Donna Hylton was involved due to money. Rote Zora were radfems and had a lot of non-mainstream wonk issues like genetic engineering and nuclear power.
So yes, I DO in fact get to say the right is worse. Keep your WHATABOUTISM to yourself.
The only one playing whataboutism is you. I was criticizing Innuendo Studios for making a factual error. You're the one trying to blow off my examples with "well, these guys are worse, so there!"
Why are you so worked up about this shit anyway? It's not like I said feminists were worse than Nazis, just that some of them have been violent in the past. You'd think that would be about as uncontroversial as it gets, since literally EVERY group has some members who've been violent at least once. Even Quakers. Is this really the hill you wanna die on, buddy?
-
Quakers are a good example. While you may have some violent quakers, violence is not part of their ideology. The same is true with feminists. There is nothing inherently violent about their ideology. The same cannot be said about Nazis or fascists, whose ideology is inherently violent.
Also my impression was that innuendo studios was talking about the prevalence of violence as a response on the basis that Nazis are much more likely to respond violently than feminists. The fact you are going back 50 years to the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, whereas 50 people were shot (and killed) a few weeks ago by a fascist, indicate the relative threat levels.
-
Quakers are a good example. While you may have some violent quakers, violence is not part of their ideology. The same is true with feminists. There is nothing inherently violent about their ideology. The same cannot be said about Nazis or fascists, whose ideology is inherently violent.
Also my impression was that innuendo studios was talking about the prevalence of violence as a response on the basis that Nazis are much more likely to respond violently than feminists. The fact you are going back 50 years to the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, whereas 50 people were shot (and killed) a few weeks ago by a fascist, indicate the relative threat levels.
Oh, I agree, Nazis are more likely to be violent than feminists. That's pretty much exactly what I said upthread. What I took issue with was the (gonna be charitable here) heavy implication that feminists are never violent. Maybe I'm just being a jackass, but that's pretty inaccurate. He could've said that about literally any other group (anti-communists, tradcons, objectivists, NRA members, etc.) and it wouldn't have been any more accurate.
-
Yeah - fact is, the examples you use are fucking ancient, in addition to being in far fewer number than the amount of far right wing terrorist actions.
I'm not the one that should be worried about dying on a hill. The fact is, whenever people discuss the violent actions of the far right as a group, you come in, and start bleating about how these select examples of feminists who were violent exist.
You're a bloviating centrist who can't see that everybody fucking despises the tack you keep using.
-
Yeah - fact is, the examples you use are fucking ancient, in addition to being in far fewer number than the amount of far right wing terrorist actions.
I'm not the one that should be worried about dying on a hill. The fact is, whenever people discuss the violent actions of the far right as a group, you come in, and start bleating about how these select examples of feminists who were violent exist.
You're a bloviating centrist who can't see that everybody fucking despises the tack you keep using.
Really? Where have I done that? Show me.
-
His newest ones are good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk
-
Yeah - fact is, the examples you use are fucking ancient, in addition to being in far fewer number than the amount of far right wing terrorist actions.
I'm not the one that should be worried about dying on a hill. The fact is, whenever people discuss the violent actions of the far right as a group, you come in, and start bleating about how these select examples of feminists who were violent exist.
You're a bloviating centrist who can't see that everybody fucking despises the tack you keep using.
Really? Where have I done that? Show me.
Can he show you using your previous user names?
-
I think this one is honestly my favorite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
Specifically because once you're trained to see this pattern, you start to see it everywhere. From the President to conservative media hosts, you'll always be able to see people practicing this wherever you go. Pretty much every forum you go to has these people as well, from both the left or the right - though obviously, a lot more prevalent on the right, due to the left's burning need to be justified (the right doesn't care about justification, just about beating down "the libtards").
In particular, the oft-noted concern troll is a mixture of Never Play Defense and the title video, The Card Says Moops. Once you're trained to look for it, you'll notice that their position always seems to be "I like your ideas in general but I think you're being too extreme about it", no matter what your ideas actually are. No matter what the issue is, they're always concerned, not about the issue itself but about how you're handling it - hence the name. Always on the offense, and less concerned about what the issue is than about being right, in their minds.
-
Yeah - fact is, the examples you use are fucking ancient, in addition to being in far fewer number than the amount of far right wing terrorist actions.
I'm not the one that should be worried about dying on a hill. The fact is, whenever people discuss the violent actions of the far right as a group, you come in, and start bleating about how these select examples of feminists who were violent exist.
You're a bloviating centrist who can't see that everybody fucking despises the tack you keep using.
Really? Where have I done that? Show me.
Can he show you using your previous user names?
I love you, cracker.