Awesome Protest Signs

[dpareja]

Richard Spencer, what a cuck.

Nope, nope, nope. Don't use violence, even against scum like Spencer. Because when you do, you a) put yourself on the wrong side of the law, b) beget violence in return, and c) are admitting that you can't win an argument with him on the merits and have to resort to violence to shut him up. And you a) want to be on the right side of the law, b) don't want them committing violence against you and your supporters, and c) can defeat Spencer or any of his asshole cronies in an argument on the merits.

And anyway, what if you reverse the roles and it's someone you respect being belted by a neo-Nazi? Are you going to laugh at it then? No? Then why are you laughing at it now?

What Ravy said. Plus, go back over what I said. I specifically said that I do not condone violence, but why waste a golden opportunity to ridicule Spencer in front of his followers and potential followers? Authoritarians do not stop being authoritarians because of facts or reasoning (see: 2016 Presidential elections). However, authoritarians really like to give off the appearance of being normal and like everyone else. Therefore, when authoritarian views (like Spencer's) are ridiculed, shunned, and dismissed, or when he is made to look like a fool, then it dissuades those would may otherwise be inclined to give credence to his nazi-propaganda. So, while I do not condone that violence, I will happily laugh and contribute to making him a meme.

Well, as you said, authoritarians don't stop being authoritarians just because of facts or reason; why would they stop because of violence? They'd gladly be violent given the excuse and opportunity, and the former was just presented to them on a platter. Being violent toward them creates public sympathy for them. The aim in ridiculing them with facts and reason isn't to turn their supporters against them, it's to keep anyone else from turning toward them. Being violent, and disseminating the images of that violence, creates sympathy, as I said, and thus is liable to turn people toward them and away from your arguments.

[Even Then]

are admitting that you can't win an argument with him on the merits and have to resort to violence to shut him up.

Argument is not an entitlement, it is a privilege. To grant that privilege to white nationalism is to legitimize it as a political position, when an ideology that's predicated on the inherent inhumanity of people based solely on their ethnicity doesn't deserve that sense of legitimacy in the public sphere or that respect on a more interpersonal level.

Anyway, while on a higher ideal level I recognize that violence is not a constructive and ethical form of conflict resolution, on a personal level I'm happy that a bad thing happened to a bad person. That's one of the closest things to a loving God in this world, really.

And anyway, what if you reverse the roles and it's someone you respect being belted by a neo-Nazi?

That someone would probably not be beaten for being a scumbag, given that the beater's a Neo-Nazi, so no, I wouldn't be happy about that. Context matters.

And authoritarians have never not been violent. Don't act like they were just having tea parties, seething about how they've just got no way of terrorizing and beating degenerates, before this one guy freed them from their shackles.

[Murdin]

I... guess I can understand the schadenfreude expressed towards a present-day Nazi leader being elbowed in the face, but as far as I'm concerned, it's completely drowned in the horror of its full implications. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. That kind of thing isn't supposed to feel good, ever.

In an ideal world, the perpetrator should be jailed and fine for this physical assault. Since we do not live in an ideal world, I'm primarily worried about his personal safety and that of his loved ones.

c) can defeat Spencer or any of his asshole cronies in an argument on the merits.

I would really like you elaborate on that point, and how it applies to "assholes" (?!?) who openly advocate for murder, in this case genocidal mass murder. Perhaps on a separate thread. To be honest, none of the arguments you already brought up mesh very well with my understanding of human nature, especially as it applies to the current political and social context.

Just to be clear, I do think your two other points have a lot of merit. Civil disobedience, violent or not, is a risky strategy that carries a heavy human cost. Meanwhile, Nazis are still human beings. Most of them probably just want to go through their lives, "civilly" pushing their murderous agenda without being forced to "declare war" on society (... yes, I'm fully aware of the irony). It would be understandable for them to interpret the aggression as a call to arms, which may eventually lead to serial escalation.

[dpareja]

1. Unfortunately, white nationalism has, in the US, been legitimized already. The Overton window has shifted. The aim of argument is to delegitimize it.

2. Authoritarians are violent, but by punching Richard Spencer, they no longer have to invent fig leaves of justification for their violence. They have a real grievance to which they can point and say, "See? They're the violent ones! We're just defending ourselves!" Never make your opponent the victim, especially when they're already predisposed to violence.

3. See point 1. Mock their nonsense, ridicule their insanity, shoot down all their bullshit, and shift the Overton window so that their odious views are outside it again. Punching them doesn't accomplish any of that, and instead allows them to make themselves look morally equivalent, if not superior, to you.

[Askold]

1. Unfortunately, white nationalism has, in the US, been legitimized already. The Overton window has shifted. The aim of argument is to delegitimize it.

2. Authoritarians are violent, but by punching Richard Spencer, they no longer have to invent fig leaves of justification for their violence. They have a real grievance to which they can point and say, "See? They're the violent ones! We're just defending ourselves!" Never make your opponent the victim, especially when they're already predisposed to violence.

3. See point 1. Mock their nonsense, ridicule their insanity, shoot down all their bullshit, and shift the Overton window so that their odious views are outside it again. Punching them doesn't accomplish any of that, and instead allows them to make themselves look morally equivalent, if not superior, to you.

+1

I oppose unnecessary violence and this was not a situation that required violence.

[The_Queen]

1. Unfortunately, white nationalism has, in the US, been legitimized already. The Overton window has shifted. The aim of argument is to delegitimize it.

2. Authoritarians are violent, but by punching Richard Spencer, they no longer have to invent fig leaves of justification for their violence. They have a real grievance to which they can point and say, "See? They're the violent ones! We're just defending ourselves!" Never make your opponent the victim, especially when they're already predisposed to violence.

3. See point 1. Mock their nonsense, ridicule their insanity, shoot down all their bullshit, and shift the Overton window so that their odious views are outside it again. Punching them doesn't accomplish any of that, and instead allows them to make themselves look morally equivalent, if not superior, to you.

+1

I oppose unnecessary violence and this was not a situation that required violence.

To clarify, I think we can say violence is bad, while making fun of him in every way possible to delegitimize him in front of followers and potential followers. Using this instance (which we did not wish for, but fell into our hands), and making a meme out of it, is simply a way to humiliate him and make him look weak in front of people who may be inclined to follow him.

[dpareja]

1. Unfortunately, white nationalism has, in the US, been legitimized already. The Overton window has shifted. The aim of argument is to delegitimize it.

2. Authoritarians are violent, but by punching Richard Spencer, they no longer have to invent fig leaves of justification for their violence. They have a real grievance to which they can point and say, "See? They're the violent ones! We're just defending ourselves!" Never make your opponent the victim, especially when they're already predisposed to violence.

3. See point 1. Mock their nonsense, ridicule their insanity, shoot down all their bullshit, and shift the Overton window so that their odious views are outside it again. Punching them doesn't accomplish any of that, and instead allows them to make themselves look morally equivalent, if not superior, to you.

+1

I oppose unnecessary violence and this was not a situation that required violence.

To clarify, I think we can say violence is bad, while making fun of him in every way possible to delegitimize him in front of followers and potential followers. Using this instance (which we did not wish for, but fell into our hands), and making a meme out of it, is simply a way to humiliate him and make him look weak in front of people who may be inclined to follow him.

Or it creates sympathy for him and makes us look like the bad guys for cheering assault--and I hope that whoever it was who punched Richard Spencer is charged and prosecuted. I'd rather humiliate him--and his movement--in ways that do not involve blatantly illegal acts.

[The_Queen]

1. Unfortunately, white nationalism has, in the US, been legitimized already. The Overton window has shifted. The aim of argument is to delegitimize it.

2. Authoritarians are violent, but by punching Richard Spencer, they no longer have to invent fig leaves of justification for their violence. They have a real grievance to which they can point and say, "See? They're the violent ones! We're just defending ourselves!" Never make your opponent the victim, especially when they're already predisposed to violence.

3. See point 1. Mock their nonsense, ridicule their insanity, shoot down all their bullshit, and shift the Overton window so that their odious views are outside it again. Punching them doesn't accomplish any of that, and instead allows them to make themselves look morally equivalent, if not superior, to you.

+1

I oppose unnecessary violence and this was not a situation that required violence.

To clarify, I think we can say violence is bad, while making fun of him in every way possible to delegitimize him in front of followers and potential followers. Using this instance (which we did not wish for, but fell into our hands), and making a meme out of it, is simply a way to humiliate him and make him look weak in front of people who may be inclined to follow him.

Or it creates sympathy for him and makes us look like the bad guys for cheering assault--and I hope that whoever it was who punched Richard Spencer is charged and prosecuted. I'd rather humiliate him--and his movement--in ways that do not involve blatantly illegal acts.

Yeah, read The Authoritarians. They don't sympathize well, and they really look for a strong guy to say "Look at me, I'm loud and strong." I lurked on some alt-right sites, and they're tearing into him pretty hard for not Ramboing out on the assailant.

But yes, I agree that the assailant ought be prosecuted.

[dpareja]

1. Unfortunately, white nationalism has, in the US, been legitimized already. The Overton window has shifted. The aim of argument is to delegitimize it.

2. Authoritarians are violent, but by punching Richard Spencer, they no longer have to invent fig leaves of justification for their violence. They have a real grievance to which they can point and say, "See? They're the violent ones! We're just defending ourselves!" Never make your opponent the victim, especially when they're already predisposed to violence.

3. See point 1. Mock their nonsense, ridicule their insanity, shoot down all their bullshit, and shift the Overton window so that their odious views are outside it again. Punching them doesn't accomplish any of that, and instead allows them to make themselves look morally equivalent, if not superior, to you.

+1

I oppose unnecessary violence and this was not a situation that required violence.

To clarify, I think we can say violence is bad, while making fun of him in every way possible to delegitimize him in front of followers and potential followers. Using this instance (which we did not wish for, but fell into our hands), and making a meme out of it, is simply a way to humiliate him and make him look weak in front of people who may be inclined to follow him.

Or it creates sympathy for him and makes us look like the bad guys for cheering assault--and I hope that whoever it was who punched Richard Spencer is charged and prosecuted. I'd rather humiliate him--and his movement--in ways that do not involve blatantly illegal acts.

Yeah, read The Authoritarians. They don't sympathize well, and they really look for a strong guy to say "Look at me, I'm loud and strong." I lurked on some alt-right sites, and they're tearing into him pretty hard for not Ramboing out on the assailant.

But yes, I agree that the assailant ought be prosecuted.

I'm not talking about sympathy from his own followers. Whether they follow him or someone else their views are every bit as odious as his.

I'm talking about sympathy from people who aren't as adamantly opposed to what Spencer and his ilk represent and profess. I don't want to risk generating that.

[Skybison]

Meh, I agree with what's being said about non-violence being a better tactic then violence, but I doubt that one guy getting punched once will make any difference in making people sympathize with Nazi's. 

If it starts to become a regular occurrence that's different, but if it's just a one off I think there's some molehill mountaineering going on online.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I always liked this image.



The African American lady who stepped in to protect the Nazi from the angry protesters who wanted to put the boot into him. I know it's not current but it has more moral authority than the video of the bloke who sucker punched Spencer.

[Murdin]

So, the only thing that can be done against the rise of Nazism is... to ridicule them, flaunt our moral higher ground, display our own superior Rationality, and hope really really hard that this will move the Overton window away from them.

In other words, we should promote the kind of douchey detached self-righteous attitude towards authoritarianism that worked oh so well in the recent past.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since the very idea behind FSTDT epitomizes "educated liberal" smugness to an almost caricatural extent. Don't get me wrong, back at the height of its notoriety during the Bush-era heydays of religious conservatism, this attitude used to be in tune with the rising tide of public opinion, most particularly among the mob of primarily nerdy young white males that is Internet culture.

I'm not sure the same can be said today. I would even so as far as to say that the pendulum has flung far to the other side, with our nerd-cred intellectual-superiority rhetorical mojo being stolen reclaimed first by vacuous Internet personalities such as Amazing Atheist or Thunderf00t, then by a topical variety of reactionary hate mobs, before finally condensing between the hands of literal fascists.

Yes, I'm going there. As far as I am concerned, the alt-right is nothing more than a dark, twisted mockery of the decaying "rationalist" community, of the very kind of smug self-satisfied assholes that we used to be... and, to a large extent, still are.

Once again, I agree with the points made against the use of violence. What I cannot condone is the idea that the "solutions" offered here are nothing more than feel-good cop-outs. We just need to act like how we have always acted, everything will turn out just fine, and even if it doesn't, well, we will have a ready-made excuse about it. We tried. We fought against the rise of murderous ideologies by pointing and laughing at them from our imaginary ivory towers, but this time, somehow, it didn't work. It was obviously the most rational course of action at the time, because Reason, and reasons.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

There are situations that call for.violence. Spencer's vile beliefs alone aren't one of them.

[RavynousHunter]

Dayum, murdin.  Yeah, folks seem to forget the "action" part of "political action."

[LeTipex]

There are situations that call for.violence. Spencer's vile beliefs alone aren't one of them.

I'm not saying I disagree with you... but when is the right time to get violent towards neo-nazis?

When they speak out in public? Apparently not.
When they have a rally? Apparently not?
When they're campaigning? That'd undermine democracy...
When they're in power? Too late...

Fascism is unlike other ideology. It abuses the freedom given to us by democracy, turns it over on its head to argue against it, and once it wins, takes it away from its oponents. So far in history, every fascist government has come to power by being elected... and none of them have relinquished that power without a war or violent action.

Punching someone for their opinions is a bad thing to do, true. But so is giving facists and neo-nazis the "benefit of the doubt" and letting them take a place in public discourse. Arguments do not work against those who see intelectuals and free thinkers as the ennemy, and if violence towards them is always illegitimate, and if the law doesn't make a difference between them and others... then there is no way to act against them until they have power and we're forced to go to war.

I would rather not have it go there. So in a situation where holocaust denial, hate speech and outright calls to genocide (thinly veiled tho they might be) are protected by the law as "free speech", then violence seems to me, if not completely acceptable, then at least like not so much of a bad move.