4 ms·

Culturally, Americans have chosen "Nazis" and zombies as default groups on which we can assert violence without questioning our moral values or their expression

Culturally, Americans have chosen "Nazis" and zombies as default groups on which we can assert violence without questioning our moral values or their expression. While Richard Spencer is even saying in that clip that he isn't a Neo Nazi (before getting punched) - a great deal of the American population don't draw the lines as finely as he might. He's certainly said some things that put him in that world of thought. I share your discomfort with this in so far as we shouldn't normalize violence in daily life.

legodt 10y ago
Are you seriously sympathizing with a man who called for an American ethnic cleansing?
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  No. I'm recognizing that dangerous thoughts are not illegal in the United States of America and perpetuating violence is dangerous and ineffective. My wife and I both chose careers of service that are directly antithetical to the words and thoughts of this man. I sympathize with the desire to punch him - he is eminently punchable - but I believe that directing violence on him will serve to draw support to his cause, increase the likelihood of violence being perpetrated on my allies, and undermine the credibility and standing of my moral and political beliefs. We should resist the normalization of violence in our political discourse. Edit: grammar
  - legodt 10y ago
    So what is the line? Neo-nazis don't respond to debate or rationality. What line do they have to cross for violence to become acceptable for you? Because, clearly, actively calling for and organizing a group centered around my death and the death of my community isn't enough
    - germinalphrase 10y ago
      It is not illegal to talk of, and organize around, hateful and morally reprehensible beliefs. If they act on these beliefs or create credible plans to act then that would be the line. We also have civil authorities - like the police - that we bestow with the power of violence to protect these lines. Additionally, we have civil rights and hate crime laws that bestow additional punishments for groups like this acting on their beliefs. I think we will be better served reinforcing our shared beliefs in these civil authorities rather than acting as vigilantes and undermine our moral stance and possibly reinforce/embolden the support for our enemies.
    - Torgo 10y ago
      That's not what he did or said, and your inability or refusal to recognize that is why a lot of people are against you trying to create a moral justification for mob attacks. You don't get to decide that for yourself because you live in a society where you gain benefits from designating sole authority to enact violence to the state. If you engage in violence, then the state will in turn give you what you deserve. Even if you understood him correctly, which you did not, he has a right to speak them and people like you get to go to jail if you go around assaulting people.
      - legodt 10y ago
        >That's not what he did or said, He had repeatedly called for an ethnic cleansing of America. And now his buddy, Steve bannon is in the white house. The state has a monopoly on violence, and they aren't on our side
- dang 10y ago
  You've done almost nothing but post angry political boilerplate since we asked you to stop using HN primarily for political battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their politics or the correctness of their views, because that's the only way to protect HN from being overrun with flamewars. The purpose of HN is the gratification of intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), not war by other means, so please stop using it for the latter.
SolaceQuantum 10y ago
I'm also uncomfortable with violence but I don't have an answer to the inevitable "well what else should we do". Facts, reasonable logic, and ridicule do not seem to work. Do you have any suggestions?
- germinalphrase 10y ago
  Turn off the media and talk to your neighbors? Interpersonally, I think we need to keep pushing the belief that there is more than unites us than divides us. At the core of it, we all really want the same sort of stuff (safety, purpose, love, fun, etc.) The more we allow ourselves to be divided (by media, by political rhetoric, by rumor and gossip, by hate) the less likely we will be able to hold those with real power and influence to task - the less we will be able to shape policy and investment in such a way that everyone in our communities benefit. Big picture, we need to create communities in which all people - including disaffected bigots - can feel that they are thriving (rather than merely surviving). If we do that then these groups, and this repressible rhetoric, will find less support and fewer fertile minds to pollute. That's my belief anyway.
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    I agree that at the core most people want the same thing but there are bigoted beliefs that are inherently difficult to be a minority around and it's harder to handle. For example, the guy whose face has been punched often recently, he desires an ethnic cleansing in order to accomplish safety, purpose, etc. Should we expect the people who are targets of his rhetoric(the people he wishes to ethnically cleanse) to feel safe talking to him or interacting with him? I don't know, and I don't know if he'll even listen to those people. Has it worked for you with people you've met?
ch4s3 10y ago
> saying in that clip that he isn't a Neo Nazi To be fair, he says that it's an "antiquated term" and that it's "unfortunately tarnished" and that he prefers to be associated with ethno-nationalism... So it may be a distinction without a difference.
soundwave106 10y ago
There's a very long-standing association of "neo-Nazis" with disaffected whites that are over-prone to violent behavior towards anyone that aren't neo-Nazis. (As far as I'm aware Richard Spencer has never been violent himself, but the association of neo-Nazi types with overly-violent people has extended back for decades.) So it's a bit more than just the "Nazis are the face of evil" type symbolism seen in the movies. Evoking the sort of deep tribal behavior Mr. Spencer is engaging in, instinctively often leads to tribal responses (including violence). Which is unfortunate. I don't think Richard Spencer "deserves" to be punched, and I don't see punching as a noble act. Violence is only justifiable as a defense against violence, in my opinion. I actually think aggressor violence plays right into the hands of the "help we're being oppressed!" narrative, that seems to be a lot of the "drive" behind white supremacism. I cannot see Mr. Spencer's philosophy to be anything but illogical and immoral to the rational mind. I therefore don't have any real good way to combat his (and other) tribalism, other than continuing to emphasize rational thought. Such is a much more difficult job in this current climate, when the current leader of the US got there half by exploiting tribal politics. But what else will work? I can't see the fisticuffs approach leading to anything other than deepening division.

legodt 10y ago

Are you seriously sympathizing with a man who called for an American ethnic cleansing?

germinalphrase 10y ago
No. I'm recognizing that dangerous thoughts are not illegal in the United States of America and perpetuating violence is dangerous and ineffective. My wife and I both chose careers of service that are directly antithetical to the words and thoughts of this man. I sympathize with the desire to punch him - he is eminently punchable - but I believe that directing violence on him will serve to draw support to his cause, increase the likelihood of violence being perpetrated on my allies, and undermine the credibility and standing of my moral and political beliefs. We should resist the normalization of violence in our political discourse. Edit: grammar
- legodt 10y ago
  So what is the line? Neo-nazis don't respond to debate or rationality. What line do they have to cross for violence to become acceptable for you? Because, clearly, actively calling for and organizing a group centered around my death and the death of my community isn't enough
  - germinalphrase 10y ago
    It is not illegal to talk of, and organize around, hateful and morally reprehensible beliefs. If they act on these beliefs or create credible plans to act then that would be the line. We also have civil authorities - like the police - that we bestow with the power of violence to protect these lines. Additionally, we have civil rights and hate crime laws that bestow additional punishments for groups like this acting on their beliefs. I think we will be better served reinforcing our shared beliefs in these civil authorities rather than acting as vigilantes and undermine our moral stance and possibly reinforce/embolden the support for our enemies.
  - Torgo 10y ago
    That's not what he did or said, and your inability or refusal to recognize that is why a lot of people are against you trying to create a moral justification for mob attacks. You don't get to decide that for yourself because you live in a society where you gain benefits from designating sole authority to enact violence to the state. If you engage in violence, then the state will in turn give you what you deserve. Even if you understood him correctly, which you did not, he has a right to speak them and people like you get to go to jail if you go around assaulting people.
    - legodt 10y ago
      >That's not what he did or said, He had repeatedly called for an ethnic cleansing of America. And now his buddy, Steve bannon is in the white house. The state has a monopoly on violence, and they aren't on our side
dang 10y ago
You've done almost nothing but post angry political boilerplate since we asked you to stop using HN primarily for political battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their politics or the correctness of their views, because that's the only way to protect HN from being overrun with flamewars. The purpose of HN is the gratification of intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), not war by other means, so please stop using it for the latter.

SolaceQuantum 10y ago

I'm also uncomfortable with violence but I don't have an answer to the inevitable "well what else should we do". Facts, reasonable logic, and ridicule do not seem to work. Do you have any suggestions?

germinalphrase 10y ago
Turn off the media and talk to your neighbors? Interpersonally, I think we need to keep pushing the belief that there is more than unites us than divides us. At the core of it, we all really want the same sort of stuff (safety, purpose, love, fun, etc.) The more we allow ourselves to be divided (by media, by political rhetoric, by rumor and gossip, by hate) the less likely we will be able to hold those with real power and influence to task - the less we will be able to shape policy and investment in such a way that everyone in our communities benefit. Big picture, we need to create communities in which all people - including disaffected bigots - can feel that they are thriving (rather than merely surviving). If we do that then these groups, and this repressible rhetoric, will find less support and fewer fertile minds to pollute. That's my belief anyway.
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  I agree that at the core most people want the same thing but there are bigoted beliefs that are inherently difficult to be a minority around and it's harder to handle. For example, the guy whose face has been punched often recently, he desires an ethnic cleansing in order to accomplish safety, purpose, etc. Should we expect the people who are targets of his rhetoric(the people he wishes to ethnically cleanse) to feel safe talking to him or interacting with him? I don't know, and I don't know if he'll even listen to those people. Has it worked for you with people you've met?

ch4s3 10y ago

> saying in that clip that he isn't a Neo Nazi To be fair, he says that it's an "antiquated term" and that it's "unfortunately tarnished" and that he prefers to be associated with ethno-nationalism... So it may be a distinction without a difference.

soundwave106 10y ago

There's a very long-standing association of "neo-Nazis" with disaffected whites that are over-prone to violent behavior towards anyone that aren't neo-Nazis. (As far as I'm aware Richard Spencer has never been violent himself, but the association of neo-Nazi types with overly-violent people has extended back for decades.) So it's a bit more than just the "Nazis are the face of evil" type symbolism seen in the movies. Evoking the sort of deep tribal behavior Mr. Spencer is engaging in, instinctively often leads to tribal responses (including violence). Which is unfortunate. I don't think Richard Spencer "deserves" to be punched, and I don't see punching as a noble act. Violence is only justifiable as a defense against violence, in my opinion. I actually think aggressor violence plays right into the hands of the "help we're being oppressed!" narrative, that seems to be a lot of the "drive" behind white supremacism. I cannot see Mr. Spencer's philosophy to be anything but illogical and immoral to the rational mind. I therefore don't have any real good way to combat his (and other) tribalism, other than continuing to emphasize rational thought. Such is a much more difficult job in this current climate, when the current leader of the US got there half by exploiting tribal politics. But what else will work? I can't see the fisticuffs approach leading to anything other than deepening division.