4 ms·

I have questions about a few of your comments, if you don't mind indulging me: 1. Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations

I have questions about a few of your comments, if you don't mind indulging me: 1. Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations? I hear a lot of people talking out against illegal immigration, since it drives down wages and makes it harder for poor Americans to compete and make a living. I also hear politicking regarding banning muslims from entering the U.S., due to the fear of terrorism. I agree that an all out ban stinks of WW II internment camps (a bit close to home too, since my wife is Japanese), but I'm not sure how you can extrapolate genocide from those conversations. Disallowing people from entering the U.S. doesn't really equate to genocide, does it? I don't really know what you're referring to, exactly, since you didn't provide any citations, but "genocide" seems a bit hyperbolic to me, with the information I currently have. 2. Are you advocating physical violence against people who have differing opinions than you? You lead in with Richard Spencer, and then ended by saying you're not going to apologize for being against the political speech you're referring to. I'm curious if you're suggesting physical violence as a means of shutting down said opinions?

anigbrowl 10y ago
Glad to! 1. Here are some examples of people calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide or similarly oppressive policies. If you're basically liberal then these articles will be pretty offensive: http://www.amerika.org/politics/the-peat-party/ http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-we-need-three-castes/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/sexual-liberation-and-racial-suicide/ I don't want to get sidetracked into quantitative analysis, but if you really want I can direct you to material compiled by a former US intelligence officer that is documented with hundreds if not thousands of citations. The animus you'll find in the links above directed at people of other races, 'cultural Marxists' and so on may be novel to you, but I've been observing this particular social group on the net for nearly 15 years now. 2. I'm OK with physical violence against people who are actively promoting violence like this, yes. People can have differing opinions about all sorts of subjects and I'm fine with that. I am even wiling to defend the concept of free speech for people like neo-nazis and the kkk - but only up to the point where they endorse violence against others as opposed to merely asserting their own superiority.
- innocentoldguy 10y ago
  1. Thanks for the citations, but who the hell are F. Roger Devlin and Brett Stevens, and why should anybody care? Their blogs seem to be on the fringe, and not something one would see in day-to-day politics. I'm not saying you don't have a point. Our society certainly has a few of these weird eggs, but there brand of "thinking" is generally viewed as abject ignorance by mainstream society, isn't it? 2. How would your policy of physical violence be any different, or less self-superior, than the kind of violence you believe this type of talk incites? I'm not trying to be snarky. It's just that enforcing a prescribed way of thinking via violence tends to have a lot of ill side effects that people don't take into consideration before heading down that slippery slope.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Ad. your '2', there is a fair chance that at some point violence is unavoidable. The sooner you start steering away from the current course the better the chances that can be avoided. But time is running out.
    - innocentoldguy 10y ago
      I agree that some violence is unavoidable, and some violence is absolutely necessary. I don't think that the time for either is when people are simply talking though. Disagreeing with someone doesn't justify punching them in the face, no matter how self-righteous you may be. At least that's the way I look at it.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Agreed 100%. Long before that there are many other options that can be tried with varying chances of success depending on how many people participate and what kind of response one can expect.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        How many threats of violence should someone accept against themselves before it's OK for them to punch the person making the threats? Come on man, one of our ongoing political problems is the unfortunate tendency of police officers to shoot unarmed black men because the police officer felt a degree of anxiety about their personal safety, sometimes without even knowing why, as in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/opinions/shooting-man-lying-down-opinion-david-perry/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/opinions/shooting-man-lying-do... That strikes me as a serious problem, compounded by the fact that police officers have difficult and complex jobs and nobody outside of a few theoretical anarchists wants to abandon the idea of policing crime. I'm really not that worried about very minor acts of violence directed against people advocating nazi ideologies and the violent death or removal of other people by the millions. Such proposals are not the sort of thing I can agree to disagree over, because they constitute a threat against my friends, family members, and my self. Why should we be subjected to such threats with no means of responding to them? You can worry about a slippery slope of violence all you want, but I don't recall historical oppressive regimes making a special exception to their oppressive practices for the conscientious objectors who repudiated violence, do you?
dinkumthinkum 10y ago
This was kind of long but you should read about who Richard Spencer, you repeated where's the "genocide" thing multiple but I don't know why.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations? Well, probably the guy saying "sieg heil" and giving a Nazi salute[1]. And he's giving a Nazi salute because he thinks the election winner is his guy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk

anigbrowl 10y ago

Glad to! 1. Here are some examples of people calling for ethnic cleansing/genocide or similarly oppressive policies. If you're basically liberal then these articles will be pretty offensive: http://www.amerika.org/politics/the-peat-party/ http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-we-need-three-castes/ http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/sexual-liberation-and-racial-suicide/ I don't want to get sidetracked into quantitative analysis, but if you really want I can direct you to material compiled by a former US intelligence officer that is documented with hundreds if not thousands of citations. The animus you'll find in the links above directed at people of other races, 'cultural Marxists' and so on may be novel to you, but I've been observing this particular social group on the net for nearly 15 years now. 2. I'm OK with physical violence against people who are actively promoting violence like this, yes. People can have differing opinions about all sorts of subjects and I'm fine with that. I am even wiling to defend the concept of free speech for people like neo-nazis and the kkk - but only up to the point where they endorse violence against others as opposed to merely asserting their own superiority.

innocentoldguy 10y ago
1. Thanks for the citations, but who the hell are F. Roger Devlin and Brett Stevens, and why should anybody care? Their blogs seem to be on the fringe, and not something one would see in day-to-day politics. I'm not saying you don't have a point. Our society certainly has a few of these weird eggs, but there brand of "thinking" is generally viewed as abject ignorance by mainstream society, isn't it? 2. How would your policy of physical violence be any different, or less self-superior, than the kind of violence you believe this type of talk incites? I'm not trying to be snarky. It's just that enforcing a prescribed way of thinking via violence tends to have a lot of ill side effects that people don't take into consideration before heading down that slippery slope.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Ad. your '2', there is a fair chance that at some point violence is unavoidable. The sooner you start steering away from the current course the better the chances that can be avoided. But time is running out.
  - innocentoldguy 10y ago
    I agree that some violence is unavoidable, and some violence is absolutely necessary. I don't think that the time for either is when people are simply talking though. Disagreeing with someone doesn't justify punching them in the face, no matter how self-righteous you may be. At least that's the way I look at it.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Agreed 100%. Long before that there are many other options that can be tried with varying chances of success depending on how many people participate and what kind of response one can expect.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      How many threats of violence should someone accept against themselves before it's OK for them to punch the person making the threats? Come on man, one of our ongoing political problems is the unfortunate tendency of police officers to shoot unarmed black men because the police officer felt a degree of anxiety about their personal safety, sometimes without even knowing why, as in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/opinions/shooting-man-lying-down-opinion-david-perry/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/opinions/shooting-man-lying-do... That strikes me as a serious problem, compounded by the fact that police officers have difficult and complex jobs and nobody outside of a few theoretical anarchists wants to abandon the idea of policing crime. I'm really not that worried about very minor acts of violence directed against people advocating nazi ideologies and the violent death or removal of other people by the millions. Such proposals are not the sort of thing I can agree to disagree over, because they constitute a threat against my friends, family members, and my self. Why should we be subjected to such threats with no means of responding to them? You can worry about a slippery slope of violence all you want, but I don't recall historical oppressive regimes making a special exception to their oppressive practices for the conscientious objectors who repudiated violence, do you?

dinkumthinkum 10y ago

This was kind of long but you should read about who Richard Spencer, you repeated where's the "genocide" thing multiple but I don't know why.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>Who is speaking for ethnic cleansing and genocide? Can you provide citations? Well, probably the guy saying "sieg heil" and giving a Nazi salute[1]. And he's giving a Nazi salute because he thinks the election winner is his guy. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk