8 ms·

> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence Do you have any evidenc

> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

doctorless 9y ago
Are you advocating violent suppression of views you dislike? Do you not see an irony there?
- danharaj 9y ago
  It's grossly dishonest to reduce white supremacy to "views one dislikes". Yes, if you remove all of the content of views and just focus on the act of liking or disliking them, you can make any disagreement look unreasonable.
  - elefanten 9y ago
    The problem with that is that, especially when emotions run high, it becomes very difficult to tell where the line is for sufficiently "dangerous" views that deserve punching. If you look around today's blogosphere and social media, for example, you'll see a significant variance in what gets labeled "racist" or "white supremacy" (to use the most germane example). If someone is declared a white supremacist for touching a black person's hair and the standard is "it's ok to punch white supremacists because they are violent and dangerous"... it will become a mess fast. Which is one reason why it's generally a good decision-rule to not employ violence (as a citizen) unless violence is imminently being used against you.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      See now you've introduced a third debate. If this was simply an attempt to deal with whether it's a good idea to punch Nazis (again, I think: no), we'd be much more careful. But now we're asked to debate whether touching a black person's hair (also: huh?) is "white supremacist".
    - eridius 9y ago
      Neo-nazis and their ideology directly threatens the very lives of a lot of people, and it's basically impossible to argue against them because they already understand these ir position and just don't care about any of the myriad reasons why they're wrong. This is where the "punch a nazi" thing comes from. They're a very real personal threat to people, and they can't be convinced to change their mind, so all you can really do is get them to shut up and go away, and the way you do that is by punching them. If you can make them afraid to express their neo-nazi ideas, then that's a win.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        This logic ends nowhere good for anyone. If you can punch away evil, so can the people who believe abortion clinics are murder factories --- in fact, their arguments are even better than ours.
        ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        Not if they don't support factual sex education and easy availability of contraception. If they don't then they're probably just fascists using emotive subjects to gain power (see the blood libel against the Jews) or suckers falling for the fascist propaganda. It's great that Godwin can't be applied to this thread.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Sorry, but that's an orthogonal argument. Pro-life activists believe abortion is murder. Nothing you can say about contraception refutes that argument. The fact that I find the pro-life argument so personally repellant is why I think it's a reasonably good example in discussions like these: it's a system of practical beliefs directly contrary to my own that is held by a great many people. Whatever ethics about speech suppression I would apply to others, I have to make work for these as well.
        ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        People could have said the same about Nazism. Personally I put the anti-abortionists (who directly cause more abortions) in the same category as the guy who turned up at a pizza parlor with a rifle and many low level Nazis. Confused by propaganda into making the situation worse.
    - danharaj 9y ago
      There will always be unreasonable people, in fact everyone's idea of what is unreasonable will be different. It's ok though because we're a social species whose individuals like to share their thoughts and values and refine them together. The fact that people will disagree about what warrants violence is not a refutation of the idea that it is possible to justify violence. It is not a justification for refusing to ever analyze the merits of a particular justification for a particular act of violence. Instead of discussing the merits of whether it is justified to violently oppose the ideology of white supremacy, whose latest form includes doublespeak like "peaceful ethnic cleansing" (Richard Spencer), you've shifted the topic to abstract considerations where the implicit demand is an argument that decides for all instances of violence whether or not they are justified. I can justify punching Richard Spencer, for example, without considering the rather absurd claim that someone who touches black hair (I presume you mean without consent) should be considered a white supremacist and therefore worthy of violence. Just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth examining. The fact that one cannot analytically decide a priori when violence is justified or not is just one of the many messy facts of the world that necessitate politics and taking conflict seriously.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Careful. Whether it's OK to retaliate violently against odious views is one question (personally, I think: no). Whether Nazism is simply a "view one dislikes", like a particular ice cream flavor, is another.
- peteretep 9y ago
  Yes...? I advocate violent suppression of those who think genocide is appropriate. I don't advocate violent suppression of people talking loudly on cellphones. Can't you see a difference?
- glibgil 9y ago
  Do the view present an existential threat? I would fight an existential threat
aaron-lebo 9y ago
Gandhi and King. Violence just leads to more violence and hatred.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  OK. Serious question: have you, personally, ever been assaulted for your identity or been in a physical fight for your life?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  American textbook whitewashed versions of King and Gandhi, perhaps. It's convenient for the ruling class to have peaceful (and ineffectual) forms of 'resistance' lauded over other means. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/riot-language-unheard-9-mlk-quotes-mainstream-media-wont-cite http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/riot-language-unhear... https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan100677.html https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan100677... http://www.naturalnews.com/038372_Gandhi_nonviolence_right_to_bear_arms.html http://www.naturalnews.com/038372_Gandhi_nonviolence_right_t... etc
pheldagryph 9y ago
One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Nobody's asking for validation of the contents of a persons heart. But people are saying that certain speech acts deserve unyielding opposition because they consist of exhortations to violence. Why conflate two different things?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pheldagryph 9y ago
    I'm not following your suggestion of conflation. The correct way to read my comment is as a criticism of the clear rhetorical support for violence in its parent. I am full of controversial opinions, I know...
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      The contents of a persons heart are known only to them and fundamentally unknowable by anyone else barring some scientific breakthrough, so they cannot and should not be subject to sanction. The words that come out of their mouth, on the other hand, are discernable. You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question treats of violent opposition to Nazism, an inherently violent ideology, which you seem to be overlooking. Allow me to illustrate how this looks from where I'm sitting: Abel: Nazism is good! I support putting [people I dislike] into camps and killing them. Baker: I find Abel's views repugnant and threatening to me, and if he expresses them in my presence I will punch him. Charlie: Baker is terribly violent! Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' but don't have anything to say about Nazism itself. It seems like a strange double standard.

> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

doctorless 9y ago

Are you advocating violent suppression of views you dislike? Do you not see an irony there?

danharaj 9y ago
It's grossly dishonest to reduce white supremacy to "views one dislikes". Yes, if you remove all of the content of views and just focus on the act of liking or disliking them, you can make any disagreement look unreasonable.
- elefanten 9y ago
  The problem with that is that, especially when emotions run high, it becomes very difficult to tell where the line is for sufficiently "dangerous" views that deserve punching. If you look around today's blogosphere and social media, for example, you'll see a significant variance in what gets labeled "racist" or "white supremacy" (to use the most germane example). If someone is declared a white supremacist for touching a black person's hair and the standard is "it's ok to punch white supremacists because they are violent and dangerous"... it will become a mess fast. Which is one reason why it's generally a good decision-rule to not employ violence (as a citizen) unless violence is imminently being used against you.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    See now you've introduced a third debate. If this was simply an attempt to deal with whether it's a good idea to punch Nazis (again, I think: no), we'd be much more careful. But now we're asked to debate whether touching a black person's hair (also: huh?) is "white supremacist".
  - eridius 9y ago
    Neo-nazis and their ideology directly threatens the very lives of a lot of people, and it's basically impossible to argue against them because they already understand these ir position and just don't care about any of the myriad reasons why they're wrong. This is where the "punch a nazi" thing comes from. They're a very real personal threat to people, and they can't be convinced to change their mind, so all you can really do is get them to shut up and go away, and the way you do that is by punching them. If you can make them afraid to express their neo-nazi ideas, then that's a win.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      This logic ends nowhere good for anyone. If you can punch away evil, so can the people who believe abortion clinics are murder factories --- in fact, their arguments are even better than ours.
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        Not if they don't support factual sex education and easy availability of contraception. If they don't then they're probably just fascists using emotive subjects to gain power (see the blood libel against the Jews) or suckers falling for the fascist propaganda. It's great that Godwin can't be applied to this thread.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Sorry, but that's an orthogonal argument. Pro-life activists believe abortion is murder. Nothing you can say about contraception refutes that argument. The fact that I find the pro-life argument so personally repellant is why I think it's a reasonably good example in discussions like these: it's a system of practical beliefs directly contrary to my own that is held by a great many people. Whatever ethics about speech suppression I would apply to others, I have to make work for these as well.
        ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        People could have said the same about Nazism. Personally I put the anti-abortionists (who directly cause more abortions) in the same category as the guy who turned up at a pizza parlor with a rifle and many low level Nazis. Confused by propaganda into making the situation worse.
  - danharaj 9y ago
    There will always be unreasonable people, in fact everyone's idea of what is unreasonable will be different. It's ok though because we're a social species whose individuals like to share their thoughts and values and refine them together. The fact that people will disagree about what warrants violence is not a refutation of the idea that it is possible to justify violence. It is not a justification for refusing to ever analyze the merits of a particular justification for a particular act of violence. Instead of discussing the merits of whether it is justified to violently oppose the ideology of white supremacy, whose latest form includes doublespeak like "peaceful ethnic cleansing" (Richard Spencer), you've shifted the topic to abstract considerations where the implicit demand is an argument that decides for all instances of violence whether or not they are justified. I can justify punching Richard Spencer, for example, without considering the rather absurd claim that someone who touches black hair (I presume you mean without consent) should be considered a white supremacist and therefore worthy of violence. Just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth examining. The fact that one cannot analytically decide a priori when violence is justified or not is just one of the many messy facts of the world that necessitate politics and taking conflict seriously.
tptacek 9y ago
Careful. Whether it's OK to retaliate violently against odious views is one question (personally, I think: no). Whether Nazism is simply a "view one dislikes", like a particular ice cream flavor, is another.
peteretep 9y ago
Yes...? I advocate violent suppression of those who think genocide is appropriate. I don't advocate violent suppression of people talking loudly on cellphones. Can't you see a difference?
glibgil 9y ago
Do the view present an existential threat? I would fight an existential threat

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Gandhi and King. Violence just leads to more violence and hatred.

anigbrowl 9y ago
OK. Serious question: have you, personally, ever been assaulted for your identity or been in a physical fight for your life?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
WaxProlix 9y ago
American textbook whitewashed versions of King and Gandhi, perhaps. It's convenient for the ruling class to have peaceful (and ineffectual) forms of 'resistance' lauded over other means. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/riot-language-unheard-9-mlk-quotes-mainstream-media-wont-cite http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/riot-language-unhear... https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan100677.html https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan100677... http://www.naturalnews.com/038372_Gandhi_nonviolence_right_to_bear_arms.html http://www.naturalnews.com/038372_Gandhi_nonviolence_right_t... etc

pheldagryph 9y ago

One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?

anigbrowl 9y ago
Nobody's asking for validation of the contents of a persons heart. But people are saying that certain speech acts deserve unyielding opposition because they consist of exhortations to violence. Why conflate two different things?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pheldagryph 9y ago
  I'm not following your suggestion of conflation. The correct way to read my comment is as a criticism of the clear rhetorical support for violence in its parent. I am full of controversial opinions, I know...
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    The contents of a persons heart are known only to them and fundamentally unknowable by anyone else barring some scientific breakthrough, so they cannot and should not be subject to sanction. The words that come out of their mouth, on the other hand, are discernable. You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question treats of violent opposition to Nazism, an inherently violent ideology, which you seem to be overlooking. Allow me to illustrate how this looks from where I'm sitting: Abel: Nazism is good! I support putting [people I dislike] into camps and killing them. Baker: I find Abel's views repugnant and threatening to me, and if he expresses them in my presence I will punch him. Charlie: Baker is terribly violent! Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' but don't have anything to say about Nazism itself. It seems like a strange double standard.