4 ms·

I think the basic problem is that people arguing the way you are arguing are basically arguing in a theoretical space. It almost never addresses the practical r

by Mz 9y ago

I think the basic problem is that people arguing the way you are arguing are basically arguing in a theoretical space. It almost never addresses the practical realities nor tells people how to move the needle in any meaningful way. Arguing about doing it right very often ends up being a form of flak that helps keeps the status quo in place. I'm currently homeless and I try to explain to people why I don't agree with their position and it kind of boils down to the fact that no matter what I do, I seem unable to get meaningful traction on solutions and, very often, people are content to argue with me about "well, we need the right answers" and ignore the fact that they could do something for me right here, right now. I am probably not saying this very well, but I just run into an awful lot of people online who imagine themselves to be good people who claim they desire to live in a better world and see zero contradiction between that and crapping all over me personally in conversation while doing nothing whatsoever to help me solve my financial problems in any kind of meaningful way. I am somewhat sympathetic to your side. I get a lot of flak from women who act like my efforts to empower them are simply another form of blaming the victim. But I increasingly feel that it is both irresponsible and disingenuous to argue the side you are arguing without giving concrete solutions in the here and now to the problems people are actually having. Without that, these arguments merely serve to say "We need to respect Nazis (or other horrible people) and we don't need to respect you and we don't actually care about your problem at all." FWIW and all that.

tptacek 9y ago
Hold on. I DO NOT think we need to respect Nazis or their beliefs. Rather, I think citizens have something close to an obligation to suppress Nazis (and all related ideologies) with every lawful means available. By way of example: the deference Hacker News gives to racism and misogyny in the name of tolerance is deeply problematic for me, and, I think, an enormous mistake. Where Ed and I disagree is that I do not think it's OK to physically assault someone simply for carrying an offensive flag. That is probably the entire extent of our disagreement.
- Mz 9y ago
  When people are horrible enough and are not respecting the laws at all themselves, advocating that we can only go after them by lawful means amounts to advocating more respect for them than they will give anyone else. I don't know the solution. I really don't. But in order to defend yourself from horrible, predatory people in the world today, you basically need to be some kind of kung fu wizard and diplomatic genius combined or you will be railroaded by the laws that, in theory, are supposed to protect good people. As a victim of childhood sexual abuse who was clear I would murder anyone in cold blood if they raped my small children -- and then go to jail for a very long time because I would not have at all made a sympathetic defendant -- this is a problem space I have contemplated a great deal. Fortunately, I am hellaciously talented and was able to make sure no one raped my children. But there is something very wrong in a world where we worry more about protecting the rights of heinous people like child rapists than we do about their victims, which is essentially what is going on here.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    The moment a Nazi attempts to use physical force against you, all bets are off. But the idea that you can physically attack someone for carrying an offensive flag can't possibly be defensible. I understand how the flags and racial slurs and such create strong emotions and I offer you all the rhetorical space in the world to talk about how you personally would beat the everloving crap out of someone who tried to burn a cross in your field of vision. I'm not condemning either you or Ed for having strong feelings about Nazis. But it remains a simple fact that you can't use coercive physical force to stop people from talking.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      What has usually happened in practice is that people seize the offensive flag and shred or burn it. Look Thomas, carrying a Nazi battle flag or a deliberate derivative of it isn't just a matter of 'creating strong emotions' in the sense of some proxy moral outrage. In certain contexts, it's an act of aggression. Legally speaking this may not rise to the standard of criminality for evaluating criminal threats. But a lot of people are increasingly losing confidence in the legal system to protect their civil rights or fairly balance their interests with those of other people in society. In relation to both this and your exhortation to call 911, it's worth referencing the recent controversy over the acquittal of the police officer in the death of Philando Castile. However you feel about the legal aspects of that verdict, there's no getting away from the fact that many people of color and other groups do not feel safe around police officers. You keep saying of course we must use available within-the-law means to suppress Nazism, but that presupposes the law is morally neutral (highly questionable), fairly enforced (likewise), and that this job should really be left to law enforcement and prosecutors rather than being the subject of any kind of private or collective action. I suggest to you that that's an easy attitude to have when you are not a member of a vulnerable population, but a potentially fatal error of judgment for someone in a more marginal position.
- eridius 9y ago
  Punching nazis isn't because they're "carrying an offensive flag". If that's all it was, I'd totally agree with you. The difference is the nazi ideology directly threatens the very livelihood of people, and allowing nazis to spread their ideology is really dangerous to these people. The very ideas they're espousing are threatening, because they lead to bigotry and racism and disenfranchisement and violence and death. You can't just argue against them, because your argument isn't going to convince 100% of listeners to reject the nazi ideology. The only way to actually be safe is to stop the spread of nazi ideology, and the way to do that is to make nazis shut up, and the way to do that is to make them afraid to open their mouths. Yeah it really sucks that this is what it's come to, but the other systems in this country that are supposed to deal with this lawfully aren't working.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by Mz 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

Hold on. I DO NOT think we need to respect Nazis or their beliefs. Rather, I think citizens have something close to an obligation to suppress Nazis (and all related ideologies) with every lawful means available. By way of example: the deference Hacker News gives to racism and misogyny in the name of tolerance is deeply problematic for me, and, I think, an enormous mistake. Where Ed and I disagree is that I do not think it's OK to physically assault someone simply for carrying an offensive flag. That is probably the entire extent of our disagreement.

Mz 9y ago
When people are horrible enough and are not respecting the laws at all themselves, advocating that we can only go after them by lawful means amounts to advocating more respect for them than they will give anyone else. I don't know the solution. I really don't. But in order to defend yourself from horrible, predatory people in the world today, you basically need to be some kind of kung fu wizard and diplomatic genius combined or you will be railroaded by the laws that, in theory, are supposed to protect good people. As a victim of childhood sexual abuse who was clear I would murder anyone in cold blood if they raped my small children -- and then go to jail for a very long time because I would not have at all made a sympathetic defendant -- this is a problem space I have contemplated a great deal. Fortunately, I am hellaciously talented and was able to make sure no one raped my children. But there is something very wrong in a world where we worry more about protecting the rights of heinous people like child rapists than we do about their victims, which is essentially what is going on here.
- tptacek 9y ago
  The moment a Nazi attempts to use physical force against you, all bets are off. But the idea that you can physically attack someone for carrying an offensive flag can't possibly be defensible. I understand how the flags and racial slurs and such create strong emotions and I offer you all the rhetorical space in the world to talk about how you personally would beat the everloving crap out of someone who tried to burn a cross in your field of vision. I'm not condemning either you or Ed for having strong feelings about Nazis. But it remains a simple fact that you can't use coercive physical force to stop people from talking.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    What has usually happened in practice is that people seize the offensive flag and shred or burn it. Look Thomas, carrying a Nazi battle flag or a deliberate derivative of it isn't just a matter of 'creating strong emotions' in the sense of some proxy moral outrage. In certain contexts, it's an act of aggression. Legally speaking this may not rise to the standard of criminality for evaluating criminal threats. But a lot of people are increasingly losing confidence in the legal system to protect their civil rights or fairly balance their interests with those of other people in society. In relation to both this and your exhortation to call 911, it's worth referencing the recent controversy over the acquittal of the police officer in the death of Philando Castile. However you feel about the legal aspects of that verdict, there's no getting away from the fact that many people of color and other groups do not feel safe around police officers. You keep saying of course we must use available within-the-law means to suppress Nazism, but that presupposes the law is morally neutral (highly questionable), fairly enforced (likewise), and that this job should really be left to law enforcement and prosecutors rather than being the subject of any kind of private or collective action. I suggest to you that that's an easy attitude to have when you are not a member of a vulnerable population, but a potentially fatal error of judgment for someone in a more marginal position.
eridius 9y ago
Punching nazis isn't because they're "carrying an offensive flag". If that's all it was, I'd totally agree with you. The difference is the nazi ideology directly threatens the very livelihood of people, and allowing nazis to spread their ideology is really dangerous to these people. The very ideas they're espousing are threatening, because they lead to bigotry and racism and disenfranchisement and violence and death. You can't just argue against them, because your argument isn't going to convince 100% of listeners to reject the nazi ideology. The only way to actually be safe is to stop the spread of nazi ideology, and the way to do that is to make nazis shut up, and the way to do that is to make them afraid to open their mouths. Yeah it really sucks that this is what it's come to, but the other systems in this country that are supposed to deal with this lawfully aren't working.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]