3 ms·

False equivalency in action. >“Then, if you've ever conflated a normal run of the mill republican or a libertarian or classical liberal or centrist with a fasc

False equivalency in action. >“Then, if you've ever conflated a normal run of the mill republican or a libertarian or classical liberal or centrist with a fascist or nazi -- particularly without sufficient evidence -- or even if you've ever held your tongue while others representing Antifa have done so -- you are a hypocrite.“ Then, if you've ever conflated a normal run of the mill social democrat or a socialist or liberal democrat or centrist with a stalinist -- particularly without sufficient evidence -- or even if you've ever held your tongue while others representing right wingers have done so -- you are a hypocrite. See how that works? Did we just alle collectively forget the name-calling that happens from the right whenever anyone even remotely left wing wins an election or enacts a policy? For the record, I save the terms "fascist" and "Nazi" for actual fascists, including the ones trying to be cute about it (the dudes with "I <3 AH" t-shirts and the like). No, I do not oppose black Bloc quite as vigorously as I oppose (actual) fascists and Nazis. Why? Because fascists exploit, harass, beat up and outright murder those they seem to be lesser people, simply based on the color of their skin or their culture/religion. Black Bloc beats up fascists and yes, cause petty vandalism. You absolutely cannot draw equivalency between them. They are in completely different leagues.

stcredzero 8y ago
False equivalency in action. That's sneaky. It's a meta-false-equivalency! You are trying to conflate equivalency in principle with equivalency in degree. Somehow, just a little violence and mayhem -- using authoritarian force to gain compliance -- is better because it is less. By that logic, a little rape better than a lot of it! Nice principle! In fairness, you probably just talked yourself into that, and didn't realize. You see, principles like human rights matter, and not adhering to them brings you into these contradictions. Then, if you've ever conflated a normal run of the mill social democrat or a socialist or liberal democrat or centrist with a stalinist -- particularly without sufficient evidence -- or even if you've ever held your tongue while others representing right wingers have done so -- you are a hypocrite. Fact: Many of those are equivalent in terms of being collectivist. The evidence is in on collectivist governments. (Which include Nazism and Fascism, by the way.) Stalinism is only the extreme endpoint. So people who do violence, do violence. Those who do not, do not. People who violate human rights are people who violate human rights. People who abet those violations, abet those violations. There is no contradiction there. The only equivalency is between those who would do violence to impose their political will on others who only seek to exercise their human rights to free speech. It's a moral equivalency on principle, as opposed to your intellectually bankrupt non-equivalency on quantity. For the record, I save the terms "fascist" and "Nazi" for actual fascists, including the ones trying to be cute about it Do you correct and speak out against your fellow Antifa who mess that up? Not doing so is basically like standing by while someone racially bashes someone. (An experience that I know first hand, by the way: being racially bashed while others stand around.) Lumping people into groups, when it hides the truth and short-circuits logic is disgusting to me. Standing by, complicit, when people smear others in your name is just as bad. Black Bloc beats up fascists and yes, cause petty vandalism. You absolutely cannot draw equivalency between them. They are in completely different leagues. Then by your own words, you are alright with just a little bit of immorality, violation of human rights, and authoritarian use of force, just because you see fit to do it. A little bit of what fascists do -- beating people up and intimidating them for their view of "justice" -- is alright, because it's not as bad, being less in quantity than Nazis. Thanks for clearing that up. Any movement that depends on the other side being worse to justify itself has failed to justify itself on principles. Such a movement is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I am not going to debate anything further with someone who conflates a wide range of different political movements under the same umbrella, "because they're all collectivist". That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Good day.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence through your silence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. I'm fine with non-violent collectivists. I'm on record that the collective experience on small scales seems vital to the artistic life of humanity. You are the one deflecting by bringing in Stalin. (Wow, the best you can do is to deflect by bringing up a national leader who implemented your politics and murdered millions of people?) Here is the crux of my position: So people who do violence, do violence. Those who do not, do not. People who violate human rights are people who violate human rights. People who abet those violations, abet those violations. There is no contradiction there. Authoritarian violence is authoritarian violence. Violating human rights is violating human rights. You simply have no answer for that.
    - KozmoNau7 8y ago
      I said I wouldn't debate, but I do want to clear up a grave misunderstanding. >"your politics" There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. There's a pretty big difference, and calling an AnCom (or even just a run-of-the-mill socialist) a stalinist is a grave insult. Unless you make up for that in a very big fashion, we're completely done here.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. Excellent! Then here is how that goes. You form a rosy view of communism, because it really is awesome for communities smaller than ~450. Then you go on to overthrow a national government. Your philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and does not fit reality, so the new government gets more and more authoritarian as time goes on. (Witness what Lenin thought and wrote as time went on.) From Wikipedia: Anarcho-communism (also known as anarchist communism, free communism, libertarian communism and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour and private property (while retaining respect for personal property) in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sounds just like the early stage idealistic version of 20th century communism. Given that you are willing to stand silently by and abet violent criminal actors while wearing a mask, while calling yourself a "pacifist," I don't have a lot of confidence that what you stand for isn't on the same trajectory as the most extreme examples. In the meantime you still don't have an answer to the crux of the matter, and the above is still just (a weak and self-damning) deflection from the idea that violence is violence. Crapping on human rights is crapping on human rights -- and by your actions, this is how you believe the "righteous" conduct themselves: Exercising force against those you disagree with.

stcredzero 8y ago

False equivalency in action. That's sneaky. It's a meta-false-equivalency! You are trying to conflate equivalency in principle with equivalency in degree. Somehow, just a little violence and mayhem -- using authoritarian force to gain compliance -- is better because it is less. By that logic, a little rape better than a lot of it! Nice principle! In fairness, you probably just talked yourself into that, and didn't realize. You see, principles like human rights matter, and not adhering to them brings you into these contradictions. Then, if you've ever conflated a normal run of the mill social democrat or a socialist or liberal democrat or centrist with a stalinist -- particularly without sufficient evidence -- or even if you've ever held your tongue while others representing right wingers have done so -- you are a hypocrite. Fact: Many of those are equivalent in terms of being collectivist. The evidence is in on collectivist governments. (Which include Nazism and Fascism, by the way.) Stalinism is only the extreme endpoint. So people who do violence, do violence. Those who do not, do not. People who violate human rights are people who violate human rights. People who abet those violations, abet those violations. There is no contradiction there. The only equivalency is between those who would do violence to impose their political will on others who only seek to exercise their human rights to free speech. It's a moral equivalency on principle, as opposed to your intellectually bankrupt non-equivalency on quantity. For the record, I save the terms "fascist" and "Nazi" for actual fascists, including the ones trying to be cute about it Do you correct and speak out against your fellow Antifa who mess that up? Not doing so is basically like standing by while someone racially bashes someone. (An experience that I know first hand, by the way: being racially bashed while others stand around.) Lumping people into groups, when it hides the truth and short-circuits logic is disgusting to me. Standing by, complicit, when people smear others in your name is just as bad. Black Bloc beats up fascists and yes, cause petty vandalism. You absolutely cannot draw equivalency between them. They are in completely different leagues. Then by your own words, you are alright with just a little bit of immorality, violation of human rights, and authoritarian use of force, just because you see fit to do it. A little bit of what fascists do -- beating people up and intimidating them for their view of "justice" -- is alright, because it's not as bad, being less in quantity than Nazis. Thanks for clearing that up. Any movement that depends on the other side being worse to justify itself has failed to justify itself on principles. Such a movement is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
I am not going to debate anything further with someone who conflates a wide range of different political movements under the same umbrella, "because they're all collectivist". That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Good day.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  That is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. Abetting violence through your silence is a dangerously unstable high horse to sit on. I'm fine with non-violent collectivists. I'm on record that the collective experience on small scales seems vital to the artistic life of humanity. You are the one deflecting by bringing in Stalin. (Wow, the best you can do is to deflect by bringing up a national leader who implemented your politics and murdered millions of people?) Here is the crux of my position: So people who do violence, do violence. Those who do not, do not. People who violate human rights are people who violate human rights. People who abet those violations, abet those violations. There is no contradiction there. Authoritarian violence is authoritarian violence. Violating human rights is violating human rights. You simply have no answer for that.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    I said I wouldn't debate, but I do want to clear up a grave misunderstanding. >"your politics" There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. There's a pretty big difference, and calling an AnCom (or even just a run-of-the-mill socialist) a stalinist is a grave insult. Unless you make up for that in a very big fashion, we're completely done here.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      There you go again completely conflating wildly disparate political movements. I'm primarily AnCom, not pro-authoritarian dictatorship ala Stalin. Excellent! Then here is how that goes. You form a rosy view of communism, because it really is awesome for communities smaller than ~450. Then you go on to overthrow a national government. Your philosophy is intellectually bankrupt, and does not fit reality, so the new government gets more and more authoritarian as time goes on. (Witness what Lenin thought and wrote as time went on.) From Wikipedia: Anarcho-communism (also known as anarchist communism, free communism, libertarian communism and communist anarchism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour and private property (while retaining respect for personal property) in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy and a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sounds just like the early stage idealistic version of 20th century communism. Given that you are willing to stand silently by and abet violent criminal actors while wearing a mask, while calling yourself a "pacifist," I don't have a lot of confidence that what you stand for isn't on the same trajectory as the most extreme examples. In the meantime you still don't have an answer to the crux of the matter, and the above is still just (a weak and self-damning) deflection from the idea that violence is violence. Crapping on human rights is crapping on human rights -- and by your actions, this is how you believe the "righteous" conduct themselves: Exercising force against those you disagree with.