4 ms·

Right wing and white supremacist groups exist to further societal sorting and ethnic cleansing implicitly and explicitly depending on the values of the particul

Right wing and white supremacist groups exist to further societal sorting and ethnic cleansing implicitly and explicitly depending on the values of the particular group. To not see this as immediately threatening to the safety of pluralities of people is absolutely a subjective evaluation. I personally don't think any state spy organization is funded or directed by people making objective decisions. They're not technocratic institutions, even if it feels nice to imagine they are.

tracker1 8y ago
That is a rather blanket statement... it's much like saying "Left wing and socialist groups exist to commit genocide against those that would otherwise rebel and to coerce the populace into submission." It seems to me that the police in question have targeted those groups most likely to insight violent acts. The leftist groups are not innocent, and neither are the right. There are limited resources and those most significant threats need to be targeted first. As a more libertarian minded person, I see a lot of those outspoken are often lumped in with the "right wing" groups you mention, and that broad brush you speak with does nothing to create progress or foster open discussion.
- snackbugs 8y ago
  Libertarian is strictly and accurately characterized as right wing, whether you like the aesthetics and baggage of that or not. Which right wing groups are not advocating for things that actively harm working people and minorities? Which leftist groups are out to harm entire pluralities of people out of indifference (at best) or cruelty (at worst)? I'm asking in good faith because I honestly don't know what groups are being referred to when people say "neither side is innocent". I don't see the dichotomy that is being constructed with this argument.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    Is your implication that all right-wing groups are seeking genocide, or otherwise trying to segregate or exclude based on gender, race or religion? I don't think that would come close to applying to even a majority. I would say the Libertarian Party is not advocating for things that actively harm working people and minorities. Libertarians are in favor of equality in opportunity. For that matter, there's no clear consensus that what most left-wing groups propose doesn't advocate for things that actively harm working people and minorities. Beyond this, groups like ANTIFA typically target violence at those who are not promoting racism, segregation or discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion. The most violent left-wing groups tend to be environmental and animal rights groups. Not to mention, so often in recent years it's the left that seeks to silence, censor, shut down and drown out differing opinions in the face of intelligent discussion. One of the most prominent examples would be Ben Shapiro, who has never advocated for violence, and has been a significant target of both the ALT-Right movement as well as the left. The opportunity for rational discussion is lost when ideologues are so closed minded as to not even be able to listen or consider that they may be wrong. One must ALWAYS consider that you, yourself are wrong as a possibility when trying to push an agenda that would affect everyone.
    - snackbugs 8y ago
      Ben Shapiro has said, quite proudly, that Middle Eastern people inherently prefer living in open sewers and therefore violently destroying their means to have a functioning society is perfectly rational. This is unambiguously advocacy for violence. Since you predictably brought up loosely organized anti-fascist groups taking direct action to de-platform explicitly white supremacist demonstrations, I'll point out that their actions are in defense of minorities from fascist groups who go well out of their way to make the elimination of people of color a topic of popular debate. Advocating for the elimination of a plurality of people is explicitly violence. If this isn't a rational response to specific points you've made, you've already made up your mind about _first principles_. First principles are not up for debate.

tracker1 8y ago

That is a rather blanket statement... it's much like saying "Left wing and socialist groups exist to commit genocide against those that would otherwise rebel and to coerce the populace into submission." It seems to me that the police in question have targeted those groups most likely to insight violent acts. The leftist groups are not innocent, and neither are the right. There are limited resources and those most significant threats need to be targeted first. As a more libertarian minded person, I see a lot of those outspoken are often lumped in with the "right wing" groups you mention, and that broad brush you speak with does nothing to create progress or foster open discussion.

snackbugs 8y ago
Libertarian is strictly and accurately characterized as right wing, whether you like the aesthetics and baggage of that or not. Which right wing groups are not advocating for things that actively harm working people and minorities? Which leftist groups are out to harm entire pluralities of people out of indifference (at best) or cruelty (at worst)? I'm asking in good faith because I honestly don't know what groups are being referred to when people say "neither side is innocent". I don't see the dichotomy that is being constructed with this argument.
- tracker1 8y ago
  Is your implication that all right-wing groups are seeking genocide, or otherwise trying to segregate or exclude based on gender, race or religion? I don't think that would come close to applying to even a majority. I would say the Libertarian Party is not advocating for things that actively harm working people and minorities. Libertarians are in favor of equality in opportunity. For that matter, there's no clear consensus that what most left-wing groups propose doesn't advocate for things that actively harm working people and minorities. Beyond this, groups like ANTIFA typically target violence at those who are not promoting racism, segregation or discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion. The most violent left-wing groups tend to be environmental and animal rights groups. Not to mention, so often in recent years it's the left that seeks to silence, censor, shut down and drown out differing opinions in the face of intelligent discussion. One of the most prominent examples would be Ben Shapiro, who has never advocated for violence, and has been a significant target of both the ALT-Right movement as well as the left. The opportunity for rational discussion is lost when ideologues are so closed minded as to not even be able to listen or consider that they may be wrong. One must ALWAYS consider that you, yourself are wrong as a possibility when trying to push an agenda that would affect everyone.
  - snackbugs 8y ago
    Ben Shapiro has said, quite proudly, that Middle Eastern people inherently prefer living in open sewers and therefore violently destroying their means to have a functioning society is perfectly rational. This is unambiguously advocacy for violence. Since you predictably brought up loosely organized anti-fascist groups taking direct action to de-platform explicitly white supremacist demonstrations, I'll point out that their actions are in defense of minorities from fascist groups who go well out of their way to make the elimination of people of color a topic of popular debate. Advocating for the elimination of a plurality of people is explicitly violence. If this isn't a rational response to specific points you've made, you've already made up your mind about _first principles_. First principles are not up for debate.