5 ms·

> arguing with and insulting nazis. He wasn't arguing with white supremacists because he fundamentally disagreed with them. It was infighting between factions.

> arguing with and insulting nazis. He wasn't arguing with white supremacists because he fundamentally disagreed with them. It was infighting between factions. He disagreed with a particular faction's behavior and words. He was arguing with them because they, using his words, were acting like "white n-words"[1]: > “I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of n_____s, just so you know. You act like white n_____s. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.” > “Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f__gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n____r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me.” [1] https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi=fe9f9484291a https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi...

darkpuma 8y ago
I'm aware of what he said. He also said: ‘I was being anti-Nazi,’ I can't get into his brain and determine if he actually opposes genocide or secretly supports it, but from what I've seen thus far it seems he carelessly uses offensive racially charged language but takes exception with those who advocate for genocide. Just so we're clear, I don't like this guy. I dislike a lot of people who fall well short of being nazis or otherwise advocating for genocide.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  Right, he agrees with white supremacists, and is happy to repeat their talking points, up until public advocacy of genocide. He's happy to say things like this[1]: > it's about gaining attention and it seems like k*kes are ruining everything The reason I'm posting this is because you mentioned that Sargon was arguing with, and insulting, white supremacists. Which, to those who are unfamiliar with Sargon, is not a claim that captures the nuance of the situation. As I said, this spat was infighting between people who are largely in agreement with the content of each other's bigotry. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ87Wf-0rZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ87Wf-0rZg
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    As I've said numerous times elsewhere in this discussion, I find him to be an offensive and unlikable person. In this immediate thread of conversation, I was responding to the suggestion that a line should be drawn at the advocacy of genocide by pointing out that he doesn't seem to cross that line, at least as far as I've seen. I fear people are getting the wrong idea by not noticing the full context of my above comments. I hope we've now reached a mutual understanding.
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      > I fear people are getting the wrong idea by not noticing the full context of my above comments. Truthfully, I believe people might take issue with the fact that the distinction you're trying to make is near-meaningless. He's 90% of the way there. He just isn't using his highly-monetized platform to advocate for genocide. However, he's happy to rub shoulders with, and repeat the talking points of, people who do.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        It wasn't my suggestion that advocating for genocide is where to draw the line. I only responded to that suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18763948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18763948
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  < I'm aware of what he said. He also said: ‘I was being anti-Nazi,’ If someone constantly spouts Nazi talking points while insisting they're not a Nazi, you need to consider the possibility that they're lying to you. And it's awfully dangerous to claim that you can't compare someone to the Nazis until and unless they publicly call for large-scale genocide. Modern racists know they can't get away with openly flying the swastika right now. The Nazis themselves started off talking about patriotism, jobs, defense. By the time a fascist group has secured enough power to start calling for open genocide, it's too late. You need to learn the lessons of history enough to recognize those dog-whistles.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    I think the Nazis finished like that too, didn't they? The genocide was a secret. Certainly not "open" anyway.
  - cabalamat 8y ago
    > Modern racists know they can't get away with openly flying the swastika right now. The Nazis themselves started off talking about patriotism, jobs, defense. By the time a fascist group has secured enough power to start calling for open genocide, it's too late. I have 2 separate points to this. Firstly, it is inaccurate. In Mein Kampf, Hitler explicitly said he wants to destroy Russia. This was years before he had any power. Secondly, if you make that rule, you are also banning anyone who talks about "patriotism, jobs, defense" who isn't a Nazi. Such a rule would be a boon for would be censors, who would get to ban everything they don't like and at the same time libel their victims as being Nazis. Their victims, of course, don't get a hearing in the court of public opinion, because they have been effectively silenced. Is that the future you want?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    I think the most dangerous thing to do is to rewrite history to appeal to a point of view that it does not substantiate. The Nazi party was officially formed in 1920 and it was still an extremely fringe group. It was a renaming of the German Workers' Party, a group which had 55 members in 1919 when Hitler joined. That same year they announced that only males of "pure Aryan descent" could become members, and Hitler would give some 31 speeches constantly overtly targeting Jews. By 1921, when the party still just had some 3000 members, the "brownshirts" were officially founded and began to be used to physically attack, disrupt, and otherwise intimidate other parties. By 1923 Hitler literally began an attempted coup which resulted in the death of several police officers along with 16 Nazi members. That failed coup would result in his trial and imprisonment during which time he wrote Mein Kampf. This is why the appeals to fears of x is the next Hitler are generally unreasonable. Hitler wasn't some devious trickster who suddenly just gradually started 'dog whistling' or hinting at things. He was extremely extreme from his earliest days. He made no secret of it. He literally wrote, and published, a book about it before he started his next rise to power! And the book, again emphasizing written while he was literally in prison, had extremely subtle passages in it such as, "... the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.. If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." The primary thing I fear is that in our lust to oust the villain from behind his mask, that we ourselves become that which we seek to find.

darkpuma 8y ago

I'm aware of what he said. He also said: ‘I was being anti-Nazi,’ I can't get into his brain and determine if he actually opposes genocide or secretly supports it, but from what I've seen thus far it seems he carelessly uses offensive racially charged language but takes exception with those who advocate for genocide. Just so we're clear, I don't like this guy. I dislike a lot of people who fall well short of being nazis or otherwise advocating for genocide.

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
Right, he agrees with white supremacists, and is happy to repeat their talking points, up until public advocacy of genocide. He's happy to say things like this[1]: > it's about gaining attention and it seems like k*kes are ruining everything The reason I'm posting this is because you mentioned that Sargon was arguing with, and insulting, white supremacists. Which, to those who are unfamiliar with Sargon, is not a claim that captures the nuance of the situation. As I said, this spat was infighting between people who are largely in agreement with the content of each other's bigotry. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ87Wf-0rZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ87Wf-0rZg
- darkpuma 8y ago
  As I've said numerous times elsewhere in this discussion, I find him to be an offensive and unlikable person. In this immediate thread of conversation, I was responding to the suggestion that a line should be drawn at the advocacy of genocide by pointing out that he doesn't seem to cross that line, at least as far as I've seen. I fear people are getting the wrong idea by not noticing the full context of my above comments. I hope we've now reached a mutual understanding.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    > I fear people are getting the wrong idea by not noticing the full context of my above comments. Truthfully, I believe people might take issue with the fact that the distinction you're trying to make is near-meaningless. He's 90% of the way there. He just isn't using his highly-monetized platform to advocate for genocide. However, he's happy to rub shoulders with, and repeat the talking points of, people who do.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      It wasn't my suggestion that advocating for genocide is where to draw the line. I only responded to that suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18763948 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18763948
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
< I'm aware of what he said. He also said: ‘I was being anti-Nazi,’ If someone constantly spouts Nazi talking points while insisting they're not a Nazi, you need to consider the possibility that they're lying to you. And it's awfully dangerous to claim that you can't compare someone to the Nazis until and unless they publicly call for large-scale genocide. Modern racists know they can't get away with openly flying the swastika right now. The Nazis themselves started off talking about patriotism, jobs, defense. By the time a fascist group has secured enough power to start calling for open genocide, it's too late. You need to learn the lessons of history enough to recognize those dog-whistles.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  I think the Nazis finished like that too, didn't they? The genocide was a secret. Certainly not "open" anyway.
- cabalamat 8y ago
  > Modern racists know they can't get away with openly flying the swastika right now. The Nazis themselves started off talking about patriotism, jobs, defense. By the time a fascist group has secured enough power to start calling for open genocide, it's too late. I have 2 separate points to this. Firstly, it is inaccurate. In Mein Kampf, Hitler explicitly said he wants to destroy Russia. This was years before he had any power. Secondly, if you make that rule, you are also banning anyone who talks about "patriotism, jobs, defense" who isn't a Nazi. Such a rule would be a boon for would be censors, who would get to ban everything they don't like and at the same time libel their victims as being Nazis. Their victims, of course, don't get a hearing in the court of public opinion, because they have been effectively silenced. Is that the future you want?
- rjf72 8y ago
  I think the most dangerous thing to do is to rewrite history to appeal to a point of view that it does not substantiate. The Nazi party was officially formed in 1920 and it was still an extremely fringe group. It was a renaming of the German Workers' Party, a group which had 55 members in 1919 when Hitler joined. That same year they announced that only males of "pure Aryan descent" could become members, and Hitler would give some 31 speeches constantly overtly targeting Jews. By 1921, when the party still just had some 3000 members, the "brownshirts" were officially founded and began to be used to physically attack, disrupt, and otherwise intimidate other parties. By 1923 Hitler literally began an attempted coup which resulted in the death of several police officers along with 16 Nazi members. That failed coup would result in his trial and imprisonment during which time he wrote Mein Kampf. This is why the appeals to fears of x is the next Hitler are generally unreasonable. Hitler wasn't some devious trickster who suddenly just gradually started 'dog whistling' or hinting at things. He was extremely extreme from his earliest days. He made no secret of it. He literally wrote, and published, a book about it before he started his next rise to power! And the book, again emphasizing written while he was literally in prison, had extremely subtle passages in it such as, "... the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.. If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." The primary thing I fear is that in our lust to oust the villain from behind his mask, that we ourselves become that which we seek to find.