4 ms·

> IMHO this is exactly why a lot of modern liberals are forced to try to de-platform neo-fascists and the like: they are unable to argue against them. Fascists

> IMHO this is exactly why a lot of modern liberals are forced to try to de-platform neo-fascists and the like: they are unable to argue against them. Fascists don't give a shit that you think you owned them in a debate. A fist doesn't care what sweet words come out of a mouth as it's crashing into teeth. This is exactly the blind spot of liberalism that many 20th century thinkers (some vaguely labeled as postmodernists) tried to shine a light on: Even if there were some objective standard by which you can say you have bested someone with reason in an argument, does it matter when power can simply ignore it? > Liberals from a previous era would have made ground beef out of an intellectual weakling like Richard Spencer, but to argue a position requires a belief that positions may be argued as well as an ability to think coherently and organize one's own views. Liberals mocked Hitler constantly until the day he seized power. How did you come to this belief that liberalism has any potency against fascism in spite of the historical evidence?

api 7y ago
Go find some debates against far-right neo-fascists in the 60s and then listen to some debates with modern crypto-fascist intellectual lightweights like Jordan Peterson. BTW I am on your side and I'm sick of the left intellectually handicapping itself with trendy bullshit. Edit: replying on Peterson because I hit the thread limit: All Peterson's interesting ideas are ripped off of Carl Jung and various 60s-era consciousness/psychedelic thinkers like Leary and Wilson (who were heavily influenced by Jung). There's a bit of Nietzsche in there too. Peterson's original ideas are uninteresting confused rubbish. The central theme of his work is misogyny. Not sure if he's really fascist but his fan base is definitely fascist adjacent. TL;DR: "nothing good about him is original, and nothing original about him is good." If the idea of myths being a valid form of truth is appealing, read Jung. Jung is an infinitely better writer too. If you want an explicitly Christian version, read C.S. Lewis who is also an infinitely better writer. If his "get your butt in gear" and "clean your room" thing is appealing, read some good military memoirs like Call Sign Chaos by Jim Mattis. The latter are great motivational works minus the overt misogyny and confused bullshit about "alpha males" and lobsters. (Don't have a clue what Mattis's politics are, but he keeps it mostly out of his writing and focuses on practical stuff.) Anything good about Peterson can be found from better sources. It mystifies me that anyone took him seriously. Of course maybe Peterson wasn't the best example as he's actually one of the better alt-right or alt-right adjacent intellectuals (on a purely intellectual level). A better sample of the intellectual chops of the alt-right would be an artisanal fountain of bullshit like Stefan Molyneux or Richard Spencer.
- danharaj 7y ago
  Ok, let's go back. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
  - Der_Einzige 7y ago
    A Sartre quote, btw for anyone curious
    - nemo44x 7y ago
      I prefer the Mark Twain version: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
      - scooble 7y ago
        I alway reach for the George Bernard Shaw: "Never wrestle a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
- kleer001 7y ago
  I know everyone hates tangents, and please excuse the off topic, but crypto-fascist and intellectual lightweight are not a set of attributes I've heard or intuited against Peterson. I'd love to hear more detail if you have some time. Articles, blogs, books, videos all accepted.
  - non-entity 7y ago
    There's the contrapoints video that gets brought up a lot when discussing Peterson, and imo it does better than other sources, but its probably not formal enough / contains too much humor / silliness for the HN audience.
quanticle 7y ago
>Fascists don't give a shit that you think you owned them in a debate. The fascist may not, but what about the audience? > Even if there were some objective standard by which you can say you have bested someone with reason in an argument, does it matter when power can simply ignore it? In order to gain power, you have to persuade people to follow you. Brute force is a hilariously inefficient way of doing that. Heck, even the ancient Athenians (i.e. Pericles, Demosthenes, etc) realized that it was far easier to persuade people with words than with fists. >Liberals mocked Hitler constantly until the day he seized power. And how did Hitler seize and consolidate his power? It certainly wasn't with brute force. It was with rhetoric. Even without understanding a single word of German, I can feel the force of Hitler's personality when I see footage of the Nuremberg rallies.
nicky0 7y ago
If not open debate, then what is the approach you would take?

api 7y ago

Go find some debates against far-right neo-fascists in the 60s and then listen to some debates with modern crypto-fascist intellectual lightweights like Jordan Peterson. BTW I am on your side and I'm sick of the left intellectually handicapping itself with trendy bullshit. Edit: replying on Peterson because I hit the thread limit: All Peterson's interesting ideas are ripped off of Carl Jung and various 60s-era consciousness/psychedelic thinkers like Leary and Wilson (who were heavily influenced by Jung). There's a bit of Nietzsche in there too. Peterson's original ideas are uninteresting confused rubbish. The central theme of his work is misogyny. Not sure if he's really fascist but his fan base is definitely fascist adjacent. TL;DR: "nothing good about him is original, and nothing original about him is good." If the idea of myths being a valid form of truth is appealing, read Jung. Jung is an infinitely better writer too. If you want an explicitly Christian version, read C.S. Lewis who is also an infinitely better writer. If his "get your butt in gear" and "clean your room" thing is appealing, read some good military memoirs like Call Sign Chaos by Jim Mattis. The latter are great motivational works minus the overt misogyny and confused bullshit about "alpha males" and lobsters. (Don't have a clue what Mattis's politics are, but he keeps it mostly out of his writing and focuses on practical stuff.) Anything good about Peterson can be found from better sources. It mystifies me that anyone took him seriously. Of course maybe Peterson wasn't the best example as he's actually one of the better alt-right or alt-right adjacent intellectuals (on a purely intellectual level). A better sample of the intellectual chops of the alt-right would be an artisanal fountain of bullshit like Stefan Molyneux or Richard Spencer.

danharaj 7y ago
Ok, let's go back. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
- Der_Einzige 7y ago
  A Sartre quote, btw for anyone curious
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    I prefer the Mark Twain version: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
    - scooble 7y ago
      I alway reach for the George Bernard Shaw: "Never wrestle a pig, you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
kleer001 7y ago
I know everyone hates tangents, and please excuse the off topic, but crypto-fascist and intellectual lightweight are not a set of attributes I've heard or intuited against Peterson. I'd love to hear more detail if you have some time. Articles, blogs, books, videos all accepted.
- non-entity 7y ago
  There's the contrapoints video that gets brought up a lot when discussing Peterson, and imo it does better than other sources, but its probably not formal enough / contains too much humor / silliness for the HN audience.

quanticle 7y ago

>Fascists don't give a shit that you think you owned them in a debate. The fascist may not, but what about the audience? > Even if there were some objective standard by which you can say you have bested someone with reason in an argument, does it matter when power can simply ignore it? In order to gain power, you have to persuade people to follow you. Brute force is a hilariously inefficient way of doing that. Heck, even the ancient Athenians (i.e. Pericles, Demosthenes, etc) realized that it was far easier to persuade people with words than with fists. >Liberals mocked Hitler constantly until the day he seized power. And how did Hitler seize and consolidate his power? It certainly wasn't with brute force. It was with rhetoric. Even without understanding a single word of German, I can feel the force of Hitler's personality when I see footage of the Nuremberg rallies.

nicky0 7y ago

If not open debate, then what is the approach you would take?