4 ms·

> I think if the bar is "don't kill minorities" Take this as my personal possibly wrong opinion, but this kind hyperbolic phrasing is only going to hurt your c

by afiori 6y ago

> I think if the bar is "don't kill minorities" Take this as my personal possibly wrong opinion, but this kind hyperbolic phrasing is only going to hurt your cause. The same as people defending "punch a nazi" slogans. They will give your tribe influence, but also steadily decrease your chance at long term victory. Honestly I cannot understand how many people (I don't care about sides) can believe in progress via violence, promoting violence, or extreme polarization. I cannot change your minds, but sure I hope it were easier to have a moderate to moderate conversation.

sudosysgen 6y ago
If you are faced with an opponent that wants you dead, anything is justified, up to and including violence. Violence indeed isn't always the best way to prevent the rise of fascism, but it should always be on the table as that is easily morally justifiable. "moderate to moderate" conversation is enlightened centrism. If you are up against an enemy that will use political violence the only recourse you'll have eventually is to do so as well. The sad truth is that political violence is in some cases much more effective than we are led to believe - read up on the rise of Mussolini for examples amongst many. I for one will not entertain the idea of passivity in the face of evil just in order to maintain some absurd ideal of non-violence. Non-violence is a myth, as violence is inherent to the operation of the current system. All politics is violence, the question is only abstraction, fascists understand this and are not afraid to use it when it is most effective, neither should anyone truly opposed to them. I will say that as it is right now I don't think that antifascist except in some very limited edge cases, simply because we are not at a level where it would do more good than harm. But there's always the risk that we could get there, and openly saying that you won't use the means necessary does harm.
- afiori 6y ago
  > read up on the rise of Mussolini He asked the king for power and the king always remained the head of state, indeed he was able to remove Mussolini from power when he wished to do so. For other violence worked wonders. > Non-violence is a myth Gandhi disagrees, among many others. > All politics is violence there is a very important line between violence and non-violence. there is bad and good on both sides of that line. > I will say that as it is right now I don't think that antifascist except in some very limited edge cases, simply because we are not at a level where it would do more good than harm. On this we agree :) > But there's always the risk that we could get there, and openly saying that you won't use the means necessary does harm. To me the best way to decrease this risk by refusing compromises on violence. I do not think this is a problem that can be solved by (openly) adopting the methods of the enemy. Look, you look like someone with a strong sense of justice, and I hope you will succeed in improving the world. I believe that my methods are more effective, but trying our best is the only thing we can do. Still I would like to properly express my own stance: I will never condone initiating violence and I will never stop praising the unbounded power of non-violence and civil conversation. If I will ever have to discard this position one day then a good part of me will die with it. This is my position, intrinsically I cannot prove it right and I do not demand of others to share, but it is how I decided to play this game. I understand the possibility that I might be wrong; we all need to take responsibility for our choices and this is mine. I suspect that our dreams of a perfect society have more similarities than differences, I hope we can get there, together.
staticassertion 6y ago
I support punching nazis too. I consider that moderate, given that the nazi ideology involves much worse.
- afiori 6y ago
  :( Then I have at least two question: 1) how much proof should I collect that someone is a nazi before I punch them? 2) how much should I believe other's people claim that someone is a nazi? Or is it a matter of court? is it a crime to be a nazi or is it simply a punchable offense? Is there an official agency that labels nazis? Or maybe it is a matter of activism, I can punch them while they are declaring nazi ideologies but not in their off-time. What do I do if they change the name of their ideology? Is there a continuum between nazi and non-nazi? should the punch also have a continuum or is there a cut-off point? Also how many punches is being a nazi worth? This last one is relevant after a dozen or so if they are still a nazi my hand is going to hurt... or maybe... do I become a nazi if I stop punching nazis? I in part apologize for the condescending tone. But I consider this very important. I am not against making nazism illegal[1] but you are literally proposing violence as a completely normal form of advocacy. To me you are literally the most dangerous person in term of risk of an authoritarian regime. Again, you are literally saying that violence against political opponents, and not rule of laws, is the obviously correct and moral choice. [1] it is so in Germany and it makes sense PS: I admit I have discarded at least another comparatively more reasonable option. You might mean to say that puching nazis is a form of civil disobedience; as a form of activism to say that nazism should be made illegal. This is slightly less nightmarish, but still I don't understan how _starting_ violence in the streets became the moderate option.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    I think it's stupid as hell to have to convince anyone that nazis are worth punching, but whatever, I'll give you one response and leave it. 1) IDK, start with anyone who says they're a nazi. There are tons of people who are openly fascist, white supremacists. No need to worry about grey lines, plenty of punching to go around. If you really want to push the boundaries, go for people who are openly hateful towards minority groups - it's usually not subtle. Punch away, totally ethical. 2) Up to you, it's your punch. > Is there a continuum between nazi and non-nazi? Sure but who cares? There may be a continuum but there's also huge parts of the spectrum that are extremely clear cut. Hitler falls in the continuum of nazis, and it's hardly a grey area simply by virtue of being gradient. > Also how many punches is being a nazi worth? IDK, depends on the nazi, and how many punches it takes to accomplish what you set out to do. > do I become a nazi if I stop punching nazis? Again, your call. It's really weird to me that you have such a hard time with this. You position this like there's tons of moral ambiguity, but I find it extremely concerning that you have a hard time determining who is and is not a nazi. The people who run around with swastikas and want to kill minority groups? They're the nazis buddy, don't worry about whatever weird grey area you've got concocted. When in doubt, feel free not to punch - it's that easy! When they're definitely a nazi, as so many are, and so obviously so, do your thing! > To me you are literally the most dangerous person in term of risk of an authoritarian regime. Weird, to me it's the nazis, since like, they advocate for fascism and genocide. Whereas I just feel it's ethical to punch genocidal fascists. Seems like one of us should be a lot scarier than the other Anyway, I'm sorry you have such a weak ethical compass that somehow "nazis are bad" is a big deep scary question for you. P.S. If you think the people punching nazis started the violence, I'd recommend reading up!
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're never interesting and they never end well. Even in the context of the current thread, this subthread stands out as off topic. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideolog&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23529671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23529671.
- afiori 6y ago
  Understandable, I should have at the very least left out the specific reference.

by afiori 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

If you are faced with an opponent that wants you dead, anything is justified, up to and including violence. Violence indeed isn't always the best way to prevent the rise of fascism, but it should always be on the table as that is easily morally justifiable. "moderate to moderate" conversation is enlightened centrism. If you are up against an enemy that will use political violence the only recourse you'll have eventually is to do so as well. The sad truth is that political violence is in some cases much more effective than we are led to believe - read up on the rise of Mussolini for examples amongst many. I for one will not entertain the idea of passivity in the face of evil just in order to maintain some absurd ideal of non-violence. Non-violence is a myth, as violence is inherent to the operation of the current system. All politics is violence, the question is only abstraction, fascists understand this and are not afraid to use it when it is most effective, neither should anyone truly opposed to them. I will say that as it is right now I don't think that antifascist except in some very limited edge cases, simply because we are not at a level where it would do more good than harm. But there's always the risk that we could get there, and openly saying that you won't use the means necessary does harm.

afiori 6y ago
> read up on the rise of Mussolini He asked the king for power and the king always remained the head of state, indeed he was able to remove Mussolini from power when he wished to do so. For other violence worked wonders. > Non-violence is a myth Gandhi disagrees, among many others. > All politics is violence there is a very important line between violence and non-violence. there is bad and good on both sides of that line. > I will say that as it is right now I don't think that antifascist except in some very limited edge cases, simply because we are not at a level where it would do more good than harm. On this we agree :) > But there's always the risk that we could get there, and openly saying that you won't use the means necessary does harm. To me the best way to decrease this risk by refusing compromises on violence. I do not think this is a problem that can be solved by (openly) adopting the methods of the enemy. Look, you look like someone with a strong sense of justice, and I hope you will succeed in improving the world. I believe that my methods are more effective, but trying our best is the only thing we can do. Still I would like to properly express my own stance: I will never condone initiating violence and I will never stop praising the unbounded power of non-violence and civil conversation. If I will ever have to discard this position one day then a good part of me will die with it. This is my position, intrinsically I cannot prove it right and I do not demand of others to share, but it is how I decided to play this game. I understand the possibility that I might be wrong; we all need to take responsibility for our choices and this is mine. I suspect that our dreams of a perfect society have more similarities than differences, I hope we can get there, together.

staticassertion 6y ago

I support punching nazis too. I consider that moderate, given that the nazi ideology involves much worse.

afiori 6y ago
:( Then I have at least two question: 1) how much proof should I collect that someone is a nazi before I punch them? 2) how much should I believe other's people claim that someone is a nazi? Or is it a matter of court? is it a crime to be a nazi or is it simply a punchable offense? Is there an official agency that labels nazis? Or maybe it is a matter of activism, I can punch them while they are declaring nazi ideologies but not in their off-time. What do I do if they change the name of their ideology? Is there a continuum between nazi and non-nazi? should the punch also have a continuum or is there a cut-off point? Also how many punches is being a nazi worth? This last one is relevant after a dozen or so if they are still a nazi my hand is going to hurt... or maybe... do I become a nazi if I stop punching nazis? I in part apologize for the condescending tone. But I consider this very important. I am not against making nazism illegal[1] but you are literally proposing violence as a completely normal form of advocacy. To me you are literally the most dangerous person in term of risk of an authoritarian regime. Again, you are literally saying that violence against political opponents, and not rule of laws, is the obviously correct and moral choice. [1] it is so in Germany and it makes sense PS: I admit I have discarded at least another comparatively more reasonable option. You might mean to say that puching nazis is a form of civil disobedience; as a form of activism to say that nazism should be made illegal. This is slightly less nightmarish, but still I don't understan how _starting_ violence in the streets became the moderate option.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  I think it's stupid as hell to have to convince anyone that nazis are worth punching, but whatever, I'll give you one response and leave it. 1) IDK, start with anyone who says they're a nazi. There are tons of people who are openly fascist, white supremacists. No need to worry about grey lines, plenty of punching to go around. If you really want to push the boundaries, go for people who are openly hateful towards minority groups - it's usually not subtle. Punch away, totally ethical. 2) Up to you, it's your punch. > Is there a continuum between nazi and non-nazi? Sure but who cares? There may be a continuum but there's also huge parts of the spectrum that are extremely clear cut. Hitler falls in the continuum of nazis, and it's hardly a grey area simply by virtue of being gradient. > Also how many punches is being a nazi worth? IDK, depends on the nazi, and how many punches it takes to accomplish what you set out to do. > do I become a nazi if I stop punching nazis? Again, your call. It's really weird to me that you have such a hard time with this. You position this like there's tons of moral ambiguity, but I find it extremely concerning that you have a hard time determining who is and is not a nazi. The people who run around with swastikas and want to kill minority groups? They're the nazis buddy, don't worry about whatever weird grey area you've got concocted. When in doubt, feel free not to punch - it's that easy! When they're definitely a nazi, as so many are, and so obviously so, do your thing! > To me you are literally the most dangerous person in term of risk of an authoritarian regime. Weird, to me it's the nazis, since like, they advocate for fascism and genocide. Whereas I just feel it's ethical to punch genocidal fascists. Seems like one of us should be a lot scarier than the other Anyway, I'm sorry you have such a weak ethical compass that somehow "nazis are bad" is a big deep scary question for you. P.S. If you think the people punching nazis started the violence, I'd recommend reading up!

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents. They're never interesting and they never end well. Even in the context of the current thread, this subthread stands out as off topic. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20generic%20ideolog&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23529671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23529671.

afiori 6y ago
Understandable, I should have at the very least left out the specific reference.