I’m all for it, but what kicked it off?
What’s going on there?
A damn sight better than fucking corn.
🌽🍿🌽🍿🌽🍿
Whaa??
Aaaaaw he looks genuinely hurt
Where’s the jorn when you need it?
astroturfing
I wonder if it’s the rise of neonazism…?
Let’s call a spade a spade. It’s Nazism.
they could be spamming that webcomic that explains “the paradox of tolerance” by k. popper ;) it would be very fitting to the ongoing situation.
PS. I couldn’t find a cleaner, high res. version and pictoline.com (listed there at the source) only has it in spanish. To make things even worse, there are many edited versions that replace nazis with other ideologies :/ f* the volatility of the internet… Oh. gotta search the internet archive… yeah, nope… not there either. Anyone can find a better version or knows the original source to this? else shall we try upscaling this JPG?
Ironically found a bigger version on twitter of all places.
I don’t get it. They clearly have a left leaning base. Why throw that away?
The rise in nazis thinking they are acceptable
They are becoming so by way of people not doing anything about it, and literally voting them into power.
Nazis and other supremists are the reason intolerance needs to exist.
The social contract of tolerance doesn’t extend to those who are intolerant. They are outside the protection of Tolerant Society’s protection, and the Tolerant are free (and, in fact, strongly encouraged) not to tolerate them, because they aren’t covered.
This perspective only works if there’s an omniscient view of who’s a reactionary intolerant versus an originating intolerant.
Do the Nazis ever claim they are intolerant of minorities because the minorities were intolerant to them?
Unironically yes? Replacement theory, blood libel, global elitism… Whatever the angle, lots of -isms expouse roots in victimhood.
That view is fine and dandy with an an omniscient lens of who’s the reactionary intolerant and who is the originator of intolerance.
Group A: “I am intolerant of (group) because they need to go back to their own country and not live in mine.”
Group B: “I am intolerant of (group) because they don’t tolerate other ethnicities.”
This guy: “but who was intolerant first?”
Wrong question. It doesn’t matter who was “first”.
If the first group stops, the problem is gone.
If the second group stops, the problem is not gone but likely growing.You both completely miss the argument. Cile is strawmanning, vas is again viewing from the omniscient or opposing viewpoint.
Virtually all intolerants perceive themselves as victims. Permitting “intolerance of intolerance” is just accelerationist, “might makes right” ideology.
This just feels like an enlightened centrist take or worse, playing cover for bigotry.
Cile is less strawmanning and more exemplifying the absurdity of applying this mentality to literal Nazis and white supremacists.
Can you give an example of your assertion, historical or imagined, where we SHOULDN’T act against acts of intolerance due to some muddying factor?
This guy obviously didn’t get that memo
I really love that story. He is a better person than me. I really wish I still had hope for my fellow man like he does, but trump’s second election fucking broke me. People who I used to think were smart and empathetic were jumping on the “fuck your feelings” bandwagon.
I’ve lost hope. I’ve lost love. I only have anger anymore.
People who I used to think were smart and empathetic were jumping on the “fuck your feelings” bandwagon.
I don’t know your friends. But I’d argue there’s at least some reasoning for this.
If trade policies like globalization have harmed your economic status, offshoring a lot of the jobs you’d previously held, and you were having trouble feeding your family, wouldn’t you vote for the person you thought could fix this? Wouldn’t you say ‘fuck your feelings, I need to feed my family so I’m sorry if you have trouble putting the sex you want on your passport I’m more worried about feeding my family’? At least in concept?I think that’s where a lot of that sentiment came from. The people of the nation are hurting, and part of Trump’s message always was ‘I see you hurting and I want to fix it’. Dems are totally tone deaf in their messaging. A huge % of the populace gets left out of the ‘American Dream’ and they say nothing. And in recent years they focus a lot on social justice issues and identity politics while ignoring the elephant in the room. It’s why those good people are saying fuck your feelings (IMHO at least), because if the choice is your feelings or their livelihood, then of course they’ll tell your feelings to shove off.
Of course it didn’t work out that way- government cutbacks, tariffs, foreign policy, all handled in such a ham-fisted non-strategic way that whatever benefit might have been gained was instead lost. And now it’s the little guy suffering, so you see a lot of people renouncing their votes.
All I’m saying is keep in mind some of those people who said ‘fuck your feelings’ thought they were fighting for a greater good. I don’t believe they turned malicious. Some did I’m sure, but not all of them.
Thanks for trying to help keep me grounded.
No worries my friend. I know it’s hard, but it’s useful to always assume good faith.
“The monster never sees a monster in the mirror. We all have good reasons and justifications for what we do.” – J. Michael Straczynski
That applies to us too.
I think it especially applied in 2016, first time in my life that all pretense of respectful debate went away, replaced with ‘unfriend me if you like Trump’ as a mainstream accepted even encouraged position to have.
I talk to a lot of people who supported Trump. Most of them talked about tariffs, manufacturing, jobs, there was a dream of bringing back American industry and rolling back outsourcing. Yes there was some assholes, but there were plenty of good American folks who just wanted to keep their jobs.
But if you listened to Democrats, the only valid reason anyone would vote for Trump is because they are a tiki torch wielding racist misogynist sexist xenophobic islamophobic basket of deplorables. The public discourse broke down for good, it was all just insults from both sides.Nobody saw a monster in the mirror. We only saw an opposition supporting a guy who was basically openly racist and creeped on his own daughter.
But they didn’t see a monster in the mirror either. They only saw an ivory tower elite whipping ourselves into a frenzy over which bathroom someone uses while the middle class is dying.That’s why, in my opinion at least, it is always vitally important to generally assume good faith on the part of your opposition. Because if there is good faith, then we repair the cracks that are dividing the country. And if there really isn’t good faith, then we are all totally fucked anyway so it doesn’t make any goddamn difference.
I find that assassinating prominent political figures helps me feel better.
.338 Lapua for the soul
I’m just thinking opsec here, why wouldn’t you choose the ubiquitous .308? I mean even ol’ Charles showed us the 30-06 can be effective even if you miss and it is a much more common round.
How many have you killed today?
Nice try FBI
I’d argue he isn’t tolerating white supremacy, he’s found a good way to counteract it. If he tolerated it he wouldn’t do anything.
It’s BY tolerating it (or more specifically, the people who espouse it) that he fights it.
And I think that’s the key difference- tolerating intolerance (the action), vs tolerating the intolerant (the people).
I think we would all (probably including Mr. Davis) agree that the action of intolerance should not be tolerated. For example, if a local movie theater wants to have ‘whites only’ movie nights, that should not be tolerated and in fact we should all aggressively fight back against such things wherever they happen.
But what of the intolerant person? What of the theater owner in the above example? Should we run him out of town? Tar and feather him? Refuse to talk to him?
The KKK folks he encountered are used to intolerance- threats, shouting, protests, etc. They know they’re not popular, but that helps feed the belief that they are right. They’re used to it. They’re NOT used to being welcomed by anti-racists.And thus Mr. Davis got through to the racist- by tolerating the intolerant, not by tolerating intolerance. It’s a subtle but vital difference.
There’s two wolves in me. One ages with this and the other says nazi punks fuck off and thinks they should be punched.
I think that’s called conflict exhaustion. You’re sick of fighting, sick of holding your nose and respecting things and people you find repugnant, while there’s little/no serious progress in your direction, it seems like there’s more racism and hatred than ever. So part of you is ready to set the world on fire if it gets rid of MAGA and all the thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) racism and intolerance.
Just keep in mind that the dark wolf actually serves those nazi punks. Punching them only makes them stronger.
I don’t know that he didn’t get it. He just hadn’t a different method of fighting back. Not everyone is going to be able to go around knocking them out. The vast majority of people won’t in fact. There are still other tools they can use to stop the spread, or, in rare cases, reverse it. You have to be careful to not legitimize it though if you’re doing something like that.
This thread got me thinking a little more about Mr. Davis.
We talk about ‘not tolerating intolerance’ but I think there’s a second level-- there’s the intolerance (the actions of the racist), and then there’s the intolerant (the racists themselves). It’s easy and simple to group the two together- we don’t want racism, we don’t want the KKK, we don’t want KKK members, all of you go fuck yourselves with your burning cross and go die in a fire (preferably in another county).
I don’t think Mr. Davis would tolerate intolerance any more than you or I. But I think what he does is tolerate the intolerant person, engage them in conversation, treat them like a human being. And THAT can help fix intolerance- by reaching out to the intolerant people and trying to bring them into the larger community and heal them, rather than shunning them and reinforcing their stereotypes.
Yep, and it has the potential to be very effective. I think we need both of these —punching Nazis and talking with them to change their views.
Another big issue that goes with this is a lot of people will say that if their were bigots once then they should be shunned. This is very harmful though. If we do that then their only reasonable option is to double down. If they lose their group and also can’t be accepted by the rest of society then they’re never going to do that.
I think this problem is much larger than only this right now too. People make their opinions equal to them as a person. They feel if they change their opinion then they’re failing as a person. This isn’t true though. Changing your opinions when you’re shown new information is a sign of strength.
I think we need both of these —punching Nazis and talking with them to change their views.
Can you explain to me how punching Nazis works to reduce Naziism and racism? What is the mechanism of action? Like how specifically does getting punched make someone less racist?
That is a genuine question and I’d love an answer.
I personally believe that punching racists only creates more hatred. The racist will be angry at the one who punched him, and thus less open to anti-racist messaging.
“Hate the sin, love the sinner”, so to speak.
Exactly 100%
He is an outlier. Simply impossible for me and most of other people to be so selfless, social, patient and dedicated.
Reminds me of this old story:
Definitely one of my favorites, and illustrates the point effectively.
deleted by creator
One of the reasons I left, they were banning accounts that posted the nazi asshat getting punched. It was also broadly pro Ukraine, and apparently Ukraine was geolocked from imgur, but not russia
deleted by creator
hey i’m thinking about studying on marxism-leninism (and variations therein). is there any way i can study in layman’s terms without losing focus quickly, and is there also any way i can encourage myself to study on ml?
The amount of people making excuses for Nazis in this thread, is disgusting. Get fucked Nazi sympathizers. 🖕
Remove the “ympathizers” and the space before
Nazi sympathizers are Nazis
To be fair, they do make a good drinks (jagermeister)
Yes, this one right here, Democracy Officer.
Excuse me, I am not a nazi! I’m just holding this uniform for a friend.
Great thread for adding to your blocklist.
This but unironically. Screw Nazis.
Oh, I didn’t mean it ironically at all.
Who?
Idk, man, but its a statement that gets you upvotes.
Heh. Propaganda hits both ways, sunshine
I wouldn’t call this propaganda. Propaganda is done deliberately and this seems to be a popular sentiment. Even if it’s a quirk of the algorithm (which I’m not sure these could be posted chronologically, imgur sometimes does that iirc) it’s still not deliberate.
Why’d you start your comment with “heh” and end your comment with “sunshine”? Seemed creepy and condescending, and makes it seem like you feel that the backlash against Trump and White supremacy is just propaganda and not how people actually feel.
Sam_Bass’s comments are mainly mildly contemptuous one-liners. Condescending is part of the persona, and when others interpret that manner as right wing, it seems to affirm sam’s misanthropy.
Personally, I view it as propaganda still, but I don’t view propaganda as bad inherently.
Propaganda to me is just an organized effort to persuade a larger audience of people politically. Its only bad if the aims are harmful unjustly.
So people organizing a take over to reiterate “No fucking Nazis!” Is a propaganda campaign, but its based.
dead Nazis are good Nazis
deleted by creator
Wait, how is “not equal to” a Nazi symbol?
Did Trump said he was a nazi or something? What’s with these companies and tolerating them?
a company has no moral guiding principals outside of monetary gain. its board of directors members may have their own individual viewpoints, but as a collective, a corporation is representative only of the shareholder’s shared interest in making some money. if they wanted anything else, they would collectivize into another form.
generally speaking the best, i mean the best, you can expect from a BoD member is liberalism and all that entails. from a liberal perspective, pacifism is a virtue to be signaled, not an overall approach to the world with a goal of bringing about a just and fair society. liberals preaching non-violence don’t really care if someone is preaching violence so long as they don’t practice violence and the results of the preaching of violence remain unseen.
that’s how you wind up with liberals saying that the founder of turning point usa did things the right way and denouncing someone doing exactly the things he said were good to do, but moreover, denouncing people who have trained in violence accessing that violence in self defense. in the fight between fascism and anything other than fascism, violence must be used to denounce fascism because it is the only language fascists speak. you can use non-violence to interact with other political positions. those are positions who do not practice solely violence. but fascism believes access to violence grants license to use that violence. you can only counter this belief by rendering it scared to show itself in public
Stop using the fucking service! I’m so sick of people complaining about all of these tech companies, but they continue to use it. People need to realize they have an addiction issue and treat that shit.
“what kicked it off?” gestures broadly at everything
I’d say it all started in the late 1960s with Nixon’s implementation of the southern strategy. What we’re seeing today is the resultant avalanche of American fascism, appropriately composed of fragile white snowflakes.
if only hubert humphrey was elected in 1968
oh and this is my 300th comment here on this lemmy instance. seriously!
For LGBT+ and PoC it’s been a violent, fascist state against them for a long time. Just now it’s affecting the white people to a point they’re uncomfortable with but make no mistake, they’ll just let it happen again in a few more years.
Well it started with a genocidal colonial project. Then it started with the repression of class revolts like Bacon’s Rebellion. Then it started with the framing of a union of states that gave extra representation to rural slave-owners because their economic production was important. But it all started when those rural slave-owners wanted to make sure that new territorial expansions (remember, genocidal colonial project) also allowed slavery. Later it started when Lincoln was assassinated and his successor, Andrew Johnson, gave up on Reconstruction so the seditious slave-owning traitors weren’t held accountable for the sedition or slavery and were allowed back into seats of political power.
