Guns don't kill people

Moderators: I am nobody, Deku Tree

User avatar
New! Tazy Ten
Posts: 29333
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Flipping a Switch
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 84 times
Contact:

Re: Guns don't kill people

#21

Post by New! Tazy Ten » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:28 pm

As a, rather extreme, jumping off point I'll use the Tiananmen Square protest. A large month long strike by college students demanding various changes for freedoms in the country of China. The government made fun of them, didn't want to do anything they asked for, even hated them as the world started taking notice of something that made them look weak. Eventually, the government sent in the military and cleared them out with force and violence. Anyone that condoned or even supported this protest was removed from power. You're not allowed to speak about what happened without severe punishment and as a result, people can not act in response and the ideas they were fighting for have died.

Am I saying that can happen anywhere? F**k no. China has a lot of problems and they compounded together resulting a lot of deaths that even those involved regret causing (if that's worth anything). What I'm getting at is that, by its nature, a protest is public demonstration made to show anger towards a subject, usually the government, and there is a history of governing powers doing everything they can to silence protests and dissenting opinions even in the most sophisticated first-world countries. Only difference are these freedoms that protect the people from those in power.

As an example, let's say the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives f**ks up. Not hard to imagine, since a number of spree killings are caused by guns given to the wrong people a result of misfiled paperwork, and an inability to do adequate background checks. There's some blame to put there. So there's a protest and let's say someone calls on the acting deputy director to quit due to their refusal to act. Except, uh oh, the current deputy director is Regina Lombardo, a woman. Do you know how women feel to see a woman being told to leave office? If it's successful, it might hurt all women going forward. So, the government can decide that this isn't allowed and suddenly you're guilty of hate speech; fines, jail time, and whatever else is needed. Okay, so don't bring her up. Tell everyone that you have to skirt around her and call out anyone who disagrees. Except, what if she then goes on record saying that she hates your group, and will never do as you ask so long as she's in power? What can you do then? Beg? How can you call for change in this manner if you're not allowed to harshly criticize someone making mistakes?

What's that? That's not an example of hate speech and I'd be reaching to say that it is? Well, since it's a law anyway, how about we go to court to figure that out? A long winded, character defaming court case that might have one or two members of the protest, or could possibly implicate everyone in said protest of hate speech because silence is violence, or some s**t. By that point, the government wins. Either they get a guilty verdict and make it a severe risk to criticize anyone in a position of power that can be negatively profiled, or they lose but by that time the protest is killed by the legal proceedings, and who cares what happens after that? It's legal to protest in the United States as a right, but we already bust up protests by using another law to get around that right. What's destroying freedom of speech, but allowing an easier avenue to stop dissension?

To turn it back into the example, freedom of speech only improves the right to protest in that it prevents opposing parties from shutting your protests down and throwing you in with the Poland haters because you "spread hate".

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13192
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#22

Post by I am nobody » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:09 pm

Tazy, I don't mean to be rude, but that's nonsense. Women are told to resign, even by other women, all the time. It's happening in Puetro Rico literally right now without anyone losing their mind about whether any woman will ever hold office again, and the Nazi-dog hating UK seems to have been perfectly fine with people telling Theresa May to step down. I'm sure loads of women would be thrilled if Sarah Sanders quit, as I'm sure they were when any of the other dozens to hundreds of women who got themselves into scandals over the years stepped down. This is not a problem that exists.

Further, you assume a totally corrupt government and powerless or incompetent judiciary. If it was as easy to take protesters out with spurious charges as you're claiming, than they'd already be having a field day with the existing laws concerning defamation, fighting words, obscenity, and more. The only way the situation you're describing is possible is if the government no longer cares about the rule of law, in which case it doesn't matter what any piece of paper says, even if it's 200 years old and in a fancy museum. If you honestly think this country is at any risk of that, then prospective hate speech laws shouldn't even make the top hundred of your concerns right now.

Also, you're talking about this like someone endorsed the ****ing death penalty for hate speech. It's a *civil* offense. You might get a fine. It won't look great in a background search. If the government starts abusing the law to hand out arbitrary $100 fines, in what world is that going to scare people so badly that everybody goes home and takes it?

User avatar
smol Kat
Posts: 9876
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: a s s i m i l a t e
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#23

Post by smol Kat » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:20 pm

On top of that, there's a pretty obvious difference between "resign because of this thing you did" and "resign because of this identity you have."
we built our house of cards
but it feels like it's still ours...

User avatar
New! Tazy Ten
Posts: 29333
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Flipping a Switch
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 84 times
Contact:

Re: Guns don't kill people

#24

Post by New! Tazy Ten » Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:35 am

*sigh*

My computer turned off and ate my post.

So I'm just gonna disengage from this. I'm not in the right headspace for a real discussion and I feel like I'm just digging my feet into the sand. At that point I should just say "I'm not backing down from this so I have nothing more to say." I'm not gonna change my mind, and I'm irritated because of outside things going on around me so it's better if I back off.

All I have left to say is that the government already does what it can to harm activists for many reasons and I can't see hate speech laws doing anything but more damage. I don't think it will help with any racial divide, and at it's worst it could actually hurt the very people it's trying to protect. If not right now, then it will eventually and then we're not even back to square one, but behind it at square zero. I do not see how even the best of intentions can justify an erosion of freedom, even the most minor ones.

That's it. I do not care if it has no basis of reality, that's what I think.

(EDIT: Or maybe I won't leave, but I need to stop making posts that take an hour to make and edit through because that's part of the reason I'm burning myself out on this. If that means discussion ends, then that's fine.)

User avatar
steeze
Posts: 908
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 9:52 am
Location: Konoha
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#25

Post by steeze » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:37 am

I am nobody wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:09 pm
I'm sure loads of women would be thrilled if Sarah Sanders quit, as I'm sure they were when any of the other dozens to hundreds of women who got themselves into scandals over the years stepped down.
I thought she did quit or "step down." The White House didn't frame it as being because of the investigations and her lying but I'm sure it had something to do with it. She'd never admit that though. The administration just framed it like, "oh we need her for the campaign!" It's alright though. History won't remember her fondly. I doubt she'll hold any official position ever again if Trump loses the election. Hopefully because Republicans will be scrambling to distance themselves from this administration to one who's not running a campaign of obvious xenophobic ideals and mismanaged brain cells. I can't wait for his last day in office to see if he pardons himself of any crimes. Which would be framed as his admission of guilt for everything that has gone on. I doubt he will though because he's to proud to admit that he's committed any crimes. He'd rather be charged and try to clear his name but with the conviction rate of all the people around him, chances are he'd be charged. Which is exactly what Pelosi wants.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13192
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#26

Post by I am nobody » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:15 pm

New! Tazy Ten wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:35 am
*sigh*

My computer turned off and ate my post.

So I'm just gonna disengage from this. I'm not in the right headspace for a real discussion and I feel like I'm just digging my feet into the sand. At that point I should just say "I'm not backing down from this so I have nothing more to say." I'm not gonna change my mind, and I'm irritated because of outside things going on around me so it's better if I back off.

All I have left to say is that the government already does what it can to harm activists for many reasons and I can't see hate speech laws doing anything but more damage. I don't think it will help with any racial divide, and at it's worst it could actually hurt the very people it's trying to protect. If not right now, then it will eventually and then we're not even back to square one, but behind it at square zero. I do not see how even the best of intentions can justify an erosion of freedom, even the most minor ones.

That's it. I do not care if it has no basis of reality, that's what I think.

(EDIT: Or maybe I won't leave, but I need to stop making posts that take an hour to make and edit through because that's part of the reason I'm burning myself out on this. If that means discussion ends, then that's fine.)
To be clear, my disagreement is just with the slippery slope argument. I don't see any evidence that Canada, France, etc, have lost any ability to protest as a result of their hate speech laws, but I also don't see much evidence that they're much better off in terms of extremists. At the end of the day, the worst content is always shared either in-person or on the internet, so the best any law can realistically do is make it harder to normalize by sharing similar views in public. Even then, people are clever and they'll find ways to dogwhistle.

I think the danger of hate speech laws is less that the government is going to use them to suppress critics and more that we'd spend a decade's energy on a political war over how to define it instead of making an effort to understand and address the root causes of extremism. On top of that, like I said before, nobody changes their mind over a fine. You just end up with a slightly poorer extremist who may have gotten free news coverage worth far more than their penalty.

User avatar
smol Kat
Posts: 9876
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: a s s i m i l a t e
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#27

Post by smol Kat » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:37 pm

I see your point but I'm also out of patience for this kind of crap, and I feel there needs to be some effective way to address it.

The work I do is just so unbelievably draining sometimes and I cracked a long time ago.
we built our house of cards
but it feels like it's still ours...

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28950
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#28

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Sep 11, 2019 11:06 am

I am nobody wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:01 pm
While these attacks are, of course, neither alone nor a significant death toll compared even to single American cities, they are unique in that their motivating ideologies have been tolerated or even directly quoted by major western figures. Language that might once have been limited to fringe figures like Alex Jones or the KKK is now openly aired in the mass media by Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingrahm, who have directly referenced the El Paso terrorist's "invasion" and replacement ideology, or Trump and other leading Republicans who've repeatedly described immigration as an invasion.
Comparing the Tucker and Trump to the KKK just because they described mass illegal immigration (not just "immigration") as an invasion is rather extreme if that's all you've got to go on.
So here we have countless public figures who, when terrorism in the west was primarily committed in the name of Islam, called for all manner of actions to be taken against Muslims, who followed a "religion of violence" and couldn't be trusted to live next to our children. And yet, when it's their own ideology that's doing the killing, suddenly it's no longer about what the terrorists believe. Where we once needed to be afraid of even moderate Muslims, because it was apparently impossible to follow their religion without condoning violence, we're now told it's suddenly all the fault of video games and that, by the way, maybe it'd be a good idea to give the terrorist exactly what he wants and pass some immigration restrictions. Leaders who spout the same ideas as the terrorists? Suddenly blameless.
I won't even touch on Islam, that can't go well, but what ideology of these public figures is "doing the killing"? What ideology do they believe in which is for killing other people?
These killings were caused by people, and the blame for them lies fully on those who inspired their ideas.
The killings lie solely on the murderers themselves. Just because Tucker says there's an invasion some guy goes and mows down other people? That's the decision of a ticking time bomb lunatic, and I'd say the same thing if some delusional Clinton supporter was "cleansing" society of deplorables. Unless someone directs others to commit violence or otherwise incites it (some mildly inflammatory language isn't nearly enough to place the murders at their feet) there is nobody else to blame but killers.

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 13115
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 47 times
Contact:

Re: Guns don't kill people

#29

Post by Random User » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:50 pm

Treating the series of mass shootings inspired by nationalism as isolated incidents is dangerous. Is it really coincidental that so many mass shooters as of late share ideologies? That isn't to say that EVERY nationalist will go out and kill people, but nationalism gives unhinged individuals reason to believe that their mass murdering is morally justified, and encourages them to act violently.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28950
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#30

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Random User wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:50 pm
Treating the series of mass shootings inspired by nationalism as isolated incidents is dangerous. Is it really coincidental that so many mass shooters as of late share ideologies? That isn't to say that EVERY nationalist will go out and kill people, but nationalism gives unhinged individuals reason to believe that their mass murdering is morally justified, and encourages them to act violently.
I hear that word a lot lately, and it is propped up to sounds scary and bad, but when I look at the definition I fail to understand why.
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations
: loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Aren't these similar to patriotism? Is that a bad thing now? I mean, I'd hope most US citizens are nationalists, and in that case it shouldn't be surprising when one goes loco since there should be millions upon millions of them. I mean, of course a few will be loons. Maybe I'm missing something.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone can justify mass murder at all without being insane. Insane people don't count.

User avatar
smol Kat
Posts: 9876
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: a s s i m i l a t e
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#31

Post by smol Kat » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:51 pm

No. Patriotism is not meant to suppress, exclude, or demonize other nations or groups. That's the key.
we built our house of cards
but it feels like it's still ours...

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13192
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#32

Post by I am nobody » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:53 pm

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm
Anyway, I don't see how anyone can justify mass murder at all without being insane. Insane people don't count.
Welp, guess we'd better transfer every war criminal and terrorist to a mental hospital, then.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28950
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#33

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:59 am

smol Kat wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:51 pm
No. Patriotism is not meant to suppress, exclude, or demonize other nations or groups. That's the key.
You seem to mischaracterize nationalism, at least per the cited definition. It doesn't seem to be meant to "suppress, exclude, or demonize other nations or groups." Nationalism is placing your country's interests over that of other ones'. Support for America's interests, even to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations', seems just fine. If that's bad I'd certainly like to hear a reason. At worst I suppose it could be seen as selfish, but why nationalism is being dragged through the mud is a mystery to me. I see lots of flag burning and anti-American sentiments these days, maybe that's tied to it.


I am nobody wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:53 pm
I REALLY HATE POKEMON! wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm
Anyway, I don't see how anyone can justify mass murder at all without being insane. Insane people don't count.
Welp, guess we'd better transfer every war criminal and terrorist to a mental hospital, then.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. When you're driving a truck through dozens of people because your book told you to, or killing people by the millions because of their race, I'd say that is insane.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13192
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#34

Post by I am nobody » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:18 am

Nationalism as a problematic word comes partly from how always putting yourself first destabilizes diplomacy and can fuel conflicts that have long since become pointless, e.g. WWI or Greece and North Macedonia wasting 20 years on the latter's name. The rest of it comes from it being an easy ideological jump from "my nation's interests always come first" to "anyone opposing those interests is inherently wrong", which is more or less the exact justification used for things like Tiananmen, etc. It's also easy to combine with racist ideologies to become "my nation, which means people who look like me, always comes first", and then you get Nazis.

As for the second part, I assume this means you're retracting a few hundred posts on Islam?

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28950
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#35

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:02 am

I am nobody wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:18 am
Nationalism as a problematic word comes partly from how always putting yourself first destabilizes diplomacy and can fuel conflicts that have long since become pointless, e.g. WWI or Greece and North Macedonia wasting 20 years on the latter's name. The rest of it comes from it being an easy ideological jump from "my nation's interests always come first" to "anyone opposing those interests is inherently wrong", which is more or less the exact justification used for things like Tiananmen, etc. It's also easy to combine with racist ideologies to become "my nation, which means people who look like me, always comes first", and then you get Nazis.

As for the second part, I assume this means you're retracting a few hundred posts on Islam?
Well, you may have a point that there can be unintended consequences of nationalism, but I don't think it necessitates engaging in such conflicts. In other words, I don't think they're an inevitability.

Weren't you railing on the slippery slope earlier, but now it's "and then you get Nazis"? I don't think that's how it works or we'd have a lot more Nazis in this country under Trump, but his first term is almost up and there's not Nazis marching down the street. I think I read that there's been a slight uptick but Nazis are a leftist boogeyman, there's more threat from Antifa than them.

Care to elaborate regarding that about Islam?

User avatar
steeze
Posts: 908
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 9:52 am
Location: Konoha
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 157 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#36

Post by steeze » Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:55 am

I'm playing Metro 2033 again and I have been absolutely destroying Nazis all night. This game is so wholesome.

User avatar
smol Kat
Posts: 9876
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: a s s i m i l a t e
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 128 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#37

Post by smol Kat » Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:59 pm

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:02 am
Weren't you railing on the slippery slope earlier, but now it's "and then you get Nazis"? I don't think that's how it works or we'd have a lot more Nazis in this country under Trump, but his first term is almost up and there's not Nazis marching down the street.
Now that's just not accurate--and that's just off the top of my head!
I think I read that there's been a slight uptick but Nazis are a leftist boogeyman, there's more threat from Antifa than them.
Then please explain this statistic as pulled from a thread earlier this year.
we built our house of cards
but it feels like it's still ours...

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 13115
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 47 times
Contact:

Re: Guns don't kill people

#38

Post by Random User » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:19 pm

I REALLY HATE POKEMON! wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:08 pm
Random User wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:50 pm
Treating the series of mass shootings inspired by nationalism as isolated incidents is dangerous. Is it really coincidental that so many mass shooters as of late share ideologies? That isn't to say that EVERY nationalist will go out and kill people, but nationalism gives unhinged individuals reason to believe that their mass murdering is morally justified, and encourages them to act violently.
I hear that word a lot lately, and it is propped up to sounds scary and bad, but when I look at the definition I fail to understand why.
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations
: loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
Aren't these similar to patriotism? Is that a bad thing now? I mean, I'd hope most US citizens are nationalists, and in that case it shouldn't be surprising when one goes loco since there should be millions upon millions of them. I mean, of course a few will be loons. Maybe I'm missing something.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone can justify mass murder at all without being insane. Insane people don't count.
I understand what nationalism is. This doesn't address the point in the matter that nationalism provides ample reasoning to, you know, kill minority groups for the sake of your country's culture. One that a lot of the noted right-wing or populist politicians constantly say is under attack. Yes, perhaps the individuals are obviously not mentally well, but that doesn't change the fact that they were encouraged to act with violence for a reason they feel is justified. That blind devotion to country is the same blind devotion you criticize Muslim terrorists for having.

Worthy of note - it's dangerous to paint all murderers as simply insane madmen. It gives people the misconception that "normal people" aren't capable of doing sick things. As a great example, many high-ranking officials that were in charge of the death camps in Nazi Germany were found, after intense psychoanalysis, to be relatively normal people. Scary thought.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13192
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#39

Post by I am nobody » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:40 pm

Well, you may have a point that there can be unintended consequences of nationalism, but I don't think it necessitates engaging in such conflicts. In other words, I don't think they're an inevitability.
Whether they're inevitable or not, they're overwhelmingly common. It's very easy to get tied up in nonsensical conflicts once you start feeling responsible for defending national pride, etc.
Weren't you railing on the slippery slope earlier, but now it's "and then you get Nazis"? I don't think that's how it works or we'd have a lot more Nazis in this country under Trump, but his first term is almost up and there's not Nazis marching down the street. I think I read that there's been a slight uptick but Nazis are a leftist boogeyman, there's more threat from Antifa than them.
Of course, how could I forget that we're reading a thread about how Antifa gunmen have just murdered dozens of people.

You're confusing slippery slope arguments, which are about the future, with recognizing the progression of things that already happened. You asked why nationalism has a negative connotation, and I told you that it has factually been used as a justification for atrocities and that mixing it with racism gives you Nazis. A slippery slope would be if I tried to say that anyone who accepts any part of nationalist ideologies is inevitably going to slide the whole way to Nazism.
Care to elaborate regarding that about Islam?
See:
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. When you're driving a truck through dozens of people because your book told you to, or killing people by the millions because of their race, I'd say that is insane.
I don't see how this reconciles with previous threads where you've argued or at least endorsed other arguments that Islam as a belief system is responsible for atrocities committed in its name. Insane people are by definition not even responsible for their own actions, after all.

That'd be a pretty significant shift if that's your new position, so just making sure I understand.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28950
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Has thanked: 890 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Guns don't kill people

#40

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:07 pm

smol Kat wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:59 pm
I REALLY HATE POKEMON! wrote:
Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:02 am
Weren't you railing on the slippery slope earlier, but now it's "and then you get Nazis"? I don't think that's how it works or we'd have a lot more Nazis in this country under Trump, but his first term is almost up and there's not Nazis marching down the street.
Now that's just not accurate--and that's just off the top of my head!
Can you explain how it isn't accurate? Your first link is to a dispute over a monument which turned violent, and the second is about a group I've heard is merely a peaceful group built to counter Antifa (from what I've seen and heard, but I don't follow such groups so I could be wrong). These aren't indicative of Nazis rising to prominence.
smol Kat wrote:
I think I read that there's been a slight uptick but Nazis are a leftist boogeyman, there's more threat from Antifa than them.
Then please explain this statistic as pulled from a thread earlier this year.
Conflating right-wing terrorism with Nazism is ridiculous. Marckles Alcius, who attacked Planned Parenthood, and Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr., who sent bombs to critics of Trump, don't look like Nazis to me, unless they're now a progressive, inclusive group, in which case the left should love Nazis.

Are these the faces of Nazism now?

Image

Image
Random User wrote:I understand what nationalism is. This doesn't address the point in the matter that nationalism provides ample reasoning to, you know, kill minority groups for the sake of your country's culture. One that a lot of the noted right-wing or populist politicians constantly say is under attack. Yes, perhaps the individuals are obviously not mentally well, but that doesn't change the fact that they were encouraged to act with violence for a reason they feel is justified. That blind devotion to country is the same blind devotion you criticize Muslim terrorists for having.
What reasoning does nationalism provide to kill minority groups? I don't understand that. Your culture being under attack doesn't mean you murder others. By that logic any adherence gives "ample reasoning" to kill. Lost the election? Your political party is under attack, go kill. Church attendance down? Go kill. Football team lost again? Kill. I guess we just shouldn't believe in or defend anything because people may become extremists. I don't buy that.
Random User wrote:Worthy of note - it's dangerous to paint all murderers as simply insane madmen. It gives people the misconception that "normal people" aren't capable of doing sick things. As a great example, many high-ranking officials that were in charge of the death camps in Nazi Germany were found, after intense psychoanalysis, to be relatively normal people. Scary thought.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but it doesn't make sense to me. If normal people are capable of doing sick things then does that make sick things normal? I'm not a psychoanalyst, but I struggle to see Hitler as a normal guy who just happened to, you know, be Hitler.
I am nobody wrote:Whether they're inevitable or not, they're overwhelmingly common. It's very easy to get tied up in nonsensical conflicts once you start feeling responsible for defending national pride, etc.
Fair enough, but I think it's still a big jump from nationalism to murder, at least on an individual level.
I am nobody wrote:Of course, how could I forget that we're reading a thread about how Antifa gunmen have just murdered dozens of people.

You're confusing slippery slope arguments, which are about the future, with recognizing the progression of things that already happened. You asked why nationalism has a negative connotation, and I told you that it has factually been used as a justification for atrocities and that mixing it with racism gives you Nazis. A slippery slope would be if I tried to say that anyone who accepts any part of nationalist ideologies is inevitably going to slide the whole way to Nazism.
Antifa works to attack people generally non-lethally (but still violently), but they're still far more of a problem as a group than lone gunmen. Nationalists aren't dangerous by default, any more than most people, but Antifa are.

I don't know, seemed awfully similar to a slippery slope argument to me. You seemed to at least insinuate that nationalism is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from Nazism, which I disagree with regardless.
I am nobody wrote:I don't see how this reconciles with previous threads where you've argued or at least endorsed other arguments that Islam as a belief system is responsible for atrocities committed in its name. Insane people are by definition not even responsible for their own actions, after all.

That'd be a pretty significant shift if that's your new position, so just making sure I understand.
I've said that Islam is dangerous, yes. I don't think something as radical as Islam should be allowed for unstable people to get into their minds, nothing good can come from it in my opinion. If I've never stated this then I'll do so now; I think you have to be crazy to buy into the idea of killing unbelievers, to want to be like Muhammad. I don't see how that is a shift from anything I've said before. If I placed the blame solely upon Islam before and not the terrorists who believe in it, then I simply wasn't clear enough. I think if you're a mentally healthy person you won't buy into it. If you're raised to believe it though, that's probably different.

As for insane people not being responsible for their own actions, I'm not sure. Maybe "insane" and "crazy" are the wrong terms then, perhaps saying terrorists are mentally deranged is more appropriate. They're certainly not healthy, I'll say that much. I don't think normal people are capable of such horrors.

Anyway, I notice you've yet to address my initial response to your opening post. Do you care to respond to it? I'd like to hear how you can justify comparing the KKK and Tucker Carlson in any meaningful ways.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics, Philosophy, and Religion”