Controversies

[Danvzare]

Oops. Looks like I hit a sore spot in my previous post. Sorry about that.
But I stand by what I said, and this thread pretty much proves it. When it comes down to severe and spontaneous outrage, the bias alone can make it impossible to distinguish between what's real information and what's misinformation. Making searching an impossible chore. A good example is the recent controversy surrounding Pokemon Sword and Shield. Thankfully there was a nice video I found that explained it all objectively.

Also, I would like to add, that I still don't know what the Fez 2 controversy is about. (Apparently he said something, but I don't know what.)
Or the Channel Awesome controversy that happened recently. (I think it has something to do with maternity leave, but I'm not sure.)
Could I also have quick explanations for those as well. Pretty please. 

Because seriously, this whole not-knowing thing, really does grind my gears!
You lot may be part of the hive-mind, but I've yet to be assimilated. So I need things explaining to me.
(It also grinds my gears slightly, how negatively everyone here reacted to me not liking not-knowing. But that's exactly why I didn't know in the first place.)

By the way, thanks Blondbraid for the video. I'll watch that now.

[VampireWombat]

The Channel Awesome one is more complicated than being able to give a quick explanation. As for being recent? The major fallout from it happened over a year ago. Maternity leave might have been a part of it, but I don't remember. There was a Google document released with a lot of complaints about treatment of those who made videos for CA. And CA basically responded with "We're sorry you feel that way." The document contained information ranging from treatment at crossover events, how Lupa got kicked off the site, all the way to cover ups about sexual harassment and a certain sexual predator who ended up committing suicide...
If you want a longer explanation, there's a movie length documentary on Youtube called The Downfall of Channel Awesome.

[Danvzare]

The Channel Awesome one is more complicated than being able to give a quick explanation. As for being recent? The major fallout from it happened over a year ago. Maternity leave might have been a part of it, but I don't remember. There was a Google document released with a lot of complaints about treatment of those who made videos for CA. And CA basically responded with "We're sorry you feel that way." The document contained information ranging from treatment at crossover events, how Lupa got kicked off the site, all the way to cover ups about sexual harassment and a certain sexual predator who ended up committing suicide...
If you want a longer explanation, there's a movie length documentary on Youtube called The Downfall of Channel Awesome.

Thank you so very VERY much! 
This is the kind of thing I looked for but could never find.
And that explanation was brilliant. Thank you. 

Also, sorry everyone for getting things off-topic.

[Blondbraid]

By the way, thanks Blondbraid for the video. I'll watch that now.

Yeah, I'd recommend you watch it before making any more assumptions on the subject, and I'd say as an advice in general that one should look things up (and use trusted sources) before making assumptions.

To give a personal example, I used to think American movies making fun of black people eating watermelons was just a harmless silly stereotype, but it turns out that that stereotype had some nasty roots in slavery
where slave owners used the idea of "the black man doesn't want anything more from life than a cold slice of watermelon once the workday is over" to enforce and promote the idea that black people were happy in slavery (Source).

I know it can be hard for people who didn't grow up facing any form of discrimination or harassment based on their race, gender or sexuality to see why it would be such a big deal, but I guess you can compare it to how most people in northern Europe aren't bothered by Malaria, but just because it isn't a problem to Swedes it doesn't mean it isn't a real and valid concern to people living in Uganda, or that Ugandans are dumb or frivolous when complaining about Malaria outbreaks.

[Jack]

To give a personal example, I used to think American movies making fun of black people eating watermelons was just a harmless silly stereotype, but it turns out that that stereotype had some nasty roots in slavery
where slave owners used the idea of "the black man doesn't want anything more from life than a cold slice of watermelon once the workday is over" to enforce and promote the idea that black people were happy in slavery (Source).

This is funny. I don't recall seeing the watermelon one in a film, but I have seen the "grape soda" one. What's up with that?

[Crimson Wizard]

I was genuinely surprised when learnt about "watermelon" issue in the past, because of all the food watermelons were probably last thing I could associate with USA; judging by popular media at least 

[Mandle]

We had a black teacher at the school I worked for and one of the parents had given us a free watermelon one summer.

I asked the teacher if he wanted some and he said "Oh, right! Are you gonna ask me if I want some fried chicken with that?"

I had heard of the stereotype but hadn't thought of it when I was asking the question.

I replied "Sorry man, I'm from Australia and that's not really a thing there."

He said "Naw it's fine. It's just not something that a white American would ever ask a black person."

I said "So, you don't want any then?"

And he said "Of course I do! I fuckin' love watermelon!"

[cat]

I've never heard of this watermelon issue before. I wouldn't even have noticed, because I like watermelon so it's a natural thing to eat it.

@Mandle: It's also worth pointing out that Japan has a culture of giving fruits as presents. Where I live, it would be really weird to give a watermelon to a teacher.

[Crimson Wizard]

Lol, in Russia there's opposite stereotype, where people of certain ethnicity(ies) are selling watermelons (because south where they live watermelons grow best).

[LimpingFish]

Yeah, the watermelon thing is common knowledge to me. If you were exposed to a lot of American culture growing up, as I was, it, along with countless other stereotypes, appears in movies, TV (any sitcom with a black character), music, the routines of almost all black comedians of the last fifty years...you can't help but absorb it through osmosis.

That's why, in general, I don't really understand white America's (at least those people over twenty years old) current propensity for playing dumb -unless it's a willful ignorance...- when it comes to their country's past relationship with black people. References to it are, have been, and continue to be, literally everywhere.

[Danvzare]

Yeah, the watermelon thing is common knowledge to me. If you were exposed to a lot of American culture growing up, as I was, it, along with countless other stereotypes, appears in movies, TV (any sitcom with a black character), music, the routines of almost all black comedians of the last fifty years...you can't help but absorb it through osmosis.

That's why, in general, I don't really understand white America's (at least those people over twenty years old) current propensity for playing dumb -unless it's a willful ignorance...- when it comes to their country's past relationship with black people. References to it are, have been, and continue to be, literally everywhere.

You know when you learn something new, and then you start seeing it everywhere. (Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.)
That's why.
It was always there, but you never noticed it because you didn't regard it as important, and therefore just blanked it.
Then one day someone tells you it and you can finally see it.

I know this, because I'm one of them.  I never noticed the watermelon thing even existed until a few years ago. Let alone that it was a racist thing.

Calling people dumb, ignorant, or even naive for this, has always come across as being rude to me. Like you're being punished for not being more racist. 
But that's just my two cents on the matter.

[Blondbraid]

Calling people dumb, ignorant, or even naive for this, has always come across as being rude to me. Like you're being punished for not being more racist. 
But that's just my two cents on the matter.

I'd say it's more of a case of people getting upset because they feel you're not taking what's a genuine problem to them seriously.

To illustrate my point, imagine you're in school and there's a guy who's been bullying and harassing you for the entire year, making your life hell and you can't avoid him by skipping school because then your grades will suffer.
And when you try to tell someone else in your school about what the bully's been doing to you all this time, they say "Him? But he seemed like such a nice guy when I talked to him and I can't imagine him doing such a horrible thing!
But if he's bothering you so much you can just avoid being in the same building as him!"

In that situation, wouldn't it be hard to not be at least a bit angry at the person you're talking to for remaining ignorant and immediately questioning you instead of the behavior of your bully?

And that's not going into the people who are being willfully obtuse as an excuse not to change their behavior, like accusing whomever bringing up something racist/sexist of being the real racist/sexist, which is absurd once you think about it.
Just imagine this logic being applied to literally any other situation and you'll se how it falls apart, like for example, say there is a bar fight, but when you try to tell the bouncer at the bar he'll chide you for being obsessed with violence and
making up violent fantasies for attention while the barfight is literally happening right next to him.

I'm not saying people who genuinely aren't aware of what sexist or racist discrimination looks like exist (and I was one of them too in case of the latter),
but the problem is when those who don't know wind up getting defensive and using the same language as of those who are being willfully obtuse, and that puts people on edge.

I think the most important thing to remember is that while there are trolls who want to anger and offend people, no one wants to get angry and upset and offended,
and neither can the overwhelming majority of people simply choose not to be angry or offended at something upsetting them, and it's ridiculous to ask them to.

The X-men were originally created with mutants as a fictional stand-in for all marginalized groups and the civil rights movement,
and I think this line from the second movie wonderfully illustrates what hearing "I don't see race or gender" feels like for women and minorities:

[Jack]

The difference between what you're talking about and your examples, is that one is violence and the other is words. Lots of people these days conflate the two, and that's their business, but when you're being rude or angry at this oblivious stranger it's really for not immediately seeing things your way.

The person who says "I don't see race or gender" has gone out of their way to see everyone as equal, against obviously visible differences, and you're saying this is not good enough.

[LimpingFish]

Just to be clear, I don't want to chastise people for not being aware of certain stereotypes and I'm certainly not accusing those who say they are unaware as somehow being latent racists. That would be silly. Nor am I implying that people who aren't familiar with these stereotypes are somehow lacking, either mentally or morally.

I realize what I said in my previous post is a massive generalization, because it was intended as such, and not as a direct critique of any one individual.

But...

I'm Irish. I'm a white, almost middle-aged Irish dude. And I know these things. I didn't go out of my way to know these things. As I said, it happened through cultural osmosis. I'm never lived in or even visited the US. I don't have a vested interest in race politics, or the plight of black people in America, yet I've obtained this knowledge.

And that's the crux of my argument, I suppose. When it's so prevalent that even an Irish cracker can say "Yeah, I knew that", how come there are so many white Americans who apparently missed out on it?

[milkanannan]

What sparked this thread?

[Snarky]

It was split off from the "What grinds my gears" thread.

[Blondbraid]

The difference between what you're talking about and your examples, is that one is violence and the other is words. Lots of people these days conflate the two, and that's their business,.

If only it was that simple and words just stayed words. However, virtually everyone who's ever been in a fight can tell you that it's incredibly rare for one to start with straight-up physical assault,
it's almost always precluded by verbal threats and threats of violence. Also, it's been shown that genocide is precluded by dehumanizing language and discrimination, and the perpetrators use slurs and similar
to dehumanize a minority until killing them becomes accepted. I strongly recommend everyone to read up on the 10 stages of genocide, here is the link.

Now you might say that not all hurtful words or verbal threats automatically lead to violence, and not all will, but they will contribute to a culture where violence against minorities are accepted,
and all those kinds of words and jokes risk emboldening neo-nazis and their likes to become more violent and more open with their violence and make it easier for their groups to recruit followers.

but when you're being rude or angry at this oblivious stranger it's really for not immediately seeing things your way.

The person who says "I don't see race or gender" has gone out of their way to see everyone as equal, against obviously visible differences, and you're saying this is not good enough.

You're right that I don't think acting like everyone is equal when they're clearly not isn't good enough, but I've never tried to be rude.

In none of my comments have I denied that genuinely ignorant people don't exist and I even admitted to having been ignorant myself.
All I've ever tried to do is to, in the nicest manner I can, explain why certain things are harmful. Exactly what of it comes across as angry or rude
to you? Likewise, LimpingFish, outright said he didn't want to chastise anyone for being ignorant.

Pardon me for making assumptions, but it appears that by calling me rude, you are trying to shift the focus from what arguments I am making
to which tone you assume I'm saying them in, and shut down the discussion by derailing it into an argument about tone.

The problem is of course, that to most members of a privileged group, anything a marginalized person asks for or explains to them is treated as rude demands by default,
like the scene in Oliver Twist where he asks "Please Sir, may I have some more?". It doesn't matter that he's asking for more in the most polite manner possible, or that he's just
asking for a spoonful of more gruel, the mere act of asking is treated as a threat and insult to the orphanage managers.

If you want to prove me wrong, then by all means share an example on how a marginalized person explained the discrimination they face to you in a way that didn't come off as rude to you.

[Mandle]

no one wants to get angry and upset and offended,

Are we using the same internet?! 

[Blondbraid]

no one wants to get angry and upset and offended,

Are we using the same internet?! 

Well, ask yourself, have you ever wanted to get sad and angry? 

Seriously though, I think a huge reason we see so many bad arguments online is thanks to people making that assumption.

[Jack]

You're right that I don't think acting like everyone is equal when they're clearly not isn't good enough.

If the person who treats you equally is not doing enough then equality is not what you're after.

All I've ever tried to do is to, in the nicest manner I can, explain why certain things are harmful. Exactly what of it comes across as angry or rude
to you? Likewise, LimpingFish, outright said he didn't want to chastise anyone for being ignorant.

I was referring to the topic, it was the post you replied to, defending this behaviour:

Calling people dumb, ignorant, or even naive for this, has always come across as being rude to me. Like you're being punished for not being more racist. 

Now you might say that not all hurtful words or verbal threats automatically lead to violence, and not all will, but they will contribute to a culture where violence against minorities are accepted,
and all those kinds of words and jokes risk emboldening neo-nazis and their likes to become more violent and more open with their violence and make it easier for their groups to recruit followers.

Wow, these watermelons are dangerous things.

No, they're not, that was sarcasm. Were you also being sarcastic, or did you really want to stop everyone from using a joke because it might cause a genocide?

I really hate making posts like these, where you have to quote every relevant part separately and explain why it's wrong. But you're wrong so much.

cracker

This makes a point I wanted to make before. Why did you use this word? Because it's funny. Honkie is even funnier. Are my toes supposed to curl up instead and me rapidly dessicate like a dye witch because of a word referencing something against a white? Are all us honkies gonna get killed now (with watermelons)? In the 80s and 90s, when these films were made, these things were funny, because racism was a thing of the past, something we for the most part could examine academically. It's hard to remember now but this was an even less extreme version of the America that elected Obama, half a black man. This was before the corporate media brought it to the forefront of global consciousness as a way to divide. Actually, if you want to be pedantic about it, and I know some here are into that, if you follow the "oh no it will remind people of slavery from 400 years ago that no one alive today experienced" route, then "cracker" would be offensive to blacks too, because apparently it's a reference to being the whip cracker.

Jokes are and have always been a relief valve to society. It's a distraction, like video games before they had to become another medium for corporate social engineering. Young people lost their future, but there wasn't trouble until these relief valves started being taken away.

[Blondbraid]

You're right that I don't think acting like everyone is equal when they're clearly not isn't good enough.

If the person who treats you equally is not doing enough then equality is not what you're after.

Did you even try reading that sentence? I'll underline the important part for you:

You're right that I don't think acting like everyone is equal when they're clearly not isn't good enough.

I'm not saying you shouldn't seek equality or want to treat everyone as equals, what I take umbrage with is people being willfully obtuse and pretend marginalized groups aren't discriminated and pretends that sweeping all those problems under the rug will just make them go away.

I was referring to the topic, it was the post you replied to, defending this behaviour:

Also, I wasn't defending rudeness, I was explaining why obtuseness puts people on edge, and if you can't tell the difference I can't help you.¨
I believe Danvzare genuinely didn't know about these things, but I've seen for certain that willfully obtuse people exist.

Were you also being sarcastic, or did you really want to stop everyone from using a joke because it might cause a genocide?

And I hope you're using comedic hyperbole and don't genuinely think that explain why racist slurs and stereotypes are harmful automatically means
that I both can and want to forbid jokes, or that I literally believe one joke will cause a genocide even after I specifically included a disclaimer explaining that
no, I don't think one joke will lead to genocide.

What I actually said was that such jokes will foster an atmosphere where violent people will feel more comfortable committing violent acts towards marginalized people,
and I drew a parallell to how genocide doesn't start with mass killings, but with loads of propaganda depicting the targets as less than human in order to make
killing them more acceptable to the general public.

I really hate making posts like these, where you have to quote every relevant part separately and explain why it's wrong.

If you hate engaging in discussions where it's required to actually listen to your opponents arguments and give logical answers instead of just calling names and crying censorship*,
no one is forcing you to engage with complex topics that rely on you to have a basic understanding of history, sociology and concepts like being able to condemn something
without wanting to censor everyone doing it, in order to be taken seriously.

*And I've seen dudes online calling things that aren't censorship (editing, modding forums, companies choosing to remove offensive stuff to sell better) censorship so many times that we might as well replace the phrase "cry wolf" with "crying censorship" by now.

Also, complaining about "censorship" and "you're not allowed to say that anymore" is pretty rich coming from a guy who seemed fine with Victor Orban banning and entire academic field in Hungary.

[Khris]

In the 80s and 90s, when these films were made, these things were funny, because racism was a thing of the past

"oh no it will remind people of slavery from 400 years ago [...]"

Shut up

[Jack]

You're right that I don't think acting like everyone is equal when they're clearly not isn't good enough.

The person who says "I don't see race or gender" acts the way the left claims they want people to act, but after they changed their world views to suit the left this is not good enough. What this person is saying when you tell them how oppressed you are, is that it's not their fault, and that they believe the same thing you do. What more do you expect of them, and do you request this before you get "a bit angry"?

And I hope you're using comedic hyperbole and don't genuinely think that explain why racist slurs and stereotypes are harmful automatically means
that I both can and want to forbid jokes, or that I literally believe one joke will cause a genocide even after I specifically included a disclaimer explaining that
no, I don't think one joke will lead to genocide.

What I actually said was that such jokes will foster an atmosphere where violent people will feel more comfortable committing violent acts towards marginalized people,
and I drew a parallell to how genocide doesn't start with mass killings, but with loads of propaganda depicting the targets as less than human in order to make
killing them more acceptable to the general public.

Yeah, I did kind of lean into the very mention of genocide to support the claim of how much violence jokes will lead to. There's a legal definition for words that can reasonably be expected to lead to violence, it's called "incitement to violence" and watermelon jokes don't fall in that classification. Some of the things you've posted could be considered incitement to violence if it weren't taken as just a joke.

Also, complaining about "censorship" and "you're not allowed to say that anymore" is pretty rich coming from a guy who seemed fine with Victor Orban banning and entire academic field in Hungary.

And by "seemed fine" you mean I didn't immediately erupt in pointless outrage about gender studies in Hungary, is that correct?

[Blondbraid]

You're right that I don't think acting like everyone is equal when they're clearly not isn't good enough.

The person who says "I don't see race or gender" acts the way the left claims they want people to act, but after they changed their world views to suit the left this is not good enough. What this person is saying when you tell them how oppressed you are, is that it's not their fault, and that they believe the same thing you do. What more do you expect of them, and do you request this before you get "a bit angry"?

I expect people to make good on their words and not just talk like they are woke, for example, company managers who claim not to see race or gender, yet only hire white people in practice,
or when anyone point out the vastly disproportionate incarceration rates of black people in the US only for some "race blind" person to claim it cannot possibly be related to stereotypes about black people
being thugs leading to harsher sentencing, nope, it's just a segment of the population choosing to be criminal, and that so many of them are black is just a coincidence.

Some of the things you've posted could be considered incitement to violence if it weren't taken as just a joke.

I think it's a big damn difference between a joke about Nazis and women or minorities, because you don't get to choose your sex or skin color, but being a nazi is 100% something you choose to.
Also note that the Nazi in the picture is an armed soldier trying to kill Indiana Jones and not some unarmed dude getting attacked out of nowhere. Context matters.

And by "seemed fine" you mean I didn't immediately erupt in pointless outrage about gender studies in Hungary, is that correct?

Because you've spent several threads now complaining about how others speaking up against you is somehow censorship, yet with confronted with a real-life case of actual censorship you're suddenly not so keen to advocate for those affected by it,
and that sure looks a great deal like you don't actually care about free speech at all the moment it comes to something that you don't like being censored.

[Jack]

Speaking up against me? What do you mean by this? Do you think I am oppressing you?

Oh wait, are you still complaining about the joke I made like 3 crappy threads ago? I wouldn't even address it if you didn't keep bringing it up. Was it that good?

And how do you know the most qualified candidates weren't all white? And why is it a problem if they're white? Shouldn't you address their qualifications first before their skin colour? There are already laws in all affirmative action countries that people can use to challenge hirings that they see as unfair.

I think the official line about black incarceration in America is that poverty causes crime, this might be why people are questioning your claims. Otherwise how do you explain the incarceration rates not matching demographics in countries like South Africa where the police and judges are mostly black?

I really wasn't complaining about your assault joke. You were just venting, right? Humour is good for that.

[Blondbraid]

Oh wait, are you still complaining about the joke I made like 3 crappy threads ago? I wouldn't even address it if you didn't keep bringing it up. Was it that good?

Which joke do you mean?

And how do you know the most qualified candidates weren't all white? And why is it a problem if they're white? Shouldn't you address their qualifications first before their skin colour? There are already laws in all affirmative action countries that people can use to challenge hirings that they see as unfair.

I think the official line about black incarceration in America is that poverty causes crime, this might be why people are questioning your claims. Otherwise how do you explain the incarceration rates not matching demographics in countries like South Africa where the police and judges are mostly black?

Firstly, the study I linked to showed people of color getting harsher sentences than white people, despite being convicted for the same crime, and while it's true that poverty is a big factor in why people turn to crime, centuries of first slavery and then apartheid/Jim Crow laws has ensured most black families never got the chance to work they way into the middle class like white people not subjected to those laws did, and that meant they got no chance to save up an inheritance for their descendants while white families did, giving their children a head start in life.

Everyone reading this should really watch this video, it explains everything pretty well and is only like 6 minutes:

I really wasn't complaining about your assault joke. You were just venting, right? Humour is good for that.

Yes, It was a joke, but the difference is that good humor should be punching up, not down.
That image made fun of a group of people who chose their allegiance and used their power to persecute already vulnerable groups like Jews, romani and handicapped,
whereas the watermelon stereotype came from slave owners wanting to feel better about enslaving human beings by painting them as idiots. The former joke is making
fun of violent racists, the latter perpetuates stereotypes invented by violent racists.

[Khris]

I'm perfectly fine with punching Nazis btw.
But public humiliation is also fine. If you can publicly humiliate a Nazi by punching him, by all means, go ahead.

[Jack]

Yes, It was a joke, but the difference is that good humor should be punching up, not down.
That image made fun of a group of people who chose their allegiance and used their power to persecute already vulnerable groups like Jews, romani and handicapped,
whereas the watermelon stereotype came from slave owners wanting to feel better about enslaving human beings by painting them as idiots. The former joke is making
fun of violent racists, the latter perpetuates stereotypes invented by violent racists.

I seriously was not complaining about it, but let's not pretend that "punching nazis" has no modern "context". For the most part it's associated with the assault on milquetoast nationalist Richard Spencer. He was unarmed. But you knew all this, didn't you? Truth is that there are morons on the left who call all their opponents nazis, and then feel it's ok to do anything and everything to those people because of the worst crimes of real nazis. They skipped the "dehumanising speech" altogether.

[WHAM]

I'm perfectly fine with punching Nazis btw.

I'm perfectly fine with punching people who punch other people unprovoked, in order to defend people's right to have their own views and opinions. Basic human rights, that is.
The only times violence is acceptable is in defense of the self or others on whom violence is being inflicted.

Any other act of violence on a person is assault, and if politically motivated: terrorism.

[Snarky]

Is this really necessary? It feels like we've been here before (many times over), and the way it's going, the moderators will be forced to take action at some point.

So please, think twice about what you post (and perhaps even about keeping this thread going at all).

/mod hat

[Khris]

Snarky, please don't close this thread. How about we keep one thread open for this shit? Otherwise we will keep getting new ones.

Wham, why should I care about a Nazi's right to their own views and opinions?

[Mandle]

Well, ask yourself, have you ever wanted to get sad and angry? 

Yes! That's why I love watching flat earthers debate globers on youtube!

The sheer frustration is delicious! 

[Scavenger]

The only times violence is acceptable is in defense of the self or others on whom violence is being inflicted.

If you're a Nazi, you're making a tacit choice, and have a will to carry out genocide. Your very existence as a Nazi, while you are a Nazi, is an act of violence on your victims. The only time violence is acceptable is in defense on people whom violence is being inflicted.

Ergo, punch Nazis until they're no longer Nazis.

[Jack]

If you're a Nazi, you're making a tacit choice, and have a will to carry out genocide. Your very existence as a Nazi, while you are a Nazi, is an act of violence on your victims. The only time violence is acceptable is in defense on people whom violence is being inflicted.

Ergo, punch Nazis until they're no longer Nazis.

It's not a personal choice when the only people who decide you're a nazi are hysterical lefitsts.

I'd be willing to suspend the rights of certain groups based on their beliefs if we can go after communists too. They killed many times the people that nazis ever did. Doesn't matter if you kill for purity or by incompetence. This is why functioning societies have laws, so that it doesn't turn into a free-for-all.

These are crappy threads, and watermelons are a stupid thing to argue about. Yes we have been here before and even done some of these arguments between the same people. I don't see the point of locking them. People should be able to deal with others disagreeing with them, or even others arguing in a thread you don't have to read.

TFW these threads:

[Stupot]

Is this really necessary? It feels like we've been here before (many times over), and the way it's going, the moderators will be forced to take action at some point.

So please, think twice about what you post (and perhaps even about keeping this thread going at all).

/mod hat

This is exactly why I said no religion or politics in my “Skeptic...” thread. And look what happened there. Quite an interesting topic I thought. But it died in a day because no one was able to somehow bring up the Nazis. It's all anyone will fucking talk about these days.

[Mandle]

the Nazis. It's all anyone will fucking talk about these days.

I hate Illinois Nazis!

[Stupot]

the Nazis. It's all anyone will fucking talk about these days.

I hate Illinois Nazi's!

Yeah, well, their head coach is a bit of a knob.

[WHAM]

Wham, why should I care about a Nazi's right to their own views and opinions?

Because of the law.

Even if you find a real Nazi today, which is about as likely as finding a unicorn or a leprechaun with a pot of gold, you have no right to enact violence on them. A genuine nazi seeking to inflict death and destruction is in violation of the law, which makes their actions an issue for law enforcement and the justice system to deal with. Moral crusaders taking it upon themselves to enact vigilante justice and mob rule only serves to push our societies further and further away from the rule of law and closer to a point where any act of violence against anyone can be justified by calling the victim the right keyword.

The word "Nazi" is thrown about so eagerly today, so randomly and so completely without adhering to any kind of sensible definition that it is a completely useless word for defining anything that has existed after the 1940's.

In the US today you have black people and Jews being called Nazis for their political views.
In the UK you have left-wing politicians being called anti-semites and Nazis for their personal preferences.
On this site, and most others with social interaction, there are fanatics throwing around the label against anyone they don't like.

Hell, in my previous post I could easily turn the word on you. You said you wanted to attack and inflict violence on people, which I view as an extremely negative and authoritarian thing to do. Thus I could call you a Nazi, because you are a violent person harming others for reasons I don't see as valid, which sounds like a thing the Nazis did, and I could use that to justify violence against you. All this accomplishes either way is pointless violence that does nothing to better our societies, only provides mob justice and street violence excuses, making them more acceptable and prevalent. If this is what you people want, then... well, you know what could be argued here. Let's not go there.

I hate Illinois Nazi's!

They have no hope against the Washington 4 Skins. (Ion Fury is a damn fun game!)

If you're a Nazi, you're making a tacit choice, and have a will to carry out genocide. Your very existence as a Nazi, while you are a Nazi, is an act of violence on your victims.

Funnily enough a lot of people getting punched around the world are just regular people with the "wrong" politics, who have shown no interest in genocide. It's almost as if the Nazi label is being abused and misused.

[Snarky]

Even if you find a real Nazi today, which is about as likely as finding a unicorn or a leprechaun with a pot of gold

Self-proclaimed Nazis have held several marches right outside my window.

[WHAM]

Self-proclaimed Nazis have held several marches right outside my window.

Are they breaking the law? If so: call the police.
Are they peacefully demonstrating? If so: watch them, know them, and oppose them in legal ways. Organize your own demonstrations. Speak against their views publicly and openly. Vote in elections to ensure these people do not gain power. Keep an eye on them and call the law enforcement on them if they break the law.

These "self-proclaimed Nazis" are a tiny minority with no authority or credibility. Sure, great, let's say you have 2 000 people in an organization that exists inside a nation of 10 million people. So what? You have 2 000 idiots who cannot hope to accomplish anything, at least as long as we don't give them validation by addressing them as some kind of grand force to be reckoned with. It is when we overreact that we give them power they would otherwise not have.

This same group has paraded through my city. A member of theirs killed someone in our capital, and now sits behind bars while the organization is banned from operating openly in the country. The law comes for them when they break the law.

If you enact vigilante justice on them, however, then you are the criminal and you need to be put behind bars. It's really simple how that works.


EDIT: I gave the NRM too much clout before, when I said they had "10 000" members. In reality they have about 2 000, so I edited the post above to reflect this reality.

[Khris]

I'm not talking about people I disagree with, like for instance certain reactionary man-children who grace this forum with their presence. I'm talking about the Charlottesville type. Or yes, the Richard Spencer type. Or Weev, or the "crying nazi". You know, actual neonazis, or nazis, for short.

The ones who keep holding rallies, recruiting disillusioned young white males on youtube, and, oh right, murdering people. Which is the actual terrorism going on, right-wing terrorism.

Punching them is not exactly vigilante justice; it's supposed to humiliate them. Who cares whether their jaw hurts for a few hours? They're fucking nazis.

[Blondbraid]

Funny how Jack shifted the entire discussion to nazi punching when he ran out of arguments on the original issue with racist jokes...

And comparing communists to nazis is a false equivalence, firstly because while communist dictators killed more, it's because there have been dozens of communist dictatorships
that were in power for decades, whereas the Nazis were only in power for 12 years in one country. You can't fairly compare the number of dead in a dozen countries during an entire century
against just one country during one decade and decide the latter were morally better just because they didn't get the opportunity to cause more deaths.

Secondly, killing isn't a more inherent part of communism than capitalism or feudalism or libertarianism. If people dying from starvation due to failed five year plans means communism is inherently and unavoidably evil,
wouldn't all the dead from deliberate mismanagement of the Indian colonies by British rule mean capitalism is just as inherently evil?

But nazism is a different ballpark because those who died in the holocaust didn't die from mere mismanagement, they were deliberately executed because nazi ideology demands that the "wrong races" should be
killed, and no agricultural management in the world would have changed the fact that the nazis wanted to kill those people.

Jack, do you also think a drunk driver accidentally running over a random kid and a perfectly sober driver deliberately running over a kid on crutches just because he disliked disabled people are equally bad from a moral standpoint?

[WHAM]

The ones who keep holding rallies, recruiting disillusioned young white males on youtube, and, oh right, murdering people. Which is the actual terrorism going on, right-wing terrorism.

Punching them is not exactly vigilante justice; it's supposed to humiliate them. Who cares whether their jaw hurts for a few hours? They're fucking nazis.

Criminals and terrorists are handled by law. And they should be handled by law. That is why we as a society have set up a codified system of laws and have centralized organizations responsible for upholding those laws.

You saying you want to punch people to humiliate them only forces people like me to do something we REALLY don't want to do: side with the goddamn nazis! I don't want to side with the nazis or alt-right, I'd much prefer if we ignored them and let them be and hold their silly parades and wave their silly flags. Neither of those things is illegal or harmful. Waving a flag doesn't kill people. Marching and chanting and singing don't kill people.

Punching people can kill people. And so, if I saw on a street a genuine armband-wearing flag-waving goose-stepping nazi, and you: I'd always step in on the side of the one being punched.

Now kindly stop turning idiots into victims of oppression and giving them free political points. We all know how that went back in the 30's.

[Marcin K.]

Waving a flag doesn't kill people. Marching and chanting and singing don't kill people.

As someone who lives in the country that lost 6.000.000 citizens I dare to say: all massive killings in last century started from chanting, marching and singins that no one stopped when it was possible. I know who was marching and chanting in 30s. And what they did next.

[WHAM]

As someone who lives in the country that lost 6.000.000 citizens I dare to say: all massive killings in last century started from chanting, marching and singins that no one stopped when it was possible. I know who was marching and chanting in 30s. And what they did next.

And you think punching some people in the street is what will stop that from happening again? I admire your optimism, and pity your utter idiocy.
It wasn't the flag waving or shouting that killed people, it was the fact that so many people subscribed to violent ideologies and believed they needed to act them out. Funny how some people think that appyling their own violent ideologies is somehow better and less dangerous a path for a society to take.

EDIT: So as not to spam the thread further and give Snarky a headache, I'll stopreplying here for now and let you folks get back to the original topic. I just feel that whenever I see people calling for mindless violence, someone needs to step in and make a stand against such violent ideologies so that people at least think twice before succumbing to such low acts. If anyone wishes to carry on the conversation, my PM's are open and I can be found on the AGS Discord as well.

[Khris]

So you are indeed a volunteer nazi safety advocate. Thanks for confirming.
You're also implying that violence against nazis is just as bad as violence by nazis, which also makes you a nazi-sympathiser.

Why don't you just fuck off, forever?

[Ali]

Reading this thread, it's obvious that I've been unfair in the past when I've called WHAM a Nazi.

He's clearly someone who hates Nazis, but would step in on their side if he saw you punching one.

[Laura Hunt]

It wasn't the flag waving or shouting that killed people, it was the fact that so many people subscribed to violent ideologies and believed they needed to act them out.

You know what, I'm just going to keep ignoring this thread. My mental health will thank me for it.

(quickly gives Khris a thumbs up and runs away to other threads to talk about Tool and David Lynch and whatever else pops up)

[Jack]

Funny how Jack shifted the entire discussion to nazi punching when he ran out of arguments on the original issue with racist jokes...

And people call me paranoid. You don't have to keep defending your nazi meme. I was using it as an example of how things you say could get you in trouble if people didn't keep their heads about them.

And comparing communists to nazis is a false equivalence, firstly because while communist dictators killed more, it's because there have been dozens of communist dictatorships
that were in power for decades, whereas the Nazis were only in power for 12 years in one country. You can't fairly compare the number of dead in a dozen countries during an entire century
against just one country during one decade and decide the latter were morally better just because they didn't get the opportunity to cause more deaths.

No, Stalin's people killed many more than Hitler's, and in more gruesome ways too. It wasn't just incompetence. Unspeakable crimes were committed against the Germans in the ethnic cleansing in Europe after the Nazis were defeated. Millions. Like the Ukrainians that were deliberately starved to death in the Holodomor, they were targeted for who they were. Do you even Road of Bones?

Jack, do you also think a drunk driver accidentally running over a random kid and a perfectly sober driver deliberately running over a kid on crutches just because he disliked disabled people are equally bad from a moral standpoint?

The why doesn't matter when the two kids both end up equally dead, and one's life is not worth more than another because he has crutches. Both the perpetrators are guilty of killing someone, and both should go to prison. I have no interest in hand wringing about which murder was really the worst, or seeing how far we can get lost in moral relativism. This only gets in the way of punishing who is responsible.

So I have a question for you in return. Do you think someone deserves to be punched for refusing to say that someone with a five-o'clock-shadow and a penis is a woman?

The truth is that most people on the alt-right don't refer to themselves as nazis, but their opponents sure do. Neo nazis are just as ridiculous to me now as they have always been, they are posers who want to look tough under the banner that the media has built up the most. Richard Spencer is a homosexual, FFS. Hitler would have him shot without giving it a second's thought. Does he even have a uniform? How many communists has he killed? 0. Fake nazi.

I have said it before and I don't know how else to put this. You can't blame someone for the crimes of others, even if they claim to belong to the same group. Especially when one is guilty of murder and the other is guilty of saying things you don't like to hear.

[Ali]

I'm not sure whether facts are important to these kind of threads, but Richard Spencer isn't gay.

Here's his ex-wife detailing years of domestic abuse: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-spencer-wife-domestic-violence-nina-kouprianova-alt-right-russia-a8729226.html

[Jack]

Are you suggesting no gays have ex wives, Ali? How is this proof of anything.

I admit I don't know if he is actually a gay, I don't know very much about him, basically just that's he's famous for claiming "homosexuality is the last bastion of implicit white identity", and that he is believed to be gay. It may just be an assumption that the internet made. My point stands though. Hitler would have him shot.

[Ali]

How can he be famous for saying something that only has 5 results on google? One of them being the neo-nazi website Stormfront?

He's certainly not openly gay, because he's publicly been in a relationship with several women. All I can find is him making homophobic remarks. Because he's a straight, neo-nazi.

This is stupid.

[Jack]

Because he's a straight, neo-nazi.

Even if that were true, a neo-nazi is not a nazi. They were a running joke for many years until the media needed a bogeyman.

It is stupid, even more so than watermelons.

[Ali]

You do realise that contemporary commentators didn't take the actual Nazis seriously until it was far too late? Book-burnings were merely tutted at.

I was wrong to say this is stupid. YOU are stupid, and I'm stupid to try and reason with you. Clearly, no Nazi will ever be enough of a Nazi to satisfy you.

[Stupot]

This thread is stupid.

[Blondbraid]

No, Stalin's people killed many more than Hitler's, and in more gruesome ways too. It wasn't just incompetence. Unspeakable crimes were committed against the Germans in the ethnic cleansing in Europe after the Nazis were defeated. Millions.

Unlike you, I'm actually bringing up real sources to back up my claims, which I link to here for everyone to read, concluded that; "On the basis of a careful analysis of the nature of Soviet society and the economy of the 1930s I concluded that it was impossible for there to have been more than four to five million in the labour camps in the late 1930s. This is a conclusion that has now been totally vindicated", and that is only the people being imprisoned in the camps, out of the actual executions and deliberate killings; "Other sources gave figures as high as three million executions, and Conquest concluded: `It will be seen that no exact estimate of total executions can be made, but that the number was most probably something around a million". I do not deny that the death tolls would be higher if one was to also include those dead from famine, but I've already linked to just as high numbers of civilians dying from famine in Brittish India, and deciding that Slavic people dying from famine and mismanagement is a crime against humanity but not Indian people dying from famine and mismanagement takes some serious hypocrisy.

And once again, Stalin's rule lasted for three decades, whereas Hitler's rule only lasted for 12 years, yet Hitler had six million Jews and an additional 11 million people murdered in the Holocaust, and if you count the civilians killed in occupied areas, the number gets even higher.

And killing people "in more gruesome ways" is a ridiculous claim, you can't objectively measure how painful or gruesome a method of killing is, and even if you could, there is no form of execution or torture practiced by the NKVD that wasn't also used by the Gestapo. If you need an example, read up on what Gestapo officer Klaus Barbie did to captured resistance leaders. How is that any way less gruesome than any of the torture or executions Stalin's regime comitted?

The why doesn't matter when the two kids both end up equally dead, and one's life is not worth more than another because he has crutches. Both the perpetrators are guilty of killing someone, and both should go to prison. I have no interest in hand wringing about which murder was really the worst, or seeing how far we can get lost in moral relativism.

The law of virtually all known countries do treat unintentional and intentional killings differently though.

But you're basically saying that the terrorist Rakhmat Akilov was not any worse of a human being than a random drunk slipping on the pedals.

Also, didn't you also give the communists flack for killing people in "more gruesome ways"? If the method or motive make no moral difference to you, why bring that up?

Also, your last question for me did a pretty good job of making you sound exactly like a transphobe.
Plus statistically speaking, trans women are far more likely to be physically assaulted than the other way around.

[Jack]

You need to add up everything Stalin did, not just his own people he had imprisoned and murdered for saying the wrong thing. There's millions of murders in the Holodomor alone. And this wasn't "oops my ideology is actually that of a child and doesn't work", that was intentional starvation. Don't get me started on the English empire, because they are some of the all-time biggest filth in history. More than 20,000 women and children of my own people died in their concentration camps.

True, the law makes a distinction between manslaughter and murder, and this is important. In my opinion though a drunk driver should probably get the same sentence than murder, more than a normal manslaughter charge, but that's just my opinion. Also I can bring up "more gruesome ways" because in your example both children died instantly. (This is such a stupid thread)

I would appreciate if you would answer my question instead of playing another victim card.

I'll do my best to not be involved in the rest of this argument. Continue being wrong at your leisure.

[Blondbraid]

Also I can bring up "more gruesome ways" because in your example both children died instantly.

Did you read the same article I linked to with Klaus Barbie? Right in the middle of the section on the second world war, it says that he

Spoiler

skinned a man alive and immersed his head in ammonia.

[close]

There was no instant death there, and I see no mention of the two children dying instantly that you mentioned. If you want to reference the sources I link you should actually read them before doing so.

You need to add up everything Stalin did, not just his own people he had imprisoned and murdered for saying the wrong thing.

Then you'd need to do the same thing with Hitler and count not only the ones who died in the Holocaust, but all other civilians who were killed by the
Wehrmacht, or died as a result of his policies of eradicating slavs in order to make lebensraum for Aryans. You can count it however you want, it still doesn't
change the fact that Hitler only was in power one third as long as Stalin, yet still caused the death of about as many people in that shorter time span.

Also, I thought I did answer your question. Trans people should have very right in the world to defend themselves,
and considering the violence they face, they have more reason than most. If you can't take that for an answer that
only says more about you than of me.

To everyone else reading this thread I ask, who sounds like the more reasonable debater, the one using actual links to real sources to back up their claims, or the one using emojis whilst talking about mass murder?

[LimpingFish]

Clearly, no Nazi will ever be enough of a Nazi to satisfy you.

What better way to avoid being called a Nazi than by pushing the bar for Nazism further and further way from your own views?

Of course, the best way to avoid being called a Nazi, is to refrain from posting opinions that make you look like one.

[Mandle]

I hate Illinois Nazi's!

They have no hope against the Washington 4 Skins. (Ion Fury is a damn fun game!)

Oh, the "Illinois Nazis" was used in a game?

The original line is from the movie "The Blues Brothers". The game devs must have used as an easter egg reference.

[WHAM]

Oh, the "Illinois Nazis" was used in a game?

The original line is from the movie "The Blues Brothers". The game devs must have used as an easter egg reference.

"Illinois Nazis" just sounded like the same kind of joke name for an American football team to me as the "Washington 4 Skins" from Ion Fury.
No real connection, other than my own amused mental bridging of the two. 

[Danvzare]

This thread is stupid.

I completely agree.
It didn't take long for Godwin's law to take effect did it?

Hmm... considering this is a thread about controversy. How about we discuss verbcoins. 

[Jack]

How about we discuss verbcoins. 

What a clever ploy to avoid the real issue, which is that Roger's hair was brown in the original Space Quests. BROWN!

They quietly changed this in the VGA versions and hoped no one would notice.

BUT I NOTICED!

[Danvzare]

How about we discuss verbcoins. 

What a clever ploy to avoid the real issue, which is that Roger's hair was brown in the original Space Quests. BROWN!

They quietly changed this in the VGA versions and hoped no one would notice.

BUT I NOTICED!

Let's not forget that Guybrush Threepwood's hair was ALSO brown, in both Monkey Island 1 and 2. And they quietly changed it in the third game!
Some people say that he was "always supposed to be blonde" but I think we all know that's a lie. 

[Jack]

Guybrush Threepwood

Oh, I see you're one of those guys.