Controversies

[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.