Richard Spencer booted from my gym

[the_dork_lord]

> but as long as they don't become mainstream, it doesn't matter.

In 1923, the Nazis were a fringe party that nobody ever thought would have any mainstream relevance.

[maz89]

This thread has made me realize that I should be uncomfortable with locking people up for murder.

Only if you are an anarchist.
Laws reflect the ethics of a society, and ethics are socially agreed upon. And unless I am mistaken, murder is illegal in the USA.
Richard Spencer is allowed to walk free. Apparently, he has not broken any US laws (a line also used by Christine Fair).

If we lock people up for things just because we think they're wrong, we must remember that other people have different ideas of what wrong is.

That is true. However, what is relevant is what the majority thinks. There may be people who believe that murder is permissible under certain circumstances; but as long as they don't become mainstream, it doesn't matter.

Where do we draw the line? What if people just start locking us up for arbitrary things they consider wrong? Seems like a dangerous slippery slope to me.

If by "people", you mean random people on the street without legal mandate, then you are right. But this might only happen in an anarchy.

Conclusion: If your post was an attempt to mock the opinion of people who disagreed with Christine Fair, you failed.

[Cassius Clay]

That is true. However, what is relevant is what the majority thinks. There may be people who believe that murder is permissible under certain circumstances; but as long as they don't become mainstream, it doesn't matter.

Ah, so you are sometimes willing, without invoking slippery slope nonsense, to be easily dismissive of silly things others insist as wrong...as long as they don't become "mainstream". Yet, in this thread you seem very willing to humor bigoted demands just because people are rightfully asserting that they wouldn't be comfortable around Nazis, and would demand businesses to cater to that.

What's the point of asking if any of us would be okay with fundies demanding that businesses don't serve gay people? What in the hell does that have to do with demanding that businesses don't serve Nazis? Do you seriously think there's some kind of inconsistency there?

[the_dork_lord]

What's the point of asking if any of us would be okay with fundies demanding that businesses don't serve gay people? What in the hell does that have to do with demanding that businesses don't serve Nazis? Do you seriously think there's some kind of inconsistency there?

It's the manatee theory of human interaction: If we do X to one group of people or ideas, we have to do it for all people or ideas, because human beings are incapable of judging situations case by case or differentiating between genocide and buttsex.

I think few people have so little faith in humanity; they're just edgelords.

[Anakin McFly]

because human beings are incapable of judging situations case by case or differentiating between genocide and buttsex.

Given how many people continue to be incapable of differentiating between gay sex and raping children, I don't think genocide is that far of a stretch.

Morality and where one draws the line is heavily influenced by the surrounding culture, and any system of punishment based on that becomes subject to what the majority believes is right or wrong. I don't trust majorities to know that. Almost all of us will agree that Nazism is clearly on the wrong side, but then that becomes an approval of punishing anyone we deem to be wrong, even when that judgement is incorrect.

Arguably, murderers should be locked up not because what they did was wrong, but because it would prevent them from further harming others. But then that's also the logic behind several dozen countries continuing to lock up gay people so as to stop them raping children and spreading HIV, so.

I don't have much faith in humans.

[the_dork_lord]

Can you tell me where they've banned hate speech and it has led to the kind of repression you're talking about? If not then you're just using a slippery slope fallacy.

[Cassius Clay]

What's the point of asking if any of us would be okay with fundies demanding that businesses don't serve gay people? What in the hell does that have to do with demanding that businesses don't serve Nazis? Do you seriously think there's some kind of inconsistency there?

It's the manatee theory of human interaction: If we do X to one group of people or ideas, we have to do it for all people or ideas, because human beings are incapable of judging situations case by case or differentiating between genocide and buttsex.

I think few people have so little faith in humanity; they're just edgelords.

I think it's partly this extreme desire to seem reasonable, wise, and neutral. And it leads to this nihilism and/or moral relativism where one entertains every stance, as if they are all equally valid, just because someone might hold that stance. Like, it's okay to choose a side unapologetically and fight for it....instead of trying to be "objective" and considerate of every single perspective no matter how retched. Reminds me of this:

https://twitter.com/dril/status/4732658 ... 12?lang=en

[Cassius Clay]

Morality and where one draws the line is heavily influenced by the surrounding culture, and any system of punishment based on that becomes subject to what the majority believes is right or wrong. I don't trust majorities to know that.

Because majorities don't decide what is actually morally right, they only enforce it. An important distinction that people conflate and/or confuse. People decide, not "majorities". So, yes, just because a majority(or powerful minority) enforces a norm, doesn't mean it's actually just.

Almost all of us will agree that Nazism is clearly on the wrong side, but then that becomes an approval of punishing anyone we deem to be wrong, even when that judgement is incorrect.

Why does asserting that Nazism is wrong, and empowering ourselves to crush it, mean one must necessarily approve of "punishing anyone we deem wrong, even if the judgement is incorrect"? Like, we can support punishing Nazis, and oppose unfair punishment. I don't get what is so difficult here...

Are you saying using majority/political power to assert our values(and stop bad people) legitimizes the use of majority power in general? Umm, I guess. But, that's life. That's what fighting for your values is all about.

[Derived Absurdity]

I knew what that tweet would be before I even read the url

[Cassius Clay]

Before I forget: this is also fundamentally about the tension between the norms of society/civility vs. core value differences. And how far does one go to fight for values at the expense of certain good faith norms/expectations of behavior? Which boils down to what is at stake. Extreme neutralists are so invested in norms/rules of civility(so fear slippery slopes) that they stand for nothing, even when Nazis are knocking at the door.

[the_dork_lord]

It's sort of amazing when people tell me that banning Nazism is a slippery slope, partially because there's no evidence for such a thing, but more because, even if you're right, even if banning Nazism risks limiting free speech, not banning Nazism risks fucking genocide. Like, last time we gave this a whirl, it took 70 million deaths to stop them. I'm willing to ban hate speech to prevent that.

[Cassius Clay]

I knew what that tweet would be before I even read the url

You know me well

[Anakin McFly]

Ok wait, I think my view is getting conflated with phe_de's here. I don't believe in neutrality no matter what, and recently wrote a Facebook post ranting against this article that wanted to consider 'both sides' of a clearly racist thing.

My argument is that things shouldn't be banned or condemned because they're 'bad' - which is a subjective judgement - but rather because of the harm they cause, which is a lot more quantifiable and objective, and doesn't open the way for people to argue "well I think homosexuality is bad too, so shouldn't we also ban it?". Nazis should be banned not because they're 'bad', but because they cause massive harm to people when left alone.

Can you tell me where they've banned hate speech and it has led to the kind of repression you're talking about?

A guy here publicly complained about racist harassment and then people made police reports accusing him of being racist against the majority group, and police went to knock on his door because racist hate speech is a jail-worthy criminal offence. They let him go in this case because they found him innocent, but basically I don't have much faith in humanity to differentiate between individual cases, because this sort of stuff happens here all the time. People learn that racism is bad, and then automatically decide this applies even to people who speak out against racism or accuse others of having racial privilege, and even law enforcement can't always tell the difference because they too are blinded by their own privilege.

[phe_de]

Ok wait, I think my view is getting conflated with phe_de's here. I don't believe in neutrality no matter what, and recently wrote a Facebook post ranting against this article that wanted to consider 'both sides' of a clearly racist thing.

My argument is that things shouldn't be banned or condemned because they're 'bad' - which is a subjective judgement - but rather because of the harm they cause, which is a lot more quantifiable and objective, and doesn't open the way for people to argue "well I think homosexuality is bad too, so shouldn't we also ban it?". Nazis should be banned not because they're 'bad', but because they cause massive harm to people when left alone.

The problem: Harm is not always quantifiable or qualifiable. You and me, we may agree that homosexuality does no harm. But there are people (like on the IMDB2 RFS board), or possibly Richard Spencer himself, who may say that homosexuality is harmful for various reasons; and then use the old tired arguments about not reproducing, sexual diseases, and pedophilia; which people love to tie with homosexuality invoking "common sense", and which are admittedly harmful.

And I am not neutral. I have opinions. But I am not so arrogant as to assume that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

[phe_de]

Because majorities don't decide what is actually morally right, they only enforce it. An important distinction that people conflate and/or confuse. People decide, not "majorities". So, yes, just because a majority(or powerful minority) enforces a norm, doesn't mean it's actually just.

On this, I disagree. Morals are a social construct; they exist to help societies function. And this only works if a majority supports the morals.
A few centuries ago, there were plenty of things considered immoral; and nobody within society would have questioned them.
Homosexuality, interracial relationships, women who go to work without their husbands' permission...

Society has evolved, and so has morality.

Are you saying using majority/political power to assert our values(and stop bad people) legitimizes the use of majority power in general? Umm, I guess. But, that's life. That's what fighting for your values is all about.

Yes. But how do you do it?
And my point all along was that fighting people's values by harassing them in everyday situations is the wrong approach. This will only help to turn the harassed people into martyrs, and make them appear more sympathetic.

[maz89]

Because majorities don't decide what is actually morally right, they only enforce it. An important distinction that people conflate and/or confuse. People decide, not "majorities". So, yes, just because a majority(or powerful minority) enforces a norm, doesn't mean it's actually just.

On this, I disagree. Morals are a social construct; they exist to help societies function. And this only works if a majority supports the morals.
A few centuries ago, there were plenty of things considered immoral; and nobody within society would have questioned them.
Homosexuality, interracial relationships, women who go to work without their husbands' permission...

Society has evolved, and so has morality.

Are you saying using majority/political power to assert our values(and stop bad people) legitimizes the use of majority power in general? Umm, I guess. But, that's life. That's what fighting for your values is all about.

Yes. But how do you do it?
And my point all along was that fighting people's values by harassing them in everyday situations is the wrong approach. This will only help to turn the harassed people into martyrs, and make them appear more sympathetic.

+1 to literally all of this. There's a time and place to attack people with vile opinions, and it isn't at the gym or the supermarket or the movies where the people in question are not actively peddling their brand of racism but living their everyday lives. Mocking and humiliating them publicly to make an "example" out of them will only help to further their cause, and will in no way appeal to the followers of the said person's racist beliefs to consider the other side.

People who cite the Nazi's rise as being evidence of what happens when "free speech" goes unchecked are not considering the on-ground realities and backdoor political maneuvering that allowed them to come into power in the first place. If anything, the fact that any anti-government talk was punishable during their reign says it all about why we must always ensure all point of views are heard, including the heinous ones (surely, "let's not kill Jews" was a "heinous" opinion during their time), and then attack that heinousness at the appropriate forum. Not on that person's front yard when he's mowing his lawn. Because that won't make them go away.

[BruceSmith78]

"A few centuries ago, there were plenty of things considered immoral; and nobody within society would have questioned them.
Homosexuality, interracial relationships, women who go to work without their husbands' permission..."

How did society and morals evolve if nobody within society questioned these things?

[Anakin McFly]

You and me, we may agree that homosexuality does no harm. But there are people (like on the IMDB2 RFS board), or possibly Richard Spencer himself, who may say that homosexuality is harmful for various reasons; and then use the old tired arguments about not reproducing, sexual diseases, and pedophilia; which people love to tie with homosexuality invoking "common sense", and which are admittedly harmful.

Yes, and that's exactly where I want to move the conversation. Because those things are quantifiable and can be individually addressed or debunked. There are many examples of gay couples where that would not apply, such that if someone continues to object, they'd have to admit that their issue is with the idea of homosexuality itself, rather than those other reasons. Whereas 'bad' is such a subjective term, and hard to argue against. Morality may be relative, but harm is less so.

(I know that the harm argument is also with its faults, but it's the basis of most moral systems.)

[phe_de]

"A few centuries ago, there were plenty of things considered immoral; and nobody within society would have questioned them.
Homosexuality, interracial relationships, women who go to work without their husbands' permission..."

How did society and morals evolve if nobody within society questioned these things?

I meant the majority. Sorry. Enlightenment and rational discourse helped morals evolve; also the change of society into a more urban and industrial society, and progress in science.

What I believe did NOT change the morals was verbally harassing priests and noblemen who were minding their own business in everyday situations.

[Cassius Clay]

And we know for damn sure that society didn't evolve morally because centrists sat around having "rational" discussions entertaining/accomodating the "equal" validity of every moral position.

But I am not so arrogant as to assume that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

^ Said in a thread about Nazis...jesus christ

This thread has gone full centrist, full concern trolling, full respectability politics, full moral relativism, full tone-fucking-deaf...

[aels]

But I am not so arrogant as to assume that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

My sister got into an argument like this with one of her friends who considered it arrogant that she considered her opinion was more correct than others. It confused us because a) most people think that they are right and the people who disagree with them are wrong, and b) if she didn't think her opinions were correct, she... wouldn't hold them? Presumably everyone on this thread (ESPECIALLY ME) thinks we're right or we wouldn't be advocating a position.

[aels]

There's a time and place to attack people with vile opinions, and it isn't at the gym or the supermarket or the movies where the people in question are not actively peddling their brand of racism but living their everyday lives.

His everyday life is being a white supremacist though. It's not like he takes off his opinions about genocide when he's at the supermarket.

[Cassius Clay]

But I am not so arrogant as to assume that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

My sister got into an argument like this with one of her friends who considered it arrogant that she considered her opinion was more correct than others. It confused us because a) most people think that they are right and the people who disagree with them are wrong, and b) if she didn't think her opinions were correct, she... wouldn't hold them? Presumably everyone on this thread (ESPECIALLY ME) thinks we're right or we wouldn't be advocating a position.

Because transparent performance of fake humility is more important that the crucial point of moral disagreement. Established standards/protocols/codes of human interaction are the priority. It's respectability bullshit.

Me: phe_de, I think you should be drawn and quartered

phe_de: I disagree, but at least I'm not so arrogant to think my opinion is more valid

[Cassius Clay]

There's a time and place to attack people with vile opinions, and it isn't at the gym or the supermarket or the movies where the people in question are not actively peddling their brand of racism but living their everyday lives.

His everyday life is being a white supremacist though. It's not like he takes off his opinions about genocide when he's at the supermarket.

Plus, he's not some isolated, powerless asshole on the internet. He's the leader of a white supremacist movement.

[aels]

And they are thrilled to death about Bannon in the White House. They are actively working to make Nazi ideology mainstream. POC and other marginalised groups won't be left alone while living their everyday lives* if Spencer gets what he wants.

*I mean, they're not already but WORSE

[Derived Absurdity]

Can someone sum up this thread for me? I'm way too lazy and impatient to read through it.

Edit: sorry if that sounded shitty but it seems like we have a conversation like this every month lol

[phe_de]

Me: phe_de, I think you should be drawn and quartered

phe_de: I disagree, but at least I'm not so arrogant to think my opinion is more valid

You are correct. It isn't. But I have the law on my side.

[phe_de]

But I am not so arrogant as to assume that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

My sister got into an argument like this with one of her friends who considered it arrogant that she considered her opinion was more correct than others. It confused us because a) most people think that they are right and the people who disagree with them are wrong, and b) if she didn't think her opinions were correct, she... wouldn't hold them? Presumably everyone on this thread (ESPECIALLY ME) thinks we're right or we wouldn't be advocating a position.

I believe I am right. But I am not sure. If the other side has compelling arguments, I am willing to change my opinions.

[phe_de]

Can someone sum up this thread for me? I'm way too lazy and impatient to read through it.

A few posters disagree on whether harassing a Neo-Nazi at the gym is a correct approach in dealing with the alt-right.

[Cassius Clay]

Me: phe_de, I think you should be drawn and quartered

phe_de: I disagree, but at least I'm not so arrogant to think my opinion is more valid

You are correct. It isn't. But I have the law on my side.

"I know you're conspiring to torture and murder me right now, but as a humble gentleman and scholar, I really really want to remind you that our opinions on this matter are equally valid!"

[maz89]

Me: phe_de, I think you should be drawn and quartered

phe_de: I disagree, but at least I'm not so arrogant to think my opinion is more valid

You are correct. It isn't. But I have the law on my side.

"I know you're conspiring to torture and murder me right now, but as a humble gentleman and scholar, I really really want to remind you that our opinions on this matter are equally valid!"

Alternatively:

"I know you're conspiring to torture and murder me right now so I'll stalk you everyday and scream at you until my face turns red, and I won't stop until you stop your spewing your bullshit."

Or until your movement gains even more support because my attempts to bully you in public might make you look kind of innocent.

[maz89]

There's a time and place to attack people with vile opinions, and it isn't at the gym or the supermarket or the movies where the people in question are not actively peddling their brand of racism but living their everyday lives.

His everyday life is being a white supremacist though. It's not like he takes off his opinions about genocide when he's at the supermarket.

He denied being Richard Spencer at the gym though. In any case, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think shouting at him when he's deciding what cereal to buy for his kids is going to make him drop his opinions on genocide...

Plus, he's not some isolated, powerless asshole on the internet. He's the leader of a white supremacist movement.

... or change the minds of his followers.

Because, if I understand correctly, that's the goal, right? To make them stop? Yeah, that's not going to be achieved by bullying them in their everyday lives. That will just set a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion.

[aels]

I don't think it's going to change his mind either but it is going to let him know that he's a piece of shit, which I think he deserves to hear a lot. I also don't think it's going to make him *worse* so I'm all in favour of it.

[CashRules]

Too many times I see topics that someone erroneously links to the concept of free speech or to the related concept of freedom of the press. Now, this post is going to be from the perspective of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (because Murica, fuck yeah?) but the concepts enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights have their origins in English common law and I doubt there are any significant differences between these concepts in the U.S. and similar concepts in other "First World Democracies".

Freedom of Speech is not a blanket license to say anything you want to say at anytime and anywhere without consequences. It never has been so and was never intended to be so. Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of the press include the freedom to lie. Breitbart and InfoWars are not rightfully protected by Freedom of the Press because they are not honest sources of news. Practically every article on Breitbart and every presentation by Alex Jones contains right-wing conspiracy horseshit that was never intended to be covered by freedom of the press. Likewise, espousing fascist ideology in a public place is not rightfully protected as free speech because it is impossible to espouse Nazi beliefs and remain honest.

"During the first few decades of the 20th century a small number of European Jews were wealthy bankers and industrialists who, along with other wealthy bankers and industrialists of every religion and ethnicity, were largely responsible for the economic climate that lead to every nation on earth entering the Great Depression. Therefore, the Jews are a cancer upon humanity and are responsible for the economic hardships faced by everyone and they should be exterminated."

^Not protected free speech by any stretch of the imagination in any civilized country with a firm grasp on the true meaning of freedom.

"Governments should enact laws that prevent wealthy bankers and industrialists from repeating the mistakes of the past and causing another economic crisis that leads the world into another Great Depression."

^Protected free speech in any civilized country with a true understanding of the meaning of free speech.

"A small number of Muslims are terrorists who slaughter innocent people. Therefore all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers who rape chickens and eat children and they should never be allowed to immigrate to our wonderful Christian nation."

vs.:

"Our nation's immigration policy should be crafted in such a way that basic human rights and decency are respected without regards to religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation...while at the same time making sure that genuinely dangerous people are denied entry into this country."

Revoking Richard Spencer's gym membership is not a violation of any of his rights. There is no "right to lift weights at a private club that charges a membership fee." There is no free speech issue here whatsoever. I'm not even sure how this connection gets made. This issue, and almost all human rights issues, gets ridiculously clouded by "do-gooders" who think those rights should be extended to cover actions they were never intended to cover. I am basically a free speech absolutist when it comes to speech that is legitimately covered by the concept of freedom of speech. If Richard Spencer could convey his Nazi ideology truthfully then I would likely oppose any actions to quiet him. The problem is you can't convet Nazi ideology honestly because Nazi ideology is, at its very core, patently dishonest. So Richard Spencer can shut the fuck up and go suck a whale's dick.

The same applies to Alex Jones and InfoWars. If Alex Jones was providing factual information about the Sandy Hook massacre then he should be protected under the rules of freedom of the press. But Alex Jones is a despicable lying shitstain who claims that sandy Hook was a hoax and all the grieving parents were crisis actors and that it was all a ploy by the Obama Administration to take away my guns. This bullshit is not a legitimate freedom of the press issue, Alex Jones is not a legitimate member of the press and his sorry ass should be beat with a baseball bat on a daily basis.

The same applies to the right to keep and bear arms, sorry snowflakes, I mean dork. I, and everyone else, have the right to keep and bear arms. If your country refuses to recognize that right then move to a real country or accept that this is at least one basic human right where your government is bending you over a table and ass-raping you. However, if WalMart decides not to allow the carrying of firearms in their stores then I have three options:

A) Ignore the rule and risk getting escorted out of WalMart if it is discovered that I am carrying a firearm.

B) Leave my gun in my vehicle while I am shopping at WalMart.

C) Don't shop at WalMart. This is always the correct answer no matter the issue.

Also, the right to keep and bear arms does not grant one the right to fire six rounds from a starter pistol in the direction of the Queen while she is on horseback. This actually happened while I was in High School. Some teenager claimed to be inspired by the murder of John Lennon and the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and thought he could become famous by shooting at the Queen. So this genius fired six blanks from a starter pistol (blanks are the only thing you can fire from a starter pistol) while the Queen rode by on her horse. If I recall correctly, her horse was startled (so a potentially life-threatening situation even though it was just a starter pistol) but, being an excellent horseperson, Lizzy was able to get her horse under control quickly without injury to either her or the horse. Based on photos I've seen, it seems the horse is next in line for the British throne.

I don't know what makes people who are staunch supporters of any human right seek to extend said right into areas where such right was never intended to go, but it needs to stop. The right to assemble is not the right to incite a riot, the right to a free press is not the right to claim, without evidence, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration (or the Jews, or reptilian overlords, or the Cosa Nostra, or the NWO), the right to keep and bear arms is not the right to fire nuclear warheads at the moon (besides the moon is a hologram so you won't actually hit anything) and hate speech is not protected free speech by any legitimate application of the concept of free speech.

Now excuse me while I go, um, polish my gun.

[Anakin McFly]

I don't think it's going to change his mind either but it is going to let him know that he's a piece of shit, which I think he deserves to hear a lot

I agree, and have slightly amended my view to say that I would be happy if people regularly tell him that he's a piece of shit, in public or otherwise, but somehow saying "You're a piece of shit, I'm going to get them to cancel your gym membership" just... seems weirdly petty, and somehow undermines the sentiment as well as the severity of what he's doing. If you saw Hitler lifting weights somewhere, your priority shouldn't be to give him one fewer place to work out. It's the kind of stuff someone might do to their hated ex or something, not the leader of a white supremacist movement.

[Cassius Clay]

Me: phe_de, I think you should be drawn and quartered

phe_de: I disagree, but at least I'm not so arrogant to think my opinion is more valid

You are correct. It isn't. But I have the law on my side.

"I know you're conspiring to torture and murder me right now, but as a humble gentleman and scholar, I really really want to remind you that our opinions on this matter are equally valid!"

Alternatively:

"I know you're conspiring to torture and murder me right now so I'll stalk you everyday and scream at you until my face turns red, and I won't stop until you stop your spewing your bullshit."

Or until your movement gains even more support because my attempts to bully you in public might make you look kind of innocent.

Dafuq? This doesn't seem to naturally or "alternatively" follow from anything I've said to phe_de or in general on this thread. I'm using humor to accurately portray the very real absurdity of phe_de's position. I'm not even exaggerating anything he said. He very willingly confirms it in this thread. You responded with a patronizing mischaracterization of my position. I haven't promoted stalking or bullying, but I do think it's peculiar that you're framing people giving Nazi leaders shit in such sympathetic language.

[Cassius Clay]

There's a time and place to attack people with vile opinions, and it isn't at the gym or the supermarket or the movies where the people in question are not actively peddling their brand of racism but living their everyday lives.

His everyday life is being a white supremacist though. It's not like he takes off his opinions about genocide when he's at the supermarket.

He denied being Richard Spencer at the gym though. In any case, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think shouting at him when he's deciding what cereal to buy for his kids is going to make him drop his opinions on genocide...

Plus, he's not some isolated, powerless asshole on the internet. He's the leader of a white supremacist movement.

... or change the minds of his followers.

Because, if I understand correctly, that's the goal, right? To make them stop? Yeah, that's not going to be achieved by bullying them in their everyday lives. That will just set a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion.

There's that sympathetic word again. The point is obviously to stop them, but you have a very superficial/short-sighted grasp of what that even means and how we go about doing that. The fact that you think the main goal is to change Spencer's mind(or think thats even a likely possibility) speaks volumes. And anyone who runs to Nazis, because people are being mean to Nazis, are not people to be taken seriously. I'm more interested(in terms of principle and strategy) in holding people accountable than in coddling their narcissistic egos just so they don't become Nazis. However, I am sympathetic to the impulse. On a different thread I mentioned how the alt-right is more seductive to these jackasses because they don't hold them accountable, while the left does. When I see that, a part of me instinctively wonders if we should use a softer approach(catching more flies with honey and all that), then I snap out of it and realize that's not going to get us anywhere in the long run(maybe in situations where it's a short-term goal/emergency).

[Cassius Clay]

But I am not so arrogant as to assume that my opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

My sister got into an argument like this with one of her friends who considered it arrogant that she considered her opinion was more correct than others. It confused us because a) most people think that they are right and the people who disagree with them are wrong, and b) if she didn't think her opinions were correct, she... wouldn't hold them? Presumably everyone on this thread (ESPECIALLY ME) thinks we're right or we wouldn't be advocating a position.

I believe I am right. But I am not sure. If the other side has compelling arguments, I am willing to change my opinions.

There are situations where having an open mind is appropriate and situations where stressing your open-mindedness is inappropriate, nonsensical or downright cowardly. Things like...you know...core humanist values might fall under the latter.

[Cassius Clay]

Can someone sum up this thread for me? I'm way too lazy and impatient to read through it.

Edit: sorry if that sounded shitty but it seems like we have a conversation like this every month lol

Sheeeeiiit. I've been having this conversation, in some form or another, for years.

Read the damn thread.

[Cassius Clay]

Because majorities don't decide what is actually morally right, they only enforce it. An important distinction that people conflate and/or confuse. People decide, not "majorities". So, yes, just because a majority(or powerful minority) enforces a norm, doesn't mean it's actually just.

On this, I disagree. Morals are a social construct; they exist to help societies function. And this only works if a majority supports the morals.
A few centuries ago, there were plenty of things considered immoral; and nobody within society would have questioned them.
Homosexuality, interracial relationships, women who go to work without their husbands' permission...

Society has evolved, and so has morality.

Yes, I know morals help societies function. But there's more meaningful nuance there than your macro/evolutionary/functional perspective allows. Society validates certain values/morals/oughts...making them norms...which has an effect on our behavior. But, individuals are the source of these values. Meaning, I don't dislike murder because society told me its bad.

[Derived Absurdity]

Can someone sum up this thread for me? I'm way too lazy and impatient to read through it.

Edit: sorry if that sounded shitty but it seems like we have a conversation like this every month lol

Sheeeeiiit. I've been having this conversation, in some form or another, for years.

Read the damn thread.

nah

[maz89]

There's a time and place to attack people with vile opinions, and it isn't at the gym or the supermarket or the movies where the people in question are not actively peddling their brand of racism but living their everyday lives.

His everyday life is being a white supremacist though. It's not like he takes off his opinions about genocide when he's at the supermarket.

He denied being Richard Spencer at the gym though. In any case, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think shouting at him when he's deciding what cereal to buy for his kids is going to make him drop his opinions on genocide...

Plus, he's not some isolated, powerless asshole on the internet. He's the leader of a white supremacist movement.

... or change the minds of his followers.

Because, if I understand correctly, that's the goal, right? To make them stop? Yeah, that's not going to be achieved by bullying them in their everyday lives. That will just set a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion.

There's that sympathetic word again. The point is obviously to stop them, but you have a very superficial/short-sighted grasp of what that even means and how we go about doing that. The fact that you think the main goal is to change Spencer's mind(or think thats even a likely possibility) speaks volumes. And anyone who runs to Nazis, because people are being mean to Nazis, are not people to be taken seriously. I'm more interested(in terms of principle and strategy) in holding people accountable than in coddling their narcissistic egos just so they don't become Nazis. However, I am sympathetic to the impulse. On a different thread I mentioned how the alt-right is more seductive to these jackasses because they don't hold them accountable, while the left does. When I see that, a part of me instinctively wonders if we should use a softer approach(catching more flies with honey and all that), then I snap out of it and realize that's not going to get us anywhere in the long run(maybe in situations where it's a short-term goal/emergency).

So, the point is to "obviously stop them" but without "changing their mind"...

...and the way you intend to do this is to "hold them accountable"...

...by refusing to let them to work out at the gyms of their choice.

I do indeed have a "very superficial grasp".

I'm not even exaggerating anything he said. He very willingly confirms it in this thread. You responded with a patronizing mischaracterization of my position.

As far as I'm aware, Spencer isn't conspiring to torture or murder anyone. Otherwise, he'd be in jail. phe_de mentioned the law.

I haven't promoted stalking or bullying, but I do think it's peculiar that you're framing people giving Nazi leaders shit in such sympathetic language.

So what you're promoting is for for people to have a free license to give Nazis a piece of their mind whenever and wherever they want. But, at the same time, we won't call it bullying because the Nazis are scum and they deserve it?

It is bullying, and they do deserve it. But like I said before, my only problem with this is that it sets a dangerous precedent. Anyone could go and unleash fury on a person they believed to be racist (even if s/he wasn't really racist) - even if the lines aren't blurry in this case. Similarly, the Nazis, too, could go around giving shit to their opponents because, In their warped heads, they feel they have the "moral" right to do so. And when tensions run high in an escalating verbal match, and you then add guns into the mix, you pave the way to the logical conclusion of your position (see: the recent assassination of some racist politician). I wouldn't be comfortable to live in a world where people can go around playing judge, jury and, occasionally, executioner.

I'm not giving "shit" to people who verbally assault Nazis. I don't know them or their experiences, and I refrain from passing judgment. I just don't see how promoting that kind of behaviour on a wider scale benefits anyone except the person's own individual ego - by making them feel like they made a difference when they could have simply not wasted their breath and channeled that passion/anger elsewhere where it might have actually even mattered.

[Cassius Clay]

Ok wait, I think my view is getting conflated with phe_de's here. I don't believe in neutrality no matter what, and recently wrote a Facebook post ranting against this article that wanted to consider 'both sides' of a clearly racist thing.

My argument is that things shouldn't be banned or condemned because they're 'bad' - which is a subjective judgement - but rather because of the harm they cause, which is a lot more quantifiable and objective, and doesn't open the way for people to argue "well I think homosexuality is bad too, so shouldn't we also ban it?". Nazis should be banned not because they're 'bad', but because they cause massive harm to people when left alone.

Can you tell me where they've banned hate speech and it has led to the kind of repression you're talking about?

A guy here publicly complained about racist harassment and then people made police reports accusing him of being racist against the majority group, and police went to knock on his door because racist hate speech is a jail-worthy criminal offence. They let him go in this case because they found him innocent, but basically I don't have much faith in humanity to differentiate between individual cases, because this sort of stuff happens here all the time. People learn that racism is bad, and then automatically decide this applies even to people who speak out against racism or accuse others of having racial privilege, and even law enforcement can't always tell the difference because they too are blinded by their own privilege.

1) If people refuse to differentiate between good and bad, all we can do is hold them accountable...rather than expecting less and lowering standards.

2) There is nothing wrong with the subjective use of "bad". We don't like harm because it's bad. "Harm" may be more quantifiable than "bad", but you ultimately still require people to care about harm(or to be honest about it's existence) for it to mean anything. This impulse to shy away from the fundamentally subjective nature of our oughts/values isn't a good one. It avoids/delays some critical differences/issues we need to confront ASAP.

3) phe_de's neutrality is not directly found in his opinions about gay rights or Nazis. I'm sure he knows there's a meaningful moral difference between anti-gay fundies and anti-nazis. But that almost makes what he's saying worse because it means he should know better. He cares so much about codes/standards and "precedents" of human interaction that he invokes inappropriate slippery slope arguments that treat anti-gay fundies and anti-nazis, who demand businesses cater to their discomfort, as if those are equivalent concerns. That's how his insidious neutrality expresses itself....in his blind, tone deaf prioritizing of norms. Now, you may not be nearly as bad as phe_de in this regard, but there's something in your underlying thinking that is vaguely similar to his. And I think it expresses itself in your impulse to validate your values as being "objective" in some way....objective enough to be convincing to ideological enemies. It's like you are naively trying to play fair with ideological enemies, when the problem with ideological enemies is that they aren't interested in playing fair at all. All you can do is own your values and organize with your allies.

Like, if we have a certain humanist vision for the world, and we have certain values/beliefs related to that vision, what is the point of reminding us that others have different ideas of what wrong means, or that others might take our principles and bastardize them for their own ends? Are we meant to accommodate them? Because a rule or precedent in service of critical needs might be hijacked/abused, we shouldn't push for it?

[Cassius Clay]

So, the point is to "obviously stop them" but without "changing their mind"...

...and the way you intend to do this is to "hold them accountable"...

...by refusing to let them to work out at the gyms of their choice.

I do indeed have a "very superficial grasp".

Ha! Look at that sarcasm! But, ...unfortunately you're engaging in dishonest framing in an attempt to trivialize my position. My point is it simply communicates that Nazis don't get to be active members of society, as opposed to putting the burden on ourselves to stop them from being Nazis by counterproductively coddling their fragile egos. You seem to have chosen to be willfully obtuse/dishonest, and are doubling down on the snark even though you don't know what you're talking about. This is gonna go great! Not really, but check this out: I say this a lot but, there is this particular behavioral combination that really grinds my gears. I don't mind "arrogance" if you're honest and know what the hell you're talking about, and I don't mind ignorance as long as you're not a condescending prick, but this combination of arrogance and ignorance you seem intent on engaging in might turn this really wonderful conversation very ugly very fast. Don't be another phe_de.

As far as I'm aware, Spencer isn't conspiring to torture or murder anyone. Otherwise, he'd be in jail. phe_de mentioned the law.

Not the point. Point is phe_de was still hilariously insisting that our opinions would be equally valid even in such an absurd scenario. And Spencer is not directly conspiring to commit murder.

So what you're promoting is for for people to have a free license to give Nazis a piece of their mind whenever and wherever they want. But, at the same time, we won't call it bullying because the Nazis are scum and they deserve it?

And? "Bullying" has a particular connotation and you know it. Same reason you're using "stalking". You're shamelessly trying to invoke sympathy for Nazis, and it's not a good look for you. Punching someone who hasn't done anything is bullying, punching someone that has punched you, or is threatening to go around punching people, isn't bullying. Stop fucking around.

But like I said before, my only problem with this is that it sets a dangerous precedent.

I think letting Nazis know they aren't welcome is more important that your fears of dangerous precedents.

Anyone could go and unleash fury on a person they believed to be racist (even if s/he wasn't really racist) - even if the lines aren't blurry in this case. Similarly, the Nazis, too, could go around giving shit to their opponents because, In their warped heads, they feel they have the "moral" right to do so.

You don't know what Nazis are if you think maintaining some kind of good faith order/relationship with them(where we won't give them shit, in hopes that they won't give us shit back) will save us in the long run. Sorry, but that's deeply naive.

And when tensions run high in an escalating verbal match, and you then add guns into the mix, you pave the way to the logical conclusion of your position (see: the recent assassination of some racist politician). I wouldn't be comfortable to live in a world where people can go around playing judge, jury and, occasionally, executioner.

You can support driving Nazis out of society and also be against random assassinations. We must, in these times, be able to hold those positions simultaneously. Demand more nuanced thinking from people, instead of being so afraid of proposing radical action because you think people are too stupid to handle it.

I'm not giving "shit" to people who verbally assault Nazis. I don't know them or their experiences, and I refrain from passing judgment. I just don't see how promoting that kind of behaviour on a wider scale benefits anyone except the person's own individual ego - by making them feel like they made a difference when they could have simply not wasted their breath and channeled that passion/anger elsewhere where it might have actually even mattered.

Making Nazis uncomfortable is very beneficial.

[Anakin McFly]

And I think it expresses itself in your impulse to validate your values as being "objective" in some way....objective enough to be convincing to ideological enemies. It's like you are naively trying to play fair with ideological enemies, when the problem with ideological enemies is that they aren't interested in playing fair at all.

It's not that I'm trying to play fair (because they aren't), but rather that it's about moral consistency and not wanting to be hypocritical. It's partly Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

I don't like the idea of building justice upon morally-subjective values, because the justice that results would not be a stable one. I'd rather there be certain rules that can be applied as a guideline to tell whether a given action is morally desirable or not, because it also serves as a safeguard against our (humanity's) own prejudices and rash impulses if we find ourselves acting in contradictory ways. While it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, finding ourselves advocating for something that seems to contradict an earlier position would suggest the need to reconsider, and to understand the reason for the difference. If you approve of X but not of Y, when both are variants of A, maybe it's because Y is harmful in a whole other way, or maybe it's because you have personal bias clouding your judgement.

This isn't always the appropriate approach when lives / people's welfare are at stake and we shouldn't be sitting around having philosophical discussions, but I still consider it an ideal.

Throughout this thread there's also been the assumption that denying gay people a service on a moral basis would be obviously different and wrong, but that's not always been the case. My country is about 20-30 years behind the US on LGBT rights and we're having all these discussions right now, where the majority of people still think that homosexuality is clearly wrong (not as bad as Nazis, but still on that side of the moral divide). So in the course of the activist stuff I've been doing I've needed to be able to objectively explain to myself and others why it is not wrong, in terms that can't be dismissed as 'just an opinion' - which then forces the other side to confront the fact that their stance is unjustifiable and has no objective grounding beyond personal bias. Which rarely changes their minds, but it helps the fence sitters, and it strips them of their pseudo-intellectual defences (like what 'race realists' do) and forces them into that cognitive dissonance that challenges their self-image as good, moral people. People don't like thinking of themselves as evil - many white supremacists hate being called Nazis for that reason, and even the KKK insists they aren't racist, because racists are bad. They depend on those rationalisations to keep their sanity and remain convinced they are in the right, and the more those rationalisations get exposed, the shakier their foundations become.

(sorry if not very logically coherent - I just had an awesome avocado milkshake and am half in a food coma.)

[phe_de]

Too many times I see topics that someone erroneously links to the concept of free speech or to the related concept of freedom of the press.
[...]

Revoking Richard Spencer's gym membership is not a violation of any of his rights. There is no "right to lift weights at a private club that charges a membership fee." There is no free speech issue here whatsoever. I'm not even sure how this connection gets made.

Maybe I'm to blame, since I mentioned free speech absolutists in one previous post.

Cash: Good explanation. But I don't know if free speech absolutists have the brain power to process it. I mentioned free speech absolutists because they love to insist that restrictions of free speech are a violation of their human rights.

[Cassius Clay]

Speaking of tone-deaf respectability bs:

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/874984691786543104

oy

[Cassius Clay]

And I think it expresses itself in your impulse to validate your values as being "objective" in some way....objective enough to be convincing to ideological enemies. It's like you are naively trying to play fair with ideological enemies, when the problem with ideological enemies is that they aren't interested in playing fair at all.

It's not that I'm trying to play fair (because they aren't), but rather that it's about moral consistency and not wanting to be hypocritical. It's partly Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

I don't like the idea of building justice upon morally-subjective values, because the justice that results would not be a stable one. I'd rather there be certain rules that can be applied as a guideline to tell whether a given action is morally desirable or not, because it also serves as a safeguard against our (humanity's) own prejudices and rash impulses if we find ourselves acting in contradictory ways. While it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, finding ourselves advocating for something that seems to contradict an earlier position would suggest the need to reconsider, and to understand the reason for the difference. If you approve of X but not of Y, when both are variants of A, maybe it's because Y is harmful in a whole other way, or maybe it's because you have personal bias clouding your judgement.

This isn't always the appropriate approach when lives / people's welfare are at stake and we shouldn't be sitting around having philosophical discussions, but I still consider it an ideal.

Throughout this thread there's also been the assumption that denying gay people a service on a moral basis would be obviously different and wrong, but that's not always been the case. My country is about 20-30 years behind the US on LGBT rights and we're having all these discussions right now, where the majority of people still think that homosexuality is clearly wrong (not as bad as Nazis, but still on that side of the moral divide). So in the course of the activist stuff I've been doing I've needed to be able to objectively explain to myself and others why it is not wrong, in terms that can't be dismissed as 'just an opinion' - which then forces the other side to confront the fact that their stance is unjustifiable and has no objective grounding beyond personal bias. Which rarely changes their minds, but it helps the fence sitters, and it strips them of their pseudo-intellectual defences (like what 'race realists' do) and forces them into that cognitive dissonance that challenges their self-image as good, moral people. People don't like thinking of themselves as evil - many white supremacists hate being called Nazis for that reason, and even the KKK insists they aren't racist, because racists are bad. They depend on those rationalisations to keep their sanity and remain convinced they are in the right, and the more those rationalisations get exposed, the shakier their foundations become.

(sorry if not very logically coherent - I just had an awesome avocado milkshake and am half in a food coma.)

I'm definitely not arguing for an arbitrary lack of consistency, but you should be consistent with your own values and vision for the future. Values are not random/unpredictable prejudices or biases...they are guidelines. If you have a strong connection to your values/vision, this extreme second-guessing is unnecessary. Like, you shouldn't have to ask yourself if you're being "inconsistent" when you support businesses discriminating against Nazis, but don't support discrimination against gay people. That should be pretty straightforward. I feel the only reason one would second-guess their consistency in that is because one is overly concerned with proving one's consistency to ideological enemies...as if those fuckers actually give a damn. It's an implicit gesture of good faith to people who don't deserve it. You shouldn't feel the need to have your "consistency" validated by ideological enemies that don't give a damn about truth. Prove it to yourself and to your allies. There are facts and there are values. Facts are never "just an opinion", and I get that there are people who are simply misinformed, who's stances are influenced by this genuine misinformation...and so argumentation based on these facts does have a role(and even using facts to make people confront their dishonest rationalizations has a role). But, this moral divide is much deeper than innocent misinformation/ignorance.

[maz89]

You seem to have chosen to be willfully obtuse/dishonest, and are doubling down on the snark even though you don't know what you're talking about. This is gonna go great! Not really, but check this out: I say this a lot but, there is this particular behavioral combination that really grinds my gears. I don't mind "arrogance" if you're honest and know what the hell you're talking about, and I don't mind ignorance as long as you're not a condescending prick, but this combination of arrogance and ignorance you seem intent on engaging in might turn this really wonderful conversation very ugly very fast.

It is hilarious how the irony of your post is lost on you. This smug monologue pretty much confirms my suspicions about your modus operandi in the face of disagreement. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Ignoring that, since I know your heart is in the right place, I'll try one more time:

My point is it simply communicates that Nazis don't get to be active members of society, as opposed to putting the burden on ourselves to stop them from being Nazis by counterproductively coddling their fragile egos.

You don't know what Nazis are if you think maintaining some kind of good faith order/relationship with them(where we won't give them shit, in hopes that they won't give us shit back) will save us in the long run. Sorry, but that's deeply naive.

You clearly misunderstood. Firstly, my position has always been that you should definitely give the neo-Nazis "shit" where and when it matters. And that, at the same time, I do not believe that letting them buy milk or use public facilities is "counterproductively coddling their fragile egos", even if it is within the right of private business owners to refuse to serve them. Secondly, I was making a simple observation that your proposal of refusing to let Nazis be "active members of society" can easily be flipped to apply to people who aren't racist even if they've made a few ignorant remarks. The lines you draw are arbitrary, and there will always be passionate people (or idiots) on both sides who will misinterpret and cross them. You've said this is the price to pay for doing what is right and making neo-Nazis feel uncomfortable is more important than worrying about dangerous precedents. You are free to believe so, but I think there are better ways.

You can support driving Nazis out of society and also be against random assassinations. We must, in these times, be able to hold those positions simultaneously. Demand more nuanced thinking from people, instead of being so afraid of proposing radical action because you think people are too stupid to handle it.

Now that's naively optimistic. You have far more faith in people than I do, which is odd, considering the people we are talking about.

"Bullying" has a particular connotation and you know it. Same reason you're using "stalking". You're shamelessly trying to invoke sympathy for Nazis, and it's not a good look for you. Punching someone who hasn't done anything is bullying, punching someone that has punched you, or is threatening to go around punching people, isn't bullying. Stop fucking around.

Just because they are being bullied in a particular case - say, during a family picnic at the public park - does not take away from the fact that their ideologies are abhorrent. There's an important distinction to be made here.

[Anakin McFly]

I feel the only reason one would second-guess their consistency in that is because one is overly concerned with proving one's consistency to ideological enemies...as if those fuckers actually give a damn. It's an implicit gesture of good faith to people who don't deserve it.

While I admit it's partly that, even without them I'd still have that need for consistency as a matter of personal accountability. I know I'm definitely not immune to prejudices and am also blinded by privilege in certain areas, both of which might affect how I assess the morality of a certain action. So it's about doing that check to be sure that I'm advocating something for the right reasons. Sometimes this is easy, like with anything involving Nazis, but at other times the lines aren't as clear, such as when two different marginalised groups are pitted against each other.