> On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live?
Keep in mind that some of those viewpoints are "we live, others get eradicated".
Keep in mind that some of those viewpoints are "we live, others get eradicated".
Yes, some of the ideas are objectively bad. That doesn't mean there isn't a growing censorship movement, which incidentally often uses "nazi" lingo as an excuse to selectively silence people.
Also note that I gave a nod to, and firmly believe in, not inciting violence as a core tenet of free speech. Nazis can believe whatever vile shit they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
You can say 'believe whatever you want', but what we've clearly seen is that belief turning into action. This in turn is why platforms are taking action against them.
I think the rise in calling other people Nazis is more a symptom of political polarization than of a resurgence of violent national socialist gangs. To that end, I think the media itself is vastly more culpable than r/the_donald or gab.
Are they organizing and rallying more? Yeah, it seems so. Does censoring them on youtube or patreon keep them from organizing? No...but it does smell of the beginnings of what the communist which hunt was 70 years ago, and the collateral damage that came with it.
When everyone starts banning Nazis, then the answer to "What actually is a Nazi?" becomes "anything I do not like."
The issue of censorship is deeply nuanced (i.e. the paradox of tolerance).
On one hand, there is the problem of "what if the tables are flipped," and how different marginalized groups are treated.
Unfortunately, giving fringe viewpoints platforms and openly debating them actually encourages people to support those viewpoints despite any factual evidence against them. People with fringe viewpoints know this and will often, disingenuously, seek to publicize their views through open debate so they can convert other people into supporters.
He wasn't arguing with white supremacists because he fundamentally disagreed with them. It was infighting between factions. He disagreed with a particular faction's behavior and words.
He was arguing with them because they, using his words, were acting like "white n-words"[1]:
> “I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of n_____s, just so you know. You act like white n_____s. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.”
> “Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f__gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n____r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me.”
[1] https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi...
I can't get into his brain and determine if he actually opposes genocide or secretly supports it, but from what I've seen thus far it seems he carelessly uses offensive racially charged language but takes exception with those who advocate for genocide.
Just so we're clear, I don't like this guy. I dislike a lot of people who fall well short of being nazis or otherwise advocating for genocide.
If someone constantly spouts Nazi talking points while insisting they're not a Nazi, you need to consider the possibility that they're lying to you.
And it's awfully dangerous to claim that you can't compare someone to the Nazis until and unless they publicly call for large-scale genocide. Modern racists know they can't get away with openly flying the swastika right now. The Nazis themselves started off talking about patriotism, jobs, defense. By the time a fascist group has secured enough power to start calling for open genocide, it's too late. You need to learn the lessons of history enough to recognize those dog-whistles.
The Nazi party was officially formed in 1920 and it was still an extremely fringe group. It was a renaming of the German Workers' Party, a group which had 55 members in 1919 when Hitler joined. That same year they announced that only males of "pure Aryan descent" could become members, and Hitler would give some 31 speeches constantly overtly targeting Jews. By 1921, when the party still just had some 3000 members, the "brownshirts" were officially founded and began to be used to physically attack, disrupt, and otherwise intimidate other parties. By 1923 Hitler literally began an attempted coup which resulted in the death of several police officers along with 16 Nazi members. That failed coup would result in his trial and imprisonment during which time he wrote Mein Kampf.
This is why the appeals to fears of x is the next Hitler are generally unreasonable. Hitler wasn't some devious trickster who suddenly just gradually started 'dog whistling' or hinting at things. He was extremely extreme from his earliest days. He made no secret of it. He literally wrote, and published, a book about it before he started his next rise to power! And the book, again emphasizing written while he was literally in prison, had extremely subtle passages in it such as, "... the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.. If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."
The primary thing I fear is that in our lust to oust the villain from behind his mask, that we ourselves become that which we seek to find.
I have 2 separate points to this.
Firstly, it is inaccurate. In Mein Kampf, Hitler explicitly said he wants to destroy Russia. This was years before he had any power.
Secondly, if you make that rule, you are also banning anyone who talks about "patriotism, jobs, defense" who isn't a Nazi. Such a rule would be a boon for would be censors, who would get to ban everything they don't like and at the same time libel their victims as being Nazis. Their victims, of course, don't get a hearing in the court of public opinion, because they have been effectively silenced. Is that the future you want?
> it's about gaining attention and it seems like k*kes are ruining everything
The reason I'm posting this is because you mentioned that Sargon was arguing with, and insulting, white supremacists. Which, to those who are unfamiliar with Sargon, is not a claim that captures the nuance of the situation. As I said, this spat was infighting between people who are largely in agreement with the content of each other's bigotry.
I fear people are getting the wrong idea by not noticing the full context of my above comments. I hope we've now reached a mutual understanding.
Truthfully, I believe people might take issue with the fact that the distinction you're trying to make is near-meaningless.
He's 90% of the way there. He just isn't using his highly-monetized platform to advocate for genocide. However, he's happy to rub shoulders with, and repeat the talking points of, people who do.
> "White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me."
That sure sounds like someone who espouses a racial ideology to me, even if he hates other people who put on the nazi emblem.
But I think the mistake your comment makes is trying to find an objective definition to judge a subjective behavior, trying to determine whether people should find something antisemitic, regardless of the context. But sometimes context does matter and you can't really control who gets offended at what, or judge what offense is "legitimate" and what isn't, based on some arbitrary criteria.
"Sounds like", "to me". You do advocate and practice the evil you cannot even show others are guilty of. To you they "sound like" people who "might" want this or other things, so let's remove them.
> Mike Peinovich, hosted a poll asking users who their biggest influence was in coming to the alt-right. Multiple respondents named Sargon of Akkad.
I can't find the actual poll in question, but from the SPLC's own analysis, Sargon was mentioned a grand total of 3 times in a thread about what brought people to "the movement" on The Right Stuff forum. I guess that counts as "multiple". Regardless it was a very small sample size collected from an explicitly white nationalist (I assume, I'm just taking SPLC's word for that one) message board. Likely most of the people who still follow Sargon have not gone down the racist rabbit hole and just consider themselves skeptics, but hey they found 3 so...
But this part is downright slanderous, or liable (not sure which, need to watch the Spiderman movie again...)
> And for someone who says he’s not a part of the alt-right, he’s been spending a lot of time with them lately. He’s appeared in videos with alt-right figures like Millennial Woes and Richard Spencer, giving those men a platform to reach his nearly 800,000 subscribers in the process.
While factually true the implication is clearly that he appeared with these figures to promote their ideas, not debate them, which is what actually happened. When paired with Spencer Sargon so vehemently disagreed with him that he kinda made a fool of himself, as at least Spencer remained calm throughout.
I don't really care to defend Sargon and don't watch/listen to most of any of the content he produces. I do follow the tea leaves though, and from what I've gathered, while certainly anti-PC/feminist/social justice/progressive etc., he's no racist.
I mean I could be wrong because as I said I've not listened to much of him, but I'm certainly not going to take the SPLC's word for it.
The SPLC did not say he is a racist, did they? I didn't see that in the text I mentioned, but perhaps they said it elsewhere? If not, then you don't need to take their word for something they didn't say.
They did make an association between him and racism, so let's examine that connection.
This thread exists because of an NYT article about an action by Patreon where Patreon, at https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf and mentioned elsewhere in this thread - says he "used racial slurs to insult others and specifically linked those slurs with negative generalizations of behavior, in contrast to how people of other races act." You can confirm that those are some pretty racist statements.
Now, I know that some people demur stating that someone is a racist for doing racist things. Are you making that distinction?
Even if you don't think he's a racist for making those comment, it is enough to support the SPLC association of him with racism, yes? If not, why not?
Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that would have completely changed the narrative.
As to your question, it seemed to me he was simply using the alt-right's own language against them in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and does not at all want to be associated with them. You could counter that he simply does not like their tactics/behavior but agrees on principal. Personally I'd need to see more evidence (clips of him speaking with relevant context) to come to that conclusion. As I said I could be wrong, I'm not about to subject myself to hours of political ramblings (which seems to be most of his content) to find out, I just like to not assume people are racist hate mongers because a few news sources say so with subjective tidbits.
But mostly I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source.
My point is that you said they did. If they actually did not, then it comes across like you are putting words into their mouth. Do you see how this comes across as part of a criticism which says they themselves are over-interpreting the data?
"it seemed to me"
And it seemed to me it was an outright racist statement. Even if somehow it was not, it was definitely an own-goal given the heavy scrutiny he faces. I cannot conceive of how anyone would think those phrases would result in useful, effective, or even interpretable irony or sarcasm.
It's like the justification, after someone has made a horribly racist, bigoted, sexist, or otherwise insensitive statement that "it was only a joke" - where is the humor? Furthermore, people do use "jokes" as a way to test the water; a 'trial balloon'.
Since you don't think he's racist, then in the context of a thread on his seemingly racist statements, would it not be appropriate to address the topic at hand, rather than simply say that you don't think he's a racist?
"I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source."
Then you should have said so outright. Your previous statement only said that you didn't think there was enough information to conclude that he is a racist. I agree, the SPLC doesn't provide enough information to make that conclusion. But that wasn't their claim, nor did you say anything beyond their analysis of this one situation.
To restate your own words: "I don't really care to defend [the SPLC] and don't watch/listen to most of any of the content [they produce]. I do follow [others who do], and from what I've gathered, while certainly [more sensitive than I am and not immune to error], [they are not unusually dishonest or untrustworthy]."
Well, that is the root of the disagreement (and one of the main issues with this whole fiasco). When you isolate opposing side enough, you can paint them in whatever way you want, because "I cannot understand them, therefore I assume worst interpretation possible" sounds so logical to you . . .
But from the context given in comments I see just how bad the ban is, and how detached from reality are these judgments of Sargon et al. But you will keep shunning him, understand him even less, and make more opponents to progressive cause ...
Streissand effect in full power. It makes me really sad, as I hate modern right wing ideas.
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/04/19/the-splc-has-...
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali" ... "is the Somali-born activist who was a victim of faith-based genital mutilation. Her friend, director Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a Muslim extremist who then stuck a knife in van Gogh’s body with a note that said Hirsi Ali was next. She has since written two memoirs and a book offering ways to reform the faith."
She was listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's "page listing “Anti-Muslim Extremists”." I'm absolutely sure Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong there, similar but even worse than calling Salman Rushdie an anti-Muslim extremist:
Do you only take input from organizations which are perfect?
How SPLC characterized Hirsi Ali is a good example of complete wrongness, enough to discredit their real understanding of the topic they purport to be able to judge.
Think about things like the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials for extremely clear examples. These people didn't hate the people they were attacking. They'd just become so deluded in their own self righteousness that they thought they were saving society from immense evil. In reality though that evil existed only in their head. And while Don Quixote may have only swung at windmills, in these cases many people lost their lives for doing no wrong.
---
In reality the paradox of tolerance, as it is used in common rhetoric is completely nonsensical. Popper made an extremely clear distinction between words and violence that people often ignore when appealing to his argument. When a person moves from speech to unprovoked violence, eliminate that individual from society with the greatest of urgency and severity. Until, and after, that point - tolerance thrives without condition.
Well, that wasn't even close to being the case here, was it.