Yonatan Zunger – People seem to think “Nazi” is meant as a slur or term of abuse (2017)
angg.twu.net
angg.twu.net
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list...
Both are good, both are worth reading for sure.
With right conditioning, you and your friends are also capable of becoming nazi-like. If you don't realize that, you may end up surprised one day.
Oh, I see.
This isn't really about Nazi's.
This is about coming up with a label for your political opponents in order to justify violently attacking them and subverting due process.
...which legitimizes the use of violence against "Nazi's" for whatever value you assign to that. Your quoted fragment just disclaims the effectiveness, while the article still clearly supports the idea.
> Historically, there has been exactly one solution for Nazis. It did not come cheap.
I read that as “punching Nazis isn’t enough on its own, you must kill them until they can no longer act effectively against you, then outlaw their ideology.”
And for those: no peace, no sympathy, no quarter, and no mercy."
Yeah...I don't think we read the same article.
Perhaps this explains the otherwise strange title of the film "Triumph of the Will".
Interesting info here, if these points are true. However, initiating political violence by punching people seems counterproductive. Punching is an act carried out at an individual level, so unless you need to engage in self-defense against a specific individual who is actively physically attacking you, you're the aggressor.
Yonatan Zunger also talked about people punching James Damore's in the face in another article -
"a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face"
He's a bad person. Or was in (2017)
And this is just rambling Tweets from (2017) Why is this being dug up?
Here, and elsewhere, he openly calls for violence against "Nazis". That's a label he has habitually misapplied to a variety of people who explicitly denounce any violence (clearly, in contrast to Yonatan) and dehumanization (clearly, in contrast to Yonatan).
What a beautiful combination!
1. By abusing the term "Nazi" to broadly apply to people who are not, he creates a group of people sympathetic toward other folks who are called Nazis AND antagonistic towards people who sling the term
2. By openly calling for violence (why is he allowed to do this?), he creates a sense of urgency and panic in those people: "We MUST band together to stop these deranged antifascists before they have the chance to give us irreversible brain damage for existing in public. Who exactly are they?"
Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978) is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist.
(...) Spencer has advocated for the enslavement of Haitians by Whites and the ethnic cleansing of racial minorities from the United States, additionally expressing admiration for the political tactics of American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell. He was a featured speaker at the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, among other neo-Nazi rallies that Spencer has headlined.
Richard Spencer has repeatedly, specifically denounced the enslavement of Black people. Here's an example from Time magazine:
Meanwhile the source for the claim about slavery appears to contain something closer to a full statement, from his own podcast:
On his Altright.com podcast in February, Spencer lamented that the United States military never engages in war “for the right reasons,” which he said are when “you want to dominate someone, you want to take their territory, you want to take their women.” And if those reasons don’t suffice, Spencer said, he believes it is acceptable to go to war simply for “vainglory.”
When one of his guests began to complain that the United States Navy sent ships to provide humanitarian aid to Haitians after a hurricane devastated the country last year, Spencer had another idea for what the military should have done.
“Exactly, no. You should go enslave them. That would actually be a proper war aim,” Spencer said, before apologizing for “really going nuts” and then retracting that apology because “you need to go nuts in order to prove a point.”
Spencer said he hoped white people in America get so frustrated with the military’s humanitarian efforts that they “flip over into this domineering type, and I obviously hope that happens.”
“This is the kind of thing that’s truly traditional and historical. You display your power. Phallic symbols in the center of the capital city. That’s what it’s all fucking about,” Spencer said.
Yes. I figured you'd trust an article written by someone who largely agrees with you more than an article written by someone who largely does not.
I will find and listen to the podcast. I suspect what I'll find is what can be read between the lines of the "Right Wing Watch" content you copied and pasted into your comment: It's better to be respected than dominated, and it's better to fight war for your own benefit than for someone else's benefit
Am I a Nazi for "defending the integrity of a neo-nazi on the internet"? Should it be legal to assault me and give me a concussion?