What is specially jarring is just how immensely ironic the whole shit is, and how utterly blind people seem to be about it. We got people going on social media and declaring "I'm gonna go and bring 100 fash scalps home today guys". Literally declaring their designs for violence on other people, and this is somehow ok, but those people are ~fash~, literally the most ambigous and open term that got raped over and over by both sides of the political spectrum nowadays. It was meme'd so hard that the alienated dweebs that litter universities nowadays took it at face value, like they kinda always do.
Regardless of definition, people are calling violence upon people they don't agree with, and this is somehow ok? What goes on in the mind of someone that accept the dreadlocked antifa mongrel calling for calling for open violence against people as something cool and worthy?
If it was a dude with a shaved head calling for violence against college kids, it would be all fucking over, there would be imgur hatevote dumps against the guy and all hell would break loose, with reason, as such calls for violence are completely unacceptable. But then its a dreadlocked antifa girl, and its somehow ok then?
It's not as black and white as you're making it, though. Bigotry has made a huge power grab, followed by white supremacists openly declaring themselves with public speeches and gatherings. I admit to being politically out of touch over the last couple years, as compared to how I used to be. I don't often have the time to dig into the details of events. But from what I've heard these things aren't breaking out over your typical sleezebag conservatives who merely dog whistle intolerance and promote policies that disadvantage minorities with plausible deniability to their intentions. It's about genuine article white nationalists stepping into the light, expecting to engage in political discourse and consolidate support.
I don't know if the antifa approach is the right answer to this situation, and please don't respond to me as if I'm saying as much.But... I'm sympathetic to the idea that granting ideologies that have the ultimate unhidden agenda of violence against people is extremely dangerous. That it needs to be shut down at all costs. Ideally, this would be done by a united front of shame, and refusing public space to such ideas. But that ideal isn't happening, so there are people, for better or worse, who are taking extra steps to make it known that their ideas are not going to be granted public legitimacy of the same sort as anyone else. That they have not reclaimed an era where it was safe for them to openly declare their desire to harm or subjugate others who do not share their accidents of birth.
Doing a little reading, yes, I can see that the result has been a shit show. But is that because of the idea, or because of poor execution? Do you disagree with the punching of Richard Spencer?
As much as I find these cringeworthy, one cannot deny just how actualy worrying close to reality this is.
This illustrates perfectly where I think perspective on this situation is horribly, dangerously misled. This music video is all about radical leftists attacking people for "having different opinions". But I vehemently disagree that this is the case. I believe in free speech. But if I'm going to believe that a white nationalist sincerely means what they say, then they are an Enemy. Capital E - Enemy. Someone who is actively working towards inflicting harm on people I care about, and I am not a good friend/brother/father if I don't do everything in my power to stop them. What economic or political system will lead to the greatest prosperity for all is a matter of differing opinions. The balance of meritocracy vs a secure social safety net is a matter of differing opinions. Security vs privacy is a matter of differing opinions. "I think being gay should be treated as a crime" is NOT on the same level as those things - it's a declaring of open conflict, and you're telling people to treat this the same as any other political debate. I cannot overstate my disagreement.
It's easy to feel unsafe when you genuinely believe that words are a form of violence, I suppose.
I'm only 33, and my own parents can remember a time when being gay in the United States might be treated with lobotomy. Today, our government has been reclaimed by people who still want to treat homosexuality as,
at best, a disorder to be treated, and people with far worse ideas are finding a new foothold in public space. We are not very far removed at all from my having to worry about the physical safety of loved ones for being who they are. I'm going to grant you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely believe your statement was reasonable, and you're just incredibly unaware of how wrong you are for implying that words are all that's at stake.
This conversation is pointless as long as notable examples are being used as proof of the greater trends of politics. Antifa and college protestors represent the desires of the left as a whole about as much as the skinheads who were pairing MAGA hats with Celtic crosses and /pol/ trolls represent the right as a whole.
I don't know about this. Maybe I only see it this way, because I've lived most of my life in Indiana. But I think they do represent the desires of the right in a sense. For example, most moderate conservatives today would never be caught in mixed company openly advocating violence against minorities. And that's progress. But at the same time, those same people do a fuckton of things that directly support harm against minorities, so long as it's in a way that doesn't associate them with advocacy of direct violence or otherwise get their own hands dirty. Basically, they know that cultural progress has taken a firm hold of the overton window in recent years, and that window is looking right at them. But if that grip is lost. If support for public figures who do openly advocate violence against minorities becomes just another "opinion" that it's ok to have, even if only because there is plausible deniability as to whether that support is because of open opposition to minorities, then I think we'll see more widespread revealing of heinous desires than current outward appearance of political trends lets on. I don't mean we'll see a return of public lynchings and the like anytime soon, because we're not at a point where a moderate of the day can literally have blood on their hands and not think they're doing anything wrong. But cast their support for institutions with the trappings of authority and legitimacy to get bloody for them, so long as they don't have to think too much about the unpleasant details? Absolutely. I don't think many people would personally commit a violent hate crime against a black person or muslim... but when one of that small minority who would does, the moderates who never would sure put a fuckton of effort into creating any element of legitimacy for that action in the public discourse they can.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3662734 times)