Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


I wish the left-leaning ( or even politically neutral ) gun owners were nearly as vocal as the people who are at best, wehraboos, and at worst, think Hitler was ahead of his time.

Honestly, people should also post about firearms manufacturers and poo poo that do good things as well 'cause it would be nice to hear about some group that supports a dog rescue or donates a share of their profits to starving artists or something. It would be good knowing it isn't all racism, all the way down.

Captain Log posted:

We would lose half the forum in twelve hours.

It's amazing that after all you've been through you can still be so optimistic.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Miso Beno posted:

If I didn't have an aversion to hanging posters in my home I would hang this up.

I recently bought a poster. And a frame. Gonna put that poo poo up, art-a-mify my accommodations.

Actual art is expensive.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


If we're doing pun titles, I'm partial to "Fash and Accessories"

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Miso Beno posted:

Allegedly, but who needs burden of proof when its not my guy.

You know, I see this a bunch- but here's the thing.

If someone says "Trump is a piece of poo poo", they're not by extension implying that his political opponents are any better. A fair number of Democrats, and especially progressives are flipping back and forth like a coked-up metronome between being pissed/depressed by basically everything Schumer and Pelosi are doing.

If someone floated out some credible evidence on something Bill Clinton did, a whole lot of people on the left would love to see him dragged into a courtroom.

Criticism of the left/right isn't a defense of the polar opposite or something that should be reacted to on reflex.

Miso Beno posted:

THANKS OBAMA


Real edit: Pretty sure most people who want a border wall, which includes a brown, product of immigration, like myself, want them to keep folks from streaming across the border in an uncontrolled and undocumented fashion. The narrative is just more fun when you get to make it about race.

Fears about immigration have had ties to xenophobia and race for basically all of recorded human history, to comical extremes, wherein ancient Romans would be all disdainful and haughty about those filthy Italians who were born a like hundred miles away and clearly an inferior lot.

That doesn't mean you're a racist. I don't know you, and I can't speak as to why you think the way you do, or believe the things you do. But historically? Yeah, racism is a huge part of that debate in cultures all over the world. And it's very obviously, very consciously, a big part of why this administration is doing it.

Miso Beno posted:

for some it may be about race, but I suspect it's really about low cost unskilled labor suppressing value of unskilled labor

Not really.

The jobs that illegals do are typically jobs that American employees don't want to do, and that employers don't want to pay a fair wage for. Vast parts of our economy rely upon immigrant labor and when there's a shortage, it hurts the economy. Crops literally wither on the vine, unharvested.

But that aside; the wealthy, going all the way back to the planter elite during America's colony days, have always used wages and economic anxieties to drive a wedge between poor whites and poor blacks. Slaves only took off when indentured servants fell out of favor, in part due to fears that poor whites were going to start lynching the people more or less conspiring to keep them as slaves via burden of debt and a dearth of opportunity/land.

The players change, but the game remains the same.

It's especially pointless since most illegal aliens are people who enter the country legally, then just- never leave when their visa is up. It's pointless, it's cruel, and it is if nothing else- a vast waste of time and money that could be spent improving a great deal of communities, schools, hospitals, roads, and crumbling bridges.

If it was really about protecting American labor, they'd be going after the companies that knowingly take advantage of undocumented workers, and are repeatedly caught doing so.

They do not. They never have.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Miso Beno posted:

Differences in culture is totally a thing people do worry about, and to some degree I think is rightfully so. Folks who immigrate to a country should 100% do their damnedest to join the culture of the society they are moving into. That doesn't mean leaving their own culture behind but incorporating the culture into their own. My family was reasonably successful in doing this while preserving their cultural identity.

Partial disagree. My reason is two-fold:

I'm German-Irish and whiter than a duck's rear end in a top hat. If I put up, say, an Irish flag, in front of my house- people would think nothing of that. If I listened to Irish folk music, wore Irish this and Irish that ( discounting Celtic crosses which have been co-opted by white supremacist movements ), people would think nothing of it.

Now flip it. Let's say I'd fail the paper bag test, but I'm here, and I'm legal. And I put up a Mexican flag, and I listened to ranchera music, and I wore my family's home country on my sleeve- how many people you think would give me some side-eye?

It's an unfair standard, and it isn't applied to white immigrants. It is always, always applied to The Other. It's applied to Arabs, Latinos, Indians, Africans. People who look, Other, people who sound, Other. It happened to the Germans and the Irish way back when, and people were way afraid of Catholics for a long-rear end time. Now it's a new Other.

The second reason is because of something I read in The New Jim Crow. It spent a brief chapter exploring the complexities of 'gangster' culture, and made a very persuasive argument that marginalized groups pushed to the fringes of a society will often wrap themselves in layers of what's being projected at them. You tell someone they're dirt, they're a criminal, they're garbage- you tell'em that for years. You raise them in a garden of ashes and give sprout to fury.

The onus shouldn't be on the immigrant to adjust to the country; the country should ( especially with its greater resources ) make available the means for newcomers to adjust, and make them welcome. It isn't even like such programs would cost us very much, and they'd pay dividends in a more integrated, communicative society.

quote:

Yes this is absolutely a problem within the United States, and it is partially due to the lack of unskilled labor that is willing to do that type of work, and partially due to our culture creating a society where that work is "beneath" the average worker. This is why I'm all for a guest worker program, and I'm also all for a system of bussing America's able bodied but directionless youth to fields to work for the summer so they can build an understanding of the value of hard work, waking up on a schedule, and being rewarded for your (forced ) labor.

Big nah on this MIke Rowe stuff. It isn't ingratitude or pride that makes people thumb their noses at this labor- maybe for some middle class families, sure. But there are an awful lot of Americans doing awful, lovely, back-breaking jobs for a wage that can't even put a roof over their head with a forty-hour week.

A lot of agriculture jobs pay below minimum wage. Comically below minimum wage. Ditto service industry jobs, like waiters, bartenders. The bum that doesn't take a job suck-starting sewage pumps for a dollar an hour isn't lazy. The person who'd rather skate on unemployment and look a little longer than take a factory job with mandatory twelve-hour shifts and six-day weeks isn't lazy. The fact that the American worker is vilified for not wanting to break their backs for something less than a subsistence-wage says an awful lot about how we've been manipulated to view labor over the past forty years.

quote:

Most other developed countries in the world maintain control of their immigrants, so why is the US the bad guy for doing so?

People aren't just critical of America. They're also critical of Australia's barbaric treatment of refugees. They're pissed at Turkey, and the EU, and a whole lot of places we just don't hear much about because they're so far away and, when the novelty of new outrage wanes, human suffering at a distance is background noise.

And it isn't just controlling immigration, but the means by which it is done.

It isn't just that people are being detained, but the frankly inhumane conditions in which they are being held.

It is the fact we've seen repeated evidence of racism on behalf of the people charged with enforcing these laws, that the system itself railroads them ( immigration courts are a horror show ), and just... everything. It's all terrible. It's barbaric, top to bottom. As it stands, the whole system is a fasces gripped in the fist of an autocratic system and being used as a bludgeon to crush those most in need humanity.

And most of the migrants from our southern border are a product of our own policies, our own constant meddling in South America, our drug war. It's the equivalent to setting fire to your neighbor's house and shooting them for trespassing when they flee into your yard.

infrared35 posted:

Not true at all.

The issue is that when a company gets caught doing it, it's a game of musical chairs and pity the bastard left without a seat when the music stops. That is to say, usually one or two people get hung out to dry, and the rest of the company moves on.

They should absolutely be holding companies more accountable, but the burden of proof scales geometrically, the more people you try to tie in.

Edit: Frankly, I'm super amazed they were able to tie JP Morgan Chase to that ship full of cocaine. Those guys must be getting lazy about covering their tracks.

That's the point, tho. The companies ( chicken houses are notorious for it ) knowingly operate with migrant labor and almost always get away with a slap on the wrist. These aren't small companies making a mistake on paperwork. If, truly, the goal was to stop this labor from affecting the American market, the Republicans have the power ( today ) to start taking measures to financially penalize the people responsible with fines that would actually hurt. They could pursue policies that would pressure companies into making drat sure they did not take advantage of undocumented workers.

But they aren't, for some reason. And the focus is never on the employer in discussions about illegal labor. It's always on the alien. The other.

For some reason...

NerdyMcNerdNerd fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 26, 2019

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Jihad Me At Hello posted:

Never mind.

20 years in construction and I disagree with most of what you've just said. It's way too obvious when people don't know about manual labor or the opportunities in trades.

I'm not really the type of person to jump down someone's throat or whatever, go ahead and disagree with me. I'm not going to say people don't look down on manual labor or trades or anything at all; they do. But in the context of illegal labor we're usually talking about terrible jobs in awful conditions, not, say, apprentice electricians.

I've worked poo poo jobs all my life. I come from a family with a lot of blue collar workers in it.

I think half my posts in the retail thread have been "so I stepped in human poo poo today"

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Captain Log posted:

They will be written in emojis and I'll be glad to be dead.

*spongebob but with a pharaoh hat*

lOoK uPoN mY wOrKs AnD dEspAir

Can't wait for future squid archaeologists to decide that memes had significant religious purpose.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Captain Log posted:

They're all going to think we worshipped the weird rectangles we always held in our hand.

Dollars?

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Jihad Me At Hello posted:

There are illegal workers in trades. Just because you're picking one aspect doesn't mean it applies to the majority of illegal workers. There are lots of opportunities out there for people willing to learn a skill and show up. Painting it is an entire group of people stuck in horrible conditions isn't fair or true. You're being disrespectful to the workers that do well for themselves based off their work and merit. Whether they be illegal or otherwise.

Hum. Fair enough. If you'd like to expand upon it; shoot your shot. I can only speak from the perspective that I have and the information I've absorbed.

22 Eargesplitten posted:

I'm sure there are exceptions, but from what I've seen of construction trade work, it pays well compared to some stuff, but not well enough to afford the damage it does to your body by the time you're nearing retirement age. That's why I work a desk job rather than having gone the union electrician route. Carpal tunnel can be avoided, and if I wasn't such a depressed lazy gently caress I could exercise enough to make up for the amount of exercise I don't do at work.

My wrists are in the process of exploding from a life of computers and work that involves lots of hand action every day.

Way off topic, I know- but my dude, exercise. I skip from thing to thing, stair steppers to push ups to yoga. If I do one thing too long, I get bored of it and stop. But it's about keeping on keeping on. There's conflict about whether or not exercise actually helps with depression, but you know what really helps?

Feeling a little bit stronger. Fitter. Better about your self. Internalizing the idea that you can do better. Don't set yourself some bullshit goal that you can't achieve, but pick something small like 'forty push-ups a day', and go for it. Focusing on things you can't do, and marinating in the negativity of 'I'm a fat gently caress who can't even do *this*, I'm lazy, I'm poo poo', that doesn't help you.

Achieve a minor goal, celebrate the smallest victory. Feel better about yourself. Take it from another depressed fat guy.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Capn Beeb posted:

I think he'd be all about that whole push to acknowledge the AR as a rifle favored by the commoner

He'd use a revolver because he's in favor of revolutionary action.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


For what it is worth, I've seen countless idiots open carrying at the grocery store over the past few years. In almost five years of retail, I have seen exactly two- two POC open-carrying.

People of all races should feel like they can open-carry ( like complete morons ) without fear of getting shot by the cops.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


mlmp08 posted:

Like so many things in America, carrying a gun legally is not "whites only" but holy moly does it ever help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf5TEoo-EY0

First thing I thought of. It's not even like this is the only video of this type on Youtube.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Capn Beeb posted:

This isn't limited to chuds, either.

It really, really isn't. If you think the liberal leadership of the Democratic party has a problem with guns now, I can assure you, they'd poo poo rabid honey badgers if BLM started doing frequent armed meetings/marches in public in the style of the Black Panthers.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


ulmont posted:

Much like with religion, the right polarized first. For a long time there was a 25 point difference, but in 2007 Republicans went all-in on guns.

Pretty much. For a lot of right-wing folk, owning a gun has become tied into a part of their cultural identity. And, in essence, gun ownership on the whole ( at least in the US ) has become tied to a very certain kind of person in the mind's eye of people who do not participate. For this reason, the loudest and most visible people are the Mossy Oak Militia types. They want to identify as a gun-owner because it broadcasts certain social messages.

What does a leftist gun owner get by identifying as such? They don't get any respect from the right-wing types for strapping up. Sure as fuuuuuck don't get the same respect from the cops that the Mossy Oak Militia get. On the flip-side, the best they can hope is that other leftists ( or apolitical types ) won't think any worse of them for being a gun owner.

The only time it is in their interest to say "I'm here, I'm armed, and I know how to use it" is when they're sending the message that they're going to respond to force in kind- and that's a dangerous message to send, when cops, when other people, can ( and have ) killed various minorities and gone unpunished.

The NRA and their ilk have done a great job of making it loving impossible to have a nuanced conversation on gun control in America.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Tremblay posted:

Cops almost universally despise non-LEOs. You really think they as a culture respect 300# "Tiny" because he's wearing camo?

Depends on the context.

The dude who's Mossy Oak from head to toe and has a no-steppy snake flag mounted on his pick-up truck? Not as much.

That same guy with the same clothes, the same flag, and a gat strapped to his hip at some Proud Boy demonstration ( or something like that )? Absolutely. And I think this because we've seen it over and over again when the cops interact with these people.

Hell, the Mossy Oak Militia can point guns at the feds, break the law and take over government property- but the police lose their minds over ( largely black ) demonstrations about police violence in the wake of an officer involved murder.

If you follow the news, you can see a very real difference in the way police treat leftists, or 'Others', and the way they treat those who the cops identify with. Ain't even like it's strictly a race thing. Stonewall wasn't that long ago- and if gays were still an acceptable Other to gently caress with, the cops would still be doing it the same way they did it then. They seemingly still do everything they can to gently caress with transsexuals.

I Demand Food posted:

I mean, in fairness, the NRA also has and does advocate for compromise on gun rights.

The NRA ( aside from being inept ) has been perfectly happy to gently caress over the people they claim to be constituents whenever it suits them. They're the DNC of gun rights and I find it baffling that people are so eager to defend them.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Tremblay posted:

You believe that this had solely to do with the skin color of the people involved, and nothing at all to do with other stand off situations like Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc?

Why not both? I'm not going to argue it's all racism all the way down. People and organizations are more complicated than that, but- yeah. Race does play a huge part, especially, especially when you factor in all the explicitly racist policies and doctrines of the Drug War and the lasting effect that's had on the attitudes of American police.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Tremblay posted:

I guess I'm at a loss as to whether or not you, and Nerdy are using the same coded language here.



It's short-hand and disrespectful and encapsulates exactly the kind of person I wish to describe, and in a negative light, without being too absurdist.

If I said Snake-Humping Survivalist or Camo Klansman it wouldn't hit the same note.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


I should make it clear ( because it isn't always in text ) that in general, if I make a serious or even vaguely serious post/reply about this stuff I'm going to do it with something akin to passion- especially, especially because I live near Charlottesville. And it wasn't just the murder that happened there, but how the police stood idly by or dragged their loving feet while people were being beaten in the streets.

Remember when that guy got beaten up on camera by a group of men, and then the cops arrested... him? Yeah.

So if I reply with a little bit of fire, it isn't necessarily aimed at the person I'm replying to, so much as this unjust bullshit and my garbage can of a state.

Cyrano4747 posted:

Speak plainly in this thread. Itís going to prevent a lot of misunderstandings, needless arguments, and acrimony. Donít assume knowledge or familiarity that people might have.

I have no doubt that short hands will develop but until something becomes well understood within the context of the thread take that time to define things and spell out exactly what you are talking about.

I get that, but here's the thing about that:

I really don't wanna call some folk white supremacists or alt-right or anything, 'cause it pays them a respect they don't deserve, and because the words themselves are almost a badge of honor for them.

And I really, really don't like that, the idea that someone could be proud of being called a nazi. I'd call them a joke if the poo poo they wrought upon the country wasn't such a god drat tragedy.

I'd call them RacISISt but it doesn't translate when you speak it.

I'm mad. Mad about fuckers.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Numlock posted:

I donít feel the need to go out of my way to be specific because once you get past the spin and the crazy they are mostly just a bunch of angry racists.

It's also worth noting that a lot of these groups ( so far as I remember ) rely on obfuscation and confusion to muddle things. "We're not white supremacists, we're the proud boys. We're not this, we're that." They want you to engage people on this level. They want you to argue whether they're store brand or Morton's instead of talking about how regardless of the label, they're salty, white and bitter- and they'll loving kill you.

This isn't just to frustrate people who engage with them ( never, ever waste your time debating these beliefs in good faith ), but to present a certain kind of image to the uniformed, the spectator. Someone who isn't keyed into left or right or politics, who doesn't know what a proud boy is or thinks that antifa is pronounced auntie-fuh.

You ever notice how there's about eighty different kind of alt-right organizations, with the proud boys and so on and so forth that pop in the news, but the leftist protest groups usually boil down to like... 2?

There's a reason for that- and it isn't because the right is more ideologically fragmented than the left. Far more disparate groups on the right unite in ways that the left simply does not; and there are a lot of reasons for this- but identity ( especially racial identity ) has a lot to do with it. The white right-leaning 19 year old who loves frog memes and dropping the n-word has a lot more in common with the 49 year old economically anxious upper-middle class dude who is not racist but than a 20 year old who's young, pissed and woke and the 50 year old upper-middle class who jerks it nightly to The West Wing.

But only a few groups will admit to this. Even the Klan will use weasel words, from time to time. You can't just say, "I don't think Mexicans should have rights." or "I don't believe blacks deserve the vote."

So you say something else. You're not a group promoting white supremacy, you're "protecting Western culture". You're not a white supremacist- you're just proud of being white and- hey, why is it OK for other races to be 'proud' but not for whites?

The whole point is to maintain the illusion of in an extremely South Park tone of voice"perhaps the truth is somewhere... in the middle". This won't fool people who pay attention- but most people don't.

This goes back a long, long way, to the Civil Rights movement and beyond. You go back in the archives looking at articles about MLK's marches and I guarantee you'll see arguments along the lines 'Civil Order' and such. The people standing on either side of that smoke screen weren't fooled; but it wasn't for them. It's always been about the people in the middle.

The other harm caused by semantics is that when you get into arguing the particulars of a fascist ideology; you've lost. They'll never, ever engage you in good faith. They do not believe in debate. They do not believe in free speech. These are tools used to leverage themselves into a position of power, tools to be discarded, locked up, the second they're in control. When you debate these people in a public space, all you do is give them a voice- and help add a little bit more grey to their smoke screen.

Now, I'm not saying people should just yell "racist" at anyone who disagrees with them and move on. But what you should do is be very aware ( if for no other reason than to not waste your loving time ) when you're talking to someone who uses particulars as bait, and logic as a trap.

This is a really good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMabpBvtXr4

And that guy's videos in general are pretty good.

NerdyMcNerdNerd fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 30, 2019

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Cyrano4747 posted:

The rest of this post is spot on, but I think itís worth keeping in mind the specific context of this thread. I think there is some real value in laying out who these groups are, what their main thrusts are, who they are involved with in other organizations, and where the overlap is.

Oh for sure, I get you. And I don't disagree.

I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from. I know how I look, how I come across as a glance- especially with my new avatar. I wanted to make it very clear it goes deeper than "right bad left good, unironic soviet propaganda avatar". *blasts red army choir*

Once, a long, long time ago, I believed in and posted some abhorrent poo poo and while I never power-slid fully to the right, I was getting there. I was in the middle. What brought me around weren't attacks or sick burns ( though they're funny ), because if you don't understand and haven't internalized the concept of fragility, all that does is reinforce your worldview.

My point is to illustrate why it's important to talk about these things and to talk about them in a certain way. It isn't virtue signalling and it isn't a way of saying "oooh look how the sun shine out my woke rear end in a top hat". It's to show why we can't just "not talk about it". If you don't talk about it, you cede the narrative to the people that do. I'm not attacking the right collectively- even if I deeply disagree with a lot of the philosophy. I am, however, attacking the gently caress out of people who don't even have the courage to admit they just believe and espouse racist poo poo.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


If I seriously thought anyone was a nazi I wouldn't hesitate to jump on them.

If they're just a lovely person, I can call them as such.

Cyrano wants us to be able to out people who are funny-walk aficionados, but doesn't want there to be blood in the water when someone posts something right of center. He wants there to be some kind of civility, and discussion and poo poo.

Which, you know, fine. I don't need to agree with someone 100% to share an online space with them. There's probably a lot of people in Games or whatever that I'd vehemently disagree with if we talked about politics- but that kind of stuff tends not to come up.

With guns... welp. Some political discussion is inevitable, and internet forums being what they are, it's easy for things to get out of hand.

My main beef was that not that long ago, someone would post some dumb political poo poo- and then he'd get called on it. And then he'd flail spastastically at the keyboard until all discussion of that topic was verboten and everyone was punished.

I can understand why it shook out that way, and why Cyrano might be reluctant to call someone or their viewpoints right or wrong but if someone does that kind of poo poo, it really ought not to result in collective punishment.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


I genuinely don't understand how anyone could look at antifa and proud boys and basically shrug and go 'same thing' unless they're not really interested and just skimming information.

This isn't meant to attack that poster- I legitimately do not understand how it is possible unless you're disinterested and don't care.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Gom Jabbar posted:

I see them both as a bunch of idiots but hey make up your own story about me to make yourself feel good.

If I came across as attacking you, that wasn't my intent. I'd just came off a ten hour shift without a break.

For what it is worth I was going to reply with something more impulsive or meme-y and instead decided to try and reply like a human being so.

OK.

Violence isn't always morally bad. I feel like the vast majority of the people on this sub-forum would agree that violence in response to violence ( self-defense ) is a valid response. It strikes me as insane that some people think you should have a duty to retreat- that practicality and safety aside, violence is so morally reprehensible that even using it in defense of self against an aggressor is wrong.

I always think these people are naive, sheltered, or liars. I think these people don't know what it's like to be a victim of violence, to feel powerless and abused and lost, with no hope of being helped by the people who were supposed to protect you.

A few years ago, I was one of those types that would be like "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." This caused a number of arguments with a German friend of mine, especially with regard to nazis- and this was before Trump, before the resurgence of the far-right.

I thought that in an exchange of ideas in a modern age, with all the information and history at our fingertips, nazism would lose. Outdated, inferior, grotesque- how could it ever grow in an age where we seemed to be growing more progressive? Sure, skinheads were around, but it wasn't as if there'd be mobs with torches marching through the streets-

And then there were.

Oh.

The thing about ~Free Speech~ is that in theory, it isn't for the majority. The speech of the majority is protected by social norms, social consensus. In its ideal form, free speech is a shield for the minority saying something unpopular, but something that needs to be said.

It isn't.

Our government, the body invested with the duty to guard our constitutional rights has, for decades, oppressed the speech of minority groups. It's gone after gays for being 'obscene', it's gone after Civil Rights era protesters on the grounds of law and order, it goes after whistleblowers and leakers and journalists- it puts people in "free-speech" zones, it tore down the camps of Occupy Wallstreet and launches teargas into crowds of Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

More and more, it seems to me as if the illusion of free speech is used as a sword and shield against the poor and the beaten down; black, white or brown.

But beyond that, aside from that, speech can be a form of violence all its own. A man gets up on a stage and says that your family deserves to die for the color of their skin, their religion, their 'sin'. He and the crowd to which he speaks deny your right to existence. How do you confront that? One person standing before that crowd would be a gnat on the trunk of a bigoted elephant.

Moreover, these people, these alt-right folks? They don't believe in free speech. They ( people like Andy Ngo ) are more than happy to use violence to suppress the minority- they only play the free speech card when they end up on the other end of the stick. They play it to appeal to the moderate, the uninformed, and they do it very consciously.

Jihad Me At Hello posted:

What makes antifa above criticism?

They aren't, and it is a myth that they are.

But, violence exercised in the oppression of the minority isn't morally equal to violence used in opposition to the oppressor.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Jihad Me At Hello posted:

I've seen antifa dox someone over a Zelda tattoo and then redact it. So questioning their tactics should be talked about. Just cause the other side is bad doesn't mean that kind of behavior doesn't matter.

You can be critical of antifa or any other leftist group without automatically being labeled an enemy or a racist or whatever; but these people and these groups are used to criticism that comes ultimately boils down to 'I'm not racist, but', just with more words.

How you frame the criticism makes all the difference.

If I say 'Nazis are bad' and you take that statement at face value, what does that say about me? Depends, based on your worldview. But at the very least, it means I don't like nazis- I don't like their worldview, I don't like what they fight for or how they do it.

If I say 'Antifa is bad' and you also take that statement at face value, what does that say about me? Again, depends on your worldview. But the most logical conclusion, the straightest line, is that I don't like them. I don't like what they fight for, or how they do it.

By failing to frame your criticism in a way that elaborates on your motivations, you leave the door open for people to fill in the blanks. So, yeah- the knee-jerk reaction to 'I don't like antifa' is the assumption that you approve of the alt-right.

fwiw I honestly think a lot of people in the middle or on the right side of things just assume the left is far more monolithic an entity than it actually is and have no idea the extent to which the left is waging an eternal war against its most hated enemy, other leftists.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Sten Freak posted:

Speech that meets the definition of protected is legal under the first amendment, however odious one might find it. If they are using violence to stem free speech they're a problem.

I would agree with this if the system worked equally to protect the speech of everyone, but it doesn't.

Edit: I just realized my rebuttal is literally my avatar

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


It bears repeating that the 'free speech' defense of nazis is confusing because they... don't believe in it. They're just using it as a tool to attain power. You're giving to them something they'd gladly take away from you, and the means to do it with.

Fascists do not believe in liberty. Opposing fascists does not make you a fascist.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Shaocaholica posted:

Seems like a paradox to say someone else is (secretly) anti free speech and therefore their speech should be suppressed. Not saying anyone is wrong but this needs some backing evidence. Like "tee hee hee we'll use their free speech ideals against them!"

My dude

The people who's whole agenda is the exclusion and expulsion ( if not elimination ) of minorities does not respect the right of those people to gather and speak.

Let me put it to you this way. The KKK used free speech as a means to force their right to march where they were unwanted. Do you think those same KKK marchers would go, "You know what? I disagree, but I respect your right to assemble!" if Malcom X came walking through their town?

No. They'd lynch him.

If you advocate for the supremacy of one group, you are actively advocating for the suppression of another. There cannot be a platform of white supremacy that does not put a boot on the neck of the minority. Marginalization includes an erosion of civil rights.

These people don't decry violence and silence when they gather in force, and when they are the ones delivering it. They only ever bring it up when one of their's takes a brick to the brow, or when they're so overwhelmingly counter-marched that they are driven from the field.

The response to their violence is a shrug and a "snowflakes".

Their response to violence done unto them is

I realize you're not disagreeing but I've seen this argument in earnest so many times that it is frustrating to even see it anymore

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Cyrano4747 posted:

This isnít a Wizard of Oz revival. We donít need all these straw men.

But they go so well with the cowardly lyin

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Captain Log posted:

If I still had the gif of Bristol Palin on Dancing with the Stars doing the cabbage patch while "WHITE PEOPLE" flashes at the bottom, I'd post it under that Spike's add.

Mellify me in mayonnaise and serve me at a gender reveal party so that I too might achieve this level of whiteness

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Captain Log posted:

Can someone explain the who kekestan thing to me? I'm only vaguely aware of it, and see it as really troubling in how it can seem like an innocent joke.

Also, would using a kekestan joke pretty well put someone in rear end in a top hat territory, or perhaps just ignorant? I'm not sure how pervasive the ideology behind it is to the people using it.

Racist frog meme leaked into real life and gave internet shut-ins brain cancer. For some people it is just edgy teenager/twenty-something humor, but for other people, not so much.

For what it's worth, tying your message/racism/bullshit into a joke is the "I'm not racist, but" of our generation.

As a wise skeleton once said,

https://twitter.com/dasharez0ne/status/1033506727352782849

NerdyMcNerdNerd fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Aug 1, 2019

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Cyrano4747 posted:

...terminally online video game nerds



Shooting Blanks posted:

I still feel like Facebook, Twitter et. al. do society a service by often exposing bigots and their lovely views. Every time a nazi loses their job for being a piece of poo poo, I smile. The places that need to be shut down are the hives where it festers - the stormfronts and whatnot of the web. Now if only the major social media companies would be a little more proactive about deciding what is and isn't acceptable speech for them.

First,

https://twitter.com/dasharez0ne/status/1136433075263549442

Second, we've already seen social media being used not just for the propagation of these garbage ideologies, but we've also evidence of them being used for the purposes of political suppression, genocide, etc. And beyond that? The level of disinformation and manipulation is startling. It's a septic-tank echo chamber that normalizes and reinforces; and while this is sometimes a positive thing, it also leads to things like incel and nazi communities, and... yeah.

And honestly? A fair number of these people just aren't punished when they're outed. And as often as it is used to expose roaches in the dark, it's also used to harass their targets.



Sten Freak posted:

I know what you are saying but that's not how free speech works. We don't have to agree on this. I do find it surprising that (some) gun owners who are typically very invested in the intent of the 2nd let go of the 1st when it suits them.

E: Oh my quoted sentence was poorly structured. I was saying "offensive speech"

I disagree with the idea of any amendment as a sacred cow. It's largely moot anyways; the government tramples the first whenever it suits it.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:

it IS a sacred cow but people have intentionally muddied the waters on what the 1st amendment even is. It means the government can't force twitter to ban you, it does not mean that twitter can't ban you.

The best explanation I've seen is someone telling people that Twitter was private property ( using Walmart as an example ), and just like Walmart, the managers can shove your rear end out the door if you start yelling racist poo poo ( too ) loudly in the aisles.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


There are countries in Europe that manage to put reasonable restrictions on speech. I'm just saying; we were willing to take so many other things from Germany, maybe 'Don't be a nazi in public' could be one of them.

siegheil quietly in the corner or march with your 'malk' not-a-swastika' flag.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Cyrano4747 posted:

Oh hey. Itís the argument.

You would dare deny me my right as an American to talk about the hate-crime of circumcision in the cute thread?

sic semper tyrannis

It's always amusing to me how conservatives whine the most about how their speech is being oppressed on social media when, just to use one example, LGBT folk are constantly hounded for being 'obscene' just for loving existing and posting about their lives.

Meanwhile, there's a disturbing amount of veiled threats and outright slurs that just go completely unchecked because

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


22 Eargesplitten posted:

Throwing milkshakes at them seems to be enough to make them go home for the day.

They're also intolerant of lactose. It's the one white thing they don't like.

Jehde posted:

Ignorance is no longer an option. It never really was an option, but I used to think ignoring it would make it peter out. No one wants to believe fascists are regaining normalcy.

Yeah.

The first problem with 'ignoring' these people is that it serves them. It helps them. You want to know why we have public nudity laws? It's because if you saw your gross neighbor walking around his front yard with his three-inch nightcrawler ping-ponging from thigh to thigh, you ( or someone else ) would yell at him to put some loving clothes on.

To use a less absurd example, I want you to consider this:

How often have you seen a woman in public getting unwarranted attention? Maybe she's on the street, or she's a cashier, or a waitress- whatever. It doesn't matter. Unless things escalate significantly- we ignore it. We, as a society, condone this behavior. The reasons vary but the result is the same- and many men believe they have a right to a woman's attention, to objectify, belittle and harass- and why wouldn't they? Who has taught them, told them otherwise? What consequences do they face?

If a man leaned out the window of his car and started cat-calling your thirteen year old daughter, would you ignore it?

If nazis were marching in the streets of your town, would you ignore it?

If you son started using the language of the alt-right, would you ignore it?

The second problem is that if you're a person of the majority, when you choose to ignore a group/cause targeting minorities, you are:

A) Absolving yourself of any responsibility because you don't think that, you, personally, will be a target.

B) As a member of the majority, you have voice that people in your society ( especially other majority members ) are more inclined to listen to. You shouldn't signal boost a cause you don't believe in, but if you say, believe that felony records and police violence are a blight upon American society ( and they are ), you can make some impact by choosing speech over silence.

Choosing to speak is literally the least you can do.

Other poo poo, too, but it's late and I'm sick and these are all the points I'm wringing out of my brain at midnight.

NerdyMcNerdNerd fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Aug 2, 2019

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:

i love the part where gun nerds will come up with crazy self defense situations like "what if my house gets broken in by 12 thugs all wearing body armor with AKs and they try to kill my wife uh then I'll NEED this plate carrier and NVGs" but then you mention there are people in the US trying to put anyone that might possibly be an illegal alien in concentration camps they go quiet and start talking about how actually violence is always wrong, both sides, or some other limp dicked reason to cosplay is vichy french

It's because they aren't doing it to white folk.

Remember when all that stupid Jade Helm poo poo was floating around during Obama? Remember all the absolute insane theories, stupid stuff like how outlet mall signs were secretly designed to be watch towers and Walmarts were going to be death camps?

Well. This administration is actually rounding people up and putting them in camps, and at least one camp is a disused Walmart. Weird how they don't seem to care.

Immigration is a complicated issue and I don't believe that anyone who believes in anything less than open borders is a racist. What I do believe is that it is impossible to be in favor of the current state of things without being woefully misinformed or dishonest ( possibly to yourself ) about the reason why.

We've straight up lost over a thousand kids.

We're ripping kids away from their parents, and putting them in camps run by people who are at the very least, neglectful, and often abusive.

We deny these people the basic living standards that international law would expect us to provide for prisoners of war.

And the administration openly says that the cruelty is the point.

The fact that the opposition ( Dems ) haven't been more vocal is depressing. The fact that they backed a deal funding the camps is disgusting.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Tremblay posted:

Likely you drive people whom otherwise would agree with the end, but disagree with your methods to go "gently caress off oval office, not my problem". Which I suspect isn't sustainable for a population as vulnerable, and small numbered.

Disagree*.

Before I'd had the concept of white fragility explained to me, there were certain subjects or topics or ways of speaking about things that would reflexively put me on the defensive, even if I ( as a leftist/progressive ) agreed with what the poster was saying. It didn't make me stop believing what I felt was important. It didn't push me toward supporting white supremacy. After I took in the idea of white fragility, I recognized exactly what was happening.

Fragility as a concept isn't unique to 'white fragility'. In a way, you could call toxic masculinity male fragility. There's nothing more important to us than our identities, nothing more painful than coming to terms with a harsh truth- or addressing the way you perceive the world. But while fragility ( imho ) might prevent you from making common ground with someone, it doesn't change your core beliefs.

I've been accused by other leftists ( ) of being a Republican posting in bad faith because I used Democrat instead of Democratic Party. Instead of just throwing my hands up, I explained myself ( I'd done it out of ignorance ) and they went, "Oh. Sorry."

This person didn't jump on me for no reason. I used a word or a manner of speaking particular to a certain group / kind of poster. They knew the word, had every reason to believe I was being an rear end in a top hat, and called me out on it.

If something that strikes a sensitive area or a couple misunderstandings are enough to cause someone to turn their back on something, chances are, they weren't going to be a convert.

But here's something I'd like to talk about especially:

Tremblay posted:

Which I suspect isn't sustainable for a population as vulnerable, and small numbered

A few years back, I started to get interested understanding different perspectives in society. What did it mean to be a woman in America? What did it mean to be black in America?

When I went looking for answers, I saw instances of people asking and getting dog-piled- especially authors. And that confused me, on some level- aggravated, even. How could you say you wanted more representation in media and then snub the people who wanted to give it to you?

The answer?

It isn't the minority's job to explain themselves to you.

It isn't a gay person's job to explain how "free speech" caused them to try and overdose when they were fifteen.

It isn't a black person's job to explain ( without hurting someone's feelings ) why standing there and shrugging your shoulders how they've had over 200 years of experience in weaponized speech being leveled against them in America- especially not at a time when hate crimes are on the rise and their churches are being shot up, burned.

If people seem less than patient, there's a reason behind it.

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Tremblay posted:

Thinking that escalating violence is a bad thing doesn't make me a Nazi sympathizer. Knowing that violence begets violence doesn't make me a Nazi sympathizer. Thinking that you all talk like insufferable twats doesn't make me a Nazi sympathizer. Making a joke based on a worn out stereotype doesn't make me a racist. It makes it a bad joke.

Hate speech laws should scare the poo poo out of everyone. The fact that you seem to be implicitly supporting them is what indicates you might be an authoritarian in the eyes of plenty of folks.

Vandalism, random assaults, by people wearing black and in masks sounds a lot like a low key Klan rally with a slightly different uniform. Congrats I guess?

Black Bloc isn't Antifa, although some of them do hate fascists.

And I don't see how hate speech laws are any more authoritarian than any other law, in all honesty. But while I'm not entirely comfortable with giving the government more control, they've also demonstrated a willingness to bend things wherever possible to go after minorities when it suits them under the guise of obscenity or something else. How many legitimate protests you see get broken up by the police? 'Cause I see a lot.

As for the later...

You can't really equate antifa with the klan. It's like saying the German army and the American army in WW2 were basically the same because they both wore uniforms and used violence while ignoring the greater picture.

The Klan wears their masks to maintain deniability, and as a symbol of intimidation. Leftist movements frequently use them to hide their identities from police/government reprisal. The Klan uses violence in the name of oppression. Antifa uses violence in the name of opposition. Antifa shows up with bottles and bikelocks, the Klan show up with ARs and Glocks.

Tremblay posted:

I certainly can agree that it isn't someone's "job" to explain themselves to me. If you are trying to gain education, and making a good faith effort/demonstrating actual interest. A reflexive response of (effectively) GFY, seems like a poor way of engaging. Location could likely be a component to be considered by both parties. E.g. interacting with a group of people on a fairly liberal firearms forum is different than the same conversation being held at <insert_in_group_name_here>.

Here's the thing. Imagine you've lived your whole life under the weight of police violence and systemic oppression at the hands of the state. Your whole life- and not just you. But your family. Your friends. Your community. It's practically your whole world.

Maybe you start out wanting to explain- but after a while, it's just one person after another asking you to prove things you know as truth- things that you have to put in the most delicate way, or they take offense. Things they seldom seem convinced of by the time your done talking to them, relating the accumulated trauma of decades.

But more importantly, I want you to read this

quote:

Likely you drive people whom otherwise would agree with the end, but disagree with your methods to go "gently caress off oval office, not my problem". Which I suspect isn't sustainable for a population as vulnerable, and small numbered.

More than your words, people are responding to the tone. More than the statement, they're responding to the subtext created by word choice. Many of your posts read defensively, angrily. There's almost an air of 'Is this really a problem?' or 'I'll help, if you ask'. Take the same statement and instead, say

quote:

Is an aggressive approach the best one? Maybe excluding people pushes them back into their bubble. Hostility isn't going to get you very far with a lot of people.

Do you think people would respond the same way to the second statement?

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


FruitNYogurtParfait posted:

Here's an idea, gently caress off. No really, gently caress off. I said the government should not be given the power to just suppress poo poo. What I didn't say was you and all your friends shouldn't go beat the poo poo out of the guy saying "lets all go hang us a queer"


I don't want the left to be tolerant you defensive rear end in a top hat. So calm the gently caress down and stop acting like you're the only person who gives a poo poo or knows anything

Both of those things use violence to suppress speech. Why is the threat of violence ( punishment under law ) morally objectionable and outright physical violence is not?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NerdyMcNerdNerd
Aug 3, 2004

Lol.i halbve already saod i inferno circstances wanttpgback


Late to the party but I just remembered someone was asking about some Native news.

It isn't much, but there's an artist called Marty Two-Bulls. He's easy to find on Google images and has done some great political cartoons about Native issues, pipelines, land, police violence, the US government, etc. I highly recommend checking out his work if that stuff interests you at all- he's one of the better American political artists currently working.

tarlibone posted:

If someone has a bunch of examples of liberals showing up to rally for some lefty cause and then starting a riot or being attacked by rabid, conservative counter-protesters, let me know.

They're called cops.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply