Sometimes the difference between "promotion", "laughing at", and "analysis", depends more on the reader's approach, that on the writer's intent.
Then again, sometimes a reader decides they don't want to deal with any of it, which is also respectable.
Look. If there are 9 people at a table sitting with 1 Nazi and hanging out, there are 10 Nazis.
That's the quick, easy, and wrong approach.
What are 9 non-Nazi people supposed to do: kick the 1 Nazi to a Nazi-only table? Leave the table and now have 2 Nazi-only tables? Get everyone thrown out?
Nazism works like any other sect; what converted people need, is exposure to other ways of thinking, ideally some human connections with people whom the sect demonizes and tries to keep members away from. Pushing sect members away from society, is precisely what the sect wants!
I'm not saying that you personally, or even me, should be the ones to do that, or that we should idly watch, or not have a Nazi-free table.
What I'm saying is that non-Nazis putting up with a Nazi in order to de-program them, should be praised, and that you can't tell what's really going on just by watching who sits where.
This is too complex and nuanced. You punch the nazi and throw them out of the establishment. That's it. That's all.
That's how you reinforce the indoctrination of "us vs. them", and how they're the oppressed ones. Far from "it" or "all".
Yes. I don't care if they feel oppressed. Tolerance does not extend to Nazis. They SHOULD feel oppressed. I will not entertain being soft on Nazis. I will not entertain "seeing both sides". I will not entertain Nazis.
I don't think you understand. Instilling a feeling of oppression, then a desire to "fight against the oppression", is how Nazis get created. Nobody's asking you to tolerate it, or see any "both sides", there are no sides. The only side is whether you work with or against their indoctrination.
All I'm saying is you better double check those 9 other people at that table, in case they're doing the hard work you or me don't want to.
I think I may not have made my position clear. If there is 1 Nazi at the table, and 9 people are just sitting with them hanging out... you have 10 Nazis. They are not "doing the hard work" otherwise it the 1 Nazi would not be sitting there. I'm hearing a lot of sympathizing towards Nazis in this thread.
You have made your position very clear, but if what you got from what I'm saying is "sympathizing towards Nazis", then you've missed my point completely, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. 🤷
I just want to state very emphatically that deradicalizing people is a specific skill set and set of actions that is completely different than “being friendly to nazis”. And tolerating bigotry so that people don’t feel bad about their bigotry is just tolerating bigotry.
On that note, on another post you argued heavily with multiple users that white privilege is not real and that you were being oppressed for your whiteness. I thought maybe you were very young, or confused, and tried to have empathy and explain some concepts, but here you are now also arguing that we need to be nice to nazis for the good of society so that they don’t feel oppressed. I suppose you might say that pointing this out and making you feel more oppressed would drive you further away, but a better approach, i think, would be to tell you very very directly that the things you have been saying here, in multiple places, are white supremacist talking points. And no one here is going to condone that. Stop. If you need help stopping, that is your responsibility, not the hypothetical 9 other peoples’.
How can you tell "deradicalizing" from "being friendly" by just seeing people sit at the same table? One of the strategies for deradicalization, is precisely having positive experiences with people the group/sect has vilified.
here you are now also arguing that we need to be nice to nazis
No. In a nazi-free area, just kick the nazi, that's easy. What I'm arguing is that you should give the benefit of the doubt to the other 9 people. Don't assume.
on another post you argued heavily with multiple users that white privilege is not real
Let me clear that up:
White privilege is real. So are others.
I've always tried to avoid using my privileges.
People assuming I'm too privileged have fucked me over.
These are not either-or.
I thought maybe you were very young, or confused, and tried to have empathy and explain some concepts
Not very young, maybe confused, maybe living in a different society, most likely with different life experiences.
Thank you for trying to explain some concepts. I learned some stuff in that other post, and I'm grateful for that (even if the conclusion was depressing).
the things you have been saying here, in multiple places, are white supremacist talking points
If you need help stopping, that is your responsibility
Is this another "learn the book of forbidden words" situation?
I refused to read into white supremacist propaganda any further than seeing their basic manipulation strategies, and that was a few decades ago. Are you asking me to read the updated version?
Over the past several days I’ve seen you draw out many good faith disagreements about racism or nazism into what seem like intentionally blurry “just asking questions” type derailments whereby you try to shift the topic of the discussion to other, emotional or tangential details and or try to misrepresent the issue at hand to make the racism or nazism seem not that bad. I really don’t think someone would do that if they were coming from a place of genuine confusion or curiosity or dialogue. I might be wrong, but taken together it really gives the impression, intent aside, that you’re trying to spin up plausible arguments for far right stuff and then sow confusion whenever people say “hey, don’t do that, it’s harmful”. I just don’t believe there’s wiggle room here. I don’t want to have a circular conversation about it, but i do want to point out directly what you’re doing, because I think it sucks, and I think that you should stop.
Ok, let's be direct: I'm against nazism, racism, sexism, pretty much the concept of -isms itself, and a techno-anarcho-communist at heart. I generally try to avoid putting too much of my own bias into things, and I do have a tendency to focus on exploring a single aspect of an argument (you could call it "tangential details")... but if you see me use anything resembling "far right arguments", then it means I've gone too far and I will be grateful if you, or anyone else, call me out on it.
Is that acceptable?
you try to shift the topic of the discussion to other, emotional or tangential details
I think I've only pulled one emotional tangent, just because it's impacting me personally right now. It's hard to be objective about that. But I found the following discussion educative, so... I'm serious: thanks everyone for answering.
PS: merry holidays 🎄🥂
Over the past several days I’ve seen you draw out many good faith disagreements about racism or nazism into what seem like intentionally blurry “just asking questions” type derailments whereby you try to shift the topic of the discussion to other, emotional or tangential details and or try to misrepresent the issue at hand to make the racism or nazism seem not that bad.
This does not appear to me at all what is happening, at least in this thread, and I would even go as far as to call it gaslighting.
The other user literally said if 10 people are at a table and 1 is a Nazi, then all 10 are Nazis. They have also labelled any opposing view as "sympathizing towards Nazis" in another comment. That is pretty damn fucking far from good faith. And yet, somehow, because this other user pointed out the problem with this type of thinking, you are now accusing them of not being good faith? Are you serious? People are refusing to have any kind of nuanced view of the situation, accusing everyone in that situation of being a Nazi and people who disagree of being sympathizers, but somehow the other person is the one not acting in good faith, or using emotional arguments?
I really don't want to be rude, but your comment reads like textbook projection. They also never said anything to defend Nazis or the far right, not once (*), so that makes you the one who is misrepresenting what they are saying and doing. I encourage you to keep everything you said in mind, but re-read the thread through a more objective lens.
I really didn't want to get involved in this conversation, but some of these comments really frustrated me, and yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back; I had to let some of the frustration out. If you just want to ignore me, that's fine.
(*) At least as far as this discussion is concerned; I do not have an all seeing eye.
The other user is right. Any tolerance for those ideologies gives them a foothold. It makes room for them. There can be no room, at all, for that shit. Ever. Arguing otherwise is dangerous. There is no nuance here. At all.
Any tolerance for those ideologies
Again, you are misrepresenting what is being said. There is no tolerance being given to those ideologies, neither by me nor by the other user. You are arguing in bad faith and misrepresenting what is being said; the very thing you accused the other person of. There is really no point in continuing to talk if you're going to do that, so I'll just leave a link to another comment I wrote that expands on this, and I'll be going.
No. In a nazi-free area, just kick the nazi, that’s easy. What I’m arguing is that you should give the benefit of the doubt to the other 9 people. Don’t assume.
All areas should be nazi-free areas. If any of them are truly attempting to de-radicalize someone they would know that there is a time and place for it, and out in general society is not it.
Is this another “learn the book of forbidden words” situation?
This is very reductive, dismissive and exactly the kind of thing a white supremacist would say to try and justify saying something shitty. Which is exactly PotentiallyAnApricot's point. I could chock it up to naivety, but just as an outside observer on this thread and others, I don't think it is.
I refused to read into white supremacist propaganda any further than seeing their basic manipulation strategies, and that was a few decades ago. Are you asking me to read the updated version?
Dismantling systemic oppression personally, interpersonally, and in greater society is a constant process. Especially as a white person. Saying you did some research decades ago and are all good now is not how it works.
In a nazi-free area, just kick the nazi
All areas should be nazi-free areas.
Now, this is reductive and dismissive. "Tow it outside the environment" is not an option, you can only create reservation, concentration, and general areas.
If any of them are truly attempting to de-radicalize someone they would know that there is a time and place for it, and out in general society is not it.
Part of de-radicalization is reinsertion into general society. Can't be done outside. Studies have shown that de-radicalization actually lags way behind reinsertion. What you're proposing are lifelong reeducation camps.
is a constant process. Especially as a white person.
The what? Not sure if you realize, but stuff like this "Especially as a [whatever]" is what pushes people over the line.
Dismantling systemic oppression personally, interpersonally [...]
Saying you did some research decades ago and are all good now is not how it works.
This is not what I said.
Now, this is reductive and dismissive. “Tow it outside the environment” is not an option
It is very much an option, and one that works. You can't have an inclusive society if you accept members that want other members dead.
Part of de-radicalization is reinsertion into general society.
After they are no longer a nazi. If they are still a nazi, they belong outside society.
stuff like this “Especially as a [whatever]” is what pushes people over the line.
Ok, to be be less specific, especially as the people that benefit from systemic oppression we have to keep more on it than those do not benefit from it. I used white people because we are currently the largest benefactors of systemic oppression. If that "pushes you over the line" you were too close to line to begin with.
This is not what I said.
The meaning most people get from what you said is that you learned how white supremacists manipulate people decades ago, then disengaged. Again, in order to keep getting better, you have to keep learning, and for fucking sure chuds will keep trying to distract and minimize.
I think you have misunderstood what the other user was saying, and/or are not thinking through what you are saying.
You said "All areas should be nazi-free areas", but unless you are advocating for putting them up against a wall, that is not possible to do. That is what the other user meant by "'Tow it outside the environment' is not an option". By the way, I think that expression is a reference to this; it's not very relevant to this topic, but might help illustrate the point they were making.
Another alternative, like the other user mentioned, would be "lifelong reeducation camps"; but not only does that have questionable morality behind it, it's also not a view that merges very will with the idea of abolishing the police and especially prison systems, which so many on the left, especially the more libertarian left (which btw a lot of Beehaw seems to lean towards, including me, and I think the other user as well), subscribe to.
Like the saying goes: "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity/ignorance", or something like that; there are real life examples of former Nazis/white supremacists changing their views just from interacting with other people outside that group. When you think of a Nazi, you're probably thinking about the smart and actually evil ones that tend to be at the top, but a large part (I think the vast majority) are just the product of fear and ignorance (think average German during WW2); and when you try to erase/separate those people from society, one way or another, you're often just feeding into that ignorance and fear.
As always, there are several different aspects:
Sometimes the difference between "promotion", "laughing at", and "analysis", depends more on the reader's approach, that on the writer's intent.
Then again, sometimes a reader decides they don't want to deal with any of it, which is also respectable.
Look. If there are 9 people at a table sitting with 1 Nazi and hanging out, there are 10 Nazis.
That's the quick, easy, and wrong approach.
What are 9 non-Nazi people supposed to do: kick the 1 Nazi to a Nazi-only table? Leave the table and now have 2 Nazi-only tables? Get everyone thrown out?
Nazism works like any other sect; what converted people need, is exposure to other ways of thinking, ideally some human connections with people whom the sect demonizes and tries to keep members away from. Pushing sect members away from society, is precisely what the sect wants!
I'm not saying that you personally, or even me, should be the ones to do that, or that we should idly watch, or not have a Nazi-free table.
What I'm saying is that non-Nazis putting up with a Nazi in order to de-program them, should be praised, and that you can't tell what's really going on just by watching who sits where.
This is too complex and nuanced. You punch the nazi and throw them out of the establishment. That's it. That's all.
That's how you reinforce the indoctrination of "us vs. them", and how they're the oppressed ones. Far from "it" or "all".
Yes. I don't care if they feel oppressed. Tolerance does not extend to Nazis. They SHOULD feel oppressed. I will not entertain being soft on Nazis. I will not entertain "seeing both sides". I will not entertain Nazis.
I don't think you understand. Instilling a feeling of oppression, then a desire to "fight against the oppression", is how Nazis get created. Nobody's asking you to tolerate it, or see any "both sides", there are no sides. The only side is whether you work with or against their indoctrination.
All I'm saying is you better double check those 9 other people at that table, in case they're doing the hard work you or me don't want to.
I think I may not have made my position clear. If there is 1 Nazi at the table, and 9 people are just sitting with them hanging out... you have 10 Nazis. They are not "doing the hard work" otherwise it the 1 Nazi would not be sitting there. I'm hearing a lot of sympathizing towards Nazis in this thread.
You have made your position very clear, but if what you got from what I'm saying is "sympathizing towards Nazis", then you've missed my point completely, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. 🤷
I just want to state very emphatically that deradicalizing people is a specific skill set and set of actions that is completely different than “being friendly to nazis”. And tolerating bigotry so that people don’t feel bad about their bigotry is just tolerating bigotry. On that note, on another post you argued heavily with multiple users that white privilege is not real and that you were being oppressed for your whiteness. I thought maybe you were very young, or confused, and tried to have empathy and explain some concepts, but here you are now also arguing that we need to be nice to nazis for the good of society so that they don’t feel oppressed. I suppose you might say that pointing this out and making you feel more oppressed would drive you further away, but a better approach, i think, would be to tell you very very directly that the things you have been saying here, in multiple places, are white supremacist talking points. And no one here is going to condone that. Stop. If you need help stopping, that is your responsibility, not the hypothetical 9 other peoples’.
How can you tell "deradicalizing" from "being friendly" by just seeing people sit at the same table? One of the strategies for deradicalization, is precisely having positive experiences with people the group/sect has vilified.
No. In a nazi-free area, just kick the nazi, that's easy. What I'm arguing is that you should give the benefit of the doubt to the other 9 people. Don't assume.
Let me clear that up:
These are not either-or.
Not very young, maybe confused, maybe living in a different society, most likely with different life experiences.
Thank you for trying to explain some concepts. I learned some stuff in that other post, and I'm grateful for that (even if the conclusion was depressing).
Is this another "learn the book of forbidden words" situation?
I refused to read into white supremacist propaganda any further than seeing their basic manipulation strategies, and that was a few decades ago. Are you asking me to read the updated version?
Over the past several days I’ve seen you draw out many good faith disagreements about racism or nazism into what seem like intentionally blurry “just asking questions” type derailments whereby you try to shift the topic of the discussion to other, emotional or tangential details and or try to misrepresent the issue at hand to make the racism or nazism seem not that bad. I really don’t think someone would do that if they were coming from a place of genuine confusion or curiosity or dialogue. I might be wrong, but taken together it really gives the impression, intent aside, that you’re trying to spin up plausible arguments for far right stuff and then sow confusion whenever people say “hey, don’t do that, it’s harmful”. I just don’t believe there’s wiggle room here. I don’t want to have a circular conversation about it, but i do want to point out directly what you’re doing, because I think it sucks, and I think that you should stop.
Ok, let's be direct: I'm against nazism, racism, sexism, pretty much the concept of -isms itself, and a techno-anarcho-communist at heart. I generally try to avoid putting too much of my own bias into things, and I do have a tendency to focus on exploring a single aspect of an argument (you could call it "tangential details")... but if you see me use anything resembling "far right arguments", then it means I've gone too far and I will be grateful if you, or anyone else, call me out on it.
Is that acceptable?
I think I've only pulled one emotional tangent, just because it's impacting me personally right now. It's hard to be objective about that. But I found the following discussion educative, so... I'm serious: thanks everyone for answering.
PS: merry holidays 🎄🥂
This does not appear to me at all what is happening, at least in this thread, and I would even go as far as to call it gaslighting.
The other user literally said if 10 people are at a table and 1 is a Nazi, then all 10 are Nazis. They have also labelled any opposing view as "sympathizing towards Nazis" in another comment. That is pretty damn fucking far from good faith. And yet, somehow, because this other user pointed out the problem with this type of thinking, you are now accusing them of not being good faith? Are you serious? People are refusing to have any kind of nuanced view of the situation, accusing everyone in that situation of being a Nazi and people who disagree of being sympathizers, but somehow the other person is the one not acting in good faith, or using emotional arguments?
I really don't want to be rude, but your comment reads like textbook projection. They also never said anything to defend Nazis or the far right, not once (*), so that makes you the one who is misrepresenting what they are saying and doing. I encourage you to keep everything you said in mind, but re-read the thread through a more objective lens.
I really didn't want to get involved in this conversation, but some of these comments really frustrated me, and yours was just the straw that broke the camel's back; I had to let some of the frustration out. If you just want to ignore me, that's fine.
(*) At least as far as this discussion is concerned; I do not have an all seeing eye.
The other user is right. Any tolerance for those ideologies gives them a foothold. It makes room for them. There can be no room, at all, for that shit. Ever. Arguing otherwise is dangerous. There is no nuance here. At all.
Again, you are misrepresenting what is being said. There is no tolerance being given to those ideologies, neither by me nor by the other user. You are arguing in bad faith and misrepresenting what is being said; the very thing you accused the other person of. There is really no point in continuing to talk if you're going to do that, so I'll just leave a link to another comment I wrote that expands on this, and I'll be going.
All areas should be nazi-free areas. If any of them are truly attempting to de-radicalize someone they would know that there is a time and place for it, and out in general society is not it.
This is very reductive, dismissive and exactly the kind of thing a white supremacist would say to try and justify saying something shitty. Which is exactly PotentiallyAnApricot's point. I could chock it up to naivety, but just as an outside observer on this thread and others, I don't think it is.
Dismantling systemic oppression personally, interpersonally, and in greater society is a constant process. Especially as a white person. Saying you did some research decades ago and are all good now is not how it works.
Now, this is reductive and dismissive. "Tow it outside the environment" is not an option, you can only create reservation, concentration, and general areas.
Part of de-radicalization is reinsertion into general society. Can't be done outside. Studies have shown that de-radicalization actually lags way behind reinsertion. What you're proposing are lifelong reeducation camps.
The what? Not sure if you realize, but stuff like this "Especially as a [whatever]" is what pushes people over the line.
This is not what I said.
It is very much an option, and one that works. You can't have an inclusive society if you accept members that want other members dead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
After they are no longer a nazi. If they are still a nazi, they belong outside society.
Ok, to be be less specific, especially as the people that benefit from systemic oppression we have to keep more on it than those do not benefit from it. I used white people because we are currently the largest benefactors of systemic oppression. If that "pushes you over the line" you were too close to line to begin with.
The meaning most people get from what you said is that you learned how white supremacists manipulate people decades ago, then disengaged. Again, in order to keep getting better, you have to keep learning, and for fucking sure chuds will keep trying to distract and minimize.
I think you have misunderstood what the other user was saying, and/or are not thinking through what you are saying.
You said "All areas should be nazi-free areas", but unless you are advocating for putting them up against a wall, that is not possible to do. That is what the other user meant by "'Tow it outside the environment' is not an option". By the way, I think that expression is a reference to this; it's not very relevant to this topic, but might help illustrate the point they were making.
Another alternative, like the other user mentioned, would be "lifelong reeducation camps"; but not only does that have questionable morality behind it, it's also not a view that merges very will with the idea of abolishing the police and especially prison systems, which so many on the left, especially the more libertarian left (which btw a lot of Beehaw seems to lean towards, including me, and I think the other user as well), subscribe to.
Like the saying goes: "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity/ignorance", or something like that; there are real life examples of former Nazis/white supremacists changing their views just from interacting with other people outside that group. When you think of a Nazi, you're probably thinking about the smart and actually evil ones that tend to be at the top, but a large part (I think the vast majority) are just the product of fear and ignorance (think average German during WW2); and when you try to erase/separate those people from society, one way or another, you're often just feeding into that ignorance and fear.