The Paradox of Tolerance

[Arkle]

Ok. Let's assume, for the moment, that Charles Murray is, in fact, a racist piece of garbage.

He wrote The Bell Curve. A book white supremacists who want to look smart cite to this day. He's absolutely a racist piece of shit.

Does he deserve beating? Does every racist deserve a beating?

Not every. Just enough to make them too embarassed to spread their nonsense in public.

Who determines who is and isn't a racist,

Asking people victimized by racism is a good place to start. Of course, most people don't do that. They just decide they aren't racist based on whatever logical fallacy they can think of and then get angry when you point it out.

and when they have and have not been sufficiently beaten? Do you actually have to be a racist yourself, or is merely agreeing to, say, moderate a debate where a racist may be speaking just cause for getting punched?

Frankly, yes. Why would you WANT to have an open debate with a racist? By inviting them to the table, you are in effect announcing to the world, and to the victims of racism in particualr, that the dieas of racism are valid and worth considering.

I'm no pacifist, and I recognize that while violence is always the last resort....sometimes, you reach the last resort. When Nazis are walking through your neighborhood with torches, it just might be necessary to get down and dirty. But I'm honestly puzzled as to why it was necessary at Middlebury or Berkeley. I'm hoping you can enlighten me.

Because we didn't do enough of it in the 1920s in Germany and look where that ended up. People refused to take them seriously as a threat. They were just raving lunatics. Even after Hitler becmae chancellor, yuou had people going 'Oh, just give him a few concessions and he'll calm down. This is just a tantrum for attention.'

Great, bring on the facts. You have the greatest source of information ever devised by mankind at your very fingertips. Please, show me your side of the story. I'm eager to hear it.

I just said I was skeptical. That was it. You're the one making the claim, then offered nothing but a less-than-credible Right Wing commentator's opinion piece.

For what's worth, this is the framework I'm operating in. Here's Allison's own account of the evening. For the record, she doesn't particularly agree with Charles Murray. But she's an academic, who believes that scholarship is settled with debate. Here's long but thorough Politico article on what went on that night and how. Both sources are really quite sympathetic to the left.

She enabled a racist who was discredited years ago and treats him like he has anything of value to add to a debate. Shame on her. (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ell-curve/)

Do you have any actual evidence to support your skepticism? Or has the inability to recognize basic facts, which we see so often on the American right these days, begun to spread to the left as well?

Which part? Richard Coehn not being a reliable source? The tendency of white people (even white liberals) to act like they were in fear for their life even when they weren't?

Yes, the right has the higher body count. And they're losing, at least for the moment.

Support for Neo-Nazism in America has entered double digits. I wouldn't clal that losing. I would call that "Start making plans with your Jewish friends to get them to Canada in a hurry, just to be safe." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07091.html

These two facts are not unrelated. In the modern American political sphere, being associated with violence is absolutely toxic for a movement.

Which is why the Presidential candidate who advocated for violecne against protestors at his rallies lost, right?

No, wait, this may actually be a fair point. He did lose the popular vote after all. Hmm...

Which is why 'not punching people' is such a fantastic position to take. It's not only the legal, ethical, and moral choice, it's also the politically smart choice.

Right. Because look how well "not punching Nazis" worked out 80 years ago.

[LittleRaven]

Not every. Just enough to make them too embarassed to spread their nonsense in public.

This is very vague. What's enough? Who determines when we've had enough? What constitutes 'spreading their nonsense in public?' How do you appeal decisions if you feel you were beaten in error?

Asking people victimized by racism is a good place to start.

So how do we administer that? Who determines who does and doesn't qualify as a 'victim?' I have a Hispanic last name, can I dish out beatings? On the other hand, I have white skin. Do I receive beatings? Or maybe they aren't mutual exclusive, so I can both give AND receive beatings? Is any of this codified anywhere?

Why would you WANT to have an open debate with a racist?

Because you believe in the marketplace of ideas? You cannot beat an ideology with fists, only with words. And you can only have words if you have debate.

Frankly, yes. By inviting them to the table, you are in effect announcing to the world, and to the victims of racism in particualr, that the dieas of racism are valid and worth considering.

On the issue of guilt by association, I'm afraid we simply disagree. I cannot sanction judging someone guilty of a crime simply because they are associated with something we don't like. That is the sort of thing the worst governments around the world engage in with abandon, and I have never seen it used in the furtherance of justice, only control. I'm particularly surprised to see it advocated by a member of the left, given how often that tactic has been used against leftist movements in this country.

The issue of giving credence to an argument by including it in debate is more nuanced topic. I'm sympathetic to those who get frustrated attempting to argue basic facts with ideologues. But there's no helping it. If an idea cannot be challenged, then it cannot be defended, and it cannot grow. Nobody said freedom was easy.

Because we didn't do enough of it in the 1920s in Germany and look where that ended up. People refused to take them seriously as a threat.

First of all, I take issue with your history. Lots of fascists got punched in 1920s Germany. Heck, they didn't stop at punches, they starting killing Nazis as well.

Horst Wessel was one of the Nazi propagandists who knew how to gain the support of workers. Born in 1907, he had graduated from a high school that emphasized the classics but dropped out of university before earning a degree. Wessel saw himself as a socialist who had been shaken by the "great social impoverishment and servitude of the working classes in all professions."

Wessel, the son of a Protestant pastor, was 19 when he joined the Nazi Party in 1926. By 1929, he had advanced to become head of an SA squad in Friedrichshain. Within a few weeks, Wessel's rhetorical skills had helped him recruit dozens of new members. Together, they would become the legendary "SA-Sturm 5."

...

He soon became a hated figure in the "Commune," as the Nazis called the KPD. On Jan. 14, 1930, Albrecht Höhler, a communist pimp, shot the SA officer, who was living with a former prostitute, in the mouth. Wessel died of complications from the attack on Feb. 23.

His funeral illustrated how just out-of-control Berlin had become. Communists attacked the funeral procession and tried to seize the coffin. Before the funeral, they had painted the words "A final Heil Hitler to the pimp Horst Wessel!" on the wall of the Nikolai Cemetery.

But like I keep saying, Nazis like it when you punch them. Violence begets violence, and Nazis love violence, because it offers their best chance of victory.

But the killing of one of its most powerful propagandists didn't weaken the Nazi movement in Berlin. Communists, in particular, increasingly became the victims of armed SA members. In one version of their song, "We March Through Greater Berlin," they sang "The red front, break them to pieces." In another version, the words were changed to: "beat them to a pulp."

The Nazi Party continued to attract new members, and Wessel became their martyr. In the SA "storm bars" -- which, according to the police, grew fivefold, to 107, between 1928 and 1931 -- SA members in their brown uniforms sang the anthem Wessel had supposedly written: "The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed! The SA marches with quiet, steady step."

But history aside, I fail to see what Middlebury and Weimar Germany have in common. Even if you think that Charles Murray is a racist, he most assuredly not a fascist. He doesn't even support Trump, much less any kind of white nationalist movement. So how does beating up someone who merely agreed to moderate a debate at which he was present help to defeat fascism?

Which part? Richard Coehn not being a reliable source? The tendency of white people (even white liberals) to act like they were in fear for their life even when they weren't?

The part where Allison Stanger was NOT assaulted by Antifa at Middlebury College on March 2, 2017. That was the claim you took issue with, remember? Or have you conceded that she was assaulted, and are now arguing it was justified?

[Arkle]

This is very vague. What's enough? Who determines when we've had enough? What constitutes 'spreading their nonsense in public?' How do you appeal decisions if you feel you were beaten in error?

Credit where credit is due, these actually are fair questions here. In order, the same answer for the first twol it's enough when we get back to the days when these rallies were an easy to count, small group of assholes in hoods who were more in danger of accidentally setting themselves on fire than actually killing anybody. As for the last, if you don't wear their iconography, use their dogwhistles, or chant their slogans, the chances of being mistaken for a Nazi are very, VERY slim. I do feel kinda sorry for people who had that Richard Spencer haircut before that guy got famous because mainstream nespapers (the so-called Liberal media) treated him like he had anything of value to say because he dressed dapper ("Hey, he can't be a Nazi, he's not wearing brown!"). I mean, it is kind of a stupid haircut, but I can understand why people who had that cut before it became the go-to cut for a lot of modern-day Nazis would be concerned.

So how do we administer that?

There are a lot of Black journalists and scholars on Twitter. Maybe follow their feeds. That's a pretty simple place to start.

Who determines who does and doesn't qualify as a 'victim?'

Certainly not the kinds of people who think that Antifa and the Nazis are two sides of the same coin. Those people are clearly too stupid to trust on important issues. But how about we start with something basic; say, the families of Black people murdered by cops who got away with it?

I have a Hispanic last name, can I dish out beatings?

On Nazis, absolutely. They get their way, they'll either kill you or "send you back where you came from" because they will just assume you're an immigrant.

On the other hand, I have white skin. Do I receive beatings?

That skin will only protect you for so long. As for the other part, if you aren't on the Nazi side, the only people you have to worry about getting beatings from are the Nazis. In which case, defend yourself by any means neccesary.

Or maybe they aren't mutual exclusive, so I can both give AND receive beatings? Is any of this codified anywhere?

Kinda. Did you ever hear about this thing called World War II? It's kinda obscure, but basically it's how we as a planet decided that yes, in fact, beating up Nazis was not a bad thing.

Because you believe in the marketplace of ideas?

So you think racism is a valid idea worth considering? Despite the centuries of evidence of how terrible it is? That makes you a bad person.

You cannot beat an ideology with fists, only with words. And you can only have words if you have debate.

Right. Beucase that's how slavery was ended in the American South. Words. The Nazis? Totally defeated with words. I know this will break you brain, but there are in fact some things out there that are NOT UP FOR DEBATE! Not very many. I never counted, but if I did I bet I could do it without taking off my shoes as the old joke goes. But they exist. Life in general is shades of grey, but there are these tiny pockets where it is in fact, Black & White. You are a monster if you honestly think that "should we people who aren't cishet wqhite men as human beings" as anyhting other than a given. People's humanity is not up for debate, and by saying that it should be, you are, regardless of how you "feel in your heart" that oputs you on the side of racists. Of bigots. OF NAZIS!

On the issue of guilt by association, I'm afraid we simply disagree.

"If you have ten people who are cool with hanging around one Nazi, what you have is 11 Nazis."

I cannot sanction judging someone guilty of a crime simply because they are associated with something we don't like.

Yes, how dare we suggest that people who freely associate with groups that support bigotry and genocide might also support bigotry and genocide. *eyeroll*

That is the sort of thing the worst governments around the world engage in with abandon, and I have never seen it used in the furtherance of justice, only control. I'm particularly surprised to see it advocated by a member of the left, given how often that tactic has been used against leftist movements in this country.

Funny you say this even while Nazis are using the language of the Left to get their way, calling their hate "free speech," their racism "preserving culture," etc. ad nauseum. And gullible people like you swallow it whole. Sorry, I've no intention of my values being weaponized by those who would seek to take them away.

The issue of giving credence to an argument by including it in debate is more nuanced topic. I'm sympathetic to those who get frustrated attempting to argue basic facts with ideologues. But there's no helping it. If an idea cannot be challenged, then it cannot be defended, and it cannot grow. Nobody said freedom was easy.

Especially when people who want to take it away get welcomed into the club by people like you. You know the metaphor of the fox guarding the henhouse? You're the hen who thought it was a good idea beucase you deluded yourself into thinking you could talk your way out of getting eaten.

First of all, I take issue with your history. Lots of fascists got punched in 1920s Germany. Heck, they didn't stop at punches, they starting killing Nazis as well.

If only more people had followed the anti-fascists example...

But like I keep saying, Nazis like it when you punch them. Violence begets violence, and Nazis love violence, because it offers their best chance of victory.

Yes, they like it so much they cry like little kids with skinned knees when... Oh, wait, those Nazis weren't even punched. They were just caught on camera being Nazis and had to face consequences for it.

But history aside, I fail to see what Middlebury and Weimar Germany have in common. Even if you think that Charles Murray is a racist,

No "think" about it. He is a racist. Been known as one since the 1990s.

So how does beating up someone who merely agreed to moderate a debate at which he was present help to defeat fascism?

The better question is why would anyone who isn't a fucking moron invite him to a debate in the first place.

The part where Allison Stanger was NOT assaulted by Antifa at Middlebury College on March 2, 2017. That was the claim you took issue with, remember?

The one I said I was skeptical about. If I was trying to prove it wrong, I would've said something much stronger than "skeptical."

Or have you conceded that she was assaulted, and are now arguing it was justified?

So far I haven't found any evidence that she wasn't, though I've yet to find an article that doesn't frame it as if Charles Murray is some kind of serious academic deserving of 'respect even if you disagree with him' as opposed to 'racist cokcsore.' So, assaulted? Probably. Justified? Probably not. But neitehr was inviting racist Charles Murray to a campus that has POC on it, the very kind of people fans of Charles Murray target for harrasment and violence. So there's no heroes here. She shouldn't have gotten her pulled. She shouldn't have given a platform to a racist either. So we'll call it even.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

To the "Nazis like being punched/want to be punched" assertion,

Consider Richard Spencer, who is now afraid to appear in public after being punched a few times.
Consider Christopher Cantwell, sobbing and pretending that he wasn't calling for violence now that he has actually been threatened with retribution and has some consequences to fear.

Then consider this political cartoon:

Do you REALLY think this is an accurate depiction? Do you REALLY think is how it will go down?

[Wild_Kraken]

Yup. As popular a sentiment at it is on the internet, "punching a Nazi" helps his cause 99% of the time. Sure, during a torch march in Charlottesville it might be necessary, but it most certainly isn't necessary for a speech at Berkeley. The fact that the one followed the other is not a coincidence. The Nazi wants to be punched. Violence, regardless of the source, fuels his movement.

This is very true, violence has only ever helped Nazis and their movements. Like when, during Operation Bagration, the Soviet Army punched Army Group Center so hard it disintegrated. The Wehrmacht was so fueled by this that they went on to conquer all of Asia. And let's not forget that after months and months of British and American bombers systematically destroying German cities just how keen the average German was on remaining a Nazi. Yes, not even the loss of millions of their citizens, the destruction of their homes, the shrinking of their territory, and being split into two countries and being occupied for half a century was enough to break the Nazi hold on Germany, which, as we all know, is still a fascist dictatorship bent on acquiring Labensraum to the east.

The idea that "violence helps Nazis" has to be one of the most discredited ideas in all of political history. To seriously entertain the premise, you'd have to ignore events such as the battle of cable street, the battle of lewisham, and attacks on the German-American Bund, to name a few. You'd also have to come up with a reasonable explanation as to why violence only helps Nazis, and not any other group that experiences political violence. Why did violence in Germany lead to the rise of Hitler and not the rise of Thalmann? It really is a grade school understanding of the world.

EDIT: Additionally, you'd have to explain how regular law enforcement crackdowns on Nazi groups either isn't violence, or actually helps them. How did, for example, the death of the leader of The Order at the hands of law enforcement help them or fuel them?

[LittleRaven]

In order, the same answer for the first twol it's enough when we get back to the days when these rallies were an easy to count, small group of assholes in hoods who were more in danger of accidentally setting themselves on fire than actually killing anybody.

Well, if Boston is any guide, we're there now.

Tens of thousands of anti-racism protesters have opposed the "Free Speech" rally in the US city of Boston that featured right-wing speakers.

The rally on Boston Common, which attracted only a small crowd, disbanded early and the participants were escorted out by police.

So can we stop beating people now?

As for the last, if you don't wear their iconography, use their dogwhistles, or chant their slogans, the chances of being mistaken for a Nazi are very, VERY slim.

Really? What did Taylor Lorenz do wrong, then?

There are a lot of Black journalists and scholars on Twitter. Maybe follow their feeds.

Wait, Black journalists and scholars are advocating beating people now? Which feeds are these? Trust me...I'll follow them.

But how about we start with something basic; say, the families of Black people murdered by cops who got away with it?

Ok, so if you can prove you had a family member murdered by a cop then you get to determine who gets beaten? What exactly do we mean by 'got away with it?' Jeronimo Yanez was tried in a court of law, but the jury let him go. Does Valerie Castile still get to direct beatings, or is that honor reserved for people like Quinyetta Sterling? Diamond Reynolds was just the girlfriend, does that qualify her for anything? Is there a rule book we can follow for when two families disagree on who should be beaten?

On Nazis, absolutely. They get their way, they'll either kill you or "send you back where you came from" because they will just assume you're an immigrant.

But they're not getting their way right now. Isn't that a pretty important fact in determining whether or not I can beat them?

Kinda. Did you ever hear about this thing called World War II? It's kinda obscure, but basically it's how we as a planet decided that yes, in fact, beating up Nazis was not a bad thing.

We did no such thing, and as a student of history, you know this. Dismantling the Nazi state is not the same thing as declaring open season on National Socialists. In fact, the Nine made it quite clear that you're allowed to hold and express deeply unpopular opinions in public spaces, so long as you do it peacefully.

So you think racism is a valid idea worth considering?

Hardly. I don't think denying climate change is worth considering either. But there are people who believe in both of those things, and the only way to change their mind is to talk to them.

Right. Beucase that's how slavery was ended in the American South. Words. The Nazis? Totally defeated with words.

You really think the Civil War ended slavery? Even here in the US? Do you really think facism died with WW II, even in Germany? Surely you're not that naive. The civil war ended the legalized practice of slavery, but it did very little to dent the idea that some people should be treated as property to be bought and sold. WW II ended the Nazi state, but it did not break the ideology. You cannot kill your way to a better world. You can only convince.

Funny you say this even while Nazis are using the language of the Left to get their way, calling their hate "free speech," their racism "preserving culture," etc. ad nauseum. And gullible people like you swallow it whole. Sorry, I've no intention of my values being weaponized by those who would seek to take them away.

Like I said, we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue. Fortunately, the Constitution has my back, at least for now.

You're the hen who thought it was a good idea beucase you deluded yourself into thinking you could talk your way out of getting eaten.

You have yet to provide any kind of structured alternative. You speak in vague terms about how people should be beaten and who should determine who gets beaten, but you're dreadfully light on specifics. You've been passionately involved in politics since 1988. You know that government is all about specifics and details. Guarding the hen-house is hard, thankless, frustrating work, and it requires a lot of thought and effort. It doesn't just spring from slogans.

Yes, they like it so much they cry like little kids with skinned knees when... Oh, wait, those Nazis weren't even punched. They were just caught on camera being Nazis and had to face consequences for it.

Notice, though. What consequence have him so scared? Being punched? No. Being arrested? Yes. If you want to defeat Nazis - expose them, mock them, reject them....don't punch them.

The better question is why would anyone who isn't a fucking moron invite him to a debate in the first place.

This is a deflection. Please answer my question. How does punching Allison Stanger at a debate featuring Charles Murray help defeat fascism?

[GandALF]

To the "Nazis like being punched/want to be punched" assertion,

Consider Richard Spencer, who is now afraid to appear in public after being punched a few times.
Consider Christopher Cantwell, sobbing and pretending that he wasn't calling for violence now that he has actually been threatened with retribution and has some consequences to fear.

Then consider this political cartoon:

Do you REALLY think this is an accurate depiction? Do you REALLY think is how it will go down?

The Fascist worldview surrounds a never ending Darwinian struggle for dominance between races and nations states that is always being fought, either directly or indirectly. Using violence on them gives them the chance to say "look, our race/nation is under attack! join us." If you ignore them or tell them to get lost then their ideas can't be as easily defended.

[LittleRaven]

Consider Richard Spencer, who is now afraid to appear in public after being punched a few times.
Consider Christopher Cantwell, sobbing and pretending that he wasn't calling for violence now that he has actually been threatened with retribution and has some consequences to fear.

Richard Spencer should not be afraid to appear in public. Sure, he holds detestable views, but the foundation of a civil society is that people don't get punched for thought crimes. Cantwell is sobbing because the state is coming after him, not Antifa. The state must hold a monopoly on violence. Otherwise, things get dicey real fast.

Do you REALLY think this is an accurate depiction? Do you REALLY think is how it will go down?

Do I think what will go down?

[Arkle]

As for the last, if you don't wear their iconography, use their dogwhistles, or chant their slogans, the chances of being mistaken for a Nazi are very, VERY slim.

Really? What did Taylor Lorenz do wrong, then?

What are you, 4? I said the chances "very slim." Not "no chance at all." Why do so many people seem to miss that? For DECADES, I keep running into idiots who can't tell the difference etween those two ideas. I say "some," they respond as if I said all. I say a "portion," they react as if I said "a majority." I say "a slim chance" they react as if I said "no chance." Are y'all just stupid or gettng your lying techniques from the same playbook?

There are a lot of Black journalists and scholars on Twitter. Maybe follow their feeds.

Wait, Black journalists and scholars are advocating beating people now? Which feeds are these? Trust me...I'll follow them.

Gonna go with stupid. My coment was in response to the question of "Who do we listen to about what counts as racism." Learn to read asshole!

Honestly, I'm not even gonna bother with the rest of your post if this is how you're gonna be. I'll wait for an adult to come along.

[LittleRaven]

The idea that "violence helps Nazis" has to be one of the most discredited ideas in all of political history.

No, you just over simplify. Violence helps extreme political movements. In this country, right now, that's mostly Nazis. In other countries, it'll be Communists, or religious zealots, or just plain authoritarians. These sorts of movements have a very hard time gaining traction in a stable, civil society - which is why the first thing any of them will attempt to do will be to stop society from being civil. It's not a coincidence that most of problems with domestic terrorism in the US these days come from the right. They need violence, because it's the only chance they have.

This sort of tactic, said Jeffrey Kaplan, an academic researcher and the author of a number of books on terrorist movements, “is a constant in terrorism or any form of asymmetric warfare,” whether the group in question is jihadist or white supremacist or whatever else. Kaplan, who is an incoming professor at King Fahd Security College in Riyadh, summed up the extremists’ logic like this: “Our numbers are paltry, we are despised by our countrymen and we couldn’t get a date for the life of us, but any action that has enough impact to strike at the heart of the enemy by getting media coverage is a major triumph.” Violent confrontations allow extremists to make a tantalizing offer to the angry, disillusioned young men — they are almost entirely men — whom they hope to groom to become tomorrow’s haters and killers: We are part of a movement to change the world, as you can see from this latest video that movement is working, and you can be a part of it.

EDIT: Additionally, you'd have to explain how regular law enforcement crackdowns on Nazi groups either isn't violence, or actually helps them.

There's a massive difference between 'punching Nazis' and 'having the state punch Nazis.' I'm all for getting Nazis arrested when they break the law - which they tend to do fairly often, what with being idiots and all.