Tantrika said:
The problem is that when they are not doing anything
then it is a matter of free speech
and it becomes an issue to far more than just white supremacists
First of all, thanks for your post.
I agree that if they aren't doing anything then it is about free speech.. but to what extent are they not doing anything?
Fundamentally, I do not agree with the US standard of freedom of speech. Its a great principle that when left unrestricted just erodes the principles the US was founded on.
European models of freedom of speech are far from perfect but I don't think its unreasonable to have restrictions based on incitement to hate crimes.
In Europe, we ban the Nazi groups like National Action and C18 who do commit violence. When they infiltrate the police and the military, there are investigations and procedures put in place to prevent this. When they target communities, people do not wait for the police to defend themselves.
For the more watered down far-right groups, they can have political parties and peaceful marches.. and there are peaceful counter protests in response. The police act as the buffer between these groups as one would expect.
Freedom of speech in the US, to my understanding, doesn't mean the entitlement to public platforms - though Enlil will correct that if I've misunderstood.
Counter-protestors have their freedom to speak and protest too. So when Akira suggests counter protestors shouldn't have been at Charlottesville, I find myself scratching my head in confusion. 
Tantrika said:
this is where things like calling people nazi apologists for standing up for free speech causes issues
it is not dissimilar from statements calling all Islamists terrorists or terrorist supporters because some are terrorists
Frankly, I doubt the sincerity of qman's free speech defense of Nazis as he doesn't tend to apply that to other groups.
Notice I'm not calling you, Enlil, Falc etc Nazi apologists for defending the US version of freedom of speech because I believe you are all more consistent.
Tantrika said:
defense of freedom of speech, even if that freedom is being exploited by nazis,
is not arguing in favour of the beliefs of nazis
I agree. But supporting the same, or overlapping, narratives and reducing Nazi crimes is not necessarily arguing against them.
Tantrika said:
to frame this a bit differently
if the Nazi issue in the US
were one of German immigrants rather than US-born citizens
would probably be comfortable calling for an immigration ban from Germany to the US
and think that the US government should be doing what they can
to keep nazi supporters from traveling to the US for political demonstrations
But ideology can't be filtered at the border. Otherwise da'esh ideology wouldn't be able to permeate societies so easily.
Tantrika said:
The US provides its citizens specific rights and protections from the government,
among which is the non-violent support and expression of potentially harmful ideas
this can lead to some detestable scenarios in terms of who 'gets to' express what
but the alternative would likely be worse
But when ideas become action, as they consistently have done with these groups.. what justice is there? White supremacist infiltrators in positions of power, and their allies, work to defend these groups. What fair debate/discussion is there? We have clear double standards with how we treat white terror groups compared to others. I have little faith in the system to address these groups compared to others. Look at how BLM are treated compared to J20 protestors and Nazis...and how some citizens and foreigners have their rights deprived from them (guantanamo, drone strikes).
In the US, you have politicians normalising anti-POC narratives:
The governor of Maine has said that people of colour were enemies of his state, and appeared to suggest they should be shot.
Tempest said:If you can successfully convince people that half the country is a bunch of Nazis..
Did I make that argument?
Quote:
SirTripAlot said:
I agree; same thing with flag burning. I definitely want to know how people associate ( like flag burners or ISIS supporters) so I can make an informed decision with my friendships and aquatences; If they are under the radar how can one truely know?
People don't necessarily advertise their political affiliations though. Say that fucking children and pets was legal, there would still be a social stigma about telling your friends and acquaintances. Maybe an extreme example but do you see what I mean?
Should we legalise more things in order to not have them go underground?
Quote:
TempestDnB said:I don't think they want to genocide people, I'm pretty sure these neo Nazis just believe that the races should be separated.
again, I want to reiterate that this is pretty naive and ironic since youre talking about "knowing one's enemy". How did segregation go in the past?
Black Wall Street
Rosewood massacre
Apartheid South Africa
-----------------------------------------------------
On violence:
I acknowledge that violence can be very counterproductive at times and those analyses have to be made. But I do believe there is a space of violence. That makes antifascists criminals, not fascists. When far-right terrorism isn't taken as seriously as da'esh terrorism, are vulnerable and marginalised communities really getting the protection they need? If the State can't do its job, people will get involved.
The Battle of Cable Street
The Battle of Waterloo
The battle of Lewisham
Is antifascist action only about violence? No, as I've said previously its a small part of it but clearly the aspect that gets most attention. It's limited use is seen as the best ethical alternative to allowing the violence of unimpeded Nazi groups against people who weren't always protected by the police..
Antifascists will always use available tools. Where nonviolence is more effective, it is the approach of choice.
US's largest anti-Muslim group cancels dozens of rallies after seeing size of anti-fascist crowds in Boston
Actions have resulted in organisations being established to track these groups and monitor abuses against communities. (like Newham Monitoring Project)
Actions included journalism, identifying perpetrators of crimes, strikes/demonstrations, strengthening union solidarity etc etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
On white privilege:
Some of you here seem to reject the very concept of white privilege. Would you dismiss class privilege as easily?
White privilege is not about white guilt - its just about acknowledging privileges that we get because of our race.
White privilege doesn't mean that everything is great for you or that you aren't struggling in poverty. There are multiple systems of oppression at play. We tend to care about the working class when we speak specifically of the "white working class". The term plays into the idea that these people are facing a structural disadvantage because they are white, rather than because they are working class. That pits white working class and working class people of colour against eachother as though they are vying for resources, when the structural violence from drained resources is more likely a class problem. By making it about race, class privileges of upper and middle classes, and government policies are not examined. For example - in the UK - the Right to Buy policy of the 1980s allowed tenants of social housing to buy them with the help of a discount. This of course reduced the amount of social housing. Between 2015-2016, 12,246 council homes were sold to tenants in England but only 2055 replacements had begun to be built. Was this about greedy brown immigrants taking all the housing? Or was it about policy failures? The answer to ending poverty in Britain is not in halting immigration, class will still fuck over the white working class. Although some deal with class prejudice, others deal with racialised class prejudice.
David Cameron in the UK came from a family that received huge compensation when slavery was abolished. That money kept within the family, and protected by tax avoidance, and put them in the position to send little "pig fucker" Dave to Eton where he joined the political elite, was groomed for government and became prime minister.
Qman denies white privilege because he can't see the relationship between prejudice and power. If a policeman thinks, like qman, that black people are inherently violent criminals, he will rush to assume a black person is a threat and focus on them. Meanwhile, qman could commit crimes and not necessarily get the same focus. Qman doesn't HAVE to be racist to receive that benefit.
Issues of complicity or apologism of Nazism doesn't mean those people are Nazis. The white liberal centre is susceptible to narratives pitting races against eachother. The "its ok to be white" 4chan campaign was, admittedly, clever in weaponising white privilege to push the liberals towards far-right narratives. The inability or unwillingness in society in general for people to have open discussions with analysis of these issues only fuel the hate.
--------------------
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Feminized Cannabis Seeds 
Spores for European Microscopy 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Tipote 
Enlil
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
KingOftheThing
zappaisgod
The_Red_Crayon
Luddite
kotik
Vvellum