The anti‐Semite fascist has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew others appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse…
…Never believe that anti‐ Semites fascists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites fascists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
Fascists don’t care about words or reasoning. They spread hate, discrimination, and lies and when challenged spout more lies to justify it. Even if presented with cold hard, unrefutable, facts.
When words, debate, and diplomacy can no longer prevent the calls to violence, the bigotry, the intolerance, then there is but one option; to speak the language they do understand.
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
They’re using that age old rhetorical device of children of asking “why” forever regardless of the answer just to annoy their parents.
In this case they are adults and if someone can’t answer their questions the way they want then they’re right by default. And they believe they are great minds in the process.
But it’s back to the arguement about the paradox of tolerance. If you don’t beat these people they’ll keep doing it. Given that they’re calling for the lives of others to be destroyed inaction is not really an option.
Someone’s going to suffer either way, might as well be the little skid mark that’s causing the problem to begin with.
So I would love to know what your proposed solution is.
The “paradox of tolerance” implies that you need constitutional guarantees against threats to democracy, not that you can go around beating people up for being anti-immigrant loudmouth prick.
We have legal prohibitions against hate speech and incitement that have been arrived at democratically: deciding that they don’t go far enough so you’re going to take matters into your own hands is not just violent and lawless but supremely arrogant.
It also plays into the fascists’ desire for violence. It’s wrong morally, legally and practically.
All of this is true, and this guy is still a shitstain who ought to shut up.
We have legal prohibitions against hate speech and incitement that have been arrived at democratically: deciding that they don’t go far enough so you’re going to take matters into your own hands is not just violent and lawless but supremely arrogant.
Your naivety is profound. The law is defined by the victors who subsequently imbue in law, the rights and privileges they fought for with violence. But that happens after the fact. The Nazis were not defeated because we went “no you can’t do that, look at this law here”, they were defeated by shooting them with bullets until they gave up. In Germany it’s illegal to be a Nazi, and yet they’re coming back, so clearly the law itself is not enough, it must be enforced by someone.
Labour are clearly not going to do it, so what do you recommend?
It also plays into the fascists’ desire for violence.
Actually this is incorrect. They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it. If they knew they would get attacked every time they stuck their heads up above the parapet, we wouldn’t hear from them any more. They want it all their own way, they want to be able to attack people and set fire to buildings with impunity, they cannot tolerate even the most mild of pushbacks. In this guy’s case I suspect we won’t hear as much from him. Yes he’s got his footage of being attacked, which I’m sure he’ll whine him out online for a while, but I also suspect that he won’t be pulling stunts like that again.
It’s wrong morally, legally and practically.
Morality is your own judgement it’s not an absolute that you can point to, so this comment is meaningless. It’s definitely illegal, I’m not sure if that makes a difference though since the law isn’t being enforced so what the law says is also meaningless. Practically I think I’ve explained why it’s actually worked, the skid mark has been scared off. I know he’s threatened to come back with a bunch of lads but I doubt he will. They’re still going to be far more of us than there is of them.
I missed the part where all the Nazis did was debate people. I thought they also did some worse things, which maybe the principles I outlined above would permit. Maybe they did some things which are already illegal under UK law.
They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it.
The communists tried street violence in nazi Germany and the Nazis absolutely did take it. Why are Farage, Lowe and the rest of them all so rabid about the prospect of civil war?
Yeah waiting it out and seeing them realize the error of their ways through slow social isolation has definitely happened and there definitely aren’t any ramifications to letting themselves simply spew their hate speech out into the world.
Nothing bad ever happened to us when we stayed out of the mud, except for, you know, fucking everything, you asshat.
The next time someone you love is murdered and/or harassed because the murderer/harasser was inspired by a Charlie Kirk wannabe, remember to be the “bigger person” and don’t stoop to their level. 🖕🏽
Anyone who is advocating for “remigration” is advocating for the use of violence to remove racial minorities.
If you are a pacifist and you don’t believe in violence in any circumstance, then fine. But if ever there is a time to use violence in defence of ourselves and the vulnerable in our society, I believe it’s now, before the state is captured by fascists. I think that if we had another Battle of Cable Street instead of a counter-protest at the next few “Unite the Kingdom” rallies (or whatever they call them these days) then we’d sort this shit out real fast.
Considering he wants people’s lives destroyed, I’d say beating his ass was a kindness. It’s the closest thing to effective communication you can get with a Nazi without doing even worse to them.
I think there’s a tiny subsection of humanity where it’s unfortunately easier to explain things with a closed fist than an open mouth. “Strength” is the only language they understand - so how else can we communicate?
I don’t advocate violence but I see it like presents - it’s better to give then receive.
I don’t like these types any more than most sane people do, but I’m not really a fan of stooping to their level, either.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
Fascists don’t care about words or reasoning. They spread hate, discrimination, and lies and when challenged spout more lies to justify it. Even if presented with cold hard, unrefutable, facts.
When words, debate, and diplomacy can no longer prevent the calls to violence, the bigotry, the intolerance, then there is but one option; to speak the language they do understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
They’re using that age old rhetorical device of children of asking “why” forever regardless of the answer just to annoy their parents.
In this case they are adults and if someone can’t answer their questions the way they want then they’re right by default. And they believe they are great minds in the process.
Then you’re a part of the problem, namby-pamby fence sitters
But it’s back to the arguement about the paradox of tolerance. If you don’t beat these people they’ll keep doing it. Given that they’re calling for the lives of others to be destroyed inaction is not really an option.
Someone’s going to suffer either way, might as well be the little skid mark that’s causing the problem to begin with.
So I would love to know what your proposed solution is.
The “paradox of tolerance” implies that you need constitutional guarantees against threats to democracy, not that you can go around beating people up for being anti-immigrant loudmouth prick.
We have legal prohibitions against hate speech and incitement that have been arrived at democratically: deciding that they don’t go far enough so you’re going to take matters into your own hands is not just violent and lawless but supremely arrogant.
It also plays into the fascists’ desire for violence. It’s wrong morally, legally and practically.
All of this is true, and this guy is still a shitstain who ought to shut up.
Your naivety is profound. The law is defined by the victors who subsequently imbue in law, the rights and privileges they fought for with violence. But that happens after the fact. The Nazis were not defeated because we went “no you can’t do that, look at this law here”, they were defeated by shooting them with bullets until they gave up. In Germany it’s illegal to be a Nazi, and yet they’re coming back, so clearly the law itself is not enough, it must be enforced by someone.
Labour are clearly not going to do it, so what do you recommend?
Actually this is incorrect. They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it. If they knew they would get attacked every time they stuck their heads up above the parapet, we wouldn’t hear from them any more. They want it all their own way, they want to be able to attack people and set fire to buildings with impunity, they cannot tolerate even the most mild of pushbacks. In this guy’s case I suspect we won’t hear as much from him. Yes he’s got his footage of being attacked, which I’m sure he’ll whine him out online for a while, but I also suspect that he won’t be pulling stunts like that again.
Morality is your own judgement it’s not an absolute that you can point to, so this comment is meaningless. It’s definitely illegal, I’m not sure if that makes a difference though since the law isn’t being enforced so what the law says is also meaningless. Practically I think I’ve explained why it’s actually worked, the skid mark has been scared off. I know he’s threatened to come back with a bunch of lads but I doubt he will. They’re still going to be far more of us than there is of them.
I missed the part where all the Nazis did was debate people. I thought they also did some worse things, which maybe the principles I outlined above would permit. Maybe they did some things which are already illegal under UK law.
The communists tried street violence in nazi Germany and the Nazis absolutely did take it. Why are Farage, Lowe and the rest of them all so rabid about the prospect of civil war?
Right so those riots the other day you didn’t see that? These people are not only debating.
I don’t know what your goal is but it isn’t working here, just give it up.
And we’re arresting those people and putting them in jail, using force to do so where necessary, aren’t we?
Naivety = / = morality. Get out of here with that bullshit.
Weak response.
Weak stance in general.
Yeah waiting it out and seeing them realize the error of their ways through slow social isolation has definitely happened and there definitely aren’t any ramifications to letting themselves simply spew their hate speech out into the world.
Nothing bad ever happened to us when we stayed out of the mud, except for, you know, fucking everything, you asshat.
The next time someone you love is murdered and/or harassed because the murderer/harasser was inspired by a Charlie Kirk wannabe, remember to be the “bigger person” and don’t stoop to their level. 🖕🏽
Anyone who is advocating for “remigration” is advocating for the use of violence to remove racial minorities.
If you are a pacifist and you don’t believe in violence in any circumstance, then fine. But if ever there is a time to use violence in defence of ourselves and the vulnerable in our society, I believe it’s now, before the state is captured by fascists. I think that if we had another Battle of Cable Street instead of a counter-protest at the next few “Unite the Kingdom” rallies (or whatever they call them these days) then we’d sort this shit out real fast.
They didn’t stoop to his level, he’s a racist, fascist piece of shit. I’d say they were patient and kind, all things considered.
Considering he wants people’s lives destroyed, I’d say beating his ass was a kindness. It’s the closest thing to effective communication you can get with a Nazi without doing even worse to them.
I think there’s a tiny subsection of humanity where it’s unfortunately easier to explain things with a closed fist than an open mouth. “Strength” is the only language they understand - so how else can we communicate?
I don’t advocate violence but I see it like presents - it’s better to give then receive.