Unite the Right Racist Scum

[wonky]

@Spice_Weasel

I agree that free speech is an important value, but I do have to wonder at what point it stretches its intended purpose. Let’s imagine for the sake of argument that we get to the point that every Nazi rally in the country results in some Nazis killing some anti-racist activists. (Or vice-versa… people are dying, is what I’m saying.) At what point does this ‘‘freedom of speech’’ concept break down, when it will obviously result in violence?

To put it another way, how can you know that someone’s intent is ‘‘peaceful’’ until after the violence has already occurred? What do we do when people are effectively using these flashpoints to massacre people like sitting ducks? Can we call those groups terrorists and stop them from gathering for the purposes of doing violence? Or is that basically the definition of war? Is that how wars begin?

Because that’s what I’m seeing in places like Charlottesville. I’m seeing people who show up with the intent to do violence against opponents who will retaliate with violence. I’m seeing people who go to these events because they want to make war.

I’m curious if we have any historical or legal precedent in that regard.

I think there are some interesting thought experiments we can consider.

Let’s say you have a small village. One day, a group of people come to the village, all wearing white “Ice Bear Loves Pancakes” t-shirts. They say they come in peace but they really fucking hate villagers. They talk for a while then one of them pulls out a gun and shoots one of the villagers in the head, killing him. The Ice Bearists leave.

The next day, a group of people come to the village, all wearing white “Ice Bear Loves Pancakes” t-shirts. They say they come in peace but they fucking hate villagers. The villagers recognize the members of the group. What should the villagers do? What would we consider ethical?

What if a group came to the village every day for a year, always wearing “Ice Bear Loves Pancakes” t-shirts. They say they come in peace but they really fucking hate villagers. They always talk for a while then one of them always pulls out a gun and shoots one of the villagers in the head, killing him or her. What would we consider ethical?

What if they don’t recognize the members of the group? What if, in fact, the members of the group are constantly changing? What if they only shoot someone half the time? What if the group kills twenty? What if the group rapes and kills twenty?

What if the group stops showing up for ten years, then shows up again? Seventy years?

What if the group kills everyone in the village and then a year later shows up at the next village over?

What if a group shows up wearing “Ice Bear Loves Fruit Pie” t-shirts?
Obviously, this is a goofy, impossible thought experiment, but it’s underlying questions are valid, I think. At what point do we think it’s ethical to say “We have given you a chance. Now you don’t get to do this any longer”? Some of us would likely say you get one chance only forever. Others would give more chances. Some might give infinite chances so long as the appeasing words were there to start with.

I’m in the more than one, less than infinity camp. But I don’t think there is one right answer.

[Luke_Warmwater]

Here is an idea of how things went down in Charlottesville.

This is a 97 minute video that follows the “Unite the Right” demonstrators through Charlottesville. There is no narration so you can makeup your own interpretation of events. It may be the most fascinating thing I’ve seen on u-tube.

[Evil_Economist]

@octopus

Shame you don’t. And you actually advocated violence as well.

Wow, your commitment to defending free speech sure disappeared fast.

[Richard_Parker]

@jsgoddess

I think there are some interesting thought experiments we can consider.

Let’s say you have a small village. One day, a group of people come to the village, all wearing white “Ice Bear Loves Pancakes” t-shirts. They say they come in peace but they really fucking hate villagers. They talk for a while then one of them pulls out a gun and shoots one of the villagers in the head, killing him. The Ice Bearists leave.

The next day, a group of people come to the village, all wearing white “Ice Bear Loves Pancakes” t-shirts. They say they come in peace but they fucking hate villagers. The villagers recognize the members of the group. What should the villagers do? What would we consider ethical?

What if a group came to the village every day for a year, always wearing “Ice Bear Loves Pancakes” t-shirts. They say they come in peace but they really fucking hate villagers. They always talk for a while then one of them always pulls out a gun and shoots one of the villagers in the head, killing him or her. What would we consider ethical?

What if they don’t recognize the members of the group? What if, in fact, the members of the group are constantly changing? What if they only shoot someone half the time? What if the group kills twenty? What if the group rapes and kills twenty?

What if the group stops showing up for ten years, then shows up again? Seventy years?

What if the group kills everyone in the village and then a year later shows up at the next village over?

What if a group shows up wearing “Ice Bear Loves Fruit Pie” t-shirts?
Obviously, this is a goofy, impossible thought experiment, but it’s underlying questions are valid, I think. At what point do we think it’s ethical to say “We have given you a chance. Now you don’t get to do this any longer”? Some of us would likely say you get one chance only forever. Others would give more chances. Some might give infinite chances so long as the appeasing words were there to start with.

I’m in the more than one, less than infinity camp. But I don’t think there is one right answer.

Something very much like this hypo is being discussed ad nauseum in my corner of the world this evening. I think you identified the crux.

[Ale]

@Spice_Weasel

I agree that free speech is an important value, but I do have to wonder at what point it stretches its intended purpose. Let’s imagine for the sake of argument that we get to the point that every Nazi rally in the country results in some Nazis killing some anti-racist activists. (Or vice-versa… people are dying, is what I’m saying.) At what point does this ‘‘freedom of speech’’ concept break down, when it will obviously result in violence?

To put it another way, how can you know that someone’s intent is ‘‘peaceful’’ until after the violence has already occurred? What do we do when people are effectively using these flashpoints to massacre people like sitting ducks? Can we call those groups terrorists and stop them from gathering for the purposes of doing violence? Or is that basically the definition of war? Is that how wars begin?

Because that’s what I’m seeing in places like Charlottesville. I’m seeing people who show up with the intent to do violence against opponents who will retaliate with violence. I’m seeing people who go to these events because they want to make war.

I’m curious if we have any historical or legal precedent in that regard.

Freedom of speech breaks down when people decide violence against people that air bad ideas is not just acceptable but righteous.

[Evil_Economist]

@Ale

Freedom of speech breaks down when people decide violence against people that air bad ideas is not just acceptable but righteous.

Freedom of speech is already dead, then, because that’s what Neo Nazis already believe.

Or did you mean “all people”, in which case free speech will never die.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@SteveG1

If the guy has a flag and is sieg heiling, it’s probably a pretty safe bet.

And octopus is somehow a nazi sympathizer. Despite the fact that he did no such thing, and has consistently protested that he has done no such thing, and every single thing he has said follows directly from entirely reasonable meta-level principles and the rights every citizen in the country has. Look, I hate octopus as much as the next guy, but if we’re going to declare a group too evil for basic protections, we need to be very clear on who is and is not in that group. What has octopus said that the ACLU hasn’t said in a less-shitty way?

Doxxing? Take all the pictures you want. If he’s brave enough to strap on a gun and wave a Nazi flag and talk about “blood and soil” or killing “whoever”, he is brave enough to let everyone know. And I mean everyone.

The same could be said about gay pride participants 20 years ago. “If he’s brave enough to go out there in rainbow face paint and talk about overthrowing the natural order of things, he is brave enough to let everyone know.” What shouldn’t people be brave enough to face constantly?

[Evil_Economist]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

The same could be said about gay pride participants 20 years ago.

Ummmmm…I’m not sure that’s really the same thing.

[Ale]

@Evil_Economist

Freedom of speech is already dead, then, because that’s what Neo Nazis already believe.

Or did you mean “all people”, in which case free speech will never die.

I meant the majority of the population, Nazis, Neo or Paleo, are an insignificant percentage of the population. You can choose to throw away the basic principles of the society you live in to fight against that or you can stick to them instead of succumbing to mass hysteria.

Should you go around tossing out basic freedoms on the basis of what some other fringe group does or say? Scientology, a complete crock, off with Freedom of Religion? Muslim terrorists, nasty bunch, that due process thing? Inconvenient!, and so on and so forth.

I’ll tell you something though, that tiny group must be feeling very big and mighty seeing how society is losing their mind over them.

[Leaper]

@Ale

I meant the majority of the population, Nazis, Neo or Paleo, are an insignificant percentage of the population. You can choose to throw away the basic principles of the society you live in to fight against that or you can stick to them instead of succumbing to mass hysteria.

And many of those at the counterprotests disagree with you on the state of racism in America and how much of an existential threat racism and white supremacy are on them and theirs.

[Evil_Economist]

@Ale

or you can stick to them instead of succumbing to mass hysteria.

If it’s the mass hysteria about “losing freedom of speech”, you’re talking about, I haven’t succumbed to it, thanks.

I’ll tell you something though, that tiny group must be feeling very big and mighty seeing how society is losing their mind over them.

If the vast majority of Americans thought I was an evil shitstain, and made those feelings known, I don’t think I would feel very big and mighty—I’d probably feel worried.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Evil_Economist

If it’s the mass hysteria about “losing freedom of speech”, you’re talking about, I haven’t succumbed to it, thanks.

If the vast majority of Americans thought I was an evil shitstain, and made those feelings known, I don’t think I would feel very big and mighty—I’d probably feel worried.

Everybody telling them how horrible they are just reinforces the “They’re all out to get us!” aspect. They’re Nazis. They know they aren’t “Nice”.

[Evil_Economist]

@Martini_Enfield

Everybody telling them how horrible they are just reinforces the “They’re all out to get us!” aspect.

If they think everyone’s out to get them they’ll probably crawl back under their rocks. I’m OK with that.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Evil_Economist

If they think everyone’s out to get them they’ll probably crawl back under their rocks. I’m OK with that.

Personally I’d be more worried about them starting to see other people as “Enemies” or “Threats” and possibly deciding to act on that down the track.

Honestly, the best thing to do is ignore them. Mutter “dickheads” under your breath if you encounter them, but otherwise don’t stage counter-protests, don’t get into fights with them - just stay out of their way, ignore them and deny them the attention they want.

[Evil_Economist]

@Martini_Enfield

Honestly, the best thing to do is ignore them. Mutter “dickheads” under your breath if you encounter them, but otherwise don’t stage counter-protests, don’t get into fights with them - just stay out of their way, ignore them and deny them the attention they want.

Care to provide some examples of that working?

[Martini_Enfield]

@Evil_Economist

Care to provide some examples of that working?

Various anti-mosque protests, IME. Ignoring the protestors and not covering the protests in the local media denied their views the oxygen the protestors wanted.

Also, there’s probably numerous examples in the US of people ignoring Nazis and it worked because nothing happened because people ignored them.

I believe the Blackshirt organisation in the UK in the 1920s and 1930s pretty much fell apart because people stopped paying attention to them too. Largely because they were declared illegal, too, admittedly.

[Nava]

@Martini_Enfield

Personally I’d be more worried about them starting to see other people as “Enemies” or “Threats” and possibly deciding to act on that down the track.

They already see us as enemies. You and me, just on account of being foreigner. But they’re cowards, they only dare attack when they think nobody will defend their target.

[Evil_Economist]

@Martini_Enfield

Various anti-mosque protests, IME. Ignoring the protestors and not covering the protests in the local media denied their views the oxygen the protestors wanted.

Anti-mosque attacks are on the increase. You just haven’t heard about it. Wonder why.

Largely because they were declared illegal, too, admittedly.

Yeah, that might have something to do with it.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Nava

They already see us as enemies. You and me, just on account of being foreigner. But they’re cowards, they only dare attack when they think nobody will defend their target.

I’m white, sound English and like firearms. They don’t think I’m one of their enemies.

You do make a good point about them seeing non-Anglo people as “enemies” already; my unclearly worded point was they might start deciding random people of any ethnicity (including white, but clearly the wrong kind of white because [scene missing]) are their enemies and part of the wider effort to oppress them or… whatever the issue is. I’m not entirely sure. I’m not a Nazi, I don’t have any Nazi friends; you get the idea.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Evil_Economist

Anti-mosque attacks are on the increase. You just haven’t heard about it. Wonder why.

Because I live in a different country?

Yeah, that might have something to do with it.

Still tied into the “No-one was paying any attention to them” thing; their leader got thrown in jail and that was basically the end of them. Can you imagine that working today?