Dial it WAY back.
I know that a number of posters (on both sides) are enjoying getting worked up on this topic, but let us not get into making personal comments.
[ /Moderating ]
Um… you *do *realize I linked several articles on the precise nature of fascism, right ? And how it *specifically *pertains to Trumpism ?
So, no, ICE employees are not nazis and aren’t fascists as a group (though individuals among them can be fascists, or even nazis). Republicans may or may not be fascists (or nazis) on a case-by-case basis but the party itself isn’t fascist or violent. Trump himself is not a nazi, although he is absolutely a fascist. Proud Boys are nazis.
If y’all insist on being absolutely punctilious on terminology, none of them are nazis nor can they be nazis since nazism stricly pertains to Hitler’s regime and as of yesterday Hitler was still confirmed dead ; but nazi is a handy and punchy shorthand for “violent, antisemitic white supremacist”.
All clear now ? Attaboy.
I think I will give your words all the attention a person who seems to believe that you can’t call someone a Nazi unless that person is wearing a uniform with skulls on it deserves.
No, we’re not all clear. You’ve indicated that you think Andy Ngo is a nazi even though he isn’t, AFAIK, any of those three things (violent antisemitic or a white supremacist).
That would, in fact, be a condemnation, yes. I don’t approve of what he did. I think he was wrong to do what he did. I would strongly enjoin people not do what he did. I wouldn’t do what he did myself.
What more do you want or expect me to say ?
Why do you keep missing the point ? It’s not about whether I like it or not. It’s about he’s telling lies. For profit. It’s fraud.
Some of them are, sure. Hannity and Carlson aren’t, for example.
- this person is bad, their name is X
- the bad person wants to hurt you for no reason
- it’s ok to hurt bad persons
is a narrative that, while it does stop just short of openly calling for violence, can not do anything besides generating violence. It’s still a call for violence if you have the listener come up with the conclusion on their own. It’s the definition of hate speech, which encompasses more than strictly direct calls to violence. I talked about that (much) earlier in the thread (and sending enemy lists to AtomWaffen is pretty much a general call for violence anyway).
It’s not about their beliefs. It’s about what they do.
Stop misrepresenting what I say. It’s not guilt by association when you materially help the commission of a crime.
I realize that this thread has deteriorated into the point of cherry-picking phrases to be misinterpreted and then “rebutted,” but no one is persuaded by such discussion fragments and it is getting boring for anyone not a member of the principal feudists.
Everyone might give it a rest if they do not have any more to say than I want to complain about my misinterpretation of your last post. Comments directly addressing the actual OP are welcome, of course.
Not an order, just a suggestion.
Yes. Andy is crypto. Very transparently so. It might come as a blinding shock to you, but some nazis don’t openly say that they are, strenuously object to any and all nazism in public even.
And yet all he ever does is try to normalize Proud Boys (who are nazis), demonize antifa (who oppose Proud Boys, who are nazis) through fabrications, participates in Proud Boys (who are nazis) planning on committing violence upon unsuspecting antifa (who oppose Proud Boys, who are nazis) peacefully drinking in a bar, list names of antifa and those he deems to be antifa supporters for the benefit of nazis… It’s a wonder, really, why *anyone *could ever think he kinda sorta really likes and supports nazis as well as what those nazis do.
It’s because he keeps doing it, you see.
Let’s try this angle. The group non- college educated rural whites. An identifiable demographic based on who they are.
Is there a difference between saying -
The group has too much power and are imposing their agenda on the rest of us.
The group is overall deplorable, hateful, and ignorant. A threat to the rest of us. (Which might incite others to do bad things.)
The group ideally should just be rounded up and put in camps.
Saying good that one was killed at a MAGA rally.
Someone who calls for violence directed at a specific person.
And someone who pulls the trigger?
Are there no “practical differences” between them?
Do all deserve to have violence directed against them? Should all be equally prohibited and punishable by law? How effective would such a law be?
Great, cool. What’s YOUR OPINION? That’s what you were asked. Should hateful speech that is not incitement be illegal?
Just to further clarify : I said, and I meant it when I said it, that I was in two minds about what happened to Ngo. And I certainly don’t think about it in terms of “deserve” as I have a profound dislike for that word/concept.
I’m not happy or gleeful about his getting beat up. I don’t think it was necessary to beat him up at that point in time, either. And in the specific sense that it was a giant boon for his persecution porn, I’m *really *unhappy some idiot took his bait & beat him up.
But at the same time, I do think his use (or misuse) of speech is irresponsibly dangerous, on the level of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, which I think we agree is OK to restrict ? That it does lead very directly to increased violence and harassment, and that there really isn’t much that can be done per current US law to prevent him from causing the harm he demonstrably causes or otherwise compel him to shut the fuck up.
I think there should be, for the rather intuitive reason that I feel it’s kind of best when nobody beats up anybody , ergo speech that strictly increases the people beating up other peopleness of society is unbest.
Which, implicitly, is condoning *some *form of violence against him, since any law is ultimately backed by state violence. This leads me to question myself re: why I would be ok with this violence for the purpose of shutting him up & harm prevention, but not *that violence for the purpose of shutting him up & harm prevention. I can’t really come up with a satisfying answer.
Hence, two minds.
*(in the hypothetical sense of “a fear of getting beat up some more might lead him away from what he’s engaged in”. Which evidently isn’t the case at this point)
There is a satisfying answer, which is that nobody should be subjected to violence in order to shut him or her up - not by me, not by you, not by the government.
I don’t use violence to shut up people, even if I really, really don’t like what they say, and you don’t use violence to shut people up, even if you really, really don’t like what they say.
The problem is, it isn’t anywhere close to that level.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course you do. If you agree with any legal restriction on speech - and the second part of your post implies you do at least agree with the fire/theater cliché -, then you implicitly support the use of violence to shut (some) people up, every law ultimately coming at the point of a gun. At which point, if you’ll pardon a quip which is not meant disparagingly, we’ve established what you were and are now merely negociating price ;).
And if you, on the other hand, were to brazenly declare that NO restriction of speech whatsoever is justified or justifiable, up to and including stuff like fraud, death threats, racketeering, direct incitements to immediate violence, false advertisement, bribery, libel etc… then, first of all, accept that you’re part of a society that demonstrably does not agree with you at all nor does *any *western society ; and secondly, well, go back to earlier in the thread when we were doing away with the absurdity of speech absolutism - any right’s absolutism really. Your fist, my face, yadda yadda, you know the drill.
Do you really need cites for the fact that far-right violence is on the rather sharp rise, and has gotten increasingly deadlier in recent years, for Reasons ?
So Ngo’s actions are bad not because you disagree with them, but because they could be considered incitement to violence?
If so, how do you judge a left-wing activist actually beating him up? Wouldn’t you say that beating up a person at a rally is likely to incite even more violence?
Admittedly. It’s in fact exactly what Ngo has milked the incident for, (along with a sizable section of right-wing and even centrist media, wittingly or unwittingly). I did state I didn’t think it had been a good idea, big pic strategy nor an immediate necessity to beat him up. Regardless of my abstract-er philosophising and trying to pin down slippery essentialisms, it deffo muddled Portland antifa’s message, and gave up some moral high ground that the milkshaking alone wouldn’t have.
But I mean, that’s an objection you could generally levy at *any *violent retaliation, including against legit violence, right ? He tries to kill you, you kill him first, his buddy uses that as an excuse to try to kill you to avenge his mate etc etc.
And I said and meant it that you even considering that violence against someone might be justified because of what you believe they believe is depressing.
Most people do not have such a hard time figuring out the difference between laws set by society as a whole being enforced by the legal system, and individuals deciding what behavior they feel is appropriate to enforce by violence as a mob on their own, even if they perceive themselves as the good guys, which amazingly everyone in a mob does. Most people, even if they accept an argument (which I do not) that the power of the state ultimately comes from state violence, easily see the difference between a person being instructed by a legal ruling to refrain from some action under threat of penalty, be it fine or time behind bars, and being beaten or back in the West strung up by a mob that passes their judgment upon you.
Not sure why you see those as so hard to figure out.
As to what we think is okay to restrict, or should be - I posed a series of hypotheticals in my last post. I see practical differences between the items, based on what you’ve written not sure how much you do.
In your mind do they all reach the level of knowingly falsely (an important bit to include btw, if someone honestly believes there is a fire it is another thing, even if they are wrong and harm occurs as a result) yelling fire in a crowded movie theater?
If not all of them then which ones are at that level?
BTW, I do not believe that knowingly distributing false information as propaganda, to whatever degree Mr. Ngo has actually done so, should be protected speech. In that regard do you know that some of what you have said is false? There is, for example, no evidence that Mr. Ngo was the source of claims that the milkshakes thrown at him contained quick setting cement, as you claim. The police claimed it not him.
Is saying things, not calls for violence but things that may make others angry, angry enough to act violently, either at someone else or you for provoking them, something that you think should be prevented? (Leaving aside that preventing it requires in your mind violence as all laws ultimately rely on violence by the state.)
If someone demonizes bankers and blames them for various evils and inequities within our society, and another person is made so angry by that they kill a banker, is the speaker guilty of incitement and culpable for the death. Is that speech not worth protecting because someone else might be made angry by it and angry people can become violent?
Still repeating that mischaracterisation, eh ? Why do you keep doing it ? It’s starting to get tiresome. Irksome, even.
That might be because *most *people don’t really think things all the way through or deconstruct them overly much.
OK, do tell, how is the power of the state not reliant on violence ?
You do something, any given thing the state wants to prevent/has criminalized, you get warned or fined or arrested. You don’t pay the fine, you eventually get arrested. You try to resist the arrest, they use violence until you comply. Or die, I suppose. A law that isn’t enforced is meaningless, and in turn any enforcement of a law upon someone who doesn’t want to comply with said law (which is pretty tautological, since a tacitly agreed or condoned law perforce doesn’t need to be enforced upon the agree-er) will involve violence. That’s… not really an argument. Or an idea that can be disagreed with. It’s just… how things be, have always been and cannot be otherwise (or at least, if it can, it’s hella complicated to describe how - ask an anarchist :))?
As for the implicit worthiness of legal rulings, or the essentially abhorrent nature of individually judged violence : you, a regular citizen, her, Anne Frank, them, an agent of the state legally empowered to murder her and preparing to do just that. In your hand : a gun. You have absolutely no legal right or societal justification to use it. What do ?
Now go from that almost caricaturally black/white case, and move back until you hit gray. That’s where it gets a bit complicated, and a bit not so easy.
They’re hard to figure out because by its very nature and tactics, fascism is uniquely suited to defeating the traditional values of liberal democracy and uniquely adept at subverting those very values in bad faith in order to first gain power, then methodically destroy said values (and, y’know, a whole lot of people). The very demand by fascists that their right to speak in furtherance of their ultimate goal of obtaining the power to prevent others from speaking be protected and defended - routinely by proxying the state violence of the very liberal democracy they want to abolish, as in e.g. the Battle of Cable Street - neatly encapsulates the issue.
This (rather pedestrian, and certainly not new - Carl Schmitt was warning as much as early as 1922. He would, perhaps ironically, later become a nazi himself) realization is the foundational core or driver behind any direct antifascist action, not all of which, not even *most *of which are violent.
Which is why it’s *terminally *unhelpful to be talking in general terms about “violence against beliefs” and the like (worse, it’s the exact false equivalence that fascists love that liberals use, and they constantly exploit that kind of value speech), when antifascism is at its most basic level fighting a very specific set of beliefs, methods, actors. Contrary to what right wing media figures love to claim, antifa activists tend to be extensively educated on the nature, roots, signifiers, expressions, codes, history etc… of fascism in general as well as those of their specific, local fascist/nazi orgs & movements. They… kind of talk about it amongst themselves constantly, as well as debating (and consistantly disagreeing about) the more efficient ways of preventing the rise of fascists - because at that point, it’s *way *too late to do anything about it.
I’m not saying there aren’t any fucking idiots among them of course, but what group doesn’t have those ?
That narrow focus, in turn, can be followed further and involve a broader disruption of policies or actors or discourses that are determined to either increase the number of people made vulnerable to fascist indoctrination, or facilitate said indoctrination, or legitimize fascist speech (which is implicitly violent, even when it is not explicitly or ostensibly so), or facilitate the dissemination of fascist propaganda, or financially benefit fascists etc… all of which being pursuant to the ultimate goal of building fascism.
And then killing everyone.
I *really *don’t think it’s as simple as saying “this phrase good, that phrase ungood”, or demanding your opponents say it to be able to score easy points.
Yes, the police did tweet a warning about the possibility of it based on “received information” (received by whom ? From whom ? :dubious:). The claim was then very quickly repeated as fact throughout the alt-right sphere and thence into the mainstream right wing media, including a deluge of claims that concrete milkshakes had been thrown at Ngo specifically.
For curious reasons, he hasn’t yet cared to set anybody straight on that. I will admit that, while I could have sworn coming across a positive claim from him, I can’t find it any more. So, touché. But surely he would have known whether or not the milkshake that landed on his head actually was caustic, or hardened cement ? And, seeing as this meme is used by Proud Boys as justification for up-tooling and vowing increased violence, the right thing to do would be to clarify matters, try and de-escalate ? Why he doesn’t is, again, one of those conundrums…
Of course it wasn’t, antifas & leftist activists don’t put cement or acid or whatever else conspiracy theory about the milkshakes anyone can care to put forward. They’re just milkshakes. To explain the significance of their being milkshakes, or why it’s somewhat poetic to be dousing modern alt-right figures in unwanted milk I’d need to delve through a ton of alt-right bullshit which…ugh. Not doing that.
I think the question is much too broad for anyone to answer with any pertinence, or at least any concision and without context, caveats, footnotes, bibliographical references etc…
The Court in R.A.V. seemed to think that the ordinance in question could have been upheld under the “fighting words” doctrine of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), had it been more carefully crafted. One problem with this is that the applications of said doctrine have been wildly varied across different jurisdictions and the intervening years. And this uneven legal landscape is in part a function of a second issue, which is the infinite variations of speech and context that can make crafting the precise statutory language, and its subsequent adjudication, quite difficult.
Because of course, like any law, you want to prohibit undesirable conduct while not accidentally including any other conduct within the law’s scope. And not only is this generally much more complicated than it sounds but with extremely fact-specific cases/claims, like those based on speech, it can become much, much more so. And all of these careful lines must also be drawn while not running afoul of the 1st Amendment.
Personally, I think laws and the courts should avoid delving into anyone’s mental state any more than absolutely necessary. Naturally such an inquiry is inherent in mens rea and civil culpability but when the case/claim is not based on speech there is some underlying conduct that evidences that state of mind much less ambiguously than most speech. Relevant speech can certainly provide additional evidence of that state of mind in those situations but it can be obviously problematic to derive both a criminal prosecution or civil suit as well as the requisite state of mind from as little as a single word.
There is also the potential hidden cost of unexpressed speech that is not necessarily within the intended reach of a law but where fear of prosecution or liability inhibits speech nonetheless. This is the underlying rationale for the “chilling effect” doctrine relating to laws unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.
Most norms in groups, from hunter-gatherer ones on to our modern world, are not enforced by fear of violence from the group’s enforcer, but by the drive of the group’s members to conform to the norms of the group. Punishment when it occurs is most often of a social nature: shaming, shunning, and structures (inclusive of internalized codes and religions) that induce feelings of guilt for deviancy from the norms. Fear of violent retribution is not what motivates most compliance with social norms/rules/laws; the desire to belong is. Heck, we see it even in virtual communities like this one. No violence is threatened to enforce norms but norms are generally followed enforced by merely being identified with “notes” and “warnings” and at most severe “banning” from the group.
An over-reliance on violence to enforce rules is something that occurs in more fascist states and by fascist wanna-bes.
This does double back to how speech is generally constrained within the real world - not by threats of violence but by a broad acceptance of normative behavior and individuals awareness of social consequences. (Stealing from that radio show I linked to early on in this discussion here …) for example, once upon a time a white person would use “the n-word” in public, now I would be cautious about even typing out the whole thing in quotes to discuss it as an object, and even Trump knows better than to say it in a public venue anyway. What caused that change in speech? Not laws restricting its use but clearly understood changes in social norms enforced socially, using protected speech most commonly.
Sorry that you were otherwise unable to respond to my questions with “any concision”.
Methinks you deconstruct a bit too far when you don’t get the difference between mob action and legal proceedings. That practical difference hypothetical list is in fact the exploration of that would need to be agreed to to decide what moves from protected to unprotected speech.
On further think it becomes clear to me that while your deconstructive conclusion that violence is the foundation of law is in error, the bigger problem is your reconstruction, the dangerous edifice you build: since violence is the ultimate source of law by society (you think) then individuals using violence to enforce what they believe should be norms with mob action is justifiable. Or at least you are not clear that there is much difference.
If that is a mischaracterization of your clear prose then I apologize and please clarify.
Dirk you point out some of the practical difficulties and yes I also am cognizant of the risks of unintended consequences inclusive of what you mentioned.