|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Nazis are coming to town - what do you do?
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's all well and good, but the Nazis don't recognise lines of clergy. And, as I've shown above, the clergy themselves - including those who say they believe in non-violence - say that they were only protected from being killed because there were other people who were prepared to swing fists to protect them.
It's right and good that the police protected the clergy, that's their job. I don't think anyone expected the Nazis to recognize them.
I think that may be the root of where our disagreement lies. You seem to think the purpose of the left in these protests is to change the Nazi's minds or show them up in some way. I think the purpose is to show the rest of the world, the moderates and reasonable conservatives who are watching, that the majority of the people in our country don't agree with them.
What the Nazis themselves think doesn't really matter, they probably wont ever change. They are low IQ losers whose self-esteem is entirely based on being white and thinking white is better, they have nothing else to be "proud" of.
There's no good reason for you to let yourself be punched in the face by any of them.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if the state refuses to act, no. And in Weimar IT DID. The Nazis took the streets AFTER they took power. Became the state.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Hitler and the brownshirts were going around murdering and killing opponents in the 1920s before they got power as far as I remember.
Mosley and the British blackshirts tried and failed because people stood up to them.
Again I don't see the comparison.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's right and good that the police protected the clergy, that's their job. I don't think anyone expected the Nazis to recognize them.
I'm going to bed - but if you read the links posted above, it wasn't the police that protected them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's right and good that the police protected the clergy, that's their job. I don't think anyone expected the Nazis to recognize them.
I'm going to bed - but if you read the links posted above, it wasn't the police that protected them.
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
Dr. Cornel West, who was with the clergy group, has expressed gratitude to those who defended them against the Nazis. I don't know whether his sentiments are shared by everyone who was there.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I feel this more than I can articulate it, but I suspect it's to do with things like casus belli. It strikes me as dangerous to reason like a state when one isn't one. Isn't that more or less the reasoning of the militias in Charlottesville?
But what about when one is in a state that is going Nazi? I can't wait for the state to oppose these people because the state supports these people. At best to follow your advice I would wait until they completely take over, and for some other state (UK, say) to come and oppose them for me. I'd rather not let it get that far if I can do anything about it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Interview with one of the wastes of carbon who was in Charlotte.
Equivalent my arse.
How can you call someone a ni**er and then turn around and say you're not racist? :headdesk:
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a bad thing to be associated with and there are no good guys in that group.
There is a group marching to oppose them. This is a good thing to be associated with. There are some bad guys in that group.
See the difference?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's not one I'm happy with. It seems to suggest that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is fundamentally worse than even the worst on the anti-Nazi side. I don't believe there's clear blue water between the moral condition of all those on one side and all those on the other. It would make things easier, but I don't believe it's the case.
That's quite a leap. It suggests that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is doing a fundamentally worse thing than the things that everyone on the anti-Nazi side is doing.
Making a leap to say that that says something about each individual's moral condition and therefore dismissing the initial argument based on that erroneous conclusions is faulty logic.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seems to suggest that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is fundamentally worse than even the worst on the anti-Nazi side. I don't believe there's clear blue water between the moral condition of all those on one side and all those on the other. It would make things easier, but I don't believe it's the case.
Nazis on one side, people who don't like Nazis on the other.
Not sure what you are proposing. A Nazi with a heart of gold? A counter-protester who secretly kicks puppies?
I really don't think you have a firm grasp of the word fundamental.* Being a Nazi is fundamentally worse than being Anti-Nazi.
* adjective: forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.
noun: a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.
[ 18. August 2017, 05:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But what about when one is in a state that is going Nazi? I can't wait for the state to oppose these people because the state supports these people.
I didn't say nothing should be done. I said one should't reason like a state. The moral responsibilities and prerogatives aren't the same.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Interview with one of the wastes of carbon who was in Charlotte.
Repulsive though he may be, I find "waste of carbon" repulsive, too.
Think about the implications.
Or is that "just locker-room talk"? What's the difference?
I would find it really hard to align myself with any counter-protestor who talks like that.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not sure what you are proposing. A Nazi with a heart of gold? A counter-protester who secretly kicks puppies?
Hyperbole as a form of response is precisely the kind of thing I'm kicking back against. quote:
I really don't think you have a firm grasp of the word fundamental.*
I think any human being has intrinsic value irrespective of their convictions.
Some people's views might be fundamentally worse than others', but that doesn't make them as individuals fundamentally worth less than other people. In fact I thought that was, um fundamental to the concept of civil rights.
I oppose white supremacists and the institutional prejudice that works in their favour. But to demonize all the individuals involved and imply that they are an inferior class of being looks to me far too similar to the absolutism one is trying to oppose.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Some people's views might be fundamentally worse than others', but that doesn't make them as individuals fundamentally worth less than other people.
Everyone starts with the same value, regardless of level of intelligence or talent. What you are worth is what you do with what you have. They have chosen hate and with that choice, devalue themselves.
quote:
In fact I thought that was, um fundamental to the concept of civil rights.
The fundamental concept of civil rights is that people have equal rights. The equality is in what they are, not necessarily in what they do.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Repulsive though he may be, I find "waste of carbon" repulsive, too.
And I find it tough to see the word repulsive slapped equally on an insult directed at a vicious racist thug and on the vicious racist thug themselves. You risk sounding dismissive of the degree of hurt and visceral reaction felt by some of us towards the Nazi movement.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Everyone starts with the same value, regardless of level of intelligence or talent. What you are worth is what you do with what you have. They have chosen hate and with that choice, devalue themselves.
Whoa. No. Their dependents might win less financial compensation in a lawsuit in the event of them being found to have died through third party negligence due to their poor life choices, but no way do I believe those people have less fundamental value as a result of those poor choices.
The other danger I see in your response is that you or I are worth more because we, unlike "them", have made the right choices. Obviously right because we approve of them ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
The fundamental concept of civil rights is that people have equal rights. The equality is in what they are.
Precisely. That's why they aren't "wastes of carbon". You or I might think that what they do is wasting carbon (indeed, one of the early google hits for 'waste of carbon' appears to refer to the practice of rolling coal...) but that doesn't make them wastes of carbon. There's a difference.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Repulsive though he may be, I find "waste of carbon" repulsive, too.
And I find it tough to see the word repulsive slapped equally on an insult directed at a vicious racist thug and on the vicious racist thug themselves. You risk sounding dismissive of the degree of hurt and visceral reaction felt by some of us towards the Nazi movement.
Sorry about that. I've no doubt about the hurt or the degree of the visceral reaction or its justification, and I know that doesn't come across enough in my posts.
I think the real challenge is not to let that degree of visceral reaction serve as justification for actions.
This thread got started as a serious, practical discussion of how any of us might respond to a Nazi demonstration in town. That's a real-life scenario for quite a few posters here, with real-life implications.
Imagine if the internal discourse of your counter-protest group is phrased in terms of "wastes of carbon". You have one rather marginal supporter who is not that smart, a bit impulsive, and he comes to your counter-protest armed with a baseball bat. Maybe he's had a bit to drink to gve himself Dutch courage. He sees a Nazi protestor built like a US football player spit on some defenceless young teenage girl on your side that he rather fancies, and call her all the worst racist epithets you can imagine. This guy boils over, gives the thug - just a "waste of carbon", as he has repeatedly heard - a good blow to the head and shatters his skull as RuthW has described earlier.
Did the thug deserve it? Was it a proportional response? Mere collateral damage? How is it not supported by the counter-protest group's rhetoric? Your counter-protestor's actions might find some mitigation in a court of law, but wouldn't it have been better if your group's rhetoric hadn't helped him on his way?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but no way do I believe those people have less fundamental value as a result of those poor choices.
Then we shall disagree. They might redeem themselves, but until they do, they are worth less. Poor choices. They have not failed to complete schooling, they have chosen to hate entire groups of people. Poor choice is an entirely insufficient term.
quote:
The other danger I see in your response is that you or I are worth more because we, unlike "them", have made the right choices.
Worth isn't a comparison against others, but of what one can be.
And what mdjion said.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Imagine if the internal discourse of your counter-protest group is phrased in terms of "wastes of carbon". You have one rather marginal supporter who is not that smart, a bit impulsive, and he comes to your counter-protest armed with a baseball bat. Maybe he's had a bit to drink to gve himself Dutch courage. He sees a Nazi protestor built like a US football player spit on some defenceless young teenage girl on your side that he rather fancies, and call her all the worst racist epithets you can imagine. This guy boils over, gives the thug - just a "waste of carbon", as he has repeatedly heard - a good blow to the head and shatters his skull as RuthW has described earlier.
I find it equally tough to respond to the idea that in this scenario we focus on the phrase "waste of carbon" rather than the spitting and racist epithets. Or even the alcohol.
Suggesting that people who describe a Nazi as a waste of carbon are partly responsible for fueling the violence in that scenario seems disproportionate to me, and on the butterfly wings to hurricane in Tibet level of causality.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They have not failed to complete schooling, they have chosen to hate entire groups of people.
You're right, we're going to disagree. I have absolutely no doubt about the relative education levels of both sides here, or about the link between educational failure and crime. None at all. quote:
Worth isn't a comparison against others, but of what one can be.
So much not this!
At least from a Christian perspective*. Maybe that's another thread.
==
*I surely can't be the only Shipmate to be old enough to remember this, originally from the days when Kendrick's lyrics were much more subversive...
[ 18. August 2017, 06:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
They're not coming to town, there're already here
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Suggesting that people who describe a Nazi as a waste of carbon are partly responsible for fueling the violence in that scenario seems disproportionate to me, and on the butterfly wings to hurricane in Tibet level of causality.
The question to my mind is to whether it's ever justifiable to talk in those terms in the context of a discussion that seeks to determine what we would actually go and do faced with a local Nazi protest.
I can understand internal thoughts along those lines, I can understand imprecatory Psalms along those lines, I can understand saying that in the heat of the moment in a private conversation with one's partner, I can understand posting that here - in Hell. It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
I'm trying to use this discussion to think through the OP question. Even if I might viscerally feel that the other guy is a waste of carbon, I absolutely never want that sentiment to inform this discussion.
[ 18. August 2017, 06:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
I don't see it as casual. I see a lot of emotion here. Certainly I feel it. Why would you see it as a casual use?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Some people's views might be fundamentally worse than others', but that doesn't make them as individuals fundamentally worth less than other people.
Everyone starts with the same value, regardless of level of intelligence or talent. What you are worth is what you do with what you have. They have chosen hate and with that choice, devalue themselves.
quote:
In fact I thought that was, um fundamental to the concept of civil rights.
The fundamental concept of civil rights is that people have equal rights. The equality is in what they are, not necessarily in what they do.
I would tend to reverse things. The value of a human being is constant, related to being human rather than what they think and do. Whereas rights are something that people can give up by their choices and actions - in most societies it's universally accepted that people who commit crimes give up the right to freedom (we put them in prison), for example, indeed in some cases that people give up the right to live (when there is a death penalty).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I am going to agree with Eutychus here: having worked with young people who went/go on EDL marches and spent a lot of time discussing different world views. Their perceptions are skewed, they are angry and they feel disenfranchised. If we other them we're adding to that disenfranchisement and are driving them further into the acceptance of their far right family.
[ 18. August 2017, 06:46: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
I don't see it as casual. I see a lot of emotion here. Certainly I feel it. Why would you see it as a casual use?
We're discussing what we would or should actually do in a counter-protest.
To feel strong emotions about the issues is perfectly legitimate, but for me at least, strong emotions are the last thing I want to affect my decisions as to the right way to engage out there in the street.
If, in the context of this discussion, "waste of carbon" is not being used casually, i.e. as mere hyperbole, that's even more alarming: it suggests a deeply-held belief that means what it says, with the implication that any action taken to put an end to that waste of carbon is legitimate.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Everyone is of fundamental, equal worth, no matter what.
Figuring out how that should play out is really, really hard.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
I guess you missed reading the eyewitness accounts from the clergy I posted above. Here it is again.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At least from a Christian perspective*. Maybe that's another thread.
I really hate that phrase. It adds nothing to a conversation.
I think there is a real and material different between calling something a "waste of carbon" or "a pile of shit" on one hand and a *Nazi* calling someone else a cockroach on the other.
For one thing, those who use the terms on the side of the anti-Nazis are not wishing death on the Nazis.
If they're hurt, we expect the medics to help them, if they are charged we expect the law system to treat them fairly.
The claims that they're excrement or wasted carbon doesn't actually impact in any way on their rights.
But the "cockroach" claim is actually a description of what Nazis want to do to other people. They see black and Jewish people as subhuman and vermin and they want to exterminate them that's part of the whole beef of neo-Nazis.
Ultimately we are not seeing Nazis as lesser people because of who they are or how they look, it is solely because they believe in the kind of white nationalist extremism which would destroy our brethren and set up the kind of monstrous society that 1920s Germany became.
This whole false equivalence is increasingly ridiculous and plays into their narrative.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If, in the context of this discussion, "waste of carbon" is not being used casually, i.e. as mere hyperbole, that's even more alarming: it suggests a deeply-held belief that means what it says, with the implication that any action taken to put an end to that waste of carbon is legitimate.
Nonsense. In the context of this discussion nobody has said that they should be wasted. That's a figment of your imagination.
They shouldn't be destroyed, they should be stopped. The carbon, which is currently in a form which expresses horrific hatred should be turned into something beautiful - and if that is not possible should be managed in such a way as to not be a danger.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, I would question whether clergy who had chosen to make a peaceful stand against violent fascists would have appreciated others utilising violence in their defence. It's not the same as defending people who have no choice but to be in the area (because, for example, their homes are there).
I guess you missed reading the eyewitness accounts from the clergy I posted above. Here it is again.
Thanks for that, I'd seen a few things on FB but I had missed that particular set of accounts. Though I accept that the actions of the more violent anti-fascist protesters did prevent injury (or worse), and that is generally something to be thankful for. But, the accounts I've read (including that) link state that a) the clergy were prepared to get beaten, b) committed to non-violence and would not themselves use the tactics of those who prevented their injuries, c) once violence had broken out they left because the time for non-violence had passed, and d) were too few. If instead of 20 clergy linking hands there were also 200 members of their congregations and other residents there, would the Nazis have attempted to get through at all? Would there have been any need for others to intervene with violence? Though without doubt many are thankful they were not injured as a result of others intervening with violence, that outcome was not what was sought, the aim was to counter the actions of the Nazis without recourse to violence.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How can you call someone a ni**er and then turn around and say you're not racist? :headdesk:
On this point: I saw a very persuasive argument yesterday that was saying that the black and progressive journalists who had been interviewing some of the most vocal neo-Nazis were actually being drawn into a trap because they Neo-Nazis are very clever at manipulation.
What is boils down to is that people like Richard Spencer try to get the interviewer to agree that they are "proud to be black" and then say "ah-ha, that's exactly what we want.. that pride in being white", and the rest of discussion is directed down a path of bullshit and false equivalence.
So you and I can look in disgust at the things portrayed in the VICE video, but those tacit supporters of Spencer's views are seeing these discussions in mainstream media and are saying to themselves that he has a point.
The fact that these interviews are being widely shared on social media may actually be acting as recruitment for the ideas we find so disgusting. In a weird way, sitting down and discussing with Spencer as if he is an intelligent person with a view which can be challenged gives him more credibility with those who feel some sympathy towards him.
Which is a long-winded way to say this: don't even. We don't need to understand how they can justify these things to themselves. All we need to know is that it is dangerous bollocks which needs to be resisted.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If instead of 20 clergy linking hands there were also 200 members of their congregations and other residents there, would the Nazis have attempted to get through at all? Would there have been any need for others to intervene with violence? Though without doubt many are thankful they were not injured as a result of others intervening with violence, that outcome was not what was sought, the aim was to counter the actions of the Nazis without recourse to violence.
I suspect there would have been a massacre if there had been more people.
Perhaps the clergy should have known, perhaps they should have been less willing to take their life into their hands defending a sodding statue. Perhaps they under-estimated the willingness of the neo-Nazis to attack bystanders.
Cornel West said that he expected to go there to be arrested - something he has done before for symbolic effect. He is hardly naive about the situation, but he seemed quite overwhelmed by the reality of needing anarchists to protect their lives.
To me it seems like a rather daft tactic in the light of what happened here to now do the same elsewhere with more people.
That's not clever non-violent tactics, that's stupidity.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If, in the context of this discussion, "waste of carbon" is not being used casually, i.e. as mere hyperbole, that's even more alarming: it suggests a deeply-held belief that means what it says, with the implication that any action taken to put an end to that waste of carbon is legitimate.
I don't think casual means hyperbole. It means relaxed and unconcerned. I took your description of casual use to imply a lack of concern in describing someone as worthless.
You were critical of the term "casual" so if you thought it simply meant hyperbolic something doesn't add up.
I don't think it was relaxed and unconcerned at all, I think it was the opposite - aggrieved and very concerned.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At least from a Christian perspective*. Maybe that's another thread.
I really hate that phrase. It adds nothing to a conversation.
It respectfully concedes that Lilbuddha's position (that not everyone is always intrinsically worth the same no matter what they do) may not be informed by Christian convictions.
quote:
I think there is a real and material different between calling something a "waste of carbon" or "a pile of shit" on one hand and a *Nazi* calling someone else a cockroach on the other.
Maybe there is. But that does not justify the former. What does language like that add to a rational discussion of what should actually be done?
Unless your rationale for what should be done is actually, seriously based on the fact that the human being facing you across the street is actually more of a waste of carbon than you are.
[ 18. August 2017, 08:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I didn't think the clergy were defending the statue?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think casual means hyperbole. It means relaxed and unconcerned. I took your description of casual use to imply a lack of concern in describing someone as worthless.
You were critical of the term "casual" so if you thought it simply meant hyperbolic something doesn't add up.
I meant "casual" in the sense of "not really thinking about what that language brings to the topic at hand", and I persist in thinking that it is not helpful in that respect. We have Hell for that.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Maybe there is. But that does not justify the former. What does language like that add to a rational discussion of what should actually be done?
It worries me that you are more concerned with someone saying something that is literally true (ie the Nazi is made of carbon and his life is wasted) than the fact that there are other people on the other side who want to create a white homeland with violence.
I'm not going to discuss this with you any more because you're wasting your typing and thought-time on this nonsense.
quote:
Unless your rationale for what should be done is actually, seriously based on the fact that the human being facing you across the street is actually more of a waste of carbon than you are.
I can't justify my own existence. But I do know that I stand for light and wholeness and they stand for hate and violence. And I know that that is a real and not a minimal pretend difference between me and them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
So when you said;
quote:
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
...you were implying that there was another use that could have been made that you wouldn't find so tough?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't think the clergy were defending the statue?
The neo-Nazis were walking through the university campus of the University of Virigina with lighted torches and shouting neo-Nazi and anti-Jewish slogans.
The clergy stood there protecting a statue of Jefferson (for reasons I don't really understand) and were attacked.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
[I posted this in the "Oops" thread, but on reflection, it sits well here as well.]
"I note that Back Obama's tweets quoting Mandela from "Long Walk to Freedom" have become the most popular in tweet history. Here is the content.
quote:
No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.
"
However it's done when the Nazis come to town, I think the principle to apply is the one given voice by Michelle Obama about a year ago.
"When they aim low, we aim high".
In particular, don't join them in their dehumanising rhetoric and behaviour. The image of God in them may be distorted, deeply hidden, but it is not destroyed.
[ 18. August 2017, 08:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I don't think I've ever been more disappointed by a Ship of Fools thread in my life, than I have been by this one.
To everyone saying there are two sides: you're right. There are two. There are the fascists on one, and their are those who oppose fascism on the other. Pick one. If you're not opposing fascism because of some of the other people also opposing fascism, you've already chosen.
To everyone else saying that you don't agree with violence: you're also right. I don't agree with violence either, which is why fascism, a violent, hateful ideology that has killed millions of people and will kill millions more if we let it, is utterly beyond the pale. Your Milquetoast objections to Nazis will literally kill people.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So when you said;
quote:
It's the almost casual use in this specific context that I find tough.
...you were implying that there was another use that could have been made that you wouldn't find so tough?
If by "use" I can take you to mean context, yes.
I think it's entirely acceptable, indeed perhaps even desirable, in a Hellish context, if it expresses the kind of visceral feelings you refer to.
I also think that in the context of considering what individuals could and should responsibly do, actually out on the ground and physically face to face with people on the other side, it is not helpful language.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Doc Tor: I want to agree. I think I do agree. Facists are vile. And deadly.
But.
As with Eutychus, despite my ever-increasing lack of faith, I feel I need to follow the words of my Saviour who even said not to call your enemy a fool (failed above), let alone do not hate. What is the response? I do not know.
Do we turn our back on people and shake the dust of our shoes once people reach a certain level of offensive or dangerous behaviour?
How do you engage while remaining true to the Gospel message? Can you? Or am I misunderstanding?
[ 18. August 2017, 09:33: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This image
But people here who are arguing against a violent response aren't talking about "tolerating" the Nazis; they're arguing that in resisting them and the ideas they're trying to spread, the power they're trying to sieze, de-humanising them and resorting to violence can end up with playing the same game that they're playing - which then simply becomes a race to the bottom. It's the argument that however despicable their aims, intentions and actions are, however warped they have become, they are still human beings in the act of resisting and seeking to stop them, still have to be seen as such. Violence won't stop the Nazis - hell, World War 2 stopped Hitler's regime but hasn't stamped out Nazi ideas, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this now - violence and fights are what they're looking for.
The point about nonviolence, I suppose, is that if you're going to follow it, you stick to it even when it is to your detriment to do so, even when it risks you losing your life. You can't drop it when violence occurs against you, otherwise it's not nonviolence at all. That was Martin Luther King's principle wasn't it: even when the temptation to resort to violence is so strong, even when to resort to violence seems to make total sense, you stick with what you've committed to. Or you end up making the same arguments that people make when we go to war against some terrible regime again: this'll be the one that sorts it out, this'll be over quickly, and peace and freedom will be restored quickly. It never is in those cases; it won't be in this case.
There was an article I found while searching about this (written in early 2016, when Trump was still a joke of a candidate, not a President committed to pouring fuel on to the flames), arguing that the problem with nonviolence today is not that it's inappropriately or naively practiced, but that people aren't practising it fully or completely in the way those who embraced it in the civil rights movement did; that it's a proactive stance that seeks to confront and change the situation, not merely the passive abstention from violence. The problem is, according to this article, that the potential for nonviolence to truly change things is never allowed to come to fruition because it's either seen as a naive, passive thing, or it's dropped as soon as the going gets tough.
(I hesitated whether to put this in, but I suppose for a Christian practitioner, the ultimate example would be Jesus himself, who refused violence even when to do so would've saved his life, who rebuked Peter when he resorted to violence at Jesus' arrest, and who rejected the role of divinely-sanctioned military leader of an armed resistance against the oppressors of his people.)
I don't want to and am not going to criticise the actions of anyone who resisted the Nazis in Charlottesville; the gratitude from the religious leaders to antifa seems genuine, even if it's tinged with disappointment that what they'd hoped to do didn't happen. There aren't 2 sides and I don't see many, if any, posters here suggesting there are - certainly not those who are advocating nonviolence and refusing to dehumanise those who dehumanise others. The question of whether or not we should resist the Nazis isn't complicated: of course we should. But the question of how we do so is, I would suggest, much more complicated.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Well said.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Doc Tor: I want to agree. I think I do agree. Facists are vile. And deadly
But.
As with Eutychus, despite my ever-increasing lack of faith, I feel I need to follow the words of my Saviour who even said not to call your enemy a fool (failed above), let alone do not hate. What is the response? I do not know.
Do we turn our back on people and shake the dust of our shoes once people reach a certain level of offensive or dangerous behaviour?
How do you engage while remaining true to the Gospel message? Can you? Or am I misunderstanding?
I think that's the question I'm wrestling with in all this, Ian: how do you "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you", how do you "do to others as you would have them do unto you", how do you forgive "not seven times, but seventy times seven" in these situations? On the one hand, ISTM that if you're going to follow these then you have to do so in every situation, even when it seems you're going to lose everything by doing so. On the other, that's easy for me to say being so distant from this situation.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Doc Tor, when my local ex-National Front leader, still leading a far-right party at the time and publishing a far-right newspaper, decided to go into local politics I provided the local press and town council with some research complete with references. To some danger to myself. There was a time when I was worried about my safety walking around the neighbourhood on my own, particularly after dark. (He really wasn't a nice piece of work; he's since died.)
His campaign to be elected as leader of a local residents' party did not go well after he was splashed all over the front page of the local paper, complete with photographs of him meeting David Duke and involved in violent skirmishes, all of which was available online and which links I gave the paper.
That does not mean I think we should other all far right supporters. I've worked with too many whose disenfranchisement is understandable.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'm going to echo what I said in Hell: this is about Nazis. Actual Nazis. The Nazis are the bad guys. No-one on this thread is the bad guy.
So I think the answer to the question 'What do you do?' is probably not 'Abuse our rhetorical talents to cast each other as the bad guys.'
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I don't want to and am not going to criticise the actions of anyone who resisted the Nazis in Charlottesville; the gratitude from the religious leaders to antifa seems genuine, even if it's tinged with disappointment that what they'd hoped to do didn't happen. There aren't 2 sides and I don't see many, if any, posters here suggesting there are - certainly not those who are advocating nonviolence and refusing to dehumanise those who dehumanise others. The question of whether or not we should resist the Nazis isn't complicated: of course we should. But the question of how we do so is, I would suggest, much more complicated.
This is very helpful and I agree with most of it. It is perfectly possible, as shown here, to argue for a pacifist response, and explore what that could involve in practice, without needing to imply that those opting for a forceful response are in some way contributory, lacking in morality and need admonishing.
Having said that in agreement, while it is obviously true that fascism is still with us despite WWII, that doesn't mean that we would still be where we are today without a military response.
I think more oppression, death and injustice would have occurred had there not been military opposition to fascism. The military response sometimes becomes necessary to prevent greater evil, even though it isn't sufficient to solve the underlying problem.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I don't want to and am not going to criticise the actions of anyone who resisted the Nazis in Charlottesville; the gratitude from the religious leaders to antifa seems genuine, even if it's tinged with disappointment that what they'd hoped to do didn't happen. There aren't 2 sides and I don't see many, if any, posters here suggesting there are - certainly not those who are advocating nonviolence and refusing to dehumanise those who dehumanise others. The question of whether or not we should resist the Nazis isn't complicated: of course we should. But the question of how we do so is, I would suggest, much more complicated.
This is very helpful and I agree with most of it. It is perfectly possible, as shown here, to argue for a pacifist response, and explore what that could involve in practice, without needing to imply that those opting for a forceful response are in some way contributory, lacking in morality and need admonishing.
Having said that in agreement, while it is obviously true that fascism is still with us despite WWII, that doesn't mean that we would still be where we are today without a military response.
I think more oppression, death and injustice would have occurred had there not been military opposition to fascism. The military response sometimes becomes necessary to prevent greater evil, even though it isn't sufficient to solve the underlying problem.
Yes, I'd agree with that, even if it didn't come across in my post. I think WW2 was necessary at that time (though I do struggle with a line of thought that suggests that that means a violent response to fascism and Nazism is the only means of dealing with them).
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
