Support NeoGAF

[Breads]

smh at these self-serving skeptics who think this provocateur's bigotry is an academic issue...

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I imagine it's going to be 50% Milo smugly snickering to himself and 50% him trying to persuade the discussion towards their common ground of hating Political Correctness and Muslims.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Again: This "ignoring" shit isn't the only option. The binary you're speaking to isn't a binary.

Could you do us a favour and present your alternative in a sentence, because despite the length of that you've actually said nothing.

 

[JP_]

That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post.

Liberals have this idea that you are introducing fire to a forest. The reality is that you are introducing it to the ocean.

We just had an election proving you wrong. The media wouldn't shut up about how wrong and dumb trump was. All that attention just elevated him.

 

[B-Dubs]

Could you do us a favour and present your alternative in a sentence, because despite the length of that you've actually said nothing.

You can perform a takedown of their ideas without actually having them on the show to defend their bullshit, but that would require actual research and work.

We just had an election proving you wrong. The media wouldn't shut up about how wrong and dumb trump was. All that attention just elevated him.

Also this.

Trump got absolutely destroyed in three straight debates. He was exposed as a know-nothing racist with fascist tendencies and he still won. He got led around by the nose, fell into every trap set for him, practically self-immolated on stage in front of the entire nation and he still won.

All this will do is give him a platform to spread his shit, and trust me when I say he's even worse than Trump is.

 

[Vyer]

They weren't "given" a platform. The platform provided and ushered in a brave new world of communication.

Not sure what you are referring to regarding "this is a bigger platform"...TV? Maher? Dude, they won the white house with this shit. And they did it with Talk Radio, websites, forums, and lastly TV. They were fighting the next war.

But hey, there are folks that will agree with you. They can retain the moral highground and not even engage at all! Path of least resistance, ignoring dark forces and it will go away. These folks will close their eyes real tight...put their fingers in their ears...and just hope that it..goes away....(Because this worked well in this election cycle).

But there will be others, that will address these issues and the people that spread them...issue by issue...fact by fact...and will convince others that this crap is not the way. You know...fighters.

That's not fighting. It's horrible fucking strategy. playing right into their hands isn't 'fighting', it's just foolish. Have you ever seen Milo interviewed or in a 'debate'? It's naive to think that even arguing or trying valid counterpoints matter. And he knows it.

His goal is to put his act on TV and in front of a bigger audience. Full stop. Added bonus that the people who are so inclined can think the edgy 'I Don't Give A Shit' 'I Love Real Life Trolling lol ok' attitude is just so entertaining.

Trump should have taught you that the way you thought to 'fight' in the past no longer applies.

 

[JP_]

This video explains how these people operate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-7fzHy3aG0

They aren't debating ideas. You can't defeat it with better ideas. They just use it as a platform to ignore your ideas and spread their own. They don't care if you call them out, they'll just talk about something else and people watching get the impression that they were never proven wrong.

 

[Raven117]

Putting a lot of words in my mouth there dude. You can absolutely fight these assholes without giving them a platform to spew their shit from. What the hell do you think all these protests are about? All the journalism exposing the dark shit going down and getting people to fight against it? You don't need to give these people a platform to speak from to fight them. You just fight them.



There you go, try reading this.

We aren't THAT far apart. Really.

I agree with all of this. It will take many people doing many different things.

What? You want to do away with the internet? Reddit? Facebook? Have them be the sole arbitrators of what they find appropriate. We have a fundamental disagreement here. Limiting communication no matter how vile has never worked to stamp out shit.

They will find a way. Communication is here to stay man. And no matter how hard anyone wants to "take away their platform" it wont matter. Never has throughout human history and never will. Hate finds ways to reach people who hate.

Protests (being surrounded by people who think like you) is just one avenue....and its effective to boot.

But...there willl also have to be individual gorilla types...that get in there engage on an individual basis. Over...and over...and over...

 

[Astral Dog]

This us going to be fun 😆

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I agree that seems to be a prevailing view, but I tried to move away from that by counter-pointing that doing so actually works in our favor most of the time. That ideology of equal time and good faith is inherently wrong; but the actions they espouse actually tend to work out in the end.

Well that depends on context. As a vague abstract, these sorts of conversations basically bog down in a question of who is being unfair to who, rooted more or less in the empathy/sympathy for people being stepped on by the overconfident self-proclaimed intellectual elite or whatever.

But when the specific discussions we're talking about here are discussions in which one side is actively arguing against basic human rights and equality, and arguing in a manner that is very obviously in bad faith on top of that? I'm unsure as to why the default must be "let them speak their piece and the marketplace of good ideas will win out if they're worthy" in order for victory to be achieved.

You don't have to give equal time & shine to that specific example. You can point out how stupid and disgusting and awful it is without inviting it to an inherently bad-faith debate on the part of one side.

People have so internalized the simplistic notion that it's a matter of "debate or ignore" that it doesn't even occur to them to pursue other, better options for fighting the encroachment of white supremacy into society.

Could you do us a favour.

No, Billy.

 

[Foggy]

That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post.

Liberals have this idea that you are introducing fire to a forest. The reality is that you are introducing it to the ocean.

LOL

This all sounds nice and poetic but people don't align themselves with the alt-right because they just haven't encountered a salient counterpoint. Trump was given a platform to be a buffoon 100x over. He looked like a frustrated child in 3 highly televised debates. Toxic rhetoric doesn't care for opposing reason and neither do the people seduced by it.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Well that depends on context. As a vague abstract, these sorts of conversations basically bog down in a question of who is being unfair to who, rooted more or less in the empathy/sympathy for people being stepped on by the overconfident self-proclaimed intellectual elite or whatever.

But when the specific discussions we're talking about here are discussions in which one side is actively arguing against basic human rights and equality, and arguing in a manner that is very obviously in bad faith on top of that? I'm unsure as to why the default must be "let them speak their piece and the marketplace of good ideas will win out if they're worthy" in order for victory to be achieved.

You don't have to give equal time & shine to that specific example. You can point out how stupid and disgusting and awful it is without inviting it to an inherently bad-faith debate on the part of one side.

People have so internalized the simplistic notion that it's a matter of "debate or ignore" that it doesn't even occur to them to pursue other, better options for fighting the encroachment of white supremacy into society.

By empty chairing them, you are ignoring them, unless they're the ones who refuse to turn up.

 

[Raven117]

That's not fighting. It's horrible fucking strategy. playing right into their hands isn't 'fighting', it's just foolish. Have you ever seen Milo interviewed or in a 'debate'? It's naive to think that even arguing or trying valid counterpoints matter. And he knows it.

His goal is to put his act on TV and in front of a bigger audience. Full stop. Added bonus that the people who are so inclined can think the edgy 'I Don't Give A Shit' 'I Love Real Life Trolling lol ok' attitude is just so entertaining.

Trump should have taught you that the way you thought to 'fight' in the past no longer applies.

Look we are all free to engage and try and stop this hateful message anyway we see fit.

Protest, engage individually, not engage at all. We are all on the same team. And call me crazy and perhaps too optimistic...but the posters here on this thread...and millions others like us...doing what we can...when we can...We are going to win...maybe not today...maybe not tomorrow...but we will.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

By empty chairing them, you are ignoring them,

No, Billy.

 

[MisterR]

Because public discourse isn't a forum. Even within that example, GAF doesn't even collectively agree on what's a bannable action or not. The moderators themselves don't either. There's some absolutely heinous shit on here that slides right by because it comes from the right side of an argument. Or is used as a weapon against someone the mod team doesn't like. Or comes from someone the mod team does like. When you begin to assume that the collective, or society, has decided something isn't worthy, you begin projecting your own opinions and confirmation biases.

The other issue is that you can't control all of public discourse like you can a private forum. The situation wouldn't be banning someone from the forum because they are troll; you'd be banning them from specific threads - but still allowing them to post in every other thread on the forum. You aren't removing them, you are disengaging from them - which is entirely different and where the actual problem lies.

Donald Trump was elected President after saying a dozen things a day that would have torpedoed anyone else's entire political career permanently. Obviously what you and I may believe to be unacceptable public discourse clearly isn't.

So trying to filter out the noise through disengagement isn't going to work. It doesn't work. It hasn't been working.

The war on ideology isn't won by shutting out the other side and hoping they get ignored, as much as we'd all love that to happen. It happens by dragging these idiots out of the corners they comfortably spout their bullshit from and convincing people to join your side. Not everyone is going to be convinced, sure. Hell, most people won't. But that shouldn't preclude you from even trying.

That's why we have shitshows like Bill Nye debating Ken Hamm over evolution. Everyone with a elementary understanding of science knows Hamm is utterly and completely full of shit, so why bother engaging him and his bullshit? Because a fucking crazy amount of people still either believe him, don't understand, don't care, or simply don't know. You do it because, when liberals present their arguments in a reasonable, professional manner, we always gain social traction. Maybe we only inform or convert 0.1%. But that's still 0.1% more than before.

But for some dumb reason, we are so fucking scared that 'giving them a platform', even though they already have several, will mean that people will join the wrong side and we'll lose traction, despite this almost never being the case. Nearly everytime we go head-to-head with staunch conservatives, we gain a little bit. That's why you do it. Not because it's the right thing to do, or the fair thing to do, or whatever other nonsense conservatives cook up for allowing hate speech. But because it fucking works.

Yeah, sure, there's always a bunch of people on the other side that will claim victory, or double down, or whatever. But those people will always exist and everyone needs to stop focusing on them. We're not moving the needle by absolutes. We're moving it by fractions of a percent. And no one has ever been convinced by continually screaming "You're fucking wrong" at them.

Damn. Well said.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

No, Billy.

Maybe if you perform some mental gymnastics, but the reality is refusing to debate these ideas in person not only gives them credence, it marks you out as someone who doesn't actually have the courage of their convictions. This thread is littered with examples of hateful movements that were exposed by being taken apart in debate and others who succeeded because they were shunned away into the dark.

 

[B-Dubs]

We aren't THAT far apart. Really.

I agree with all of this. It will take many people doing many different things.

What? You want to do away with the internet? Reddit? Facebook? Have them be the sole arbitrators of what they find appropriate. We have a fundamental disagreement here. Limiting communication no matter how vile has never worked to stamp out shit.

They will find a way. Communication is here to stay man. And no matter how hard anyone wants to "take away their platform" it wont matter. Never has throughout human history and never will. Hate finds ways to reach people who hate.

Protests (being surrounded by people who think like you) is just one avenue....and its effective to boot.

But...there willl also have to be individual gorilla types...that get in there engage on an individual basis. Over...and over...and over...

I never said I wanted to get rid of the internet, damn dude stop putting shit like that in my mouth and try reading. I just wish these platform would actually abode by their TOS and ban these people for breaking them (because let's be real they have broken them multiple times, on Reddit especially, and have gotten nothing more than a slap on the wrist).

We may not be able to stop that shit from spreading, but it can sure as shit be contained.

Again, we aren't dealing with a difference of ideas when it comes to nazis and fascists. They don't care about the debate, they want to reach the people who are at risk for contracting their shit. You can attack their ideas individually without ever having them on to defend themselves, hell the Daily Show did that for 8 years straight when Bush was president. They tore him down and mocked him and did everything you want done to Milo without ever giving him a platform to speak from. Hell, you think Woodward and Bernstien ever got an interview with Nixon?

You can tear him down and beat him to a bloody pulp without ever giving him a platform. You don't need to let guys like Milo defend themselves or their rancid ideas. You can just tear them down without ever having them on.

 

[JP_]

"Debates" rely on both parties acting in good faith.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Maybe if you perform some mental gymnastics

No, Billy.

I've explained it clearly (and thank you for actually taking time to read it all even though I denied your request to truncate it for your benefit) but not giving someone a platform to personally debate their poisoned worldview isn't the same as ignoring them. I can pay attention to someone being destructive and awful, and point out (rightfully) how destructive and awful their behavior is, and shine a spotlight on all the ways their destructive, awful behavior is harmful to basic humanity, without personally having to elevate their destructive, awful worldview to a level parallel with mine, even briefly.

In fact, those actions I'd be undertaking involve a lot of effort and attention paid. It's the opposite of "ignoring."

You're operating under that false binary I was pointing out earlier.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

No, Billy.

I've explained it clearly (and thank you for actually taking time to read it all even though I denied your request to truncate it for your benefit) but not giving someone a platform to personally debate their poisoned worldview isn't the same as ignoring them. I can pay attention to someone being destructive and awful, and point out (rightfully) how destructive and awful their behavior is, and shine a spotlight on all the ways their destructive, awful behavior is harmful to basic humanity, without personally having to elevate their destructive, awful worldview to a level parallel with mine.

In fact, those actions I'd be undertaking involve a lot of effort and attention paid. It's the opposite of "ignoring."

You're operating under that false binary I was pointing out earlier.

It isn't a false binary. You're either arguing with them face to face or you're being mean when they're not around to defend themselves, the type of thing that galvanises their support far more.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It isn't a false binary.

Yes, it is. You're creating an either/or when it's more like an either/or/or/and also/plus

If I call out a homophobe doxxing transgender students without first debating them on it, how am I the person being "mean" in that instance?

It's only considered "mean" if your immediate sympathies go to the homophobe because what's important to you isn't their negative behavior, it's the "improper" appearance of not having given the homophobe their fair shake to explain themselves. Thus implying there's a possible explanation or reason underneath all that that could, in any way, justify the behavior.

There obviously isn't, though. It's not even a question.

 

[Astral Dog]

What is there to expose?

Milo would love to be Gay Hitler 🌈

 

[The Kree]

It isn't a false binary. You're either arguing with them face to face or you're being mean when they're not around to defend themselves, the type of thing that galvanises their support far more.

being mean

you said being mean

 

[B-Dubs]

It isn't a false binary. You're either arguing with them face to face or you're being mean when they're not around to defend themselves, the type of thing that galvanises their support far more.

By putting two people on a stage next to each other you create the idea that they are on the same level, that both of their ideas have merit and should be debated. The visual is striking and powerful, I don't know how you can deny it.

 

[ChouGoku]

You can't use logic and earnest debate to "challenge" stuff that isn't based in reality to begin with.

No matter what happens on that show, Milo will walk out of the room believing he won. That's all that matters. There is no actual value to having him on.

Whatever he believes is irrelevant as long as his arguments get shut down on the show. Some people watching will still be on Milos side but it shows most people watching that his arguments are stupid. Also it should hopefully help people shut down their alt right friends if they dont have all the facts

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

By putting two people on a stage next to each other you create the idea that they are on the same level, that both of their ideas have merit and should be debated. The visual is striking and powerful, I don't know how you can deny it.

By refusing to do so you invite questions about regressive tendencies, stifling of ideas and opinion, cowardice, hypocrisy and loftiness.

 

[Vyer]

Look we are all free to engage and try and stop this hateful message anyway we see fit.

Protest, engage individually, not engage at all. We are all on the same team. And call me crazy and perhaps too optimistic...but the posters here on this thread...and millions others like us...doing what we can...when we can...We are going to win...maybe not today...maybe not tomorrow...but we will.

I'd like to think so.

But that cause took a big L last year. And it's important to take lessons from that and realize that the game has changed and how those people used the old methods to their advantage. Any fight going forward has to recognize that.

 

[airmangataosenai]

At least Maher has the right idea, Milo has been playing liberals who repeat the mantra of not giving him a platform like a fiddle to build his public profile. He has leveraged every protest against him and his Twitter ban masterfully, and too many liberals are too far up their own self righteous asses to recognize how they are being used.

Milo has no real ideas. His entire persona is based off of saying cobtroversial thibgs in order to create an angry reaction.

 

[shamanick]

By putting two people on a stage next to each other you create the idea that they are on the same level, that both of their ideas have merit and should be debated. The visual is striking and powerful, I don't know how you can deny it.

His ideas have "merit" in the sense that he has a following and can be considered representative of a very real movement that is happening. Ignoring it and repressing it doesn't make it go away,

 

[B-Dubs]

By refusing to do so you invite questions about regressive tendencies, stifling of ideas and opinion, cowardice, hypocrisy and loftiness.

And by having him on you give his ideas weight and equivalence. You take them out of the insane part of the spectrum and plant them right next to yours. Also, the only people accusing you of cowardice will be the people you're tearing down. And no one will care because you'll already have exposed them as nazis.

His ideas have "merit" in the sense that he has a following and can be considered representative of a very real movement that is happening. Ignoring it and repressing it doesn't make it go away,

Again, ignoring quite a bit of what I've said here. You can attack their ideas without giving them a platform to spew their shit from. You don't need to have the guy on to tear him down.

 

[Oxn]

By putting two people on a stage next to each other you create the idea that they are on the same level, that both of their ideas have merit and should be debated. The visual is striking and powerful, I don't know how you can deny it.

Who gets to decide what has merit or not?

If half the country says he does, and the other half is saying he doesnt....

 

[Glass Shark]

Alt-right idiots figured out that "SJWs" don't mind the term so they decided to start calling us "regressive," lol

 

[BrutishMrFish]

But hey, there are folks that will agree with you. They can retain the moral highground and not even engage at all! Path of least resistance, ignoring dark forces and it will go away. These folks will close their eyes real tight...put their fingers in their ears...and just hope that it..goes away....(Because this worked well in this election cycle).

The idea that people shutting out Trump's campaign is what made him win is revisionist crap. When was Trump pushed aside or ignored instead of being given the spotlight during the election whenever he said something controversial? I can't think of any time that happened, probably because it never did.

Every single time Trump said something crazy or stupid, his surrogates were there to defend him in debates and arguments with other commentators. This election is the last example you could use to illustrate the dangers of ignoring people.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Because public discourse isn't a forum. Even within that example, GAF doesn't even collectively agree on what's a bannable action or not. The moderators themselves don't either. There's some absolutely heinous shit on here that slides right by because it comes from the right side of an argument. Or is used as a weapon against someone the mod team doesn't like. Or comes from someone the mod team does like. When you begin to assume that the collective, or society, has decided something isn't worthy, you begin projecting your own opinions and confirmation biases.

The other issue is that you can't control all of public discourse like you can a private forum. The situation wouldn't be banning someone from the forum because they are troll; you'd be banning them from specific threads - but still allowing them to post in every other thread on the forum. You aren't removing them, you are disengaging from them - which is entirely different and where the actual problem lies.

Donald Trump was elected President after saying a dozen things a day that would have torpedoed anyone else's entire political career permanently. Obviously what you and I may believe to be unacceptable public discourse clearly isn't.

So trying to filter out the noise through disengagement isn't going to work. It doesn't work. It hasn't been working.

The war on ideology isn't won by shutting out the other side and hoping they get ignored, as much as we'd all love that to happen. It happens by dragging these idiots out of the corners they comfortably spout their bullshit from and convincing people to join your side. Not everyone is going to be convinced, sure. Hell, most people won't. But that shouldn't preclude you from even trying.

That's why we have shitshows like Bill Nye debating Ken Hamm over evolution. Everyone with a elementary understanding of science knows Hamm is utterly and completely full of shit, so why bother engaging him and his bullshit? Because a fucking crazy amount of people still either believe him, don't understand, don't care, or simply don't know. You do it because, when liberals present their arguments in a reasonable, professional manner, we always gain social traction. Maybe we only inform or convert 0.1%. But that's still 0.1% more than before.

But for some dumb reason, we are so fucking scared that 'giving them a platform', even though they already have several, will mean that people will join the wrong side and we'll lose traction, despite this almost never being the case. Nearly everytime we go head-to-head with staunch conservatives, we gain a little bit. That's why you do it. Not because it's the right thing to do, or the fair thing to do, or whatever other nonsense conservatives cook up for allowing hate speech. But because it fucking works.

Yeah, sure, there's always a bunch of people on the other side that will claim victory, or double down, or whatever. But those people will always exist and everyone needs to stop focusing on them. We're not moving the needle by absolutes. We're moving it by fractions of a percent. And no one has ever been convinced by continually screaming "You're fucking wrong" at them.

I bookmarked this thread for a longer response at my computer but it looks like you've already made that argument beautifully.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

And by having him on you give his ideas weight and equivalence. You take them out of the insane part of the spectrum and plant them right next to yours. Also, the only people accusing you of cowardice will be the people you're tearing down. And no one will care because you'll already have exposed them as nazis.

His ideas already have weight and equivalence, you've just lost an election to him and his ilk. You're way beyond that now, it's time to discredit them and expose them for what they are. Softy softy head in the sand time has long since passed.

 

[B-Dubs]

Who gets to decide what has merit or not?

If half the country says he does, and the other half is saying he doesnt....

I think we can all agree Nazis are without merit. Also, it's Maher's show so he gets to decide.

 

[Astral Dog]

This doesn't really apply to Milo. He doesn't just spout vile shit. He actively attacks, harasses, doxes and incitivizes others to harass people. Those are not just opinions. Those actions are not defended by freedom of speech. What Milo regularly engages in is actively illegal.. Not a single University should accept having a motherfucking criminal come to their campus and commit crimes on stage.


Berkeley protests prevented Milo from commiting crimes on their campus. You should not give a platform to fucking anyone to commit crimes, that's stupid as fuck.

I think his point is that there should be someone (capable) there confronting him,not just give him the platform

 

[Sai-kun]

His ideas already have weight and equivalence, you've just lost an election to him and his ilk. You're way beyond that now, it's time to discredit them and expose them for what they are. Softy softy head in the sand time has long since passed.

...everyone already knows, and they don't care

 

[shamanick]

And by having him on you give his ideas weight and equivalence. You take them out of the insane part of the spectrum and plant them right next to yours. Also, the only people accusing you of cowardice will be the people you're tearing down. And no one will care because you'll already have exposed them as nazis.



Again, ignoring quite a bit of what I've said here. You can attack their ideas without giving them a platform to spew their shit from. You don't need to have the guy on to tear him down.

I'm of the opinion that confronting his "ideas" (lol) to his face is much more effective

 

[Oxn]

I think we can all agree Nazis are without merit. Also, it's Maher's show so he gets to decide.

Ok then, case closed, Maher decides, and he did.

 

[Banglish]

His ideas already have weight and equivalence, you've just lost an election to him and his ilk. You're way beyond that now, it's time to discredit them and expose them for what they are. Softy softy head in the sand time has long since passed.

I agree with this. Trying to push them into a corner of non-existence won't work at this point.
Will have to take them head on and disprove their logics with debate/reason for the world to see.

 

[kame-sennin]

He has some specific bullet points he touch everytime, like balck on black crime, women outnumbering man in colleges, etc. Just combat the points. Bring him on the show, destroy his arguements. People listen to him, so show them why they shouldnt.

Censoring him paints a picture of people who are scared by his discourse. WHy should we be scared of what he says? Its all easily debateable. So go show that

I dont like bill maher, he never brings anything relevant to the table in interviews, but really just wants to ask his guests why dont they agree with his points, I hope he fleshes milo out better. People need to see that guy for what he really is trying to spread. And its not acceptance.

Have him on and destroy his positions. Ignoring him is weak.

It's pretty easy to outmaneuver an emotionally led idiot, it's a lot harder to do it with armies of them, the reason the left is losing so much ground now is because we are either trying our best to silence opposition and censor them (which is just making them stronger) or we are reacting emotionally rather than logically.

The logical thing to do is to bring these people out, let them expose their idea's to the general public, let them hear it directly from their mouth and not just some headline or click bait articles online and then challenge them in a debate and let them destroy themselves, which they will, as long as we remain honest in our dialogue with them.

Yes, let's ignore the extinguisher Maher is holding to make a cute quotable. Not to mention the pay-to-watch audience that will amount to a non combustible metropolis that's already seen their fair share of fires in Ann Coulter.

But hey, there are folks that will agree with you. They can retain the moral highground and not even engage at all! Path of least resistance, ignoring dark forces and it will go away. These folks will close their eyes real tight...put their fingers in their ears...and just hope that it..goes away....(Because this worked well in this election cycle).

But there will be others, that will address these issues and the people that spread them...issue by issue...fact by fact...and will convince others that this crap is not the way. You know...fighters.

This us going to be fun 😆

Naziism is not a reason-based ideology.

That's not a glib one-liner, it's a fact. Communism, libertarianism, liberalism - even militarism - have some kind of rational basis. We may agree or disagree with the basic tenants, but these ideologies flow from observations about the state of the world and attempts to remedy what are viewed as problems.

Naziism is a fantasy-based ideology, both in terms of input and output. The observations of the German Nazi party were based on Germanic mythology. Nazis held chivalric medieval German society - a society that was largely created post-facto by authors during the romantic era - as the goal that their modern society to strive for. They wanted to recreate a society that never existed in the first place.

The statements and writings produced by Nazis were also fantasy. This is particularly important for this discussion; Nazis did not say, nor intend to say, things that were true. They said things that would have to be true in order to justify their planned actions.

For instance, the idea that Jews caused Germany to lose WWI is ridiculous. It doesn't take long to take this idea apart in a debate. It has no grounding in fact, nor is it even a plausible explanation for Germany's defeat - an event whose causes were not a mystery to historians or contemporary observers. But the defeat of Germany due to Jewish sabotage is something that would have to be true in order to justify the horrific crimes that the Nazis would later perpetrate against the Jewish people.

Their view of the world is fantasy, and their statements are feverish conspiracies.

Modern fascists fall into the same exact pattern. Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopolous believe that people of European decent are genetically superior to people of other ethnicities. This is scientifically false. They believe that every achievement of the modern world is due to the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. This is an absurd misreading of history which has been discredited for decades.

The statements they make are also pure fantasy; 3 million illegal immigrants voting in the election, "Black crime" skyrocketing, Islam waging war on the West - this is all nonsense. But again, these are things that would have to be true in order to justify whatever terrors these men have planned.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

They will not say things that are true. They will not address facts. They will not acknowledge the superiority of their opponents reasoning. Instead, they will shout as loudly as possible about the evil deeds of the Jews or Trans or Blacks or Muslims until their mic is cut off (or they get slugged in the chin).

When you give fascists a platform, you are allowing someone to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater and calling it free speech.

Spoiler

Yes I quote myself because seriouslywhatthefuckareyoupeoplesmoking?

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm of the opinion that confronting his "ideas" (lol) to his face is much more effective

It worked so well against Trump.

Naziism is not a reason-based ideology.

That's not a glib one-liner, it's a fact. Communism, libertarianism, liberalism - even militarism - have some kind of rational basis. We may agree or disagree with the basic tenants, but these ideologies flow from observations about the state of the world and attempts to remedy what are viewed as problems.

Naziism is a fantasy-based ideology, both in terms of input and output. The observations of the German Nazi party were based on Germanic mythology. Nazis held chivalric medieval German society - a society that was largely created post-facto by authors during the romantic era - as the goal that their modern society to strive for. They wanted to recreate a society that never existed in the first place.

The statements and writings produced by Nazis were also fantasy. This is particularly important for this discussion; Nazis did not say, nor intend to say, things that were true. They said things that would have to be true in order to justify their planned actions.

For instance, the idea that Jews caused Germany to lose WWI is ridiculous. It doesn't take long to take this idea apart in a debate. It has no grounding in fact, nor is it even a plausible explanation for Germany's defeat - an event whose causes were not a mystery to historians or contemporary observers. But the defeat of Germany due to Jewish sabotage is something that would have to be true in order to justify the horrific crimes that the Nazis would later perpetrate against the Jewish people.

Their view of the world is fantasy, and their statements are feverish conspiracies.

Modern fascists fall into the same exact pattern. Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, and Milo Yiannopolous believe that people of European decent are genetically superior to people of other ethnicities. This is scientifically false. They believe that every achievement of the modern world is due to the European colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. This is an absurd misreading of history which has been discredited for decades.

The statements they make are also pure fantasy; 3 million illegal immigrants voting in the election, "Black crime" skyrocketing, Islam waging war on the West - this is all nonsense. But again, these are things that would have to be true in order to justify whatever terrors these men have planned.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

Every time we allow fascists to speak, we give them the opportunity to justify violence against vulnerable people.

They will not say things that are true. They will not address facts. They will not acknowledge the superiority of their opponents reasoning. Instead, they will shout as loudly as possible about the evil deeds of the Jews or Trans or Blacks or Muslims until their mic is cut off (or they get slugged in the chin).

When you give fascists a platform, you are allowing someone to scream 'fire' in a crowded theater and calling it free speech.

Spoiler

Yes I quote myself because seriouslywhatthefuckareyoupeoplesmoking?

This is a good post.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

...everyone already knows, and they don't care

Well your job is to make them care, unless you're happy with the current state of affairs. At times that may involve doing things that make you feel uncomfortable. Showing some guts and courage can often win you admirers you didn't expect.

 

[shamanick]

It worked so well against Trump.

I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. Also, it was Clinton's campaign to lose and boy did she ever lose hard

 

[Dude Abides]

If Maher needs the ratings go for it.

But the notion that "debating" Milo is going to persuade "those on the fence" that he's wrong or "destroy his ideas" is a comforting liberal platitude with no basis in reality.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

If Maher needs the ratings go for it.

But the notion that "debating" Milo is going to persuade "those on the fence" that he's wrong or "destroy his ideas" is a comforting liberal platitude with no basis in reality.

How do you think denazification happened? That the war stopped and everyone just accepted they were wrong?

 

[airmangataosenai]

It worked so well against Trump.

The problem with Trump WAS the lack of engagement on ideas. The media avoided ever tteating him as a normal candidate and question him on policy tge sane way they would Rubio or Cruz. Instead it was always about controversial statements or his behavior. His worst debate duribg tge primaries was the first one between just him Cruz and Rubio as he coukd not play the same games he did with Jeb.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

How do you think denazification happened? That the war stopped and everyone just accepted they were wrong?

Billy

 

[B-Dubs]

How do you think denazification happened? That the war stopped and everyone just accepted they were wrong?

Germany literally made that shit illegal after the war ended. Nazi flags, symbols, holocaust denial, all of it. They stamped that shit out, hard. They didn't engage with it, they tore it down and burned it to death without letting it defend itself at all.

Hell, it literally took a war to stamp that shit out. The rest of Europe tried engaging with them diplomatically at first but then they got invaded.