# What is a Nazi? At least in regards to the fandom?



## Narri (Jun 6, 2018)

I keep seeing the phrase “They are Nazi’s / You’re a Nazi being thrown around quite a lot but what does it mean? It could just be me being oblivious (which may be likely) all I’ve ever know Nazi’s as was (Google Definition) “A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.” I've never looked in to politics in general so I don't understand a-lot of what people say on the matter Anyway can someone please tell me what it means when people call other people a Nazi?


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 6, 2018)

It's become a boogeyman at this point. A decent chunk of Left-wingers like to throw it around as if it's a means to shutting down conversation. A word thrown around by those further on the Left of the political spectrum. 

Consistent on the idea of free speech? You're a Nazi.
Defend someone's rights that someone else don't like? You're a Nazi sympathizer. 
Stand by your own beliefs/principles? Boom, you're a Nazi.
"Oh, you don't agree with me? Well, you're a Nazi and whatever you say don't matter and I can dismiss whatever you say".

It's a name/word that's become so diluted/watered-down that it doesn't really mean anything anymore. Gotta thank the Left for that one, I guess. 

National Socialists don't exist anymore as they've pretty much all passed away at this point. The Neo(new)-Nazis of today are so few you wouldn't even be able to fill up a small stadium. And we're talking about 1,000 people at most, which is across all of the US, not including Europe.


----------



## Narri (Jun 6, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> It's become a boogeyman at this point. A decent chunk of Left-wingers like to throw it around as if it's a means to shutting down conversation. A word thrown around by those further on the Left of the political spectrum.
> 
> Consistent on the idea of free speech? You're a Nazi.
> Defend someone's rights that someone else don't like? You're a Nazi sympathizer.
> ...



Thank you for that, that's helped to clear up my confusion.


----------



## Saiko (Jun 6, 2018)

At this point it’s a catch-all term for white supremacists, presumably because most-everyone in the world can understand the connotations implied. Not to say it’s applied fairly, but that’s what people are usually trying to say when they use it.


----------



## Alondight (Jun 6, 2018)

It's not really a flexible term, and to be a Nazi, a National Socialist, you have to be the following things:
- A White (or to be more precise, a Germanic) Supremascist
- opposed to any form of sexual deviancy (Homosexuality; most if not all fetishes; interracial relationships)
- "deny", or rather, believe in a different truth about the Holocaust ( à la "Gas chambers don't have wooden doors")
- anti-semitic 
They are obsessed with "Purity" and seek to erase what they deem as "Degeneracy". These are just a few ideological things they believe, there's also a lot when it comes to economic stuff. Here's their 25 point program: https://www.vaholocaust.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/25Points.pdf


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2018)

I want to address the idea that people accused of being Nazis are just 'free thinkers' who are being unfairly maligned. 
We should *not* assume this, because that's the oldest trick in the book that genuinely hateful people will use when they are called out, so you might risk playing into their hands.


----------



## verneder (Jun 6, 2018)

That’s the definition.


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I want to address the idea that people accused of being Nazis are just 'free thinkers' who are being unfairly maligned.
> We should *not* assume this, because that's the oldest trick in the book that genuinely hateful people will use when they are called out, so you might risk playing into their hands.



On the shoulders of this, we need to keep an eye out for ideological extremists invoking the "oh, Leftists _always_ call people Nazis!" to hand-wave away legitimate accusations and valid concerns.

Just because some people cry wolf doesn't mean wolves don't exist.

That said, I do think folks could stand to be more nuanced in their language. Just because someone harbors prejudices doesn't make them a Nazi. Just because someone enjoys using people's prejudices to manipulate them doesn't mean they're a Nazi. Just because someone has fascist or authoritarian tendencies doesn't automatically make them a literal Nazi. Centrists might be Nazi apologists, but Nazi apologists aren't necessarily dyed-in-the-wool Nazis themselves.

Being more precise in our language would give bigots and trolls less leverage to play the "Leftists always call people 'Nazis'" card, and would help to drive home the absolutely vital point that you don't need to be an extremist yourself to be complicit in the rise of an extremist ideology.

We also need to resist getting sucked into "are-they-or-aren't-they" hair-splitting games about whether someone is REALLY AND TRULY a Nazi, because there are toxic individuals who rely on that game to distract people from their hurtful antics. If you can get Mom and Dad to squabble over whether you broke the window intentionally or not, then maybe you can escape the consequences of actually having broken the window.


----------



## Ciderfine (Jun 6, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> It's become a boogeyman at this point. A decent chunk of Left-wingers like to throw it around as if it's a means to shutting down conversation. A word thrown around by those further on the Left of the political spectrum.
> 
> Consistent on the idea of free speech? You're a Nazi.
> Defend someone's rights that someone else don't like? You're a Nazi sympathizer.
> ...


What this dude said.


----------



## Jarren (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> On the shoulders of this, we need to keep an eye out for ideological extremists invoking the "oh, Leftists _always_ call people Nazis!" to hand-wave away legitimate accusations and valid concerns.
> 
> Just because some people cry wolf doesn't mean wolves don't exist.
> 
> ...


Kind of piggy-backing off this point: it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt until you've formed your own opinion of them, rather than taking the Nazi accusation at face value. Because of how liberally it's been doing around, and how willing people were/are to believe it, it's done a lot of damage to discourse and reputations if various people.
Hate ought to be countered and confronted, but people need to be able to analyze "is this really hateful/hurtful, or do I just have an axe to grind?"


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

To my mind, when you start going after somebody _just_ based on what you assume is rattling around inside of their brain, _you_ become the fascist.

By all means, take a strong, firm, vocal stand against bad ideas, outright lies, dangerous arguments, and toxic behavior, but don't start preemptively going after people for committing "thoughtcrimes."

Also, yes, you should maintain a healthy, balanced skepticism about the things people say about themselves and others, and as much as possible, seek evidence before just automatically buying into claims and rumors.

Also: Just because someone is "nice" to you (especially in a first encounter) does not mean they are telling you  (and/or themselves) the truth. Predators and manipulators are very good at playing nice to get what they want.


----------



## Jarren (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> To my mind, when you start going after somebody _just_ based on what you assume is rattling around inside of their brain, _you_ become the fascist.
> 
> By all means, take a strong, firm, vocal stand against bad ideas, outright lies, dangerous arguments, and toxic behavior, but don't start preemptively going after people for committing "thoughtcrimes."
> 
> ...


Can I like this post more than once? 
I wanna like it again.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> The problem with this fandom and the people in it is that half of the people here (Including the forums) think anyone who challenges their beliefs is automatically a Nazi. They offer no claims what so ever and barely back it up with an argument. It's just a cop out used to demonize the opposition and assign self superiority. It's a disgusting tactic the left uses to shut people up and keep them too afraid to speak their voices. They figure if they can't find any real Nazis in the fandom, then they'll just change the definition for their convenience.



I don't think half of the forums regard anybody who disagrees with them as a Nazi. 

Is it possible to back up that claim?


----------



## Saiko (Jun 6, 2018)

To continue my point earlier, something I’d recommend to those of you on the recieving end of the Nazi accusation is to try to focus less on the misuse of the term and more on the intent. Solely pointing out how the correct definition doesn’t apply to you doesn’t address the intended criticism and in a way helps perpetuate the lack of nuance that @Troj referred to.

Edit: An interesting thought is that all of this applies equally to the SJW accusation, although that’s a less extreme or well-defined label.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 6, 2018)

there was some German fur and like, was hard to tell if the guy was genuine nazi or just into the outfits, and I tried to talk thru Google Translate and lol I asked if he liked the band Seeed? Do nazis like German reggae


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

The problem (and not just in the fandom) is that people often take disagreement as a personal attack, period.

This tends to be more of a pattern with people who are basically immature.

"Nazi" is one of many words people use to express their anger and indignation at being contradicted or disagreed with. "SJW" is another.

There's also a very common tendency to dismiss valid call-ins, call-outs, and critiques with,"Oh, it's just another SJW calling me a Nazi/bigot/racist."

Really, though, I'd like to know more about what people feel they can't safely say without being called a Nazi or a bigot. There are definitely some areas where the Left tends to be hair-trigger sensitive, but other times, where people called out smoke, it turned out there was actually a fire.

I'm a bit cynical after seeing various people basically build very successful careers out of complaining about being "silenced," though.



Saiko said:


> Solely pointing out how the correct definition doesn’t apply to you doesn’t address the intended criticism and in a way helps perpetuate the lack of nuance that @Troj referred to.



Splitting hairs over the exact dictionary definition of "National Socialist" is, after all, a great way of dodging or dismissing what may fundamentally be a legitimate criticism.

If you've been "just asking questions" about the Holocaust and the Jewish Question, and you greedily devour anything that confirms your inherent biases about IQ and race, it's disingenuous to claim you _can't_ be a Nazi because your lack of dancing ability means you can't goosestep.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 6, 2018)

Anybody who disagrees with me is literally Napoleon Bonaparte and a Bonapartist.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Why is the word Nazi ingrained in modern English? World War 2 ended over 70 years ago, can we just call somebody a bigot instead of trying to find the worst possible term you can imagine like a simpering mongoloid? *People who unironically call people Nazis are the ones keeping the word and it's ideologies relevant.* It's astonishing really how many times a day I am reminded that Nazis and Hitler existed and that they in fact did bad things. Let it go already.
> 
> Also, a word to the wise. Somebody with more conservative values is not automatically a bigot. Stop caring so much about politics.



I have to disagree that neonazism still exists just because the word 'nazi' has evolved into an insult in English. 

The persistence of their ideologies are explained by a series of events in history, starting with Germany's attempt to destroy evidence of concentration camps; they wanted to have plausible deniability so that they could try their hand at continental domination all over again in a few generations:

Holocaust denial - Wikipedia


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 6, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> National Socialists don't exist anymore as they've pretty much all passed away at this point. The Neo(new)-Nazis of today are so few you wouldn't even be able to fill up a small stadium. And we're talking about 1,000 people at most, which is across all of the US, not including Europe.


I've told you before, and I'll say again, I don't trust those numbers one bit; it sounds like some crock you've been fed by people who are trying to convince you that they're not extremists more than anything. 

In 2008 around 70 people participated in a nazi march in Lund, Sweden (p. 220). You and I both know that Sweden is a tiny-ass country by comparison to, really, anything that's going to generate major ripples. According to Wikipedia, there were around 500 protestors at Charlottesville - the groups organizing the "Unite the Right" rally were largely explicit neo-nazi groups, and the organizer wasn't exactly shy about it being a "white nationalist" (ie white supremacist) event: (source)


> Saturday’s “Unite the Right” rally was meant to unify various white nationalist factions against unidentified enemies, Damigo said in his video Saturday.


When even self-described "Western chauvinists" (not a pretty thing to call yourself or identify with tbfh) don't want to associate with you because you're too neo-nazi, you may be a neo-nazi.

You've also got multiple prison gangs, including Aryan Brotherhood, which also exist and act outside of prison and easily surpass your 1000 figure. Given that some of the identifying tattoos these guys get are freaking swaztikas, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that yeah, they're neo-nazis. I'm sure someone with access to police gang/prison inmate databases could, hypothetically, go in and search for swaztika tattoos and likely come up with more than 1k hits.



Troj said:


> That said, I do think folks could stand to be more nuanced in their language. Just because someone harbors prejudices doesn't make them a Nazi. Just because someone enjoys using people's prejudices to manipulate them doesn't mean they're a Nazi. Just because someone has fascist or authoritarian tendencies doesn't automatically make them a Nazi. Centrists might be Nazi apologists, but Nazi apologists aren't necessarily dyed-in-the-wool Nazis themselves.
> 
> Being more precise in our language would give bigots and trolls less leverage to play the "Leftists always call people 'Nazis'" card, and would help to drive home the absolutely vital point that you don't need to be an extremist yourself to be complicit in the rise of an extremist ideology.


I am all for nuance, and think it's _sorely_ missing from a lot of discourse especially lately. However, I think we also need to be careful about things like "this group consists of nazi apologists" (I honestly don't know if your intended reading was "okay, so it's true that centrists are nazi apologists" or "if you encounter a centrist it's possible that this particular individual is a nazi apologist", so I can't say whether your statement is the type that is problematic). _Especially_ when there's a vocal subset of outspoken not-nazis who would take any criticism of their methods as whataboutism. If you want to read "centrist" literally as "in the exact middle between nazi and not-nazi", that's not the best ground to stand on, but I don't think that's the position that _all_ people who identify as centrist are coming from. (Also begs the sidenote that what is whataboutism in one context may not be in another.)

Similar with the "complicity" assertion - while there's a good dose of truth to the whole "the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing", it unfortunately is one of those things that runs the risk of coming with a lot of collateral damage when swung by people with a lot of clout. And even when the damage isn't to people who are _entirely_ innocent, I will confess that I find the idea of people who've been basically cult-recruited into the fold taking the brunt of the hit while the people pulling the strings are savvy enough to dodge most of the bullets pretty... troubling. While they've made bad decisions, they were also exploited for someone else's agenda and it sucks that it can't always be the people at the top falling the hardest, yanno?



Troj said:


> Also, yes, you should maintain a healthy, balanced skepticism about the things people say about themselves and others, and as much as possible, seek evidence before just automatically buying into claims and rumors.


I will add here that "evidence" can be extremely misleading. Far as I know most or all the screenshots that have circulated of me saying "that doesn't violate rules" are legit (pretty sure all the ones I've seen have been; can't speak for any I haven't, obviously). _However_, since they've been collected by people who have a vested interest in reporting particular kinds of content, and since people aren't generally going to take and circulate screenshots of a staff member saying "yeah, taking action, thanks for the report", the selection is biased and is based on a skewed sample. A lot of them have also been "yeah, I reported the exact same thing and got the same answer" which, yanno... is kind of how a consistent enforcement system works? So I'm understandably pretty lukewarm about how "evidence" gets interpreted in trial by social media.



Troj said:


> Also: Just because someone is "nice" to you (especially in a first encounter) does not mean they are telling you (and/or themselves) the truth. Predators and manipulators are very good at playing nice to get what they want.


Absolutely. It's also good to be extra vigilant if you happen to belong to a perceived vulnerable group that right-wing extremists have identified as good recruiting grounds. These include, but are not limited to, people suffering depression (particularly ones that express feelings of isolation), people with autism spectrum disorders, and nerds/geeks with feelings of disenfranchisement. Doesn't mean every single member of these groups will _actually_ be a receptive target, nor is it a value judgment against them, but it is the nature of the beast to seek out people whom they feel may be most receptive to manipulation and radicalization. 

It is also, I would argue, not a fault to play the "I'll be polite to you long as you remain polite to me" game, even if you know the other party is likely acting in bad faith. That's absolutely something that comes down to personal opinion and what works for you, however. I'd personally rather have a bunch of people acting frostily civil to each other when they have to interact at all, than a bunch of personal attacks flung around, because I don't like conflict. 



Saiko said:


> To continue my point earlier, something I’d recommend to those of you on the recieving end of the Nazi accusation is to try to focus less on the misuse of the term and more on the intent. Solely pointing out how the correct definition doesn’t apply to you doesn’t address the intended criticism and in a way helps perpetuate the lack of nuance that @Troj referred to.


And when both the accusation and the intent is bad? :V 
(I realize you were probably not directing the post at me, so the question is kind of tongue in cheek. If you have advice to give I'll happily listen to it, the whole topic is just a sore spot for me. I like to think understandably so.)


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I have to disagree that neonazism still exists just because the word 'nazi' has evolved into an insult in English.
> 
> The persistence of their ideologies are explained by a series of events in history, starting with Germany's attempt to destroy evidence of concentration camps; they wanted to have plausible deniability so that they could try their hand at continental domination all over again in a few generations:
> 
> Holocaust denial - Wikipedia



The unironic use of the word gives the ideology relevance. If people stopped using the term so much as a cudgel, less people would care. There is a difference between remembering a historical event and constantly bludgeoning people with the term to the point where people pose as nazis just to get a rise out of people. Nazism was made a part of culture because of people like those.


----------



## no longer active (Jun 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Anybody who disagrees with me is literally Napoleon Bonaparte and a Bonapartist.


Just me or does anyone see the chance for a super cheesy awful pickup line here
Bonepartist
bone-apart 

I'm too lazy. Someone else write the line for me


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

Again, if being called a "Nazi" or learning about Nazis in school was enough to make people go, "Ooh, genocide is cool," then those people had a screw loose to begin with.

At the very basic level, history has shown again and again that human beings are inherently drawn to the idea of in-group (including racial) superiority, so that particular seed doesn't need much coaxing in order to grow.

The Nazis were actually inspired to no small degree by the American Eugenicist movement and by the writings of prominent American eugenicists and segregationists, as well as widely-respected figures who harbored racist views, like Henry Ford.

Now, some attempts to make look scary and evil Nazism _have_ inadvertently made it look "cooler," which has fueled its appeal with people who want to be scary and cool. Neo-Nazis have actually appropriated a lot of negative portrayals of themselves because those portrayals made them look bad-ass. This is why Mel Brooks' portrayals of them are so brilliant at one level, because they cut right into their ego.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 6, 2018)

I don't understand how any furry could be racist like, outward appearance wise. I think I've said this before, even if furries are animal people, you still have an interest in/fascination with 'different types of people' so I think it would be hypocritical. At the very least I would think real life race would be kind of mundane, and just get hung up over cultural differences like when the Internet makes Japan seem so weird haha

but um also about nazi stuff, I'm pretty sure at this point sometimes slurs and the like super-obvious racism is some people's fetish :/


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

Nobody said people were rational or internally-consistent (at least I didn't).

If someone is sufficiently sheltered, naive, privileged, and/or inherently bigoted or snooty,  then they can absolutely be into anthro animals while only wanting to interact with people like themselves.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> Again, if being called a "Nazi" was enough to make people go, "Ooh, genocide is cool," then those people had a screw loose to begin with.
> 
> At the very basic level, history has shown again and again that human beings are inherently drawn to the idea of in-group (including racial) superiority, so that particular seed doesn't need much coaxing in order to grow.
> 
> ...



Doesn't matter, the way Nazism is ingrained in our culture still broadcasts an open advert to the ideology. Nobody is denying that said people are deranged. Though it's plenty likely they are just incredible simplistic and impressionable, not understanding the true depth of what it means to be a nazi. Yes, people are predisposed towards wanting to be a part of a group, hence why it is worring how often the term Nazi is broadcasted. If people just let the term die, there wouldn't even be any actual self identifying nazis to be totally honest. And yes, I'm aware, Hitler took inspiration from American Eugenicists and it's cultural landscape at the time. Humans are far more impressionable than people want to admit to themselves.


----------



## Saiko (Jun 6, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> And when both the accusation and the intent is bad? :V
> (I realize you were probably not directing the post at me, so the question is kind of tongue in cheek. If you have advice to give I'll happily listen to it, the whole topic is just a sore spot for me. I like to think understandably so.)


Yeeaaah, admittedly I didn’t have moderators and authorities in mind when writing that. The injection of authority kinda screws things up, and I don’t know what to suggest there. :/


----------



## Simo (Jun 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Anybody who disagrees with me is literally Napoleon Bonaparte and a Bonapartist.



The Fossa suspected this all along. So that's where that bossy, Mr. sophisticated complex comes from!  A Napoleon complex!!!!


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> Nobody said people were rational or internally-consistent (at least I didn't).
> 
> If someone is sufficiently sheltered, naive, privileged, and/or inherently bigoted or snooty,  then they can absolutely be into anthro animals while only wanting to interact with people like themselves.



who knows


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I want to address the idea that people accused of being Nazis are just 'free thinkers' who are being unfairly maligned.
> We should *not* assume this, because that's the oldest trick in the book that genuinely hateful people will use when they are called out, so you might risk playing into their hands.



Yes!

Guilty until proven innocent!  I love this idea!

(The level of self awareness here is at an all time low)


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 6, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I've told you before, and I'll say again, I don't trust those numbers one bit; it sounds like some crock you've been fed by people who are trying to convince you that they're not extremists more than anything.
> 
> In 2008 around 70 people participated in a nazi march in Lund, Sweden (p. 220). You and I both know that Sweden is a tiny-ass country by comparison to, really, anything that's going to generate major ripples. According to Wikipedia, there were around 500 protestors at Charlottesville - the groups organizing the "Unite the Right" rally were largely explicit neo-nazi groups, and the organizer wasn't exactly shy about it being a "white nationalist" (ie white supremacist) event: (source)


I never said they weren't extremists. I said they are a fringe element whose numbers are so low you can't even fill a small stadium with them.  *We are talking groups that are law-abiding, by the way.* Criminal elements are not part of this discussion, unless you want to include them as well? In which case, your numbers are more accurate considering the various inmates whose views aren't exactly positive. I don't do guilt by association, but some people seem to enjoy doing it. 

And yes, I know about the rally. What of it? Every society are going to have some fringe elements to it. We have that shit over here too, but you don't see us kicking up a fuss about it. 

I'm sick of beating this already-long-dead horse. Enjoy the thread.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 6, 2018)

one time on that show 24 (it was like a guilty pleasure and something to talk to my dad about) Jack Bauer like infiltrates a militia type group (who somehow are related to middle eastern terrorists by six degrees of Kevin Bacon) and like he does the usual vigilante thing by executing this pedophile snitch guy, and literally decapitating the dude and smuggling his head to the militia group as a token of his loyalty/not a double agent. So he literally infiltrates the militia group by giving them head


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 6, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> I never said they weren't extremists. I said they are a fringe element whose numbers are so low you can't even fill a small stadium with them. *We are talking groups that are law-abiding, by the way.* Criminal elements are not part of this discussion, unless you want to include them as well? In which case, your numbers are more accurate considering the various inmates whose views aren't exactly positive. I don't do guilt by association, but some people seem to enjoy doing it.


Um, no. You said there were a maximum of 1000 neo-nazis in the US. I gave you ample evidence that indicates that your numbers are suspect. Nowhere did you say "there are less than 1000 law-abiding neo-nazis" (which is a dumb distinction to make tbfh); please don't move the goalposts.

Now, I personally believe that whoever fed you that figure of 1000 was doing so in order to discredit any claims of their own (as in, the person giving you the numbers) extremism - the other alternative is that you are being willfully ignorant, since this is not the first time I've corrected you on this point. Whether you think neo-nazis are extremists is largely irrelevant to that; but obviously if the US population (which you've implied is a representative sample) is 0.0003% neo-nazis, the likelihood of a particular speaker being one is pretty low. Thus, indirectly suggesting that "nah, neo-nazis are rarer than giant pandas, obviously the people saying I'm one are just butthurt SJWs".



Yakamaru said:


> And yes, I know about the rally. What of it? Every society are going to have some fringe elements to it. We have that shit over here too, but you don't see us kicking up a fuss about it.


You're missing the point. If 500 people came to Charlottesville to march with torches and shout nazi chants, that means that half of your supposed US neo-nazi population came to Charlottesville. That's clearly not a credible proportion, thus indicative that your figures are off.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 6, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Um, no. You said there were a maximum of 1000 neo-nazis in the US. I gave you ample evidence that indicates that your numbers are suspect. Nowhere did you say "there are less than 1000 law-abiding neo-nazis" (which is a dumb distinction to make tbfh); please don't move the goalposts.
> 
> Now, I personally believe that whoever fed you that figure of 1000 was doing so in order to discredit any claims of their own (as in, the person giving you the numbers) extremism - the other alternative is that you are being willfully ignorant, since this is not the first time I've corrected you on this point. Whether you think neo-nazis are extremists is largely irrelevant to that; but obviously if the US population (which you've implied is a representative sample) is 0.0003% neo-nazis, the likelihood of a particular speaker being one is pretty low. Thus, indirectly suggesting that "nah, neo-nazis are rarer than giant pandas, obviously the people saying I'm one are just butthurt SJWs".
> 
> ...


If you're so doubtful of the numbers he's providing, why aren't you providing numbers of your own?  It's useless to say "Your numbers are wrong" if you're not going to show actual, correct numbers from reliable sources.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 6, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Um, no. You said there were a maximum of 1000 neo-nazis in the US. I gave you ample evidence that indicates that your numbers are suspect. Nowhere did you say "there are less than 1000 law-abiding neo-nazis" (which is a dumb distinction to make tbfh); please don't move the goalposts.


I said there were an approximate, not a definitive number. The NSM have around 400-500 members as far as I can tell. If you include other groups in the same category you sit on around 1,000.
National Socialist Movement (United States) - Wikipedia
Neo-Nazism - Wikipedia
^ Last link takes you to the United States, by the way, which is what we are currently talking about.

Also. The Unite The Right rally was not exclusively neo-Nazis. You had White Supremacists, White Nationalists, members of the KKK, neo-Confederates and other fringe groups. Of about 400-500 people at one rally. The Wikipedia link you linked on the topic also did not specifically state only neo-Nazis were present at the rally. There being numerous other fringe groups(and you don't have any numbers on who is what) you can only guess what ratios in terms of people were present. And you've known me long enough to know that I hate assumptions.



quoting_mungo said:


> Now, I personally believe that whoever fed you that figure of 1000 was doing so in order to discredit any claims of their own (as in, the person giving you the numbers) extremism - the other alternative is that you are being willfully ignorant, since this is not the first time I've corrected you on this point. Whether you think neo-nazis are extremists is largely irrelevant to that; but obviously if the US population (which you've implied is a representative sample) is 0.0003% neo-nazis, the likelihood of a particular speaker being one is pretty low. Thus, indirectly suggesting that "nah, neo-nazis are rarer than giant pandas, obviously the people saying I'm one are just butthurt SJWs".


Whomever fed me these claims? I get them from Wikipedia and in some cases the Southern Poverty Law Center. Unless you're saying those sources are unreliable and/or inaccurate? Or subtly are claiming that I am getting them from a person? If the latter is true, then I would love to see whom you could think are giving me these numbers.

I have yet to see any actual numbers apart from what the SPLC/Wikipedia articles are showing. I *could* speculate on how many actual members there are, but I am not interested in throwing numbers in there just for the sake of it, as it's guessing and could quite easily lead to completely wrong numbers. I will go by what we actually have from official sources. If we are to include criminal elements the numbers will no doubt be decently higher than 1,000. How high however I am not certain of, as there are no doubt people out there who refrain from officially joining let alone associate with any such groups.



quoting_mungo said:


> You're missing the point. If 500 people came to Charlottesville to march with torches and shout nazi chants, that means that half of your supposed US neo-nazi population came to Charlottesville. That's clearly not a credible proportion, thus indicative that your figures are off.


I am not missing the point. These people have zero power. They would fade into nothing if people a) stopped talking about them b) stop throwing words around c) give them any credibility in terms of the media.

I go by what we actually have in terms of sources, numbers and statistics.

And with that I take my leave from this thread. Not interested in talking about a dead topic.


----------



## Rochat (Jun 6, 2018)

I feel like most people would be able to look at the transcript of a debate and form a good idea of what one person meant when they accused someone of being a Nazi. What someone considers a Nazi is obviously going to be on a spectrum between a rigid definition and hyperbole. So, I think it's kinda silly to try and pin the definition down. Besides, it's not as if me accusing someone of being a Nazi or Nazi-like is going to have any real effect on their opinion. It might help sway the audience, but it isn't really adding anything to the core argument (if that makes sense). I might allude to some people as being 'Nazis' to my friends, but that's because they already have some context to better understand what I mean. However in a debate, I think throwing the Nazi word around adds very little.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 6, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> The Unite The Right rally was not exclusively neo-Nazis. You had White Supremacists, White Nationalists, members of the KKK, neo-Confederates and other fringe groups.



*What the fuck difference does it make?*

I just saw a great comment on another forum that I'll share here - not my words but I agree with them: "If you behave like a Nazi you get called a Nazi, if you behave like a Social Justice Warrior, you get called a Social Justice Warrior. It's not the fault of the left that Nazi is a term that is a bit harder to wear as a badge than Social Justice Warrior."



Yakamaru said:


> I am not missing the point. These people have zero power.



Tell that to Heather Heyer's family.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 6, 2018)




----------



## Oblique Lynx (Jun 6, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Tell that to Heather Heyer's family.


That's not really power. If you wanna say that a murder gives you power then uh, well I guess we've got some pretty powerful people


----------



## Saiko (Jun 6, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If you're so doubtful of the numbers he's providing, why aren't you providing numbers of your own?  It's useless to say "Your numbers are wrong" if you're not going to show actual, correct numbers from reliable sources.


Saying “I don’t know the correct number, but I know that number is too low” isn’t useless at all. It’s a lower bound, and those are massively important in all kinds of spaces including this one. :/


----------



## Kumali (Jun 6, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> That's not really power. If you wanna say that a murder gives you power then uh, well I guess we've got some pretty powerful people



Well, that could be, though I'm personally disinclined to think that particular act of terrorism would have happened outside the context of a white supremacist hate rally. "Power in numbers," and all that.


----------



## Lexiand (Jun 6, 2018)

LOL Its been used so much to the point where 
I don't even know what it means anymore.


----------



## Belatucadros (Jun 6, 2018)

A Nazi is something that has already been discussed on these forums several billion times.

Seriously people? Do we really need to talk about this pointless shit again?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 6, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If you're so doubtful of the numbers he's providing, why aren't you providing numbers of your own?  It's useless to say "Your numbers are wrong" if you're not going to show actual, correct numbers from reliable sources.


I have provided numbers. They are not totals, because frankly I have better things to do than do sums of bigots, but they are numbers that make the 1000 figure clearly implausible. 



Yakamaru said:


> Whomever fed me these claims? I get them from Wikipedia and in some cases the Southern Poverty Law Center. Unless you're saying those sources are unreliable and/or inaccurate? [...]
> 
> I have yet to see any actual numbers apart from what the SPLC/Wikipedia articles are showing. I *could* speculate on how many actual members there are, but I am not interested in throwing numbers in there just for the sake of it, as it's guessing and could quite easily lead to completely wrong numbers. I will go by what we actually have from official sources.


If that is the case, then I am saying that your interpretation of your sources is unreliable. Being unwilling to speculate is one thing, but presenting the number you can verify with the sources you use, when holding these opinions is not socially acceptable in most of the world, with an "at most" is disingenuous. These aren't exactly organizations that'd be jumping to share their membership ledgers with researchers. What you want to be saying, instead, would be along the lines of "I am not willing to speculate on the exact numbers, but based on the membership numbers for neo-nazi groups that I have seen, I believe the threat of neo-nazism to be seriously overstated." There you go. No guessing about numbers.



Yakamaru said:


> If we are to include criminal elements the numbers will no doubt be decently higher than 1,000.


Not including convicts, or worse yet not including people who participate in criminal activity, is honestly foolish. There isn't a clear separation. (Note how it mentions that this neo-nazi _youth group_ leader is an ex-con.) If they're neo-nazis they're neo-nazis. Being willing to break the law hardly makes them _less_ dangerous.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yes!
> 
> Guilty until proven innocent!  I love this idea!
> 
> (The level of self awareness here is at an all time low)



Eh no not really. 
I don't think we should assume anything about somebody who has been called a nasty name on the internet. 

You shouldn't assume that they are actually a fascist and you shouldn't assume that they're a free thinker.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 6, 2018)

Belatucadros said:


> Seriously people? Do we really need to talk about this pointless shit again?



Well, apparently we do, if it's still an issue.


----------



## Ginza (Jun 6, 2018)

Belatucadros said:


> A Nazi is something that has already been discussed on these forums several billion times.
> 
> Seriously people? Do we really need to talk about this pointless shit again?



Fucking thank you.


----------



## Belatucadros (Jun 6, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Well, apparently we do, if it's still an issue.


Well, then somebody needs to explain to me why it's even an issue in the fandom. I would certainly agree that Nazis suck, but the only reason I even hear about or notice them is because people keep bringing it up.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2018)

Quoting Mungo is very clearly correct that there are more than 1000 neonazis in the world. She is correct to point out that neonazis have a vested interest in convincing society that they should be ignored as irrelevant- because when society cares less it means police are less likely to concentrate on disrupting their terrorist cells. 



KimberVaile said:


> The unironic use of the word gives the ideology relevance. If people stopped using the term so much as a cudgel, less people would care. There is a difference between remembering a historical event and constantly bludgeoning people with the term to the point where* people pose as nazis just to get a rise out of people.* Nazism was made a part of culture because of people like those.



People who claim this are liars. They claim that their support of the Nazi ideology is 'ironic' because they want to have plausible deniability.

On the other hand, if somebody genuinely pretends to be a Nazi for attention then I feel sorry for them, because that's pathetic. :\


----------



## Kyr (Jun 6, 2018)

2 things.


Troj said:


> Just because some people cry wolf doesn't mean wolves don't exist.


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get ya. 

This exact line of reasoning has been used to accuse people of being crypto fascists on FAF. Believe me, i understand the point, but when you give over to paranoid delusions where does it end?


> Centrists might be Nazi apologists,


The only thing worth defending about Nazis is their right to be treated like human beings, if people can't understand that's how you defeat fascism then there truly is no hope for them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj isn't suffering from paranoid delusions Kyr, and she's not arguing that we should violate anybody's human rights.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 6, 2018)

Belatucadros said:


> Well, then somebody needs to explain to me why it's even an issue in the fandom. I would certainly agree that Nazis suck, but the only reason I even hear about or notice them is because people keep bringing it up.



The very fact that people keep bringing it up would seem to indicate that it's still an issue in the fandom, no?

Recent threads about AltFurry and the like have raised a lot of hackles on all sides, so evidently some folks think Nazi apologists and others of similar bigoted mindsets are a problem within the furry scene. Other folks disagree, and discussion ensues, to greater or lesser degree of civility. (Putting it as mildly as I can...)

If you don't want to read the discussion(s), nobody's forcing you to.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Troj isn't suffering from paranoid delusions Kyr, and she's not arguing that we should violate anybody's human rights.


I know she isn't, i'm addressing her principles of thought.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 6, 2018)

Fall said:


> Just me or does anyone see the chance for a super cheesy awful pickup line here
> Bonepartist
> bone-apart
> 
> I'm too lazy. Someone else write the line for me


*ahem*

Is your name Napoleon?

Cause i'd sure like to bone a part of you.


----------



## Ginza (Jun 6, 2018)

Kyr said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Is your name Napoleon?
> 
> Cause i'd sure like to bone a part of you.



Get out you degenerate >:V


----------



## Kumali (Jun 6, 2018)

Kyr said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Is your name Napoleon?
> 
> Cause i'd sure like to bone a part of you.



OK, I like the direction this thread is going now.


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> f people just let the term die, there wouldn't even be any actual self identifying nazis to be totally honest.



Are you going to suppress history? Censor Mein Kampf? Outlaw "The Producers" and "American History X?" Because that's what it will take.

At the end of the day, whatever we call them, there will always be bigots, there will always be authoritarian leaders, and there will always be authoritarian followers. You can censor an ideology, but you can't totally kill what causes some people to seek out fascist, authoritarian, racist, or otherwise extreme ideologies.

Already, we're seeing people vocally distance themselves from the alt-right movement now that it's starting to nosedive, but conspicuously, they haven't actually renounced the _ideas_ and _tactics_ that have come to be associated with the movement. Savvy people will just change skins when a particular label outlives its usefulness.



Kyr said:


> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get ya.
> 
> This exact line of reasoning has been used to accuse people of being crypto fascists on FAF. Believe me, i understand the point, but when you give over to paranoid delusions where does it end?



They aren't out to get me per se; they're out to get people I care about. That's my worry.

People get delusional or paranoid when they over-estimate the number of Nazis; when they grossly over-estimate or mis-perceive the threat they pose; or when they forget that Nazis are human beings, and not, say, superhuman monsters.

Saying that Neo-Nazis simply exist and that they pose a threat to vulnerable people isn't a "paranoid delusion," especially when there's ample data to support the point.

My basic concern is that there are manipulative, toxic people in the world who are skilled at using rhetorical "wedges" and exploiting people's base emotions and desires to push Overton Window to an extreme, inch by inch, and that disenfranchised, ignorant, naive, vulnerable, misinformed, and apathetic people all variously fall for their tricks.

Lest we forget, Trump is president, so, uh, I think this worry on my part is valid.

Truth be told, I am much more afraid of the average German than I am the Nazi, actually.


----------



## Rochat (Jun 6, 2018)

Kyr said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Is your name Napoleon?
> 
> Cause i'd sure like to bone a part of you.


You're a treasure. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.


----------



## Cawdabra (Jun 6, 2018)

I've seen people call others a Nazi just because they were racist.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 6, 2018)

I can't wait for Wolfenstein 3. They should put B.J. Blazkowicz in Smash Bruddas :^)


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Troj isn't suffering from paranoid delusions Kyr, and she's not arguing that we should violate anybody's human rights.



Heck, I've been the one to argue against punishing people just for thoughtcrimes, and I got in a lot of trouble for suggesting before that it didn't actually matter if the Furry Raiders were "real" Nazis, and that obsessively fixating on that was actually counterproductive to handling them properly.

I'd argue that knowing how to identify and name signs and types of extremism would help to cut down on people throwing around words like "Nazi" willy-nilly. (Hope springs eternal, at least.)

Why aren't we deconstructing the patterns of thought that lead to people being dismissed as SJWs when they have valid concerns? What's good for the goose, right?



quoting_mungo said:


> (I honestly don't know if your intended reading was "okay, so it's true that centrists are nazi apologists" or "if you encounter a centrist it's possible that this particular individual is a nazi apologist", so I can't say whether your statement is the type that is problematic).



Sorry, I'll explain:

I'm using "centrist" according to the popular emerging left-wing definition, referring to somebody whose unyielding defense of "the middle" on everything basically amounts to unyielding defense of the status quo. So, by this definition, centrists are typically apologists for totalitarian regimes.

I differentiate them from moderates, who are people who hold moderate (as opposed to extremist/fringe) views, and/or who hold a mix of views.


----------



## Cawdabra (Jun 6, 2018)

Wait, I've been thinking Troj was a guy all of these years? Welp.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> Are you going to suppress history? Censor Mein Kampf? Outlaw "The Producers" and "American History X?" Because that's what it will take.
> 
> At the end of the day, whatever we call them, there will always be bigots, there will always be authoritarian leaders, and there will always be authoritarian followers. You can censor an ideology, but you can't totally kill what causes some people to seek out fascist, authoritarian, racist, or otherwise extreme ideologies.
> 
> Already, we're seeing people vocally distance themselves from the alt-right movement now that it's starting to nosedive, but conspicuously, they haven't actually renounced the _ideas_ and _tactics_ that have come to be associated with the movement. Savvy people will just change skins when a particular label outlives its usefulness.



I never suggested an outright eradication that's a strawman, I suggested mitigation through proper decorum. There will be people inherently drawn to those ideals, though a large part of it is through the way the opposing side conducts itself. As for the politics, I don't care to get involved, the progressive left and the alt right are both no better than orangutans pelting shit at each other with how laughably extreme and tribal they behave. Everything is black and white to them, and there is no place for nuance.


----------



## verneder (Jun 6, 2018)

Us furs can’t seem but to argue about everything.


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

I agree that constantly beating the "Nazi" drum puts it in people's heads when it might not otherwise be there.

But, I have an equal worry that suppressing, denying, or ignoring it could lead to its resurgence. It's not something you can just shove under the rug.

So, we have to adopt some kind of savvy middle path, where we acknowledge and remember it, but don't glamorize it.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 6, 2018)

That's why I suggested mitigation, and why I made a point about there being no nuance in the ideological opposition between the alt right and the left.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 6, 2018)

It's not a savvy middle path, it's called being an adult.


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

If adulthood magically bestowed some ability to react appropriately and intelligently to radicalism or extremism, then we wouldn't have nearly as many recurrent problems with it, would we? Yet, here we are--and we're not alone.

(Well, and if I'm edgy or grouchy, it's because I'm used to some of these talking points being employed in bad faith, so I apologize if I ever genuinely jump the gun.)


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 6, 2018)

I think in modern times it currently refers to white supremacists and white nationalists, who while unsavory and largely uneducated dingbats, are usually not actually people who would create concentration camps and exterminate gays, blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, etc. 

That said, there is a lot of disinformation and hatred against these minorities, and we need to be proactive in standing against hate and standing up for the oppressed and weak in society.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 6, 2018)

Kyr said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Is your name Napoleon?
> 
> Cause i'd sure like to bone a part of you.



*lifts tail*


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 6, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Eh no not really.
> I don't think we should assume anything about somebody who has been called a nasty name on the internet.
> 
> You shouldn't assume that they are actually a fascist and you shouldn't assume that they're a free thinker.


What's so wrong with a presumption of innocence?  Assuming you believe people that are Nazis to be guilty, so to speak?


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

So, basically, to loop around to the OP's question, when you see a furry calling another furry a Nazi, I reckon it usually means one or more of the above:

1) "You're a Furry Raider, or a Raider sympathizer."
2) "You've expressed racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise-bigoted or 'problematic' opinions, or have 'signal-boosted' people with such opinions."
3) "You've expressed alt-right views or sympathies, or have quoted, cited, or signal-boosted members of the actual alt-right movement."
4) "You're a control-freak."
5) "You're utterly intolerant of disagreement or dissent."
6) "_I'm_ utterly intolerant of disagreement or dissent, and I'm projecting!" 

I'm honestly not sure how many "real" Nazis there might be in the fandom, but at the very least, there are definitely trolls who enjoy playing with the rhetoric or symbols for fun,  apathetics who don't care who gets hurt as long as their boat doesn't get rocked, haters who are happy to sabotage the fandom out of pure spite, megalomaniacs who want to control people and/or unite them under their banner, and non-furry members of the alt-right who've talked about recruiting furries and members of other fandoms.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> I agree that constantly beating the "Nazi" drum puts it in people's heads when it might not otherwise be there.
> 
> But, I have an equal worry that suppressing, denying, or ignoring it could lead to its resurgence. It's not something you can just shove under the rug.
> 
> So, we have to adopt some kind of savvy middle path, where we acknowledge and remember it, but don't glamorize it.


The only way Nazi Nationalism will resurge is if people continue to attribute people qualities by a group.
-
If you bake a cake with the same wrong ingredients, it doesn't matter how much of those ingredients you throw in; it still won't rise, and it will probably taste like shit.
-
Nazi Nationalism develops when people look for an extreme resurgence of National Identity and do so by means of utilizing Group Identity to easily categorize people, particularly as "Enemies" and "Allies".  It ignores individualism and focuses on the Nation; the greater whole.
-
Group Identity has been a thing that people have been using uncomfortably frequently in this very chat, as well as in the broader world.  The more people who play Group Identity and Identity Politics the more and more resurgence Neo Nazis will have; because if you can play that game, why can't they?
-
If you actually care about combating Neo Nazism, you need to use the opposite of Group Identity; its Individualism.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> So, basically, to loop around to the OP's question, when you see a furry calling another furry a Nazi, I reckon it usually means one or more of the above:
> 
> 1) "You're a Furry Raider, or a Raider sympathizer."
> 2) "You've expressed racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise-bigoted or 'problematic' opinions, or have 'signal-boosted' people with such opinions."
> ...


The fact that people STILL think Furry Raiders are ACTUAL NAZIS just boggles my mind, and people really need to stop talking about Alt-Right subjects if they think that a Furry Raider is a qualifiable definition of Alt-Right lol.
-
Big problem with this post is that you've defined none of this.  Who defines "problematic opinions"?  Who defines if you've "signal-boosted" ""Wrong opinions""?  Who defines Alt Right (because as we can all see people on this forum have trouble defining it themselves seeing as Alt Right ranges from an Anarcho-Individualist like Foxler to a big tent group like Alt Furry to actual Alt Right)?
-
Since when have Alt Right people been the only ones who are control-freaks?
-
This are very fundamental issues here.


----------



## Troj (Jun 6, 2018)

The sticky wicket is that humans are social animals who are naturally inclined to joining and investing their identities in groups, because this is what's helped us to survive.

In America, individualism even gets marketed to people _as a tribalist/group identity_! "We're all individuals!"

So, to my mind, you've got to foster people's individuality while trying to channel their "group instinct" in a positive direction.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> The fact that people STILL think Furry Raiders are ACTUAL NAZIS just boggles my mind, and people really need to stop talking about Alt-Right subjects if they think that a Furry Raider is a qualifiable definition of Alt-Right lol.
> -
> Big problem with this post is that you've defined none of this. Who defines "problematic opinions"? Who defines if you've "signal-boosted" ""Wrong opinions""? Who defines Alt Right (because as we can all see people on this forum have trouble defining it themselves seeing as Alt Right ranges from an Anarcho-Individualist like Foxler to a big tent group like Alt Furry to actual Alt Right)?



Don't shoot the messenger here! I offered "translations" that I thought best reflected the mindset or basic attitude of a given speaker.

Obviously, whether or not these attitudes are fair or right is another matter.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 6, 2018)

Troj said:


> Why aren't we deconstructing the patterns of thought that lead to people being dismissed as SJWs when they have valid concerns? What's good for the goose, right?


Why aren't we deconstructing the patterns of thought that lead to people being dismissed as Nazis when they have valid concerns?


Troj said:


> I'm using "centrist" according to the popular emerging left-wing definition, referring to somebody whose unyielding defense of "the middle" on everything basically amounts to unyielding defense of the status quo. So, by this definition, centrists are typically apologists for totalitarian regimes.


This is the sort of group identity you should avoid.
-
Whether you intended to or not, you've just painted "Centrists" as "cowardly" especially in cases of totalitarian regimes (despite the fact that plenty of "Moderates" would not act in a totalitarian regime, a VERY small percentage of people would bother acting in the Nazi Regime, regardless of their political affiliation).
-
So I don't understand this.  Why did you have to group up people who are "Centrists" as "ideological cowards" or have "no convictions" which is ironically exactly what the extreme left and right do?


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

What else should we call people who stand by the status quo even if the status quo is unjust? In the popular discourse, "centrist" has become the popular term for that.

Relevant study that touches on that concern: Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists (For balance, a critique of the study: The problems with that study saying centrists are most hostile to democracy Another response: Are Centrists Really Most Hostile to Democracy?)



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Why aren't we deconstructing the patterns of thought that lead to people being dismissed as Nazis when they have valid concerns?



Well, because from where I sit, that's already been discussed _a lot_, here and elsewhere. In the furry circles I frequent, I tend to hear a lot more fretting about SJWs than I do about Nazis, and that could just be selection bias.

Anyway, just observing the pattern here, but when someone says, "What about Nazis?" the reply will be, "But what about SJWs?" and then the ball gets punted back and forth basically forever, which is why this can never be resolved.

Maybe to get out of that loop a bit, which examples of people expressing valid concerns and being called 'Nazis' have concerned or bothered you the most, out of curiosity?


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 7, 2018)

www.furaffinity.net: Reese's Puffs Reese's Puffs EAT EM UP, EAT EM UP! by MossyMagic

if you heard 'racist puffs' you're a nazi


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The only way Nazi Nationalism will resurge is if people continue to attribute people qualities by a group.
> -
> If you bake a cake with the same wrong ingredients, it doesn't matter how much of those ingredients you throw in; it still won't rise, and it will probably taste like shit.
> -
> ...



Okay, so how far does white nationalism have to go before it is similar enough to sentiments that powered Nazi Germany? Just ignorance? A little discrimination? A few rallies? A racist president? Only one concentration camp? Oops...


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

^^^Separating children from their parents, and then losing them?

Calling people "rats" or "animals," ranting about them "breeding," and implying that they're mostly criminals?

Totalitarianism advances in drips and drops. By the time the frog realizes the water's boiling, it's already too late.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, so how far does white nationalism have to go before it is similar enough to sentiments that powered Nazi Germany? Just ignorance? A little discrimination? A few rallies? A racist president? Only one concentration camp? Oops...


The Sentiments that powered Nazi Germany were pretty circumstantial.  White Nationalism really was just a piece of the whole puzzle that went into the rise of Nazi Germany.  Unless we see the environmental conditions repeated we probably won't get the same result; it'll be an entirely different beast altogether.  Consequences will be just as devastating though, in all likelihood.
-
It's not about how far White Nationalism will go.  White Nationalism isn't going to go far if you utilize Individualist philosophies.  White Nationalism will not have the power to even create a State; even professed White Nationalists agree that a pure Ethnostate is a pipe dream.
-
We obviously know when the right goes too far.  We've identified it, we've seen it.  Legally, it's violence and harassment.  Morally?  We know its supremacist viewpoints; or any idea that categorizes people by group.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> ^^^Separating children from their parents, and then losing them?


Yeah what kind of country separates children from their parents just because of their parent's ideology.... oh wait we already do that to "nazis".


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Do we?

Even here, a case actually had to be made for abuse and neglect:

www.dailymail.co.uk: New Jersey parents who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation will not get them back | Daily Mail Online



ResolutionBlaze said:


> We obviously know when the right goes too far. We've identified it, we've seen it. Legally, it's violence and harassment. Morally? We know its supremacist viewpoints; or any idea that categorizes people by group.



What if a well-dressed fellow says he just believes everyone would better off in their respective "ethnostates" because "science" suggests that the inherent biological differences between people (leading to disparities in IQ and criminal tendencies) just make it too hard for people to get along?

What if multiple Youtubers go out of their way to interview the above guy?

What about the person who vaguely states they want to protect "Western Civilization?"

What if a psychologist expresses the concern that compelling people to respect others' irrational pronouns represents the first step in an inevitable march towards a Marxist takeover? What if he suggests that women who experience sexual harassment in the workplace might have to shoulder some of the blame for "sexually signalling" male coworkers with their makeup?

What if another psychologist wrings her hands about theoretical liberal extremists pressuring children to undergo gender transitions?

What if a public figure declares that "science" has proven that people are just ill-suited for certain jobs or social roles?

What if a popular Youtuber speculates about the exact number of real Nazi concentration camps and whether they "really" were designed to exterminate people?

What if someone who claims to be for "freedom of speech" only ever stands up for people who express extreme views?

What if somebody has a particular habit of loudly noting when a public figure is Jewish?

What if a public figure denies systemic racism? What if they softpedal, justify, or deny police brutality?

What if a public figure says that slavery wasn't as bad as biased historians have made it out to be, and that the Irish had it bad, too?

What about somebody who invokes "reverse racism?"

Where's the line between a controversial-but-still-reasonable opinion and something that opens the door to cruelty, evil, and harm? How can you sort the sincere, non-malicious folks from the ones who are engaging in bigoted concern-trolling?

That is what has people on edge. The bad-guys don't cackle while twisting huge mustaches.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The Sentiments that powered Nazi Germany were pretty circumstantial.  White Nationalism really was just a piece of the whole puzzle that went into the rise of Nazi Germany.  Unless we see the environmental conditions repeated we probably won't get the same result; it'll be an entirely different beast altogether.  Consequences will be just as devastating though, in all likelihood.
> -
> It's not about how far White Nationalism will go.  White Nationalism isn't going to go far if you utilize Individualist philosophies.  White Nationalism will not have the power to even create a State; even professed White Nationalists agree that a pure Ethnostate is a pipe dream.
> -
> We obviously know when the right goes too far.  We've identified it, we've seen it.  Legally, it's violence and harassment.  Morally?  We know its supremacist viewpoints; or any idea that categorizes people by group.



I think you can be extremely nationalistic and embrace white supremacy.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Do we?
> 
> Even here, a case actually had to be made for abuse and neglect:
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk: New Jersey parents who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation will not get them back | Daily Mail Online


I'm not making comment about whether it is or isn't abuse or neglect (obviously naming your children really idiotic names is pretty much setting them up for failure and is a form of abuse) but the point is that we do that as well, so I mean, clearly the Nazis can cross the line when you use it against them, but y'know, when  I say we do the same thing it's justified because they're a part of "x group".
If we worried about these sorts of things on an individual basis and not worry about ideology we wouldn't have this issue.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I think you can be extremely nationalistic and embrace white supremacy.


Is that a comment toward me?
-
In that case, I should note I am a Civic Nationalist.  I believe that the priority of the nation is to take care of its legal citizens first and foremost.  If that makes me nationalistic I guess I am nationalistic.
-
As for white supremacy, I couldn't care less if the white skin color stopped existing or any skin color for that matter; mathematically we'd probably all start merging into a single mixed race if we stay on Earth long enough, and there's no reason to assume it's a bad thing.  May take a very very long time but I do think it's an inevitability.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Do we?
> 
> Even here, a case actually had to be made for abuse and neglect:
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk: New Jersey parents who named their children Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nation will not get them back | Daily Mail Online


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Is that a comment toward me?
> -
> In that case, I should note I am a Civic Nationalist.  I believe that the priority of the nation is to take care of its legal citizens first and foremost.  If that makes me nationalistic I guess I am nationalistic.
> -
> As for white supremacy, I couldn't care less if the white skin color stopped existing or any skin color for that matter; mathematically we'd probably all start merging into a single mixed race if we stay on Earth long enough, and there's no reason to assume it's a bad thing.  May take a very very long time but I do think it's an inevitability.



Right, but it just so happens most Nationalists are white, why do you think that is?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Right, but it just so happens most Nationalists are white, why do you think that is?


Uh?
-
Black Panthers ring a bell?  Or the situation in South Africa?  How about gang members?
-
Try Japan, China, and Korea?
-
How about the Middle East?  Don't you think Israel and Palestine suffer from Nationalist issues?  Their entire ORDEAL is about Nationalism.
-
The fact that you tried to twist this into a "white person's issue" says far more about your prejudice.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Uh?
> -
> Black Panthers ring a bell?  Or the situation in South Africa?  How about gang members?
> -
> ...



We're talking about the US. And don't resort to personal attacks, I don't want to yawn.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> We're talking about the US. And don't resort to personal attacks, I don't want to yawn.



Okay, so let's pretend for a moment that you didn't move goalposts.

You seriously don't think there is racial prejudice from blacks in America?


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> If adulthood magically bestowed some ability to react appropriately and intelligently to radicalism or extremism, then we wouldn't have nearly as many recurrent problems with it, would we? Yet, here we are--and we're not alone.
> 
> (Well, and if I'm edgy or grouchy, it's because I'm used to some of these talking points being employed in bad faith, so I apologize if I ever genuinely jump the gun.)


This is gonna be brief as i was legit robbed at knifepoint last night and i've gotta take care of shit related to that.

The issue i see, is that a lot of people that cry Nazi within this fandom are simply acting like children. They can't see any subtlety or nuance to a situation and just label something as "Bad". This universal bad thing is then demonized and pushed to the fringes of society, outright seen as lesser and as a thing to be eradicated. You no doubt see the parallel, so it's rather ironic that the universal "Bad" that these wholesome and good people want to eradicate has taken the label Nazi.

I've seen enough to know how your own thought processes can lead certain unnamed users here to call people like me and Yakamaru fascists, and what do you do with fascists? The person quoted in my sig has unironically stated on this forum that "Nazis are sub human", and what makes someone a Nazi Troj? In this day and age, what does it take for a person to be considered sub human.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't want to yawn.


Guys please. No personal attacks. 
stuff like this is why many threads ended up in fire


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What's so wrong with a presumption of innocence?  Assuming you believe people that are Nazis to be guilty, so to speak?



Because the assumption that somebody is a free thinker_ isn't _a presumption of innocence.

Yakamaru's suggestion would turn the label 'Nazi' into a badge of honour that demarkates somebody who stands up for free speech, has strong principles, a defender of rights. In short, it conflated the insult 'Nazi', with the accolade 'Hero'.

I suggest that we refrain from assuming _anything_ about somebody's character based solely on insults they've received on the internet.
That _is_ a presumption of innocence.




ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm not making comment about whether it is or isn't abuse or neglect (obviously naming your children really idiotic names is pretty much setting them up for failure and is a form of abuse) but the point is that we do that as well, so I mean, clearly the Nazis can cross the line when you use it against them, but y'know, when  I say we do the same thing it's justified because they're a part of "x group".
> If we worried about these sorts of things on an individual basis and not worry about ideology we wouldn't have this issue.




Troj brought up the separation of migrants and their children, whose whereabouts were subsequently forgotten, as an example of an action by the USA which is dangerously authoritarian and nationalistic.

It is a human travesty.

How can you possibly see this as morally equivalent to taking a family's children into care because they've been indoctrinating their children with a hatred of Jewish people?


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Being called a Nazi is only a badge of honour if, when debating legitimate fascists, you get called an SJW for disagreeing with them too.

Either a lot of people on this forum are Nazi SJWs or a lot of people that hold rigid ideologies are narrow minded idiots, take your pick.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 7, 2018)

like the only sort of behavior with black people being racist that ever annoyed me was, when they're like conspiracy types? Like I mean oppression happens but keep it rooted in reality


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Being called a Nazi is only a badge of honour if, when debating legitimate fascists, you get called an SJW for disagreeing with them too.
> 
> Either a lot of people on this forum are Nazi SJWs or a lot of people that hold rigid ideologies are narrow minded idiots, take your pick.



I think we should have a better moral compass than simply requiring that our beliefs are unpalatable to bonafide Nazis.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think we should have a better moral compass than simply requiring that our beliefs are unpalatable to bonafide Nazis.


If your beliefs are unpalatable to Nazis doesn't that mean your worldview/ideology opposes them?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> If your beliefs are unpalatable to Nazis doesn't that mean your worldview/ideology opposes them?



Unfortunately not. 

Milo Yiannopoulos's views are a good example.  
In public Milo claimed that he wasn't sympathetic to fascist ideologies on the grounds that 'actual fascists' rejected him for being gay, catholic, having Jewish ancestry and being married to his black boyfriend. 
Emails leaked in 2017 showed that when Milo was writing for Breitbart he sought out NeoNazi and white supremacist figures, such as Richard Spencer, to allow them to appraise and edit his articles: Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia


So when a personality's only redeeming attribute is that NeoNazis reject them, that should set off massive alarm bells for you.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Personally i think if Neo-Nazis reject you it means you could stand to be a bigger piece of shit, at the very least.

I mean fuck, you don't have to like people. You should make an effort to identify them correctly though.

Milo, i don't really care about Milo, but in the end by approaching those people he was attempting to signal boost his views within their spheres. He's gay, has Jewish ancestry and a black boyfriend after all. If he successfully reached out to the people that opposed his very existence and gained their respect, to a greater or lesser degree, for having his views heard and honestly appraised, surely that would have the effect of making the Neo Nazi types more tolerant. Would it not?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Personally i think if Neo-Nazis reject you it means you could stand to be a bigger piece of shit, at the very least.
> 
> I mean fuck, you don't have to like people. You should make an effort to identify them correctly though.



Which brings me to my moral compass point. We can do better than being 'pieces of shit'. 

If the best thing about us is that there are _even worse people out there_, then that's actually a valid criticism of our behaviour.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Which brings me to my moral compass point. We can do better than being 'pieces of shit'.
> 
> If the best thing about us is that there are _even worse people out there_, then that's actually a valid criticism of our behaviour.


Just gonna post the edit to the quoted comment.

Milo, i don't really care about Milo, but in the end by approaching those people he was attempting to signal boost his views within their spheres. He's gay, has Jewish ancestry and a black boyfriend after all. If he successfully reached out to the people that opposed his very existence and gained their respect, to a greater or lesser degree, for having his views heard and honestly appraised, surely that would have the effect of making the Neo Nazi types more tolerant. Would it not?

Yes, the best thing about individual people is that there can be worse people out there. It means you can say you're better than them because your worldview is more open and understanding. Everyone is flawed.

Not being a piece of shit is a surprisingly difficult task, and deserves its own accolade. However small.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Just gonna post the edit to the quoted comment.
> 
> Milo, i don't really care about Milo, but in the end by approaching those people he was attempting to signal boost his views within their spheres. He's gay, has Jewish ancestry and a black boyfriend after all. If he successfully reached out to the people that opposed his very existence and gained their respect, to a greater or lesser degree, for having his views heard and honestly appraised, surely that would have the effect of making the Neo Nazi types more tolerant. Would it not?
> 
> Yes, the best thing about individual people is that there can be worse people out there. It means you can say you're better than them because your worldview is more open. Everyone is flawed.



Milo wasn't trying to reach out to white supremacists to make them more tolerant.
Milo was being used as a Trojan horse to introduce white supremacist views to the political mainstream by divorcing those views from the toxic brand of 'white supremacy' and repackaging them as 'Alt-right'.

The best thing about me is not merely that I am better than Hitler or Saddam Hussein. That's friggin' ridiculous.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

If you say so, i thought Milo was just a dangerous faggot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And, if you consider the fact that Hitler and Saddam Hussein were human beings too, it seems to be a great triumph that not only are you not like them but that you're disgusted by them.

I think ultimately my point with all this is, be wary of what that disgust can lead to. Nazis are not sub human, that's what they wanted you to think about the Jews.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> If you say so, i thought Milo was just a dangerous faggot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> And, if you consider the fact that Hitler and Saddam Hussein were human beings too, it seems to be a great triumph that not only are you not like them but that you're disgusted by them.



It's not a matter of 'if I say so'. It's a matter of fact because it's supported by evidence.
The real question is why do you want to provide excuses for Milo's behaviour? 

I've volunteered working for charities to fund cancer research and support for the mentally ill. 
I've sold art before and donated the money to cancer research. 
Those things are better achievements than the apparent 'great triumph' that I have not murdered 6 million Jews.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's not a matter of 'if I say so'. It's a matter of fact because it's supported by evidence.
> The real question is why do you want to provide excuses for Milo's behaviour?
> 
> I've volunteered working for charities to fund cancer research and support for the mentally ill.
> ...


I'm not excusing Milo's behavior, Milo is insignificant to me.

Congratulations, you've made efforts in your life to try and make the world a better place. It means you're better than those who are indifferent or those that try to make it worse.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> I'm not excusing Milo's behavior, Milo is insignificant to me.
> 
> Congratulations, you've made efforts in your life to try and make the world a better place. It means you're better than those who are indifferent or those that try to make it worse.



Milo's relevant to you because he is an example that demonstrates that just because somebody has been publicly rejected by NeoNazis doesn't mean that their political views have any merit or that their views are even ideologically opposed to NeoNazis'.
Indeed NeoNazis have an extensive history of publicly rejecting people who are espousing  views they support, because they know it makes those views more palatable to people.
Here's an example from the 70's, in which a group of Holocaust deniars deliberately sought out supporters who rejected Nazism, such as the libertarian author S. Konkin, to popularise their literature: Holocaust denial - Wikipedia



As we've now agreed, we distinguish people's merit based upon whether they've taken steps to make themselves and the rest of the world better.
A functional moral compass works because its needle seeks goodness.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

And what is good is ultimately relative.

I would say, that if someone has been publicly rejected by Neo Nazis then that means, by simply existing, they are in opposition to Neo Nazis.

If Neo Nazis reject people who's views they can identify with on some level, then they've still rejected that individual. Thus any views they espouse would be in public opposition to those of Neo Nazis, regardless of possible political overlap.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

And you could say the same thing about social democrats, socialists and communists. Having right/left wing views does not automatically mean you support the extreme fringes of whatever political camp you choose to identify with.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> And what is good is ultimately relative.
> 
> I would say, that if someone has been publicly rejected by Neo Nazis then that means, by simply existing, they are in opposition to Neo Nazis.
> 
> If Neo Nazis reject people who's views they can identify with on some level, then they've still rejected that individual. Thus any views they espouse would be in public opposition to those of Neo Nazis, regardless of possible political overlap.



So moral good isn't merely relative and this is implicit in the fact that you recognise a distinction between morally good and bad behaviours in the first place.

Hitler's genocide can not be perceived as morally good, for example, because Mao starved more people to death than Hitler exterminated.
There is an implicit native quality to Hitler and Mao's actions that we recognise as moral bad and as incompatible with a definition of moral good.

This is why somebody's political views don't magically become good just because Hitler supporters publicly disavow them.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Troj brought up the separation of migrants and their children, whose whereabouts were subsequently forgotten, as an example of an action by the USA which is dangerously authoritarian and nationalistic.


I'll note that, while the separation of migrant guardians from their children is absolutely unconscionable, what happened was actually the public conflating two issues:
1. Children were separated from their parents at the border. While the children's parents don't know where they are, the agency in charge of them _does_.
2. Unaccompanied minors who've arrived to the US and later been released to the care of a vetted relative, are no longer the responsibility of the agency that initially served as their guardians. A large number of these minors could not be located at a cursory check (basically, call the guardian's last known phone number - if no answer, or if they've since moved, they were "unable to locate" them).
So yeah. Point the first is utterly awful and deserves every bit of criticism it gets. Point the second... would be hell of a lot more authoritarian if they kept track of them indefinitely, and would probably also put them or their relatives at risk of deportation in some cases, what with the current political climate in the US.



Fallowfox said:


> Milo wasn't trying to reach out to white supremacists to make them more tolerant.
> Milo was being used as a Trojan horse to introduce white supremacist views to the political mainstream by divorcing those views from the toxic brand of 'white supremacy' and repackaging them as 'Alt-right'.
> 
> The best thing about me is not merely that I am better than Hitler or Saddam Hussein. That's friggin' ridiculous.


So much this. I have seen so much xenophobic bullshit being spouted by people who cite Milo and/or Sargon of Akkad as the source of their supposed "knowledge". 

Extremists aren't happy just sitting in their corner thinking their hateful thoughts. They want to spread those thoughts, and expand their ranks with people who simply take their word for it when they make shitty claims not founded in reality.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So moral good isn't merely relative and this is implicit in the fact that you recognise a distinction between morally good and bad behaviours in the first place.
> 
> Hitler's genocide can not be perceived as morally good, for example, because Mao starved more people to death than Hitler exterminated.
> There is an implicit native quality to Hitler and Mao's actions that we recognise as moral bad and as incompatible with a definition of moral good.
> ...


What i classify as morally good is defined by my worldview.

If your worldview includes the idea that some human beings are sub human parasites then it's "good" to exterminate them for the benefit of those that are worthy of existing. My worldview excludes this possibility by seeing every individual as a member of the human race, that's the only group that matters.

If Hitler supporters disavow your views, surely it means that your views are incompatible with the fascist worldview. Even if they may contain ideas that have their root in mutually agreeable principles.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Extremists aren't happy just sitting in their corner thinking their hateful thoughts. They want to spread those thoughts, and expand their ranks with people who simply take their word for it when they make shitty claims not founded in reality.


Question the shitty claims and if they truly have no merit they'll fall apart under scrutiny.

Why is that so difficult to grasp for people?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 7, 2018)

The people slinging around accusations of "Nazism" at every opportunity are, unknowingly, some of the actual Neo-Nazis' best friends.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> What i classify as morally good is defined by my worldview.
> 
> If your worldview includes the idea that some human beings are sub human parasites then it's "good" to exterminate them for the benefit of those that are worthy of existing. My worldview excludes this possibility by seeing every individual as a member of the human race, that's the only group that matters.
> 
> If Hitler supporters disavow your views, surely it means that your views are incompatible with the fascist worldview. Even if they may contain ideas that have their root in mutually agreeable principles.



Kyr you *know* that Hitler supporters have disavowed views in public that they agree with in private. :\
I provided you with an example, which was the 'Institute of Historical review', which deliberately did that in an attempt to popularise Holocaust denial.

They pretend to disavow their own ideas, because divorcing them from the toxic brand of Nazism makes those ideas more palatable to average people.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Kyr you *know* that Hitler supporters have disavowed views in public that they agree with in private. :\
> I provided you with an example, which was the 'Institute of Historical review', which deliberately did that in an attempt to popularise Holocaust denial.
> 
> They pretend to disavow their own ideas, because divorcing them from the toxic brand of Nazism makes those ideas more palatable to average people.


If by palatable you mean able to be approached with less negative bias, i agree.

That says nothing about the merit or validity of Holocaust denial.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Question the shitty claims and if they truly have no merit they'll fall apart under scrutiny.
> 
> Why is that so difficult to grasp for people?


It would be foolish of me to believe I could reach every fool who's ever believed the bullshit about "no-go zones" or "rape epidemics". And even if I could, I fail to see how refuting the shitty claims makes the people disseminating them any less shitty. The point is not that they spread lies. The point is that those lies are being used to draw people into a nasty, hateful ideology. (Also, critical review of sources takes time, and if you want me to do a reference librarian's work you better be willing to pay me a reference librarian's salary.)

If hate were content to sit and stew in its own bile, I'd largely be content to let it. I honestly don't care what goes on inside your head, or behind the closed doors of your home, among friends. But hate wants to spread. Hate leads to people hurting each other. And that I am not okay with. You shouldn't be either. 



Fallowfox said:


> I provided you with an example, which was the 'Institute of Historical review', which deliberately did that in an attempt to popularise Holocaust denial.


Dude, there's a whole chapter in one of my textbooks dedicated to tearing down every shred of credibility that organization has. It's good stuff.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> If by palatable you mean able to be approached with less negative bias, i agree.
> 
> That says nothing about the merit or validity of Holocaust denial.



Jesus Christ.





quoting_mungo said:


> It would be foolish of me to believe I could reach every fool who's ever believed the bullshit about "no-go zones" or "rape epidemics". And even if I could, I fail to see how refuting the shitty claims makes the people disseminating them any less shitty. The point is not that they spread lies. The point is that those lies are being used to draw people into a nasty, hateful ideology. (Also, critical review of sources takes time, and if you want me to do a reference librarian's work you better be willing to pay me a reference librarian's salary.)
> 
> If hate were content to sit and stew in its own bile, I'd largely be content to let it. I honestly don't care what goes on inside your head, or behind the closed doors of your home, among friends. But hate wants to spread. Hate leads to people hurting each other. And that I am not okay with. You shouldn't be either.
> 
> ...



I think some of your points about the spread of these ideologies also have relevance to this idea that Sargon and Milo are just 'reaching out' to white supremacists to try to persuade them to be more tolerant people. 

Many users have claimed that the number of white supremacists and neonazis in our countries is a tiny minority that we should be content to ignore. 

That claim is incompatible with the idea that Sargon and Milo deserve to be congratulated for 'confronting' them, while everybody else who criticises white supremacy deserves to be chastised for 'making a fuss over an insignificant group'.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> It would be foolish of me to believe I could reach every fool who's ever believed the bullshit about "no-go zones" or "rape epidemics". And even if I could, I fail to see how refuting the shitty claims makes the people disseminating them any less shitty. The point is not that they spread lies. The point is that those lies are being used to draw people into a nasty, hateful ideology. (Also, critical review of sources takes time, and if you want me to do a reference librarian's work you better be willing to pay me a reference librarian's salary.)
> 
> If hate were content to sit and stew in its own bile, I'd largely be content to let it. I honestly don't care what goes on inside your head, or behind the closed doors of your home, among friends. But hate wants to spread. Hate leads to people hurting each other. And that I am not okay with. You shouldn't be either.


Exactly, i don't want hate on any side. It's not about converting those that already have those views, it's about discussing those views openly so 3rd parties will be able to make an informed decision about such matters. If your views simply make more sense then what do you have to worry about?


Fallowfox said:


> Jesus Christ.


Divorce the immediate emotional response from the ability to think critically. Trust me, it'll help the discussion.

Question Fallow, is there any reason to publicly debate Holocaust denial?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Exactly, i don't want hate on any side. It's not about converting those that already have those views, it's about discussing those views openly so 3rd parties will be able to make an informed decision about such matters. If your views simply make more sense then what do you have to worry about?
> 
> Divorce the immediate emotional response from the ability to think critically. Trust me, it'll help the discussion.
> 
> Question Fallow, is there any reason to publicly debate Holocaust denial?



The context of Nazi ideology and the atrocities it is responsible for are one of the integral reasons that we believe Nazism is wrong.
This ancillary information does not constitute an unfair attempt to malign NeoNazis with negative bias, but a justified point about the human suffering that their ideas cause.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The context of Nazi ideology and the atrocities it is responsible for are one of the integral reasons that we believe Nazism is wrong.
> This ancillary information does not constitute an unfair attempt to malign NeoNazis with negative bias, but a justified point about the human suffering that their ideas cause.


True.

What reasons do Neo Nazis give to try and discredit the Holocaust?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> True.
> 
> What reasons do Neo Nazis give to try and discredit the Holocaust?



We're not going to debate whether the Holocaust happened, Kyr.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Exactly, i don't want hate on any side. It's not about converting those that already have those views, it's about discussing those views openly so 3rd parties will be able to make an informed decision about such matters. If your views simply make more sense then what do you have to worry about?


You don't want hate on any side, but you don't have a problem with people spreading lies that fuel hate against minorities? Are you even listening to yourself?

Lies of this sort are frequently attractively packaged and easily-digestible. Truth is messy, and often requires a lot more understanding of surrounding context and issues. The truth takes more _work_. A lot of people don't end up making a well-informed decision because information literacy is a skill and not everyone has it. And none of what you say explains why you are so reluctant to say "yes, spreading xenophobic lies indicates bad things about Milo and Sargon's ideological stances."


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> We're not going to debate whether the Holocaust happened, Kyr.


No, but i'd like us to discuss why it's important to debunk Holocaust deniers, Fallow.

It's one of their recruiting methods after all.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> You don't want hate on any side, but you don't have a problem with people spreading lies that fuel hate against minorities? Are you even listening to yourself?
> 
> Lies of this sort are frequently attractively packaged and easily-digestible. Truth is messy, and often requires a lot more understanding of surrounding context and issues. The truth takes more _work_. A lot of people don't end up making a well-informed decision because information literacy is a skill and not everyone has it. And none of what you say explains why you are so reluctant to say "yes, spreading xenophobic lies indicates bad things about Milo and Sargon's ideological stances."


Hate must be confronted intellectually, and lies must be countered with the truth. I don't care that it takes more work to spread the truth, and neither should anyone that's genuinely invested in stopping the spread of outright hateful lies.

If Milo and Sargon have spread demonstrably provable xenophobic lies then i'm all for calling them on it. I don't consume their content as there are much more interesting individuals to listen to out there.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> No, but i'd like us to discuss why it's important to debunk Holocaust deniers Fallow.



Because


Kyr said:


> Hate must be confronted intellectually, and lies must be countered with the truth.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> They have a vested interest in denying the Holocaust because they know
> that, if they can divorce themselves from the historical atrocities their ideology was responsible for,
> that they have a better chance of spreading their ideas to new followers.
> 
> ...


I'm not asking for myself, i'm asking for the benefit of those that might be swayed by Neo Nazi propaganda involving the Holocaust.

Debunk one of the pillars of their recruitment strategies publicly, you'll be doing the world a favour.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Troj brought up the separation of migrants and their children, whose whereabouts were subsequently forgotten, as an example of an action by the USA which is dangerously authoritarian and nationalistic.
> 
> It is a human travesty.
> 
> How can you possibly see this as morally equivalent to taking a family's children into care because they've been indoctrinating their children with a hatred of Jewish people?



So how long until you start stealing children from Christian families for teaching children homophobia?  Or Muslim families?  How about just Conservative families in general?

How long till you start stealing children from people who have shown evidence of transphobia?  I mean, why stop at Nazis and Jewish people?


----------



## Guifrog (Jun 7, 2018)

@_o

@AlaricTheDragon, look what you've done!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> I'm not asking for myself, i'm asking for the benefit of those that might be swayed by Neo Nazi propaganda involving the Holocaust.
> 
> Debunk one of the pillars of their recruitment strategies publicly, you'll be doing the world a favour.



If you want to prevent third parties from being swayed by NeoNazi propaganda then don't make posts pondering if NeoNazis have been maligned by unfair negative bias, don't defend people who have been proven to collaborate with white supremacists, like Milo Yiannopoulos, don't discuss whether it's possible for 'Nazi' to be a 'badge of honour' and certainly don't frame the evil of the Holocaust as a matter of moral relativism?




ResolutionBlaze said:


> So how long until you start stealing children from Christian families for teaching children homophobia?  Or Muslim families?  How about just Conservative families in general?
> 
> How long till you start stealing children from people who have shown evidence of transphobia?  I mean, why stop at Nazis and Jewish people?



This is a slippery slope fallacy. 

Do you remember when people were saying 'Gays are going to get married? Next this it will be legal to marry a horse!'

Your question's silly for the same reason as that.


----------



## no longer active (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Is your name Napoleon?
> 
> Cause i'd sure like to bone a part of you.



You done delivered. I'm proud. 

And a little bit disappointed in myself for not seeing that one sooner


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> If you want to prevent third parties from being swayed by NeoNazi propaganda then don't make posts pondering if NeoNazis have been maligned by unfair negative bias, don't defend people who have been proven to collaborate with white supremacists, like Milo Yiannopoulos, don't discuss whether it's possible for 'Nazi' to be a 'badge of honour' and certainly don't frame the evil of the Holocaust as a matter of moral relativism?


I and people like me have been maligned by unfair negative bias Fallow. We have been maligned by being accused of being crypto fascists, and do you want to know why we have? Because we think Neo Nazis are a problem and that fascist ideology should not be allowed to spread, but (there's always a fucking but isn't there) we disagree with the methods of people who are ultimately our allies.

Deep down, morals are relative. They're social constructs after all. I explained how being called a Nazi could be a badge of honour, it becomes one if you truly stop giving a shit about the people that call you a Nazi for the most simplistic reasons possible. Make no mistake, those people exist and they are a problem too.

People deserve some sort of defense, it's better than blindly condemning them for their perceived actions. I'll take what comes from doing that happily.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fall said:


> You done delivered. I'm proud.
> 
> And a little bit disappointed in myself for not seeing that one sooner


Very welcome good sir, truly it was my pleasure.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> This is a slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> Do you remember when people were saying 'Gays are going to get married? Next this it will be legal to marry a horse!'
> 
> Your question's silly for the same reason as that.


Slippery Slopes aren't a fallacy unless under certain conditions.
-
Your refusal to answer the question and utilize an Argument From Fallacy is noted though.
-
So are you going to answer the question?  I mean, I don't see anything wrong with it; if the government can justify taking children based on a hateful ideology, why not any and all hateful ideas?


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> This is gonna be brief as i was legit robbed at knifepoint last night and i've gotta take care of shit related to that.



Holy shit. Are you okay?



> The issue i see, is that a lot of people that cry Nazi within this fandom are simply acting like children.



Pretty much. Most don't actually know what a "Nazi" is, as evidenced by the obvious not-Nazis who get called Nazis. People just react emotionally, and they want to inflict the nastiest wound they can.

The whole "punch Nazis" movement puts me on edge, because who decides who's a Nazi? Sure, everybody assures me that "everybody knows" what a Nazi is, but that's a refrain that should automatically set off alarm bells. If we're operating based on the assumption that "everybody knows" what a Nazi looks like, then it's easy for the goal posts to move or be moved over time. Today, we punch Nazis. If we're not very careful, we'll slide down a slippery slope to punching people who are seen as aiding, abetting, or supporting Nazis _somehow._ I've had idiots threaten to punch _me_ just because I warned them to be careful with the whole "punching Nazis" routine.

At the same time, I'm also concerned about people hand-waving away legitimate concerns and criticism with "Ooh, Lefties just think everybody's a Nazi" and I'm even more concerned about people not being skilled at identifying the signs of creeping authoritarianism. 

Many times, I've seen people receive legitimate criticism about something shitty that they said or did, and they chose to use the one "UR A NAZI!" accusation they got to dismiss the entire enchilada. Some people consistently coast on that as they continue to say and do obnoxious, shitty things. 

So, it's both/and.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> I and people like me have been maligned by unfair negative bias Fallow. We have been maligned by being accused of being crypto fascists, and do you want to know why we have? Because we think Neo Nazis are a problem and that fascist ideology should not be allowed to spread, but (there's always a fucking but isn't there) we disagree with the methods of people who are ultimately our allies.
> 
> Deep down, morals are relative. They're social constructs after all. I explained how being called a Nazi could be a badge of honour, it becomes one if you truly stop giving a shit about the people that call you a Nazi for the most simplistic reasons possible. Make no mistake, those people exist and they are a problem too.
> 
> People deserve some sort of defense, it's better than blindly condemning them for their perceived actions. I'll take what comes from doing that happily.




If you are going to 'happily' take criticism for your opinions stop complaining that it's unfair that people are criticising you?




ResolutionBlaze said:


> Slippery Slopes aren't a fallacy unless under certain conditions.
> -
> Your refusal to answer the question and utilize an Argument From Fallacy is noted though.
> -
> So are you going to answer the question?  I mean, I don't see anything wrong with it; if the government can justify taking children based on a hateful ideology, why not any and all hateful ideas?



I feel this discussion has deviated from the original point. 

The original point was to note that nationalistic policies could cause human suffering even if they weren't overtly fascist. 
An example was migrants' children being separated from their parents at border detention facilities. 
Whether or not it's justified to take children into care from cult members is a different moral question, and the answer to it wouldn't redress the point that nationalistic policies can cause human suffering. 

Taking children into care from cults that support a fascist ideology is a nuanced question and it has to be made in the best interest of the well being of the child. 
Whether children should be taken away from homophobes is also a nuanced question and the answer would be contingent on ancillary information. For example if child protection services discovered that somebody's father believed in homophobic stereotypes then that wouldn't be grounds for disrupting the child's upbringing. If child protection services discovered that somebody's father was beating their child because they perceived their child as being too effeminate and 'gay', then that would be justifiable grounds to relocate the child. 

Are you quite satisfied with that?


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Milo was being used as a Trojan horse to introduce white supremacist views to the political mainstream by divorcing those views from the toxic brand of 'white supremacy' and repackaging them as 'Alt-right'.



The Right loves their Useful Idiots--as long as they continue to perform, at least!

Relevant:

The Cis White Gay Man at the Crossroads

This is more a takedown of Blaire White, but still relevant:


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Holy shit. Are you okay?


I agree with everything else you said and have nothing to add to it so i'll just focus on this part.

Yeah, when it got to the point where i knew i'd be stabbed if i kept resisting i gave them my shit. Managed to trick them into thinking the pocket with my phone in it was empty as the one with the knife held it over his head, ready to swing down at me.

2 odd weeks ago a 15 year old was stabbed to death here by the same kind of people so i knew that i could've been killed if i made the wrong move. Honestly, if anything i'm proud of how i handled it.


Fallowfox said:


> If you are going to 'happily' take criticism for your opinions stop complaining that it's unfair that people are criticising you?


Some criticism is valid, being called a fascist because you disagree with an ideologically driven narrative is not valid criticism.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

As a side note that is a fantastically witty and insightful video by Contra. I disagree with the strands of logic presented in her old videos but i'm not sure how those opinions have changed since she fully embraced being trans. Regardless, she has my respect.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Holy shit. Are you okay?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah the 'punch Nazis' thing isn't appropriate in my view. I think it plays into their hands that they're an unfairly maligned minority group that is censored and threatened with violence just for expressing their views.
I think far right individuals deliberately try to bait others into treating them in a way that they can present as 'unfair' when they're trying to recruit people.

I refrain from accusing people of supporting the Nazi ideology even when it's obvious they secretly agree with it, precisely because I'm afraid I will be dismissed as a 'leftist who thinks everybody is a Nazi'.
I'm not sure if this is a good thing for me to do; am I actually assisting NeoNazi's attempts to re-brand themselves when I fail to call them out for what they are?




Kyr said:


> I agree with everything else you said and have nothing to add to it so i'll just focus on this part.
> 
> Yeah, when it got to the point where i knew i'd be stabbed if i kept resisting i gave them my shit. Managed to trick them into thinking the pocket with my phone in it was empty as the one with the knife held it over his head, ready to swing down at me.
> 
> ...



The criticism you've received _is_ justified. 

Look at your comments and read them as if you were a 'normie' like me. 
What kind of impression do you honestly get from them? 
It comes across as if you're desperate to defend neonazis. You even entertained the idea that _they're the victims_ of unfair bias. 

I'm _not _accusing you of defending the neonazi ideology. I am trying to politely tell you that, when they read your comments, normal folk will get the strong impression that that is what you're doing.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The original point was to note that nationalistic policies could cause human suffering even if they weren't overtly fascist.



Yes and for every Nationalistic Policy you name that harms people someone else could name a Globalist Policy that harms people; what's your point?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I refrain from accusing people of supporting the Nazi ideology even when it's obvious they secretly agree with it, precisely because I'm afraid I will be dismissed as a 'leftist who thinks everybody is a Nazi'.
> I'm not sure if this is a good thing for me to do; am I actually assisting NeoNazi's attempts to re-brand themselves when I fail to call them out for what they are?



You should be afraid to do that.

You don't call people Nazis on a whim.  That's not a term you should just throw around.  I'm happy you're afraid to use the term.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You should be afraid to do that.
> 
> You don't call people Nazis on a whim.  That's not a term you should just throw around.  I'm happy you're afraid to use the term.


Please don't brag that you're happy you've made people afraid. :\

That's an example of a comment that a 'Normie' would regard as extremely creepy.

Imagine your mother reading it.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yes and for every Nationalistic Policy you name that harms people someone else could name a Globalist Policy that harms people; what's your point?



Nationalism wouldn't become defensible even if Globalist ideas are bad. 

It's like a burglar in court deciding to protest his innocent by accusing the judge of having an unpaid speeding ticket. 
Even if the judge did have an unpaid speeding ticket, it wouldn't make the burglar's actions any better. 

The negative effects some nationalistic policies have was brought up to demonstrate that politics isn't as simple as 'fascism is unacceptable, but so long as you aren't a fascist your views are moral'. It's possible to hold right wing views that aren't fascist, but which are still immoral. 

Just as it's possible for immoral views to manifest anywhere on the political spectrum.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> This is gonna be brief as i was legit robbed at knifepoint last night and i've gotta take care of shit related to that.



Yo, what the fuck? That's terrible.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

I'd suggest that if you're periodically running up against people who call you either a Nazi or SJW, that's the signal to do some self-reflection, because either you're trying to talk to the wrong people, or there's something inherently wrong with your message and/or your messaging.

If your message is genuinely non-toxic and well-intentioned, then often, the problem is that you're not giving off the right "symbolic nesting odor," so the person you're talking to doesn't feel you're a true ally or supporter.

Other times, you may have personal biases or blind spots that prevent you from seeing how certain words, arguments, or ideas inherently trigger, alarm, or upset others, or at least arouse their suspicions.

Or, the problem may just be that you're trying to have a serious discussion with people who aren't willing or able to play ball at the same level.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The criticism you've received _is_ justified.
> 
> Look at your comments and read them as if you were a 'normie' like me.
> What kind of impression do you honestly get from them?
> ...


This is why i see it as important to try and create a dialogue. In a sense i am defending Neo Nazi ideology from those that think the solution to it is suppression. If you try to eradicate them, they'll cloak themselves, and then the people that try to suppress them will see "evil" intent coming from those that disagree with them because those that genuinely hold fascist views are forced to hide. It does nothing but foster paranoia and purity testing. If you think i am a Nazi for any reason, tell me why publicly and allow me to refute it. I'm not actually a Neo Nazi so that's fairly easy for me. We need to foster discourse, not shelter ourselves behind a wall of ideological purity.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> I'd suggest that if you're periodically running up against people who call you either a Nazi or SJW, that's the signal to do some self-reflection, because either you're trying to talk to the wrong people, or there's something inherently wrong with your message and/or your messaging.



I've been called a raging feminist SJW before. I've never once talked about feminism outside of mocking individual cases of them being dumb. I'd say I talk to the wrong people. :^)
Never been labeled a Nazi....yet.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think far right individuals deliberately try to bait others into treating them in a way that they can present as 'unfair' when they're trying to recruit people.



They absolutely do. It's one of their favorite tactics. They intentionally bait and bother people (especially SJWs and Antifas) until they react, and then they cry "persecution" and wax poetic about "freedom of expression."

People could stand to learn a lesson from Br'er Rabbit:

Uncle Remus: Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> They absolutely do. It's one of their favorite tactics. They intentionally bait and bother people (especially SJWs and Antifas) until they react, and then they cry "persecution" and wax poetic about "freedom of expression."



This is manipulative people in general honestly.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Oh, absolutely.

Playing the victim is a fairly standard manipulation tactic employed by people of all ideologies and worldviews, but the Far Right has really mastered the art of poking somebody under the table until they snap and _then_ playing the victim.

The Left is almost too earnest to know how to play that way. They're also too earnest to be able to tell when they're being played!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> This is why i see it as important to try and create a dialogue. In a sense i am defending Neo Nazi ideology from those that think the solution to it is suppression. If you try to eradicate them, they'll cloak themselves, and then the people that try to suppress them will see "evil" intent coming from those that disagree with them because those that genuinely hold fascist views are forced to hide. It does nothing but foster paranoia and purity testing. If you think i am a Nazi for any reason, tell me why publicly and allow me to refute it. I'm not actually a Neo Nazi so that's fairly easy for me. We need to foster discourse, not shelter ourselves behind a wall of ideological purity.



I don't think there's any reason to open up a public debate about whether the Holocaust happened.

You're not going to convince neonazis, because they're too far down the rabbit hole, and you risk creating a platform which gives them the opportunity to manipulate other people.

This is why I have avoided engaging you in discussions about the 'merits' of Holocaust denial.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Oh, absolutely.
> 
> Playing the victim is a fairly standard manipulation tactic employed by people of all ideologies and worldviews, but the Right has really mastered the art of poking somebody under the table until they snap and _then_ playing the victim.
> 
> The Left is almost too earnest to know how to play that way. They're also too earnest to be able to tell when they're being played!



Ehhhh, I'd say it's pretty split even. But they pull different excuses. The right cries about their precious freedom of speech. The left just pulls out their favorite -isms. But it's ultimately the same mask painted different colors. Then again, I don't involve myself directly in most online social politics stuff because I still have some kind of brain I'm trying to preserve. So your word is probably better than mine.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think there's any reason to open up a public debate about whether the Holocaust happened.
> 
> You're not going to convince neonazis, because they're too far down the rabbit hole, and you risk creating a platform which gives them the opportunity to manipulate other people.
> 
> This is why I have avoided engaging you in discussions about the 'merits' of Holocaust denial.


There are no merits Fallow, that's the point.

Let people see that there aren't any. Otherwise, what are you going to do if you run into such beliefs in a space where they're not challenged?


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

I'd argue that the Left as a whole is generally more transparent about what they believe and what they'd like to achieve. They might be blind to their _own_ hypocrisies, blind spots, or dark inner desires, but they aren't consciously deceiving people about the "end game."

The Left also gets pissy when others don't know or share their insider lingo--so, they'll use the "power + privilege" definition of racism, and automatically expect everybody in the room to follow along--but that's more tribal circle-jerking and solipsism than anything else.

(There's a bit of a grey area or question here around when either side adopts the moral framework or moral arguments of the other side, and how much of that is being done strategically, versus in earnest.)

The Right has traditionally been, to my mind, much savvier about the use of language, and they've been able to control a lot of public debates for a while just by being the first to define the terms in play. They also employ more dogwhistles and euphemisms, because they know that their pure, unfiltered beliefs aren't currently "en vogue."

Dog-whistle politics - Wikipedia

8 Sneaky Racial Code Words  and Why Politicians Love Them


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> I'd argue that the Left as a whole is generally more transparent about what they believe and what they'd like to achieve. They might be blind to their _own_ hypocrisies, blind spots, or dark inner desires, but they aren't consciously deceiving people about the "end game."
> 
> (There's a bit of a grey area or question here around when either side adopts the moral framework or moral arguments of the other side, and how much of that is being done strategically, versus in earnest.)
> 
> ...



Ah. I see what you're saying now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> There are no merits Fallow, that's the point.
> 
> Let people see that there aren't any. Otherwise, what are you going to do if you run into such beliefs in a space where they're not challenged?



In the past anybody who did that would have been called out as a NeoNazi and dismissed, because everybody knows not to trust NeoNazis.

That _used _to be the cryptonite that would immediately shut down their discussions.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> In the past anybody who did that would have been called out as a NeoNazi and dismissed, because everybody knows not to trust NeoNazis.
> 
> That _used _to be the cryptonite that would immediately shut down their discussions.


Exactly, and that has led to people who aren't Neo Nazis being called Nazis and dismissed. Actual Neo Nazis have been able to capitalize on that fact. It's not an adequate solution anymore.

You shut them down they claim oppression, and by the logical extension of the intersectional concepts of oppression they're actually correct. It's why they shouldn't simply be dismissed anymore, we've reached a point where they genuinely need to be critiqued.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Please don't brag that you're happy you've made people afraid. :\
> 
> That's an example of a comment that a 'Normie' would regard as extremely creepy.
> 
> Imagine your mother reading it.



Not bragging.  You should be afraid to call people Nazis (for the right reasons).  If you have to resort to calling someone a Nazi, they are either a genocidal maniac or you are being melodramatic and devaluing the term.  So yes, you shouldn't have a desire to call someone a Nazi.

And my mother is a very conservative woman so she would probably agree with me.



Fallowfox said:


> Nationalism wouldn't become defensible even if Globalist ideas are bad.
> 
> It's like a burglar in court deciding to protest his innocent by accusing the judge of having an unpaid speeding ticket.
> Even if the judge did have an unpaid speeding ticket, it wouldn't make the burglar's actions any better.
> ...



Yes, this is an obvious fact.  I don't think anyone here is arguing that Nationalism is perfect.  Again, what's your point?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Exactly, and that has led to people who aren't Neo Nazis being called Nazis and dismissed. Actual Neo Nazis have been able to capitalize on that fact. It's not an adequate solution anymore.
> 
> You shut them down they claim oppression, and by the logical extension of the intersectional concepts of oppression they're actually correct. It's why they shouldn't simply be dismissed anymore, we've reached a point where they genuinely need to be critiqued.



They have been critiqued in the past and those criticisms are a matter of public record, so we don't need to reopen the discussion any more than we need to discuss whether the earth is flat.

Reopening the discussion gives people the false impression that there's room for debate on this issue, and I am confused that you invited me to prove that the Holocaust happened, when you yourself _already_ regard Holocaust denial as 'meritless' and your whole shtick has been that there aren't actually any neonazis in our midst.
If nobody here has a proclivity towards Holocaust denial, whose benefit exactly were you asking me to do this for?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yes, this is an obvious fact.  I don't think anyone here is arguing that Nationalism is perfect.  Again, what's your point?



My point was just to convince you of what you just described as an 'obvious fact'.
So we can conclude this discussion.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

The problem is that malicious people can surf a long distance on a small grain of truth.

The small grain of truth is that some people use "Nazi" to shut down conversations and tar those they dislike with a scarlet letter.

But, I've gotten cynical, because I've seen too many people cry crocodile tears about being called a "Nazi" just for using slurs or "making jokes," or "speculating" about the Holocaust, or humbly suggesting that there are only two genders and that trans people are mentally ill, or casually mentioning the research on IQ disparities between racial groups, or arguing that maybe "illegals" deserve what they get when they dare to cross the border illegally, or musing that maybe certain races are just more prone to criminal behaviors, or expressing "concerns" about the outcomes of children raised by gay parents, or offering up the fresh take that women are just ill-suited for certain (or all) kinds of paid work, or opining that Islam is the most evil religion the world has ever seen and needs to be "handled" accordingly, or suggesting that the Irish had it just as bad, or constantly having aneurysms over ((GEORGE SOROS)), or hanging out with people who say any or all of the above.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Reopening the discussion gives people the false impression that there's room for debate on this issue, and I am confused that you invited me to prove that the Holocaust happened, when you yourself _already_ regard Holocaust denial as 'meritless' and your whole shtick has been that there aren't actually any neonazis in our midst.



Ah yes the "Its not up for debate" excuse.  Haven't seen you since Gender Pronouns.

Anything outside the realm of science is up for debate.  Flat earth is a matter of science not politics.  Though you can argue science it takes a different form.

Investigating the EXTENT of the Holocaust is, because the numbers are really by no means strictly agreed upon.  Just like in any discussion there are those which believe it never happened or it was made up, and there are those who things the numbers are a bit large, and there are those who think it's spot on.

There's nothing wrong discussing that.  It helps us understand arguments... and you can't fight against what you don't understand.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> The problem is that malicious people can surf a long distance on a small grain of truth.
> 
> The small grain of truth is that some people use "Nazi" to shut down conversations and tar those they dislike with a scarlet letter.
> 
> But, I've gotten cynical, because I've seen too many people cry crocodile tears about being called a "Nazi" just for using slurs or "making jokes," or "speculating" about the Holocaust, or humbly suggesting that there are only two genders and that trans people are mentally ill, or casually mentioning the research on IQ disparities between racial groups, or arguing that maybe 'illegals' deserve what they get when they dare to cross the border illegally, or musing that maybe certain races are just more prone to criminal behaviors, or expressing "concerns" about the outcomes of children raised by gay parents, or offering up the fresh take that women are just ill-suited for certain kinds of work (or work outside the home in general), or opining that Islam is the most evil religion the world has ever seen and needs to be "handled" accordingly, or constantly having aneurysms over GEORGE SOROS, or hanging out with people who say these things.



For someone who doesn't like grouping people up you are sure quick to pile on views you don't agree with and pretty much say you're unsympathetic that they're called Nazis.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

You're the one who doesn't like grouping people.

I don't like grouping people when the criteria is invalid, when it promotes mob behavior, or when it harms or maligns innocents.

I'm perfectly fine with grouping people when the criteria is valid, useful, and/or benign.

To be clear, not everyone who expresses unpalatable views is a Nazi, but frankly, I don't have much sympathy for people who've at least been called out for saying or doing legitimately insane, stupid, cruel, or harmful stuff, and who refuse to cop to that because they're busy being hurt about being called a "racist" or a "Nazi."

"They called me a Nazi!" becomes a smokescreen in those cases.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> You're the one who doesn't like grouping people.
> 
> I don't like grouping people when the criteria is invalid, when it promotes mob behavior, or when it harms or maligns innocents.
> 
> ...



Whose criteria?  Your criteria?  Who made you an arbiter of group identity?

You realize you are sounding like a _major _hypocrite right now?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Ah yes the "Its not up for debate" excuse.  Haven't seen you since Gender Pronouns.
> 
> Anything outside the realm of science is up for debate.  Flat earth is a matter of science not politics.
> 
> ...




The number of people murdered in the Holocaust _isn't_ a political question. 
It's a question that was addressed by forensic scientists and archivists.

'Let's debate the extent of the Holocaust' is a classic hook that Holocaust deniars have historically used in attempts to downplay the significance of Nazi war atrocities and _you should know this_ because it's basic history. :\


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Hate must be confronted intellectually, and lies must be countered with the truth. I don't care that it takes more work to spread the truth, and neither should anyone that's genuinely invested in stopping the spread of outright hateful lies.


Please re-read what I wrote. The problem isn't inherently that _spreading_ truth takes more work (though expecting people to go around cleaning up Milo and Sargon's messes because their lies are unconscionable is kind of like expecting every dog owner to stop and pick up dog crap when they see it, regardless of whose dog it was left by - it's unlikely that you'll ever find all the dog crap left unpicked-up, and even if you did the irresponsible dog owners will likely keep not picking it up). The problem is that _consuming_ truth takes more work. People like things packed up neatly with a proverbial bow. If the lies are less effort to absorb, they're more likely to be believed.

Basically, a lot of the time, for complicated issues, the truth will be less attractive than the convenient lie. Bigots capitalize on that.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> For someone who doesn't like grouping people up you are sure quick to pile on views you don't agree with and pretty much say you're unsympathetic that they're called Nazis.


That's not really the point Troj's making. The point is that people who are quite aware of the controversial nature of their actions willfully ignore the _reasons_ they were called Nazis, and when those reasons are "you acted like a grade-A bigoted jerkwad", acting upset about it is pretty hollow. Now, maybe you are sincerely just making the wrong joke at the wrong time in the wrong place. Then acknowledge that "yeah, that was not the best idea", and don't do it again, rather than lash out at the people who called you on it. And don't deliberately court offense and then act surprised when people are offended.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> That's not really the point Troj's making. The point is that people who are quite aware of the controversial nature of their actions willfully ignore the _reasons_ they were called Nazis, and when those reasons are "you acted like a grade-A bigoted jerkwad", acting upset about it is pretty hollow. Now, maybe you are sincerely just making the wrong joke at the wrong time in the wrong place. Then acknowledge that "yeah, that was not the best idea", and don't do it again, rather than lash out at the people who called you on it. And don't deliberately court offense and then act surprised when people are offended.



So now you can call people Nazis just for being assholes, or it's okay to do so?

Can you people please stick to one fucking definition of a Nazi?  These word games are really pissing me off, and is ironically the very thing I've been warning against.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The number of people murdered in the Holocaust _isn't_ a political question.
> It's a question that was addressed by forensic scientists and archivists.
> 
> 'Let's debate the extent of the Holocaust' is a classic hook that Holocaust deniars have historically used in attempts to downplay the significance of Nazi war atrocities and _you should know this_ because it's basic history. :\



How can they downplay something that's objectively true?

If it's true, there should be no qualms about it.  It should be an easy matter to discuss and debunk.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So now you can call people Nazis just for being assholes, or it's okay to do so?
> 
> Can you people please stick to one fucking definition of a Nazi?  These word games are really pissing me off.



Instead of pointing out that people are factually inaccurate to call you a 'Nazi', because 'actually I'm an identitarian' or 'actually I'm a libertarian' or such.
Think about why people are finding it so easy to confuse your position with promotion of the Nazi ideology.

For example you just invited me to discuss the extent of the Holocaust. That's a well known discussion trope that NeoNazis do, so if you go around doing that normal people are understandably going to think that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> How can they downplay something that's objectively true?
> 
> If it's true, there should be no qualms about it.  It should be an easy matter to discuss and debunk.



As Mungo pointed out the truth is messier than alluring fictions.

If I tried to present you with a long-winded essay about how forensic scientists and archivists have come to measure the death-count of the Holocaust I might well make a mistake in my explanation.

The ramifications of somebody seizing on that are severe, which is why I'm not going to do it.
I can direct you towards books and research about the Holocaust's death count, but I am not going to treat it like a debate.

This is all very basic knowledge you should have been taught in school anyway. :\ It was the state's job to educate you about this, not mine.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Instead of pointing out that people are factually inaccurate to call you a 'Nazi', because 'actually I'm an identitarian' or 'actually I'm a libertarian' or such.
> Think about why people are finding it so easy to confuse your position with promotion of the Nazi ideology.
> 
> For example you just invited me to discuss the extent of the Holocaust. That's a well known discussion trope that NeoNazis do, so if you go around doing that normal people are understandably going to think that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it might just be a duck.



So it's okay to conflate the definition of a Nazi to make a point?  Are you serious?


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Whose criteria? Your criteria? Who made you an arbiter of group identity?



:::shrugs, points to Ph.D.:::::

Well, and who's the higher authority for your opinions? How are you any more qualified to sort Nazis from non-Nazis?

Seems to me practically everybody here has been speaking from their own experience, gut sense, and personal framework, so it's a bit dodgy to play the "says who" card _now._



Fallowfox said:


> Instead of pointing out that people are factually inaccurate to call you a 'Nazi', because 'actually I'm an identitarian' or 'actually I'm a libertarian' or such. Think about why people are finding it so easy to confuse your position with promotion of the Nazi ideology.



_Precisely.
_
Once is a fluke or a mistake. More than once, you've got to ask yourself what's going on.

I reckon some peeps could stand to ask themselves why, in a huge cosmos of questions, conundrums, and dilemmas just waiting to be explored, they find themselves drawn to race and IQ or questioning the Holocaust. 

Hence my cynicism. I've seen too many people who seemed to be looking for ways to punch people in the nuts without being branded a nut-puncher. 



quoting_mungo said:


> That's not really the point Troj's making. The point is that people who are quite aware of the controversial nature of their actions willfully ignore the _reasons_ they were called Nazis, and when those reasons are "you acted like a grade-A bigoted jerkwad", acting upset about it is pretty hollow. Now, maybe you are sincerely just making the wrong joke at the wrong time in the wrong place. Then acknowledge that "yeah, that was not the best idea", and don't do it again, rather than lash out at the people who called you on it. And don't deliberately court offense and then act surprised when people are offended.



Bingo. Exactly.

It's rather like when an SJW chooses to focus totally on someone's "problematic" wording while ignoring their valid point.

Or, it's like when a Grammar Nazi chooses to correct someone's grammar or terminology instead of acknowledging what they said.

It's a dodge.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Okay, so let's pretend for a moment that you didn't move goalposts.
> 
> You seriously don't think there is racial prejudice from blacks in America?



You accusation of goalpost shifting falls flat when you just brought up a red herring. I'm talking about racial bias from white nationalists, and you say "what about racially prejudiced blacks?"

We'll get to racist black people if they come up. 

I'll ask the question again. Why are nationalists almost always white?

And stop pointing out logical fallacies in others arguments until you learn to stop making them so often yourself please.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

This is the part where the thread becomes unsalvageable and spirals into it's inevitable lock.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So it's okay to conflate the definition of a Nazi to make a point?  Are you serious?


 
People in real life won't be 'conflating' the definition of Nazi to make a point if they think the views you've expressed here make you a Nazi, Blaze. 

Real NeoNazis regularly try to engage people in discussions about the extent of the Holocaust, so when normies end up thinking you're a Nazi it's going to be because you've  accidentally tricked them into genuinely thinking that. 

I only realise you're _not_ a Nazi because I have spent too much time on the internet. Most people in real life aren't going to be so familiar with the strange social norms of online cultures and they won't be so lenient.
If you started speaking about the extent of the Holocaust in real life you might well end up in hot water- you could lose your job over something like that.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You accusation of goalpost shifting falls flat when you just brought up a red herring. I'm talking about racial bias from white nationalists, and you say "what about racially prejudiced blacks?"



Anyone can be prejudiced, but _power_ is the relevant factor here.

Who has more power and leverage to act on their prejudices to hurt the person or group they're prejudiced against?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Exactly, and that has led to people who aren't Neo Nazis being called Nazis and dismissed. Actual Neo Nazis have been able to capitalize on that fact. It's not an adequate solution anymore.
> 
> You shut them down they claim oppression, and by the logical extension of the intersectional concepts of oppression they're actually correct. It's why they shouldn't simply be dismissed anymore, we've reached a point where they genuinely need to be critiqued.



Actually we haven't, we've reached the point where people have become too open minded to their ideas. It's like the pedophile in the family who's slowly convinced everyone it's probably not really altogether entirely all that bad if he kinda sorta fiddles with a 9 year old from time to time. 

That's when you slam your beer mug down and loudly and vociferously call out the behavior and ideology for what it is, which is a slow but steady march back towards racism, intolerance, and bigotry, which basically translates to human rights violations with an emphasis on propping up white males.

You might say there's plenty of women and people of color who support this, but well let's be honest, they're brainwashed if they support white nationalism.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> If you started speaking about the extent of the Holocaust in real life you might well end up in hot water- you could lose your job over something like that.



Yep. People generally don't have the time or the bandwidth to judge every person and situation on their own merits, so they rely on heuristics, stereotypes, and other cognitive shorthands. 

Nazis have traditionally had certain "calling cards," so logically, if you want to avoid giving people the wrong impression, you should avoid giving off those signals.

Again, it may also be good to ask yourself why you have such a boner for debating the Holocaust, and what you hope to achieve.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> :::shrugs, points to Ph.D.::::



Really?  You're going there now, huh?

Lemme just make this clear; I don't care that you have a Ph.D.  That doesn't automatically make you a reasonable person.  That doesn't make your arguments more reasonable.  That doesn't make you right.

I really REALLY hope I'm just misinterpreting what you meant, because that seemed pretty shallow of you.



Troj said:


> Well, and who's the higher authority for your opinions? How are you any more qualified to sort Nazis from non-Nazis?
> 
> Seems to me practically everybody here has been speaking from their own experience, gut sense, and personal framework, so it's a bit dodgy to play the "says who" card _now._



I compare them to ACTUAL Nazi ideology.  What's my authority?  Facts.  Your question makes about as much sense as asking what authority I have to call a pine tree a pine tree and why I don't call Lavanders pine trees.  It's a purposefully ignorant argument.  You dont get to complain about Nazis devaluing the Holocaust but in the same breath devalue the term Nazi to an incorrect comparison.



Troj said:


> It's rather like when an SJW chooses to focus totally on someone's "problematic" wording while ignoring their valid point.
> 
> Or, it's like when a Grammar Nazi chooses to correct someone's grammar or terminology instead of acknowledging what they said.
> 
> It's a dodge.




"No no no, you're SUPPOSED to interpret my incorrect comparison THIS WAY!  Stop trying to dodge my witch hunting and baseless accusations!"


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Anyone can be prejudiced, but _power_ is the relevant factor here.
> 
> Who has more power and leverage to act on their prejudices to hurt the person or group they're prejudiced against?



I'd say white males are still in a position of authority, but that power is waning rapidly. So is religious authority, which is still strong but waning incredibly. Both white males and religious people are increasingly becoming agitated as they lose authority in society.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Really?  You're going there now, huh?
> 
> Lemme just make this clear; I don't care that you have a Ph.D.  That doesn't automatically make you a reasonable person.  That doesn't make your arguments more reasonable.  That doesn't make you right.
> 
> ...



Don't criticize someone if they point out their education. You encouraged them to do this by questioning why they felt their arguments were better. An explanation was provided. Attacking the explanation provided as being to hoighty toity or something only backfires on you and makes it look like you're extremely intimidated by someone with superior education.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Really?  You're going there now, huh?
> 
> Lemme just make this clear; I don't care that you have a Ph.D.  That doesn't automatically make you a reasonable person. * That doesn't make your arguments more reasonable*.  That doesn't make you right.



You haven't really made an attempt to disprove any of her claims yet.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Don't criticize someone if they point out their education. You encouraged them to do this by questioning why they felt their arguments were better. An explanation was provided. Attacking the explanation provided as being to hoighty toity or something only backfires on you and makes it look like you're extremely intimidated by someone with superior education.



I would think people would be smart enough to know a rhetorical question when they see one.

So yeah.  Fucking shallow.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I would think people would be smart enough to know a rhetorical question when they see one.
> 
> So yeah.  Fucking shallow.



The only thing shallow here is your arguments which, these days, seem to rapidly devolve into personal insults and petty, rhetorical comments. Your arguments will be nich stronger if you avoid the logical fallacies you yourself often point out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Since the question of Holocaust denial has come up several times, 
can I just check that you all received an education about the Holocaust when you were in school? 

If you did, what events subsequently lead to you questioning whether you should revise your knowledge about the Holocaust; was it videos on YouTube, or conversations on Discord?


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> can I just check that you all received an education about the Holocaust when you were in school?



I did extensively, yes.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Since the question of Holocaust denial has come up several times,
> can I just check that you all received an education about the Holocaust when you were in school?
> 
> If you did, what events subsequently lead to you questioning whether you should revise your knowledge about the Holocaust; was it videos on YouTube, or conversations on Discord?



I never did question it's legitimacy.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So now you can call people Nazis just for being assholes, or it's okay to do so?


I said neither, and neither did Troj (nor Fallowfox). I do not, in fact, like that it gets thrown around so casually. _However_, it's _understandable_ that people get offended when you deliberately court offense, and it's just a little bit (by which I mean "a lot") disingenuous to act like the fault lies entirely with the people who don't find your antics funny. So if you have a habit of throwing slurs around or kvetching about the supposed evils of Islam, you are not in a position to play the victim when people react. If you pull a dog's tail and it responds by biting you, it's not okay that the dog bit you, but you're sure as hell less deserving of sympathy for it than if it attacked you unprovoked.

You come off as trying to score points rather than trying to have a discussion where you take in and consider what people are saying, right now. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Lemme just make this clear; I don't care that you have a Ph.D. That doesn't automatically make you a reasonable person. That doesn't make your arguments more reasonable. That doesn't make you right.


It does imply a certain degree of experience in critically evaluating information/sources. Information literacy is important, and you're not going to get a Ph.D. if you're not decent at it. 



Fallowfox said:


> ince the question of Holocaust denial has come up several times,
> can I just check that you all received an education about the Holocaust when you were in school?
> 
> If you did, what events subsequently lead to you questioning whether you should revise your knowledge about the Holocaust; was it videos on YouTube, or conversations on Discord?


I mean... I've had to revise my understanding about the Holocaust multiple times. Pretty much exclusively because I ran into a tidbit of information that indicated there was further travesty there that wasn't thoroughly touched on by basic compulsory school History lessons. But none of that exactly lends _more_ credence to Holocaust denial or minimization.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'd say white males are still in a position of authority, but that power is waning rapidly. So is religious authority, which is still strong but waning incredibly. Both white males and religious people are increasingly becoming agitated as they lose authority in society.



And when you've always had a seat at the head of the table, being asked to scoot down or share the food feels like oppression.

This is why, I'd suggest, so many previously self-described liberals and moderates have scooted to the Right in the past decade. They were fine with including other voices when those voices were still subordinate or muted, but now that they're rising in power and volume, it feels like a threat.

Anyway, I've invested a lot of time, observation, and personal research into the area of mass movements and ideologies; how they rise, spread, and fall; and why and how people join them, which is why I feel confident to speak on the subject.

I also strive to be aware of my own worldview, ethical framework, core assumptions, and personal biases, and how these things all inevitably affect my (or anybody's) ability to truly be objective.



quoting_mungo said:


> I said neither, and neither did Troj (nor Fallowfox). I do not, in fact, like that it gets thrown around so casually.



Seems like Resolution Blaze is the one who keeps moving the ball back into that zone.

It rather validates my point that people just don't like being called out for the consequences or implications of their actions or arguments, and they employ "You think I'm a NAZI!" as a kind of dodge.


----------



## HistoricalyIncorrect (Jun 7, 2018)

heh... by today's standards this word has become a cheap offense mostly from left wingers.

Once in college i got into 1 side argument with one girl and she was throwing nazis on me like if it was Blitzkrieg. i told her how could i be nazi if i am national socialist? Poor girl didn't realize...


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I said neither, and neither did Troj (nor Fallowfox). I do not, in fact, like that it gets thrown around so casually. _However_, it's _understandable_ that people get offended when you deliberately court offense, and it's just a little bit (by which I mean "a lot") disingenuous to act like the fault lies entirely with the people who don't find your antics funny. So if you have a habit of throwing slurs around or kvetching about the supposed evils of Islam, you are not in a position to play the victim when people react. If you pull a dog's tail and it responds by biting you, it's not okay that the dog bit you, but you're sure as hell less deserving of sympathy for it than if it attacked you unprovoked.
> 
> You come off as trying to score points rather than trying to have a discussion where you take in and consider what people are saying, right now.
> 
> ...



You've just placed using slurs and criticising a religion as equal to each other.  I just want you to be aware of that.

Also your analogy doesn't work, because it always presumes that if someone calls you a Nazi incorrectly your first response should be, "huh I guess I'm actually a bad person" instead of questing whether the person is in a proper state to debate in the first place.

I'm not in a good place to debate myself right now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

I kind of feel like some of the discussion here is being articulated by users who are _desperate for somebody to call them a Nazi_, so they can justify their complaints about how unfair everybody is being to them. 

It's a form of admonishment because it provides people with a rational that they can use to dismiss any other criticism that they might get for their political views:
'It doesn't matter that somebody criticised me for saying I want European ethnic identity to be defended like it is in Saudi Arabia, because people
who criticise my point of view are just leftists who think everybody else is a Nazi'. 

Is that what's going on here?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Since the question of Holocaust denial has come up several times,
> can I just check that you all received an education about the Holocaust when you were in school?
> 
> If you did, what events subsequently lead to you questioning whether you should revise your knowledge about the Holocaust; was it videos on YouTube, or conversations on Discord?



Everyone knows YouTube is empirical research, and that discord conversations are always with top notch arguments!


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I kind of feel like some of the discussion here is being articulated by users who are _desperate for somebody to call them a Nazi_, so they can justify their complaints about how unfair everybody is being to them.
> 
> It's a form of admonishment because it provides people with a rational that they can use to dismiss any other criticism that they might get for their political views:
> 'It doesn't matter that somebody criticised me for saying I want European ethnic identity to be defended like it is in Saudi Arabia, because people
> ...



Is this an indication that you WANT to call someone a Nazi here which brought about this train of thought?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

>White Men still held power
Well no shit Sherlock. White men just got to it first, it will take time and forced diversity to change that. Yes... Mhm... We need forced diversity...


By all that is holy the hypocrisy can be strong on this one.

I am not the one to judge authority based on their skin color. The demonization of white men and the predisposed assumption that white men can't champion equality is mind boggling

And this... Is coming from a non-white >.>


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)




----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Seems like Resolution Blaze is the one who keeps moving the ball back into that zone.
> 
> It rather validates my point that people just don't like being called out for the consequences or implications of their actions or arguments, and they employ "You think I'm a NAZI!" as a kind of dodge.



How exactly do I validate any of your points?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Everyone knows YouTube is empirical research, and that discord conversations are always with top notch arguments!



I once had a discord discussion with a white nationalist who said he supported western civilisation because it was the 'strongest' and that individual morality and concepts of justice were irrelevant. After all, might is right.

I think I broke his brain, because the discussion eventually lead to this:


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Well, and I've agreed that it's unproductive, inaccurate, and unfair to just brandish the word "Nazi" as a blunt weapon or a blanket slam, but, sorry, my heart still doesn't bleed for people who've said harmful, stupid, troubling, inaccurate, or potentially-dangerous things and have been called out for it.

"Won't somebody think of this poor, sweet man who only wanted to discuss whether Jews might be moon reptiles in disguise?"

Hell, if being unfairly called a "Nazi" hurts somebody's feelings, imagine having people repeat talking points about your people being crazy, sub-human, unintelligent, sneaky, "degenerate," or what have you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> And when you've always had a seat at the head of the table, being asked to scoot down or share the food feels like oppression.



Yes, I'm sure and it's not because people feel continuously isolated by the Left.

Hell youre isolating people by their race and gender RIGHT NOW.

I'm sure @DarkoKavinsky loves being at the head of the table.  But you don't consider people like him when you apply your group guilt, which is why your arguments fundamentally hurt people.

You don't get to claim to consider Individuals whilst at the same time claiming an entire race and gender is successful because of their race and gender.

You don't get to have the cake and eat it.  You don't get to be concerned about an individual's competence but also be concerned with their group.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> It rather validates my point that people just don't like being called out for the consequences or implications of their actions or arguments, and they employ "You think I'm a NAZI!" as a kind of dodge.


Yup. And it makes me super frustrated, because I have _actually_ been targeted by legitimately unfounded accusations (even then I do understand some of where the outrage comes from, it's just misdirected/founded in a misunderstanding of policy and based on a highly biased sample - basically I understand that people are offended/upset by the content that provoked the accusations, but don't agree with the way they handled their outrage). When people who like to go around and court right-wing extremist talking points for edge get upset about people not liking them as a result, it makes _my_ reaction look sketchy. The closest I get to "courting offense" is probably finding *-ing out part of words when discussing the words themselves tedious. If I'm going to talk about the way people use the word "fuck", I'm going to write "fuck", not "f*ck" or "f-word", and I apply the same to slurs. Maybe my language/lit degree is to blame for that one, I don't know.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Well, and I've agreed that it's unproductive, inaccurate, and unfair to just brandish the word "Nazi" as a blunt weapon or a blanket slam, but, sorry, my heart still doesn't bleed for people who've said harmful, stupid, troubling, inaccurate, or potentially-dangerous things and have been called out for it.



Calling someone a Nazi isn't "calling someone out" it's plain WRONG.  It's incorrect, and it's a despicable use of the word which devalues what it means.

If you say, "I don't agree with calling people Nazis, BUT...." then you've negated your previous point.  You're in no rush to correct people it seems.  Maybe that's just my own impression but I don't understand why you always follow up "I don't like it when people call other people Nazis" with "...but ________."


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't get to *bake the cake and eat it.*



Minor nitpick, but it's _have _the cake and eat it.
All cakes that are eaten were, at some point, baked.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Calling someone a Nazi isn't "calling someone out" it's plain WRONG.  It's incorrect, and it's a despicable use of the word which devalues what it means.
> 
> If you say, "I don't agree with calling people Nazis, BUT...." then you've negated your previous point.  You're in no rush to correct people it seems.  Maybe that's just my own impression but I don't understand why you always follow up "I don't like it when people call other people Nazis" with "...but ________."



Ultimately there are bigger problems in the world than edgy young men being upset because they were mistaken for Nazis after they...demanded that people start a discussion about the extent of the Holocaust. S:

Like...practically all problems in the world are bigger than that.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Minor nitpick, but it's _have _the cake and eat it.
> All cakes that are eaten were, at some point, baked.



I thought it sounded weird when I typed it.  Thanks.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Well, and I've agreed that it's unproductive, inaccurate, and unfair to just brandish the word "Nazi" as a blunt weapon or a blanket slam, but, sorry, my heart still doesn't bleed for people who've said harmful, stupid, troubling, inaccurate, or potentially-dangerous things and have been called out for it.
> 
> "Won't somebody think of this poor, sweet man who only wanted to discuss whether Jews might be moon reptiles in disguise?"
> 
> Hell, if being unfairly called a "Nazi" hurts somebody's feelings, imagine having people repeat talking points about your people being crazy, sub-human, unintelligent, sneaky, "degenerate," or what have you.



Ok sure whatever but with this don't expect me to think you're any better cuz what you're doing is just perpetuating the hostility. By all means... Throw more of that "Nazi" around, it will do us soooooo much good


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Ok sure whatever but with this don't expect me to think you're any better cuz what you're doing is just perpetuating the hostility. By all means... Throw more of that "Nazi" around, it will do us soooooo much good



Troj _hasn't_ called anybody a Nazi. 

_Nobody_ has called_ anybody_ a Nazi in this discussion, but we're still being criticised for doing it. 

Bawarhgghghghgle flump 

This is why I suspect that some of you are deliberately trying to goad others into calling you Nazis.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> They have been critiqued in the past and those criticisms are a matter of public record, so we don't need to reopen the discussion any more than we need to discuss whether the earth is flat.
> 
> Reopening the discussion gives people the false impression that there's room for debate on this issue, and I am confused that you invited me to prove that the Holocaust happened, when you yourself _already_ regard Holocaust denial as 'meritless' and your whole shtick has been that there aren't actually any neonazis in our midst.
> If nobody here has a proclivity towards Holocaust denial, whose benefit exactly were you asking me to do this for?


I'm asking for the benefit of _those _people that might be convinced by Holocaust denialist arguments out of ignorance. Educate them about history and you cut off an avenue of Neo Nazi recruitment and manipulation, if you give them a voice and a platform where they can be debunked they can't fall back on the trope of being silenced either.

It's a case of beating the ideology by letting it's adherents dig its own grave.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Ultimately there are bigger problems in the world than edgy young men being upset because they were mistaken for Nazis after they...demanded that people start a discussion about the extent of the Holocaust. S:
> 
> Like...practically all problems in the world are bigger than that.



Lemme just tell you how this goes down should it continue;

>One sides decides to define the other as a Nazi.

>Side advocates punishments and suppression of "Nazis".

>Side silences "Nazis".

See the problem yet?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Troj _hasn't_ called anybody a Nazi.
> 
> _Nobody_ has called_ anybody_ a Nazi in this discussion, but we're still being criticised for doing it.
> 
> ...




We are criticising you guys for being OKAY with it, or contradicting yourselves by saying, "I'm not okay with it BUT..."


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

@Troj You're a Nazi
A big smelly poo-poo one. :3

Have we gotten that out of the way now?



Kyr said:


> I'm asking for the benefit of _those _people that might be convinced by Holocaust denialist arguments out of ignorance. Educate them about history and you cut off an avenue of Neo Nazi recruitment and manipulation, if you give them a voice and a platform where they can be debunked they can't fall back on the trope of being silenced either.
> 
> It's a case of beating the ideology by letting it's adherents dig its own grave.



_You_ do it then. You know I'm not comfortable doing it and that I think it would be a bad idea. But you do you.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Everybody hurts, sometimes.

Some people are just _more likely_ (but not necessarily _destined) _to suffer or struggle _in certain ways _because they hit particular systemic barriers or societal prejudices and stereotypes that affect "people like them."

Thinking of myself as a unique individual won't save me if other people keep filing me into a particular box (consciously or no) and treating me a certain way based on that.

Thinking of myself as a unique individual can't totally erase the effects my environment and history have already had on me.

So, therein lies the tension. Even if I want to operate as an individual, I'm still part of an interdependent system and extended history that's bigger than me, so I have to come to terms with that in some way.

I strive to be a bit more nuanced than your garden-variety SJW when it comes to matters of privilege, intersectionality, and power, because I recognize that someone's surface level of power or privilege can actually shift from moment-to-moment, depending on the environments they occupy.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> _You_ do it then. You know I'm not comfortable doing it and that I think it would be a bad idea. But you do you.


I'm trying to foster such an environment by engaging with things in the manner i have been.

I lack the capabilities and the time to invest in countering Holocaust deniers. It's something that would be better suited to a student of history.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Honestly i can't see why people would have an issue with Neo Nazis freely expressing their views unless they held a genuine belief that those views would gain traction.

Fuck as far as i see it not even Nazis think their views will gain traction at this point, it's why they go crypto.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Troj _hasn't_ called anybody a Nazi.
> 
> _Nobody_ has called_ anybody_ a Nazi in this discussion, but we're still being criticised for doing it.
> 
> ...


>Says It's unfair to use Nazi loosely
>Tells everyone that she has no remorse for "vile" people and that we should be fine using the word Nazi on them
>Then continue to say it's humorous how people get easily offended by the word Nazi
>implying the word Nazi is nothing like slurs of "crazy, sub-human, unintelligent, sneaky, "degenerate," so it's OK to throw them around.

I guess you're right... Thank you for clarifying. I was sorely mistaken :V


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Eh, given all the people I know who reflexively swallow everything they hear from self-proclaimed anti-SJW Youtubers (for example), and all the times I've heard "I don't have a problem with _____, but..." or "I'm not racist/homophobic/transphobic, but..." I'm not so optimistic.

Again, it's like boiling a frog. The smart authoritarians know they can't just come out and drop the frog in a bubbling pot, so they turn the temperature up gradually.

In the same way, we've got to keep asking people to define "Nazi" when they state their intention to go out and punch a few.


----------



## Saiko (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If you say, "I don't agree with calling people Nazis, BUT...." then you've negated your previous point.  You're in no rush to correct people it seems.  Maybe that's just my own impression but I don't understand why you always follow up "I don't like it when people call other people Nazis" with "...but ________."


We preface our points with that because we would be accused of agreeing with that usage of the term if we answered with anything other than “yeah you’re right, that’s ridiculous.” You shouldn’t bite our heads off for trying to to translate bad communication into something you can actually respond to constructively.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Thinking of myself as a unique individual won't save me if other people keep filing me into a particular box (consciously or no) and treating me a certain way based on that.



Maybe not.  That's not the point.  The point youre not playing their game; you categorize people by their competence, while they categorize people by their group.  Then only way you identify people by their group is when you seek to put them on the same level, aka Civil Rights.

How is group identity countered with group identity?  How is someone saying "youre a poor black man and I hate you" countered by "well youre a rich white man and I hate YOU!"?

Intersectionality is Tribalism.  And it will eat itself.  That's why leftists have been being pushed right; not because of your theory that they're just "white guys afraid of others power" but because the Intersectionality has increasingly tribalized itself to the point where its committing cannibalism.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Maybe not.  That's not the point.  The point youre not playing their game; you categorize people by their competence, while they categorize people by their group.  Then only way you identify people by their group is when you seek to put them on the same level, aka Civil Rights.
> 
> How is group identity countered with group identity?  How is someone saying "youre a poor black man and I hate you" countered by "well youre a rich white man and I hate YOU!"?
> 
> Intersectionality is Tribalism.  And it will eat itself.  That's why leftists have been being pushed right; not because of your theory that they're just "white guys afraid of others power" but because the Intersectionality has increasingly tribalized itself to the point where its committing cannibalism.


Yeah.. this is something alot of people don't understand and no one here is trying to be the better person here.
All I see are people here justifying the actions of people on their side

You can't fight racism with racism


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

The logical end point of intersectional theory is the individual.

I'm a mean white man.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Saiko said:


> We preface our points with that because we would be accused of agreeing with that usage of the term if we answered with anything other than “yeah you’re right, that’s ridiculous.” You shouldn’t bite our heads off for trying to to translate bad communication into something you can actually respond to constructively.



If you don't agree with it, don't agree with it.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

How does not thinking of myself as disabled help me get up the stairs if there's no elevator?

How does not seeing oneself as black prevent the cop or shopkeeper from seeing one as inherently thuggish and suspicious? 

How does not seeing oneself as disenfranchised insulate one from the effects of multi-generational poverty?

How does not rooting your identity in being gay ensure you'll be able to commission a wedding cake, get a marriage license, or get custody of your kids?

How does not rooting your identity in being trans ensure you'll be allowed to use the restroom without being hassled?

How does not seeing yourself as a woman prevent the sleazoid from not grabbing your ass or roofie-ing your drink?

It's hard to stop playing the game when the other team keeps lobbing the ball in your direction.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yes, I'm sure and it's not because people feel continuously isolated by the Left.
> 
> Hell youre isolating people by their race and gender RIGHT NOW.
> 
> ...



That makes no sense. 

And yes. For various reasons, White males have been very successful at levaging power over all other minorities, nations, and also over women. The fact that many of these people are now on an equal or sometimes above equal footing I think scares the crap out of a lot of people. 

I knew one person who would constantly rant about how women in his town were all sluts, whores, immoral, sex crazed, etc. but the only thing he did was talk about how much he wanted to bang a woman. Sexism to the max baby.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

...but, of course, the life of a rich white guy will be dramatically different in several respects from the life of a poor white guy, and the gay white guy will have different experiences from a straight white guy.

People are mosaics, and all their various facets serve to shape their experience of life.


----------



## Saiko (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If you don't agree with it, don't agree with it.


And just ignore a chance to mediate a frustratingly common and unnecessary miscommunication? I’m a teacher at heart and won’t do that if there are people who want to listen. :/

Edit: Also the OP explicitly asked for a translation.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I knew one person who would constantly rant about how women in his town were all sluts, whores, immoral, sex crazed, etc. but the only thing he did was talk about how much he wanted to bang a woman. Sexism to the max baby.



Okay...? How is this one guy you know relevant to anything?



BahgDaddy said:


> And yes. For various reasons, White males have been very successful at levaging power over all other minorities, nations, and also over women. The fact that many of these people are now on an equal or sometimes above equal footing I think scares the crap out of a lot of people.



I think Darko is still waiting for his check from the Patriarchy.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> ...but, of course, the life of a rich white guy will be dramatically different in several respects from the life of a poor white guy, and the gay white guy will have different experiences from a straight white guy.
> 
> People are mosaics, and all their various facets serve to shape their experience of life.



Exactly.

So who are you benefiting by attributing success by race and gender and playing the same game the people you claim to be against are playing?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

This is just something of a side topic:

When people say to stop generalizing black people to be thugs and criminal yet I don't see any people calling out movies and media for respresenting the entire black community as such

Makes me wonder... Hmmmm....


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Saiko said:


> And just ignore a chance to mediate a frustratingly common and unnecessary miscommunication? I’m a teacher at heart and won’t do that if there are people who want to listen. :/
> 
> Edit: Also the OP explicitly asked for a translation.



Yes but we've had 8 pages of conversation so naturally the topic got broader.

Are we miscommunicating something?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Maybe not.  That's not the point.  The point youre not playing their game; you categorize people by their competence, while they categorize people by their group.  Then only way you identify people by their group is when you seek to put them on the same level, aka Civil Rights.
> 
> How is group identity countered with group identity?  How is someone saying "youre a poor black man and I hate you" countered by "well youre a rich white man and I hate YOU!"?
> 
> Intersectionality is Tribalism.  And it will eat itself.  That's why leftists have been being pushed right; not because of your theory that they're just "white guys afraid of others power" but because the Intersectionality has increasingly tribalized itself to the point where its committing cannibalism.



Intersectionality is the idea that different modes of social stratification interact with each other.
For example the social disadvantages experienced by a wealthy disabled person might be significantly different compared to those of a disabled person who is not well-off.
It's not really a controversial idea.

Have you only heard about intersectionality from anti-feminist videos on YouTube or something?



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> This is just something of a side topic:
> 
> When people say to stop generalizing black people to be thugs and criminal yet I don't see any people calling out movies and media for respresenting the entire black community as such
> 
> Makes me wonder... Hmmmm....



You're joking right? 
Movies are regularly criticised for unflattering representation of black people. 
One example is that real life stories which feature black people in positive roles, like the hero, are often turned into movies with the important characters replaced by white actors:
Whitewashing in film - Wikipedia


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> This is just something of a side topic:
> 
> When people say to stop generalizing black people to be thugs and criminal yet I don't see any people calling out movies and media for respresenting the entire black community as such
> 
> Makes me wonder... Hmmmm....


I believe there are issues regarding conservative black people within the "black community" (as it happens the notion of a separate black community is one of the major causes of racial tension, cultural synthesis is superior to multiculturalism for this reason alone), and a propensity within those communities to demean such conservatives by calling them Uncle Toms and Coons. And from what i've seen these people are ultimately saying it's not all someone else's fault, you're responsible for your successes and failures.

Internalized racism is certainly real boyos.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

As it happens i recently came to the conclusion that Spiderman should be black, just think of the rich detail that could be added to his origin story and motivations for fighting crime if he was.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> One example is that real life stories which feature black people in positive roles, like the hero, are often turned into movies with the important characters replaced by white actors:
> Whitewashing in film - Wikipedia


Why are we talking about whitewashing movies? >=(


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Okay...? How is this one guy you know relevant to anything?
> 
> 
> 
> I think Darko is still waiting for his check from the Patriarchy.



LOL. It's fitting you'd pal up. You can both talk about how there's this magical patriarchy that's supposed to be sending you privilege payments, missing the whole fucking point of what it means to BE privileged. It doesn't mean you get a check and a royal palace. It means you don't have to fucking worry about getting shot by a police officer if you get pulled over, can lounge in Starbucks for 39 minutes without being asked to leave, and so on and so forth. 

But oh. You don't get affirmative action payments. Sucks. *pity*


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> LOL. It's fitting you'd pal up. You can both talk about how there's this magical patriarchy that's supposed to be sending you privilege payments, missing the whole fucking point of what it means to BE privileged. It doesn't mean you get a check and a royal palace. It means you don't have to fucking worry about getting shot by a police officer if you get pulled over, can lounge in Starbucks for 39 minutes without being asked to leave, and so on and so forth.
> 
> But oh. You don't get affirmative action payments. Sucks. *pity*



Pretty sure Darko feared for his life pretty often.  But that's his story to tell.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Why are we talking about whitewashing movies? >=(



Because you asked me why people don't talk about unfair portrayals of  black people in film. 

I'm surprised, because the movie industry has been extensively criticised for casting black people as criminals, or replacing important black characters with white actors.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Privilege, when you break it down, is simply the word used to gauge levels of safety and/or security, whether physical, emotional and/or financial, within modern society.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Intersectionality is the idea that different modes of social stratification interact with each other.
> For example the social disadvantages experienced by a wealthy disabled person might be significantly different compared to those of a disabled person who is not well-off.
> It's not really a controversial idea.
> 
> Have you only heard about intersectionality from anti-feminist videos on YouTube or something



Intersectionality had been used as excuses.  It's far outlived its usefulness.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You're joking right?
> Movies are regularly criticised for unflattering representation of black people.
> One example is that real life stories which feature black people in positive roles, like the hero, are often turned into movies with the important characters replaced by white actors:
> Whitewashing in film - Wikipedia



But, when they broach these topics, people are again scolded for being SJWs who overthink things. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



Fallowfox said:


> Intersectionality is the idea that different modes of social stratification interact with each other.
> For example the social disadvantages experienced by a wealthy disabled person might be significantly different compared to those of a disabled person who is not well-off.
> It's not really a controversial idea.



It's really not. It's just oft-misused and oft-misunderstood.



Kyr said:


> Privilege, when you break it down, is simply the word used to gauge levels of safety and/or security, whether physical, emotional and/or financial, within modern society.



Yep.

You might suffer, but you don't suffer _because_ of some aspect of your identity or who you are.

A white person might suffer, but in America, they're less likely to run into serious prejudice or major barriers _because_ they are white.

A rich person might suffer, but they're less likely to get tripped up by barriers and prejudices that cause a poor person to stumble and struggle.

An able-bodied gay person might experience homophobia, but never even think about ableism, because they've never had to deal with it themselves.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Intersectionality had been used as excuses.  It's far outlived its usefulness.



How can an objective fact outlive its usefulness? 

Facts are relevant because they are true, not because we happen to find them useful.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> How can an objective fact outlive its usefulness?
> 
> Facts are relevant because they are true, not because we happen to find them useful.



Of course we find facts more useful than others.

The grass is green is a fact but not useful.

People experience different things is a fact but it's not useful, not as a group identification tactic.  It is reductive to individual experience, not group oppression.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Given how many people fundamentally struggle with the idea that others don't inherently share their experiences or perspective, I think it's extremely useful.

Hell, I regularly run into the, "X isn't a problem, because I've never dealt with it myself" argument enough to suggest the whole "walking in someone else's shoes" schtick hardly comes naturally.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Of course we find facts more useful than others.
> 
> The grass is green is a fact but not useful.
> 
> People experience different things is a fact but it's not useful, not as a group identification tactic.  It is reductive to individual experience, not group oppression.


The vibe I'm getting is that you watched a video on YouTube criticising intersectionality (was it by Teal Deer?)
and that you have decided this entire field of sociology is now irrelevant even if it's factually true. S:


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> The vibe I'm getting is that you watched a video on YouTube criticising intersectionality (was it by Teal Deer?)
> and that you have decided this entire field of sociology is now irrelevant even if it's factually true. S:



No... I haven't watched any videos on Intersectionality except Peterson, which again he states that it simply reduces down to the individual so it has little use for identity politics.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> A white person might suffer, but in America, they're less likely to run into serious prejudice or major barriers _because_ they are white.


White people in America are increasingly being forced to suffer from the prejudicial notion that they are White Supremacists or Fascists.

They are likely to suffer this prejudice more often as they increasingly become truly equal within society (assuming they currently exist on a pedestal of sorts).

Eventually white people, even white men, will have to advocate for their rights as human beings just as much as everyone else.

This is the true face of equality, and it genuinely is progressive.


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Eventually white people, even white men, will have to advocate for their rights as human beings just as much as everyone else.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> View attachment 33682



Yes, believe it or not people don't like being treated like shit no matter what color their skin is.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Well, and how does that play out in your daily life?

Does it threaten your survival? Does it seriously impede your ability to live your life? Does it impact your access to basic rights and resources?

How much of this basic anxiety is rooted in the fear that minorities will treat the majority the way the majority once treated them once the shoe shifts to the other foot?

If that's the source of the anxiety, then that's an even stronger case for following the Golden Rule and adopting a Rawlsian approach to society-building and social interaction.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Well, and how does that play out in your daily life?
> 
> Does it threaten your survival? Does it seriously impede your ability to live your life? Does it impact your access to basic rights and resources?
> 
> How much of this basic anxiety is rooted in the fear that minorities will treat the majority the way the majority once treated them once the shoe shifts to the other foot?



Who wouldn't be afraid of that?

Yes, I am afraid a group will gain control to punish me for oppression I've never caused, by ancestors I do not know in an age I wasn't even born in, all because my skin color happens to match a slave owner.

I do, genunely, fear that day; that oppression of white people will become normal simply because of a past our generation had no control of.  Then we are back at square one on human rights.

That's what it will come down to if we reduce everything to a "oppressed vs oppressor" narrative no matter how wrong it is.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> No... I haven't watched any videos on Intersectionality *except Peterson*, which again he states that it simply reduces down to the individual so it has little use for identity politics.



Ahhhhh. I'm beginning to see where this came from now. 

You realise Jordan Peterson thinks that the staff of Aesclepius shows that the Ancient Greeks knew about the double helical structure of DNA?
He's put a lot of waffley nonsense out on the internet and it has given a lot of people a very inaccurate impression of what academics actually think.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Ahhhhh. I'm beginning to see where this came from now.
> 
> You realise Jordan Peterson thinks that the staff of Aesclepius shows that the Ancient Greeks knew about the double helical structure of DNA?
> He's put a lot of waffley nonsense out on the internet and it has given a lot of people a very inaccurate impression of what academics actually think.



... okay?

How is that relevant to Intersectionalism?


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Don't trust Peterson on intersectionality, Postmodernism, Marxism, and gender identity. He fundamentally misunderstands all of these topics. It's better to go straight to the horse's mouth first, and then look at critiques and criticisms after.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Who wouldn't be afraid of that?
> 
> Yes, I am afraid a group will gain control to punish me for oppression I've never caused, by ancestors I do not know in an age I wasn't even born in, all because my skin color happens to match a slave owner.
> 
> ...



So, group identity and membership matter after all, because you as a white dude might get branded in a particular stigmatizing and harmful way. Fair enough, since whites will become a minority in America by 2045, or thereabouts, after all. 

Seems to me, though, that by denying past and current realities around inequality, prejudice, and oppression, frightened white people who just want to maintain the status quo are actually hastening the very future they fear.

If we want to minimize or maybe, possibly, even circumvent the usual cycle of vengeance and oppression, we have to be proactive _now_ about redressing past and current wrongs, and working to build a society where everyone enjoys equal rights, basic respect, and a more-or-less equal shot at a quality life.

If we're scared of radical SJWs and extreme Leftists, we need to step in and shape a more inclusive, rational discourse and approach around social justice, instead of letting the crazies and zealots control the process.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

I need to apologize.

I've been getting increasingly agitated and frustrated and as a result I'm lashing out.

@Troj I am sorry, I typically respect you a lot.  I hope I didn't tarnish your view of me.

@Fallowfox I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive.

@quoting_mungo I also apologize.  I respect you a lot as well.

I need to take a moment so I can get myself in the right mindset to have a productive discussion.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Don't trust Peterson on intersectionality, Postmodernism, Marxism, and gender identity. He fundamentally misunderstands all of these topics. It's better to go straight to the horse's mouth first, and then look at critiques and criticisms after.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't tell me to "not trust Peterson" on certain issues and expect me to take your word for it.  I have no good reason not to distrust Peterson.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm done talking I'm no longer having productive discussion


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Sure. I'm getting agitated and frustrated as well, and I've also been snippy in spots.

We're all passionate about this cluster of issues because things and people we deeply value are at stake, and we get even more anxious and upset (and angry!) when people don't inherently value things and people the same way we do.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> Sure. I'm getting agitated and frustrated as well, and I've also been snippy in spots.
> 
> We're all passionate about this cluster of issues because things and people we deeply value are at stake, and we get even more anxious and upset (and angry!) when people don't inherently value things and people the same way we do.




*hugs*


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yes, believe it or not people don't like being treated like shit no matter what color their skin is.


I don't actually have a stake in this argument. I just thought that was a perfect opportunity to post one my Chinese translation YuGiOh shitposts. :]


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 7, 2018)

This is still going?


----------



## Cawdabra (Jun 7, 2018)

Troj said:


> The whole "punch Nazis" movement puts me on edge, because who decides who's a Nazi? Sure, everybody assures me that "everybody knows" what a Nazi is, but that's a refrain that should automatically set off alarm bells. If we're operating based on the assumption that "everybody knows" what a Nazi looks like, then it's easy for the goal posts to move or be moved over time. Today, we punch Nazis. If we're not very careful, we'll slide down a slippery slope to punching people who are seen as aiding, abetting, or supporting Nazis _somehow._ I've had idiots threaten to punch _me_ just because I warned them to be careful with the whole "punching Nazis" routine.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Jun 7, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Consistent on the idea of free speech? You're a Nazi.


How do you define consistency wrt. freedom of speech?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

Beating A Dead Horse Wtf GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I need to apologize.
> 
> I've been getting increasingly agitated and frustrated and as a result I'm lashing out.
> 
> ...



Snerk


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jun 7, 2018)

Damnit I've had enough of this crap. @ResolutionBlaze you have said publicly on Discord that "forced diversity" is bad. I don't know how much more racist or sympathetic toward rascists that can sound.
@Yakamaru You have clearly shown your support for people not allowing gay people to be served at their businesses. That's damn toxic. If that's okay, why is it not okay to serve black people? You have a few times tried to tell others that the furry raider nazi arm band was not a nazi one and seen a whole chat room rebuff you. Also I live in America and there's a lot more than just a thousand neo nazis you brainwashed Breitbart viewer. Which is your favorite "news" site since that's the one you like to flail around. 

@Kyr You've quite clearly shown your distain for women on multiple occasions and your idea that men and white people are being oppressed is simply bullshit. 

I'm so damn sick of dealing with all these toxic far right views. I have reached my damn breaking point. You guys may not be nazis but fuck you guys sometimes share a lot of aspects. I have been trying to be tolerant of my friends but fuck I am sick of this fake veil of tolerance you guys have. Every fucking day I see these toxic views just kinda casually thrown out and I ignore it because I try to be a good friend but fuck it I'm done being tolerable of intolerance. Also I guess this is my goodbye from FaF. I'm fucking done with this political hell hole.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

I agree with Ovi. This whole thread has been nothing but a bunch of tacit tip-toeing around bigoted ideology, intolerance, and thinly veiled racism.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 7, 2018)

forgot to say "someone who's into the outfits"


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Jun 7, 2018)

I'm gonna be honest here...





These are NAZIs

National socialists. Socialists from the ww2, the center of axis powers.  The sequel to ww1 that honestly shouldn't have been made. This organization, of governmental power that took over a nation by careful tactical politics, and social sculpting , and psychology is a thing that you could spend hours researching and not scratch the surface. This organization and groups changed history forever.




These are* Dumb Fucks 
*
These are a small minority of potentially inbred idiots who cling to cherry picked ideologies and have no realistic ability to grow. In fact their numbers are shrinking, same with other fringe groups.

Neo Nazis aren't Nazi's. because they'd be the first to get lined up against a wall and get this treatment




Also many of them are just racists.  They use the symbolism of the greatest enemy in the 20th century in order to try to give themselves power.

In reality they're like the teenage kid who wears a band shirt but has no idea what the band is.

Should they be ignored? No. Should they be taken seriously?  In my opinion No, or at least not to fear mongering point that has lead to this gods be damned thread.

There are more gang members than there are neo nazis. Can be they be a threat to people? Sure so can an angry soccer mom who runs her minivan through a starbucks.

The neo nazis gain power via notoriety. You give them fear you give them power. You just point and laugh at them. You throw glitter on them and shake your head. They loose power. You lose violence against them. You've already lost the battle.

The only "nazis" Ive seen in this fandom are the potential uniform fetishists.. which is easy to understand as hugo boss designed the uniforms for the SS and such. There was a lot of pyschological going into the inner workings of the nazis during ww2.

So yes I would fear actual Nazis.

But neo nazis and calling people Nazis.

I'd only call a person a nazi if they showed up in a SS uniform and I could see them holding a luger. Then i'd be a bit paranoid myself.


Politically the whole screeching of nazi's directed towards the people willy-nillily is there to just have polarization and an attempt to really lump groups in with other groups. It's just a tactic to slander.

So look carefully and avoid using buzz words.

And if they start talking about the glory of the state and under the furer himself... Well then you probably found an actual nazi.

Until them assume they're just a racist dumbass and call them so.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

I think we should regard NeoNazis as a domestic terror organisation that finds sneaky ways of introducing their talking points into the political mainstream. 

My claim that they are domestic terrorists is supported by the numerous murders and bombs they have been convicted of through the years:


Spoiler



Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia
1999 London nail bombings - Wikipedia
Murder of Michèle Kiesewetter - Wikipedia
2004 Cologne bombing - Wikipedia
White Wolves - Wikipedia
Combat 18 - Wikipedia
Vanguard America - Wikipedia
The Savior (paramilitary organization) - Wikipedia



My claim that they find sneaky ways of introducing their talking points into the political mainstream is supported by 
the revelation that Breitbart, the second most popular online conservative media website in the USA (behind FOX), was secretly allowing NeoNazis to review and edit their articles before publication:
theweek.com: Leaked emails show how Milo Yiannopoulos worked with Stephen Bannon, alt-right to transform Breitbart


----------



## Judge Spear (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think we should regard NeoNazis as a domestic terror organisation.



Agreed!


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> In reality they're like the teenage kid who wears a band shirt but has no idea what the band is.



Those are swastikas on the shields in that photo. Do you really believe those marchers have "no idea" what that represents?



DarkoKavinsky said:


> Should they be ignored? No. Should they be taken seriously?  In my opinion No, or at least not to fear mongering point that has lead to this gods be damned thread.



Then we have a difference of opinion. I think they _should_ be taken seriously. And I imagine Heather Heyer's family would agree.

(Yes, you're god-damned right I'm going to keep bringing that up.)



DarkoKavinsky said:


> There are more gang members than there are neo nazis. Can be they be a threat to people? Sure so can an angry soccer mom who runs her minivan through a starbucks.



So what? If there are fewer rattlesnakes than crocodiles in the swamp, should we not bother to protect ourselves from the rattlesnakes too?



DarkoKavinsky said:


> I'd only call a person a nazi if they showed up in a SS uniform and I could see them holding a luger. Then i'd be a bit paranoid myself. [...] And if they start talking about the glory of the state and under the furer himself... Well then you probably found an actual nazi.
> 
> Until them assume they're just a racist dumbass and call them so.



Again: those are swastikas on the shields in that photo. That's close enough to "Nazi" for me.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Jun 7, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Those are swastikas on the shields in that photo. Do you really believe those marchers have "no idea" what that represents?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


they're like odinists they take the images and use them to present their own ideologies. 

The neo-nazis don't follow the original rhetoric.

They're are using imagery to try to gain power from the boogeyman status of the original nazis.

Just look at them. Strip away that symbol and what do you have? Skin head KKK members who are a dying group.

They're like cornered rats.  Thats all they are is a dying group of an unsustainable ideology. They are a candle about to die. They are species that is going to go extinct. They are a cornered animal.

This is the last push before they keel over and die.

AND THEY KNOW IT.

You should be more afraid of major gangs as they have a better chance of actually harming you.

Believe me. I grew up in  densely populated city. So I've seen what they can do. More families have been affected by the stray bullets of gang members or even the freaking executions done for petty cash at atms.

Neo-nazis or aka DUMB FUCKS are just that. DUMB FUCKS. Anybody can be a threat to anybody. ANYTHING CAN BE A THREAT TO ANYTHING.

Its just how much of a threat they are is a perceived  notion. These groups operate via infamy. They don't have massive funding and any real crazy skit is more than likely acted out by a small group, if not individuals. The groups themselves are so splintered amongst themselves there's no chance of them ever forming something larger, because they can't even agree amongst themselves.

They're obsolete, a gurgling corpse failing around with its leg kicking.

Sure be terrified of them. Go ahead screech and go REEEEE! But just sit back and think.

What are the chances of  you actually meeting one of these dumb fucks? What are the chances of them affecting your life.

Chances are I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are making them affect your life.
You are giving them power.

All of you who are sitting here and screeching need to take a step back and actually think.

you're making these people seem like they have the power to take over the world. They're not isis they're a splintered fraction of dumb fucks who are getting media noriety because it promotes a fear response.

They're being covered because you people are reacting to them like this!

LOOK SCARY RACISTS! RUN FLEE FLEE HIDE!!!! GAAAH.
When you operation 100% via fear you lose any control of the situation. Look carefully and think!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Saying 'we shouldn't fear neonazis, they're just the kkk' is really weird.
The kkk is famous for murdering people. S:
You shouldn't deride people who want the police to deal with those groups as 'people screeching REEE'.

and sadly neonazis are not a fractious group that isn't united by anything. They are united around  a president who condemns 'all sides'
and defends NeoNazi marches as having 'good people' in them, even after they murder folk in the street:
Trump condemned for response to far-right


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Call NeoNazi as a domestic terrorist, that's fine.. they are without a doubt one but Antifa shouldn't get a free pass


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Call NeoNazi as a domestic terrorist, that's fine.. they are without a doubt one but Antifa shouldn't get a free pass



Just...this sort of comment. :\ 
Please don't try to smuggle a Trump style 'all sides are bad' perspective into this.


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Saying 'we shouldn't fear neonazis, they're just the kkk' is really weird.
> The kkk is famous for murdering people. S:
> You shouldn't deride people who want the police to deal with those groups as 'people screeching REEE'.
> 
> ...


Did you just say trump is hitler? 

Okay... then.

They are fractured.  Even if you look at UN documents and stuff and other organizations that study these things they divided up amongst themselves. The most unified ones are the prison gangs.

And frankly any prison gang should be feared.

Sure yeah police interaction and intervention sure.. but I find it funny the same people saying we need the police also screech about police brutality.

its rather humorous how knee jerk reactions fuel all of the political spectrum instead of going "Okay whats going on? Let us access the situation calmly."

Instead its:  _turns on tv _REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE _lobs remote through glass _WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA._

Also yeah reacting versus these idiot groups with violence, just plays into their hands. 

You give them power.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> Did you just say trump is hitler?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Just...this sort of comment. :\
> Please don't try to smuggle a Trump style 'all sides are bad' perspective into this.


Trump's all sides are bad? You fucking kidding me?! Saying both extremist is bad is now trademarked by trump? It reeks of you wanting to keep this divide alive.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Trump's all sides are bad? You fucking kidding me?! Saying both extremist isn't bad is now trademarked by trump? It reeks of you wanting to keep this divide alive.



I described it as 'trump style', because you tried to draw a moral equivalence between neonazis and antifa 4 minutes after I explained why it was immoral for Trump to do that in response to the murder of a woman by a neonazi.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I described it as 'trump style', because you tried to draw a moral equivalence between neonazis and antifa 4 minutes after I explained why it was immoral for Trump to do that in response to the murder of a woman by a neonazi.


You're just opening a can of worms by bringing up trump here.
I can tell you're deliberately just trying to take the piss out of this


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> You're just opening a can of worms by bringing up trump here.
> I can tell you're deliberately just trying to take the piss out of this



Donald Trump is relevant to the discussion because Darko claimed that NeoNazis are not politically united.
They are united by a support for Donald Trump.
Breitbart, a website that was allowing NeoNazis to help write its articles, was the most cited website on Donald Trump's campaign in 2016.
Donald Trump failed to condemn neonazis and even said he thought that the Unite the Right marchers included 'good people', after a member
of the NeoNazi organisation 'Vanguard of America' murdered a woman with his car.

So you know...you can't really discuss this situation without mentioning Trump. :\


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> and sadly neonazis are not a fractious group that isn't united by anything. They are united around  a president who condemns 'all sides'
> and defends NeoNazi marches as having 'good people' in them, even after they murder folk in the street:
> Trump condemned for response to far-right





DarkoKavinsky said:


> Did you just say trump is hitler?
> 
> Okay... then.
> 
> ...



I'd say that exchange is all the proof we need that DarkoKavinsky is either unable or unwilling, or both, to participate in this discussion in any reasonable way.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Donald Trump is relevant to the discussion because Darko claimed that NeoNazis are not politically united.
> They are united by a support for Donald Trump.
> Breitbart, a website that was allowing NeoNazis to help write its articles, was the most cited website on Donald Trump's campaign in 2016.
> Donald Trump failed to condemn neonazis and even said he thought that the Unite the Right marchers included 'good people', after a member
> ...



This, exactly.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Donald Trump is relevant to the discussion because Darko claimed that NeoNazis are not politically united.
> They are united by a support for Donald Trump.
> Breitbart, a website that was allowing NeoNazis to help write its articles, was the most cited website on Donald Trump's campaign in 2016.
> Donald Trump failed to condemn neonazis and even said he thought that the Unite the Right marchers included 'good people', after a member
> ...


Jesus fucking christ, we're initially talking about how the fandom deals with Nazis not how the government deals with them


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Jesus fucking christ, we're initially talking about how the fandom deals with Nazis not how the government deals with them



Actually your comment disingenuously bringing antifa was what started this latest rabbit hole. We're not talking about antifa, we're talking about neo-Nazis and racists and skinheads. 

And trust me, I used to live in the south. Racism is alive and well here in the US. I've had numerous people (just random people, coworkers and employers and friends) say they didn't like blacks or thought Hitler was actually a good guy and such.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

I am remembering that Mother who came onto the forums to ask if the furry fandom would be able to provide appropriate environments where her daughter could participate in costumes and fun and innocent humdrum things like that. 

I can only imagine the 'run 1000 miles away from them' impression she would get if she read this thread. 

:C


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

I don't understand people saying neo-Nazis would be some of the first to be killed by actual Nazis. I really don't see that. Wha does this mean? Can someone explain it? What evidence if there that actually Nazis would not immediately absorb nei Nazis into their ranks?

 They're the same variety of people. White, often blonde, often blue eyed. Ye "superior race," often rotting in trailer parks across the country...


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually your comment disingenuously bringing antifa was what started this latest rabbit hole. We're not talking about antifa, we're talking about neo-Nazis and racists and skinheads.
> 
> And trust me, I used to live in the south. Racism is alive and well here in the US. I've had numerous people (just random people, coworkers and employers and friends) say they didn't like blacks or thought Hitler was actually a good guy and such.


NeoNazi + AntiFa + Furaffinity is still relevant
We are discussing how the fandom recognize hate group/terrorist group


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 7, 2018)

So the only context in which I ever see people complaining that Anti-Fascist furries should be ostracised is as a response to the suggestion that Alt furry groups should be dismantled or banned from our Furry communities. 

It says it all really. :\


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Jesus fucking christ, we're initially talking about how the fandom deals with Nazis not how the government deals with them



Oh, come on, that's the best you can do? Look: 1) Darko says don't fear neo-Nazis (even after Charlottesville) because they're fractious and not united; 2) Fallow rightly points out that they are in fact united by support for (and from) an openly racist president who refuses to condemn them after Charlottesville, and are therefore indeed dangerous, or at least potentially so. Why are you suddenly trying to dismiss that as "talking about how the government deals with them" and thus irrelevant? No, we're still talking about how WE THE PEOPLE, both in and out of the fandom, need to deal with neo-Nazis and other violent racists.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't understand people saying neo-Nazis would be some of the first to be killed by actual Nazis. I really don't see that. Wha does this mean? Can someone explain it? What evidence if there that actually Nazis would not immediately absorb nei Nazis into their ranks?



Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Well, it was DarkoKavinsky who made that claim...would you care to elucidate, Darko?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> NeoNazi + AntiFa + Furaffinity is still relevant
> We are discussing how the fandom recognize hate group/terrorist group



You seem to hard of hearing. 

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANTIFA. 

If you want to talk about antifa, start a fucking Antifa thread. 

We're talking about nei-Nazis right now. 

Stop diverting.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 7, 2018)

www.splcenter.org: Ku Klux Klan
Yes, there is a large number of White Nationalists still. And some of them have revitalized the old traditions of the Nazis.
qz.com: "Blood and soil": The meaning of the Nazi slogan chanted by white nationalists in Charlottesville
TL;DR, Fascism is an authoritarian ideology of the nation over the individual, often characterized by forms of tribalism (typically racism and sexism). Nazi and Fascist are often and incorrectly used as synonyms, because Mussolini isn't rolling fast enough in his grave yet.
www.britannica.com: fascism | Definition, Characteristics, & History
While it is true that Nazis and Neo-Nazis are Fascists, not all Fascists are Nazis or Neo-Nazis. White Nationalism is the current popular breed of Fascism in the United States, which advocates for the violent creation of the "superior" white ethnostate. Such groups appeal to the nationalism that has been cultivated in the United States, especially during the Cold War. They use "Freedom of Speech" as a shield when they have clearly crossed the line into inciting violence, because the general public could never oppose freedom of speech, and if an idiot does oppose it, they can cherry-pick that as an example of their opposition. They use civil rights as their defense for their violations of others civil liberties in the same way.

The FBI has had to admit that investigation of such organisations is difficult due to the infiltration of local police forces that peaked during the Jim Crow era, but has not yet been phased out.
theintercept.com: The FBI Has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement

The modern Fascists movements would like to style and dress themselves in the traditions, cultures, and strategies of Nazis and other Fascist movements. For such people, the label is appropriate. The label is still thrown around willy-nilly by a subsection of the community who are internet activists. Say something vapid and nationalistic? "YOU MUST BE A NAZI/FASCIST!" Say something Racist? "YOU MUST BE A NAZI/FASCIST!" Say something [INSERT]-phobic? "YOU MUST BE A FASCIST/NAZI!". This ignores the full spectrum of garbage politics that society has to offer. Not everyone who is a vapid nationalist, racist, or phobic of something is a Fascist or Neo-Nazi. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for their bullshit, but it is still an important distinction to make, that is made by too few people.

And then you have cringe inducing motherfuckers like @LogicNuke that should go back to the pits of tumbler.

Addendum; Let us not forget how long the term Femanazi has existed as an insult against anything that disagrees at all with conservative ideals of sexuality and gender. Throwing Nazi around is nothing new to the internet. 

I also would like to add that I thought the KKK had less membership than that.....


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

What's the basic fear about SJWs, anyway? If they're given absolute free rein, what's the end game?

I'm concerned about people voting for laws and politicians that'll result in a rolling-back of basic rights--for minorities and vulnerable populations in particular, and all of us more generally--and essential public services, and I'm concerned about right-wing extremists literally killing people (as they are wont to do).

SJWs are shrill, aggressive, and annoying, but most of the ones I encounter or observe in my life are kids, college students, fringe academics, talking heads, vloggers, bloggers, or op-ed writers. We need to rebut some of their arguments and attitudes, absolutely, but a lot of them strike me as just yappy dogs yapping to the choir, which is why they're less of a concern for me.

All The White Supremacists Running For Office In 2018 | HuffPost

More White Nationalists are Running for Office Than Ever Before

How a Nazi Made the Ballot in Illinois

‘Really Proud of Him’: Alt-Right Leaders Praise Trump’s Comments


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 7, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Just...this sort of comment. :\
> Please don't try to smuggle a Trump style 'all sides are bad' perspective into this.



It doesn't make it any less true, both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided. Trump has nothing to do with that sentiment.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> They [White Nationalists] use "Freedom of Speech" as a shield when they have clearly crossed the line into inciting violence, because the general public could never oppose freedom of speech, and if an idiot does oppose it, they can cherry-pick that as an example of their opposition. They use civil rights as their defense for their violations of others civil liberties in the same way.



Very well said. And I've seen a fair amount of that on this forum. (You know who you are.)



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Not everyone who is a vapid nationalist, racist, or phobic of something is a Fascist or Neo-Nazi. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for their bullshit, but it is still an important distinction to make, that is made by too few people.



Fair enough, though I would suggest that the term "Nazi" has broadened somewhat in general usage (in part because of modern-day neo-Nazis adopting the insignias, slogans etc. of their historical predecessors) to be a more generic term for violent white nationalist. But that's probably hair-splitting; the important thing is to recognize hate, bigotry and racism for what it is and call it out, whatever its perpetrators choose to identify themselves as.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 7, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> It doesn't make it any less true, both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided. Trump has nothing to do with that sentiment.



Can you support that argument with a bit more detail? I'm curious what led you to that conclusion of equivalency.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 7, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Very well said. And I've seen a fair amount of that on this forum. (You know who you are.)



It should be kept well in mind that the average person who falls for this tactic will actively defend the actions of Nazis out of a knee-jerk response to defend values that are genuinely good. That is the whole point of the tactic; not to defend one's self against criticism for trespasses, but to get the general public to do it for you.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Well, and who doesn't love freedom of speech, eh?

Who'd _ever_ take issue with freedom of speech, except for a fascist/Nazi/Stalinist/SJW/thought police/Orwellian something-something/bad person?

The two warring factions in the abortion debate call themselves "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" for a reason!

If you can frame your goal in terms of something most of us have agreed is Good, then it's easy to frame the opposition as Bad, and appeal to people who just want to be on the side of Good. (And, of course, it helps that most people--even Nazis--fundamentally see themselves as Right and Good.)

On another note, I agree that most Neo-Nazis are dumbfucks and losers who'll readily hang themselves if you give them enough rope. However, dumbfucks and losers can still be very dangerous when they lash out. Most serial killers, terrorists, and mass shooters have been dumbfucks or losers according to the standard rubric, but they still managed to kill people.

Also, while the _followers_ are often dumbfucks and losers, the _leaders _tend to be extremely crafty, savvy, and smart, and they're particularly good at sniffing out people who'll make good followers.


----------



## DeeTheDragon (Jun 7, 2018)

I think a couple of people have already pointed this out, but I'd just like to reiterate the importance of self-reflection.  If someone came up to me and told me that I was a Nazi/SJW or whatever, I'd be damn disappointed in myself if I didn't take the time to stare at myself in the mirror and think about the actions I have taken.  And I'd be damn disappointed if my first response to the accuser was that I am not a Nazi/SJW/etc.

Point being:  The people who throw these terms around think that, at the very minimum, you are being an asshole.  That is a valid criticism.  That is highlighting an err in my behavior that I would like to amend.

Sure, the words seem a bit overused nowadays, but that shouldn't detract from the criticism behind them.  We can all be better people, and that is something worth striving for.


----------



## Troj (Jun 7, 2018)

Also, to be fair, sometimes we'll run into bullies, jerks, idiots, and loonies, and the things they say to us will be completely unhinged and totally unfair.

As they say, consider the source.

But, even at those times, a little self-reflection can still be useful. Even if you were in the right, it's still good to ask yourself how you ended up in that situation, and if/how you might do better in the future.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Troj said:


> What's the basic fear about SJWs, anyway? If they're given absolute free rein, what's the end game?
> 
> I'm concerned about people voting for laws and politicians that'll result in a rolling-back of basic rights--for minorities and vulnerable populations in particular, and all of us more generally--and essential public services, and I'm concerned about right-wing extremists literally killing people (as they are wont to do).
> 
> ...


And who do you think educated those kids?  Colleges.  Colleges that will continue to indoctrinate kids at a far faster rate than the Alt Right, at a rate that they could only DREAM of; entire classrooms at a time have to sit through a professor's rhetoric and biased proclamations of false oppression to kids sitting in Yale or Harvard.  A lot of them won't fall for it but there will be a handful.  Then another handful.  Then another.  And they will take positions in corporations, in businesses, in other classrooms.  Especially YALE and HARVARD students.
-
Does the Alt Right have access to mainstream education?  Does the Alt Right have news stations that either identify with or argue for their damaging viewpoints?  Certainly, don't have to worry about breeding because the Alt Right probably will have their kids taken away anyway.  What exactly do you fear other than, "They believe scary things"?
-
A Neo-Nazi would never get a major seat to even make a DENT in American politics.  It should take at least a handful in the same or similar positions.  South is another story, but you're naming people who are running in_ LOUISIANA_ of all places, as though that's a shock to anyone.  Excessively conservative crowds down South will fall for that bullshit easy.  And it's not a surprising issue in Lousiana as far as I understand as well.  Something should be done about it.  But I don't see it ever getting beyond the State level nor taking place in anywhere except the deep south.
-
But as Darko said, you're probably more likely to be shot for a quick buck or raped in a city than you are to meet a White Nationalist and get murdered.  Even if you wanna somehow prove that Neo Nazism or White Nationalism is systematic in federal politics, you'd have to contend with the fact that SJWs have been actually passing laws that run a dangerously close to a line, which if they are continued to be unquestioned or unchecked, will harm people who do not deserve it.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 8, 2018)

I explicitly remember my economics teacher trying to skip any mention of communism. He did not like me much. Especially since I was a know-it-all in his class. The ZOMG LEFTIST INDOCTRINATION! Is an anti-intellectual response attempting to smear people who are educated and informed on topics used by members of the right who are ill educated, and has its roots in the up-swell of religious fundamentalism, and the attempts to generalize the anti-war movement during vietnam. It is usually used when authority figures on a field of study (IE climatologists, neurologists, historians, etc) weigh in with supported research and data, as an ad hominem attack.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I described it as 'trump style', because you tried to draw a moral equivalence between neonazis and antifa 4 minutes after I explained why it was immoral for Trump to do that in response to the murder of a woman by a neonazi.


Oh man, a murder from a neonazi!  Everyone fear for your life!
-
Except murder happens on the daily in major cities but nobody is causing a panic about that when it's been happening for years.  Because that's "normal" just turn away and avoid those areas.  But don't worry about that, be concerned with the one Neo Nazi that killed someone!
-
Or perhaps that you're more likely to be shot by police, either by accident or otherwise, then you are to be killed by a terrorist.  But guys, look, this Neo-Nazi killed someone!
-
I'm not trying to downplay it; Neo-Nazi murders do go underreported.  But looking at some incidents and trying to prove a point by inspiring fear is not a good way to argue.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I explicitly remember my economics teacher trying to skip any mention of communism. He did not like me much. Especially since I was a know-it-all in his class. The ZOMG LEFTIST INDOCTRINATION! Is an anti-intellectual response attempting to smear people who are educated and informed on topics used by members of the right who are ill educated, and has its roots in the up-swell of religious fundamentalism, and the attempts to generalize the anti-war movement during vietnam. It is usually used when authority figures on a field of study (IE climatologists, neurologists, historians, etc) weigh in with supported research and data, as an ad hominem attack.


That's a shame.  He should have detailed Communism in all its failures.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 8, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Can you support that argument with a bit more detail? I'm curious what led you to that conclusion of equivalency.


I'll answer your question with a question. Do you approve of FA's latest banning of users for offsite comments? Do you think the everything Deo has said and done is just?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Oh man, a murder from a neonazi!  Everyone fear for your life!
> -
> Except murder happens on the daily in major cities but nobody is causing a panic about that when it's been happening for years.  Because that's "normal" just turn away and avoid those areas.  But don't worry about that, be concerned with the one Neo Nazi that killed someone!
> -
> ...


It's called a data trend, that despite a decrease in an extremist killings, white supremacist are pulling ahead in responsibility and number.
www.adl.org: Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2017
You then have the rise of Atomwaffen and the fact that two of the most recent school shootings in memory where by teenagers radicalized and trained by christian religious and white supremacist extremists.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And who do you think educated those kids?  Colleges.  Colleges that will continue to indoctrinate kids at a far faster rate than the Alt Right, at a rate that they could only DREAM of; entire classrooms at a time have to sit through a professor's rhetoric and biased proclamations of false oppression to kids sitting in Yale or Harvard.  A lot of them won't fall for it but there will be a handful.  Then another handful.  Then another.  And they will take positions in corporations, in businesses, in other classrooms.  Especially YALE and HARVARD students.



You do not know anything about higher education. You've never been to college. 

In all my time of going to college, I have never been subjected to deliberately leftist politics in the classroom. Only people who haven't been to college, for various reasons, think that they're "indoctrination" zones. You want to know where the indoctrination zones are? Churches, organized religion, and media channels that rant and repeat themselves over and over again. I don't listen to American news, the only news channel on my XM Radio I listen to are NPR and BBC. Want to know why? Because they talk about things in a rational, objective, calm manner. Other American sources just rant. And don't get me started on talk shows.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Oh man, a murder from a neonazi!  Everyone fear for your life!
> -
> Except murder happens on the daily in major cities but nobody is causing a panic about that when it's been happening for years.  Because that's "normal" just turn away and avoid those areas.  But don't worry about that, be concerned with the one Neo Nazi that killed someone!
> -
> ...



If I merely replaced “murder” with “punch” and “Neo-Nazi” with “Antifa” in this post of yours, you would suddenly be singing a very different tune. The mere fact that you are attempting to downplay fascist violence speaks volumes.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> It's called a data trend, that despite a decrease in an extremist killings, white supremacist are pulling ahead in responsibility and number.
> www.adl.org: Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2017
> You then have the rise of Atomwaffen and the fact that two of the most recent school shootings in memory where by teenagers radicalized and trained by christian religious and white supremacist extremists.


Right, because ISIS has been getting decimated so major, organized attacks are pretty much nullified (though still a possibility).
-
However, Islamic Terror has had more of the top deadliest attacks, mostly because they're more organized and pre-plan and actually run practice runs of it.
-
White Supremacist murders are being a feared topic, even as extremist killings go down.  While Neo-Nazi murders do tend to get underreported, the ones that are major are getting national attention and thus causing wide-range panic (because Islamic terror has taken a back seat for now).
-
You'd have to be blind to not see that this selective reporting of murders isn't politically motivated.  Anyone that isn't, other news stations are hopping on to get a piece of the panic views.  But I guarantee you if the news reported on every incident that happened in major cities that you probably live near you'd likely never leave your house again without a weapon.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You do not know anything about higher education. You've never been to college.
> 
> In all my time of going to college, I have never been subjected to deliberately leftist politics in the classroom. Only people who haven't been to college, for various reasons, think that they're "indoctrination" zones. You want to know where the indoctrination zones are? Churches, organized religion, and media channels that rant and repeat themselves over and over again. I don't listen to American news, the only news channel on my XM Radio I listen to are NPR and BBC. Want to know why? Because they talk about things in a rational, objective, calm manner. Other American sources just rant. And don't get me started on talk shows.


"I didn't experience it so it's not a thing."


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right, because ISIS has been getting decimated so major, organized attacks are pretty much nullified (though still a possibility).
> -
> However, Islamic Terror has had more of the top deadliest attacks, mostly because they're more organized and pre-plan and actually run practice runs of it.
> -
> ...



That's a whole lot of speculation. Is there selective reporting of murders? Which murders are being reported and which ones aren't? How do you know about the ones that's aren't getting reported? (Hint: You can't answer that and you created a negative that can't be answered unless evidence of a conspiracy is found.) Care to back any of that up? 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> "I didn't experience it so it's not a thing."



You've already demonstrated that you're intimidated by higher education. Sadly, I think facts lean left in this world, for some reason. The left doesn't have anything even approaching the level of ignorance perpetrated by Fox News and Infowars.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Izzy4895 said:


> If I merely replaced “murder” with “punch” and “Neo-Nazi” with “Antifa” in this post of yours, you would suddenly be singing a very different tune. The mere fact that you are attempting to downplay fascist violence speaks volumes.


A) Nobody is afraid of ANTIFA except as what it could potentially be.  Whenever I talk about ANTIFA it's on a moral level; I never try to get people to fear them as a group as a part of my argument.
-
B) The fact that you're okay with fear being used to drive political messages says far more about YOU than it does about ME because I don't hop on the bandwagon.  Why aren't you worried about environments where drug deals in public are common practice, or where people are murdered or threatened on the daily, that clearly harms far more people than a fringe group of fascists?  If making value judgments is downplaying, then consider me guilty.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 8, 2018)

My friends sociology course was fun, because the teacher was left leaning but refused to take a political stance with moralizing due to their jobs. I had another sociology teacher that had no such conflicts and was very open about their ideals, but gladly entertained debate and discussion without interjecting outside of sticking to time constraints. My business teacher was pretty center, and taught from their book which did a hackass job of describing socialism, though the fact I was halfway through reading A Wealth of Nations and actually understood the material when I started the course probably offset the overlong written answers in my quizzes going into detail about the matter in terms of their opinion of me. Then you have professors who like to denounce singular "They" very publicly, while using singular "They" in the sentence denouncing it. You get an assortment of political opinions in higher education. Ben Carson very much so exists, much to the amazement of everyone.

I actually follow a non-mainstream news group that isn't in line with my politics, but could be considered left of center. They report every single car accident and murder in the city-county area that they become aware of, with as much detail as they can get a hold of. Garden variety murder has followed a declining trend overall, and the vast majority of murders are committed by someone you know out of anger. Since most of my friends know how to handle their shit, I'm much more worried about the trump supporters that threatened to beat and possibly stab me because I triggered them by calling them the worst word ever; "a dumbass". Not to mention the Blue Line counter-protesters that threatened to shoot me and my comrades after dark. I can tell you which flavor of bullshit has convinced me to get my CCW.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> A) Nobody is afraid of ANTIFA except as what it could potentially be.  Whenever I talk about ANTIFA it's on a moral level; I never try to get people to fear them as a group as a part of my argument.



And thus we continue with the special pleading under the guise of a “moral level”. Fascist violence is deliberately downplayed while the actions of a small handful of Black Bloc anarchists is made out to be far more deadly than they actually are.



> B) The fact that you're okay with fear being used to drive political messages says far more about YOU than it does about ME because I don't hop on the bandwagon.  Why aren't you worried about environments where drug deals in public are common practice, or where people are murdered or threatened on the daily, that clearly harms far more people than a fringe group of fascists?  If making value judgments is downplaying, then consider me guilty.



The correct word to use in my case is “facts”, not “fear”. Additionally, fear has permeated countless posts (some of which resulted from all day postimg marathons) of yours on subjects like this. Your actions in themselves indicate you would have something to lose in the event of CoC 2.7 ceasing to be a dead letter. I don’t need to be Judge Judy to see where you stand.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You've already demonstrated that you're intimidated by higher education. Sadly, I think facts lean left in this world, for some reason. The left doesn't have anything even approaching the level of ignorance perpetrated by Fox News and Infowars.


What the fuck are you talking about?  When did I ever say or even HINT that I was intimidated by "higher education"?  I stated that college indoctrination is a thing, not that I said higher education is an evil.  I also don't watch Fox News or Infowars.  I figured this would funny because of how over-the-top and cliche it is but the fact that you used this argument seriously makes me more embarrassed for you.


BahgDaddy said:


> That's a whole lot of speculation. Is there selective reporting of murders? Which murders are being reported and which ones aren't? How do you know about the ones that's aren't getting reported? (Hint: You can't answer that and you created a negative that can't be answered unless evidence of a conspiracy is found.) Care to back any of that up?


Of course, there's selective reporting.  Do you think the media can report on every murder that happens?  No.  By simple logic, there exists selective reporting.  And it's a simple thing to make a case for; if you look at murders at or around the time of a specific murder, you can draw conclusions that an outlet valued one over the other, for one reason or another.  That would require extensive research, but it is possible and provable before you start jumping the gun (which you tend to do a lot).


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Izzy4895 said:


> And thus we continue with the special pleading under the guise of a “moral level”. Fascist violence is deliberately downplayed while the actions of a small handful of Black Bloc anarchists is made out to be far more deadly than they actually are.


What do you want me to do?  Denounce it?  I hate fascist violence and I want it to stop.
-
What more do you want me to do?  Do you want me to post about it all the time?  Keep agreeing with posts about it?  Talk about it on Twitter all the time?  Do you want me to change my profile picture to an Anti-Facist flag?  Stop criticising Antifa?  Stop talking about Anifa?
-
I mean, I figure I wouldn't have to say, "Murder is bad" but if that's what you need, say so!  Tell me what you want and I'll do it!


Izzy4895 said:


> The correct word to use in my case is “facts”, not “fear”. Additionally, fear has permeated countless posts (some of which resulted from all day postimg marathons) of yours on subjects like this. Your actions in themselves indicate you would have something to lose in the event of CoC 2.7 ceasing to be a dead letter. I don’t need to be Judge Judy to see where you stand.


Maybe I have.  I'm not perfect.  That doesn't make it right.  But you can at least show me a post which I said something to inspire fear for no reason other than to inspire fear.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?  When did I ever say or even HINT that I was intimidated by "higher education"?  I stated that college indoctrination is a thing, not that I said higher education is an evil.  I also don't watch Fox News or Infowars.  I figured this would funny because of how over-the-top and cliche it is but the fact that you used this argument seriously makes me more embarrassed for you.



Higher education is college education. Or are you going to carve out universities that match your ideological slant, like Liberty University?

All I'm saying is that you have college educated people here on this forum, and they do tend to lean left. Maybe that's because people who've analyzed things with an open tolerant mind start to lean left, yo?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Of course, there's selective reporting.  Do you think the media can report on every murder that happens?  No.  By simple logic, there exists selective reporting.  And it's a simple thing to make a case for; if you look at murders at or around the time of a specific murder, you can draw conclusions that an outlet valued one over the other, for one reason or another.  That would require extensive research, but it is possible and provable before you start jumping the gun (which you tend to do a lot).



backpedaling I see, and everyone can tell. It was your claim, not mine, now back it up if you want to be taken seriously.

Or just keep rambling.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Higher education is college education. Or are you going to carve out universities that match your ideological slant, like Liberty University?
> 
> All I'm saying is that you have college educated people here on this forum, and they do tend to lean left. Maybe that's because people who've analyzed things with an open tolerant mind start to lean left, yo?


I couldn't facepalm harder or else I'd hurt myself.
-
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I have never demonized entire colleges, only professors, and classes within colleges.  I never even said the indoctrination was too severe, only that it occurs at a far faster rate than that of Neo-Nazis.


BahgDaddy said:


> All I'm saying is that you have college educated people here on this forum, and they do tend to lean left. Maybe that's because people who've analyzed things with an open tolerant mind start to lean left, yo?


Sure, those who are left-leaning have a tendency to be open-minded.  If you're trying to suggest that makes them objectively correct more often than any other political ideology then you're in for disappointment.


BahgDaddy said:


> backpedaling I see, and everyone can tell. It was your claim, not mine, now back it up if you want to be taken seriously.



I explain my reasoning and you're saying it's backpedaling?
-
Fuck off.  I'm not responding to you anymore.  You should also see the number of people who don't take YOU seriously, Bahg.  You're not worth the extensive research.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You also seem to be ignoring the fact that I have never demonized entire colleges, only professors, and classes within colleges.  I never even said the indoctrination was too severe, only that it occurs at a far faster rate than that of Neo-Nazis.



So many goalposts shifts, I think we have more goalies than soccer players now. Let's take a look at YOUR WORDS again:



> And who do you think educated those kids? *Colleges*. Colleges that will *continue to indoctrinate kids* at a *far faster rate than the Alt Right*, at a rate that they could only *DREAM* of; entire classrooms at a time have to *sit through a professor's rhetoric* and *biased proclamations* of *false oppression* to kids sitting in Yale or Harvard.



Not only are colleges INDOCTRINATING KIDS, they're doing so at the FASTER RATE than the ALT RIGHT. People ONLY make that comparison *when they think it's a bad thing.*



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Sure, those who are left-leaning have a tendency to be open-minded.  If you're trying to suggest that makes them objectively correct more often than any other political ideology then you're in for disappointment.



I think they're objectively more open minded and therefore more likely to come to correct conclusions, yes. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I explain my reasoning and you're saying it's backpedaling?
> -
> Fuck off.  I'm not responding to you anymore.  You should also see the number of people who don't take YOU seriously, Bahg.  You're not worth the extensive research.



Yeah, once again, engaging in argumentative debate, and can't take the heat, and start playing the victim card again and lashing out with personal insults.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So many goalposts shifts, I think we have more goalies than soccer players now. Let's take a look at YOUR WORDS again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And now you won't have to deal with me anymore.
I'll even give you the last word before I block you.  Go ahead.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 8, 2018)

I'm a 12 year old fennec what is this


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 8, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> I'm a 12 year old fennec what is this


Hell on earth. Also, you are slightly too young to be on this site according to policy.....


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 8, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Hell on earth. Also, you are slightly too young to be on this site according to policy.....


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 8, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Hell on earth. Also, you are slightly too young to be on this site according to policy.....



Userpage of Frisky17532 -- Fur Affinity [dot] net

crap i old

christ I know what a MUCK is I feel olllllld


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Oh man, a murder from a neonazi!  Everyone fear for your life!



What I'm trying to convince you of is that NeoNazis are politically united by their support for Donald Trump.
Here's how NeoNazis at the Daily Stormer responded to Trump's 'Both sides' comments.


Spoiler












Donald Trump has also repeated quotes from Benito Mussolini, fascist leader of Italy and ally to Hitler, appeared on television refusing to disavow support from the Klu Klux Klan, and reposted propaganda from the fascist organisation 'Britain first'.

Do you accept my point that the president of the United States encourages far right terrorist organisations?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> -
> B) The fact that you're okay with fear being used to drive political messages says far more about YOU than it does about ME



Wait...weren't you the guy who told  me you wanted to make me 'afraid' to call out Nazis?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm happy you're afraid to use the term.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (Jun 8, 2018)

Troj said:


> SJWs are shrill, aggressive, and annoying, but most of the ones I encounter or observe in my life are kids, college students, fringe academics, talking heads, vloggers, bloggers, or op-ed writers. We need to rebut some of their arguments and attitudes, absolutely, but a lot of them strike me as just yappy dogs yapping to the choir, which is why they're less of a concern for me.


They may be yappy dogs, but you need to take into account the fact that they still get air time and have actually influenced the government. The Canadian government has wasted its time debating pointless legislation and motions that concern their ridiculous demands that result in the vilification of those that want to make _reasonable _amendments to such things.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> They may be yappy dogs, but you need to take into account the fact that they still get air time and have actually influenced the government. The Canadian government has wasted its time debating pointless legislation and motions that concern their ridiculous demands that result in the vilification of those that want to make _reasonable _amendments to such things.



Are you referring to the amendments to condemn prejudice towards Muslims, and to afford trans people the same standards of legal protection against discrimination that are already offered to people on the basis of religion race and sexual orientation?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Jun 8, 2018)

Nazism was a fascist movement that began in the 1930s and carried through Hitler’s rise to power.  Beliefs include but are not limited to anti-Semitism, totalitarian nationalism, extremist fascism, and a dash of homophobia for good measure.  Neo Nazis (also known as “People That Need to be Flung Into the Fucking Sun”) applies to anyone trying to revitalize these views. 

Fun fact, it’s also not cool to allow them to feel comfortable speaking about their fucked up views.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Are you referring to the amendments to condemn prejudice towards Muslims, and to afford trans people the same standards of legal protection against discrimination that are already offered to people on the basis of religion race and sexual orientation?


Correct, those are a couple examples but pointless as they already had well enough protection under our charter


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Correct, those are a couple examples but pointless as they already had well enough protection under our charter



I don't understand why we should be afraid about 'SJWs' then, if you claim the influence they had in government ultimately amounted to no significant changes. 
To be honest I'm not _really _convinced that the spooky 'SJWs' were responsible for these changes anyway.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Jun 8, 2018)

It’s pretty safe to assume that hardcore SJWs in general are a reason for the powers that be to laugh off anything that doesn’t make them money.

And Nazis in the media is one hell of a cash cow.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I am remembering that Mother who came onto the forums to ask if the furry fandom would be able to provide appropriate environments where her daughter could participate in costumes and fun and innocent humdrum things like that.
> 
> I can only imagine the 'run 1000 miles away from them' impression she would get if she read this thread.
> 
> :C



Well, the thread is certainly proving useful in identifying the Nazi/white supremacist apologists on the forum.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 8, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I'll answer your question with a question. Do you approve of FA's latest banning of users for offsite comments? Do you think the everything Deo has said and done is just?



That's two questions, but: 1) I don't personally approve of banning from an Internet forum for offsite comments under normal circumstances, no, but I do think a privately-owned Internet forum has that right - it's hardly a major issue, and if the owners of the site decide they'd prefer to spare themselves the presence of an individual they know to be prone to incendiary rhetoric, that's their choice. 2) I have no idea who Deo even is, let alone what he/she has said.

Now back to you. If we're finished talking about the internal politics of this particular website now, I was asking you for a clarification of your more universal statements: what leads you to the conclusions that "both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided" and "Trump has nothing to do with that sentiment"?


----------



## Inkblooded (Jun 8, 2018)

Well some people say im "Furry Hitler" because i dont like femboys, or gay yiff, so i guess me -_-


----------



## Oblique Lynx (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't understand why we should be afraid about 'SJWs' then, if you claim the influence they had in government ultimately amounted to no significant changes.
> To be honest I'm not _really _convinced that the spooky 'SJWs' were responsible for these changes anyway.


They influenced pointless debates that allowed the ruling majority to point fingers at the minority and vilify them. Wasting time, money and making reasonable people look like monsters by their own government


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> @Kyr You've quite clearly shown your distain for women on multiple occasions and your idea that men and white people are being oppressed is simply bullshit.


Haven't read the rest of the thread, feel the need to respond to this. Hope you're still around to read it Ovi.

Disdain for women? No. I don't have a sweeping dislike of half the members of society because vagina. I had a bisexual phase and repeatedly found myself in emotionally abusive relationships with women. Women can be cunts too, that's a fact. If you were really listening to anything i've been saying you'd know that i treat people individually, and don't judge by some arbitrary group trait. When men fight they use physical violence, when women fight it's psychological. It's a valid means of defense for a group that's biologically weaker from a physical standpoint. All i've touched on in the past is being a victim of psychological abuse from the women i had the misfortune of dating, it happens.

As for the notion of white oppression, i'd invite you to take a look at the political landscape of South Africa.





















Now i understand that South Africa has a long and very complicated history of racism. But, if you break this down. Africans are living in fear of other Africans because of their skin colour. In this instance the white people are the minorities, and there are calls to drive them into poverty or force them to seek asylum because they're seen as lesser than the indigenous population. If it's not outright oppressive for white people in South Africa yet, there's certainly a real fear amongst white people there that it'll end up that way.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> They influenced pointless debates that allowed the ruling majority to point fingers at the minority and vilify them. Wasting time, money and making reasonable people look like monsters by their own government



What minority is being vilified here? ._. 

All that's happened is that Trans people have been added to a law that already existed.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> What minority is being vilified here? ._.
> 
> All that's happened is that Trans people have been added to a law that already existed.


Wanting to make amendments to legislature has caused cries from the majority government to try and paint a side and stance as various things, including fear mongering.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Wanting to make amendments to legislature has caused cries from the majority government to try and paint a side and stance as various things, including fear mongering.



Could you be clearer? Who do you think is threatened by the same legislation that protects gay folk being extended to trans folk? 

What are we being lead to be afraid of?


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> I think a couple of people have already pointed this out, but I'd just like to reiterate the importance of self-reflection.  If someone came up to me and told me that I was a Nazi/SJW or whatever, I'd be damn disappointed in myself if I didn't take the time to stare at myself in the mirror and think about the actions I have taken.  And I'd be damn disappointed if my first response to the accuser was that I am not a Nazi/SJW/etc.
> 
> Point being:  The people who throw these terms around think that, at the very minimum, you are being an asshole.  That is a valid criticism.  That is highlighting an err in my behavior that I would like to amend.
> 
> Sure, the words seem a bit overused nowadays, but that shouldn't detract from the criticism behind them.  We can all be better people, and that is something worth striving for.


While i do agree with the importance of self reflection, i feel it's important to state that sometimes it's good to be an asshole in the eyes of certain people.

Them seeing you as an asshole may be their problem as opposed to yours after all.


----------



## Troj (Jun 8, 2018)

Does the level of education correlate with political affiliation? How does each party account for any difference? Is the average Republican more or less educated than the average Democrat? 


> So, yes, voting does have a correlation with higher education (post graduate) but only indirectly: Younger people who live in larger metropolitan areas are more likely to have a post-graduate degree. People who fit such profile are more likely to vote Democratic whether they have higher eduction or not!


Does college turn people into liberals?


> Among all students, 48 percent viewed liberals more favorably in their second year of college than when they arrived on campus. However, among the same students, 50 percent also viewed conservatives more favorably. In other words, college attendance is associated, on average, with gains in appreciating political viewpoints across the spectrum, not just favoring liberals.
> 
> The data show 31 percent of students did develop more negative attitudes toward conservatives. However, just about the same amount, 30 percent, developed more negative attitudes toward liberals.


fivethirtyeight.com: College Freshmen Are More Politically Engaged Than They Have Been In Decades


> The Higher Education Research Institute — a group based at the University of California, Los Angeles — polled 141,189 people who represent the country’s full-time, first-year students starting four-year colleges and universities in the fall of 2015. The demographics of college freshmen have changed considerably since the survey was first administered in 1966, and it provides insight into the attitudes of this constituency, which has long puzzled researchers but stands out as a key demographic group for politicians.
> 
> The survey found that nearly 9 percent of freshmen say there’s a “very good chance” they’ll participate in a student protest on campus, the highest in the survey’s history and up from about 6 percent in 2014.



The "colleges are leftist madrassas" talking point was heavily pushed by Rush Limbaugh back in the day. My suspicion has been that Rush and other pundits' agenda there is to keep people out of higher education because a) it's traditionally correlated modestly with voting Democrat (especially graduate education), and b) if you can keep your followers dumb, disenfranchised, and angry, you've got 'em right where you want 'em.

The trope of the naive, sweet college freshman who is a _tabula rasa_ has been overblown. By high school, many kids already have strong beliefs about religion and politics, and they choose their college, their program/major, their peer group, and/or their preferred professors accordingly. I've had college professor friends bitch about their annoying SJW students! (Side note: The Right periodically underestimates the degree of in-fighting on the Left. The Old Hippies hate the PoMos, the PoMos hate the Marxists, the Marxists hate the SJWs, the SJWs hate the Moderates...)

In my estimation, the job of a good school (especially a liberal arts school) _and_ the job of a good teacher is to break students out of their bubble, whatever that bubble may be.

Really, I think that's what zealots and authoritarians are fundamentally afraid of, which is why they try to bash higher education.

When people complain about high school and college students, meanwhile, they tend to forget that "the kids ain't all right" is a complaint going back at least to the ancient Greeks, and likely even further. Young people are just inherently annoying and scary to older people.


Fallowfox said:


> Are you referring to the amendments to condemn prejudice towards Muslims, and to afford trans people the same standards of legal protection against discrimination that are already offered to people on the basis of religion race and sexual orientation?



The problem is that "SJW" is a loosely-defined and loosely-applied term that potentially means different things to different people, and people often use it in conversations with the assumption that everyone else in the room shares their definition and internal schema of an SJW.

In addition to just muddying the waters generally, this allows pundits and ideologues to smear moderates and garden-variety liberals as "SJWs" for standing for fairly standard stuff like "Don't misgender trans people" or "Don't call people ethnic slurs" or "People deserve healthcare."


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> What I'm trying to convince you of is that NeoNazis are politically united by their support for Donald Trump.
> Here's how NeoNazis at the Daily Stormer responded to Trump's 'Both sides' comments.
> 
> 
> ...



All you've done is make claims with no evidence.

So no I do not accept them.  I have no reason to.  You're literally saying, "Trump is Far Right because some Alt Right people said so." As though that actually means anything.

He refused to denounce a particular group of people?  He must be a fascist!

Give me a break.  How about some evidence?


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

Shia LeBouf made me a Donald Trump supporter.

Guess that shows you how stupid i am.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Jun 8, 2018)

Off-topic:

The only thing I like about Trump is his stance on immigration but beyond that... It remains to be seen


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Could you be clearer? Who do you think is threatened by the same legislation that protects gay folk being extended to trans folk?
> 
> What are we being lead to be afraid of?



Which legislation are you referring to?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 8, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Haven't read the rest of the thread, feel the need to respond to this. Hope you're still around to read it Ovi.
> 
> Disdain for women? No. I don't have a sweeping dislike of half the members of society because vagina. I had a bisexual phase and repeatedly found myself in emotionally abusive relationships with women. Women can be cunts too, that's a fact. If you were really listening to anything i've been saying you'd know that i treat people individually, and don't judge by some arbitrary group trait. When men fight they use physical violence, when women fight it's psychological. It's a valid means of defense for a group that's biologically weaker from a physical standpoint. All i've touched on in the past is being a victim of psychological abuse from the women i had the misfortune of dating, it happens.
> 
> ...



Racism is racism, what point were you addressing with this?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Which legislation are you referring to?



Bill C-16 is the trans one.

Jordan Peterson spread a lot of nonsense about it around the internet and now a lot of young men think it's about establishing a Marxist totalitarian regime. :\



ResolutionBlaze said:


> All you've done is make claims with no evidence.
> 
> So no I do not accept them.  I have no reason to.  You're literally saying, "Trump is Far Right because some Alt Right people said so." As though that actually means anything.
> 
> ...


The question was whether far right terrorist organisations like neonazis and the kkk are united in their support of Trump. 

They are. 

Also if you refuse to disavow the KKK it either means you're a fascist or an idiot. :S


----------



## Saiko (Jun 8, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> All you've done is make claims with no evidence.
> 
> So no I do not accept them.  I have no reason to.  You're literally saying, "Trump is Far Right because some Alt Right people said so." As though that actually means anything.
> 
> ...


I haven’t read the previous posts in this chain, but you’ve grossly misrepresented Fallow’s most recent claim. Trump can explicitly encourage the far-right without himself being one, and Fallow has mentioned specific instances of this. If you don’t remember those instances yourself, you’re welcome to ask for links to conduct your own review; but his point is neither unreasonable nor unsubstantiated.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Racism is racism, what point were you addressing with this?


That was exactly the point i was addressing, ty.


----------



## Troj (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Jordan Peterson spread a lot of nonsense about it around the internet and now a lot of young men think it's about establishing a Marxist totalitarian regime. :\



A CULTURAL Marxist totalitarian regime, no less!

One of the most basic and glaring problems with his critiques of Postmodernism and Marxism is that he assumes they are buddies, when in fact, die-hard PoMos and ardent Marxists tend to _haaaaaaate _each other.

Mooshing PoMo and Marxism together requires you to snip and trim off parts of each philosophy.

PoMo, for example, suggests that there is no grand over-arching narrative to history, whereas Marxism says there absolutely, definitely is a grand narrative to history.

torontoist.com: Are Jordan Peterson's Claims About Bill C-16 Correct?


> *What is Bill C-16?*
> 
> The bill proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.
> 
> ...


Jordan Peterson: Useful Idiot | the HipCrime Vocab


> To me, the most tragic thing about the JP phenomenon is the fact that, in my not-so-humble-opinion, *the destruction of white males is caused primarily by our economic system of globalized financial casino capitalism* which seeks no other goal than to maximize profit for a small international investors class, consequences to the health of society be damned. It leads to a “devil take the hindmost” attitude, where society is a zero-sum game divided into winners and losers.





> In my opinion, this is entirely a media-manufactured phenomenon. Why? As Adam Curtis opined, _‘Angry people click more.’_ Keeping people angry and outraged seems to be the main purpose of media these days because it is profitable. Keeping people informed is less important than profits.





> For a long time it has been a tactic of US intelligence to support a moderate group, be it progressive or reactionary, as a way of blocking a more extremist group from gaining support. This happened domestically in the 60’s with progressive movements as well. Most famously Gloria Steinem was covertly supported by the CIA as a way of keeping attention away from more dangerous radicals. Culturally, things like universities in effect reproduce this dynamic. *By having an Overton window big enough to include a lot of progressive politics, they can exclude actually dangerous stuff. This is the [role] political correctness basically plays.* By maintaining vigorous debate within a specific window, and outrage for anything outside of that, it vanguards against real leftist politics of the sort actual Marxists argue for.





> Despite his fear of leftist goon squads patrolling college campuses, no one, _not one single person_, has been arrested or jailed, or even fined over this law. It is a totally artificial crisis, manufactured in order to smear the radical left on college campuses and foment outrage. It’s pure grandstanding.





> Cultural Marxism is a ‘snarl word’ and dog-whistle phrase that refers to the Frankfurt School, a loosely organized group of academic and writers based in Germany during the Weimar Republic who were influneced by Marx. They were part of what we would today call a “private think tank” based in Frankfurt. For a good overview, I suggest listening to this slightly less baised overview from the BBC Radio four’s excellent In Our Time show: BBC Radio 4 – In Our Time, The Frankfurt School





> They never called themselves “cultural Marxists,” however. Rather, that label first came from the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. The National Socialists didn’t use the phrase “cultural Marxism,” instead preferring the term _“cultural Bolshevism.” _


_














_


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

While i am aware that Jordan Peterson's ideas about Postmodernism are somewhat...one dimensional, as he himself is a Postmodernist and simply doesn't realize it, i think it's important to see clearly what he believes he's fighting against.






This goes into quite a bit of detail about his issues with the mentality he sees within what you might term The Progressive Left.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

Troj said:


> PoMo, for example, suggests that there is no grand over-arching narrative to history, whereas Marxism says there absolutely, definitely is a grand narrative to history.


Posted that video because of this quote here, which Jordan addresses and somehow manages to reconcile over the course of the lecture.


----------



## Troj (Jun 8, 2018)

Yeah, the supreme irony to me is that he's absolutely a Postmodernist himself, and is a fan of some thinkers who are actually considered Postmodernists, while being intensely critical of Postmodernism.

Really, to my mind, he's another reactionary who is fundamentally alarmed by the idea of the world changing such that he won't be able to understand it or navigate it in the same way anymore, and won't be on top of the ball, so to speak.

He encourages people to clean their rooms, stand up  straight, not whine, and look to the lobster as a model of natural hierarchy, but then wrings his hands over the plight of incels, and encourages this idea in his (mostly male) fans that the feminist leftist Cultural Marxists who've taken over are to blame for them feeling lonely and disenfranchised. I see a definite disconnect there.

"Derbity berbity white privilege doesn't exist" means "I really don't even want to think about potentially confronting my own white privilege, because that might require me to change how I act and think in the world."

"Shoobity-boobity C-16 Stalinist takeover" means "I can't admit that trans people unnerve me at some level, and that non-binary trans people freak me out even more, because it means the categories I use to navigate and make sense of the world are breaking down."

So, basically, I hear a mix of, "Why should I have to change?" mixed with "Holy shit, I might not be the majority anymore someday."

As an aside, everybody getting to pick their own wacky weird identities, labels, and pronouns is, to my mind, more of an example of _individualism_ run amok, and not collectivism. Pure collectivist countries tend to stomp on people devising their own terms and playing "jazz" with identity.

_But, _"individualism" _can_ be simplified, packaged and sorted as a kind of consumer product, and _that_ can result in a kind of collectivism, a la Life of Brian's "we're all individuals!"

Granted, this is my cynical, snarky, burnt-out, tired-of-watching-fifty-hours-of-Jordan-Peterson take on Jordan Peterson.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Bill C-16 is the trans one.
> 
> Jordan Peterson spread a lot of nonsense about it around the internet and now a lot of young men think it's about establishing a Marxist totalitarian regime. :\
> 
> ...


Not to mention the guy claims to be “good friends” with people like David Duke


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 8, 2018)

Kyr said:


> While i am aware that Jordan Peterson's ideas about Postmodernism are somewhat...one dimensional, as he himself is a Postmodernist and simply doesn't realize it, i think it's important to see clearly what he believes he's fighting against.
> 
> This goes into quite a bit of detail about his issues with the mentality he sees within what you might term The Progressive Left.


www.ubyssey.ca: The UBC Free Speech Club: A safe space for whining about safe spaces Is a credible and unbiased perspective on politics?
The speaker is a conservative nut who spouts conspiracy theories. www.theguardian.com: How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?



Spoiler: Redlining











https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf

Lastly, a man who was beaten by Unite the Right assholes was CHARGED WITH ASSAULTING HIS ASSAILANTS AND HAD TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE BEFORE HIS ATTACKERS WHERE CHARGED!
I give you three guesses what color he was. 





Kyr said:


> Haven't read the rest of the thread, feel the need to respond to this. Hope you're still around to read it Ovi.
> 
> Disdain for women? No. I don't have a sweeping dislike of half the members of society because vagina. I had a bisexual phase and repeatedly found myself in emotionally abusive relationships with women. Women can be cunts too, that's a fact. If you were really listening to anything i've been saying you'd know that i treat people individually, and don't judge by some arbitrary group trait. When men fight they use physical violence, when women fight it's psychological. It's a valid means of defense for a group that's biologically weaker from a physical standpoint. All i've touched on in the past is being a victim of psychological abuse from the women i had the misfortune of dating, it happens.
> 
> ...


A. White poverty pales in comparison to black poverty in South Africa, explicitly because black land was physically stolen by the ancestors of those white farmers. Black people where then forced to live in slums, and were not allowed to move about the country freely. 
B. The whites in south Africa have a tendency to blame anything bad on black Africans, including poverty. This is the same shit that happens in the US with the Mexicans. 
C. You might want to look into the history of Apartheid. city-press.news24.com: Exposing apartheid death squads – A trail of murder and terror
D. South African farm attacks - Wikipedia
E. www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of OPPRESSION

White South Africans where not forced to out with their ill gotten gains earned through exploiting Black South Africans. Because of this, the economic disparity in the country still leaves wealthy white families in control of the wealth in South Africa. Afrikaners have been accusing the blacks of anything and everything since the age of Apartheid, in order to justify their own position of power. Apartheid ended in the early 1990s, so the country does not have simply a history of racism, it has a history of racial segregation and oppression that occurred within the lifetimes of people in their thirties. The country is still trying to address the aftermath of systemic oppression of Black South Africans, because affirmative action in South Africa made little attempt to address economic inequalities caused by government theft of black property and land, and the forced cheapening of black labor. Even Afrikaner groups do not believe the farm violence to be racially motivated, groups run to advocate for the rights of White South Africans. The only political group trying to obfuscate the statistics and spin the narrative that whites are oh-so-oppressed in south Africa are white nationalists. 

You have crossed the line into spouting Alt-Right conspiracy theories and denial-ism.


----------



## Troj (Jun 8, 2018)

Umberto Eco's list of fascism's defining traits, abridged:

kottke.org: The 14 Features of Eternal Fascism


> 1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
> 
> 2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
> 
> ...



Here, have some Star Wars, too:


----------



## Cawdabra (Jun 8, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Also if you refuse to disavow the KKK it either means you're a fascist or an idiot. :S


----------



## Fallowfox (Jun 8, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


>



Donald Trump's condemnations are faux. 

When a reporter asked him if he disavowed the support of the Klu Klux Klan on public television Trump refused to 
condemn him and _pretended he had never heard of the Klu Klux Klan. _





Which video do you think is a more candid representation of his real views? 
Which video do you think the Klu Klux Klan is going to pay more attention to?


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> www.ubyssey.ca: The UBC Free Speech Club: A safe space for whining about safe spaces Is a credible and unbiased perspective on politics?
> The speaker is a conservative nut who spouts conspiracy theories. www.theguardian.com: How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?
> 
> 
> ...


For the first part. The UBC club and a black man being temporarily charged with assault have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the video i posted.

As for the second. I'm fully aware of all of these things and you've completely missed the point i was making. Please tell me how recognizing that racism isn't the answer to racism makes me an Alt Right conspiracy theorist, truly i would love to hear that.

Also what did i deny?


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 8, 2018)

Kumali said:


> That's two questions, but: 1) I don't personally approve of banning from an Internet forum for offsite comments under normal circumstances, no, but I do think a privately-owned Internet forum has that right - it's hardly a major issue, and if the owners of the site decide they'd prefer to spare themselves the presence of an individual they know to be prone to incendiary rhetoric, that's their choice. 2) I have no idea who Deo even is, let alone what he/she has said.
> 
> Now back to you. If we're finished talking about the internal politics of this particular website now, I was asking you for a clarification of your more universal statements: what leads you to the conclusions that "both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided" and "Trump has nothing to do with that sentiment"?



Internal fandom politics does contribute to what I see as the larger issue, implying it is irrelevant would allude that you'd rather not see the point I am making. I will presume you agree the alt right is misguided and extremist so I will focus on the left. I will name you a few examples I have seen. Recently, many trans people celebrated the death of Totlbiscuit over the fact he used to support GamerGate, Antifa still exists and commits acts of violence and seems to revel in disproportionate retribution. I've seen many people who identify as left wing and progressive attack people who were neutral or centrist, with logic along the lines of "If you are not with us you are against us". I've seen Social Justice cause games and movies not release due to some perceived slight in how women are portrayed.  (Dead or Alive 3 Beach volleyball IE). Now that's just off the top of my head. I won't go into Deo since you are not familiar, but I think the fact FA has begun to ban people for political beliefs and a particular style of jokes is setting a very bad precedent, the fact it is within their sovereignty to make the call, does not immediately enable them to become immune to criticism, and it doesn't negate the fact it is setting a bad precedent for the fandom.

The most troubling aspect about it all, is that some on the left concluded people like myself are the enemy because some prefer to stay centrist (which I should remind you, are largely _neutral _in these affairs), it's not quite a witch hunt, but there is a worrying amount of intolerance and disdain for anything other than them, the progressive left who are supposedly among the most tolerant and free thinking political groups. It's a worrying trend.

Also, on the Trump thing, why is he relevant to what I am saying? I don't understand. Are you asking if I like him? I voted for Gary Johnson, if that helps any.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 8, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> I think the fact FA has begun to ban people for political beliefs and a particular style of jokes is setting a very bad precedent


I will note that a significant number of the people effected by these bans were _not_ a positive influence on the community. It's not as though these are all random murry purry carebear buddies who have exclusively positive interactions with other users. I may have my own reservations about the way the bans were enacted, but I think it's disingenuous to present it as though the sole problem with all of the banned people was their privately-held political beliefs. (I do not know the exact extents of the bans so I can't speak for how large a portion of the banned users were a disruptive element in the community, and I will not speak on specific individuals because it's at the very least borderline COC violation to do so, as well as me possibly having some privileged information from when I was on staff that I don't want to accidentally divulge because my memory is shitty.)


----------



## Kyr (Jun 8, 2018)

I will add to that by saying that a left leaning mod of what could be considered a rival forum was, at least temporarily, banned with the implementation of the CoC update.

That was a person that, by all accounts, wasn't a negative influence on the community. Let alone someone who had disagreeable political beliefs.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 8, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I will note that a significant number of the people effected by these bans were _not_ a positive influence on the community. It's not as though these are all random murry purry carebear buddies who have exclusively positive interactions with other users. I may have my own reservations about the way the bans were enacted, but I think it's disingenuous to present it as though the sole problem with all of the banned people was their privately-held political beliefs. (I do not know the exact extents of the bans so I can't speak for how large a portion of the banned users were a disruptive element in the community, and I will not speak on specific individuals because it's at the very least borderline COC violation to do so, as well as me possibly having some privileged information from when I was on staff that I don't want to accidentally divulge because my memory is shitty.)



I'm going to speak quasi-anecdotally and beforehand, I acknowledge his ban was rescinded but I digress. LordVictor was one of the people that was banned, he was not alt furry, was not disruptive and never insulted anybody as I recall. I do not know him personally, but from what I have seen him post, and I have seen a few of his posts, the worst of his crimes was occasionally being a bit sassy? I mean, the grounds he was banned on is quite troubling. There were alot of cases like his, where people whose worst crime was having a slightly abrasive sense of humor getting banned. It's asinine to me, and I feel it is just to assert it sets a bad precedent, these weren't even Alt furries who were banned.


----------



## Kumali (Jun 8, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Internal fandom politics does contribute to what I see as the larger issue, implying it is irrelevant would allude that you'd rather not see the point I am making.



OK, let me see if I can get some clarity on this:

The point you were making that I responded to, quoted in its entirety, was:



KimberVaile said:


> It doesn't make it any less true, both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided. Trump has nothing to do with that sentiment.



Which I now see was in response to this exchange:



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Call NeoNazi as a domestic terrorist, that's fine.. they are without a doubt one but Antifa shouldn't get a free pass





Fallowfox said:


> Just...this sort of comment. :\
> Please don't try to smuggle a Trump style 'all sides are bad' perspective into this.



So when you said "both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided," were you referring to _specifically_ within the furry fandom, or in American society at large? Because I was asking you for further elucidation assuming you meant the latter.

If you're limiting your criticism of parties on the left supposedly impeding the free speech of parties on the right to within the furry fandom, and specifically FurAffinity, then I apologize for the misunderstanding...but I also take my leave of this particular branch of the discussion, because I'm honestly not that concerned about who does or doesn't get banned from this website. If that's turning a blind eye, so be it; it's a privately owned and run furry forum, and I've got more important things to spend my "Social Justice Warrior" energy on.

(If we're talking about the larger context of American society, my personal opinion is that a statement like "both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided" is a dangerous false equivalency, and Trump, of course, would be relevant to that discussion, but we'll get there if and when we get there.)


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 8, 2018)

Kyr said:


> For the first part. The UBC club and a black man being temporarily charged with assault have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the video i posted.
> 
> As for the second. I'm fully aware of all of these things and you've completely missed the point i was making. Please tell me how recognizing that racism isn't the answer to racism makes me an Alt Right conspiracy theorist, truly i would love to hear that.
> 
> Also what did i deny?



The information posted is in addressing the "white privilege" issue. UBC is the host of the speaker, and the speaker is a known mid-right conspiracy theorist. His arguments don't hold up regardless of reputation, and he is an example of charlatans speaking outside their degree.

I explicitly pointed out that the group that advocates for White South Africans has denounced the racial motivation myth as the primary cause for attacks on white farms.

Reparations for litteraly steeling an entire countries worth of land, and subjecting that displaced people to servitude and death squads isn't racism.

I never said you were alt-right, but you did just spout a bunch of alt-right bunk nonsense. You also tried to describe years of oppression that only recently ended in South Africa as mere racism, and shared a video about how white privilege doesn't exist. This coming from Canada, and country where you have no right to defend your property, but can get aqquited for shooting a trespassing native who poses no risk to your life. The same Canada that actively puts oil pipelines through native land. 

The idea we live in a post racial society is delusional, and used as a common conservative deflection. It takes a special kind of ignorant to ignore data and pretend everything is just a-ok so you can strawman your opponents. 

PS: Lets not ascribe a unity to the US far right that isn't there. Trump has been loved as much as he has been called a "Cuck and Chief".


----------



## KimberVaile (Jun 8, 2018)

Kumali said:


> OK, let me see if I can get some clarity on this:
> 
> So when you said "both sides are ridiculously extremist and misguided," were you referring to _specifically_ within the furry fandom, or in American society at large? Because I was asking you for further elucidation assuming you meant the latter.
> 
> ...



I conveyed to you through examples that I think American society has both left wingers and right wingers clinging to extremist and misguided conduct. Sure it's your prerogative if you want to remove your concern as to what happened with the FA bannings. I can't force you to care, but I still find it to be concerning. And you can call it a false equivalency all you like, but at the end of the day, both side have done things I have found personally revolting. Sure, the nature of the wrongs perpetuated in the name of their ideals are different and more particular. Though, at the end of the day, I think both sides lack nuance, that is the conclusion I drew after years of watching them clash. Also, I simply don't feel Trump would be relevant, because I already agree he and the people who follow by him are hopelessly misguided and wrong about many things. What else would there need to be said? Do you really need to use Turmp as an example to convey that the left is not as extreme?


----------



## DeeTheDragon (Jun 9, 2018)

Kyr said:


> While i do agree with the importance of self reflection, i feel it's important to state that sometimes it's good to be an asshole in the eyes of certain people.
> 
> Them seeing you as an asshole may be their problem as opposed to yours after all.


I fail to see what merits there may be to being seen as an asshole; could you elaborate?

The way I understand it, if someone thinks that you are an asshole then they won't listen to you.  If they don't listen to you, then trying to have an argument/discourse with them is a moot point.  Meanwhile, showing that you are willing to listen to their concerns, even if you don't understand or believe them, will encourage discussion and the flow of ideas.  And, more importantly, this can allow those with flawed beliefs to realize their own mistakes and adjust their behavior accordingly.  In my experience with debate and philosophy, this is much more likely to solve the underlying problems of an issue.
I have also come to accept that you can't please everyone; it's just a fact of life at this point.  Heck, I even knew a guy who hated my guts and nobody ever found out why.  But saying that it "may be their problem" when we live in a society where everybody's actions affect everybody else makes little sense to me.

And now to relate this to the topic at hand so that I'm not de-railing the thread:
I'm sick and tired of people complaining about SJWs.  I follow a fairly wide variety of news sources from all over the political spectrum.  Maybe the outlets I follow are crappy, but so often do I see the right half of the media getting angry and pissed at the left.  I don't see this as productive; even if you are correct in saying "I'm not a Nazi.  In fact I hate Nazis.", I fail to see how bringing it up will make any SJW listen to your case.  If anything, I feel like this behavior will just put a target on your back for these people.
And sure, I've seen similar behavior from some of the left-biased media I follow, but not to the extent with which I have described above.

Whatever the case, if you want to work towards solving the underlying problems, I don't see how complaining about SJWs is going to help.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 9, 2018)

slurs can be a fetish too btw


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 9, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> slurs can be a fetish too btw



I like paws a lot. Like, _a lot. _It's kinda weird, also no one probably wants to hear about. Anymore than they really want to have this nazi topic keep being brought up.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I like paws a lot. Like, _a lot. _It's kinda weird, also no one probably wants to hear about. Anymore than they really want to have this nazi topic keep being brought up.



yeah just fetish mixed with actual politics would be like the worst thing ever and quite cringe


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jun 9, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> There were alot of cases like his, where people whose worst crime was having a slightly abrasive sense of humor getting banned. It's asinine to me, and I feel it is just to assert it sets a bad precedent, these weren't even Alt furries who were banned.


Careful with your wording; your final clause can (correctly, in a grammatical sense) be parsed as asserting that none of the bans were enacted on alt furry accounts. Which is simply incorrect.

Again, I absolutely understand having reservations about the way the bans were enacted, including the scope of them. I have reservations of my own. However, the more appropriate way of presenting the objections you express would be to say that unrelated individuals got caught up in the ban, and that that type of collateral damage is unacceptable to you. When you generalize the cases of individuals who successfully appealed their bans to the whole, you are using the innocent to shield the guilty from blame. Which is pretty problematic, given the actions of the guilty in pushing boundaries likely were part of the reason the bans as a whole were enacted in the first place.


----------



## Massan Otter (Jun 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I like paws a lot. Like, _a lot. _It's kinda weird, also no one probably wants to hear about. Anymore than they really want to have this nazi topic keep being brought up.



I think you should go ahead and start that paw thread! It's SFW enough (potentially) and exactly the sort of discussion I want to see on a furry forum...


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 9, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I think you should go ahead and start that paw thread! It's SFW enough (potentially) and exactly the sort of discussion I want to see on a furry forum...



Ehm erm


----------



## Kyr (Jun 10, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The information posted is in addressing the "white privilege" issue. UBC is the host of the speaker, and the speaker is a known mid-right conspiracy theorist. His arguments don't hold up regardless of reputation, and he is an example of charlatans speaking outside their degree.
> 
> I explicitly pointed out that the group that advocates for White South Africans has denounced the racial motivation myth as the primary cause for attacks on white farms.
> 
> ...


Ok, i may have a fair few points to address here so prepare for a wall.

Let's start with the simple bit, Canada. Now, i have seen documentaries about Native activists that protest oil pipelines being placed on their land. They are fighting for their communities and their way of life as it's being threatened by big business. I agree with their principles and support their cause. Being awuitted for shooting a trespassing native? I assume you're referring to a specific instance here, but i would imagine the law that lead to the shooting being considered justified (in a legal sense, if not moral) was a blanket trespassing law, and not something that targeted natives deliberately.

South Africa.

"I explicitly pointed out that the group that advocates for White South Africans has denounced the racial motivation myth as the primary cause for attacks on white farms."

Describing racial motivation as a myth when you later go to state that they were white farms specifically seems rather contradictory. You said it yourself, it's a country that 30 years ago was living under an outright oppressively racist rule. Concepts of race and racism are intrinsically tied to the country's structure. Now, would there be attacks by poor black people against rich black farmers? Of course, the nature of poverty and jealousy would make sure of that. However, when it gets to a point where the government wants to take land away from Africans and give it and its resources to other Africans simply because of the colour of their skin, you cannot say that race isn't a motivating factor in this.

Race and poverty are intrinsically tied in America, at least in urban areas, but that is not the case here. Hopefully i am about to demonstrate that the conditions a vast number of black Americans live under is not primarily due to ingrained racism (although the overt racism of the past somewhat led to this modern predicament), but rather is the cause of poverty.






Here is a snapshot of estate life for poor English people. You have areas like this in every major city here and Chavs, as they're called, come in every colour. It's not about race, it's about poverty. I've posted this video as it addresses the concept of white privilege. Please tell me, if you can, how the men featured in the video have any sort of societal privilege. I can tell you, from living my entire life here, that these people share the bottom rung of society with all other races equally. They've been completely forgotten about by an indifferent government that sees them as nothing but the dregs of society. Now i wonder if that sounds familiar to anyone that's lived in Baltimore, Detroit or Chicago.

If you want me to keep going (as you mentioned the Alt Right and conspiracy theories), i can happily present an undercover documentary (Filmed by journalists working for Channel 4, a mainstream media source. BBC 3 is too btw.) that pretty much exposes a crypto fascist, extremist sect of Islam being propagated secretly within certain Mosques here that falls in line with the official beliefs of the Saudi government. Eh, i'll just post it because it's fascinating.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 10, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> I fail to see what merits there may be to being seen as an asshole; could you elaborate?
> 
> The way I understand it, if someone thinks that you are an asshole then they won't listen to you.  If they don't listen to you, then trying to have an argument/discourse with them is a moot point.  Meanwhile, showing that you are willing to listen to their concerns, even if you don't understand or believe them, will encourage discussion and the flow of ideas.  And, more importantly, this can allow those with flawed beliefs to realize their own mistakes and adjust their behavior accordingly.  In my experience with debate and philosophy, this is much more likely to solve the underlying problems of an issue.
> I have also come to accept that you can't please everyone; it's just a fact of life at this point.  Heck, I even knew a guy who hated my guts and nobody ever found out why.  But saying that it "may be their problem" when we live in a society where everybody's actions affect everybody else makes little sense to me.
> ...


I'll start by showing how it can be someone else's problem if they think you're an asshole.

"I don't see this as productive; even if you are correct in saying "I'm not a Nazi.  In fact I hate Nazis.", I fail to see how bringing it up will make any SJW listen to your case.  If anything, I feel like this behavior will just put a target on your back for these people."

I don't like using the broad term "SJW", but i'll use it here to compliment your choice of words. If an SJW decides that you're a Nazi, but you tell them sincerely that you're not a Nazi, and in fact hate them, but they don't listen to your case at that point because they've already consigned you to the nebulous crypto fascist zone. That's definitely their problem.

If you're seen as an asshole based on the half formed assumptions of other people that they refuse to address once they've initially been formed. They're the assholes for thinking you're an asshole. I get that if someone dislikes you for what you say then you might want to think about why they came to that conclusion, but at the same time just because someone thinks you're an asshole it doesn't mean you're actually being one. Motivation, perception and conviction are key in this matter, for both parties.

And if someone won't listen to you when you actually have something to say just because they think you're an asshole, that's definitely on them.

I can't help but feel that this video illustrates the importance of being an "asshole".


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 10, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Ok, i may have a fair few points to address here so prepare for a wall.
> 
> Let's start with the simple bit, Canada. Now, i have seen documentaries about Native activists that protest oil pipelines being placed on their land. They are fighting for their communities and their way of life as it's being threatened by big business. I agree with their principles and support their cause. Being awuitted for shooting a trespassing native? I assume you're referring to a specific instance here, but i would imagine the law that lead to the shooting being considered justified (in a legal sense, if not moral) was a blanket trespassing law, and not something that targeted natives deliberately.
> 
> ...



I already explained that black poverty in this country is the result of overtly racist policies such as redlining, which continued well past the sixties and still occur despite formal illegality. 

I never said exlusively white farms where targeted, that is a strawman. The white population controls somewhere in the ballpark of 73% of farmland, which they inherited from ancestors that stole it in the first place.

www.jrf.org.uk: Poverty rates among ethnic groups in Great Britain

Poverty isn't equal in the UK either.

A minority group of religious extremists (who aren't the political left) is nothing compared to US christian militias.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 10, 2018)

the Robin Hood thread and London part is probably exactly what's going on with neo-nazis 99% of the time

or it's not, but they mistake the comraderie of guys 'like them' as some kind of 'brotherhood', lol nope


----------



## Kyr (Jun 10, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I already explained that black poverty in this country is the result of overtly racist policies such as redlining, which continued well past the sixties and still occur despite formal illegality.
> 
> I never said exlusively white farms where targeted, that is a strawman. The white population controls somewhere in the ballpark of 73% of farmland, which they inherited from ancestors that stole it in the first place.
> 
> ...


I never said that exclusively white farms were targeted either, in fact i gave a brief explanation of why farms in general would be targeted. No strawman was built or even attempted to be built. The inherited from ancestors that stole it in the first place line is why they are racially motivated, there's going to be underlying cultural resentment for white South Africans because of the legacy of Apartheid. Thing is, native born South Africans are under threat of having their livelihoods taken away due to what exactly? Their skin colour and the sins of their fathers. Question, do you think farmers should have their farms taken away for these reasons?

That report is roughly 11 years old. The demographics of the country as well as its general levels of poverty have shifted dramatically since then. Plus you've missed the point somewhat for a second time. Again, please tell me how the people shown in that video were privileged due to their race.

Them not being part of a political left is irrelevant, the point is i provided evidence for something people like to dismiss as an Alt Right conspiracy theory. I fail to see how America's Christian militias are remotely relevant here. What do you want me to say to this? Yes, religious extremists are bad, no matter what religion they follow. I wonder though, are Christian militias the focal point for a deep societal divide and unofficial segregation in America at present?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 10, 2018)

Kyr said:


> I never said that exclusively white farms were targeted either, in fact i gave a brief explanation of why farms in general would be targeted. No strawman was built or even attempted to be built. The inherited from ancestors that stole it in the first place line is why they are racially motivated, there's going to be underlying cultural resentment for white South Africans because of the legacy of Apartheid. Thing is, native born South Africans are under threat of having their livelihoods taken away due to what exactly? Their skin colour and the sins of their fathers. Question, do you think farmers should have their farms taken away for these reasons?
> 
> That report is roughly 11 years old. The demographics of the country as well as its general levels of poverty have shifted dramatically since then. Plus you've missed the point somewhat for a second time. Again, please tell me how the people shown in that video were privileged due to their race.
> 
> Them not being part of a political left is irrelevant, the point is i provided evidence for something people like to dismiss as an Alt Right conspiracy theory. I fail to see how America's Christian militias are remotely relevant here. What do you want me to say to this? Yes, religious extremists are bad, no matter what religion they follow. I wonder though, are Christian militias the focal point for a deep societal divide and unofficial segregation in America at present?



"Describing racial motivation as a myth when you later go to state that they were white farms specifically seems rather contradictory."

You said I stated that it was specifically white farms that where targeted. You did in fact create a straw-man. Piss off.

Inheriting land that was stolen by your WHITE ancestors as a social program of racist appropriation of land from the natives and reaping the economic rewards of that theft with no reparations is a privilege. If you get caught steeling a car, you don't get to keep the car, even after serving your sentence. The owner gets it back. 

The "this report is old" isn't a valid argument, unless you have contrary data. I have more that shows the same problems still subsist.
www.independent.co.uk: The reality of racial inequality in the UK revealed in six graphs

One of the recent mass shooters was trained and encouraged in a religious militia. Some christians in political power are actively trying to advance a program of mandatory Gay Conversion Therapy for anyone who isn't straight. That number includes the Vice President, and a lobbying group that donated generously to Trump's campaign. The FRC also includes removing transgender individuals from military service in its game plan to tackle the issues of sin, so Trump is considering the money they gave him. It should also be noted that most white supremacists in the US are christian, and view it as part of their identity. Especially the KKK. Also, your country has seen a rise to power of its own white nationalist terrorists recently. 
UK terror arrests hit annual record as white suspects increase by 77%


----------



## Kyr (Jun 10, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> "Describing racial motivation as a myth when you later go to state that they were white farms specifically seems rather contradictory."
> 
> You said I stated that it was specifically white farms that where targeted. You did in fact create a straw-man. Piss off.
> 
> ...


"I explicitly pointed out that the group that advocates for White South Africans has denounced the racial motivation myth as the primary cause for attacks on white farms."

You were in fact talking about white farms specifically when you said this, your emotional reaction doesn't change the fact i was responding to something you focused on.  Not much straw here, i never stated that black farms wouldn't have been targeted either. In fact i gave a brief explanation of why they would be too.

Inheriting land is the privilege here, having WHITE ancestors is simply circumstantial. These people, by your own admission, were born into the land. And like it or not, they're African. They have what they have due to the inequality of the past. The question is. Should these people, who happened to be born white, have their livelihoods taken away from them for that reason?

I shouldn't have to explain how your car example is vastly over simplified and not exactly applicable.

Considering that report was released before the 2008 financial crisis and Brexit. Yes, it is a valid statement. The economy took a nosedive here as soon as that report was published, now we can barely fund our police force or educational system. The country as a whole is vastly worse off than it was when that report into poverty was created. The Independent article you quoted? I'm going to have to explain the class system to you aren't i...

Immigrants here are, by and large, members of the working class when they arrive. Middle class if they're coming to the country to work as doctors and such but for the most part, they will be in the unskilled/manual labour category. These people are the poorest in society. White people, in general, live in less poverty because of the established Middle and Upper classes. Immigrants start at the bottom, it's how it goes. So yes, they will be the most impoverished by any statistical measure. The "privilege" of the Middle and Upper classes isn't based on race, it's based on income, luck, and the determination of the previous generation. Whites having more in these societies is simply a consequence of whites being there longer to reap the rewards of the societies they established. Yes, this is where privilege comes in, but to describe it as having anything explicitly to do with race is ridiculous. Anyone can achieve the levels of "privilege" white people have in society within a few generations of hard work and determination.

And if you don't believe that, well i guess i'll have to remind you that Obama was your last POTUS.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Jun 10, 2018)

I mean even outside of traditional racism, the dynamics of nookie can feel a little awkward, I'd admit it. And I mean he's a burr so it just feels like 'my type' too, lol and we've really got same sort of interests, who cares


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jun 10, 2018)

Kyr said:


> "I explicitly pointed out that the group that advocates for White South Africans has denounced the racial motivation myth as the primary cause for attacks on white farms."
> 
> You were in fact talking about white farms specifically when you said this, your emotional reaction doesn't change the fact i was responding to something you focused on.  Not much straw here, i never stated that black farms wouldn't have been targeted either. In fact i gave a brief explanation of why they would be too.
> 
> ...



If you inherit stolen property you don't get to keep it, and the reason it was stolen was racist. So yes, that is a privilege exclusive to white south africans. 

Immigrants don't make up enough of the population for your reasoning to hold. Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Privilege is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people". White people by merit of racist policies of exploitation and segregation have established themselves as financially dominant, AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS. The reparations for those wrongs have been utterly insubstantial, meaning that white people inherit more money on average and at the upper end than black people. White people are more likely to have economic resources necessary for economic advancement. Residential area dominated by whites is better developed and better funded, especially in the US. Police profiling is prolific in the US. White privilege doesn't mean your life doesn't suck, but it doesn't suck because your white. Someone who's ancestors have been at the ass end of exploitation for almost half a milenium isn't going to have the same resources on average, and in many countries will face discrimination. The UK is probably the best country in Europe on the racism and xenephobia side of things, but still has its own history and racial issues.


----------



## DeeTheDragon (Jun 11, 2018)

Kyr said:


> I'll start by showing how it can be someone else's problem if they think you're an asshole.
> 
> "I don't see this as productive; even if you are correct in saying "I'm not a Nazi.  In fact I hate Nazis.", I fail to see how bringing it up will make any SJW listen to your case.  If anything, I feel like this behavior will just put a target on your back for these people."
> 
> ...


I'm still having trouble seeing how your conclusion "it's good to be seen as an asshole in the eyes of some people" follows from your argument.

I don't want to get too off topic, so I'll try and keep everything linked to the overall thread.  Some comments/questions before I start:
1.  My entire SJW paragraph was more of an attempt to tie in my argument to the overall discussion.  It was kind of half-assed and insomnia driven, but I'll have a better segway at the end of this post.  I want to try and avoid group generalizations so I'll just drop the SJW talk.
2.  I'm not sure if we're using the same definition for 'asshole'?  I'm referring to people who are inconsiderate, disrespectful, outright rude, or a combination of those and similar characteristics.

In my experience people will very rarely, if ever, refuse to address opinions that they have formed.  My experience may be somewhat skewed, as most of my debating knowledge comes from interacting with friends, family, classmates and teachers in my philosophy courses, etc.  Yet in the times that I have stepped out of my comfort zone to debate with strangers, I have never met a person who was incapable of/unwilling to listen and reason with me.  And I think behavior plays a huge role in the ability to reason with others.  When I see someone else holding a belief that I see to be faulty, it does wonders to listen to them and try to understand their point of view better.  In turn, they will often return the favor and try to understand my viewpoint more clearly.  Meanwhile, trying to get somebody to "take my word for it" usually ends very poorly.
Tying this into the "asshole" argument:  People are rarely, if ever, assholes without a reason.  And if you are able to uncover said reasoning you will usually find that either: you held flawed beliefs (and hopefully adjust accordingly), they held flawed beliefs (and if they find this out themselves they will usually adjust accordingly), or more commonly, you were both correct/flawed in your beliefs and were failing to communicate them properly.

As for the video you posted, I'm not quite sure how what Jordan Peterson is saying is related to being an asshole to others.  It seems to be more along the lines of standing up for yourself, and I don't see how standing up for yourself and being an asshole are equivalent.  What he's saying is important for sure; I have a family friend who would likely be rich if he didn't let other people walk all over him, and his life seems to be falling apart because of it.  But you can still stand up for yourself and be kind and respectful to others (unless you are arguing for being disrespectful to others or the like).

So to tie this back to the thread's main point: "what is a Nazi".
I think that over the years, many words have lost their impact and value, not just the word "Nazi".  While there are likely exceptions, I don't think many people truly believe that you're a literal Nazi when they use the word (in areas such as internet social media.  Well respected news media sources are very reserved in these claims).  More often, I see it equated to someone being an inconsiderate asshole (the term grammar Nazi comes to mind).  So if someone were to incorrectly label me as a Nazi, I would see it as much more productive to dig into the reasoning behind their belief as opposed to directly attacking their belief.  And this could be done by asking questions:  _What do you mean by Nazi?  What have I said/done that makes you believe that?  What makes you say that?_  And then sharing my understanding.  Meanwhile, if I say "I'm not a Nazi", then I am in fact being an inconsiderate asshole and refusing to listen to them.  Thusly reinforcing their beliefs and doing absolute diddly to support my case.

tl;dr:  The way people use words has been changing.  I don't really like it, but I can't change how people interpret vocabulary on my own so I go with the flow.
Also, I don't think standing up for yourself and being a non-asshole are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jun 14, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Haven't read the rest of the thread, feel the need to respond to this. Hope you're still around to read it Ovi.
> 
> Disdain for women? No. I don't have a sweeping dislike of half the members of society because vagina. I had a bisexual phase and repeatedly found myself in emotionally abusive relationships with women. Women can be cunts too, that's a fact. If you were really listening to anything i've been saying you'd know that i treat people individually, and don't judge by some arbitrary group trait. When men fight they use physical violence, when women fight it's psychological. It's a valid means of defense for a group that's biologically weaker from a physical standpoint. All i've touched on in the past is being a victim of psychological abuse from the women i had the misfortune of dating, it happens.
> 
> ...


I know about this and it is concerning, but you are acting like those people you say who are always getting triggered and are always the victim because they see someone else like them get hurt. Unless you live in South Africa then you're full of shit. No one is oppressing you. If you aren't in South Africa, then you are acting like a "professional victim" like all those sjws you types like to talk about.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jun 14, 2018)

As an addition to my first post, if you are South African, then try your best to bring equality to your country. Almost all I've seen you talk about is how many women have wronged you and how white people seem to be oppressed everywhere and black people are getting all the good treatment. It isn't like that everywhere and generalizing hurts causes. Especially around things as touchy as race. The situation in South Africa is a damn complicated one and everyone should be equal. Fight for your rights. Just don't shit on others'.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 14, 2018)

Kyr said:


> "I explicitly pointed out that the group that advocates for White South Africans has denounced the racial motivation myth as the primary cause for attacks on white farms."
> 
> You were in fact talking about white farms specifically when you said this, your emotional reaction doesn't change the fact i was responding to something you focused on.  Not much straw here, i never stated that black farms wouldn't have been targeted either. In fact i gave a brief explanation of why they would be too.
> 
> ...



It's not merely circumstantial that those white people simply inherited the land. The land was often if not always taken by force. It's not a straight across example, and the fact that you ignore the history of white colonialism is very telling. And I'm sure I don't have to explain what I mean there, so don't be asking me for additional clarification in that high and mighty pseudo-intellectual tone you often take. I've read enough of your posts to gauge your true philosophy pretty well.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> It's not merely circumstantial that those white people simply inherited the land. The land was often if not always taken by force. It's not a straight across example, and the fact that you ignore the history of white colonialism is very telling. And I'm sure I don't have to explain what I mean there, so don't be asking me for additional clarification in that high and mighty pseudo-intellectual tone you often take. I've read enough of your posts to gauge your true philosophy pretty well.


I'm not ignoring the history of anything. The question is simple, is it right for Africans to take away the land of other Africans because of the colour of their skin, and/or because of the legacy that skin carries?

Is that the right thing to do or is that just getting even?

And if you're just getting even like that does that make you, fundamentally, any better than the people who took away your livelihood/way of life in the past?

I'm very busy atm but i'll get to all of these replies eventually, in all honesty posting in this thread is just pointlessly taxing at this point.

Now, Bahg. I'm curious, what do you think my true philosophy is? I'm sure it would be very interesting to hear.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 16, 2018)

Kyr said:


> I'm not ignoring the history of anything. The question is simple, is it right for Africans to take away the land of other Africans because of the colour of their skin, and/or because of the legacy that skin carries?
> 
> Is that the right thing to do or is that just getting even?
> 
> ...



I think your true philosophy is deliberated masked beneath an enormous amount of deliberately superfluous pseudo intellectualism in order to avoid criticism.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 16, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I know about this and it is concerning, but you are acting like those people you say who are always getting triggered and are always the victim because they see someone else like them get hurt. Unless you live in South Africa then you're full of shit. No one is oppressing you. If you aren't in South Africa, then you are acting like a "professional victim" like all those sjws you types like to talk about.





Ovi the Dragon said:


> As an addition to my first post, if you are South African, then try your best to bring equality to your country. Almost all I've seen you talk about is how many women have wronged you and how white people seem to be oppressed everywhere and black people are getting all the good treatment. It isn't like that everywhere and generalizing hurts causes. Especially around things as touchy as race. The situation in South Africa is a damn complicated one and everyone should be equal. Fight for your rights. Just don't shit on others'.


Son, how am i acting like i'm triggered and always the victim? Shit happens, to everyone. Everyone will end up being the victim of something.

Unless i live in South Africa i'm full of shit? Elaborate on why or keep your weak, dismissive assertions to yourself. Did i say anyone was oppressing me? Do i talk about SJW types? Provide proof or don't bother talking.

Where, anywhere on this forum, have i said that black people are getting all the good treatment? Are you kidding me kid, seriously. Do you have any idea what West Baltimore looks like? Of the conditions some black people live in due to the fact that their communities have been forgotten about? Fuck do you know how the Bloods and Crips were formed, and what for? Because i fucking well do. Drugs just decimated black communities in the 80s, and it's something that's almost impossible to improve while America's policy of War on Drugs is in place. There are some hopeless, desolate situations there. And fuck, because i point out that white people can live in surprisingly similar situations over here i'm suddenly screeching about White people being oppressed?

Really.

And then you talk to me about equality? Son. Black people and white people, (any fucking person really, regardless of what they identify as) are united in poverty. They're united in wealth too, although at a level that could definitely be improved. Look outside your own country's borders and you'll see the stories are all the same. The only thing that changes are the faces, and the colour of their skin.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I think your true philosophy is deliberated masked beneath an enormous amount of deliberately superfluous pseudo intellectualism in order to avoid criticism.


What are the principles of the philosophy i apparently mask?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 16, 2018)

Kyr said:


> What are the principles of the philosophy i apparently mask?



Did you actually just ask me that?


----------



## Kyr (Jun 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Did you actually just ask me that?


Yes. If you've genuinely clocked my beliefs/philosophy and believe i mask it behind deliberately superfluous pseudo intellectualism then not only will you be able to tell me what i mask with pseudo intellectualism but what my root philosophy is, you should be able to make some sort of guess at least.

If not then you're simply incorrect (i mean you're wrong anyway, but i'd like to understand what you think i am). Back up your claims with some logic, in essence.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 16, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Yes. If you've genuinely clocked my beliefs/philosophy and believe i mask it behind deliberately superfluous pseudo intellectualism then not only will you be able to tell me what i mask with pseudo intellectualism but what my root philosophy is, you should be able to make some sort of guess at least.
> 
> If not then you're simply incorrect (i mean you're wrong anyway, but i'd like to understand what you think i am). Back up your claims with some logic, in essence.



How would I be able to guess what your root philosophy is when I've just pointed out that you deliberately bury it, often with red herring style question asking like you're doing here. Not playing your mind games.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> How would I be able to guess what your root philosophy is when I've just pointed out that you deliberately bury it, often with red herring style question asking like you're doing here. Not playing your mind games.


Ok, better question.

What has led you to believe that i'm deliberately burying what i believe behind red herrings?

As far as i remember i've outright stated my Political ideology, although maybe not my philosophy. In which case, Nihilism is the bedrock of it. It's complicated though and i'm not sure if i want to explain how to find meaning and value through a philosophy that fundamentally negates meaning itself.


----------



## Axelfox (Jun 16, 2018)

Alondight said:


> It's not really a flexible term, and to be a Nazi, a National Socialist, you have to be the following things:
> - A White (or to be more precise, a Germanic) Supremascist
> - opposed to any form of sexual deviancy (Homosexuality; most if not all fetishes; interracial relationships)
> - "deny", or rather, believe in a different truth about the Holocaust ( à la "Gas chambers don't have wooden doors")
> ...




What is Ironic of course is that the first Aryans came from Pakistan.

I think if it was pointed out to a white supremist,their heads would explode

www.thestudentroom.co.uk: Pakistanis are of Aryan decent.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jun 19, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Son, how am i acting like i'm triggered and always the victim? Shit happens, to everyone. Everyone will end up being the victim of something.
> 
> Unless i live in South Africa i'm full of shit? Elaborate on why or keep your weak, dismissive assertions to yourself. Did i say anyone was oppressing me? Do i talk about SJW types? Provide proof or don't bother talking.
> 
> ...


If you say shit happens to everyone then you should stop freaking out about lgbt or black people freaking out as well.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jun 19, 2018)

Kyr said:


> Son, how am i acting like i'm triggered and always the victim? Shit happens, to everyone. Everyone will end up being the victim of something.
> 
> Unless i live in South Africa i'm full of shit? Elaborate on why or keep your weak, dismissive assertions to yourself. Did i say anyone was oppressing me? Do i talk about SJW types? Provide proof or don't bother talking.
> 
> ...


And I'm saying this because you act like an sjw freaking out about the other side even though you reeeeee about the other side having sjws. Just because you're on the right and freaking out it doesn't make you not an sjw.


----------



## Filter (Jun 19, 2018)




----------



## Yakamaru (Jun 19, 2018)

Filter said:


>








Also. Here's another complimentary Grammar Nazi(who have no idea on how to react to people's mess).


----------



## Kyr (Jun 19, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> If you say shit happens to everyone then you should stop freaking out about lgbt or black people freaking out as well.





Ovi the Dragon said:


> And I'm saying this because you act like an sjw freaking out about the other side even though you reeeeee about the other side having sjws. Just because you're on the right and freaking out it doesn't make you not an sjw.


3 questions.

How am i freaking out about gays or black people? Also, just because suffering is unavoidable doesn't mean we shouldn't think critically about it and strive to lessen the burden of suffering where possible.

When did i...reeee, about social justice warriors? The term SJW is as idiotically dismissive as Nazi nowadays. I'm against what i see as a naive, harmful mindset amongst certain subsets of the modern American left but i don't dismiss these people out of hand, or give them a catch all name so i can hand wave them away. I'd be a hypocrite if i did that.

How am i on the right, and how am i also an SJW? That...frankly Ovi, i just got home from a 10 hour shift and i'm not mentally equipped to deal with this level of...let's call it logic rn. Are you legitimately calling me a right leaning SJW here?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Jun 19, 2018)

... dafuq is a right wing SJW?


----------



## Troj (Jun 19, 2018)

Dafuq indeed!


----------



## Kyr (Jun 20, 2018)

After seeing those videos, i think i know what the issue is here.

People have politicized being a fuckwit, and it seems people have (somewhat successfully) attempted to rebrand the term SJW so it describes fuckwits on any (note i said any and not both, the left/right divide is overly simplistic and outdated) political side.

Lying, bitching about nothing and trying to censor people politically is never ok, whatever side you may be on.


----------



## Troj (Jun 20, 2018)

I usually call right-wing and centrist whiners "Status Quo Warriors," personally.

Personally, I think it's more about people being snowflakes than just general fuckwits. At this point, "SJW" and "snowflake" are often treated as interchangeable terms--where "snowflake" describes a thin-skinned, hypersensitive, immature person who implicitly expects the world to cater to their personal feelings and expectations "because reasons." When the world fails to cater to their feelings or expectations, they take it personally, and automatically assume malicious intent.

(Of course, "snowflake" is also  regularly mis-applied to people who have legitimate ethical concerns and/or reasonable expectations. Ironically, people who throw around words like "snowflake" willy-nilly tend to be snowflakes themselves, because they can't handle criticism or dissent in any form.)


----------



## Kumali (Jun 21, 2018)

I'll just leave this here: 

www.haaretz.com: Far-right organizers of Charlottesville rally get approval for D.C. march near White House

Yep, that's a swastika on the flag in the photo, next to a Confederate flag...so let's not deceive ourselves any longer as to exactly what "Unite the Right" and their ilk are.


----------



## Simo (Jun 21, 2018)

Also in the WAPO today:

www.washingtonpost.com: ‘Unite the Right’ organizer gets approval for rally anniversary event in D.C.

And a quote from the organizer: (Nazi)

"A week after last year’s rally, Kessler tweeted that Heyer “was a fat, disgusting Communist” and that her death was “payback time.” He later repudiated the tweet, saying he had been drinking and taking Ambien and Xanax."

As always, blame things on something else! Of course, it was the drugs doing the talking, not him...

Well, he wants to do this right across from the White House; I guess Trump can then thank all the 'fine people' among the neo-nazis Kessler brings...


----------



## Troj (Jun 21, 2018)

Wait, I thought drug abuse and/or dependence was for "degenerates" or "untermenschen?" It's almost like there's no actual, grounded rationale or moral conviction for anything here!


----------



## Kyr (Jun 21, 2018)

I'm sure there's a joke here about gays forcing Nazis into the closet...


Troj said:


> I usually call right-wing and centrist whiners "Status Quo Warriors," personally.
> 
> Personally, I think it's more about people being snowflakes than just general fuckwits. At this point, "SJW" and "snowflake" are often treated as interchangeable terms--where "snowflake" describes a thin-skinned, hypersensitive, immature person who implicitly expects the world to cater to their personal feelings and expectations "because reasons." When the world fails to cater to their feelings or expectations, they take it personally, and automatically assume malicious intent.
> 
> (Of course, "snowflake" is also  regularly mis-applied to people who have legitimate ethical concerns and/or reasonable expectations. Ironically, people who throw around words like "snowflake" willy-nilly tend to be snowflakes themselves, because they can't handle criticism or dissent in any form.)


I had noticed. Initially it was met with a degree of ire because, knowing what i do about how the term SJW was initially applied and the group the term was used against i saw it as simply setting up a false equivalency where those that have been labelled Social Justice Warriors can simply dismiss their critics by calling them Status Quo Warriors.

I'm sure you know how the term SJW is so casually applied, and i don't think introducing the idea of an SQW will to anything to improve discourse. There's also the issue that such terminology sets things up as a traditionally Conservative VS Liberal issue, which it simply isn't.

Everyone is a snowflake, isn't the point of calling someone a snowflake to point out how stupid they're being because ultimately they're just like everyone else?
I know The Young Turks started using snowflake as an insult to "right wing" types because the insult was thrown at people like them and they decided to be passive aggressive.

Either way, the concept of insulting someone by calling them a snowflake is stupid. Which, ironically, is why only snowflakes are insulted by the term.


----------



## Kyr (Jun 21, 2018)

But seeing as we're unfortunately back on topic, here's a video that highlights the nature of the Aryan Brotherhood.






Surprisingly it's not actually a clickbait title.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 22, 2018)

@SSJ3Mewtwo lock because necro?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Sep 22, 2018)

What a drama queen


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Sep 22, 2018)

The Nazi lable is a quite over used Term today. In modern internet Culture it has become some kind of synonym for someone who is overly strict on something. As for me Nazi is a Term discribing someone with ultra right nationalist or fascist attitude. He/she is defined by this 14 characteristics:

-chauvinism
-strident and obtrusive Nationalism.
-contempt for basic civil rights.
-designating certain minoritys as scapegoats to rally their supporters against a seemingly common enemy.
-Strong emphasis on military and show of force.
-unbridled Sexism or strait up misogyny and homophobia
-attempts to manipulate the perceptions of others through propaganda and made up storries.
-Obsession with terms of national security and revocation of civil rights to preserve it.
-Verry rigid and fundamentalist religious views used as political agenda.
-approves the repeal of checks and balances in favour of a single authoritarian leadership precept.
-Strong belives in the inequality of people and the breakdown of society in elitist and underclass people.
-Contempt for Art and all forms of intellectuality
-Obsession with Law & Order.
-Obsession with success, competion, and the belive that only the strong deserve to survive.


----------



## Alondight (Sep 22, 2018)

Did Gryphon just necro a cancerous thread to score points? Ugh. Seeing the recent happenings, maybe we should rather focus on actual problems the fandom has, like groups of zoosadists.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2018)

Alondight said:


> Did Gryphon just necro a cancerous thread to score points? Ugh. Seeing the recent happenings, maybe we should rather focus on actual problems the fandom has, like groups of zoosadists.


Such a discussion would be swiftly terminated by mods over "huwt zoowophile feewings"


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 22, 2018)

Gryphoneer said:


> So yeah, after I- uh, I mean _someone_ got good ol' Yakamaru banned, I guess it's finally safe to let the facts be heard without risk of getting shouted down by the altfur mob.
> The quoted above? It's literally a bunch of nazi talking points strung together.
> 
> 
> ...


I remember when I got banned for a month for calling out Yaka and Kyr. Funny how they're both gone now. It feels like the forums are slowly getting cleaner and the only crazy people left are few and far between or trolls who get banned within a day.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 22, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I remember when I got banned for a month for calling out Yaka and Kyr. Funny how they're both gone now. It feels like the forums are slowly getting cleaner and the only crazy people left are few and far between or trolls who get banned within a day.




I knew Yaka was on the right for some time, but some of the stuff he has said in the past 5 months (being the most politically charged time since I joined this forum) I gave the side-eye to. People who cling to a certain way of thinking for too long tend to concern me.


----------



## Jarren (Sep 22, 2018)

Gryphoneer said:


> we all will come for you.


....
Yikes.


----------



## Alondight (Sep 22, 2018)

Gryphoneer said:


> Should anybody else harbor such sympathies, be aware I'm representing more than just one individual firebrand.
> 
> And we all will come for you.


You're trying too hard to make it sound like you achieved something.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

I definitely think people who found themselves agreeing with posts by Yakamaru, Ciderfine, Kyr, ResolutionBlaze, and so forth should re-evaluate the reasons that they agreed, in light of the fact that all of these users have managed to get themselves banned for antisemitic posts, defending hateful ideologies, harassing transgender users and so forth. 

I am not convinced that re-opening this thread, especially in his way, is going to prompt people to do this though.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Sep 22, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> antisemitic posts, defending hateful ideologies, harassing transgender users and so forth.


I'm sure you pulled that out of your butt


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 22, 2018)

This place was nice just long enough for me to grow attached to people, and then everything went to shit so fucking fast and has stayed there almost the entire time. At least 2 users deleted their accounts over this shit, 3 banned, and a shit ton inactive or feeling relegated to Forum Games because the actual discussion forums periodically get overrun with social justice trolls and their never ending political discourse.

They aren't even around now, and you're still airing your dirty laundry around for no absolutely no reason but to upset people.
Ok.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 22, 2018)

But go ahead continuing to pretend you're some kind of misunderstood heros, protecting the forums from some great threat out tiny minds can't understand.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I'm sure you pulled that out of your butt



You were around to see the actions that got these user banned. 
These are the last posts by Ciderfine by example. 
forums.furaffinity.net: Sketchbook: - Transgender Children's Book


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 22, 2018)

Gryphoneer said:


> So yeah, after I- uh, I mean _someone_ got good ol' Yakamaru banned, I guess it's finally safe to let the facts be heard without risk of getting shouted down by the altfur mob.
> The quoted above? It's literally a bunch of nazi talking points strung together.
> 
> 
> ...



Are you serious? You're a funny guy. ☺

Look dude - I don't know you.. but (with all due respect) - I think you probably need to take these issues over to Discord where they belong - and where many of those other (now banned) former users have migrated to, en masse.

Perhaps the "Wild West" free-for-all moderation system (over there) can provide you (and these other folks) a viable platform to engage in the knock down, drag out fights over these issues that (both sides) seem to be determined to engage in.

I tell you what, (here's a suggestion) : you can "copy and cut" this entire thread, if you like - and then paste it over there on Discord - and you and these other folks can take things up - right where you left off, two weeks ago.

You can fight about this for days on end, if desired... and best of all: none of us here on the Forum will have to read it anymore. Sound cool? ☺


----------



## Corrupt-Canine (Sep 22, 2018)

Hmm nothing has changed lol. 
A Nazi is any person who disagrees with you.


----------



## Pipistrele (Sep 22, 2018)

WHAT IS A NAZI? A MISERABLE PILE OF HATRED! BUT ENOUGH TALK! HAVE AT YOU!


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> This place was nice just long enough for me to grow attached to people, and then everything went to shit so fucking fast and has stayed there almost the entire time. At least 2 users deleted their accounts over this shit, 3 banned, and a shit ton inactive or feeling relegated to Forum Games because the actual discussion forums periodically get overrun with social justice trolls and their never ending political discourse.
> 
> They aren't even around now, and you're still airing your dirty laundry around for no absolutely no reason but to upset people.
> Ok.



I don't want to be the person who has to remind everybody, but I've actually been_ asked _to comment on this. 

This place _wasn't _just everybody being nice and getting along before these users were banned.

There was a really nasty atmosphere that made a lot of users, particularly the forum's Jewish users, feel very uncomfortable here.
Those users who were banned, like Yakamaru, ResolutionBlaze and Kyr, had posted images of Swastikas, made posts questioning the extent of the Holocaust and defended the right of neonazis to speak at public events. They made posts implying that allowing gay people to adopt would facilitate child abuse. :\
One of them confessed to being friends with people who identified as supporters of neonazism, and being a member of a banned alt-right discord server. 

It is important that we remember why these users were banned, because they might try to get permission to come back one day after they think everybody's forgotten why they were banned.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 22, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> @SSJ3Mewtwo lock because necro?


^This and....


Gryphoneer said:


> Nah, I'm just closing some loose ends. Should anybody else harbor such sympathies, be aware I'm representing more than just one individual firebrand.
> 
> And we all will come for you.
> 
> ...


Dude knock off the high and mighty attitude you are only going to push people away from liberal and progressive ideology. By being an immature brat by dragging others into your argument with another user you are going to be rejected and ridiculed by the bystanders you drag into the fight.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 22, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> This place was nice just long enough for me to grow attached to people, and then everything went to shit so fucking fast and has stayed there almost the entire time. At least 2 users deleted their accounts over this shit, 3 banned, and a shit ton inactive or feeling relegated to Forum Games because the actual discussion forums periodically get overrun with social justice trolls and their never ending political discourse.
> 
> They aren't even around now, and you're still airing your dirty laundry around for no absolutely no reason but to upset people.
> Ok.



Some have decided they need to seek out a scapegoat to lay the blame on for every single issue the forum ever had.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 22, 2018)

I get the feeling that I'm next on your peoples list of those who should be banned from here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I get the feeling that I'm next on your peoples list of those who should be banned from here.



You didn't do any of those nasty things that got those other guys banned, Nexus. 

I was rather hoping that people who often agreed with these recently banned posters would sort of have an opportunity to introspect and think 'how did those guys ever get me to agree with them?'' and that would be a good process for people to go through.  (and some calm would give people an opportunity to actually go to the art section and look at my paintings, damnit) 
I feel like Gryphoneer's bump was all about making people feel like they should be worried about him coming for them though. Which is just...ugh my head. :C


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 22, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I get the feeling that I'm next on your peoples list of those who should be banned from here.


I sincerely doubt that as you said *You will not align your self with alt-furry.* That is what I recalled you said or something along those lines. Edit: Just to clarify the other groups I know you will not associate are Nazis and white supremacist movements.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 22, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> You didn't do any of those nasty things that got those other guys banned, Nexus.
> 
> I was rather hoping that people who often agreed with these recently banned posters would sort of have an opportunity to introspect and think 'how did those guys ever get me to agree with them?'' and that would be a good process for people to go through.  (and some calm would give people an opportunity to actually go to the art section and look at my paintings, damnit)
> I feel like Gryphoneer's bump was all about making people feel like they should be worried about him coming for them though. Which is just...ugh my head. :C


I agree that the things the others said that got them kicked out was pretty bad, but I'm getting the feeling that this is only the beginning of a massive forum purge. I'm sorry those guys said those things. I had no idea it bothered everyone this much. If I knew I would have said more, but some of the people here seem like they still aren't satisfied with the state of things, and want anyone they see as an obstacle to their desired vision of this place to be removed. That's what is bothering me.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 22, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I sincerely doubt that as you said *You will not align your self with alt-furry.* That is what I recalled you said or something along those lines. Edit: Just to clarify the other groups I know you will not associate are Nazis and white supremacist movements.


I've lost count of how many times I have had to explain that to people. It gets exhausting pretty fast.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 22, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I've lost count of how many times I have had to explain that to people. It gets exhausting pretty fast.


I understand how you feel heck I feel terrified of getting compared to Stalin along with stereotypical communist behavior for being a Democrat and Liberal for goodness sake.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 22, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I understand how you feel heck I feel terrified of getting compared to Stalin along with stereotypical communist behavior for being a Democrat and Liberal for goodness sake.


It constantly puts you in a corner and makes any interaction with an opposing view a stressful challenge.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

I wish somebody would put me in a corner and punish me. :3

What? Who said that?


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 22, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I understand how you feel heck I feel terrified of getting compared to Stalin along with stereotypical communist behavior for being a Democrat and Liberal for goodness sake.



The antithesis to the Nazi/Hitler accusation. I seen that a few times before thrown at leftists, it's just as dumb, lol. Naturally, people without a good argument, want to equate the opposing side as the worst thing they can think of, because composing a good argument is too mentally taxing.


----------



## AppleButt (Sep 22, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I get the feeling that I'm next on your peoples list of those who should be banned from here.



I don’t think so.  You seem pretty cool and chill.  

I can’t recall any time I remember you having any questionable views that made me want to give the side eye to.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 22, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> It constantly puts you in a corner and makes any interaction with an opposing view a stressful challenge.


Let me also state I am guilty of sometimes when I am alone I say nasty things about Republicans and Conservatives. I truly hate myself when I know there are good Republicans like you and others who get lumped in with the bad apples. IT IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR TO YOU AT ALL OR ANY DECENT MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 22, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Let me also state I am guilty of sometimes when I am alone I say nasty things about Republicans and Conservatives. I truly hate myself when I know there are good Republicans like you and others who get lumped in with the bad apples. IT IS SIMPLY NOT FAIR TO YOU AT ALL OR ANY DECENT MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.


I don't consider myself a republican anymore to be honest.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 22, 2018)

So I think now would be a good time for some real talk. @Gryphoneer was clearly trying to make himself out to be the Ultimate Leftist Hero and deserved to be called out on that. You shouldn't get a Noble Peace Prize for criticizing behavior that is clearly racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or whatever. Just do it and go on about your day. This is why people labelled SJWs sometimes. I was disappointed too because, despite my politics, I see eye to eye with most of his posts on the subject of hate.

Having put that out there, keep in mind @Infrarednexus that you did associate with Yakamaru and ResolutionBlaze and even defended them quite frequently, most often unjustifiably. I've seen you raise the argument that hate speech is free speech and use the term forced multiculturalism, which, let's be honest, is coded language for racial integration. Being a conservative in the fandom can be rough, especially now, but that doesn't mean you have to defend those promoting the worst aspects of conservatism. I haven't and other conservatives here haven't either. You can do the same. I don't think you're the same as the others who have been banned for bigoted behavior masquerading as conservatism, though. I agree with @Fallowfox on that. Just move forward.

That said, since those guys have been banned or left, things have been a lot more peaceful the past few days. I think if we treat each other with deserved respect we can make that last.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 22, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I don't consider myself a republican anymore to be honest.


That is okay too! Whatever works with you the most we all have to carve a path in life. Edit:


			
				Unicon said:
			
		

> So I think now would be a good time for some real talk. @Gryphoneer was clearly trying to make himself out to the Ultimate Leftist Hero and deserved to be called out on that. You shouldn't get a Noble Peace Prize for criticizing behavior that is clearly racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or whatever. Just do it and go on about your day. This is why people labelled SJWs sometimes. I was disappointed too because, despite my politics, I see eye to eye most of his posts on the subject of hate.
> 
> Having put that out there, keep in mind @Infrarednexus that you did associate with Yakamaru and ResolutionBlaze and even defended them quite frequently, most often unjustifiably. I seen you raise the argument that hate speech is free speech and use the term forced multiculturalism, which, let's be honest, is coded language for racial integration. Being a conservative in the fandom can be rough, especially now, but that doesn't mean you have to defend those promoting the worst aspects of conservatism. I haven't and other conservative here haven't either. You can do the same. I don't think you're the same as the other who have been banned for bigoted behavior masquerading as conservatism, though. I agree with @Fallowfox on that. Just move forward.
> 
> That said, since those guys have been banned or left, things have been a lot more peaceful the past few days. I think if we treat each other with deserved respect we can make that last.


 Let me add on to to my post with post posted above me. I think another reason why we are reassuring you @Infrarednexus is because you are genuinely nice a guy and we do not think you are part of those hate groups. I simply cannot fathom the thought at all.


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 22, 2018)

It's a term that that some people are using incorrectly as part of a witch hunt to *distract* from atrocious hidden things in the fandom that are coming to light in recent years. (and they will, no matter how crazy this witch hunt gets.)

When you wanna put people who are questioning bestiality freaks or those who are close to uncovering victimizers of young furs on the defense, simply declare them Nazi and they'll be forced to stop their digging to clear their name, maybe even be distracted with fear of bike lock or urine attacks.

Order and sanity is going to be restored, so don't fret. Try and enjoy your little piece of the fandom and hunker down.

Treat it like a hobby, and hold on loosely.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 22, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I remember when I got banned for a month for calling out Yaka and Kyr. Funny how they're both gone now. It feels like the forums are slowly getting cleaner and the only crazy people left are few and far between or trolls who get banned within a day.




Guess I'm one of the last crazies on this forum eh?


----------



## KyryK (Sep 22, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't want to be the person who has to remind everybody, but I've actually been_ asked _to comment on this.
> 
> This place _wasn't _just everybody being nice and getting along before these users were banned.
> 
> ...


For posterity's sake, i ran into Kyr when i was  DMing you and Yaka's group about this political drama a while back. Spoke to him a little after giving his name the compliment it deserved and he told me why he was banned, gave a screenshot in fact.







He told me he found this rather funny as he's gay and he offended a straight person to get banned for that but idk, i wasn't there.
Regardless, he wasn't banned for any apparent racist actions.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 22, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Guess I'm one of the last crazies on this forum eh?


Eh. You're a little crazy on some stuff but nothing compared to those two.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 22, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Eh. You're a little crazy on some stuff but nothing compared to those two.




It's ok, just saw a shrink....

Got the all clear


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

KyryK said:


> For posterity's sake, i ran into Kyr when i was  DMing you and Yaka's group about this political drama a while back. Spoke to him a little after giving his name the compliment it deserved and he told me why he was banned, gave a screenshot in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Long story short Kyr was notorious for making _this _kind of post.




Rather speaks for itself. 

It is good that these people are banned from the forum.
Their bans are *not* the result of innocent mistakes or misunderstandings.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 22, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Long story short Kyr was notorious for making _this _kind of post.
> View attachment 41720
> 
> Rather speaks for itself.
> ...


You're right, but honestly that's not even the most heinous statement I've read of his.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 22, 2018)

Unicon said:


> You're right, but honestly that's not even the most heinous statement I've read of his.



Agreed. I remember posts in which he suggested that nazis were the victims of societal prejudice 'in the same way' as the victims of the Holocaust, or that improving social equality would result in white men having to fight for their basic rights as human beings.

But you can't index-through a banned member's posts in an easy way, because they don't appear on official lists, so it is difficult to find their old posts.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 22, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Agreed. I remember posts in which he suggested that nazis were the victims of societal prejudice 'in the same way' as the victims of the Holocaust, or that improving social equality would result in white men having to fight for their basic rights as human beings.
> 
> But you can't index-through a banned member's posts in an easy way, because they don't appear on official lists, so it is difficult to find their old posts.


I forgot he that argued that way back. The ban was well deserved.


----------



## Simo (Sep 22, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> But you can't index-through a banned member's posts in an easy way, because they don't appear on official lists, so it is difficult to find their old posts.



And even harder when certain (rather lengthy) threads were not just 'locked', but deleted from the forums entirely. There were a number of those.

It's ironic, the odd parallel, given this notion of trying to forget or overlook history.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Sep 22, 2018)

Simo said:


> And even harder when certain (rather lengthy) threads were not just 'locked', but deleted from the forums entirely. There were a number of those.
> 
> It's ironic, the odd parallel, given this notion of trying to forget or overlook history.


Locking does preserve them, I guess, but deleting them can make it hard to point back to them. Slightly playing devil's advocate, you might not those kinds of posts up in public for the world to see if you're running a site.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 22, 2018)

The recent bans aren't part of some leftist purge, some people jumped the crazy shark and where being bigots, and they got banned. Necroing an old thread to gloat about it is a waste of time.

Nazi is used in three ways in the English language;

1. To denote members of the Nazi party or Neonazis.

2. To denote actual fascists, or bigoted extremist.

3. As an insult, implying authoritarian behavior or manarisms.

While the right often bitches about the left overbroadly defining the term, or using it as an insult, that exists in the context of some right wingers having long used the term "feminazi" to describe feminists they disagree with for about a decade now.

Accusation that the third common usage is being used is a common deflection by outright bigots, who would gladly see the police string their political oppenents up by the lamp posts. Said people will often accuse criticism as a violation of free speech, and people and organizations choosing not to assosciate with them as a form of oppression.

Right and left are honestly bad terms to define politics, so I will say the political circle that I will call the "Authoritarian leaning bigots" does not have anything productive to add to political discourse, and has demonstrated a willingness to use outright misinformation to bolster otherwise flimsy and asinine arguments. Grand claims to science are made despite opposite scientific consensus. Historical falsehoods are common. The worst part is that these falsehoods are initially instigated by the sly and insane, but the greater bulk of "Authoritarian Bigot" circled individuals believe these in earnest. Thus any evidence to the contrary cannot convince them, as to them it is false, fake news, and in the more rabid end of the circle; part of a jewish conspiracy.

The greatest risk to modern society from fascism is that the less radical members of this circle accuse others of being overly political, while describing their own political ideals as a-political, or claiming that politics should in no way dictate our free assosciation regardless of severity. That creates a comfortable environment so long as you are its form of politically correct, and do not challenge the ideals of others, or call out blatant bigotry. This makes closet bigots comfortable, giving them a place to vent vitriolic ideals, and be positively but never negatively affirmed in those beliefs. They are anti-establishment, but in a bad way, that nevertheless attracts edgelords. They can be well read but have often, through confirmation bias, constructed elaborate and intellectual sounding arguments for their nonsense.

In short, the auth-bigots share the common goal of carving out the public space as their own safe space, and slandering the socially left. Their type and degree of bigotry and authoritarianism is varried, but their own brand of political correctness and commonalities of thought process allow them to work in consort with varrying degrees of success and solidarity. The circle is fraught with internal conflict sporadically, but for some time recently established a potent subconscious political coalition.


----------



## AppleButt (Sep 23, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Guess I'm one of the last crazies on this forum eh?



You can be a bit of a jerk, but I haven’t really seen you go too far.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Accusation that the third common usage is being used is a common deflection by outright bigots, who would gladly see the police string their political oppenents up by the lamp posts. Said people will often accuse criticism as a violation of free speech, and people and organizations choosing not to assosciate with them as a form of oppression.



I've done some close studying of some YouTube white supremacist conglomerations (I say conglomeration because not everyone was on the same ship when it came to some topics), and I've heard them mention many times that they do not support freedom of speech in the kind of government they want to establish, and basically use it as a key to get into places they shouldn't be. At this point I'd say it's best to slide the deadbolt and leave them out. I was thinking before that serious, educated debates would hurt their ideology and influence knowing how eye-opening debates can be to the public, but it looks like they just want to make a b-line for any seat in politics.

Something I find funny is the willingness of some people to see foreign ideas that are incompatible with the current freedoms in the U.S. (including free speech), but then defend this kind of stuff because they're being 'denied free speech'. Yeah, I don't think it's very American to give away your freedoms to help some crazies because they're being prevented from abusing their freedoms.


----------



## Ramjet (Sep 23, 2018)

AppleButt said:


> You can be a bit of a jerk, but I haven’t really seen you go too far.



I'll totally take that...
I am a standoffish jerk at times.

I admit that.


----------



## David Drake (Sep 23, 2018)

As a Jew, I'd like to thank those that have kept up the good fight against these ideologies. I try to when I can but it tires me very quickly and I'm often late to the party anyway (I wasn't even a member when this thread started).

To those that defend it, well...it almost makes me wish there was a "dislike" button (but that would be a horrible double-edged sword please don't add one). I'm with @Fallowfox in hoping that those of you who are otherwise kind and decent people (which I'm sure many of you are - that's the sucky thing with politics in general) really take some time to reevaluate where you're coming from.

Gryphoneer's bump is troubling. The text suggests added proof from a private conversation that Yaka was deeper down the rabbit hole than we thought, yet the image was just a tweet with a screenshot of his post here with a snarky comment added. Side-eyeing you a bit here.


----------



## Troj (Sep 23, 2018)

Incidentally, I got my paw slapped for something I posted in one of those threads, too, which demonstrates to me that the mods tried to be fair in how they dealt with the recent flood of hot-button political posts.

Frankly, I don't think we have to humor concern-trolling about established facts and common knowledge generally, and we _especially_ don't have to humor it when it targets vulnerable or marginalized people. There are plenty of fascinating and worthwhile debates and discussions to be had without "questioning" the worth, dignity, or rights of people and/or disregarding well-substantiated facts about various topics. 

I do think a lot of people in the world are genuinely well-intentioned, but in their haste to feel smart, powerful, on-the-ball, or down with the "in group," they can get swept up by alluring and charismatic people, ideologies, movements, and groups that potentially quite toxic and harmful.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 23, 2018)

Unicon said:


> Having put that out there, keep in mind @Infrarednexus that you did associate with Yakamaru and ResolutionBlaze and even defended them quite frequently, most often unjustifiably. I've seen you raise the argument that hate speech is free speech and use the term forced multiculturalism, which, let's be honest, is coded language for racial integration. Being a conservative in the fandom can be rough, especially now, but that doesn't mean you have to defend those promoting the worst aspects of conservatism. I haven't and other conservatives here haven't either. You can do the same. I don't think you're the same as the others who have been banned for bigoted behavior masquerading as conservatism, though. I agree with @Fallowfox on that. Just move forward.


Of course I'll be moving on, but you should know that I don't consider myself a conservative anymore.

I'm actually done identifying with political sides for now. Both of them have ideas I like but also carry some problems that bother me, so I don't feel comfortable saying I'm on one side or the other anymore. Maybe one day when I feel that conservatives have improved their image by ridding themselves of these Nazis, and proved that they really don't tolerate them, then I might consider standing beside them again, but for now I see many conservatives not doing enough on their part to fix the problem. Most of them don't approve of nazis of course, but they are so busy focusing on fighting the left all the time that they don't stop to look behind them to see what kind of people they have supporting them, and that concerns me.

I'll always appose Nazis, Isis, KKK, Antifa, and any other group that promotes violence and hate towards others from this point on, but at the same time, I will no longer simultaneously associate myself with, or constantly defend, political parties that contain them, even if they don't mean to. I know most conservatives aren't bad people, but right now they need to stop going after the left's problems and deal with a more threatening matter that exists in their own group.

Getting rid of these violent and hateful people is something liberals _and_ conservatives should both be on board with. Let's work together on this one.


----------



## churio (Sep 23, 2018)

Honestly am I the only one who thinks these threads ought to be banned at this point? All they serve is to bait people to get into circle jerks and re-enforce each others opinions until one person says the opposite one way or another. I'll say this on the subject. This topic is very complicated and simple conjecture from experiences on the internet does not do it justice. I have talked all kinds of political radicals and I can assure all of you that the whole subject is way more complicated than a lot of people online give it credit for.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 23, 2018)

Gryphoneer said:


> Nah, I'm just closing some loose ends. Should anybody else harbor such sympathies, be aware I'm representing more than just one individual firebrand.
> 
> And we all will come for you.








Oh please. Not even the infamous Logic was this grandstanding.



ZeroVoidTime said:


> Dude knock off the high and mighty attitude you are only going to push people away from liberal and progressive ideology. By being an immature brat by dragging others into your argument with another user you are going to be rejected and ridiculed by the bystanders you drag into the fight.


If I had to make a guess, I'd say that entirely the point. This has all the signs and symptoms of being a minstrel account. Acting like the most obnoxious strawman of the left in order to make the whole group look bad and push others to the other side.



Unicon said:


> Locking does preserve them, I guess, but deleting them can make it hard to point back to them. Slightly playing devil's advocate, you might not those kinds of posts up in public for the world to see if you're running a site.


This is true, but a lot of these guys liked to act like their posts weren't public and couldn't be pulled back up again in discussion. Deleting them literally plays into that idea. I really don't want to start having to screen shot everything so I can have some receipts.



Infrarednexus said:


> I get the feeling that I'm next on your peoples list of those who should be banned from here.





Infrarednexus said:


> I agree that the things the others said that got them kicked out was pretty bad, but I'm getting the feeling that this is only the beginning of a massive forum purge. I'm sorry those guys said those things.* I had no idea it bothered everyone this much. If I knew I would have said more*, but some of the people here seem like they still aren't satisfied with the state of things, and want anyone they see as an obstacle to their desired vision of this place to be removed. That's what is bothering me.


Let me start by saying, I don't want you banned. You are hardly the worst and I honestly don't care that much about the others being banned either. So long as their words and actions could be called out and opposed, it wouldn't make much difference to me.

But I have a hard time believing that you "had no idea it bothered everyone this much" or that you were somehow unaware of how awful these guys were. Their posts were public. Their words were not hidden from you. And even if you somehow could not comprehend on your own how antisemitic, racist, homophobic, or misogynistic comments could be bothering to people, there were other people that were pointing out the harm in what they said, stating publicly how they felt. This should not be some startling revelation to _anyone_.

And I could see why some others might have been reticent to come to you with this because you were always by these guys' side. You own a server where they all were mods. You would post in threads to call out the people arguing _against _the hateful comments while ignoring the effect those comments had on everyone. You wrote a huge post just to me basically yelling at me to leave poor Yaka and Rez alone during a time when Rez was trying to claim that Nazi ideology wasn't violent. Why would anyone think that you would be sympathetic to their feelings about this? Why would anyone think you'd do anything but defend Yaka and Rez tooth and claw?

Again, I don't want you banned. And I don't think you're a bad guy. Especially not if you're truly throwing political shit to the side and focusing on just being a good person. But I don't think you're completely clean in this either, and at the very least it would be good of you to take a look at your past actions and the company you kept, _the company you_ _still keep, _before writing as though you were completely unaware and separate from the issue.


----------



## Judge Spear (Sep 23, 2018)

I didn't even know those guys got banned. Thought they just quit.

Didn't notice too much change though Blaze ran his mouth a fuck ton so there was a deafening silence from him for sure. The only slight increase in forum quality I noticed recently was when BaghDaddy finally left.


----------



## Simo (Sep 23, 2018)

All my Jewish relatives are on my dad's side. Some of them died. Family changed the last name around 1940, feel so odd..and yet, I feel a tug more to that faith. Ezra sings nice. Makes me wonder, why are folks so bitter? This site has been hard, for me. What it puts up with.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 23, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> I didn't even know those guys got banned. Thought they just quit.
> 
> Didn't notice too much change though Blaze ran his mouth a fuck ton so there was a deafening silence from him for sure. The only slight increase in forum quality I noticed recently was when BaghDaddy finally left.


He actually got banned.


----------



## Judge Spear (Sep 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> He actually got banned.


Who Blaze? Because BaghDaddy made a big show of him leaving of his own accord. Unless they just banned his account to make sure he wasn't coming back.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 23, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Who Blaze? Because BaghDaddy made a big show of him leaving of his own accord. Unless they just banned his account to make sure he wasn't coming back.


Bagh got banned over being toxic if I remember correctly?


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 23, 2018)

Bagh initially left voluntarily, and was then banned during that 7-day Pending Deletion period.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 23, 2018)

Honestly, as far as i can tell there's a contingent here that's simply going after people and ascribing qualities to them they don't have based on the political differences that are there.

I've spoken to the people banned, and they don't appear to have any genuine biases or hatred to racial/religious minorities, they just disagreed with the approach of certain people in regards to these things.

Also, i asked Yakamaru how he felt about this, turns out he hasn't been banned.

Not interested in arguments, that's all i'm saying on the matter.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> Honestly, as far as i can tell there's a contingent here that's simply going after people and ascribing qualities to them they don't have based on the political differences that are there.
> 
> I've spoken to the people banned, and they don't appear to have any genuine biases or hatred to racial/religious minorities, they just disagreed with the approach of certain people in regards to these things.
> 
> ...



...*Of course* the people who were banned will claim their bans were unfair.
What do you expect them to do?

Banned users' accounts aren't listed as suggestions in 'search by member', by the way.
So that's how you can tell they're not on the system.





Kyryk appears, but Kyr does not, because Kyr is banned.

Maybe people can remove themselves from this feature voluntarily? But the users who had deliberately made their own accounts inaccessible still used to appear on this list, and their names only vanished after they were banned.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> Honestly, as far as i can tell there's a contingent here that's simply going after people and ascribing qualities to them they don't have based on the political differences that are there.
> 
> I've spoken to the people banned, and they don't appear to have any genuine biases or hatred to racial/religious minorities, they just disagreed with the approach of certain people in regards to these things.
> 
> ...


Yaka has always been very firm about being a good centrist boy with no biases. This has been shown time and again to be false.

If you talk to someone who's been banned, they're typically not going to say "You know, they were right, I deserved that" unless they were a troll looking to blatantly break the rules in the first place. But if you look at what they post, you'll see that their actions speak louder than their words.

You can disagree with an approach without shitting on Muslims like Rez did. You can advocate for free speech without denying the violence of Nazism like Rez did. You can speak out against false hate crimes without belittling a Jewish person like Yaka did. You can promote compromise without comparing Nazis to Jews like Kyr did. You can argue a heated issue without using bad faith tactics, ridicule, and rhetoric that is eerily similar to that of Neo Nazis. Their methods belie their feelings, feelings that would imply a desire to intimidate others into silence on these issues. 

Yes, when you're just idly chatting with them, they'll act like perfect bros just having a good time. But this is not just a contingent going after a different political group and ascribing qualities to them that aren't there. This is people pointing out the actual things users have said. The posts exist if they haven't been deleted yet. 

And if Yaka is not banned, I would like to know what he is, actually. Just taking a long and conspicuous vacation?


----------



## Simo (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> Honestly, as far as i can tell there's a contingent here that's simply going after people and ascribing qualities to them they don't have based on the political differences that are there.
> 
> I've spoken to the people banned, and they don't appear to have any genuine biases or hatred to racial/religious minorities, they just disagreed with the approach of certain people in regards to these things.
> 
> ...



Whatever. The 'banned' user(s) here kept going on and on about how the Holocaust, 'wasn't that bad', and how Jews should just get over it, and move on. I can't say how many gas-lighters have spouted that same shit. When you trace your family history, and it ends up in an oven, this is just a sickening disregard for those who died, and a blatant disrespect. 

Like 9/11, anything extend some respect. Extend kindness to the suffering, not what I see here, so much.

And....Well, yes, one can can 'get over' most anything, but one does not serve any purpose in forgetting history. You can get over things, but it does not imply forgetting.

Here's a Jewish singer/songwriter: Randy Newman: He says it better than I can.


----------



## Troj (Sep 23, 2018)

Even if people are ignorant, sheltered, and naive, at a certain point, they need to grow up and realize that certain subjects are extremely personal, deeply painful, and in some cases, _literally triggering_ for others, and as a result, their choice is either to note and respect that, or to be prepared to endure an incredible backlash when they say or do things that will inevitably be seen as callous or cavalier.

If you claim that Nazism is just another political perspective, you're going to sound stupid at best and evil at worst to educated, experienced people and people with a real stake in the fight. Ditto if you reduce sincere anti-Nazi sentiment to "just politics." Ditto if you "just ask questions" about the Holocaust that have been answered countless times before.

This extends to other topics as well. In the wake of allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, People (including people I know) have been asking why _suuuuuuuppppoooooooooosed _rape victims do X or Y instead of A or B, with no regard for whether there might be real rape survivors in the room who _could_ answer their questions but would absolutely resent their tone.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Even if people are ignorant, sheltered, and naive, at a certain point, they need to grow up and realize that certain subjects are extremely personal, deeply painful, and in some cases, _literally triggering_ for others, and as a result, their choice is either to note and respect that, or to be prepared to endure an incredible backlash when they say or do things that will inevitably be seen as callous or cavalier.


I think this speaks to the nature of the divide that happened on the forums some months back, from what i've been able to ascertain.
I believe that the majority, if not all, of the banned members were labelled as fascists, nazis, and some other choice labels over the course of their time here. Now, i do wonder (assuming that they're none of these things of course), would it not be potentially extremely personal, deeply painful, and in some cases, _literally triggering _for the accused? And, based on that premise, would it not be unreasonable for them to lash out at those they see as callous or cavalier?

From what i've been able to gather, the issue seems to be a case of anger that cuts both ways that started when a user called LogicNuke tried to threaten a user here into silence for their views.

I'm not interested in reigniting an old forum wide argument, but from what i've seen the nuance of the situation has been lost on both parties and everyone could do with trying to be a bit more compassionate and understanding.


----------



## Simo (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> I believe that the majority, if not all, of the banned members were labelled as fascists, nazis, and some other choice labels over the course of their time here. Now, i do wonder (assuming that they're none of these things of course), would it not be potentially extremely personal, deeply painful, and in some cases, _literally triggering _for the accused? And, based on that premise, would it not be unreasonable for them to lash out at those they see as callous or *cavalier*?



Had they not posted ad nausea about how glorious it is to deny the holocaust, and to trash the trans-gendered, and denigrate gay people , in post after post, you might have a point. 

If members treat folks nasty, expect it back.

And if the shoe fits, wear it. 

Maybe God can say, if it's "Cavalier"


----------



## KyryK (Sep 23, 2018)

Simo said:


> Had they not posted ad nausea about how glorious it is to deny the holocaust, and to trash the trans-gendered, and denigrate gay people , in post after post, you might have a point.


The users, former or otherwise, that i've spoken to do not have any genuinely hateful beliefs regarding jews, trans people, or the gay community.
If others have  expressed such views then by all means, throw them away as you see fit. However i'd be wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. I believe that is the root of these user's animosity/callousness towards certain members here, resentment at being tarred with a truly horrific brush.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> The users, former or otherwise, that i've spoken to do not have any genuinely hateful beliefs regarding jews, trans people, or the gay community.
> If others have  expressed such views then by all means, throw them away as you see fit. However i'd be wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. I believe that is the root of these user's animosity/callousness towards certain members here, resentment at being tarred with a truly horrific brush.








That's a post by Yakamaru, musing about whether gay couples should be allowed to raise children. 
Posts like that are a candid representation of Yakamaru's real beliefs. 
When Yakamaru tries to convince people on discord that it's all just a misunderstanding, this is a facade. 

Dragoneer saw these posts. The users who made these sorts of posts are now banned. 

This is a matter of fact.


----------



## Troj (Sep 23, 2018)

Simo said:


> Had they not posted ad nausea about how glorious it is to deny the holocaust, and to trash the trans-gendered, and denigrate gay people , in post after post, you might have a point.



Yep.

At a certain point, whether I like it or not, or agree with it or not, I've got to realize that farting in your face will make you mad--and that if I keep farting directly in your face, you may punch my lights out. I can't play the victim there if I chose to ignore warnings and negative feedback.

I grow weary of people treating serious life-or-death issues as if they can be debated with the same breezy casualness as one might debate whether the Millennium Falcon or the Enterprise would win a race. That kind of naivete definitely has a limited shelf life, even when no harm is actually intended.


----------



## Jarren (Sep 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> I do think a lot of people in the world are genuinely well-intentioned, but in their haste to feel smart, powerful, on-the-ball, or down with the "in group," they can get swept up by alluring and charismatic people, ideologies, movements, and groups that potentially quite toxic and harmful.


It's like you're in my brain. The power of "feel good" and "being part of the in-crowd" is a mighty strong thing.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> The users, former or otherwise, that i've spoken to do not have any genuinely hateful beliefs regarding jews, trans people, or the gay community.
> If others have  expressed such views then by all means, throw them away as you see fit. However i'd be wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. I believe that is the root of these user's animosity/callousness towards certain members here, resentment at being tarred with a truly horrific brush.


_i had to read though this thread to understand what was going on here, but thankfully in any given thread about users arguing for the allowance of hate speech as free speech, the protection of bigots, or pushing denialism of normally uncontroversial subjects, there is load of evidence how horrible and absurd these users are. _

_i can assure that these users demonstrated a clear intention of supporting hate and even genocide because i recently argued in two threads with these users. One was a thread about alt-furs which included highlights such as how nazis now are being treated as the jews were during the holocaust, how hate speech is only harmful if the minorities being targeted by it believe it, how jews may have been somewhat responsible for the holocaust, how nazism isn't a violent ideology, and how hate groups should be allowed on online platforms so they can recruit kids. there were seven other users on that thread with me who i agreed with and we were in the majority._

_forums.furaffinity.net: What is a Nazi? At least in regards to the fandom?_

_




_

_the first user you mysteriously materialized out nowhere to defend and you who suspiciously share part of your name with was clearly proven by @Fallowfox to harbor some views clearly supporting holocaust denial in a backhanded way, so i'll venture to say there is no misunderstanding about how insidious and ignorant that user was. i'm tired of users who seem to delight in putting down minorities like me, but never fail to defend hate speech and hate groups then have the nerve to claim they're not bigots. _​


----------



## KyryK (Sep 23, 2018)

My own beliefs on these issues and my perception of those involved differs from yours. I'll leave things at that before the thread devolves as i can't directly speak for other people, nor would i wish to.

My intent was simply to correct some statements in this thread i knew to be incorrect.


----------



## Phr0ggy_Phangs (Sep 23, 2018)

Soldier, followers, and politicians under Hitler's reign from 1920-45. Wither truly bigoted, enlisted during the war, or only in to not be a target, (despite their beliefs) they were a fascist party intent on bringing back "wealth and glory to Germany and to spread their power, as far as they could." They largely blamed Jewish folk, though they also claimed homosexuality, various other religions, and colored people impure and a threat to the Nazi regime. 

Nazi's no longer exist, the party officially being ended and killed off in May of 1945. However, we can still see some traces and a few inspired, but not at all nearly as large, by the fascist party. People like this are majorly hated, belittled, and criticized by modern day society; though, it is hard to deny that there will always be sick individuals that wish certain types of people to simply vanish from this earth, typically for the sole purpose of wealth and cult-like religions and political beliefs.


----------



## Simo (Sep 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> At a certain point, whether I like it or not, or agree with it or not, I've got to realize that farting in your face will make you mad--and that if I keep farting directly in your face, you may punch my lights out.



Guess it's good I ain't got gas, too often! 

But a good point, there.

Also, I'll fart at any alt right fur that comes my way.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 23, 2018)

Simo said:


> Also, I'll fart at any alt right fur that comes my way.



I hope you don't have any coming your way, the forum doesn't need people like that coming after others.

That should be saved for mischievous mammals like foxes.


----------



## David Drake (Sep 23, 2018)

Simo said:


> Also, I'll fart at any alt right fur that comes my way.



Dude...you don't need to fart...you are a _skunk._


----------



## KyryK (Sep 23, 2018)

Simo said:


> Guess it's good I ain't got gas, too often!
> 
> But a good point, there.
> 
> Also, I'll fart at any alt right fur that comes my way.


So you want to...gas the Nazis?



Spoiler



Sorry, couldn't resist XD


----------



## David Drake (Sep 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> That's a post by Yakamaru, musing about whether gay couples should be allowed to raise children.
> Posts like that are a candid representation of Yakamaru's real beliefs.
> When Yakamaru tries to convince people on discord that it's all just a misunderstanding, this is a facade.
> 
> ...



Also holy shit Yaka said _that_? And cited _Breitbart_?!? For the love of cake, The Onion is a more fact-based news source!!


----------



## Infrarednexus (Sep 23, 2018)

David Drake said:


> Dude...you don't need to fart...you are a _skunk._





MadKiyo said:


> I hope you don't have any coming your way, the forum doesn't need people like that coming after others.
> 
> That should be saved for mischievous mammals like foxes.




(On A Fart- Let In The House Of Commons)

_Reader, I was born, and cried
I crack'd, I smelt, and so I died
Like Julius Caesar's was my death,
Who in the senate lost his breath
Much alike entiomb'd does lie
The noble Romulus and I:
And when I died, like Flora fair
I left the commonwealth my heir




_

-Mathew Prior


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 23, 2018)

KyryK said:


> My own beliefs on these issues and my perception of those involved differs from yours. I'll leave things at that before the thread devolves as i can't directly speak for other people, nor would i wish to.
> 
> My intent was simply to correct some statements in this thread i knew to be incorrect.



It's not a matter of disagreement, it's the fact multiple users have provided quotes and screencaps of what these users have said, and in mamy cases it has been incredibly bigotted and thus in violation of the ToS. Kyr was a blatant and regular trans-basher, and I personally have been in the threads with his bullshit.

You can either choose to change your views of these people based on evidence, or choose to pretend it doesn't exist to protect your worldview. You cannot "agree to disagree" in regards to objective fact.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> It's not a matter of disagreement, it's the fact multiple users have provided quotes and screencaps of what these users have said, and in mamy cases it has been incredibly bigotted and thus in violation of the ToS. Kyr was a blatant and regular trans-basher, and I personally have been in the threads with his bullshit.
> 
> You can either choose to change your views of these people based on evidence, or choose to pretend it doesn't exist to protect your worldview. You cannot "agree to disagree" in regards to objective fact.


I really don't want to drag this out, but no. You're simply wrong here.

I spoke to Kyr about his ban and he went on a bit of a rant about it. Mentioned having an old trans roommate that he encouraged to wear skirts and be herself in public and he even told me he questioned his gender when he was younger.

It's why i've come in and defended these people, because from what i've learned from speaking to them with an unbiased view i've come to find that the way they're portrayed here is outright defamatory at times, and because they've been banned they can't defend themselves.

Sorry but you, and many others here, simply don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> I really don't want to drag this out, but no. You're simply wrong here.
> 
> I spoke to Kyr about his ban and he went on a bit of a rant about it. Mentioned having an old trans roommate that he encouraged to wear skirts and be herself in public and he even told me he questioned his gender when he was younger.
> 
> ...


I will say my bad, I'm not sure if I was thinking of ciderfine, or some of Kyr's deleted posts. But I should stick with what I can demonstrate. And that would be the fact Kyr was not only a member on multiple Alt-Rights sites, actively tried to push suidlander propoganda about South Africa, and tried to cover for Foxler, who's orgs have led campaigns up to and including leaving a false bomb tip about a convention in order to have it shut down when they aren't discussing literal genocide.

As for Cider, cider went on multiple rants about Trans folk. It wasn't pretty.

ResolutionBlaze has said a number of interesting things about Muslims....


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Islam is a religion that has yet to catch up with our modern day.  Hinduism as well.  Even Paganism is more civilized than those two at the moment.  Other religions have their fair share of extremists but I'm not sure how Islam is where it is right now; Middle East is just a mess, so I don't know if that helps keep Islam tribalistic and regressed or if it's just the religion itself.
> -
> Either way, it's an example that Islam has very VERY different sects, some with similar fundamental beliefs but different fundamental messages.  The reason you don't see many Christian nations still doing this at such a large scale as Islam is that of the New Testament and Enlightenment Values.



As for Yaka, somebody already posted a screencap of some of his bullshit.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 24, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I will say my bad, I'm not sure if I was thinking of ciderfine, or some of Kyr's deleted posts. But I should stick with what I can demonstrate. And that would be the fact Kyr was not only a member on multiple Alt-Rights sites, actively tried to push suidlander propoganda about South Africa, and tried to cover for Foxler, who's orgs have led campaigns up to and including leaving a false bomb tip about a convention in order to have it shut down when they aren't discussing literal genocide.
> 
> As for Cider, cider went on multiple rants about Trans folk. It wasn't pretty.
> 
> ...


He did mention that he'd joined the furry raiders and alt fur discords as a direct response to claims DeoTazDevil made that he found dubious, and that his impression of Foxler was that he was just an idiotic troll. Not sure if he was a part of any alt right spheres other than the alt fur discord and as far as he told me it was for research purposes. I neither know or care about those groups and i can't speak for anything going on in South Africa.

No idea who Cider is.

I'm assuming the interesting thing in that quote is the use of the words tribalistic and regressed and that Resolution thinks Islam has yet to catch up with the modern (western) world? You'll have to explain to me what's problematic about the quote because as far as i see it's simply a, possibly dismissive, assessment of a religious culture.

Yaka can defend himself.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> I'm assuming the interesting thing in that quote is the use of the words tribalistic and regressed and that Resolution thinks Islam has yet to catch up with the modern (western) world? You'll have to explain to me what's problematic about the quote because as far as i see it's simply a, possibly dismissive, assessment of a religious culture.



He floats the idea that Islam is itself a cultural detriment, while establishing that one of the main reasons the west is successful is because of the New Testement. I should not have to explain the clear religous bigotry theirin, or the baselessness of the claim given the histories of both religions as equal parts savior and damner of humanity. It's also kind of insulting when you consider how nonchalantly homophobia within Christianity is waved away, considering how recently in the history of christian nations being gay was and is illegal. It's along the lines of Islamaphobic bullshit christians have been spouting since the godamn crusades, and mirrors the imperialist sentiments of "The White Man's Burden".

The people listed have actively made excuses for alt right groups and alt-right pundits that have been part in the worst kind of radical action. In many cases they have shared literal right-wing conspiracy theories and refused to aknowledge contrary evidence.


----------



## ScrewLoose (Sep 24, 2018)

A nazi is someone who likes to be a nazi and gas jews


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

(That last image is by ResolutionBlaze. The post has since been removed from the forum, after Dragoneer came upon it.)


...yeah. These guys are just being _unfairly defamed_.

and you know, Jewish users repeatedly posted that this sort of content made them uncomfortable, but we can just ignore them. After all Kyr claims he's being treated unfairly so that _must _be the real truth and _everybody else _is biased.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> I believe that the majority, if not all, of the banned members were labelled as fascists, nazis, and some other choice labels over the course of their time here. Now, i do wonder (assuming that they're none of these things of course), would it not be potentially extremely personal, deeply painful, and in some cases, _literally triggering _for the accused? And, based on that premise, would it not be unreasonable for them to lash out at those they see as callous or cavalier?


They weren't banned for "lashing out". They were banned for homophobic, racist, and antisemitic remarks.
And if you're response to being called a Nazi/fascist/other "choice" label is to _double down_ on the behavior that leads people to think you are these things-  that says something about you and how you really feel.



KyryK said:


> From what i've been able to gather, the issue seems to be a case of anger that cuts both ways that started when a user called LogicNuke tried to threaten a user here into silence for their views.


Logic was an ass, yeah, but many of the people speaking out here have been on this site before him, some before you even. This was not something that happened overnight. I had been debating with Yaka on these issues long before Logic ever made an account. He did a lot to fan the flames, but the fire had already been started.



KyryK said:


> The users, former or otherwise, that i've spoken to do not have any genuinely hateful beliefs regarding jews, trans people, or the gay community.
> If others have  expressed such views then by all means, throw them away as you see fit. However i'd be wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were. I believe that is the root of these user's animosity/callousness towards certain members here, resentment at being tarred with a truly horrific brush.


And how do you know what their genuine beliefs are? Because we have all shown you, again and again, the words that they used. We've shown you their posts.
If they are telling you they are not hateful, perhaps consider that they are_ lying to you_. Because even if all the hateful, bigoted, racist, homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, and xenophobic posts were somehow in jest or in retaliation to being "tarred", it says something about a person that that is the kind of content they would turn to for humor and malice.



KyryK said:


> My intent was simply to correct some statements in this thread i knew to be incorrect.





KyryK said:


> It's why i've come in and defended these people, because from what i've learned from speaking to them with an unbiased view i've come to find that the way they're portrayed here is outright defamatory at times, and because they've been banned they can't defend themselves.
> 
> Sorry but you, and many others here, simply don't know what they're talking about.


How do you know them to be incorrect?
Because as Yaka will tell you, self-report is a shitty measure of validity.
How many receipts do we need to show you? Not just our words, but theirs? Things they've actually said. Rhetoric they have used. I'm sure they all have some wonderful sap story to trot out so they can be the victims in this, but I'm curious how you can say we simply do not know what we're talking about when we're the only side with any evidence that isn't hearsay.

And finally


KyryK said:


> I'm not interested in reigniting an old forum wide argument, but from what i've seen the nuance of the situation has been lost on both parties and everyone could do with trying to be a bit more compassionate and understanding.


Where was the compassion for Ovi and his brother when Yaka tried to accuse them of committing hate crimes against themselves and posted a Swastika?
Where was the compassion for the jewish members of the forum when Yaka and Kyr compared their people's suffering during the holocaust to the suffering of the Nazis themselves?
Where was the compassion for the Muslim members of the forum when Rez called their ideology violent, more violent than Nazism, and supported hating all Muslims for the acts of a few?
Where was the compassion for our LGBTQ+ members when Yaka was making them out to be baby killers? 
And those are just a few.

Yeah, we could use some more compassion and understanding on this forum. But perhaps that should be directed at the victims rather than the victimizers. 





David Drake said:


> Also holy shit Yaka said _that_? And cited _Breitbart_?!? For the love of cake, The Onion is a more fact-based news source!!


Yeah, for all his love of shouting "sources!" at people, he could never cite a reputable journal for his own ends.


----------



## churio (Sep 24, 2018)

Jesus Christ this thread. I hope that Yaka guy has been banned. All he ever did was post threads trying to start circle jerks to his own political views. Those posts are just messed up on so many levels and no one should actually be agreeing with that in any way. Like I say ban these kinds of threads not just because of the fact I feel a lot of people are too uninformed to talk about them. But because it just allows for the most awful of opinions to be spouted. Honestly that guy should be black listed for that kind of shit.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> ...yeah. These guys are just being _unfairly defamed_.





ellaerna said:


> Where was the compassion for our LGBTQ+ members when Yaka was making them out to be baby killers?


:3

Fallow, i'll respond to your post, and your post only, when i have the time as i have a lesson in the nature of perception for you. The rest...there really is no counter to such...entertaining conviction, it's why i didn't want to get into arguments.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Imagine if I said something horrible and got banned, and then an account called FallowollaF showed up and started talking about how I was innocent.


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Imagine if I said something horrible and got banned, and then an account called FallowollaF showed up and started talking about how I was innocent.



I'd be hesitant to draw too many conclusions about any resemblance between Kyr and KyryK, given that the former only joined late last year and the latter has been here for some years.  If it was the other way around, that would feel more likely.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> That's a post by Yakamaru, musing about whether gay couples should be allowed to raise children.
> Posts like that are a candid representation of Yakamaru's real beliefs.
> When Yakamaru tries to convince people on discord that it's all just a misunderstanding, this is a facade.
> 
> ...


I remember when I called him out for posting things from the masters of stupid Breitbart and then he tried to make all sorts of excuses for it.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> My own beliefs on these issues and my perception of those involved differs from yours. I'll leave things at that before the thread devolves as i can't directly speak for other people, nor would i wish to.
> 
> My intent was simply to correct some statements in this thread i knew to be incorrect.


Your name is literally kyr with another kyr backwards meeting with the former. kyr + ryk = kyryk. Not only that your title is "well... you tried". Everything is telling me you are kyr.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I'd be hesitant to draw too many conclusions about any resemblance between Kyr and KyryK, given that the former only joined late last year and the latter has been here for some years.  If it was the other way around, that would feel more likely.



Fair enough. It's just super weird.

I should have chosen FallowollaF as my name by the way. 

...because


Fall*owo*llaF


----------



## KyryK (Sep 24, 2018)

Thank you Massan for being sensible, the similarities of our usernames is why we started speaking in the first place. XD
Now, where was i...


Fallowfox said:


> View attachment 41845
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As i said, here's a lesson in perception. "you may as well say 25,000 Muslims". Given the post Resolution quoted i can see how people might think he's equating all muslims with potential terrorists. However, considering the line "your assumption that every Neo Nazi is violent or would act violently is ignorant." It could be seen that the lack of distinction between violent and potentially non violent Neo Nazis would be the same as giving no distinction between muslims and Islamic extremists.

Now i don't care about categorizing Neo Nazis, they hold onto a backwards ideology that has no place in a modern society. However, if Resolution has spoken to Neo Nazis (which shouldn't even be a cause for concern in and of itself. For instance, if someone said that they have spent time and spoken with Islamic extremists would that automatically be cause for concern? That's a very interesting question that would certainly require nuance in its approach, would it not?) then he's seen the more human side of them. Obviously there are distinctions between hateful people and people that are violent with that hate. That's a seperate topic though and i know that the question of genocide will be brought up to counter it. That's irrelevant for now. Point is, it's a statement that can be percieved a few different ways based on how you look at it, and i can't say that the screenshot is conclusive proof of anything because of that. However there are those who will obviously disagree.

On to Kyr (i can't speak for the opinions of Jewish users here). Kyr is a gay man, that questioned their gender, and that has actively helped transgender people accept themselves in the real world. So, going by the stated reason he was banned, which basically amounts to "he was being homo/transphobic" it would seem remarkably unfair given he's demonstrably none of those things. The way he told it he got pissed off at a straight person for taking offence at a self deprecating fandom term. I believe that lead to a discussion about the nature of a homophobic slur and the approach of people to it. Something happened with a user called Connor Coyote that a lot of third parties got offended by but that apparently the user in question didn't, and then he tried to explain how the term could be a source of pride.

So yeah, regardless of what you may think of him it seems the stated reasons for his banning were completely unjust.

I could explain very easily how the idea that Yaka thinks gay people are baby killers is ridiculous but it would require me saying some things he might not want me to and as i said, he can still defend himself here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> It could be seen that the lack of distinction between violent and potentially non violent Neo Nazis would be the same as giving no distinction between muslims and Islamic extremists..
> 
> However, if Resolution has spoken to Neo Nazis *(which shouldn't even be a cause for concern in and of itself*.*)*



I don't even have to criticise these sentences because they speak for themselves. 

You should think about Jewish and Muslim furries and how *they* feel about comments comparing Islam to the Nazi ideology, or posts by Kyr lamenting that the treatment of Nazis is 'just as unfair' as the actual Holocaust.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't even have to criticise these sentences because they speak for themselves.
> 
> You should think about Jewish and Muslim furries and how *they* feel about comments comparing Islam to the Nazi ideology, or posts by Kyr lamenting that the treatment of Nazis is 'just as unfair' as the actual Holocaust.


In 2003 Louis Theroux made a documentary about Nazis, over the course of this documentary he spent time with and spoke to Neo Nazis. What does this say about Louis Theroux?

You don't have to criticize them because there's nothing to criticize, Fallow. If Jewish or Muslim furs see these things and take issue with them they're more than capable to speak for themselves, and i would encourage them to. Plus, where was the statement comparing Islam to Nazi ideology? I don't recall that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> In 2003 Louis Theroux made a documentary about Nazis, over the course of this documentary he spent time with and spoke to Neo Nazis. What does this say about Louis Theroux?
> 
> You don't have to criticize them because there's nothing to criticize, Fallow. If Jewish or Muslim furs see these things and take issue with them they're more than capable to speak for themselves, and i would encourage them to. Plus, where was the statement comparing Islam to Nazi ideology? I don't recall that.




Jewish users have repeatedly commented about how they don't like these nasty comments. 

The fact that you act like they do not exist is astounding.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Jewish users have repeatedly commented about how they don't like these nasty comments.
> 
> The fact that you act like they do not exist is astounding.


I'm not acting like people don't exist, and i don't know how you came to that conclusion. Didn't i say exactly the opposite in the reply you quoted in fact? Bizarre response here.

Their opinions should always be considered, and they should always feel welcome to voice their concerns. I don't know what more there is to say in regards to that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 24, 2018)

KyryK said:


> I'm not acting like people don't exist, and i don't know how you came to that conclusion.
> 
> Their opinions should always be considered, i don't know what more there is to say in regards to that.



This is where we should stop then. Respect their views. 

They posted numerous times to say the behaviours you're defending made them uncomfortable. 
The site staff have banned the users who were participating in those behaviours. 

That was the resolution. It was finally over.


----------



## KyryK (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> This is where we should stop then. Respect their views.
> 
> They posted numerous times to say the behaviours you're defending made them uncomfortable.
> The site staff have banned the users who were participating in those behaviours.
> ...


I'm defending these people because i honestly don't believe they are what a subset of this community has made them out to be.

Discomfort is subjective and just because people may have concerns it doesn't mean they're valid. For me, that's the root of the issue here.

I agree though, this seems like a good endpoint for this discussion.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Imagine if I said something horrible and got banned, and then an account called FallowollaF showed up and started talking about how I was innocent.


If I ever get banned, I'm naming my campaign account "UMBREONDIDNOTHINGWRONG."
If character limit will allow me.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Sep 26, 2018)

KyryK said:


> Thank you Massan for being sensible, the similarities of our usernames is why we started speaking in the first place. XD
> Now, where was i...
> 
> As i said, here's a lesson in perception. "you may as well say 25,000 Muslims". Given the post Resolution quoted i can see how people might think he's equating all muslims with potential terrorists. However, considering the line "your assumption that every Neo Nazi is violent or would act violently is ignorant." It could be seen that the lack of distinction between violent and potentially non violent Neo Nazis would be the same as giving no distinction between muslims and Islamic extremists.
> ...


Funny how you defend Kyr even though he's said some unspeakable things.

Also if you talk to a fucking terrorist without alerting authorities then you both should be locked in a cell.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 26, 2018)

KyryK said:


> In 2003 Louis Theroux made a documentary about Nazis, over the course of this documentary he spent time with and spoke to Neo Nazis. What does this say about Louis Theroux?
> 
> You don't have to criticize them because there's nothing to criticize, Fallow. If Jewish or Muslim furs see these things and take issue with them they're more than capable to speak for themselves, and i would encourage them to. Plus, where was the statement comparing Islam to Nazi ideology? I don't recall that.


Like Fallowfox said if user tells you are making them uncomfortable back off immediately. This is not rocket science and this is what we been taught you know since kindergarten for crying out loud.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 26, 2018)

_@ZeroVoidTime @Ovi the Dragon 
don't waste your breathe, boys.
he's been banned and he didn't come to be reasoned with.
he came to be an apologist for his own disgusting and hateful views.
good riddance._​


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

You just admitted that you're using an alt account to protest your own ban. ._.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> I'm not protesting the ban, i know it will be upheld.
> 
> I'm not what you and others here have come to think i am, and it's not an issue isolated to me on these forums. It had to be said and i don't care that this account will be banned for it.



Which banned user are you?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 29, 2018)

@Le_Trash_Fox
Most of the banned folks listed have said absolutely atrocious things about Central American refugees and immigrants, and muslims who are just "trying to make an honest place for themselves", or called for "strong borders". Take some time for introspection, because that's some tier 10 cognative dissonance or grade A bullshit.


----------



## Crimcyan (Sep 29, 2018)

BRRING ME EGGSS ONLY EGGS CAN FEND OFF THE NAZIS


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> @Fallowfox  seems to think i'm anti Semitic based on something i didn't even say, and explained to him i didn't say. When it came to persecution i was referring to those falsely labelled as Nazis and how they're shunned, and in some cases, outright dehumanized by those that have decided that they have a greater grasp on someone's beliefs than the accused themselves. These people are innocent, just like the Jews were during WW2, but they are treated like they're lesser and deserving of the poor treatment that's given to them.


 Considering the only quoted example in here was of people - who in other threads made it _*abundantly clear*_ who they were referring to - defending _literal Neo-Nazis, Fascists, and White Supremacists_ by explicitly stating that they feel they're being persecuted "like the Jews" (not "those falsely labelled as Nazis" as you so _mournfully_ are trying to present the facts as), you may want to rethink your argument as you're either ousting yourself as _somebody who actually wasn't quoted_ or _blatantly lying._



Le Trash Fox said:


> As for South Africa and Fallow claiming i was spreading racist propaganda. No. I posted videos of the situation from mainstream media outlets and was saying that potentially targeting individuals and taking their livelihoods away from them based on race is a terrible thing, no matter which race is being affected.


 Protip: The only people who are commenting on the South Africa land "seizures" being done _*specifically*_ as a matter of race / revenge for Apartheid... are at _best_ sites like InfoWars and at worst _explicit, outright Neo-Nazi media outlets_. Coincidentally a lot of the _other_ major news sources make mention of the fact that this seizure is far closer to Eminent Domain (to the point of paying people for the land in question, among many other facts that're _conveniently_ being left out of certain narratives).



Le Trash Fox said:


> @SSJ3Mewtwo  You know what to do. I'm not going to contest the bans, although for the record they are based on assertions that simply aren't true. Please do the forum a favour and lock this thread. The unnecessary division this Nazi nonsense has caused throughout the forum and the fandom as a whole needs to end.


 Funny how this "The unnecessary division this Nazi nonsense has caused" only became important when the tide clearly shifted outside a certain... subsect, of the community's, favor.



Le Trash Fox said:


> The people around you are not enemies because they believe in things like stricter immigration


 For context to those unaware: The chief "stricter immigration" discussion being harkened back to was one wherein Muslim *REFUGEES* were explicitly compared to "Butterflies and Wasps" with rambling about how since the "Butterflies" and "Wasps" are the same size we need to _shut the window outright_ and _*outright bar*_ entry, with further "gems" such as explicit commentary that _ideological, cultural purity is integral for National Security._

Take a wild guess why Le Trash Fox wants this thread - and any discussion reminding people of as much - buried and forgotten.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Oh dear, you again.










Le Trash Fox said:


> As i said, you're wrong about me and the things i believe. The reason i ignored you in the past was because A) It was funny and B) Because your assertions are insufferable and you state them with such unshakable confidence that it's obvious you'll never listen to reason.


 tl;dr "Ignore the man behind the curtain."



Le Trash Fox said:


> I'll state once again, i'm not what your raging Nazi hate on has lead you to believe i am.


 Two quick questions for the audience. To make things simple, please answer with a quick "Yes" or "No" to both:
1) Are you insinuating that a "raging hate on" towards Nazis is a bad thing?
2) I thought you were talking about _falsely accused_ Nazis?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Well, if you insist.
> 
> 
> 1) Nazis deserve no sympathy.



Stop coming on our forum to defend this shit then;






We the furries want to be left to yiff in peace.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

I asked for simple Yes or No answers, but if you're feeling generous...


Le Trash Fox said:


> 1) Nazis deserve no sympathy,


 Good. Then what might I ask is your opinion on the fact that the quotes brought up in here were about people _explicitly requesting Nazis to be treated with the same sympathy _due to inferring them to be _equally persecuted in manner and severity as Jews_? Because that was the example brought up earlier - with quotes - in the discourse since the banning, not some hypothetical, fictitious smear of people asking people to watch their fire.



Le Trash Fox said:


> 2) I am, i'm sure your paranoid assumptions are going wild with some perceived inconsistency of mine though.


 Just a slight one: Why are you trying to defend and misrepresent _literal attempts at providing Nazis sympathy_ if this is a discussion about _users_ who were being falsely accused / misrepresented?



Le Trash Fox said:


> That's the issue i have with people like you. Seems like you come to conclusions before you have adequate, or any real, proof and simply look for reasons to prove yourself right. It's why i don't want to waste my time on you.


 Nah, it's why instead you take snipped, out-of-context quotes from me and put them in your signature. 

Yeah, I'm pretty confident in saying you're Kyr.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Exactly, everyone should be doing that as opposed to arguing about a perceived Nazi threat. It's why i think everyone should stop creating unnecessary divisions and remembering what the fandom's supposed to be about.
> 
> Question though, do you believe we should treat Nazis the same way they treated the Jews? I'm not saying we do, i've made my personal objections clear, but really how are we any better if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard of being?
> 
> What the Nazis did was abhorrent.





Le Trash Fox said:


> 1) Nazis deserve no sympathy,


You couldn't go two posts before vomiting back up "B-b-but the poor Nazis", could you?


----------



## AppleButt (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> That's exactly why i'm not gonna waste any more time on you Atta. You're simply a fool that has come to a pre-emptive conclusion they refuse to shake.



Alright good.  Take your own advice and piss off then.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 29, 2018)

You might want to change your title.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Honestly could someone explain to me how not wanting people to treat others like Nazis treated the Jews in WW2 is anti semetic?


By all means, you're free to demonstrate when the current crop of Nazis had their businesses forcibly repossessed from them. When they had their citizenship - their basic human rights - stripped from them. When they were forced into gas chambers by the millions. When they were the target of a systematic, government-lead and expansionistic drive to purge them (in the most literal, fiery sense of the term) from both the native and neighboring populations. When they were loaded into train cars by the thousands to be ferried into concentration camps to be worked until they died, while what meagre belongings they yet carried with them were repossessed and sold to line the pockets of death camp / squad officers. When they had their children forcibly taken from them and raised to be the thing driving their families towards the receiving end of genocide. And so-on, and so-on.

By all means, you're free to demonstrate as much.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

_@Le Trash Fox _
_i wouldn't say we were yiffing, but things were peaceful before this thread got revived ... again._
_if you really want the forum to move on to what the fandom is about, though for me personally at its best it is about love and acceptance, then stop trying defend the indefensible things you apparently did in the past._
_just reading through what was posted here recently, users who know have made an almost unanimous case the you were in the wrong and have been promoting backdoor defenses of nazis and their beliefs._
_@Fallowfox posted an image here of you clearly trying to shoot down criticism of holocaust denial._
_assuming you're kyr, how many times are you going to put us through this?_​


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> I have not shot down criticism of holocaust denial, i don't put any stock in holocaust denial, i am not a Nazi, i am not a racist, such claims were levied against me for ridiculous reasons initially which is why i've defended others that have also been called such.


You explicitly argued in favor of a blanket ban of Muslim refugees and when needled for clarification as to why your argument literally boiled down to "It's for national security" "How?" "Wanting to preserve ideological, cultural purity is a matter of national security". You have explicitly in here compared _not wanting Nazis or pro-Nazi discourse_ as _comparable to the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany leading up to and during the Holocaust_. You routinely posted images with Nazi Swasticas for no reason other to fuck with people. You mocked people in the midst of ousting _literal NeoNazi recruitment Discords / Groups_ as "Not knowing a Nazi if they bit them on the ass" (and other, far less flattering, commentary). For fuck's sake,


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> I have not shot down criticism of holocaust denial, i don't put any stock in holocaust denial, i am not a Nazi, i am not a racist, such claims were levied against me for ridiculous reasons initially which is why i've defended others that have also been called such.
> 
> You are wrong about me, simple as that.


_fallow initially posted this, then i copied it, now i'm posting it yet again._
_



_
_why you would question whether holocaust denial any merit or validity?_
_why would it need to be approached with less negative bias?_​


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 29, 2018)

I would honestly feel more comfortable introducing random strangers to diaper furry art than I would showing them Kyr's posts.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> You explicitly argued in favor of a blanket ban of Muslim refugees and when needled for clarification as to why your argument literally boiled down to "It's for national security" "How?" "Wanting to preserve ideological, cultural purity is a matter of national security".
> 
> I never said that, it was a conclusion you pulled out of your ass, another reason i ignored you.


 I'll be blunt: Moderators, unless they cleared them, have report logs of the explicit post where you talked about how ideological and cultural purity is a matter of national security. I know because I reported as much before the thread was cast into the fires of Mount Doom. Are you *sure* you want to go down the road of "He's lying! A filthy liar! Dishonest curr!"?



Le Trash Fox said:


> _There are amusing similarities, yes._


 On the note of Moderators, I'll bite the bullet for whatever infraction points I receive for saying the following: You are a disgusting, sorry excuse of a person, and it has been my loss and many members of this forums' loss to know of both you and the peculiarities of your 'humor'.



Le Trash Fox said:


> _I was just pissed off with you at that point and i knew it would annoy you. My contentions were with the furry raiders and alt furry specifically, as i saw first hand what kind of people were there. They weren't Nazis by and large, that's the truth._


 Would you like to try again?


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> You routinely posted images with Nazi Swasticas for no reason other to fuck with people. You mocked people in the midst of ousting _literal NeoNazi recruitment Discords / Groups_ as "Not knowing a Nazi if they bit them on the ass" (and other, far less flattering, commentary). For fuck's sake,
> 
> I was just pissed off with you at that point and i knew it would annoy you. My contentions were with the furry raiders and alt furry specifically, as i saw first hand what kind of people were there. They weren't Nazis by and large, that's the truth.


_how could you think posting swastikas to annoy users would end well for you?_
_no wonder people believe you're a nazifur._
_nazism isn't a toy you can use intimidate people on demand._
_the defense of the furry raiders and altfurry just cements it._​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> When a large group of people start calling you alt right, or a Nazi, with genuine conviction, when you know you're not, it's infuriating. Honestly you can't be labelled as much worse nowadays, and after a while i knew that people wouldn't listen when i told them otherwise so i thought "Fuck it, may as well piss them off". Yes, that was a bad idea and i'm in the wrong for it.
> 
> My defense of those groups stems from the fact that a lot of the people i saw there are like me, people that had been falsely labelled Nazis or racists and that were angry about it. Those people weren't Nazis, that's the truth. And for the record, i joined those groups because the same person that didn't provide proof of those death threats and instead labelled me as an alt right sympathizer was also one of the main opponents of those groups and i wanted to see if she was telling the truth about them. On to Atta.


_you should've had better judgement than that, assuming i believe you, which i don't because people i respect have clearly proven otherwise. you don't use hate speech and hate imagery just to trigger people for petty reasons. obviously, it is disrespect to the people you're trying to piss off, but it also terrorizes people who belong to the groups persecuted by the nazis during the holocaust and the alt-right neo-nazis today. _
_you're an adult, act like it._

_as for your excuse that the furry raiders and altfurry aren't all bigots, let's use a example. if we were talking about the ku klux klan and i said not all members of the klan are racists, i would definitely get some strange looks from people here, hopefully, but probably not, everybody. that is how ridiculous your claim sounds._
_and i am not at all surprised you're a member of those groups. _​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Alt furry isn't the Klan. XD
> 
> And i left those groups after spending the same amount of time in them Deo did.
> 
> On to Atta once more.


_those screenshots attaman provided don't paint a pretty picture._​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> There were nazis in the alt furry discord, i'm saying there were lots of people that weren't and thus the group is slightly misrepresented. I don't like alt furry specifically because of the Nazi element.


_you say yourself the group is slightly misrepresented._
_ this implies that its popular representation is mostly accurate, so you are really splitting hairs here. _​


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 29, 2018)

Attaman said:


> So, which was it? You never said anything about ideological and cultural purity being matters of national security and you've been ignoring me because I make stuff up, or that you were making it as a 'misinterpreted' argument and intellectual exercise that you knew I'd never get but presented anyways (specifically because...)
> 
> But remember, I was picking on _you_ in this hypothetical.
> 
> ...



Yikes, I don't think people wrongly accused of being a Nazi should or would come anywhere close to a chatroom like that, doesn't make any sense. Even if it was a chatroom for people like that, the "occassional" Nazis freely posting this trash would be the same problem.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Both are true, i remember you being the one to bring Muslims up out of nowhere


The thread in question, for those unaware, was quite literally titled:
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/canada-to-accept-refugees-banned-by-the-us.1648509/page-9
Canada to Accept Refugees Banned by the US

It was a thread explicitly about the Muslim refugee ban by the Trump administration.

Gee, I can _*hardly*_ imagine where "Muslim" came up in that thread as possibly relevant to Kyr's _*entirely hypothetical*_ intellectual musings as to whether it was _*perfectly valid*_ to want to keep people out of a country for the sake of preserving cultural / ideological purity. It is an enigma, the processes of my mind.



Le Trash Fox said:


> I've met Deo personally, my statements regarding her actions and the actions of people around her towards me are true.


 How convenient. You'll forgive us if we don't naively devour every scrap of information and account you toss us, considering your current and past... behavior.



Le Trash Fox said:


> There were nazis in the alt furry discord, i'm saying there were lots of people that weren't and thus the group is slightly misrepresented. I don't like alt furry specifically because of the Nazi element. The furry raiders were mostly trolls that did the same thing Dancy's calling me out on. That's the truth based on my observations.


Yes, yes, we're familiar with your hypothesis of how the Furry Raiders totally didn't mean anything from the given screenshots and how they were false flags made by users specifically in the hope that somebody would infiltrate their private chats, gather a collection of such images, post them, and then open themselves up to having it revealed that these weeks of hurling racial slurs and white supremacist / nazi imagery was all an elaborate troll. It was about as convincing in July / August as it is now.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> No, i'm not. The fact that they're misrepresented means it should not automatically be used as a point against someone when it comes to assessing/attacking their beliefs. Alt furry =/= Nazi.


_you used the word "slightly". that implies the general perception of them is largely correct. _​


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 29, 2018)

Lock this zombie and burn the lich.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Lock this zombie and burn the lich.


_the thread could be locked, but solves half the problem only._
_this is the guy's third time returning here?_
_what's to stop him from disturbing the peace again?_​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Not to alarm you but, i know enough about forum administration and security to come back whenever i may like.
> 
> I've no interest in coming back and restarting this though. Just needed to state that i'm not a Nazi, that's important. These debates enrage people, and i think it's for the benefit of this and other communities not to falsely accuse people and let personal animosity impact your decisions/responses. It's on you as much as anyone else to prevent this from happening with more people.
> 
> Try to heal any future divides as opposed to helping them grow wider.


_i don't believe you._
_you're trying to put yourself on a pedestal here._
_if you wanted to help this community heal, you either would stayed gone, been contrite for whatever you did in the past to other users, or just enjoyed the forum which has gotten significantly better since certain users were banned for their bigoted behavior. instead, you came back with self-serving excuses and veiled taunts for users who knew you and took the time check you. by your own admission, you had no problem appropriating nazism and its imagery like swastikas to torment users. while you may not be a nazi, you expend a lot of effort to provide cover for them here. you had at least three accounts for whatever reasons, which i'm sure aren't good. that isn't the modus operandi of someone i trust. @Fallowfox , @Attaman , and @Misha Bordiga Zahradník are people i trust because they actually take the time to defend the victims of hate rather than the perpetrators. i will take their word over your any day and their presence here makes the forum a better place._
_i just hope people don't paint them as being political for pushing back against hateful and disingenuous bile that comes up on the forum from time to time here.  _​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Well you can believe what you like at this point.
> 
> I'm content with the fact that i've come in and told the truth, and sometimes feathers have to be ruffled y'know. There are many others that believe that the users you've mentioned are part of their own toxic culture.
> 
> As always, it's a matter of perception.


_not a single person has come on this thread to defend what you are doing._
_no one has even liked a single comment you have posted on this thread._
_not one._
_that is a sign that the community doesn't feel you're doing them a service.  _​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Well of course not, most of the ones that would've have been banned. XD
> 
> It doesn't matter if i have no one to back me up, i'm still speaking the truth.
> 
> The community still has it's issues, all that's happened is points of contention have been removed.


_maybe you all were the problem in first place._
_you're going to come back to troll us again?_​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 29, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> And no, i'm not a troll.


_you set up three accounts and are actively antagonizing users while moving the goal posts with your spurious arguments. that's troll behavior to me and it's indicative of somebody with ulterior motives._​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

_@Le Trash Fox _
_you posted on this thread as KYRYK to defend the behavior of a user named KYR first. fallowfox posted proof that you're at least comfortable promoting holocaust denial and attaman mentioned that you pushed racist conspiracy theories about south africa which were apparently discredited. both provided proof. i don't know if you're a transphobe, but if it comes down to your word and their word, i'll take theirs. you lied about who you were the first time you posted here, even though it was obvious from looking at the names that you were lying to people who knew you. that doesn't instill trust in me. when you kyryk account got banned, you showed up as le trash fox. that's three accounts. so you're a proven liar, not attaman and fallowfox. they don't lie to me._​


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Lock this zombie and burn the lich.


Instructions unclear, Dick stuck in ice.


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> I'm not comfortable promoting holocaust denial and i posted mainstream media articles about South Africa, i never pushed racist conspiracy theories there and i already explained that. XD


_where are these articles?_
_these keep coming up and i'm curious about them._​


Le Trash Fox said:


> I'm not a liar, i value the truth above all else, sometimes you have to omit things (such as the fact i was posting as an alt with KyryK) for obvious reasons. The important stuff i never lie about.


_you still lied to our faces and admitted you wanted to skirt the ban._
_you treated us like idiots._​


Le Trash Fox said:


> Frankly, Attaman's a fool and Fallow...i respect Fallow, knew him years back and he was always insightful in religious debates. He's somewhat arrogant though and likes to throw out assertions that come out of nowhere when debating people on this particular topic though.


_do you know how arrogant this sounds?_​


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

Can’t this thread just die already :u


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> ikr. It should die at any point between now and 4 hours from now, assuming SSJ checks the forum today.


_or you could just leave._
_you stated your point._
_you can't make us agree with you._​


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

@ This thread;




@Le Trash Fox


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Tbf if you didn't keep responding with things i felt the need to counter i wouldn't have to keep posting.
> 
> It's literally been you and me for...how long now. You're just as responsible at this point.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you agree or not. I'm not a Nazi/anti semite/transphobe/whatever. Now could you please stop responding so we can both get some peace?


_you sound like an abuser who wants to remind his wife he still has the keys to let himself in and it's her fault the abuse happens. but you can't come here, make outrageous claims, insult people, and expect there to be no push-back. _​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Hahahahahahaha, jesus christ. XD
> 
> Don't worry, SSJ's here. It'll be over soon.


_you know._
_find peace with yourself and others._
_have a good night._​


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Thank you, i have.
> 
> Have a good one, i have no real ill will here.


_you haven't, but i hope you will.
and there's plenty ill will that's been created here, even you choose not to acknowledge it._​


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Deny it all you will, and if you are like OMG my free speech, enough. Just stop. Anyone who believes in God or not just wants you to shut up.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> I'm not anti semitic Simo, i don't care about anyone's religious beliefs, race, gender, or whatever else. Live and let live, ideally. If you wish to restrict me for the sake of your own selfish beliefs, whatever they may be, that's when problems start.
> 
> Simo, i actually like you, and i'm not what you may think i am. Ok?
> 
> You do what you want with that, but there's no reason to hold onto anger or animosity because of what you may believe i am.



I don't think this is helping. I really don't want to get involved in this, but I just feel if you just left the thread as is, things would be less heated.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

I think parent company, IMVU needs to see all this, and see what they think about what buying FA meant. Looking at their website, it doesn't seem to support this..................


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Fine, then stop. Bye!

And stop these alt accounts.............


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Fine. Bye. I hope God blesses you, and purges bitterness from your heart, and you know joy.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

"...In the name of God, go!"


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

And in the name of Moses, go.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

I really can't see, as a liberal Jew, how this site allows such shit. It needs to  stop. You can debate me on theology, Torah, Zohar, fine.........but I feel like some unwanted one, here.


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 30, 2018)

This has not been the most edifying of threads on here.  My gut feeling is that it feels vanishingly unlikely that _all _of the banned members who admit to having spent time in alt-furry and alt-right groups were there only out of curiosity or for "research", especially when many of them go on to espouse almost textbook alt-right views, talking points and tactics.  
While you can point out that people like Deo also spent time in those groups, she clearly puts a lot of time and energy into opposing those groups and ideologies, while most of the recently banned members will only condemn them after some prompting and with qualifiers.  
And it doesn't help that Kyr here demonstrates that he is happy to lie to protect his reputation.  How are we supposed to trust any statement he makes after that?  
I don't like to be fuelling dumpster fires, but it's got to be a good thing if more than a couple of us make it clear that this stuff cannot be left to stand.


----------



## Moar Krabs (Sep 30, 2018)

You’re a Nazi for talking and thinking about Nazis. Some people are so messed up these days. Smh.




Seriously though, I don’t know what they mean when they say it. And even when some one explains it to me, I’d forget it instantly.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Also: For the love of God, close this thread.

@SSJ3Mewtwo 

@Dragoneer 

Come on. Please.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> I think parent company, IMVU needs to see all this, and see what they think about what buying FA meant. Looking at their website, it doesn't seem to support this..................


Honestly I feel they should be more worried about the pedos and dogfuckers running rampant among us. They've been a problem for longer.


----------



## Cawdabra (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> Also: For the love of God, close this thread.
> 
> @SSJ3Mewtwo
> 
> ...


Just spread your anal juices all over the thread. That'll keep everyone away. :V


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)




----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Honestly I feel they should be more worried about the pedos and dogfuckers running rampant among us. They've been a problem for longer.



Obviously we can and should get rid of both. 

Currently nobody is making posts publicly defending animal abusers or paedophiles, so that's why there isn't a big furor about it at the moment. If somebody did begin doing that, you can be guaranteed the community would respond very critically.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Sep 30, 2018)

Remember when people used things like the Garand, PPSh-41, Thompson, etc. to deal with Nazis?  Pepperidge Farm remembers!


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Just spread your anal juices all over the thread. That'll keep everyone away. :V



Whatever. Ya always were a headache and you always were a bore. Go back to your beloved Phoenixed, huh?


----------



## Cawdabra (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> Whatever. Ya always were a headache and you always were a bore. Go back to your beloved Phoenixed, huh?


I was making a skunk joke. Also Phoenixed is dead.


----------



## Revates (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> Whatever. Ya always were a headache and you always were a bore. Go back to your beloved Phoenixed, huh?



Lmao, someone's overly sensitive.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Revates said:


> Lmao, someone's overly sensitive.



Whatever. Crawling back here, huh? Poor, poor, dog.

May as well smile!


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

I would just like to point out that Kyr's alt account 'KyryK' has been registered since* 2014*.
His alt account 'Le Trash Fox' has been registered since *July*.

This means he registered his alternative accounts before he was banned, not in response to his bans.
That indicates he full well knew that the sorts of comments he was making about the Holocaust were likely to get him banned, and he was making alts as a contingency plan in case that happened.
There's also probably an aspect of these nasty users creating crowds of sock-puppet accounts that agree with them, to make it look like their ideas are more popular than they actually are.


...and you know, they were probably using these alts to mass-report posts by people they wanted to silence. :\


----------



## Revates (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> Whatever. Crawling back here, huh? Poor, poor, dog.
> 
> May as well smile!



Okay lol, looks like I struck a nerve as well.



Fallowfox said:


> There's also probably an aspect of these nasty users creating crowds of sock-puppet accounts that agree with them, to make it look like their ideas are more popular than they actually are.



You'd think the fact that people need to try and artificially manufacture support for their viewpoints would be an indication to them that their views aren't sound and they lack that much confidence in what they're saying.


----------



## CindyPig (Sep 30, 2018)

Most members of the Republican Party seem to have adapted to fascism , but I'm not sure they all wear furry outfits when raping people. Nasty Nazi Nimrods all.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Sep 30, 2018)

I dont know what I'm doing here with these idiots >:U


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 30, 2018)

Whilst I (generally) dislike focusing on any specific users on here (in any of my thread postings), I must say: that I've never (personally) had any problems with the user "Kyr" - in fact I was surprised that he was banned, when I found out. I mean, yeah.. sure, he had some far right views, (as I can recall) but - whenever I engaged with him, it was usually pretty civil; he was never nasty, or belligerent, or nothing like that.. (at least with me).

That said - there are some other users on here that (at times) made my skin crawl - and I frequently went out of my way to avoid.. (and I still do, in some cases).. but, what-ev.

There's a very huge difference, (I think) between banning someone for ToS violations - versus banning someone for political views that may not be popular. I mean, if we were all the same and agreed all the time - then what a World this would be.. (just my two-cents on the topic). ☺



Fallowfox said:


> There's also probably an aspect of these nasty users creating crowds of sock-puppet accounts that agree with them, to make it look like their ideas are more popular than they actually are.
> 
> ...and you know, they were probably using these alts to mass-report posts by people they wanted to silence.



Or... creating many different accounts on here - simply just to constantly troll this board, and harass other users that they're uncomfortable with or disagree with.


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 30, 2018)

I don't think we should be accepting of far-right views on here just because they're expressed "civilly".  The tone is not the issue with far-right politics, it's the content.  FA's written policy goes in the right direction, but their enforcement of it leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

For those of you who thought Kyr was 'civil', hopefully the revelation that he was using alternative accounts to give the impression that third parties found his perspectives reasonable shows that appearances can be deceptive. 

If you thought he was respectful and polite, you were tricked. 
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Revates said:


> Okay lol, looks like I struck a nerve as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd think the fact that people need to try and artificially manufacture support for their viewpoints would be an indication to them that their views aren't sound and they lack that much confidence in what they're saying.





You were always a standoffish snob, and you still are. You're like an adult version of the middle school lunch room. 

Time out.


----------



## HistoricalyIncorrect (Sep 30, 2018)

Why so serious?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> For those of you who thought Kyr was 'civil', hopefully the revelation that he was using alternative accounts to give the impression that third parties found his perspectives reasonable shows that appearances can be deceptive.
> 
> If you thought he was respectful and polite, you were tricked.
> Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.



There are other users on here that are a lot more creepy than him, (I find) - and it's those types of users - that deserve to be shown the door, IMO. Which includes *all* of their phony accounts that they're using.

The Admins should flush them all out - and clean house.

It's *badly needed* on here.



Massan Otter said:


> I don't think we should be accepting of far-right views on here just because they're expressed "civilly".  The tone is not the issue with far-right politics, it's the content.  FA's written policy goes in the right direction, but their enforcement of it leaves a lot to be desired.


Yeah, but there's a big difference between expressing far-right hate speech, versus expressing extremely conservative views - that someone doesn't like.


----------



## KimberVaile (Sep 30, 2018)

God fucking god, the reactions on both sides of this thread makes me want to delete my account.


----------



## Sylver (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> The one reason I am buying a gun:
> 
> alt-right/neo nazis/nazis
> 
> can be solved here:


Why am I getting a "School Shooter." vibe


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Not at all. I just wanna be safe from the alt right and Trump nuts.

Here: I'll post it again:


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

Honestly, I don’t care what side your on, you guys are giving the troll who necroed this thread victory, by reacting and still fighting
For the love of everything

*Stop.*


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Not until a mod locks the alt account


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

HistoricalyIncorrect said:


> Why so serious?



So obviously the fact that users banned for antisemitism have continued to return with alternative accounts is a serious problem and we need to treat this issue with the appropriate level of respect.



Revates said:


> Okay lol, looks like I struck a nerve as well.



So the nerve you struck was that Simo is Jewish, and obviously the repeated manifestation of alt accounts making nasty comments about the Holocaust isn't an issue he should expect to be confronted with on a furry forum. 

You may not have been aware of the context of the discussion, since you recently arrived in this thread. 
I am sure you can see why Cawdabra's comment about 'anal juices' wasn't perceived as appropriately respectful.


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)

No communists,
no lefties,
no socialists,
no Nazis.

You'll still owe back your tuition loans. You won't overthrow the "system." Fix up your resume, fix yourself. 

Save the cheerleader.
Save the world.

Only America. Aw yeah.


----------



## Plitheon (Sep 30, 2018)

Who is that naked man with American flag?


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)

Werewolf: The Last Warrior - Wikipedia




Plitheon said:


> Who is that naked man with American flag?


----------



## Sylver (Sep 30, 2018)

Troj said:


> To my mind, when you start going after somebody _just_ based on what you assume is rattling around inside of their brain, _you_ become the fascist.


Why do they become the fascists? I don't have a good understanding of the word.



Troj said:


> The problem (and not just in the fandom) is that people often take disagreement as a personal attack, period.
> 
> This tends to be more of a pattern with people who are basically immature.


I noticed a correlation between how emotionally invested a person is and the likelihood they will perceive not just disagreement, but asking question or not immediately agreeing with them, as a personal attack. I have also noticed that as emotional investment increases, the likelihood people will question their beliefs significantly decreases. IMO, it should be the opposite way around, for everybody.

So I agree with your statement, but I would expand it to say that the problem, at its core, is being too invested.

TL;DR: people care too much. I really don't know where they get the energy to invest so heavily. It looks exhausting.


----------



## Plitheon (Sep 30, 2018)

ItsBrou said:


> Werewolf: The Last Warrior - Wikipedia


I don't know what the matter this to Serbia.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I dont know what I'm doing here with these idiots >:U


I thought you were hunting for nudes? :u
like the new avatar by the way


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

And that gun is just to protect me from the crazy, Jew hating, Trump Rednecks, in self defense. Nothing more. So calm down. It sure looks pretty.


----------



## Troj (Sep 30, 2018)

Sylver said:


> Why do they become the fascists? I don't have a good understanding of the word.



One word: thoughtcrime.



Sylver said:


> I have also noticed that as emotional investment increases, the likelihood people will question their beliefs significantly decreases. IMO, it should be the opposite way around, for everybody.



To be sure, some of these issues are extremely important, and the stakes are potentially quite high, so it's absolutely understandable and reasonable for people to get emotionally involved.

But, you're right that people are often less likely to question or stop themselves once they're emotionally invested in something, and this is how people end up potentially making impulsive, bad, emotionally-driven choices or getting caught in an emotional tailspin.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Sep 30, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> I thought you were hunting for nudes? :u
> like the new avatar by the way


I can't hunt for noods when everybody's trying to kill each other :V


----------



## Dancy (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> And that gun is just to protect me from the crazy, Jew hating, Trump Rednecks, in self defense. Nothing more. So calm down.


_i have a feeling if this was a second amendment discussion, this wouldn't be an issue for some people. _
_so people can stow the fake outrage about simo._
_not too long ago, i saw a user here give a death threat in a political thread and some people here didn't say word to person who made it because they agreed with them politically, so let's not railroad simo for the sake of a "both sides" argument. it's amazing how some people can act like they respect certain users, play last post wins with them, boop them, and then turn around to insult them and stab them in the back periodically. _

_being real, i think if we're going to have a conversation about what happened here, it should be confined to talking about behavior and action of the forum rather than society at large, which is whole other shitshow._
_just saying._​


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

I've received death threats from a few Trumpsterfires now, since the subject came up. One would have clearly acted on it if it weren't for the crowd and literal company of police present. The rest were probably less than genuine, and more a hopes of intimidating me, or acting tough. That's not even the Neonazis, that's just well and deceived people that bought into the man's economic promises, and "They took our jerbs!". As for literal Neonazis, I've seen the stormer forums, let alone the recent murders; and that is before we bring up Atomwaffen. I've also been almost deliberately run over a few times now. 
@Simo 
I would strongly encourage a good training course that emphasizes good use of force principles. And practice regularly.


----------



## ellaerna (Sep 30, 2018)

FFS. Why couldn't have this died in the week I was away?

For those feeling a bit lost, let's review:
> Kyryk makes an account in 2014, posted some shit here and there, then vanished for years.
> User Kyr appears on the scene some time later, posting on the forum games, but also posting wildly inflammatory and awful things about various groups of people. When called on this, his response is to _double down _on the awful and start posting even more awful and hateful things. Cause surely the best way to prove you're not a Nazi is to act just like one. 
> Sometime in July, LeTrashFox account is made, quite possibly due to increasing probability of getting banned.
> Kyr gets banned and out from the ether comes Kyryk, suddenly very politically minded and very interested in defending Kyr et al.
> Kyryk goes on to defend Kyr and crew, saying they are not who we think they are despite mountains of links, screenshots, and personal accounts of the kind of hateful rhetoric they put out into the world for all to see.  
> Kyryk gets banned and apparently loses all sense of reason, using the TrashFox account to admit to skirting his ban TWICE and still going on to defend himself and his actions, presenting himself as the victim again despite heaps of evidence to the contrary.
> TrashFox is still unbanned for lord knows what reason.

So we have a person who's made multiple accounts even before getting banned- one (Kyr) presumably just to spread hate and keep the other with a clean rep, and another just to argue against the bans he knew were coming. This is a person who claims to be a misunderstood victim of false accusations, but who acknowledges that his actions were shitty and that he purposely posted MORE Nazi-esq content when angry. But despite talking like a Nazi and using Nazi imagery like a Nazi and defending other people who look like Nazis-  we're the ones at fault for thinking "hey, maybe he's a Nazi". 

This is a person who denied or ignored solid evidence presented to him in favor of self-report "promises" by his friends. This is a person when faced with push back on his posts did not engage in good faith but taunted and intimidated other users by his own admission. This is a person who has lied multiple times, wormed his way around rules that we're all bound by, and has put his own hurt feelings above everyone else in order to keep pushing a victim narrative that just doesn't fit with the facts at hand. 

But yeah, he's really a good person and the ban is totally unfair. Sure.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> Not at all. I just wanna be safe from the alt right and Trump nuts.
> 
> Here: I'll post it again:


If you really want to be safe from Trump supporters, a revolver won't help much. The Pigfucker is too wild and brutish to be subdued by conventional means.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> If you really want to be safe from Trump supporters, a revolver won't help much. The Pigfucker is too wild and brutish to be subdued by conventional means.



Still, I like it. I wanna gun like detective movies. Obviously, nothing will save us from our own army, turned against us. Shit they have, ballistic to gas to whatever.

I just wanna go down pretty.


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)

Having fantasies about murdering supporters of the President of the United States is kinda unhealthy.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> Still, I like it. I wanna gun like detective movies. Obviously, nothing will save us from our own army, turned against us. Shit they have, ballistic to gas to whatever.
> 
> I just wanna go down pretty.


I want to learn how to speak Eldritch just because I'd be disappointing if my species couldn't at least make a witty comeback before being wiped out when Cthulu rises.



ItsBrou said:


> Having fantasies about murdering supporters of the President of the United States is kinda unhealthy.


There's a huge difference between self defense/concern for one's own well-being and fantasizing about murder.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

ItsBrou said:


> Having fantasies about murdering supporters of the President of the United States is kinda unhealthy.


I didn't know self defense was murder? Though I do think Simo is being understandably pessimistic. What bothers me is the martyr complex. 

*“No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.”-G. Patton. *


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 30, 2018)

Does it bother anyone else that the top 3 threads in Community Discussion currently don't really have anything to do with furries/are only vaguely about furries?


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> I just wanna go down pretty.









How about this extra fancy twenty-shot twin-barreled pinfire revolver with gold studs, plating, and engraved designs?

Perhaps I'm extending my humor too much here.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the top 3 threads in Community Discussion currently don't really have anything to do with furries/are only vaguely about furries?


Most of the threads in community discussion are either
Politics/drama or discord invites


----------



## TrishaCat (Sep 30, 2018)

TacomaTheDeer said:


> Most of the threads in community discussion are either
> Politics/drama or discord invites


As silly as a complaint as it is I wish these would go in General Discussion
I want to see a community discussion actually about the furry community ._.

Although Discord invite threads are evil nightmare incarnate and I wouldn't mind seeing them vanish completely :V


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)

So a few things.

Trump supporters don't sit around fantasizing about hurting people. I've had people act out against me.

The ones who voted for Trump because they hoped he would hurt minorities are going to be disappointed and have a bad time.

I've had 3 vandalism cases against my home and the American flag I have posted by my front door. Slicing, tearing, pulling, burning, you name it. I've had things like loc-tite, chemicals, and other things  thrown in my yard, in hopes my dogs would consume them and die.

I'm in the center of a blue district. I don't think about hurting anyone who supported Hillary or Bernie. I haven't even worn my hat around my neighbors, for fear of actual assault. Is it right for these things to happen?

Consider the people who say words are violence, like how people in Antifa say.

Who's to say someone doesn't internalize that logic and decide somebody with a maga hat or bumper has just assaulted them, and therefore said person must defend themselves with deadly force?


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Sep 30, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the top 3 threads in Community Discussion currently don't really have anything to do with furries/are only vaguely about furries?


It does actually annoy my OCD that most of the political threads get posted in the wrong forums.
Most of them went in Community, while the one or two that were actually about the community were in General, I think :s
Only a few of them were actually in the correct subforum... Like, stahp pls.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

ItsBrou said:


> So a few things.
> 
> Trump supporters don't sit around fantasizing about hurting people. I've had people act out against me.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you've done more to piss of your neighbors than have an american flag. Most liberals view Trump as a traitor to American ideals and values, and have their own brand of patriotism. As for Trump supporters not wishing violence on others;


TW for what follows, includes implied murder, violence, and Nazi imagery. I strongly oppose what follows. 

www.google.com: Hundreds of Migrant Children Quietly Moved to a Tent Camp on the Texas Border

OwO


Spoiler: what's this?










newrepublic.com: If you beat up a protester at Trump’s rally, he’ll cover your legal fees.


Spoiler: Ope











www.washingtonpost.com: Analysis | Trump’s speech encouraging police to be ‘rough,’ annotated

www.google.com: Undercover cop, Air Force officer, med student among those police swept up during downtown protest


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Sep 30, 2018)

Well this thread is getting more disturbing with each new posts......


Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> It sounds like you've done more to piss of your neighbors than have an american flag. Most liberals view Trump as a traitor to American ideals and values, and have their own brand of patriotism. As for Trump supporters not wishing violence on others;
> 
> 
> TW for what follows, includes implied murder, violence, and Nazi imagery. I strongly oppose what follows.
> ...


*sigh* I am thankful that I am to tired from finishing homework to even care about this emotionally charged post.......


----------



## ItsBrou (Sep 30, 2018)

Yeah,
This is a really eye-opening thread. I'm gonna head to church(TW) and let this thing take care of itself


----------



## Marcl (Sep 30, 2018)

Now, now, now...

What is this? A Wild West tavern? Hide your guns, leave all skunks alone. And stop getting onto those bandwagons. No gold to find here.

Let's just go and move to to the place where grass is greener, air fresher, water tastes like wine and furs are nicer to each other.

The story ends here.


----------



## Troj (Sep 30, 2018)

You don't need to sit around fantasizing about hurting people in order to do or be complicit in harm.

Really, all that's needed in many cases is for people to quietly turn aside as harm is being done, because it's "no big deal" or "it's for the greater good" or "those people had it coming" or "what can you do?"


----------



## Marcl (Sep 30, 2018)

Troj said:


> You don't need to sit around fantasizing about hurting people in order to do or be complicit in harm.
> 
> Really, all that's needed in many cases is for people to quietly turn aside as harm is being done, because it's "no big deal" or "it's for the greater good" or "those people had it coming" or "what can you do?"


Just to clear things up. The worst is to desensitize ourselves to violence. Even just its forms. The moment you need to resort to violence is the moment of you admitting that you failed at everything else. And trying to find excuses is a gateway for worse thing to happen.

And that was the epilogue.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

Marcl said:


> Let's just go and move to to the place where grass is greener


About that... might’ve already ate all of the grass over there... sorry about that,
Couldn’t resist :v


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I've received death threats from a few Trumpsterfires now, since the subject came up. One would have clearly acted on it if it weren't for the crowd and literal company of police present. The rest were probably less than genuine, and more a hopes of intimidating me, or acting tough. That's not even the Neonazis, that's just well and deceived people that bought into the man's economic promises, and "They took our jerbs!". As for literal Neonazis, I've seen the stormer forums, let alone the recent murders; and that is before we bring up Atomwaffen. I've also been almost deliberately run over a few times now.
> @Simo
> I would strongly encourage a good training course that emphasizes good use of force principles. And practice regularly.




Yeah, it's not an easy pull, I hear. But I like that, I wanna be sure. And definitely, I'll do all required training courses, and then some. I'm not trigger happy, but just in case.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

Troj said:


> You don't need to sit around fantasizing about hurting people in order to do or be complicit in harm.
> 
> Really, all that's needed in many cases is for people to quietly turn aside as harm is being done, because it's "no big deal" or "it's for the greater good" or "those people had it coming" or "what can you do?"




What's odd, is that I'm not wanting to hurt anyone, gun talk and all.......never hope to fire one


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 30, 2018)

Someone sent me a message asking about my own record on here. 

Whatever.

* For the record: I've been on this Forum for nearly six years - and I think my own track record on here speaks for itself, at this point. In nearly six years, I've received *zero* complaints (from anyone) about my postings or behavior.. so, there you go. 

You can dig through my posting records all you want - and you'll find absolutely nothing to complain about. So... yeah.



Dancy said:


> _ it's amazing how some people can act like they respect certain users, play last post wins with them, boop them, and then turn around to insult them and stab them in the back periodically. _



Bingo. You're "spot on" right there. That said - there are some of us on here (at least) that still have the personal tenacity to say what we feel - directly to said individual(s), as opposed to under-handed (passive-aggressive like tactics) on PM's and threads; (and, at the same time) all the while conducting various chit-chats (and gossip) - behind backs when they're turned. ☺


----------



## Cawdabra (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I am sure you can see why Cawdabra's comment about 'anal juices' wasn't perceived as appropriately respectful.


I don't. What does anal juice have to do with the Holocaust? Skunks spray anal juice to ward off predators. :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> I don't. What does anal juice have to do with the Holocaust?



Kyr had formerly commented that he thinks Nazis are being treated unfairly in fundamentally the same way as the Jewish people were during the Holocaust. 
Kyr was subsequently banned. 

Simo, being Jewish, is understandably upset that Kyr has continued to use alternative accounts, such as KyryK and Le Trash Fox to evade that ban and continue talking about his views. It is obviously even more upsetting when other users like Connor comment that they _don't see why_ what Kyr did was wrong. 

So when you quoted Simo and made a joke about his 'anal juices' you were making light of a very serious issue. 
Now maybe you weren't aware of the context of the conversation, and I suppose if you weren't you can just apologise to Simo. 
Do bear in mind though that he wouldn't be obliged to forgive you.


----------



## Simo (Sep 30, 2018)

I really can not believe this.

No mod or anyone has come forth, after any alt account.

'The Site" has been saying more mods are on the way, since May. So's Christmas. Get yer asses in gear.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It is obviously even more upsetting when other users like Connor comment that they _don't see why_ what Kyr did was wrong.



I'm not defending him making alternate accounts, to bypass his ban.

As I said :


Connor J. Coyote said:


> Or... creating many different accounts on here - simply just to constantly troll this board, and harass other users that they're uncomfortable with or disagree with.





Connor J. Coyote said:


> The Admins should flush them all out - and clean house.
> 
> It's *badly needed* on here.



If he's spewing hate speech (directed at some people) then, yeah.. I can see why a ban is appropriate.. and making alternative accounts on here to get around this, isn't okay.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Sep 30, 2018)

I often wonder why the furry fandom of all places is a beacon to all manner of nazi and political zealots. It feels like a day doesn't go by without some random-ass political thread popping up in "recent postings".

And people say we're all about yiff. Apparently not.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Sep 30, 2018)

Rimna said:


> I often wonder why the furry fandom of all places is a beacon to all manner of nazi and political zealots. It feels like a day doesn't go by without some random-ass political thread popping up in "recent postings".
> 
> And people say we're all about yiff. Apparently not.


Yiff was like sooo yesterday! Ugh, get with the trends grandpa! It’s all about politics now! :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

Rimna said:


> I often wonder why the furry fandom of all places is a beacon to all manner of nazi and political zealots. It feels like a day doesn't go by without some random-ass political thread popping up in "recent postings".
> 
> And people say we're all about yiff. Apparently not.



In short, some people in the Alt-right have decided to target the furry fandom, because they see it as a valuable asset to help them recruit new members.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 30, 2018)

HistoricalyIncorrect said:


> Why so serious?


Fun fact about that image, in relation to this thread: The bed Pew made for himself all started with "just a joke" that people were "taking out of context". And claims that WSJ was slandering him with outright lies. Starting to sound familiar? Because it should, and it's only going to start sounding more familiar as I go on.

Well, it turned out that a lot of the things the WSJ (Wall-Street Journal, for those not aware of the acronym) was supposedly "slandering" him and "lying" about? Turns out they were either not actually in the WSJ article, or - the things that were there - _very_ properly sourced with them even going so far as to try and contact Pew before publishing (or, in other words, effectively needling him for clarification before they made any errors in interpreting his actions / intents), and that many of the people claiming as much were relying on people to just... either not have any knowledge about the situation whatsoever, or not bother to look behind the paywall to see if the people telling them such things about the WSJ article were being honest.

Remember what I said about sounding familiar? But wait, there's more!

Well, fast forward a wee bit and we have such 'fun' and 'innocent' content by PewDiePie as this (Warning: It involves Pew basically roleplaying himself as Hitler in Conan, hunting "undesirables", with everything that entails). You know, wholesome content! Fun for everyone*! And online streaming featuring an accidental "slip of the tongue" (but let's be honest, who doesn't vomit out racial slurs when caught in the heat of a moment of a particularly engrossing online game?**). But this (and other such behavior) is all totally innocent, and out of context, and at worst shouldn't be seen as anything serious. He's not a Nazi, after all, and that's what counts! He even said he does not approve of such hateful things!

Well, except for the whole actively cozying up to people who are NeoNazis / NeoNazis Lite and running active interference for them while also getting their rhetoric out there. And vocally supposing that the consequences of his actions are due to reverse-racism.

Yeah, Pew is actually _incredibly_ fitting to use as an example in this thread of people being "thin-skinned" and supposedly just looking for excuses / vents.

*Except those who count among the demographics that were historically butchered as "undesirables". Or those with family / friends who were counted as among such. Or those with some basic human empathy. 

**A lot of people, it turns out.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 30, 2018)

Le Trash Fox said:


> Do you think we should treat Nazis like they treated the Jews?





Le Trash Fox said:


> Are those quotes anti Semitic? and if so tell me why.
> 
> Should we treat Nazis the same way they treated the Jews? How does that make us better people?





Attaman said:


> By all means, you're free to demonstrate when the current crop of Nazis had their businesses forcibly repossessed from them. When they had their citizenship - their basic human rights - stripped from them. When they were forced into gas chambers by the millions. When they were the target of a systematic, government-lead and expansionistic drive to purge them (in the most literal, fiery sense of the term) from both the native and neighboring populations. When they were loaded into train cars by the thousands to be ferried into concentration camps to be worked until they died, while what meagre belongings they yet carried with them were repossessed and sold to line the pockets of death camp / squad officers. When they had their children forcibly taken from them and raised to be the thing driving their families towards the receiving end of genocide. And so-on, and so-on.
> 
> By all means, you're free to demonstrate as much.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

I'd like to point out to everybody that Le Trash Fox had previously insisted that he meant 'people falsely accused of being Nazis'. 

Take note that this is *not* what he is asking now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 30, 2018)

I mean, you've asked us this question like, 10 times with 3 different accounts. 

The point of the question clearly isn't attaining an answer. The point is to create a platform that cultivates sympathy for people who identify with the Nazi ideology. 
Because if somebody replies with 'yes' you will begin reading a scripted response about how this shows they're being prejudiced in a fundamentally similar way to the Nazis themselves. 
And if somebody replies with 'no I don't think that', it gives the incorrect impression that a prejudice towards Nazis exists and that they require defense from unfair victimisation.

The actual answer is that it's _not possible_ to treat the Nazis in the 'same way' as they treated Jews, because the Jewish people were innocent of any wrongdoing and their mistreatment is inseparable from that fact.


----------



## Sylver (Sep 30, 2018)

Troj said:


> You don't need to sit around fantasizing about hurting people in order to do or be complicit in harm.
> 
> Really, all that's needed in many cases is for people to quietly turn aside as harm is being done, because it's "no big deal" or "it's for the greater good" or "those people had it coming" or "what can you do?"


Personally I see this type of morality as manipulative as it boils down to basically saying, "You are either with us or against us." and pushes people to take sides. I don't know if that really matters in and of itself, although I have seen it used to justify people going out of their way to bother/harass others for simply not agreeing with them. In that situation it would be, "Agree with us, or we'll verbally harass you."


----------



## Massan Otter (Sep 30, 2018)

Looks like we're getting the scripted response anyway. 
How the hell is this guy still here?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

Attaman said:


> Fun fact about that image, in relation to this thread: The bed Pew made for himself all started with "just a joke" that people were "taking out of context". And claims that WSJ was slandering him with outright lies. Starting to sound familiar? Because it should, and it's only going to start sounding more familiar as I go on.
> 
> Well, it turned out that a lot of the things the WSJ (Wall-Street Journal, for those not aware of the acronym) was supposedly "slandering" him and "lying" about? Turns out they were either not actually in the WSJ article, or - the things that were there - _very_ properly sourced with them even going so far as to try and contact Pew before publishing (or, in other words, effectively needling him for clarification before they made any errors in interpreting his actions / intents), and that many of the people claiming as much were relying on people to just... either not have any knowledge about the situation whatsoever, or not bother to look behind the paywall to see if the people telling them such things about the WSJ article were being honest.
> 
> ...


I hadn't checked in on this story. Jesus fucking H Christ on a rocket tube.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Sep 30, 2018)

Simo said:


> What's odd, is that I'm not wanting to hurt anyone, gun talk and all.......never hope to fire one


Most people don't want to kill anyone, even in self defense. It goes against human programming to the point about half of US forces in World War II would regularly fail to shoot to kill against enemy forces while themselves under fire. Those most likely to shoot to kill that were not sociopaths were people who had served in a parental role.


----------



## HistoricalyIncorrect (Sep 30, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So obviously the fact that users banned for antisemitism have continued to return with alternative accounts is a serious problem and we need to treat this issue with the appropriate level of respect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you know what is the best way to deal with the problem permanently? Ignore it, make sure it can not make an impact here so there will be no reason to return and holocaust? Ignorants are everywhere and believe me... as a Pole I have met this topic way too many times


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 1, 2018)

What's going on?
Could this be my understanding
It's not your fault, I was being too demanding
I must admit it's my pride that made me distant
All because I hoped that you'd be someone different
There's not much to know about you
Fear will always make you blind
But the answer is in clear view
It's amazing what you'll find face to face
I turned away 'cause I thought you were the problem
Tried to forget until I hit the bottom
But when I faced you in my blank confusion
I had to see it was just a mere illusion
It really didn't make sense
Just to leave this unresolved
It's not hard to go the distance
When you finally get involved face to face


----------



## Massan Otter (Oct 1, 2018)

I did not mention Neo-Nazis, nice strawman there.  And how many times have you left us now? You're making yourself look more ridiculous and desperate than you did already.


----------



## Massan Otter (Oct 1, 2018)

Do we get another grandiose parting statement? Go on, you know you want to...


----------



## Inpw (Oct 1, 2018)

I'm a Nazi apparently.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 2, 2018)

Inpw said:


> I'm a Nazi apparently.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 2, 2018)

So welcome back from a two-year hiatus, Inpw...

I am surprised that this thread hasn't been locked. I feel like it should be, because for as long as it remains open it will remain a temptation for banned users to comment in, because they almost certainly still have hidden alternative accounts.


----------



## Inpw (Oct 2, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So welcome back from a two-year hiatus, Inpw...
> 
> I am surprised that this thread hasn't been locked. I feel like it should be, because for as long as it remains open it will remain a temptation for banned users to comment in, because they almost certainly still have hidden alternative accounts.



Thanks. Been busy, changed jobs and had to move to flipped Johannesburg.

I'm not sure why lock though it while there is a discussion about the whole nazifur thing going around.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 3, 2018)

Closing this down for review.  I've no problem with the topic generally being discussed, but this thread has resulted in too many reports being filed.


----------

