Nov
21st
2018
Wholesome Rage: The False Equivalence of 'Both Sides' · 9:57am Nov 21st, 2018
Link here. Content warning: Discussion of pretty awful stuff, photographs of violence.
My favourite articles tend to be the ones that tear into my old, or even recent, beliefs. There's probably something Catholic penance-y about the whole thing.
This one is one of those articles. It's about the way violence is falsely equivocated between the left and the right, the motivations behind that violence, and a direct indictment of the idea that; "If you're violent, you don't get to sit at the Adult table in politics" as both wilfully blind and historically ignorant. It was also a direct request so, kudos to FimFiction's own Caligari87.
Next week is a guest article by Pearple Prose, as a palette cleanser.
EDIT: A good resource
What if you’re apathetic and like to watch all the back and forth between both sides like I do? It is kinda fun to watch.
4971115
backspace.com/notes/images/if-you-are-neutral.jpg
4971117
Honestly, this
4971117
Not neutral. I have my own opinions about issues but I do find it entertaining to watch both sides tear their hair out about each other. Whether one side is more right than the other is not what I’m referring to. I’m simply entertained at the sheer amount of animosity between everyone now and how ridiculous it is. Absurdity can always get a laugh or two out of me. As for my apathy towards the state of human relations and politics, maybe its years of disappointment in promises made and broken by both sides but I’ve thrown up my hands in it all. Now I’m just in it for the ride.
4971121
Tired of spineless liberals? Consider finding a leftist party that actually does direct action shit. There’s plenty out there and I’ll be happy to help you find some local ones.
4971123
Nah. I’m good. In fact, I’m more of a centrist now than I was back then anyhow. Like I said, I’m apathetic about politics now anyway.
4971125
Just curious: Did you read the linked article I wrote attached to this, or did you just comment?
4971128
The latter. Who reads past the first line before firing off a response? This is the internet after all.
Point still stands though. I used to be very interested in politics but the past 5-6 years or so has burnt me out pretty bad. Now, whatever happens, happens.
4971130
I would please ask you to read this particular article before making these specific comments, because otherwise you might come across as... well, monstrously callous. Or at least skim it.
4971131
That’s fine. I never intended to come across as a good person here. The mere fact that I can get a giggle out of a bunch of angry people going at each other like cats and dogs should tel anyone everything they need to know.
In this comment chain, we see, quite starkly, exactly the what makes the centrist mentality so dangerous. Have a giggle at people getting upset because of actual violence and murder? Jesus Christ. And then justifying it by acting like being apathetic is somehow just fine and dandy.
Your points have merit, but the far left is just as capable of "over-correcting" to the point that it makes people swing the other way out of spite. Can't have a civil discussion about border control without being called a racist, or any other of the buzzwords. That's not to mention the impact they are having on free speech in general.
Punching Hitler is fine and all, until you realise that even having a remotely centrist option makes you a "fascist" in the eyes of many far leftists. Anyone who currently sits in the center is only going to be pushed right, causing even more extremes.
I think you're conflating violence done by politically partisan people and political violence here.
Some far-right loon shooting up a synagogue is not violence perpetrated by political right, just like someone shooting up cops over BLM is not violence by democratic party.
Since there are demonstrably crazypeople on both sides, that would make for a confusing, and frankly pointless comparison.
4971143
Then why doesn't far-right violence, which is far more prevalent, threaten to push you more left wing? Why is it unidirectional?
4971144
They were politically motivated violent acts. Murdering cops over perceived racial tension is political violence. Shooting at a synagogue because of white nationalist beliefs is political in nature.
The one I would cede, added in a fresh edit, would be Gregory Amos, the Kekistani teenager who strangled his mother. However, I thought that was notable to keep in to highlight the second undercurrent for the right wing section; Its link to violence in angry young white men.
I did my best when researching this, but I am understandably biased. If you can find similar cases of radically left people doing things like murdering their parents over fights about their politics, I'll cede the point.
4971146 I suppose it depends on the situation, but from the vast majority of times I have sat on the sidelines watching an argument/debate or issue to determine which side I agree with, the far left's dogma of putting feelings over facts clashes with my own pursuit of truth. As I said, I am no stranger to speaking uncomfortable truths. Many of my political leanings used to be centre-left, but the more I watch any politics the more insane the left seems to become. This video sums it up pretty well.
I just wish more people understood that there is a vast political spectrum, and holding a conservative view in one thing or another doesn't make you an evil fascist that needs to be punched in the face.
America is in a state of civil peace, rather than civil war. In a state of civil peace, political violence is not only unjustified, on either side, but is actually counterproductive. The main contribution of Antifa has been to get Republicans elected.
4971146
Because the far-right violence isn't really far more prevalent than is the far left violence. Just looking at your list quickly, I noticed that some of the anti-semitic incidents that you ascribe to the far right actually turned out to come from far-left anti-semites, who usually call themselves anti- Zionist to disguise their prejudices from even themselves.
4971123
I approve. Every time the far-left riots it creates video footage that the Republicans get to use in their campaign ads and get their candidates elected. Well done, antifa!
Seriously, when you try to intimidate people against voting Republican, you should first consider the implications of secret balloting. Someone who votes Republican faces absolutely no danger from the violent political left, and gets to exercise his hostility toward them.
4971152
While I understand not liking stuff like the video you posted, I genuinely still don't understand why a woman doing something embarrassing is more alienating than, like, someone saying all jews must die, or shooting and killing random bystanders because fuck anybody who's different. I think that's what Numbers was addressing in his comment; you didn't really reply to it.
4971152
Your evidence of how bad the left is is... a woman crying over Trump being sworn in.
You argue that you disagree with putting feelings over facts, but your response is to equivelate a crying woman with mass shootings of innocent people and murders based solely on race, and that you're siding with the mass murderers over the crying woman because the left seem insane to you.
4971156
Politics is inherently violent, as that's what it's enforced by at the end of the day - through the military and the police. I'd look into the 1878 shooting of General Trepov by Vera Zasulich and the ensuing trial, if you can find it, as a very compelling case for specific instances of political violence.
4971157
[Citation-needed]
4971158
I reiterate: Politics is inherently violent.
4971158
Antifa only shows up when fascists, white supremacists, and the alt-right are present somewhere, all groups that pose a threat to many marginalized people.
4971165
Rather demolishes the whole "false equivalence" point though, doesn't it, if you accept the above point as the obvious truth it is?
'Cause if you add up all the violence and threats of violence used by the non-direct-action left, right, and center to enforce their politics on the unwilling - or even if you just take the violence and threats of violence for which you can find broad bi- (tri?) partisan support, it's such a giant, huge, immense, Brobding-fucking-nagian mass that all the gun-wielding nutjobs and street thugs on the planet are a mere droplet of condensation resting upon a bottled ocean.
(And, of course, if you have an ethical problem or two with massive institutionalized violence as a means of social control, then politics in general is just the members of a rape gang arguing over who gets to go first, with the alt-right and antifa as the gents who brought guns to that particular knife fight. But picking sides doesn't do a damn thing to change the purpose of the institution or the ending of the story.)
4971190
... no, because that's not what I'm saying is a false equivalence. Violence is sometimes necessary, or just. I more mean to say a blanket indictment of violence, conceptually, is impossible to do without hypocrisy - even a political stance of 'no politics' would have to be enforced with self-defense against any state trying to incorporate you - and to say 'both sides are violent' is to condemn both sides equally, without acknowleding that there isn't equal justification, let alone degree.
Violence on the left tends to be far less frequent, punch up, and be specifically targeted.
Violence on the right tends to be far more excessive, punch down, and be either indiscriminate or targeted at minorities with no control over what they're being targeted for.
A good contrast: The right-wing Oklahoma City bombing alone had a higher death toll than every instance of left-wing terrorism in the 70s and 80s combined.
It is false to say that this violence is equivalent, even though it is true to say both sides use violence.
4971178
AntiFa is almost entirely composed of white kids from rich families were doing this for fun. The whole bit about protecting the marginalized from fascists is a fantasy. It's as much a fantasy as fighting Orcs is in D&D, the difference being that you guys are going to get yourselves and a lot of other people hurt doing your particular live action role playing.
4971117
And this is exactly the attitude tbat dooms you to political irrelevance. Driving the moderates into the enemy camp is never a good plan.
Of course, as a Republican I approve of what you're doing. Keep up the good work!
4971197
On which side would you claim Muslim fundamentalists to be?
4971165
How well did things turn out for the Russian radicals about 50 to 75 years later? I'm not talking about the Communist Party. I'm talking about the individual Communists. Did they fare well or poorly in the Utopia created by Joseph Stalin?
I would very kindly request that you keep your replies to one comment per reply. I don't appreciate the notification spam, or the amount of space taken up in the section.
4971201
Okay, first, they're not classified as politically motivated terrorism, but as religiously motivated terrorism, which is a different classification. So, "I wouldn't, and neither do the documents I'm referring to".
4971203
Compared to the preceding feudalism, their lives were drastically improved by most metrics you can name. EDIT: I would point to the absence of something like the Kiel mutiny occurring - that I can recall, correct me if I'm wrong - as evidence.
4971200
Again, why does antifa push moderates right, but fascist rallying doesn't push them left? Because almost by definition, there's an equal-and-greater amount of far-right rallies than antifa demonstrations. I think this point says a lot more negative things about moderates than about antifa.
4971198
[Citation needed, again]
4971197
...as they say when justifying it to their side, too...
It would be. A blanket indictment of preemptive violence, on the other hand, works pretty well. Myself, I don't even go that far; I have no particular problem with preemptive self-defense against threats, on the grounds that one should be entitled to take asshats at their word. And that in turn covers the 'no politics' scenario perfectly well, as starting to practice politics is a perfectly adequate threat, in my book.
But.
While, sure, I would have no particular problem with fascists etal. being thrown out the nearest convenient airlock by a polite mob of happy consensualists, that's not what's happening. What we get in practice is one bunch of advocates for the violent oppression of everyone fighting with another bunch of advocates for the violent oppression of everyone, and I'm supposed to care about which one --
-- has nicer rules of engagement!?
The only win condition here is mutual annihilation.
It's really not, as you yourself say below. To say 'both sides are equally violent' is to condemn both sides equally, because you're making a quantitative distinction. To say 'both sides are violent', qualitative, doesn't imply that.
And no-one is bound to condemn only the worst examples of things. When I declare that all participants in politics are Bad People Who Should Feel Bad, that fascists and tankies are obviously Worse People Who Should Feel Worse than, say, randomly picked voters for the Evil or Stupid Parties isn't really germane to the point, since Worse People are a strict subset of Bad People. And it's not relative, either. Donald Trump is worthy of a very special kind of loathing, but his uberarschlochkeit doesn't reduce anyone else's.
Such quantitative distinctions are relevant when it's time to, say, write up the priority target list for the Orbital Freedom Lasers, but in the meantime, being on the shit list isn't dependent on how big a shit you are.
4971139
Who in the world said I was trying to justify anything? I stated my position and why I have gotten to where I am now. The whole ‘shaming the centrist for being apathetic’ thing doesn’t work on me because I’ve heard it all before from both sides. If I don’t support this then I hate group A, If I don’t vote for this candidate than I want group B to suffer. The constant guilt tripping (not saying you’re doing this) has gotten me to a point where I just stopped tying my heart and soul to the whims of politics like I used to. Its too hostile now and I’m not gonna risk my mental health over getting upset in the era of feel bad politics. Its not healthy for me or those around me. Is this a good thing for people like me to essentially check out of the national debate, likely not but it may be the best road for me to take going forward on a personal level.
4971146
That'd depend on the point you're trying to make.
If you're saying that one side of the political spectrum is not like the other, I suppose it's fair game, but the political division into "right" and "left" is rather arbitrary to begin with. Attributing incels to right while somewhat reasonable, for example, but I assure you, even the right doesn't really want them.
If, and that's how I understand the "both sides" debate, you're talking about the political near-mainstream forces that are allied or affiliated with major parties of some country (usually US in the context of this debate), then I'd not talk about single individuals that are disavowed by their respective mainstream counterparts. Even if one side inspires much more trigger-happy loonys, that is, simply put, IMHO not what is meant when people talk about side equivalence in terms of violence.
4971201
Hi Jordan, long time no see.
>>On which side would you claim Muslim fundamentalists to be?
They are on the right side of the spectrum, aren't they? Fundamentalist _is_ synonymic with conservative.
Though in US specifically there is a paradoxical situation where the "right" loves Israel and hates both the Muslims and the Jews, while "left" hates Israel (and thus the Jews) and loves Muslims.
4971220
Word to the wise, you're being smug about
when the article is about a bunch of mass shootings and murders on purely racial or misogynistic motivations. You're basically saying you're laughing at the silliness of hate-crime mass murders. This is why I implored you to read the article.
4971222
It's literally this. I made no effort to conceal it, which makes me wonder why you're having difficulty coming to the conclusion.
4971229
As I said, because as far as I understand it, that is not what's meant by "both sides are equally bad". Specific political forces are meant by "sides" rather than some general division into right or left that is rather arbitrary to begin with. "Everything generally associated with being on the right of a political spectrum" is not a "side" in terms of being some sort of coherent whole.
I may be wrong, though.
4971224
You see how I act here in this thread when I replied to another commentor. This is why I try to stay out of this stuff and only occasionally discuss politics nowadays. I don’t think I can in good concience read that article and not go on a tangent in response to it. It’s taken me years to see how political Yoga isn’t the healthiest version of me and that I was falling for the same hair on fire mentality I mentioned earlier. Honestly, I think it was a mistake for me to have replied to this thread in the first place. Not your fault in the least, more mine for almost sinking back into old habits on a subject I used to love. Hope your discussion goes well from here on out.
4971234
It really wouldn't have been a problem if you'd just read the article before commenting.
4971233
I framed the context with the Boogie quote at the beginning for how it's used, which is different to how you seem to understand it. It really is just 'left' and 'right' rather than 'Democrat' and 'Republican' or whatever. You have misunderstood, I'm afraid.
4971198
And somehow this makes them as bad as the Nazis... who murdered 12 million innocent civilians?
Because this is Mr. Number's blog, I will not go on to say what I think of this opinion, but the fact that I've blocked you may be a clue.
I do agree with the comment on the blog that says Boogie is being misrepresented. I think it's entirely fair for him to state that both sides are escalating the political situation, as there are plenty of examples of divisive rhetoric and zero-tolerance attitudes to spread around.
Figures of authority on the Right need to take a stronger stand against any sort of violence motivated because of protected class. You'll see them get passionate when it comes to the bike lock guy, but as soon as the Proud Boys come up they'll mumble the PR "of course we don't condone that behavior" and try to change the subject as soon as possible. The waffling that goes on right now lends legitimacy to groups that would engage in such violence, thus making them bolder and enabling them. Handling the actual attitudes of such people is more difficult, as policing such things goes into much more gray areas of morality.
With that said, I think the most effective cure for the divide is cooperation between the opposing parties, and cooperation requires compromise. Part of that compromise is acknowledging that vigilante violence like the examples from your blog is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of whether admitting so is inconvenient or not.
4971139
I'd ask you not to see a self described politically apathetic person as an actual centrist even if he calls himself that. It's like an atheist calling himself an agnostic. Centrism isn't about sitting back and watching Democrats and Republicans tear into each other, it's about making political decisions based on logic and the situation, not party lines. It's about accepting that both ideologies have possible solutions, neither is always right or always wrong.
4971239
Again. This is the internet. Spouting off without reading is just common courtesy at this point.
4971241
Also Boogie2988:
i.imgur.com/LRtEp0z.png
Nazi science advances are a myth. This was explained to him. The response?
i.imgur.com/qtuEYHq.png
He made the left being angry at him about spreading Holocaust propaganda by mistake equivalent to the right being angry at him for having a female friend on-camera.
Also
i.redd.it/erpfckeimtq11.jpg
In what way have I misrepresented him?
Show me a historical precedent for this.
Actually, here's one: In what way would you like the left to co-operate with fascists?
4971240
.
Why, no. It doesn't.
Of course, they're not finghting those Nazis. Nor, for the most part, any Nazis. What they're doing is running around posturing, blocking public thoroughfares, and occasionally exploding in violence against random targets -- who are generally not Nazis at all, save in the live-action role-playing imaginations of the Antifas.
And the fact that you blocked me shows that you're afraid of debate. I wouldn't boast of my cowardice if I were you.
4971248
Almost all of the fascists are solely in your imagination. The Republicans are not fascists. Trump is not a fascist. If he were, you'd be in concentration camp right now.
In fact, it's somewhere between sad and hilarious how the world is forgotten what real fascists were like in just 73 years since the end of World War II. I don't know whether to be glad that we've been free of fascism, or to be sad that people like you so forget and trivialize the nature of the foe that our fathers and grandfathers fought.
May you never have to learn.
4971256
The fact that I blocked you shows I'm disgusted by morally bankrupt fascists.
4971256
I think we come to an impasse of terms. How do you define a fascist? Also, I've already requested you stick to one comment at a time, please.
4971248
If your point is "Person said bad things A, B, and C, therefore thing D can be interpreted in a way that makes it also bad", I disagree. Thing D in this case--both sides contribute to the divide--is true. They do not commit equally, but I don't see him saying that they do. I don't think he's suggesting it either, as injuring somebody with a bike lock is not equivalent to running somebody over with a car, and it is foolish for anyone to think that.
And I'm not talking about anybody cooperating with fascists, as they are not a majority of Right-leaning people and I would expect are rather disliked by the majority of Right-leaning people. Conservative =/= Fascist, which is a sentiment I see thrown around often and one that I believe contributes to the above-mentioned divide.
"Both sides" is always the single most disingenuous argument. I hate it so much - it's rooted in intellectual bankruptcy and fascist apologism, intended to excuse horrific acts by saying "but what about THOSE people doing that thing!"
One act of violence does not necessarily equal another act of violence.
Shooting a crowd full of innocent people for being black, or gay, or transgender, or for having the "wrong" political opinion does not equal the violence necessary to stop those people.
One is an act of murder, hatred, and oppression. The other is an act of protection and freedom.
4971266
Right, except there are literally fascists literally marching in the streets literally arming themselves on rooftops with rifles and literally beating minorities up in the streets and literally trying to start race wars by shooting up churches, who are the subject of this post.
In which way would you compromise with them? How would you best co-operate with them?
EDIT: Also the point with Boogie was that trying to say 'both sides at fault' at all is disingenous at best and to a degree wilfully ignorant in a way that prioritizes civility over morality.
4971272
Again: I'm not suggesting actual literal fascists be compromised with. It's an ideology that leads to all manner of horrible outcomes. Drag the ideology into the light, call it out for what it is, make it clear that it won't be tolerated.
Part of the problem though is that such people have attached themselves to the Right, such that conservatism is being conflated with fascism when the two are not the same. I hold plenty of conservative values, and I despise the idea of oppression and discrimination based upon simple characteristics, yet by perpetuating the idea that the two ideologies go hand in hand, it makes the seemingly obvious act of denouncing fascism seem similar to denouncing conservatism. I can see why conservative politicians would want to avoid this, even if they're wrong to do so.
So, no, I don't want anyone to cooperate with fascists. I want peaceful people on the Left and peaceful people on the Right to cooperate in stamping out all the hateful bullshit, no matter where it comes from. At this point I think it's going to require much more concession from the Right.
4971282
How do you make it clear it won't be tolerated? How do you enforce that? By what means?
More importantly: All sixteen minutes of this.
If people have to start squinting to see the difference between the two, I'd hazard a guess it's not because something's wrong with their eyes.
Historically and sociologically speaking, one creates the material conditions that leads to the other, then offers no resistance to its overtaking.
PhilosophyTube explains that here;
Whenever I see this, I think of Martin Luther King's Letter From Birmingham Jail.