Of extremism; why hands-off moderation is lackluster moderation · 11:15pm Jul 10th, 2020
The fandom has a nazi problem, and it is aggravated by moderators not taking a stance against it.
Moderating is hard. It involves waltzing between building and keeping afloat a space dedicated to a shared pastime, and managing the people navigating it. And often, both come clashing, and sometimes crashing down.
With the recent blog posts on fimfiction and the merry-go-round drama on Derpibooru, people have torn each other apart on whether or not the moderation should take a stronger stand towards fascists, nazis, people unapologetically flaunting related imagery (e.g. think /mlpol/’s mascot), or arguing against the current zeitgeist of BLM. I think about many people I have had the displeasure to discuss with recently, etc.
This blog is two-fold: offering a framework as to why allowing nazis to roam our space will egregiously makes that space unwelcoming; providing an example that rings very much at home.
Let’s fucking go, and try to keep it concise.
1 - Allowing despicable speech makes it acceptable
When you allow despicable views to be expressed in a social space, you de facto allow people to debate them — against, but more so in favor of them. People will take sides, and those susceptible to fall for the arguments of fascists and racists and nazis will get pulled in.
Allowing despicable opinions will lead to radicalization. That’s how normalization works: through debate. If ideas, genocidal ones like the nazis’, are offered a debating place, it means that the idea itself has essentially some worth to it. Indeed, ideas worthy of debate have essentially the following intrinsic value: it may be right, or wrong, and people ought to attribute truth to it through discourse. That it is appalling in and of itself does not matter.
What is the underlying of debatable ideas? People’s time. The time people spend addressing them gives them intrinsic value.
That’s the failure of people who are vehemently defending free-speech on Derpibooru and Fimfiction these days. They fail to realize that the realm of debate, the marketplace of ideas they cherish, intrinsically give value to the ideas propagated there. And this veneer of legitimacy they grant to nazis, fascists, racists in the debating realm allows them to proselytize and drag in people.
TL;DR: lackluster moderation leads to radicalization of not just a few and makes despicable ideas worth people’s time.
2 - Once accepted, despicable speech will push away the people affected by it the most.
Crazy, right? Who would have thought that allowing nazis, fascists and racists to express themselves in a social setting such as a Discord server or fimfiction, etc. would lead to the people most affected (e.g. minorities, transgender people, etc.) to pack up and leave?
Why would they [e.g. minorities] have to deal with those people. They don’t owe nazis, etc. their time to debate whether or not they have humanity. And so affected people will leave.
There is a corollary: The people who are ardently defending the right of nazis to express themselves in a social space are basically defending the means of discourse over the humanity of people. That’s why people are accusing liberals to do the bed of extremists: they value a tool, debating, over actual people.
TL;DR: A space coddling extremists will naturally radicalize itself as people leave — nazis gradually becoming the most vocal
3 - A space accepting despicable ideas will attract people valuing them
While people who don’t want to debate whether or not they are indeed human leave, some other people will come to the people who find in those accepting space a safe-haven for their despicable ideas.
TL;DR: You don’ goofed, moderators
Conclusion - You have thus obtained a feedback loop where a social place receptive to extremist ideas is pushing away the targets of those ideas, and attracts their proponents. You do not just radicalize people, you radicalize the space itself.
Such a [un]qualitative framework ought to be accompanied with an example. One of my biggest fuck-ups.
Back in 2016, I created PAE, the Post-Apocalyptic Emporium, a discord server I intended to provide to anyone who loved Fallout:Equestria as, at the time, there were only tumblr, weekly threads on /mlp/, and the IRC. I wanted to offer a space for creation, writing, music, art, unrestricted.
I was a hands-off moderator. I was a lackluster moderator.
So. What happens when you bring together people from multiple horizons and who only share a relative interest in a specific fanfiction? You get political. And when you get political, you either ban it, or you allow it. And I did allow it. People who lived that period know the name: #hellvoid
I once was quite the proponent for unrestricted free-speech in all social space, the debate-me kind who wanted to see everything discussed and brought to the fore — sunlight is the best disinfectant, right? Sadly, there is theory, and there is practice.
People did leave. People did get radicalized. And PAE became in the space of two years a blob of toxicity that led to me contemplating suicide, and seriously reconsider my political leanings. I didn’t do the first, but I did the latter.
PAE thoroughly fucked over people. Because of my decisions as a moderator.
I can think of a few people which I will not name here who have gone down the radical path. And they are still imbroglio’d in this marasm to this day. Why is it important to mention them? Because one of the people who led the pro-Aryanne DNP campaign on Derpibooru was a regular on PAE. By being a lackluster mod, allowing myself to value the means of debate over people, I helped radicalize him. And for that, if you read me, I am very much sorry.
There are many more who suffered through PAE, radicalized, lost friends, and much more. If you read me, I’m sorry as well, and I know that will not mend anything. I fucked up. No words from me can be enough of an apology.
But I can make this a warning to people reading me. Don’t be a lackluster mod.
Being a lackluster mod and allowing discourse to supercede the primary goal of a social space (appreciating a pastime), one will do a few things:
- Radicalize people
- Destroy friendships
- Push valuable people away
- Leave you with a mountain of misery at best, apathy at worst
All in all, PAE taught me one thing: ideology, and allowing the discourse of all ideologies, makes people fungible. But people aren’t. They’re not tools-at-hand for anyone to engage debate with. Indeed, by valuing ideas and the means of discourse over people, one basically makes them subservients to the marketplace of ideas. It supersedes them and they must engage with it.
Those who leave are right and those who stay will only dig themselves further down. It’s a vicious cycle.
The more you wait, the harder it is to climb back up. I am glad to see people trying to climb up the open-air mine that is this fandom.
Let’s climb back up together.
It’s been a long day. If I’m unclear or if people want to know more, I’m available in the comments
Hellvoid... Oh gods no...
derpicdn.net/img/2015/3/24/856171/large.png
It's gotten so bad and so overused to argue for this in defense of Nazis that I find myself unable to discern if said free speech advocates are Nazis themselves disguised as liberals, or blissfully ignorant liberals.
I was not around for PAE, but, damn, I'm so sorry. Glad to still have you around, though, and rest assured, you are not alone. I've said that often these days, but hey, best to reiterate, heh
An argument I often see is the common "slippery slope" scenario, wherein people argue that by banning "hate speech", you're opening the door to censoring other things. This includes people who I consider to be close friends, and people who I moderate with in Discord servers.
To those people I say: you can just do that. You can in fact just say "nazis and those who spread hate are not welcome here", and ban people who argue that point. People with those ideologies thrive on arguments, because it legitimizes their views as worth discussing. By giving people a platform under the guise of free speech, you're giving them a platform to spread propaganda, and, well...
i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/028/807/Screen_Shot_2019-03-05_at_11.34.08_AM.jpg
People do not have a right to say whatever they want with no consequence. As a moderator/site owner, you do not owe people a platform.
This was very interesting to read and reminds me a little of my time as a chat moderator in a small 100-people community.
I hope dearly that mlp community can be better, but till then it's only a place I want to be in, because of many old memories.
So sick of Nazi bullshit. Nazis are the real Nazis. Adding ponies to a racist meme doesn't make it funny. Tearing down statues is not the same thing as killing millions of people.
Allowing racists and bigots free reign does drive away reasonable people. It does attract more of the same. If you don't want to look up one day to find yourself surrounded by nothing but Nazis, there's a simple solution.
Moderate your spaces.
I support free speech. But with freedom, there comes responsibility. One cannot run into a building and yell 'fire' and cause panic without good read. It is irresponsible and dangerous.
Also, each and every site and server is owned by someone or by a group. And they do have the right to refuse comment and service to anyone. It's their decision and right to do so.
One must always stand for something; a principle, an idea, a dogma or a personal belief or opinion. If you do not, then you leave yourself vulnerable to any other idea, good or bad. Again, it is the responsibility of the individual to determine whether it is right or wrong. There are always rewards and consequences for our actions or in some cases, lack of action.
There is a song, from Styx if I remember correctly, that has a line that goes 'if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice.' It is my thought that this is true. One can allow and consider many thoughts and opinions. But if limits are not established, then every one of them has the same value. And to be honest, some ideas are simply so abhorrent that they shouldn't be given that sort of legitimacy.
Perhaps this might be a better way to think about it.
If one has cows, you wish to keep them together. And you certainly want to keep them safe and healthy. So one builds fences, partly to keep them together but also to keep out the wolves. The wolves are still out there, to be sure, but they cannot get the cows. If you let one wolf in, it's just the start of losing all your cows.
For what it's worth.
Well said mate.
Well said RoMS, well said.
Let me give you an example from my own experience. I (used to) run a gaming community (back when those still existed). At the time, perhaps 100-200 people. At a certain point, a new group of 'radicals' started to appear. They then proceeded to radicalize many other members. From what you say, you imply that radicalization is one-sided. I assure you that it is absolutely NOT one sided. One side does not radicalize without the other having an equal and opposite reaction. I was left with two warring radical factions, and I tried my hardest to moderate proactively, to calm people down, tried to show them that compromise was a possibility and that free speech was important, and that ALL were entitled to it. I tried everything. I had moderate success, and managed to keep the community together. However it was not without failure, and not without cost. Many people left, many friendships were lost, to this day - almost ten years later, many of those people still resent the whole thing, and hold grudges and hate in their hearts.
Do you want to know what the group of radicals called themselves? Bronies. You might laugh and imagine it couldn't be comparable to these contemporary polarized political groups. I shit you not, it was every bit as bad. The debates were just as venomous and fierce, the hatred was real, and it came from both sides - which were both equally radicalized. Friendships were destroyed, valuable people were pushed away, and it left me, and many others, with a mountain of misery.
RoMS, my point here is that while you as an individual can decide for yourself who is right or wrong or radical or despicable or a nazi, you as a moderator do not have that luxury. You must be fair and unbiased. You either permit all political debate, or none. As soon as you start picking and choosing what you deem 'acceptable' for public debate, and which opinions to silence, you yourself have become radicalized. In all honesty, you become little better than the 'nazis' you so detest. Remind me, which political group is most commonly cited for silencing dissenting opinions? If you answered 'nazis' you would be correct. It was a real tactic that the actual Nazi party used, and used very effectively. A moderator's job is to moderate. Not to silence, not to choose. But to keep things calm and cool. To prevent the radicalization proactively, by keeping debates civil. A moderator's job is not always easy, in fact it can be hell. Downright impossible at times. As you say, moderation should be hands-on.
It's the unfortunate reality of free speech. What you have said is not wrong. When radicals speak, it can and will drive away normal people, leaving only the radicals. I don't know why you feel that silencing one half of an argument is acceptable by any measure. Just because you see one side as despicable, doesn't give you the right to silence it. If I found your side despicable, I'm certain you would not believe that I had a right to silence you. Silencing both sides is at least fair and reasonable.
5305891
I disagree.
Free speech isn't a "reality." Neither is it an unsurmountable pedestal or obstacle. That's bad optics again. This absolutism with regards to free speech, the supposed holiness of the means of debate, the Athenian forum with its shiny, white marble tiles, is how you forget people and leave the open-door to the many who are so prompt to take the soapbox you offered and advocate for dehumanizing swaths of people.
I don't buy the "No Alternative" crowd who cannot fathom reconsidering the concept of freedom, speech, and inclusion. To me, it feels like a lack of political imagination.
I grant you that toxicity can arise from many types of people and discussions, and I'm not denying that. I'm specifically talking about political discourse. I wholly disagree with your black-or-white stance on free speech.
5305891
I had someone try to argue with me yesterday that BLM protesters pulling down some statues justified the alt right planning to kill three hundred million people. Or perhaps it was that the two acts were equivalent. The point was somewhat incoherent.
There is no reason to allow that nonsense. He'd already driven people away with his lesser hot takes. Arguing nonsensical positions with him was wasting everyone's energy towards no purpose. We're not trained in deradicalization, and it's not our job. Don't force people to put up with Nazi, racist, and bigoted arguments by refusing to moderate.
5305901
But part of respecting everyone as wholly human necessarily involves respecting everyone's freedom of speech. You cannot say that everyone should value everyone else as wholly human, while simultaneously saying that some people are not human enough to be free to speak!
Let me be clear that my black or white stance on free speech is pertaining only to debate in places like FIMFiction, not in the wider world. In general, my stance is that free speech MUST exist for everyone, period. 'Reconsidering the concept of freedom, speech, and inclusion' sounds like something straight out of the book 1984, just as NewSpeak is a reconsideration of the language. It sounds despicable to me. Revolting, in fact. Knowing that even a single person uses their freedom of speech to say that we need to reconsider freedom of speech is repulsive to me.
In other words, I disagree. But I have not said that you need to be silenced because of X. Because that's what you're saying. You are saying some people cannot speak because of X. And if we let you silence people because of X, the next person comes around and silences the next group because of Y. And so on, and so forth.
Let's do a thought experiment: Someone tells you that you are not allowed to speak because of your opinion Z. Doesn't matter what it is, if it's a 'valid' reason or not. Will you just magically change your opinion of Z? Or will you be upset that someone is telling you that you are no longer allowed to speak? Would you just roll over and not fight it? Would you believe that those that would silence you did not consider you wholly human?
5305922
I don't extend tolerance to the people who advocate for the dehumanizing of minorities. It is quite simple.
Then you should agree that fimfiction isn't a soapbox for nazis. It's not the primary goal, and it never was, and so allowing them here is tacit approval that they are welcome. Fimfiction isn't an alley for nazi propaganda.
Very eloquently stated. Regarding Fimfiction, the lacklustre response of the site staff with its platforming of hate speech has left me extremely disappointed and disillusioned. "You do not just radicalize people, you radicalize the space itself" needs to be parroted every time the notion of platforming these ideas comes up.
5305947
I've had mixed success in reporting racism and bigotry. Sometimes they're taken down. Sometimes they stay up.
I'm not entirely sure what the next step is. I think document and catalog the things that remain a week after reporting. Then discuss with knighty. Explain why these things are bad. Ask for better enforcement. Maybe that means more mods, different mods, better guidelines for mods. Whatever needs to happen to get unironic Nazi, racist, and bigoted nonsense of this site.
Let me throw in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 29 §2:
(Whatever you think of the United Nations, this declaration is one of the few things that the whole world kind of agrees on.)
Emphasis on the "respect for the rights and freedoms of others" part. When you are actively arguing for discrimination and genocide of certain people, you are definitely trying to encroach on their rights and freedoms. In that case, your freedom of speech is no longer defensible.
No one is a true free speech radical. The right cancels the left alllll the time, pillorying us for speaking, committing violence against us for existing. They don't tolerate our speech, not really, and their disingenuous efforts should impress no one.
5305922
As I said in my comment, this slippery slope argument does not exist.
Silencing nazis and bigots has not and will never lead to the censorship of other views. That is simply not a thing. If you can't distinguish between hateful views and opinions and those that are not hateful, you should not be a moderator. Full-stop, end of discussion.
To be clear, I advocate for banning politics altogether on platforms like Discord since even if you ban hate, those discussions divide communities unnecessarily. But on a platform like Derpibooru and FiMFiction which do not exist to be a chat room? It's not reasonable to ban politics altogether.
I cannot explain to you why allowing nazis and bigots to speak is equivalent to handing them a platform; that's already been touched upon repeatedly. All I can say is that you aren't doing your job as a member of polite society if you let people spread those views.
Agreed, the entire community needs to both read and understand this right now, free speech doesn't simply exist in a vacuum, if you don't let fascists air their dirty laundry/bigotted opinions, they leave and go somewhere else away from where they can harm others, where they're allowed to go is very limited in scope if the community remains viligant and doesn't tolerate intolerence, dehumanization of minorities is not up for debate.
5305923 You refuse to tolerate certain people, yet complain that those people don't tolerate others! Come on now, can't you see the hypocrisy in that? I'm not saying you to have to like nazis, just get your story straight.
5306373 That's entirely a two-way street. Have you not seen all the leftists that call conservatives evil or subhuman and refuse to hear their opinions? Have you not seen the destruction of the riots? If you think that's entirely one-sided, you're entirely wrong.
5306520
Oh, ok, so because you said so, it must be true. I guess I'm just wrong then. My mistake.
Ah ha, now there is something we agree upon. You're absolutely right there. But only in that exact context. That is part of the price of freedom of speech, you see. It's everyone's freedom to speak, but you don't have to listen. The price we pay for free speech is that we all have a responsibility to speak up against those other speakers that we detest. That's how free speech works. You cannot just allow the government to hinder freedoms like that, because it IS a slippery slope, I don't really give a shit that you think it isn't. It's not for the government to do, because like all governments throughout the entirety of history have proven time and time again they WILL abuse power that is granted to them. Thus, in a free society, it is the responsibility of the people to use their speech to tamp down the radicals and the baddies.
The argument that some people don't feel like it, is a pathetic excuse. If you detest nazis so much, you should say something. And not ask the government to do it for you.
How do you find it reasonable to ban political discussion on Discord, where people have semi-private communities that exist for the sole purpose of discussion (unless you meant an individual Discord server and not the entirety of Discord) but you think it is unreasonable to ban political discussion here?
5306672
Why should we tolerate Nazis? What's the point?
5306675 I'm not asking you as an individual to tolerate them, not even us as a society to do so. I am only insisting that their right to speak not be infringed. (In the wider world, anyway, not necessarily here. Although I don't believe it is much different, unless political discussion is banned here entirely, because at least that would be fair to all sides.) If we infringe their right to speak, how are we any better than them? Besides, if we say ok to silencing them, who's next? Me? You? Doesn't that frighten you? Because it should.
To answer your question, the point is this: if you value your own freedoms, you should defend the same freedoms of everyone else. Everyone, even those you detest.
5306713
I actually think Nazis should be violently beaten in the wider world and their meetings disrupted. They should be afraid every minute of their lives until they give up.
5306715 Then you're a big stinking hypocrite. I'm sure plenty of Nazis would say the exact same thing about the Jews. You're no better than them, pal, and you don't even realize it.
5306720
Jewish identity is based on either religion or ethnicity.
Nazi identity is based on a desire to murder everyone who isn't white and create a totalitarian state.
There's no hypocrisy here. One of these is a religious/ethnic identity, the other is an inherently violent ideology that cannot be reasoned with.
5306720
Put another way, Nazis have already declared war.
There is no such thing as a peaceful Nazi.
There is no way for them to peacefully create an ethnostate.
They are EXTREMELY clear about the fact that if they gain power they will kill you, me, and everyone else in their path.
I'm just taking them at their word.
Like, seriously, what do Nazis do? When small, they create little enclaves that hurt and murder people not of their group and try to infiltrate larger areas.
When big, they kill and intimidate people on a greater scale.
When they have power, they use to it kill and dominate.
What do they have to contribute to discourse? What do they have to contribute to free society?
Their ramblings about Jews are easily proven lies. My comments are easily proven facts. There is a difference.
5306727 I could make the exact same argument about BLM. They basically want all the same things. There is no such thing as a peaceful protestor. They want an ethnostate, they are self-admitted Marxists, they openly said they will make an armed 'security' force. When in small groups, they create little enclaves that hurt and murder people not of their group, and try to infiltrate larger areas. When big they kill and intimidate people on a greater scale. What do they contribute to free society? Yet our government not only lets them speak, they are allowed to do anything they want and they are protected by law, and all who oppose are shunned and prosecuted. So is this ok, but Nazis aren't?
5306733
Easily proven false. You are a liar or grossly ignorant.
An intersectional, diverse coalition wants to create an ethnostate?
Absurd AND easily proven false.
Many are. Marxism is not an Inherently violent or totalitarian ideology.
Yes and?
Militias are not Inherently bad. See: 1776
No proof of this. The violent acts almost always came from right wingers trying to shoot them up.
When big, they create societies with social safety nets and equality.
Honey, the only problem here is your ignorance or flagrant lies. That you thought I would buy this was insulting. Begone.
5306735 The Nazis also created a militia, which they used to intimidate people and force their will upon them. But apparently they were not inherently bad.
Anyhow you've shown yourself to be a willfully ignorant person, I'm not about to waste my time proving anything I've suggested here. You'll just dismiss anything I say as whatever helps you sleep at night. Blame 'right-wingers' despite all this terror we've seen in recent weeks being started by people flying the BLM flag. But you go on and keep calling me ignorant. That's fine by me. That's your right, your freedom to do so. Enjoy it. While it lasts. Because with people like you, it may not last long.
5306743
Hey, Red. Just woke up.
I think there is an issue with the way you think about this all. If we start with the obvious that nazis uphold murderous ideals, it should be logical to oppose both their ideas and the people spouting them. This is a matter of self-defense. Nazis, inherently, wish for the death and submission of a lot of different people on the basis of their race, sexuality, and other arbitrary categories. We shouldn't, mustn't, reason with would-be murderers. They should be contained and disempowered instead.
This, I think we should be agreed upon.
When you say this, remembers that nazis can stop being nazis. They can just go home, enjoy their life, work, create, be productive members of society again. Jewish people can't stop being the sons and daughter of a Jewish mother — especially in the eye of a nazi.
You've built a false-equivalence here. And so do you when you compare nazis to BLM. BLM aren't ethno-nationalist hellbent on the eradication of a group of people. Remember also that when people say "Black Lives Matter," they don't say "Only Black Lives Matter" or "White Lives Don't Matter." There is no implied negative in 'BLM.' I've broached about that in my previous blog here.
As 5306735 said here:
This is absolutely true. It doesn't mean marxism didn't lead to violence or totalitarism. The big difference between marxism and naziism is that marxism doesn't in itself, at the core of its ideology, write off people at an existential level because of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
If you have an hour to offer and can objectively sit through a video, check Philosophy of Antifa on Youtube. I think it can give you a better depth and breadth of what is considered here.
5305901
Very eloquently said. Neo-Nazis and their sympathizers are far too fond of that "slippery slope" argument; and the fundamental principle of "slippery slopes" is that they rarely, if ever, actually exist. They're a logical fallacy.
Tolerance is not a moral precept, it is a peace treaty. And when one side violates that treaty by being anti-social, by advocating for the marginalization or murder of any other part of society. their ideas lose the right to be respected. You only have the rights you respect in others. If you do not respect Jewish people's, black people's, LGBTQ people's right to exist, you lose the right to participate in greater society; because you have proven yourself a clear and present danger to said greater society.
5306733
There is absolutely nothing true in this post. Everything you've said is either a flat-out lie, a gross distortion of fact, or disingenuously taken out of context and baldly misrepresented. This is nothing but crude fascist propaganda.
5306775
Alright RoMS, let me try to assess your way of thinking as well. No, there is nothing inherently wrong with the phrase 'black lives matter.' Unfortunately, the organization is another story. And even worse than the organization is society and the media's unfair and unethical treatment of them, specifically putting them on a pedestal where they can do no wrong, but anyone who disagrees with them is evil. When a professor said 'white lives don't matter' (quoting verbatim) she was given a promotion at Cambridge university. This is one tiny example of a greater societal problem here. According to you and everyone else here, that woman is, by your own definitions, a despicable person, and those that support her and give her a platform to speak from are even worse. And she should be silenced. But the same type of people who humor her hate speech will loudly decry anyone else that says something they don't like.
There are many overt attacks on white people lately. I don't know how you can condone such actions. There have been people putting fliers on white peoples' houses, telling them that they should either educate themselves about their white privilege or 'get the fuck out of the neighborhood.' This is EXACTLY what the Nazis did to the Jews. White owned businesses have been looted and burned (sound familiar?). Protestors have physically and violently attacked anyone they don't think is on their side. Yet it seems like you and many people in society WILLINGLY ignore all these actions that are the repetition of history. History that exists to be learned from! There are countless correlations to Nazi Germany that we are experiencing in America right now. It seems no one has learned from those mistakes, they are too busy decrying the 'nazis' trolling people on pony websites, not the people actively murdering innocents in the streets.
Freedom of speech must exist. But we as a free society have a responsibility to choose which people we listen to. And we are choosing very poorly.
Also, can we clarify what you mean by the term 'nazi?' Because that is a term that is carelessly thrown around by any leftist to describe literally anybody they disagree with. Unfortunately, because of that, it has lost its meaning entirely. When I say 'Nazi' I mean someone who supports NSDAP and their racial ideologies (as convoluted as they can be). I don't mean this. And I hope that you don't either.
As for Antifa, I may watch the video, but I won't take heed of any of it. That's how free speech works, you see. I don't have to listen. I have no intentions of humoring an organization that uses violence to intimidate people. Again, they are literally no better than real Nazis. RoMS, that is not a false equivalence. The Nazis used violence to intimidate people, you cannot call that a false equivalence.
RoMS, if you hate Nazis so much, you should hate these people too.
5307054
"And this is why we MUST let the Nazis SPEAK, god dammit", said theRedBrony, who was very smart.
I fucking love that you're legitimately saying that no, you're not arguing for the sake of right-wingers or fascist-adjacent people who are wrongfully labelled Nazis, you're going "we should listen to the literal actual jew-murdering Nazi party and this is a moral position."
Seeing this chain of messages, either you're genuinely siding with the Nazis here and just don't want to admit it, so you try to argue that bronies and Nazis are the EXACT SAME, or you're like. This fucking dumb.
5307090
Look at the big boy coming in to tell us what's what.
5307093 Could you like, I dunno, maybe read what I've had to say? And not put a bunch of words in my mouth in a pathetic attempt to fit me into the little nook that you have marked 'nazis?' Because I just won't fit anywhere else?
I'm not even going to try to straighten out what you claim I said. It would be a waste of my time.
5307090
You know, I was starting to get worried you might be a moron, but the gigantic 32 point, bolded, italicized quote from a Christian children's author reassured me.
I will fight nazis as well as denounce people like Dr. Priyamvada Gopal, whose words I find misdirected, incendiary, and dangerous. It's not a matter of should. Hate has to be denounced and fought wherever it is. Especially in places of power, like the media, academia, and of course the government.
I also hold an order of priority. Even though Dr. Gopal's words are reprehensible, I also think that despite her privileged position as a professor, there are far more pressing matters today. To each their time. The backlash she receives shows that people are quick to anger against people like her, and yeah. Good. What appalls me is that naziism, neo-naziism, fascism, etc. still have roots in our society. At an individual level; at a systemic level. And I find that more pervasive and dangerous than a teacher in post-colonial studies. Nightriders aren't gender studies students.
I don't stan Dr. Gopal. She should retract herself, clarify herself, and if she persists be reprimanded for it.
I have never condoned for the murder or dehumanization of anyone — which nazis actively do.
Except it's not? The big difference here is that you have one person stapling a paper note in a public space when Nazis employed 1) organized violence 2) via political and judiciary power 3) at a systemic, wide-spread, and systematic level. It is not the same thing. The note is incendiary, yes, but I would stand by its core message: black lives matter and it is important to not be blind to it. There is a world apart between a paper note and the Kristallnacht and comparing the two feels misplaced if not insulting for the victims of Nazi Germany.
That is disingenuous to attribute CHOP shootings to BLM. Even Fox News says that CHOP has struggled because the distribution of free food there has attracted a lot of vagrants and disenfranchised people who statistically are much more likely to be victims and perpetrators of violence — poverty and destitution are a thing. And Seattle has a shooting problem, not the CHOP only.
Anyone who are prompt to defend a whitespread system of racism and prejudice and is ready to use violence to do that. Words change in meaning. And yes, they do. They are malleable. I will keep using nazi/fascist as an epithet for people who are advocating for a system, which underpinning is putting down ethnic groups and uphold a status quo that only creates misery for a lot of people.
Then do not watch it. But if you do, please have an open and critical mind.
Your choice of sources worries me because it feels like you searched for anecdotes to complete your personal opinions. It's partial at best, oriented and misleading at worst.
In the end, the way you and I differ is that I look at the topic both at an individual and systemic level where you seem to not consider the latter. Systemic issues exist and ought to be addressed. Sometimes, they are underpinned by an expression (white fragility, privilege) that may seem clumsy, maladroit, at a first glance but which still hold a kernel of truth.
I am ready to engage people who do in good faith, like I hope you do. And I'm glad to keep doing so over discord if you want because it's just that easier.
Speaking of good faith:
5307090
i.imgur.com/bZ4Q2V4.jpg
5307107
Yes, please, leave, go. Save everyone some time. Don't force us to read through your bullshit.
5307121
I'd ask you to leave too, but seems like the free speech gods have spoken.
*pissing everywhere* it's freedom juice guys you have to let me do this. oh, you're stopping me? damn, guess this just goes to show who the REAL nazis are
i.imgur.com/JGeXXLY.png
Zen will be enforced egoistically in this section.
5307152
Free Speech also means that other people don't have to listen to your bullshit.
i.imgur.com/CKWIiyc.jpg
zen