Also ordinary joes give those politicians their power. Like he said, a bunch of similar minded ordinary joes can evolve into a political party, which can then gain more power.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52350334]How is counter protesting denying debate and why aren't you also condemning the original protesters if you apparently think protesting as a whole is denying debate?[/QUOTE]
Of course, it would be better if they skipped protesting and just talked to each other. With protesting Sharia in muslim countries, that might be hard to debate each other though. One bunch of protesters can be ignored or you show up to debate them instead and not shout at them.
[editline]13th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52350345]Also ordinary joes give those politicians their power. Like he said, a bunch of similar minded ordinary joes can evolve into a political party, which can then gain more power.[/QUOTE]
So we should protest every group of people not aligning with our values?
[QUOTE=RB33;52350380]
So we should protest every group of people not aligning with our values?[/QUOTE]
That would be a bit drastic in my opinion, but in theory sure we can. Protesting is one of the primary ways of voicing an opinion. It isn't shutting down other opinions. If a government whose policies you profoundly disagree with was elected would you not feel protesting is justified?
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52350341]Thing is, if this opposition requires counter-protesting in the first place, they will not be convinced by arguments. They will probably not be convinced by anyone other than themselves.[/QUOTE]
So you gave up without even trying? You called it quits, shouted fascist at them and refused to debate.
[QUOTE]Right-wing authoritarianism is increasingly becoming a bigger minority of the population's views, and therefore a threat. Ignoring them makes them stronger, because someone else will always aknowledge them. If you show up a public street with a bunch of people and banners, someone will notice.[/QUOTE]
You're wrong, you give them the energy to keep going. Without attention, people wouldn't even know they existed and therefore not join them.
[QUOTE]But counter-protesting with larger numbers than them makes them weaker. I have seen this in action.
I participated in counter-protests against PEGIDA some years ago when they started organizing themselves in Oslo. We showed up in superior numbers every time, while their attendance steadily lowered until they cancelled any further demonstrations and faded into obscurity.
This was accomplished solely using numbers, banners and slogans.[/QUOTE]
Debate them instead, the feelings of people won't dissappear just because you scared them away in public.
[QUOTE]Abolishing the state without having a population ready to manage and organize themselves in a decentralized fashion will lead to chaos anyway. And who's going to enforce the borders without a state? Who gets to decide who can come in and out?[/QUOTE]
Obviously, you need to ease people into it, teach them to take responsibility. The people, of course. Instead of state ruling from top down. People enact their agreed upon policies themselves, people want closed border, well, they better start patrolling the border then.
[QUOTE=RB33;52350499]
You're wrong, you give them the energy to keep going. Without attention, people wouldn't even know they existed and therefore not join top down.[/QUOTE]
You realize ignoring it is literally refusing debate right? Besides, that people don't know there is a larger movemwnt that has the same views as they do doesn't stop them from having those views.
[QUOTE=RB33;52350499]So you gave up without even trying? You called it quits, shouted fascist at them and refused to debate.
You're wrong, you give them the energy to keep going. Without attention, people wouldn't even know they existed and therefore not join them.
Debate them instead, the feelings of people won't dissappear just because you scared them away in public.[/quote]
How am I supposed to find every single potential fascist and debate them until they realize they're wrong? I'm not some kind of omnipotent being, I can only react to what I know is happening.
I'm not against debating people, I'll debate whoever I can. But I can't convince someone who's already become entrenched. And if they decide to organize themselves with other entrenched people and go public with their asinine views, I'm going to have to react to that.
Counter-protesting isn't just about "shouting fascist", it's about sending a message of opposition and showing solidarity with the people they seek to infringe upon.
It's not my responsibility nor my ability to make people's feelings "disappear". All I want to do is prevent them from getting bigger and taking power.
[quote]Obviously, you need to ease people into it, teach them to take responsibility. The people, of course. Instead of state ruling from top down. People enact their agreed upon policies themselves, people want closed border, well, they better start patrolling the border then.[/QUOTE]
You will have to look long and hard to find another anarchist who wants to close their borders (in that case I would even doubt that they were an anarchist). Anarchists are against coercion and authority, and view freedom of movement as essential to their general freedoms.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;52350673]You realize ignoring it is literally refusing debate right? Besides, that people don't know there is a larger movemwnt that has the same views as they do doesn't stop them from having those views.[/QUOTE]
But actually debate them then and not just stand and shout. Yeah, but you said this was about gaining power, which these movements won't do if people aren't aware of them.
[QUOTE=RB33;52350499]You're wrong, you give them the energy to keep going. Without attention, people wouldn't even know they existed and therefore not join them.[/quote]
You don't think rather that things like 9/11 can feed a movement based on fear for decades or that the scary world and outside conditions could cause someone to start blaming scapegoats or targeting others regardless of how much advertizing there is? What of spontaneous racism caused by fear of the unknown? What of the entire way of life in america during segregation, ignoring those wasn't working, all that worked was protesting.
[quote]Debate them instead, the feelings of people won't disappear just because you scared them away in public.[/quote]
1) this is advertisement and that goes against your first point.
2) debating them in public can result in some real garbage debate tactics going on like [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop]gish galloping[/url] that allow dishonest debaters to trample all over honest debaters arguing for something that is far more grounded in reality and provable (IE evolution).
That means a whole giant setup with a moderator/host that costs money, time, effort, and then you have to actually find someone who has credentials, integrity, an honest desire to debate, did the research, can't be just blown off and/or disowned by their own side as a result of a loss. Then you actually can go and throw all that effort out the window because a nigger broke into farmer joe's car and now the village hates black people again.
[quote]Obviously, you need to ease people into it, teach them to take responsibility. The people, of course. Instead of state ruling from top down. People enact their agreed upon policies themselves, people want closed border, well, they better start patrolling the border then.[/QUOTE]
So a country that acts like a spastic autist on the world stage. No set foreign policy, nobody going to respect engagements, no cred because you're always going back on your word, no economic standing because the majority might just decide to default any moment... What the hell is teaching everyone responsibility anyway? Are we all getting long-term finances, foreign diplomacy, municipal management, city planning, military, social work, territorial waters regulation, writing and voting on laws added on top of math and language courses?
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52350703]How am I supposed to find every single potential fascist and debate them until they realize they're wrong? I'm not some kind of omnipotent being, I can only react to what I know is happening.
I'm not against debating people, I'll debate whoever I can. But I can't convince someone who's already become entrenched. And if they decide to organize themselves with other entrenched people and go public with their asinine views, I'm going to have to react to that.[/QUOTE]
Try go up to them first and talk to them, if they only shout at you, you may ignore them.
[QUOTE]Counter-protesting isn't just about "shouting fascist", it's about sending a message of opposition and showing solidarity with the people they seek to infringe upon.
It's not my responsibility nor my ability to make people's feelings "disappear". All I want to do is prevent them from getting bigger and taking power.[/QUOTE]
It's a feel good measure, it's doesn't actually help against bad beliefs. Maybe, they feel even more entrenched after it. So you don't want to improve people's beliefs, just shut them up? You don't believe in the strengths of your own arguments?
[QUOTE]You will have to look long and hard to find another anarchist who wants to close their borders (in that case I would even doubt that they were an anarchist). Anarchists are against coercion and authority, and view freedom of movement as essential to their general freedoms.[/QUOTE]
Well, i'm not a anarchist. They tend to be too utopian in their thinking, not realistic enough. Actual viable policies comes first.
What [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis]Daryl Davis[/url] did worked but we definitely don't have a Davis for every nazi out there. Protest works well on policy and on showing that certain things will not be tolerated.
[QUOTE=RB33;52350906]
Well, i'm not a anarchist. They tend to be too utopian in their thinking, not realistic enough. Actual viable policies comes first.[/QUOTE]
But you claim to be anti-statist, socialist, pro direct democracy (which is pretty much anarchism in a nutshell) while at the same time espousing anti-immigration populist views. How is that viable policy?
[QUOTE=01271;52350859]You don't think rather that things like 9/11 can feed a movement based on fear for decades or that the scary world and outside conditions could cause someone to start blaming scapegoats or targeting others regardless of how much advertizing there is? What of spontaneous racism caused by fear of the unknown? What of the entire way of life in america during segregation, ignoring those wasn't working, all that worked was protesting.[/QUOTE]
There are differences between natural fears and a deliberate movement. People may always have fear of the unknown, but they can't join or sympathize with a movement, if they don't know they exist. Now you're taking about something in power, my arguments would work against the civil rights movement which was not in power though. If they didn't get attention, they wouldn't have worked.
[QUOTE]1) this is advertisement and that goes against your first point.[/QUOTE]
Debate, don't protest. If that doesn't work, then ignore them. Giving small extreme movements attention helps them grow.
[QUOTE]2) debating them in public can result in some real garbage debate tactics going on like [url=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop]gish galloping[/url] that allow dishonest debaters to trample all over honest debaters arguing for something that is far more grounded in reality and provable (IE evolution).
That means a whole giant setup with a moderator/host that costs money, time, effort, and then you have to actually find someone who has credentials, integrity, an honest desire to debate, did the research, can't be just blown off and/or disowned by their own side as a result of a loss. Then you actually can go and throw all that effort out the window because a nigger broke into farmer joe's car and now the village hates black people again.[/QUOTE]
Just because it may not work, doesn't mean one shouldn't try. Having a formal debate might be good, depending on how many people you reach with it. You seem to have a very black and white view of these people work, they are bit more complex than that.
[QUOTE]So a country that acts like a spastic autist on the world stage. No set foreign policy, nobody going to respect engagements, no cred because you're always going back on your word, no economic standing because the majority might just decide to default any moment... What the hell is teaching everyone responsibility anyway? Are we all getting long-term finances, foreign diplomacy, municipal management, city planning, military, social work, territorial waters regulation, writing and voting on laws added on top of math and language courses?[/QUOTE]
Keep yourself informed on a basic level, read some arguments for and against, which side do you trust and so on.
[editline]13th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=01271;52350947]What [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis]Daryl Davis[/url] did worked but we definitely don't have a Davis for every nazi out there. Protest works well on policy and on showing that certain things will not be tolerated.[/QUOTE]
If you counter-protest a movement, do that stop their desire and campaign to implement their aims?
[editline]13th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52350980]But you claim to be anti-statist, socialist, pro direct democracy (which is pretty much anarchism in a nutshell) while at the same time espousing anti-immigration populist views. How is that viable policy?[/QUOTE]
Populist views? Immigration is valid problem here, it can be that without you hating foreigners. It's expensive and further the problems of the job market and housing crisis. Except being a good human being, there are few good arguments for it at this level. It doesn't benefit us, the expenses are greater than the benefits.
Current Swedish society isn't a viable policy, they understood that in 2015. Now they're back at thinking everything is alright amid integration problems and large expenses.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
