Change.org Petition Wants ANTIFA Declared a ‘Terrorist Organization’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bdd458;51794586]or wait get this exercise your free speech and write books, websites, pamphlets, hold your own speeches and marches, and counteract their points. wow what a novel idea[/QUOTE] See, this is the problem and why Coyoteze is right in saying that it's a lose-lose scenario. Putting all of this effort into rationally debataing "their points" (as if they had any in the first place) legitimizes their views just as much if not more than by punching them. You're giving them the platform to spread their message. Even if I were to win in an argument against the nazi, you could bet that I would be on youtube the next day under the title "LIBERAL CUCK gets DESTROYED". In the current age, people will get what they want out of a discussion to validate themselves without looking at the merits of the opposing side. People are isolated within their echo-chambers and are so entrenched within their own ideas that they will do anything to further rationalize them and to ridicule and ignore the opposition. To them, there are no merits to my argument because I am a lesser being that they openly despise. Why would someone interested in the genocide of the black race have any inclination to listen to what a black man says? They are inherently irrational and violent, and so we have to wonder if rational debate is 1. Effective and 2. Actually beneficial. If you debate a Nazi, you're saying that they have points worth debating and that need logical thought to be refuted. That their ideas are worth discussing when they aren't. It's the whole fetishization of "opinions". You see this all the time, where someone will spew their ideology and then cover their bases with "well thats just my opinion!" so that they cant be criticized. I would, genuinely, be interested in at what point in history fascists were discoursed out of existence.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51794806] I would, genuinely, be interested in at what point in history fascists were discoursed out of existence.[/QUOTE] p much, Antifa is shitty and I don't think people should be punched for the things they say so I'm already on board the "Violence is wrong" train but I remain unconvinced that the "Just talk to them" route works in it's stead.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51794780]How are you going to stop the Nazi's if and when punching no longer works? [B]What levels of violence are you willing to endorse to stop the threat of Nazism as you see it? [/B][/QUOTE] Civil war. [editline]d[/editline] I'm not even joking, if it got to a point where [I]fucking Nazism[/I] was gaining that much then society has failed to prevent the repeat of the beginnings of the [I]goddamn holocaust[/I]. There's no hope then. Fuck it.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51794815]p much, Antifa is shitty and I don't think people should be punched for the things they say so I'm already on board the "Violence is wrong" train but I remain unconvinced that the "Just talk to them" route works in it's stead.[/QUOTE] don't you know? nazis become nazis because they haven't had a lot of contact with the outside world and people that looks a bit different than them. Just a little reasonable discussion can change them around ! people on facepunch actually believes this

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51794806]See, this is the problem and why Coyoteze is right in saying that it's a lose-lose scenario. Putting all of this effort into rationally debataing "their points" (as if they had any in the first place) legitimizes their views just as much if not more than by punching them. You're giving them the platform to spread their message. Even if I were to win in an argument against the nazi, you could bet that I would be on youtube the next day under the title "LIBERAL CUCK gets DESTROYED". In the current age, people will get what they want out of a discussion to validate themselves without looking at the merits of the opposing side. People are isolated within their echo-chambers and are so entrenched within their own ideas that they will do anything to further rationalize them and to ridicule and ignore the opposition. To them, there are no merits to my argument because I am a lesser being that they openly despise. Why would someone interested in the genocide of the black race have any inclination to listen to what a black man says? They are inherently irrational and violent, and so we have to wonder if rational debate is 1. Effective and 2. Actually beneficial. If you debate a Nazi, you're saying that they have points worth debating and that need logical thought to be refuted. That their ideas are worth discussing when they aren't. It's the whole fetishization of "opinions". You see this all the time, where someone will spew their ideology and then cover their bases with "well thats just my opinion!" so that they cant be criticized. I would, genuinely, be interested in at what point in history fascists were discoursed out of existence.[/QUOTE] They have a platform to begin with, they'll always have one because there is no way to stop them. If it's not done in public, it's done in private through whispers and barn meetings. The difference is that you literally cannot stop them if you don't challenge them. Their views are automatically legitimized and validated because they weren't challenged on it. And punching them does nothing to take that away, it doesn't make what they said go away or change. It doesn't give people an alternate view nor change what they heard. You've simply punched someone in the face and nothing more. You mention echo chambers and being so entrenched in one's ideas and seeing opponents as lesser beings. Yet in the same post you say they shouldn't be debated and there is no merit to debating them, that debating them just validates them. But that isn't how it works. You're challenging their ideas, you're countering them. The idea doesn't change in validity just because it was talked about. It's the facts of the ideas that establishes validity, and if you provide none, you have no validity. If someone says something is just there opinion, you can remind them that opinions ultimately are based in the real world around facts. That their opinion can be criticized and is be wrong. And again, don't focus just on converting the opponent, convert the audience, win people over to your ideals. They're as much a part of the debate as you and your opponent are.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51794847]Civil war. [editline]d[/editline] I'm not even joking, if it got to a point where [I]fucking Nazism[/I] was gaining that much then society has failed to prevent the repeat of the beginnings of the [I]goddamn holocaust[/I]. There's no hope then. Fuck it.[/QUOTE] If we are going to use the rise of Nazi Germany as a model, at what point do you pick up your rifle and start shooting the Richard Spencers and Milo's of the world?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51794883]If we are going to use the rise of Nazi Germany as a model, at what point do you pick up your rifle and start shooting the Richard Spencers and Milo's of the world?[/QUOTE] Personally, I'd rather pick up my camera and be the one documenting it, be it a punch or a bullet. It's not in my nature to kill people.

[QUOTE=bdd458;51794586]or wait get this exercise your free speech and write books, websites, pamphlets, hold your own speeches and marches, and counteract their points. wow what a novel idea[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, normally, I would agree with you 100% as I take an active role in my local community in terms of politics. But look at the front page of sensationalist headlines. We live in a time where dissenters are either ignored or called "fake". We live in a time where a child throws a tantrum on social media seen by the [B]ENTIRE[/B] world. We live in a time where if something doesn't go their way, we can sign a paper, strong-arming the policy even if by legal channels. You would find it hard-pressed to convince someone that non-violent protest is 100% successful. And I can understand why some turn to violence. Closing your eyes and plugging your ears while yelling "BE PEACEFUL! LOVE IS THE ANSWER!" is just being blissfully ignorant and disingenuous. [B]You are no better than the people sitting on their asses every day.[/B]

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51794906]Personally, I'd rather pick up my camera and be the one documenting it, be it a punch or a bullet. It's not in my nature to kill people.[/QUOTE] Well that's convenient. At what point should people start killing and dying for your revolt then? [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagu;51794908] [B]You are no better than the people sitting on their asses every day.[/B][/QUOTE] He doesn't even stand by what he preaches which is the real disappointment.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51794327]This is larger covered in the other thread on the issue of Antifa. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1551508[/url] And yes, technically, they are terrorists. They commit violence to achieve political ends. Here is a nice video covering the Antifa and the Black Bloc. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvN5o2aRNs[/media][/QUOTE] you really fuckin linked a sargon of akkad video? this is like saying 'no, 9/11 was a conspiracy, here's proof:" and linking an alex jones video.

okay okay let me try something it's actually Trump's and the racists' fault that people are beginning to turn to violent tactics!! don't you realize that being ridiculed as ''libtards'' and ''SJW's'' make them sway more into the extremes?? if the right would just listen to them and talk to them instead of shaming them!! i tell you !! hey so it work for both ways now i guess edit: i ought to enunciate that this is a satire of trump supporters et al.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51794867]don't you know? nazis become nazis because they haven't had a lot of contact with the outside world and people that looks a bit different than them. Just a little reasonable discussion can change them around ! people on facepunch actually believes this[/QUOTE] This is actually true in many cases. They live in insular communities with little exposure to outside views. It's a massive petridish or incubator for a select few views. Again, they go unchallenged so there is no reason not to believe them. Consider how children typically follow the views of their parents until around middle school/high school. They live in an insular world exposed to a select few views that are repeated constantly. Then once they reach higher levels of education they become more exposed to outside views and new ideas, and they are surrounded by them as much if not more than they are the ones they find at home. Hence why many teenagers hit a "rebellious" phase, where they contradict many of the views of their parents. They're now immersed in new views and find conflicting ones at home. If not from this, then where do racism and similar ideologies come from? Are they somehow intrinsic characteristics of everyone, developed at birth, perhaps inherited during the pregnancy? Sociology would strongly argue this is not the case, that these are learned views and behaviors.

when did 'nazis are bad people' become something up for debate??

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51794597]They're not, generally, very receptive to calm rationale.[/QUOTE] He says after going on about how its acceptable to physically assault his opponents because they are objectively wrong and he is right

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51794780] But the entire point of your post is to point out how a few people had their minds changed and that the power of words, not violence, was responsible for this. If you can't even stick up for that, why do you expect people to take your copy-pasted spiel to heart every time it's posted in one of these threads?[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. The point is that words are what works, and that if you're so inclined to actually fight that sort of thing violence isn't going to do it, and words are. Words and treating someone like a human being are what changes minds. I personally don't go looking to change people's minds, and I don't keep track of everyone I've ever had a political discussion with in my life. I fail to see how that's against my point. I look for discussion, for different points of view. Some of these people are people I've seen once at school and then never again, some are friends. Some may have actually thought about what I said after talking. Doing what Davis did, it isn't easy. It sure as hell isn't for everyone. It's all about your mindset, if you going in looking to change someone's mind, tbh you're going to be confrontational and you're not going to get anywhere. But if you take it slow, and you treat them like a person, it can and will happen. [QUOTE=Duck M.;51794806]See, this is the problem and why Coyoteze is right in saying that it's a lose-lose scenario. Putting all of this effort into rationally debataing "their points" (as if they had any in the first place) legitimizes their views just as much if not more than by punching them. You're giving them the platform to spread their message. Even if I were to win in an argument against the nazi, you could bet that I would be on youtube the next day under the title "LIBERAL CUCK gets DESTROYED". In the current age, people will get what they want out of a discussion to validate themselves without looking at the merits of the opposing side. People are isolated within their echo-chambers and are so entrenched within their own ideas that they will do anything to further rationalize them and to ridicule and ignore the opposition. To them, there are no merits to my argument because I am a lesser being that they openly despise. Why would someone interested in the genocide of the black race have any inclination to listen to what a black man says? They are inherently irrational and violent, and so we have to wonder if rational debate is 1. Effective and 2. Actually beneficial. If you debate a Nazi, you're saying that they have points worth debating and that need logical thought to be refuted. That their ideas are worth discussing when they aren't. It's the whole fetishization of "opinions". You see this all the time, where someone will spew their ideology and then cover their bases with "well thats just my opinion!" so that they cant be criticized. I would, genuinely, be interested in at what point in history fascists were discoursed out of existence.[/QUOTE] I'm going to quote Daryl Davis on that ever so spooky[B][I][U] ~platform~[/U][/I][/B] so many seem to not want to give others, because quite frankly he says it far more eloquently than I ever can. [quote]The most important thing I learned is that when you are actively learning about someone else you are passively teaching them about yourself. So if you have an adversary with an opposing point of view, give that person a platform. Allow them to air that point of view, regardless of how extreme it may be. And believe me, I've heard things so extreme at these rallies they'll cut you to the bone. Give them a platform. You challenge them. But you don't challenge them rudely or violently. You do it politely and intelligently. And when you do things that way chances are they will reciprocate and give you a platform. So he and I would sit down and listen to one another over a period of time. And the cement that held his ideas together began to get cracks in it. And then it began to crumble. And then it fell apart.[/quote] [QUOTE=Raidyr;51794912]He doesn't even stand by what he preaches which is the real disappointment.[/QUOTE] How exactly don't I then? [editline]8th February 2017[/editline] Is it because I don't keep a list of people I talk with? That I don't have a list of nazis that I'm checking off one by one as I have discussions with them and having periodic checkups to make sure they're on my side now?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51794912]Well that's convenient. [/QUOTE] Reporters are always a usual asset, so I'm not sure what your point is here. I already considered becoming a photojournalist before I switched career paths to animation and filmmaking. I already have the experience and know-how, so if things went to shit (including my current career) I'd readily switch. I'm already at protests doing it, so yeah, it would be convenient. :s: [QUOTE=Raidyr;51794912]At what point should people start killing and dying for your revolt then?[/QUOTE] I like how you're being a condescending prick by calling it "my" revolt lol But hey, uh, hmm... at what point did Nazis begin rounding up people they didn't like and toss them into ovens? Yeah, probably around that point. I'd say a revolt is pretty justified at that stage. Probably a bit before even, probably at the "making a registrar of types of people we don't like"-stage.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51794494]i tend to hate them all why just the extreme ones for you though ?[/QUOTE] Because some of those followers don't know what they're doing and are blinded by a need for identity, etc. They can be convinced that they are wrong. Not all, of course. Some are simply not worth interacting with.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;51794929]okay okay let me try something it's actually Trump's and the racists' fault that people are beginning to turn to violent tactics!! don't you realize that being ridiculed as ''libtards'' and ''SJW's'' make them sway more into the extremes?? if the right would just listen to them and talk to them instead of shaming them!! i tell you !! hey so it work for both ways now i guess edit: i ought to enunciate that this is a satire of trumpets et al.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it does. That's exactly what happens. Tit for tat, quid pro quo, feedback loop, whatever you want to call it. This is in no small part how we've reached such a state of polarization and hostility. The people who already hold a view and aren't challenged on it intellectually instead become more entrenched in their views.

[QUOTE=bdd458;51794940]You're missing the point. The point is that words are what works, and that if you're so inclined to actually fight that sort of thing violence isn't going to do it, and words are. Words and treating someone like a human being are what changes minds. I personally don't go looking to change people's minds, and I don't keep track of everyone I've ever had a political discussion with in my life. I fail to see how that's against my point. I look for discussion, for different points of view. Some of these people are people I've seen once at school and then never again, some are friends. Doing what Davis did, it isn't easy. It sure as hell isn't for everyone. It's all about your mindset, if you going in looking to change someone's mind, tbh you're going to be confrontational and you're not going to get anywhere. But if you take it slow, and you treat them like a person, it can and will happen. I'm going to quote Daryl Davis on that ever so spooky[B][I][U] ~platform~[/U][/I][/B] so many seem to not want to give others, because quite frankly he says it far more eloquently than I ever can. How exactly don't I then?[/QUOTE] Let's try and agree on something, alright? Nazism, racism is bad and both have absolutely no place in a civilised society. Would you agree? Now, follow through with me here, debating a nazi one on one, having a sit down and a chat with them if you can (remember Daryl needed an armed bodyguard with him!) is entirely possible, and you may convince people. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Now, step it up a bit: engage them in debate on a stage. By doing so, you're admitting that [i]both sides have some merit[/i]. Even if you convince the guy speaking, how many people in the audience are gonna become persuaded? (and don't give stuff like 'well the more logical argument would win~' because we have a trump presidency which flies in the face of 'rational discussion will win') Now, forget even giving them a debate. Just let them have rallies. Let Milo spread his word out to all the creeps, the misogynists, the homophobes, the islamophobes, without repurcussion. He's not gonna WANT to debate you, because then he might lose. All it will do is rally people under him and further divide people. What once was a small group of people is now a large cluster at a rally. Every platform you give them that isnt one on one means potentially more people you need to convince politely over tea and biscuits. You CANT sit down with every single racist and convince them, so sometimes the best thing to do is deny them a platform at all. Unless, of course, you think that racism has a place in society, which is, well..

[QUOTE=papaya;51794936]when did 'nazis are bad people' become something up for debate??[/QUOTE] The moment people stopped explaining why they're bad people and instead turned to just insults and violence. "They're bad!" "Why are they had?" "Because they're Nazis!" "What is wrong with being a Nazi?" "Because they're bad!"

[QUOTE=papaya;51794936]when did 'nazis are bad people' become something up for debate??[/QUOTE] That's not the debate. The debate is a combination of "What makes someone a Nazi" with some peoples definitions setting a ridiculously low bar, and "What makes someone such a bad person that violence to stop them from speaking is a reasonable solution".

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51794973]The moment people stopped explaining why they're bad people and instead turned to just insults and violence. "They're bad!" "Why are they had?" "Because they're Nazis!" "What is wrong with being a Nazi?" "Because they're bad!"[/QUOTE] do you really need to ask 'whats wrong with being a Nazi' like are you for real right now

[QUOTE=papaya;51794971] You CANT sit down with every single racist and convince them, so sometimes the best thing to do is deny them a platform at all. Unless, of course, you think that racism has a place in society, which is, well..[/QUOTE] I don't think violence should be used to deny someone a platform. I don't think racism has a place in society. What do.

[QUOTE=papaya;51794971]Let's try and agree on something, alright? Nazism, racism is bad and both have absolutely no place in a civilised society. Would you agree? Now, follow through with me here, debating a nazi one on one, having a sit down and a chat with them if you can (remember Daryl needed an armed bodyguard with him!) is entirely possible, and you may convince people. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Now, step it up a bit: engage them in debate on a stage. By doing so, you're admitting that [i]both sides have some merit[/i]. Even if you convince the guy speaking, how many people in the audience are gonna become persuaded? (and don't give stuff like 'well the more logical argument would win~' because we have a trump presidency which flies in the face of 'rational discussion will win') Now, forget even giving them a debate. Just let them have rallies. Let Milo spread his word out to all the creeps, the misogynists, the homophobes, the islamophobes, without repurcussion. He's not gonna WANT to debate you, because then he might lose. All it will do is rally people under him and further divide people. What once was a small group of people is now a large cluster at a rally. Every platform you give them that isnt one on one means potentially more people you need to convince politely over tea and biscuits. You CANT sit down with every single racist and convince them, so sometimes the best thing to do is deny them a platform at all. Unless, of course, you think that racism has a place in society, which is, well..[/QUOTE] I find it pretty fucking sad and also kind of funny that people like Papaya think they can rewrite the whole book on political science and sociology and just make up new rules as to how people behave, think, congregate and form common ideals. Just because it's easier to deny reality and substitute it for their own, no matter how childish, deluded and Manichean.

[QUOTE=papaya;51794976]do you really need to ask 'whats wrong with being a Nazi' like are you for real right now[/QUOTE] Are you? Listen for a goddamn second what people are telling you. They arent telling you that nazis arent bad, they are telling you that there is a vital context missing in the message of "nazis bad". Like the horrible things they have actually done. Thats what you should be telling people, not screeching like an orangutan on roids "NAZI BAD!"

[QUOTE=papaya;51794976]do you really need to ask 'whats wrong with being a Nazi' like are you for real right now[/QUOTE] Yes, he does, because you clearly don't have an answer. If you aren't able to answer the most obvious question then maybe it's time for you to get off your high horse and reconsider your positions. A disingenuous question such as "what is wrong with being a nazi" is designed as a trap for people like you to act condescending an expose themselves as such. And you're falling for it, because you're that oblivious.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51794973]The moment people stopped explaining why they're bad people and instead turned to just insults and violence. "They're bad!" "Why are they had?" "Because they're Nazis!" "What is wrong with being a Nazi?" "Because they're bad!"[/QUOTE] Nazism is a system of beliefs that almost always involves ethic cleansing... I'm pretty sure it is in general, bad Its a system of beliefs that while you can advocate for "nonviolent cleansing" like Spencer, it's still a core foundation. White master race and all that

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;51794935]This is actually true in many cases. They live in insular communities with little exposure to outside views. It's a massive petridish or incubator for a select few views. Again, they go unchallenged so there is no reason not to believe them. Consider how children typically follow the views of their parents until around middle school/high school. They live in an insular world exposed to a select few views that are repeated constantly. Then once they reach higher levels of education they become more exposed to outside views and new ideas, and they are surrounded by them as much if not more than they are the ones they find at home. Hence why many teenagers hit a "rebellious" phase, where they contradict many of the views of their parents. They're now immersed in new views and find conflicting ones at home. If not from this, then where do racism and similar ideologies come from? Are they somehow intrinsic characteristics of everyone, developed at birth, perhaps inherited during the pregnancy? Sociology would strongly argue this is not the case, that these are learned views and behaviors.[/QUOTE] Richard Spencer graduated with honors from the University of Virginia, received a Masters in humanities, and was a doctorate student at Duke. Clearly just a lack of higher education education, a rebellious teenage phase, and general ignorance cannot explain everything.

[QUOTE=papaya;51794971]Now, step it up a bit: engage them in debate on a stage. By doing so, you're admitting that [i]both sides have some merit[/i]. Even if you convince the guy speaking, how many people in the audience are gonna become persuaded? (and don't give stuff like 'well the more logical argument would win~' because we have a trump presidency which flies in the face of 'rational discussion will win')[/QUOTE]It doesn't give both sides merit just by holding the debate, the merit comes from within the debate itself. By providing actual arguments and reasons for one side or the other. If your side is so overwhelmingly right and valid, then it shouldn't be hard to convince the audience. [QUOTE]Now, forget even giving them a debate. Just let them have rallies. Let Milo spread his word out to all the creeps, the misogynists, the homophobes, the islamophobes, without repurcussion. He's not gonna WANT to debate you, because then he might lose. All it will do is rally people under him and further divide people. What once was a small group of people is now a large cluster at a rally. Every platform you give them that isnt one on one means potentially more people you need to convince politely over tea and biscuits.[/QUOTE]It is impossible to take away their platform. You can't be everywhere at once, hear everything, see everything. And if you try, you're simply going back in to the fascist territory. And if you try to deny them a platform so publicly, you make them a martyr. If he loses the debate, he isn't a martyr, he's a failure. Instead him being denied is the rallying cry because now they are victims. [QUOTE]You CANT sit down with every single racist and convince them, so sometimes the best thing to do is deny them a platform at all. Unless, of course, you think that racism has a place in society, which is, well..[/QUOTE]Again though, it's impossible to deny them a platform, and trying to just solidifies theif views far more than just debating them ever will. And again, the better goal isn't to convince them, it's to to convince the audience. To cut off their supply of new supporters.

You keep saying all this stuff Zedacon, but gimme an opportunity and I'll punch a nazi over attempting to convert an audience any day of the week. :downs: