/pol/ has started an initiative to post up “It’s Okay To Be White” Flyers - Sensationalist Headlines

Maybe it shouldn't be an anonymous anime image board who should be addressing white people feeling discriminated by posting flyers with their faces covered at midnight

[QUOTE]. And no, I'm not saying "kill everyone to the right of me", I'm just saying that doing absolutely nothing like Gurosity is preaching will not do anything. Confront them. Educate them. Open their minds [/QUOTE] I suggest reading wars of the third kind by Ed rice. What the alt right is doing is a form of guerrlia warfare. I'm not suggesting "do nothing". I am suggesting change of approach. Notice how cordial I was and you ended up flipping the fuck out and people began dog piling you instead of me? Might wanna consider that.

I do like how this campaign is doing a pretty good job of exposing quite a lot of hypocrites on the left. Mainly from the kind of people who unironically believe it's not racism if their hate is directed at whites. The cognitive dissonance on display on Twitter over this is exactly why this campaign got started and exactly the kind of reaction they were looking for. Racism is racism and hate is hate regardless of who it's being directed at and saying or even implying that it's totally okay to be racist and hateful towards whites and only whites is hateful in itself. It's beyond hypocritical. You know who else thought marginalizing, vilifying, and just generally shitting on another race because of their perceived role in the problems they faced was a good idea?

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52849865]Okay, I see. I just wrote up a big thing and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt before I posted it. I thought you were implying that there weren't white people who face severe economic challenges, who aren't wondering how they'll be able to make a living, despite being white. Because those people factually do exist. Nevermind.[/QUOTE] No, no, white people [I]do[/I] struggle, it's just that they don't really struggle [I]because[/I] they're white.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52849926]No, no, white people [I]do[/I] struggle, it's just that they don't really struggle [I]because[/I] they're white.[/QUOTE] Yes, exactly. I was gonna bold in my essay that "It's not BECAUSE they're white, but in SPITE of it," but that these are still important things to consider when answering questions like "Why did Trump win?" I just misunderstood you is all, no big deal.

It's okay to be white, just means you have a lack of melanin which means your may have Vitiligo.

[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52849939]It's okay to be white, just means you have a lack of melanin which means your may have Vitiligo.[/QUOTE] Finally, representation for white people with vitiligo like me :v:

It's pretty important to always take arguments at face value if you want to remain in the category of sane discussions. This works because "oh but they're dogwhistling nazi values!" means you've fucked up by pretending an argument is something it's not. To everyone outside looking in anyone freaking out about those posters is now properly categorized as an anti-white racist. A few folks here are arguing that the simple existence of these posters promotes white supremacy, but that's the same line of thinking as "black lives matter automatically means all other lives don't matter", which just as with these posters, there are extremists who believe that too. You're reading past face value and once you do that you've already lost in the arena of ideas and you're firmly in the shitflinging identity politics swamps, where ideas go to drown in their own hubris. As people have pointed out though, in that swamp of cancer and ideas that don't matter, on a strategic level this poster is pretty brilliant. Same way "black lives matter" naming is the opposite of brilliant strategy. You just don't get it both ways, either stick to proper discussion of ideas and never use the term "dogwhistling" in that context or now everything you say also has a secret meaning for people to imagine/fabricate, publish, then pick apart.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52849950]It's pretty important to always take arguments at face value if you want to remain in the category of sane discussions. This works because "oh but they're dogwhistling nazi values!" means you've fucked up by pretending an argument is something it's not. To everyone outside looking in anyone freaking out about those posters is now properly categorized as an anti-white racist. A few folks here are arguing that the simple existence of these posters promotes white supremacy, but that's the same line of thinking as "black lives matter automatically means all other lives don't matter", which just as with these posters, there are extremists who believe that too. You're reading past face value and once you do that you've already lost in the arena of ideas and you're firmly in the shitflinging identity politics swamps, where ideas go to drown in their own hubris. As people have pointed out though, in that swamp of cancer and ideas that don't matter, on a strategic level this poster is pretty brilliant. Same way "black lives matter" naming is the opposite of brilliant strategy. You just don't get it both ways, either stick to proper discussion of ideas and never use the term "dogwhistling" in that context or now everything you say also has a secret meaning for people to imagine/fabricate, publish, then pick apart.[/QUOTE] Well said. What I am saying is don't play along with the Nazis game. Want the best way to counter this? Form relationships with the unaligned and help them. Woo them to your side before the Nazis woo them. Throwing triggerly puff tantrums and consider everything sexist and racist isn't going do the left any favors.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52849950]It's pretty important to always take arguments at face value if you want to remain in the category of sane discussions.[/QUOTE] No, that's what you do if you want mostly pointless surface level discussion. One should absolutely take context into account - this doesn't affect the sanity of a discussion, that's entirely on how one carries it out and the temperament of how one conveys opinions. If someone outside looking in views the "freaking out" as, well, crazy freaking out, that's because the person freaking out is using exaggerated and garbled language. This has nothing to do with the message itself. People commonly are not completely direct with their message, thinking otherwise and insisting that face value is the truest form of interpretation doesn't help anyone. Sure, if you go reaching for hidden meaning instead of exploring and explaining the context it won't do you any favours, but in this instance people have been pretty good with sanely looking past face value. That doesn't mean it's not proper or sane discussion, it means they're capable of rationally and calmly taking context into account.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52849964]Woo them to your side before the Nazis woo them. Throwing triggerly puff tantrums and consider everything sexist and racist isn't going do the left any favors.[/QUOTE] Here's the problem: The Nazis want people who want to be woo'd by sexist and racist things. That's who they're trying to 'woo'. The smaller of those two parts are people who live in desperation or social isolation. Neither of which [I]want[/I] you to be near them. Either they approach you or they run away or they start resenting you - unless you tell them 'don't worry, I have a magic pill that will allow you to take back control over your life - it's called white supremacy'. View White Supremacy as a drug. This is a Drug War. You will not win the drug war by telling people 'hey, White Supremacy is bad for you' and you didn't invent the need people have for drugs to begin with. You want to fix the drug problem? Fix counseling availability and drug costs and help people form social relationships with others.

[QUOTE=RedDagger;52849978]No, that's what you do if you want mostly pointless surface level discussion. One should absolutely take context into account - this doesn't affect the sanity of a discussion, that's entirely on how one carries it out and the temperament of how one conveys opinions. If someone outside looking in views the "freaking out" as, well, crazy freaking out, that's because the person freaking out is using exaggerated and garbled language. This has nothing to do with the message itself. People commonly are not completely direct with their message, thinking otherwise and insisting that face value is the truest form of interpretation doesn't help anyone. Sure, if you go reaching for hidden meaning instead of exploring and explaining the context it won't do you any favours, but in this instance people have been pretty good with sanely looking past face value. That doesn't mean it's not proper or sane discussion, it means they're capable of rationally and calmly taking context into account.[/QUOTE] The ideas themselves are whats important rather than who is presenting them, you should meet ideas with ideas, discuss and debate them and consider the quality and tradeoffs of each. What you call "pointless and surface level" is literally the high point of human societal achievement, it's very difficult to even be able to have those discussions in society because of all the shitflinging and politics that usually myres it but i think you'll find it's the only way to make intentional progress in a positive direction. I would agree that it's far it's better to not be completely stupid while you're spending time in the myred area, trying to approach those natively irrational issues with rationality is better than the alternatives. It's not the best we can do, though, especially considering the ridiculous variety of viewpoints and possible "dogwhistles", everyone has their own hidden meaning and they often don't align with what you can pick from context it's likely for a group to think. Then individuals see themselves being accused of "dogwhistling" an idea they never considered and again, it backfires as they become strongly anti-whatever you represent even if they dont agree with whatever you're opposing.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52849950]It's pretty important to always take arguments at face value if you want to remain in the category of sane discussions. This works because "oh but they're dogwhistling nazi values!" means you've fucked up by pretending an argument is something it's not. To everyone outside looking in anyone freaking out about those posters is now properly categorized as an anti-white racist. A few folks here are arguing that the simple existence of these posters promotes white supremacy, but that's the same line of thinking as "black lives matter automatically means all other lives don't matter", which just as with these posters, there are extremists who believe that too. You're reading past face value and once you do that you've already lost in the arena of ideas and you're firmly in the shitflinging identity politics swamps, where ideas go to drown in their own hubris. As people have pointed out though, in that swamp of cancer and ideas that don't matter, on a strategic level this poster is pretty brilliant. Same way "black lives matter" naming is the opposite of brilliant strategy. You just don't get it both ways, either stick to proper discussion of ideas and never use the term "dogwhistling" in that context or now everything you say also has a secret meaning for people to imagine/fabricate, publish, then pick apart.[/QUOTE] You could analyze the people who are posting those messages and try to understand what it means/where it's coming from. People who unironically think anyone who says "Black Lives Matter" is a black/African supremacist has probably been pre-disposed to assume that. Likewise, someone who thinks anyone who says "It's Okay To Be White" is a white supremacist has also been pre-disposed to think that way. The notion of unaffiliated 'normies' is incorrect, as anyone who associates "Black Lives Matter" or "It's Okay To Be White" with anything- good or bad- has already been pre-disposed to think that way. Nobody- except maybe an alien living in Alpha Centauri- is going to have no prior mental association with these slogans or the connotations they bring up, even if it's just from the news they see on television. The secret, I suspect, is to learn and understand the motivations of the people behind these slogans and encourage others to do the same. If, for example, I was someone who saw black people rioting on the news and I made the mental connection between that and "Black Lives Matter", the one thing that would actually serve to break that connection would be learning about the issues that African Americans face, allowing me to understand the rationale behind the behaviour I was seeing and allow me to convey empathy for those affected. Likewise, if I was someone who was predisposed to seeing a poster that says "It's Okay To Be White" and to then take it at face value without recognizing it as a dog whistle, the one thing that could possibly convince me to not be pulled deeper into the white genocide conspiracy theory would be to learn the real deceptive motives of the people behind the posters as well as to learn the context of why certain people are made uncomfortable by slogans such as these and their underlying connotations. There's no way around it, in order to challenge these ideas you must question the preconceptions of the individuals who are susceptible to the manipulation, which makes people uncomfortable. Even assuming that you could convince every left-leaning individual to not challenge these ideas in the belief that not doing so will somehow stop these ideas from spreading, these ideological movements have demonstrated already that they can manufacture an enemy by willfully misinterpreting something. Else, they will simply ask why their ideas are not being discussed openly (with the implication being there is a conspiracy to silence "the truth"). [QUOTE=Mattk50;52850009]The ideas themselves are whats important rather than who is presenting them, you should meet ideas with ideas, discuss and debate them and consider the quality and tradeoffs of each. What you call "pointless and surface level" is literally the high point of human societal achievement, it's very difficult to even be able to have those discussions in society because of all the shitflinging and politics that usually myres it but i think you'll find it's the only way to make intentional progress in a positive direction. I would agree that it's far it's better to not be completely stupid while you're spending time in the myred area, trying to approach those natively irrational issues with rationality is better than the alternatives. It's not the best we can do, though, especially considering the ridiculous variety of viewpoints and possible "dogwhistles", everyone has their own hidden meaning and they often don't align with what you can pick from context it's likely for a group to think. Then individuals see themselves being accused of "dogwhistling" an idea they never considered and again, it backfires as they become strongly anti-whatever you represent even if they dont agree with whatever you're opposing.[/QUOTE] You cannot have a reasonable debate with people who use dishonesty, bullying and intimidation tactics- not without handicapping yourself. People like Milo Yiannopoulos- or political pundits in general- don't employ rational arguments, nor do they debate or discuss or share ideas. They dogpile, dox people, shout over people, use personal attacks and violence, then they accuse others of doing the same while sweeping it under the rug. They avoid any kind of confrontation where they would actually need to defend their ideas, banning people from speaking in their meeting places. They cherrypick only the facts and statistics that fit their ideology and then deny that they are doing it. They never present their true viewpoint, instead focusing on concern trolling, pretending to be 'enlightened' centrists with no political baggage except in private discussions wherein they can accuse any 'leakers' of paranoia and 'read into things too much'. Whenever someone dismantles their flimsy arguments, they simply ignore it and move on to the next place they can spread their propaganda. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&feature=youtu.be&t=393[/url] You see how Tucker Carlson and Wolf Blitzer rely on personal attacks, shouting over people and generally trying to wind up Jon Stewart? The second someone reacts, a political pundit immediately pounces and starts accusing them of being unreasonable, essentially turning it around and showing how they're the real bad guy and so on, all while they're the reasonable centrist/enlightened individual. As Stewart points out in the video, it's not a debate, it's theatre. The political pundit creates a persona for themselves, dressing up and setting themselves up as this sophisticated and suave individual and then either cherrypicks or winds up their 'opponent' into making a false move they can exploit. They never present their real views or arguments, because then they'd actually have to defend themselves. Instead they spend hours and hours going on about the inconsiderate and hateful 'SJWs' or 'liberals', creating this false narrative that they and the viewer are being oppressed and that there is a conspiracy to silence them and their identity as white/black/right-wing/left-wing/vegan/etc.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52850007]Here's the problem: The Nazis want people who want to be woo'd by sexist and racist things. That's who they're trying to 'woo'. The smaller of those two parts are people who live in desperation or social isolation. Neither of which [I]want[/I] you to be near them. Either they approach you or they run away or they start resenting you - unless you tell them 'don't worry, I have a magic pill that will allow you to take back control over your life - it's called white supremacy'. View White Supremacy as a drug. This is a Drug War. You will not win the drug war by telling people 'hey, White Supremacy is bad for you' and you didn't invent the need people have for drugs to begin with. You want to fix the drug problem? Fix counseling availability and drug costs and help people form social relationships with others.[/QUOTE] Congrats. This behavior of yours is exactly what Nazis tailor their propaganda to. You reacted exactly in a way that benefits their cause. All I am saying is be nice to people who are undecided. Would it kill you to actually be nice to people or you going to play this "everything, is sexist everything is racist" game to your side's determinant?

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52850046]Congrats. This behavior of yours is exactly what Nazis tailor their propaganda to. You reacted exactly in a way that benefits, their cause. All I am saying is be nice to people who are undecided. Would it kill you to actually be nice to people or you going to play this "everything, is sexist everything is racist" game to your side's determinant?[/QUOTE] Congrats. You would've said this to literally anything I would've written. Allow me to formally rebut your last point: The people who would be swayed by the Nazis and would remain Nazis are Nazis (or at very least would be sympathetic). I'm not saying 'everything is sexist and racist'. That's the Nazi game - but they'll say you're the one being sexist and racist all the same. You can't debate Nazi propagandists because they're dishonest to begin with. What you can do is say 'this is bullshit, here's your real agenda here' and then the cards will fall where they may. You can't attack the propaganda without attacking their person and they will always play the victim. The thing that helps their cause most is people allowing them to have one and refusing to contest their cause openly and loudly. They want you to be nice because that lets them operate openly and without contest. Edit: I mean, you want to do a mock Nazi Propagandist Battle right here? I can play the Nazi and you can play the person who's trying to get the guy I'm trying to convert to find my ideas unappealing ( a person who's been having a hard time getting laid, has few friends, and feels out of place in the world in addition to discovering that the field they were majoring in is suddenly full and they're going to have a hard time finding a job in it). You can play as nice as you like and I'll show you exactly how a Nazi will take advantage of that and twist it into their own message. We'll say the post limit is 2 or 3 posts so that we don't take the whole thread off topic. If you can't make that person find my ideology unappealing in that time, we'll consider them to have found my ideas appealing.

[QUOTE=Zyler;52850028]You could analyze the people who are posting those messages and try to understand what it means/where it's coming from. People who unironically think anyone who says "Black Lives Matter" is a black/African supremacist has probably been pre-disposed to assume that. Likewise, someone who thinks anyone who says "It's Okay To Be White" is a white supremacist has also been pre-disposed to think that way. The notion of unaffiliated 'normies' is incorrect, as anyone who associates "Black Lives Matter" or "It's Okay To Be White" with anything- good or bad- has already been pre-disposed to think that way. Nobody- except maybe an alien living in Alpha Centauri- is going to have no prior mental association with these slogans or the connotations they bring up, even if it's just from the news they see on television. The secret, I suspect, is to learn and understand the motivations of the people behind these slogans and encourage others to do the same. If, for example, I was someone who saw black people rioting on the news and I made the mental connection between that and "Black Lives Matter", the one thing that would actually serve to break that connection would be learning about the issues that African Americans face, allowing me to understand the rationale behind the behaviour I was seeing and allow me to convey empathy for those affected. Likewise, if I was someone who was predisposed to seeing a poster that says "It's Okay To Be White" and to then take it at face value without recognizing it as a dog whistle, the one thing that could possibly convince me to not be pulled deeper into the white genocide conspiracy theory would be to learn the real deceptive motives of the people behind the posters as well as to learn the context of why certain people are made uncomfortable by slogans such as these and their underlying connotations. There's no way around it, in order to challenge these ideas you must question the preconceptions of the individuals who are susceptible to the manipulation, which makes people uncomfortable. Even assuming that you could convince every left-leaning individual to not challenge these ideas in the belief that not doing so will somehow stop these ideas from spreading, these ideological movements have demonstrated already that they can manufacture an enemy by willfully misinterpreting something. Else, they will simply ask why their ideas are not being discussed openly (with the implication being there is a conspiracy to silence "the truth").[/QUOTE] Yes, you could, but I'm arguing that you shouldn't. The attempt to analyze the origins, context and "dogwhistle" of any particular statement is both difficult and pointless due to the sheer variety in individual human thought. I believe it's truly impossible to quantify just in how many ways different people will interpret the same statement on a political level. There will be groups and influences and commonalities, but these, usually caused by that predispotion you mention, are extremely mutable, malleable and subject to individualism to the extreme. If you look into chaos theory and why the weather is considered to be an unsolvable problem, i think the same logic applies to "storms" of human thought. The way around challenging the ideas is simple, take things at face value. Do not allow a poster that says "its okay to be white" to generate other thoughts than "Yes it is okay to be white", the key here is that you maintain the meaningless of the poster. No "but who is saying its not okay to be white, fuck them!", no "the person behind this must be white supremacist, fuck them". If the individual behind that particular poster is secretly white supremecist he loses right there and then because he's failed his objective in getting you to think the first thing. If he wants his ideaology to really spread in a society of people who take things at face value, he would have to lay it bare and form a complete thought, and communicate it. Amusingly, the process of doing so is also likely to dissuade him from being a white supremecist in the first place, as once he is forced to form a detailed argument and present it to others flaws are very likely to pop out in his own mind! If it doesnt, his idea gets taken at face value then argued and shot down at face value. Now, obviously, this is difficult, but i would argue that teaching a society to take face value is much easier than teaching a society to research every little message and every little meme that pops into their awareness for signs of dogwistling. The former is at least theoretically possible, while the latter is impossible to maintain for productive individuals, as the rate of thought/meme(in the sense of a short idea that represents something much larger) generation is much higher than the rate that things and each individual person spreading that thought/meme can be thoroughly investigated.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52850009]The ideas themselves are whats important rather than who is presenting them, you should meet ideas with ideas, discuss and debate them and consider the quality and tradeoffs of each. What you call "pointless and surface level" is literally the high point of human societal achievement, it's very difficult to even be able to have those discussions in society because of all the shitflinging and politics that usually myres it but i think you'll find it's the only way to make intentional progress in a positive direction. I would agree that it's far it's better to not be completely stupid while you're spending time in the myred area, trying to approach those natively irrational issues with rationality is better than the alternatives. It's not the best we can do, though, especially considering the ridiculous variety of viewpoints and possible "dogwhistles", everyone has their own hidden meaning and they often don't align with what you can pick from context it's likely for a group to think. Then individuals see themselves being accused of "dogwhistling" an idea they never considered and again, it backfires as they become strongly anti-whatever you represent even if they dont agree with whatever you're opposing.[/QUOTE] Oh definitely, when having discussions and chucking ideas around, constantly trying to find hidden subtext over the direct message often doesn't do anyone any favours; however in this instance, the subtext and motivation behind the message is more important than the message itself - which doesn't clash with the former statement since these posters aren't an attempt at discussion in the first place. Slogans, soundbites, mantras and the like are fair game for similar dissection in my view, since they often fall into the same camp. You know where they're coming from, you know who's saying them, and you know what their motivation is - plenty enough to focus on the context, complexities, and intention of the message. Ignoring these just loses out on what the message achieves. Aside from those, I do agree with you when it comes to earnest discussion; trying to score points instead of actually discussing doesn't really have any benefits.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52850076]Yes, you could, but I'm arguing that you shouldn't. The attempt to analyze the origins, context and "dogwhistle" of any particular statement is both difficult and pointless due to the sheer variety in individual human thought. I believe it's truly impossible to quantify just in how many ways different people will interpret the same statement on a political level. There will be groups and influences and commonalities, but these, usually caused by that predispotion you mention, are extremely mutable, malleable and subject to individualism to the extreme. If you look into chaos theory and why the weather is considered to be an unsolvable problem, i think the same logic applies to "storms" of human thought. The way around challenging the ideas is simple, take things at face value. Do not allow a poster that says "its okay to be white" to generate other thoughts than "Yes it is okay to be white", the key here is that you maintain the meaningless of the poster. No "but who is saying its not okay to be white, fuck them!", no "the person behind this must be white supremacist, fuck them". If the individual behind that particular poster is secretly white supremecist he loses right there and then because he's failed his objective in getting you to think the first thing. If he wants his ideaology to really spread in a society of people who take things at face value, he would have to lay it bare and form a complete thought, and communicate it. Amusingly, the process of doing so is also likely to dissuade him from being a white supremecist in the first place, as once he is forced to form a detailed argument and present it to others flaws are very likely to pop out in his own mind! If it doesnt, his idea gets taken at face value then argued and shot down at face value. Now, obviously, this is difficult, but i would argue that teaching a society to take face value is much easier than teaching a society to research every little message and every little meme that pops into their awareness for signs of dogwistling. The former is at least theoretically possible, while the latter is impossible to maintain for productive individuals, as the rate of thought/meme(in the sense of a short idea that represents something much larger) generation is much higher than the rate that things and each individual person spreading that thought/meme can be thoroughly investigated.[/QUOTE] People read things in different ways, but you certainly can break down an individual person's ideas, work out where they heard it from, and so on. Cultural concepts like White Nationalism have a long and well-understood history and memes can be easily tracked from website to website and community to community. We know what words mean. The only people who benefit from this attitude of inconsequentialness are people trying to rationalize things like [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1530396&p=50880230&viewfull=1#post50880230]this[/url] [QUOTE]If he wants his ideaology to really spread in a society of people who take things at face value, he would have to lay it bare and form a complete thought, and communicate it. Amusingly, the process of doing so is also likely to dissuade him from being a white supremecist in the first place, as once he is forced to form a detailed argument and present it to others flaws are very likely to pop out in his own mind![/QUOTE] There's this idea again that I mentioned in my previous post, which is that you have this strange group of people called 'normies' who have no preconceptions whatsoever when it comes to these ideas of race and politics. Unless someone was previously living on alpha centauri, it is unlikely that they will have no preconceived notions about "Black Lives Matter" or "It's Okay To Be White". The assumption that, if noone responded to these posters, that the general population would not have any response to the slogan rests on the assumption that people consider all new ideas in a vaccum, which isn't true.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;52849950]It's pretty important to always take arguments at face value if you want to remain in the category of sane discussions. This works because "oh but they're dogwhistling nazi values!" means you've fucked up by pretending an argument is something it's not. To everyone outside looking in anyone freaking out about those posters is now properly categorized as an anti-white racist. A few folks here are arguing that the simple existence of these posters promotes white supremacy, but that's the same line of thinking as "black lives matter automatically means all other lives don't matter", which just as with these posters, there are extremists who believe that too. You're reading past face value and once you do that you've already lost in the arena of ideas and you're firmly in the shitflinging identity politics swamps, where ideas go to drown in their own hubris. As people have pointed out though, in that swamp of cancer and ideas that don't matter, on a strategic level this poster is pretty brilliant. Same way "black lives matter" naming is the opposite of brilliant strategy. You just don't get it both ways, either stick to proper discussion of ideas and never use the term "dogwhistling" in that context or now everything you say also has a secret meaning for people to imagine/fabricate, publish, then pick apart.[/QUOTE] That's silly. People can, and do, mean more than they say. It's wrong and unhealthy to assume everything has a hidden agenda, of course, but that doesn't mean we have to go all the way in the opposite direction and deny the fact some people have ulterior motives

-wrong thread-

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52850120]That's silly. People can, and do, mean more than they say. It's wrong and unhealthy to assume everything has a hidden agenda, of course, but that doesn't mean we have to go all the way in the opposite direction and deny the fact some people have ulterior motives[/QUOTE] If people always took things at face value, we wouldn't have any kind of negative preconceptions when it came to people saying things like "x group of people is superior to y group of people". If we didn't read into things, white supremacists wouldn't need to sugarcoat their ideas in the first place.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52850053]Congrats. You would've said this to literally anything I would've written. Allow me to formally rebut your last point: The people who would be swayed by the Nazis and would remain Nazis are Nazis (or at very least would be sympathetic). I'm not saying 'everything is sexist and racist'. That's the Nazi game - but they'll say you're the one being sexist and racist all the same. You can't debate Nazi propagandists because they're dishonest to begin with. What you can do is say 'this is bullshit, here's your real agenda here' and then the cards will fall where they may. You can't attack the propaganda without attacking their person and they will always play the victim. The thing that helps their cause most is people allowing them to have one and refusing to contest their cause openly and loudly. They want you to be nice because that lets them operate openly and without contest. Edit: I mean, you want to do a mock Nazi Propagandist Battle right here? I can play the Nazi and you can play the person who's trying to get the guy I'm trying to convert to find my ideas unappealing ( a person who's been having a hard time getting laid, has few friends, and feels out of place in the world in addition to discovering that the field they were majoring in is suddenly full and they're going to have a hard time finding a job in it). You can play as nice as you like and I'll show you exactly how a Nazi will take advantage of that and twist it into their own message. We'll say the post limit is 2 or 3 posts so that we don't take the whole thread off topic. If you can't make that person find my ideology unappealing in that time, we'll consider them to have found my ideas appealing.[/QUOTE] You would do better to try and convince me that your actual ideas are the way to go. I am neither right nor left. You trying to convince me would be good practice. It will also help me with my communication skills.

I mean you just deny basic principles of human communication by taking everything at face value. Ofc, be careful with what leaps of faith you're taking.

On a related note, trying to educate people on how commonly held attitudes within society are incorrect or have horrible implications by encouraging people to look at things below a surface level DOES work, see the Abolitionist movement, Civil Rights marches of the 1960s and so on. You don't have to go back very far to see the same arguments get made about how both sides are bad or how the people complaining about things are actually the ones causing their own suffering through their extremist behaviour proving their detractors right. These are not new arguments. [url]https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html[/url] [QUOTE=Martin Luther King Jr]You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? [b]Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.[/b] My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" [b]The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act.[/b] We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. [b]Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.[/b] I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. [b]First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate.[/b] I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that [b]the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice;[/b] who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." [b]Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.[/b] I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. [b]We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.[/b] Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, [b]injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.[/b] In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? [b]Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?[/b] Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, [b]it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence.[/b] Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, [b]time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will.[/b] We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. [b]One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation[/b]; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. [b]The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence.[/b] It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil." ... I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that [b]we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist.[/b] For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52850154]You would do better to try and convince me that your actual ideas are the way to go. I am neither right nor left. You trying to convince me would be good practice. It will also help me with my communication skills.[/QUOTE] I am also neither right nor left and I would attempt to convince you except you've already made clear that you feel that 'going after the message' merely results in more Nazis. To wit: [I]there is no idea that can stand to that[/I]. If we're going to presume that the rule in effect here is 'any struggle makes more Nazis' then there is no solution to such messaging that doesn't create more Nazis. You would do better to clarify what you think [I]wouldn't[/I] create more Nazis and then I can tear those preconceptions down for you. As a for instance, let's presume you state 'I'll just convince people peaceably' - Nazis would simply claim you're attacking them. There is no position a true Nazi would not take in order to win an argument. You are attempting to debate logically against a foe who cares nothing for logic and wholly argues based on emotion. Edit: In fact, let's put it this way. [U]If you can convince Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she is wrong or that the President is wrong about something, you might win an argument with a Nazi.[/U] Note how she has to date never admitted real fault in anything and makes out every question to be attacking her or wasting time - that nobody has any fair arguments - and that they should be even thankful that she's fielding questions.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52850235]I am also neither right nor left and I would attempt to convince you except you've already made clear that you feel that 'going after the message' merely results in more Nazis. To wit: [I]there is no idea that can stand to that[/I]. If we're going to presume that the rule in effect here is 'any struggle makes more Nazis' then there is no solution to such messaging that doesn't create more Nazis. You would do better to clarify what you think [I]wouldn't[/I] create more Nazis and then I can tear those preconceptions down for you.[/QUOTE] Dude I'm going pretend be the every day bloke you got convince the issues you care about are worth my time. You got to tell me what you re about and what's in it for me. Not everyone is very keen on what the issues are or the ideals behind them. Educate me.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52850246]Dude I'm going pretend be the every day bloke you got convince the issues you care about are worth my time.[/quote] [B]No[/B]. You either pretend to be the sort of person whom Nazis are interested in recruiting which is [I]not[/I] the 'every day bloke' or it's not even worth my time. A [I]reasonable person[/I] is not swayed by Nazi rhetoric. They might get 'onboard' for a moment until they realize who's next to them and what they want, and then they'd get off. What you care about, presumably, are the people who'd look to the person next to them and be OK that they're a Nazi. That means you need to act the part - a person who could be swayed into accepting such rhetoric as a means to justify the problems in your life or as a way to gain the power to change it. Someone who is either deluded enough, racist enough, in enough pain, or is angry about the world enough to say 'fuck it, I don't care that they're a Nazi - they're the only ones holding out their hand'. I clarify this because [U]that[/U] is who Nazis want to recruit. They want people desperate enough or angry enough that they don't care that it's a Nazi on the other side. Sure, they might sugarcoat things a little bit so that they're easier to swallow until they're so deep in the rhetoric that they no longer care - but the front-man's goal is the same: Recruit people who are willing to 'do the work' or at very least can be converted into being able to do so.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52850248][B]No[/B]. You either pretend to be the sort of person whom Nazis are interested in recruiting which is [I]not[/I] the 'every day bloke' or it's not even worth my time. A [I]reasonable person[/I] is not swayed by Nazi rhetoric. They might get 'onboard' for a moment until they realize who's next to them and what they want, and then they'd get off. What you care about, presumably, are the people who'd look to the person next to them and be OK that they're a Nazi. That means you need to act the part - a person who could be swayed into accepting such rhetoric as a means to justify the problems in your life or as a way to gain the power to change it. Someone who is either deluded enough, racist enough, in enough pain, or is angry about the world enough to say 'fuck it, I don't care that they're a Nazi - they're the only ones holding out their hand'. I clarify this because [U]that[/U] is who Nazis want to recruit. They want people desperate enough or angry enough that they don't care that it's a Nazi on the other side. Sure, they might sugarcoat things a little bit so that they're easier to swallow until they're so deep in the rhetoric that they no longer care - but the front-man's goal is the same: Recruit people who are willing to 'do the work' or at very least can be converted into being able to do so.[/QUOTE] All I care about is putting food on the table, roof over my head provide for my kids, football, beer and getting busy with my wife. I have no idea what the fuck you just said. How does all this mumbo jumbo help me with my life?

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52849765]Nottt really. It's not just put up for no reason, there's an actual inspiration and implication behind this. And that's equating the severity of any issues a person may face for being white, for issues a person may face for not being white. It's implying that there are white people doubting themselves, feeling ashamed of their skin color, wondering if they'll ever be safe, wondering how they'll be able to make a living, despite being white. It's implying that it [I]needs[/I] to be said. Putting this poster up is saying "white people need to be reassured this." And to genuinely believe that is selfish, and negligent of the discrimination and abuse people [I]actually[/I] face.[/QUOTE] after reading about how weird people in america have this "white man's guilt" feeling bad for things they never did and most people who go "i fucking hate white people" are white themselves it shows that there are hate against white/themselves. but of course it can go straight to becoming white nationlism thing if they used the people who tare down the papers as ammo.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52850287]All I care about is putting food on the table, roof over my head provide for my kids, football, beer and getting busy with my wife. I have no idea what the fuck you just said. How does all this mumbo jumbo help me with my life?[/QUOTE] "You're what's wrong with America. You sit in your chair on your fat ass at home while your money - hell, your culture - is stolen from you. And you don't even see it, do you? You just gonna sit there and deny it? You need to care more, you lazy fuck. That's what's gotten us into this whole damned mess: shitbrains like you who're so busy shoving their faces into a warm, little, hole they haven't seen where this country's going. I bet you don't even have the strength to admit it: that you're being robbed, right now, right this very second. Hell, we're all fucking being robbed. So, which is it? You blind or are you willing to open your god-given eyes for once and see?"