Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Are you "both sides"ing nazis?
It's a trap!

If you say "Yes" you get punched in the face by @DarkAudit.

If you say "No" you're depriving nazis of their humanity and I respond with a link to a certain thread.

Of course, what he's really saying has absolutely nothing to do with the nazis. He's saying, "Don't fall into the trap of dehumanizing others. If you do, you need to re-think what you're doing and why."
 
Oh I guess I just assumed since we were talking about Nazis that's what this was about. Nope it was just a vague political musing brought up for no reason.
 
Oh I guess I just assumed since we were talking about Nazis that's what this was about. Nope it was just a vague political musing brought up for no reason.
I don't understand this train of thought. Does his post:

It's easier to hate someone than to find compassion for them. That's what the hate groups are built on. If you are only interested in feeling hate for them, maybe you should explore what that means.
change based on the subject matter?

In other words, does the context matter, as you suggest, or can his suggestion work in any context?[DOUBLEPOST=1507302205,1507302157][/DOUBLEPOST]Perhaps I'm over thinking things or misunderstanding something.
 
It boils down to your stance on the whole "be tolerant of everyone but the intolerant" issue.
I, for one, disagree - being intolerant towards the intolerant - "for the greater good" - can result in horrible effects.
blotsfan, DarkAudit or Null, would probably say that, yes, you should be intolerant towards the intolerant.
Some others might say that being intolerant isn't a big issue, or unimportant, or they're misunderstood, or whatever.

Do I really dislike prejudice? Yes I do. Do I genuinely hate racism? I certainly do. Do I think people who disapprove of homosexuality or condemn it blanket-statement wise are living in the past and using an old and outdated view of humanity and sexuality? I do.
Does that mean I think all racists, all prejudiced people, all anti-gay people, deserve to be killed, should be shot, deserve to be beaten? No, it definitely does not.
 
Are you "both sides"ing nazis?
I think what Poe is saying, and what I know I'm saying, is you can't make real, lasting change without practicing what you preach. If I had hit that racist lady from breakfast, or even dumped my water on her, I have no doubt a number of people would have applauded me, or at least said I was justified. But then what? I could have been brought up on assault charges at worst, at a minimum banned from a place she might never be again, but we love, and worst of all, probably justified her way of thinking to herself and some of the people around her. And what would any of that have done for Li'l Z, who's honestly the most important in this whole situation? But I did confront her the best I could. I did my best to make it clear that her stupid choices were not only wrong, but she couldn't hide behind being southern or any other shield that would absolve her from responsibility. I don't know if I got through, but I could see at least one or two of the people at that table agreed.

Lasting change isn't made by the fist or the bullet. It has to come from education/experience.Yeah, maybe it isn't as satisfying, but you're never going to get into people's heads if you keep giving them reasons to think they're the victim.
 
You know, I really miss Godwin's law.
It fails when you're discussing literal nazis.

And yet you're so opposed to the methods that worked on the German ones.
Yes, because....You killed or hit all 20 million German nazi supporters?

Most German nazis were rehabilitated. Even their leaders, all the way up to Goering and Hess, got a fair* trial. "They're nazis, they automatically deserve to die" is really video game logic, not real world logic. Thousands faced trials in Nüremberg, and the vast majority faced prison or labor time, only a few were executed.


*YMMV.
 
And yet you're so opposed to the methods that worked on the German ones.
Nobody's stopping you. If you're so filled with righteous zeal and fervor, then go and punch a nazi to your heart's content. Why are you bitching at us about it? Not everyone shares your levels of bloodlust.
 
It boils down to your stance on the whole "be tolerant of everyone but the intolerant" issue.
Well sure, we can reframe the conversation and have the same discussion using that framework.

But in this case, dehumanizing would be "intolerant of people or groups" whereas being intolerant of their ideas and their expressions of those ideas may not be dehumanizing.

The difference is put quite well in @Celtz's situation. Whether she got through to the woman or not, she recognized that she was human and worthy of a response.

You don't do that to a mosquito - if it bites your child you react with violence, exclusion, or some other method to prevent the situation from happening. You certainly don't try to reason with it or change its mind.

Does that mean I think all racists, all prejudiced people, all anti-gay people, deserve to be killed, should be shot, deserve to be beaten? No, it definitely does not.
This, however, is the extreme view, and the question is whether those people deserve human rights - the right to express themselves, for instance.

But an even further, and more difficult question is this - do they deserve to be treated with human dignity and respect? Do we immediately go to shunning and exclusion, or do we attempt to have a discussion with them, with the hope that they might change, or the hope that we can better understand them? Can we possibly have compassion for them as human beings, or when they are harmed do we allow ourselves to be glad, or possibly celebrate the injury or death?

Because one thing I've learned is that if you refuse to see the "other" as human, and choose not to associate with them, they will never move towards you, and in fact may become even more fanatic in their beliefs.

But this compassion, this belief in basic human rights and dignity, must come from within, and be reflected in all our actions and speech. We can't post here where our audience is small and deride one group or another, and then believe that in public we treat all humans equally and give them the respect due any human.
 
How'd we get rid of the Nazis the first time they showed up?
We didn't. And we still haven't. We stopped a war, to be certain, but as our European members remind us, there are still plenty of them, and they still try to run for government. Bullets didn't stop the mindset for a number of people there or here, and that's why we're in this situation now.

The difference is put quite well in @Celtz's situation. Whether she got through to the woman or not, she recognized that she was human and worthy of a response.
I hesitate to say I tried to appeal to her humanity as much as I tried to exploit our human reactions. "Do as I say not as I do" doesn't change minds, it only solidifies them. I wanted her to be held accountable for her actions and rip any flimsy excuses out from under her. Maybe it's the ex-Catholic in me, but guilt and shame can be powerful tools.
 
Last edited:
That's quite a leap.

That kind of segue makes as much logical sense as saying the reason to ban abortions is because we will need those babies to make up for people lost due to mass shootings.

--Patrick
 
It fails when you're discussing literal nazis.
Well, no it doesn't, because the law merely states that the longer an online discussion goes on the closer the chances of someone mentioning Hitler are to 1.

Talking about literal nazis just shortens the length required.
 


Wow. At around 10:00 I was blown away by what someone actually said.
I needed this video 2 months ago when I was having the same, exact discussion with a family member who, I should note has been living in the Florida panhandle for the last few decade, but brought up that removing the monuments was erasing history. I hadn't even finished my cup of coffee at the time, but I did mention a lot of John Oliver's points. I really could have used this visual aid.
 
Top