A hundred organized men on violent rampage in Stockholm.

[jakell]

Me:

The rhetoric spouted by the Islamophobes and BN types and groups like UKIP and Pediga creates an environment where random attacks like this are more likely to happen. As an aside to the more organised stuff.

You:

Ah, if things were only that simple, but they're not, in the UK at least.
I spoke earlier in this thread about the organising of far right groups:

Anti-fascists need to think a bit more and realise that they never had it better than when they had the BNP as a focus (taking the UK as an example), and that since the demise of the BNP et al, it's a lot harder to keep track of the far right's movements and activities, and we see more incidents like those described in this thread.

The only point I'd make about that is organisation and randomness are more fluid things with mobile communication tech.

Yes, that was stated a bit too crudely in attempt to relate to the title I was more thinking of my experience with the development of of the BNP.

In reality, I can really think of any incidents that relate to the title of this thread, so it's hard to find a pattern. In the past we had small scale stuff that was personal and fairly brief (and poorly planned etc) and the other end of the scale was more or less demo scale stuff where the only real violence was between the fascists and the antis.

This incident seems to occupy some middle ground, and is harder to link with either individuals or organisations. Possibly some new model along the lines that you describe is needed.

What I've done is to try to raise the level of debate above the standard simple tropes and assumptions by adding some local detail. It's about practical 'anti-fascism' again
Notice that (as I mostly try to do) have stuck to opining on the UK situation which I'm pretty familiar with. I wouldn't presume to tell those in other parts of the world what their own situation is based upon some imagined wishful global parity.

I've had a think about this, using the guidelines you offered, and have come back to my original impression... I do find it offensive.
Sorry about that, must be a British thing.

Seem to have 'quoted' instead of editing here, and the delete button has disappeared. This has happened before so I assume there is a time limit on deletion.

[Joe Hillshoist]

We all get offended here from time to time so I'm sure you'll get over it. Its always been a stereotype or standard simple trope and assumption that Poms are thin skinned, easily offended and soft. So perhaps you could think of this as an opportunity to transcend those stereotypes and step beyond the fragile limits of your ego.

[jakell]

We all get offended here from time to time so I'm sure you'll get over it. Its always been a stereotype or standard simple trope and assumption that Poms are thin skinned, easily offended and soft. So perhaps you could think of this as an opportunity to transcend those stereotypes and step beyond the fragile limits of your ego.

Yeah, I know, the whinging pom bit.

It's ok though, I'm just letting you know how the thing is received, particularly on an early acquaintance. I've spent time amongst some very offensive people though, so yours is pretty much down the scale.
In addition, there are other interpretations, and I may try to imagine these instead:

1) It's your way of saying 'no platform'

2) As the smiley tends to relate to the poster, it sort of looks like you are wanking in relation to the quoted material, which I suppose is a sort of approval (albeit a bit disturbing)

The next post is intended for the forum in general, you'll have to pay extra for private sessions..

[jakell]

If “what is bad about being buddy-pals with fascists“ is actually a question you think it’s appropriate to ask then you should probably get off the internet and get acquainted with what fascists have done and are doing in the real world.

I don’t think being a mutual with a fascist is giving them material support or anything, but fascism isn’t something that’s exactly open to rational debate. Part of the problem with lesswrong style discourse (to be broad) is this peculiar line of thinking that everything can be debated. While we might be able to debate the effects of fascism or fascist organization in the 21st century in a rational manner, fascism has no coherent political or philosophical principles by which we can debate it. Fascism, as a serious political movement, will not tolerate us through peaceful debate, and fascists have no intention of debating the merits of their platform.

Fascism, as an historical movement, came to power through force. It gained the support of the masses through the exploitation of their misunderstandings and neuroses, not through rational discourse. To anyone with historical literacy, it is absurd to suggest that you can “debate” fascism. There is nothing to debate. Fascism is not rational, and that is precisely its appeal.

http://softprimitivist.co.vu/post/13939 ... -pals-with

I thought that this paste needed some comment, even though I'm going to finesse it somewhat...

It seems to be someone reflecting on the 'no platform' idea, and about time too. ie, we don't debate fascists ....because they're irrational.
I can think of many many times where I've debated with irrational people though, and this is because irrationality rarely comes in it's pure form, it's often a mixture of rationality and irrationality, held in an uneasy but sometimes compelling alliance using various levels of rhetoric. It is the mixture that enables you to debate them, and sorting out the wheat from the chaff is a good mental exercise.
I would say this is a good subject matter in itself... how rationality and irrationality are an inherent part of the human psyche, something I've posted on elsewhere.

Creationists pop into my mind first and foremost, and have been my favourites of late, but there are many many other examples, before the Creationists it was the Electric Universe types. Really though, it's not so much the (ir)rationality of the issues that is the crux, but the willingness to debate in the first place.

and I said all this without mentioning fascism.

(damn)

[Joe Hillshoist]

If “what is bad about being buddy-pals with fascists“ is actually a question you think it’s appropriate to ask then you should probably get off the internet and get acquainted with what fascists have done and are doing in the real world.

I don’t think being a mutual with a fascist is giving them material support or anything, but fascism isn’t something that’s exactly open to rational debate. Part of the problem with lesswrong style discourse (to be broad) is this peculiar line of thinking that everything can be debated. While we might be able to debate the effects of fascism or fascist organization in the 21st century in a rational manner, fascism has no coherent political or philosophical principles by which we can debate it. Fascism, as a serious political movement, will not tolerate us through peaceful debate, and fascists have no intention of debating the merits of their platform.

Fascism, as an historical movement, came to power through force. It gained the support of the masses through the exploitation of their misunderstandings and neuroses, not through rational discourse. To anyone with historical literacy, it is absurd to suggest that you can “debate” fascism. There is nothing to debate. Fascism is not rational, and that is precisely its appeal.

http://softprimitivist.co.vu/post/13939 ... -pals-with

I thought that this paste needed some comment, even though I'm going to finesse it somewhat...

It seems to be someone reflecting on the 'no platform' idea, and about time too. ie, we don't debate fascists ....because they're irrational.
I can think of many many times where I've debated with irrational people though, and this is because irrationality rarely comes in it's pure form, it's often a mixture of rationality and irrationality, held in an uneasy but sometimes compelling alliance using various levels of rhetoric. It is the mixture that enables you to debate them, and sorting out the wheat from the chaff, is a good mental exercise.
I would say this is a good subject matter in itself... how rationality and irrationality are an inherent part of the human psyche, something I've posted on elsewhere.

Creationists pop into my mind first and foremost, and have been my favourites of late, but there are many many other examples, before the Creationists it was the Electric Universe types. Really though, it's not so much the (ir)rationality of the issues that is the crux, but the willingness to debate in the first place.

and I said all this without mentioning fascism.

(damn)

Wearing my "rest of the board" hat:

You're operating from the basis of debating from a position of equality.

Not all ideologies will enable their opponents that equality. The one you didn't mention is renowned for denying opponents equality or a platform. You should be familiar with the saying "Communication is only possible between equals." Fascists with power aren't interested in communication. They just want to wield power. Thats why they are "irrational" not because their ideas don't stand up to reason, but because they don't give a stuff about the whole process behind rational, informed debate leading to the best outcome for a society.

I grew up with friends who escaped Pinochet's regime in Chile. They were refugees. They did not at any point have the option of debating fascism. They just had to get away from the grasp of the people with power as quickly as they could.

Fascism is just an overused word until it has real power. Then it becomes an authoritarian system that celebrates its own authority - something remorseless and merciless. It stifles and eliminates dissent. Why give someone a platform when they aren't interested in the free and fair exchange of ideas, just in getting power?

[Joe Hillshoist]

We all get offended here from time to time so I'm sure you'll get over it. Its always been a stereotype or standard simple trope and assumption that Poms are thin skinned, easily offended and soft. So perhaps you could think of this as an opportunity to transcend those stereotypes and step beyond the fragile limits of your ego.

Yeah, I know, the whinging pom bit.

It's ok though, I'm just letting you know how the thing is received, particularly on an early acquaintance. I've spent time amongst some very offensive people though, so yours is pretty much down the scale.
In addition, there are other interpretations, and I may try to imagine these instead:

1) It's your way of saying 'no platform'

2) As the smiley tends to relate to the poster, it sort of looks like you are wanking in relation to the quoted material, which I suppose is a sort of approval (albeit a bit disturbing)

The next post is intended for the forum in general, you'll have to pay extra for private sessions..

Its your choice... you could have accept the criticism, illustrated why it was wrong but you tried to avoid it instead.

[jakell]

If “what is bad about being buddy-pals with fascists“ is actually a question you think it’s appropriate to ask then you should probably get off the internet and get acquainted with what fascists have done and are doing in the real world.

I don’t think being a mutual with a fascist is giving them material support or anything, but fascism isn’t something that’s exactly open to rational debate. Part of the problem with lesswrong style discourse (to be broad) is this peculiar line of thinking that everything can be debated. While we might be able to debate the effects of fascism or fascist organization in the 21st century in a rational manner, fascism has no coherent political or philosophical principles by which we can debate it. Fascism, as a serious political movement, will not tolerate us through peaceful debate, and fascists have no intention of debating the merits of their platform.

Fascism, as an historical movement, came to power through force. It gained the support of the masses through the exploitation of their misunderstandings and neuroses, not through rational discourse. To anyone with historical literacy, it is absurd to suggest that you can “debate” fascism. There is nothing to debate. Fascism is not rational, and that is precisely its appeal.

http://softprimitivist.co.vu/post/13939 ... -pals-with

I thought that this paste needed some comment, even though I'm going to finesse it somewhat...

It seems to be someone reflecting on the 'no platform' idea, and about time too. ie, we don't debate fascists ....because they're irrational.
I can think of many many times where I've debated with irrational people though, and this is because irrationality rarely comes in it's pure form, it's often a mixture of rationality and irrationality, held in an uneasy but sometimes compelling alliance using various levels of rhetoric. It is the mixture that enables you to debate them, and sorting out the wheat from the chaff, is a good mental exercise.
I would say this is a good subject matter in itself... how rationality and irrationality are an inherent part of the human psyche, something I've posted on elsewhere.

Creationists pop into my mind first and foremost, and have been my favourites of late, but there are many many other examples, before the Creationists it was the Electric Universe types. Really though, it's not so much the (ir)rationality of the issues that is the crux, but the willingness to debate in the first place.

and I said all this without mentioning fascism.

(damn)

Wearing my "rest of the board" hat:

You're operating from the basis of debating from a position of equality.

Not all ideologies will enable their opponents that equality. The one you didn't mention is renowned for denying opponents equality or a platform. You should be familiar with the saying "Communication is only possible between equals." Fascists with power aren't interested in communication. They just want to wield power. Thats why they are "irrational" not because their ideas don't stand up to reason, but because they don't give a stuff about the whole process behind rational, informed debate leading to the best outcome for a society.

I grew up with friends who escaped Pinochet's regime in Chile. They were refugees. They did not at any point have the option of debating fascism. They just had to get away from the grasp of the people with power as quickly as they could.

Fascism is just an overused word until it has real power. Then it becomes an authoritarian system that celebrates its own authority - something remorseless and merciless. It stifles and eliminates dissent. Why give someone a platform when they aren't interested in the free and fair exchange of ideas, just in getting power?

I reckon that 'equality' is an assumed stance, it never exists in actual encounters, even amongst those who seem similar, there is a gradient of sorts.
I prefer the term 'equivalence', which is assumed equality, but without the logical absurdity of the first term.

Really though, I'm not looking a physical encounters (which are, ironically, abstract in this environment), but am taking the quoted piece in the context of the many claims of 'no platform' on here, that these people should not be even engaged with in cyberspace. I think here, we will be as 'equal' as we'll ever be.

I was also questioning the foundational claim of the piece, that irrational people cannot be debated, and therefore no attempt should be made.

[jakell]

Its your choice... you could have accept the criticism, illustrated why it was wrong but you tried to avoid it instead.

Your criticism wasn't wrong though, and I described this here:

Yes, that was stated a bit too crudely in attempt to relate to the title I was more thinking of my experience with the development of the BNP.

In reality, I can't really think of any incidents that relate to the title of this thread, so it's hard to find a pattern. In the past we had small scale stuff that was personal and fairly brief (and poorly planned) and the other end of the scale was more or less demo scale stuff where the only real violence was between the fascists and the antis.

This incident seems to occupy some middle ground, and is harder to link with either individuals or organisations. Possibly some new model along the lines that you describe is needed.

Seems you have a neat way of ending this sort of discussion though. 'No platform', or that other, creepier, interpretation

[Sounder]

I was also questioning the foundational claim of the piece, that irrational people cannot be debated, and therefore no attempt should be made.

I have been 'no platformed' by AD and several others since I appeared on this scene.

I just keep on keeping on, realizing the irony of the irrational behavior that reenforces the no-platform stance.

It is such a convenient way to push away discomforting thought bubbles; just conflate your target as being connected with 'some very unpleasant people', really, what (socially well programmed) person can resist these simplifying efforts.

It is not like I am the person here that is wedded to and expresses himself through reactive mind and reactionary thinking, (i. e. crypto-right winger)

[bks]

Jakell,

Why is this complicated? Fascistic ideology is predicated on contempt for classes of person deemed weak or subhuman, and the fetishization of a conception of strength that leads to violence against those groups deemed weak or subhuman. This isn't a controversial definition of fascism. You find variants of it in the study of fascism more or less everywhere.

Fascism in practice is the effort to "de-platform" entire groups of people deemed insufficiently human, and much, much worse. I REJECT THAT FIRST PREMISE OF FASCISM AND FIND IT ABHORRENT AND THREATENING, as does the host of this board, and thus can't imagine what I'd have to say that would be of interest to a fascist, and vice-versa.

If one has good reason to believe that an interlocutor is not receptive to argument and is not acting in good faith (as fascists do not) or would use their platform to call for violence or the oppression of a group not based in any way on that group's behavior (as fascists do), what principle is advanced by defending their right to a platform? I have to fight for a platform for persons whose politics call for my own destruction? That's laughable.

Given the fascist belief system and its practical elements, the proper response to a dyed-in-the-wool fascist is to smash them, given the chance. That they understand.

If you are talking about some other ideology that is not fascist, then nothing here I have said may apply. But it may, too. The details make a difference.

[jakell]

It isn't that complicated, but then complication isn't a problem.

What does escape me is why you made the above post when I haven't been talking of fascism per se, even if you think I have. I think you may realise this though because you didn't quote anything I have said (recently at least)

[bks]

Until I get bored, jakell, I'll keep track of the weasel strategies you employ to avoid direct confrontation with the argument I made:

"It isn't that complicated, but then complication isn't a problem."

Empty word games. Statement means absolutely nothing. Nice work.

"What does escape me is why you made the above post when I haven't been talking of fascism per se, even if you think I have"

Juvenile jedi mind feint: No one (least of all me) gives a fuck what I think you have or haven't done. I don't care about your assessment of me, and I assume vice versa. I'm not in your in-group, and you ain't in mine. There's no trust between us, and probably won't be. You're the one who talked about this being as "equivalent" as we'll ever be, remember? Show some of that "equivalence."

Thus I make the first gesture in our hoped for "equivalence": I care about the argument I made above, and offered reasons in support of it. You will either:

1. reply in good faith, (in which case
2. say it's not your fight, or
3. fail to do one of those (in which case, fuck you

[jakell]

Number 2 was what I was indicating and I'll take this opportunity to reinforce that.

[bks]

thx for the reply.

[American Dream]

If you feel like it, bks, you have an open invitation to share your thoughts on "the banality of evil" as it relates to Fascism.