So can we talk about how garbage the idea of "reaching out" to trump supporters is?

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

Considering that Tamara locked their own thread that they started after being browbeaten in this one... there's no good faith to be had there, Frey.

I feel @Tamara
is not acting in bad faith; she just has a different philosophy of engagement.

 

[Siddeley]

I feel @Tamara
is not acting in bad faith; she just has a different philosophy of engagement.

That's a funny way of saying "Regularly trying to play devil's advocate for absolutely execrable things while dogwhistling support for fascists in multiple threads", Miles.

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

A few points:

• If the sentence is a fine, then the law is only there to bind poor people. It's not good enough.
  
• Fascists aren't there to debate, they're there to proselytize. Even debating them will be beneficial to them, because fascists don't care about facts, they care about consolidating power, and being in debates is the ultimate fascist booty call.
  
• There are no 2 sides, there are people who want eliminate a class of people, and people who try to stop them. Fascists aren't on the same level of morality or validity as antifascist and BLM activists, and they never will be, because fascist beliefs are invalid.
  
• They absolutely need to be verbally dumpstered at every turn, because anything softer is mollycoddling and enabling them. Why is anyone obliged to be nice to people who wants them dead? They can think they have the upper hand, but that's just their narrative, and their feelings absolutely do not matter.
  
• That's not why I have a problem with you, my problem is the level of tone-policing, and the attempt to groom people into being 100% erudite with fascists. As if giving them a space to spread their poison has no material real life consequences, as if their visibility doesn't have the effect of normalizing bigoted attitudes.
  
• You make a lot of assumptions about people who have fallen into the fascist rabbit hole, when you have someone who literally did just that and is telling you that you're full of shit.
  

>win

What are you actually winning when you waste your energy getting into a shouting match with fascists outside the smug morally narcissistic satisfaction of winning a debate? Do you honestly think that fascists evaporate into thin air or instantly convert into a leftist once you "win" a debate with them? All you're accomplishing is telling a fascist that their rhetoric needs to be better, while materially doing nothing to lessen the harmful impact their words and action have towards the surrounding community. With that kind of attitude, you'll never become nothing more than controlled opposition for fascists, a morally narcissistic scratching posts for budding fascists to sharpen their rhetorical weapons on.

You want to actually win? Take away their platforms and funding, materially block them from being able to spread their hateful poison. Wake people up to the ills of capitalism and practice mutual aid, get people to adopt anti-corporatist and anti-kyriarchy principles and practices, and you can't do that as well when you have a fascist constantly trying to sabotage your efforts with their rhetorics.

I'm on my phone, so forgive the mass quoting, but I kind of want to get your attention here.

From what I've gleaned from your posts, you were an Altfurry at one point, but saw the light at some point so I'd like to commend you for that starting off. Your insights are interesting to read and I agree with many of them.

That said, I would remind you that there were many of us had ideological differences with the liberal parts of the anti-fascist movement, but decided to aid anti-fascism because they are the moral victors over fascists and racists. There are also those of us who have been on the right side of history from Day 1 and had no change of heart, no offense.

Both @Tamara
 and I have said that deplatforming and defunding bad actors is an important primary tactic, but we have noted that on platforms where that is not possible, particularly in the fandom, it is necessary to leave those bad actors undisputed to spread their propaganda and hate speech.

Whether that is done subtly or gruffly, it still needs to be done because when it comes to what you term anti-fascism, the propaganda war is most important front of combating fascists. 

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

That's a funny way of saying "Regularly trying to play devil's advocate for absolutely execrable things while dogwhistling support for fascists in multiple threads", Miles.

I think she is trying to tell you all that you are mostly right, but you need to be prepared to fight directly with the fascists as necessary.

 

[Manibrandr Soundworks]

I'm on my phone, so forgive the mass quoting, but I kind of want to get your attention here.

From what I've gleaned from your posts, you were an Altfurry at one point, but saw the light at some point so I'd like to commend you for that starting off. Your insights are interesting to read and I agree with many of them.

That said, I would remind you that there were many of us had ideological differences with the liberal parts of the anti-fascist movement, but decided to aid anti-fascism because they are the moral victors over fascists and racists. There are also those of us who have been on the right side of history from Day 1 and had no change of heart, no offense.

Both @Tamara
and I have said that deplatforming and defunding bad actors is an important primary tactic, but we have noted that on platforms where that is not possible, particularly in the fandom, it is necessary to leave those bad actors undisputed to spread their propaganda and hate speech.

Whether that is done subtly or gruffly, it still needs to be done because when it comes to what you term anti-fascism, the propaganda war is most important front of combating fascists.

You will not win a propaganda war, because to win this game, you have to become the dragon yourself. So even if you win, you lose the most important asset in this cultural war, your dedication to the truth over needing to control public perception.

And yes, I am aware of the differences between different leftist groups. There is a good reason why I prefer to be an iconoclast when it comes to being an anarcho-communist. I work towards goals, not towards group interests.

 

[Tamara]

The goal, when confronting a racist or a fascist, is to show to whoever is watching and listening how insane and inane their arguments are. We know that said fascist or racist will most probably never give up or realize the stupidity of their viewpoint, and that they'll probably never be convinced to change, but we can show to whoever is watching or listening that the fascists arguments are complete and utter garbage and demonstrate that with logic and sources.

I do believe that we can win the propaganda war without having to renounce our dedication to truth, logic and science. It will be harder than if we would use the same kind of lies and rhetoric than those people, but I believe that it is possible.

 

[Manibrandr Soundworks]

The goal, when confronting a racist or a fascist, is to show to whoever is watching and listening how insane and inane their arguments are. We know that said fascist or racist will most probably never give up or realize the stupidity of their viewpoint, and that they'll probably never be convinced to change, but we can show to whoever is watching or listening that the fascists arguments are complete and utter garbage and demonstrate that with logic and sources.

I do believe that we can win the propaganda war without having to renounce our dedication to truth, logic and science. It will be harder than if we would use the same kind of lies and rhetoric than those people, but I believe that it is possible.

The point, and the reason why I had a bug up my ass about it is that you seem to think that you need the fascist to be present to illustrate that point to an audience.

 

[Tamara]

The point, and the reason why I had a bug up my ass about it is that you seem to think that you need the fascist to be present to illustrate that point to an audience.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding now. I do not think that you need to have a fascist present to demonstrate the stupidity of their arguments, and how they manipulate and distort words and facts, when they're not making them up completely, to fit their own beliefs. However, I do believe that when a fascist is talking to an audience, he or she should be confronted to show the truth to the audience about their talking points, and the person themselves.

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

The point, and the reason why I had a bug up my ass about it is that you seem to think that you need the fascist to be present to illustrate that point to an audience.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding now. I do not think that you need to have a fascist present to demonstrate the stupidity of their arguments, and how they manipulate and distort words and facts, when they're not making them up completely, to fit their own beliefs. However, I do believe that when a fascist is talking to an audience, he or she should be confronted to show the truth to the audience about their talking points, and the person themselves.

The misunderstanding was due to my wording. Pardon me.

I agree with Tamara's phrasing.

 

[Manibrandr Soundworks]

Ah, I see the misunderstanding now. I do not think that you need to have a fascist present to demonstrate the stupidity of their arguments, and how they manipulate and distort words and facts, when they're not making them up completely, to fit their own beliefs. However, I do believe that when a fascist is talking to an audience, he or she should be confronted to show the truth to the audience about their talking points, and the person themselves.

>he or she

"They" is a better way to phrase it. But yes, that generally isn't a bad idea, though considerations of mental wellbeing needs to be made, because confronting a shitty person takes a lot of emotional labour, and it would be ableist to expect it to happen all the time. For a lot of people, especially those who survives trauma related to that particular brand of bigotry, venting to peers is a better option as it doesn't carry the risk of retraumatization.

 

[Tamara]

But yes, that generally isn't a bad idea, though considerations of mental wellbeing needs to be made, because confronting a shitty person takes a lot of emotional labour, and it would be ableist to expect it to happen all the time. For a lot of people, especially those who survives trauma related to that particular brand of bigotry, venting to peers is a better option as it doesn't carry the risk of retraumatization.

Of course, for me that goes without saying. Even someone who wasn't traumatized will need to take a break and rest to recharge after confronting such people for some time.

 

[Neztlac]

You two seem to forget one thing: from their point of view, they are decent people and they did the right thing to protect their vision of the country. To protect the civilization, their children, their jobs, their religion or whatever other reason they use. Thus, in their opinion, they have nothing to atone for and what they did wasn't a mistake but a decision they took for the good of the USA.

The most rabid and extreme supporters of Trump and the GOP in general view the 'other side' in pretty much the same way you view them : as people hell bent on destroying everything they hold dear, spouting liberal garbage and waving strange flags during 'those disgusting pride parades where people prance around the streets naked and showing off their deviant sexuality'.

They don't see you as decent people, and hurling abuse towards them will only reinforce their beliefs that the 'other side' is bad and needs to be reined in, taken out of the public place, hidden and 'healed' of their deviant ideas if possible.

Also, it seems that quite a sizeable number of people who voted for Trump cast their votes primarily due to his economic promises, and didn't gave much thought about the policies that would impact other people, nor did they really believe that he would do some of the things he said or that he did them, as they believe that the media in general conflated things to make huge story for the news. I don't think that the coal miners who voted for him because he promised to bring coal back were also clapping their hands and nodding their heads in agreement when he announced that transgender were barred from serving in the army. They probably did not gave it much thought because they were focused on his promise to get their industry to restart.

Besides, I don't think anyone is ever 100% in agreement with every policies set by whatever politician we are voting with. Not you, not me, not anyone. Not everyone who voted for Biden is 100% in agreement with everything he said he would do, but they voted for him because he was the best candidate when compared to the alternative. It's the same for many people who voted for Trump: not everyone who voted for him is 100% in agreement with everything he said or did, but they voted for him because they found Hillary or Biden to be less deserving of becoming President. There seems to be many people afraid that Biden and the Dems will bring 'socialism' to the country, which is bad, thus they voted for Trump, even if they do not like the character and many of the things he says, and their idea of what 'socialism' is can be quite vague; but socialism is the absolute Bad Thing that can happen to the country, thus they have to vote against the socialist Biden and Dems.

You can hate them because they enabled this otherworldly presidency we just lived through, but remember that they aren't a coherent block, they aren't a united front or an army united behind their dear leader, as much as the Dems aren't united, or the LGBT+ community, or the furries, or most any group for that matter. Not everyone follows for the same reason, not everyone agrees on the same thing, and not everyone also has the same priorities in the same order.

I think this is the best answer to all this whole debate, not everyone will 100% agree with their candidate's politics and they will elect them because they dislike the other one or because they like some policies and believe they are doing the right thing

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

I think this is the best answer to all this whole debate, not everyone will 100% agree with their candidate's politics and they will elect them because they dislike the other one or because they like some policies and believe they are doing the right thing

That doesn't necessarily make it the right or practical thing, however.

 

[Tamara]

That doesn't necessarily make it the right or practical thing, however.

It is indeed neither right nor practical, but it is unfortunately the current reality, and it is unlikely to change unless the whole current political systems in place in respective countries change drastically.

 

[Merv]

You liberals seem to enjoy compromise, so I have a compromise for you:

Ideally, fascists and their sympathizers will be allowed to express their execrable views in front of an audience. Then, the audience can watch these fascists and their sympathizers face a wall.

 

[Tamara]

Ideally, the USA would take a page from the books from France or Germany and ban any public talks of fascism and nazi ideology except for historical and educational purposes (ie telling everyone that 'THIS IS BAD !'), and put huge fines and prison sentences on anyone breaking those laws. Unfoirtunately, any attempt to do so will be met with 'But MUH FURST AMENDMENT!'

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

Ideally, the USA would take a page from the books from France or Germany and ban any public talks of fascism and nazi ideology except for historical and educational purposes (ie telling everyone that 'THIS IS BAD !'), and put huge fines and prison sentences on anyone breaking those laws. Unfoirtunately, any attempt to do so will be met with 'But MUH FURST AMENDMENT!'

I argued that elsewhere in the past, but the current political situation isn't allowing for that for a long time.

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

You liberals seem to enjoy compromise, so I have a compromise for you:

Ideally, fascists and their sympathizers will be allowed to express their execrable views in front of an audience. Then, the audience can watch these fascists and their sympathizers face a wall.

I feel compromising is part of the reason we're in this mess; you can't compromise with extremist elements. I'm going to issue the obligatory "avoid saying these extremists should be executed for hate speech out of hand" because there are countries where it is already a jailable offense (justifiably), but also because those kind of statements are often weaponized against those opposing the fascism. I'm not too concerned about the welfare of those engaging hate speech, though.

But pragmatically, I feel the Democrat need to just deliver on their promises as well as maintain and expand their majorities without getting mired in hopes of bipartisanship with Republican extremists willing to derail the country.

 

[Neztlac]

That doesn't necessarily make it the right or practical thing, however.

Yep, there's no way to do something right, there's always going to be wrong, especially today, things got so extreme that it's hard to even land a good debate

 

[M1L35 M4R54L15]

Yep, there's no way to do something right, there's always going to be wrong, especially today, things got so extreme that it's hard to even land a good debate

Just to clarify, though I'm conservative, I feel the fallout of the last fours years, particularly 400,000 dead Americans and a damaged economy with mass unemployment, are pretty clear testaments to Trump's failed leadership and policies. Joe Biden won because he had a decent record in office regarding economy recovery and epidemic management. He also is issuing much needed aid, which Trump saw fit not to.

When you add the terrorist attack on the Capitol that Trump fomented and his attempts to overturn a democratic election beforehand, I don't really see much to debate with anyone who feels Trump was in the moral right.