>Just because I believe that the government is an immoral actor or believe in 'conspiracy theories' like 9-11 being an inside job does not make me a white supremacist.
True. But anti-feminism, white supremacy and the beliefs being described are fundamentally, conspiracy theories, and the culture of conspiracy theory does tend to embrace these ideologies. The sets may not overlap perfectly, but they do overlap.
It's not hard to find someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and who also blames it on a Jewish conspiracy. That sort of thing is so common as to be banal.
No, I'm not saying you are imagining. I suspect (not state) that you are biased, and describe the issue larger than what it is.
> I provided a link to lots of articles about white supremacy in the US. It is you who have provided no counter-evidence.
And I can give you a link to Google, when you can find anything.
You just provided a link with the list of white supremacist organisations. Nobody denies these organisation exists.
But there is no proof that "white supremacists" have significant power. They look like small marginal groups with no money and no real power. Like religious sects.
>My point is, it's not just a difference of opinion when a group of people promote racist, neo-Nazi views (alt-right), or peddle in conspiracy theories (Qanon).
Opinion: A thought or belief about something or someone [0]
If racism and conspiracy theories aren't thoughts or beliefs about something or someone what do you think they are?
> Picture instead private businesses who all refuse to do business with Jews.
This is a false equivalency.
Race, religion, etc. are protected classes. It's impossible for people to change their race, and our society has agreed that we shouldn't force people to change their religion.
Political beliefs are not protected classes. When your political beliefs include inciting violence by spreading unfounded conspiracy theories, then private companies have a right to kick you off.
> Certainly all the tech companies banding together to silence politics they don't like plays exactly into the narrative the far right is pushing.
In my opinion, the far right is already too far gone — they are already conspiracy theorists. Any contradictory information will be used as evidence to show that the conspiracy is much wider and bigger than one could have imagined — adding to the weight of the theory. There is no reasoning with them unless someone they truly believe (read: Trump) dismisses the theory convincingly.
> Have you ever met someone who believed in The Great Replacement or White Genocide? Its basically a conspiracy theory: these people are not rational anymore. No amount of arguing can convince them otherwise.
What is your plan for these people then? Kill them? Put them in reeducation camps? Deport them?
Like it or not, these people exist and they're not going anywhere. We can either:
1) be intolerant towards them, thus making them form their own communities and grow more and more extreme because they're surrounded by like minded people.
2) be tolerant towards them, and try to change their beliefs.
Do you think that thes people are more likely to change their views if the rest of society is intolerant towards them and the only people they talk to are other white nationalist? Or if society does act treat them with tolerance, and they interact with more non-white-nationalists.
If we treat them with intolerance, then the only community they will find is with other white nationalists. If we do this, the problem is going to get worse and there are going to be more attacks.
> I don't understand how people can believe that that is the intent behind the actions taken.
Because knowledgeable policymakers can be presumed to intend the rationally foreseeable consequences of the policies they champion.
> Do people really believe that the outgroup is comprised of inhuman monsters?
No, the monsters are human, which is far worse but something that history shows really happens, and not at all infrequently.
> The people in the outgroup are people, individuals each with their own beliefs, preferences, tastes, values, experiences, relationships, etc.
Yes, and people with their own beliefs, preferences, etc., can have vile beliefs, preferences, etc., and there are plenty of historical examples of political movements where at least the leaders did so, and either spread those to their followers are used propaganda to get backing from followers with different beliefs for actions that served the leaders' beliefs.
Believing that it can't happen, or can't happen here, is indefensible and contrary to all evidence.
>The problem is that you can’t realistically fight Holocaust denial and the idea behind it with arguments at some point.
It sounds like you're a holocaust denier. If they're wrong, then show they're wrong. (not saying they're right). If they refuse to believe, then ignore them. They are a fringe.
>these people won’t stop sowing doubt that it occurred
Diversity of thought is strictly a good thing. The very thing you are worried about is a lack of diversity of thought. A world where questioning the superiority of certain groups of people is tantamount to a crime. Let them sow doubt, it keeps the marketplace of ideas healthy by giving people reasons to articulate the truth.
>Every freedom has its limits
This is sloppy. Either you embrace free expression as an ideal, or you don't. Anything short of free speech absolutism will decay back down to suppression and censorship. I don't think it's hard to separate out expression from incitement, and I believe the former should be unbounded.
> especially the US south, that specific narrative /.../ has usually indicated that somebody's about to
Stereotyping is ok, as long as we are doing it for the right reasons. For us, there's no need to consider the personality and the content of the message, as long as we can label him a Nazi because couple of words matched.
> Online people tend to take off the mask and you get actual Holocaust denial.
Wow, it's Holocaust denial now. Gowdin, save me!
> It's this specific story or narrative that Marxist intellectuals were trying to use class warfare to gain power, and when it failed they shifted to promoting race and gender based politics to gain power, that is very troubling for me due to repeated experience
Let's see. Do Marxist intellectuals participate in race and gender based politics? Yes they do. Do they want to have power? Of course they do, what's the point of getting into politics if not getting power and getting policies you like enacted? So what exactly makes you a conspirologist Nazi when you mention these obvious - and entirely unsurprising for anybody who knows what "Marxist" and "politics" means - facts?
> Citing it offhand as a commonplace makes me wonder whether he shares the same intellectual influences
Nope, nope. You didn't just "wonder whether he shared influences" (if you go far enough, everybody shared influences, otherwise we couldn't even communicate), you said his claims were literally Nazi talking points and connected to antisemitic conspiracy. Which is not true at the least, the only common thing is the basic facts which no sane person would deny. After recognizing those facts, the actual Nazis go way off course of the facts into the looney bin territory, and invent crazy conspiracies like Jews being behind all this to take over the world. The author does nothing of the sort. Yes, they both start with the same facts. That's because facts are facts, they are independent of who recognizes them. It's where you take it from there is important. The Nazis take it into craziness, as is their way, the manifesto author does not.
You point to racist policies. These can very well have a racist motivation behind them, some certainly do. But they aren't from a culture, there are specific racist actors behind them.
I believe the strategy to be afraid of "tools" white supremacists might happen to use is infantile. Real and convinced white supremacists are rare, so far so good. If every action you take is informed by fear, it won't lead to solid decisions.
> Why do you think their opinions don't coincide with mine?
You used scare quotes, my dude.
Furthermore, you suggested that:
> If they attempted to fill those slots with centrists then they'd be decryed for not using the "real experts" or something similar.
You're suggesting conspiracy.
> What I don't want is for my children to be attacked because of their white skin due to the power of words in the modern world.
They're not attacking Karens because they're white. They're attacking Karens because a lot of people have worked dogshit retail jobs where they've been accosted by people aggrieved over the most inconsequential things imaginable. If that's what you associate with having white skin, then you're harboring racist beliefs.
> It's not like none of us know what a white supremacist is -- we've all seen their rhetoric, have dismissed it, and no longer feel inclined to re-litigate the issue.
I actually don't think a lot of people know what a white supremacist is after seeing who has been slapped with that label in the past few years. The rhetoric around a lot of these issues is very disingenuous these days.
So while you're correct that white supremacy is an argument or philosophy that is easily dismissed, but who gets that label is very contentious indeed even though it seems like it should be straightforward.
> If you want to be a supremacist, you have to be supreme to something, and anything that might question that (even hypotheses) is a threat to that feeling.
> because I spend a great deal of time studying neo-nazi conspiracy theorists and similar people
Really sorry to hear that. I hope it is a hobby and not your job.
I remember when Nazis where a joke on the internet. That they are not quite that anymore is not completely their own making as there are some people obsessed with them and even start to mirror them. Or others that want to build a profile about standing against the obvious.
Suddenly there is a significant group that denies civil liberties like free speech or freedom of association. Free speech in interesting here, because it seem to trigger those that fear that Nazis are overtaking the internet. To me this is very indicative of reactionary behavior towards a vastly overestimated threat.
> It turns out, private companies exist in a mostly-shared culture and often have similar ideas about how to behave. Currently -- thank god -- deplatforming blatant bigots is generally agreed upon as A Good Thing. No conspiracy here, just good sense.
It currently is recognized as a good thing, but it wasn't before. Before the consensus was "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." That said, a consensus cannot be defended simply because it has previously existed.
> Seriously? White supremacists are now "individuals who promote stability"?
I'm talking about people who opposed defunding the police. In a healthy society, people who supported defunding the police would have been fired from their jobs and sanctioned, but the opposite has happened. 'White supremacy' has been redefined to include fundamental state structures that are required for the functioning of society.
> I mean, yeah, the US has always believed that. The country had basically two starting points, after all: stealing the natives' land, and then later on destroying property as part of a protest.
The United States does not need to justify its existence. Almost every nation in existence today was formed on the backs of millions of deaths, and most of the natives died through communicable disease that was inevitably spread once any european landed on the North American shores. The only major mistakes the United States ever made were 1) allowing the establishment of slavery in North America and 2) trying to spread 'freedom and democracy' around the world.
Otherwise, the United States is responsible for almost all fundamental technology that the developed world employs and may (hopefully) be responsible for spreading human life to another planet. If the latter happens, then that alone justifies the sins of the United States.
>Only banning white nationalism is giving fuel to the white nationalist belief that whites are being unfairly targeted. That's not something we should encourage IMO.
Well its easy to believe in something that is simply true.
> This does not fall into the fallacy aspect as it is already happening, groups are already being exploited for ulterior motives to control thought. Part of having a background in security research leads one to detect vulnerabilities. This is a gaping vulnerability.
Part of being a minority is being afraid to walk in the streets because you don't know what kind of media a random person has been consuming [1]. Examples like [1] are many and will only become more frequent as some people succumb to hate and others exploit them.
> Let us be clear that inciting violence is criminal and not considered protected speech.
Of course it is, but why won't anyone think of the children, wink wink, nudge nudge. If only there was some hero to save us all from those monsters!
That line of speech is frequent in certain circles and a certain class has been hearing this on repeat for a few years now.
> Less people are dying today than have historically died from hateful conduct. You cannot crush hate out of a society with censorship.
I am not keen on crushing anyone, I am keen on continuing living. Being visibly trans in a backwards country with crazy people is terrifying. I do not recommend.
> Driving hateful behavior underground only emboldens the extremists. Only through education and the ability for an individual to observe how consensus genuinely rejects their hate can you change such attitudes.
What more consensus from broader society does one need than literally telling them that their speech and actions are harmful and they need to stop?
> you are appealing to extremes when you take into account statistics and history.
The funny thing when you think about statistics is that those events that people conveniently aggregate to cutesy little numbers are happening to real people with real friends and families, with their own dreams and aspirations.
For you I am just a statistic, a tiny minority that you can look from afar. But for me, it's my life.
> But, idk, I am accepting of people and somewhat tolerant of others beliefs (white supremacy isn’t one I am tolerant of though...). So, there is that.
If I told you I was not in favor of BLM because the founders were caught embezzling funds or pushing Marxist propaganda, would that make me a white supremacist?
I do believe there is a problem with cops shooting people in the states, but I'm also not a fan of that movement being co-opted for political gain. Which is why I support the message but not the specific organization.
> Hmm. I am currently participating in a group that uses a more, lets say aggressive, interpretation ( white supremacy is pervasive and all that ). It gets old fast.
Go read my reply again, I namedrop the kind of people who fixate on this stuff. DEI is way, way more than "white supremacy is bad"; if that's all you're getting, they're letting you down.
> Maybe, but then good actors have some responsibility to denounce bad actors.
And they do, sometimes publicly, sometimes privately to the CEO who hired a grifter "DEI" consultant for a year-long engagement that only delivers experiences like yours.
True. But anti-feminism, white supremacy and the beliefs being described are fundamentally, conspiracy theories, and the culture of conspiracy theory does tend to embrace these ideologies. The sets may not overlap perfectly, but they do overlap.
It's not hard to find someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job and who also blames it on a Jewish conspiracy. That sort of thing is so common as to be banal.
reply