2008-2010 wasn't me.
- Sep 21, 2004
- AFL Club
Lol aren’t you going to give us the ‘maybe it’s not their fault’ you gave the actual nazis?
people and the evil ideologies they can support are not one and the same thing.
people can be mislead and misinformed. People can be forced to follow something under duress. ofcourse there are some people in these groups who are completely irredeemable. But they are not everyone from the group And are probably a very small percentage of pyschopaths. Most people have lots of good qualities.
do you believe in the death penalty?
Do you believe in group criminal punishment without individual trial?
i think you have to believe in both to even start to justify calling groups of people pests or diseases or vermin. And even if you do believe in both i would argue i think your beliefs are wrong. Certainly in the latter case.
these are childish gross misrepresentarion of posts. If you want to try participating in adult discussion please do. You are welcome to do so. Actually I encourage you to do so. We are all better for it.Lol aren’t you going to give us the ‘maybe it’s not their fault’ you gave the actual nazis?
Nice post.I agree. The ideology paints the person though, and once they immerse themselves enough in what they believe it becomes extremely difficult to seperate the two. Ethno-religious supremacist ideologies in particular are reprehensible because, by their very definition, they exclude (with varying degrees of violence when they come up against resistance) all outside their own narrow ethnic or religious group. The white supremacist, the Islamic jihadist, the Hindu nationalist - these are all Far Right exclusionary groups. They don't believe in co-existence, nor co-operation.
Tolerating these groups, who would end ALL tolerant co-existence between groups if put into power, will only bring about society's undoing as a whole.
Again, what you say is true. But who is doing the misleading? The misinforming? The nucleus of the Far Right is always about intolerance and hatred of the 'other'. The core can dress their ideology up and even make it look 'presentable' to the masses ('we're concerned about jobs'. 'We're concerned about governmental overreach') but underneath its always the same kind of ugly. Destroying the core is the imperative here, not what is at the fringes.
The only group or ideology that I believe is worthy of absolute extermination is that of the exclusionary supremacist, because I know what happens if they somehow become the ruling political faction. No more mixing of ethnic groups. No more friends outside your own race. No more love interests outside your own race. A monoculture imposed, similar to what the Taliban are doing in Afghanistan now that they're back in power.
All supremacist groups essentially want that same thing. Power for they themselves, their chosen ethnicity or religion, while everyone else is excluded. There is nothing in that I can agree with. There is no room for compromise in that. It cannot be worked with, or reasoned with.
There is no middle ground.
So what's left to do?
these are childish gross misrepresentarion of posts. If you want to try participating in adult discussion please do. You are welcome to do so. Actually I encourage you to do so. We are all better for it.
There isn't enough racism, to appease the anti-racists.They were aware of racial oppression. Therefore they were focused on race. They’re the real racists.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
We get into these petty squabbles because the demand for racism exceeds the supply.
A method used to make you doubt your experience of reality, and your sanity.
A form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented, with the intention of disorienting a victim.
Deliberate confusion to instil guilt and doubt, disguising a false premise.
Seeds is attempting to humanise an ideology. And in doing so, normalise a view in our society.
While attempting to ostracise positions held against these ideologies.
Anyone normalising and humanising an ideology that seeks to dehumanise, and eradicate a people based on their race, gender, et al. Is evil.
Anyone who humanises dangerous ideologies, while telling you that to call it out is basically genocide... Is purely doing so because they support the ideology.
It's at the point where we no longer need to be polite to these movements. We're seeing in real time, what they're doing to our society.
Normalising and humanising bigoted ideologies is a deliberate and dangerous technique, that's been around for generations.
Anyone trying to convince you that white supremacists aren't the problem, but the people standing against white supremacy are the problem... are evil.
In short, if you're being told that being offensive towards a neo-Nazi ideology... is worse than the neo-Nazi ideology... You're being gaslighted...
Therefore your defense of ideologies, which dehumanise groups (regardless of terminology)... is nonsense.all ideologies come from humans. Therefore the very concept of an unhuman ideology is nonsense.
However, I think we should distinquish between recognising ones humanity and tolerance of ones ideas. I dont want to tolerate many beliefs. The example you describe above being one of those beliefs. But i still recognize that people who believe in ideas that i find intolerable are humans. i dont even want to tolerate the freedom of some humans who have done some terrible things. But i still recognize they are human.
to dehumanize someone or group is to go beyond finding their beliefs or actions intollerant. It is worse. This is why I have such a problem with calling people pests or termites or vermin. It is the worst accusation one can make against others. It is to deny them of their humanity. And history has shown time and time again that this is what eventually leads to genocide.
we need to learn from history. We need to stop this cycle of dehumanization. its the only way we know that we truly are better rather then just a different version of the same thing we hate. And yes you can say one groups hate was aimed at something unchangeable and our hate is aimed at something that was choosen by choice. I agree that is different. However choice is not as free as we make it out to be. And even then. is it enough?
See thats more of the childish behaviour. I state that use of these terms is what creates an environment that can eventually lead to genocide. This is accepted by all experts in the field by thd way. You are fighting a losing battle if you disagree with it. And your response is that im claiming you posters specifically are going to start a genocide. This is the childish gross misrepresentation that you need to stop.sh*t sorry man. You’ve demonstrated your rationality bona fides by speculating we’re going to mass execute people so I’ll take you off that list as an olive branch.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
And your response is that im claiming you posters specifically are going to start a genocide. This is the childish gross misrepresentation that you need to stop.
Clearly there is a large amount of lefties in here that not only believe in the death penalty again but group trial and execution.
wasnt it long ago that most of you thought we should get rid of prisons. I liked that version of leftism better rather than this scary version.
I think it can apply to any belief seen as controversial. An example off the top of my head would be Jordan Peterson stating that compelled speech re pronouns is over reach by the government. A sensible response by progressives could be "well we need protections in place for trans and non binary people because they're having their lives ruined by discrimination etc".My interpretation, using this thread for context, goes like this;
Blue - Far Right belief
Green - Progressive belief
Grey - unassigned 'centrist' thought
Now to me that graphic looks like its saying is that the more someone denounces Far Right thought and action the more it reinforces that belief in others, and actually invites it into the thought process of the formerly neutral. Is this correct?
But what IS Far Right thought? Using that graphic as a guide we'd have to assume that the two greens/greys are also the same ethnicity and the same religious affiliation as the blue. Because if they were different the blue would be seeking the erasure of the greens/greys before a single word was spoken. Blue seeks growth and assimilation, but only into more of its own 'kind'. Others need not apply.
The greens/greys could come from widely mixed backgrounds but the blue will always be from one background affiliated with one core belief - the exclusion of all non-blues from participation in a blue-dominated society.
This is how I see it anyway.
What ever ended up happening there? Were people arrested like Peterson suggested?I think it can apply to any belief seen as controversial. An example off the top of my head would be Jordan Peterson stating that compelled speech re pronouns is over reach by the government. A sensible response by progressives could be "well we need protections in place for trans and non binary people because they're having their lives ruined by discrimination etc".
Instead many social media progressives went with the "NAZI SCUM!" approach, nek minit the formerly unheard of psychologist from Canada is making global headlines and going on a speaking tour, possibly influencing millions. Was this an ideal result for progressives?
Right or wrong, my point is that the abusive opposition to Peterson is what made him famous and able to influence more people. Same as Milo, Southern, Shapiro et al.What ever ended up happening there? Were people arrested like Peterson suggested?
Why do you think they are doing themselves a disservice?
i think they they are stripping it of all the negative association and thereby eliminating a "bad" word from being used to humiliate them. You cant do that for dehumanizing words but you can do that for words thats literal meaning is a colour.