Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 26

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2064958 30-Jul-2018 13:45

Fred99:

Except that she is exactly as I've described, racist, white supremacist, fascist. She chooses not to call herself by those terms, rejects accusations others make that she's a fascist by listing differences between her ideology and Nazism - and in doing so pretty well defines herself as the fascist she says she isn't.

Yeah, but the thread has evolved somewhat, and we are not just talking about Lauren Southern any more.

Let's consider the people who may go along to hear her speak. Do you believe that they are all irredeemable racists?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2064964 30-Jul-2018 13:53

Paul1977:

Fred99:

Except that she is exactly as I've described, racist, white supremacist, fascist. She chooses not to call herself by those terms, rejects accusations others make that she's a fascist by listing differences between her ideology and Nazism - and in doing so pretty well defines herself as the fascist she says she isn't.

Yeah, but the thread has evolved somewhat, and we are not just talking about Lauren Southern any more.

Let's consider the people who may go along to hear her speak. Do you believe that they are all irredeemable racists?

How the hell would I know?

You'd have to be somewhat of a moron to take what she says seriously, racists are morons, but that doesn't mean all morons are racists.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2064969 30-Jul-2018 14:01

I do not want squelch opposing ideas, whatever some here may think. It is important to maintain different perspectives. The difference is when people become convinced that their vision justifies any means to achieve it.

Is there really a trend from the 'left' to label everything they don't agree with as sexist, racist or fascist? What examples are there? I don't doubt there are silly individuals who resort to this kind of thing (there always are), but I'm not sure it can be called a trend. What is the justification for that?

In the 1960s and 70s, progressive idealists who mostly started out genuinely believing they were fighting for a better world, ended up committing atrocious acts of violence, including armed robberies, murders and indiscriminate bombings. These movements were generally considered to be driven by 'left wing' ideas. Of course the extreme right does not have a monopoly on viciousness or anti-democratic violence.

But this is not the 1960s and we are not talking about the Weathermen or the Red Army Faction. The alt-right is a fascist breeding ground, and the dangers that it poses are very real. White supremacists should not be tolerated, any more than black ones should be, but at this time in history, black ones are not the problem. Fascist behaviour can come from either the left or the right, and today it is coming from the right. It is all too easy to slide from this into intolerant racist anti-democratic authoritarianism, and that is what people are objecting to. This kind of thing needs to be nipped in the bud. People believing that fascism can be in any way 'reasonable' is where it starts. Some things simply do not need to be debated.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2064970 30-Jul-2018 14:03

Fred99:

Paul1977:

Fred99:

Except that she is exactly as I've described, racist, white supremacist, fascist. She chooses not to call herself by those terms, rejects accusations others make that she's a fascist by listing differences between her ideology and Nazism - and in doing so pretty well defines herself as the fascist she says she isn't.

Yeah, but the thread has evolved somewhat, and we are not just talking about Lauren Southern any more.

Let's consider the people who may go along to hear her speak. Do you believe that they are all irredeemable racists?

How the hell would I know?

You'd have to be somewhat of a moron to take what she says seriously, racists are morons, but that doesn't mean all morons are racists.

Do you think that you are likely to persuade anyone to change their views by calling them morons?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2064974 30-Jul-2018 14:15

Paul1977:

Do you think that you are likely to persuade anyone to change their views by calling them a morons?

No - they're far too stupid to listen to reason, and they've been absorbed in to a cult. I have no expectation that they'll change their views. A very strong global stance by politicians and media needs to be taken against them - they need to be condemned for what they are.

This is an extract from Southern's "book".

Well, guess what? I’m not Hitler, figuratively or literally. As far as I’m concerned, Hitler was just a SJW who happened to get freaky amounts of power and actually implement his KillAllJews (the predecessor to #KillAllMen) worldview. Basically, if Hitler were writing today, he could’ve avoided all the verbiage in Mein Kampf and just complained about “Jew-splaining” on Tumblr and the message would be the same.

...

Oh, and another problem I have with Hitler? He fawned over Muslims more sycophantically than Justin Trudeau.

...

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget: Hitler was a socialist. I’m not.

...

So get that stupid little mustache out of your head. I’m not the Nazi you’re looking for. and nationalism is more than just not-that-bad. It’s awesome . Particularly the kind of pan-Western nationalism I’m talking about here, which actually doesn't have a precedent of either a positive or negative kind in history. It’s simply too ambitious. But unlike the utopian fever dream that is globalism. I think this kind of nationalism has a chance at defining world politics for centuries.
Why? Because it conforms to human nature. Indeed. once you strip away the examples of people abusing nationalism for the sake of their own mental illness, you eventually realize that its superiority to globalism is actually based on one of the most healthy parts of human nature: the preference for a group that supports each other. like a family.

So - she's clearly a special kind of stupid uneducated idiot, the problem is that she's influential and has a willing audience of uneducated idiots (aka "morons") who lap up this kind of abject tripe.

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2064978 30-Jul-2018 14:21

Rikkitic:

Is there really a trend from the 'left' to label everything they don't agree with as sexist, racist or fascist? What examples are there? I don't doubt there are silly individuals who resort to this kind of thing (there always are), but I'm not sure it can be called a trend. What is the justification for that?

I see it more as an attitude that if you are not 100% with them, then you are against them.

This was illustrated a while back in the Trump thread when some posters commented that some of what the left is doing is actually driving many moderates further right. And boy were those guys shot down fast, even though (from what I could tell) none of them supported Trump in any way, shape, or form.

I also see a trend to completely discount any valid point or argument simply based on who said it. E.g. 'Oh, he's a known right wing blogger, therefore nothing he says can have any merit'.

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2064980 30-Jul-2018 14:26

Fred99:

No - they're far too stupid to listen to reason, and they've been absorbed in to a cult. I have no expectation that they'll change their views.

And you don't see that kind of attitude as contributing to the growing divide we are seeing between the left and right?

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2064989 30-Jul-2018 14:36

Paul1977:

Fred99:

No - they're far too stupid to listen to reason, and they've been absorbed in to a cult. I have no expectation that they'll change their views.

And you don't see that kind of attitude as contributing to the growing divide we are seeing between the left and right?

You're confusing "left and right" with "wrong and right".

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2064992 30-Jul-2018 14:46

Fred99:

Paul1977:

Fred99:

No - they're far too stupid to listen to reason, and they've been absorbed in to a cult. I have no expectation that they'll change their views.

And you don't see that kind of attitude as contributing to the growing divide we are seeing between the left and right?

You're confusing "left and right" with "wrong and right".

That's just dodging the question.

However, I will concede that "left" and "right" aren't great terms to use when talking about racism and fascism, as it would be wholly unfair to imply that everyone with right-wing leanings are racists or fascists.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2064993 30-Jul-2018 14:49

Paul1977:

I also see a trend to completely discount any valid point or argument simply based on who said it. E.g. 'Oh, he's a known right wing blogger, therefore nothing he says can have any merit'.

I see another side - ignoring important background information. Here's an example - an article from the NZ Herald yesterday:

Australian media take a swipe at Auckland Mayor Phil Goff over decision to ban Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux

Let's look at that in a bit more detail:

"Australian Media" - nope - "a person from the Australian Media". It's ludicrous to imply (all/most/some) Australian media took a swipe at Goff.

"Former Australian politician Ross Cameron" should have been described as "disgraced former Australian Politician". Google him.

A mention should have been made about his strong pro-Trump activity, his fundraising activities for far-right anti-muslim groups, and perhaps throw in his homophobic rants - just to give a bit of fair background information about a person expressing contraversial views - in favour of a fascist/racist speaker.

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2064997 30-Jul-2018 14:58

Fred99:

Paul1977:

I also see a trend to completely discount any valid point or argument simply based on who said it. E.g. 'Oh, he's a known right wing blogger, therefore nothing he says can have any merit'.

I see another side - ignoring important background information. Here's an example - an article from the NZ Herald yesterday:

Australian media take a swipe at Auckland Mayor Phil Goff over decision to ban Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux

Let's look at that in a bit more detail:

"Australian Media" - nope - "a person from the Australian Media". It's ludicrous to imply (all/most/some) Australian media took a swipe at Goff.

"Former Australian politician Ross Cameron" should have been described as "disgraced former Australian Politician". Google him.

A mention should have been made about his strong pro-Trump activity, his fundraising activities for far-right anti-muslim groups, and perhaps throw in his homophobic rants - just to give a bit of fair background information about a person expressing contraversial views - in favour of a fascist/racist speaker.

I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2064998 30-Jul-2018 15:00

I can't speak for others but for myself I passionately believe some things are just wrong. People who feel drawn to these wrong things, whether out of self-interest or because they are evil or simply misinformed, try to convince others by making them seem less wrong. There are different ways to approach this. The wrong ideas can be given new labels and made to seem 'reasonable'. Those who attack them can themselves be attacked and their credibility undermined. The wrong ideas can be defended in the name of free speech. All these things and more are intended to weaken the defences against the wrong ideas. Wear the opposition down with repeated attacks. Question the logic of the arguments. Question the values of those making them. Keep chipping away until cracks appear and the defences begin to crumble.

But things that are wrong should never be defended. They should never be allowed to take root. It is the moral equivalent of trying to defend sex with children by claiming that some kinds of sex are less wrong than others. This is crazy and corrupt. If a thing is wrong, it is completely wrong and it is always wrong. There is no 'little bit' wrong.

People who promulgate fascist ideas are not a little bit wrong. They are completely wrong and there should be no dialogue with them. Their ambition is to overthrow democracy, destroy freedom, and rule by decree. They are absolutists who crave absolute power. They believe the class of people they identify with are superior to all others, and the others should be either enslaved or eradicated. What can there possibly be to discuss with someone who thinks like this?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#2065000 30-Jul-2018 15:03

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

*-ism is quite acceptable though, so long as it's directed toward 'white' people or men (except gay-men).

Oh dear. No it isn't.

People who think like this are out there.

I have had a conversation with a friend-of-a-friend (social scientist, shaper of young minds, very left of centre), in which she explained to me the *-ism hierarchy.

Essentially her explanation boils down to this: A white-straight-'cisgender'-male, can never be a victim of any *-ism.

Some experiences I have had which were pretty-clearly racially motivated violence directed at me were, according to her "not-racist". I just can't compute that.

I read an interesting article which detailed the different perspectives of 4 people who had transitioned from female to male. This included one person who had previously identified as both a lesbian and a radical feminist. It's an interesting commentary on the directions of prejudice and in particular on what prejudices you do and don't see depending on who you are.

Mike

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#2065017 30-Jul-2018 15:39

Rikkitic: People who promulgate fascist ideas are not a little bit wrong. They are completely wrong and there should be no dialogue with them. Their ambition is to overthrow democracy, destroy freedom, and rule by decree. They are absolutists who crave absolute power. They believe the class of people they identify with are superior to all others, and the others should be either enslaved or eradicated. What can there possibly be to discuss with someone who thinks like this?

There are certainly people like this out there who will never change their views. Lauren Southern may well be one of them.

I'm more concerned with the more moderate supporters, who don't agree with everything they say, but identify enough to hear them out. These moderates are often then derided by the left which only pushes them further and further to the right, and possibly all the way to the alt-right.

I just don't see anything coming from the left that will make these moderates rethink their position, all they seem to get is judgement and condemnation. While this condemnation is well earned for the ring leaders and provocateurs, I fear that it is too freely passed down to anyone who agrees with only a small portion of what they are about.

I feel like instead of being shown a better way, they are just dismissed as 'deplorables'.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2065027 30-Jul-2018 15:46

MikeAqua:

I have had a conversation with a friend-of-a-friend (social scientist, shaper of young minds, very left of centre), in which she explained to me the *-ism hierarchy.

Essentially her explanation boils down to this: A white-straight-'cisgender'-male, can never be a victim of any *-ism.

Some experiences I have had which were pretty-clearly racially motivated violence directed at me were, according to her "not-racist". I just can't compute that.

I read an interesting article which detailed the different perspectives of 4 people who had transitioned from female to male. This included one person who had previously identified as both a lesbian and a radical feminist. It's an interesting commentary on the directions of prejudice and in particular on what prejudices you do and don't see depending on who you are.

Indeed an interesting article with some excellent insights.

Don't let people like your social scientist friend friend get you down. All this proves is that you can have a degree and also be a moron. Unfortunately there are a lot like her on both sides of the political divide. Blinkered thinking is what it is. I remember a funny story a friend told me many years ago. She found herself sharing a flight next to an American lady. She started talking about some experiences she had had in India. The American gently touched her arm and said kindly that she couldn't call them 'indians' anymore. The correct terminology was now 'native American'. My friend tried to explain that she was talking about actual Indian people from India, but the American, secure in her superior knowledge, insisted it was not polite to call them that. My friend finally gave up.

Trying to conduct a rational discussion with alt-right is a bit like this. When faced with overwhelming ignorance, it can be hard to find a common frame of reference. Unfortunately, those who promote fascist ideas are not as benign as that simple lady on the plane.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 26