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 | 12 | ... | 26

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2065034 30-Jul-2018 15:57

MikeAqua:

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.

People who think like that are few in number - and anyway it's more an academic argument about words than practically relevant. You should perhaps ask her if white cisgender men can be victims of ageism, classism or elitism, plenty seem to suffer from alcoholism and a few from dwarfism.

If you were subject to a violent act because you were white, then you were the victim of racism. Why that happened (and what to do to prevent it happening) rather than the word used is the issue.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2065039 30-Jul-2018 16:03

Paul1977:

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'.

This is certainly a point worth considering but what would you do? I agree little useful purpose is served with pejorative name-calling, but how do you persuade someone that this is the wrong path? Better education in the schools? Better public service broadcasts about the evils of racism? Better role models?

In our society as it is, there may be little that individuals can do about this. Maybe if we loudly denounce the bad ideas and make it clear that anyone entertaining them is a moron, that might make some who are tempted think twice. How else can you approach this? Befriend racists and try to bend them in a better direction? Join hate groups and reform from within? How realistic is that?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2065076 30-Jul-2018 16:22

Rikkitic: This is certainly a point worth considering but what would you do?

Well, taking Molyneux as an example: from the one or two short interviews I've seen, he claims at least some of the views he espouses (eg. race and IQ) are based on science. So, I would tackle his science with better science. I'd like to hope any open-minded, reasonable person should be able to make informed decisions in those conditions.

Paul1977

5047 posts

Uber Geek

#2065079 30-Jul-2018 16:33

Rikkitic:

Paul1977:

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'.

This is certainly a point worth considering but what would you do? I agree little useful purpose is served with pejorative name-calling, but how do you persuade someone that this is the wrong path? Better education in the schools? Better public service broadcasts about the evils of racism? Better role models?

In our society as it is, there may be little that individuals can do about this. Maybe if we loudly denounce the bad ideas and make it clear that anyone entertaining them is a moron, that might make some who are tempted think twice. How else can you approach this? Befriend racists and try to bend them in a better direction? Join hate groups and reform from within? How realistic is that?

I don't have an answer, but looking at world affairs it doesn't seem like the status quo is keeping this kind of thing in check.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2065098 30-Jul-2018 17:05

Rikkitic:

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.

Oh, she's not my friend - she is my friend's, friend. Very different.

Nothing much gets me down, but the 'logic' is bewildering.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2065112 30-Jul-2018 17:19

mm1352000:

Rikkitic: This is certainly a point worth considering but what would you do?

Well, taking Molyneux as an example: from the one or two short interviews I've seen, he claims at least some of the views he espouses (eg. race and IQ) are based on science. So, I would tackle his science with better science. I'd like to hope any open-minded, reasonable person should be able to make informed decisions in those conditions.

Good luck with that. I'd expect the same kind of response you'd get from a climate change denier, anti-vaccer etc.

You can't use rational science and reason to convince a person out of any strongly held position they hold dearly - when they didn't use rational science and reason to convince themselves that they are right.

That's a polite way of saying you're wasting your time arguing with such abject morons - expecting them to be open-minded.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2065127 30-Jul-2018 18:14

Paul1977:

I don't have an answer, but looking at world affairs it doesn't seem like the status quo is keeping this kind of thing in check.

That's true.

Arguing about whether it's right or wrong to call politically active hard-right "white rights" activists and their supporters fascists, whether you extend that to call the supporters morons - really there should be universal condemnation of this movement - it's extremely dangerous and if it continues to grow, there will be blood.

I reject totally being manipulated into a "debate" suggesting that "there's something we need to talk about" - thus validating their thoroughly obnoxious POV.

At the root of this is Trump. Who'd have thought that there'd be a democratically elected leader of the free world, with absolute military superiority, the most powerful economy, actively supporting hypernationalism, praising tyrants, attacking the free press, and failing time and time again to condemn racists, white supremacists etc.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2065213 30-Jul-2018 19:46

Not quoting anyone so to avoid statements that could be interpreted as directed...

When someone points out that "left call anyone that they disagree with -ists" it's clearly a provocation. I only saw people being called fascists, racists, nationalists in extreme cases. And even so whoever calls someone a fascist is not necessarily a left supporter.

If I remember correctly Frankly D Roosevelt and Harry Truman were both affiliated with the Democratic party - I don't remember either being great supporters of the socialist experiment in the USSR and neither were lovers of Franco, Hitler and Mussolini. Nor Charles de Gaulle or Churchill. My point is that to point out hate as the root of evil, personified in fascism, racism, bigot attitudes is not something that only "the lefties" do. This is something that all people should do, regardless of leaning.

I haven't seen anyone that leans left calling National candidates fascists. The simple reason is because in New Zealand, left and right are (mostly) moderate.

And yet, reading some people posting here one would think Labour is a bolshevik faction, ready to spill blood to take power.

Not only Labour is not, but conversely National is not an angry fascist mob either. People calling out fascist are calling the extreme. The alt-right. And whoever cannot see this distinction do so with malice.

These are extremes and people of either side should point out when fascism rears its ugly head.

By the way, the Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers' Party NSDAP) was not socialist. They used that moniker during the 20s and 30s to attract workers that would otherwise be drawn to communism, a platform that was growing quickly in the after-war Germany. This is the same as Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), People's Republic of China or the old East Germany officially being "German Democratic Republic".

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2065232 30-Jul-2018 19:56

Fred99: Good luck with that.

I fully agree that some people are not going to be convinced, no matter what anybody says. However, I think those people are a minority, and I strongly agree with Paul1977's earlier comment. On that basis, in most cases I think it is reasonable - generally because I like to think the best of people, and especially when somebody claims scientific backing - to try to convince with logic before resorting to other measures (applying labels, no-platforming etc.). Deference to science implies some level of logic, and so to me it's a sign that a person may be convinced.

Fred99: I reject totally being manipulated into a "debate" suggesting that "there's something we need to talk about" - thus validating their thoroughly obnoxious POV.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I can understand your perspective, but I don't necessarily agree that debating somebody validates their point of view.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2065252 30-Jul-2018 20:02

mm1352000:

Fred99: Good luck with that.

I fully agree that some people are not going to be convinced, no matter what anybody says. However, I think those people are a minority, and I strongly agree with Paul1977's earlier comment. On that basis, in most cases I think it is reasonable - generally because I like to think the best of people, and especially when somebody claims scientific backing - to try to convince with logic before resorting to other measures (applying labels, no-platforming etc.). Deference to science implies some level of logic, and so to me it's a sign that a person may be convinced.

Fred99: I reject totally being manipulated into a "debate" suggesting that "there's something we need to talk about" - thus validating their thoroughly obnoxious POV.

Perhaps this is where we differ. I can understand your perspective, but I don't necessarily agree that debating somebody validates their point of view.

If you genuinely believe that Molynaux (et al) promoting concepts of "scientific racism" aren't fully aware that they're peddling dangerous bulls!t, and are doing so with a deliberate and predetermined racist agenda, I have a bridge to sell you. They will not accept any scientific evidence you throw back at them, and will inundate you with endless utter bullsh!t as a response.

If you want to commit yourself to a campaign as social justice warrior to use logic to convince these evil morons that there's no scientific justification for their racism, you're playing directly into their evil. Most of "them" won't believe you. They need to be shut down abruptly - there is no valid debate.

And I'm not keen on debating this further with you - the reason should be obvious.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2065268 30-Jul-2018 20:31

Trying to conduct a 'scientific' debate with racists seems like a waste of time to me. Just look at the scientific debates about fluoride, vaccination, climate change, etc. No amount of science or logic is going to make any of these people think any differently. It is not about science or logic. It is about prejudice and emotion.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2065288 30-Jul-2018 21:10

Lias:

I don't agree that they are, but even if they are full blown neo-nazis who worship Adolf Hitler as a god and want to purge the earth of inferior races, they STILL have a right to say what they want. Just because you find it abhorrent, does not mean they don't have the right to have those views, and publicly express them.

You need to read the Human Rights Act and to stop shouting with your keyboard. Constantly barking an implication that there is a near unfettered right to freedom of speech doesn't make it true.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2065305 30-Jul-2018 21:34

These sorts of threads are very revealing. There are some posters in this thread posting passionately against alt right Southern filth that I have had some vigorous disagreements with. But anyone who is objective can see that they, unlike the camouflaged apologists for that piece of walking human waste (such as the person who keeps barking an assertion that Southern has the right to say whatever she wants, who also incidentally has a publically searchable record on this forum for calling for illegal and extra-judicial executions of criminals), have actually taken the time to form arguments and actually engaged with the content and thinking of the person they are criticising.

This is quite unlike the usual facile one-liners of the camouflaged apologists or the useful idiots like a certain Wannabe-feudal-Europe-slave-owning lord who apparently thinks that the Labour Party is similarly awful as the alt right.

In short, wasting your time to defend the alt right on some silly purported point of principle or trying to engage in some kind of dialogue with them or to understand their point is, on this forum at least, mostly the game of losers.

gzt

17140 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2065384 31-Jul-2018 07:39

Poor Richard Spenser so misrepresented by the msm:

Paul1977

5047 posts

Uber Geek

#2065432 31-Jul-2018 09:29

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

Maybe it's just my perception, or maybe I haven't conveyed my points clearly enough; but I genuinely feel as if my comments are being seen by several other members as defending the alt-right - which couldn't be further from the truth.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 26