And yet your constant rhetoric of ‘these are subhumans that deserve only filth and scorn’ is the same thinking that allows fascists to take what you are part of and prevert it.
Pro tip: “Fascists are garbage people” ≠ “blacks/hispanics/lgbt are garbage people”.
11 Likes
And where is that line going to be drawn? Oh obviously the goos stepping brown shirts making the salute in the square are evil. what about the people waving a flag or spouting slogans under gunpoint? What about people that got raised by those people? How far will you go before it’s suddenly ‘I dislike what you said you are an Enemy and must be Purged?’ I keep seeing this hardliner rhetoric time and again here and frankly it scares the shit out of me, because change the group you’re talking about and suddenly lookie here, you are the fascist.
You don’t stop extremism with more extremism. All that does is give someone else an excuse to start spouting at how evil and intolerant you are and that for the good of the realm you must be removed.
1 Like
I disagree that treating fascists like a memetic plague is the same thing as dehumanizing them. Part of being human is being accountable for your choices. No one forces them to be fascists.
I do think it’s a good policy to have support in place for anyone who wants to exit hate groups, especially since many are indoctrinated as youth.
Fighting back in self-defense is not extremism.
[Edited because I embarrassingly forgot the word not.]
14 Likes
To everyone else giving this man thumbs up. Please think about what you’re agreeing to. You’re effectively going ‘this person is garbage. Not worth trying to help. He made his choice and now we deem him worthy of only punishment.’ Isn’t that what we collectively hate are done over and over again with how prisons are structured?
At some point you do need to take a stand, cordon off this intolerant behavior, but this ‘they are garbage and irredeemable’ mentality is dangerous and insidious because every step of the way you are convinced of your own rightness, and ‘only one more step and then we will have Peace.’ Except it’s never just that one little step. It’s another, and another, and I’m telling you that will not work. At the absolute best case it leaves you in a position I was in. Alone and angry screaming at the world. Worst case? Hi meet the new boss same as the old.’
1 Like
No, taking words out of them. I’m not saying that any posters here are advocating not voting, but not voting because of a perception that the system is rigged is not sound reasoning, and I don’t believe that this was the actual reason people stayed home (as opposed to, say, not caring deeply about the outcome, or not believing there was a difference between the candidates, or simply not believing that their vote mattered even if it was fairly counted).
In some red states (4 of them) this is the case, with 25% of the nation’s disenfranchised voters in one state, Florida. Moreover, while people of color are vastly overrepresented in these lists, no doubt because of the uneven/racist classification of crimes as “felonies” and uneven enforcement, it is still the case that most of the actual disenfranchised votes are for white males (2/3 in Florida, according to the Sentencing Project). While it is pretty clear that, say, gerrymandering has a strong effect on local elections (including federal House seats), the effect of disenfranchisement on outcomes (local or national) is speculative.
I’m personally torn on felony voting. My opinion: if someone is in prison for recreational drugs, they should probably be able to vote. If they are in prison for a hate crime, then hell no.
I’ve said it before, Elsewhere;
Nazis and fascists are people who have actively chosen to be monsters.
14 Likes
To me if you count these people for the sake of statistics but disallow them a Voice there is a problem. You give people who have committed crimes no path back into society and then wonder why they fall back into crime.
So either give them a voice if they are counted or if you don’t let them speak don’t count them as anything other than ‘felony unpersons.’
What justifies your opinion? Because you have spoken nearly solely in absolutes that have (as far as I am aware) zero precedence.
I have said everything I know to say. If you want to continue being the mirror image of fascism where everything Not Us is to be Purged rather than try sifting through to see if anything can be saved Go ahead. I notice that kind of firebrand rhetoric ‘purge these people I don’t like’ is getting a lot of ‘oh hey I like that’ around here.
I just know it’s nowhere you want to be. I also know you’ve already decided you don’t want to listen to anything I have to say and are convinced just because i’m telling you to just step back a bit that I’m some racist woman hating anti everything person.
So yea. I’m out of thread. Bye.
I don’t know if you’re talking to me or about me here, but no, liking a comment is not agreement. Moreover, I don’t call people garbage. But I will absolutely hold people accountable for their choices. You seem to be interpreting the voices of resistance here in a much more extreme light than it actually is. We’re not calling for anyone to be purged.
I understand where you’re coming from, even if it isn’t reciprocal, and yes there are handful of violent thugs, usually ignorant of history, advocating preemptive violence and fire with fire while claiming to be antifa. The media, ever eager to sensationalize for ratings, latch onto that.
Okay, then I misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying.
Again, I agree, but I don’t believe anyone here has advocated that. Some people do, and they’re wrong. I also agree that voting can have an impact, but that it doesn’t work in a vacuum free of other factors. And I don’t consider that in any way incompatible with Melz reason for exercising her franchise, since I exercise mine for both. I vote in elections I might have a chance of impacting, and I vote even when it’s a lost cause.
I think it was all those also. Not an either/or.
At the absolute most, only violent convicted felons should be barred from voting, and only while they’re serving their sentence. Disenfranchising felons after they’ve served their debt to society is undemocratic, absolutely nuts and practically an invitation to racist tyrants to use it as a Jim Crow law.
9 Likes
Let them vote. People who have been through the system can offer valuable understanding of it that we need to contextualize it. Not to mention the fact that people who really do face their demons and reform are some of the most insightful among us.
7 Likes
Arguments like this are why I’m torn. Also, of course, the fact that the criminal law system is racist in implementation, and my belief that once one has served one’s time one should be back to full citizenhood. I don’t like the idea of someone convicted of, say, gay-bashing or blowing up a synagogue being allowed to vote for candidates or on policy that will affect civil rights even after they’ve served their time, on the other hand I don’t know how to separate that out from other thought-crimes the state might think are heinous but I don’t.
3 Likes
I agree with all the practical reasons for opposing disenfranchisement of felons after completing their sentence. But even if I didn’t I would still oppose it, because having a say in one’s government is arguably the most basic right and liberty of a republic, more so even than life or property, and taking it away from anyone indefinitely is evil.
6 Likes
Indubitably.
4 Likes
IMO, permanent disenfranchisement is never a good way to influence politics. As you yourself point out, the racism in the justice system assures it would be perverted, and is where it occurs. But even if we lived in a world with a perfectly equitable justice system, should the rest of us get to impose our will undemocratically, even against horrible people? I don’t want to be part of a tyranny, even a benevolent one.
3 Likes
So once again you retreat instead of actually using any sort of reason for your opinion, I have to say I don’t believe you have put a lot of thought into your opinion - especially considering you made strong statements about that Google engineer having never read the document in question. There are many instances in the US alone while going unilaterally against the feelings of white supremacists made lasting positive change, and I am not aware of any instance where compromising to the racist minority has helped anything.
If you choose to engage people with why you feel you are correct, there is plenty of room for discussion.
5 Likes
If you want to see some heads asplode, how about a change so that the electoral college votes and House of Reps seats are determined by eligible voter numbers rather than total state population?
The current setup is just the old system of the Three-Fifths Compromise with a coat of whitewash and some plumage.
If states want to practice heavy voter disenfranchisement, then they face losing college votes and representatives.
Yeah, yeah, first we bell the cat, right?
1 Like
We tried that in 1900. I’m game to give it another go.
That’s a point of view, certainly.
An alternate point of view is the one that finds the equation of fascism and anti-fascism to be utterly contemptible.
And I will point out once again:
Incidentally, I do not believe that I have ever used the word “subhuman” in reference to anyone. Ever.
The problem with Nazis is not that they aren’t human; the problem is that they are.
10 Likes
