If you had responded by saying that the guillotine image has its place but that using it as a threat is not the way to go, you wouldn’t have had much pushback.
You went further than that, however, drawing a false equivalency between posting guillotine images here in any capacity on the one hand, and the Kingsman video on the other, portraying both as instances of incivility and incitement to violence. When people pointed out that they’re not necessarily equivalent (i.e. the guillotine image not being inherently a threat of violence against the opposition – especially in this community), you continued to insist that they are.
The mods forked the discussion off because that insistence on a false equivalency caused a derail here, as it has when others took your position in the past (usually in response to Cory using the image).
The concern is more about liberal-democratic institutions like the press and legitimately elected representatives being violently targeted in a video supporting a president* (an authoritarian one who, thus far, has targeted them non-violently). Unlike the guillotine image, there’s no other way to interpret the video’s message.
I responded to a person who explicitly wanted to create such an equivalence. Making images to compete with that video, and who got support by others who argued that you had to answer fascists in kind.
That may be your concern, but the person I replied to argued specifically about “the oppressed”. You seem unable to read the posts I reply to and read my anwer in that context. If people bothered to do that it might be a more constructive discussion.
Uh, so in an effort to inject more civility into this conversation.
What is actually the goal of the guillotine gifs? Is it in fact, as some say, “to warn of bad situations that might arise if present trends continue” - thus posing revolutionary violence as a thing to be avoided, or a direct call to violence, an “embrace” of “if they are doing X we might as well do it too”? These two arguments are not the same.
What exactly is the lesson being actually drawn about say, the rise of the Nazis? Because well, historically both violent and non-violent approaches were applied, and both of them failed because the approaches were disunited (the communists boycotted the polls, while the social democrats abstained from some votes protecting them, and both refused to form an united front)
I think it all comes down to a false sense that manners in the non-political sphere must carry over to the political. If there’s anything I believe that’s a special case, it’s that political language itself is always violent unlike having a polite conversation with a coworker about the weather. We replace physical violence with symbolic violence which some take to mean all that partake in it are in a position to enact which obviously isn’t true. Folks that are on the right wing are in the commanding heights and thus their use of symbolic violence is more of a true threat unlike those who are marginalized who use it more as a call to action with the political process (or to criticize those who have power over their very lives).
But those who are in charge don’t like sass and so often they instill this notion that politeness above all else is necessary for political progress (ex. being rude to white people by calling them mayo people is why Trump won). It’s a way to keep the underclasses in line while pretending to care about civilization and civility.
True, but the guillotine image (unlike the video) can be interpreted in multiple ways, as you describe. It’s not an either/or situation. The first commenter wanted to use it in your second sense, and it fell flat with this community. Others pointed out the other use, and it was deemed acceptable for the most part.
That we have to see in advance what’s coming from far-right groups that establishment conservatives (who are more concerned lining their own pockets) think they can either control or dismiss as harmless fringe groups. The Nazis and other right-wing populist and fascist movements historically arise out of highly unequal societies created by conservative economic policies (the kinds of societies that also give rise to the guillotine).
It’s a reminder; full stop. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The lesson?
IMO:
Humanity has the capacity to be unfathomably evil, and we must continually fight the darkness that lives in each of us, lest it consumes & destroys all of us.
I dunno, I think if your argument is that the guillotine gifs are a reminder and warning of the horrors of history, then you are more in agreement than not with the need to restore a “more polite political climate” (polite is a pretty eyerolly phrasing yes), you simply see guillotine gifs (of most likely a quite different type than what b00fh and Bernel are envisioning) as a shocking and provocative way to help achieve it.
One can be both impolite and uncivil without being violent or threatening direct violence. Ideally, that’s the response that right-wing populists deserve every single time. This is another moment in history where they’re part of the political climate, so reminders of past missteps in regard to addressing them are worthwhile.
Right, like I said, polite and civil etc are a bad and emotionally loaded phrasing, but I think there’s an underlying notion (that I mostly agree with) that democracy requires hmm, I guess a certain following the ‘spirit of the rules’, and not doing everything possible to crush your opponents, hopefully forever. This extends beyond violence, but also not, say, employing gerrymandering on your side, etc.
Fuckin’ A; they sure as hell couldn’t care less about offending me…
Sadly, we’re long past that point.
The people who would persecute me and mine give even less of a fuck about following rules and ‘doing the right thing.’ They don’t even care about maintaining that facade anymore…
I’m happy to do everything possible to crush my opponents when they’re no-kidding fascists, precisely because I’m an adherent of liberal democracy. It’s Popper’s Paradox in action.
Anyone who expects me to be polite and civil when the wolves are at my door can just go ahead and hold their breath while they wait.
I never throw the first punch, and I never light the match that starts the fire… but I will fight like hell when threatened and I will fight to survive, whatever it takes.
But there’s a significance here, no? Because the ultimate goal is actually still to restore the spirit of the rules, not the crushing of the opponents.
ETA: The fundamental error that those who call for civility and politeness and comity no matter what in these situations make is that right-wing populist movements are just another political party willing to work within a liberal democracy in good faith. They are not.
Yes, I am well aware of the concept. The distinction I’m trying to draw out here is between the idea of tactical realism applied to specific people adopting specific approaches and “well, this is an obsolete concept now for this era”.
Wanting to reestablish civilized public discourse is fine… but we have to actually survive the very real threats that currently imperil us all in order to do that.
