For Spencer’s sort, neither engage nor ignore.
Oppose.
3 Likes
Indeed! I would never have known the depth of those people’s cruelty and thoughtlessness if I hadn’t spoke up and challenged them on their remarks. But during some exchanges, it became clear that the crucible of conversation was not powerful enough to transform their views. Maybe nothing is.
At that point, it’s not on you anymore to engage. You made them aware that you oppose them and what they stand for. You can be silent in the future by ignoring them but this time it will be an opposing rather than complicit silence.
3 Likes
During the Greek Junta there was a graffito on a wall in Cambridge that read “thanatos stos fasistes” - death to fascists. The authorities made no effort to remove it.
2 Likes
Ronson published a follow-up of sorts in the form of a Kindle Single published just before the 2016 election called The Elephant in the Room. Basically it was “I can’t believe all those guys I was writing about in that other book are actually within reach of controlling the Federal Government now.”
4 Likes
You picked a legal definition. Traitor doesn’t only mean the Article III definition. There’s also collusion with foreign powers to upset the democratic process. Which actually happened. Sure that’s not treason, but it does make trump and his thugs traitors.
4 Likes
No. Wrong. Read their dumb ramblings, memorize some of their idiotic quotes, point out their stupidity, and mock them with arguments that befuddle them. But DON’T ignore them and hope they’ll go away. A lie unchallenged becomes a truth.
1 Like
I originally deleted (or thought I had) that comment because, as a general guideline, I agree with you; I had made that comment with coworkers in mind, which changes one’s calculus of resistance.
But yes, as @Wanderfound put it, don’t ignore–oppose.
1 Like
Related the the engage/ignore/oppose discussion:
You’ll often hear from right-wing and apolitical online folks that “the left can’t meme”. And, if you go and look at spaces where people directly engage with fascists, you’ll find that what little opposition is visible is decidedly unimpressive.
But the “left can’t meme” idea completely misses the cause of this.
The real left don’t much bother with arguing with fascists; it’s pointless and/or counterproductive. The focus of the left is instead aimed at mobilising workers and critiquing the establishment.
You fight against fascism by organising resistance, not by debating fascists.
5 Likes
Thing is, they’re not wrong, per se. I’ve debated “Party of Lincoln” folks, even before I was fully acquainted with the history of it.
Yes. Democrats were for Slavery.
Yes. Democrats were associated with the KKK even in the 20th century.
Yes. The Republican Party was founded to end Slavery.
These are the easy truths. The hard bits:
Lincoln was willing to let slavery continue, as long as property rights weren’t respected in Union or new states.
The Republican party was in favor of the 3/5ths compromise instead of full voting rights.
The Republican party in the 60’s actively courted the racist, conservative parts of the Democratic party and (successfully) got them to switch parties to put Nixon in power.
The Democrats have done a pretty shit job of promoting equality these past 50 years, for all the lip service.
You want to talk about who’s on the right side of history, it’s a bit of a shitshow.
5 Likes
I pointed this out and boy, did they not like it.
2 Likes
If you consider a major cyber-attack between nation states to be an act of war, which I certainly would here in the 21st Century, I would argue it certainly does make one guilty of treason, if they supported the attack by the foreign power.
2 Likes
Eh, the result I got was pretty lukewarm. “Yes, I knew about that.” Which of course was preceded by, “You know, I’ve always been more of a Libertarian…” when Trump got elected.
Also, “I did not know, I’ll look into it…”. But, as I’ve mentioned in other posts, I live in a Blue state. My community I interact with is like most in populous areas: apathetic when it comes to politics.
The Russian interference in the US election was a case of the Russians doing to the USA what the USA has been doing to every democracy on the planet for seventy years.
Describing it as an “attack” is an extreme stretch. Describing it as an act of war is absurd and dangerous.
Ooooh, I’ve always wanted to be “dangerous,” thank you! And an absurdist as well!
No but seriously, hyperbole much?
In my opinion, no.
Unfounded accusations of “acts of war” regularly leads to actual wars.
Is your personal opinion significantly dangerous? No. But the promotion of this sentiment by the Democratic party is.
It is also relevant that, if this were an act of war, then pretty much the entire world has had a cassus belli against the USA for most of the last century.
Shouldn’t this be “…too racist to interview”?
We get it we get it, you hate the USA. Meanwhile, us Americans who give a shit about democracy (which by the way, tends to overlap with Americans who are concerned about the USA’s own anti-democratic actions) will continue to get worked up about a hostile foreign power MUCH less democratic than our own, attacking us via electronic warfare.
Nope.
Should Americans be annoyed by the Russian interference, and try to stop it from continuing? Of course.
But they should also recognise the gross hypocrisy of their position, and be careful in differentiating acts of propaganda from acts of war.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
