I'm saying forget the "politics" for a moment and ask yourself could an antifa member be seriously ethically engaged? Is that possible? — Baden

Jesus Christ, of course they can be! And it's on the individual to look at where he or she draws the line with direct action. Yet what I do not accept is political violence in countries that are basically justice states. Here, now. Not France of 1940-1944.

What about violence by "justice" states?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war

"A preventive war is a war or military action initiated to prevent a belligerent or neutral party from acquiring a capability for attacking. The party being attacked has either a latent threat capability or has shown through its posturing that it intends to follow through with a future attack."

What's your position on that? Ok for massive military campaigns but not for neutralizing fascist bullies on the streets? Or no?

Let's not mention the systemic violence the prevailing ideologies of "justice" states inflict all over the developing world.

My claim is that you don't have a coherent ethical position on violence. Show me I'm wrong.

I've been reading James Defronzo's Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements lately, and I've been quite surprised by the numerous similarities between the causes of disparate revolutions and how they actually tend to unfold.

The main ingredient to a successful revolution is widespread discontent. When discontent, corruption, repression reach a critical mass, it causes enough of the upper-class and other opponents of radical change join the revolutionary cause, which tends to tips the scales of power. While business owners and the wealthy upper class oppose change, they forestall it, but when they switch from suppressing change to supporting it, it is often a part of the final catalyst.

There's also this curious pre-revolutionary period where those who do support change schism into a spectrum of competing ideologies ranging from completely legal and peaceful methods to full blown/prolonged/open/guerilla rebellion. As societal conditions deteriorate, advocacy for more drastic action becomes prevalent, and once there is enough desperation for change, all it might take is a single event (example: a repressive massacre) to cause an uprising to rapidly spread.

There's always disagreement about the strategy and self-imposed limitations in revolutionary movements (e.g: deciding not to engage in outright terrorism). It's definitely true that the force used by revolutionaries needs to be at least proportionate to the force that is being used against them, but when and where too much force is used, they might just be trading injustice for injustice.

Not many people are willing to use the R word, but it's only a decade or two away if the current trend holds. Political division will rise, economic inequality and the resulting dissatisfaction will continue to rise, groups will begin to unite under banners of radical change, and should the government become repressive enough, or should living conditions decline, then revolution will undeniably be the word on everyone's lips as poor conservatives and liberals alike unite.

The discussion we're having here is like a microcosm of the broader discussion society will have should political groups start taking popular revolution seriously.

One of the biggest setbacks for many revolutionary movements is that they often don't have a coherent end-game until the very end (or later). Revolutionaries know they want change, but they seldom have specific and practical plans for making it happen, and they have even fewer plans about what to do once they're successful in overthrowing the old power. The way that crowds throng emotionally against Shapiro events reminds me of revolutionaries without a coherent plan. Maybe this is the process they have to go through before they figure things out, but we need not learn the hard way if we can benefit from history.

@ssu Here's another claim: The overwrought objections to antifa's moderate levels of extralegal activity are based on said group's lack of political power not on any solid ethical grounds. You'd have to be suffering from some degree of mental illness (at least I didn't say 'you'd have to be bonkers'!) to argue that kicking a few fascist arses (shock/horror!) is more morally objectionable to, random example, selling arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemeni civilians (business as usual...).

What about violence between "justice" states? — Baden

You seem not to know the term justice state, oikeusvaltio in Finnish. The proper definition would be perhaps Rechtsstaat, where the power of the state is limited in order to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. The citizens share legally based civil liberties and can use the courts. So hence my referral not only a state to be a democracy, but a justice state also.

Well, seldomly Democracies fight each other, but there of course are few exceptions. For example in WW2 at first the UK wanted to give military assistance to Finland to fight Russia and later declared war to Finland (because it was fighting Russia after Russians had immediately bombed the Capital when Germany attacked the Soviet Union). No actual fighting happened, but Finns living the UK were detained. Winston Churchill sent the following letter to Marshal Mannerheim, the commander of the Finnish Armed Forces:



So when two democracies (justice states) go to war, historically the correspondence is like the above. Quite cordial I would say.

What's your position on that? Ok, for massive military campaigns but not for neutralizing fascist bullies on the streets? Or no? — Baden

I would state that a functioning democracy (and a justice state) has the acceptance of it's people to it's existence and has the monopoly on violence along the lines of Max Weber.

And actually there have been wars and military actions that have been implemented by the UN. I have no problem with those. With the Six Day war it's clear that the Arab coalition was going to attack, while I was against the Dubya Invasion of Iraq.

My claim is that you don't have a coherent ethical position on violence. Show me I'm wrong. — Baden

You're asking far too much...

I think that's an absurd reading because those opposing Shaprio know exactly what they want in the situation: a lack of platform for Shaprio/a society which doesn't treat his accounts of society and ethics as respectful.

In the wide sense, these people aren't revolutionaries either. In the sense you are using, they are trying to work with/within the current structure of power to alter one specific aspect of culture. They are, in the usual sense of the dichotomy, just reformists.

You're asking far too much... — ssu

I should learn not to try to give people homework. :razz:

I had edited to 'by' rather than 'between' above btw as the original was a bit misleading wrt my intention. I'll take what you said on board anyhow and let you respond to @fdrake.

You'd have to be suffering from some degree of mental illness (at least I didn't say 'you'd have to be bonkers'!) to argue that kicking a few fascist arses (shock/horror!) is more morally objectionable to, random example, selling arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemeni civilians (business as usual...). — Baden

So saying that political violence isn't OK means... that I find it more objectionable than selling arms to Saudi Arabia???

Confusing.

Sorry, have to go to sleep. Working day today.

So saying that political violence isn't OK means... that I find it more objectionable than selling arms to Saudi Arabia??? — ssu

That claim was more of a general critique.

Sorry, have to go to sleep. Working day today. — ssu

Me too. Good night!

I think that's an absurd reading because those opposing Shaprio know exactly what they want in the situation: a lack of platform for Shaprio/a society which doesn't treat his accounts of society and ethics as respectful. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This still isn't a coherent ask, and it's strategically self-defeating (because rallying against Shapiro with emotion and force causes others to rally behind him with emotion and force). Wanting a society that doesn't treat Shapiro's accounts of society as respectful is what you already have via protests and outrage. What you actually seem to be wanting is a society where you get to dictate the permissible topics of discussion.

In the wide sense, these people aren't revolutionaries either. In the sense you are using, they are trying to work with/within the current structure of power to alter one specific aspect of culture. They are, in the usual sense of the dichotomy, just reformists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As I mentioned in the post, there is a spectrum denoting how much force individuals are willing to endorse, which is why I drew the comparison. Revolution is a strong term, but we're in the early states of getting there.

You misunderstand my use of "don't treat with respect"

I don't mean in the sense of people just being there opposing someone. I mean that society takes the values and ideas in question not to be worthy of consideration as a direction for society. Like how the liberal treats any opposition to "free speech." Or how we treat totalitarianism. Or how we might treat someone saying the Earth was flat, in the context of describing the shape of the world.

It's not a world in which everyone is supposedly given their worldview by some kind of edict, just the basic recognition some ideas are unethical and false, not even worth considering an account of society or as a possible course of action.

You misunderstand my use of "don't treat it respectful."

I don't mean in the sense of people just being there opposing someone. I mean that society takes the values and ideas in question not to be worthy of consideration as a direction for society. Like how the liberal treats any opposition to "free speech." Or how we treat totalitarianism. Or how we might treat someone saying the Earth was flat, in the context of describing the shape of the world.

It's not a world in which everyone is supposedly given their worldview by some kind of edit, just the basic recognition some ideas are unethical and false, not even worth consider in an account of society or as a possible course of action — TheWillowOfDarkness

How is the average 17 year old supposed to learn why Fascism isn't worth considering if they're not allowed to even consider it?

Do we have to consider actually being an Islamic Extremist understand why it's unethical and we want our society to avoid it?

We don't have to consider actually following an idea or holding a value to understand its not worth considering.

All the time, we recognise these instances. We teach it to people too. How is a 17 year old supposed to learn? They recognise/we teach them about fascism and how it's not worthwhile. We don't need to respect fascism and its values as a legitimate option to so this.

Do we have to consider actually being an Islamic Extremist understand why it's unethical and we want our society to avoid it?

We don't have to consider actually following an idea or holding a value to understand its not worth considering.

All the time, we recognise these instances. We teach it to people too. How is a 17 year old supposed to learn? They recognise/we teach them about fascism and how it's not worthwhile. We don't need to respect fascism and its values as a legitimate option to so this. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But we're also talking about Shapiro. If we banned Shapiro from all platforms under the justification of anti-Fascism, the naive 17 year old won't understand why, and will actually go looking for the views we've forbidden them from exploring.

1. They can recognise why/we can teach them why. Holding there are ideas we ought not hold, or even forbidding someone from following, doesn't mean we know nothing about them. The naive 17 year old can understand why. Children learn a whole lot of stuff and why its bad before they are 17. We don't encounter and follow ideas as blank slates.

2. Most won't. People don't go following something just because it's banned or suppressed.

How is the average 17 year old supposed to learn why Fascism isn't worth considering if they're not allowed to even consider it? — VagabondSpectre

The same way the 17 year old learns that pedophilia and murder are 'not worth considering'. Or would you like to have a nice civil discussion about those too? I'll bring the tea. Then we can discuss, civilly, whether its nice to fuck children, live in fear, and murder minorities.

What a stupid fucking question.

Quote one line where I alleged or stated that 'anything other than speech amounts to violence'. — VagabondSpectre

Also, since you asked, here's a random sampling of the fake dichotomy between speech and violence that worms its way all through your engagements with me:

So you're arguing that because moneyed interests are supporting Shapiro, and because ideological merit has nothing to do with politics or democracy these days, the use of intimidation, force, and violence to silence him is well justified? — VagabondSpectre

Bandying words at dinner parties is more productive than vaguely preaching fool-hearty revolution from an armchair. — VagabondSpectre

but we embrace the use of force at the expense of the use of sensible political theory, — VagabondSpectre

One thing that's evident upon reading our exchanges is how much you talk about violence despite my initial remarks not even so much as mentioning the word. But I suppose this is to be expected when you're just another cog pushing the standard fanatical media line: who cares if anyone is actually engaging or talking about violence: let's make it seem as though that's the overwhelming, pressing issue de jour regardless.

The same way the 17 year old learns that pedophilia and murder are 'not worth considering'. Or would you like to have a nice civil discussion about those too? — StreetlightX

You're juxtaposing Shapiro's conservative beliefs with murder and pedophilia?

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction?

Is considering Shapiro's beliefs is as bad as committing or planning to commit murder? Or is it akin to considering murder?

Also, since you asked, here's a random sampling of the fake dichotomy between speech and violence that worms its way all through your engagements with me: — StreetlightX

The only context that I brought up Shapiro was to give an example where protestors use excessive force, and to condemn that excessive use of force (and to show why words aren't yet meaningless). The quotes you gathered are in the context of condemning force (force amounting to violence), not restricting political action to only speech.

You say that you're not advocating for violence, but when I advocate for non-violence you attack me as part of the problem (because how dare I whine about the left when lives are on the line!).

And my main criticism of your position, which you've scarcely responded to, is that it's your own kind of negligent and holier-than-thou attitude that Shapiro relies on. They're a bunch of murderous villains, the lot of them, how dare you suggest using mere words against them!

People don't go following something just because it's banned or suppressed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It definitely piques their interest.

You're juxtaposing Shapiro's conservative beliefs with murder and pedophilia? — VagabondSpectre

Your question was about fascism, not Shapiro. And it remains a stupid fucking question.

You say that you're not advocating for violence, but when I advocate for non-violence you attack me as part of the problem (because how dare I whine about the left when lives are on the line!). — VagabondSpectre

I attacked the liberal grounds that you put forward as an argument for non-violence, and not your advocacy of non-violence simpliciter.

this thread is awful

A complete waste of time, space and energy... :roll:

Perhaps participants might want to consider that there are more important issues to be considered: global warming, resource depletion, environmental destruction and pollution and accelerated extinction of flora and fauna and exponentially increasing economic complexity and instability.

What a fucking wank!

Incidentally one wonders why putting away rapists and murderers does not just "encourage more rape and murder". It's all very holier-than-thou after all.

this thread is awful — Maw

A complete waste of time, space and energy... :roll:

Perhaps participants might want to consider that there are more important issues to be considered: global warming, resource depletion, environmental destruction and pollution and accelerated extinction of flora and fauna and exponentially increasing economic complexity and instability.

What a fucking wank! — Janus

This is one of the better threads in quite some time in my view. Even if it might be frustrating to see intelligent people disagreeing on some fundamental aspects of what meaningful democracy means, the role of police and other state sanctioned violence and violence (and everything less than it) as a political instrument for citizens.

I actually also see similarities between for instance racism and the insistence of race being grounded in biology and the insistence global warming is a hoax. If we're incapable of convincing people racism is bullshit on stilts, we won't fare much better with the other issues.

I don't know, I think the notion of freedom of speech is pretty clear cut. Basically, hate speech is rightly disallowed. I guess the problem is that people can't agree on precisely what constitutes hate speech, or how overtly hateful it must to be to qualify as hate speech.

In general, though, why should we approve of institutions shutting people down just because they can? It's really just a matter of power, and has little to do with public approval, anyway. If a university decides to fire someone like Scruton there is little the public can do about it even if they care to. human beings are not really all that good at coordinated action. Personally I don't really care that Scruton was de-platformed, because I don't sympathize with his political conservatism, although in principle if he hasn't said anything overtly hateful, then I don't see much justice, but rather mere prejudice, at work in his being shut down.

I agree with you about the absurd attitudes that unthinking people hold: notions that some races are somehow intrinsically better than others, or that global warming is a hoax. People who believe those things are mostly thoughtless morons, and unfortunately there are plenty of them. There is a difference though, because promoting the idea that there are significant racial differences is definitely hateful, whereas denying climate change, although stupid and probably mostly unconsciously self-serving, is not hateful; it is merely stupid and delusional.

People feel threatened by climate change and economic instability, and many are incapable of facing the horrible truth, so they take refuge in denial. When they start to feel any significant negative economic effects they will look for something or somebody else to blame. It is in times like this that underlying cultural tensions, that are due to the distrust many people feel towards those whose cultures they cannot understand; may manifest as various forms of racism. Brexit and the Trump phenomenon exemplify these kinds of effects.

Your question was about fascism, not Shapiro. And it remains a stupid fucking question — StreetlightX

We were speaking in the context of Shapiro, so it was about Shapiro. Willow said that they want to live in a world where Shapiro's views aren't respected, where they're automatically known to be not worthy of consideration, and I used the term Fascism because it's their accepted short-hand to describe Shapiro's views (and it would have sounded silly if I said "How is the average 17 year old supposed to learn why Shapiro's views aren't worth considering if they're not allowed to even consider them?", because it's the ideas that matter, not the person who professes them, and because obviously Shapiro isn't a standard by which we should set our curricula).

The point i was making is that to understand why a pernicious idea is bad, we need to actually explore it. By banishing debate on our own platforms against such bad and pernicious ideas (the kind which Shapiro and Spencer both peddle), we're missing an opportunity to potentially inoculate audiences against them. Yes it's offensive and emotionally neglectful to have a public debate about things like genetic racial differences, but by refusing to have it altogether we're giving racist pundits the room they need to float their bull-shit/pseudoscience. Debunking requires exploration.

I attacked the liberal grounds that you put forward as an argument for non-violence, and not your advocacy of non-violence simpliciter. — StreetlightX

I've cautioned against violence, but I've also clarified early and often that there's a time and a place for it (I've made the context of my condemnation clear), so you're not actually criticizing a position I've ever held.

On the other hand, the fact that you insist on leaving room for force in the context of discussing Scruton and Shapiro does give the appearance of lending political legitimacy to violence against them.

Maybe we're just applying the most uncharitable interpretations of one another that we can muster, which either proves you right by demonstrating that words accomplish nothing, or it proves me right by showing how bad-faith interactions (assuming meaningful communication is pointless from the get go) is a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Yes it's offensive and emotionally neglectful to have a public debate about things like genetic racial differences, but by refusing to have it altogether we're giving racist pundits the room they need to float their bull-shit/pseudoscience — VagabondSpectre

Did you really just write this? And mean it? 'By not giving them room ... we're giving them room"; How does one go about writing a sentence like this? How does this transmit from brain to fingertip to keyboard without stalling at any point from the self-imploding force of its own vacuity? And add to this a casual acknowledgement of how it happens to be 'offensive and emotionally neglectful' - an acknowledgement made to all the better dismiss these as irrelevant - and one has to wonder what the actual fuck went on during the writing of this sentence.

Incidentally, let me tell you how I, and probably millions of others, learnt how fascism was bad. We studied it, like everybody else; felt its effects as we walked through the remains of concentrations camps, like everybody else; understood its history, like everybody else. You know what we didn't have to do? At least, not until liberals lost their collective fucking mind under the sway of the conservative rewriting of history and political mores? Debate a fucking fascist. Holy hell. In what universe must this be spelt out? Unlearn these memes. They are destructive of your intellectual ability.

this thread is awful

I've kinda enjoyed lurking on this thread. It's a thorny issue--on the one hand I quite like the idea of the 'free marketplace of ideas' and free speech and diversity of thought and public sphere and rational debate and all that stuff. But the critique that this can be easily co-opted by ethno-nationalist ideological forces who don't give two shits about any of this stuff and would destroy it given half the chance can't be ignored. So, to no-platform or not to no-platform? No-platforming appears to undermine the public sphere of rational debate, but not no-platforming also appears to undermine the public sphere of rational debate!

I think the only way to really make progress with this quandary is through large-scale data analysis. This is really a question about information spread. Assuming a fascist does get a platform, would no-platforming really stop a spread of fascist information? It might do. Not giving space for fascists to air their ideas makes sense. It might not. Fascists using 'muh free speech' memes to turn no-platforming into a platform for their ideology also seems plausible.

It's not a question that can be answered solely by following through the logic of liberal philosophy, nor can it be answered by a critique of the logic of liberal philosophy. The only way to answer it is to gather data about how information spreads (harvest all opinion pieces, youtube comments, tweets etc. about lobster daddy, Shapooro, Spencer, all comments related to them, model an 'information space' using graph theory, use computational linguistics to make distinctions between different kinds of memes, sentiments etc., track the spread of ideas between nodes). Only then can one have a clear picture of the circumstances which allow dangerous ideas to spread.

google scholar search about information spreading processes:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=information+spreading+process&btnG=&oq=infor

The only way to answer it is to gather data about how information spreads (harvest all opinion pieces, youtube comments, tweets etc. about lobster daddy, Shapooro, Spencer, all comments related to them, model an 'information space' using graph theory, use linguistics to make distinctions between different kinds of memes, sentiments etc., track the spread of ideas between nodes). Only then can one have a clear picture of the circumstances which allow dangerous ideas to spread. — alieninstinct

The danger of a data-driven approach is that is misses, by necessity, how changing political and material conditions themselves change the uptake and dissemination of ideas (dangerous or not). If, for the sake of argument, it were found that deplatforming - or what passes for it - doesn't work, does that mean it doesn't work flat out? Or does it mean that, under these conditions, given this particular set of political and social constraints, for where we are in history in this time and space, it doesn't? If the latter, then one response might be to attempt to change those conditions. To engage, in other words, in politics (this all assuming the data is conclusive!).

In this sense, data always comes too late: by necessity it must take certain conditions as fixed for the sake of comparison and conclusion at all. But changing conditions just is the sine qua non of political action. There's a nice passge by the political philosopher Byung Chul-Han on data and politics, where he writes that:

"Compulsive transparency stabilizes the existing system most effectively. Transparency is inherently positive. It does not harbor negativity that might radically question the political-economic system as it stands. It is blind to what lies outside the system. It confirms and optimizes only what already exists. For this reason, the society of positivity goes hand-in-hand with the postpolitical. Only depoliticized space proves wholly transparent". (The Transparency Society).

If politics is the effort to make a change in the relations of power in a society - and with it, how information is distributed across those networks of power - then data can only really capture what's already there, 'before' change - before political action. Political theory is not quite like other theory in this sense - one's object of study changes as one collects the data.

I don't know, I think the notion of freedom of speech is pretty clear cut. Basically, hate speech is rightly disallowed. I guess the problem is that people can't agree on precisely what constitutes hate speech, or how overtly hateful it must to be to qualify as hate speech. — Janus

Funny how we have different interpretations of this thread. My take away is there is no consensus on what qualifies as speech. If "actions speak louder than words" and yet some here insist on a seemingly narrow definition of it involving spoken or written words, then there's a sea of meaningful difference. Not speaking in response to another is "speech" in itself in my view. And for those who don't believe it I suggest they not talk to their partner for a day.

I'm on the fence as to deplatforming but mostly because I worry about what it does to political engagement in general. If we shame people to stay quiet about beliefs they hold, there's exactly 0 chance of them changing their minds. Considering the alternative (social) media and communications channels available I suspect it inevitably leads to reinforcing existing bubbles, which just takes us farther away from constructive political debate. Plus, I think inviting certain controversial speakers usually isn't about real interest but trolling and then they can attack non-existent neo-Marxists academia and SJWs. Don't feed the trolls.

'm on the fence as to deplatforming but mostly because I worry about what it does to political engagement in general. If we shame people to stay quiet about beliefs they hold, there's exactly 0 chance of them changing their minds — Benkei

This is one reason why long form discussion forums are useful, as it's explicitly a place to 'talk' with the gloves on. The way I look at it is the right (even the regular grade conservatives, at least in UK and US) plays dirty when it counts most, so it makes sense to play dirty too. If they can do it for what you see as terrible immoral reasons, you can do it for just ones.