Bacon. I never liked it or understood the obsession with it.
- Spinny likes this
Jump to content
Posted by Sunshine Jesse on 22 November 2018 - 03:40 PM
Posted by Sunshine Jesse on 17 November 2018 - 08:13 PM
That said, I do understand your point that targeting the alt-right supports their narrative. However, I don't think that my side could've prevented the victim narrative by going over the "right" targets. Going back to your point about the media, think a bit more deeply. "Mainstream media" is still fairly broad. What outlets in the media are the greatest offenders? One relevant example that comes to mind would be Breitbart, a media outlet where Milo was a senior editor, that heavily promoted white supremacist and alt-right talking points, and was co-founded by Steve Bannon, who was also the former chief strategist for Trump.
I apologize if this seems like I'm trying to dismiss you. My intention here is to continue the position that I've been arguing from while trying to build on your examples. You say that my side could have prevented the fuel for the alt-right's victim narrative if we focused on the right targets. You also gave the mainstream media as an example of a far more appropriate target that people should be focusing on. The way I see it, these are not two separate targets, where people are focusing on one more than they should be focusing on the other. It's that they are both symptomatic of an even larger problem; specifically, the alt-right's influence on mainstream media. Rather than trying to delegate the focus between two different targets, challenge where they overlap. That may sound like a cop-out answer, but basically I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone to address what both you and I think are the greater problems here.
I'm late but I've spent the last two weeks with my mind elsewhere so ayyy.
I have some minor disagreements with a few details in your post but I don't think there's any need to debate them unless we make a separate MSM thread.
...that's a huge can of worms that I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to.
Posted by Sunshine Jesse on 03 November 2018 - 10:57 AM
Again, Richard Spencer believes that white people need an ethnostate for a "safe space". A safe space from what? I understand the larger goal of figuring out where the real problems are, and that's why I see no value in talking with Richard Spencer, because he is personally advocating for those problems. The beliefs make sense to him because he is a Neo-Nazi. Acknowledging when someone is a Nazi has become something of a "boy who cries wolf" scenario. It's used as a way to describe someone when it may not be necessarily true, but it is absolutely true that Spencer fits the bill.
I've already seen enough to understand Spencer's motivations. He perceives Jewish people as a threat, and thinks that, as a white man, he is part of an oppressed minority. The problem is that his fears are completely irrational, and your suggestion operates on the assumption that when two people are arguing, there is a common problem that neither side is recognizing, but both sides could learn what this is. Except, for a white supremacist? They are the problem. I feel comfortable recognizing that they're delusional, horrible monsters because they have clearly presented themselves as the real problem, and we need to deal with the threat they represent, and banning them from universities to deny them a platform is perfect for them. Neo-Nazis can think they're striving for a greater good, but they're not. For say that Dad and I don't know what empathy is, but that's why I so fiercely oppose white supremacy; it comes from a lack of empathy.
The fact that "Neo-Nazi" is even a thing does perfectly display what you say about how people will just keep coming back until you deal with those problems, but, again, this implies that Hitler and Spencer's hostilities towards Jewish people are symptomatic of some other problem. There is no other problem that we should be looking towards instead. If you're a white supremacist, then you can play the victim all the like, but don't be surprised when people then turn around and perceive you as a threat in return. White supremacists can play the victim all they like, but when their very identity hinges on removing people of other races from America, if not murdering them outright, then that proves that they won't make any effort to fix any supposedly underlying problems. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt that they believe their goals will achieve some greater good when their beliefs and actions inherently run counter to "the greater good"?
Because "greater good" means different things to different people, and their greater good happens to run counter to yours. I'm by no means saying it's equally valid, or even close to being so, but I am asking you to understand why they think the way they do so you and others can start to understand just why political violence does more harm than good, instead of just being opposed to it as an arbitrary moral position.
And by "not understanding empathy," I mean the fact that you seem to think empathizing automatically means feeling sorry for them. It doesn't. You can feel greater contempt for people you empathize with. It has nothing to do with sympathy.
The problem is that his fears are completely irrational, and your suggestion operates on the assumption that when two people are arguing, there is a common problem that neither side is recognizing, but both sides could learn what this is. Except, for a white supremacist? They are the problem.
I'll give an example pertinent to the situation so you can see what I'm talking about.
Many people on every side hate the mainstream media. Some blame corporations, some blame liberals, some blame the Jews, and some blame any combination of the above. Can you really say that the actual problem is with the people who blame the Jews? Or is the media itself the biggest problem here? You can blame prejudices for leading people to their conclusions, sure, but the media itself is the universally agreed-upon problem, so what use is there in putting so much energy into targeting the people who actually blame the Jews? It's counterintuitive. If the media was no longer such a huge problem, one of the things that could use to convince others that Jews/liberals/etc were the problem could no longer be used to support their case. In other words, targeting the media instead of the alt-right means that you can actually slow down the spread of their ideology.
Meanwhile, primarily targeting the alt-right feeds into the victim narrative that can be used to sway others to their side. Just look at Winter, someone we've seen slowly adopt alt-right talking points in real time (whether he realizes it or not) because people keep giving the alt-right, him, and his side fuel for their victim narrative, making them seem more sympathetic. It'll still be his fault if he takes that plunge just like it's my fault for me being close to doing so, but it's something your side probably could've stopped, or at least slow down to some degree, by actually going after the right targets instead of him and what he believes (and will likely believe) in.
Posted by Sunshine Jesse on 30 October 2018 - 10:40 AM
I want him to empathize so I can learn just why supporting violence is different for his case when his opponents think his side is doing the exact same thing.
why are you asking someone to empathize with people who literally want to kill them and have them expelled from the country
hello? do you not see the issue here?
surely the black grandparents in that church, the black victims of dylan roof and the holocaust survivors in the synagogue should've just turned the other cheek and everything would be alright.
There's nothing about empathy that means you have to feel sorry for them. Being able to empathize with their views might actually make you angrier once you fully realize why they hold them. You might direct your anger elsewhere, but that's better for everyone involved.
You want me to empathize with racists?
You expect me to feel sorry for the people who want me and my kin dead for the color of my skin?
What do you want me to learn? Their history? Their lifestyle? You want me to go out to the next local KKK meeting and make buddy buddy with them before they hang me?
Okay, so say I wanted to learn from someone like Richard Spencer. What is there to learn from someone who thinks that African Americans contributed nothing to society, claims that "If Africans had never existed, world history would be almost exactly the same as it is today", and that they in fact benefitted more from slavery? Why should I learn about denouncing Jews, and learn his false belief that white people are somehow a "marginalized" community?
At most, perhaps I could learn how to came to hold those beliefs, but his beliefs are inherently based in what is provably false, so the beliefs by themselves hold no positive value. Richard Spencer said that he wants an ethnostate, even calling it a "safe space" for the white race. He believes his views are the norm, simply because he is the one who holds them. What I would want him to learn, I would feel I would have to dumb down certain information. I tutor elementary school students, but I rarely feel that I need to "dumb down" what I'm teaching them, because those students all show themselves readily capable of learning the material. All I have to do is help them realize that. With Richard Spencer, trying to help him learn anything would be worthless, because he believes he knows all that he would ever need to know.
Posted by Sunshine Jesse on 30 October 2018 - 09:59 AM
What part of "I won't change my mind" didn't you get?
I will NEVER tolerate racism. Period. Don't ask me that question again.
Then don't change your mind, just empathize.
Apply your train of thought to those who would do the same to you and tell me if it really makes any less sense.
I don't care how much you posture about your views to feel stronger than you really are. I want to see you learn something, and I want to learn something from you. Do it for my sake, if you can't do it for yours.
Posted by Sunshine Jesse on 26 October 2018 - 09:02 PM
Honestly, I feel the "debates" portion of the title should be removed. People disagreeing does not make it a debate, and people won't always disagree for that matter. The only time I truly felt it was something akin to a debate was when Jesse was literally refuting her own points out of boredom.
I could sustain the whole section on that alone if you wanted.