Philosophy Tube

File: 22 KB, 400x400, 9KnMXlTl_400x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Philosophy Tube Anonymous Sat Dec 2 02:27:52 2017 No.10343650 [Reply] [Original]

Just today, Ollie, aka Philosophy Tube released a new video, titled the Philosophy of Antifa, which let me to ponder whether or not this guy is a pseud or a hack.

His early videos I think are informative, but as he goes on, he gets more political, and chops off content to the profit of propaganda. What does /lit/ think of his approach?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgwS_FMZ3nQ&t

This whole video-lecture, seems to just be him, trying to make Antifa look like a regular philosophical movement and position, while at the same time remaining vague about its content, as to deflect any possible counter-argument one might have against it, outside of the historical and economical errors he makes.

Is Philosophy Tube the trash of youtube philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 02:35:11 2017 No.10343675 >expecting quality from yoo-toobers The only defensible philosophy videos to watch are lectures. Even they aren't always worth looking at.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 02:47:24 2017 No.10343707 >>10343675 I agree, most of them are complete trash, but this one single video attracted my attention, because he seems to have put so much effort into it, for it to be so bad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 02:49:26 2017 No.10343715 >>10343650 He's a typical shit-tier antifa champagne socialist

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 02:58:27 2017 No.10343733 >toxic masculinity Stopped watching there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 03:05:09 2017 No.10343750 >>10343733 I suffered all the way through. I know your pain.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 03:30:58 2017 No.10343782

>>10343650
>"If you're a political enemy of AntiFa, you can become a friend. If you're a political enemy of fascism though, either they lose, or you die."God this video is so fucking good
Imagine being a brainlet of this magnitude. Not only you don't think that line is shit but you unironically think it's "so fucking good".

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 04:34:59 2017 No.10343924

>>10343782
>When you slap ''Toxic Masculinity'' and ''Capitalism'' unironically for causing fascism
>When you casually forget that the Weimar Republic censored (or tried to) Nazi-speech and claim that the ''free market of ideas'' caused fascism
>When you forget Hitler's illegal moves
>When you mention State laws prohibiting free speech are good to counter Nazis, but such laws in the UK served to stop your own leftist opinions
>When you think ''corporations'' are representative of capitalism, and not acknowledging that free trade is (which Nazi wasn't a partisan of)
>''B-but they use speech violence, therefore punch a nazi lmao dude!''
>Claiming that the Alt-right is a vast conspiracy using word games which magically indoctrinates people who listen to it

The list could go on, but this guy is too much of a brainlet for me to believe he's real. And the worst part is that he believes he's a profound, deep genius philosopher, grasping at truths uncompehensible to the smaller intellects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:05:07 2017 No.10345434 >>10343715 >tips masked face

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:41:45 2017 No.10345556 >>10345434 He’s an atheist for sure. Like all the bourgeois larpers.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:52:37 2017 No.10345597

>>10343715
This is honestly the best way to describe him. Oliver is a person of extreme economic privilege afflicted with the same old fashioned backwater society bigotry that has been commonplace among the rich for the past 300 years. He just uses radical racial and psudo-socialist politics to justify his hatred of the poor; not unlike Richard Spencer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:53:34 2017 No.10345603 >Advertising (all forms) is not welcome—this includes any type of referral linking, "offers", soliciting, begging, stream threads, etc. don't promote yourself here

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 14:55:29 2017 No.10345612 >>10345603 This isn't advertising, it's discussion over the content of this particular lecture and his philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:10:04 2017 No.10345657 >>10343650 He is the worst. He's down there with ideachannel and nerdwriter1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:17:01 2017 No.10345686 >>10345657 Shut up, bitch. All those channels, while not perfect, are great and are doing more for culture than you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:18:54 2017 No.10345692 File: 281 KB, 376x436, rimming.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10345686

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:20:16 2017 No.10345700 File: 148 KB, 2500x1645, 1480782357078.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10345657

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:23:17 2017 No.10345710

>>10345686

You realize that "not perfect" is one thing, but literally disinformation about history, while simultaneously taking priding in using vague concepts as to shield anything you say from criticism and redefining terms and using buzzwords to make terrorists look legitimate in their action, is another thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:23:43 2017 No.10345712 >>10345657 >>10345700 Ideachannel and nerdwriter1 are the most basic bitch highschool girl shit on YouTube.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:26:28 2017 No.10345723 File: 338 KB, 400x400, john greene.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10345712 There is another

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:30:24 2017 No.10345743

>>10345657

The guy that does Ideachannel is clearly pretty fckin good, it’s just literally impossible to have a decent channel about philosophy and media on YouTube. The moment he would touch on anything to do with gender his vids would get downvotes to shit, and it was a total flamewar in the comments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:31:19 2017 No.10345746 >>10345723 nerdwriter1 is unironically a fan of this guy and named his channel in honor to him. John Green is the daddy of all the pseuds on youtube. He can't keep getting away with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:34:19 2017 No.10345757 >>10345743 I don't like using /pol/ buzzwords, but the guy is a total soy boy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:35:30 2017 No.10345759 >>10345746 Is nerdfighteria still a thing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:37:48 2017 No.10345769 >>10345657 nerdwriter is pretty basic but ideachannel was legitimately fun

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:45:39 2017 No.10345800 >>10345612 hi oliver

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:47:20 2017 No.10345808 >>10343782 Yeah, the comments are really depressing. These people truly think this guy is some kind of genius.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:48:36 2017 No.10345812 >>10345808 Read those comments, they're all like ''thanks for illuminating (read : indoctrinating) me, soyboyliver!''

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:49:34 2017 No.10345817 File: 588 KB, 680x1156, the_truth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10343650 >>10345723 >>10345743 >>10345769 Where do they fit on the chart?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 15:52:23 2017 No.10345825 >>10345817 They go before the first image, waaaay before. They give you negative brain matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:03:28 2017 No.10345870 >>10345825 >>10345817 Can somebody that got the skills make a complete one?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:15:31 2017 No.10345936 Has anyone else come across this channel, Then and Now? It's not too bad, The guy is on the left side of the fence but he's not in-your-face about it as other youtubers tend to be. Good video on Derrida: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJlSY0DBBA

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:37:04 2017 No.10346028 Can all of you guys go back to /pol/ pls?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:38:32 2017 No.10346034 >>10346028 Can you go back to where you came from? Africa.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:46:55 2017 No.10346082 >>10346034 Stop embarrasing yourself, I'm not from Africa

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:48:54 2017 No.10346089 This was always obvious, brainlet. Read books instead of browsing Reddit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 16:57:23 2017 No.10346126 >>10346082 We're all from Africa if you go far enough back. Antifa has a philosophy, as do nazis. Don't know why OP is being a fag about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:05:15 2017 No.10346166 >>10346126 the out of africa theory has been disputed or disproven recently, I can't remember which but look it up

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 17:09:00 2017 No.10346181 >>10346126 >Antifa has a philosophy, as do nazis >ideology = philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 18:04:16 2017 No.10346381 >>10346166 Wrong, you look it up

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 18:12:44 2017 No.10346405 >>10346166 disputed, yes, but not disproven. Out of Africa will probably never be put to rest due to the political wills of outside forces but "Soft" Multi-Origin theory via the introduction of non-Human DNA is widely accepted as fact now.

Anonymous Sat Dec 2 19:49:45 2017 No.10346746

>>10346126

If you actually believe that strategizing about tactics and using them, regardless of their ethical impact, simply caring about their effectiveness, while simultaneously claiming that this stems out of an intellectual pursuit which has been disproven (communism, leftist economical policies, etc.), constitutes some form of "philosophy", you're wrong. Antifa uses violence to pursue their agenda and stops any form of dissent or counter viewpoint to theirs ; this is as antithetical as can be to a true philosophical pursuit. Just reading the definition of the word or about Socrates is enough to be convinced of that. Antifa is a violent, intellectually bankrupt ideology, just like Nazism. It's anything but a philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 2 23:11:45 2017 No.10347329 >>10346166 Sauce?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 00:17:06 2017 No.10347540 >>10347329 He is talking about the fact that they found the remains pre-Human early Hominid in Bulgaria a few months back. He is also misunderstanding the implications of that discovery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 00:19:08 2017 No.10347548 >>10346746 Everyone uses violence in pursuit of their ideological goals and yes that includes soulless cock-sucking western Liberals like you too.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 01:25:30 2017 No.10347731

>>10345597
This is the truth. The tragedy of the SJW/antiSJW dialectictic is that it has become a sort of bourgeois Ouroboros. None of those driving it give a fuck about us. Both sides show nothing but contempt for the “lower classes”. It’s all signaling, to borrow the bourgeois-right’s term. You get faggots like this Oliver guy falling over themselves to be the Most Condescending to the plebs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 01:51:45 2017 No.10347799 >>10347548 >Soulless >Capitalism and free markets helped liberate millions of people from poverty, from all over the world, and daily helps the poorest in India and China.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:32:58 2017 No.10347972 >>10343650 serious question here. Every antifa people I see are soyboys. How do these people plan on fighting the far-right morons that are living in the gym and collecting military rifles?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:38:50 2017 No.10347984 >>10347972 Public shaming

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:39:19 2017 No.10347987 >>10343650 great video, olly has been doing great work lately

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:39:35 2017 No.10347988 >>10347972 Their usual plan is to outnumber people. Don't know what will happen when guns become a regular part of these altercations.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:40:42 2017 No.10347989 >>10346746 >intellectual pursuit which has been disproven lmao

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:44:55 2017 No.10347995

>>10347972
Most far right guys are also pussies, remember the manlet that punched that crusty hippy chick at berkeley or some other protest? He couldn't even ko a girl with a sucker punch lmfao.

It's true that if shit actually popped off the right would wreck the left but that's mostly because they have country boys who know how to shoot and fight, the rightwingers that watch sargon and PJW on youtube and use the term soyboys will do nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:46:06 2017 No.10347997 >>10343733 triggered

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:58:09 2017 No.10348009

>>10347989
>The average Englishman was making three times as much income by Marx's death, as they did at his birth, thanks to the industrial revolution.
>Everyplace, irrespective of the culture in which it's been tried, communism has ended in bloodbaths.
>Early communist economies everywhere have created starvation, because not having free trade means you don't get to import goods like food, which you can't produce alone.
>The growth of GDP in communist countries over 50 has been nearly nil, while capitalist countries boomed. (In Cuba, a microwave was a "luxury", think about that.)
>Capitalist countries developed most innovations you today use, from kitchen appliances to the internet.
>Revolutions didn't happen in industrialized countries, like Marx claimed.
>Marx's theories on value and money don't even make internal sense, and don't hold up with facts (an easily found diamond is worth a lot).
>Men aren't a "black slate" : there are lots of innate dispositions or some which have favored to develop, and men differ from women.
>Marx didn't understand the scientific method and claimed that testing policies (in Das Kapital) in large countries and not in smaller scale cities first was the better approach.
>The Weimar Republic tried to suppress Nazi speech, which helped the Nazis... (Goebbels got jail time, etc.)
>The laws on censored speech enacted to prevent Nazi propaganda in the UK where also used against communists.
>Minimum wage is not good for anyone (just look at what it does in Seattle)
>Rent regulation leads to less supply of available houses and increases the price.

And I could go on as to why communism is failure, and as to why Antifa isn't a philosophy, but simply violent ideologues trying to push an agenda, but "lmao" I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 03:59:36 2017 No.10348013 >>10348009 are we counting state capitalism as communism in this context

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:04:39 2017 No.10348024

>>10347731
Olly is so condescending. I feel like you pinpointed the issue. He talks as if he was a prophet and basks in his own arrogance. He takes pride in all the buzzwords he uses, is obsessed with autoflaggelation to making himself look superior, doesn't care about any rational arguments, and can only see as deep as skin colour, and blames every thing on "fascism", racism or white supremacy and so on, while dismissing every possible counter-argument as religious speak ("they just keep repeating the same sentences...") and then, just as he mentions this, he winks, to show he's the best. Literally, he says that people are idiots and get brainwashed by cult-like fascists who repeat magical senseless sentences to convert people. This has got to be the worst single explanation I've ever heard for a phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:07:17 2017 No.10348031 >>10348024 >he says that people are idiots and get brainwashed by cult-like fascists who repeat magical senseless sentences to convert people. except is doesnt say that at all, idiot you deserve to be condescended to

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:09:54 2017 No.10348038

>>10348013
It depends what you mean by "State Capitalism". If you mean communist approach to organizing economical activities (what the USSR did, and what Mao did - but not China post Mao), then yes I'm counting it as communist.

However, seeing as some people also use it to describe how fascist regimes pumped up some companies (Germany, Italy, Japan) and discouraged free trade and competition, then State Capitalism can also define that (which is also bad and doesn't work).

Finally, it could also describe some approaches to state monopolies, which are almost always bad (some are okay, though, depending on the nature of the good).

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:19:44 2017 No.10348070

>>10348031
Re-watch the passage from 42:00 roughly to 45:47 where he talks about propaganda and its relation to how language is used. He says that fascists use speech not as a signal for truth, but as a "religious" (he doesn't say religious, but it seems to be that in effect) or as a tool to get crowds or people hyped up. He says they use language as an act. If you look at this claim, it's true - the fascists did do that (repeating "heil Hitler" for example) -, but it doesn't mean that people today do it, or that they are fascists even if they did. Most of the speeches Antifa opposes (Milo, Peterson, Sargon, and company), don't use anything like that. There's no rallying cry, and there's no empty sentences - it's all arguments and discussion (whether it's good or bad, it's another topic). However, when you look at Antifa protesters, they do use chants and repeated sentences to shut down people, and they do spam buzzwords. So, even if "fascists" did do what Olly accuses them of, Antifa would be just as guilty. However, the most baffling part is at 45:47 when he taps his nose : he says that from the act-speech, people can get indoctrinated and can understand and join fascists and fall for the propaganda. This is what I mean. It's a ridiculous claim : people don't magically get meaning from act-speech (I mean, that seems pretty contrary to what act-speech is), and they don't randomly get indoctrinating by catchy sentences de-void of meaning. That's just false. If it were true, everyone or close to it, would be an Antifa, because they too have rallying cries. And it's not because someone understands it - assuming they do - that they would agree with it. And even if all that were true, even if, then what? That still isn't an argument to stop their usage of speech. At best his ''I love you'' argument is a case to stop harassment, that's it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:30:34 2017 No.10348085

>>10348009
>>10348038
alright, with that cleared up, this seems to be the 'make as many unsubstantiated assertions as you can and then hope your opponent wont bother to deal with your crap' method of arguing
>The average Englishman was making three times as much income by Marx's death, as they did at his birth, thanks to the industrial revolution.
Not particularly relevant. Try looking at the material conditions of the working class.
>Everyplace, irrespective of the culture in which it's been tried, communism has ended in bloodbaths.
reductionist
>Early communist economies everywhere have created starvation, because not having free trade means you don't get to import goods like food, which you can't produce alone.
The starvation part may be true, but that explanation isn't very good.
>The growth of GDP in communist countries over 50 has been nearly nil, while capitalist countries boomed. (In Cuba, a microwave was a "luxury", think about that.)
over 50 whats?
>Capitalist countries developed most innovations you today use, from kitchen appliances to the internet.
irrelevant
>Revolutions didn't happen in industrialized countries, like Marx claimed.
He was wrong, but largely because capitalism innovated ways of suppressing class consciousness
>Marx's theories on value and money don't even make internal sense, and don't hold up with facts (an easily found diamond is worth a lot).
where are you finding diamonds easily? is this about artificial scarcity?
>Marx didn't understand the scientific method and claimed that testing policies (in Das Kapital) in large countries and not in smaller scale cities first was the better approach.
I don't know, darwin thought marx was pretty good
>Minimum wage is not good for anyone (just look at what it does in Seattle)
look at what in seattle
>Rent regulation leads to less supply of available houses and increases the price.
substantiated this somehow

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:47:45 2017 No.10348113

>>10348070
>Most of the speeches Antifa opposes (Milo, Peterson, Sargon, and company), don't use anything like that.
Milo definitely has
>they don't randomly get indoctrinating by catchy sentences de-void of meaning
The point is that you may find yourself having trouble logically working through a conspiracy theory with a nazi because what they really support isn't the truth of the matter so much as the spirit of the subject. Techniques like dog whistling are necessary when you advocate genocide.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 04:49:51 2017 No.10348118

>>10348085
Well sorry it's short, since I'm using greentext. I can't write an essay on 4chan.

>Not particularly relevant. Try looking at the material conditions of the working class.
How is this not relevant? I agree that their income had been near nothing, triple is also near nothing. But you have to look at the industrialization process everywhere in the world : England back in the 19th century is the same as Bangladesh today ; all countries we now know as developed went through this phase of development. And triple you worth in income is better than being a farmer, as the Englishmen mainly were at his birth, because as a farmer you are unlikely to make any profit, requiring vast amount of works to produce a surplus, which you don't even know you'll get, because farming is an uncertain process. Point is, most Englishmen lived in misery at the beginning of the 19th century, but their lives got better (still not luxurious, yes, but better) when industrialization kicked in. That's their material lives made better, if anything is.
>reductionist
How is that reductionist? Different countries, with different cultural heritage tried the same policies, and all failed. Sure, it's a simplistic way to show it, but when you apply the same policies to vastly different entities and the results are similar, then it's more than likely that the cause of those effects were the policies, since changing other variables, like culture or the population's conditions of life, didn't affect the result.
>The starvation part may be true, but that explanation isn't very good.
I'm using greentext, bear with me. Closing the country's border while it previously was reliant on imports to sustain its food needs creates starvation, especially when, simultaneously, you kill the Kulaks, who produced most of the food in the USSR. (This is still simplistic.)
>over 50 whats?
I mean years.
>irrelevant
No, it's not ; these things are precisely the material conditions of the working class you mentioned in the first point. Having kitchen appliances, or washing machines makes the daily tasks of house keeping requiring less time and effort, which means people are freer to do what they wish and like.
>He was wrong, but largely because capitalism innovated ways of suppressing class consciousness
My time to ask for more explanations.
>where are you finding diamonds easily? is this about artificial scarcity?
It's just an example to show that Marx's theory that the value (price) of a good is determined by the socially required amount of work needed to be put in the good. A diamond would be worth the same had you had taken 10 years to find it, or 1 year, because value is subjective and depends on the individual.
>I don't know, darwin thought marx was pretty good
Einstein liked socialism too, but an appeal to authority doesn't make something true or right.
>look at what in seattle
The effective salaries of the average worker. It dropped.
>substantiated this somehow
(Klein & Buturovic, 2011).

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:01:40 2017 No.10348136

>>10348113
Who advocates genocide, even? Milo? No. I don't see Ku Klux Klan rallies being raided, I see university speech being stopped.

Also, even if they are conspiracy-theorists, and not all of them all, why should that remove their right to speech? Speech can be used in numerous ways, from looking for truth, to making jokes and puns, to impress people, etc. ; the reason free speech is important is twofold. It's not only about finding truth, which is a huge part of it, yes, but it's also about person's being able to show themselves in world and develop themselves through relationships with others. This shouldn't be forbidden either. It's a huge part of life, and of good life. If you don't like a Nazi's mentality, don't speak or listen with them ; however, don't prevent themselves from speaking, unless you want to confine them to a victim narrative, and echo chambers for their own attitudes and beliefs, which will shield them from all possible change. There should be no limits on free speech, outside of harass in certain limited circumstances, and direct, concrete speech about committing realistically a defined crime. And that's all assume that speech is neatly separate in such categories, while all the time, a speech with truth as its aim is mixed in with act-speech like jokes.

If you believe, free speech would create a renaissance for fascism, then why hasn't it created one for Islam, or Christianity, or Buddhism, or religion in general?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:10:37 2017 No.10348149 >>10348136 Free speech is good but it doesn't mean I ought to think its worth giving bad faith arguments with nazis an audience or platform

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:17:17 2017 No.10348164

>>10348149
That's even assuming that those who were shut down even were Nazis. And you have to differentiate between private platforms (which you can deny if you own said platform) from universities, which are a place for free debate of ideas, even made out of bad faith (some professors are of bad faith, everywhere on the spectrum -- some of them definitely compete for citations and honours more than trying to find truth), because it's not because an idea is made out o bad faith, that it is false. The reasoning or an argument is different from the intentions of the person who said it.

And it's not you who "gives" someone a platform. People organize activities an pay for them. That's not you giving the speakers a platform, that's other people doing so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:28:36 2017 No.10348184 >>10348164 Universities are private platforms though, and regardless they have a responsibility to make value judgements about whom most deserves their platform

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:41:11 2017 No.10348205 >>10348149 who are these nazis you keep speaking of? /pol/ edgelord larpers? Trump? Hardly a real threat.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:43:04 2017 No.10348207 >>10348205 well, there's the people that ran over that woman in charlottesville with a car, killing her

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:44:42 2017 No.10348214

>>10348184
Universities are open platforms for the scientific inquiry of ideas. And no, they shouldn't make value judgments, specifically because it undermines the truth-seeking process (shielding ideas from analysis), and fosters a group-think environment, at least in appearance (chilling effect), while allowing bad ideas (those you dislike) free to prosper and with an aura of victimhood.

If by whom most deserves it, you mean in terms of efficacy or wants from the student population, sure. But not in moral or political terms. Funding should go to all sciences at a certain base level, and those who work great get additional funding. It's not normal that some studies are systematically blocked (like on the mental condition of transgender, the positive potential impacts of colonialism, etc.). As for platforms, they are paid through by the students who organize them, or given to a professor for his research, that's it. It doesn't involve, or need to involve university administration.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:47:25 2017 No.10348216

>>10348207
You realize that's a single person, who's not Milo, Peterson, Sargon, Independent Man, and cie, who are the people you actually shut down, right?

Moreover, sure there are Nazis. There's a baseline of Nazis everywhere. That doesn't mean everyone to the right of Marx or you is a Nazi. Similarly, not everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton is a communist. There are extremes everywhere, and there will always be : you can't blame other people for the actions of extremes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:50:27 2017 No.10348225 >>10348216 >who are the people you actually shut down last time I checked, I havent shut down anybody

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 05:53:27 2017 No.10348232

>>10348207
And then there are the people who intimidated that person by rounding up on his car and smashing it.

>>10348149
Giving bad arguments a platform exposes them as bad. The whole point of democracy is having people decide what's best for the society. If you make that choice for them by silencing other arguments, you're not really believing in democracy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 12:38:27 2017 No.10349345 >>10348009 >>10348118 You don't know shit about real communism, dumb fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 12:52:49 2017 No.10349397 It looks like I'm the only one who thinks Ollie is based.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 12:57:55 2017 No.10349416 >>10347995 Sometimes I wanna give small arms training to antifa members just so if a war breaks out it's significantly more entertaining

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:13:01 2017 No.10349481

>>10348070
>people don't magically get meaning from act-speech (I mean, that seems pretty contrary to what act-speech is), and they don't randomly get indoctrinating by catchy sentences de-void of meaning.
They literally do, that's the function of a meme, a chant, a talking point, a propaganda poster: an idea faster than thought. But what the guy doesn't realize is that this applies both to the left and to the right, because he's under the illusion that his side is the right one. If you look at history this has ALWAYS been the case with radical leftists, they always assume they are correct and can't be wrong, hence the continuous talking about "reorganizing the left" when they inevitably face failure. If we were to follow his line of thought we should ban radical leftist organizations as well.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:17:42 2017 No.10349503

>>10349481
Cont.
I want to clarify that personally as an Italian I have no problems with banning fascist organizations since they have the historical responsibility of having destroyed this country. Anyways, given the tendency of american liberals of labelling anything they don't like as "fascism" I can understand why one would be skeptical of these practices.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 13:50:35 2017 No.10349628 >>10348009 /leftypol/tards BTFO

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 15:05:57 2017 No.10349977

>>10348225
That's not the point ; the people you're defending, Antifa, do.

>>10349481
I mentioned this already, that Antifa also uses those tactics, and what I'm saying, on top of that, is that it's not wrong, or is it commonly used by the right-wing speakers. I'd need example of this.

>>10349503
Even actual Nazis shouldn't be banned, the whole reason Nazism and Italian fascism rose to power was because these ideas weren't given an open platform to begin with, but were subject to censorship and violent attacks (the Weimar Republic imprisoned Nazis, for example).

>>10349345
Well, them, instead of using an ad hominem coupled with a no true scotsman, could you give an argument?

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:27:46 2017 No.10350717
File: 68 KB, 549x549, 1511695691596.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10343650
>implying this looks even remotely like propaganda
There's literally an entire section where he goes
>well, if you're a pacifist, this pro-antifa argument doesn't hold water
>well, if you believe optics are important enough, this pro-antifa argument doesn't hold water
>well, if you're okay with the current social order, this pro-antifa argument doesn't hold water
and so on. He's very open to good-faith discussion, and he acknowledges that not everyone will side with antifa.

>>10343782
This isn't the greatest point in the world, but it's true. Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation. There is some nuance this quote leaves out, because it is possible to disassociate from a culture and become a "friend" of fascists, but that's much harder to do than just not dog-whistling.

>>10345657
ideachanel was pretty good, and nerdwriter is mediocre. If you want real youtube pseudointellectual slop, the Pop Culture """Detective""" is your guy.

>>10346181
>ideology = philosophy
This, but unironically. An ideology is a framework for thought, within which you can do philosophy. Anyone who tells you philosophy can "free" you from ideology is either stupid or lying. It can only let you move from one ideology to another.

>>10346746
>an intellectual pursuit which has been disproven (communism, leftist economical policies, etc.)
If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology. Hint: A lot of people would argue that the phrase "leftist economic policy" is an oxymoron.

>>10347987
Eh, he's really just recapping arguments that other people have made. I'd be more curious to see what he, personally, wants to contribute to the field.

>>10348024
He does overdo the dramatic flair sometimes, but if you look past that, his arguments are reasonable. The "repeating things" argument in particular is interesting, if you understand it.
>people say something untrue over and over
>they continue doing this even after being shown it is untrue, without greatly revising their statements
>therefore, they're not saying it because they want to have an argument about what is/isn't true
>but if they aren't interested in an argument, what do they want to do?
>the thing they're saying is highly emotionally charged
>hey, maybe that means they want an emotional response
>hey, maybe they're using appeals to emotion to make people side with them
Not much of a leap to be desu with you.

>>10348136
>Who advocates genocide, even? Milo? No. I don't see Ku Klux Klan rallies being raided, I see university speech being stopped.
The idea here is that Milo has more influence than the KKK, so he's more "damaging" (from the antifa perspective). Although he doesn't explicitly advocate genocide, he DOES repeat some of the KKK's talking points. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:35:04 2017 No.10350742 >>10350717 >Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation Affiliating with a culture is an action.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:38:05 2017 No.10350751
File: 47 KB, 239x268, 1510972184604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10350742
Is it? I was born into a white, Christian household. Was that my decision? Can I fairly be blamed/praised because I was raised to wear New Balance sneakers and believe in Jesus?

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:47:04 2017 No.10350794

>>10350717
>He's very open to good-faith discussion, and he acknowledges that not everyone will side with antifa.

I doubt he's to a good faith discussion. He mentions several times that fascism is on the rise and has morphed into a new form, and the characteristics of that new form are things which are mostly false ("toxic masculinity", "capitalism") and most of which are degree-based (you a be a little in favor or capitalism, or a lot), so even if you subscribed to all those characteristics, you still might not be a ''fascist''. And he describes Antifa as being a vague association of people, with no common grounds, except being against fascists. This is patently false. They are all left wing, and their symbol (red and black flag) illustrates this. Besides, he doesn't even mention totalitarianism as a sign of fascism (best he does is talk about authoritarianism and talks about Lenin to show you can have some of the characteristics of fascism and not be a fascist). This is a ridiculous argument : totalitarianism is the true mark of fascism, or at least one of the biggest mark of it, and the left is as guilty of it as the right. Nazis want to limit speech to their viewpoint, but so does Antifa. And saying that the Nazis are wrong, and Antifa is right from a truth standpoint (not a moral one) doesn't imply that speech should be limited, since error is part of the truth-seeking process.

>Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation

And? Even if it were true, that doesn't show someone is right. That's just claiming some people are worst. Yeah, I'd rather live under communism as a polish Jew than under Hitler, sure. Doesn't mean Stalin isn't a criminal, though. And it's not "easier" or healthier psychologically to simply lie about your beliefs or what you think is true for you to be left alone by Antifa as it would be to change culture for you to go along with Nazis. Finding the truth, and exercising your speech about your beliefs and interacting with others freely is as important, if not more, to your well being than your culture.

>If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology.

Why do you say this? A lot of Marx's idea about economics, have been disproven and shown to be false.

>Not much of a leap to be desu with you.

Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech, or speech without the intent of saying the truth doesn't only happen on the far-right, or the right, or the center : it happens all over the political spectrum, and across all individuals. Some may use it more, and I'd argue that Antifa themselves use it more than actual Nazis. Antifa protesters have chants, and phrases they continuously repeat for emotional value and propaganda, like the Nazis do. This sort of speech gets mixed in everyday dialogue (in the form of memes, inside jokes) and because it doesn't aim at truth, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:48:44 2017 No.10350800

>>10350751
You could debate whether it's conscious or not (the extent to which it is or isn't probably comes down to the individual), but affiliating with a culture entails behaving in a certain manner which has an impact on the surroundings of affiliate. I don't know what to call that if it isn't an action, and even if there may be some better way to refer to it, it's far from inconsequential.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:51:35 2017 No.10350814
File: 180 KB, 1480x838, fgag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The top comments are absolutely disgusting.
Grown men (I presume) acting like over-excited puppies, because their YT idol made an HOUR LONG video! Hell yeah comrade, bash the fash!

The progressive left will die of testosterone deficiency.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:53:42 2017 No.10350822 >>10350717 >Antifa pick their enemies based on actions; fascists pick their enemies based on cultural affiliation. That isn't true. Antifa pick their enemies on the basis of Political affiliation, just like Fascists and everybody else.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:56:41 2017 No.10350838

>>10350717
>>10350794
(cont.)

>Not much of a leap to be desu with you.

Using emotional speech is part of being a human being, and part of religious behaviour, which we are all guilty of. Chanting canticles isn't and shouldn't be illegal because it isn't aimed at truth. Same goes for Nazi speak, or Antifa speak. And like I said, it doesn't "convert" people like Olly claims when he taps his nose. People doesn't magically understand, and even if they do, they don't magically agree with what the emotional-speech tries to convey. Yeah, it is propaganda, and it's not a half bad analysis of it, but it's not only the right-wing which does this, and it goes beyond politics, and it doesn't imply it should be forbidden. It's a cheap tactic to be sure, when speaking in a rational debate, to use, but that's the whole point of having free platforms : you see who is wrong and who is right. You see who has argument, and who is using memes, and from there, you can judge on the truth of the matter. Not giving Nazis platforms, makes them go underground where they can foster in an aura of victimhood.

Also, if what Olly claimed is true, then why isn't everyone religious? Religion uses that sort of speech all the time. Therefore, it should convert a large portion of the population (religious tribunes aren't attacked, as far as I know, in western secular countries), and yet most countries don't have a majority religious population.

>The idea here is that Milo has more influence than the KKK, so he's more "damaging" (from the antifa perspective). Although he doesn't explicitly advocate genocide, he DOES repeat some of the KKK's talking points. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

The thing here is that KKK members can have some valid points. I'm pretty sure they are against the killing of innocent white babies. Does that mean that everyone who is against that, is a KKK member? No. To be a KKK member you have to share a set of beliefs with them, with a certain threshold. You can have some common beliefs, and not be a member of the KKK. If Milo shares one or two points with them, it doesn't mean he's one of them. If I recall correctly, he's even in favour of offering descendants of black slaves compensation.

Also, what kind of damage are you speaking about? If it's people getting shoked, or outraged, then it's meaningless, because it you applied the logic of preventing shoking ideas from entering public space (which is akin to blasphemy laws), then you'll end up with no speech, or speech only for the powerful, because everyone can be outraged at anything. Just look at the right-wingers Antifa protests against : they are outraged at Antifa.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 17:58:08 2017 No.10350849 >>10347799 >implying you can only have a soul if you care about hordes of third world subhumans jej

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:01:51 2017 No.10350871 >>10343675 /r/ing good YT lectures for someone with only cursory knowledge of philosophy

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:05:41 2017 No.10350898

>>10350800
Also, and you might say this is ridiculous, but you have to look at it from the perspective of an honest Nazi. Two things make a Nazi, a Nazi : the quasi-religious belief in the superiority of his race over other races (and that some races might have a detrimental impact on life in society), which is a moral standpoint, and then the scientific belief that some races are better than others, which is a factual standpoint. The second part can be attacked and disproven, but the first one never will be, because it is the Nazis' very moral essence, and it takes a lot to change that.

However, we all to a degree think like a Nazi. We all have quasi-religious moral beliefs, and you can see that at how the left is hurt morally when people speak about men and women being different ; they want equality, they morally cherish it, and they think it would be (not false, but keyword:) ugly if it wasn't the case that there was equality and that women and men were the same. It's the same belief structure as the Nazi, but applied to a different object.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:08:33 2017 No.10350913
File: 507 KB, 766x650, 21032652_912318618922842_941195713683744603_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10350794
>I doubt he's to a good faith discussion.
Do you think he's lying or deliberately misrepresenting something? He may make mistakes (I'll argue that he doesn't, at least not that I remember in this video), but mistakes can happen in a good faith discussion.

>He mentions several times that fascism is on the rise and has morphed into a new form, and the characteristics of that new form are things which are mostly false ("toxic masculinity", "capitalism") and most of which are degree-based (you a be a little in favor or capitalism, or a lot)
I think this is a place where you and him might disagree on definition. For PhilTube, the definition of fascism might be something like "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy." For you, what I'm getting is "A totalitarian right-wing government." I'd argue that his is more accurate, and we can go into that if you'd like.

>They are all left wing, and their symbol (red and black flag) illustrates this.
This is a common misconception. The original meaning of the red and black flag was a temporary union of anarchists and communists, true, but antifa isn't an organization. Anyone doing anything to stop fascism is an antifascist. Hell, I'm a right-libertarian, and you could argue that I'm doing antifascist activity right now, by clearing up misconceptions about antifa.

>Nazis want to limit speech to their viewpoint, but so does Antifa.
Sure, but Nazis want to ban much more of the political spectrum, and the logical conclusion of their worldview is genocide. Antifa, by contrast, aren't even all in agreement about limiting speech — some antifascists, myself included, think giving Milo or David Duke or whoever else a platform is fine, and the best thing to do is peaceful protest outside or near the event.

>If you honestly believe any of these things have been "disproven," you need to learn some basic terminology.
>Why do you say this? A lot of Marx's idea about economics, have been disproven and shown to be false.
Marx is wrong on a lot of minor points and technicalities, but the overall thrusts of his arguments (capitalism squeezes people's wages down, economic crisis is cyclical, labor makes things worth more, etc.) are correct, or at least controversial enough not to be conclusively wrong.

>Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech
I'm not gonna respond to this in my current post because someone else is asking me about a similar idea. I'll lump my response to you in with my response with them. (Might be a little while, since dinner is almost ready.)

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:15:09 2017 No.10350933
File: 57 KB, 500x375, 1511041490646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10350800
>affiliating with a culture entails behaving in a certain manner...
Sure, but this is a pretty complex issue. If I wear a hoodie, am I affiliating with black culture? What about when a black guy does it? Wearing a hoodie may be an action, but the extent to which it determines my cultural affiliation varies based on things out of my control.

>which has an impact on the surroundings of affiliate.
Is this impact always, or even usually, enough to deserve a violent response? Even if I were to grant you that cultural affiliation is voluntary enough to make a moral difference (I don't, but let's pretend that I do), you'd still have to show that the moral difference is drastic enough to warrant discrimination/2nd class citizenship/genocide.

>>10350822
>Antifa pick their enemies on the basis of Political affiliation.
This is true.
>just like Fascists and everybody else.
This is not true. Belonging to a culture isn't inherently political, nor is being female or a member of a minority group.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:27:09 2017 No.10350974

>>10350913
>Might be a little while, since dinner is almost ready.
It's okay, I'll response to this in the meantime (I did a cont. of my previous post too, I don't know if you saw it.)

>Do you think he's lying or deliberately misrepresenting something?

I just want to say that mistakes are fine, it doesn't affect your good will (and I think he does a lot of mistakes in his video), but I think that he's at least being willfully blind on certain topics which has the sad consequence of misrepresenting a lot of the facts. I don't think he's deliberately lying, though. However, he might be a little closed to discussion on right-wing topics (he mentioned as a rebuttal to this that he read Schmidt, but he's well-known in leftist circles already, so I'm not sure it's a good rebuttal).

>I think this is a place where you and him might disagree on definition.

This might be a good example of willful blindness or slight misrepresentation. The classic definition of fascism speaks of totalitarianism, or at least of a degree of control high enough over all strings of government and elements of society that it is totalitarian. Sure, it also involves high degree of nationalism, and other things he mentions, but, and this is important, without the control part, of the totalitarian part, it is not classical fascism, even if you have all the other elements, even overt racism. For example, the US during the slave era was very racist, but it was still not a fascist dictatorship. Russia today isn't great on freedoms, but it hasn't reached the point of fascism, since it isn't totalitarian.

And this brings me to my point : by neglecting to mention these elements, and by omitting to clearly use fascism in the common sense of the term and to not explain clearly his own definition of it, he surreptitiously lumps in the what you call "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy" with the horrors of Nazism by using the same word to describe both things, although they are different. And I think this move is even more dubious, considering that there are few states who wish today to preserve racial purity, or whose majority population wishes for that, especially not in the Western World. Most claims of racism today, I think are either false, or greatly exaggerated. Sure, there are racist people ; and there will always be, because everyone has a propensity of liking those who share traits with them, and certain people push this to a degree of racism. However, this doesn't mean that people's acts are racist, or that a statistically significant portion of them are, or that the majority of people are racist at all, or that only whites are racist, if by that standard they are.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:41:07 2017 No.10351009

>>10350913
>>10350974
(cont.)

To go back to that definition, literally most states, from European absolute monarchies, to feudal societies, to muslim sultanates, to Italian republics are fascist. That's not helpful, if everyone fits the bill of fascism, except one particular ideal liberal democracy then nothing is truly fascist ; there are many elements, like the totalitarian aspect which are found within Nazism or Italian fascism, that aren't present in all the other political systems.

>This is a common misconception

I mean, if most of the people are leftist in Antifa, and use violence justified by leftist ideologies, then I'm pretty certain that those who call themselves Antifascists are a particular are leftists and aren't simply against fascism. Here, again, it's a play on word : Antifa means ''Anti-fascist'', simply against fascism, which is something, that if taken just like this, I would be a part of. However, the ''brand'' Antifa has a sense that's different from its literal meaning, because of how the groups claiming this affiliation are. I make the same point about Antifa as Olly is making about National-Socialism ; it's not because there's socialism in the name, that they are socialists, which is true (similar thing with the democratic republic of NK), but this also goes for Antifa.

Also, just because you are right-wing are claim that you are of Antifa (or in favor of it) doesn't discredit my claim, because groups have to be evaluated statistically, and I'm pretty certain the vast majority of people who claim to be Antifa are leftist. And even if Antifa isn't an organization, people who are "in Antifa" have similar enough belief for Antifa to be considered a certain ideology. Classical liberalism isn't an organization, and yet does who claim to be classical liberals still have things in common.

>Sure, but Nazis want to ban much more of the political spectrum, and the logical conclusion of their worldview is genocide.

Certainly, but it doesn't mean communism, or left-wing policies are good, either. They might not end in genocide, but if the end bill is tens of millions of death, it's horrible enough for me.

>Marx is wrong on a lot of minor points and technicalities

He's wrong about more than technicalities. Capitalism doesn't push wages down generally, nor does it push them upwards generally. In free markets, some rare expertise that are needed, go up in value, and some common expertise which are needed go down. In effect, competition makes salaries go down or up ; and this is not capitalism, this is simply other people existing and having similar or different skills that you. And even if salaries went down, so what? It also means the prices of the goods produced go down, because the cost of producing them is lower, which means that people can afford more and better things. Simply look at the evolution of free markets : with free trade, the average person today is richer in absolute terms than anyone living in the middle age.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:47:49 2017 No.10351032

>>10350974
>>10351009
>>10350913
(cont. 2)

Today, anyone has access to ice and spices, something which back 500 years ago was rare. On top of that, anyone has the internet, kitchen appliances, reliable access to food, heat, etc. All these things make the random New Yorker rricher than Richard Lionheart. Competition and free markets are overall good things, even if sometimes, yes, they do negatively affect some people, I agree. But that's the way it is : you can't protect those people (thereby increasing the price of their produced goods, and reducing their quality) because then you act against everyone else, who would benefit from lower prices and better goods, and you can't choose to protect someone's interests, but disregard others. Free trade, overall, makes everyone better off, and lifts people out of poverty at a rate much higher than communism ever did, if it ever did.

Also, labor doesn't make things work more. If you dig a hole for 20 years to find a diamond, the consumer will buy it at the same price as a diamond that was found in 1 day, because value is subjective.

On the cyclical economic crisis, there's a lot I could say, but I feel like it'd be long and kinda off-topic, so I'll just mention that partially yes, partially no, and Marx, if he ever got it (which I think he didn't), got it for the wrong reasons. Also, they aren't necessarily bad. And the claims I made aren't controversial among 90% of the economists. If you have any other point of Marx you'd wish to debate, I'm up to it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 18:50:11 2017 No.10351037

>>10350933
Fascism isn't inherently against those groups either. It is only inherently (key word) against those groups that would harm the state as an organism.
You're arguing against a childish misrepresentation of Fascism as "Bigotry made Political" designed by people with a political interest in the destruction of actual Fascism as an ideology.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 20:55:02 2017 No.10351529
File: 179 KB, 736x680, 1510765748545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10350794
>Like I said earlier, act-speech or emotional speech, or speech without the intent of saying the truth doesn't only happen on the far-right, or the right, or the center : it happens all over the political spectrum, and across all individuals. Some may use it more . . .
>This sort of speech gets mixed in everyday dialogue (in the form of memes, inside jokes) . . .
I agree with you that act-speech isn't exclusively a fascist phenomena, but it is particularly prominent among fascists. In fact, most fascists and quasi-fascists use act-speech significantly more than any other rhetorical tool. The result is that their lectures, writings, and other media aren't actually "speech" in the sense that Liberals value (aimed at seeking the truth, open, honest, etc.). Rather, fascist media is a collection of political acts. This is what motivates antifa — they don't see someone engaging in dialog, trying to uncover the truth; they see someone engaging in acts that cause harm.

>>10350838
>Using emotional speech is part of being a human being, and part of religious behaviour, which we are all guilty of.
As I said above, act-speech isn't the problem. It's mostly- or exclusively act-based speech which antifascists view as worth protesting. Again, if some act-speech gets mixed in with some truth-seeking-speech, fine, but if it's the bulk of what you're using, then you aren't actually speaking —you're acting.

>Chanting canticles isn't and shouldn't be illegal because it isn't aimed at truth.
I agree that any anti-speech law is dumb, but I also think any anti-firearms law is dumb. If someone makes a good-faith argument, I think you should make good-faith arguments back. If someone engages in act-speech, then you should act-speak back. If someone shoots at you, you should shoot back. That's the critical distinction: non-escalation. It's about responding appropriately to different kinds of interlocutors. Nobody in antifa wants to make any kind of laws about speech (act- or otherwise) — they want to respond to speech appropriately.

>Not giving Nazis platforms, makes them go underground where they can foster in an aura of victimhood.
If a martyr falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear him, does his lack of a platform cause a political movement?

>You can have some common beliefs, and not be a member of the KKK. If Milo shares one or two points with them, it doesn't mean he's one of them.
This is true. But you have to remember that Milo isn't speaking in good faith. He doesn't always mean what he says, and he doesn't always say what he means. The thing about reparations, for example, is probably ironic, or only deployed to avoid accusations of racism. You can't just analyze the literal content of his speech. You have to look at what it does. Milo's speech doesn't have a focus on truth. It has a focus on provoking a response. It's act-speech, not Liberal truth-seeking speech.

I'll get to your newer posts in a few minutes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:01:51 2017 No.10351552 File: 98 KB, 1200x1185, DQKB1vwWkAI1zJ4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] daily reminder

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:07:41 2017 No.10351581
File: 338 KB, 900x900, 17757585_617612398433360_3104755527250083060_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10350974
>The classic definition of fascism speaks of totalitarianism, or at least of a degree of control high enough over all strings of government and elements of society that it is totalitarian.
This definition may be "classic," or commonly-used, but that doesn't make it accurate or useful. What PhilTube is describing is specifically the phenomenon that led to totalitarian government in Germany, Italy, and Japan. It's true that there are meaningful differences between these three cases, but they all had an emphasis on family, patriarchy, and preservation of hierarchy. That's why he narrows in on those three things. Totalitarianism is a part of the brew too, and he acknowledges that, but before fascism can become totalitarian, it first has to "catch on," thus the need to attack the more visible elements first.

>And this brings me to my point : by neglecting to mention these elements, and by omitting to clearly use fascism in the common sense of the term and to not explain clearly his own definition of it, he surreptitiously lumps in the what you call "A right-wing political ideology that emphasizes the patriarchal family as the unit of civilization, and seeks to organize those civilizational units to preserve both racial and economic hierarchy" with the horrors of Nazism by using the same word to describe both things, although they are different.
Are they different? If so, I'd hope you'd concede that the first was an important cause of the second. Hitler's rise to power was enabled by his racist/sexist populism, so, if nothing else, quashing racist/sexist populism is a good preventative measure, even if it doesn't make the country 100% fascism-proof.

>Most claims of racism today, I think are either false, or greatly exaggerated.
>This doesn't mean that people's acts are racist, or that a statistically significant portion of them are, or that the majority of people are racist at all, or that only whites are racist, if by that standard they are.
This is another definition problem. PhilTube's basic definition of racism is "stuff that harms minority races disproportionately," so for him, even though there aren't Jim Crow laws on the books or men burning crosses in anyone's back yard, society is still racist because it gives harsher criminal sentences to black men than white men. It's not really an accusation, more of a diagnosis.

>>10351032
>Today, anyone has access to ice and spices, something which back 500 years ago was rare. On top of that, anyone has the internet, kitchen appliances, reliable access to food, heat, etc. All these things make the random New Yorker richer than Richard Lionheart.
I don't know if you can attribute all these things to capitalism —it's more just technological progress. That said, I agree that a less regulated economy is a good thing, and I am a capitalist, so I'm not really gonna push back too much here.

More tidbits about Marx soon.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:16:43 2017 No.10351611
File: 57 KB, 960x806, 17903758_1440008832687625_9171254090962588993_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10351032
(same guy from >>10351581 here)
>Also, labor doesn't make things worth more. If you dig a hole for 20 years to find a diamond, the consumer will buy it at the same price as a diamond that was found in 1 day, because value is subjective.
There's a lot more to the Labor Theory of Value than that, and I'm honestly a bit fuzzy on some of the details myself, but I remember that Marx was smart enough to amortize things. Most textbooks phrase it something like: "A thing is worth the average amount of material plus the average amount of labor it would take to produce under normal circumstances." I think that would handle your objection, since both diamonds would be worth as much as a diamond found in the average diamond-finding time (whatever that is).

>value is subjective.
This is a pretty hot controversy, and your position is defensible, but a lot of contemporary economists like talking about "market value" (what people will pay for things), and leaving "value" (what things are actually worth) to the philosophers. I think this is a useful distinction.

>On the cyclical economic crisis, there's a lot I could say, but I feel like it'd be long and kinda off-topic, so I'll just mention that partially yes, partially no, and Marx, if he ever got it (which I think he didn't), got it for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, this conversation is drifting in all kinds of directions. I think Marx's model (wages continuously squeezed down = concentration of wealth = average worker's buying power is reduced = crisis) explains a lot, and Henry Ford agrees, which is why he made it a policy to overpay his workers, but there's plenty of other angles you could take this (market value not corresponding to actual value, boom/bust cycles, etc.). There's probably some truth in all of these explanations.

Good talking to you, man. Gotta appreciate a solid internet discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:25:25 2017 No.10351638 >>10347995 Damigo was an Iraqi vet and did time in prison lmao. You clearly don't know shit about fighting.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:42:57 2017 No.10351701

>>10351529
>but it is particularly prominent among fascists
About the classic fascists I described, sure. But even then, all their speech weren't simply act-speech. They had talking points that were set at truth-seeking, but this approach was corrupted by moral collapse : because they held moral beliefs about races, they were determined match truth with those beliefs, regardless of whether what the reality is on races. And even if what they did and what current fascist do is 100% act-speech, it doesn't imply that it's wrong or that it should be forbidden, or that the methods used to oppose it (those used by Antifa) are correct or legitimate. And what harm do they do, if they don't harass or use it to send threats of committing crimes, which they don't? If it's psychological harm, then I don't consider that real harm : toughen up is all I can say. People need to be able to handle all kind of ideas, it's the mark of a mature mind. If you can't face other ideas, different ideas, and can't oppose them, then the problem lies more on you, and on those expressing those ideas.

>they want to respond to speech appropriately

This is lex talionis false equivalency. If I rape someone, do I deserve to get raped? If I do tax fraud, what do I deserve? It's an inherently problematic idea. It's not because some uses act-speech that the way to counter it is more act-speech. Also, even it if it, it's not exclusively what the members of Antifa are doing : they are doing act-speech + protest disrupting events to counter act-speech. That's far from being equivalent, and on top of it, some members, like Olly mentioned, engage in clear acts of violence. to counter speech. That's not proportional either.

>Not giving Nazis platforms, makes them go underground where they can foster in an aura of victimhood.

It's not because you deny them a platform, that they don't have another one, underground. The whole idea is that if you deny them public platform, and you prevent their ideas from being publicly dismantled, they'll get shielded from criticism by victimhood and they'll foster on other platforms (where there are people).

>But you have to remember that Milo isn't speaking in good faith

You cannot prove that. He might be sensationalist, but some people are, and it's not ban or blameworthy. If you always try to look at the intentions of the speaker to dismiss his ideas, then it is you who isn't of good faith : you don't assess the ideas as they are. And even if he was of bad faith and a total scum, he should still be allowed to speak, because ideas are dissociate from the intentions of the speaker : a proof, an idea is true independently of the intentions of the person who says it. And, like I mentioned, even if his speech is 100% dishonest act-speech, it's not an argument to prevent him from speaking, or from disrupting private events set-up by other people to hear him speak. Would it be right to disrupt a Church prayer because it's 100% act-speech?

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:47:02 2017 No.10351715

>>10343650
> stands by his bookshelf in order to bolster his credibility
> constant eye-rolls whilst making appeals to emotion
> m-m-mby any m-m-means n-n-necessary

This chubby little shit should start by protesting cheeseburgers before protesting fascism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:52:57 2017 No.10351738 >>10347995 He didn't "sucker punch" that girl. She was clearly squaring up to fight him, he just got the first hit in.

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 21:59:06 2017 No.10351762

>>10351581
>>10351701

Yes, they are different. Monarchists and traditionalists strongly opposed Hitler. Same with the catholics. They aren't the cause of Hitler's rise to power. Sure, racism played a role, but not a definitive role. Japanese fascism, and Italian fascism were much less racist. Same with Greek proto-fascism, who was welcoming of other cultures, although recognizing the superiority of Greek culture. Also, why sexism? Women in Germany had similar status as they had in France or the UK, and neither France nor the UK became fascists.

And it's not a good preventative measure either. If any right-wing policies lead to fascism, any left-wing policies lead to communism. So what? Stop all form of politics? Lots of right-wing government never became fascist. What pushed people towards fascism is resentment, poor conditions of life and oppression. Racism was an excuse, at least at the beginning.

>stuff that harms minority races disproportionately

The question is not what harms them, it is why. If the cause lies within them, then it's not racism. It depends on the causes, whether they are legitimate or not. Sure, they get harsher sentences, and racism might explain a part of it, but not the whole : out-of-court deals, repeated offenses, behavior in court, quality of the defense lawyer are all factors which also play a role in it.

>it's more just technological progress.

For technological progress, there needs to be an environment that favours incentives for developing such technology and for innovating. This environment is free trade/capitalism, because it promises monetary rewards for worthwhile inventions that the population wants. It's why all the electrionics, like microwaves were made in the US, not the USSR. Also, if you're talking about scientific theoretical progress, then sure, it's not linked to capitalism, but applied progress is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 22:03:05 2017 No.10351772 >>10351638 HAHA I'm sure his tiny 120 lb ass did a lot of "fighting" when he was cornered by jamal and hernando in the showers. My point still stands. You fucking moron do you even think before you post?

Anonymous Sun Dec 3 22:03:27 2017 No.10351774

>>10351611

> thing is worth the average amount of material plus the average amount of labor it would take to produce under normal circumstances

So, to get a piece of rock 20 KM underground would be worth something? That's just not the case though, because no one values a piece of rock 20 KM underground, even if you can't find it 20 KM underground. Besides, why would say emeralds be worth less than diamonds, if they had the same amount or average amount of production put into them? The subjective value theory really isn't controversial.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 3 22:14:13 2017 No.10351819 >>10351529 I made a lot of typos in my text, and made lots of poor sentences, sorry. Happens often when I write stuff. Please try to mentally correct it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 00:44:47 2017 No.10352402 >>10351638 Who's Damigo?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 02:22:23 2017 No.10352686 >>10348149 >everyone I dont like is an ebul nahtsee

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:27:08 2017 No.10352889 every now and then I forget that /lit/ is on 4chan and 4chan is filled with halfretards who think that nazis got into power because people supressed freeze peach and then a thread like this comes along and reminds me of it

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:30:36 2017 No.10352906 >>10352889 It's one of the factors, not the only one. An event, especially of historical nature, can have multiple causes. It helped the Nazis, but it doesn't mean the treaty of Versailles didn't play a role.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:34:05 2017 No.10352919 >>10352906 it's an unimportant factor something like slapping a dying man

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:39:30 2017 No.10352933

>>10352919
In reality, if you were being honest, you'd claim that you wouldn't know the extent to which it played a role. However, claiming it did nothing is disregarding the facts : the Nazis had a long history of using their victimhood as a moral highground, using all Nazis that were imprisoned for propagating their ideas as martyrs. Having it played a role, which is probably partially significant is enough to take down the example of the Nazis rise to power as a justification for limitations on free speech, is enough to make a case for total free speech.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:41:44 2017 No.10352939 >>10352889 I often forget that some of this site's users are fullretrads who sincerely use terms like "freeze speech."

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:43:49 2017 No.10352943

>>10352933
>In reality, if you were being honest, you'd claim that you wouldn't know the extent to which it played a role.
in reality, you claimed it played a role and didn't say how large fo a role - because ypou don't know
you imagine this as honeasty but it's actually a lie by omission
you don't know how large a role it played but you still mentioned it and enterd it into the discussion not because you're theorizing like some "hey I'm really interested in why nazis came into power!" guy, you're pushing a parallel to today with the altright's "support" for free speech (support in inverted commas because realistically they don't want free speech, they want people to not react negatively to theri speech)

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:44:51 2017 No.10352950 >>10352939 good thing I didn't use that term then

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:48:13 2017 No.10352963

>>10352933
>Having it played a role, which is probably partially significant is enough to take down the example of the Nazis rise to power as a justification for limitations on free speech, is enough to make a case for total free speech.
Also enough to make a case for the expulsion of Jews from European countries. After all, their presence also played a role.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:51:23 2017 No.10352970 >>10352950 You're just as snarky as every retard who regurgitates leftist meme speak. Are you the same guy who goes on about "empathy" in every thread relating to politics?

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:54:03 2017 No.10352981

>>10352970
you said that I said something I didn't say and called me a retard and now you're bitching about a snarky reply, was I supposed to work the shaft and cup the balls
>Are you the same guy who goes on about "empathy" in every thread relating to politics?
I come here once a week so no

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:55:28 2017 No.10352986

The problem with "antifascists" is that they tend to be really bad a recognizing actual fascism. Anyone genuinely committed to "opposing fascism by any means necessary" would not waste their time getting in fistfights with fringe white nationalist groups. They'd be blowing up police stations or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:56:42 2017 No.10352989 >>10352963 Well, the thing is that doing such a measure would be enforcing Nazi ideals, which is something we're, presumably, trying to avoid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:57:00 2017 No.10352990 >>10351762 >any left-wing policies lead to communism If only

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 03:59:12 2017 No.10352995 >>10352989 No, expulsion is humane transfer, Nazis wanted genocide.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:00:27 2017 No.10352998

>>10352943
I'm not an alt-right. And no, I don't know the extent to which it played a role, nor do I know the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles played a role, because I don't have alternative universes I could run separate historical timelines on with tweaked variables to isolate each and everyone of them to judge of their exact influence in the Nazi's rise to power. However, does that mean that we can't see that the Treaty of Versailles played, at least in appearance, a large role in their rise to power with being able to exactly pinpoint to which extent in %? No. We can still say that it played a large role, because of how the Nazis and the German population viewed it, and how it played into the German resentment. I'm claiming essentially the same thing here, but with free speech.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:01:19 2017 No.10353000 >>10351529 All speech is "act-speech" silly

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:01:37 2017 No.10353003

>>10352981
>you said that I said something I didn't say and called me a retard and now you're bitching about a snarky reply, was I supposed to work the shaft and cup the balls
It's hard not to bitch when you see the a far type of person that's made the internet and society as a whole a far worse place. You bring down the quality of not only this board but every place you happen to be, and your snarky attitude is part of that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:02:07 2017 No.10353006 >>10352995 Nazis wanted expulsion first (Madagascar plan) and when it seemed unlikely to happen, they resorted to genocide. Nazis wanted a pure people ; getting rid of Jews, either by genocide or expulsion, is enforcing Nazi policies.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:09:04 2017 No.10353023

Institutional racism is a weird idea. It basically says, "this bad thing is extra bad because it affects people differently based on race." As though it would be better if it affected all races equally. The concept of institutional racism allows you to criticize oppressive institutions without having to make the radical move of advocating their complete destruction.

"Radical" antiracism is just neoliberalism in disguise. This is also the case with "radical" feminism and with some (but not all) anti-imperialism.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:10:02 2017 No.10353026

>>10352998
>I'm claiming essentially the same thing here, but with free speech.
except it doesn't work that way
you're saying that because t. of V. was important in the rise of nazis that the free speech issue was also important
that doesn't logically follow, you're making a big leap
IMO material issues (bread on the table) are always more important

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:22:25 2017 No.10353062

>>10353026
I'm not saying that because T. of V. was important that free speech also was. I'm saying that the same way we know the T. of V. was important, we can know free speech was important. For proof of this, you can lots of early speeches by Nazis claiming being oppressed by elites (Jewish) who want their discussions shut down, because they would contribute to loss of Jewish power. They had examples for this : Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher. Steicher is an interesting case because he ran a newpaper and he served multiple jail sentences and his newspaper was heavily censored because of hate speech. The thing is, the more censored he was, and the more time he spent in jail, the more people got interested in it, and the more he and his ideas were famous. Literally a nobody, he achieved great fame because of his first prison sentence, and subsequent censorship of his newspaper, which was a key early element for spreading Nazi ideology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:24:39 2017 No.10353072 >>10353062 >>10353026 All of the names I mentioned, BTW, got jail time for hate speech and used that as a platform and talking point and proof of the validity of their ideas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:30:15 2017 No.10353085 >>10353062 >>10353072 and nobody would have given a shit if the economic situation wasn't so dire

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:34:24 2017 No.10353095

>>10351774
Not him, but Marx distinguishes between value (which is just average labor time) and price, which generally reflects value, but is also influenced by other factors. Brand name clothing is a good example of a commodity with a price that does not reflect its value in the Marxian sense.

Material has no value on its own in Marxist economics, which seems counterintuitive, but makes sense when you realize that the value of a certain amount of material is usually just the value of the labor necessary to gather that material. But as a result, Marx has trouble explaining the value of land. I don't have a great grasp on how Marxist economics deals with this. Maybe land is just a special case.

Also, I should note that for Marx, value is only value if it's realized in exchange. So if you don't produce something people want, the value of the labor will never be realized as exchange value.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:34:36 2017 No.10353097 >>10353085 And yet you see plenty of poor countries without fascism.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:36:33 2017 No.10353102

>>10353085
Thanks for illustrating this point to the uneducated.
Was kinda afraid at "And no, I don't know the extent to which it played a role, nor do I know the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles played a role, because I don't have alternative universes I could run separate historical timelines" that you were going to give him the option to couter a perfectly valid statement.
The T. o. V. played a huge role, everything came together at the right time for this to happen, clammering at one point is blatantly stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:36:56 2017 No.10353103 >>10353085 Things can have multiple causes, they don't all reduce and collapse into a single cause.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:43:43 2017 No.10353111

>>10353097
Holy shit you're dense.
There is a difference between being poor -/- becoming poor.
You can literally see the right wing partys in Europe gaining a huge increase of followers, as their living standards are being challanged.
Also once again, not one thing helped the nazis to power, it's the multitude of different parts which had to be fullfilled for it to work. You are trying to solve a puzzle, treating 1 piece as the whole puzzle.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:43:56 2017 No.10353112

>>10353103
the fact that a thing can have multiple causes doesn't mean that the banning of nazis IS one of those causes and it doesn't mean that every cause is equally important
that's what you keep missing here, nonje of what you've written has shown that banning nazis is a cause or an important one, all you've given is some weird logic that because they used it in their propaganda it was important

>>10353097
which doesn't mean anything
they may have a different history, different culture, or a different (more or less) authoritarian system instead of european-style fascism or a million other things

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:47:22 2017 No.10353121

>>10353111
US depression era didn't see a rise in fascism to the extent that Germany did. Same with post 1871 France. Populism, sure. Fascism, no. And I'm literally the one claiming that there are multiple causes contributing to the rise of fascism, not just one. Poverty, was PART of it, but so was Versailles and hate speech laws.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 04:50:53 2017 No.10353127

>>10353112
I gave you an example, I mean three examples. The main journal of the party (Der Sturmer) rose up in popularity, as its leader was being prosecuted for hate speech. It's not weird logic, these are facts. People bought the Nazis talking points, and one of those was being victims of hate speech. If people bought it, it's a sign it was a relevant factor.

And it's exactly what I mean : poverty is a cause, though the only one. Another one being hate speech laws.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 05:05:11 2017 No.10353147

>>10353121
the unemployment rate in germany in 1932 reached 30%
it was like 20% at its highest point int he US during the depression
and you're forgetting it got FDR elected, because he offered a vision of a better tomorrow, the same thing hitler did

>>10353127
I read that, googled and the only thing I found mentioning it was a newyorker interview with a Dane, who didn't mention his sources other than saying "I researched"
I get what you're saying - let them say what they want, arresting them makes them into martyrs - but it's a world view I'm very suspicious of because its premise is that people are resistant to propaganda

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 05:17:04 2017 No.10353162

>>10353147
Well, yeah I agree that the US was different than Germany, I'm just saying it to illustrate that it was one cause among others.

I'll find you a better source on this if you want, if not, I can drop it for the sake of argument, because the imprisonment of Nazi leaders I think was enough to show this.

I can understand you're suspicious of this, but although people don't reason perfectly all the time, they do reason well enough to see links and patterns, even if false ones (this doesn't make them immune to propaganda, to the contrary). This means that for propaganda to work, it has to have at least a seemingly "apparent" basis on "facts" even if very loosely, and hate speech laws offer that basis through martyrdom. However, if you let ideas get scrutinized in public view, in the open market of ideas, this removes any and all martyrdom claim, as well as giving as allowing new ideas to enter the game an for old ones to test their strength and for all ideas to be verified and counterverified.

I mean, even if you disagree with this, I think the argument that free speech allows for fascism to prosper is at least not verified empirically, given that the primary example of the rise of fascism, the Weimar Republic, had hate speech laws that were enforced.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 05:23:02 2017 No.10353170

>>10353162
>I mean, even if you disagree with this, I think the argument that free speech allows for fascism to prosper is at least not verified empirically, given that the primary example of the rise of fascism, the Weimar Republic, had hate speech laws that were enforced.
if they had been enforced, der sturmer would not have existed
I mean you see how this is funny, der sturmer actually defended itself by saying it was racist
>Streicher argued that his accusations were based on race, not religion, and that his communications were political speech, and therefore protected by the German constitution.
these hate speech laws were obviously dodgy

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 05:27:52 2017 No.10353181 >>10353170 Problem is, that they were enforced. More than 200 Nazi party members served jail time, Streicher included, twice for him. He got sentenced for what it said, for hate speech.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 08:27:20 2017 No.10353539 File: 264 KB, 400x400, 1444377453848.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Yeah, after listen almost all that i watched this... It really doesnt match my conclusion lel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-lG6eMj1kg

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 08:33:32 2017 No.10353552 >>10353539 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBv6qcGb9A Im pretty late to the party but those are funny..

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 08:40:10 2017 No.10353572

41:30
>Fascists marched peacefully trough London to demonstrate their numbers and support in a legal and organized demonstration and the antifascists fought to stop their march and when the police defended the fascists freedom of expression by fighting the violent antifascists they showed that fascism is always violent.
What the fuck is with this delusion?
He tries to spin it as if policemen were in favour of fascism when they were only trying to maintain order in a public and legal demonstration.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 09:10:00 2017 No.10353644

The idea that there is a point in discussing *amateur home made series on a free video hosting site* as if it is a real deal, this idea itself shows that you all are underage and damaged.

Everyone says traditional media approach is inadequate and vulgarizing, but most suddenly stopped caring that *Youtubers* are fucking mass rapists compared to that. When you see some idiots in lab coats abusing pyrotechnics for vaguely imagined “science” on TV, you are most likely aware that it is the lowest tier of entertainment. Consumer of ubiquitous Web 2.0 mediocrity doesn't even understand its laxness.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 10:38:24 2017 No.10353877
File: 120 KB, 525x336, 22851927_540295856329543_8905612102106833731_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10351701
>But even then, all their speech weren't simply act-speech. They had talking points that were set at truth-seeking,
Of course, but their speech is mostly act-speech, by a pretty solid margin, which means we should treat their organization primarily as an act, rather than as speech.

>And even if what they did and what current fascist do is 100% act-speech, it doesn't imply that it's wrong . . . or that the methods used to oppose it (those used by Antifa) are correct or legitimate.
If I threaten you, and you shoot me, that's self-defense. Same applies here, except the threat is implied rather than stated outright.

>And what harm do they do, if they don't harass or use it to send threats of committing crimes, which they don't?
The harm comes from what they're doing — they're organizing a fascist movement. We agree that's bad, right?

>If I rape someone, do I deserve to get raped?
No, but they would be within their rights to act in self-defense. If someone tried (or even threatened) to rape me, I'd shoot them, and I'd be right to do so.

>[Antifa] are doing act-speech + protest disrupting events to counter act-speech.
The reason act-speech is used as a concept here is because act-speech describes actions, not speech. Again, if someone threatens me, and I respond to that threat with violence, I'm not in the wrong.

>If you deny [Nazis] a public platform, and you prevent their ideas from being publicly dismantled, they'll get shielded from criticism by victimhood and they'll foster on other platforms (where there are people).
This might be a problem with your understanding of how people come to believe certain things. A lot of stuff other than reason (the mere-exposure effect, the extent to which political narratives explain peoples' own hardships, even simple pandering) plays a role. The harder it is for a movement to organize publicly, the harder it is for that movement to gain mainstream traction. "Underground" organization is much less likely to draw in the average Joe, which is really all antifa cares about. Nobody's naive enough to think we'll ever totally eliminate fascism; it's more about containment.

>[Milo] might be sensationalist, but some people are, and it's not ban or blameworthy.
Sensationalism = caring more about presentation than the truth = not engaging in good-faith dialog. I agree that he should be allowed to speak, as an entertainer, but the notion that he's somehow engaging in deep discussion is laughable.

>If you always try to look at the intentions of the speaker to dismiss his ideas, then it is you who isn't of good faith : you don't assess the ideas as they are.
The ideas as they are have already been addressed, several times. He's wrong. In fact, he doesn't make much of an effort to be right. His articles and talks are all 90% clickbait-y assertions and 10% cherrypicked sources. That's not the way someone would write or speak if they cared about advancing any kind of conversation.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 10:49:37 2017 No.10353911
File: 144 KB, 960x898, 19143945_1270048106425876_3176170578464998384_o.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10351762
>Monarchists and traditionalists strongly opposed Hitler. Same with the catholics.
Sure, monarchists and traditionalists are obviously not fascists, but they also don't get much attention from antifa. That's where your point about totalitarianism stands — non-fascists tend not to propose the elimination of races and political opposition, so they're not really worth getting into street-fights over.

>Japanese fascism, and Italian fascism were much less racist. Same with Greek proto-fascism, who was welcoming of other cultures, although recognizing the superiority of Greek culture.
Right, but all these examples still emphasized tight ties between family and state, and had nontrivial amounts of xenophobia. A lack of gas chambers doesn't imply an egalitarian society.

>If any right-wing policies lead to fascism, any left-wing policies lead to communism. So what? Stop all form of politics?
This isn't the argument. What antifa members do is deplatform clearly-fascist speakers. Conservative economists are fine. Catholics are fine. Anyone who doesn't call for fascism is fine. It's anti-fascism, not anti-right-wing-anything.

>If the cause lies within them, then it's not racism. It depends on the causes, whether they are legitimate or not. Sure, they get harsher sentences, and racism might explain a part of it, but not the whole : out-of-court deals, repeated offenses, behavior in court, quality of the defense lawyer are all factors which also play a role in it.
Of course, and nobody knows how much each of these things plays a role, but lets look at a cleaner example: resumés. In a study (citation — http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)), black-sounding names were less likely to get called back for job interviews when sending out resumés out by mail. This study has been repeated with similar results (although a recent outlier had no statistically significant difference). A survey of many such studies that two identical resumés, one with a black name and one with a white name, would be treated differently, merely on the basis of race. That's racism, even if it isn't intentional or malicious.

>For technological progress, there needs to be an environment that favours incentives for developing such technology and for innovating.
I'd argue that a university environment is better for scientific progress than a market environment, because it eliminates pressures to monetize half-finished work.

>So, to get a piece of rock 20 KM underground would be worth something?
Only if that rock is special, and can't be found closer to the surface, a la coal.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 10:59:42 2017 No.10353955
File: 133 KB, 1024x576, 1505246515740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10353000
Sure, but if I sit around all day and masturbate, that's not a violent act. Likewise, if I sit around all day and chant "two plus two is four, minus one that's three, quick maths," that's not violent act-speech. By contrast, if I enlist in a fascist militia, that's a violent act. If I run around in public repeating fascist talking points, that's violent act-speech.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 11:10:44 2017 No.10354002 >>10349416 You could donate to these guys, I have; https://www.redneckrevolt.org/about

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 11:12:22 2017 No.10354014

>>10349977
> the whole reason Nazism and Italian fascism rose to power was because these ideas weren't given an open platform to begin with, but were subject to censorship and violent attacks (the Weimar Republic imprisoned Nazis, for example)
[citation needed]

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 11:14:16 2017 No.10354021

>>10353955
It's only violent in a conception of that idea which serves maximize the social control of the left. By those standards any reasonable non leftist should find the performance of punk music and the teaching of leftist academic to also be hostile to them.

You also keep bringing up the notion of discussion in good faith. This is impossible with a post Foucault left as their every conscious action exists to maximize their power.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:05:03 2017 No.10354917 >>10353572 Exactly, couldn't be further from the truth.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:07:42 2017 No.10354928
File: 300 KB, 640x1136, 15995193_1824802854426870_5825580694243286151_o.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10354021
>It's only violent in a conception of that idea which serves maximize the social control of the left.
The notion that fascism only counts as "violent" to leftists is absurd. Like I said in an earlier post, I'm pretty far on the right, but I still recognize that fascism, as an ideology, operates differently from Liberal (read: American mainstream political, both left and right) ideology, and is violent in a way that Liberal ideology is not. There's plenty of non-leftist Liberals who are anti-fascist.

Likewise, asserting that antifa wants "social control," or control of any kind, is flat-out wrong. Many anti-fascists are anarchists, who believe any kind of control one person has over another is wrong. Many others are like me, and think free speech is important, as long as it's actual speech, and not intimidation. I'll grant that there are some tankies (authoritarian communists) in local antifa chapters, but they're hardly the majority, and even most of them don't want social control, just the redistribution of wealth.

>By those standards any reasonable non leftist should find the performance of punk music and the teaching of leftist academic to also be hostile to them.
This goes back to the good faith distinction, but most "leftist academics" don't fall under the umbrella of act-speech. They're interested in honest, open dialog about thinkers like Marx.

To your credit, Punk Rock definitely counts as act-speech, but we have to go back to our example of sitting around wanking versus joining a militia. A lot of art is much closer to the masturbatory end of the spectrum, and even among the more overtly political performances, very few concerts rally people the way fascist speeches do. That said, I would understand violently breaking up a concert (regardless of genre) if the musicians were trying to start a riot, race- or otherwise. It's all about assessing the threat.

>You also keep bringing up the notion of discussion in good faith. This is impossible with a post Foucault left as their every conscious action exists to maximize their power.
This simply isn't true. Many post-Foucault leftists try to minimize total power. The bald boy himself explicitly advocated for a mass relinquishing of power, at least as far as everyone could. If anything, Michel made many bad leftists aware that they were grabbing for power, and told them to knock it off.

Besides, if we go by your thinking, all conversation is all about power-grabbing always, so the only thing anyone can or should do is propagandize. That seems a bit extreme to me.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:43:18 2017 No.10355063

>>10354928
>The notion that fascism only counts as "violent" to leftists is absurd. Like I said in an earlier post, I'm pretty far on the right, but I still recognize that fascism, as an ideology, operates differently from Liberal (read: American mainstream political, both left and right) ideology, and is violent in a way that Liberal ideology is not. There's plenty of non-leftist Liberals who are anti-fascist
The conceptions used to to justify such actions arose from left wing discourse. Whoever else decided to appropriate it is none of my concern. If anything, those ideologies are just being pushed towards the left by adopting such ideas. I also doubt you're being truthful about your political affiliation, but that doesn't really matter much in this conversation.
>Likewise, asserting that antifa wants "social control," or control of any kind, is flat-out wrong. Many anti-fascists are anarchists, who believe any kind of control one person has over another is wrong
Their primary activity is a form of social control. No matter what their ideals are, their current set of operations are about maintaining a form of dominance over over the culture as a whole. I'm also not so confident that anarchists would be so against social control when they're in the position to call the shots, no matter what Emma Goldman might have claimed. As far as Ideologies go, anarchism is a unique threat, and needs to be completely removed from any civil society. There is no there is only your coexistence with anarchists. The result of such tolerance is your inevitable demise.
>This goes back to the good faith distinction, but most "leftist academics" don't fall under the umbrella of act-speech. They're interested in honest, open dialog about thinkers like Marx.
I'd have to disagree. Academia is the foremost institution of of social control, and academics are typically very intelligent people. They fully understand the power of their position and wield it without mercy. To believe that honest, open dialog is possible with them is naive.
(1/2)

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:47:38 2017 No.10355079

>>10353877
>>10353911
>We agree that's bad, right?

I don't think it is bad per se, even if they were fascists or actual Nazis (unless they claimed they wanted or had a plan to commit crimes and were harassing people). What's bad is Nazi policies, not the Nazis themselves, as beings.

>On speech-act

I think there's nothing I can add ; all I can do is reiterate that speech-act is still a form of speech that has for goal action, and that it's not wrong, nor should it be treated as an actual physical action, because it's not. Also, I can say restate the false equivalency problem. If Nazis, actual Nazis, rent a theater to do their speech and Antifa protest them, they aren't doing what the Nazis are doing, they're doing more.

>This might be a problem with your understanding of how people come to believe certain things.

That's just not true. Look at the Weimar Republic : it condemned hate speech, and a lot of Nazis went to jail for it, and yet, the Nazis rose to power, despite that, or should I say, in part, because of it. Moreover, look at resistance movements during WWII : completely underground, and yet, despite the Nazis best efforts, they prospered. Poland had an underground government with courts.

>he's somehow engaging in deep discussion is laughable.

I agree.

>they also don't get much attention from antifa

Sure, monarchists might not, but conservatives do. Conservatives get shouted down all the time, like Charles Murray or Jordan Peterson.

>Right, but all these examples still emphasized tight ties between family and state, and had nontrivial amounts of xenophobia.

Xenophobia =/= full on institutional racism, however. That's my whole point. Italy and especially Japan were fascist, and yet weren't on board with the Nazi version of racism, which shows I think the inadequacy of your definition, as it only fits the bill for Nazism. Greece was pretty hospitable, to be honest ; it had synagogues and protected Jews.

>résumés

On this topic, there is probably a bit of racism, but we don't exactly know that, and to which extent. A number of variables haven't been accounted for, like nepotism (this one has been a little and doesn't explain everything, true), or the fact that these studies mostly use poor-black sounding names and rich-sounding white names, which means that the effect could be do not to racism, but to the fact that the names used are an indication of social class, and it is this cue that alerts employers, or it could be the time they take to review résumés, or the order in which they do (they might look at the white one first, thinking it's good enough, and then dismissing any résumés coming after it that aren't a lot better).

>I'd argue that a university environment is better for scientific progress than a market environment

This is true only for theoretical advances, not practical ones, as practical ones have a financial incentives to get made. And they don't get half-made (the patent system isn't perfect, though).

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:49:08 2017 No.10355087

>>10353911
>>10355079

>Only if that rock is special, and can't be found closer to the surface, a la coal.

Well, the rock that you found 10KM down is unique : it's the only world in the world like that. Even if it were coal, it wouldn't account for the amount of work put into it. And you say only if it's special, but what makes it special? It's only special if we care about it, otherwise it isn't.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:53:44 2017 No.10355119

>>10343782
Do people still think the fascism that existed pre-1945 really has any connections to todays hooliganism? The only thing that is even close is that both use the same imagery, which is only a superficial connection these modern "fascists" use to legitimize themselves. They do not have the discipline facism had, nor the political organization, nor the leadership. They are so-called chauvinists that do not realized they are spayed dogs. I roll my eyes whenever I see the fascist boogeyman being played up by opposition parties, as if the phantom of the 20th century could materialize once again before our very eyes, when in reality he is a rotting corpse.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 15:55:37 2017 No.10355128

>>10354014
The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose
Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor, Randall Bytwerk
The trouble with religious hatred laws: religion and their followers should receive no special protection from spoken hostility, Edwards Steve.

Just do a quick search, friend.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 16:01:42 2017 No.10355158

>>10354928
(2/2)
>To your credit, Punk Rock definitely counts as act-speech, but we have to go back to our example of sitting around wanking versus joining a militia. A lot of art is much closer to the masturbatory end of the spectrum, and even among the more overtly political performances, very few concerts rally people the way fascist speeches do. That said, I would understand violently breaking up a concert (regardless of genre) if the musicians were trying to start a riot, race- or otherwise. It's all about assessing the threat.
Punk concerts are closer to militia meetings than than jerking off. They serve no other purpose than the radicalization of youth, the propagation of anarchist ideas, and encouragement of violent behavior. A hardcore show is a training camp for leftist terrorism. Fortunately the left is so overwhelming dominant that they don't have to resort to terrorism by and large, but their ranks are prepared. It wasn't uncommon for punk shows in the 80s to turn into riots, and at their best they were little more than contained riots anyway.
>This simply isn't true. Many post-Foucault leftists try to minimize total power. The bald boy himself explicitly advocated for a mass relinquishing of power, at least as far as everyone could. If anything, Michel made many bad leftists aware that they were grabbing for power, and told them to knock it off.
My issue isn't with the man himself but with how his ideas have been utilized by intellectuals in the Anglo world. I do believe he genuinely disliked the systems of control he spoke about. But many have either used their ideas to maximize their own power or advocate positions that require new systems of control even if they aren't explicitly stated (e. g. Butler).
>Besides, if we go by your thinking, all conversation is all about power-grabbing always, so the only thing anyone can or should do is propagandize. That seems a bit extreme to me.
Not really there's an observable patter of leftists alterations to the discourse that sere the purpose of dominating it. Whether it's centering the discussions around oppressed/oppressor dichotomies or taking exclusive control of pejoratives (only white people can be racist, etc.), they inject the language with terminology that presupposes their conclusions. Honest discussion isn't possible with them because they're attempting to turn the discourse itself as a means of propaganda. This behavior is almost exclusive to the left.

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 16:08:25 2017 No.10355197

>>10343924
>green texting 'when you...'
fuck of back to r/the_donald

>>10355119
fascists were always hooligans, this romanticized image of them as this well oiled killing machine, totally dedicated to their ideals is just some bullshit trying to make them into the perfect villains.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 17:17:00 2017 No.10355529 >>10355197 Yeah, most fascists were hooligans, that's true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 19:46:56 2017 No.10356145 >>10354002 Hmm. Seems like a terrible idea.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 4 20:00:43 2017 No.10356203 >>10356145 4u

Anonymous Mon Dec 4 23:22:10 2017 No.10356861

>>10355197
It was controlled though by their leaders, leaders with actual vision. They were able to pull off military marches, goverment coups, regime takeovers. They were able to focus their hooliganism into one focal point to destabilize entire countries for their gain. Today's fascists are nothing more than uninspiring and ignorant backwater of society. They lack a backbone to organize, they lack vision to do anything besides go to protests waving swastika flags ad nauseam.

I also party disagree with your statement, if you want well oiled killing machines, look into the Legion of the Archangel Michael. They weren't fascist though, they were more Ultra-Mystic Christian populists that had organized successful death squads and managed to assassinate three prime ministers of Romania. They were so radical that even the Fascist Romanian government revolted against it. The viper consumed itself.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature