[Discussion] Police, White Nationalists, and the Rise of Fascism

Amoebic wrote:
ruhk wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

There's a difference between how people should be treated by the government under the law, and how much respect, dignity, or compassion they should be shown for having disgusting and abhorrent viewpoints by regular people in everyday situations. Otherwise they will think it's OK to be awful and vote for other awful people.

In my experience being sh*tty to people for holding abhorrent viewpoints only drives them deeper into those beliefs. It’s easier for them to demonize their opponents when the opponents feed into the demonization. This thread is a pretty good example of how that works.

I'm curious: What's the solution, then?
I'm not going to be not-sh*tty to someone with abhorrent viewpoints?

The best thing I’ve found is to be nice, patient, and confidently dismissive of their talking points. You don’t argue or engage, just politely say they’re wrong and that the evidence is on your side.
I’ve went over this a couple times in similar discussions in other threads, the primary misconception that seems common is the thought that you can “change” or “fix” people. You can’t. The people aren’t the problem, the problem is a systemic one and can’t be addressed by individual action. The most you can do is not make things worse.
Anyone who has spent time in Q and MAGA communities knows that one of the more common things you’ll encounter is encouragement to not talk to democrats, leftists, et al. How we are all horrible people that want to destroy everyday life and feed on their misery. The leaders of the communities want people isolated so it’s easier to impose their false framework over reality and further radicalize people.
The best any of us can do is present a counterexample to their false framework. Be confident and jovially point out the proposterous stuff and the discrepencies. Be nice and polite but show that you don’t take any of their sh*t seriously. Set boundaries around what is acceptable.
If you don’t have the patience or emotional bandwidth to deal with them then just don’t engage, what’s important is that you don’t be the demon that their favorite Q influencer insists you are. It’s not going to change their mind or get them to vote for Biden, but it might make them think twice the next time the that someone like GhostEzra tells them how you want to murder their kids “and oh hey, they should also check out this cool new Volkish community. Don’t mind the all the swastikas, it’s just esthetic.”

Amoebic wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

This is open to everyone.

Fill in the blank

__________ conservatives are deserving of basic human rights.

No
Some
Many
Most
All

I don't think this is a fair question because, for one, it's a leading question without enough specificity to make it able to be argued that any of the answers unproblematic in some way? And two, it's an open invitation to question one another's characters, which this thread already has enough of, is off-topic, and treads ever closer to personal attack territory?

Respectfully… I totally disagree that this is an unfair question. Do I think that one answer is better than the other four options? Yes I do. For the sake of fairness I will answer the question myself. All conservatives are deserving of basic human rights. Just as all humans are deserving of basic human rights. The reason that I asked the question in the manner that I did is because I feel that there has been much subtle dehumanizing of conservatives in this thread, and I believe that that is harmful and dangerous. I think that the fact that nobody has boldly stated what they have been insinuating while being critical of me is indicative that my critics here are being unfair.

I’ve asked several times for my critics here to tell me specifically how they would have me engage with a conservative friend. I’ve never gotten a specific answer. I’ve only received a vague mischaracterization of my actions and intentions.

My goal in asking the above question was to have my critics say what they really feel, rather than have them cast a never ending volley of straw man arguments at me.

ruhk wrote:

Be nice and polite but show that you don’t take any of their sh*t seriously. Set boundaries around what is acceptable.
If you don’t have the patience or emotional bandwidth to deal with them then just don’t engage, what’s important is that you don’t be the demon that their favorite Q influencer insists you are.

Oh haha I set boundaries. I don't engage. I don't agree they need to be engaged with, I don't see the value in having that kind of toxicity in my life or entertaining bad ideas. I don't have time for that.

Acknowledging bad ideas still kind of validates them in some way, and too many people see allowing a discussion as "convince me I'm wrong." with them hoping a part of you maybe kind of wants to believe.

Most people who are bad assume everyone else is secretly just as bad as them on some level, they don't really know any other way.

You could apply this to any trait, really. I honestly feel like regardless of your political affiliation it's easy to assume the motivations and beliefs of others informed by your worldviews instead of theirs.

I don't care if I'm the demon their Q influencer made their gullible asses think I am? That's a them problem. I'm not rude or confrontational, so pleas for politeness is a weird ask. I just don't engage. If someone I cared about started spouting conservatism I would probably cut and run because that'd be really unusual.

~mod~ no potshots. thanks - Amoebic

Amoebic wrote:

Acknowledging bad ideas still kind of validates them in some way, and too many people see allowing a discussion as "convince me I'm wrong." with them hoping a part of you maybe kind of wants to believe.

Pretty certain I said not to do that, not to discuss or acknowledge, only to dismiss them and confidently display that those bad ideas aren’t worth engaging. I’ve found being politely dismissive to be way more effective at getting under their skin then things like trying to shame or anger them.

RawkGWJ wrote:

I’ve asked several times for my critics here to tell me specifically how they would have me engage with a conservative friend. I’ve never gotten a specific answer. I’ve only received a vague mischaracterization of my actions and intentions.

My goal in asking the above question was to have my critics say what they really feel, rather than have them cast a never ending volley of straw man arguments at me.

Of course they won't give a specific answer. We're still all strangers on the internet, and the reason why strangers on the internet don't provide the "right answers" is they don't have the context of all the nuances of your exchanges and lived experiences of all the parties involved, just a handful exerpts from your perspective about these exchanges worded by your one perspective. That changes the interpretation on the situation whether you intend to or not.

Maybe that's how they really feel? No one's obligated to tell you what you want to hear, nor are you required to give it any weight whatsoever when they don't.

ruhk wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

Acknowledging bad ideas still kind of validates them in some way, and too many people see allowing a discussion as "convince me I'm wrong." with them hoping a part of you maybe kind of wants to believe.

Pretty certain I said not to do that, not to discuss or acknowledge, only to dismiss them and confidently display that those bad ideas aren’t worth engaging. I’ve found being politely dismissive to be way more effective at getting under their skin then things like trying to shame or anger them.

I'm talking about perception, not actually doing anything. I'm not sure where "trying to shame or anger them" is coming from. Using that patience and politeness you mentioned to hear them out before "shutting it down" is still acknowledgment.

Amoebic wrote:

I'm talking about perception, not actually doing anything. I'm not sure where "trying to shame or anger them" is coming from. Maybe this is a underhanded remark aimed at someone else not me, because I haven't brought up trying to shame or anger anyone.

I was talking about this discussion as a whole. Shaming and angering is what’s explicitly being recommended by about half the people involved here.

ruhk wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I'm talking about perception, not actually doing anything. I'm not sure where "trying to shame or anger them" is coming from. Maybe this is a underhanded remark aimed at someone else not me, because I haven't brought up trying to shame or anger anyone.

I was talking about this discussion as a whole. Shaming and angering is what’s explicitly being recommended by about half the people involved here.

Ah okay that makes more sense, sorry. Tried to delete my comment after rereading again.

Yeah for people who are done engaging and don't wish to engage further, I think that's valid. Shame is a powerful tool in that it's effective at illiciting a response. However, it seldom illicits the response intended. Most people evoke shame as a self-satisfying gesture more than to change perspectives so shaming in that respect isn't effective if you're trying to change people. I don't think anyone who does that is trying to change anyone. However I think telling people to stop doing that because it's making it harder to reach across the aisle isn't a fair ask.

Personally? I think a true sense of shame requires a level of self-reflection that I just haven't seen consistently enough in conservative commentaries to think it'd be a useful tool in this context?

gewy wrote:

There's a lot of talk about whether these people deserve to be treated with respect.

Personally, I find this to be almost irrelevant. The question I worry about is what course of action can change the direction this country is headed in when we have such a huge chunk of the population eager for a Republican fascist state. Sadly, right now I'm having a hard time seeing a different end result whether we angrily denounce these people or try to sway them and meet them in the middle. It feels like we’re screwed either way.

Just kinda...reposting this for emphasis.

Amoebic wrote:

Personally? I think a true sense of shame requires a level of self-reflection that I just haven't seen consistently enough in conservative commentaries to think it'd be a useful tool in this context?

This is my experience. Trump-era conservativism is built upon the conception that they are the sole arbiters of truth and even the most vocal opponents secretly agree with them. There’s no room for self-reflection.

ruhk wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
ruhk wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

There's a difference between how people should be treated by the government under the law, and how much respect, dignity, or compassion they should be shown for having disgusting and abhorrent viewpoints by regular people in everyday situations. Otherwise they will think it's OK to be awful and vote for other awful people.

In my experience being sh*tty to people for holding abhorrent viewpoints only drives them deeper into those beliefs. It’s easier for them to demonize their opponents when the opponents feed into the demonization. This thread is a pretty good example of how that works.

I'm curious: What's the solution, then?
I'm not going to be not-sh*tty to someone with abhorrent viewpoints?

The best thing I’ve found is to be nice, patient, and confidently dismissive of their talking points. You don’t argue or engage, just politely say they’re wrong and that the evidence is on your side. Be nice and polite but show that you don’t take any of their sh*t seriously. If you don’t have the patience or emotional bandwidth to deal with them then just don’t engage, what’s important is that you don’t be the demon that their favorite Q influencer insists you are. It’s not going to change their mind or get them to vote for Biden, but it might make them think twice the next time the that someone like GhostEzra tells them how you want to murder their kids “and oh hey, they should also check out this cool new Volkish community. Don’t mind the all the swastikas, it’s just esthetic.”

Bolding mine. You must be joking. You MUST be. These people want to murder us (well, anyone to the left of them) en masse and turn this country into an authoritarian hell-hole and you're concerned about being "nice", "patient", and "polite"?? This is abusive behavior you're encouraging, ruhk. I don't see any difference between this and "don't argue with Pops when he's on the sauce."

Lol, not asking you to make out with them, Natus, just explaining what 40-some years of experimentation has shown me is the best way to deal with white evangelical far right conservative relatives. You might not want to go full Joker.

Stengah wrote:

And before it's suggested, I am not saying that because they don't deserve respect that they don't deserve the very rights they seek to strip from others. Everyone deserves those, even people I don't respect.

Edit - I really want to stress that I don't think you're wrong for choosing to treat Chuck with respect, but while you're recognizing his dignity, don't forget all the people whose dignity isn't recognized by those he supports.

Since apparently no one read them the first time.

ruhk wrote:

Lol, not asking you to make out with them, Natus, just explaining what 40-some years of experimentation has shown me is the best way to deal with white evangelical far right conservative relatives. You might not want to go full Joker.

That's forty years of failure, rukh. Oh sure, maybe you've gotten through some holidays without a bloodbath, but too many people are copying your bad advice which is why we are where we are as a country. Too many people focused on coddling, appeasing, and enabling the very worst people in society out of fear that they'll explode. Thank you, I appreciate your honesty. It's very clarifying

Natus wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Lol, not asking you to make out with them, Natus, just explaining what 40-some years of experimentation has shown me is the best way to deal with white evangelical far right conservative relatives. You might not want to go full Joker.

That's forty years of failure, rukh. Oh sure, maybe you've gotten through some holidays without a bloodbath, but too many people are copying your bad advice which is why we are where we are as a country. Too many people focused on coddling, appeasing, and enabling the very worst people in society out of fear that they'll explode. Thank you, I appreciate your honesty. It's very clarifying

Considering that you’ve suggested becoming like your enemies in your quest to defeat your enemies, pardon my lack of faith in anything you have to say on this topic.

Nah the difference is in the why.

GOP says certain votes shouldn't count and people shouldn't have rights because of gender, race, or orientation.

We're saying that once you decide that the GOP is right about white supremacy, democracy is no good, fascism is the way to go with Dear Leader Trump, and an attempted coup is no big deal... then you should be judged for your actions in support of sedition.

"I'm too stupid to know what I was doing or supporting was illegal" isn't a valid excuse. Getting duped by Trump, Q, and/or Fox News doesn't absolve then of committing horrible wrongs against their country and fellow citizens.

I think the answer to the riddle is a lot simpler. NO conservatives are deserving of basic human rights. They can’t be, because they use those to kill people.

Personally I take it as a compliment that that makes me “just like them,” because I am. We all are. Everyone is human and we’re all alike. The high ground might help ensure victory, but not if it’s merely a moral high ground.

I think it’s the one primary flaw in liberals’ philosophy; they think their “both sides” rhetoric makes them superior to other people. They’re always on about how “now you’re just like them” or “that’s what they want you to do.” Conservatives aren’t subhuman savages deserving of our pity for their sad, backwards ways. They’re intelligent, thoughtful, cruel, savage humans. We shouldn’t infantalize their savagery.

(It’s not their both sides rhetoric that make liberals superior. It’s their belief that people shouldn’t be killed or enslaved because of the color of their skin or who they love. That’s what makes them superior.)

RawkGWJ wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

This is open to everyone.

Fill in the blank

__________ conservatives are deserving of basic human rights.

No
Some
Many
Most
All

I don't think this is a fair question because, for one, it's a leading question without enough specificity to make it able to be argued that any of the answers unproblematic in some way? And two, it's an open invitation to question one another's characters, which this thread already has enough of, is off-topic, and treads ever closer to personal attack territory?

Respectfully… I totally disagree that this is an unfair question. Do I think that one answer is better than the other four options? Yes I do. For the sake of fairness I will answer the question myself. All conservatives are deserving of basic human rights. Just as all humans are deserving of basic human rights. The reason that I asked the question in the manner that I did is because I feel that there has been much subtle dehumanizing of conservatives in this thread, and I believe that that is harmful and dangerous. I think that the fact that nobody has boldly stated what they have been insinuating while being critical of me is indicative that my critics here are being unfair.

I’ve asked several times for my critics here to tell me specifically how they would have me engage with a conservative friend. I’ve never gotten a specific answer. I’ve only received a vague mischaracterization of my actions and intentions.

My goal in asking the above question was to have my critics say what they really feel, rather than have them cast a never ending volley of straw man arguments at me.

I feel like you usually are agreeable with a lot of people you are calling your critics right now. What does it mean that now you are on the opposite side of a topic in this case? Hey, this person is your friend so you feel you need to spend time being nice and working on them to pull them away from the far right side of things. That's fine and most people can at least UNDERSTAND the feelings there. BUT what most people are saying is that a person's time would be better spent helping minorities with that time and a person that to this day still leans right with all these facts and human rights issues in the GOP is an ACTIVE problem since they vote away human rights for others. BOTH of these things can be true. It's fine to admit to yourself that you care for your friend AND that it is a problematic relationship due to your friend's views. Better to admit that then to just keep trying to clap back at things the majority of posters AREN'T saying.

I find that the best way for me is to treat the irrational behavior the way I would treat the actions of an addict. I am not responsible for what these people think and believe so my trying to change it is both unwanted and disrespectful. Instead, I concentrate on establishing boundaries around behavior that is invasive or dangerous.

A MAGA asshole can spout his beliefs all he wants to his barfly friends but if he does so in the context of a work meeting, I’m reporting him to HR. If he’s my neighbor and assumes I agree with bizarre conspiracy sh*t, I’ll let him know that it is really presumptuous for him to think we have that kind of relationship and that he should work on keeping our conversations to lawn care and football.

Mental boundaries are even more vital now than ever and any asshole who insists on flexing his “rights” to try to dominate you with his MAGA sh*t should be reminded of them and that there are consequences for violating them.

karmajay wrote:

I feel like you usually are agreeable with a lot of people you are calling your critics right now.

Yes. That’s true.

karmajay wrote:

What does it mean that now you are on the opposite side of a topic in this case? Hey, this person is your friend so you feel you need to spend time being nice and working on them to pull them away from the far right side of things. That's fine and most people can at least UNDERSTAND the feelings there.

What really bothers me is when the folks in this thread accuse me of appeasing, enabling, compromising, holding the hand of, etc, a conservative friend. This is absolutely not what I do. Never. It’s not what I do with my uncle. Not what I do with Chuck.

Another commonly stated idea in these past few pages is that all conservatives are the same and they’re all murderous fiends. This is simply not true and I think it’s a dangerous and harmful thing to believe. Maybe I should clarify, I think it’s harmful and dangerous to the person who believes this way regardless of their political leanings. So when I hear this type of rhetoric from conservatives I try to explain to them how that’s incorrect and harmful. When I hear this talk from not-conservatives I also try to explain why it’s dangerous.

My uncle and Chuck are not members of far right paramilitary militia groups. If they were I would not be comfortable talking to them. I would in fact cut relations with them because that sh*t terrifies me. My uncle and Chuck are more like armchair quarterbacks who get off on hearing their favorite media heads own the libs. The armchair quarterback thing is infuriating, but the militia thing terrifying. These are orders of degree which, I feel, should be carefully considered.

karmajay wrote:

BUT what most people are saying is that a person's time would be better spent helping minorities with that time…

I work 10 to 12 hours per day so the best way for me help out with causes that are close to my heart is to donate money. I donate mostly to local charities who help immigrants, asylum seekers, and impoverished folks in my community. I live in Southern California and these are the people who I feel need the most help. When I retire, 6 to 10 years from now, I’ve already chosen the places where I’ll donate my time.

The time spent talking to Chuck takes place when I’m at work doing my job. We talk several times a week, several hours per week. My point here is that there isn’t much else for me to do during that time. I work graveyard shift and a great deal of my time is spent driving on the freeway.

We rarely talk about politics. My favorite thing to talk about with Chuck is history. We both read books, listen to audiobooks, listen to podcasts about history. We often discuss the new things we’ve learned. I’m trying to convince him to listen to behind the bastards podcast, which is written by Robert Evans who is a leftist anarchist. The reason I think Chuck might like that is because Evans is really entertaining and has a twisted sense of humor that I think Chuck might enjoy. Evans is also extremely dedicated to accuracy of facts with his writing and I think it would be healthy for Chuck to see what factually accurate journalism looks like, as he’s not getting that from the right wing cranks he enjoys listening to.

Am I trying to indoctrinate Chuck to think more like a leftist? Yes. There’s a little of that going on, but I don’t expect it to work. I just had a thought. I should try to get him to listen to the Elders of Zion episodes.

karmajay wrote:

and a person that to this day still leans right with all these facts and human rights issues in the GOP is an ACTIVE problem since they vote away human rights for others. BOTH of these things can be true. It's fine to admit to yourself that you care for your friend AND that it is a problematic relationship due to your friend's views. Better to admit that then to just keep trying to clap back at things the majority of posters AREN'T saying.

Point taken. Thank you.

Maybe it’s best if I don’t share my conversations with Chuck here. I thought y’all might be amused but it seems only to lead to frustration for everyone involved.

ruhk wrote:
Natus wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Lol, not asking you to make out with them, Natus, just explaining what 40-some years of experimentation has shown me is the best way to deal with white evangelical far right conservative relatives. You might not want to go full Joker.

That's forty years of failure, rukh. Oh sure, maybe you've gotten through some holidays without a bloodbath, but too many people are copying your bad advice which is why we are where we are as a country. Too many people focused on coddling, appeasing, and enabling the very worst people in society out of fear that they'll explode. Thank you, I appreciate your honesty. It's very clarifying

Considering that you’ve suggested becoming like your enemies in your quest to defeat your enemies, pardon my lack of faith in anything you have to say on this topic.

It seems that you and quite a few other people on this forum have serious reading comprehension issues. It's impossible for me to become like MAGA, either in concept or execution, so never you fear.

Please bookmark this post so you can reference it again. All I have ever advised is that we need to do whatever it is that sustains democracy in this country. Switch off Facebook and FOX NEWS? Fine. Purge insurrectionists from the government? Should have happened long ago. Disarm right-wing militias and imprison their leaders? Don't make me happy. Obviously, I'd go further, as Trumpists are the number one terror and anti-democratic threat to this country. Does that make me anything like MAGA? No. It simply makes me willing to deal with a dire problem without resorting to appeasement or inaction. Because you can't get democracy back after it's gone.

For what it's worth, I enjoy reading about your conversations with Chuck and find it enlightening, and find it distressing to see how hard you periodically get dogpiled for daring to consort with The Enemy(tm).

It's more the presumption that we all don't have our own personal Chuck's(we do) or that we don't understand that different relations require different tactics. Chuck doesn't sound like someone I want in my life, but have whatever relationship with Trump supporters that you want - just don't be blind about who they are and what their support means to marginalized communities.

Police do a drive by shooting from an unmarked van on a group of business owners protecting their store during a riot. The business owners return fire briefly, but when they recognize that their assailants are police officers, they surrender immediately. The cops then brutally beat the owner for approximately 3 full minutes while yelling "put your hands behind your back" despite the fact that the owner is fully complying. He is then charged (and later acquitted) and spends time in jail and the hospital. The officers get no discipline.

When I think of all the Banjo County yahoos who tell me about how important their 2nd Amendment rights are, this is what is waiting for them (or worse) the moment they think they can "rise up against tyranny". All while they "back the blue".

RawkGWJ wrote:

Another commonly stated idea in these past few pages is that all conservatives are the same and they’re all murderous fiends.

You keep doing this, and it's pretty disengenuous. Everyone has been perfectly clear that they are talking specifically about Trumpists, not conservatives. Trumpists are right wing extremists, even those that "just" sit on the sidelines and cheer on the paramilitary nutjobs. Conservatives haven't been in control of the Republican Party for years. Is your friend Chuck a conservative? Or is he a Trumpist?

Stengah wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

Another commonly stated idea in these past few pages is that all conservatives are the same and they’re all murderous fiends.

You keep doing this, and it's pretty disengenuous. Everyone has been perfectly clear that they are talking specifically about Trumpists, not conservatives. Trumpists are right wing extremists, even those that "just" sit on the sidelines and cheer on the paramilitary nutjobs. Conservatives haven't been in control of the Republican Party for years. Is your friend Chuck a conservative? Or is he a Trumpist?

I’m done. Please leave it alone. I’ve given you the answer to this more times than is reasonable. This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole that I’m no longer interested in engaging with.

Ole Donny being a class act (as usual) and sending a video birthday message to the family of a domestic terrorist who was killed by law enforcement trying to help him overthrow our democracy.

RawkGWJ wrote:
Stengah wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

Another commonly stated idea in these past few pages is that all conservatives are the same and they’re all murderous fiends.

You keep doing this, and it's pretty disengenuous. Everyone has been perfectly clear that they are talking specifically about Trumpists, not conservatives. Trumpists are right wing extremists, even those that "just" sit on the sidelines and cheer on the paramilitary nutjobs. Conservatives haven't been in control of the Republican Party for years. Is your friend Chuck a conservative? Or is he a Trumpist?

I’m done. Please leave it alone. I’ve given you the answer to this more times than is reasonable. This is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole that I’m no longer interested in engaging with.

RawkGWJ wrote:

That’s a cop out. I challenge you to take a stand and answer the question.

OG_slinger wrote:

Ole Donny being a class act (as usual) and sending a video birthday message to the family of a domestic terrorist who was killed by law enforcement trying to help him overthrow our democracy.

Hey America is way more progressive than Nazi Germany - our Horst Wessel is a woman! Girl power!

Tristan Snell tweets "We need to start treating January 6th with the gravity with which we treat September 11th." September 11th was an atrocity but it didn't spell the end of America; January 6th started the countdown.

From Will Bunch's column in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

A small but dedicated gaggle of American journalists has been warning about Trump’s slow-motion coup for months. And yet when a late-night comedian, HBO’s Bill Maher, laid out this threat to the American Experiment in a clear and direct eight-minute monologue on Friday night, millions of viewers seemed shocked and alarmed. Clearly they weren’t getting the proper sense of urgency from mainstream elite media in the United States, which has used Biden’s victory as a moment to bathe in the familiar comfort of “both sides are to blame” journalism.

“I’m astonished that more people don’t see, or can’t face, America’s existential crisis,” Hillary Clinton — who lost that 2016 election to Trump despite 3 million more popular votes — tweeted recently. Her words were reported in a strikingly on-target column by media critic Eric Boehlert headlined: “America isn’t guaranteed a happy ending.” He also quoted the former GOP strategist Stuart Stevens: “We can’t imagine the ending of American democracy, but it can happen.” ...The future of American democracy depends, frankly, on whether journalists stop burying their head in “the work” of balanced-but-misleading reporting and admit that, yes, actually, we are at war.