Here’s a pattern you’ve probably seen:
- Racists/nazi shows up and says racist/nazi things
- Get called out for it and/or banned
- They claim they are unfairly banned “for disagreeing.” They completely leave out the part about them being a racist nazi.
You know, that move. I’ve seen it more times than I can count and I bet you have too. They call disagreement with nazism “opinions you don’t like”, leaving out the nazism part. Any way of framing disagreements with them while subtracting out the actual content of what they say.
It’s so common that I think it deserves a word. I know there are generic descriptions: e.g. “being a troll”, but I think something specific to this particular behavior deserves its own word. That way it can just be identified and dismissed for what it is and not argued with.
Fuck Nazis and their little crybaby problems. If they feel like they’re being censored, fucking good, that means it’s working.
Deplatform them online, punch them in person.
Punching them in person helps their cause, and allows the to cry fowl. Counter protesting, and violence in self defence is a better rule of thumb imo.
I don’t know. It was effective for trash like Richard Spencer who has been punched, deplatformed and is now largely irrelevant.
I think the deplatforming was a lot more effective than the punch. I heard more about him after getting punched then ever before or after.
Yeah, I mean you’re probably right but watching him get KTFO was quite satisfying
Agreed, but justice boners are dangerous. That’s why we have cops idolizing the punisher. Violence is only justified when it has a tangible positive effect imo. I enjoy seeing justice get served as much as the next guy but retribution for retribution’s sake is not a good thing. Utilitarian justice FTW.
Let’s not exaggerate. I’m no boxing maven but in the video it looked like a glancing blow that did not even knock down the target individual. I admit I have watched the video a good few times. I don’t advocate violence.
I think your describing a type of logical fallacy but can’t quite pin down which one, https://youtu.be/pCg-SNOteQQ?si=SOFIkZBm1syuedfc this is a really short informative video on the topic and I would research Karl Poppers Paradox of Tolerance to get a better theoretical understanding of why their “opinions” are so harmful when they are not met with resistance.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a clear term, like say, gaslighting. We all know what that means. It’s a form of a strawman I guess. Hate speech =/= something I disagree with. This is a sly rhetorical trick they’ve come up with to normalize their opinions. They build up your response to their hate speech as “a difference of opinion” so they can blow it down as you being “intolerant to differing opinions”. Human rights aren’t up for debate.
I have never dealt with outright nazis before but I have seen users that are a step below nazis claim their comments were not racist. They carefully word their comments so that they can say that it was technically not racist. I mainly only see those types of people just trying to get flame wars started so the term troll is accurate for them.
I don’t think I have ever seen a straight up nazi talking on a forum like that yet. Just almost nazis.
