| | RE: So, I have a request. In acknowledgement that actual,... | Write Reply |
| @Chanain: Here are some of the strawman arguements you have made;
"Chanain: you defended the neo-Nazi movement by calling it non-violent"
Nothing I said can be construed as a defense nor did I say it was non-violent. I stated "almost entirely non-violent", which literally means there has been violence. I have been very clear that claims of an absolute nature are absurd and you are an asshat for making it.
"Chanain: First of all, there's nothing recent about violent clashes between white supremacists"
I never claimed they were only recent, in fact I stated the exact opposite, "Glyn: has been around for decades and almost entirely non-violent." This flat out states there there has been violence for decades.
"Chanain: in the US for literally centuries"
Neo-Nazism movement is the topic, you went off-topic and over the range I stated.
"Chanain: is a, ahem, whitewash."
I didn't whitewash anything;
"To whitewash is a metaphor meaning "to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewashing_(censorship)
gloss over: "To cover up a mistake or a crime;"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gloss_over
I flat out stated there was violence for decades, which means I didn't cover up anything.
"Chanain: It's a terror movement, more similar to the Islamic terror network than to any other comparitor."
Again, irrelevant to the topic.
"Chanain: Your exact words were "almost entirely non-violent". Not merely "something in between" extremes, but basically one step removed from pure pacifism, except when provoked."
'Almost entirely non-violent' is in fact between the two possible absolutes... which are entirely non-violent and entirely violent. Pacifism is a specific belief, which is completely unrelated to the topic. AND, you can still be a pacifist and be violent... you just wouldn't be very good at following your belief is all. Just because a movement hasn't been violent, doesn't make them pacifists. I never even said the word 'provoked' in my post, nothing I stated allows you to make this claim.
"Chanain: It's a ridiculous claim, which was either made out of deep ignorance of the sheer amount of bloodshed in which they've been involved over the decades - which, of course, you'd never admit"
I literally stated violence had been going on for decades, and here you are saying I'd never admit it.
"Chanain: or with the intention of being deliberately controversial."
Not a strawman, but is an ad hominem which is even worse.
"Chanain: don't try to walk it back by pretending that you didn't use the adjective "non-violent" to describe Nazis in a barely-qualified manner.
'Almost entirely non-violent' flat out states they have been violent.
"Chanain: You realize that the Greensboro massacre wasn't actually a white power rally, right?"
You realize I don't give a crap who's rally it is, right? Violence isn't more acceptable just because you held a rally. Even being the first one to initiate violence doesn't make it acceptable to react violently, just understandable, which legally we both know still results in RCMP charging you for breaking the law (whether the charges stick is another matter).
"Chanain: So you must know that the incident doesn't fit your characterization of 'counter-protesters throwing things at them'"
I commented on why they bring shields, that is not a characterization and unrelated to my statement about how many partake in violence.
"Chanain: unlike the antifa counter-protesters today who come equipped with things to throw at the Nazis, they came equipped with an arsenal to fire bullets at the CWP demonstrators."
Antifa, communists, neo-Nazi and BLM advocates go to protests armed with guns in states where they are permitted to open carry quite frequently. So your strawman is laughably false; http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/charlottesville-leftists-armed-trump-antifa-20170816.html
"Chanain: The CWP holds a demonstration, forty heavily armed members of the American Nazi Party and KKK stalk the route in their vehicles, a few demonstrators throw rocks at the cars, and the Nazis and Klansmen fire automatic weapons into the crowd. And yet you think that these Nazis were "almost entirely non-violent".
False equivalence and a strawman. The neo-Nazi movement is composed of more than just those 40 individuals.
"Chanain: where these groups are REALLY small, they have an extremely violent track record"
The topic is how many have been violent overall.
"Chanain: These groups espouse a philosophy rooted in hate and violence"
Again, not a philosophy. Also, technically not rooted in hate and violence... Nazism is based on "scientific" racialism and antisemitic intolerance, which "is hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism). Historically the Nazi Party was very violent towards Jews once in power, but that doesn't mean Nazism as an ideology does. Nazism is an ideology that spread to the point that Hitlers later actions no longer change what Nazism as an ideology espoused. If Hitler all of a sudden decided to drop the antisemitism in 1940, Nazism as an ideology would still do so.
"Chanain: has been quoted as saying that he's "fine with violence"."
Not all neo-Nazis all. Not even all Nazis were. If it was such an obvious fact... why would it be notable in the first place?
"Chanain: look at the times its members DIDN'T violently assault a minority, right? Mostly a non-violent group, I guess? What a ridiculous argument."
No one seems to object when I say Muslims are almost entirely non-violent. No one seems to object when I say blacks are almost entirely non-violent. Your faulty strawman argument are seriously sad, your strawman arguments are supposed to be easily targets.
"Chanain: You really think that there's an equivalency between saying "Naziism is a violent ideology" and "black people are all criminals"?"
"Glyn: Do you know how big of an asshat you look like claiming everyone of an ideology is violent? You are the one making bigoted extraordinary claims. You are no different than people that say blacks are all criminals and point to crime statistics."
First, your claim is not "Naziism is a violent ideology", your claim was that all neo-Nazis are violent, that every single last person in the movement has committed violent acts, and thus my claim that "almost entirely non-violent" is false. Second, my post clearly indicates your absurd generalization is no different than an absurd generalization often spouted by neo-Nazis... because generalizations are always wrong.
"Chanain: You've got to just be trolling now, right?"
Not a strawman, but is an ad hominem.
"Chanain: You're claiming that I'm an "asshat" because my attacks on Nazis, as a group, is the moral equivalent to attacks on black people, as a group."
Nope, I was very clear you are an asshat claiming everyone of an ideology is violent, just like claiming everyone of a race is criminal. Generalizations are the source of ignorance and bigotry.
"Chanain: What's that you were saying about reading comprehension, Glyn? My exact words: "These groups espouse a philosophy rooted in hate and violence, and many of them act on that philosophy regularly."
You said "Chanain: It's not true, though." in response to my post, then claimed the ideology was inherently violent, meaning that my estimate of violent members in the movement (which ONLY means a group of people) is false. You strawman to go off-topic and rant about the ideology (which you incorrectly referred to as a philosophy) instead doesn't mean I stopped talking about you objection to my statement. That is the only topic. Pushing your faulty strawman arguments back onto yourself is just for fun.
"Chanain: since I've called you out on that comparison, and you can't defend it, you're choosing to make a semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'ideology', without actually looking at the definition of the word 'ideology'."
Again, your absurd generalization is just as absurd as any generalization. I don't really think I need to defend the view that generalizations are absurd and are often only used by bigots. You have conflated philosophy with ideology, which makes your attempt to claim I don't know what an ideology is... quite laughable.
"Chanain: But you can't seriously claim to not be defending the neo-Nazis when you're literally casting personal attacks at me for saying that the neo-Nazi philosophy is inherently violent."
I was perfectly clear you are an asshat for using absurd generalizations, you have lied about the narrative to create another strawman.
"Chanain: I would agree with you that an "idea", simpliciter, is not capable of being violent. An "ideology", however, is a system of ideas"
violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
An ideology cannot be violent. An ideology can advocate violence. The Quran states you should kill infidels, that is advocating violence, the Quran mentions events where they killed people, that is describing violence... but the Quran is not violent.
You are free to try to prove your strawman argument that Nazism advocates violence, but it is irrelevant to quantifying how many neo-Nazis have partaken in violence.
"Chanain: Yes, the adjective of 'violent' can be applied to ideologies"
But it doesn't mean someone that subscribes to that ideology has been violent which is what you have claimed.
"Chanain: If you actually *believed* that only things of "physical existence" could be described as violent"
I never said anything even remotely close to that... I said "Glyn: An idea or ideology is inherently unable to be violent, it lacks the physical existence to do so." Again, a faulty strawman argument easily pushed back onto yourself simply by quoting what I actually stated.
"Chanain: You don't understand the usage of the word 'violent'"
Dictionary agrees with me, and all you have doneis make strawman arguments which are blatantly false. I never disputed a description of neo-Nazism being violent, I disputed your claim that a violent ideology makes all members of a movement espousing that ideology automatically to have committed violence.
"Chanain: and that Nazism and neo-Nazism "are ideologies", which you believe are incapable of being described as violent."
Same strawman argument again, I never said anything about neo-Nazism as an ideology incapable of being described as violent... it just cannot commit violence on its own because it doesn't exist in the physical world.
"Chanian: you don't understand that a "movement" is not simply a collective noun for a group of people"
Dictionary agrees with me. Wikipedia agrees with me; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement : Political movement; In the social sciences, a political movement is a social group that operates together to obtain a political goal.
"Chanain: Here's a primer, though: A movement is not necessarily an ideology"
Again... a movement refers to actual people, not ideas.
"Chanain: an ideology is not necessarily a movement"
Drop 'necessarily' and you are in the clear.
"Ideology is a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society has." (Notice the 'has' instead of 'is'); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
"Chanain: but Nazism and neo-Nazism are both fairly described both as movements and ideologies."
Nope. Neo-Nazism is a movement, Nazism is an ideology.
"Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism."; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism
"Chanain: Ideologies are largely defined by their philosophies"
Ideologies do not have to have any philosophies at all... you clearly still don't know what a philosophy is; "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
"Chanain: the philosophy underlying Nazism and neo-Nazism is basically the same."
Neo-Nazism is a movement that espouses the ideology of Nazism, if you could wrap your head around the difference between a movement and an ideology you wouldn't be making such a huge fool of yourself. TECHNICALLY, there are MANY neo-Nazi movements, that is why they all have their own logos and don't all do the exact same thing.
_ _ _
"Glyn: Nazism wasn't pro-'white'"
"Chanain: I never said it was."
My bad, I wasn't clear in this instance; "Chanain: extermination of various non-white groups."
What I meant to indicate, is Hitler actually did kill various 'white' groups, specifically the Slavs. Unless you were Aryan or Germanic, Nazism considers you an undesirable (stops short of violence beyond deportation, Nazi Party of course started with deportation and eventually moved onto genocide).
_ _ _
"Glyn: not in any way shape or form philosophies."
"Chanian: I never said they were. Actually do a browser search for the morpheme 'philo' in my posts. Every time I've referred to Nazi or neo-Nazi "philosophies", it has been immediately after quite expressly stated that I'm talking about philosophies *espoused by* these groups."
Another easy strawman toppled back onto yourself; "Chanain: the neo-Nazi philosophy is inherently violent."
_ _ _
"Chanain: Secondly, that doesn't actually agree with your assessment."
agree: have the same opinion about something; concur.
Yes it does, not that you would now since I never stated my opinion in full... that is exactly my opinion, which makes that two humans at minimum against the one of you.
You haven't provided a single source for ANYTHING yet... you don't get to be critical of Wikipedia. Especially considering all you have done is offer strawman arguments and have not provided any proof my quantitative statement is false. Not one single fact provided yet. I even posted what you could do to actually accomplish that, and you still refuse to do so. |
|
|
Show Media Item - So, I have a request. In acknowledgement that actual,...
