Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

warisboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 149 posts

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#111

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #102
anigbrowl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-Abortion protesters are appointing themselves as moral guardians of a fetus. Anti-Nazi protesters are declaring their own selves to feel threatened by Nazism, rather than claiming to be intervening in the defense of someone else. I don't really care about the ACLU's argument. Things have moved on since 1976 and the scope and intensity of violence perpetrated by white nationalists and similar far-right groups has…

This is a pretty ahistorical argument. We've had overtly racist Presidents and Klan members at the highest levels of government in the past, not to mention a 100+ year history of lynchings. The First Amendment wasn't repealed when Steve Bannon accepted his role as Trump's chief strategist.

Yes, that's quite true. And my point is that vulnerable people are sick and tired of dealing with violence directed at their persons and communities and are voicing their discontent by saying they're not going to take it any more.

Why do these discussions always end up with liberals wringing their hands over whether any Nazis are going to get punched, but the opposition to the eliminationist rhetoric of fascists themselves is so muted? Yes, yes, of course everyone agrees that they're bad and that their ideology is bad.

But the reflexive agreement that Nazism is bad doesn't translate into action to do anything about it. Donating to the ACLU or the SPLC is great, but it does nothing to make the streets safer for vulnerable people. Surely it has not escaped your attention that many vulnerable populations are distrustful of the police precisely because of this legacy of injustice you mention, which has often taken place with the tacit agreement of the authorities. .

Muslims, jews, black people, latino people, queer people and so on are not enthused about being the designated victims for yet another round of The Oppression Show. Simply put, there are a lot of people who don't feel safe exercising their rights in the USA and are getting really pissed off about it.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#112

Post by pheldagryph »

anigbrowl wrote: post #92
pheldagryph wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following your suggestion of conflation. The correct way to read my comment is as a criticism of the clear rhetorical support for violence in its parent. I am full of controversial opinions, I know...

The contents of a persons heart are known only to them and fundamentally unknowable by anyone else barring some scientific breakthrough, so they cannot and should not be subject to sanction. The words that come out of their mouth, on the other hand, are discernable. You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question t…

> Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling'

That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment speaks for itself. You are coming uncomfortably close to calling me a Nazi sympathizer. I don't appreciate that.

In case the ancestors get edited:

>>> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence

>> Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

> One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#113

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #89
anigbrowl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the confederate battle flag, but about the German one and its 'Kekistan' version. http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1266803-kekistan

Almost none of those people plan on hitting you, either.

Perhaps that has something to do with my willingness to punch back.

I've been the subject of quite a lot of unprovoked assaults in my life, Thomas; it's rather disconcerting to have someone that I've had as a guest in my own home tell me to disregard my personal experience of violence.

People who are displaying a Nazi battle flag or its derivatives in public spaces are not doing so to express their desire for peace and mutual respect.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#114

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #108
tptacek wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't argue that you can't hit someone who is literally about to physically attack you, and neither did the ACLU. You seem to be arguing that the mere presence of a Nazi marching under a Nazi flag in the public square justifies physical violence. What did the ACLU get wrong about that when they defended the Nazis in Skokie?

The ACLU was worried about government restraint on anyone under the 1st amendment, specifically the display of the Nazi flag with a swastika. I think they were wrong insofar as the march and display of the flag was intended specifically to terrorize the Jewish population of Skokie. In the event, the march never took place; by the time the case was resolved, the residents of Skokie had built a holocaust memorial and t…

If I'm standing in a park with a police officer and an angry activist and I say something that offends the police officer and he hits me to shut me up, he's violated the First Amendment.

Similarly, in that same set of circumstances, if I say something that offends the activist and he hits me to shut me up and the police officer doesn't arrest him, the police officer has also violated the First Amendment.

So, no, I don't think you can flee into definitions of "private parties" versus the "government" to avoid the ACLU's logic here.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#115

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #111
tptacek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty ahistorical argument. We've had overtly racist Presidents and Klan members at the highest levels of government in the past, not to mention a 100+ year history of lynchings. The First Amendment wasn't repealed when Steve Bannon accepted his role as Trump's chief strategist.

Yes, that's quite true. And my point is that vulnerable people are sick and tired of dealing with violence directed at their persons and communities and are voicing their discontent by saying they're not going to take it any more. Why do these discussions always end up with liberals wringing their hands over whether any Nazis are going to get punched, but the opposition to the eliminationist rhetoric of fascists them…

I'm allowed to hold two thoughts in my head at the same time: that it's important that we do everything within legitimate law to suppress bigotry and racial supremacy, and also that it's important that we defend the basic principles on which our rule of law is built.

So: I'm not so concerned about the welfare of the Nazis that are getting punched.

What I'm concerned about is that normalizing political violence will have the effect not just of normalizing Nazi punching, but normalizing punching of all sorts of people.

Does this mean that vulnerable people should be left to fend for themselves on the streets with Nazis throwing bottles at them or beating them? No, of course not. Beat the shit out of those people (call 9-1-1, too).

But those same vulnerable people are going to need to employ something other than violence to deal with offensive flags and racial slurs, no matter how unsafe they (legitimately!) feel when confronted with them.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#116

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #113
tptacek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost none of those people plan on hitting you, either.

Perhaps that has something to do with my willingness to punch back. I've been the subject of quite a lot of unprovoked assaults in my life, Thomas; it's rather disconcerting to have someone that I've had as a guest in my own home tell me to disregard my personal experience of violence. People who are displaying a Nazi battle flag or its derivatives in public spaces are not doing so to express their desire for peace a…

And you know that if you ever find yourself in Chicago you are always welcome in my house, too.

I'm not discounting your personal experience of violence. But no personal history of any sort entitles you to hit someone simply for carrying a flag. You know that's true.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#117

Post by pheldagryph »

glibgil wrote: post #95
pheldagryph wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?

No, they expressed a sociopolitical theory that honestly sounds ineffective. They can support that theory with evidence if they want to convince at least me

I'm not sure what you're saying 'no' to, in my comment.

> "We must love one another or die."

This is good enough for me, but going further... The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Ahimsa are persuasive for many.

EDIT: just had a shower, and remembered this paper that supports the idea that violence is an inter-generational disease:

https://pascual.scripts.mit.edu/research/03/paper3.pdf

Pascual Restrepo, May 2014

Abstract

> I study the role of the monopoly of force in shaping cultural traits associated with violence and their persistence. I do so in the context of the settlement of the Canadian Prairies from 1890 to 1920. I find that places with a weaker monopoly of force by the Canadian state during the settlement – as measured by their distance to the early Mounties’ fort – were and are still more violent despite the later consolidation of the Canadian state. My interpretation is that counties with a weak monopoly of force during the settlement developed a persistent culture of violence. Consistent with my view, I find that hockey players born in these places behave more violently even when observed in a common environment: the same team in the National Hockey League. Besides the persistence of culture via inter-generational transmission and socialization, I find that culture favors complementary institutions and political views, creating an additional channel of persistence. Finally, I show that the monopoly of force during the settlement crowds out pre-existing cultures of violence brought by immigrants. Despite the persistence of culture and its dependence on past circumstances, the right institutional conditions can change it

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#118

Post by Mz »

tptacek wrote: post #115
anigbrowl wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's quite true. And my point is that vulnerable people are sick and tired of dealing with violence directed at their persons and communities and are voicing their discontent by saying they're not going to take it any more. Why do these discussions always end up with liberals wringing their hands over whether any Nazis are going to get punched, but the opposition to the eliminationist rhetoric of fascists them…

I'm allowed to hold two thoughts in my head at the same time: that it's important that we do everything within legitimate law to suppress bigotry and racial supremacy, and also that it's important that we defend the basic principles on which our rule of law is built. So: I'm not so concerned about the welfare of the Nazis that are getting punched. What I'm concerned about is that normalizing political violence will h…

I think the basic problem is that people arguing the way you are arguing are basically arguing in a theoretical space. It almost never addresses the practical realities nor tells people how to move the needle in any meaningful way. Arguing about doing it right very often ends up being a form of flak that helps keeps the status quo in place.

I'm currently homeless and I try to explain to people why I don't agree with their position and it kind of boils down to the fact that no matter what I do, I seem unable to get meaningful traction on solutions and, very often, people are content to argue with me about "well, we need the right answers" and ignore the fact that they could do something for me right here, right now.

I am probably not saying this very well, but I just run into an awful lot of people online who imagine themselves to be good people who claim they desire to live in a better world and see zero contradiction between that and crapping all over me personally in conversation while doing nothing whatsoever to help me solve my financial problems in any kind of meaningful way.

I am somewhat sympathetic to your side. I get a lot of flak from women who act like my efforts to empower them are simply another form of blaming the victim. But I increasingly feel that it is both irresponsible and disingenuous to argue the side you are arguing without giving concrete solutions in the here and now to the problems people are actually having. Without that, these arguments merely serve to say "We need to respect Nazis (or other horrible people) and we don't need to respect you and we don't actually care about your problem at all."

FWIW and all that.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#119

Post by tptacek »

Mz wrote: post #118
tptacek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm allowed to hold two thoughts in my head at the same time: that it's important that we do everything within legitimate law to suppress bigotry and racial supremacy, and also that it's important that we defend the basic principles on which our rule of law is built. So: I'm not so concerned about the welfare of the Nazis that are getting punched. What I'm concerned about is that normalizing political violence will h…

I think the basic problem is that people arguing the way you are arguing are basically arguing in a theoretical space. It almost never addresses the practical realities nor tells people how to move the needle in any meaningful way. Arguing about doing it right very often ends up being a form of flak that helps keeps the status quo in place. I'm currently homeless and I try to explain to people why I don't agree with…

Hold on. I DO NOT think we need to respect Nazis or their beliefs. Rather, I think citizens have something close to an obligation to suppress Nazis (and all related ideologies) with every lawful means available.

By way of example: the deference Hacker News gives to racism and misogyny in the name of tolerance is deeply problematic for me, and, I think, an enormous mistake.

Where Ed and I disagree is that I do not think it's OK to physically assault someone simply for carrying an offensive flag. That is probably the entire extent of our disagreement.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#120

Post by gavanwoolery »

anigbrowl wrote: post #80
gavanwoolery wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, also important not to confuse correlation and causation IMHO. Even if we fully mirrored the rise of the Nazi party (in the political sense), it would not necessarily imply that we would mirror their actions (genocide, etc). In situations like this, its important to step back and ask - under what circumstances would the US actually cross the same line that the Nazis did? (And I do not mean anecdotal instances - I…

You're only willing to bet 4 or 8 years out, which is itself worrying. There are certainly people who actively espouse genocidal intentions openly in our body politic, and the connections between them and powerful figures in the administration are not very distant. In situations like this, its important to step back and ask - under what circumstances would the US actually cross the same line that the Nazis did? Have…

Betting any further out would make me presumptuous. :) I really cannot be so bold as to say I know what the far future holds, and I can only make educated guesses about the near future. As far as domestic policy, deporting illegal immigrants is a far cry from genocide (FWIW I am pro-immigration anyhow).

At least 50 percent of our country is to the left, and probably less than 10 percent of the country is on the extreme right. There is enough healthy disagreement that I do not see one side assuming authoritarian-level power any time soon IMHO.

Post reply on HN