Americans, probably because of the deeply partisan political landscape, are particularly adept at degrading ordinary language. I'd be less aware of this, if not for Substack. (There, they refuse to even use a simple word like 'cadence' correctly!)
During the troubles, there was ridiculous commentary about the meaning of fascism, with some writers insisting that we first need to figure out what it means, including letting the mythical market place of ideas decide. The whole thing was either bad faith or staggering, wiful, ignorance. Of course we know what fascism means, there's an actual fooking definition. No market place of empty minds determined the meaning.
Yes, other countries degrade language and concepts on a daily basis, but Americans do it with a special alacrity.
“Stonetoss was unmasked by investigative journalists as a pudgy Texan named Hans Graebener, which seems a little on the nose.”
Texas has a long proud history of pudgy Germans who were kicking ass and taking names long before Hitler shat his first diaper. And the men worked hard too.
Out of the big names in the "Substack has a Nazi problem" saga, one author's piece cited I think 8 Nazi newsletters(?), 6 of which Substack removed, another piece cited 2 that were questionable at best, and another piece sent to me by Jonathan Katz of the originating article himself cited exactly zero sources. I'm pretty sure the backlash was mostly due to a dearth of evidence, not some definitional confusion.
Deplatforming them doesn’t work either. My strategy would be to take their ideas seriously and explain clearly how impractical they are and how immoral they sound, not just to wokesters, but to ordinary white “cis-het” people.
It's complicated with things that are not as clear-cut as overt violence, but when you reduce the reach of a popular hatemonger, you reduce their influence. When someone has the makings of a stochastic terrorist against the LGBTQIA+ community, let's say, and you give them a platform on your blogging site, let's say, you're just adding to their reach and ability to make money.
You're also just repeating the argument that Peter says has failed. The marketplace of ideas is a failure at stopping the spread of fascism, just as actual markets have turned out to be not great at keeping people fed and healthy and housed.
Deplayforming in some ways “destroyed” the alt-right after Charlottesville, but they found other platforms and started rebuilding and readied themselves to reach new people. And now they’re back. I find that people on the so-called dissident right are actually encouraged by interacting with and triggering the woke left. They’re most discouraged when they talk to an anti-woke “normie” who they think they can convert, only to find the other person finds their ideas to be impractical, unnecessary and morally reprehensible.
Also if one decides it’s good to deplatform nazis, there is always going to be the push to ban other reactionary thought. How would you explain the need to ban nazis but not ban transphobes or “race realists.” If you ban Nazis, don’t you also have to ban Charles Murray or Abigail Schrier?
Americans, probably because of the deeply partisan political landscape, are particularly adept at degrading ordinary language. I'd be less aware of this, if not for Substack. (There, they refuse to even use a simple word like 'cadence' correctly!)
During the troubles, there was ridiculous commentary about the meaning of fascism, with some writers insisting that we first need to figure out what it means, including letting the mythical market place of ideas decide. The whole thing was either bad faith or staggering, wiful, ignorance. Of course we know what fascism means, there's an actual fooking definition. No market place of empty minds determined the meaning.
Yes, other countries degrade language and concepts on a daily basis, but Americans do it with a special alacrity.
“Stonetoss was unmasked by investigative journalists as a pudgy Texan named Hans Graebener, which seems a little on the nose.”
Texas has a long proud history of pudgy Germans who were kicking ass and taking names long before Hitler shat his first diaper. And the men worked hard too.
Out of the big names in the "Substack has a Nazi problem" saga, one author's piece cited I think 8 Nazi newsletters(?), 6 of which Substack removed, another piece cited 2 that were questionable at best, and another piece sent to me by Jonathan Katz of the originating article himself cited exactly zero sources. I'm pretty sure the backlash was mostly due to a dearth of evidence, not some definitional confusion.
I know what the conversations were about, but thanks
And thank you for being yet another source doing nothing to prove or show any evidence around the existence of "all of these Nazis" 👍
Deplatforming them doesn’t work either. My strategy would be to take their ideas seriously and explain clearly how impractical they are and how immoral they sound, not just to wokesters, but to ordinary white “cis-het” people.
What do you mean when you say "deplatforming them doesn't work?" Because there is evidence that it does actually, in some cases:
https://www.wupr.org/2022/11/25/de-platforming-works/
https://www.wired.com/story/deplatforming-parler-bans-qanon/
It's complicated with things that are not as clear-cut as overt violence, but when you reduce the reach of a popular hatemonger, you reduce their influence. When someone has the makings of a stochastic terrorist against the LGBTQIA+ community, let's say, and you give them a platform on your blogging site, let's say, you're just adding to their reach and ability to make money.
You're also just repeating the argument that Peter says has failed. The marketplace of ideas is a failure at stopping the spread of fascism, just as actual markets have turned out to be not great at keeping people fed and healthy and housed.
Deplayforming in some ways “destroyed” the alt-right after Charlottesville, but they found other platforms and started rebuilding and readied themselves to reach new people. And now they’re back. I find that people on the so-called dissident right are actually encouraged by interacting with and triggering the woke left. They’re most discouraged when they talk to an anti-woke “normie” who they think they can convert, only to find the other person finds their ideas to be impractical, unnecessary and morally reprehensible.
Also if one decides it’s good to deplatform nazis, there is always going to be the push to ban other reactionary thought. How would you explain the need to ban nazis but not ban transphobes or “race realists.” If you ban Nazis, don’t you also have to ban Charles Murray or Abigail Schrier?