Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ReplyingToFuckwits t1_j5md9qw wrote

Facetious on many, many levels.

First of all, you're demanding they give examples of openly "mask-off" comments as proof when that's simply not how it works.

The far-right knows its a losing strategy to just come out and admit you're a neo-nazi. Your political opinions get immediately dismissed because there's no doubt about where those opinions come from.

That's why people who had been known as white supremacists for years suddenly became "alt-right" in a coordinated rebranding.

But one swastika-filled rally and domestic terrorist act against counter protesters later and suddenly the "alt-right" vanished too. Now they're just "Republicans" or "Trump supporters".

They still used the same talking points as neo-nazis did 20 years ago. They still had the same figureheads. Hell, even their favourite insults like "cuck" were lifted straight from far-right forums where it was used to brand people as "race traitors", especially during their "raids" where they tried to take over other platforms to spread their propaganda.

But they'd finally learned not to give themselves a name. To keep the mask on at all times, so they could always have plausible deniability. So they could claim that "just because they'd done some nazi things, it didn't mean they were a nazi".

When you demand examples of prominent Republicans going mask off, you're either fully aware that they're not that stupid anymore, or you've fallen for the ruse yourself.

Because the person you're arguing with is absolutely right; The mainstream Republican party is riddled with white supremacists and their political platform has been focused pushing far-right goals, starting with the softest targets.

Attacking women's rights (especially when it comes to sex) because Christian fundamentalists will shield them.

Demonising the LGBT+ community as "groomers" and pedophiles, while also applauding violence against actual pedos, in an awkward slight of hand. Attacking the trans community because they're the most vulnerable and have the smallest voice to fight back with.

Openly opposing any ideas that undermine far-right ideals, from accusing everything of being "woke" online, to literally throwing banned books into a fire.

All of these are examples of exactly what they're claiming and we both know you're going to dismiss each and every one on the basis that nobody involved prefixed it with a press conference to announce "Actually, I do think we should genocide minorities".

But you're likely thrilled that this time, you don't have to.

It means the second reactionary strategy online is working: suck the oxygen out of every room with your misinformation, sealioning and constantly shifting goalposts, then claim victory when people don't engage.

The reality is that nobody owes you a long, nuanced post about why you (and the people you're leaping to the defense of) are bad people.

They're fully aware that it won't change your personality one iota because if you could actually be convinced you were wrong, you wouldn't be you in the first place.

But there is one (and only one) valuable thing about engaging.

When a teenager or other vulnerable person wanders into this thread and sees you crowing about an intellectual triumph that never actually happened, they don't mistake you for someone smart or cool.

Because people online have confused contrarianism and abuse with intelligence and charisma since the dawn of the modern skeptic movement.

It's likely how we ended up with a philosophy sub full of apologists and reactionaries in the first place.


WhoMeJenJen t1_j5metnl wrote

He said they literally say it. That they want to oppress and eliminate(kill). And he said it more than once. Go on and look.


ReplyingToFuckwits t1_j5mvdeh wrote

You're almost certainly familiar with the phrase "When someone tells you who they are, believe them".

But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you haven't heard that phrase and that any kind of difficulty you have with figurative speech isn't intentional...

Do you really want to hang your entire defense on "No but they haven't literally said it"?

We've seen the photos. We've read their comments. . We know all about their memes, manifestos and militias. Who exactly are you hoping to fool with semantics?

The most charitable interpretation of your comments I could make is "someone who can't hear the dog whistle so insists the sound doesn't exist".