Nature Vs Nurture - How can I debate fascists?

[Jason]

I've been doing some debating on a hate forum about Nature vs Nurture from a capitalist (though non-fascist) perspective. Can you all give me ideas for my debating? I find the ideas on the forum repulsive, mainly because even under capitalism people should be given a chance. In their world because of genetics few people get a chance (even to live). :crying:

Of course it's pointless to debate these fools, but it has opened up my eyes to some things. Did you know China has an active eugenics program?

[RGacky3]

whats the debate about? nature vrs nurture in what context?

[The Stalinator]

Pull out some psychological studies relating to your context -- examples like kids who were adopted by parents of another background, kids who were raised gender-neutral, etc etc.

A lot of people don't understand psychology though, and dismiss it all as bullshit as soon as you try to explain it to them, so don't get your hopes up too high that they may see your perspective.

[Revolution starts with U]

3 of the world's 7 billion people are either Indian or Chinese. The human race started in Africa, as did the invention of tools, culture, music, and it was one of the major early centers of civilization. Europe arrived rather late to the game, piggybacked off the ideas of others, and patted itself on the back for it.

So if there white, they can just zip it. There's nothing special about being white but time and circumstance.

But all that aside, let us look at the theory behind it. It's often a social darwinian kind of thing. It represents a rather glaring misunderstanding of natural selection. You can't tell beforehand what types of characteristics "fit" in their environment. One could argue the selection for intelligence could in fact be leading to the coming extinction of the human race (I don't subscribe to it, but the argument could be made).
Who gets to decide which people are unfit or not? Some small clique of politicians? That's a perscription for failure, as the politicans will invariably select for what is best for them, rather than for the species. Surprise surprise! This is what has happened in every eugenics program.

It would be easier to debate this if you gave us some of the specific details of what they are arguing.

[Rafiq]

Study. Materialism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Debating Fascists is a waste of time and energy. It is sufficient to identify them.

[Jason]

But all that aside, let us look at the theory behind it. It's often a social darwinian kind of thing. It represents a rather glaring misunderstanding of natural selection. You can't tell beforehand what types of characteristics "fit" in their environment. One could argue the selection for intelligence could in fact be leading to the coming extinction of the human race (I don't subscribe to it, but the argument could be made).
Who gets to decide which people are unfit or not? Some small clique of politicians? That's a prescription for failure, as the politicians will invariably select for what is best for them, rather than for the species. Surprise surprise! This is what has happened in every eugenics program.

I agree; they can't tell who would fit the environment, besides the fact eugenics is a morally repulsive abomination anyway.

[RGacky3]

Study. Materialism.


What does that mean ... (in other words what would you be studying, just marx?), and how would that have anything to do with the nature vrs nurture debate?

[Rafiq]

What does that mean ... (in other words what would you be studying, just marx?), and how would that have anything to do with the nature vrs nurture debate?

No, it doesn't mean "Study Marx". Marx's materialism, however, is obviously the most valid. Materialism has everything to do with the debate. You're a religious one anyway, so, it's understandable why materialism doesn't make any sense to you. But I'm talking to a user who wants a legitiment argument against "Human nature", other than "HUMANS R NATURALLY GUD LOOK WE COOPERATE LAL A LA ALTRUISM".

[RGacky3]

Ok, I never argue
"HUMANS R NATURALLY GUD LOOK WE COOPERATE LAL A LA ALTRUISM". that, so .....

But anyway, Materialism to most people outside of marx means a form of ontology, i.e. everything that exists is matter as opposed to duelism or idealism, or physicalism (in metaphysics).

But you tell me what you mean by Materialism, other than what Marx called his phylosophy (dialectical materialism), and then explain why whatever you mean materialism is more relevant than actual scientific studies IN the matter of nature vrs nurture.

Your just using the term arbitrarily.


it's understandable why materialism doesn't make any sense to you.

Believe me I know what I'm talking about, I just don't think you know what your talking about.

[Philosopher Jay]

Debating Fascists is a waste of time and energy. It is sufficient to liquidate them immediately.


Debating Fascists is a waste of time and energy. It is sufficient to identify them.

[RGacky3]

Debating Fascists is a waste of time and energy. It is sufficient to liquidate them immediately.


which basically tells anyone watching that.

A. Your afraid of their ideas, or are too dumb to debate them (its not hard to make them look like the bafoons they are).
B. Are destroying the very basis of democracy which is the basis of socialism which is freedom of speach.

[Jimmie Higgins]

which basically tells anyone watching that.

A. Your afraid of their ideas, or are too dumb to debate them (its not hard to make them look like the bafoons they are).
B. Are destroying the very basis of democracy which is the basis of socialism which is freedom of speach.

That's kind of like arguing that you need to try to develop a taste for poison to know if it's actually bad for you or not.

The book is closed on fascism. I agree that it's not very useful to make jokes about "liquidating them" but that's because first I think it plays into "gulag communism" straw-men, second it's just radical and macho posturing. I would say, instead, that we should counter-protest and shut them down whenever they try and openly organize. This is not posturing, this is the strategy I think the left should take - and has. Is this anti-free speech? Sure it is in the abstract, but so are fascists in the concrete sense so denying a platform for fascists is a defense of free-speech for the rest of the population - majority rules, sorry NAZIs.

[manic expression]

B. Are destroying the very basis of democracy which is the basis of socialism which is freedom of speach.
Not to distract the thread...but, um, what?

[RGacky3]

Not to distract the thread...but, um, what?

If you have democracy the first thing you need is free dialog, in order to have that you need freedom of speach.


I would say, instead, that we should counter-protest and shut them down whenever they try and openly organize. This is not posturing, this is the strategy I think the left should take - and has. Is this anti-free speech? Sure it is in the abstract, but so are fascists in the concrete sense so denying a platform for fascists is a defense of free-speech for the rest of the population - majority rules, sorry NAZIs.

You know what would be a better strategy imo? totally ignore them, the traditional fascists, live off the sort of acceptance they get with attention, even negative attention. They should be dismissed as the morons they are.


The book is closed on fascism.

Yes, on dudes that wear white sheets or swasticas, but you have the ideas of fascism comming up in different forms, that are not recognizable as fascism unless you really look into it. (i.e. the tea party, the new european right)

yelling "nazi asshole," or trying to violently stop these people will do the following things.
1. make un-politically sofisticated people think these people might have a point.
2. Make you look like someone that cannot rationally defend your ideas against the right.
3. Totally undermine everything we claim to stand for.
4. Make you look totally unconfident in your own political convictions, kind of like when religious people say "if you don't agree with me I'll just kill you," it just shows their position is extremely weak.

[daft punk]

I've been doing some debating on a hate forum about Nature vs Nurture from a capitalist (though non-fascist) perspective. Can you all give me ideas for my debating? Though a capitalist, I find the ideas on the forum repulsive, mainly because even under capitalism people should be given a chance. In their world because of genetics few people get a chance (even to live). :crying:

Of course it's pointless to debate these fools, but it has opened up my eyes to some things. Did you know China has an active eugenics program?

First, China was never communist, nor was it intended to be. In 1945 Mao stated that he wanted several decades of capitalism. Even then, Stalin didnt back Mao, he backed Chiang Kai-shek, a brutal pro-capitaist who massacred communists.

Ok, on to human nature. Human consciousness is determined by the circumstances you live in. Hitler was a product of the conditions he lived in, so was Stalin, so was Maggie Thatcher, so is everyone.

Fascists are a product of their environment. Many consider themselves to be anti-capitalist in some ways, not realising that the Nazis were backed by capitalism and in turn backed capitalism. The capitalists loved Nazi Germany so much, American companied increased their investment there by 50% during the pre-war Nazi years, and continued helping Hitler build his war machine into the war itself.

The best example of egalitarian living is the neolithic era around the region that is now Turkey, where early class society was overthrown and replaced by egalitarian ones. Google "Cayonu and Catalhoyuk".

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you have democracy the first thing you need is free dialog, in order to have that you need freedom of speach.You also have to prevent people from organizing to remove free-speech for everyone else. If there's a revolution workers would need to defend their democracy and part of that is not allowing people openly organizing against democracy to gain a foothold. Most of this after a revolution would probably be done on a grassroots counter-protest type style anyway.


You know what would be a better strategy imo? totally ignore them, the traditional fascists, live off the sort of acceptance they get with attention, even negative attention. They should be dismissed as the morons they are.That's a deadly mistake learned too late by German communists and democratic-socialists.

Part of the way neo-nazis have revived themselves is because of the internet. They aren't able to organize openly and so they were dwindling after the militia movement was discredited through their terrorism, but they began to revive late in the 90s because of internet propaganda.

But that aside since I don't think there's much practical use in trying to prevent them from having internet or meeting eachother in a private basement somewhere, the main thing is that their public apperances aren't really about speech anyway.

Who are they trying to reach out to when they march in a jewish neighborhood or when North Eastern neo-nazis traveled to downtown LA to make a speech against Latino culture taking over the US? They aren't trying to win recruits or win people to their ideology, they are trying to scare non-white workers. Their speech is inherently an implied threat of physical vigilante violence.

Ignoring them will not make regular people realize they are morons, more likely it will scare and depress workers and the oppressed.


Yes, on dudes that wear white sheets or swasticas, but you have the ideas of fascism comming up in different forms, that are not recognizable as fascism unless you really look into it. (i.e. the tea party, the new european right)Personally I see the tea-party as a different animal needing a different kind of response - it would be useful to debate these guys and help our side win confidence in the process. But groups like the Minutmen need to be shut down, allowing them to parade around in paramilitary outfits and threat of arms, is designed to scare immigrants and remind them of "their place".

[RGacky3]

You also have to prevent people from organizing to remove free-speech for everyone else. If there's a revolution workers would need to defend their democracy and part of that is not allowing people openly organizing against democracy to gain a foothold. Most of this after a revolution would probably be done on a grassroots counter-protest type style anyway.


Heres how you silence them, you marginalize them, and make them look stupid, and watch their numbers dwindle.

I have no problem with counter protests. What I do have a problem with is an institution that can decide what is and what is not acceptable speach.


Part of the way neo-nazis have revived themselves is because of the internet. They aren't able to organize openly and so they were dwindling after the militia movement was discredited through their terrorism, but they began to revive late in the 90s because of internet propaganda.


But are they really reviving???



Who are they trying to reach out to when they march in a jewish neighborhood or when North Eastern neo-nazis traveled to downtown LA to make a speech against Latino culture taking over the US? They aren't trying to win recruits or win people to their ideology, they are trying to scare non-white workers. Their speech is inherently an implied threat of physical vigilante violence.



Which does'nt work, because generally they are the extreme minority, and any race related attack by a nazi is generally dealt with pretty harshly (as it should be).


Ignoring them will not make regular people realize they are morons, more likely it will scare and depress workers and the oppressed.


I mean ignoring them unless necessary, like if they march on city hall, like 20 dudes in white sheets, let them, and ignore them, or treat them as they deserve, like clowns.


But groups like the Minutmen need to be shut down, allowing them to parade around in paramilitary outfits and threat of arms, is designed to scare immigrants and remind them of "their place".

I agree with you there, its a blatent threat of violence.

My problem with the "fascist" ban, is the abitrary nature of the word, and its vagueness.

[Jason]

Well, I can see that Cubans have improved their condition greatly via socialism. Nazis would have been quick to claim that their IQs were too low for national advancement, but after socialism the Cubans did advance. Note: Fascists are always pointing to Haiti to prove that some people are innately inferior, yet the situations of Haiti and pre-Castro Cuba are very similar.

Ultimately, third world nations fail because "nobody gave them a chance". A big flaw in fascist (or to an extent capitalist) ideology is their un-willingness to nurture anything.