What are you guys waiting for?

[the debater]

Is there anyone, anyone here who is willing to actually debate with white supremacists? Please tell me I am not the only one here who cares.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why should one waste their time that could be spent doing something productive on debating a dying creepy internet species?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Is there anyone, anyone here who is willing to actually debate with white supremacists? Please tell me I am not the only one here who cares.

No, I generally prefer to be sarcastic and berate them wherever I find them. Then again, I'm not the master debater.

[Sinister Intents]

Is there anyone, anyone here who is willing to actually debate with white supremacists? Please tell me I am not the only one here who cares.

Yeah, I'll debate them physically and verbally. I've got everything I need to fight these fuckers.

[LiamChe]

How can you debate with stupidity lol? We must actively fight fascism, not have bourgeois academic debates with them like a liberal would. I couldn't think of an even bigger waste of time than debating with those people. But if you want to waste your time, then go ahead.

[Per Levy]

there are way more usefull things to do than debate with a white-supremacist, like playing computer games, reading a book, watching a good movie, watching bob ross paint a picture and so many more nice things you could do instead. i mean if you like to do that, if that is some kind of fun for you, id say good for you, but i had my share of racism, racist conspiracy theories and our race is the best bs in my life that i can live without it.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

A refusal to debate with someone is not necessarily an indication that one doesn't care about the matter up for debate. I've debated with white supremacists before, mainly online, though, because real-life encounters seldom allow for civility; rightfully so, too, I see no reason to show any respect for these fools. And really, debating with a racist -- much like debating with a theist or an atheist -- is ultimately an exercise in mental masturbation as it is highly unlikely either side will change the view of their opponent.

I wonder about the title of this thread, are you issuing a mandate that people must debate with white supremacists? If so, what gives you the right to mandate such a thing and why should anyone care? Personally, I prefer a more direct courses of action than verbal tit-for-tat.

[the debater]

Why should one waste their time that could be spent doing something productive on debating a dying creepy internet species?


As shown by the thermometer graphs below, we've only made our fundraising goal one time in the past nine months. I compensated by putting several projects on hold, including resumption of our radio program, video chat, video hosting and major software/hardware upgrades. These require a huge amount of work, particularly changing software, but they also require money.

I haven't pushed for donations this year, since I hate begging. But it's time to move forward, not just survive.

Helping to do our part in financially crippling Stormfront would be a decent victory, at least in my opinion.

[#FF0000]

"c'mon guys we have to do something"
"why aren't you guys arguing on the internet more!? Don't you want to do something?"

[the debater]

No, I generally prefer to be sarcastic and berate them wherever I find them. Then again, I'm not the master debater.

I'm not sure whether this post is meant to criticize me or not, but nevertheless, I would like to point out that this is not about me, if any of you were getting that impression. I just feel that in terms of debating on Stormfront, there is the potential to get enough people to quit the site so that Stormfront's financial situation gets worse and worse. And even if you feel that agressive tactics are more useful in fighting fascism, it still wouldn't hurt to pursue both strategies. Intellectual debates and violence don't have to contradict one another. These options can still be pursued simultaneously. Now, it's definitely true that you're going to run into some real idiots on Stormfront. Not going to lie about that. However, the fact that there are so many idiots on Stormfront is precisely the reason I've been harping and moaning about using direct refutations in debates. It's much harder for our opponents to ignore arguments that are more direct and to the point. And even if they still try to ignore those arguments, that doesn't mean you should give up debating them. It just means that you keep repeating those arguments over and over and over and over. And then, if these white supremacists still ignore your arguments, just call them out on their ignorance. When all is said and done, if these idiots still don't budge on their beliefs, at least they'll make themselves look like fools to both their fellow white nationalists, and to lurkers. The possibilities are endless.

[the debater]

How can you debate with stupidity lol? We must actively fight fascism, not have bourgeois academic debates with them like a liberal would. I couldn't think of an even bigger waste of time than debating with those people. But if you want to waste your time, then go ahead.

It has not been a waste of time. There are plenty of borderline white nationalists and white nationalist sympathizers who are willing to listen to anti-racist arguments. People like Japan1234, Fero, Ares88, and several others. These were people who quit Stormfront despite being somewhat extreme in their beliefs. I don't know the exact reasons for why they left Stormfront, but I would imagine that one of the reasons was that they were willing to listen to evidence and logic.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I know why Japan1234 left. He was an East Asian supremacist that I sent a link to about how poor white boys had the worst test scores in Britain. Roughly a few days after he got the link, he left Stormfront. So I have reason to believe that sending him that link that I sent him caused him to reconsider his views about race and intelligence.

[swagbucks]

I do care about white supremacists, I hope a lot that they never go far politically again. But I think it's easier for me to bring people who aren't white supremacists round to my way of thinking so if I was going to debate to try and recruit I'd start with other people.

It would be cool to financially cripple Stormfront but I'm thinking people who donate to Stormfront would be even more white supremacist than is normal for a white supremacist so hard to persuade with rational debate. I think a skilled computer hacker would be able to do that job with less time used.

Also Internet debate bores me some, I take ideas from others but can seldom be bothered to join in. I've thought before that some of these Nazi posters on internet may well just be attention seeking.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I mean it's your free time you can do what you want, but if you haven't followed up with these users how can you take credit for changing their views? Maybe they stopped going to storm front for a million other reasons, maybe they were sick of debating with you?

[Reticential]

Actually, now that I think about it, I think I know why Japan1234 left. He was an East Asian supremacist that I sent a link to about how poor white boys had the worst test scores in Britain. Roughly a few days after he got the link, he left Stormfront. So I have reason to believe that sending him that link that I sent him caused him to reconsider his views about race and intelligence.

I've been on the site due to being linked there a few times and it has just made me want my white skin to slough off. How can you stay long enough to know names and who is approachable?!

'debating' tends to become 'equally-incoherent-slurs-from-the-opposite-end-of-the-spectrum'. It seems like time better spent engaging in things outside. Reading things that oppose or criticise your current beliefs isn't a bad thing, it'll give you a better understanding and ability to critique. But people who've taken bullshit so much to heart aren't really worth your time. Because it's unlikely people come about these views all by themselves they're usually nurtured by other factors in their socialisation. You don't just wake up a white supremacist.

Pyotr Pavlensky nailed his scrotum to Red Square the other day...by the sounds of it people in this thread who are capable would rather do that than give Stormfront the traffic.

[AmilcarCabral]

A couple of philosophers Mirabeau and Nietzsche claimed that people shouldn't get into irrelevant fights, worthless irrelevant battles, and spend their emotional, mental and nervous energies trying to fight against anybody like when somebody offends you, insults you and irrelevant stuff.

They claimed that if people offends you, you should even laugh at them. And only wage battles and wars that are important and relevant.

In the book 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, it also says that it is a waste of time to help toxic, negative people. What would probably happen is that negative toxic people will drag you down to their negative world.

So having said this, my best tip to you is to dimiss, skip and evade all irrelevant conflicts, and verbal battles with toxic negative, ultra-right wing, libertarians anti-communism people. And save your precious time, energies, power and strength for the real batttle which is the coming class-war communist revolution



Is there anyone, anyone here who is willing to actually debate with white supremacists? Please tell me I am not the only one here who cares.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm not sure whether this post is meant to criticize me or not, but nevertheless, I would like to point out that this is not about me, if any of you were getting that impression. I just feel that in terms of debating on Stormfront, there is the potential to get enough people to quit the site so that Stormfront's financial situation gets worse and worse. And even if you feel that agressive tactics are more useful in fighting fascism, it still wouldn't hurt to pursue both strategies. Intellectual debates and violence don't have to contradict one another. These options can still be pursued simultaneously. Now, it's definitely true that you're going to run into some real idiots on Stormfront. Not going to lie about that. However, the fact that there are so many idiots on Stormfront is precisely the reason I've been harping and moaning about using direct refutations in debates. It's much harder for our opponents to ignore arguments that are more direct and to the point. And even if they still try to ignore those arguments, that doesn't mean you should give up debating them. It just means that you keep repeating those arguments over and over and over and over. And then, if these white supremacists still ignore your arguments, just call them out on their ignorance. When all is said and done, if these idiots still don't budge on their beliefs, at least they'll make themselves look like fools to both their fellow white nationalists, and to lurkers. The possibilities are endless.

I already think that Stormfront, in particular, get's it's regular raids, hacking, barrages of facts, evidences, logic, etc. but the thing is, it's not just a matter of introducing logical and reason into that cesspool, you still have to filter out all the shit, too, you know.

For some people, just like with any "extreme," political viewpoint or "group," based movements,wrap their whole identity into their politics, it is them, it's how they view and cope with the world and their present reality, it's their whole world-view and in some cases has been since childhood and it's being proposed I personally could change such a mental crisis via some debate on some internet discussion forum?

Not to mention, some of them are wrapped up in gangish shit irl involved with their stupidity, so they for obvious reasons can't just be like, "you know what, alright, that poster ComradeBroibalsan245 is right, this is dumb, I'm gonna tell the fellas," just for the simple fact that it wouldn't really be that easy.

But I do support any raids, hacking, trolling, fund-fucking, and or legitimate debate attempts by others, even if I'm rare to do it myself.

[AmilcarCabral]

My brother Sinister: don't do that, it might even be dangerous for you. (Remember that people in USA are emotional, nervous etc. and people in America (not only ultra-right wingers) use guns and kill people even over a parking lot in a commercial store

And you won't overthrow the capitalist government by doing that, it won;'t lead to a radical change. Save your precious energies, health and mental clarity and well-being for the real war. The coming class war of leftists against the capitalist government and capitalist class

Just smile and laugh at fascists, save your health and life for the coming real class-war and real important revolution of leftists against the right-wing government which might take place around 2018 to 2020 in USA

.



Yeah, I'll debate them physically and verbally. I've got everything I need to fight these fuckers.

[#FF0000]

My brother Sinister: don't do that, it might even be dangerous for you.

Naw American Nazis are the most docile of creatures. I'm not a big tuff guy but if you stand your ground against them they'll more likely back down than get into a fight, unless they're outnumbering you and attack you when you're not looking, or something.



Just smile and laugh at fascists, save your health and life for the coming real class-war and real important revolution of leftists against the right-wing government which might take place around 2018 to 2020 in USA

lmao

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Little to no interest in debate, personally. They've usually got no interest in changing their minds (or accepting anything that challenges a cosy, black and white (ugh... no pun intended) worldview) and I've got no interest in wasting my time and energy on people who will off-handedly dismiss everything I say - at best.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Naw American Nazis are the most docile of creatures. I'm not a big tuff guy but if you stand your ground against them they'll more likely back down than get into a fight, unless they're outnumbering you and attack you when you're not looking, or something.

Careful, don't get too cavalier about this stuff. Some friends told me a story about an anarchist attempt to disrupt a neo-nazi meeting that went very poorly when a crew of skinny anarchists found themselves face-to-face with a posse of nasty muscle-bound bat-armed boneheads. One should plan carefully and exercise extreme caution when approaching physical confrontations - there's always a possibility for terrible consequences/surprises.

I don't mean that to shoot you down #FF0000, it's just a thing I'm wary of making light of without disclaimers.

As for the broader discussion, I think most of us probably debate with white supremacists every day, since white supremacy is a pillar of capitalism (at least in a settler-colonial context). I think it makes more sense to focus on these debates, with "everyday" racists, than to waste our words on the extremist fringe, who even if they "stop being white supremacists" will very likely never be committed anti-racists. Rather, winning "everyday" people to anti-racist and anti-colonial politics is a much better strategy for fighting white supremacy generally.

[#FF0000]

I don't mean that to shoot you down #FF0000, it's just a thing I'm wary of making light of without disclaimers

Nah you're right. What's true in one area isn't necessarily true in others.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Stormfront is an e-cult, to a degree, perhaps. I'm going to put it out there anyways.

[Sam_b]

The same guy that thinks anti-white racism is somehow a thing and can't even hold up a debate with leftists on this board ('let's evaluate ourselves' thread) is now goading people for not debating with SFers? Please.

Also, all you people who are obsessed, I mean absolutely fucking obsessed with that website need to get a life. You can also stop putting this site in danger of being DDOSed again by attracting them over here with your fucking plans of 'debating' them.

[ВАЛТЕР]

It's a waste of time. What is there to discuss? Any white supremacists that actually used reason and basic logic wouldn't need to be debated as they themselves would quickly realize that the positions are stupid to say the least and quickly disassociate with them. Anyone with even a minimal level of critical thinking skills can see for themselves as to why white nationalism is preposterous.

[the debater]

The same guy that thinks anti-white racism is somehow a thing and can't even hold up a debate with leftists on this board ('let's evaluate ourselves' thread) is now goading people for not debating with SFers? Please.


Well one, who said I can't even hold up a debate? I could see the debates I've had here being inconclusive, but I wouldn't say I lost, objectively speaking. Now as for anti-white racism, racism exists against everybody, and from everybody. However, if you want to make the argument that black Americans are victimized by white institutions, that makes more sense than saying the entire white race is holding down black Americans. It doesn't make sense to talk about "the white race" or "the Jews" or "the black race" because mentioning races and ethnicities in such general terms doesn't take into account that not all white people are the same, not all Jewish people are the same, not all blacks, etc.

[the debater]

It's a waste of time. What is there to discuss? Any white supremacists that actually used reason and basic logic wouldn't need to be debated as they themselves would quickly realize that the positions are stupid to say the least and quickly disassociate with them. Anyone with even a minimal level of critical thinking skills can see for themselves as to why white nationalism is preposterous.

But how do you respond to a white supremacist who says that the black race is stupid because even rich blacks do worse on the SAT than poor whites? How do you respond to a white supremacist who says that multiple twins studies indicate that IQ and personality are genetic, rather than environmental? Remember, the white supremacists will use scientific studies and statistics to try to back up their claims about race and intelligence. How do you respond to the main claims posited by the book The Bell Curve when white supremacists bring up that book as evidence of black IQ inferiority? You'd be surprised at how many white supremacists would actually listen to you as long as you stick to accurate, and direct refutations of their arguments.

[the debater]

But if you want to waste your time, then go ahead.

The problem is that the last few times I've gone onto Stormfront, the retarded mods have blocked my posts. I try to be civil. I don't post interracial gay porn. I don't troll. I don't spam, and I stick to the topic. The only reason I can think of for my posts getting rejected is that they're too embarrassing to white supremacists, not because I'm breaking any civility rules.

[Fakeblock]

The problem is that the last few times I've gone onto Stormfront, the retarded mods have blocked my posts. I try to be civil. I don't post interracial gay porn. I don't troll. I don't spam, and I stick to the topic. The only reason I can think of for my posts getting rejected is that they're too embarrassing to white supremacists, not because I'm breaking any civility rules.

So why do you bother?

[Hrafn]

The problem is that the last few times I've gone onto Stormfront, the retarded mods have blocked my posts. I try to be civil. I don't post interracial gay porn. I don't troll. I don't spam, and I stick to the topic. The only reason I can think of for my posts getting rejected is that they're too embarrassing to white supremacists, not because I'm breaking any civility rules.

The problem?

You're trying to debate them.

[the debater]

So why do you bother?

Well, before my posts started getting blocked 100%, the mods actually did let through some posts of mine. There was even a thread called "Great Arguments Against White Nationalism" that I started hanging out in back in June. My posts during that time period got through for the most part. After the Great Arguments thread was closed for some reason I wasn't able to fathom, I hung out in the open forums. At that point in time, my posts still got through on a regular basis. So for awhile, my posts actually did get through. It was only towards the end of my tenure on SF that my posts finally got rejected. As for the quality of the opponents I ran into, let's just say I was, um, well, "horribly, horribly unimpressed." To truly understand how idiotic white supremacists are, and to truly fathom the extent of their lunacy, nothing beats going to Stormfront and reading the threads for yourself.

[Sam_b]

who said I can't even hold up a debate?

I did.


could see the debates I've had here being inconclusive, but I wouldn't say I lost, objectively speaking

I've been embarrassed at some of the things you've said.


Now as for anti-white racism, racism exists against everybody, and from everybody

Such as this, because you're plain wrong and seem to ignore completely the power structures that are inherent in racism existing. This whole arguing with white supremacists thing is abject stupidity and a waste of time but if I wanted anyone to represent our side it certainly someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about the manifestations of racism.


The only reason I can think of for my posts getting rejected is that they're too embarrassing to white supremacists, not because I'm breaking any civility rules.

Well why would they? It's the same here, I have no interest in either giving a platform or debating fascists on RL, so I doubt fascists particularly want to have a debate on their site with anti-fascists anyway. I would have assumed this to be pretty obvious, and it doesn't actually prove anything. Absolute waste of time and energy anyway.

[the debater]

This whole arguing with white supremacists thing is abject stupidity and a waste of time

Well, how would you respond to common arguments that are used by white supremacists? If you don't research their arguments, and you don't take the time to understand them better than they understand themselves, (slight exaggeration, but you get my point) then of course debating them is going to be a waste of time. But, if you prepare yourself well, then you'll be more successful.


but if I wanted anyone to represent our side it certainly someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about the manifestations of racism.

I may not have a clue about the "manifestations" of racism, but I do know common arguments used by white supremacists to justify their racism. Arguments like how rich black students do worse on the SAT on average vs poorer white students. Arguments like how the white race was the only race involved in starting up the Industrial Revolution, and is the only race that deserves credit for today's modern world. Arguments like how race has more to do with crime rates than poverty does. After all, poor, rural, majority-white West Virginia has a low crime rate! That proves once and for all that crime rates have more to do with race than poverty! You hate white people!

If you can refute arguments such as these, then the white supremacists won't have a leg to stand on. If you've read the Refutations thread, you'll find good refutations for the above arguments.

white supremacist) Whites are responsible for the Industrial Revolution. We're superior!

anti-racist) Not so fast. The ancient Europeans were inferior. Look at these quotes by Strabo. Whites haven't always had the upper hand technologically. This indicates that the Industrial Revolution had more to do with political and cultural factors, not racial factors.

white supremacist) But, but, even rich blacks have terrible SAT scores though.

anti-racist) Hold on now. There's evidence that a significant plurality of rich black families still choose to live in poor neighborhoods. This would offset any economic advantages held by rich black teenagers in terms of their intellectual capacity, since their environment is still identical to those of poor blacks, and since in this case, neighborhood setting is a stronger influence on school grades than socio-economic status.

white supremacist) But mixed-race people are unnatural.

anti-racist) Wrong again. Hispanics in the U.S. have longer lifespans than both blacks and whites, despite having a lot of social disadvantages in life. It seems as if mixed-race people are doing fine. Look up Cuba's infant mortality rate.

white supremacist) But, many twin studies indicate that IQ and personality are still mostly hereditary.

anti-racist) Well, there might be problems with those studies. Besides, a more careful study started in 1998, the Colorado Adoption Project, found virtually no correlation between adopted kids and their biological parents in terms of personality traits. I recall the researchers were surprised by their findings, and tried to interpret their findings to fit genetic explanations for personality.

[Sam_b]

Why should we debate white supremacists in the first place? Why should anyone here be legitimising SF by posting and engaging in that particular forum?


Wrong again. Hispanics in the U.S. have longer lifespans than both blacks and whites, despite having a lot of social disadvantages in life. It seems as if mixed-race people are doing fine. Look up Cuba's infant mortality rate.

Why has your 'anti-racist' character given an answer unrelated to the question here?

[the debater]

Why should we debate white supremacists in the first place? Why should anyone here be legitimising SF by posting and engaging in that particular forum?

Read over posts # 8, 10, and 11.


Why has your 'anti-racist' character given an answer unrelated to the question here?

By showing that mixed-race people aren't necessarily unhealthy, I'm showing that there's nothing wrong with being a mixed-race person, and thus, there is nothing "unnatural" about it.

[bcbm]

By showing that mixed-race people aren't necessarily unhealthy, I'm showing that there's nothing wrong with being a mixed-race person, and thus, there is nothing "unnatural" about it.

or there is basic biology and genetics

[the debater]

or there is basic biology and genetics

This is too general. Trust me, you want to be more specific than this. And more direct.

[Loony Le Fist]

Every moment spent debating and arguing with white supremacists on SF is a moment not spent helping workers organize, not spent helping improve conditions for all, and not spent promoting why our ideas are better. That said I think there is definitely a time and place for debate with white supremacists.

Despite those that have left SF who are possibly influenceable, the real purpose of debate is to influence neutral spectators, not to influence the opponent. I doubt many spectators on SF would be malleable to our ideas. Debating them on RL is simply preaching to the choir.

I think we need to focus on informing people rather than debating them. It is much easier to persuade others in a non-adversarial context.

[Bala Perdida]

I guess in response I would be waiting for them to actually try something. If they keep quiet then there is no reason to debate them, I won't even know they're there. However, if they are publicly trying to preach their ideas then I will step in (especially if they're gaining support) and let them know that they are not welcome and that I will not tolerate nor accommodate or respect their oppressive, fascist and racist views. This system is collapsing and times of crisis and economic instability have proven to be breeding grounds for fascism, racism, intolerance and other forms of oppression. It is crucial that we let them know that we will not be their slaves, nor will we let their tyranny gain support. It sounds hypocritical but we have to attack these people, and let them know that their intolerance is unwelcome. It's the only thing that worked.

On a side note, I'd just like to share a scary incident in class when a majority was actually starting to build up against reforming immigrants. They said that they didn't want to "reward" them for "breaking the law". Even scarier is that they had one of my family members telling others that they had to acknowledge that they "broke the law" when they decided to stay in this country.

[Loony Le Fist]

It sounds hypocritical but we have to attack these people, and let them know that their intolerance is unwelcome

Absolutely. It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. After all, it is not hypocritical to use violence to defend yourself against those that are violent against you. To be intolerant of intolerance is to defend society against reactionaries that seek to use division as a weapon to control us.

[Hrafn]

How 'bout attacking Fascism somewhere else than, say, the internet. You're always welcome in Sweden.

[the debater]

How 'bout attacking Fascism somewhere else than, say, the internet. You're always welcome in Sweden.

What is this fricking obsession with violence that so many Rev-Lefters have? Look, I'm not a very strong person at all. My arms are basically pencils, and I never grew up on a farm or in any situation where I had to build up muscle. Online debating is not a waste of time. It's very easy, it's short and quick, it doesn't require a lot of planning, (except for coming up with arguments) and overall, it's much less of a hassle than getting into fights all the time. I think violence is okay if the situation is really desperate, but otherwise, getting into fights all the time makes us look like hooligan trouble-makers. We become a laughingstock, and fewer people take us seriously. Besides, if we resort to intellectual arguments, we'll get the smart people on our side, which is what we want.

[Sam_b]

Firstly you seem to be taking 'attacking fascism' more literally than it's meant in this context. Secondly, it's only an 'obsession' in the sense that we have to keep repeating to people like yourself that we should be giving no platform to fascists anytime, anywhere, and if this means physically shutting things down then so be it.


Oh I just saw this gem. So you're hoping to get 'smart people' on your side by posting on a fascist forum?

[the debater]

Firstly you seem to be taking 'attacking fascism' more literally than it's meant in this context.

Well, some members of this forum seem to think getting into physical conflicts is the way to go. Sinister Intents and Wuzhengfu come to mind.


Secondly, it's only an 'obsession' in the sense that we have to keep repeating to people like yourself that we should be giving no platform to fascists anytime, anywhere, and if this means physically shutting things down then so be it.How about instead of shutting them down, we simply refute their arguments?


Oh I just saw this gem. So you're hoping to get 'smart people' on your side by posting on a fascist forum?

Well, you seem to have forgotten that there are guests and lurkers in the open forum on Light Drizzle Front. If we were to start winning debates on the fascists' home turf, that would make us look pretty good, wouldn't it? Hooligans who get into fights and tear up the place only make us look bad, and that is what I'm trying to avoid. My mindset is that I want leftism to have a good public image, and that's not going to happen if anarchists get into unnecessary fights. If I recall correctly, most American scientists are actually Democrats rather than Republicans. It would seem that a lot of smart people are already mostly liberal, and thus, are more open to socialism. So let's get more smart people into our cause, and rely on intellectual debate at least as often as we rely on violence.

[Remus Bleys]

Wait, sam, are you saying you don't believe in debates? *gasp*
Imagine that! Don't you think it's absurd to have a forum moderator not believe in the almighty power of the debate?

[Sam_b]

How about instead of shutting them down, we simply refute their arguments?

Because 'refuting their arguments' never worked in Nazi Germany, or Italy, or when we have comrades getting knifed at shows in Russia. 'Refuting their arguments' wasn't the factor that stopped the BUF at Cable street. I wish I was so naive to think that everything will be okay once we just go on a bunch of forums and give some reasoned debates. That's not how it works. We don't give platforms to fascists, we don't legitimise their arguments by debating them on a platform, and we certainly don't risk this forum fro having another troll invasion/DDOS attack by posting on SF and then going on about it on the forums.

Half the posts you make on this website in some way are about arguments to level at SFers or the practice itself. I'll be honest, I find your obsession with the site totally creepy.


Wait, sam, are you saying you don't believe in debates? *gasp*
Imagine that! Don't you think it's absurd to have a forum moderator not believe in the almighty power of the debate?

Heh, well played.

[Bala Perdida]

Absolutely. It is not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. After all, it is not hypocritical to use violence to defend yourself against those that are violent against you. To be intolerant of intolerance is to defend society against reactionaries that seek to use division as a weapon to control us.

Adding to that, it's also ridiculous when these dictatorial fascists try to gain sympathy claiming their "freedom of speech" and "right to protest" when their goal is to take that away from us, the minorities, the opposition, the lower class. They wine about not being welcome when they do their demonstrations despite us or anyone else using our same "freedom of speech" and our same "right to protest" to show them that their behavior and attitude is not welcome.

[xxxxxx666666]

Firstly you seem to be taking 'attacking fascism' more literally than it's meant in this context. Secondly, it's only an 'obsession' in the sense that we have to keep repeating to people like yourself that we should be giving no platform to fascists anytime, anywhere, and if this means physically shutting things down then so be it.


Oh I just saw this gem. So you're hoping to get 'smart people' on your side by posting on a fascist forum?


Oh, yes, by the way, isn't what you are suggesting what the Communists in Weimar Republic Germany tried to do to the National Socialist party?

Didn't Hitler himself made himself a Martyr, of sort, because the Socialism and Marxist, or the Reds, as he called them, tried unsucessfully to violently throw them out?

After all, in the Mein Kampf, Hitler even said that when the Red Flag, as he called them, couldn't hold their own in verbal exchange they resorted to violence forcing Hitler to recruit a bodyguard movement to ensure so that his party could surivive (Hitler's word's, more or less, not mine).

"More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteen or twenty men would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponents known that three or four times as many of themselves would first get their skulls cracked. " ~A direct quote from an english translation of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler Volume 2 in The National Socialist Movement Chaper VII: The Struggle with the Red Front.

And I'll also add:

"Yes, how often did they not turn up in huge numbers, those supporters of the Red Flag, all previously instructed to smash up everything once and for all and put an end to these meetings."~also from Mein Kampf.

Hitler admited that he made the Nazi flag red because he wanted to show he wasn't afraid of the Communists in his Mein Kampf.

"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left"~yet again, from Adolf Hitler himself in an english translated version of Mein Kampf.

Yes this is history, but as the old saying goes,
"Notable Quotations from George Santayana 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284"


Adding to that, it's also ridiculous when these dictatorial fascists try to gain sympathy claiming their "freedom of speech" and "right to protest" when their goal is to take that away from us, the minorities, the opposition, the lower class. They wine about not being welcome when they do their demonstrations despite us or anyone else using our same "freedom of speech" and our same "right to protest" to show them that their behavior and attitude is not welcome.

But that's more or less what Hitler and his followers did, according to the Mein Kampf, and even when the German police and the Reds were against them. After all in Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that his party had to physically fight for their rights to speak and survive against the "Reds" and even the police secretly helped the "Reds" thus the need for bodyguard units that may later become the infamous SA and SS.

And yes, to not end up like the Socialism and Marxist in Weimar Republic Germany (who did violently tried to stop the Nazis from taking control, contrary to what some people here seems to think) we should read every one of the works our enemy puts out and disprove them, point by point, if possible.

Anyway, I'll link to places that may be of relevence and help.

Wanted: facts to destroy racism (and sexism as well)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wanted-facts-destroy-t184352/index.html?t=184352

A continuation of "Wanted: facts to destroy racism (and sexism as well)"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/continuation-wanted-facts-t184408/index.html?t=184408

'Anti-Racism is a codeword for Anti-White'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-racism-codeword-t183621/index.html?t=183621

And maybe a few others I may not know about (please link to them if so)

[Bala Perdida]

It sounds hypocritical but we have to attack these people, and let them know that their intolerance is unwelcome. It's the only thing that worked.

I just want to make it clear that when I say "attack these people" I mean we have to heavily and verbally confront them. We have to show them that they cannot go around trying to convince us that Jews, blacks, immigrants, homosexuals or any other group of people in the category (that would be people who don't chose what their hated for, so it's usually ethnic people) are ruining this country and are less than human. We have to disrespect them strongly and not give them any chance to keep talking. This way we will show the people that following their example will only turn you into a hated degenerate that no one is going to listen to.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Where are white people institutionally discriminated against based on their being 'white'? And I don't mean 'white people' in positions of poverty like most of Southern and Eastern Europe - I mean white people who are economically, politically and socially discriminated on the behalf of a benefiting ethnic group.

And by fucking Buddha if you reference the god-damned former apartheid states I will spray paint the words "Commercial Farmers in Namibia, Zimbabwe and S. Africa" onto a nuclear warhead and fire it in your general direction. I cannot think of any part of the world in which 'white people' are oppressed by another 'ethnic groups' in any major manner, institutional or otherwise. On the other hand, institutional racism towards the many African ethnicities, is extremely present throughout the western world - particularly America - and even in Africa (Equatorial Guinea is basically just a rich white-majority enclave isle with a country-sized oil plantation on the African mainland).

[o well this is ok I guess]

if i met a nazi face to face I'd be worried about more than just how I'm going to raise a counterpoint, they kill minorities in this town
dunno how I'm supposed to have a conversation in those conditions

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Dealing with racism and race is a minimal factor in regards to socialism and communism.

[xxxxxx666666]

if i met a nazi face to face I'd be worried about more than just how I'm going to raise a counterpoint, they kill minorities in this town
dunno how I'm supposed to have a conversation in those conditions

That's why we should try to disprove all their points on the internet rather than face to face, lol:laugh:
(or in widely read newspapers if you happened to suddenly traveled back in time before the advent of the internet, hey, that's what Hitler claimed to have done, and the American Revolution was started, more or less, by newspapers that circulated ideas around, so why shouldn't we do the same?)


...and on easy to find and understand pages I should add.

Yes, we may not change that nazi's point of view, but, as already been said here, it will make that nazi look like a fool and people will be less likely to join the nazi cause, especially if that newspaper is in wide circulation, or that website is well visited.

Besides

What is this fricking obsession with violence that so many Rev-Lefters have? Look, I'm not a very strong person at all. My arms are basically pencils, and I never grew up on a farm or in any situation where I had to build up muscle. Online debating is not a waste of time. It's very easy, it's short and quick, it doesn't require a lot of planning, (except for coming up with arguments) and overall, it's much less of a hassle than getting into fights all the time. I think violence is okay if the situation is really desperate, but otherwise, getting into fights all the time makes us look like hooligan trouble-makers. We become a laughingstock, and fewer people take us seriously. Besides, if we resort to intellectual arguments, we'll get the smart people on our side, which is what we want.

I think "the debater" has merits, very good points, I think.



Dealing with racism and race is a minimal factor in regards to socialism and communism.

Well, I disagree in that dealing with all forms of discrimination should be priority, after all shouldn't all socialist and communists be equal, as in not discriminated against because of race, gender, sexual perference, etc. etc.?

Yes, I know, most of you (I hope) wouldn't even entertain such ideas as discrimination, but I think we should disprove ideas that causes discrimination whenever we get the chance.

[Alonso Quijano]

Yes, I know, most of you (I hope) wouldn't even entertain such ideas as discrimination, but I think we should disprove ideas that causes discrimination whenever we get the chance.
The people on StormFront are all ready out of their minds.

I am just NOT CAPABLE of degrading myself to the point of explaining, 100 years later, why the protocols are a lie, a century later.

I their world I'm a circus freak. I'm not going to be there to give them a show.

Even those are not yet fucked up, like a guy I saw there that asked if he can make friends with the only Jew he knows in school or something (of course he got a clear no, and lerned from that) just shows you with what you're dealing here. The "normal" racists aren't driven by ideology rather instincts and brainwash in my opinion.

[bcbm]

good god who are these people? the only sensible argument for nazis is whether to give them a tire iron or a baseball bat to the skull

[Hrafn]

What is this fricking obsession with violence that so many Rev-Lefters have? Look, I'm not a very strong person at all. My arms are basically pencils, and I never grew up on a farm or in any situation where I had to build up muscle. Online debating is not a waste of time. It's very easy, it's short and quick, it doesn't require a lot of planning, (except for coming up with arguments) and overall, it's much less of a hassle than getting into fights all the time. I think violence is okay if the situation is really desperate, but otherwise, getting into fights all the time makes us look like hooligan trouble-makers. We become a laughingstock, and fewer people take us seriously. Besides, if we resort to intellectual arguments, we'll get the smart people on our side, which is what we want.

Well, some members of this forum seem to think getting into physical conflicts is the way to go. Sinister Intents and Wuzhengfu come to mind.

I do encourage violence, on the streets and in their homes, as a viable tactic. Hooliganism is meaningless - carefully planed and applied violence highly effective. It served Sweden well, when the rising tide of Neo-Nazism was beat back in the 90's and early 00's. Your pacifism will not help you when they come knocking - and your "pencil arms" have not a goddamn thing to do with it.

Such violence isn't all I mean by fighting Fascism however, as correctly pointed out by Sam. The blunt violence that I advocate has, absolutely has, to be combined with widespread anti-Fascism on the streets, in the workplaces, in every public venue.

[#FF0000]

Dealing with racism and race is a minimal factor in regards to socialism and communism.

what do you mean?

[the debater]

Wait, sam, are you saying you don't believe in debates? *gasp*
Imagine that! Don't you think it's absurd to have a forum moderator not believe in the almighty power of the debate?

Oh no, were you being sarcastic!? :ohmy::laugh:

[the debater]

I do encourage violence, on the streets and in their homes, as a viable tactic. Hooliganism is meaningless - carefully planed and applied violence highly effective. It served Sweden well, when the rising tide of Neo-Nazism was beat back in the 90's and early 00's.


Your pacifism will not help you when they come knocking - and your "pencil arms" have not a goddamn thing to do with it.


Dude, if I was fricking Mark Henry or Gennady Golovkin, then maybe I would be more accepting of your point. But I don't think we should go to their homes. That's only going to make any victims of the anarchist raids look like martyrs, and then the fascists will just be "inspired" by these raids. But, if we win debates against them, and cause just enough people to leave Stormfront, and Stormfront goes offline, then instead of holding a funeral for Stormfront, they're just going to be mad as hell.

[the debater]

good god who are these people? the only sensible argument for nazis is whether to give them a tire iron or a baseball bat to the skull

Where's your grammar comrade? Punctuation?

[Hermes]

Where's your grammar comrade? Punctuation?

i had a grammar comrade once

[Hrafn]

Dude, if I was fricking Mark Henry or Gennady Golovkin, then maybe I would be more accepting of your point. But I don't think we should go to their homes. That's only going to make any victims of the anarchist raids look like martyrs, and then the fascists will just be "inspired" by these raids. But, if we win debates against them, and cause just enough people to leave Stormfront, and Stormfront goes offline, then instead of holding a funeral for Stormfront, they're just going to be mad as hell.

You do realize it is a successful tactic, and has been such for years here in Sweden? They're no martyrs here. They're not inspired. Groups like Anti-Fascist Action and the Revolutionary Front carry out organized campaigns, in which they - for example - select an organized Fascist, attack his home, vandalize his property, out him as a Nazi to all his neighbours, publish all his personal details online, etc. and continue to do so until said Fascist publicly renounces his ideology and ceases activity. Tactics such as these, combined with a thorough street presence in regards to propaganda, counter-protests, etc. is what has made it very, very hard to operate as a Nazi in today's Sweden.

Edit: Also, again, quit whining about your goddamn "pencil arms". Your physical condition has nothing to do with this. I myself would hardly call myself buffed, and neither would I describe most active anti-Fascists I know as such.

[the debater]

You do realize it is a successful tactic, and has been such for years here in Sweden? They're no martyrs here. They're not inspired. Groups like Anti-Fascist Action and the Revolutionary Front carry out organized campaigns, in which they - for example - select an organized Fascist, attack his home, vandalize his property, out him as a Nazi to all his neighbours, publish all his personal details online, etc. and continue to do so until said Fascist publicly renounces his ideology and ceases activity. Tactics such as these, combined with a thorough street presence in regards to propaganda, counter-protests, etc. is what has made it very, very hard to operate as a Nazi in today's Sweden.

Edit: Also, again, quit whining about your goddamn "pencil arms". Your physical condition has nothing to do with this. I myself would hardly call myself buffed, and neither would I describe most active anti-Fascists I know as such.

Very well then. I will accept the evidence you've provided of how violence can work. So about a compromise: how about we as leftists pursue both strategies, physical and intellectual? They don't have to contradict each other.

Another thing, what am I supposed to do then, if I'm not physically strong? What happens if I run into really buff fascists who perform physical labor for their jobs? If violence is going to be pursued, then there need to be more leftists who are strong, who are blue-collar laborers, and who can actually beat up people. If you're going to pursue violence, then prepare yourself, and lift weights, and practice with a punching bag.

[bcbm]

Where's your grammar comrade? Punctuation?

those are for the bourgeoisie and their sycophants

[Hrafn]

Very well then. I will accept the evidence you've provided of how violence can work. So about a compromise: how about we as leftists pursue both strategies, physical and intellectual? They don't have to contradict each other.

Another thing, what am I supposed to do then, if I'm not physically strong? What happens if I run into really buff fascists who perform physical labor for their jobs? If violence is going to be pursued, then there need to be more leftists who are strong, who are blue-collar laborers, and who can actually beat up people. If you're going to pursue violence, then prepare yourself, and lift weights, and practice with a punching bag.

For your first paragraph - no. Your harassment at Stormfront will accomplish nothing, as previous argued by several posters. If you can find other venues to intellectually argue, then sure, but don't do it on Stormfront where it will go without effect.


Second paragraph - don't be silly. You don't need muscles to participate in a street protest. Not even in the black block. You don't need muscles to spread propaganda. And, really, let's be honest, if you by chance would like to get engaged in the violent part of fighting Fascism, you don't need muscles planting an explosive device on someone's car while your comrades keep watch. There is naturally a need for muscles, but not everyone have to be buff. So don't try to argue about your own weakness.

[Quail]

Oh, this thread is still going...

I just want to reiterate a few points:
1) It's about as pointless going on scumfront to debate fascists as it is for fascists to come on here and try to convince us, so.... Why bother? There are loads more productive ways to spend your time.
2) Turn up to an antifascist demo and actually manage to have a debate with one of the fascists and I will eat my steel capped boots. They don't debate and they don't listen. That's not what they're there for.
3) Which brings me to the next point... It's really fucking important to show that they are not welcome to preach their hate, because their very presence makes a place unsafe for ethnic/religious minorities, LGBT people, etc. You can't just let them stand there and talk, they have to be shown the door at the very least.

Also... I'm not exactly massive myself (1.64m tall, ~52kg) but that doesn't stop me going out on antifascist demos. In fact the main reason I don't go very often at the moment is because of my son and it's hard to get childcare. So there's really no excuse - you can always provide valuable support for comrades even if you want to avoid most of the violence that might break out.

[Alonso Quijano]

i had a grammar comrade once
I like Grammar Comrades, they're the left-wing answer to Grammer Nazis.

[the debater]

those are for the bourgeoisie and their sycophants

I take offense to that!!! :mad:

[RedWaves]

Why should I waste my time debating with Neo Nazi idiots when I can find better things to do?

[Rugged Collectivist]

The point of a black block is to hide people who are doing illegal stuff by allowing them to blend into a large, anonymous group. Simply dressing in black and standing around would help. No muscle required.

I'm conflicted on the question of whether to debate the fascists. It may not be harmful to debate with individual Nazis. After all, their arguments are weak and if nothing else anyone who is listening (or reading if it's on the internet) who isn't a zealous Nazi already but is somewhat sympathetic to their cause may be swayed.

At any rate, violence should never be ruled out. Debating a single isolated Nazi is one thing but if they're organized and numerous in a particular area it's very important that they be dealt with by any means necessary. Debating probably wouldn't help in this situation.

[the debater]

At any rate, violence should never be ruled out. Debating a single isolated Nazi is one thing but if they're organized and numerous in a particular area it's very important that they be dealt with by any means necessary. Debating probably wouldn't help in this situation.

Right, but on the internet, debating is the perfect strategy. Hopefully studies like the Colorado Adoption Project and the study dealing with the Columbus Ohio crime rates can open more minds to the notion of nature being more influential than nurture.