Antisemitism Test
(www.idrlabs.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
That's a slippery slope. Sometimes it's nice having an asshole on your side, but only as long as they're on your side and aren't making you look bad.
Is that not just rephrasing what he said? “As long as they’re on your side and don’t make you look bad” is just another way of saying “as long as they’ve an asshole to the right people.” Even “looking bad” is just a function of attacking the wrong people.
Not at all, I'm disagreeing with Cato. I'm saying that advocating that we should do the same as the left and use a "no bad tactics, only bad targets" strategy is bound to backfire, and you don't want to associate yourself with people who unironically say things like that.
"Looking bad" doesn't just happen when you attack the wrong people, it also happens when you attack in the wrong way. And if they attack the right people today, then they're bound to attack you tomorrow. As an example, see the woke eating themselves, the golem turning on its master, etc.
Right, but that's encoded in the rule. What do you think a "bad target" is? The rule could be rephrased as "the morality and methods of a tactic must be proper and proportional to the target," and it basically means the same thing. Unless you're intentionally setting your ceiling for morality much lower than most people (for example, if the line you draw for "unforgivable" is "I'm not allowed to kill anyone, ever, for any reason," or "there is no case where spying/doxxing/getting someone fired is ever okay"), then you have to admit that there is a certain amount of moral standing that affects what you can do to someone and why.
Now, if you're dreaming up exceptions like "well, I can't see any case where you should be allowed to imprison someone for a decade, repeatedly torturing them and nursing them back to health to start over again..." fine, I agree, that's a tactic that doesn't really have a good target and you have found an exception to the rule. But extreme hypothetical edge cases can break every moral or tactical truism. That doesn't make all of them bad for general use.
I was never referring to absolutisms like "killing is always wrong, even in self defense", or "the death penalty is always wrong, even for heinous criminals". Right-wingers in general already understand exceptions like that. What I was referring to was the idea that indiscriminate deception and violence are acceptable, even encouraged, when used to further your own political cause, because it's supposedly necessary to allow the right-wing to gain power or for White people to stop their extinction.
A great example of this would be this thread right here:
Parents of teen who shot up school
Here, the fedposter u/IHateWhores (now banned) was defending a school shooter and saying that he was justified in shooting half a dozen other kids because he was White and was "probably" bullied (no evidence provided to back up that claim). I tried calling him out on his bullshit, but oddly enough, other regular users, including Cato, decided to back up the fedposter. If you've paid attention to Cato's post history, you can see he frequently endorses these types of calls to violence and "fighting back".