Racists need to be called out, they need to be ridiculed and cast down.
Mocked and berated until they at the very least hide their terrible opinions from the public. It doesn't matter if they stop because they are no longer a bigot but because they're simply embarrassed.
This is how we destroyed the Klan and now we've fallen into some trap where we stopped ostracising racists.
Racists need to be called out, they need to be ridiculed and cast down.
Mocked and berated until they at the very least hide their terrible opinions from the public. It doesn't matter if they stop because they are no longer a bigot but because they're simply embarrassed.
This is how we destroyed the Klan and now we've fallen into some trap where we stopped ostracising racists.
Is this really productive though? I mean, arguably, the same sort of thinking against Germany after World War 1 could be considered to have led to World War 2. Calling out racists is one thing. But "Mocked and berated," "ostracised?" What's next? We should round them all up into ghettos?
Racists need to be called out, they need to be ridiculed and cast down.
Mocked and berated until they at the very least hide their terrible opinions from the public. It doesn't matter if they stop because they are no longer a bigot but because they're simply embarrassed.
This is how we destroyed the Klan and now we've fallen into some trap where we stopped ostracising racists.
What osieorb said. The feeling of humiliation is one of the most effective generators for extremism and rage. The Trump movement is so angry at "political correctness" precisely because of this attitude. As distasteful as it may seem, the way to defuse radicalism is to give the radicals a seat at the table. Look at South Africa. Truth and Reconciliation. You think Mandela never sat down and played nice with people who considered him subhuman?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Mainstreaming white nationalists is not the solution, it's the problem that let them out of their holes. People who want to play games with fascism deserve a boot to the neck and a bullet to the head. Or the verbal equivalent anyways.
Because obviously you can't deal with them in the fascist utopia they crave every time they throw up one of those ironic seen kyles.
Racists need to be called out, they need to be ridiculed and cast down.
Mocked and berated until they at the very least hide their terrible opinions from the public. It doesn't matter if they stop because they are no longer a bigot but because they're simply embarrassed.
This is how we destroyed the Klan and now we've fallen into some trap where we stopped ostracising racists.
Is this really productive though? I mean, arguably, the same sort of thinking against Germany after World War 1 could be considered to have led to World War 2. Calling out racists is one thing. But "Mocked and berated," "ostracised?" What's next? We should round them all up into ghettos?
No, but it would be poetic.
People can always pretend to be decent, it's a lot harder to pass as not-black in a social situation.
What osieorb said. The feeling of humiliation is one of the most effective generators for extremism and rage. The Trump movement is so angry at "political correctness" precisely because of this attitude. As distasteful as it may seem, the way to defuse radicalism is to give the radicals a seat at the table. Look at South Africa. Truth and Reconciliation. You think Mandela never sat down and played nice with people who considered him subhuman?
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters. Even today South Africa is a deeply racially divided country - as much the Truth and Reconciliation Comission accomplished, it certainly didn't succeed in all its goals.
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What osieorb said. The feeling of humiliation is one of the most effective generators for extremism and rage. The Trump movement is so angry at "political correctness" precisely because of this attitude. As distasteful as it may seem, the way to defuse radicalism is to give the radicals a seat at the table. Look at South Africa. Truth and Reconciliation. You think Mandela never sat down and played nice with people who considered him subhuman?
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters. Even today South Africa is a deeply racially divided country - as much the Truth and Reconciliation Comission accomplished, it certainly didn't succeed in all its goals.
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
You don't think there were all manners and types of Apartheid supporters, from the fervent down to the casual? Or the same for Nazi sympathizers?
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters.
Yes. If they had been ridiculed, mocked, and berated instead of given this opportunity, how many do you think would have apologized and renounced Apartheid?
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
You don't think there were all manners and types of Apartheid supporters, from the fervent down to the casual? Or the same for Nazi sympathizers?
When I said Apartheid, Nazi and KKK 'people' I didn't mean 'supporters of any kind' I meant those actively significantly involved in the movement- and not those sitting on the sidelines that supported it. It was hitting the other people at centre of the movement that turned those people away. Hitting those people in the same way could just as easily push them toward the centre than away from it- because hitting people hard as a bigoted and hateful is not very persuasive. But instead you can show these people that the people at the centre they are supporting are not them and they shouldn't become more like them.
Make an example of those who ought to be made an example of. Reason with those who ought to be reasoned with.
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
I think he's talking about the German laws against Nazi symbolism which results in, for example, video games either not having swastikas, or not being sold in Germany.
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters.
Yes. If they had been ridiculed, mocked, and berated instead of given this opportunity, how many do you think would have apologized and renounced Apartheid?
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
Right, the PEOPLE who renounced those ideas were given a seat at the table. The ideas themselves were not given any respect. No one danced around calling a Nazi a Nazi, or calling a racist a racist. They were open, honest, and frank about those ideas and the people who held them. No one treated nazi ideas as being just another alternative to be politely argued against. Even those who were merely "followers" were considered culpable in the crimes of the Nazi state - the Allies didn't try to win them over by drawing a bright red line between them and the "real" Nazis.
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters.
Yes. If they had been ridiculed, mocked, and berated instead of given this opportunity, how many do you think would have apologized and renounced Apartheid?
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
Right, the PEOPLE who renounced those ideas were given a seat at the table. The ideas themselves were not given any respect. No one danced around calling a Nazi a Nazi, or calling a racist a racist. They were open, honest, and frank about those ideas and the people who held them. No one treated nazi ideas as being just another alternative to be politely argued against. Even those who were merely "followers" were considered culpable in the crimes of the Nazi state - the Allies didn't try to win them over by drawing a bright red line between them and the "real" Nazis.
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
The Allies were very clear about just how involved you had to be - any involvement at all implied guilt. All Germans were responsible. There can be no clearer or exact line than that.
Letting people distance themselves from the realities of racism allows them to shield their racist ideas from criticism. It allows them to sweep under the rug the consequences of their beliefs, and it allows them to dismiss arguments against racism by thinking those arguments don't apply to them.
Right, the PEOPLE who renounced those ideas were given a seat at the table. The ideas themselves were not given any respect. No one danced around calling a Nazi a Nazi, or calling a racist a racist. They were open, honest, and frank about those ideas and the people who held them.
There is a difference between honesty and abuse. FourDogsInAHorseSuit did not just advocate frankness; he advocated hounding racists underground.
Even those who were merely "followers" were considered culpable in the crimes of the Nazi state - the Allies didn't try to win them over by drawing a bright red line between them and the "real" Nazis.
A bright red line is exactly what the Nuremberg Trials were. Yes, "followers" in the sense of those who followed orders to commit war crimes were culpable. But "followers" in the sense of those who joined the Nazi Party and espoused Nazi ideology but never participated directly in the crimes of the Third Reich were not. An awful lot of Germans were required to turn in their Nazi cards and renounce those beliefs, but otherwise allowed to keep living normal lives in the postwar state. Even Leni freaking Riefenstahl was never convicted of any crime -- she kept making films up to her death in 2003.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters.
Yes. If they had been ridiculed, mocked, and berated instead of given this opportunity, how many do you think would have apologized and renounced Apartheid?
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
I'm not sure you understand exactly what happened after each war because "let your country remain in existence but it's all your fault" was surly less humiliating than "it's all your fault and you're four different countries now, oh and this time we're going to occupy you so that you follow the rules of the Treaty"
Japan, to this day, still relies on the American military umbrella. The Marshall Plan vs Versailles is like Exhibit A in "why after a global conflict you can't trust the losers to fix themselves".
Oh, and Nuremberg kinda supports my "execute them" theory.
Oh, and Nuremberg kinda supports my "execute them" theory.
Except it doesn't. With the exception of a very small minority every German Citzen was a member of the Nazi party from the crossing guard to the generals and the politicians. By your logica all of them should have been arrested and atleast imprisoned for the crimes committed by their government and armed forces.
The Nurmeburg Trials were born of an acceptance that a lot of the German armed forces were only gulity of commits normal wartime acts, and only those that were directly responsible for the truely heinous crimes like those directly involved in the Holocaust and assorted mass murders of POWs were charged and court martialed, and even then if there actions could not be proved they were not convicted.
For the vast majority of the population and the armed forces once it had been confirmed that they were not amoungst the number that had breached the rules of war or commited crimes against humanity they were released to lead as normal a life as they could under the circumstances.
AS for the differnce between the outcomes the Treaty of versaille is a hell of a lot more than you started this but we will let you remain in existence. It imposed utterly crippling conditions on Germany to the extent that West Germany had only managed to pay off the Principal reparations off in 1980. They made the final payment to the US in 2010. In addition to the purley financial terms there was also some humiliating territorial losses as well with East Prussia, the home of German Unification, hived off Poland and the major Industrial areas turned into a demilitarised zone and fairly regularly invaded by France when the Germans fell behind on there debts.
All of the above being imposed in a case where unlike with WW2 Germany was not solely responsible for the cause of WW1. That particular honour being shared out pretty evenly amougnst all the major powers of Europe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I stopped reading once you said that just about everyone was in the Nazi party. It's membership at its peak was only ten percent. And, yes, a lot of them who survived the war were arrested. Anyone in any leadership capacity that lived was arrested. The reason for this was because, as I said, postwar Europe was really into humiliating the losers. Russians were fixated in blaming Germany for not only the war but also massacres perpetuated by the Russians. Even the idea of trials was too much for the Russians who asked "why?" as they carved their buffer states.
There is a difference between honesty and abuse. FourDogsInAHorseSuit did not just advocate frankness; he advocated hounding racists underground.
Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to argue his position (although I can see how it looked that way). What I disagree with is the notion that Truth and Reconciliation was giving radicals a seat at the table. It was giving -former- radicals a seat at the table. It was not legitimizing their beliefs, and it was not trying to win them over by sugar-coating the awfulness of their beliefs.
A bright red line is exactly what the Nuremberg Trials were. Yes, "followers" in the sense of those who followed orders to commit war crimes were culpable. But "followers" in the sense of those who joined the Nazi Party and espoused Nazi ideology but never participated directly in the crimes of the Third Reich were not. An awful lot of Germans were required to turn in their Nazi cards and renounce those beliefs, but otherwise allowed to keep living normal lives in the postwar state. Even Leni freaking Riefenstahl was never convicted of any crime -- she kept making films up to her death in 2003.
Only the most directly responsible were actually prosecuted at Nuremberg, but the Allies considered all Germans culpable. It was only the practicalities of individual prosecuting and punishing an entire nation that kept the trials limited.
My point is there was no attempt to win over the German populace by telling them they weren't like the others, that they weren't so bad, that their beliefs weren't TRUE racism. Doing so would have only allowed them to keep those beliefs without having to confront the realities of those beliefs.
The Nurmeburg Trials were born of an acceptance that a lot of the German armed forces were only gulity of commits normal wartime acts, and only those that were directly responsible for the truely heinous crimes like those directly involved in the Holocaust and assorted mass murders of POWs were charged and court martialed, and even then if there actions could not be proved they were not convicted.
False. The Nuremburg trials were born of an acceptance that it was simply not feasible to prosecute everyone.
The first difficulty was the enormous number of Germans who might have to be first investigated, then penalized if found to have supported the Nazi state to an unacceptable degree. In the early months of denazification there was a great desire to be utterly thorough, to investigate every suspect and hold every supporter of Nazism accountable; however, it turned out that the numbers simply made this goal impractical.
I'm not sure you understand exactly what happened after each war because "let your country remain in existence but it's all your fault" was surly less humiliating than "it's all your fault and you're four different countries now, oh and this time we're going to occupy you so that you follow the rules of the Treaty"
That's a grotesque distortion which conveniently omits an examination of what the Treaty vs. the Plan actually did to the country and why. Versailles was supposed to keep Germany down and kick it repeatedly. The humiliation of the Treaty was a recurring theme in Hitler's rhetoric and stoked a furious revanchism. The Marshall Plan in contrast built Germany back up. "All this economic investment is a slap in the face, so let's go take our revenge!" said no German ever. So "surely less humiliating"? History proves otherwise.
The Marshall Plan vs Versailles is like Exhibit A in "why after a global conflict you can't trust the losers to fix themselves".
Except that Versailles was not written with any intention of letting the losers fix themselves, I agree with this. Nation-building is important. Doesn't get to your point.
Oh, and Nuremberg kinda supports my "execute them" theory.
When a racist starts committing genocide, you may execute them with my blessing. But consider how they got to that point. Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option. You've got to offer them another way out. You think we deradicalize at-risk Muslim youth today by telling them, "Screw you, you're a monster, go crawl in a hole"? They want to crawl in a hole -- the hole in question being ISIS. Our job is to keep them out of the hole.
Russians were fixated in blaming Germany for not only the war but also massacres perpetuated by the Russians. Even the idea of trials was too much for the Russians who asked "why?" as they carved their buffer states.
Yeah, and look how those states turned out compared to the Marshall Plan countries in the West.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So, in other words, it's not the case that "feeling like they're under siege" is what drives them to violence - they just like committing violence.
Is this also your opinion of gang warfare, communist insurgency, and Islamic terrorism? Because normally when you say this sort of thing about violent people, you're asked to turn in your liberal card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mocked and berated until they at the very least hide their terrible opinions from the public. It doesn't matter if they stop because they are no longer a bigot but because they're simply embarrassed.
This is how we destroyed the Klan and now we've fallen into some trap where we stopped ostracising racists.
Is this really productive though? I mean, arguably, the same sort of thinking against Germany after World War 1 could be considered to have led to World War 2. Calling out racists is one thing. But "Mocked and berated," "ostracised?" What's next? We should round them all up into ghettos?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because obviously you can't deal with them in the fascist utopia they crave every time they throw up one of those ironic seen kyles.
No, but it would be poetic.
People can always pretend to be decent, it's a lot harder to pass as not-black in a social situation.
The Truth and Reconciliation process was not giving a seat at the table to the ideas of Apartheid. Botha didn't even show up. The people who showed up were those willing to apologize for past abuses and renounce Apartheid, not those who remained apartheid supporters. Even today South Africa is a deeply racially divided country - as much the Truth and Reconciliation Comission accomplished, it certainly didn't succeed in all its goals.
What about Denazification efforts in post-WW2 Germany? That process was certainly at least as successful in defusing radicalism, and it certainly didn't offer Nazism a seat at the table.
We're conflating different things here. The general approach to racism in a country is an entirely different affair to the approach to racism in a discussion with a racist. Talking about how racists won't even engage in discussion is missing the point when this is about engaging in a discussion with racists.
Racists are also a more diverse group than Apartheid, Nazi and KKK people. Those are committed people. Others are merely being lead into racism by outside influence or circumstance, or only dabbling lightly in it. And these are the people who most likely you would be engaging in a discussion- even more so, I reckon they are the significant majority of racists. These people have at least some chance beyond when hell freezes over of turning back significantly.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You don't think there were all manners and types of Apartheid supporters, from the fervent down to the casual? Or the same for Nazi sympathizers?
What, you mean Denazification in the postwar Germany where, instead of punishing the Germans for their role in unprovoked war and mass murder, we rebuilt their whole economy and invited them into the new democratic world order? Marshall Plan versus Treaty of Versailles is like Exhibit A in the "being nice to your enemies works better than humiliating them" argument.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
When I said Apartheid, Nazi and KKK 'people' I didn't mean 'supporters of any kind' I meant those actively significantly involved in the movement- and not those sitting on the sidelines that supported it. It was hitting the other people at centre of the movement that turned those people away. Hitting those people in the same way could just as easily push them toward the centre than away from it- because hitting people hard as a bigoted and hateful is not very persuasive. But instead you can show these people that the people at the centre they are supporting are not them and they shouldn't become more like them.
Make an example of those who ought to be made an example of. Reason with those who ought to be reasoned with.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Right, the PEOPLE who renounced those ideas were given a seat at the table. The ideas themselves were not given any respect. No one danced around calling a Nazi a Nazi, or calling a racist a racist. They were open, honest, and frank about those ideas and the people who held them. No one treated nazi ideas as being just another alternative to be politely argued against. Even those who were merely "followers" were considered culpable in the crimes of the Nazi state - the Allies didn't try to win them over by drawing a bright red line between them and the "real" Nazis.
You are presenting the situation very dichotomously, and I don't think fairly so.
There are a number of different circumstances for the issue of racism to be brought up in and those different circumstances call for different approaches.
General statements about a bigoted movement is not the same as personally speaking to all of those people- perhaps most importantly because the former does not draw any exact line about who is being spoken to. People have never made a general statement about such movements and specified just exactly how bigoted , or how involved in the movement, you needed to be. Speaking about the movement generally is mostly in effect speaking about the idea of the movement or the effects of the movement not directed exactly at its members. In this case there is very little harm that could be done by being aggressive and confrontational about it.
Personally speaking to a supporter of such a movement is a different affair. Being aggressive and confrontational is much more likely to prevent progress being made because the discussion is by its nature more personal, making it much harder for anyone to distance themselves from it. In this case I think you should be more reserved about how you apply the concept of racism.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The Allies were very clear about just how involved you had to be - any involvement at all implied guilt. All Germans were responsible. There can be no clearer or exact line than that.
Letting people distance themselves from the realities of racism allows them to shield their racist ideas from criticism. It allows them to sweep under the rug the consequences of their beliefs, and it allows them to dismiss arguments against racism by thinking those arguments don't apply to them.
A bright red line is exactly what the Nuremberg Trials were. Yes, "followers" in the sense of those who followed orders to commit war crimes were culpable. But "followers" in the sense of those who joined the Nazi Party and espoused Nazi ideology but never participated directly in the crimes of the Third Reich were not. An awful lot of Germans were required to turn in their Nazi cards and renounce those beliefs, but otherwise allowed to keep living normal lives in the postwar state. Even Leni freaking Riefenstahl was never convicted of any crime -- she kept making films up to her death in 2003.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not sure you understand exactly what happened after each war because "let your country remain in existence but it's all your fault" was surly less humiliating than "it's all your fault and you're four different countries now, oh and this time we're going to occupy you so that you follow the rules of the Treaty"
Japan, to this day, still relies on the American military umbrella. The Marshall Plan vs Versailles is like Exhibit A in "why after a global conflict you can't trust the losers to fix themselves".
Oh, and Nuremberg kinda supports my "execute them" theory.
Except it doesn't. With the exception of a very small minority every German Citzen was a member of the Nazi party from the crossing guard to the generals and the politicians. By your logica all of them should have been arrested and atleast imprisoned for the crimes committed by their government and armed forces.
The Nurmeburg Trials were born of an acceptance that a lot of the German armed forces were only gulity of commits normal wartime acts, and only those that were directly responsible for the truely heinous crimes like those directly involved in the Holocaust and assorted mass murders of POWs were charged and court martialed, and even then if there actions could not be proved they were not convicted.
For the vast majority of the population and the armed forces once it had been confirmed that they were not amoungst the number that had breached the rules of war or commited crimes against humanity they were released to lead as normal a life as they could under the circumstances.
AS for the differnce between the outcomes the Treaty of versaille is a hell of a lot more than you started this but we will let you remain in existence. It imposed utterly crippling conditions on Germany to the extent that West Germany had only managed to pay off the Principal reparations off in 1980. They made the final payment to the US in 2010. In addition to the purley financial terms there was also some humiliating territorial losses as well with East Prussia, the home of German Unification, hived off Poland and the major Industrial areas turned into a demilitarised zone and fairly regularly invaded by France when the Germans fell behind on there debts.
All of the above being imposed in a case where unlike with WW2 Germany was not solely responsible for the cause of WW1. That particular honour being shared out pretty evenly amougnst all the major powers of Europe.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to argue his position (although I can see how it looked that way). What I disagree with is the notion that Truth and Reconciliation was giving radicals a seat at the table. It was giving -former- radicals a seat at the table. It was not legitimizing their beliefs, and it was not trying to win them over by sugar-coating the awfulness of their beliefs.
Only the most directly responsible were actually prosecuted at Nuremberg, but the Allies considered all Germans culpable. It was only the practicalities of individual prosecuting and punishing an entire nation that kept the trials limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_collective_guilt
My point is there was no attempt to win over the German populace by telling them they weren't like the others, that they weren't so bad, that their beliefs weren't TRUE racism. Doing so would have only allowed them to keep those beliefs without having to confront the realities of those beliefs.
False. The Nuremburg trials were born of an acceptance that it was simply not feasible to prosecute everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification
So do South Korea, Taiwan, and the NATO countries. Did we beat all of them in a war and decide to "humiliate" them, and I just forgot about it?
Except that Versailles was not written with any intention of letting the losers fix themselves, I agree with this. Nation-building is important. Doesn't get to your point.
When a racist starts committing genocide, you may execute them with my blessing. But consider how they got to that point. Extremists are more likely to commit violence when they feel like they're under siege and violence is the only option. You've got to offer them another way out. You think we deradicalize at-risk Muslim youth today by telling them, "Screw you, you're a monster, go crawl in a hole"? They want to crawl in a hole -- the hole in question being ISIS. Our job is to keep them out of the hole.
Yeah, and look how those states turned out compared to the Marshall Plan countries in the West.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This clearly explains the rash of hate crimes following Trump's election.
When Ohio State wins against Michigan, they tip over cars.
When Ohio state loses to Michigan, they tip over cars.
When Obama won the election in 2008 there was a rise in hate crimes following, according to the SPLC
My Buying Thread
So, in other words, it's not the case that "feeling like they're under siege" is what drives them to violence - they just like committing violence.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.