Too late?

[Frelga]

Recruitment tour, remember? Making arguments against Nazism only gives the Nazis a platform to make arguments in favor. It's like arguing which way is up - you just know, unless something is seriously wrong with you.

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm not persuaded that Richard Spencer will be seriously harmed by not being able to speak at Universities as I get the impression most of his support comes from the non-tertiary educated. And I can't imagine he was welcome to get many invitations to speak at universities, anyway. But it's very hard to gather the evidence to answer these questions.

[Impenitent]

I find it very difficult to address this question.

While I have a very visceral reaction to the idea of allowing a Nazi - or an avowed and proud racist - to spew forth from any platform, history teaches that you can't kill an idea through violence or by attempting to silence its advocates.

When I was a young teen, I remember having bitter arguments with a man my mother was dating for a short time who was very racist and antisemitic. He was also an intelligent, urbane man who used sophisticated debating techniques that I could not match at my age, and those arguments (never in my mother's presence) left me shaking, sometimes even crying, with rage. I remember the temptation to rant and swear at him, to throw things, to hit his smug face - but I also knew that would not give me an intellectual or moral victory. There was a terrible feeling of impotence in knowing that he would never admit or see his position was wrong.

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[Dave_LF]

history teaches that you can't kill an idea through violence or by attempting to silence its advocates.

Well; except for (paleo) Nazism...

[Impenitent]

Dave, can you clarify?

Sent from a tiny phone keyboard via Tapatalk - typos inevitable.

[Dave_LF]

Just that it was violence that stopped the original Nazis. One can't use that as justification to get violent with neo-Nazis because the circumstances are totally different, but I don't think it's correct to say that violence never stopped an idea.

[Frelga]

In fact, it's the only thing that ever did, for good and terrible reasons.

ETA: so that got me thinking - have humans ever given up an idea simply based on the fact that it was, logically, a really stupid idea? I'm coming up empty. There were times when new, emerging ideas replaced old ones, but was it ever without violence?

[RoseMorninStar]

When I was a young teen, I remember having bitter arguments with a man my mother was dating for a short time who was very racist and antisemitic. He was also an intelligent, urbane man who used sophisticated debating techniques that I could not match at my age, and those arguments (never in my mother's presence) left me shaking, sometimes even crying, with rage. I remember the temptation to rant and swear at him, to throw things, to hit his smug face - but I also knew that would not give me an intellectual or moral victory. There was a terrible feeling of impotence in knowing that he would never admit or see his position was wrong.

Impy, what an awful situation.
We have young earth creationist neighbors who can easily talk circles around me (and most people I would imagine) using sophisticated debating techniques. Anyone who does not believe as they do is 'going to hell'. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't care (to each his own/tolerance, etc..) but they have taken their crusade and done a good job of creating division and havoc not just in our town and local libraries and public schools, but have agitated for their cause across the state. I've been told they are well known in such circles across the country. The thing is, these people, just like nazi's, are tiring to deal with. It is expensive to deal with them. People become apathetic because they just don't want to deal with it and give up and they get their way.

ETA: so that got me thinking - have humans ever given up an idea simply based on the fact that it was, logically, a really stupid idea? I'm coming up empty. There were times when new, emerging ideas replaced old ones, but was it ever without violence?

This was a depressing exercise. :/

[yovargas]

I don't really understand what you mean, Frelga. The enormous shift on public opinion of gays that has happened in my lifetime, for example, certainly didn't happen because of violence. I know there were some violent incidents along the way (most famous at Stonewall) but if you were to ask what changed people's mind, it was largely done by making good arguments in favor of gay equality.

I think the opposite is a more realistic question - has violence ever convinced people of anything? Or had it just made them afraid to express the views they still hold?

[Nin]

Just that it was violence that stopped the original Nazis. One can't use that as justification to get violent with neo-Nazis because the circumstances are totally different, but I don't think it's correct to say that violence never stopped an idea.

It did stop the Nazis, but not necessarily their ideas! That is a huge difference.

[Frelga]

Yov, the idea that people should not be denied basic rights because of other people's beliefs is... I don't even know if it counts as an idea. Besides, many of the strides in favor of equally based on race, gender, sexual orientation were made not by changing people's mind but through winning and enforcing court decisions.

Cue photos of Ruby Bridges.

And look at the reactionary laws being passed now.

As for your second question, I think so. Take Christianity. As the Russian chronicler wrote, it was spread by fire and sword, and yet there is no doubt that later generations embraced it sincerely, even accounting for the violence inherent in the system against those who did not so embrace it.

Rose is right, history is depressing.

[Frelga]

Just that it was violence that stopped the original Nazis. One can't use that as justification to get violent with neo-Nazis because the circumstances are totally different, but I don't think it's correct to say that violence never stopped an idea.

It did stop the Nazis, but not necessarily their ideas! That is a huge difference.

Speaking as an Eastern European Jew - close enough for me.

[Dave_LF]

An idea can't really be "killed", by violence or anything else; it can only be rendered powerless for the time being.

[yovargas]

. Besides, many of the strides in favor of equally based on race, gender, sexual orientation were made not by changing people's mind but through winning and enforcing court decisions.

Court decisions change behavior, they don't change minds. Minds have changed dramatically in my life time on the topic of homosexuality. Those minds were not changed by violence or by laws.

[River]

Arguments work in courts. Violence works on streets. But minds get changed through exposure. Present a well-crafted argument to a homophobe on why they need to get over it and they'll likely shut/double down. Their feelings are more important to them than your facts. But just be your fabulous and gay self and eventually the homophobe either rejects you or carves out an exception for you. Introduce them to your friends and they'll carve out more exceptions until the list of "Gays are bad except for...." gets too long to maintain and they get over it.

I literally saw this happen in my own family, BTW.

TT: I think Richard Spencer was looking for attention. Even if touring campuses and inciting outrage that made it to television didn't win him new followers on the campuses themselves, it got him exposure and accolades in the circles he wanted exposure in and accolades from. And that would win him converts.

[yovargas]

Exposure was a huge part of the change in attitudes towards gays but it is not enough by itself. Certainly exposure didn't help blacks a whole lot.

People often say that arguments don't work against hate but I think that is false. One random person's argument might not, but the arguments of 100s and 1,000s of people over years of time can, and often does, shift people's minds.

[Primula Baggins]

I think there are whole categories of people for whom argument as such means nothing. Some are people who "know what they know" and no one can tell them anything different. They know what the world is really like, and who does and who does not deserve to live, or live in peace.

Some are people who believe in a God who hates exactly the people they hate and want to keep hating. So it's out of their hands; their God's will trumps rational argument. They can go on TV and weep about murdered gay people because it's so sad that the victims never understood that all they had to do was change into somebody entirely unlike themselves, and God might have prevented their deaths.

What I've seen work on people like this is irrational argument: someone they love who they discover is gay. It doesn't always work, of course; people can be very hateful if they think they're following God's will. But sometimes the change is remarkable. And maybe the same change can be worked less dramatically as more and more people feel able to be open about their lives. Decades ago I used to hear people say that of course they didn't know anyone who was gay. They didn't hang out where gay people hang out! And all the time they had no idea how many gay people they knew, including some of their kids' teachers, neighbors, the guy at the hardware shop, maybe their boss. . . . Now they're more likely to be aware of this. Maybe that alone can change some people over time.

And, of course, kids growing up now live in a different world. Thank God.

[River]

Exposure was a huge part of the change in attitudes towards gays but it is not enough by itself. Certainly exposure didn't help blacks a whole lot.

I dunno. The Civil Rights Movement only happened because black people got tired of staying in their "place". After civil disobedience, law suits, and legislation happened, the rest of the country had to get exposed to black people doing things like sitting at the same lunch counter, swimming in the same pools, voting for their representatives in government (the nerve!!) and attending the same schools. Now no one thinks twice about such things, but if you spend a couple seconds with Google you'll find pictures of black kids entering schools flanked by armed guards.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Just that it was violence that stopped the original Nazis. One can't use that as justification to get violent with neo-Nazis because the circumstances are totally different, but I don't think it's correct to say that violence never stopped an idea.

That was a war. That is more than a little different from a protestor saying "your ideology is ugly therefore I will punch you."

[RoseMorninStar]

I'm not sure if this article has been posted here. It came out last year a month or so after this thread started. I did a quick look and didn't see it posted.
Ex-Neo Nazis Explain What's Driving the Alt-Right