Why people with ASD / Autism / AS should not be a neo nazi

Post Reply New Topic

Leaping back in on this (please don't make me regret it)-

I think outright "up with the Aryan Super Race" Nazis are vastly outnumbered by people who have ended up allied with them due to past political loyalties. Think the moderate Republican who isn't willing to break with the party over Trump's support for white supremacists, because they've been voting Republican for 40 years.

On the other side of both the political spectrum and the Atlantic, there was the recent outbreak of antisemitism in the UK's Labour Party, which was linked to the resurgence of the party's Left. I've heard many people who should know better take an attitude of denial about the problem- to them, racist conspiracy theories were a small price to pay to finally have a leftwing party back again. (Newsflash: it isn't, and it's one major reason Labour crashed and burned so badly at the last election.)

I don't think such people should be branded as Nazis, but I also don't think they get a free pass on enabling real Nazis.

Wait I thought we lefties were the only intellectually dishonest folk?

It's a free country Pepe, Republicans have been paying bail for killers.

This is all a little bit of history repeating itself. Britain in the 1950s and 60s was in the midst of dismantling its immigration policy and you had neo-Nazis led by Oswald Mosely marching through the streets in Britain complaining about blacks and Asians taking jobs from "real Britains". Unemployment mean't a lot "British" workers agreed with the sentiment even if they didn't wear swastikas like Mosely's goons. Margaret Thatcher made use of this sentiment about immigration bubbling under the surface in the 70s to win and hold on to power in Britain in the 1980s. John Howard used immigration in Australia as an issue during the global financial crisis to win office and hold on to power.

Fast forward and prior to Trump's victory in 2016 his strategist (the far-right Steve Bannon) advised him to tap into the same vein of discontent among American whites about Mexicans taking jobs. Meanwhile in Britain mass immigration almost certainly tipped people over to support Brexit.

The alt-right/neo-nazi movement is never going to powerful but their basic arguments about race/immigration get used on what's politically the flavour of the month, in my view unemployment feeds the scaremongering and scapegoating of minorities facilitating the rise of politicians who champion causes about race.

I'm proud to be intellectually dishonest. I will keep up with my anti racist agenda.

Apparently on social media pointing out racism makes you brainwashed by socialism.

What part of the word "Rioter" didn't you understand?

I'm surprised you didn't pick up on FXE's fallacious argument.

Why did this tangent develop?
Are people trying to connect me with Holocaust Denial?

At the beginning of the video, she is walking toward him and he is asking her to stay away. Why on Earth would she be walking toward someone from who she genuinely feared imminent physical violence? And why on Earth would she then say to him that she was going to tell the cops that an "African-American man" was threatening her life?

To me this looks like an open-and-shut case of false report and racial intimidation, for the purpose of prevailing in a quarrel.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 30 Oct 2020, 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes I spent quite a few pages pointing this out in another thread. It aligns with her demeanour and personality as somebody who is assertive and confident. The position she held at Franklin-Templeton is a high pressure high paying job and assertiveness is a necessary criteria for the job. The idea that somebody like that could become a shrinking violet when faced with a gay strangely dressed birdwatcher who we know made no threat is simply not plausible.

You can dishonestly insist that everyone who was arrested was a rioter all you like but it won't change the reality that police were widely documented grabbing people at random in numerous cities. Like I said, try harder.



No, it was merely an example.

Hey, is there subtext to the head-scratch guy? I am inclined to read that as pretending to be confused about a point that you are highlighting as a way to point out how absurd it is. Is it genuine curiosity about the question you are asking? Are you actually playing devil’s advocate? I simply cannot tell whether the Pepe persona is a persona or an honest expression.

Where did I say *ALL* who were arrested were rioters?
I didn't.

Silly billy.

The emoji is simply a question mark in image form.

I like emojis.
I'm autistic.
I'm allowed to.

This defense seems a bit like tossing rocks off a bridge with people under it, and then when they ask if you were the one throwing rocks at them, vehemently denying it on the grounds that you weren't *throwing* rocks AT them, but omitting the fact that the rocks were still as a result of you. A technicality at best.

And technically, no, you didn't literally SAY "all who were arrested were rioters" - but you DID make an issue of how democrats were bailing out "rioters" - but that makes the assumption that if they were arrested for "rioting" that it was, and must have been, a legal and lawful arrest, and not simply a round-up. But let me guess, you weren't implying that either.

Backpedalers love to go on and on about what they *didn't* say - but don't seem to spend a whole lot of time making it clear what they ARE saying. Seems an awful waste of effort to spend all that time talking just to *not* say things.

Here's another clever piece of intellectual dishonesty. Baiting people so that they get distracted arguing on a side tangent rather than discussing the primary intended issue. For some reason, some people seem to REALLY not want others to maintain a discussion about nazis, and seem to go out of their way to redirect the conversation onto almost any other topic. Even something like "nazi's are bad" - which I doubt very few people would disagree with - still gets a kneejerk woke-outburst where someone MUST chime in and point out how "overused" they think the term is, or make inferences that the OP means "nazi" in a context other than literal actual nazis from WW2, or "Nazis dont exist anymore, WW2 ended a long time ago" - as though nazis stopped being nazis just cos the war ended, as though none of those nazis have had families and kids and grandkids in that time, and raised them with the same nazi ideals they believed - simply changing some of the words so it wasn't so obviously nazi in nature.

The book you are raised from doesn't have to be titled "White Supremacy And You" in order to teach someone that they, and people like them, are inherently better than people who are different from them. Notice I didn't say "hate". Just "better than". And that's what most bigotry is based on - the idea that some people are inherently "better than" or "worse than" others. Tied to that is the idea that some people are "worth more" than others. And that's why even racists can have black friends. Just cos you're friends with them doesn't mean you don't think you're better than them. And its usually BECAUSE they think they're better that they feel like they're doing such a grand service by being friends with them, and feel the need to point out that they even have a few.

Bigotry with justification is still bigotry. Bigotry with rationalization is still bigotry. Just because you have a reason for your bigotry doesn't mean it isn't bigotry. Bigotry doesn't have to mean you hate - simply the belief of being better than is more than sufficient. After all, it wasn't even that the germans HATED the jews - but they portrayed the jews as greedy lazy inferior uncivilized unclean traitorous and violent - so it was JUSTIFIED to do what they were doing. And if an unusually high number of jews "somehow" ended up in jail, well, that just proved how dangerous they were, and couldn't be because they were rounding them up. They didn't HATE them, any more than you'd hate a dog with rabies - you feel sorry for it, and you put it down, "because it's dangerous" - which is how they wanted to frame it - it made it a much easier pill to swallow. The racism wasn't from hate. It was from believing in a difference that didn't exist. Propaganda took care of that.

Cos if I can convince you that someone is a threat, then you're less likely to question my motives if I haul them in - or beat them up in the process. If you can be taught that black people are more violent, and don't feel as much pain, (both actual racist claims still alive and well today), then you're less likely to be concerned when you see greater brutality towards black people. Greater brutality "makes sense", since in your mind, you've been taught that black people are more violent (so they probably provoked it), and feel less pain (so greater force was justified and necessary). And because danger is involved, I can capitalize on your fear, and make you unwilling to take the risk of finding out for yourself that you might in fact be wrong in your assumptions. Bigotry based on fear is still bigotry.