Delta1212

When I was in middle school or early high school, I don't remember which, I spent a lot of time thinking about determinism. Very big advocate of the clockwork universe idea, although I don't know if I'd encountered that specific analogy yet or not. I hadn't really been exposed to quantum physics yet at this point beyond knowing that it was a thing that existed. I'd heard of, for example, the Many Worlds interpretation, but I didn't really understand what the results and predictions that it was an interpretation of were. Anyway... I was at summer camp when I was toying with a particular thought experiment of firing an .arrow at a target. And if you set everything back up exactly the way that it was when you first fired it, down to the very atoms of the arrow and yourself and the surrounding environment, the arrow would hit very precisely the exact same spot it had the first time. And this seemed very obvious to me and was something that I had taken for granted. Then the thought occurred to me "What if that isn't true?" What if you reset everything back exactly the way it was and run it forward and the outcome isn't precisely identical to the way things transpired the first time around? It's not an experiment you can ever actually run, so what's to say what the outcome would actually be? That little thought was mind-blowing to me at the time, and I think prepped me pretty well for the ideas contained in QM when I really started digging into them a few years later. Why do you assume that determinism is the default state of things? It seems intuitive that it is, but only because we live in a world that seems fairly deterministic. That deterministic appearance is an emergent property of an underlying probabilistic nature, though, and follows fairly straightforwardly from it. It is like looking at the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave, and when told that there are three dimensional objects casting those shadows, insisting that further investigation will almost certainly reveal that the objects are themselves composed of shadows because that's the only way they make sense.

You are missing the point of the analogy. Things appear deterministic on a macro scale because of the law of large numbers and the fact that our measurements are rarely all that precise in comparison to the quantum scale. They don't switch over from being random to actually being deterministic. Only approximately deterministic to a degree such that we can't easily tell the difference.

Things are only really roughly non-random on a macro-scale, because we're dealing with fairly low precision. Like flipping a coin a billion times. The exact number of heads and tails that you get is going to be different each time you do a billion flips, but if you can only detect whether it's within 10% of a 50/50 split, it will seem like you get the exact same, highly predictable, result every time.

Saying that things cannot be unpredictable in a technical way except for QM because then the laws of physics couldn't exist is kind of a self-contradiction. "According to the laws of physics, nothing is random, except for absolutely everything on the most fundamental level."

If someone did go ahead and, against your advice, put up a swastika now, would you oppose taking it down on historical grounds once it was up?

Considering that we're talking about statues that were also put up long after the people depicted and everyone involved with them were already dead, this seems like a rather disingenuous argument to be making.

How is encouraging the depiction of the victims of a dark time instead of the people who victimized them "removing" those unpalatable events from history. It's not like these statues have been standing since the time of the Civil War. They aren't historic sites. Most of them were specifically put up as a middle finger to black people.

In what way is that sanitizing anything?

So replace each statue of a Confederate general with a statue of an enslaved person, or marchers being sprayed with fire hoses. If you really want to memorialize a dark period of history, memorialize the consequences, not the perpetrators.

You're very much mischaracterizing what waitforufo said in this thread.

Is it actually that much of an exception, statistically speaking? What are the numbers?

Because "Well Democrats were the racist party 100 years ago" is a popular deflection to distract from the way things are in the present. It's a subset of the "Democrats are the real racists" category of talking points.

By Democrats who promptly joined the Republican Party during LBJ's presidency.

There has been a major campaign of historical revisionism pretty much since the end of the Civil War and especially since the time of the Civil Rights movement to recast the war as being about "States Rights" and a more limited federal government and not about slavery at all, or acting as if slavery was only a very minor part of the issues involved, and that the Confederate States probably would have abolished slavery themselves pretty soon anyway if they'd won the war. This ignores pretty much the entire history of the run up to the Civil War, the fact that many if not most of the states specifically mention slavery as their primary reason for rebelling in their articles of secession and that the right that they were trying to preserve for the states was the right to own slaves. It also ignores how completely dependent the economic and social order of the South was on the institution of slavery. It's poppycock, but it's an extremely popular meme, especially amongst people who espouse small government conservatism or who grew up in areas where there is a strong desire to recast the Confederacy as misunderstood heroes and where the war is often referred to as The War of Northern Aggression despite literally starting when South Carolinians started firing on a US fort. The modern politics surrounding the Civil War are very weird, especially, I would imagine, to anyone who didn't grow up here immersed in it.

I used to believe in the light of day analogy. I'm not so sure that I do any longer. Not because of this in particular, but because it's been over a year since they started moving out of the shadows and at this point, if anything, there is just further growth, entrenchment and an increasing boldness. Sunlight can scour, but that which it doesn't kill, it tends to feed. When some practice or other comes to light that was thought to be shameful by the people doing it and there are no consequences to speak of, the practice tends to grow and spread even more quickly but now out in the open. While there have been some negative consequences for a handful of specific participants in the rally, the negative backlash against the racism has been extremely muted compared with what one would normally expect from a modern society, and the lukewarm condemnation by the president paired with an even more strenuous and impassioned condemnation of "the other side" is more likely to embolden the Nazis than it is to burn them out.

I don't see that happening. The only way Trump is going to resign is if there are serious and directly obvious personal consequences for not doing so. Merely having no support and being rendered completely ineffectual isn't going to push him to it. There has also been a striking lack of direct criticism of Trump by sitting members of his own party. Many Republicans in government have condemned the content of what he said. Very, very few have referenced Trump by name in those condemnations or made any mention that what they are condemning is at all related anything that he said. He doesn't have very many defenders in the GOP over this at the moment, but he equally doesn't have terribly many overt critics either. I have a feeling that we're going through another round of "Surely this is where his support will collapse, right? ...right?" only to find that it does not. At most a little shrinkage but nothing more.

That's been a really common alt-right talking point lately, actually. Pretty much verbatim.

There is a way to address the fact that violence from anyone is inappropriate that does not ignore the fact that there was a major white supremacist rally during which someone who was protesting against them was killed by a white supremacist when he intentionally drove his car into a crowd, which Trump did in his initial remarks. He then made a statement addressing those concerns days later which it later came out he was essentially forced to do over his own protestations by his staff, complained when the press coverage of his handling remained negative even after he made the statement everyone said he should have made in the first place and then the day after that he effectively repudiated everything he'd said the day before and went back to "Both Sides Are Bad." Trump's statement that there was violence on both sides is true in the same way that it is true that there were Jews who committed crimes against Germans in the 1930s: It might technically be true, but completely irrelevant in light of the larger discussion of what was going on and useful only as a tool to draw false equivalencies and distract from larger problems. Even if there was no violence at all from anyone on either side, the rally that happened would not be ok. Legal, but not ok, and the fact that deadly violence was used by that side on top of it makes any attempt to draw an equivalence between the two morally bankrupt in the extreme. A statement being literally true does not mean that it is not also Trojan horsing a lie by implication nor does it render the statement immune from criticism.

I kind of suspected you were doing something like this, hence my trying to pin down what you were using as a definition of tolerance. The primary reason that I was and will continue arguing with you on this, unless you really were being entirely facetious, is that your characterization of what the rally was is off-base in a way that provides cover for white supremacists and Nazis. If the government were to ignore due process in arresting the Nazis, or were to arrest the Nazis without them having broken any laws, then I would criticize those actions. If some attacked a Nazi in a manner that was not immediate self-defense or defense of another, and that person was arrested for doing so, I'm not going to complain about the arrest just because the person they attacked is a Nazi. I don't think it has come up here, or if it has I don't think I participated in the conversation, but the ACLU has come under a bit of fire in the last week for stepping in to defend Jason Kessler, who was incidentally one of the people who organized the rally over the weekend. I agreed with their decision to do so for precisely the same reasons I have articulated in the past. Once again, in the same vein as has been covered in the past, I do not have to support what someone says or does in order to support the government sticking to upholding the rights that they are supposed to guarantee everyone under their purview. In this case, I do support the right to hold such a rally as the one that just occurred, but I very vehemently do not support the rally itself, and also do not think that you can draw a moral equivalence between the two sides in this case. Both may have done things that they should not have done, but one side was clearly and markedly worse both in their cause and in the outcomes that resulted from the actions of their supporters. Drawing such an equivalence is reprehensible and promoting the smoke-screen justification for the rally downplays what actually took place. That is something that can't be allowed to stand, especially not when it is being given cover by the highest ranks of government office rather than being defended by it. Had you stopped at the line of saying that the Unite the Right rally had the right to say the things they were saying, I would have agreed with you. You went quite a bit further than that, and I'm sorry, but acknowledgement of the existence of a particular right does not extend to accepting justifications for what is said during the exercise thereof. Also, incidentally, I don't believe that private citizens using violence to oppress speech is an example of a right being violated. That requires government action. It is, absent the above mentioned justification of defense, however, still a criminal act and I think should be treated as such where evidence exists for prosecution thereof. If that's all you wanted to hear, I, again, would have happily provided such a statement had you not wandered into the realm of justifying the rally itself.

"Tolerate" is not a definition of "tolerate." I'm asking to what degree. Tolerate as in not escalate violence against them for their speech? Tolerate as in not vocally denouncing them in public? Tolerate as in politely nodding our heads and not challenging their statements? Tolerate as in help to provide them venues to speak from? Where exactly are you drawing he line between tolerance and intolerance at this juncture? On the other hand, if someone had done something about it when it was still just talk, we might not have had 40 million deaths.

Define tolerate. I don't advocate arresting or killing Nazis just for saying Nazi things. I do advocate denouncing, rebuking and generally opposing them in every lawful way that is available. I am also not basing my views on an interview with a single person but on the fact that hundreds of people were shouting Nazi slogans, marching alongside people carrying Nazi flags or the banners of a variety of different white supremacist groups and invited speakers who are renowned for their racism and white supremacist views. The entire rally was explicitly white supremacist from top to bottom.

I also have a serious problem believing that a stream of hundreds of people carrying torches and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" (a reference to the Nazi concept of Blut und Boden) are actually there primarily to preserve the historical importance of Confederate statuary.

Since it's a longer video and we're supposed to be able to discuss without watching, I transcribed a couple of interviews from it with relevant material below. There is more in the actual video than what is below, including some near the end where Cantwell explains why the car attack was justified, but this should be enough to cover the above point, I think. Ellen Reece (VICE News): So when did you get into, as you said, the racial stuff? Chris Cantwell: When the Trayvon Martin case happened, you know, Michael Brown and Tamir Rice and all these different things happened, every single case it's some little black asshole behaving like a savage, and he gets himself in trouble shockingly enough. Whatever problems I might have with my fellow white people they generally are not inclined to such behavior and you gotta kinda take that into consideration when you're thinking about how to organize your society. Ellen Reece: I mean, Oklahoma City. Chris Cantwell: Ok, so exactly, you have to go back to Oklahoma City to talk about a white act of terrorism- Ellen Reece: Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof Chris Cantwell: Ok, so now you've managed to name three people, and I'm pretty sure Elliot Rodger wasn't explicitly white by the way. But the thing is you remember the names of white bombers and mass shooters, ok. Can you tell me the name of all nineteen hijackers on 9/11? Off the top of your head? You can remember Dylan Roof's name- Ellen Reece: You were asking if there were white people who were capable of violence. Chris Cantwell: I didn't say capable. Of course we're capable. I'm carrying a pistol. I go to the gym all the time. I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence. I'm here to spread ideas, talk in the hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that. Somebody like Donald Trump, who does not give his daughter to a Jew. Ellen Reece: So Donald Trump, but like, more racist. Chris Cantwell: A lot more racist than Donald Trump. I don't think you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl, ok. -Later- Chris Cantwell: We're here obeying the law. We're doing everything that we're supposed to do, trying to express opinions, and the criminals are over there getting their way, and that is a foundational problem with our society. And whatever you think of my opinions, that's gonna be something that puts you in danger. Robert Ray: Yeah, and that is because this city is run by Jewish communists and criminal n*****s. That's exactly what it is. Chris Cantwell: That's true by the way. Ellen Reece: So you're the true non-violent protesters? Chris Cantwell: I'm not even saying we're non-violent. I'm saying that fucking we didn't aggress. We did not initiate force against anybody. We're not non-violent. We'll fucking kill these people if we have to. -Later- Ellen Reece: Why don't you tell me what you think? Robert Ray: Huh? Ellen Reece: What do you do for the Daily Stormer? Robert Ray: I am a feature writer. I do crypto-report, and I'm generally their man on the ground at events. Ellen Reece: So what do you hope to get out of today? Like, what does it mean to you? Robert Ray: Well, for one thing it means that we're showing to this parasitic class of anti-white vermin that this is our country. This country was built by our forefathers. It's sustained by us. It's going to remain our country. I believe, as you can see, we are stepping off the Internet in a big way. For instance, last night at the torch walk, there were hundreds and hundreds of us. People realize they're not atomized individuals they're part of a larger whole because we have been spreading our memes. We've been organizing on the Internet, and so now they're coming out. And now, as you can see today, we greatly outnumbered the anti-white, anti-American filth. And at some point, we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever. That which is degenerate in white countries will be removed Ellen Reece: So you're saying showing up in physical space let's people know that there are more like them. Robert Ray: We're starting to slowly unveil a little bit of our power level. You ain't seen nothing yet. -Later- Matthew Heimbach: The Governor is declaring a state of emergency, so any assemblies are now unlawful. So, the Left wasn't able to beat us. The Left who were the boot boys of the capitalist class and the bourgeoisie and the status quo. So they weren't able to beat us with their armed militant left-wing radicals so they had to turn to the state. And if that doesn't go to show that the radical Left, the corporations, the state are all on the same Jewish side, a moment like this proves it. Ellen Reece: Can you tell us a little bit about the organizing tactics you guys used? Matthew Heimbach: Sure, primarily following the European example of Golden Dawn, Nordic Resistance Movement and other organizations that really are the vanguard of nationalists organized in the world. Be able to coordinate over a large area to bring our people together. This is the largest nationalist rally in over two decades here in the United States. It's incredibly exciting and if you look at what's happened they've had to bring in leftists from around the entire country to try and stop us, and now we're continuing. We're gonna keep having a great time and we're gonna keep fighting.

Arete and I both linked to the Vice piece that includes interviews of protesters from that rally espousing those exact views.

You literally cannot separate the one from its consequences. You cannot say "I non-violently believe that all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed." i do not advocate meeting such speech with violence, but I refuse to ignore that there is a level of violence in such beliefs that cannot be extricated from them regardless of whether the person espousing them is in the process of committing physical violence or not. It is always, at a minimum, incitement to violence.