I Remember When The Allies Debated The Nazis On The Beaches Of Normandy
Knowledge, as they say, is power. Or to put it another way, ignorance is a weakness.
The Dunning-Kruger effect, unknown unknowns, the Darwin Awards, it’s well established that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But just as power corrupts, so too can too much knowledge. And in the Information Age, that’s a serious problem.
Fifty years ago, for example, newspapers were constrained by word counts and printing costs. Before the dawn of the 24-hour news cycle, TV news was constrained by time. And these constraints motivated them to report, y’know, actual news. There was a limit to the amount of information they could put out.
But the infinite-scrolling, ad-driven sprawl of the internet churns out far more information (not to mention misinformation) that our thumbs can handle. And the most depressing and/or disturbing information available. Daily COVID death counts, weekly mass shooting updates, images of mangled bodies in Ukraine and videos of crippled children in the Middle East, our limbic systems aren’t built for this much horror. So after enough exposure, some people’s most basic moral and emotional impulses give up. Sifting through all that information for a more nuanced take is just too hard.
So they just pick a side, defend whatever their side does, and attack anyone who has anything different to say.
In my article, Hamas Finally Answered The Question: “What Is Woke?”, I wrote about people who were even willing to defend the slaughter and rape of innocent people. Or to claim that murder was "far more honourable" than conversation.
Mick, who begins with a quote from the article, was ready to defend their side.
Mick:
“people who are so incapable of defending their position that they think it’s ‘far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.’”
Yes, I remember when the allied forces famously debated the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy. And who could forget Mussolini's humiliating loss when communist partisans debated him as he was attempting to flee to Switzerland?
Steve QJ:
“Yes, I remember when the allied forces famously debated the Nazis on the beaches of Normandy.”
😅 This is the problem with you knuckleheads. You really think this is the level of righteous crusade you're fighting here? Everybody who disagrees with you is basically Mussolini or Hitler and therefore deserves to die is certainly a take. But it's not a good one.
I've spoken to several racists and homophobes and transphobes in my time. None of them went on to gas the Jews or get bogged down in a land war with Russia. I've even managed to change some of their minds. Didn't cost me a single bullet.
And I've been able to do this because I know what I'm talking about, believe in what I have to say, and don't make the mistake of thinking yelling at people online or making tough guy statements that I'm never going to back up is helpful to anybody.
Then there are people like Daryl Davis, a black man who spends his free time attending KKK rallies and deprogramming KKK members. He hasn't killed any of them yet, but so far has convinced hundreds to leave the klan. And many of those have convinced hundreds more.
And let's not forget people like Christian Piccolini and Arno Michaelis and Angela King. Lucky nobody killed them. Because even though they were avowed racists and neo-Nazis, they were persuaded by good old fashioned conversation to see the error of their ways, and then went on to deradicalise countless other extremists. Their familiarity with those groups made them invaluable in doing this.
But while I'm sure you've done none of that, I'm confident you've at least demonstrated your commitment to the cause of a better world by killing some racists and transphobes as Shaviro suggests, right? Right? Surely you're not one of those people who's all snark and no bite?
Mick:
Listen, you are making Olympic level leaps to conclusions about who I am and what I’ve done and how I’ve handled prejudice in real life. You don’t know me, and I’ve frankly got the good taste not to catalogue how I’ve peacefully handled situations and have changed peoples minds.
Regardless of my own experiences, which again you know absolutely jack shit about, to say that violence is *never* the answer is a lie. If there are people who are saying “I would rather die than give up this hate. I would kill in the name of this hate,” and there *are* and people *do* act on those thoughts, they are taking non-violence off the table. It is irresponsible to say that violence is never the answer. In fact, the idea of non violence is not controversial. Thousands of jerkoffs just like you come out of the woodwork every single time someone suggests something other than a conversation with hateful people, as if conversations haven’t been attempted thousands of times with people of this ilk. How many chances does a prejudiced person get? How many threats do they get to make before they are taken seriously? How many people must die at the hands of hateful people before hateful people are treated in kind?
And not for nothing there are plenty of real life examples of this kind of thing too. Richard Spencer very publicly got his teeth punched in and guess what happened? He slithered out of public view and has far less influence now.
Not to mention all of the fascists who were rightfully killed for their cause. Wars were waged to stamp out this type of thinking. You don’t think there were conversations along the way before that point? And I can tell you with certainty there were smug know it all’s like you who were providing cover for this kind of hate by dismissing the seriousness of prejudiced people and minimizing their intent to harm others, as if moral superiority was bulletproof.
Steve QJ:
“You don’t know me,”
True, I don’t know you. But I do know one or two things about you.
For example, I know you’re the type of person who, when reading a line criticising someone who publicly called for the murder of speakers they disagree with, would not only take exception, but would take the time to write a snarky comment about it. And just for extra brain-dead points, would invoke Hitler (the flagrant disregard for Godwin's law!!) and Mussolini as cover.
I know you’re the kind of person who thinks advocating against the murder of people who you disagree with is smugness and/or some kind of moral grandstanding instead of very basic human decency. I’ll remind you that I’m in much more danger from racists than you are, so I’m not sure how you imagine you take racist ideas and their consequences more seriously than I do.
I know you’re the kind of person who will invent straw men to argue against (I didn’t say or even suggest that violence was never an option). Nor did Shaviro merely suggest "something other than a conversation." He was quite specific. Also, if you think Spencer being punched in the face had anything to do with the downturn in his influence, or if you think that's a model for dealing with disagreement more generally, I’m really not sure what to tell you.
Lastly, assuming I’m right to suspect that you’re not a murderer, I know you’re the kind of person who will do all of this in support of rhetoric you don’t even believe in. Either that or you really are enough of a fascist (yes, that word has an actual meaning, it’s not just “meanies”) to condone the murder of a speaker at a university because you oppose their ideas. And you’d convince yourself that you’re not a terrible person by claiming they were on the cusp of starting the next Holocaust.
Violence can only escalate. So if you respond to words with violence, you vastly increase the odds that the other side responds to your violence with more violence. On and on. But in many cases, far more than not, conversations actually work. And when they don't, there are thankfully many more steps to take before murdering people. Or even punching them in the face.
Again, that’s not to say that violence is never an option. It’s to say that blithely spreading the rhetoric that every person with a bad idea is an irredeemable monster, akin to Hitler, who can't be persuaded or reasoned with, only stopped, is not virtuous or courageous or even true. It’s exactly the same cope that fascists and authoritarians have always used to persuade themselves they’re the good guys.
Mick:
Lol okay Steve, whatever you say.
The irony is not lost on me that you’re taking this high and mighty stance on conversations and non-violence in the comments of an article about how mad you are that people aren’t condemning Hamas and totally glossing over the fact that the IDF is butchering civilians left and right, bombing refugee camps, Doctors Without Borders workers, and even shooting their own hostages. Funny how Israel isn’t taking your advice and using the power of persuasion here. I wonder how that has managed to escape your criticism.
Steve QJ:
“totally glossing over the fact that the IDF is butchering civilians left and right”
No. I'm not glossing over it at all. I simply didn't write about it much in this particular article. As I've had to point out a few times recently, not every article can talk about every aspect of the conflict.
And yes, I'd love it if Israel were taking the approach of persuasion. Or at least not indiscriminately wiping out Gaza and killing thousands of innocent civilians. I'm currently writing an article related to this. And in it, I probably won't mention much about Hamas' attack.
It's so frustrating to see so many treat everything about this conflict as either/or.
Mick:
You know what? I can respect that answer. I know things got a little heated between us there, but you seem like a thoughtful person who has a clear, consistent commitment to your morals which is more than most folks on here.
Steve QJ:
“I can respect that answer.”
I appreciate that. I think we’ve all had an overdose of polarisation on this issue over the past couple of months. It’s making us all a little jumpy.
In an age where we’re inundated with the most insane takes the internet has to offer, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that most people, even the people spouting those takes, are basically good.
But some have become so reasy to believe everybody who disagrees with them is evil, so numb to the human cost of their positions, and are so distant from the suffering they trivialise or endorse, that they make arguments they don’t really believe, in defence of beliefs they don’t really hold, so they can “own” people who aren’t really their enemies.
And one of the most effective ways of talking to people in this state of confusion is to lay out, calmly and clearly, the implications of their arguments.
To remind them that they’re talking about people just like them. Not statistics. Not political philosophies. Not Hitler. To remind them that murdering someone over a disagreement is not, in fact, a reasonable thing to do. Nor is it something they would do.
So yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But all most people need to get back on track is a little compassion.
Violence is often a response to violence. An important question is, it the response self-defense, or vengeance? The question can be seen as philosophical, but the answer might have long lasting consequences. Unfortunately, when the violence is protracted, the answer to the question is difficult, but the results are painfully clear.
Daryl Davis. What a brave man. I once held him up as a man to emulate and was laughed down for my efforts. Well... not "down."
I've always been a man of Faith. But events in my family’s life these past 26 months have rendered my past faith nothing more than a used, day-old tissue. So when I say that Christ himself used words and arguments to make his point, again and again, I have good reason. Even when those who followed the Mussolinis of the time hung Him up to die, He prayed for their forgiveness.
The way to change this world is through persuasion, one soul at a time. At least until, as I've heard said, "shit gets real."