Nicholas J. Fuentes, Candace Owens, and other Right Wing Grifters

You aren't original or even particularly clever with it so its just not interesting debating with someone who is fundamentally dishonest

this is really weird. you clearly recognize they are committing the worst crimes imaginable and yet you still support them. grow a spine man.

This is just bad faith false equivalency. If Nick stopped there he would have a Youtube channel. Lots of right wing pundits with Youtube channels make this argument.

Nick takes it 10 steps further. Nick is actually aware his star is as bright as it has ever been. And he isn't even trying to moderate his message at all. He is doubling down. As I said, his literal last podcast was arguing all "funny hat people" should be deported and Hispanics and Blacks removed from most American cities. Anyone would be kicked of YouTube if this was consistently the type of rhetoric they employed in their shows.

lol no that’s what Tucker Carlson said and geezerchess and they still get called an antisemite by folks like Dunyain.

ahh, gotcha. well, Dun simply follows Western concepts of antisemitism so they are right. antisemtisim means anything remotely negative towards Israel.

So I am halfway through Dave Smith's podcast with Nick. And it is entertaining. They are both very good speakers.

One thing about the podcast (at least the first half) is that they both argue the importance of engaging in the marketplace of ideas, which in a vacuum sounds good and fine.

But then Nick goes on a 5 minute soliloquy about "the Jewish problem" and Dave nods his head and says I hear you. But he doesn't actually engage him. Like how exactly do you engage with Nick Fuentes?

So lets say Nick says, all the Jews and Muslims need to be sent to the Middle East (something he has repeatedly said). What exactly is the engaging response a non groyper or white supremacist will give that leads toward a productive conversation?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

Multiculturalism in combination with a strong and socially enforced national identity can facilitate moral progress.

Without a unifying identity, multiculturalism can only prevail through tyranny. The establishment declared victory on multiculturalism way too early.

Calling people racist, or relying on hollow slogans like, “Diversity is our strength” or “We are a nation of immigrants” is no longer sufficient.

Ok, well lets say I am Nick and I am agreeing with you and arguing that Jews and Muslims are too tribal and will never put American first and embrace an America identity. So the specific policy recommendation to fix this problem is to send them all packing to the Middle East.

So how would you engage this argument in the marketplace ideas?

Nick is a Christian, and I’m someone who affirms the truth of the Christian story, so I would discuss with him how the “kingdom to come” works. I would acknowledge the realities of race / ethnicity, and discuss how race / ethnicity needs to be navigated rather than ignored, but I would explain that prioritizing racial identity is not the way.

Without this shared Christian identity, the best way to dissuade him would be on the basis of practicality, but this will be a defensive posture since the secular liberal has lost so much of the moral high ground recently. Not to mention the leftist.

If you must engage, there's no solution other than violence to cure hateful ideology. You punch the Nazi in the face and throw them out of the bar or else you end up with a Nazi bar.

What’s the evidence for this? It’s a quaint truism but punching Richard Spencer in the face and throwing Nick Fuentes into the shadow realm didn’t seem to work. It also tends to be the authoritarians that take advantage of civil unrest, unless you feel like fighting in a protracted revolution.

Prove an anecdote. It's the paradox of tolerance. We can't tolerate worldviews that are hateful in a just society. Buy them a beer and engage in good faith. See where that leads.

Of course, the proverbial elephant-in-the-room is who determines what worldviews are 'hateful' and which ones are virtuous? Who is the watchman? And who is watching the watchman?

The violence you promote isn’t hateful. It’s the speech which is hateful. Impressive.

Is it tolerant to suggest we ship millions of people to the middle east based on religion? Is it hateful? Stigmatizing entire religious groups because some orthodox subsets may not mesh perfectly with societal norms certainly isn't tolerant. To entertain these ideas is already giving the extremists more consideration than they deserve.

In order for democratic society to exist, we must stifle views that are intolerant or else we no longer have it. The United States has elected a tyrant so the point is already moot.

Again, commenting on policing of speech/thought is one thing, but actually engaging the ideas Nick Fuentes supports is an entirely different proposition. Craig did his best to walk through how such engagement might go as a thought exercise; but it isn't easy.

Well, I would say it is more for a liberal society to exist. I think saying that portraying the stifling of views as democratic is a pretty obvious labeling error. Most people can see the obvious contradiction there. But liberal elites have painted themselves into a corner because of their insistence they are guardians of democracy. And it is getting harder and harder to keep the messaging going.

Democracy and liberalism aren't mutually inclusive. It is very possible (and indeed likely) that a democratic society will eventually decide to be illiberal.

For much of the 20th century liberal elites used the controlled media ecosystem to "manufacture consent" so that the people bought into liberalism, so that democracy and liberalism were very aligned. But in our new multicultural nation with no unifying identity, and diffusion of media/thought, it is increasingly difficult for liberal elites to control the message.

People much smarter than you or I have seriously asked the question whether you can actually have a multicultural liberal democracy, especially in the social media age with state and non state actors manipulating thought and speech, especially by manipulating our lizard brain tribal hard wiring.

And it is very possible we will have to eventually choose to get rid of something. Nick Fuentes idea is to get rid of the multicultural part. Another idea is to take the Singapore model and get rid of the liberalism part. I dont know the answers, but I think it is the crux of the issue.

--This isn't exactly Nick Fuentes related, but it is nice that Turkish and Armenian Americans can find common ground to come together and have a peaceful discussion and come to an agreement, given the history. Maybe there is hope for America after all.

This is a fundamental issue of democracy which philosophers have discussed for thousands of years.

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

How can a government exist by the people where certain populations are oppressed? That would be an oppressive authoritarian society and therefore not democratic. Democracies resolve conflict through policies that foster the free marketplace of ideas, not stifle them. There's no need to muddy the water with a liberally manufactured word salad.

RE those smarter

Karl Popper suggested we must retain the right to deny tolerance to the intolerant otherwise tolerance itself is destroyed.

John Rawls suggested we must tolerate the intolerant to the point where it limits the liberty of others under a just constitution.

Quality of life over time is the highest human value.

For whatever reason, you seem to have made tolerance / acceptance of minorities the highest value. Have you not?

Unfortunately, the idea that a monoculture, even a racial monoculture, leads to a higher quality of life over the status quo is a strong argument.

Step one for people like you is to (rather than opt for violence) realize that morality may not be as simple as you’ve made it out to be.

Step two is realizing that quality of life is the highest moral value.

One can wonder if this poster is actually some kind of an undercover anti-Jew?

The amount of times they have put words into people’s mouth… stupid stuff like
Jewish space lasers or the dirty Jews when no one itt has used those terms. Constantly conflating criticism of Israeli politicians with attacks on all Jews.

Thank God most people are not falling for it. Just from looking at polling from the US and Europe.

Prove an anecdote — You made the claim that violence is the only way to deal with hateful ideologies. I’m asking you what the evidence is for that.

It’s the paradox of tolerance — The paradox of tolerance meaning what exactly? I know there’s Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance but idk what you mean by it, because I see people misuse it.

If by that you mean we can’t tolerate hateful ideologies, I don’t think that’s what he meant. I think what’s closer is you have to suppress ideologies that would end tolerance of differences of opinion. The paradox is that by doing that, you are not tolerating a difference of opinion. That’s it. If you mean any more than that then I will need to see the argument.

Buy them a beer and engage in good faith, see where that leads — I don’t think that’s the only other option we have. It’s a false dichotomy between kill all nazis and buy all nazis a beer lol

The Ana thing is a bit of a stretch. I think she’s too stupid to dogwhistle like that. She’s more likely just playing out the typical kitschy disney villain, which has its roots in antisemitism anyway, which is why it appears she’s doing something antisemitic.

I am completely indifferent to whatever comment the guy who posted the tweet is saying. The visual seems to speak for itself. If you think this is incorrect and want to contextualize it go ahead.

Michael falsely accused Anna…its obvious.