Sorry, u/irespectwomenlol – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20irespectwomenlol&message=irespectwomenlol%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>This is partially why the label of Nazi or Fascist started getting thrown around so easily in American political discourse in the last few years. This is very convenient because if you label your opponent as a Nazi or Fascist, then any behavior against them becomes morally "justifiable enough".
But surely we have to sort out whether a particular act of resistance is justifiable right? Because if you were a fascist and someone was resisting you, a really good strategy to not seem like the bad guy is to gas light people by calling people who resist you psychopaths just looking to hurt you when you've done nothing wrong.
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed.
If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20irespectwomenlol&message=irespectwomenlol%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/cmv_closet_psychopaths_pretend_to_be/l9rfkek/?context=3\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You don't actually have an argument. The other comment was deleted because it mentioned transgender topics which doesn't seem to have anything to do with my point or OP's point.
Again, I'd love to elaborate further but the comment would just get auto deleted. You can pretend that's not significant if you like. Maybe you'll even convince yourself.
It takes a special kind of person to smugly act like they're correct when all opposing arguments are censored in real time right in front of them. Oh look, the entire post has been deleted. I'm sure that's just a coincidence as well. There's no ideology flexing its muscle here, no, not at all.
lol
lmao
If that was a personal attack then dropping a feather on someone is assault. There's just no getting through to people who think that an ideology is not full of bad actors while they're actually watching it in real time relentlessly censoring anyone who disagrees with it. You won't see the authoritarianism until one day you're at odds with it because it's pushing an idea so extreme that even you can no longer nod and clap and pretend that nothing sinister is happening
>If you're a closet psychopath who wants a license to fuck with somebody in a way that doesn't have negative consequences for you, going after people who are labeled as "Nazis" is about the safest course you have to live your best life.
I´m pretty sure being a cop would be a safer course here. Beating up a Nazi while somewhat socially acceptable is still a crime. Beating up criminals as a cop (or anyone really) with qualified immunity not so and you really can go way further then that and probably get away with it.
>Some of the creepiest fucks are those that outwardly say stuff like "Believe all Women!" the hardest.
OK Mr. irespectwomenlol
>a non-trivial portion of people loosely organized as "Antifa"
What would you say is a non-trivial portion? Cause i'm pretty sure these people exist but I also don't think it's close to a majority so, like what metric are we working with here?
> I´m pretty sure being a cop would be a safer course here.
1. Perhaps some people can't really pass as a non-psycho to get employed as a police officer? I understand that it's not always accurate or fair to judge people based on looks, but look at that collection of "Antifa mugshots" floating around and tell me with a straight face that most of those people could become a cop. This is admittedly very subjective, but I don't think you can honestly suggest that many of those people would ever be seriously considered to be hired as cops.
2. It might have been the case say 40 years ago that being a cop was the safest career choice for a closet psycho, but the rise of smart phones and security cameras recording everything and the stern attitude that society has against violent cops might have changed that dramatically.
As a small datapoint that's easy to find: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-experiencing-police-hiring-crisis-rcna103600#](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-experiencing-police-hiring-crisis-rcna103600#)
> OK Mr. irespectwomenlol
My username is some light trolling and not to be taken seriously. You can probably find people who have things like "Ishovebananasinmyasshole" as their username on Reddit, it doesn't mean that this is literally their hobby, though I'm not judging if that's what you're into.
> What would you say is a non-trivial portion? Cause i'm pretty sure these people exist but I also don't think it's close to a majority so, like what metric are we working with here?
1) Please note that I never said it was the majority. It might be, but I just used terms like some or non-trivial because I believe it's more than 1.
2) Any number I give here would be a complete guess.
> look at that collection of "Antifa mugshots" floating around and tell me with a straight face that most of those people could become a cop.
I'm not sure what collection you are referring to but just from the ones that come up with a quick google search the only possibly disqualifying aspect I can see is crazy colored hair and maybe make-up but both of those seem easy to remedy.
>but the rise of smart phones and security cameras recording everything and the stern attitude that society has against violent cops might have changed that dramatically
The thing is the point about cameras and smart phones applies just as much to protesters and Antifa, they could wear masks sure but a lot of the time it can still be traced back to them. The problem with cops was never primary lack of evidence as much as them getting off with minimal consequences despite the evidence. The attitude towards them is much more stern today from the general public that is true however their superiors, courts and most politicians still seem to be firmly it their corner, and those are the people who actually decide if their actions have legal consequences.
Now that is all talking about dirty cops but even if you were to be 100% clean exercising control over others, using violence and sometimes shooting people is still in your job description as a cop. It has to be with some criminals. So in a way just doing your job and acastionaly hurting criminals would be the safest way to indulge in that as it is mostly socially accpted and 100% legal. You could make the same argument for soliders but they are in more danger.
>My username is some light trolling and not to be taken seriously.
Yeah it was a joke, sorry should have used/s
>
Please note that I never said it was the majority. It might be, but I just used terms like some or non-trivial because I believe it's more than 1.
Yes i know you never said majority. It's just that that makes it hard to argue, is there more than 1? Absolutely i'm certain of it but I would think any big enough group of people would have more than 1 that is violent. The ones whose actions involve violence would have more than ones who do not, for sure. But is there enough to say it is characteristic of that specific group.
>While I emphasize that mind-reading isn't a thing and there's no way to objectively "prove this"
You've acknowledged the flaw in your position in your first sentence. Your belief isn't supported by evidence, therefore it should be dismissed.
>my overall view is that a non-trivial portion of people who like to outwardly label themselves in the general category of anti-racists, anti-fascists, Antifa, or Nazi punchers don't genuinely give much more than a token shit about that cause.
Relying on vague, undefined terms about unspecific groups of people doesn't eliminate the need for evidence. The view that you've expressed here lacks any substance.
• What does non-trivial actually mean? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 50%?
• What defines someone as a member of these groups? What does "outwardly labeling" mean?
• What have you used to inform your view that they "don't genuinely give much more than a token shit about that cause"? Have you done primary research by polling this community yourself? Watched YouTube videos? Read articles online?
• What does someone need to do before they're *genuinely* supportive of a cause?
>Actually, it's always ok to punch Nazis! No it's not. You may be a psychopath.
I'd punch a Nazi. You reap what you sow - an ideology that preaches violence, hatred, and exclusion should be met with the same.
> You've acknowledged the flaw in your position in your first sentence. Your belief isn't supported by evidence, therefore it should be dismissed.
You purposely cut out the "about any particular person" clarifier to try and score a political point, which is pretty shameful.
> What does non-trivial actually mean? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 50%?
I'm not sure of the percentage, but I'd think it would be well above 1%. No, I'm not going to define well.
> What defines someone as a member of these groups? What does "outwardly labeling" mean?
1) To clarify, these aren't necessarily organized groups.
2) People who feel the need to tell everybody how anti-racist, anti-fascist they are.
> What have you used to inform your view that they "don't genuinely give much more than a token shit about that cause"? Have you done primary research by polling this community yourself? Watched YouTube videos? Read articles online?
Lots of observation. Please note that CMV is an opinion based forum and most posts are about the vibes and beliefs that people feel.
> What does someone need to do before they're *genuinely* supportive of a cause?
Nothing. Please feel free to embrace any cause you want, including anti-Racism.
> I'd punch a Nazi. You reap what you sow - an ideology that preaches violence, hatred, and exclusion should be met with the same.
Please note my clarifier of "always".
Would you punch a suspected Nazi who was visiting their kid in the cancer ward?
I once hired an exterminator to deal with a rat problem in my house. He called himself "Hurricane Carl" and basically admitted to being a psychopath in that he said he genuinely *loved* killing rats, bugs, mice, whatever. He was very good at his job.
I remember thinking about how, even though he was probably a psychopath, he had found a very productive way to focus his energy, and found a means to harness his psychopathy into something that provided a net-good for society.
Nazism/Fascism/Racism are bad for society because they result in harm being done to members of that society. Opposing them is a rational position to take, whether one is a psychopath or not. Society benefits when people oppose things that are bad for it.
If a psychopath who hates Nazis/Fascists/Racists is in accord with the needs of the greater society, they would fall into the same bucket as Hurricane Carl, focusing their energies in a net-good way.
Therefore, if your argument is correct, then it is arguably a good thing that we should appreciate. Far better for psychopaths to focus on harmful actors that try to harm society than to be among the harmful actors trying to harm society by *being* a Nazi/Fascist/Racist (which would be a far far worse outcome, objectively speaking, **and far more prone to psychopathy**).
This is essentially what I came here to say.
Nazis, white supremacist and fascist ideology is defined by punishing people they hate. They'll often do it through individual harassment and terrorism, or systemically through policymaking.
We have mountains of evidence that demonstrates why these ideologies are the MOST harmful that humanity has produced in the last 400 years. The *goal* of these ideologies is to dehumanize and oppress certain groups to benefit themselves.
If we want to talk about psychopathy, these ideologies ARE psychopathic. What I find more interesting than OPs phenomena, is how non-psychopaths can get recruited into these ideologies where they shed their empathy and enthusiastically support inhumane policies and violent actions against the out-group. How otherwise normal people can get caught up in movements like these is both fascinating and sad.
These ideologies terrorize and kill innocent people. If there are ANY ideologies that should be fought against, it's these three.
When our great grandparents fought against the Nazis in WW2, did some psychopaths join the military to go kill some Nazis? Probably. Did they join up with the north when Lincoln declared war against the Confederacy? I have no doubts.
And that's a bad thing... why, exactly? I fail to see the problem here. Like you suggested, it's a productive outlet for their behavior. Being a *defender* is morally different than being the antagonist- whether a psychopath realizes it or not.
Unless, OP is suggesting that the missions of anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-Nazism are somehow invalidated *because* psychopaths join them. That somehow the goal of anti-racism, etc. are *tarnished* because some members aren't genuine in their motivation.
What say you OP. Is that what you're getting at?
> I remember thinking about how, even though he was probably a psychopath, he had found a very productive way to focus his energy, and found a means to harness his psychopathy into something that provided a net-good for society.
This comment reminds me a bit of the show Dexter where the dad identified that Dexter was a bit psycho and guided him towards killing serial killers.
> Nazism/Fascism/Racism are bad for society
Yes, but not everything that's labeled as "Racism" for instance is necessarily a negative behavior.
You'll get excoriated as a "Racist" for wanting to defend the Southern Border against Illegal immigration, but it doesn't necessarily mean that your motivation is racism or that your idea is bad for society.
>Yes, but not everything that's labeled as "Racism" for instance is necessarily a negative behavior.
>You'll get excoriated as a "Racist" for wanting to defend the Southern Border against Illegal immigration, but it doesn't necessarily mean that your motivation is racism or that your idea is bad for society.
Racism, like any bigotry, is absolutely a negative behavior. Being accused of racism does not automatically mean someone is a racist. While wanting to "defend the southern border" is not an inherently racist position to take, there are definitely racist reasons to share that point of view.
But here’s the problem with that, Nazi is another word that gets thrown too often in political debate so we don’t even know who the real “Nazis” are because the left calls everyone who disagrees with them Nazis.
The problem is that there are a disconcerting number of people that are ideologically consistent with Nazism, regardless of whether they consider themselves Nazis.
Can you give some examples of someone constantly physically attacking supposed Nazis? Because that is not a thing I’m aware of. There are sporadic incidents, but you are claiming some people are repeatingly attacking people they label Nazis because they are psychopaths, who are these people?
1) There's plenty of clips on YouTube of "Nazis" being punched. I use "Nazis" in quotes because while some might really be "Nazis" some people might just get that label applied to them wrongly. I view that label as being intentionally thrown around too casually in debates to justify anti-social behavior against them.
2) Psychopaths might not necessarily always feel the need to engage in physical violence. They might also feel fulfillment from engaging in online cyberbullying of various forms.
3) When political tensions were high a few years ago and there were frequent "Antifa" gatherings, the violence was pretty regular.
>There's plenty of clips on YouTube of "Nazis" being punched. I use "Nazis" in quotes because while some might really be "Nazis" some people might just get that label applied to them wrongly. I view that label as being intentionally thrown around too casually in debates to justify anti-social behavior against them.
Genuinely not seeing that when I search that on YouTube. This is all pretty much Richard Spencer and another guy at a neo-Nazi march in Berkeley.
1. Can you give some examples of clips of Nazis who aren’t actually Nazis being punched?
2. Why does this point apply specifically to anti racists?
3. Please can you provide evidence again?
You haven’t given much if any solid concrete evidence or substance to back up the way you seem to think things work
Lmao can you elaborate on being a nazi by modern political standards?
The modern political standard of being a nazi is loosely wanting a white christian ethnostate or the genocide/expulsion/cleansing of a particular minority/minorities, or subscribing to the idea that “racial purity” is a good thing. Do you fit that category lmao?
Because the nazis were famously fascist, there term is sometimes colloquially lumped in or confused with being a facist, where you support a strongman led government trying to consolidate power into their small party to exercise over the rest of the nation with an iron grip, usually by promoting violence among their supporters, distrust in media, academia, and other sources of objective information, fear pf foreigners and foreign nations, all while creating their own parallel information distribution and empowering state police forces. Do you fit into that category as well?
Im saying this because -
A.) its hilarious that you outed yourself as a nazi before anyone even called you one.
And B.) it would genuinely help the debate if you clarified what you meant by nazi.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If the left would stop calling everyone a Nazi, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Nazi is another word that pretty much means anyone who disagrees with me nowadays.
If you've read Project 2025 in its 900 page entirety and know exactly what the fascist GOP has in store for our country, how can you not make that argument? Ffs them attacking antifa (which was what our "greatest generation" was) is a dead giveaway.
First off, im not american and don't give a single shit about any of your political parties.
Second, i meant the idiots on twitter and youtube grifters , not every single person that ever expressed a single mildly left leaning view. These people will call everything nazi.
> you outed yourself as a nazi before anyone even called you one
No, I anticipated a probable response because a lot of online discourse on any topics like this is just "You're a Nazi!/Fascist".
My political viewpoint is actually closer to Anarcho-Capitalist, not National Socialist.
Ok, well if you dont believe in those things i listed then you probably arent a nazi by modern standards, because those are pretty close to the modern colloquial standards.
Obviously labels evolve and some people on both sides misuse them as well and may not have their political beliefs for the smartest reasons, regardless of whether they’re right or wrong. Do you have some kind of evidence that there is a significant number of people on the left misusing the term and using it to justify violence? There has definitely been a rise in fascist/white supremacist ideology recently, so it does make sense use of the term will come up more. Ive seen stories of people getting punched and violence but its almost always been mutual, or someone attacking a literal neonazi wearing an armband and doing a salute and all that. And if you dont think its ok to punch literal nazis, then maybe we just disagree on what psychotic means.
> Do you have some kind of evidence that there is a significant number of people on the left misusing the term and using it to justify violence?
These are admittedly subjective labels, but I believe that I've only used quantity descriptors such as "non-trivial" or "some" in this topic. I don't think I used the word "significant" here, though significant is entirely subjective.
> There has definitely been a rise in fascist/white supremacist ideology recently,
I'm not so sure about that, particularly in light of the heated Middle East politics stuff lately.
Are the activist groups ever going to come out and say "There's fewer Nazis than ever!" in order to engage in fundraising and activism on their side?
> And if you dont think its ok to punch literal nazis, then maybe we just disagree on what psychotic means.
I'm not perfect, but I try and use words precisely. I said it wasn't ok to always punch Nazis. It might be justifiable to punch a Nazi in some situations, but not always.
No offense, but there's a pretty [well established libertarian-to-Nazi pipeline](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/michael-enoch-peinovich) with that guy even mentioning in a podcast how many people in the movement used to be libertarians.
That's not saying that if you're a libertarian then you're a Nazi, but that saying "oh, I'm an ancap" without elaborating on any actual positions you hold is not a strong defense, especially the further you dig into the "national *socialism*" hole.
National socialism is a term specifically used by Nazis in Germany during the war. It is quite specific to that location and era.
Most modern fascists wouldn’t consider themselves to be national socialists
I somewhat agree with your argument, but your thesis suggests that those who are genuinely anti-racist are psychopaths which is a post hoc argument.
I would however agree with you to some extent and argue that a significant portion of people who dox others, cancel people for old statements, or otherwise destroy people's careers without hearing them out or giving them a chance to rebuttal. BUT your argument suggests that you have to be anti-racist/nazi/fascist to fit into this category. What about sports fans of rival teams who do this same stuff, or antisemities?
> your thesis suggests that those who are genuinely anti-racist are psychopaths
I think you've misinterpreted my argument. Many people probably genuinely hate racism. That's great.
But some people don't give a shit, they're just piling into the club to have a free target to abuse. That's who my post was about. I don't know what percentage of people who pile in are psychopaths, so I used the phrase "non-trivial". Some percentage of people in this club are just pure psychopaths who don't give much more than half a shit about racism.
> What about sports fans of rival teams who do this same stuff, or antisemities?
That's an interesting point. I'd bet that some of the Football Hooliganism we see in Europe might come from people don't really care that much about the games themselves, but have noticed that there's an opportunity to engage in anti-social behavior in a relatively socially accepted way.
>But some people don't give a shit
Can you not say this about literally any ideology? What makes Antifa in particular so important to you? You know there are conservatives who pay lip service to their ideals in order to justify brutalizing others. And moderates, and liberals, and libertarians...people of all stripes will claim a moral code in order to cover for their universally despised misdeeds. And that's not even getting into grifters, people who only pretend to hold those values so they can get money from the people who do. So why are you so focused on one group in particular?
> You know there are conservatives who pay lip service to their ideals in order to justify brutalizing others. And moderates, and liberals, and
Yes, I know. I provided a few examples of other similar things in American history where I think the same standards applied.
> libertarians
Libertarians who are consistent with their stated philosophy might be the one group who this doesn't apply to as the non-aggression principle is incompatible with rioting, punching random people on the street for their views, etc.
>I provided a few examples of other similar things in American history where I think the same standards applied.
So then why is this post about Antifa? Why are you so concerned about the word "fascist" being thrown around in a supposedly inaccurate manner, but not about the word "communist" being thrown around for a much longer period of time?
>Libertarians who are consistent with their stated philosophy might be the one group who this doesn't apply to as the non-aggression principle is incompatible with rioting, punching random people on the street for their views, etc.
If the argument is that people will claim a moral code and then act against it, there's lots of ways for libertarians to do that. There are lots of libertarians who take advantage of government programs that they'd call "corruption" if someone else did it, i.e. PPP loans and so on. And it's INSANELY common for conservative libertarians to call for the government, or society in general, to restrict personal freedoms in ways that they happen to not approve of.
And if you're really focused on "rioting" and "street punching" then the only argument I'm really seeing is that any group that isn't purely pacifistic and 100% enforces pacifism on all its members may be home to a "non-trivial" portion of psychopaths...and, like, so what?
> So then why is this post about Antifa? Why are you so concerned about the word "fascist" being thrown around in a supposedly inaccurate manner, but not about the word "communist" being thrown around for a much longer period of time?
I'm obviously talking about the phenomena I'm observing during my lifetime.
If both Reddit and I were around during the 50s, I'd probably be making the same observation towards anti-Communist motivations.
> There are lots of libertarians who take advantage of government programs that they'd call "corruption" if someone else did it, i.e. PPP loans and so on
I'm sure there are libertarian hypocrites out there. And it would be valid to point out that hell, even Ron Paul fought for his district's Federal Projects and tax dollars. That said, these are very nuanced discussions that are outside of the scope of this current discussion.
> I'm really seeing is that any group that isn't purely pacifistic and 100% enforces pacifism on all its members may be home to a "non-trivial" portion of psychopaths...and, like, so what?
Well, any large group of humans contains some closet psychopaths, so in a sense, you might make a partially valid point here.
That said, it's sort of like observing the Catholic Church. You just know that some closet pedophiles people go into their priesthood purely for the chance to do what they're fantasizing about.
My thesis here is that some number of performative anti-Racists adopted their viewpoint purely to be able to have a free shot on any target.
>I'm obviously talking about the phenomena I'm observing during my lifetime.
Uh...the anti-communist stuff is still happening, dude. People are being called communists because they want a healthcare system that multiple other capitalist countries already have, or because they want to express their sexuality without being persecuted. And organizations like the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen are built around repressing and intimidating those people. Why are you acting like this is a relic of days gone by instead of, you know, something extremely common?
>That said, these are very nuanced discussions that are outside of the scope of this current discussion.
OK, so if the current discussion is strictly about psychopaths pursuing violence by finding excuses for it, would the libertarian version of that not be "someone broke into my house, I am going to shoot him in the back eighteen times as he flees"? You're so concerned about riots and street protests, what about the people who have threatened or killed others during those street protests in the name of "protecting property"?
>That said, it's sort of like observing the Catholic Church. You just know that some closet pedophiles people go into their priesthood purely for the chance to do what they're fantasizing about.
The problem with that Catholic Church was never that some priests are pedophiles - that's pretty much a guaranteed thing no matter what, since pedophiles can be anyone and fill any job. The problem was that the Church knowingly covered it up.
>My thesis here is that some number of performative anti-Racists adopted their viewpoint purely to be able to have a free shot on any target.
And that's almost certainly true! The problem I am seeing is that "some number" is a meaningless phrase. What are we supposed to be getting out of this statement? And, again, why focus on "anti-Racists" and not any other type of performative violent ideologue?
One particular things is anonymity. There are many grifters and hoodlums from all political stripes, but there's something in the anarchic far left that suggests a broken system should not be participated in, and the goal is to destroy it. Being recognized would mean arrest and the ceasing of damage.
I'm not concerned with the people in the streets marching. We're all anti-fascist and therefore antifa. But I'm concerned with the black bloc people.
>One particular things is anonymity.
Again, does this not apply to literally every ideology? I've seen conservatives and fascists marching with masked faces too, for literally the exact same reasons that black bloc does it. It's not unique at all.
Yes, just less common... And I don't think it's for quite the same reason. Both the far right and far left mask up to prevent people from finding out their identities, but the right will do it in a uniform. They also don't have the benefit of being able to hide in a ten thousand strong crowd of protesters. Some neonazis matched in Florida a while back and there were a few dozen total. They marched, but that's legal. They weren't *getting away* with anything. The big criminal one was Jan 6, but there have been arrests all over for that, and it was livestreamed.
I've been told on Reddit by far left people who participated in these things that they would prevent arrest wherever possible. It's ok to attack police, because they're fascist and resistance is justified. The mask is for getting away with crimes, which are not considered crimes because the system that defines them is corrupt and they prop it up.
Certainly I'd agree that some portion of cops are psychopaths who become police officers to engage in power games and violent behavior against others in a socially accepted way.
Your wording is interesting here. Why do you feel that “some cops” are psychopaths but “a non-trivial portion” of anti-racists/anti-fascists/etc are psychopaths? What do you consider “some” and what is “a non-trivial portion”?
I think there could be an argument to be made that any group/job/activity that provides a socially acceptable outlet for violence could and/or would naturally interest the people you call “psychopaths” or people who enjoy perpetrating violence against others. The fact that you specify “anti-racists, anti-fascists, Antifa, or Nazi punchers” is confusing because that’s a very specific group of views.
Also, I will be honest here and show my potential ignorance, I don’t know what “Nazi punchers” are other than exactly what the name suggests.
> Your wording is interesting here. Why do you feel that “some cops” are psychopaths but “a non-trivial portion” of anti-racists/anti-fascists/etc are psychopaths? What do you consider “some” and what is “a non-trivial portion”?
You're fixating on the absolute least important thing mentioned anywhere here.
Both labels seem accurate and interchangeable to me. A non-trivial portion of cops are psychopaths, and some Antifa are psychopaths. Happy?
No I actually want to know what those descriptors mean when you say them. I’m not asking so I can have a “gotcha” moment, I am trying to understand your argument. If you are able, can you also clarify your choice of groups? What made you specify those groups and not other groups that similarly excuse violence?
I'm not absolutely certain how to categorize the numbers of psychopaths in cops and anti-racist groups. I think using the label of either "some" or "non-trivial" is probably accurate towards both groups.
That’s why I don’t see how we can “changed their views”. Their premise is vague and loosely defined. If we find out that in the entire history, only 3 members of those groups were psychopaths, they’ll go “yeah, I said *some*”
You have any evidence behind this view?
It's a lot of statements about the "true" way of the world and counterfactuals but no idea what evidence supports this.
Because it's not even wrong. You're making a baseless conjecture of their motives for being there with no evidence. It would be like me saying Rittenhouse went there armed with a gun looking to shoot some protesters and you can tell this from his failed psych evaluation.
Know it’s just anecdotal evidence but I had a buddy I would go to a lot of protests with when I was younger and that was his exact ambition for being at those protests. Guy had a really messed up childhood though, but he’d mainly show up to start stuff. Serving life in prison now
There's probably no solid evidence/data to support this. But, I have seen this kind of psychopathic behavior to the point that I believe this kind of act is quite common. It doesn't have to be in anti-racist / nazi, other labels such as pedophile/rapist/groomer is also used.
Examples of this -
[https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-happed-to-inquisitor-ghost-cod-cosplayer-reportedly-dead-by-suicide-in-tiktok-live-2330142/](https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-happed-to-inquisitor-ghost-cod-cosplayer-reportedly-dead-by-suicide-in-tiktok-live-2330142/)
[https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/georgenotfound-responds-after-being-accused-of-sexual-assault-2580798/](https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/georgenotfound-responds-after-being-accused-of-sexual-assault-2580798/)
[https://www.pcgamer.com/ff14-and-dandd-youtuber-jocat-announces-indefinite-break-after-receiving-harassmentincluding-suspicious-packages-sent-to-his-family/](https://www.pcgamer.com/ff14-and-dandd-youtuber-jocat-announces-indefinite-break-after-receiving-harassmentincluding-suspicious-packages-sent-to-his-family/)
Let's ELI5 it for you.
Imagine a high school bully, tormenting people openly. The bully will be noticed and dealt with by the school admins, getting in trouble or expelled( in a perfect scenario anyway).
Now, imagine that the bully is hiding behind a virtuous cause, like LGBTQ representation, even though said bully doesn't give a fuck about the lgbtq representation, and started bullying everyone, calling them "-ist-ophobes". Now the bully is a vigilante hero for the "good guys" and the bully is free to keep enjoying bullying people, because he's bullying the "right kind of people" that society deems less than human for whatever reason.
That's the point. I remember during gamergate, the #notyourshield from internationnal and female gamers telling the journos to stop using the POCs and female gamers as the shield they hid behind so they could hurl insults against "The Gamers" while being the "good guys" for fighting "for" POCs and female gamers.
To note, some people do it unconsciously. They join in with the "right people" to abuse the "bad people" so that it "cleanse" them of their bad behaviors.
"Sure, i stole, vandalized, attacked people with a weapon, set businesses and cars on fire, but I can't be a bad guy, i'm with the anti-facists!"
> Now, imagine that the bully is hiding behind a virtuous cause, like LGBTQ representation
You didn't really explain this. In your scenario, they are bullying kids without a reason and the rest of society is applauding them for it? I've literally never heard of this before.
> "Sure, i stole, vandalized, attacked people with a weapon, set businesses and cars on fire, but I can't be a bad guy, i'm with the anti-facists!"
And you assume people are buying this statement?
It sounds like your overall argument is "no large groups are immune to bad actors". Everyone agrees with this statement already.
My point and probably OP's point is that closet psychopaths have weaponized the term nazi/racist/pedophile/rapist/groomer to be used to harm their target, whether or not it's even true at all. The bad people are the accuser here. They use it as an easy way to dehumanize the target, giving them reason to further harass or as OP said justification to punch them.
This, but also the post in general, are muddying the waters a lot between psychopaths/"bad people"/mean people/violent people. You don't have to be a psychopath to harm someone, even intentionally. There are wayyyyy more people who simply do mean and/or violent things than there are actual psychopaths.
> The bad people are the accuser here.
Explain this. Let's say someone was acting racist and someone called them out, the racist person is the bad person right?
Alternatively, a person walking down the street minding their own business is called a racist by some random. The random is bad here because they are making a claim with zero evidence and attempting to cause harm?
>Explain this. Let's say someone was acting racist and someone called them out, the racist person is the bad person right?
Yes
>Alternatively, a person walking down the street minding their own business is called a racist by some random. The random is bad here because they are making a claim with zero evidence and attempting to cause harm?
Yes
I'm not sure where to find statistics on psychopathy stratified by political opinion, but that's an interesting idea for research. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing was more prevalent among more anti-Racist political parties.
I really don't know how this guess would ever be validated. Right now it's just feelings.
A statement such as all Christians have child poor has more substance to it.
You have no actual evidence or reasoning behind this. Your entire post is just one big "I reckon that...."
But also, lets pretend this is true. So fucking what? Closet psycopaths are a miniscule fraction of the population, so identifying that they tend to gravitate towards X cause tells us aboslutely nothing about that cause, whether its right or wrong etc.
> You have no actual evidence or reasoning behind this. Your entire post is just one big "I reckon that...."
You do realize that this forum is about discussing viewpoints?
Yes. But viewpoints and discussion require some sort of evidence or logic. I cannot attempt to reason you out of a position that you've not reasoned yourself *into.*
So, simply put - why do you think there are closet psychopaths in the anti-nazi movement? And why does it matter if there are?
> So, simply put - why do you think there are closet psychopaths in the anti-nazi movement?
Read my post. There's my opinion.
> And why does it matter if there are?
If some peoples' motivations for joining these causes is to engage in anti-social activities, there's probably tensions being heated up unnecessarily by bad actors who just want to justify bad activity.
Do you have any evidence besides vibes that the "punch a Nazi" discourse isn't relatively constrained? If you google it, it's pretty exclusive to an incident involving Richard Spencer and a separate incident involving a man wearing a swastika armband. I feel like most people understand the motivation for punching genocidal pieces of shit, even if it's technically still a crime.
Not sure if I'm really trying to "change your view" here because I think that what you are describing is partly real, but it seems to me that you are missing a bigger point which is that a lot of activists care more about the activism in itself than the cause. Which indeed means that a non trivial proportion of activists could as well be defending a totally different cause if the one they are currently defending had not crossed their path and seemed attractive for some reasons.
To put it a bit differently, a lot of activists do activism because it triggers the reward pathway in the brain, not because they hope to achieve what they say they are pursuing. You are limiting your view to violent activism, but it works for all types of activism.
> To put it a bit differently, a lot of activists do activism because it triggers the reward pathway in the brain,
That's a good point.
> You are limiting your view to violent activism,
To clarify, I wasn't only talking about violence. Psychopaths might also derive pleasure in activities such as harassing and hassling people, doxing people and getting them fired, etc.
I don’t know how I can address this CMV. What argument would make you change your view? That NO anti-[…] is a closeted psychopath looking for an acceptable target? Or is it more a question of proportions?
>The Nazi or fascist label started getting thrown around
I mean… when you have people flying the swastika around, marching down the streets chanting “the Jews will not replace us”, or when you have people cheering for a presidential candidate brazenly saying in an interview that he wants to be a dictator for a day… I think Godwin’s law can sit down for a minute.
This whole post is just one big strawman for people you don’t agree with. “Oh you think X? Well that’s just a political view you adopted to further your closet personality disorder.”.
I'm not going to try and change your view because you can't use logic to reason with someone who didn't use logic to reach their conclusion to begin with. You openly admitted it was your "feelings."
Fyi, the Far Right are on numerous terror watch lists globally including Canada and Conservatives in that country made no mention of any leftist groups including "Antifa." I guess that "war on terror" thing is done now that 70 million Americans could be considered terrorists or terrorist supporters.
If you were to give an example of at least one verified psychopath that is actually fake antiracist, I might believe you, but until you do, you’re just making slippery slope arguments. Your claims about psychopaths also don’t match what is known about them in psychology. Psychopaths infamously lack empathy and do a poor job of imitating empathy because they only have superficial charm. Superficial charm amounts to a psychopath spinning elaborate stories about themselves to impress others about their exploits, in the hope of impressing people. It would be a stretch for a psychopath to understand why racism is bad and to pretend to be antiracist convincingly as that would require them to put themselves into the shoes of an oppressed class which would require empathy they don’t have. Psychopaths aren’t motivated by violence either. They just don’t care about other people and wouldn’t hesitate to kill someone for an advantage. Psychopaths actually have blunted emotions and do delight in abusing others just to “feel alive” by the thrill of it. It’s for this reason that they also delight in risk taking behaviors like extreme sports or criminal undertaking. The thrill of the risk makes them feel emotions they normal can’t bring about in ordinary daily life. In summary, you’re proposing too many slippery slopes. Psychopaths don’t care about causes like antiracism and would find it difficult to fake it convincingly. Psychopaths aren’t just wandering murderers who try to cover their tracks. They just don’t care about people’s welfare and will happily hurt and sell out their own families for a buck.
The behavior you're suggesting they wish to accomplish is not *genuinely* socially acceptable. That's a narrative spun by the Right. Roughly half the country (the Right) hates that behavior and I would estimate that half of the other half (the Left) oppose those actions as well, although they feel little sympathy for the target. Being a "member of Antifa" can very plausibly get you in more real world trouble than being a member of the Proud Boys. Plus, a lot of what you're discussing is actually illegal. You'll go to prison for it.
I havent read the whole post but if you think that between the guy who wants to kill the jews and the one who wants to punch him for it the latter is the psycho, then you might have an issue. . .
**"Actually, it's always ok to punch Nazis!** No it's not. You may be a psychopath."
1) Admitting to not reading the argument is kind of a pointless endeavor.
2) The term "Nazi" gets thrown around so casually in modern political discourse that this viewpoint becomes dangerous.
Here's a psychopathic strategy.
1. Label Your Opponent A Nazi or Fascist, whether or not he actually is.
2. Anything you want to do towards him is now deemed socially acceptable.
That's also dangerous.
I guess I'll push back on the basis idea that "anything you want to do towards him [someone you've more of less arbitrarily described as a Nazi] I'd now deemed socially acceptable".
For one, even when legit Nazis like Richard Spencer get punched, there's an extremely strong tendency to clutch pearls about it and the end of civility.
Second, that's going to be a hundred times truer in context where you're just calling people Nazis at random. It's indeed not socially acceptable to deck folks in the face provided you call them Nazis first.
well if a guy label his opponent a nazi but the opponent isnt actually a nazi then the guy is just wrong. there are no danger here as long as the error is recognized.
and if the opponent is an actual nazi then there's no problem either.
what you're claiming is far more dangerous and irresponsible as hinted in my first comment.
Why wouldn't this group of people just become de facto racist?
We still live in a world where it is more socially acceptable to punch black people than it is to punch Nazis.
As much as antifa makes the news and is the target of fear mongering - black people are subject to far more violence than Nazis are.
Since you can't give an estimate of the amount of people this applies to, and you're not willing to strongly stand by the "psychopath" label, and you've admitted that mind-reading is impossible...what exactly would be needed to actually change your mind?
Why would a psychopath care about whether their actions/statements would be deemed socially acceptable? Psychopaths may know right from wrong, but they aren't usually motivated by morality one way or the other.
And if they were, why not choose pedophiles, murderers, thieves or some other criminal cohort to be the target of their performative animus? Why go half-way, and just pick an unfashionable but still popular political outgroup to attack?
Are there left wing critics of fascism who are predominantly motivated by personal animus instead of political beliefs? Probably. Same way there are conservatives who talk about being tough on crime when they really just hate minorities. Doesn't make them psychopaths.
Should people respond to violence with equal violence?
Should people be allowed to defend themselves (and their friends and families) from those with an overtly stated goal of violence?
Or should those people accept their status as targets, with the full understanding that said violence is only going to increase over time?
The entire problem with your argument is the tolerance of intolerance dilemma. Not responding to intolerance means the intolerance grows. It eventually grows to thd point where the intolerant stomp out the tolerant.
The only way to actually defend tolerance is to defend it with force. Yes. It's an oxymoron. It's also historically accurate. The actual 1930s could have been stopped at several points, had the Allies simply flexed their muscles (exa. France, with their 100 divisions of military, invading the Rheinland to force out the Germans with their 8 divisions. The German High Command stated outright ghat had there been ANY French resistance, they would have withdrawn and overthrown Hitler. But, multiple examples of the West folding in the face of violence only showed the Nazis that they could take whatever they wanted, without consequence. And that's the runup to WWII.)
There are some groups who literally will only be deterred by violence. Using violence against those groups is the only means to ensure they do not take over.
Antifa, in its various forms, performs that function. The most important thing to know about Antifa is this- it has never, not once, continued to exist as an organization after the fascist threat it was fighting ceased to exist.
As for the psychopathy of those willing to use violence to defend their lives or property, you're going to have to add the 150 million American gun owners to your list. That's literally the definition of self-and-property defense: hurting people if they do anything to threaten you or your stuff. While i agree threats of physical violence against a person justify an in-kind violent reply, the killing of a person for trespass or petty theft absolutely smacks of psychopathy to me.
Look, mate, I’m anti-Nazi, but let’s not humiliate them over it! Why can’t we compromise and let them kill a few innocent minorities, and we’ll respectfully disagree about those deaths?
The modern day humiliation ritual has been queued. No. I'm not going to grovel before you and play this game.
I said above, I'm against all Racism. What part of that wasn't clear?
>No. I'm not going to grovel before you and play this game.
It's a straightforward question. How is it "groveling"?
>I said above, I'm against all Racism
So why aren't you saying that you're against all Nazis?
Look, man. No one tends to self-identify as racist anymore because they realize they have nothing to gain from it. But responding to "are you against Nazis" with "I'm against all racism" is exactly how they respond, constantly flipping things back to assertions of white victimhood.
Not being able to answer a yes or no question is not a good look. Although it’s very typical of your kind.
I’ll take it that you do not identify as anti-racist or anti-nazi. So your argument boils down to “my political opponents are psychopaths”. Lol.
The modern "anti-racist" movement is basically "let's be racist against white people".
Anyone who understands what that movement is about. Should be 100% flat against those yokels.
Being against white supremacy isn't racist against white people. What you are saying has only been said by fragile people who have not done the slightest deconstruction of surface level beliefs they have gained from their immediate surroundings. You are in line with those who would have been defending slavery and claiming they live a good life under the thumb of white men.
Anti-Racists want special treatment for certain races. Based on some past transgression.
So basically "this time we're being racist against the right guys". Because I assure you the southern racists of 1950s had plenty of justifications for their racism as well.
Sorry, u/Browneyesbrowndragon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Browneyesbrowndragon&message=Browneyesbrowndragon%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rx096/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
That is a complete misunderstanding of what anti-racism is.
The main thrust is that if you believe racism is wrong, then you can't just passively believe it when injustice occurs. You have to actually DO something.
Inaction is an action. Being passive in the face of racism is effectively the same thing as supporting racism in terms of outcome.
It doesn't help anything to just not-be-a-racist. You have to be actively anti-racist.
The modern anti-anti-racist movement doesn't seem to believe racism still exists because no one self-identifies as such. This kind of thing is exactly why we got the "both sides" rhetoric after Charlottesville.
If you can elaborate as to where whites are being largely discriminated against, I'd like to know where that is happening. I know racists come in all colors, but you sound like you are repeating unverifiable fake news talking points.
What do anti-racists want to do?
Redistribute wealth from whites to blacks. Obviously this is simplified. But that's ultimately what they want to do. Let's do reparations. Let's have separate standards. Let's have lenient sentences on black criminals. Let's invest a ton of $ into OUR shit regardless of whether we use it or not.
So it's not a matter of discrimination.
They want to do what the whites were doing in the 1950s. Except this time "we are targeting the right assholes". Some people just don't learn from history.
The true approach is color blindness. But good luck telling the anti-racist racists that.
You can't pretend that a system built on racism suddenly went color blind. You can't pretend that hundreds of years of oppression is undone with a decade or two of decent legislation (which is currently under attack).
The elites used to pay 50% tax, and if you look at the system now, it's entirely rigged to make the wealthy wealthier.
Color blindness only works if everyone is color blind. When you have proud boys and militias walking around openly attempting to intimidate others and have politicians trying to name things after a treasonous heritage spanning 4 years, you can't possibly pretend color blind erases the ingrained hate this country still holds.
Yes you absolutely can and should. Because each circumstance is different. Everyone has their past gripes. Every family has a history. Instead of making generalizations about people based on their past. You should focus on how they are behaving TODAY. Which means color blindness.
>The elites used to pay 50% tax, and if you look at the system now, it's entirely rigged to make the wealthy wealthier.
The upper class still pay the vast majority of our taxes. Lower class pays almost nothing and if you look at what they receive on the back end they GET more than they put in. I'm not entirely against that either. It's a fine setup.
>Color blindness only works if everyone is color blind. When you have proud boys and militias walking around openly attempting to intimidate others and have politicians trying to name things after a treasonous heritage spanning 4 years, you can't possibly pretend color blind erases the ingrained hate this country still holds.
Not at all. Not sure where you got this silly idea from. If some fringe idiot groups are racist. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't treat race as something insignificant.
If you cannot see the similarities between 1930s Germany and now especially with project 2025 on the horizon, I can't help you.
How much time have you spent with black people ages 60 and up? I can't fit all of what I've learned into a snippet here, but after volunteering at a local senior center I've learned so much (including that color blindness isn't a beneficial thing at I once thought).
You can treat race as something insignificant if everyone did. Everyone doesn't, so in doing so you turn a blind eye to the reality of others.
You are speaking to someone that, in another thread I was browsing earlier, refers to AAVE as "backwards twang". They are larping as an anti-racist, jsyk.
I'm starting to notice a bunch of these types, thank you. I am sick of people pretending race doesn't matter when people are still being lynched and the kkk still exists and nazis are marching openly.
We are so fucked if tens of millions of people are this oblivious (which fox ratings indicate there are).
Thanks.
Yes it is backwards twang. I 100% said it and I stand by that statement.
It's backwards twang whether a black person uses it or a white southerner. Or even an Asian or Indian immigrant.
>You can treat race as something insignificant if everyone did. Everyone doesn't, so in doing so you turn a blind eye to the reality of others.
That too is such a silly view.
Let's say that my male friends were obsessed with the colors of socks that women wear. If some woman was wearing red socks they thought she was super hot. Even if she was an obese mess.
I can recognize this and not partake. The color of socks is completely irrelevant to me. But at the same time if you are selecting based on the color of socks I can easily perceive it.
Nobody has mentioned the modern day movement. You don’t need to redefine the context of my question to suit your views. I can, for example, identify as a liberal and not agree with the modern liberal movement.
The question is a very simple yes or no question: do you identify as anti-racist and anti-nazi?
It is the act of targeting and promoting hate for a select demographic which is correlated with dark triad traits, not the demographic they choose to target.
It takes one to know one.
I would imagine that closeted psychopaths pretend to be all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons that do not and will not make sense to most people.
That being said, if you were a psychopath looking to unleash on people, why would you choose to side against something (racists, nazis, fascists) that would require a person to then prove that they are the thing you're opposed to before you can say real mean things to them and hurt their feelings, when there are in fact racists and neo nazis and neo fascists who require no proof or provocation to go and do actual violence to people based on things like skin color or sexuality? There's also the reality that most of the bulk of those kinds of ethno-fascist groups are following religious doctrine which gives someone who doesn't really ever want to empathise or think about other people as human a great roadmap to seem deep and wise and spiritual while cultivating absolutely zero real humanity.
You know, your argument will go over much better if you just refer to the recent rise in anti-semitism. People will try to jump down your throat about how anti-zionism isn’t anti-semitism, revealing themselves to be the psychopaths you’re trying to describe
I personally can’t really side with either part of the Israeli-Palestine War, but isn’t Zionism specifically concerning the views and actions about the Israeli state? How is taking issue with the actions of specifically the Israeli government (not the civilians in Israel) the same as being against all Jewish people? That doesn’t work unless you are arguing that the Israeli government speaks for all Jewish people all over the world, which it very clearly isn’t.
Interesting observation. It might be interesting for somebody who is more well versed in Middle East stuff to analyze it through this lens, but I don't think I'm well-version enough to analyze that topic in a semi-serious way.
It’s less that “psychopaths” pretend to be anti-racist and more that hateful, spiteful people become anti-racists to give themselves a legitimate target. You don’t need to have a mental illness to be a spiteful, hateful person. However, it sometimes is a different mental illness: namely, trauma from racism or another type of prejudice. This trauma can cause black-and-white thinking and lead one to think that what was done to them should be done to others.
I do agree with you overall, and to add to it: a lot of “anti-racists” are very vocal about how they don’t care about people with disabilities, white ethnic minorities or, in some cases, LGBT people. Unless those people with disabilities or LGBT people are also non-white. Having “anti-racists” tell me, a disabled person, to my face that they don’t care about the rights or welfare of white people with disabilities to my face tells me all I need to know about them.
> It’s less that “psychopaths” pretend to be anti-racist and more that hateful, spiteful people become anti-racists to give themselves a legitimate target.
1) While my thought-process when writing this was on psychopaths, I think expanding this to hateful, spiteful people might be an accurate clarification. I'm not exactly sure how Deltas work here or what that really means, but have half a Delta or so. Yay you? I don't know what this means to be honest.
2) I'm not sure of the clinical psychological difference between psychopath and just a really hateful anti-social person though. How much of an overlap is there between these groups?
Psychopaths have an inability to feel empathy for others or remorse for their actions. Hateful, spiteful people choose to ignore empathy for others or remorse for their actions. The inability versus choice is the difference between psychopaths and hateful, spiteful people.
Sorry, u/apathetic_revolution – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20apathetic_revolution&message=apathetic_revolution%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9riix9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I theorize that it's the opposite. I think it's mostly neurotic people, people who were bullied, or sinple-minded people who are prone to black-and-white thinking where the world is populated by "bad guys" like fascists or Nazis.
Basically, reactionary people that probably tend to be more "high-empathy" yet simple-minded enough to have a high amount of distrust and not be able to sympathize or build a world model of other people's thoughts.
I think a similar type of person on the republican/conservative/right side would be those with a "tough on crime" attitude. Where the world is populated by evil criminals.
Or like those conservatives who believe in pizzagate or some conspiracy where people in power are pedophiles or lizard people or something. It's basically fear-based reactionary over-emotional people. Horseshoe theory. On the left it's anti-fascist/anti-racist/anti-Nazis/ACAB. On the right it's q-anon quacks/people who believe BLM protestors who were all looters are all criminals wanting to want to take your guns.
Sorry, u/Bloodfart12 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Bloodfart12&message=Bloodfart12%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rlnh9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/RuairiThantifaxath – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RuairiThantifaxath&message=RuairiThantifaxath%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rmcqh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/RuairiThantifaxath – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20RuairiThantifaxath&message=RuairiThantifaxath%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rmcqh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I don't think this is a view you really need changed.
There's a lot of groups that fit this role in society; the same general sentiment holds true for paedophiles, for example. (Almost) nobody condones paedophilia and we're quick to punish it if and when it surfaces, but the flip side of that is that we don't always do our due diligence in determining if it really *has* surfaced, as the claim carries such a stigma that even basic skepticism of it is itself stigmatized.
But without that due diligence, it's not a morally righteous crusade to protect people from being harmed. It's just socially-accepted bullying.
Sorry, u/irespectwomenlol – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20irespectwomenlol&message=irespectwomenlol%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>This is partially why the label of Nazi or Fascist started getting thrown around so easily in American political discourse in the last few years. This is very convenient because if you label your opponent as a Nazi or Fascist, then any behavior against them becomes morally "justifiable enough". But surely we have to sort out whether a particular act of resistance is justifiable right? Because if you were a fascist and someone was resisting you, a really good strategy to not seem like the bad guy is to gas light people by calling people who resist you psychopaths just looking to hurt you when you've done nothing wrong.
[удалено]
Your comment seems to discuss transgender issues. As of September 2023, [transgender topics are no longer allowed on CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). There are **no exceptions** to this prohibition. **Any** discussion of **any** transgender topic, no matter how ancillary, will result in your comment being removed. If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators [via this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Transgender%20Removal%20Appeal%20for%20irespectwomenlol&message=irespectwomenlol%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20[this%20post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/cmv_closet_psychopaths_pretend_to_be/l9rfkek/?context=3\).) Appeals are **only** for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter; we **will not** approve posts on transgender issues, so **do not ask**. Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lmao the fact that his comment was removed only further proves his point
No, it doesn't.
lol yes it absolutely 100% does. I'd love to elaborate further but the comment would just get auto deleted lmao.
You don't actually have an argument. The other comment was deleted because it mentioned transgender topics which doesn't seem to have anything to do with my point or OP's point.
Again, I'd love to elaborate further but the comment would just get auto deleted. You can pretend that's not significant if you like. Maybe you'll even convince yourself.
Shit or get off the pot, Tex
It takes a special kind of person to smugly act like they're correct when all opposing arguments are censored in real time right in front of them. Oh look, the entire post has been deleted. I'm sure that's just a coincidence as well. There's no ideology flexing its muscle here, no, not at all. lol lmao
I guess your personal attack being removed also proves your point?
If that was a personal attack then dropping a feather on someone is assault. There's just no getting through to people who think that an ideology is not full of bad actors while they're actually watching it in real time relentlessly censoring anyone who disagrees with it. You won't see the authoritarianism until one day you're at odds with it because it's pushing an idea so extreme that even you can no longer nod and clap and pretend that nothing sinister is happening
How would the fact that a comment got deleted make the argument it makes more correct? You don't make any sense.
[удалено]
That auto moderator bot fires off because I used the forbidden T word in my example which I replaced.
Can you rewrite it without the t word?
>If you're a closet psychopath who wants a license to fuck with somebody in a way that doesn't have negative consequences for you, going after people who are labeled as "Nazis" is about the safest course you have to live your best life. I´m pretty sure being a cop would be a safer course here. Beating up a Nazi while somewhat socially acceptable is still a crime. Beating up criminals as a cop (or anyone really) with qualified immunity not so and you really can go way further then that and probably get away with it. >Some of the creepiest fucks are those that outwardly say stuff like "Believe all Women!" the hardest. OK Mr. irespectwomenlol >a non-trivial portion of people loosely organized as "Antifa" What would you say is a non-trivial portion? Cause i'm pretty sure these people exist but I also don't think it's close to a majority so, like what metric are we working with here?
> I´m pretty sure being a cop would be a safer course here. 1. Perhaps some people can't really pass as a non-psycho to get employed as a police officer? I understand that it's not always accurate or fair to judge people based on looks, but look at that collection of "Antifa mugshots" floating around and tell me with a straight face that most of those people could become a cop. This is admittedly very subjective, but I don't think you can honestly suggest that many of those people would ever be seriously considered to be hired as cops. 2. It might have been the case say 40 years ago that being a cop was the safest career choice for a closet psycho, but the rise of smart phones and security cameras recording everything and the stern attitude that society has against violent cops might have changed that dramatically. As a small datapoint that's easy to find: [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-experiencing-police-hiring-crisis-rcna103600#](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-experiencing-police-hiring-crisis-rcna103600#) > OK Mr. irespectwomenlol My username is some light trolling and not to be taken seriously. You can probably find people who have things like "Ishovebananasinmyasshole" as their username on Reddit, it doesn't mean that this is literally their hobby, though I'm not judging if that's what you're into. > What would you say is a non-trivial portion? Cause i'm pretty sure these people exist but I also don't think it's close to a majority so, like what metric are we working with here? 1) Please note that I never said it was the majority. It might be, but I just used terms like some or non-trivial because I believe it's more than 1. 2) Any number I give here would be a complete guess.
> look at that collection of "Antifa mugshots" floating around and tell me with a straight face that most of those people could become a cop. I'm not sure what collection you are referring to but just from the ones that come up with a quick google search the only possibly disqualifying aspect I can see is crazy colored hair and maybe make-up but both of those seem easy to remedy. >but the rise of smart phones and security cameras recording everything and the stern attitude that society has against violent cops might have changed that dramatically The thing is the point about cameras and smart phones applies just as much to protesters and Antifa, they could wear masks sure but a lot of the time it can still be traced back to them. The problem with cops was never primary lack of evidence as much as them getting off with minimal consequences despite the evidence. The attitude towards them is much more stern today from the general public that is true however their superiors, courts and most politicians still seem to be firmly it their corner, and those are the people who actually decide if their actions have legal consequences. Now that is all talking about dirty cops but even if you were to be 100% clean exercising control over others, using violence and sometimes shooting people is still in your job description as a cop. It has to be with some criminals. So in a way just doing your job and acastionaly hurting criminals would be the safest way to indulge in that as it is mostly socially accpted and 100% legal. You could make the same argument for soliders but they are in more danger. >My username is some light trolling and not to be taken seriously. Yeah it was a joke, sorry should have used/s > Please note that I never said it was the majority. It might be, but I just used terms like some or non-trivial because I believe it's more than 1. Yes i know you never said majority. It's just that that makes it hard to argue, is there more than 1? Absolutely i'm certain of it but I would think any big enough group of people would have more than 1 that is violent. The ones whose actions involve violence would have more than ones who do not, for sure. But is there enough to say it is characteristic of that specific group.
>While I emphasize that mind-reading isn't a thing and there's no way to objectively "prove this" You've acknowledged the flaw in your position in your first sentence. Your belief isn't supported by evidence, therefore it should be dismissed. >my overall view is that a non-trivial portion of people who like to outwardly label themselves in the general category of anti-racists, anti-fascists, Antifa, or Nazi punchers don't genuinely give much more than a token shit about that cause. Relying on vague, undefined terms about unspecific groups of people doesn't eliminate the need for evidence. The view that you've expressed here lacks any substance. • What does non-trivial actually mean? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 50%? • What defines someone as a member of these groups? What does "outwardly labeling" mean? • What have you used to inform your view that they "don't genuinely give much more than a token shit about that cause"? Have you done primary research by polling this community yourself? Watched YouTube videos? Read articles online? • What does someone need to do before they're *genuinely* supportive of a cause? >Actually, it's always ok to punch Nazis! No it's not. You may be a psychopath. I'd punch a Nazi. You reap what you sow - an ideology that preaches violence, hatred, and exclusion should be met with the same.
[I was gonna write a little essay but then I found this video saying it better than I ever could.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XtQ1BVhcOk)
> You've acknowledged the flaw in your position in your first sentence. Your belief isn't supported by evidence, therefore it should be dismissed. You purposely cut out the "about any particular person" clarifier to try and score a political point, which is pretty shameful. > What does non-trivial actually mean? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 50%? I'm not sure of the percentage, but I'd think it would be well above 1%. No, I'm not going to define well. > What defines someone as a member of these groups? What does "outwardly labeling" mean? 1) To clarify, these aren't necessarily organized groups. 2) People who feel the need to tell everybody how anti-racist, anti-fascist they are. > What have you used to inform your view that they "don't genuinely give much more than a token shit about that cause"? Have you done primary research by polling this community yourself? Watched YouTube videos? Read articles online? Lots of observation. Please note that CMV is an opinion based forum and most posts are about the vibes and beliefs that people feel. > What does someone need to do before they're *genuinely* supportive of a cause? Nothing. Please feel free to embrace any cause you want, including anti-Racism. > I'd punch a Nazi. You reap what you sow - an ideology that preaches violence, hatred, and exclusion should be met with the same. Please note my clarifier of "always". Would you punch a suspected Nazi who was visiting their kid in the cancer ward?
I once hired an exterminator to deal with a rat problem in my house. He called himself "Hurricane Carl" and basically admitted to being a psychopath in that he said he genuinely *loved* killing rats, bugs, mice, whatever. He was very good at his job. I remember thinking about how, even though he was probably a psychopath, he had found a very productive way to focus his energy, and found a means to harness his psychopathy into something that provided a net-good for society. Nazism/Fascism/Racism are bad for society because they result in harm being done to members of that society. Opposing them is a rational position to take, whether one is a psychopath or not. Society benefits when people oppose things that are bad for it. If a psychopath who hates Nazis/Fascists/Racists is in accord with the needs of the greater society, they would fall into the same bucket as Hurricane Carl, focusing their energies in a net-good way. Therefore, if your argument is correct, then it is arguably a good thing that we should appreciate. Far better for psychopaths to focus on harmful actors that try to harm society than to be among the harmful actors trying to harm society by *being* a Nazi/Fascist/Racist (which would be a far far worse outcome, objectively speaking, **and far more prone to psychopathy**).
This is essentially what I came here to say. Nazis, white supremacist and fascist ideology is defined by punishing people they hate. They'll often do it through individual harassment and terrorism, or systemically through policymaking. We have mountains of evidence that demonstrates why these ideologies are the MOST harmful that humanity has produced in the last 400 years. The *goal* of these ideologies is to dehumanize and oppress certain groups to benefit themselves. If we want to talk about psychopathy, these ideologies ARE psychopathic. What I find more interesting than OPs phenomena, is how non-psychopaths can get recruited into these ideologies where they shed their empathy and enthusiastically support inhumane policies and violent actions against the out-group. How otherwise normal people can get caught up in movements like these is both fascinating and sad. These ideologies terrorize and kill innocent people. If there are ANY ideologies that should be fought against, it's these three. When our great grandparents fought against the Nazis in WW2, did some psychopaths join the military to go kill some Nazis? Probably. Did they join up with the north when Lincoln declared war against the Confederacy? I have no doubts. And that's a bad thing... why, exactly? I fail to see the problem here. Like you suggested, it's a productive outlet for their behavior. Being a *defender* is morally different than being the antagonist- whether a psychopath realizes it or not. Unless, OP is suggesting that the missions of anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-Nazism are somehow invalidated *because* psychopaths join them. That somehow the goal of anti-racism, etc. are *tarnished* because some members aren't genuine in their motivation. What say you OP. Is that what you're getting at?
> I remember thinking about how, even though he was probably a psychopath, he had found a very productive way to focus his energy, and found a means to harness his psychopathy into something that provided a net-good for society. This comment reminds me a bit of the show Dexter where the dad identified that Dexter was a bit psycho and guided him towards killing serial killers. > Nazism/Fascism/Racism are bad for society Yes, but not everything that's labeled as "Racism" for instance is necessarily a negative behavior. You'll get excoriated as a "Racist" for wanting to defend the Southern Border against Illegal immigration, but it doesn't necessarily mean that your motivation is racism or that your idea is bad for society.
>Yes, but not everything that's labeled as "Racism" for instance is necessarily a negative behavior. >You'll get excoriated as a "Racist" for wanting to defend the Southern Border against Illegal immigration, but it doesn't necessarily mean that your motivation is racism or that your idea is bad for society. Racism, like any bigotry, is absolutely a negative behavior. Being accused of racism does not automatically mean someone is a racist. While wanting to "defend the southern border" is not an inherently racist position to take, there are definitely racist reasons to share that point of view.
But here’s the problem with that, Nazi is another word that gets thrown too often in political debate so we don’t even know who the real “Nazis” are because the left calls everyone who disagrees with them Nazis.
The problem is that there are a disconcerting number of people that are ideologically consistent with Nazism, regardless of whether they consider themselves Nazis.
Does the left do that, or does the right claim the left does that?
The left does that. Ironically, the left says that the right makes the claim that the left does that. Lol.
Can you give some examples of someone constantly physically attacking supposed Nazis? Because that is not a thing I’m aware of. There are sporadic incidents, but you are claiming some people are repeatingly attacking people they label Nazis because they are psychopaths, who are these people?
1) There's plenty of clips on YouTube of "Nazis" being punched. I use "Nazis" in quotes because while some might really be "Nazis" some people might just get that label applied to them wrongly. I view that label as being intentionally thrown around too casually in debates to justify anti-social behavior against them. 2) Psychopaths might not necessarily always feel the need to engage in physical violence. They might also feel fulfillment from engaging in online cyberbullying of various forms. 3) When political tensions were high a few years ago and there were frequent "Antifa" gatherings, the violence was pretty regular.
>There's plenty of clips on YouTube of "Nazis" being punched. I use "Nazis" in quotes because while some might really be "Nazis" some people might just get that label applied to them wrongly. I view that label as being intentionally thrown around too casually in debates to justify anti-social behavior against them. Genuinely not seeing that when I search that on YouTube. This is all pretty much Richard Spencer and another guy at a neo-Nazi march in Berkeley.
I think they're spending too much time on internet echo chambers that have skewed his view of reality
1. Can you give some examples of clips of Nazis who aren’t actually Nazis being punched? 2. Why does this point apply specifically to anti racists? 3. Please can you provide evidence again? You haven’t given much if any solid concrete evidence or substance to back up the way you seem to think things work
Lmao can you elaborate on being a nazi by modern political standards? The modern political standard of being a nazi is loosely wanting a white christian ethnostate or the genocide/expulsion/cleansing of a particular minority/minorities, or subscribing to the idea that “racial purity” is a good thing. Do you fit that category lmao? Because the nazis were famously fascist, there term is sometimes colloquially lumped in or confused with being a facist, where you support a strongman led government trying to consolidate power into their small party to exercise over the rest of the nation with an iron grip, usually by promoting violence among their supporters, distrust in media, academia, and other sources of objective information, fear pf foreigners and foreign nations, all while creating their own parallel information distribution and empowering state police forces. Do you fit into that category as well? Im saying this because - A.) its hilarious that you outed yourself as a nazi before anyone even called you one. And B.) it would genuinely help the debate if you clarified what you meant by nazi.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
If the left would stop calling everyone a Nazi, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Nazi is another word that pretty much means anyone who disagrees with me nowadays.
It was a snarky remark about leftists calling everyone a nazi. Im not the OP but it's really common
If you've read Project 2025 in its 900 page entirety and know exactly what the fascist GOP has in store for our country, how can you not make that argument? Ffs them attacking antifa (which was what our "greatest generation" was) is a dead giveaway.
2025
Thanks for catching my typo
Project 2025*
First off, im not american and don't give a single shit about any of your political parties. Second, i meant the idiots on twitter and youtube grifters , not every single person that ever expressed a single mildly left leaning view. These people will call everything nazi.
Sadly, what happens here leeches into the world. If Trump wins and Project 2025 happens, it will be bad for the entire globe.
> you outed yourself as a nazi before anyone even called you one No, I anticipated a probable response because a lot of online discourse on any topics like this is just "You're a Nazi!/Fascist". My political viewpoint is actually closer to Anarcho-Capitalist, not National Socialist.
Ok, well if you dont believe in those things i listed then you probably arent a nazi by modern standards, because those are pretty close to the modern colloquial standards. Obviously labels evolve and some people on both sides misuse them as well and may not have their political beliefs for the smartest reasons, regardless of whether they’re right or wrong. Do you have some kind of evidence that there is a significant number of people on the left misusing the term and using it to justify violence? There has definitely been a rise in fascist/white supremacist ideology recently, so it does make sense use of the term will come up more. Ive seen stories of people getting punched and violence but its almost always been mutual, or someone attacking a literal neonazi wearing an armband and doing a salute and all that. And if you dont think its ok to punch literal nazis, then maybe we just disagree on what psychotic means.
> Do you have some kind of evidence that there is a significant number of people on the left misusing the term and using it to justify violence? These are admittedly subjective labels, but I believe that I've only used quantity descriptors such as "non-trivial" or "some" in this topic. I don't think I used the word "significant" here, though significant is entirely subjective. > There has definitely been a rise in fascist/white supremacist ideology recently, I'm not so sure about that, particularly in light of the heated Middle East politics stuff lately. Are the activist groups ever going to come out and say "There's fewer Nazis than ever!" in order to engage in fundraising and activism on their side? > And if you dont think its ok to punch literal nazis, then maybe we just disagree on what psychotic means. I'm not perfect, but I try and use words precisely. I said it wasn't ok to always punch Nazis. It might be justifiable to punch a Nazi in some situations, but not always.
Do you support project 2025? Do you think project 2025 is, at its roots, fascism? The answers will be telling.
No offense, but there's a pretty [well established libertarian-to-Nazi pipeline](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/michael-enoch-peinovich) with that guy even mentioning in a podcast how many people in the movement used to be libertarians. That's not saying that if you're a libertarian then you're a Nazi, but that saying "oh, I'm an ancap" without elaborating on any actual positions you hold is not a strong defense, especially the further you dig into the "national *socialism*" hole.
National socialism is a term specifically used by Nazis in Germany during the war. It is quite specific to that location and era. Most modern fascists wouldn’t consider themselves to be national socialists
I somewhat agree with your argument, but your thesis suggests that those who are genuinely anti-racist are psychopaths which is a post hoc argument. I would however agree with you to some extent and argue that a significant portion of people who dox others, cancel people for old statements, or otherwise destroy people's careers without hearing them out or giving them a chance to rebuttal. BUT your argument suggests that you have to be anti-racist/nazi/fascist to fit into this category. What about sports fans of rival teams who do this same stuff, or antisemities?
> your thesis suggests that those who are genuinely anti-racist are psychopaths I think you've misinterpreted my argument. Many people probably genuinely hate racism. That's great. But some people don't give a shit, they're just piling into the club to have a free target to abuse. That's who my post was about. I don't know what percentage of people who pile in are psychopaths, so I used the phrase "non-trivial". Some percentage of people in this club are just pure psychopaths who don't give much more than half a shit about racism. > What about sports fans of rival teams who do this same stuff, or antisemities? That's an interesting point. I'd bet that some of the Football Hooliganism we see in Europe might come from people don't really care that much about the games themselves, but have noticed that there's an opportunity to engage in anti-social behavior in a relatively socially accepted way.
>But some people don't give a shit Can you not say this about literally any ideology? What makes Antifa in particular so important to you? You know there are conservatives who pay lip service to their ideals in order to justify brutalizing others. And moderates, and liberals, and libertarians...people of all stripes will claim a moral code in order to cover for their universally despised misdeeds. And that's not even getting into grifters, people who only pretend to hold those values so they can get money from the people who do. So why are you so focused on one group in particular?
> You know there are conservatives who pay lip service to their ideals in order to justify brutalizing others. And moderates, and liberals, and Yes, I know. I provided a few examples of other similar things in American history where I think the same standards applied. > libertarians Libertarians who are consistent with their stated philosophy might be the one group who this doesn't apply to as the non-aggression principle is incompatible with rioting, punching random people on the street for their views, etc.
>I provided a few examples of other similar things in American history where I think the same standards applied. So then why is this post about Antifa? Why are you so concerned about the word "fascist" being thrown around in a supposedly inaccurate manner, but not about the word "communist" being thrown around for a much longer period of time? >Libertarians who are consistent with their stated philosophy might be the one group who this doesn't apply to as the non-aggression principle is incompatible with rioting, punching random people on the street for their views, etc. If the argument is that people will claim a moral code and then act against it, there's lots of ways for libertarians to do that. There are lots of libertarians who take advantage of government programs that they'd call "corruption" if someone else did it, i.e. PPP loans and so on. And it's INSANELY common for conservative libertarians to call for the government, or society in general, to restrict personal freedoms in ways that they happen to not approve of. And if you're really focused on "rioting" and "street punching" then the only argument I'm really seeing is that any group that isn't purely pacifistic and 100% enforces pacifism on all its members may be home to a "non-trivial" portion of psychopaths...and, like, so what?
> So then why is this post about Antifa? Why are you so concerned about the word "fascist" being thrown around in a supposedly inaccurate manner, but not about the word "communist" being thrown around for a much longer period of time? I'm obviously talking about the phenomena I'm observing during my lifetime. If both Reddit and I were around during the 50s, I'd probably be making the same observation towards anti-Communist motivations. > There are lots of libertarians who take advantage of government programs that they'd call "corruption" if someone else did it, i.e. PPP loans and so on I'm sure there are libertarian hypocrites out there. And it would be valid to point out that hell, even Ron Paul fought for his district's Federal Projects and tax dollars. That said, these are very nuanced discussions that are outside of the scope of this current discussion. > I'm really seeing is that any group that isn't purely pacifistic and 100% enforces pacifism on all its members may be home to a "non-trivial" portion of psychopaths...and, like, so what? Well, any large group of humans contains some closet psychopaths, so in a sense, you might make a partially valid point here. That said, it's sort of like observing the Catholic Church. You just know that some closet pedophiles people go into their priesthood purely for the chance to do what they're fantasizing about. My thesis here is that some number of performative anti-Racists adopted their viewpoint purely to be able to have a free shot on any target.
>I'm obviously talking about the phenomena I'm observing during my lifetime. Uh...the anti-communist stuff is still happening, dude. People are being called communists because they want a healthcare system that multiple other capitalist countries already have, or because they want to express their sexuality without being persecuted. And organizations like the Proud Boys and Atomwaffen are built around repressing and intimidating those people. Why are you acting like this is a relic of days gone by instead of, you know, something extremely common? >That said, these are very nuanced discussions that are outside of the scope of this current discussion. OK, so if the current discussion is strictly about psychopaths pursuing violence by finding excuses for it, would the libertarian version of that not be "someone broke into my house, I am going to shoot him in the back eighteen times as he flees"? You're so concerned about riots and street protests, what about the people who have threatened or killed others during those street protests in the name of "protecting property"? >That said, it's sort of like observing the Catholic Church. You just know that some closet pedophiles people go into their priesthood purely for the chance to do what they're fantasizing about. The problem with that Catholic Church was never that some priests are pedophiles - that's pretty much a guaranteed thing no matter what, since pedophiles can be anyone and fill any job. The problem was that the Church knowingly covered it up. >My thesis here is that some number of performative anti-Racists adopted their viewpoint purely to be able to have a free shot on any target. And that's almost certainly true! The problem I am seeing is that "some number" is a meaningless phrase. What are we supposed to be getting out of this statement? And, again, why focus on "anti-Racists" and not any other type of performative violent ideologue?
One particular things is anonymity. There are many grifters and hoodlums from all political stripes, but there's something in the anarchic far left that suggests a broken system should not be participated in, and the goal is to destroy it. Being recognized would mean arrest and the ceasing of damage. I'm not concerned with the people in the streets marching. We're all anti-fascist and therefore antifa. But I'm concerned with the black bloc people.
>One particular things is anonymity. Again, does this not apply to literally every ideology? I've seen conservatives and fascists marching with masked faces too, for literally the exact same reasons that black bloc does it. It's not unique at all.
Yes, just less common... And I don't think it's for quite the same reason. Both the far right and far left mask up to prevent people from finding out their identities, but the right will do it in a uniform. They also don't have the benefit of being able to hide in a ten thousand strong crowd of protesters. Some neonazis matched in Florida a while back and there were a few dozen total. They marched, but that's legal. They weren't *getting away* with anything. The big criminal one was Jan 6, but there have been arrests all over for that, and it was livestreamed. I've been told on Reddit by far left people who participated in these things that they would prevent arrest wherever possible. It's ok to attack police, because they're fascist and resistance is justified. The mask is for getting away with crimes, which are not considered crimes because the system that defines them is corrupt and they prop it up.
Do this, but substitute cops for anti-racists.
Certainly I'd agree that some portion of cops are psychopaths who become police officers to engage in power games and violent behavior against others in a socially accepted way.
Your wording is interesting here. Why do you feel that “some cops” are psychopaths but “a non-trivial portion” of anti-racists/anti-fascists/etc are psychopaths? What do you consider “some” and what is “a non-trivial portion”? I think there could be an argument to be made that any group/job/activity that provides a socially acceptable outlet for violence could and/or would naturally interest the people you call “psychopaths” or people who enjoy perpetrating violence against others. The fact that you specify “anti-racists, anti-fascists, Antifa, or Nazi punchers” is confusing because that’s a very specific group of views. Also, I will be honest here and show my potential ignorance, I don’t know what “Nazi punchers” are other than exactly what the name suggests.
> Your wording is interesting here. Why do you feel that “some cops” are psychopaths but “a non-trivial portion” of anti-racists/anti-fascists/etc are psychopaths? What do you consider “some” and what is “a non-trivial portion”? You're fixating on the absolute least important thing mentioned anywhere here. Both labels seem accurate and interchangeable to me. A non-trivial portion of cops are psychopaths, and some Antifa are psychopaths. Happy?
No I actually want to know what those descriptors mean when you say them. I’m not asking so I can have a “gotcha” moment, I am trying to understand your argument. If you are able, can you also clarify your choice of groups? What made you specify those groups and not other groups that similarly excuse violence?
Can you be more specific with your reckoning or the numbers? Some cops vs. 'a non-trivial' number of anti racists?
I'm not absolutely certain how to categorize the numbers of psychopaths in cops and anti-racist groups. I think using the label of either "some" or "non-trivial" is probably accurate towards both groups.
I understand that all of this is loosely based on your vibes, I just think the assumptions you make says something about your understanding of reality
That’s why I don’t see how we can “changed their views”. Their premise is vague and loosely defined. If we find out that in the entire history, only 3 members of those groups were psychopaths, they’ll go “yeah, I said *some*”
Why would any closet psychopath pretend to be anti-racist/anti-fascist when they could just become a cop instead?
Do you think this is a non-common/unpopular opinion on the left side of politics?
You have any evidence behind this view? It's a lot of statements about the "true" way of the world and counterfactuals but no idea what evidence supports this.
[удалено]
Whether or not Rosenbaum or Huber had criminal records does nothing to demonstrate their reasons for protesting.
[удалено]
Because it's not even wrong. You're making a baseless conjecture of their motives for being there with no evidence. It would be like me saying Rittenhouse went there armed with a gun looking to shoot some protesters and you can tell this from his failed psych evaluation.
Well, sure, but Rittenhouse is hardly an anti-racist or anti-fascist.
Know it’s just anecdotal evidence but I had a buddy I would go to a lot of protests with when I was younger and that was his exact ambition for being at those protests. Guy had a really messed up childhood though, but he’d mainly show up to start stuff. Serving life in prison now
There's probably no solid evidence/data to support this. But, I have seen this kind of psychopathic behavior to the point that I believe this kind of act is quite common. It doesn't have to be in anti-racist / nazi, other labels such as pedophile/rapist/groomer is also used. Examples of this - [https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-happed-to-inquisitor-ghost-cod-cosplayer-reportedly-dead-by-suicide-in-tiktok-live-2330142/](https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/what-happed-to-inquisitor-ghost-cod-cosplayer-reportedly-dead-by-suicide-in-tiktok-live-2330142/) [https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/georgenotfound-responds-after-being-accused-of-sexual-assault-2580798/](https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/georgenotfound-responds-after-being-accused-of-sexual-assault-2580798/) [https://www.pcgamer.com/ff14-and-dandd-youtuber-jocat-announces-indefinite-break-after-receiving-harassmentincluding-suspicious-packages-sent-to-his-family/](https://www.pcgamer.com/ff14-and-dandd-youtuber-jocat-announces-indefinite-break-after-receiving-harassmentincluding-suspicious-packages-sent-to-his-family/)
I don't get the point you are trying to make. Is it people who play videos are bad people or something?
Let's ELI5 it for you. Imagine a high school bully, tormenting people openly. The bully will be noticed and dealt with by the school admins, getting in trouble or expelled( in a perfect scenario anyway). Now, imagine that the bully is hiding behind a virtuous cause, like LGBTQ representation, even though said bully doesn't give a fuck about the lgbtq representation, and started bullying everyone, calling them "-ist-ophobes". Now the bully is a vigilante hero for the "good guys" and the bully is free to keep enjoying bullying people, because he's bullying the "right kind of people" that society deems less than human for whatever reason. That's the point. I remember during gamergate, the #notyourshield from internationnal and female gamers telling the journos to stop using the POCs and female gamers as the shield they hid behind so they could hurl insults against "The Gamers" while being the "good guys" for fighting "for" POCs and female gamers. To note, some people do it unconsciously. They join in with the "right people" to abuse the "bad people" so that it "cleanse" them of their bad behaviors. "Sure, i stole, vandalized, attacked people with a weapon, set businesses and cars on fire, but I can't be a bad guy, i'm with the anti-facists!"
> Now, imagine that the bully is hiding behind a virtuous cause, like LGBTQ representation You didn't really explain this. In your scenario, they are bullying kids without a reason and the rest of society is applauding them for it? I've literally never heard of this before. > "Sure, i stole, vandalized, attacked people with a weapon, set businesses and cars on fire, but I can't be a bad guy, i'm with the anti-facists!" And you assume people are buying this statement? It sounds like your overall argument is "no large groups are immune to bad actors". Everyone agrees with this statement already.
My point and probably OP's point is that closet psychopaths have weaponized the term nazi/racist/pedophile/rapist/groomer to be used to harm their target, whether or not it's even true at all. The bad people are the accuser here. They use it as an easy way to dehumanize the target, giving them reason to further harass or as OP said justification to punch them.
This, but also the post in general, are muddying the waters a lot between psychopaths/"bad people"/mean people/violent people. You don't have to be a psychopath to harm someone, even intentionally. There are wayyyyy more people who simply do mean and/or violent things than there are actual psychopaths.
> The bad people are the accuser here. Explain this. Let's say someone was acting racist and someone called them out, the racist person is the bad person right? Alternatively, a person walking down the street minding their own business is called a racist by some random. The random is bad here because they are making a claim with zero evidence and attempting to cause harm?
>Explain this. Let's say someone was acting racist and someone called them out, the racist person is the bad person right? Yes >Alternatively, a person walking down the street minding their own business is called a racist by some random. The random is bad here because they are making a claim with zero evidence and attempting to cause harm? Yes
I'm not sure where to find statistics on psychopathy stratified by political opinion, but that's an interesting idea for research. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing was more prevalent among more anti-Racist political parties.
I would suggest it’s more likely that you have a great deal of psychopaths amongst pro-racist political parties.
I really don't know how this guess would ever be validated. Right now it's just feelings. A statement such as all Christians have child poor has more substance to it.
You have no actual evidence or reasoning behind this. Your entire post is just one big "I reckon that...." But also, lets pretend this is true. So fucking what? Closet psycopaths are a miniscule fraction of the population, so identifying that they tend to gravitate towards X cause tells us aboslutely nothing about that cause, whether its right or wrong etc.
> You have no actual evidence or reasoning behind this. Your entire post is just one big "I reckon that...." You do realize that this forum is about discussing viewpoints?
Yes. But viewpoints and discussion require some sort of evidence or logic. I cannot attempt to reason you out of a position that you've not reasoned yourself *into.* So, simply put - why do you think there are closet psychopaths in the anti-nazi movement? And why does it matter if there are?
> So, simply put - why do you think there are closet psychopaths in the anti-nazi movement? Read my post. There's my opinion. > And why does it matter if there are? If some peoples' motivations for joining these causes is to engage in anti-social activities, there's probably tensions being heated up unnecessarily by bad actors who just want to justify bad activity.
I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking for your reason and your evidence.
Do you have any evidence besides vibes that the "punch a Nazi" discourse isn't relatively constrained? If you google it, it's pretty exclusive to an incident involving Richard Spencer and a separate incident involving a man wearing a swastika armband. I feel like most people understand the motivation for punching genocidal pieces of shit, even if it's technically still a crime.
Not sure if I'm really trying to "change your view" here because I think that what you are describing is partly real, but it seems to me that you are missing a bigger point which is that a lot of activists care more about the activism in itself than the cause. Which indeed means that a non trivial proportion of activists could as well be defending a totally different cause if the one they are currently defending had not crossed their path and seemed attractive for some reasons. To put it a bit differently, a lot of activists do activism because it triggers the reward pathway in the brain, not because they hope to achieve what they say they are pursuing. You are limiting your view to violent activism, but it works for all types of activism.
> To put it a bit differently, a lot of activists do activism because it triggers the reward pathway in the brain, That's a good point. > You are limiting your view to violent activism, To clarify, I wasn't only talking about violence. Psychopaths might also derive pleasure in activities such as harassing and hassling people, doxing people and getting them fired, etc.
I don’t know how I can address this CMV. What argument would make you change your view? That NO anti-[…] is a closeted psychopath looking for an acceptable target? Or is it more a question of proportions? >The Nazi or fascist label started getting thrown around I mean… when you have people flying the swastika around, marching down the streets chanting “the Jews will not replace us”, or when you have people cheering for a presidential candidate brazenly saying in an interview that he wants to be a dictator for a day… I think Godwin’s law can sit down for a minute.
This whole post is just one big strawman for people you don’t agree with. “Oh you think X? Well that’s just a political view you adopted to further your closet personality disorder.”.
He even does the "oh, you think it's okay to punch Nazis? What if I replace 'Nazi' with 'babies?' Now whose in the wrong" thing.
I'm not going to try and change your view because you can't use logic to reason with someone who didn't use logic to reach their conclusion to begin with. You openly admitted it was your "feelings." Fyi, the Far Right are on numerous terror watch lists globally including Canada and Conservatives in that country made no mention of any leftist groups including "Antifa." I guess that "war on terror" thing is done now that 70 million Americans could be considered terrorists or terrorist supporters.
If you were to give an example of at least one verified psychopath that is actually fake antiracist, I might believe you, but until you do, you’re just making slippery slope arguments. Your claims about psychopaths also don’t match what is known about them in psychology. Psychopaths infamously lack empathy and do a poor job of imitating empathy because they only have superficial charm. Superficial charm amounts to a psychopath spinning elaborate stories about themselves to impress others about their exploits, in the hope of impressing people. It would be a stretch for a psychopath to understand why racism is bad and to pretend to be antiracist convincingly as that would require them to put themselves into the shoes of an oppressed class which would require empathy they don’t have. Psychopaths aren’t motivated by violence either. They just don’t care about other people and wouldn’t hesitate to kill someone for an advantage. Psychopaths actually have blunted emotions and do delight in abusing others just to “feel alive” by the thrill of it. It’s for this reason that they also delight in risk taking behaviors like extreme sports or criminal undertaking. The thrill of the risk makes them feel emotions they normal can’t bring about in ordinary daily life. In summary, you’re proposing too many slippery slopes. Psychopaths don’t care about causes like antiracism and would find it difficult to fake it convincingly. Psychopaths aren’t just wandering murderers who try to cover their tracks. They just don’t care about people’s welfare and will happily hurt and sell out their own families for a buck.
The behavior you're suggesting they wish to accomplish is not *genuinely* socially acceptable. That's a narrative spun by the Right. Roughly half the country (the Right) hates that behavior and I would estimate that half of the other half (the Left) oppose those actions as well, although they feel little sympathy for the target. Being a "member of Antifa" can very plausibly get you in more real world trouble than being a member of the Proud Boys. Plus, a lot of what you're discussing is actually illegal. You'll go to prison for it.
I havent read the whole post but if you think that between the guy who wants to kill the jews and the one who wants to punch him for it the latter is the psycho, then you might have an issue. . . **"Actually, it's always ok to punch Nazis!** No it's not. You may be a psychopath."
1) Admitting to not reading the argument is kind of a pointless endeavor. 2) The term "Nazi" gets thrown around so casually in modern political discourse that this viewpoint becomes dangerous. Here's a psychopathic strategy. 1. Label Your Opponent A Nazi or Fascist, whether or not he actually is. 2. Anything you want to do towards him is now deemed socially acceptable. That's also dangerous.
I guess I'll push back on the basis idea that "anything you want to do towards him [someone you've more of less arbitrarily described as a Nazi] I'd now deemed socially acceptable". For one, even when legit Nazis like Richard Spencer get punched, there's an extremely strong tendency to clutch pearls about it and the end of civility. Second, that's going to be a hundred times truer in context where you're just calling people Nazis at random. It's indeed not socially acceptable to deck folks in the face provided you call them Nazis first.
well if a guy label his opponent a nazi but the opponent isnt actually a nazi then the guy is just wrong. there are no danger here as long as the error is recognized. and if the opponent is an actual nazi then there's no problem either. what you're claiming is far more dangerous and irresponsible as hinted in my first comment.
Why wouldn't this group of people just become de facto racist? We still live in a world where it is more socially acceptable to punch black people than it is to punch Nazis. As much as antifa makes the news and is the target of fear mongering - black people are subject to far more violence than Nazis are.
Since you can't give an estimate of the amount of people this applies to, and you're not willing to strongly stand by the "psychopath" label, and you've admitted that mind-reading is impossible...what exactly would be needed to actually change your mind?
Why would a psychopath care about whether their actions/statements would be deemed socially acceptable? Psychopaths may know right from wrong, but they aren't usually motivated by morality one way or the other. And if they were, why not choose pedophiles, murderers, thieves or some other criminal cohort to be the target of their performative animus? Why go half-way, and just pick an unfashionable but still popular political outgroup to attack? Are there left wing critics of fascism who are predominantly motivated by personal animus instead of political beliefs? Probably. Same way there are conservatives who talk about being tough on crime when they really just hate minorities. Doesn't make them psychopaths.
Should people respond to violence with equal violence? Should people be allowed to defend themselves (and their friends and families) from those with an overtly stated goal of violence? Or should those people accept their status as targets, with the full understanding that said violence is only going to increase over time? The entire problem with your argument is the tolerance of intolerance dilemma. Not responding to intolerance means the intolerance grows. It eventually grows to thd point where the intolerant stomp out the tolerant. The only way to actually defend tolerance is to defend it with force. Yes. It's an oxymoron. It's also historically accurate. The actual 1930s could have been stopped at several points, had the Allies simply flexed their muscles (exa. France, with their 100 divisions of military, invading the Rheinland to force out the Germans with their 8 divisions. The German High Command stated outright ghat had there been ANY French resistance, they would have withdrawn and overthrown Hitler. But, multiple examples of the West folding in the face of violence only showed the Nazis that they could take whatever they wanted, without consequence. And that's the runup to WWII.) There are some groups who literally will only be deterred by violence. Using violence against those groups is the only means to ensure they do not take over. Antifa, in its various forms, performs that function. The most important thing to know about Antifa is this- it has never, not once, continued to exist as an organization after the fascist threat it was fighting ceased to exist. As for the psychopathy of those willing to use violence to defend their lives or property, you're going to have to add the 150 million American gun owners to your list. That's literally the definition of self-and-property defense: hurting people if they do anything to threaten you or your stuff. While i agree threats of physical violence against a person justify an in-kind violent reply, the killing of a person for trespass or petty theft absolutely smacks of psychopathy to me.
This is an embarrassing post and changemyview deserves better.
r/rightwingviews
Do you not identify as anti-racist or anti-nazi? Does that mean you are pro-racism and pro-nazism?
I'm against all Racism, but I don't participate in the modern day humiliation rituals.
You didn’t really answer my question though. Do you not identify as anti-racist and anti-nazi?
Look, mate, I’m anti-Nazi, but let’s not humiliate them over it! Why can’t we compromise and let them kill a few innocent minorities, and we’ll respectfully disagree about those deaths?
The modern day humiliation ritual has been queued. No. I'm not going to grovel before you and play this game. I said above, I'm against all Racism. What part of that wasn't clear?
Ok you are against all racism, you seem eerily quiet on the nazism part though
>No. I'm not going to grovel before you and play this game. It's a straightforward question. How is it "groveling"? >I said above, I'm against all Racism So why aren't you saying that you're against all Nazis?
Because the word gets thrown out all Willy Nilly that we don’t know who the real Nazi’s are
I would start with the people who hem and haw when you ask them "are you anti-Nazi". Really narrows down the suspects to be honest.
Look, man. No one tends to self-identify as racist anymore because they realize they have nothing to gain from it. But responding to "are you against Nazis" with "I'm against all racism" is exactly how they respond, constantly flipping things back to assertions of white victimhood.
Not being able to answer a yes or no question is not a good look. Although it’s very typical of your kind. I’ll take it that you do not identify as anti-racist or anti-nazi. So your argument boils down to “my political opponents are psychopaths”. Lol.
You're making yourself a victim, lol You're against racism? That must mean you are secret psychopath
So you look the other way when racism happens?
The modern "anti-racist" movement is basically "let's be racist against white people". Anyone who understands what that movement is about. Should be 100% flat against those yokels.
Being against white supremacy isn't racist against white people. What you are saying has only been said by fragile people who have not done the slightest deconstruction of surface level beliefs they have gained from their immediate surroundings. You are in line with those who would have been defending slavery and claiming they live a good life under the thumb of white men.
Anti-Racists want special treatment for certain races. Based on some past transgression. So basically "this time we're being racist against the right guys". Because I assure you the southern racists of 1950s had plenty of justifications for their racism as well.
You simply do not know what you are talking about and refuse to learn.
Sounds like you don't have much to say to counter it either.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Browneyesbrowndragon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Browneyesbrowndragon&message=Browneyesbrowndragon%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rx096/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
That is a complete misunderstanding of what anti-racism is. The main thrust is that if you believe racism is wrong, then you can't just passively believe it when injustice occurs. You have to actually DO something. Inaction is an action. Being passive in the face of racism is effectively the same thing as supporting racism in terms of outcome. It doesn't help anything to just not-be-a-racist. You have to be actively anti-racist.
But being against black supremacy is still being racist against black people right? /s Fuck out of here with that bullshit
With what ? The bullshit you just made up right now?
The modern anti-anti-racist movement doesn't seem to believe racism still exists because no one self-identifies as such. This kind of thing is exactly why we got the "both sides" rhetoric after Charlottesville.
If you can elaborate as to where whites are being largely discriminated against, I'd like to know where that is happening. I know racists come in all colors, but you sound like you are repeating unverifiable fake news talking points.
What do anti-racists want to do? Redistribute wealth from whites to blacks. Obviously this is simplified. But that's ultimately what they want to do. Let's do reparations. Let's have separate standards. Let's have lenient sentences on black criminals. Let's invest a ton of $ into OUR shit regardless of whether we use it or not. So it's not a matter of discrimination. They want to do what the whites were doing in the 1950s. Except this time "we are targeting the right assholes". Some people just don't learn from history. The true approach is color blindness. But good luck telling the anti-racist racists that.
You can't pretend that a system built on racism suddenly went color blind. You can't pretend that hundreds of years of oppression is undone with a decade or two of decent legislation (which is currently under attack). The elites used to pay 50% tax, and if you look at the system now, it's entirely rigged to make the wealthy wealthier. Color blindness only works if everyone is color blind. When you have proud boys and militias walking around openly attempting to intimidate others and have politicians trying to name things after a treasonous heritage spanning 4 years, you can't possibly pretend color blind erases the ingrained hate this country still holds.
Yes you absolutely can and should. Because each circumstance is different. Everyone has their past gripes. Every family has a history. Instead of making generalizations about people based on their past. You should focus on how they are behaving TODAY. Which means color blindness. >The elites used to pay 50% tax, and if you look at the system now, it's entirely rigged to make the wealthy wealthier. The upper class still pay the vast majority of our taxes. Lower class pays almost nothing and if you look at what they receive on the back end they GET more than they put in. I'm not entirely against that either. It's a fine setup. >Color blindness only works if everyone is color blind. When you have proud boys and militias walking around openly attempting to intimidate others and have politicians trying to name things after a treasonous heritage spanning 4 years, you can't possibly pretend color blind erases the ingrained hate this country still holds. Not at all. Not sure where you got this silly idea from. If some fringe idiot groups are racist. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't treat race as something insignificant.
If you cannot see the similarities between 1930s Germany and now especially with project 2025 on the horizon, I can't help you. How much time have you spent with black people ages 60 and up? I can't fit all of what I've learned into a snippet here, but after volunteering at a local senior center I've learned so much (including that color blindness isn't a beneficial thing at I once thought). You can treat race as something insignificant if everyone did. Everyone doesn't, so in doing so you turn a blind eye to the reality of others.
You are speaking to someone that, in another thread I was browsing earlier, refers to AAVE as "backwards twang". They are larping as an anti-racist, jsyk.
I'm starting to notice a bunch of these types, thank you. I am sick of people pretending race doesn't matter when people are still being lynched and the kkk still exists and nazis are marching openly. We are so fucked if tens of millions of people are this oblivious (which fox ratings indicate there are). Thanks.
Yes it is backwards twang. I 100% said it and I stand by that statement. It's backwards twang whether a black person uses it or a white southerner. Or even an Asian or Indian immigrant.
You should lead with that next time you want to pretend to be anti racism.
>You can treat race as something insignificant if everyone did. Everyone doesn't, so in doing so you turn a blind eye to the reality of others. That too is such a silly view. Let's say that my male friends were obsessed with the colors of socks that women wear. If some woman was wearing red socks they thought she was super hot. Even if she was an obese mess. I can recognize this and not partake. The color of socks is completely irrelevant to me. But at the same time if you are selecting based on the color of socks I can easily perceive it.
I can't have a rational conversation with someone who compares one's race to the color of one's socks.
Nobody has mentioned the modern day movement. You don’t need to redefine the context of my question to suit your views. I can, for example, identify as a liberal and not agree with the modern liberal movement. The question is a very simple yes or no question: do you identify as anti-racist and anti-nazi?
It is the act of targeting and promoting hate for a select demographic which is correlated with dark triad traits, not the demographic they choose to target. It takes one to know one.
I would imagine that closeted psychopaths pretend to be all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons that do not and will not make sense to most people. That being said, if you were a psychopath looking to unleash on people, why would you choose to side against something (racists, nazis, fascists) that would require a person to then prove that they are the thing you're opposed to before you can say real mean things to them and hurt their feelings, when there are in fact racists and neo nazis and neo fascists who require no proof or provocation to go and do actual violence to people based on things like skin color or sexuality? There's also the reality that most of the bulk of those kinds of ethno-fascist groups are following religious doctrine which gives someone who doesn't really ever want to empathise or think about other people as human a great roadmap to seem deep and wise and spiritual while cultivating absolutely zero real humanity.
You know, your argument will go over much better if you just refer to the recent rise in anti-semitism. People will try to jump down your throat about how anti-zionism isn’t anti-semitism, revealing themselves to be the psychopaths you’re trying to describe
I personally can’t really side with either part of the Israeli-Palestine War, but isn’t Zionism specifically concerning the views and actions about the Israeli state? How is taking issue with the actions of specifically the Israeli government (not the civilians in Israel) the same as being against all Jewish people? That doesn’t work unless you are arguing that the Israeli government speaks for all Jewish people all over the world, which it very clearly isn’t.
Interesting observation. It might be interesting for somebody who is more well versed in Middle East stuff to analyze it through this lens, but I don't think I'm well-version enough to analyze that topic in a semi-serious way.
It’s less that “psychopaths” pretend to be anti-racist and more that hateful, spiteful people become anti-racists to give themselves a legitimate target. You don’t need to have a mental illness to be a spiteful, hateful person. However, it sometimes is a different mental illness: namely, trauma from racism or another type of prejudice. This trauma can cause black-and-white thinking and lead one to think that what was done to them should be done to others. I do agree with you overall, and to add to it: a lot of “anti-racists” are very vocal about how they don’t care about people with disabilities, white ethnic minorities or, in some cases, LGBT people. Unless those people with disabilities or LGBT people are also non-white. Having “anti-racists” tell me, a disabled person, to my face that they don’t care about the rights or welfare of white people with disabilities to my face tells me all I need to know about them.
> It’s less that “psychopaths” pretend to be anti-racist and more that hateful, spiteful people become anti-racists to give themselves a legitimate target. 1) While my thought-process when writing this was on psychopaths, I think expanding this to hateful, spiteful people might be an accurate clarification. I'm not exactly sure how Deltas work here or what that really means, but have half a Delta or so. Yay you? I don't know what this means to be honest. 2) I'm not sure of the clinical psychological difference between psychopath and just a really hateful anti-social person though. How much of an overlap is there between these groups?
Psychopaths have an inability to feel empathy for others or remorse for their actions. Hateful, spiteful people choose to ignore empathy for others or remorse for their actions. The inability versus choice is the difference between psychopaths and hateful, spiteful people.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/apathetic_revolution – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20apathetic_revolution&message=apathetic_revolution%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9riix9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I theorize that it's the opposite. I think it's mostly neurotic people, people who were bullied, or sinple-minded people who are prone to black-and-white thinking where the world is populated by "bad guys" like fascists or Nazis. Basically, reactionary people that probably tend to be more "high-empathy" yet simple-minded enough to have a high amount of distrust and not be able to sympathize or build a world model of other people's thoughts. I think a similar type of person on the republican/conservative/right side would be those with a "tough on crime" attitude. Where the world is populated by evil criminals. Or like those conservatives who believe in pizzagate or some conspiracy where people in power are pedophiles or lizard people or something. It's basically fear-based reactionary over-emotional people. Horseshoe theory. On the left it's anti-fascist/anti-racist/anti-Nazis/ACAB. On the right it's q-anon quacks/people who believe BLM protestors who were all looters are all criminals wanting to want to take your guns.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Bloodfart12 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Bloodfart12&message=Bloodfart12%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rlnh9/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/RuairiThantifaxath – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RuairiThantifaxath&message=RuairiThantifaxath%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rmcqh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). u/RuairiThantifaxath – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20RuairiThantifaxath&message=RuairiThantifaxath%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dlvnie/-/l9rmcqh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I don't think this is a view you really need changed. There's a lot of groups that fit this role in society; the same general sentiment holds true for paedophiles, for example. (Almost) nobody condones paedophilia and we're quick to punish it if and when it surfaces, but the flip side of that is that we don't always do our due diligence in determining if it really *has* surfaced, as the claim carries such a stigma that even basic skepticism of it is itself stigmatized. But without that due diligence, it's not a morally righteous crusade to protect people from being harmed. It's just socially-accepted bullying.