Polite Disinterest

Post Reply
User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Polite Disinterest

Post by jakell » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:37 am

This topic concerns antifa on this occasion, but it's also about the noticeable effect when the 'chattering classes' suddenly go silent. Of course, a sudden silence would be a rather clumsy thing amongst professional chatterers, the more subtle option is to become muted.

A great many people by now will be familiar with the intentional violence** and intimidation practiced by antifa, not just in one or two forgettable spasms, but in a plethora of occasions that have been captured on video at multiple events so, even though this video does stand out a bit, its contents won't raise that many eyebrows:



Crowder here does express exaggerated 'surprise' at the lack of interest displayed by the media who are physically present, but I reckon this is for effect, not many of us will be that surprised.. what sticks in my mind is the handshake, the wishing of "good luck" and the turning away (anyone notice that brief final dismissive hand signal?) at 8:00 . This is the moment of polite disinterest.
When I'm talking of chatterers though, I'm not just talking of the media, it's worth watching some other forums and talking shops too to see the mechanics of ' intelligent' dismissal.


** Watching some recent livestreams with the constant childlike (but strategic) chanting, a rhetorical question occurred to me addressing a familiar SJW claim: " If speech is violence, then what does loud, invasive, shouting/chanting represent?"

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by Pauli137 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:31 pm

If speech is violence, then what does loud, invasive, shouting/chanting represent?
Justified counter-violence.

I don't think antifa has ever pretended not to use violence. Their position seems to be that violence is a valid means for achieving their stated goals. Ends justify the means.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by jakell » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:49 pm

The chanting is not a response to anything though (ie, not a 'counter'), it's a thing in itself. Watch any of the myriad videos available and you will see this, the nearest you could get is to say that it is a counter to something abstract, but go far enough down that road and we find that other abstractions become allowable too.

My rhetorical question was not aimed at producing a linear response though, it was to refocus and suggest that speech is not violence and that this statement is absurd. It's not an aimless statement though, it is something that is designed to produce a justification for actual violence out of thin air, it has purpose.

Looking at several livestreams and the lesser edited videos though, antifa are not usually the chanters, they have crossed into a more serious world and tend to be more intense. the chanting is the domain of the SJW, the confused college kids and even schoolkids if you look amongst the crowds following Trump's election, what is noticable going back is that the chants have barely altered, they have barely any content that is able to develop.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by Pauli137 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:07 pm

I don't disagree with any of this.

However, your response fails as a rhetorical strategy to oppose the assertion that speech = violence. The reason is that antifa, having already embraced violence as a tactic, lose nothing by admitting that higher-volume speech is higher-intensity violence.

On the other hand, perhaps you are merely trying to reach the general public by contrasting the various rhetorical devices espoused progressives and more extreme leftists? I still doubt the efficacy of the approach, mostly because the general public seems immune to logic. Those who accept the idea that "misgendering" is a form of violence have already moved to an irrational position, and are therefore open to the idea that loud chanting is an acceptable antidote to "rape culture" and its numerous linguistic abuses.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by jakell » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:53 pm

Pauli137 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:07 pm
I don't disagree with any of this.

However, your response fails as a rhetorical strategy to oppose the assertion that speech = violence. The reason is that antifa, having already embraced violence as a tactic, lose nothing by admitting that higher-volume speech is higher-intensity violence.

On the other hand, perhaps you are merely trying to reach the general public by contrasting the various rhetorical devices espoused progressives and more extreme leftists? I still doubt the efficacy of the approach, mostly because the general public seems immune to logic. Those who accept the idea that "misgendering" is a form of violence have already moved to an irrational position, and are therefore open to the idea that loud chanting is an acceptable antidote to "rape culture" and its numerous linguistic abuses.
You're right that I'm not trying to affect antifa's perceptions, whatever they may be, I am really aiming at the 'general public' which, although sheeplike and illogical (en masse) may be said to contain rational thinkers too. I would say that a number of them know (knew?) that the statement "speech=violence" is illogical, but may feel that it is one of those absurdities that we must accept in the current situation (as we accept other absurdities just so that we may simply get by in the modern world). My rhetorical question is simply aimed at getting folks to spend a little more time with the equation so that they may reconsider it, rather than be hustled by seductive equivalences which, admittedly, do make the world a lot simpler.
In the same way, if someone has accepted that 'misgendering' is violence, all is not lost, I suspect a part of them can be persuaded to reconsider.

That 'reconsidering' is one of the things that chanting is meant to dissuade, and if you are already cognitively biased in that direction, this is very powerful. I think it's innacurate to regard chanting as 'higher-volume speech', I think it is qualitatively different too, it's designed to bypass higher thinking although it does pander to the intellect in some basic ways.

Pauli137
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:35 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by Pauli137 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:40 pm

That's a fair enough point.

Thing is: I suspect that the rational contingent is merely keeping quiet. There may be less need to influence than you think.

But carry on, fighting the good fight...

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by jakell » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:43 am

Pauli137 wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:40 pm
That's a fair enough point.

Thing is: I suspect that the rational contingent is merely keeping quiet. There may be less need to influence than you think.

But carry on, fighting the good fight...
When someone on my street commented on my litter-picking one day with "you're fighting a losing battle", I responded with "I'm not fighting a battle". This was really aimed at the primate tendency to (unnecessarily) frame things in terms of conflict and struggle, and therefore turn everyday actions into self-defeating dramas if one is not wary of this.

There is a fight to be had in what we're discussing, but I'm not fighting it, or rather I am very far from the front lines. My relatively recent conversion to imbibing information from the podcast format (as opposed to just the written word) has resulted in an even more recent move to watching livestreams, which can be time consuming and sometimes boring, but the data seems less tainted to a human-watcher like me, and in these we see instances of that 'fight'.
The shouty confrontations are pretty dull (once you've seen a few), but every now and again they turn into actual dialogue, and I start to take an interest, it's at that point I start to construct responses as if I was actually there and this is the source of my rhetorical question above. I believe at the time, someone had actually started the chant "Speech is Violence!" in a solid 4:4 time signature and this was taken up with gusto.

The instances of dialogue are rarely very long, a 'me-too' person usually steps in to run interference and lower the brow of the conversation with direct confrontation, or starting a noisy chant (or a bike lock). Here a longish one that I was expecting to break up, but didn't:



I know that these 'debates' are not well constructed, but realise that they are hastily improvised under difficult conditions, and try to allow for that.. call it 'field-debating'.

User avatar
jakell
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:10 am

Re: Polite Disinterest

Post by jakell » Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:22 am

This video has a misleading title.. it's not really about antifa and is more about the situation in Catalonia at present. I should really start a new thread on this but as this forum is low-traffic, I'm going to use an existing one for now, the reason I'm using this one is because of the observation I made above about how SJW/antifa tend to start confrontations based upon abstractions, rather than a response to real-world situations.
Tim Pool indeed spends a good amount of time speculating about antifa here, but I think the comparison (between Europe and America) is erroneous. From Hamburg and Paris we've seen that European antifa are at least as scary and serious as the American ones, so the fact that they were able to be curtailed and mollified by other Leftists suggests to me that the ones here aren't the real deal, or they understand that this arena is not for them this time and are half-hearted

To me, what seems to be at play here is that the Catalonia situation is very real and personal to these people, and this is far overshadowing those abstractions that SJW/antifa use to create much (much) ado about nothing. Still, it's early days yet and it remains to be seen what will happen following the independence declaration on Monday, the organisation and discipline described by Tim here promises something more nuanced that the usual brief spasms of confrontation.. if they can hold it together.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jakell and 2 guests