On one hand, that meme especially is reprehensable. On the other hand, he got doxxed, harassed, and had his employer contacted for just arguing something online.
If you're going to make controversial statements or engage in questionable action or activities, and want to keep your job, don't do it where it's recorded and available to everyone on the planet, tied directly to you personally, and linked with your employer. Basic common sense. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to a private employer.
Make an alt profile that only your friends know about to post stuff like that, or take it to another venue or just don't bite on the bait. How hard is that? People who lack the judgement to avoid aking stupid or charged statements where it can be tied to them and their work don't get my sympathy. The lack of judgement, from an employer perspective, is what would cause me to fire an employee like this, not the pedantic argument over the meaning of terms itself.
EDIT: it's very clear that Clark starts getting trolled, someone is clearly after him to get a reaction, but is willingly participating by the end is participating with just as enthusiasm and malicious glee. Dont get into stupid arguments online and post stupid memes where it will reflect poorly on you personally and directly, especially if directly linked to your employer as well, such as on Facebook. A modicum of self control and the ability to let something go would have been better for all involved.
Looking at that Daily Caller* article, it seems like Ed Pugh was pretty hazy on the grounds for firing Clark.
I mean, it reads like the headline should be: Man Fired For Stating Reasonable Personal Beliefs, Angering Extremists.
If he was sacked for posting the Hillary/Obama pic, that's one thing. But arguing that fascism is bad no matter who advocates it and whether with words and symbols on the one hand or actions on the other ...
* I see the Daily Caller is reputedly rightist but I also read the screencaps on Imagur - Clark is certainly being snarky but he's not advocating fascism, racism, nazism, violence against anyone -- did I miss that somewhere?
I find hillarous how people love to use therms like "feminazis" but then they can't call actual Nazis... Nazis
Good part from Reaper, not because this was a left or right thing, but because you can't have your high end employees making comments like this.
McDonald is literally killing people in South America with his giant soya plantations and I don't think that stop many people from eating from them (You know, besides those that protest just for this same reason)
This is the capitalist world people. The big ones don't are big because they are nice with the planet or people in the third world. When somebody stop making business because something as stupid like this, but don't give a f*ck about all the multinationals that are killing people by their business practices in the third world... thats double standards, my friend.
At the end of the day this is a case of "A business fire a employe because he has entered a internet controversy and business don't want bad RP one way or the other".
I'm sure that if this guy did this just in the opposite left/right whay, Reaper'll fired him the same way, if the internet-noise was big enough.
Umm I'm not seeing him supporting nazi or anti fa.
He saying violence is wrong regardless. And oppression of views is wrong regardless of who both for political means.
And yeah, alt profiles.
If it's not under your name. It cannot be as easily traced back to you.
I'm not seeing the wrong here from that part of posts on a directly political view anyway.
Edit seeing rest. There's more issues then the post highlighted by other sources.
The meme and others are going away from the post twitter highlighted in a bad way.
Manchu wrote: Looking at that Daily Caller* article, it seems like Ed Pugh was pretty hazy on the grounds for firing Clark.
I mean, it reads like the headline should be: Man Fired For Stating Reasonable Personal Beliefs, Angering Extremists.
Is it fair to say his argument is similar to the one you were making in the locked Charlottesville thread?
This quote of Clark's is particularly problematic:
“I never said that you should not call someone waving the flag a Nazi, all I saids was that those who do, for the most part, don’t know what being a Nazi really is—huge difference. Those who do are using it to be bigoted and elitist.
Why even go there? How can he or anyone gate-keep on who is or isn't a Nazi? The nit-picking of this by Clark, and what went down in the now locked thread, is frustrating because it normalizes the events that occurred over the weekend.
Dudes were flying Nazi flags, wearing Nazi regalia, giving Nazi and KKK hand salutes, and yet they "aren't Nazis" or they are "cosplaying Nazis" which is absurd. Take them at their word. They are Nazis. Yes, they aren't part of Hitler's party from the 1930's but that is why they usually get the prefix of "neo" attached. Clark's post looks like a defense of the Charlottesville white supremacists because it plays into the false equivalency that one group who has embraced the imagery and ideologies of one of recent history's most despised hate groups is on the same level of "bad" as the group protesting against the hateful ideologies of white supremacy.
If you show up in Nazi regalia you automatically lose any moral ground in the argument you are trying to make.
For Reaper, why would they want to have their name associated with someone who posts:
"I don't want to protect the NAZIs but i [sic] also don't supprot antiFA and what they do either. Mostly because of how and who they designated to be NAZIs. They are no better."
So again, this guy's point is that the group who was flying Nazi flags is no better than the counter-protesters. The group who is defending the statue of a traitorous general, and who support segregation of the races is no better than the counter-protesters who despise that sort of hate-fueled ideology. Again, he literally says that antiFA is no better than white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Of course Reaper is going to respond.It is a stupid, stupid, stupid argument to make, especially when the name of your company is in your profile.
If he was sacked for posting the Hillary/Obama pic, that's one thing.
The Obama/Hillary pic was posted over two months ago, its hardly relevant beyond the digging done by people on a witch hunt.
On one hand, he really wasn't too far out of line in his beliefs, but his behavior left something to be desired (he toed the line with sexual harassment at one point in the convo). On the other hand, they have every right to sack an employee for behavior on social media (Texas has no protections for this, some states do).
I think Reaper is waaaay over-reacting on the grounds that the people arguing with him looked his info up and tried to silence him with it, its not like he got into the argument with the starting line of "I'm QA at Reaper Minis"!
This is going to end poorly for Reaper, judging by their Twitter feed.
If you've got people chanting "Blut und Boden", making Nazi salutes, walking around with Swastika flags and T-shirts with Hitler quotes without anyone reacting it's a Nazi march. Seriously. If people started walking around waving the flags with the hammer and sickle while chanting "Workers of the World unite!" it'd clearly be a communist march, so why are so many so reluctant to call this a Nazi march?
Isn't this just going to turn into a rehash of the thread that just got locked though?
Funny, I don't see anywhere on his profile that Reaper is "former" employment. He still has it as "present".
And if he was fired, there would have been no reason for him to bother with an apology.
Odds are Ed dressed him up, down, and sideways for provoking this kind of (poop)storm in the middle of a multi-million deal where any decision management makes could cost them... I'd guess 10% to 20% of the project, based on what the "I'm pulling my pledge" folks are saying. I'd also guess the ultimatum was that he post the apology at the top of his page, and if he wrote anything else public before the end of the KS, it would be taken as a resignation letter.
But that's just my guess.
And if Matt is smart, he's done talking about it in public. Ed legally can't say anything beyond "there was an issue, and we addressed it with the employee". Don't count on hearing anything else.
Yeah, I very much do think the terminology here is very important. I absolutely do not take these people at their word. I hear and see references to the Third Reich, just like I can see them trying to develop some kind of vocabulary of "European heritage." I don't buy any of it. What I actually see here is something that goes back to before there was any such thing as a Nazi, something that isn't a problem smuggled in from Europe before/during WW2. What I see is a completely American issue, going back to the colonization of North America by people who would gradually come to see themselves as "white", namely white supremacy. White supremacy is a fundamental issue of American history. The allusions to the Third Reich, in addition to being pathetic, have a clear strategic purpose: being outlandish and controversial gets attention.
I also see a strategy behind calling them "actual, literal Nazis," which they actually, literally aren't (using the actual and literal definitions of all of those words). "Nazi" is one of the absolutely worst things you can call anybody. It is so completely toxic that it can significantly undermine someone just by casual reference. You don't even have to "be" a (neo-)Nazi; you can be discredited for "defending Nazis" or even "not sufficiently condemning Nazis." This is a very powerful and threatening kind of rhetoric. If you can establish that X Group are "actual, literal Nazis" then you can start to leverage that to make other kinds of arguments, like "Bannon supports Nazis" or "Trump won't condemn Nazis" - I mean, these are not hypothetical cases, this is the rhetoric already being used out there. And in this case, we have a guy seemingly fired for pointing this out as sinister.
"If you show up in Nazi regalia you automatically lose any moral ground in the argument you are trying to make." - Yeah, I agree with this 100% and I think the vast majority of Americans also agree with this, which is why these people are not dangerous as a political movement, although white supremacists are obviously extremely dangerous in terms of committing acts of terror.
You know where this kind of stuff happens a lot? Arguments about gun control. Whenever you have someone talking about gun violence, there is always a faction that is laser-focused on the terminology as the most important thing - these guys can't be right because they called it a clip instead of a magazine, these aren't really assault weapons like a stg 44, etc etc. It's a good way of concentrating on the peas instead of the steak and it almost always works.
In between escaping into terminology as the most important thing, and the inevitable off-topic moral relativism tangent on how some other political system also killed people so who can really be good or bad, I expect we'll be done here within an hour or two, tops.
Galas wrote: Good part from Reaper, not because this was a left or right thing, but because you can't have your high end employees making comments like this.
QTF and because somehow after thousands of times of this happening people keep making this basic mistake.
In a war of words and symbols and gestures, terminology and iconography are self-evidently crucial. You have to ask yourself, why would someone present themselves as something that Americans overwhelmingly find so offensive as to be automatically discrediting? I think many of the white supremacists are not thinking too hard about it; they are just being themselves. I think their leadership, however, knows that attention is what matters in a media-driven culture and that being ugly and vile is the equivalent of volume. (Westburo Baptists proved this over and over.)
The argument over whether X-ism is worse than Y-ism is a meaningless dead end, as far as I can tell.
Well, when he says he's not necessarily a Nazi because he disapproves of Antifa he's not wrong, per say.
Then again, I'm pretty sure that Nazi is a contraction of National-Sozialist, so when he says nationalism isn't inextricably tied to nazism, he's wrong. Then again, National socialist, so technically, y'know, left. And fascist.
It's almost as if politcal spectrums, definitions and allegiances shift based on things that have happened and changes in society/culture.
I've never heard of AntiFa until now. What is it?
I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
I'm pretty sure I despise both extremes of the political spectrum (because extremes), so I don't want to get suckered into defending either side.
I'm also sure that what happened last weekend is all kinds of fethed up, and in this case, trying to to deflect blame from the extreme right to the extreme left is just pants-on-head backwards.
It's the left hand side of our required "both sides are equally baaaaaad"bs appeal to moderation fallacy, which has been working pretty well for us recently.
LordofHats wrote: QTF and because somehow after thousands of times of this happening people keep making this basic mistake.
At the very least, don't fill in your place of employment on social media. This is rarely a good idea imo.
I solve this problem by not being on social media. I have no Twitter, no FaceBook, no MySpace. I don't have time for the endless spue of social excrement where the only good thing is an occasional fresh meme and I can find those on Imgur without having to engage in the gak.
I find Facebook to be a good way of keeping in touch with my family, but I have to admit not only do I not have a twitter account, I fail to even see the appeal.
It's the left hand side of our required "both sides are equally baaaaaad"bs appeal to moderation fallacy, which has been working pretty well for us recently.
...
So, anti-fascism fascists. Weird. Apparently irony is lost on a lot of people these days...
Edit: Back to cooking topics for me, I think. This kind of stuff is too depressing.
I don't get twitter, either. The best use I can think of it is to subscribe to game companies' twitter feeds and use that as a kind of digest for their announcements.
As a place to have a discussion? As a place to air opinions?
Bran Dawri wrote: Well, when he says he's not necessarily a Nazi because he disapproves of Antifa he's not wrong, per say.
Then again, I'm pretty sure that Nazi is a contraction of National-Sozialist, so when he says nationalism isn't inextricably tied to nazism, he's wrong. Then again, National socialist, so technically, y'know, left. And fascist.
It's almost as if politcal spectrums, definitions and allegiances shift based on things that have happened and changes in society/culture.
I've never heard of AntiFa until now. What is it?
I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
I'm pretty sure I despise both extremes of the political spectrum (because extremes), so I don't want to get suckered into defending either side.
I'm also sure that what happened last weekend is all kinds of fethed up, and in this case, trying to to deflect blame from the extreme right to the extreme left is just pants-on-head backwards.
Nazism is socialist in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a Democratic Republic, i.e. not at all. They picked up the "socialist" part because it was hip and trendy at the time. The party's socialists were the first to get exterminated.
Yeah, I very much do think the terminology here is very important. I absolutely do not take these people at their word. I hear and see references to the Third Reich, just like I can see them trying to develop some kind of vocabulary of "European heritage." I don't buy any of it. What I actually see here is something that goes back to before there was any such thing as a Nazi, something that isn't a problem smuggled in from Europe before/during WW2. What I see is a completely American issue, going back to the colonization of North America by people who would gradually come to see themselves as "white", namely white supremacy. White supremacy is a fundamental issue of American history. The allusions to the Third Reich, in addition to being pathetic, have a clear strategic purpose: being outlandish and controversial gets attention.
It seems foolish to me to not take them at their word. Their actions, their rhetoric, speaks volumes and just because they do not meet a very specific set of criterion to be "actual, literal Nazis" is irrelevant if they are wrapping themselves in the imagery and ideology of Nazis. You argue it is to get attention, and sure, that is probably true to an extent, but I don't think that is their overriding motivation.These sick bastards actually believe in the superiority of their "race" and all the other ugly trappings that are associated with white supremacy and neo-Nazism.
It is one thing to hold up a sign that say "God hates fags!" to get on the news. That is outlandish and controversial, but it is also technically defensible using Biblical scripture (the god of Leviticus certainly seemed to hate homosexuals). It is another thing entirely to march down a street with a Nazi flag, throwing the Nazi and KKK salutes and adopting the beliefs of those hate groups to the point where you are willing to be photographed in public supporting the cause of white supremacy. There is no defensible argument for Nazism, there is no defensible argument for the ideology of white supremacy. For me, the people who marched are the genuine article. They aren't doing this just to get a rise out of people or get more air time on the local or national news. They think the country is at a turning point, they think the president has their back, and they are ready to make their sick vision of America a reality.
Ouze wrote: You know where this kind of stuff happens a lot? Arguments about gun control. Whenever you have someone talking about gun violence, there is always a faction that is laser-focused on the terminology as the most important thing - these guys can't be right because they called it a clip instead of a magazine, these aren't really assault weapons like a stg 44, etc etc. It's a good way of concentrating on the peas instead of the steak and it almost always works.
This. Nit-picking terminology in this case, or trying to make some arbitrary distinction between I guess what we will call "historical" Nazis and these neo-Nazis, seems like an exercise in futility.
To then do what Mr. Clark did and lump the protesters opposing the white supremacists and neo-Nazis as "no better" is horribly misguided.
The NAZI party had socialist members in the beginning. Then, they Istvaan III'd them.
Plus, if somebody reads the Mein Kampf Hitler explain how they just picked the "Socialist" term and the red because as someother poster said, it was the trendy back then, and it allowed them to go to "left" political meetings, etc...
I'm in the "both sides are wrong" camp. Extremism in any direction is dangerous. Full stop. That simple. Rationalizing it by pointing at 'the enemy' is simply that: Rationalizing.
As far as this person goes, I don't think a person should get fired for their personal comments, but this person listed where he worked online, and so my sympathy wanes for him. Deliberate, intentional, right or wrong, he associated him and his toxic comments with his workplace. That's a bad call.
Ouze wrote: You know where this kind of stuff happens a lot? Arguments about gun control. Whenever you have someone talking about gun violence, there is always a faction that is laser-focused on the terminology as the most important thing - these guys can't be right because they called it a clip instead of a magazine, these aren't really assault weapons like a stg 44, etc etc. It's a good way of concentrating on the peas instead of the steak and it almost always works.
In between escaping into terminology as the most important thing, and the inevitable off-topic moral relativism tangent on how some other political system also killed people so who can really be good or bad, I expect we'll be done here within an hour or two, tops.
to be fair, with respect to the gun thing, there are instances where the terminology matters, and often either has a distinct legal meaning that can spell the difference between legality and a 10 year vacation in club fed
Manchu wrote: I don't get twitter, either. The best use I can think of it is to subscribe to game companies' twitter feeds and use that as a kind of digest for their announcements.
As a place to have a discussion? As a place to air opinions?
No thanks. Same with FB, IMO.
most social media is a really poor platform for discussion and ideas deeper than single sentence responses. FB, Reddit, Twitter, etc. They really just arent built for it.
Vaktathi wrote: to be fair, with respect to the gun thing, there are instances where the terminology matters, and often either has a distinct legal meaning that can spell the difference between legality and a 10 year vacation in club fed
I agree, but the usage I usually see employed is to divert discussion. Look at any prior gun thread here, after all.
But of course if we dwell on this, it's to the same effect
It's totally foolish to take Richard Spencer at his word. He is a manipulator. Critically examining his statements is crucial to understaning and opposing his political strategy. Without superficially evoking Nazism, Spencer cannot get the media coverage he requires to further his goals. And we can deduce from his strategy that his goal is not really direct persuasion because referencing Nazism positively is overwhemlingly repulsive in the US. Therefore, it becomes clear that his real goal is indirect influence. He wants to be labeled a Nazi in order to shift discussion away from white supremacy itself, which vanishingly few Americans find sympathetic, to a (exceedingly bad faith) fight about the culture of political free speech. When he gets punched, this is his victory. When he is denounced as a Nazi and his permit to protest is rescinded, on doubtful legal grounds, such that the ACLU steps up in his defense, this is his victory. When he can confuse the issue to the point where we are not focused on the illegitimacy of white supremacy and instead focus on violent suppression of political speech, this is his victory.
The American value of free speech in politics is founded upon the belief that extremism is in no one's interest, at a broad social level. With the actions of white supremacist terrorists, we can see nobody is safe from this insidious ideology - including white people, like Heather Heyer - just like Muslims are so obviously endangered by Al Queda, ISIS, etc. These extremist ideologies are clearly unsound, given their extreme unpopularity. By advocating suppression, especially including by violence, people are giving them a platform they don't deserve.
I'm not overly fussed about the bloke nitpicking over Nazi definitions, it's hardly something worth firing someone over. The racist meme picture though? Yeah, that qualifies as sufficient reason to can someone, even if they posted it three months back. Someone would have to talk pretty fast to convince me their views have radically changed since they thought it was funny to share that.
On the slight side tangent, speaking purely from what I'd personally consider as a Nazi without consulting textbooks.
Being a white supremacist does not make someone a Nazi. Putting a swastika armband on a white supremacist also does not make them a Nazi. It just makes them a white supremacist in a distasteful armband. If the armband had a hammer and sickle on it, it wouldn't make them a Soviet branch communist, and there's no reason it would make them a Nazi.
If however, they adhere to more general Nazi-style beliefs (so euthanising the disabled, locking up and gassing Jews, that an armed military struggle is the natural evolution of humans/nations) and so forth? Then I'd qualify them as a Neo(or new)-nazi. That's because they hold some similar general sentiments to the Nazis, warped into their own context.
In order for me to qualify them as actual dedicated Nazis, they'd need all the above plus a religious level worship for Hitler, a personal copy of Mein Kampf, a detailed belief in facistic government, hold to the Aryan myth, and so forth. In other words, they would need to represent what Nazism would be if Adolf resurrected tomorrow and began assembling his new SS unit.
The latter is possible, and people like that do exist. But for every actual Nazi there's fifty Neo-Nazis, and for every Neo-Nazi there's fifty thick white supremacist thugs who don a swastika to inflame opinions.
I am a Bones 4 backer, and this issue was raising its head today on the Kickstarter campaign.
This is appalling timing for Reaper because their Bones kickstarters are a sizable core of their income stream condensed into a single month.
They are in a bad place as it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
As for the outcome, we have not had anything concrete from Reaper to my knowledge just conflicted rumours. I see nothing yet that confirms he was fired. This is not unwise as any outcome might trigger more people.
As for the incident. The Reaper employee was being baited, but chose a bad time to comment on a controversial issue. It didn't help that the baiting SJW, who edited their own name from the editted transcript they plastered everywhere, claimed descent from Holocaust survivors as status to generate extra moral merit for being triggered.
Lesson 1: don't be attached to your employer on social media. I haven't listed my employer on my Facebook for a long time.
Lesson 2: your employer cares about money, and not about you. If you do something that costs them money, you will pay for it. If they have to choose between you and bad PR that will cost them money, they will choose money.
Lesson 3: don't say gak in public unless you are willing to pay the price for saying it.
Is not even talking gak. is like the Spanish consul that was removed from office because he joked about the accent of one of the biggest political figures in Spain.
If you have are in a public level part of a company (Or a goverment), you aren't only representing you when you talk online. So bear with the consequences.
You all giving a lot of credits to these Chuckleheads of being educated to know what Fascism, Nazi's, and what the Third Reich was. Probably a good damn chunk never even read Hitler book Mein Kampf let alone know that it evens exist.
Besides the public-facing side of things, Reaper needs to be mindful of the behind the scenes issues. Firing someone because a mob demands it is terrible for morale and has an understandable chilling effect on talented people being willing to work for/with you. Maybe the Daily Caller jumped the gun on claiming Clark has been fired. But if he was, I think Reaper is going to have to articulate why with some degree of specificity, at least internally. You can argue that people who just want to buy toys have a short memories; but people who are thinking about working for you/staying on your payroll have long memories.
See also the Google memo scandal ...
Jihadin -
I'm explicitly talking about the full time leadership of extremist groups, not the otherwise isolated (and presumably ignorant*) extremists who come out in support.
* People who think Nazism is a worthwhile political ideology are presumptively ignorant of history; even setting aside the ultimately disastrous course of WW2 for Nazism, the party was (necessarily) rife with inefficiency, willful ignorance, crippling in-fighting, and downright unworkable policies. If the Nazis hadn't inisted on dehumanizing authoritarianism and commited so many and such staggering atrocities, their political system still deserved to fail.
Jihadin wrote: You all giving a lot of credits to these Chuckleheads of being educated to know what Fascism, Nazi's, and what the Third Reich was. Probably a good damn chunk never even read Hitler book Mein Kampf let alone know that it evens exist.
This is my experience. I knew some self-proclaimed fascists in high school, and they weren't the type to do all the reading.
I'll give Nazis the right-of-return benefit of the doubt: if someone wants to call himself a nazi (or even look like one), I'll consider him a nazi.
Ouze wrote: You know where this kind of stuff happens a lot? Arguments about gun control. Whenever you have someone talking about gun violence, there is always a faction that is laser-focused on the terminology as the most important thing - these guys can't be right because they called it a clip instead of a magazine, these aren't really assault weapons like a stg 44, etc etc. It's a good way of concentrating on the peas instead of the steak and it almost always works.
The pro-gun side treats superficial features as an important thing because the anti-gun side passed federal law revolving around these superficial features.
If you pass the Red Ones Go Fasta Act banning all red cars, it's your fault if you don't know what red is and your opponents start tearing you to pieces for it.
Read the transcript, the Reaper employee never self identified as a Nazi, or claim support for Unite the Right. He said that Antifa were just as bad, which is a fair enough point to make, its a genuinely arguable one at least.
The main offense really was calling Obama a Moslem and Hillary Clinton a pig, which is offensive, but even that possibly gets a pass as its acidic political satire.
He did all this under his own identity with his employment bio unmasked. Not wise, but he was being baited by a self righteous SJW who clearly intended to out him fo whatever he/she could, edited the chat stream - we don't know what was taken out or had context removed, and redacted their own identity so they could not be verified.
Orlanth wrote: Read the transcript, the Reaper employee never self identified as a Nazi, or claim support for Unite the Right. He said that Antifa were just as bad, which is a fair enough point to make, its a genuinely arguable one at least.
The main offense really was calling Obama a Moslem and Hillary Clinton a pig, which is offensive, but even that possibly gets a pass as its acidic political satire.
He did all this under his own identity with his employment bio unmasked. Not wise, but he was being baited by a self righteous SJW who clearly intended to out him fo whatever he/she could, edited the chat stream - we don't know what was taken out or had context removed, and redacted their own identity so they could not be verified.
So we ageee that he did what he is accused of doing then.
Political sattire don't interest a company when you are satirizing (based in recent elections,and in a totally innacurate maner), maybe 52% of your potential customer base.
Orlanth wrote: Read the transcript, the Reaper employee never self identified as a Nazi, or claim support for Unite the Right. He said that Antifa were just as bad, which is a fair enough point to make, its a genuinely arguable one at least.
The main offense really was calling Obama a Moslem and Hillary Clinton a pig, which is offensive, but even that possibly gets a pass as its acidic political satire.
He did all this under his own identity with his employment bio unmasked. Not wise, but he was being baited by a self righteous SJW who clearly intended to out him fo whatever he/she could, edited the chat stream - we don't know what was taken out or had context removed, and redacted their own identity so they could not be verified.
So we agree that he did what he is accused of doing then.
Yes I do agree, but not to an extent that implies culpability. Dismissal is a very harsh response. Clark did not intend any harm to Reaper, he didn't say anything under a Reaper icon, that was dug up and collaged in. The imgur image has a lot of creative and redactive editing. Including the cowardly editing of the accusers name while maximising exposure of the victim.
Yes I can call Clark a victim, right down to accusing Clark of supporting Naziism, which is how the image was read on Reaper forums, even when Clark repeatedly stated he wasn't. Then adding an editorial claiming additional right to be upset, by claiming to have been sexually harassed,and subjected to extra offense or this and other reasons.
Also genuine Holocaust survivors families don't talk casually about 'their entire family going up in smoke'. Its a bit more serious than that for them.
I agree that this guy was baited. And even if I disagree with what he said, it wasn't anything really "OMG KILL HIM!" but...
He was using Facebook. I can't have much emphaty for people that discuss political issues on Social Media
I am not buying anything from reaper again, but mostly because other companies are making better and cheaper minis than bones (nolzurs and deep cuts). Their politics don't interest me, there are probably almost as many leftists as right wingers in gaming so they may take some hits they may not. I personally have no respect for antifa.
No big deal, he can always just go to another job right?
Conservatives on dakka taught me that private entities should have absolute power over their workers and that if a worker doesn't like it they can always go somewhere else. So I'm sure that my conservative peers on this website have nothing but applause for Reaper exercising their right.
Galas wrote: Political sattire don't interest a company when you are satirizing (based in recent elections,and in a totally innacurate maner), maybe 52% of your potential customer base.
This is all about PR and money, nothing else.
From my reading of the Reaper forums, the percentage of potential customers who would be offended was much higher than 52%.
BlaxicanX wrote: No big deal, he can always just go to another job right?
Conservatives on dakka taught me that private entities should have absolute power over their workers and that if a worker doesn't like it they can always go somewhere else. So I'm sure that my conservative peers on this website have nothing but applause for Reaper exercising their right.
I mean if you're going to try to make veiled attacks on us, you can provide some support to this statement of yours?
BlaxicanX wrote: No big deal, he can always just go to another job right?
Conservatives on dakka taught me that private entities should have absolute power over their workers and that if a worker doesn't like it they can always go somewhere else. So I'm sure that my conservative peers on this website have nothing but applause for Reaper exercising their right.
I mean if you're going to try to make veiled attacks on us, you can provide some support to this statement of yours?
Or, you know, you could follow Rule #1.
What djones said...
Furthermore, Reaper is fully within their right to do this as this is an 'at will' state.
Just as I'm going to choose to exercise MY right by spending my money on any Reaper products.
BlaxicanX wrote: No big deal, he can always just go to another job right?
Conservatives on dakka taught me that private entities should have absolute power over their workers and that if a worker doesn't like it they can always go somewhere else. So I'm sure that my conservative peers on this website have nothing but applause for Reaper exercising their right.
I mean if you're going to try to make veiled attacks on us, you can provide some support to this statement of yours?
Or, you know, you could follow Rule #1.
What djones said...
Furthermore, Reaper is fully within their right to do this as this is an 'at will' state.
Just as I'm going to choose to exercise MY right by spending my money on any Reaper products.
Really no real reason to buy bones anyhow, they are not as good as the new D&D and Pathfinder minis and are not as good a deal overall.
It was an overall unnecessary move by reaper to respond. There are always going to be people who are "unhappy" with you anyway.
Galas wrote: Political sattire don't interest a company when you are satirizing (based in recent elections,and in a totally innacurate maner), maybe 52% of your potential customer base.
This is all about PR and money, nothing else.
From my reading of the Reaper forums, the percentage of potential customers who would be offended was much higher than 52%.
Pissed of people always make more noise than happy people.
Yeah, don't let internet and forums trick you. The porcentage of people that write in forums is a very, very, very, small part of any fan/customer/etc... base. And of those as D-usa said, the angry ones are gonna make much, much more noise than the happy ones.
Galas wrote: Political sattire don't interest a company when you are satirizing (based in recent elections,and in a totally innacurate maner), maybe 52% of your potential customer base.
This is all about PR and money, nothing else.
From my reading of the Reaper forums, the percentage of potential customers who would be offended was much higher than 52%.
Pissed of people always make more noise than happy people.
What about happy pissed people? Cause some people seem to really enjoy being angry all the time.
BlaxicanX wrote: No big deal, he can always just go to another job right?
Conservatives on dakka taught me that private entities should have absolute power over their workers and that if a worker doesn't like it they can always go somewhere else. So I'm sure that my conservative peers on this website have nothing but applause for Reaper exercising their right.
I mean if you're going to try to make veiled attacks on us, you can provide some support to this statement of yours?
A lot of social media is garbage anyway. I do find it crazy how many get fired for what they say on social media though. Kinda messed up in most cases. What you say off the job should normally not effect how your job handles something. Not like he committed a crime or ruined the company's business in any real way.
Also in many ways antifa and the alt-right/nazis/KKK/racists (or whatever they are) both do really bad things. Don't understand why people can't condemn antifa vandalizing things in public (like stores, trash cans, etc.) or carrying assault weapons on a march (which strikes as being about intimidation) or threatening bystanders that follow or tape them as a good or just thing to do. Don't get me wrong i think Alt-right are more to blame in that virginia incident (since they killed someone) but why can't i say antifa is bad?
Galas wrote: Political sattire don't interest a company when you are satirizing (based in recent elections,and in a totally innacurate maner), maybe 52% of your potential customer base.
This is all about PR and money, nothing else.
From my reading of the Reaper forums, the percentage of potential customers who would be offended was much higher than 52%.
Pissed of people always make more noise than happy people.
I meant it seems there were a lot more lefties on that forum than, say, this one.
Seriously? More pettiness from the left. Can't win an argument? Drag his employer into it and get him fired. Yay! Winning!
Neo-Nazis, bad. Antifa, also bad, but hypocrites as well. Using violence and intimidation to suppress the views of others makes them the fascists they claim to be fighting against. They are the left's brown shirts practicing the modern equivalent of book burning.
I really think antiFA's biggest problem (not only, mind you, the masked avenging thing with violence is pretty bad too) is their marketing. Don't go with "anti". It makes you look negative by default. Antimatter, anti-itch, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, etc. all sound bad even if they do good. Go with something akin to what you are opposing. Take their ideology, logos, slogans, and use it against them. Why not "neo-allies"? Ignorance or irrelevance to history doesn't matter to them, so why should it matter to you? I think Rosie the riveter is public domain. Get Britain and France in on this. You got a goldmine kid, market it better, cause black masks and bats don't look good on tv. Black washes out on many non plasmas. And nobody sells plasmas anymore.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I really think antiFA's biggest problem (not only, mind you, the masked avenging thing with violence is pretty bad too) is their marketing. Don't go with "anti". It makes you look negative by default. Antimatter, anti-itch, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, etc. all sound bad even if they do good. Go with something akin to what you are opposing. Take their ideology, logos, slogans, and use it against them. Why not "neo-allies"? Ignorance or irrelevance to history doesn't matter to them, so why should it matter to you? I think Rosie the riveter is public domain. Get Britain and France in on this. You got a goldmine kid, market it better, cause black masks and bats don't look good on tv. Black washes out on many non plasmas. And nobody sells plasmas anymore.
I disagree on the neo part. Neo has been tainted because of neo-nazis and a lot of other uses of neo. Neo tends to be as bad as anti in many cases.
I agree with the masks and black outfits with often AK variant weapons. Find it interesting they sometimes try to look like terrorists and then expect others to see them as the good guys.
The other thing i see in antifa is a good chunk of them seem pathetic. Don't get me wrong i'm sure some of em aren't and maybe they'll develop into a more serious problem that includes them killing people (i don't know if they have killed anybody yet). However something about their movement feels like it's run by a bunch of whining college kids than a bunch of muscled thugs ready to bring about government change.
Zillian wrote: Seriously? More pettiness from the left. Can't win an argument? Drag his employer into it and get him fired. Yay! Winning!
Neo-Nazis, bad. Antifa, also bad, but hypocrites as well. Using violence and intimidation to suppress the views of others makes them the fascists they claim to be fighting against. They are the left's brown shirts practicing the modern equivalent of book burning.
I didn't know Donald Trump was on Dakka. Those "views of others" involve racism, bigotry, hatred, and inequality if your skin isn't white. There is no defending this.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I really think antiFA's biggest problem (not only, mind you, the masked avenging thing with violence is pretty bad too) is their marketing. Don't go with "anti". It makes you look negative by default. Antimatter, anti-itch, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, etc. all sound bad even if they do good. Go with something akin to what you are opposing. Take their ideology, logos, slogans, and use it against them. Why not "neo-allies"? Ignorance or irrelevance to history doesn't matter to them, so why should it matter to you? I think Rosie the riveter is public domain. Get Britain and France in on this. You got a goldmine kid, market it better, cause black masks and bats don't look good on tv. Black washes out on many non plasmas. And nobody sells plasmas anymore.
I disagree on the neo part. Neo has been tainted because of neo-nazis and a lot of other uses of neo. Neo tends to be as bad as anti in many cases.
Got a good point there, how about just "neu-allies"? The French will certainly get on board then and it's got the weird spelling all the kids love. Also, it sounds a lot like a certain catch phrase of a certain doctor that many Brits and "liberal elites" like.
I absolutely don't understand this. Why can't the left condemn antifa? I condemn the alt-right. In fact i think most of us condemn the alt-right. Punching someone in the face isn't 'showing love' it's still hate. If you wish to help people of marginalized groups there's always charities, shelters and various other things you can do to help. In the case of this march just call police if they do anything illegal. If you see graffiti or violence erupt then by all means those people are in the wrong and should get a police man's baton to break their faces.
It's the left hand side of our required "both sides are equally baaaaaad"bs appeal to moderation fallacy, which has been working pretty well for us recently.
...
So, anti-fascism fascists. Weird. Apparently irony is lost on a lot of people these days...
Edit: Back to cooking topics for me, I think. This kind of stuff is too depressing.
Orlanth wrote: I am a Bones 4 backer, and this issue was raising its head today on the Kickstarter campaign.
This is appalling timing for Reaper because their Bones kickstarters are a sizable core of their income stream condensed into a single month.
They are in a bad place as it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
As for the outcome, we have not had anything concrete from Reaper to my knowledge just conflicted rumours. I see nothing yet that confirms he was fired. This is not unwise as any outcome might trigger more people.
As for the incident. The Reaper employee was being baited, but chose a bad time to comment on a controversial issue. It didn't help that the baiting SJW, who edited their own name from the editted transcript they plastered everywhere, claimed descent from Holocaust survivors as status to generate extra moral merit for being triggered.
I never liked the idea of big companies using Kickstarter this is just more crap on them as it looks to me they defend Antifa
flamingkillamajig wrote: A lot of social media is garbage anyway. I do find it crazy how many get fired for what they say on social media though. Kinda messed up in most cases. What you say off the job should normally not effect how your job handles something. Not like he committed a crime or ruined the company's business in any real way.
It's not usually the content of what was said that gets people fired, it's the appalling lack of judgement. Most employers really don't care, what they care about is the lack of thought. Likewise, most employment, particularly professional salaried employment, comes with an expectation that your personal life isn't going to reflect negatively on the organization. There's lots of people who get fired for doing stuff on their own personal time outside of work all the time. Not always right or fair, but it's how the world works, and people that fail to remember that put themselves at risk.
To bring in another example, some years ago there was a Marine in Iraq who videotaped himself throwing a puppy off a cliff. Well, yes apparently there were standing orders to destroy wild dogs and other animals. Throwing a puppy off a cliff is generally not the approved method, having yourself videotaped while doing so is usually not a smart idea, and doing so in uniform on duty wearing the uniform of the United States...reflects poorly, and undermined the greater mission in a variety of ways. The lack of judgement was what got him drummed out of the Corps, not the death of the animal. If someone displays a lack of judgement that appalling, they cannot be trusted to hold positions of trust, follow directions or orders, or represent the organization they are a part of. Same thing in instances like this if the dude did actually get fired. Don't go doing dumb stuff in a way that's personally identifiable and that can reflect directly back at your employer.
TL;DR Facebook is a poor place for arguing political nuances in a highly charged political environment (or arguing/discussing anything really), don't get into public pissing contests on FB, if you must, make an alt account that doesn't display your livelyhood and identity to the world, or abstain on such platforms, or accept that it may cost you your job.
It's the left hand side of our required "both sides are equally baaaaaad"bs appeal to moderation fallacy, which has been working pretty well for us recently.
...
So, anti-fascism fascists. Weird. Apparently irony is lost on a lot of people these days...
Edit: Back to cooking topics for me, I think. This kind of stuff is too depressing.
Orlanth wrote: I am a Bones 4 backer, and this issue was raising its head today on the Kickstarter campaign.
This is appalling timing for Reaper because their Bones kickstarters are a sizable core of their income stream condensed into a single month.
They are in a bad place as it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
As for the outcome, we have not had anything concrete from Reaper to my knowledge just conflicted rumours. I see nothing yet that confirms he was fired. This is not unwise as any outcome might trigger more people.
As for the incident. The Reaper employee was being baited, but chose a bad time to comment on a controversial issue. It didn't help that the baiting SJW, who edited their own name from the editted transcript they plastered everywhere, claimed descent from Holocaust survivors as status to generate extra moral merit for being triggered.
I never liked the idea of big companies using Kickstarter this is just more crap on them as it looks to me they defend Antifa
Old man doesn't get old jokes, news at 11. Mike? weather?
Zillian wrote: Seriously? More pettiness from the left. Can't win an argument? Drag his employer into it and get him fired. Yay! Winning!
Neo-Nazis, bad. Antifa, also bad, but hypocrites as well. Using violence and intimidation to suppress the views of others makes them the fascists they claim to be fighting against. They are the left's brown shirts practicing the modern equivalent of book burning.
I didn't know Donald Trump was on Dakka. Those "views of others" involve racism, bigotry, hatred, and inequality if your skin isn't white. There is no defending this.
There is if the person you are denegrating wasnt doing what you claim.
Read the transcripts, then come back.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I absolutely don't understand this. Why can't the left condemn antifa? I condemn the alt-right. In fact i think most of us condemn the alt-right. Punching someone in the face isn't 'showing love' it's still hate. If you wish to help people of marginalized groups there's always charities, shelters and various other things you can do to help. In the case of this march just call police if they do anything illegal. If you see graffiti or violence erupt then by all means those people are in the wrong and should get a police man's baton to break their faces.
The left can condemn them and frequently does. I do. I'm left. Making jokes gets no credit.. Why can't the president of the United States of America condemn Nazis, or people who are in that thought process? No he did not he never has, doub he ever will. Surprise would be good, very good. Very, very good.....sorry, got lost in the eloquence and gak of presidential declarations and speeches.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cause very very is eliquent now. He's got that down at least, how bout NK? I'm confident he will do the thoughtful thing. How bout taxes? I'm confident he will do whatever he thinks is best. Good enough. I just shat on myself. How bout you pricks who are so against a private company doing what private companes do, stand up and say, hey that's pretty gakky? Private companies can only do I when it suits you needs?
flamingkillamajig wrote: I absolutely don't understand this. Why can't the left condemn antifa? I condemn the alt-right. In fact i think most of us condemn the alt-right. Punching someone in the face isn't 'showing love' it's still hate. If you wish to help people of marginalized groups there's always charities, shelters and various other things you can do to help. In the case of this march just call police if they do anything illegal. If you see graffiti or violence erupt then by all means those people are in the wrong and should get a police man's baton to break their faces.
If I could answer this with my own frustrations, I feel like the actual condemnation of the white supremacist tend to be conditional ("but Antifa is just as bad") or implied rather than explicitly stated and it comes off like an insincere apology. I don't think anyone on this site seriously supports the losers waving around the swastika, but it seems like more people's focus is on slagging the left at any chance. Which makes comments like "they're both bad" come with an implied "But I hate antifa more"
Edit: Not that I support Antifa, Although my issue is that much like "SJW" I feel their existence is not as large as people make them out to be. Antifa is as much a political threat to the US as the neo-nazi, and if they are worse I'd REALLY like to see a good explanation as to why.
flamingkillamajig wrote: However something about their movement feels like it's run by a bunch of whining college kids than a bunch of muscled thugs ready to bring about government change.
I like it, but it's a bit niche, no? Wait, origin, and history doesn't matter. So yes. From here on out all you antifa hooigams shall be dubbed primary auxiliary. Wait. Primarily allies. Wait. Primaris allies. Yup. Go forward and fight with that on your back.. or front... or wherever you keep your most cherished icons... do people still not get the old warhammer schtich I've been putting down? That's a bit depressing and grimdark.
flamingkillamajig wrote: However something about their movement feels like it's run by a bunch of whining college kids than a bunch of muscled thugs ready to bring about government change.
Doesn't that kind of work in their favor?
Each, I'm not sure "hey, let's go up against colllege muscled thugs" is going to play. College sort itself f gets you on the jobs that you might be trying to apply to. "Hey, let's get tacos" might be better. Go with that for a lead, at least. You can follow up with the '"wanna be like trump" bit later if you think the college is a good fit for you. Wait. Sorry, you will never live your full life in college, do not apply
This is 2017, and anyone who hasnt learned that what you say and do can and will be used against you on social media is just asking for it.
This guy got involved in a fight where he came out kind of defending Nazis, while having his employer tagged on his profile. It's not like stories of people getting fired for having certain (typically far right) beliefs are that uncommon, so nobody should be shocked when he gets smacked down for being objectively stupid.
Having read through it, the guy got baited and then claimed he was the troll, which made it even worse.
Don't side with Nazis, Commies, or Racists, and you should be fine!
No, this is 2017 , and if you little tykes haven't figured out how to protect yourself from big bad internet yet, you are fethed. And feth you, I got not time to spare on it. No seriously, feth you if you think I'm going to engage in some sort of twitter war. I'm not eligible. I don't have an account. I am the result when you mix a cat with a cat. I don't really give a feth. feth Twitter. Kill twitter.
Huh, that really comes across more impactfully without the spaces. Fuchs you dakka and your spacing fascism!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, I don't give a gak. Live and let live and argue it to the end.
Crazyterran wrote: This is 2017, and anyone who hasnt learned that what you say and do can and will be used against you on social media is just asking for it.
This.
It also part explains why I dont want anything to do with Facebook or Twiter, though there are other reasons.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I absolutely don't understand this. Why can't the left condemn antifa? I condemn the alt-right. In fact i think most of us condemn the alt-right. Punching someone in the face isn't 'showing love' it's still hate. If you wish to help people of marginalized groups there's always charities, shelters and various other things you can do to help. In the case of this march just call police if they do anything illegal. If you see graffiti or violence erupt then by all means those people are in the wrong and should get a police man's baton to break their faces.
The left can condemn them and frequently does. I do. I'm left. Making jokes gets no credit.. Why can't the president of the United States of America condemn Nazis, or people who are in that thought process? No he did not he never has, doub he ever will. Surprise would be good, very good. Very, very good.....sorry, got lost in the eloquence and gak of presidential declarations and speeches.
Erm... he did condemn them as both the white nationalist and antifa both perpetuated violence. It's just that he didn't name-name them the first time. But, Sunday (or Monday?!?) he finally name-named them. And again today at that infrastructure presser.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cause very very is eliquent now. He's got that down at least, how bout NK? I'm confident he will do the thoughtful thing. How bout taxes? I'm confident he will do whatever he thinks is best. Good enough. I just shat on myself. How bout you pricks who are so against a private company doing what private companes do, stand up and say, hey that's pretty gakky? Private companies can only do I when it suits you needs?
Okay... you lost me here... o.O
<--- in midst of 20th hour command shift.... O.o
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: This is 2017, and anyone who hasnt learned that what you say and do can and will be used against you on social media is just asking for it.
There seems to be a very strange logic at work here from that guy in the article.
I'm reading a book about the siege of Tobruk 1941.
Is the British & Commonwealth army as bad as the Nazis for using violence against them? After all, both side are using violence to try and achieve their goals.
Zillian wrote: Seriously? More pettiness from the left. Can't win an argument? Drag his employer into it and get him fired. Yay! Winning!
Neo-Nazis, bad. Antifa, also bad, but hypocrites as well. Using violence and intimidation to suppress the views of others makes them the fascists they claim to be fighting against. They are the left's brown shirts practicing the modern equivalent of book burning.
I didn't know Donald Trump was on Dakka. Those "views of others" involve racism, bigotry, hatred, and inequality if your skin isn't white. There is no defending this.
Straight in with the name-calling. Classy.
Also, typical of the left, you're missing the point- It's not about defending what they say. Under the First Amendment, they have a legal right to express their views. You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking 'Nazis bad, they no have rights!' That's not how it works, especially when you label everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi. Violent alt-left thugs don't get to decide who can or can't exercise their constitutional rights.
Yes, there are actual Neo-Nazis out there, but the term Nazi is being used so indiscriminately it is losing it's meaning.
flamingkillamajig wrote: I absolutely don't understand this. Why can't the left condemn antifa? I condemn the alt-right. In fact i think most of us condemn the alt-right. Punching someone in the face isn't 'showing love' it's still hate. If you wish to help people of marginalized groups there's always charities, shelters and various other things you can do to help. In the case of this march just call police if they do anything illegal. If you see graffiti or violence erupt then by all means those people are in the wrong and should get a police man's baton to break their faces.
The left can condemn them and frequently does. I do. I'm left. Making jokes gets no credit.. Why can't the president of the United States of America condemn Nazis, or people who are in that thought process? No he did not he never has, doub he ever will. Surprise would be good, very good. Very, very good.....sorry, got lost in the eloquence and gak of presidential declarations and speeches.
Erm... he did condemn them as both the white nationalist and antifa both perpetuated violence. It's just that he didn't name-name them the first time. But, Sunday (or Monday?!?) he finally name-named them. And again today at that infrastructure presser.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cause very very is eliquent now. He's got that down at least, how bout NK? I'm confident he will do the thoughtful thing. How bout taxes? I'm confident he will do whatever he thinks is best. Good enough. I just shat on myself. How bout you pricks who are so against a private company doing what private companes do, stand up and say, hey that's pretty gakky? Private companies can only do I when it suits you needs?
Okay... you lost me here... o.O
<--- in midst of 20th hour command shift.... O.o
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: This is 2017, and anyone who hasnt learned that what you say and do can and will be used against you on social media is just asking for it.
Heh... aint that the truth!
I was attempting to give an oral translation of your president's press conference. If you have a better one than "oh, gak, I just gak in my pants" then I guess I will listen to it but, the pants have already been shat in and he has already lost whatever wibly wobbly support he had. Rubio jumped ship two weeks ago, and he is a good rat to follow.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Each, I'm not sure "hey, let's go up against colllege muscled thugs" is going to play. College sort itself f gets you on the jobs that you might be trying to apply to. "Hey, let's get tacos" might be better. Go with that for a lead, at least. You can follow up with the '"wanna be like trump" bit later if you think the college is a good fit for you. Wait. Sorry, you will never live your full life in college, do not apply
The argument of the First Amendment is used often to defend the KKK and so on. The chief editor of Breitbart.com used it on Radio 4 yesterday, for instance. But it is a specious argument. The First Amendment restrains the government from preveting free speech. It has no legal or moral force against the actions of citizens.
As for the term "nazi" losing its force, I think most people can still make a distinction between the teenager called the Five Guys team "nazis" for not giving him enough free french fries, and a bunch of people on a political march carrying swastika banners and shouting anti-Jewish slogans.
Zillian wrote: Under the First Amendment, they have a legal right to express their views.
What right-wing advocates have been arrested for peddling their right-wing ideology? If the answer is "none" then making an appeal to the first amendment is dumb.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument of the First Amendment is used often to defend the KKK and so on. The chief editor of Breitbart.com used it on Radio 4 yesterday, for instance. But it is a specious argument. The First Amendment restrains the government from preveting free speech. It has no legal or moral force against the actions of citizens.
I'm not sure I follow your point as being a 'specious argument'...
1st Amendment prevents government from denying the exercise of speech.
Charlloteville city initially denied these donkey-cave's permit to protest on city grounds... it wasn't until a judge stepped in to force the city to issue the permit.
As for the term "nazi" losing its force, I think most people can still make a distinction between the teenager called the Five Guys team "nazis" for not giving him enough free french fries, and a bunch of people on a political march carrying swastika banners and shouting anti-Jewish slogans.
It's getting blurred man... as it's a lazy retort when you don't want to have an honest debate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There seems to be a very strange logic at work here from that guy in the article.
I'm reading a book about the siege of Tobruk 1941.
Is the British & Commonwealth army as bad as the Nazis for using violence against them? After all, both side are using violence to try and achieve their goals.
There's no context from that guy.
Didn't you know? Using violence for political means is fascism! Like those fascist that fought against the Third Reich or the fascist American revolution
Yeah, I very much do think the terminology here is very important. I absolutely do not take these people at their word. I hear and see references to the Third Reich, just like I can see them trying to develop some kind of vocabulary of "European heritage." I don't buy any of it. What I actually see here is something that goes back to before there was any such thing as a Nazi, something that isn't a problem smuggled in from Europe before/during WW2. What I see is a completely American issue, going back to the colonization of North America by people who would gradually come to see themselves as "white", namely white supremacy. White supremacy is a fundamental issue of American history. The allusions to the Third Reich, in addition to being pathetic, have a clear strategic purpose: being outlandish and controversial gets attention.
I also see a strategy behind calling them "actual, literal Nazis," which they actually, literally aren't (using the actual and literal definitions of all of those words). "Nazi" is one of the absolutely worst things you can call anybody. It is so completely toxic that it can significantly undermine someone just by casual reference. You don't even have to "be" a (neo-)Nazi; you can be discredited for "defending Nazis" or even "not sufficiently condemning Nazis." This is a very powerful and threatening kind of rhetoric. If you can establish that X Group are "actual, literal Nazis" then you can start to leverage that to make other kinds of arguments, like "Bannon supports Nazis" or "Trump won't condemn Nazis" - I mean, these are not hypothetical cases, this is the rhetoric already being used out there. And in this case, we have a guy seemingly fired for pointing this out as sinister.
"If you show up in Nazi regalia you automatically lose any moral ground in the argument you are trying to make." - Yeah, I agree with this 100% and I think the vast majority of Americans also agree with this, which is why these people are not dangerous as a political movement, although white supremacists are obviously extremely dangerous in terms of committing acts of terror.
The problem here is you seem to think that unless you are a saurkraut eating nazi from the 30's you aren't really a fascist/nazi. Fascism always take different expression from country to country, German fascism looked different from Italian fascism, which in turn looked different from Spanish fascism or Japanese fascism. They all have the same core but they express it differently depending on the national context they are in, in short, American fascism is going to be based on American conditions, not the conditions in 1930's Germany.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that incitement isnt protected speech, and if a rally openly brandishing the swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans is not incitement to violence, i cant imagine what is...
Also, private businesses and individuals arent restricted by the first ammendment - the government is. You can carry a swastika flag around all you want and wont be arrested, but your employer is also allowed to take exception and fire you.
Crazyterran wrote: The Supreme Court has also ruled that incitement isnt protected speech, and if a rally openly brandishing the swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans is not incitement to violence, i cant imagine what is...
Brandishing swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans by definition is protected speech.
It takes quite a bit to be ding'ed for incitement.... for instance, this did not reach that incitement qualifier.
Also, private businesses and individuals arent restricted by the first ammendment - the government is. You can carry a swastika flag around all you want and wont be arrested, but your employer is also allowed to take exception and fire you.
I think it's pretty chilling to watch people get fired and villified because they made political arguments. If we value open, public debate then we need to make sure that people are comfortable making their point without fear of losing their jobs and being declared pariahs. That said, there are still basic practicalities that every person has to acknowledge. If you're going to make controversial political claims, don't do it while publicly affiliated with your company. Companies are extremely brand conscious, extremely scared of boycott, and odds are you're an at will employee.
We're nowhere near understanding how those two things interact
As to the ridiculous points the employee was trying to make;
The marchers in Charlottesville were nazis. Of course they were nazis. People who march with swastikas and chant 'blood and soil' are nazis. It is absurd that this nutter tried to argue otherwise, and downright depressing that some on dakka are attempting some kind of defense of the claim.
The other thing attempted by the employee is that what happened in Charlottesville should only be assessed in terms of violence. Everyone who used violence was bad, and that's that. This is ridiculous. Obviously motive matters. It doesn't excuse violence done by the other side, but it provides a very important context. Sure, antifa and other affiliated groups who went to fight were bad, but the nazis and affiliates went there to fight to further their white supremacist values - obviously that's way worse.
Crazyterran wrote: The Supreme Court has also ruled that incitement isnt protected speech, and if a rally openly brandishing the swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans is not incitement to violence, i cant imagine what is...
The phrase you're looking for is imminent lawless action. Anti-Jewish slogans are not legally considered incitement to violence unless you're actually telling people to go beat up Jews. Saying you don't like Jews, why you don't like Jews or even that you'll beat up Jews in the indeterminate future is not.
Crazyterran wrote: The Supreme Court has also ruled that incitement isnt protected speech, and if a rally openly brandishing the swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans is not incitement to violence, i cant imagine what is...
Brandishing swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans by definition is protected speech.
It takes quite a bit to be ding'ed for incitement.... for instance, this did not reach that incitement qualifier.
Also, private businesses and individuals arent restricted by the first ammendment - the government is. You can carry a swastika flag around all you want and wont be arrested, but your employer is also allowed to take exception and fire you.
Yup.
This seems to be one of the major causes of contention and lack of understanding.
How often do we see this scenario:
Person A: I don't like donuts! Ban donuts and their evil ways!
Person B: I disagree with you! Donuts are the best! Don't bad mouth donuts!
Person A: You can't say that! Your restricting my freedom of speech!
Freedom of speech is not the right to say what you wish without criticism or consequence.
Bran Dawri wrote: Then again, I'm pretty sure that Nazi is a contraction of National-Sozialist, so when he says nationalism isn't inextricably tied to nazism, he's wrong. Then again, National socialist, so technically, y'know, left. And fascist.
No. There were socialist elements to Nazism in the beginning, and that was when the party was named. There was a brand of national socialism that was socialist. It's three key figures, Ernst Rohm leader of the SA, and the Strasser brothers, were powerful at the beginning of the movement, when they got 'socialist' included in the name of the party.
But this socialist element of nazism was a weird kind of socialism. They weren't internationalist, and they still really, really hated Jews and communists. So while they argued for stuff like bank nationalisation, they were still radical right wing in a lot of ways. One of the Strasser brothers was a founding member of the Freikorps, army vets that used to attack communist uprisings and strikes - they killed thousands of communists. And that bank nationalisation - it's because they argued all the banks were owned by Jews.
The bigger point is that as the nazi party got bigger the left wing element got swamped. A lot of working class people were drawn to the socialist elements, this was particularly true in the SA, but they were a minority, and the money and industrial power Hitler allied with were staunchly conservative. The left wing element got smashed by Hitler's conservative faction in the 1926 party conference. The Strasser brothers were exiled from the party in 1930, and both attempted to start new socialist themed nazi parties that went nowhere. Eventually Otto fled the country, while Gregor was rounded up on the night of the long knives, that night he shot in the neck and left to bleed out in his jail cell. Ernst Rohm maintained a close relationship with Hitler, but eventually tensions between Rohm and the military and wealthy elites forced Hitler to pick a side - Rohm was also murdered on the Night of the Long Knives.
tldr - there were some strange kind socialist ideas in nazism when it started. Hitler murdered the gak out of them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: This seems to be one of the major causes of contention and lack of understanding.
How often do we see this scenario:
Person A: I don't like donuts! Ban donuts and their evil ways!
Person B: I disagree with you! Donuts are the best! Don't bad mouth donuts!
Person A: You can't say that! Your restricting my freedom of speech!
Freedom of speech is not the right to say what you wish without criticism or consequence.
There is another part to this, though, and one that is growing.
Person A: I don't like donuts! Ban donuts and their evil ways!
Person B: I disagree with you! Donuts are the best! Don't bad mouth donuts!
Person B then looks up the personal details of Person A, makes that person's public information available to other activists on-line, and contacts the person's employer, pressuring them to fire said individual.
Person B then says this is okay because he isn't the government, and free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
People who agree with person A learn not to make their arguments in public. Debate suffers. Resentment grows.
That isn't quite what happened in this case, the guy had his employment details there publicly stated. But it is an increasing method of attacking people in debates, and it's potential effect on debates should be concerning to everyone.
There is another part to this, though, and one that is growing.
Person A: I don't like donuts! Ban donuts and their evil ways!
Person B: I disagree with you! Donuts are the best! Don't bad mouth donuts!
Person B then looks up the personal details of Person A, makes that person's public information available to other activists on-line, and contacts the person's employer, pressuring them to fire said individual.
Person B then says this is okay because he isn't the government, and free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
People who agree with person A learn not to make their arguments in public. Debate suffers. Resentment grows.
That isn't quite what happened in this case, the guy had his employment details there publicly stated. But it is an increasing method of attacking people in debates, and it's potential effect on debates should be concerning to everyone.
The logic of liberalism breaks down completely when dealing with nazis, tho. There is no reasonable debate when dealing with people who lie to buy time until they've grown strong enough to kill you. Terror is the inevitable goal of nazism. Whether those who fail standards of racial purity should be killed or allowed to live is not something that a democratic society can afford to accept as a normal topic of debate. The entire point of Antifa directly suppressing nazis is precisely so that those who agree with the nazis fear going public, so that they fear organising and making themselves known. This is to decrease the amount of terror attacks they carry out on minorities.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also in many ways antifa and the alt-right/nazis/KKK/racists (or whatever they are) both do really bad things. Don't understand why people can't condemn antifa vandalizing things in public (like stores, trash cans, etc.) or carrying assault weapons on a march (which strikes as being about intimidation) or threatening bystanders that follow or tape them as a good or just thing to do. Don't get me wrong i think Alt-right are more to blame in that virginia incident (since they killed someone) but why can't i say antifa is bad?
You're perfectly at liberty to say that antifa is bad (and I'd agree with you, for some values of "antifa") but there's a lot of people that don't give a hoot about antifa until people start being critical of the alt-right or, in this case, nazis. Complaints about the evils of antifa are used as deflection to prevent discussion of bad elements on the right, which (rightly) pisses people off. If you'd make your own thread discussing how violence on the left is bad I suspect you'd get a lot of people agreeing with you, but when people desperately try to shoehorn it into a thread about how a far-right gakker killed people it comes across as desperately trying to protect any sort of organization or movement that is right-wing at any cost, essentially being a mirror of the complaint that the left isn't condemning antifa enough.
Look at it like this: Let's say you make a thread about the best spicy food on the planet and want people's opinion on which spicy dish is most delicious. A bunch of people start complaining that they don't like spicy food and instead start discussing tiramisu, sponge cakes and other non-spicy desserts. What is such a commentary adding to the discourse on spicy food? The sweet-teeth could just as easily have made their own discussion about sweets, but instead they screw other people's discussion up with what is essentially a form of heckler's veto.
Repeat this every time you try to discuss spicy food. Further, a discussion on the merits of sweets rarely manifests on its own but rather as a reaction to people discussing spicy foods, calling into question whether people actually care about sweets or if they just don't want people they disagree with to discuss spicy food.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Also in many ways antifa and the alt-right/nazis/KKK/racists (or whatever they are) both do really bad things. Don't understand why people can't condemn antifa vandalizing things in public (like stores, trash cans, etc.) or carrying assault weapons on a march (which strikes as being about intimidation) or threatening bystanders that follow or tape them as a good or just thing to do. Don't get me wrong i think Alt-right are more to blame in that virginia incident (since they killed someone) but why can't i say antifa is bad?
You're perfectly at liberty to say that antifa is bad (and I'd agree with you, for some values of "antifa") but there's a lot of people that don't give a hoot about antifa until people start being critical of the alt-right or, in this case, nazis. Complaints about the evils of antifa are used as deflection to prevent discussion of bad elements on the right, which (rightly) pisses people off. If you'd make your own thread discussing how violence on the left is bad I suspect you'd get a lot of people agreeing with you, but when people desperately try to shoehorn it into a thread about how a far-right gakker killed people it comes across as desperately trying to protect any sort of organization or movement that is right-wing at any cost, essentially being a mirror of the complaint that the left isn't condemning antifa enough.
I'm not sure that's what happened here though...
Saying following shouldn't be contraversial:
Nazis and their ideology are despicable human beings who should be condemned and rejected at every opportunity.
The Nazi/White Supremacist had a right to peacefully demonstrate.
Antifa are despicable human beings, whose ideology should be condemned and rejected
Antifa had a right to peacefully demonstrate.
No one should be making excuses for or defending either of these groups.
IMPORTANTLY: Defending their rights to peacefully demonstrate does NOT make you a Nazi or Antifa supporter, and any insinuation otherwise is simply toxic.
It simply makes you a First Amendment supporter. I dare anyone to reject this premise.
Both sides were engaged in violence in Charlottesville. This is unequivocally indefensible. Bringing up the fact that the "other side is worst" is beside the point.
However, an apparent Nazi rammed his car right into the protesting pedestrians, apparently purposely, killing someone.
At this point, we don't have all the facts... presumption of innocence, blah, blah, blah.... If proven guilty, I pray he gets the maximum sentence
Regardless, defending the Nazi's/Antifa's right to peacefully protest don't make you a supporter of either entity, nor does condemning the violence on both sides absolves them in anyway.
I think we have different opinions as to what constitutes a "peaceful assembly" whembly. See the discussion on the inherent violence in Nazism in the previous thread for my take on it.
Antifa are despicable human beings, whose ideology should be condemned and rejected
And this is where is all falls apart. There is no such thing as "Antifa" as a single organized group or ideology. They are generally anti fascist, anti discrimination and anti capitalist. Groups that self identify and use the label Antifa tend to be on the more extreme, direct end of the scale, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the belief that fascism and racism is wrong.
There are extreme and violent elements within this that believe the only way to change the system is to meet it with violence. This is wrong and should be condemned and rejected, but you can't condemned and rejected the overall ideology. Their ideology has a lot in common with libertarians, if you swap anti capitalist with anti regulation.
On the other hand the other side believe in the supremacy of one race, and the oppression or total destruction of all others. They should be aloud to express those views in a peaceful way. Unfortunately neither side in has protested peacefully, but that does not make both sides equivalent.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think we have different opinions as to what constitutes a "peaceful assembly" whembly. See the discussion on the inherent violence in Nazism in the previous thread for my take on it.
Peaceful assembly has a very distinct, and legal, meaning here in the states.
As long as the demonstration falls within that "Peaceful Assembly" doctrine, these despicable groups does have that freedom.
gak man, the fething Westboro Baptists jackwagons can protest freely.
Also, I updated my previous post with an example.
If we're talking about Charlotteville, I'm not sure this applies.
Had antifa NOT shown up OR were explicitly a peaceful demonstration, then your example would most definitely apply.
Antifa are despicable human beings, whose ideology should be condemned and rejected
And this is where is all falls apart. There is no such thing as "Antifa" as a single organized group or ideology. They are generally anti fascist, anti discrimination and anti capitalist. Groups that self identify and use the label Antifa tend to be on the more extreme, direct end of the scale, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the belief that fascism and racism is wrong.
There are extreme and violent elements within this that believe the only way to change the system is to meet it with violence. This is wrong and should be condemned and rejected, but you can't condemned and rejected the overall ideology. Their ideology has a lot in common with libertarians, if you swap anti capitalist with anti regulation.
On the other hand the other side believe in the supremacy of one race, and the oppression or total destruction of all others. They should be aloud to express those views in a peaceful way. Unfortunately neither side in has protested peacefully, but that does not make both sides equivalent.
I wasn't making an equivocation argument.
Just simply saying the riotings and violent clashes on both sides are bad.
Both sides were engaged in violence in Charlottesville. This is unequivocally indefensible. Bringing up the fact that the "other side is worst" is beside the point.
Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Both sides were engaged in violence in Charlottesville. This is unequivocally indefensible. Bringing up the fact that the "other side is worst" is beside the point.
Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Both sides were engaged in violence in Charlottesville. This is unequivocally indefensible. Bringing up the fact that the "other side is worst" is beside the point.
Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
No where did I argue "They are equally bad"...
Please read what I wrote.
Well you wrote that both sides were engaged in "violence" and that is "unequivocally indefensible", which I interpreted as both where equal in your eyes.
Both sides were engaged in violence in Charlottesville. This is unequivocally indefensible. Bringing up the fact that the "other side is worst" is beside the point.
*EDIT* My bad, I read "unequivocally" as a synonym for equal, rather then the definition "in a way that leaves no doubt.", I blame my inability to be born in a English speaking country
But overall, far-right extremist plots have been far more deadly than far-left plots (and Islamist plots eclipsed both) in the past 25 years, according to a breakdown of two terrorism databases by Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.
White nationalists; militia movements; anti-Muslim attackers; I.R.S. building and abortion clinic bombers; and other right-wing groups were responsible for 12 times as many fatalities and 36 times as many injuries as communists; socialists; animal rights and environmental activists; anti-white- and Black Lives Matter-inspired attackers; and other left-wing groups.
Of the nearly 1,500 individuals in a University of Maryland study of radicalization from 1948 to 2013, 43 percent espoused far-right ideologies, compared to 21 percent for the far left. Far-right individuals were more likely to commit violence against people, while those on the far left were more likely to commit property damage.
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Not for want of trying. When Antifa attacked the G20, hundreds of police were injured. They don't deserve any credit just because none of the people they've set on fire have died yet.
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Not for want of trying. When Antifa attacked the G20, hundreds of police were injured. They don't deserve any credit just because none of the people they've set on fire have died yet.
How many of the Antifa people at the G20 were at Charlottesville? Is there any official link between the two groups?
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Not for want of trying. When Antifa attacked the G20, hundreds of police were injured. They don't deserve any credit just because none of the people they've set on fire have died yet.
In my eyes, People who engage in a protest and get into scuffles with the police are still better then people who go out an actively murder civilians, but each to his own.
And if they did injure hundreds, it sounds like they had plenty of opportunity to kill if they so wished
As I said, you dont have to like or even agree with Antifa, just acknowledge that they aren't the moral equivalent as murdering Nazis.
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Not for want of trying. When Antifa attacked the G20, hundreds of police were injured. They don't deserve any credit just because none of the people they've set on fire have died yet.
In my eyes, People who engage in a protest and get into scuffles with the police are still better then people who go out an actively murder civilians, but each to his own.
And if they did injure hundreds, it sounds like they had plenty of opportunity to kill if they so wished
As I said, you dont have to like or even agree with Antifa, just acknowledge that they aren't the moral equivalent as murdering Nazis.
There is no such thing as a peaceful nazi demonstration because the explicit aim of nazism is violence towards minorities. Nazi demonstrations intend to advertise this fact so that they can gather numbers in preparation for terror.
This is aside from the fact that the nazis at Charlottesville came prepared for street battles. They want to fight to rule the streets so that no one dares oppose them while they display their might.
Nobody would think I was peaceful if I showed up in front of your house and chanted "I want to kill you", which is precisely what nazi symbols mean.
To be frank, that is true. The whole purpose of white supremacism, nazism, KKK and so on is to deny human rights, which simply can't be done democratically and inherently involves the commission of violence.
That is why there is no morale equivalency between them and Antifa, even though both of them indulged in illegal acts of violence at the rally.
(That said, it being the USA it is astonishing that there was no gunfire involved. It shows that the violence was actually very restrained, except for the car attack.)
I wonder how much of the attempt to deflect blame from one group of extremists to another is down to people being unwilling to confront an uncomfortable issue. Namely, the further you get from middle ground politics, the more undesirables are going to agree with some of what you believe.
It's totally possible to believe in right wing economics with out that meaning you are also a racist, white supremacist or anti Semitic. However, if you are right wing economically speaking, then many racists, white supremacists and anti semites are going to agree with some of your views.
That's why it's so important that all of the perfectly reasonable people on the right denounce these unpleasant extremists instead of making excuses, deflecting blame or playing down the problem. It does the right no favours to allow themselves to be associated with these people.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank, that is true. The whole purpose of white supremacism, nazism, KKK and so on is to deny human rights, which simply can't be done democratically and inherently involves the commission of violence.
That is why there is no morale equivalency between them and Antifa, even though both of them indulged in illegal acts of violence at the rally.
(That said, it being the USA it is astonishing that there was no gunfire involved. It shows that the violence was actually very restrained, except for the car attack.)
Or that everyone's opinion about how rampant gun violence is in the USA, is just wrong.
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Not for want of trying. When Antifa attacked the G20, hundreds of police were injured. They don't deserve any credit just because none of the people they've set on fire have died yet.
How many of the Antifa people at the G20 were at Charlottesville? Is there any official link between the two groups?
That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name. Organizations get judged on their entire body of work it doesn't get parceled out on an individual member basis. Antifa wants to oppose Nazis in Charlottesville and throw Molotov cocktails as the G20 and light cops on fire they carry the weight of both actions, you can't credit them for opposing Nazis and write off their attacks on police. Same thing goes for the Nazis in Charlottesville, they're not the ones that invaded Poland and murdered millions of Jews but that doesn't mean that their Nazism is good or better than the German Nazis of the 1930s-40s. That's the whole point of this incident, Reaper gets held responsible for the actions of their employees because they willfully chose to make him a valued member of their company so they catch some of the heat if people get upset by something that employee does. Reaper doesn't just hire somebody's ability to analyze spreadsheets or whatever, they hire the whole person that includes whatever skillset he brings to the workplace along with whatever memes he puts on his twitter feed. Reaper then gets to decide if its worthwhile to keep him in the company. Antifa can try to beat up Nazis and try to light cops on fire and people can decide if they want to join or support Antifa.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I wonder how much of the attempt to deflect blame from one group of extremists to another is down to people being unwilling to confront an uncomfortable issue. Namely, the further you get from middle ground politics, the more undesirables are going to agree with some of what you believe.
It's totally possible to believe in right wing economics with out that meaning you are also a racist, white supremacist or anti Semitic. However, if you are right wing economically speaking, then many racists, white supremacists and anti semites are going to agree with some of your views.
That's why it's so important that all of the perfectly reasonable people on the right denounce these unpleasant extremists instead of making excuses, deflecting blame or playing down the problem. It does the right no favours to allow themselves to be associated with these people.
The BBC wrote:Theresa May has said it is important to condemn far-right views "wherever we hear them" as she was asked about Donald Trump's response to clashes in the United States.
The PM said: "I see no equivalence between those who propound fascist views and those who oppose them."
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I wonder how much of the attempt to deflect blame from one group of extremists to another is down to people being unwilling to confront an uncomfortable issue. Namely, the further you get from middle ground politics, the more undesirables are going to agree with some of what you believe.
It's totally possible to believe in right wing economics with out that meaning you are also a racist, white supremacist or anti Semitic. However, if you are right wing economically speaking, then many racists, white supremacists and anti semites are going to agree with some of your views.
That's why it's so important that all of the perfectly reasonable people on the right denounce these unpleasant extremists instead of making excuses, deflecting blame or playing down the problem. It does the right no favours to allow themselves to be associated with these people.
I think that is the issue right there. It happens here in Germany way to much too, on both sides of the spectrum. Politicians don't seem to want to alienate voters even tough they harbour extremist views the people themselves don't agree with.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I wonder how much of the attempt to deflect blame from one group of extremists to another is down to people being unwilling to confront an uncomfortable issue. Namely, the further you get from middle ground politics, the more undesirables are going to agree with some of what you believe.
It's totally possible to believe in right wing economics with out that meaning you are also a racist, white supremacist or anti Semitic. However, if you are right wing economically speaking, then many racists, white supremacists and anti semites are going to agree with some of your views.
That's why it's so important that all of the perfectly reasonable people on the right denounce these unpleasant extremists instead of making excuses, deflecting blame or playing down the problem. It does the right no favours to allow themselves to be associated with these people.
The BBC wrote:Theresa May has said it is important to condemn far-right views "wherever we hear them" as she was asked about Donald Trump's response to clashes in the United States.
The PM said: "I see no equivalence between those who propound fascist views and those who oppose them."
I'm finding myself wholeheartedly agreeing with something Theresa May has said. I'm so shocked, I need to do lie down in a darkened room for a while.
Rosebuddy wrote: There is no such thing as a peaceful nazi demonstration because the explicit aim of nazism is violence towards minorities. Nazi demonstrations intend to advertise this fact so that they can gather numbers in preparation for terror.
This is aside from the fact that the nazis at Charlottesville came prepared for street battles. They want to fight to rule the streets so that no one dares oppose them while they display their might.
Nobody would think I was peaceful if I showed up in front of your house and chanted "I want to kill you", which is precisely what nazi symbols mean.
Nazism is just an idea. You can express an idea/ideology (regardless of how much violence in inherent to the practice of the idea/ideology) without actually committing any acts of violence therefore doing so is legal protected speech in the US. You can't punch an idea away, that's why physically assaulting people over their political speech is counter productive as well as illegal. The Nazis suffered as total a defeat as can be experienced in modern war, Germany suffered more destructive bombing campaigns than Japan, we killed millions of Germans, split their country up and executed all of their surviving leadership after trying them for crimes against humanity, it was as decisive of a defeat and repudiation of Nazism as you could hope for short of just depopulating all of Germany. Yet here we are seeing Nazism, white supremacy and nationalism/fascism finding supporters throughout the US and western Europe.
Nazis/white supremacists aren't going to achieve political power in the US in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes. It's a literal impossibility in current US society. Charlottesville was the biggest white supremacist rally in many years and it was like 500 people decked out like ridiculous evil trash knight larpers that were massively outnumbered and achieved nothing of consequence. This idea that if angry mobs of people don't beat the crap out of every Nazi in the country that the US will turn into Nazi Germany 2.0 is hyperbolic nonsense. Neo Nazis are not an existential threat to the US and we don't need to create special exemptions to our free speech laws to oppose them.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.
Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.
Prestor Jon wrote: You can express an idea/ideology (regardless of how much violence in inherent to the practice of the idea/ideology) without actually committing any acts of violence therefore doing so is legal protected speech in the US.
Only if you define "violence" narrowly enough that threats do not count. Which is a ridiculous thing to argue, given that assault (generally labeled a violent crime) includes threats and intimidation without actually physically touching the victim.
The Nazis suffered as total a defeat as can be experienced in modern war, Germany suffered more destructive bombing campaigns than Japan, we killed millions of Germans, split their country up and executed all of their surviving leadership after trying them for crimes against humanity, it was as decisive of a defeat and repudiation of Nazism as you could hope for short of just depopulating all of Germany. Yet here we are seeing Nazism, white supremacy and nationalism/fascism finding supporters throughout the US and western Europe.
That's because we decided that the job was done and stopped killing Nazis. I guarantee you that if the police declared open hunting season on Nazis you would never again see another Nazi rally or even a public statement by Nazis.
Nazis/white supremacists aren't going to achieve political power in the US in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes. It's a literal impossibility in current US society. Charlottesville was the biggest white supremacist rally in many years and it was like 500 people decked out like ridiculous evil trash knight larpers that were massively outnumbered and achieved nothing of consequence. This idea that if angry mobs of people don't beat the crap out of every Nazi in the country that the US will turn into Nazi Germany 2.0 is hyperbolic nonsense. Neo Nazis are not an existential threat to the US and we don't need to create special exemptions to our free speech laws to oppose them.
And this is where I have to disagree. Nazis and other white supremacists are not a trivial threat in the US. They might not get their wishes for genocide in the near future, but their continued existence makes it a lot easier for less-extremist white supremacists to build influence. Every time you see things like the president talking about "both sides are bad" it grants legitimacy to the white supremacist cause. And remember, there are people still alive who remember the days of open segregation/lynching/etc in the US. Don't take progress for granted when there are a lot of people who would like to see it reversed.
Now, do I think that killing Nazis is necessary? No. But I'm sure not going to lose any sleep if all 500 of the Nazis at that rally were lined up and shot.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be frank, that is true. The whole purpose of white supremacism, nazism, KKK and so on is to deny human rights, which simply can't be done democratically and inherently involves the commission of violence.
That is why there is no morale equivalency between them and Antifa, even though both of them indulged in illegal acts of violence at the rally.
(That said, it being the USA it is astonishing that there was no gunfire involved. It shows that the violence was actually very restrained, except for the car attack.)
It's got nothing to do with moral equivalency. It's great to denounce and oppose white supremacy and Nazism, everybody should. It is neither necessary nor tolerable to oppose such views with physical violence done by mobs of vigilantes. All it takes to ensure that vile ideas like Nazism and white supremacy never gain power is for civil authorities to discharge their responsibilities in a professional manner and for the vast majority of the citizenry to continue to behave with compassion and human decency. We don't need people to take it upon themselves to be heroes in their own minds and go save society by beating loudmouthed bigots with a stick. It's not difficult to work on convincing municipal or county or state officials to remove monuments or change policies, it's not difficult to nonviolently marginalize people who endorse bigotry and other bad ideas, we don't need the ego stroking street brawls that only cause harm and damage without accomplishing anything worthwhile.
One thing to keep in mind is that the white supremacists in Charlottesville wanted the counter protestors and the violence. When you publicly announce a white power rally, you will always, always get counter protestors, and some of them are going to be violent. there are simply people looking for a fight. But that's what white nationalists want: they want race war, they want armed conflict. They're not stupid, they can see demographics and shifting cultural norms, and they know they cannot win in the long run through politics alone. There's a lot of question on if they were "Nazis," which I suppose matters because while they are clearly actively trying to appear as Nazis (torchlit marches, really?), and share many of their views, the Nazi Party as we know it arose in a specific time and place. Calling somebody a "Nazi" is fine as a first order approximation, but it really breaks down on closer approximation.
Now, are they fascists? By almost any measure. They believe in racial purity and white supremacy, they are strongly opposed to communism and modern liberalism, they have little taste for democracy, and they fetishize strength and authority. Since they are clearly fascists, and also self identify as Nazis, why not call them "neo-Nazis?"
Personally, I like the term White Nationalist. While bloodless, I think it captures the nature of this movement, without dragging in too much unnecessary baggage.
Prestor Jon wrote: You can express an idea/ideology (regardless of how much violence in inherent to the practice of the idea/ideology) without actually committing any acts of violence therefore doing so is legal protected speech in the US.
Only if you define "violence" narrowly enough that threats do not count. Which is a ridiculous thing to argue, given that assault (generally labeled a violent crime) includes threats and intimidation without actually physically touching the victim.
The Nazis suffered as total a defeat as can be experienced in modern war, Germany suffered more destructive bombing campaigns than Japan, we killed millions of Germans, split their country up and executed all of their surviving leadership after trying them for crimes against humanity, it was as decisive of a defeat and repudiation of Nazism as you could hope for short of just depopulating all of Germany. Yet here we are seeing Nazism, white supremacy and nationalism/fascism finding supporters throughout the US and western Europe.
That's because we decided that the job was done and stopped killing Nazis. I guarantee you that if the police declared open hunting season on Nazis you would never again see another Nazi rally or even a public statement by Nazis.
Nazis/white supremacists aren't going to achieve political power in the US in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes. It's a literal impossibility in current US society. Charlottesville was the biggest white supremacist rally in many years and it was like 500 people decked out like ridiculous evil trash knight larpers that were massively outnumbered and achieved nothing of consequence. This idea that if angry mobs of people don't beat the crap out of every Nazi in the country that the US will turn into Nazi Germany 2.0 is hyperbolic nonsense. Neo Nazis are not an existential threat to the US and we don't need to create special exemptions to our free speech laws to oppose them.
And this is where I have to disagree. Nazis and other white supremacists are not a trivial threat in the US. They might not get their wishes for genocide in the near future, but their continued existence makes it a lot easier for less-extremist white supremacists to build influence. Every time you see things like the president talking about "both sides are bad" it grants legitimacy to the white supremacist cause. And remember, there are people still alive who remember the days of open segregation/lynching/etc in the US. Don't take progress for granted when there are a lot of people who would like to see it reversed.
Now, do I think that killing Nazis is necessary? No. But I'm sure not going to lose any sleep if all 500 of the Nazis at that rally were lined up and shot.
You can disagree with the current definitions and legal protections for free speech but its not matter of my opinion or your opinion, its the reality of current US law that things as odious as KKK rallies in public spaces are lawful protected speech. Our laws passed by legislative bodies and rulings handed down from our courts make that an objective fact, it's not my argument, its the values our society chooses to uphold. If you want it to change you can try to effect that change through the legislative process.
Are you saying that the police don't prosecute white supremacist or Nazi groups? The days of all white juries acquitting white people charged with racist crimes are long behind us and aren't coming back anytime soon and I don't think you'll find any evidence of politicians or prosecutors looking the other way and not prosecuting crimes committed by white hate groups. Even during the Congressional hearings for the passage of Federal hate crime legislation there was no evidence presented by the DoJ that showed that local and state authorities were failing to prosecute the crimes that would fall under the new "hate crime" distinction.
The number of people that can remember a time of open segregation and oppression of minorities gets smaller every day and every new generation grows up in a society without such institutionalized bigotry which all makes it much more difficult to ever bring back such policies as time passes. When my father was born we had segregated schools up until his high school was integrated. I have only known integrated schools, as have my children, it's hard to get my kids to really comprehend why we'd have segregation in the first place or what it was like. We're never going backwards because we can't just erase all the progress we've made or the knowledge we've gained. You can't take a 20 year old in the US in 2017 and remove all the knowledge, mindset and social norms they know and replace it with the knowledge, mindset and social norms of a Klansmen from the deep south from the 1950s.
After the 500 Nazis from Charlottesville are rounded up and shot is the problem solved? No more violence required, our enemies are vanquished? Or is the next step finding another -ism to oppose and more people to execute for the greater good? That kind of thing never ends with just killing the people that really deserve it, nobody ever puts that power aside, there's always more work to be done, new targets to go after. All of the organizations that show up to oppose Nazis don't only exist to oppose Nazis, if the Nazis disappeared tomorrow they wouldn't disband they would find a new enemy.
Polonius wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that the white supremacists in Charlottesville wanted the counter protestors and the violence. When you publicly announce a white power rally, you will always, always get counter protestors, and some of them are going to be violent. there are simply people looking for a fight. But that's what white nationalists want: they want race war, they want armed conflict. They're not stupid, they can see demographics and shifting cultural norms, and they know they cannot win in the long run through politics alone. There's a lot of question on if they were "Nazis," which I suppose matters because while they are clearly actively trying to appear as Nazis (torchlit marches, really?), and share many of their views, the Nazi Party as we know it arose in a specific time and place. Calling somebody a "Nazi" is fine as a first order approximation, but it really breaks down on closer approximation.
Now, are they fascists? By almost any measure. They believe in racial purity and white supremacy, they are strongly opposed to communism and modern liberalism, they have little taste for democracy, and they fetishize strength and authority. Since they are clearly fascists, and also self identify as Nazis, why not call them "neo-Nazis?"
Personally, I like the term White Nationalist. While bloodless, I think it captures the nature of this movement, without dragging in too much unnecessary baggage.
Calling them nazis works well enough because it isn't like neo-nazis should be treated differently.
The thing about calling them Nazis is, it's what people on the Left call a "dog whistle." The language here is a direct reference to WW2:
"My brother/dad/grandad knew how to deal with Nazis. We beat 'em once, we'll beat 'em again!"
Well, that was a war between nations fought partially, but certainly not even primarily, over ideology where the soldiers of the opposing belligerents used lethal violence against one another. So basically nothing at all to do with the context of protesters in 2017. But it is being evoked as, to borrow the term, incitement to violence - punch Nazis! In this very thread, line 'em up and shoot them! Have the police "declare open season" on 'em. Yikes.
Okay, what if they're "just" neo-Nazis? "We beat 'em once, we'll beat 'em again." Well, no we never needed to defeat neo-Nazis before because they have never been even close to acceptable to mainstream politics in the US. They are figures of ridicule. Now, they have always been dangerous lowlife scum, in terms of being criminal thugs. But the normal, everyday criminal justice system has taken care of that.
Next up, white supremacists. "We beat 'em once, and we'll beat 'em again." White supremacy has actually been mainstream politics in the US and in fact it was confronted and defeated politically. How? A strategy fundamentally built around non-violence. The resulting Civil Rights Movement is one of the greatest accomplishments in American history. It should not be repudiated for the sake of self-righteousness today.
If people like Spencer are correctly identified as neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the way to oppose them becomes clear. Misidentifying them as "actual, literal Nazis" is not just a casual mistake; it is a strategy to rationalize, normalize, and incite violence in the domestic political context. It plays directly into the strategy of Spencer and his allies. It discredits effective opposition of toxic ideologies. And it deteriorates the American cultural value of freedom of political speech, which is the actual basis for opposing white supremacy, as proven by history.
Can we pause for a minute and just acknowledge that neo-Nazi movement has been bolstered in America for some *mysterious reason*? This is a huge concern... for everyone...
Manchu wrote: The thing about calling them Nazis is, it's what people on the Left call a "dog whistle." The language here is a direct reference to WW2:
"My brother/dad/grandad knew how to deal with Nazis. We beat 'em once, we'll beat 'em again!"
Well, that was a war between nations fought partially, but certainly not even primarily, over ideology where the soldiers of the opposing belligerents used lethal violence against one another. So basically nothing at all to do with the context of protesters in 2017. But it is being evoked as, to borrow the term, incitement to violence - punch Nazis! In this very thread, line 'em up and shoot them! Have the police "declare open season" on 'em. Yikes.
Okay, what if they're "just" neo-Nazis? "We beat 'em once, we'll beat 'em again." Well, no we never needed to defeat neo-Nazis before because they have never been even close to acceptable to mainstream politics in the US. They are figures of ridicule. Now, they have always been dangerous lowlife scum, in terms of being criminal thugs. But the normal, everyday criminal justice system has taken care of that.
Next up, white supremacists. "We beat 'em once, and we'll beat 'em again." White supremacy has actually been mainstream politics in the US and in fact it was confronted and defeated politically. How? A strategy fundamentally built around non-violence. The resulting Civil Rights Movement is one of the greatest accomplishments in American history. It should not be repudiated for the sake of self-righteousness today.
If people like Spencer are correctly identified as neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the way to oppose them becomes clear. Misidentifying them as "actual, literal Nazis" is not just a casual mistake; it is a strategy to rationalize, normalize, and incite violence in the domestic political context. It plays directly into the strategy of Spencer and his allies. It discredits effective opposition of toxic ideologies. And it deteriorates the American cultural value of freedom of political speech, which is the actual basis for opposing white supremacy, as proven by history.
100% true add this to the fact that groups like Antifa will label anyone they don't like as nazis and your asking for trouble
The only reason the group last week was as big as it was is the left has been calling everyone alt right (even classical liberals)
So I bet many were there for other groups and the neo nazis use them to make it look like their pathetic group is bigger
Crazyterran wrote: The Supreme Court has also ruled that incitement isnt protected speech, and if a rally openly brandishing the swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans is not incitement to violence, i cant imagine what is...
Brandishing swastika and chanting anti-jewish slogans by definition is protected speech.
It takes quite a bit to be ding'ed for incitement.... for instance, this did not reach that incitement qualifier.
Also, private businesses and individuals arent restricted by the first ammendment - the government is. You can carry a swastika flag around all you want and wont be arrested, but your employer is also allowed to take exception and fire you.
Yup.
This seems to be one of the major causes of contention and lack of understanding.
How often do we see this scenario:
Person A: I don't like donuts! Ban donuts and their evil ways!
Person B: I disagree with you! Donuts are the best! Don't bad mouth donuts!
Person A: You can't say that! Your restricting my freedom of speech!
Freedom of speech is not the right to say what you wish without criticism or consequence.
.
If person A gets to, "I don't like......." Before being cut off and not allowed to continue, that's not criticism, that is denial of free speech.
Yes, exactly. If you can establish that there are "actual, literal Nazis" who must be exterminated through force then you can also start harassing other people for "supporting" them or even not sufficiently criticizing them.
Marmatag wrote: Can we pause for a minute and just acknowledge that neo-Nazi movement has been bolstered in America for some *mysterious reason*? This is a huge concern... for everyone...
The thing is has it really or is it people who have been called racist for so long that just don't give a dam
For a long time if you are a conservative you been called racist even Rinos like Mitt Romney
But then to me the College campuses seem to be over run with Communist
so it may be were getting more extremes do to echo chambers that are forming
I'm going to go out on a gander here and suspect that around 98% of people who throw around the word "nazi" probably know that Spencer & Co are not card carrying German members of the NSDAP who are somehow still alive in 2017.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not about whether we should kill nazis or the Unite The Rightists at Charlottesville.
It is not about whether violence is a crime or whether free speech is protected by the constitution.
The argument is about whether a neo-fascist extremist organisation that promotes racism is morally the same as an organisation that opposes racism.
Thing is BLM has big names prompte kill all whites or burn down white neighborhoods and no one calls it out
Antifa calls almost any conservative fascists and can and will commit violence to stop them from talking
They done a lot more harm then the wannabe nazis
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Here is an interesting article on Mother Jones about the recent history of anti-fascism in the USA.
Prestor Jon wrote: You can express an idea/ideology (regardless of how much violence in inherent to the practice of the idea/ideology) without actually committing any acts of violence therefore doing so is legal protected speech in the US.
Only if you define "violence" narrowly enough that threats do not count. Which is a ridiculous thing to argue, given that assault (generally labeled a violent crime) includes threats and intimidation without actually physically touching the victim.
The Nazis suffered as total a defeat as can be experienced in modern war, Germany suffered more destructive bombing campaigns than Japan, we killed millions of Germans, split their country up and executed all of their surviving leadership after trying them for crimes against humanity, it was as decisive of a defeat and repudiation of Nazism as you could hope for short of just depopulating all of Germany. Yet here we are seeing Nazism, white supremacy and nationalism/fascism finding supporters throughout the US and western Europe.
That's because we decided that the job was done and stopped killing Nazis. I guarantee you that if the police declared open hunting season on Nazis you would never again see another Nazi rally or even a public statement by Nazis.
Nazis/white supremacists aren't going to achieve political power in the US in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes. It's a literal impossibility in current US society. Charlottesville was the biggest white supremacist rally in many years and it was like 500 people decked out like ridiculous evil trash knight larpers that were massively outnumbered and achieved nothing of consequence. This idea that if angry mobs of people don't beat the crap out of every Nazi in the country that the US will turn into Nazi Germany 2.0 is hyperbolic nonsense. Neo Nazis are not an existential threat to the US and we don't need to create special exemptions to our free speech laws to oppose them.
And this is where I have to disagree. Nazis and other white supremacists are not a trivial threat in the US. They might not get their wishes for genocide in the near future, but their continued existence makes it a lot easier for less-extremist white supremacists to build influence. Every time you see things like the president talking about "both sides are bad" it grants legitimacy to the white supremacist cause. And remember, there are people still alive who remember the days of open segregation/lynching/etc in the US. Don't take progress for granted when there are a lot of people who would like to see it reversed.
Now, do I think that killing Nazis is necessary? No. But I'm sure not going to lose any sleep if all 500 of the Nazis at that rally were lined up and shot.
You are anti free speech so I not shocked you have no problem with political violence. The idea is let them talk and let everyone know what a fool they are and how idiotic there are ideas are and you never have to get to that point
It's easy to say "let them talk" if someone has never been on the receiving end of people calling for their death and destruction for their entire lives.
And in context of this thread, no company has any obligation to tolerate negative PR based on the speech of their employees.
Not to mention the two people stabbed on a train by a white supremacist in May, or Timothy Caughman who was killed with a sword to "send a message against interracial marriage".
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not about whether we should kill nazis or the Unite The Rightists at Charlottesville.
It is not about whether violence is a crime or whether free speech is protected by the constitution.
The argument is about whether a neo-fascist extremist organisation that promotes racism is morally the same as an organisation that opposes racism.
Thing is BLM has big names prompte kill all whites or burn down white neighborhoods and no one calls it out Antifa calls almost any conservative fascists and can and will commit violence to stop them from talking
But overall, far-right extremist plots have been far more deadly than far-left plots (and Islamist plots eclipsed both) in the past 25 years, according to a breakdown of two terrorism databases by Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.
White nationalists; militia movements; anti-Muslim attackers; I.R.S. building and abortion clinic bombers; and other right-wing groups were responsible for 12 times as many fatalities and 36 times as many injuries as communists; socialists; animal rights and environmental activists; anti-white- and Black Lives Matter-inspired attackers; and other left-wing groups.
Of the nearly 1,500 individuals in a University of Maryland study of radicalization from 1948 to 2013, 43 percent espoused far-right ideologies, compared to 21 percent for the far left. Far-right individuals were more likely to commit violence against people, while those on the far left were more likely to commit property damage.
Marmatag wrote: Can we pause for a minute and just acknowledge that neo-Nazi movement has been bolstered in America for some *mysterious reason*? This is a huge concern... for everyone...
I see people in general polarizing rapidly. I attribute that to the cause of the neo-Nazi movement, as well as most of the other extremist movements that have come up. Ideologically, the neo-Nazis are definitely the most reprehensible, but I think the reason why they've been bolstered isn't unique to just them, so I think it's wrong to ask how they got so strong. I think a certain amount of that is that all of the extremists feed off each other, becoming more extreme in reaction to the other one's extremity. It's entirely knee-jerk and reactionary, but it becomes normalized through their rationalization of their own actions, i.e. "I'm okay, you're not okay." I think the internet is also to blame, because it's allowed extremists of EVERY sort to collaborate and reinforce their own views as they see fit. They provide that rationalization to each other and solidify it via echo chambers.
So, lets tell a narrative here, and build a profile: Say I'm a neo-Nazi (Don't punch me, I'm not! But lets say I am). But that's entirely not fair, because no one just wakes up one day and decides, "Ya know, something something, poorly misconstrued notions about Hitler and stuff, something something, I'ma get a swastika tattoo." So, let's go back a few years and say I'm a white guy who grew up in the middle of no where, with off-color parents who were probably a little racist, because they could be and because that's the atmosphere of the small town that they've lived in their entire lives, that their parents lived in their entire lives. I've maybe seen a couple not-white people in real life. I'm probably not a terribly bright white guy, maybe I'm not stupid, but uneducated and not very well travelled. I have an unskilled working class job. Maybe factory/meat packing type thing. It's a good job. I live out in the middle of nowhere, and these things have been fine. But things go bad. I lose my job because they start hiring immigrants, or hell, lets not even make it about what they claim it's about. Lets say the plant closes out of mismanagement. So now I'm trying to make ends meet in my crapsack rural town that's really bereft of opportunity. I start to get angry, and I start to look for an explanation. There's a talking head on the teevee or radio that's talking about how everything's getting outsourced nowadays. Maybe talking about how "they took'er jerbs". The seed of thought is planted, and that turns from casual racism and distrust into what might be an underlying hatred of some generic mental image of what an immigrant might look like. Now at this point, I'm going to look at the timeline in two places:
50 years ago: This would have probably not turned into anything that really escaped that local area. It might have caused some violence, or it might have just resulted in a toothless old hillbilly living out his years in abject poverty. I might have a idea about a thing or two I want to do about it, but I don't have support, and I can't really talk to anyone better connected than me. I might even get drunk at the local church/bar and start running my mouth, but then someone there actually says "you can't go 'round killing folk, Jimbob." My general sentiments might not have united with others toward any sort of Nazism, but perhaps just remained a general sentiment of dislike.
Present day: The internet is accessible virtually anywhere and cheaper than cable tv. Targeted communication with anyone in the world based specifically (and even exclusively) on common interest is trivially possible even for people with a sub-average IQ. I get in touch with people who have common stories and hatred. We start to build camaraderie and reinforce each other's views. There's probably even a few better connected people using the group for their own ends that nudge people toward action. I start to think it's actually a good idea to start killing people, and we get organized to try to trigger some violence out of other people, knowing that if we go full extreme enough to provoke counter-demonstrations, it's going to cause someone from the other side to get violent at us, which gives us the final bit of rationalization we need toward being the "good guys on the defense".
I've said it before, but I think history will show that a public and easily accessible Internet was generally a bad idea.
Do you add the number of people who have been seriously injured in the US alone by Antifa they have tried to kill people
As for the woman who died I have see videos showing the car being hit with a bat before he speeds (and his defense is panic)
So I will hold off on passing judgment the same as we all should (but his past makes it likely)
Do you add the number of people who have been seriously injured in the US alone by Antifa they have tried to kill people
As for the woman who died I have see videos showing the car being hit with a bat before he speeds (and his defense is panic)
So I will hold off on passing judgment the same as we all should (but his past makes it likely)
Defending him doesn't make you much better than him.
d-usa wrote: It's easy to say "let them talk" if someone has never been on the receiving end of people calling for their death and destruction for their entire lives.
And in context of this thread, no company has any obligation to tolerate negative PR based on the speech of their employees.
I'm not sure which is a worse argument - 'calling the people chanting Nazi slogans and waving Nazi flags Nazis dilutes the meaning of the term, because this isn't Germany in the early 20th century' or 'calling people racist who aren't racist will make them turn racist out of spite, even though they totally weren't racist before'.
My cousin was once called a racist while working at a theme park, because he wouldn't let a child ride a particular ride for not meeting the height requirements and also because people who go to theme parks are terrible to the staff. Now he's a card-carrying, tiki-torch waving Nazi - no, wait, sorry, he's a regular not-racist person and felt vaguely bad about it for a while before probably forgetting the entire thing ever happened.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.
Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.
Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.
The only legitimate violence that citizens can engage in is self defense. Violently assaulting somebody simply for being a Nazi is still an illegal action, a violent crime and not a legitimate form of public discourse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not about whether we should kill nazis or the Unite The Rightists at Charlottesville.
It is not about whether violence is a crime or whether free speech is protected by the constitution.
The argument is about whether a neo-fascist extremist organisation that promotes racism is morally the same as an organisation that opposes racism.
Who is making the argument that neo fascist extremist organizations that promote racism are morally the same as an organization that simply opposes racism?
Antifa isn't a organization. It isn't even a Ideology like Nazism.
Antifa is like "right" or "left". They are a very broad tag that conglomerates very different groups inside it. Groups that don't even need to have the same ideology.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.
Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.
Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.
The only legitimate violence that citizens can engage in is self defense. Violently assaulting somebody simply for being a Nazi is still an illegal action, a violent crime and not a legitimate form of public discourse.
How does one join Antifa? A google search returns no official website of any organization calling itself Antifa, no information on how to apply, who their leadership is etc.
Antifa is not an organization but rather a moniker anybody can use to describe themselves.
Prestor Jon wrote: That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.
Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.
Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.
The only legitimate violence that citizens can engage in is self defense. Violently assaulting somebody simply for being a Nazi is still an illegal action, a violent crime and not a legitimate form of public discourse.
How does one join Antifa? A google search returns no official website of any organization calling itself Antifa, no information on how to apply, who their leadership is etc.
Antifa is not an organization but rather a moniker anybody can use to describe themselves.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.
I know this was discussed before, but I think it's important to point out that "Antifa" is a name many organizations call themselves, and almost by nature, they are less organized and connected than others, because they are not only hailing from the communist-leftist corner, but also from the anarchist corner. There's a large number of different political flows and ideals among the different subsets, and I'm pretty sure not every hot-headed, hoodie-wearing anarcho has "joined" as a "member" of a global Antifa organization.
If Nazis are lawful evil, Antifa is more like...chaotic neutral, I'd say. Less organization, less hierarchy, by nature.
Edit: For example, there is an "Antifaschistische Aktion" - Antifa - in Germany, and they actually do have a website to an extent: https://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/aam/aabo.html , but I'm pretty sure they're not speaking for every left-wing radical, communist or anarchist throwing things at right-wing extremists. From their webpage it's visible that Antifa groups seem to be mostly organized at city levels and will probably have quite a few heated discussions about larger scale operations.
Full disclaimer, I'm not a big fan of Antifa or the black block either, many friends of mine live in Hamburg and had terror-filled weekend around G20 thanks due to the violent extremists. I'm just trying to point out that "Antifa" cannot be called a global, or in many cases even a national organization under one, solid roof.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?
De-centralized organization is a strategy. In media terms, it prevents the discussion from crystalizing around specific personalities and policies. Hence this sentiment even ITT that "there is no Antifa." A co-worker told me yesterday that she thinks Antfa is a right-wing conspiracy. Creating this kind of confusion is the goal. The "alt-right" does the same.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?
Look at the term alt-right it use to mean non neocon conservative/libertarian now it's been claimed by the racist
So now they had to abandon the name to not share the blame
Now I yet to see a non violent Antifa group in the US
Manchu wrote: De-centralized organization is a strategy. In media terms, it prevents the discussion from crystalizing around specific personalities and policies. Hence this sentiment even ITT that "there is no Antifa." A co-worker told me yesterday that she thinks Antfa is a right-wing conspiracy. Creating this kind of confusion is the goal. The "alt-right" does the same.
It also means that no one leader can be targeted for the purposes of law enforcement.
Of course, it also means that the name is that much easier to be co-opted by other influences, perhaps even when the original mission statement is no longer applicable.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?
Now I yet to see a non violent Antifa group in the US
That certainly seems to undermine the entire point of an antifascist group, who's whole purpose it is to combat fascism.
Regardless, Antifa as a violent collective has a minuscule base, far smaller than the alt-right.
Manchu wrote: De-centralized organization is a strategy. In media terms, it prevents the discussion from crystalizing around specific personalities and policies. Hence this sentiment even ITT that "there is no Antifa." A co-worker told me yesterday that she thinks Antfa is a right-wing conspiracy. Creating this kind of confusion is the goal. The "alt-right" does the same.
Yes, that makes sense. And I'm inclined to believe that a few smart guys in the upper echelons are deliberately handling it like this, but on the other hand I'm also very sure there's enough idiots with a violence fetish calling themselves some kind of Antifa without giving a crap about intricate strategic politcal planning. It's probably a mix of both.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
I think your hypothetical is too convoluted. Here's a better one: David Duke joins the Republican Party and runs for office and a lot of his supporters are white supremacists and attend campaign events he holds. The Republican Party didn't invite David Duke but David Duke is free to register as a Republican and submit himself as a candidate. Is it fair to hold Republican candidates and politicians in office responsible for having David Duke in their Party? Different people, in different places, not directly associated with each other but under the same broad umbrella of the organization that doesn't implicitly have any membership requirements or policy positions that endorse white supremacists but now it does have members who are white supremacists. If the Party is going to have both David Duke and John McCain in it then whatever benefit Duke gets from being in the Party, McCain also suffers a negative for being in the same Party as Duke. McCain can't just say that he's one of the "good" Republicans and that he has no direct association with Duke so it's ludicrous to associate him with Duke or to judge the entire Republican Party based on Duke. If McCain doesn't want to be associated with Duke he can leave the Republican Party and if the Republican Party doesn't want to be associated with Duke it can change it's bylaws and policies to exclude someone like him from membership and officially condemn his positions and adopt clear policies that oppose them.
If "antifa" wants to be an loosely affiliated organization open to membership from anyone or any group then they will still be judged by the actions done by people in their name. If people in antifa only want people to behave a certain way in their name or want its members to follow certain rules, like not throwing molotovs and bricks at cops, then they need to take steps to make that a reality. If they're willing to let anyone do anything under their umbrella then they take the good, the bad and the ugly that comes with it.
Manchu wrote: The thing about calling them Nazis is, it's what people on the Left call a "dog whistle."
A dog whistle is when you say something that seems innocous or merely slightly cryptic but that the initiated know stand for something that isn't palatable to the public at large. For example, racists talk about "thugs" instead of outright using classical slurs when describing black Americans because doing the latter was firmly made unacceptable. Since using thug became so widespread people figured the dog whistle out and know what it really means.
People say "actual, literal nazis" not because a time rift has opened from the year 1940 but because the ideology and symbolism is the same. It's criminally pedantic.when someone who's walking around with swastikas and chanting about blood and soil can't be called a nazi because they are not, in fact, from 1940. This is why people argue against you and don't like you much in this thread and other threads about the same topic. Yes, sure, academically speaking we can talk about members of the NSDAP, members of contemporary white power movements that do and do not use Third Reich and Third Reich-inspired symbols and so on but the ultimate content and character of their ideology is the same. They're nazis. Actual, literal, nazis. Not some guys who were raised mildly-to-moderately racist against Asians or Latinos, but people who have adopted an ideology of the extermination of non-aryan races.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?
Look at the term alt-right it use to mean non neocon conservative/libertarian now it's been claimed by the racist
So now they had to abandon the name to not share the blame
...
That's not correct. The term alt-right was coined by that Richard Thingy bloke who last year (?) ago got famous for being a neo-nazi and getting punched in the face and it going viral on YouTube.
No-one had heard of the term before he started to use it.`
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?
Look at the term alt-right it use to mean non neocon conservative/libertarian now it's been claimed by the racist So now they had to abandon the name to not share the blame
...
That's not correct. The term alt-right was coined by that Richard Thingy bloke who last year (?) ago got famous for being a neo-nazi and getting punched in the face and it going viral on YouTube.
No-one had heard of the term before he started to use it.`
The "dog whistle" in this instance is appeal to violence. It's not okay - at least in the USA - to publicly call for the murder or maiming of one's political opponents. Violent racists often say things like, "we know how to deal with your type" - it's not an outright death threat but it's clear enough to everyone involved.
"We know how to deal with Nazis" is an explicit reference to American soldiers killing German soldiers in WW2 and the execution of German war criminals in the aftermath of WW2. Nevermind that in this conversation we aren't dealing with any soldiers, German or American, or a war or any other circumstances where there is a legal, legitimate use of violence. Violence is being normalized and advocated and incited anyhow, with this language.
Now let's come back to reality. We are dealing with white supremacists. Unlike Nazism, white supremacy actually was in power here in the US for a very long time - not invidiously or indirectly, either. White supremacy was at one time the absolute political and legal reality of life in America. And it was confronted and discredited and dismantled. How? Specifically, explicitly, directly because of non-violence and the culture of freedom of political speech and action.
Those who insist on pretending we live in a Wolfenstein video game are at best ignorant and selfish. At worst, they are complicit in the deterioration of the civic virtues we absolutely require to continue opposing white supremacy in this country as well as complicit in the dangerous radicalization and escalation of US politics.
Again, Spencer is not looking for a direct appeal to the majority of Americans. He is hoping, and he is being proven correct, that he can get liberals to advocate for violence and restriction of political speech. He is hoping that the Reapers of the world will fire the Clarks of the world. Because Americans are overwhelmingly repulsed by Nazi flags. But we are are also in a very large proportion skeptical about calls for violence and harassment on the basis of someone espousing whatever politics.
He wants to radicalize American liberal progressives and in so doing he wants to discredit American liberal progressivism. Only when you take the time to critically analyze his strategy can you then make the decision about whether or not you are going to be his accomplice.
Daedalus made a very well thought out post that lays a lot of blame at the door of the internet and social media.
I think there is some validity in what he said, but, at the same time, 70 years ago when Donald Trumps' father was arrested at a hooded KKK rally, there was no internet, and the KKK had several million members while now they are down to about 6,000.
Thus I can't blame the internet and social media alone. It's true that the USA is increasingly polarised, but the causes are deeper.
In my view, it started when the Republican Party took a decisive swing to the right under New Gringrich and the New American Century project. Why they did this I don't knwo, but it was done at a time when the US public as a whole had been growing more left-wing, and the lefty tendency continued until today we have general acceptance of gay marriage and so on.
So the Republican Party divorced itself from the mainstream of society and to maintain its grip on power had to increasingly pander to extremist views, blaming immigrants, blacks and social security mammas for the country's supposed woes, and fiddle around with issues like abortion, LGBT lavatories and the cramming of creationism into public schools.
However this succeeded. But, when in power, the Republicans managed to involve the USA in a series of failing overseas wars, presiding over eroding national infrastructure, an often sluggish economy, a series of economic shocks, the increase of inequality and decline of social mobility, and the rapid decline of international prestige and the ties of friendship of the USA with its natural overseas allies.
When in opposition the Republicans devoted themselves to frustrating whatever plans the Democrats were trying to move forwards. Paralysing government while offering no alternative. We see the end results in the pathetic failure of unpopular attempts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the nothingness they have planned over the past 7 years.
Finally in 2016, the Republicans managed to elect someone who on current records will go down in history as the worst president since the start of the republic. They did it within a two party system using FPTP and an electoral college that handed victory with a clear minority of the popular vote, and associated shenanigans such as interference by the Russian government and voting laws in various Republican controlled states designed to reduce participation by blacks, hispanics and young people.
Given this situation you can easily understand that the lefty majority feel with some justice that they have been cheated out of an election, as well as secure jobs, homes, healthcare and so on that by Republican standards are the privilege of the uppermost in the nation.
The righty minority of course are scared, neglected and nervous, because they've been taught to fear the non-white. They clearly see that in another generation whites will no longer be a majority in the USA. And the majority of them too have lost the secure jobs and so on. The difference is whom to blame.
This demographic change could be a source of enormous strength and vitality, linking the modern US to many economies and cultures in the Old World, India, Africa, the Far East and South America. but on present form it is just another reason for the bilateral division of the nation.
For me as a Brit this is very sad. The USA has since the end of WW2 been the most powerful force for what I might loosely term as "good" in the modern world. I see it being thrown over for a new word order split between the gangster oligarchy of Russia, the Hindu religious nationalism of India, the centrally controlled pseudo-capitalism of China, and the various wobbly emergent economies of Latin American and Africa.
Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.
So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?
I think your hypothetical is too convoluted. Here's a better one: David Duke joins the Republican Party and runs for office and a lot of his supporters are white supremacists and attend campaign events he holds. The Republican Party didn't invite David Duke but David Duke is free to register as a Republican and submit himself as a candidate. Is it fair to hold Republican candidates and politicians in office responsible for having David Duke in their Party? Different people, in different places, not directly associated with each other but under the same broad umbrella of the organization that doesn't implicitly have any membership requirements or policy positions that endorse white supremacists but now it does have members who are white supremacists. If the Party is going to have both David Duke and John McCain in it then whatever benefit Duke gets from being in the Party, McCain also suffers a negative for being in the same Party as Duke. McCain can't just say that he's one of the "good" Republicans and that he has no direct association with Duke so it's ludicrous to associate him with Duke or to judge the entire Republican Party based on Duke. If McCain doesn't want to be associated with Duke he can leave the Republican Party and if the Republican Party doesn't want to be associated with Duke it can change it's bylaws and policies to exclude someone like him from membership and officially condemn his positions and adopt clear policies that oppose them.
If "antifa" wants to be an loosely affiliated organization open to membership from anyone or any group then they will still be judged by the actions done by people in their name. If people in antifa only want people to behave a certain way in their name or want its members to follow certain rules, like not throwing molotovs and bricks at cops, then they need to take steps to make that a reality. If they're willing to let anyone do anything under their umbrella then they take the good, the bad and the ugly that comes with it.
The difference being, of course, that there is no official application process to joining "Antifa" because there is no central organisation. The Republican party has central organisation and could quite simply create a rule where no person representing them could ever have been a member of a organisation designated by them as a hate group, which the KKK obviously should be.
It isn't that "Antifa" is a loosely affiliated organisation open to membership from anyone or any group. Antifa is not a group at all, it is merely a descriptor of the overall objective of a large number of groups whose tactics vary wildly. Without actually identifying the individual groups involved in any action, you cannot arbitrarily assume that they are the same groups who were involved in other actions (Charlottesville groups may have never been to the G20 and vice versa). To do so would be the same as assuming a (hypothetical here) senator who opposes abortion probably took part in firebombing an abortion clinic the other week as both he and the people who firebombed the clinic oppose abortion.
Manchu wrote: The "dog whistle" in this instance is appeal to violence. It's not okay - at least in the USA - to publicly call for the murder or maiming of one's political opponents. Violent racists often say things like, "we know how to deal with your type" - it's not an outright death threat but it's clear enough to everyone involved.
...hmm how odd.
It wasn't that long ago, at political rallies in the USA, there was this bloke telling the crowd to "knock the crap out of" people with opposing views.
Even went so far as to boldly claim he'd stump up for their legal fees.
It's lucky that appeals to violence are so unsuccessful.
Otherwise next thing you know he'll be stood in front of the police encouraging them to rough up suspects.
Trump is absolutely part of the problem of radicalizing American politics and the sooner he can be completely stymied by centrists, the better. Whether this makes him a powerless president or forces him to become a more thoughtful and less divisive president, I am for either outcome.
There is nothing conclusive about Trump's dad being at a KKK rally.
Actually, it is conclusive that he was there. What is not conclusive is whether he engaged in violence.
Yeah, but was he part of the rally, or was he just passing by? There's not really any details. It could be that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the police arrested him just in case he was a suspect.
daedalus wrote: Present day: The internet is accessible virtually anywhere and cheaper than cable tv. Targeted communication with anyone in the world based specifically (and even exclusively) on common interest is trivially possible even for people with a sub-average IQ. I get in touch with people who have common stories and hatred. We start to build camaraderie and reinforce each other's views. There's probably even a few better connected people using the group for their own ends that nudge people toward action. I start to think it's actually a good idea to start killing people, and we get organized to try to trigger some violence out of other people, knowing that if we go full extreme enough to provoke counter-demonstrations, it's going to cause someone from the other side to get violent at us, which gives us the final bit of rationalization we need toward being the "good guys on the defense".
I've said it before, but I think history will show that a public and easily accessible Internet was generally a bad idea.
Are you familiar with Marshall McLuhan?
The internet has obviously allowed people of fringe views to find one another more easily, and then target others who may be like-minded. But I think there's also a good case to be made that the nature of our internet communication (especially in the case of social media) also drives us to more polarized opinions and thinking.
Under normal conditions, real life conversations don't have tight character limits, don't reward you with mass attention for expressing extreme viewpoints, and don't have a relative anonymity barrier in place. There's time and opportunity to exchange views in a more free-flowing manner and delve into complexity and nuance. And most people won't act the jagoff to your face even if they disagree with you.
The internet and social media reward all the wrong behaviors, and I think what we've been seeing are those behaviors creeping into real life, shortening our attention spans, making our thinking shallower and more prone to polarization, and just generally turning us into meaner, less pleasant people.
gorgon wrote: The internet and social media reward all the wrong behaviors
Including as here baiting someone into being careless while expressing what is at least an arguably reasonable position for the purpose of reporting back to their employer to get them fired.
Is not only America that has become more radical this years. The world has pass a very big crisis, and in times of crisis radicalism emerges like mooshrums. In America, in Europe, etc...
Personally I'm really tired of people that don't want a honest debate, they only see team blue or team red.
The internet has obviously allowed people of fringe views to find one another more easily, and then target others who may be like-minded. But I think there's also a good case to be made that the nature of our internet communication (especially in the case of social media) also drives us to more polarized opinions and thinking.
Under normal conditions, real life conversations don't have tight character limits, don't reward you with mass attention for expressing extreme viewpoints, and don't have a relative anonymity barrier in place. There's time and opportunity to exchange views in a more free-flowing manner and delve into complexity and nuance. And most people won't act the jagoff to your face even if they disagree with you.
The internet and social media reward all the wrong behaviors, and I think what we've been seeing are those behaviors creeping into real life, shortening our attention spans, making our thinking shallower and more prone to polarization, and just generally turning us into meaner, less pleasant people.
Looking him up on wikipedia, I've heard a lot of the similar ideas discussed in philosophy classes years ago, but I've somehow never heard the name before. It sounds pretty interesting to me on a personal level though. I'll have to go look for some of his books.
No. There were socialist elements to Nazism in the beginning, and that was when the party was named. There was a brand of national socialism that was socialist. It's three key figures, Ernst Rohm leader of the SA, and the Strasser brothers, were powerful at the beginning of the movement, when they got 'socialist' included in the name of the party.
But this socialist element of nazism was a weird kind of socialism. They weren't internationalist, and they still really, really hated Jews and communists. So while they argued for stuff like bank nationalisation, they were still radical right wing in a lot of ways. One of the Strasser brothers was a founding member of the Freikorps, army vets that used to attack communist uprisings and strikes - they killed thousands of communists. And that bank nationalisation - it's because they argued all the banks were owned by Jews.
The bigger point is that as the nazi party got bigger the left wing element got swamped. A lot of working class people were drawn to the socialist elements, this was particularly true in the SA, but they were a minority, and the money and industrial power Hitler allied with were staunchly conservative. The left wing element got smashed by Hitler's conservative faction in the 1926 party conference. The Strasser brothers were exiled from the party in 1930, and both attempted to start new socialist themed nazi parties that went nowhere. Eventually Otto fled the country, while Gregor was rounded up on the night of the long knives, that night he shot in the neck and left to bleed out in his jail cell. Ernst Rohm maintained a close relationship with Hitler, but eventually tensions between Rohm and the military and wealthy elites forced Hitler to pick a side - Rohm was also murdered on the Night of the Long Knives.
tldr - there were some strange kind socialist ideas in nazism when it started. Hitler murdered the gak out of them.
That was very interesting. Cheers for that . So the "socialist" part harkens back to the origins of the party and has nothing to do with what it became. Sort of suspected as much, but good to see it confirmed.
I do lean towards if it looks like a duck..., I'm calling it a duck with regards to the semantics debate. I dunno, I kinda feel like people are arguing a whole lot about nothing of much consequence.
Left-wing jackbooted thugs (antifa? w/e) are despiccable.
Nazi's (right-wing jackbooted thugs) are despiccabler.
Both sides want to shut down opposing viewpoints because they know they can't stand up to the light of reason or common decency.
Once you're in that general zone of despiccableness though, do the actual shades really matter that much anymore?
...
Is it too soon to bring up the Blues Brothers bridge scene?
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not about whether we should kill nazis or the Unite The Rightists at Charlottesville.
It is not about whether violence is a crime or whether free speech is protected by the constitution.
The argument is about whether a neo-fascist extremist organisation that promotes racism is morally the same as an organisation that opposes racism.
No one in this thread is making that argument KK.
This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.
How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.
Can we agree on that premise?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Daedalus made a very well thought out post that lays a lot of blame at the door of the internet and social media.
I think there is some validity in what he said, but, at the same time, 70 years ago when Donald Trumps' father was arrested at a hooded KKK rally, there was no internet, and the KKK had several million members while now they are down to about 6,000.
Thus I can't blame the internet and social media alone. It's true that the USA is increasingly polarised, but the causes are deeper.
In my view, it started when the Republican Party took a decisive swing to the right under New Gringrich and the New American Century project. Why they did this I don't knwo, but it was done at a time when the US public as a whole had been growing more left-wing, and the lefty tendency continued until today we have general acceptance of gay marriage and so on.
So the Republican Party divorced itself from the mainstream of society and to maintain its grip on power had to increasingly pander to extremist views, blaming immigrants, blacks and social security mammas for the country's supposed woes, and fiddle around with issues like abortion, LGBT lavatories and the cramming of creationism into public schools.
However this succeeded. But, when in power, the Republicans managed to involve the USA in a series of failing overseas wars, presiding over eroding national infrastructure, an often sluggish economy, a series of economic shocks, the increase of inequality and decline of social mobility, and the rapid decline of international prestige and the ties of friendship of the USA with its natural overseas allies.
When in opposition the Republicans devoted themselves to frustrating whatever plans the Democrats were trying to move forwards. Paralysing government while offering no alternative. We see the end results in the pathetic failure of unpopular attempts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the nothingness they have planned over the past 7 years.
Finally in 2016, the Republicans managed to elect someone who on current records will go down in history as the worst president since the start of the republic. They did it within a two party system using FPTP and an electoral college that handed victory with a clear minority of the popular vote, and associated shenanigans such as interference by the Russian government and voting laws in various Republican controlled states designed to reduce participation by blacks, hispanics and young people.
Given this situation you can easily understand that the lefty majority feel with some justice that they have been cheated out of an election, as well as secure jobs, homes, healthcare and so on that by Republican standards are the privilege of the uppermost in the nation.
The righty minority of course are scared, neglected and nervous, because they've been taught to fear the non-white. They clearly see that in another generation whites will no longer be a majority in the USA. And the majority of them too have lost the secure jobs and so on. The difference is whom to blame.
This demographic change could be a source of enormous strength and vitality, linking the modern US to many economies and cultures in the Old World, India, Africa, the Far East and South America. but on present form it is just another reason for the bilateral division of the nation.
For me as a Brit this is very sad. The USA has since the end of WW2 been the most powerful force for what I might loosely term as "good" in the modern world. I see it being thrown over for a new word order split between the gangster oligarchy of Russia, the Hindu religious nationalism of India, the centrally controlled pseudo-capitalism of China, and the various wobbly emergent economies of Latin American and Africa.
There's so much wrong here, it needs to be in a US Politics thread. This is my appeal to you and the rest of the mods to create one so that we don't bog down this thread regarding a Company firing an employee over an internet post.
Kilkrazy wrote: So the Republican Party divorced itself from the mainstream of society and to maintain its grip on power had to increasingly pander to extremist views, blaming immigrants, blacks and social security mammas for the country's supposed woes, and fiddle around with issues like abortion, LGBT lavatories and the cramming of creationism into public schools.
The Republican party has drifted right compared to the population as a whole, but fairly accurately represents the views of white Americans. It's not entirely willful ignorance when right wingers talk about how the democrats are super far left, it's because they probably live in an environment where the vast majority of their peers are white republicans. The GOP has plenty of interest groups, but white social conservatives are its bread and butter.
Manchu wrote:The "dog whistle" in this instance is appeal to violence. It's not okay - at least in the USA - to publicly call for the murder or maiming of one's political opponents. Violent racists often say things like, "we know how to deal with your type" - it's not an outright death threat but it's clear enough to everyone involved.
"We know how to deal with Nazis" is an explicit reference to American soldiers killing German soldiers in WW2 and the execution of German war criminals in the aftermath of WW2. Nevermind that in this conversation we aren't dealing with any soldiers, German or American, or a war or any other circumstances where there is a legal, legitimate use of violence. Violence is being normalized and advocated and incited anyhow, with this language.
I think you're making a very good and nuanced point. I see some of the casual acceptance of anti-fascist violence in my friends, and I'm pretty surprised.
I still think that the White Nationalists are looking for the violence as well. The riot was the best possible outcome for them, because they can go online and talk about the violent left and suppression of free speech and all the other nonsense. Antifa played completely into their hands.
I think Britain in the 1930s had the best response to homegrown fascists: mockery and casual dismissal.
I can agree that Antifas and their mode of work is one I disagree, and don't find justificable, and in general I disagree with their political ideas even if I can understand the less extreme ones. But they aren't normally as bad as this far-right white supremacist group, nazis and the terrorist with the car. No sir. They aren't in the same level, don't have they the same charge of culpability. At least from my moral viewpoint. It doesn't mean I don't want them to pay for their crimes, of course. You broke the law, you pay it.
Violence is a bad thing, but theres reasons and context, and your moral motivations for commiting violence have a weight in how bad is the fact that you are commiting violence.
From self defense violence in one extreme to violence motivated by hatred and the desire to end the life of other humans because you see them as inferiors or just because you enjoy doing it, in the other extreme.
A number of people in this thread have stated that the First Amendment only applies to the Government, and not to individuals or companies.
I'd like to point out that that isn't totally true. Freedom of speech is considered a Civil Right in the US. If you deny someone a Civil Right you could (although highly unlikely) be tried in Federal Court. This is mostly for pretty ghastly stuff, although it has been used as a political tool before.
Some states also list political parties as protected parties when it comes to employment. In addition, there are Federal labor rules that could come into play. For instance, if I wanted to start a Labor Union that had an openly racist stance and rhetoric, it would be protected. We could make our Union flag be a Swastika, and the company would be legally barred from firing members (or other workplace retaliation) for being a member or trying to recruit other members in their workforce. Also they can't fire you for portraying your Union affiliation on social media.
Galas wrote:I can agree that Antifas and their mode of work is one I disagree, and don't find justificable, and in general I disagree with their political ideas even if I can understand the less extreme ones. But they aren't normally as bad as this far-right white supremacist group, nazis and the terrorist with the car. No sir. They aren't in the same level, don't have they the same charge of culpability. At least from my moral viewpoint. It doesn't mean I don't want them to pay for their crimes, of course. You broke the law, you pay it.
Violence is a bad thing, but theres reasons and context, and your moral motivations for commiting violence have a weight in how bad is the fact that you are commiting violence.
I'm guessing the violent core of Antifa includes no shortage of anarchists, or anarcho-marxists, or other far left revolutionary types. They really do exist!
One of the great shell games that's being played in the media is conflating the moral equivalency of the means used by both sides, with the moral equivalency of the message or aims of the two sides. Even hate speech is political speech, and should able to be spoken without violence. You can make the argument that when speech veers into inciting violence, there's an aspect of self defense, but let's not make that. A mob trying to break up a political rally is simply not something that should be allowed in America, no matter what the content of the rally is. Because next time, when the rally is for something I hold dear, I don't want a mob hurting them.
That said... I think it's obvious to most people that Antifa are not the villians in this tale. They might be donkey-caves, but they're not villians. the White supremacists and are.
cuda1179 wrote:A number of people in this thread have stated that the First Amendment only applies to the Government, and not to individuals or companies.
I'd like to point out that that isn't totally true. Freedom of speech is considered a Civil Right in the US. If you deny someone a Civil Right you could (although highly unlikely) be tried in Federal Court. This is mostly for pretty ghastly stuff, although it has been used as a political tool before.
Some states also list political parties as protected parties when it comes to employment. In addition, there are Federal labor rules that could come into play. For instance, if I wanted to start a Labor Union that had an openly racist stance and rhetoric, it would be protected. We could make our Union flag be a Swastika, and the company would be legally barred from firing members (or other workplace retaliation) for being a member or trying to recruit other members in their workforce. Also they can't fire you for portraying your Union affiliation on social media.
This is sort of true. Many states do protect worker rights to off premises speech, although I'm not certain about the exceptions to that.
I'm certainly not a labor law specialist, but I'm almost positive a racially based union would violate more laws than an employer not allowing it.
Completely agree that the white supremacists were looking for violent confrontation. They showed up in their silly gear, after all, same as the Antifa scenesters.
Once read an essay on jihadi terrorism that explained the mindset is, there is this cosmic battle - "the invisible battle in the sky" between good and evil. And it is their duty to make that cosmic battle visible through acts of terror. Whether this is slamming planes into the WTC, or murdering innocent black people at a church, or even something more pathetic like violently larping a fantasy version of mid-20th-century European politics, the idea is the same: to make manifest whatever it is you believe is the really important conflict.
Of course, it is probably not the really important conflict, which explains why it is "invisible" to the rest of us. Dylann Roof killed those innocent black people because he believed it would cause a race war. Lo and behold, his "invisible battle" was actually all in his warped mind.
Spencer is playing a more complicated game. Maybe he thinks, ultimately, the real issue is the preservation of white power. But it seems that in the short term, the actual issue for him is to discredit liberal progressivism. Therefore, the conflict he wants to make manifest is between those who want to be free to say despicable things against those who want to violently repress their speech.
RE: freedom of speech
This is not just strictly a notion of hard limits on the power of the federal government. Beyond that, supporting that, infusing our entire culture and values are certain beliefs in the sanctity of free expression and the illegitimacy of suppressing it. It's not just a matter of black letter law. It is one of the main themes of public life in the US.
I mean, I went to his facebook page (where he apologized) and it did not indicate that he had been fired. Personally, I was wondering why he would apologize after being fired.
I read an article on the subject that stated that his facebook page listed Reaper as a "former employer." However, upon double checking this, I found that Reaper was listed as a "Current employer."
Whether you agree with him, think he should be fired or not, misinformation is not helpful.
But we're 7 pages in, and people don't have the facts right yet, no one will read this.
It has been pointed and discussed since the beginning of the thread that the facts are not clear, that the Daily Caller article may have jumped the gun, that Reaper was still listed as Clark's employer on FB, and so on.
cuda1179 wrote: A number of people in this thread have stated that the First Amendment only applies to the Government, and not to individuals or companies.
I'd like to point out that that isn't totally true. Freedom of speech is considered a Civil Right in the US. If you deny someone a Civil Right you could (although highly unlikely) be tried in Federal Court. This is mostly for pretty ghastly stuff, although it has been used as a political tool before.
Some states also list political parties as protected parties when it comes to employment. In addition, there are Federal labor rules that could come into play. For instance, if I wanted to start a Labor Union that had an openly racist stance and rhetoric, it would be protected. We could make our Union flag be a Swastika, and the company would be legally barred from firing members (or other workplace retaliation) for being a member or trying to recruit other members in their workforce. Also they can't fire you for portraying your Union affiliation on social media.
You have some of those things right. It depends very much on the state that you live in, as laws involving protected status vary quite a lot.
Under federal law, firing someone in reaction to their use of speech does not impede upon their first amendment rights. This happens to high profile cases with television and radio personalities quite a lot- someone says something racist, illegal, sexist, crazy or offensive, and they can be fired for it.
This is not allowed to professors who have obtained Tenure -but very few other occupations have as much protection as tenure. Tenure is important largely for research publications- it is important that researchers be free to publish their findings even if they are unpopular or controversial. On the flip side, sometimes professors do and say things that are just plain stupid without being fired.
Non-political example: There used to be a physics professor who would always ask graduate students what speed the headlights of a car moving at the speed of light would go. And he would fail them if they didn't give the Newtonian answer (2x the speed of light) even though none of the experimental data supports this.
So the Republican Party divorced itself from the mainstream of society and to maintain its grip on power had to increasingly pander to extremist views, blaming immigrants, blacks and social security mammas for the country's supposed woes, and fiddle around with issues like abortion, LGBT lavatories and the cramming of creationism into public schools.
However this succeeded. But, when in power, the Republicans managed to involve the USA in a series of failing overseas wars, presiding over eroding national infrastructure, an often sluggish economy, a series of economic shocks, the increase of inequality and decline of social mobility, and the rapid decline of international prestige and the ties of friendship of the USA with its natural overseas allies.
Finally in 2016, the Republicans managed to elect someone with a clear minority of the popular vote, and associated shenanigans
Yeah, the Republicans did pander to the right and did look for scapegoats. Let's not kid ourselves though, Democrats did the same thing in reverse. We now have situations where some of us are not allowed to have opinions in discussions because we haven't "checked our privilege".
Many of those overseas wars were backed by Democrats and Republicans alike, so laying them at Republican's feet is a bit off.
Infrastructure has been ignored by both sides and for far too long.
Republicans are not alone in alienating overseas allies. The Obama administration heavily strained our relations with Israel, and he made little effort to hide his distain for them.
Did you just call the Electoral College "shenanigans"? Hillary wasn't robbed out of a victory. It was like a 40k player that focused on killing enemy troops only to realize after the game ended that objectives actually matter. playing to the rules of an election got Trump the win. Trying to blame the system after the fact just seems like sour grapes.
Manchu wrote: But it seems that in the short term, the actual issue for him is to discredit liberal progressivism.
I think this is so completely the goal of the broader alt-right, including Trump, that it's almost hard to tell what of their hate messages are meant simply for shock value (to anger the left) and which are actually held. It's a known phenomenon that people will ascribe to beliefs they don't actually hold, if they want to signal their allegiance. For example, pollsters doubt that the many people that continue to believe Obama was born in Kenya really do, they just know that it's a way of saying that they dislike and distrust Obama, so they agree.
Our culture has spent a solid decade, if not more, using the internet to share whatever taboo material we want on a regular basis. It's not hard to imagine people wanting to show 1) that they hate liberals, and 2) that they enjoy breaking taboos. And open racism has been a pretty strong taboo in our country for a solid 30-40 years.
In many ways, this is the tip of a giant iceberg, and the rest isn't neo-nazis or fascists or anything openly scary. It's the sort of people that see themselves are completely fair, and full of bigotry, that just want to see white people on the top rung of the social ladder. It should be understood that whites live in better neighborhoods, getting better jobs, and get better treatment by the legal system. They don't see themselves as racist, they see themselves more as people that want to keep their Preferred Citizen status.
Although a lot of this issue teeters on the edge of a generalized discussion of US Politics there is a standing ban on that topic on Dakka Dakka. I realize that it is a fine line and that we are going to cross it a bit here and there as we talk about this and many other ongoing issues. But, while the ban is in effect, we cannot just go full into that topic. So please let's try to stick more particularly to these recent events of white supremacist demonstrations, the violence they cause both directly and in response, and the wider social impact. If it proves the case that we can't stay narrow then this thread will have to be locked. Please feel free to PM with any questions.
Polonius -
Very good point about the internet-driven culture of breaking taboos. There is a reason why white supremacy online is so closely associated with trolling.
cuda1179 wrote: Yeah, the Republicans did pander to the right and did look for scapegoats. Let's not kid ourselves though, Democrats did the same thing in reverse. We now have situations where some of us are not allowed to have opinions in discussions because we haven't "checked our privilege".
I think asking a person to have some insight into their own situation before sharing a public policy decision is a good thing. I do hate the term "check your privilege," because it's usually used by the sort of moderately educated partisan that every group has. For the record, I also cringe at the term "mansplain."
Republicans are not alone in alienating overseas allies. The Obama administration heavily strained our relations with Israel, and he made little effort to hide his distain for them.
Israel is a bit of a zero sum game. We have other allies in the region, and it's hard to balance working with them, or working with Israel. At the end of the day, Israel is only concerned with self protection, and we're their ace in the hole. It's not like they have a huge JV squad of allies to fall back upon, so they are absolutely an ally we can take for granted. Realpolitck, yo!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Although a lot of this issue teeters on the edge of a generalized discussion of US Politics there is a standing ban on that topic on Dakka Dakka. I realize that it is a fine line and that we are going to cross it a bit here and there as we talk about this and many other ongoing issues. But, while the ban is in effect, we cannot just go full into that topic. So please let's try to stick more particularly to these recent events of white supremacist demonstrations, the violence they cause both directly and in response, and the wider social impact. If it proves the case that we can't stay narrow then this thread will have to be locked. Please feel free to PM with any questions.
I've avoided the OT for a while, so I didn't know that there was such a ban. Feel free to delete anything I wrote that crossed the line, or I can edit it down.
It has been pointed and discussed since the beginning of the thread that the facts are not clear, that the Daily Caller article may have jumped the gun, that Reaper was still listed as Clark's employer on FB, and so on.
The Daily Caller article definitely jumped the gun- their citation of evidence was easy to double check and plainly false.
On facebook today he said,
Matthew Paul Clark wrote:"I feel I need to clear the air here....First and foremost I have not been fired."
Personally, I find this to be the best place for this to land. I don't think he said anything that merited firing, but I did think that an apology was in order. He gave an apology, and was not fired. So that's that?
That orange text was not meant for you; I edited it to clarify.
odinsgrandson -
Yeah I think that is a good outcome here. That is definitely a point in favor of a respectable civil society based on a solid balance of dignity and freedom.
cuda1179 wrote: Yeah, the Republicans did pander to the right and did look for scapegoats. Let's not kid ourselves though, Democrats did the same thing in reverse. We now have situations where some of us are not allowed to have opinions in discussions because we haven't "checked our privilege".
I think asking a person to have some insight into their own situation before sharing a public policy decision is a good thing. I do hate the term "check your privilege," because it's usually used by the sort of moderately educated partisan that every group has. For the record, I also cringe at the term "mansplain."
This very topic has actually been chapping my butt recently. In a facebook discussion about the whole Antifa/white nationalist incident a friend of mine was shot down. He basically took the stance that, he hates racists, but it is their right to have a rally, and they should be allowed to do it without violent interlopers. He was told, literally, to check his white-male privilege. Apparently a man of Jewish decent is too privileged to have an opinion when it comes to Nazis.
cuda1179 wrote: This very topic has actually been chapping my butt recently. In a facebook discussion about the whole Antifa/white nationalist incident a friend of mine was shot down. He basically took the stance that, he hates racists, but it is their right to have a rally, and they should be allowed to do it without violent interlopers. He was told, literally, to check his white-male privilege. Apparently a man of Jewish decent is too privileged to have an opinion when it comes to Nazis.
There are actually some interesting studies showing that the population in general, and young people especially, are less inclined to see democracy as a good thing, compared to something more authoritarian. I think that's one of the left wing versions of that.
I learned my First Amendment law from an ACLU litigator, so I'm lucky have learned a certain cold bloodedness in my view of the marketplace of ideas, the hecklers veto, and all that other good stuff.
Practically, content based restrictions on speech only make the slightest bit of sense if you feel comfortable always agreeing with the government on what is, and is not, acceptable to say. I certainly do not feel comfortable with that as a lefty, so I completely agree that neo-nazis can rally.
odinsgrandson wrote: [Personally, I find this to be the best place for this to land. I don't think he said anything that merited firing, but I did think that an apology was in order. He gave an apology, and was not fired. So that's that?
Yeah, looks like this topic is a bit of a moot point. I'd have settled for a clarification of his opinion, and would not have held it against him for not offering a true apology.
Violence isn't an answer
racists are stupid
people on both sides did do wrong, some worse than others.
one person in particular took things way OTT, and is a murdering pig.
Galas wrote:I can agree that Antifas and their mode of work is one I disagree, and don't find justificable, and in general I disagree with their political ideas even if I can understand the less extreme ones. But they aren't normally as bad as this far-right white supremacist group, nazis and the terrorist with the car. No sir. They aren't in the same level, don't have they the same charge of culpability. At least from my moral viewpoint. It doesn't mean I don't want them to pay for their crimes, of course. You broke the law, you pay it.
Violence is a bad thing, but theres reasons and context, and your moral motivations for commiting violence have a weight in how bad is the fact that you are commiting violence.
I'm guessing the violent core of Antifa includes no shortage of anarchists, or anarcho-marxists, or other far left revolutionary types. They really do exist!
One of the great shell games that's being played in the media is conflating the moral equivalency of the means used by both sides, with the moral equivalency of the message or aims of the two sides. Even hate speech is political speech, and should able to be spoken without violence. You can make the argument that when speech veers into inciting violence, there's an aspect of self defense, but let's not make that. A mob trying to break up a political rally is simply not something that should be allowed in America, no matter what the content of the rally is. Because next time, when the rally is for something I hold dear, I don't want a mob hurting them.
That said... I think it's obvious to most people that Antifa are not the villians in this tale. They might be donkey-caves, but they're not villians. the White supremacists and are.
cuda1179 wrote:A number of people in this thread have stated that the First Amendment only applies to the Government, and not to individuals or companies.
I'd like to point out that that isn't totally true. Freedom of speech is considered a Civil Right in the US. If you deny someone a Civil Right you could (although highly unlikely) be tried in Federal Court. This is mostly for pretty ghastly stuff, although it has been used as a political tool before.
Some states also list political parties as protected parties when it comes to employment. In addition, there are Federal labor rules that could come into play. For instance, if I wanted to start a Labor Union that had an openly racist stance and rhetoric, it would be protected. We could make our Union flag be a Swastika, and the company would be legally barred from firing members (or other workplace retaliation) for being a member or trying to recruit other members in their workforce. Also they can't fire you for portraying your Union affiliation on social media.
This is sort of true. Many states do protect worker rights to off premises speech, although I'm not certain about the exceptions to that.
I'm certainly not a labor law specialist, but I'm almost positive a racially based union would violate more laws than an employer not allowing it.
I guess whoever told your friend to "check his white male privilege" couldn't tell that your friend was Jewish. But I mean, should that matter? I guess there are two ways that you could go there. If you are male and white, or at least I guess, er, passably white, then you enjoy privilege regardless of whatever else about you might be underpriviledged? Or does being, for example, Jewish counteract your privileged status of being male and white?
OK so I hope its apparent I think this all dumb. Counting up positive and negative modifiers for your character attributes ... life is not a some RPG! The language of "privilege" is a metaphor that has revealed some interesting points but it is basically now weaponized. It's just a "shut up" button. Notice how many of these strategies are aimed at silencing people? It's not a coincidence. Taking control of what can and can't be said is pretty powerful in a mass media context.
Again, that's why these white supremacists are waiving swastika flags. Doing so is a big "feth you" to the people who say, you can't waive a swastika flag around! Well they did it. That's what this fight is about, at least at one (very important) level.
Naturally, the response is naming and shaming. This is a pretty good strategy.
This very topic has actually been chapping my butt recently. In a facebook discussion about the whole Antifa/white nationalist incident a friend of mine was shot down. He basically took the stance that, he hates racists, but it is their right to have a rally, and they should be allowed to do it without violent interlopers. He was told, literally, to check his white-male privilege. Apparently a man of Jewish decent is too privileged to have an opinion when it comes to Nazis.
I do agree that anyone should be allowed to rally- and that includes people whose ideas I think are deplorable (I used to live in Louisiana, so it was more KKK than Nazi that I'm familiar with).
Clearly there are limits, and inciting people to violent action is not ok.
So far as I know, the US law is nuanced enough about these things, although enforcement will always vary.
OK so I hope its apparent I think this all dumb. Counting up positive and negative modifiers for your character attributes ... life is not a some RPG! The language of "privilege" is a metaphor that has revealed some interesting points but it is basically now weaponized. It's just a "shut up" button. Notice how many of these strategies are aimed at silencing people? It's not a coincidence. Taking control of what can and can't be said is pretty powerful in a mass media context.
Based upon the few conversations I've had with people who used the "p" word, I always assumed it was a general acknowledgement that they had no rebuttal and were conceding the point.
It's really a poorly concealed ad hominem, if anything. If you cannot counter whatever point someone is making regardless of their skin color or ascribed level of "privilege", then you're not on as solid of ground as you like to pretend you are.
Polonius wrote: My reaction is always to say "I've checked my privilege, and it's awesome!"
Most people don't really know how to respond to that.
Although sometimes I'll switch to "Upper Middle class white cis male: Five stars, would privilege again."
Yup... I've done some variations of that to great effect.
I've even upped the derp to ELEVENTY!11! by flinging back they should check their "hearing privilege" that as a deaf guy, they don't understand my world. (said in obvious tongue-in-cheek).
The courts will generally bend over backwards to allow political speech. Even advocating genocide is political speech.
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
I see how the concept of privilege can reveal to people who might not otherwise notice how personal characteristics may affect your experience in life. But I often see it deployed not as a part of trying to explain something but instead as a way to discredit and silence someone. On top of that, the privilege concept as a teaching tool has some effectiveness for some people but not for others. I think white middle class people find it more acceptable to view their lives as privileged than white lower class people, who often wonder where exactly their privilege has been. So again, if the goal is to explain something to people in good faith, then you are going to have to reach for different tools for different people. But if the goal is just to smash somebody, I guess "privilege" or a bike lock, or whatever, will do.
OK so I hope its apparent I think this all dumb. Counting up positive and negative modifiers for your character attributes ... life is not a some RPG! The language of "privilege" is a metaphor that has revealed some interesting points but it is basically now weaponized. It's just a "shut up" button. Notice how many of these strategies are aimed at silencing people? It's not a coincidence. Taking control of what can and can't be said is pretty powerful in a mass media context.
Based upon the few conversations I've had with people who used the "p" word, I always assumed it was a general acknowledgement that they had no rebuttal and were conceding the point.
It's really a poorly concealed ad hominem, if anything. If you cannot counter whatever point someone is making regardless of their skin color or ascribed level of "privilege", then you're not on as solid of ground as you like to pretend you are.
It's not strictly an ad hominem. It's a widely misused rhetorical shortcut, which is, as Manchu said, essentially weaponized.
The classic example of where the concept has some validity would be a debate about food stamps. When person A argues that food stamps reward laziness, polinting out that he's worked hard and has never needed help, the odds are that the Person A has no really understood where he started on the socio-economic ladder, what benefits he had to avoid the need for benefits, or even what benefits he has actually gotten. A person who has worked hard their whole life, but had parental support in terms of a stable household, maybe some business connections, and out of school education is going to have a sizable advantage over another person, working equally hard, growing up with a single mother working full time that has no means to provide the basics, much less education or connections. Of course, that's a long, difficutl thing to say, and so people respond with "check your privilege."
The other thing to be aware of, and this is an unfair stereotype, but one I've definitely seen, is that you will see people making just terrible argument, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and simply thrashing about. Finally, somebody says ""check your privilege" or calls them racist, and they triumphantly declare victory over the foul SJW.
The people I know on social media that talk the most about facts, logic, and reason are the people that are most consistently immune to it in any sort of discussion.
I guess whoever told your friend to "check his white male privilege" couldn't tell that your friend was Jewish. But I mean, should that matter? I guess there are two ways that you could go there. If you are male and white, or at least I guess, er, passably white, then you enjoy privilege regardless of whatever else about you might be underpriviledged? Or does being, for example, Jewish counteract your privileged status of being male and white?
OK so I hope its apparent I think this all dumb. Counting up positive and negative modifiers for your character attributes ... life is not a some RPG! The language of "privilege" is a metaphor that has revealed some interesting points but it is basically now weaponized. It's just a "shut up" button.
After listening to a podcast by James Goldberg, I'm convinced that a lot of this stems from guilt.
As a society, the collective "we" are responsible for a lot of bad things that have happened. A lot of oppression over the years. We don't want to bear the burden of all of the collective guilt that humans have in the past and now continue to commit- even though we benefit from it.
So we take these past oppressors and we put qualifiers on them. They were white, rich, cis male, straight, etc. These monikers are to distance ourselves from feeling that guilt- it becomes associated with the "other."
This naturally goes on with both sides- the people who cannot escape the 'oppressor' monikers are likewise trying to alleviate themselves of the guilt of the evils that they do benefit from.
The concept of privilege is something that I think we can all agree on. Some people are born with advantages that others lack (be it wealth, opportunities or having a face people trust). Checking ourselves for privileged ideas is a useful introspection that can be very helpful for personal betterment.
I think there are times when it is appropriate to tell someone to look inward and 'check their privilege.' But let's be a bit fair- when you're the one feeling oppressed, and other people are telling you that you're wrong to feel that way, you probably want to scream. It makes it hard to have polite conversation.
And when you put that on the internet, all emotion gets turned up to 100.
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.
It's not strictly an ad hominem. It's a widely misused rhetorical shortcut, which is, as Manchu said, essentially weaponized.
The classic example of where the concept has some validity would be a debate about food stamps. When person A argues that food stamps reward laziness, polinting out that he's worked hard and has never needed help, the odds are that the Person A has no really understood where he started on the socio-economic ladder, what benefits he had to avoid the need for benefits, or even what benefits he has actually gotten. A person who has worked hard their whole life, but had parental support in terms of a stable household, maybe some business connections, and out of school education is going to have a sizable advantage over another person, working equally hard, growing up with a single mother working full time that has no means to provide the basics, much less education or connections. Of course, that's a long, difficutl thing to say, and so people respond with "check your privilege."
The other thing to be aware of, and this is an unfair stereotype, but one I've definitely seen, is that you will see people making just terrible argument, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and simply thrashing about. Finally, somebody says ""check your privilege" or calls them racist, and they triumphantly declare victory over the foul SJW.
The people I know on social media that talk the most about facts, logic, and reason are the people that are most consistently immune to it in any sort of discussion.
That's fair to say. I didn't mean to suggest that all uses of the term were an ad hominem automatically, though I suppose that is what I actually said. I guess I was trying to suggest that the particular use of it as a means of shutting up dialogue as discussed was somewhat of an ad hominem, as it's addressing the particular person's racial background and the luxuries assumed to be possessed of someone thereof, rather than addressing their actual argument.
I'm fully willing to concede that there are situations where it's an appropriate response, but the cases I've seen it personally used more often seem like the last refuge of argument rather than "your argument is literally made from the point of view of someone who cannot conceive of a human in that position."
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.
But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.
But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.
Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.
Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.
But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.
Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.
Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.
But then what is the definition of imminent? Does that mean you could post letters to people threatening to kill them and still have it protected because the threat isn't imminent due to the travel time of postal mail?
Luke_Prowler wrote: So something is only assault if it's said to their face.
Gotcha
That's not what he said.
But when combined with his statement he said before that, it is what he's saying. Someone saying they should kill X is Protected Speech, and only when X is specific to someone who's in a near vicinity and saying the should kill at that point in time does it no longer count as Protected Speech. There for, it's only possible for assault to stick if the person being thretened was there.
If that, really. Assault seems like one of those crimes that's hard to enforce, and when attempted to be enforced is considered petty for doing so.
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.
But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.
Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.
Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.
But then what is the definition of imminent? Does that mean you could post letters to people threatening to kill them and still have it protected because the threat isn't imminent due to the travel time of postal mail?
It's imminent when it's specific. Here's a good breakdown, but here's the key piece:
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.
"If you vote me, I'll kill personally all the black people!" is protected but "Ey, kill those black guys over there!" isn't. Wheres the line for something to be unreasonable and unvelieblable? Genocide is pretty reasonable and possible. We have commited it many times! Trust me, I'm spanish, I know about that. Just ask the Aztecs.
What the feth is even the point of "incitement" as an exception to freedom of speech if someone would need to go out of their way to do it? It's the same thing with the "Fighting Words" exception as well
It keeps the concept of assault, a common law tort and crime, from being protected. Basically, you cannot threaten to beat somebody up, or murder them. that's not free speech.
But you can threaten to murder entire races and groups of people? Which is what advocating genocide is.
Seems there is a bit of a disconnect there.
Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threat need to be imminent to lose the free speech protection.
But then what is the definition of imminent? Does that mean you could post letters to people threatening to kill them and still have it protected because the threat isn't imminent due to the travel time of postal mail?
It's imminent when it's specific. Here's a good breakdown, but here's the key piece:
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.
Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
Those chants probably don't amount to violent threats as far as the case law is concerned, and that's before we get to whether they are imminent threats.
TBH I am not even sure what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean, one way or the other.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
So... this came up my twittah feed that I think is appropriate:
I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.
To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)
The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.
The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988).
Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.”
For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.
Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else). Perhaps some statements of the “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” variety are deliberate attempts to call for such an exception, though my sense is that they are usually (incorrect) claims that the exception already exists.
I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law.
But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice.
For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category.
Sounds like the author needs to read up on McCarthy and HUAC.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?
I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.
Well, first, McCarthyism is generally understood to be synonymous with abuse of government and oppression. But, second, and more technically germane, the stated function of these congressional inquiries was not to narrow free speech protections (although they undermined the cultural value of free speech and likely had a chilling effect on free speech) but rather to uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying. These inquiries go on to this very day, for example as against the alleged connections between President Trump supporters and the Russian government.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?
I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.
Yes. Just like if you put a bunch of guys in a KKK uniform yelling "Kill those n***rs!" around a church or building full of black people.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?
I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.
Sure, I'd argue they'd reasonably be justified in feeling imminently threatened in such a situation and that a protest march that starts chanting "death to X", no matter what X is, should be shut down. Death threats are not okay. If left-wing protestors showed up and started chanting "Kill the fascists!" I'd expect police to step in too.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?
How about instead we go back to the Bundy Brigade and their militia twerps aiming rifles at Bureau of Land Management officials?
Would the Bureau folks have had a reasonable cause to open fire?
We both know what your argument's going to be, so don't bother. We played through that charade before.
I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.
And I feel like you and several others in this thread have been wildly disingenuous when it comes to the actions of these white nationalist twits and the people who protested them. It keeps coming down to "Soandso did bad things too!" and that nonsense that kept coming up about the terminology of Nazis and crap like that.
You're right that it would have been an entirely different discussion on this forum, as it would be the people on the opposite side of the stance you're taking right now telling you exactly what has been said repeatedly over Antifa--it's a decentralized loosely titled bunch of people who have come to roughly similar beliefs/actions for whatever reason.
But enough of trying to pretend that it's the same thing as white nationalist groups, which are in fact highly centralized within the group itself and the different groups do communicate amongst each other. For Christ's sake we had a whole big thing during the campaign when one of Trump's advisors(Miller) was photographed flashing a white supremacist 'gang sign' at a press conference!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Well, first, McCarthyism is generally understood to be synonymous with abuse of government and oppression. But, second, and more technically germane, the stated function of these congressional inquiries was not to narrow free speech protections (although they undermined the cultural value of free speech and likely had a chilling effect on free speech) but rather to uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying. These inquiries go on to this very day, for example as against the alleged connections between President Trump supporters and the Russian government.
Strictly speaking, the purpose of McCarthyism was not to "uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying" but rather it was to allow for "patriotic Americans to showcase their virtues". McCarthy's witch hunt went after people on pretty much anything and everything if the individual had already been denounced. There's a literal reason why it was called a 'WITCH HUNT'--using a term that evoked the methods that the Catholics used to prosecute women as witches.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which is the thing I honestly cannot understand. Let's pretend I'm Jewish and a bunch of people with guns of people with Swastika flags march past yelling "Blut und Boden" and "Jews will not replace us!", would it not be friggin' reasonable to feel that the threat posed by those people is credible and imminent?
So... lets go back to that BLM march in New York where they were chanting "death to cops". Would it have been reasonable for police to feel a threat was posed by those people and that it was credible and imminent?
I'm just asking, because I feel that if that situation was in place, and a police officer had reacted to what he felt was a credible and imminent threat of danger, this would be an entirely different discussion on this forum.
Except BLM did no such thing. You were lied to and you fell for it.
A good rule of thumb for this sort of behavior would be that there needs to a reasonable fear that the speaker and their audience would act on the speech, either immediately, or with a plan. So, again, when a speaker addresses a crowd of a 100 people, and says, "Let's kill all of the Muggles," that's not a reasonable threat. There's no way they could.
A crowd of 100 people, near a gathering place full of maybe two dozen muggles, are a reasonable threat. If the speaker said "we should go there and kill all of those muggles," the cops could (and probably should) step in, because that's a very imminent threat.
Genocide is also not a federal or state crime. I know this sounds pedantic, but considering how broadly it's defined, that's probably a good thing we let the Hague sort that one out.
It's tough for most people, even Americans, to understand how seriously we take the constitution in our legal system. My snarky constitutional law professor taught extensively in Italy, and he used to joke that in Europe, people have many more rights, but they only have the rights the government gives them. In the US, the government only has the rights that we give it. In practice it blurs, but it's an important part of American exceptionalism, and I think it's one of the reasons we've been able to hold our country together when so many other revolutionary republics imploded.
Let me just clarify that the point at which law enforcement officers are justified in deploying lethal force is completely off-topic here.
Kanluwen, as usual I don't know what you are on about. I mean, read what you quoted. It literally says McCarthyism is synonymous with abuse and oppression.
Manchu wrote: Let me just clarify that the point at which law enforcement officers are justified in deploying lethal force is completely off-topic here.
So is what Black Lives Matter did or didn't do--yet I don't see you talking about how people talking about that is "off-topic here".
Kanluwen, as usual I don't know what you are on about. I mean, read what you quoted. It literally says McCarthyism is synonymous with abuse and oppression.
I'd suggest you read what you posted then:
Manchu wrote:Well, first, McCarthyism is generally understood to be synonymous with abuse of government and oppression. But, second, and more technically germane, the stated function of these congressional inquiries was not to narrow free speech protections (although they undermined the cultural value of free speech and likely had a chilling effect on free speech) but rather to uncover and root out criminally treasonous acts such as spying. These inquiries go on to this very day, for example as against the alleged connections between President Trump supporters and the Russian government.
I take umbrage with you trying to portray the investigation into Russian interference and collusion as a "witch hunt" by even placing it in the same breath with McCarthyism. A witch hunt implies that there is no logic, only zeal. Pay attention to the news sometime, you'd have seen quite a bit of logic being used(see the raid on Paul Manafort's house in July for example) as to why Trump and his supporters are being investigated.
All honesty Manchu, I feel like you've latched onto McCarthyism the same way that Trump did--the idea that he's being "unfairly targeted" and he wanted a term that deflected the suspicions on him while continuing to make him seem like the victim of the Democrats' political machinations. McCarthyism wasn't about targeted investigations or the preponderance of evidence--it was about people's "feelings" and what they "heard" about someone, not what actually could be proven.
That is why McCarthy's Red Scare was referred to as a "witch hunt". Because anyone could denounce anyone over anything and as long as enough people started denouncing someone pr someone with clout believed the denouncement...all of a sudden they're an enemy of the state.
There is a congressional inquiriy into the alleged Trump/Russia connection. Trump has denounced it as a witch hunt. It is certainly political. At the same time, there is enough smoke here for the American people to demand a conclusion about whether there is also fire. But my actual point above was, such inquries are not relevant to the conversation about free speech we had been having, because they investigate crimes. Another poster brought them up, mistakenly, as something to do with legal limits on free speech. Even so, I also noted that McCarthyism and the parnoia associated with the HUAC and similar inquiries do deterioriate free speech culture and have a chilling effect on free speech.
Kanluwen, you are going off half-cocked and your posts are all over the place, with very little grasp of what you propose to criticize.
At this point, I'm now realizing we aren't going to have a productive discussion because you're more interested in (like in the Charlottesville thread that YOU got locked) trying to showcase your knowledge of historical minutiae than to actually engage with someone else.
ulgurstasta wrote: Is it beside the point when one side is actually murdering people?
You dont have to love antifa (god knows I dont), but you cant play the "They are equally bad" card when one side is actually killing people
Not for want of trying. When Antifa attacked the G20, hundreds of police were injured. They don't deserve any credit just because none of the people they've set on fire have died yet.
In my eyes, People who engage in a protest and get into scuffles with the police are still better then people who go out an actively murder civilians, but each to his own.
And if they did injure hundreds, it sounds like they had plenty of opportunity to kill if they so wished
As I said, you dont have to like or even agree with Antifa, just acknowledge that they aren't the moral equivalent as murdering Nazis.
Have you seen what these %$@#$%@#^@%&^@%^_&@(_^(_@$%^( are doing to the icons of our beloved Wings and Lions?!?!
Manchu wrote: In fact, I did not lock that thread. But that's another good example of your off-base attacks.
I did not say you locked that thread, but rather that you got it locked. Words and their intentions matter, right? After all the guys flashing white power signs, shouting "Blood and Soil" and other various neo-Nazi slogans aren't circa 1930s Germany...so they can't be Nazis!
You were a major contributor to the off-topic discussion that evolved within that thread, much like you have been here and in similar threads when it comes to US political matters. You're more than welcome to assume that my "attacks" are off-base, but the base that I'm laying down is that you have been a very willing participant to these threads being wildly off-topic in many cases when it is a subject you disagree with--and I'm now starting to wonder if that is intentional.
Kanluwen wrote:A witch hunt implies that there is no logic, only zeal.
I wonder if said witch hunters thought this too, or if they genuinely thought their arguments logical.
To be fair, that's why they referred to themselves as Inquisitors or referred to themselves as judges, etc.
They would go out of their way to make themselves seem to be the rational, reasonable, and learned party despite the fact that they were trying and executing people for magical powers or collusion with a demonic power.
But that's going to genuinely be all from me on this topic. You guys can have fun with this discussion I guess.
In a discussion about political demonstrations, the motivation and strategies of the protesters are squarely on-topic. If you want to chat with me about the rules of the site or moderation, feel free to take it up in a PM.
daedalus -
There is a logic to most things. In the case of the actual witch trials, there was legal reasoning. The same can be said of the metaphorical witch hunts we've seen in the US. Oftentimes, the rationale is defending national security. It is usually true to the extent of reasonable plausiblity. The US government was actually infiltrated by Soviet spies in the mid-20th century. The resulting paranoia was no doubt taken full advantage of by ambitious if not noble politicians.
There are some parallels here. In this case, ambitious people are hoping to capitalize on fear and resentment. But of course, that doesn't mean white supremacy is a phantom problem. Nor is the deteriortaion of an American consensus on issues like free speech a phantom problem.Neither problem, however, warrants allowing ourselves to be radicalized.
In a discussion about political demonstrations, the motivation and strategies of the protesters are squarely on-topic. If you want to chat with me about the rules of the site or moderation, feel free to take it up in a PM.
that's a great point.
On the one hand you had the klan, confederate and Nazi's forming a mob with torches and probably a few pitchforks, On the other were people against racism and fascism.
the Nazi's killed a woman and injured 20 others. the other side didn't.
clearly this was a simple case of good vs evil. I shouldn't have to say it, but the Nazi's are the evil side. it's amazing how many are siding and defending Nazi's now and trying to paint those who are for equality as being worse than Nazi's. If anyone ever finds themselves at a rally or a protest and the Nazi's show up next to you, it's a safe bet you're on the wrong side. As the confederates allowed the Nazi's to remain and marched with them, they can easily be labeled as Nazi sympathisers.
I haven't seen people defending Nazis ITT. Or neo-Nazis. Or white supremacists. (Quite thereverse.) Similarly, no one has claimed that being in favor of equality is worse than being a Nazi.
Manchu wrote: I haven't seen people defending Nazis ITT. Or neo-Nazis. Or white supremacists. (Quite thereverse.) Similarly, no one has claimed that being in favor of equality is worse than being a Nazi.
The hard part is defending the rights of people most of us would rather just see "go away". The "nazis" (just gonna call em all that) had a permit, they had their protest, they are allowed to do that. No matter how vile or vulgar they are, attacking them is not legal. I am surprised (and glad) that the carnage was not worse. There were a lot of armed folks there.
Manchu wrote: Like I said, if Richard Spencer can get the ACLU to have to step up and defend the legal rights of white supremacists, that's a victory for him.
I have always felt these folks are best ignored to wither on the vine. No press, no response, let a handful of rednecks be redneck. These movements belong on the fringes at best. The US is certainly not the weak and tottering Weimar Republic, these people are in no way able to take over.
whembly wrote: I'm not sure that's what happened here though...
Saying following shouldn't be contraversial:
Nazis and their ideology are despicable human beings who should be condemned and rejected at every opportunity.
(snip)
Antifa are despicable human beings, whose ideology should be condemned and rejected
Nope, feth that. Antifa and the Nazis are not morally equivalent.
It is possible, in fact it is necessary, to accept that antifa do bad things and are not a positive force, without pretending they're equal to the Nazis.
I agree with your other point in the thread that both groups have the right to peacefully assemble, but your attempt to paint both Nazis and the groups that oppose Nazis as morally equivalent is really wrong. Dangerously wrong.
Manchu wrote: Like I said, if Richard Spencer can get the ACLU to have to step up and defend the legal rights of white supremacists, that's a victory for him.
I have always felt these folks are best ignored to wither on the vine. No press, no response, let a handful of rednecks be redneck. These movements belong on the fringes at best. The US is certainly not the weak and tottering Weimar Republic, these people are in no way able to take over.
On the other hand, it emboldens bigots and normalizes their behavior. For the minorities they target, this is a big problem because it often does lead to violence, violence that sympathetic authority figures are slow to quash. This was a big problem in school, and as a substitute teacher I was surprised how acceptable kids found it to use the term "Jew" as an insult.
Manchu wrote: I haven't seen people defending Nazis ITT. Or neo-Nazis. Or white supremacists. (Quite thereverse.) Similarly, no one has claimed that being in favor of equality is worse than being a Nazi.
Trump claimed that through his entire press conference. where he merely said "Nazi's are bad" then in the same sentence went on to invent the "alt-left" and implied they started the entire riot by charging the Nazi's with sticks. Trump of course leaving out all the weapons the Nazi's brought.
Even mitt rmoney called trump on it
"No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes."
Rosebuddy wrote: The logic of liberalism breaks down completely when dealing with nazis, tho.
If liberalism can't survive any form of illiberal thought, then liberalism doesn't actually exist. Obviously that's a crock. The whole point of liberalism is that if all ideas are freely and openly debated, the vast majority of people will choose values that are tolerant and positive.
If we don't believe that, if we think there are some ideas that need to be shut with violence, then we have just abandoned liberalism in that one instance, we've abandoned it entirely.
Manchu wrote: Like I said, if Richard Spencer can get the ACLU to have to step up and defend the legal rights of white supremacists, that's a victory for him.
I have always felt these folks are best ignored to wither on the vine. No press, no response, let a handful of rednecks be redneck. These movements belong on the fringes at best. The US is certainly not the weak and tottering Weimar Republic, these people are in no way able to take over.
On the other hand, it emboldens bigots and normalizes their behavior. For the minorities they target, this is a big problem because it often does lead to violence, violence that sympathetic authority figures are slow to quash. This was a big problem in school, and as a substitute teacher I was surprised how acceptable kids found it to use the term "Jew" as an insult.
Their behavior is already sadly normal in our country, it wont change that. Their violence must be punished severely and if those in authority cant or wont, they must be replaced with those who will. We cant legislate away A$$---- but we can deprive them of the publicity and attention that they crave.
You are right, fascism poses no actual political threat to the US system. The rhetoric has gone overboard. But if this past weekend should have any takeaway, it's that among white supremacists are dangerous terrorists. Fields's responsibility for Heyer's death and many others' injuries should remind us that radicalization is a real threat to our society.
sebster -
White supremacy is unquestionably worse than ___. What? What ideology goes in that blank. Antifa stands for ... it's hard to say, and I think that is the result of happenstance in part (there are certainly a lot of people motivated for personal reasons, including self-deluded radicalization) but I think it is also the result of a political strategy to prevent them from being pinned down.
Now, white supremacy on the other hand is a known evil. And it is one of the greatest evils plaguing the US, although it has been in its most robust forms defeated. Nevertheless, it still exists and not just in radicalized, overtly violent forms. So it is hard to imagine that whatever goes in the blank above can be worse.
So now we come back to that blank and why it is so powerful. It is a space for centrists scandalized by radicalization to insert their worst fears. Thus, Antifa plays into Spencer's media strategy. My work colleague who theorized that Antifa is an alt-right conspiracy is ... reaching. But I can see her logic, given how well Spencer has co-opted them as accomplices.
Manchu wrote: I haven't seen people defending Nazis ITT. Or neo-Nazis. Or white supremacists. (Quite thereverse.) Similarly, no one has claimed that being in favor of equality is worse than being a Nazi.
Trump claimed that through his entire press conference. where he merely said "Nazi's are bad" then in the same sentence went on to invent the "alt-left" and implied they started the entire riot by charging the Nazi's with sticks. Trump of course leaving out all the weapons the Nazi's brought.
Even mitt rmoney called trump on it
"No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes."
The nazis brought a lot of weapons including guns, yet no one was shot. The nazis are easy to call racist and bigots, they dont deny it, antifa are also nazis, just because they claim to be fighting them, it doesn't change that they too are violent racists and bigots themselves. This was a riot of two groups of nazis fighting it out, just one side is lying about being nazis and the other is obvious.
whembly wrote: I'm not sure that's what happened here though...
Saying following shouldn't be contraversial:
Nazis and their ideology are despicable human beings who should be condemned and rejected at every opportunity.
(snip)
Antifa are despicable human beings, whose ideology should be condemned and rejected
Nope, feth that. Antifa and the Nazis are not morally equivalent.
It is possible, in fact it is necessary, to accept that antifa do bad things and are not a positive force, without pretending they're equal to the Nazis.
I agree with your other point in the thread that both groups have the right to peacefully assemble, but your attempt to paint both Nazis and the groups that oppose Nazis as morally equivalent is really wrong. Dangerously wrong.
Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.
whembly wrote: I'm not sure that's what happened here though...
Saying following shouldn't be contraversial:
Nazis and their ideology are despicable human beings who should be condemned and rejected at every opportunity.
(snip)
Antifa are despicable human beings, whose ideology should be condemned and rejected
Nope, feth that. Antifa and the Nazis are not morally equivalent.
It is possible, in fact it is necessary, to accept that antifa do bad things and are not a positive force, without pretending they're equal to the Nazis.
I agree with your other point in the thread that both groups have the right to peacefully assemble, but your attempt to paint both Nazis and the groups that oppose Nazis as morally equivalent is really wrong. Dangerously wrong.
The irony of people here spamming out 'moral equivalency' and trying to use the 'not as bad as' equivocation is just pathetic and irrelevant non-argument.
Kilkrazy wrote: In my view, it started when the Republican Party took a decisive swing to the right under New Gringrich and the New American Century project. Why they did this I don't knwo, but it was done at a time when the US public as a whole had been growing more left-wing, and the lefty tendency continued until today we have general acceptance of gay marriage and so on.
So the Republican Party divorced itself from the mainstream of society and to maintain its grip on power had to increasingly pander to extremist views, blaming immigrants, blacks and social security mammas for the country's supposed woes, and fiddle around with issues like abortion, LGBT lavatories and the cramming of creationism into public schools.
I haven't quoted the whole thing, but that was a wonderful post, thanks.
Political, and against mod warning, so I've cut it. I'll pm it to Killkrazy instead.
Bran Dawri wrote: That was very interesting. Cheers for that . So the "socialist" part harkens back to the origins of the party and has nothing to do with what it became. Sort of suspected as much, but good to see it confirmed.
Not a problem. Credit it to you for taking the information on board.
I do lean towards if it looks like a duck..., I'm calling it a duck with regards to the semantics debate. I dunno, I kinda feel like people are arguing a whole lot about nothing of much consequence.
Left-wing jackbooted thugs (antifa? w/e) are despiccable.
Nazi's (right-wing jackbooted thugs) are despiccabler.
Both sides want to shut down opposing viewpoints because they know they can't stand up to the light of reason or common decency.
Once you're in that general zone of despiccableness though, do the actual shades really matter that much anymore?
There's nothing despicable about being anti-Nazi. Plenty of the antifa groups have their own awful ideas, and of course their methods are wrong. But they're not Nazis.
There's nothing despicable about being anti-Nazi. Plenty of the antifa groups have their own awful ideas, and of course their methods are wrong. But they're not Nazis.
What if I told you that being anti-nazi isn't the defining characteristic of Antifa? Can you move onto a real argument instead of strawmanland?
whembly wrote: This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.
How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.
Can we agree on that premise?
There is nothing wrong with condemning political violence, or in recognising that antifa committed political violence at Charlottesville, as they have committed political violence at other rallies.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with using that as the primary, or only commentary to made on Charlottesville. Because what happened there wasn't abhorrent just because of the violence and the murder of one woman. What happened there was abhorrent because goddamn actual fething Nazis marched in the streets chanting 'blood and soil'.
That is the absolute, number one biggest thing that happened - Nazis feeling emboldened enough to meet in large numbers and openly declare their race hate for all to see. That should be absolutely sickening to everyone involved, even if it never led to any violence.
whembly wrote: This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.
How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.
Can we agree on that premise?
There is nothing wrong with condemning political violence, or in recognising that antifa committed political violence at Charlottesville, as they have committed political violence at other rallies.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with using that as the primary, or only commentary to made on Charlottesville. Because what happened there wasn't abhorrent just because of the violence and the murder of one woman. What happened there was abhorrent because goddamn actual fething Nazis marched in the streets chanting 'blood and soil'.
That is the absolute, number one biggest thing that happened - Nazis feeling emboldened enough to meet in large numbers and openly declare their race hate for all to see. That should be absolutely sickening to everyone involved, even if it never led to any violence.
I guess antifa showing up in mobs and enacting violence everytime someone wants to express free speech isn't morally equivalent.....
White supremacy is unquestionably worse than ___. What? What ideology goes in that blank. Antifa stands for ... it's hard to say, and I think that is the result of happenstance in part (there are certainly a lot of people motivated for personal reasons, including self-deluded radicalization) but I think it is also the result of a political strategy to prevent them from being pinned down.
I'm by no means an expert on antifa, but I believe it is a grab bag of radical leftwing ideologies, most of which have huge amounts of jargon and make no sense. Add in a whole bunch of people with little ideology but an (understandable) hatred of nazis, combined with a (not understandable) romantic ideal of taking on baddies in physical violence.
So now we come back to that blank and why it is so powerful. It is a space for centrists scandalized by radicalization to insert their worst fears. Thus, Antifa plays into Spencer's media strategy. My work colleague who theorized that Antifa is an alt-right conspiracy is ... reaching. But I can see her logic, given how well Spencer has co-opted them as accomplices.
That's an excellent point, and I agree. But note it isn't just Spencer using antifa for a dodge. Everyone on this thread trying to use a 'both sides' condemnation of Charlottesville is motivated quite directly, albeit subconsciously, by a reluctance to place blame on the right wing side of politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.
I'll wait...
You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.
Pretty much the only time I ever hear about (or even heard of) Antifa was in response to something Nazis/White Power/KKK did. It is as if they don't exist on their own but as something to deflect from horrible events and ideologies.
Example:
Person A: White power groups did something terrible recently.
Fool A: Yeah but Antifa!
44Ronin wrote: The irony of people here spamming out 'moral equivalency' and trying to use the 'not as bad as' equivocation is just pathetic and irrelevant non-argument.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Nope, you've missed the point entirely. There is nothing wrong with saying what antifa did was wrong. That is what everyone should do - condemn all political violence, by anyone, against anyone.
But there is something deeply wrong with trying to reduce the events in Charlottesville down to nothing but the violence, as if people marching under swastikas and chanting 'Jews won't replace us' wouldn't be utterly sickening even without the violence that followed. Trying to talk past that and just focus on the violence is an attempt to dodge the ugly reality of nazis now feeling bolder and freer to act than at any point in decades.
Manchu wrote: Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?
I'm not 100% sure but I believe that the Nazis think Jewish people want to do away with 'white' people. It is a sense of insecurity that white males may no longer be at the top of the food chart and thus are lashing out in the belief that there is a conspiracy to replace them, either through the government or miscegenation.
whembly wrote: Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.
I'll wait...
You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.
It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Pretty much the only time I ever hear about (or even heard of) Antifa was in response to something Nazis/White Power/KKK did. It is as if they don't exist on their own but as something to deflect from horrible events and ideologies.
Example:
Person A: White power groups did something terrible recently.
Fool A: Yeah but Antifa!
Dude... antifa rose to prominence right after Trump won the election last year.
whembly wrote: Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.
I'll wait...
You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.
It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.
It is your problem though that you wrote it so poorly that others could easily see it as something else and then doubled down on goofiness by trying the "I didn't use those exact words" kind of defense.
whembly wrote: Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.
I'll wait...
You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.
It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.
It is your problem though that you wrote it so poorly that others could easily see it as something else and then doubled down on goofiness by trying the "I didn't use those exact words" kind of defense.
No, it isn't. So instead of jumping down my throat believing that I'm equating the two... maybe the first question ought to be "whem... are you suggesting they're the same?".
Wouldn't that foster better dialogue than do what ya'll just did?
Oh so the idea isn't that Jewish white people will step into the places of non-Jewish white people but that Jewish white people will replace non-Jewish white people with non-white people? Seems confusing. And nonsensical.
whembly wrote: Seb, please point out exactly where I stated they're both equivalent.
I'll wait...
You described both groups using the exact same words. The sentences are a mirror of each other. You did this deliberately, to create equivalence.
It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Pretty much the only time I ever hear about (or even heard of) Antifa was in response to something Nazis/White Power/KKK did. It is as if they don't exist on their own but as something to deflect from horrible events and ideologies.
Example:
Person A: White power groups did something terrible recently.
Fool A: Yeah but Antifa!
Dude... antifa rose to prominence right after Trump won the election last year.
Did you miss all those riots??
Riots in which they killed no one.
you can't say the same for your Nazi's, klan, or the confederates, who make up todays republican party. Whos idea of a "peaceful" march is the hallmark picture of a angry mob.
44Ronin wrote: What if I told you that being anti-nazi isn't the defining characteristic of Antifa? Can you move onto a real argument instead of strawmanland?
What? Who said they were purely anti-nazi? The post of mine you are quoting states the opposite quite clearly.
Please read what you're responding to.
Also, Ben Shapiro is a liar and a hack, and by following him you make yourself dumber.
whembly wrote: This is continually brought up by those who tend to look at antifa favorably and/or simply don't want to face the violent nature of antifa.
How is it controversial to condemn both the white nationalist and the antifa for their violence last weekend? Saying the antifa crowd were bad doesn't, in anyway shape or form, absolve any violence perpetuated by the white nationalist.
Can we agree on that premise?
There is nothing wrong with condemning political violence, or in recognising that antifa committed political violence at Charlottesville, as they have committed political violence at other rallies.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with using that as the primary, or only commentary to made on Charlottesville. Because what happened there wasn't abhorrent just because of the violence and the murder of one woman. What happened there was abhorrent because goddamn actual fething Nazis marched in the streets chanting 'blood and soil'.
That is the absolute, number one biggest thing that happened - Nazis feeling emboldened enough to meet in large numbers and openly declare their race hate for all to see. That should be absolutely sickening to everyone involved, even if it never led to any violence.
I guess antifa showing up in mobs and enacting violence everytime someone wants to express free speech isn't morally equivalent.....
Lolwut? Every time someone wants to express free speech? That sure is an impressive bit of dishonest exaggeration.
Manchu wrote: Also, I am not sure what "blood and soil" is supposed to mean in the 21st-century, American context.
I think it is mainly in reference to the German Nazi saying. They also talked about how American land was theirs all along, ignoring that it was already inhabited of course, but now it is being taken by minorities and Jews so we are back to the delusion of being marginalized.
44Ronin wrote: I guess antifa showing up in mobs and enacting violence everytime someone wants to express free speech isn't morally equivalent.....
You aren't even responding to my post. I said that the violence from both sides was terrible, but looking only at the violence and not the race hate of one side is deflecting from the major issue. You respond to this by talking about the violence again.
Manchu wrote: Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?
Bonus round!
The talk of "Deep State resisting the administration" ... that wasn't invented whole cloth.
It comes from Brietbart complaining about the State Department... and, more exactly, the bankers and financiers of New York who influence it. (IE, "The Jews are fighting back!" but in new code.)
The Nazis really, really don't like Jewish people.
Manchu wrote: Oh so the idea isn't that Jewish white people will step into the places of non-Jewish white people but that Jewish white people will replace non-Jewish white people with non-white people? Seems confusing. And nonsensical.
The idea is that Jews are not "white". Regardless of genetics or skin color, their culture makes them Jews and therefore not white. Races are defined oddly and narrowly in white supremacist ideology compared to the usual definitions.
Manchu wrote: Does anyone know what "Jews will not replace us" is supposed to mean?
Replacement ideology is a fear common among racists, though not only among racists, that you, your culture, or your way of life is going to be replaced. It can be anxiety over one's job being taken by robots, or by one's town being swamped by other cultures.
How Jews fit in to this I'm not too sure. They're a small ethnic group that's been in the US a long time and they're not growing. But then a lot of racist stuff makes little sense. It is believed and understood on an emotional level, not a logical one.
Note that in the constructed reality of the vanilla Nazi's, "Aryan" (a very poorly understood concept of the anthropological reality that is) was the ideal human.
In America it is a bit more convoluted. While termed as "race" and heavily associated with skin color there is always an underlying subtext of "proper" whites being the only real whites. In this sense "proper" is a mix of cultural and assumed biological traits. The term "white trash" originates among white supremacists in turn of the century America to differentiate proper white society from "garbage" whites. During the US' brief foray into eugenics in the 20s, poor whites were a secondary target of proposed programs in Texas, Virginia, and Alabama solely on the grounds that they weren't the right kind of white and damaged the image of what a proper white should be. Much like Islamic extremists, white power has habitually created a division between what is and isn't the right kind of white with the wrong kind of white being determined to not really be white at all.
whembly wrote: It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.
whembly is a long time poster on dakka.
sebster is a long time poster on dakka.
Any person reading that would take it is the intent of the writer to show equivalence between the two. If the author was to later claim he wrote each line as its own distinction, and it was the reader's mistake to believe the two were equivalent, no-one would believe the author.
whembly wrote: It isn't my problem that you believe I inferred equivalence. I very purposely wrote each line as it's own distinction.
whembly is a long time poster on dakka.
sebster is a long time poster on dakka.
Any person reading that would take it is the intent of the writer to show equivalence between the two. If the author was to later claim he wrote each line as its own distinction, and it was the reader's mistake to believe the two were equivalent, no-one would believe the author.
You've cherry picked two lines of that entire post in order to make your point.
Stop that Seb... you're not having an honest dialogue here.
whembly wrote: No, it isn't. So instead of jumping down my throat believing that I'm equating the two... maybe the first question ought to be "whem... are you suggesting they're the same?".
Wouldn't that foster better dialogue than do what ya'll just did?
If you were otherwise taking steps to focus on nazism as the primary concern of what happened in Charlottesville, then yeah I think such questions would be warranted. But all you've done is focus on the violence from a 'both sides' angle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Also, I am not sure what "blood and soil" is supposed to mean in the 21st-century, American context.
That one is pretty straight forward. It is claiming an area of land for people of common descent. They're claiming the US belongs to white people, basically.
I don't understand a lot of this convo about one side was peaceful. Here's an actual video recorded showing that if anything antifa actually started the violence with the neo nazis. Nice job antifa. You escalated a situation for no reason. Not saying the neo nazis weren't bad. They did worse since one killed somebody but i mean come on they both did wrong.
The video includes cursing so it may not be safe for work to listen to.
s. How exactly is this news?
