gorgon wrote:


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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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

 Manchu wrote:
But it seems that in the short term, the actual issue for him is to discredit liberal progressivism.

 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".

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.

 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.

 Manchu wrote:
odinsgrandson -

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.

Matthew Paul Clark wrote:"I feel I need to clear the air here....First and foremost I have not been fired."

 Polonius wrote:

 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."

 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.

 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?

 Polonius wrote:

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.

 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.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Clearly there are limits, and inciting people to violent action is not ok.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 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."

 Polonius wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Clearly there are limits, and inciting people to violent action is not ok.

Inciting people to general violence is usually protected, actually.

Saying, "we should kill all the muggles!" would almost certainly still be protected.

Saying "We should all kill that muggle, right there!" is inciting imminent violence.

There's some very nuanced case law on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

The courts will generally bend over backwards to allow political speech. Even advocating genocide is political speech.

 daedalus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

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.