Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen -

Not getting very far engaging you because you seem to have barreled into the thread well off the rails. Zucker at NBC put Trump's reality show on TV, both men profited. Later on, Zucker at CNN gave Trump airtime widely criticized as disproportionate. Again, both men profited.

You call my argument nonsense but clearly you don't even know what it is. Second time you have done so. Please, Kanluwen, deep breaths.

NPR interviewed Spencer because he held a meeting attended by a thousand or so fellow morons in DC. NPR was criticized for giving Spencer airtime. The argument went, this guy shouldn't get a platform for his hate speech and NPR was just capitalizing on a torrid subject regardless of newsworthiness.

Being only well-known within a powerless fringe extremist political group yes very much does translate into being a nobody.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.

Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

There's an element to it that here in the United States, if things are done the proper way--then even Nazis are allowed to speak in public assuming their intent is not to stir up or agitate violence.

Saying "We should punch Nazis" is agitating for violence--you could instead do like what the counter-protesters were doing at the memorial park where they were singing at/mocking the Nazis.
Realistically, the second that any of the Nazis showed up like they did with "riot gear"(baseball pads, bike helmets, respirators, goggles, clubs, "shields", etc)...the police should have been pulling those people aside.

Additionally I just want to mention that one of the things seen at this event was the biggest reason why I oppose in any way, shape, or form these "militias". There are videos from the event on Twitter that show guys wearing full tac gear with radios, patches, and firearms talking about how "they can't do nothing about the protesters" like they're actual law enforcement officers or anyone who has a right to be at this event with a gun.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

And just to add to the double standard, we hear over and over again, usually from people on the right, that we need guns to protect ourselves against oppression. Well, Nazis are about as clear a case of oppression as you're ever going to find. The only real debate in Nazi evil is whether establishing their white utopia means starting up the gas chambers again, or merely "peaceful ethnic cleansing". They openly advocate horrifying evil against innocent victims, and yet somehow the real offense here is that someone dares to suggest using violence to remove the Nazi threat. So which is it? If you don't accept the use of violence against literal Nazis then don't ever talk about how the second amendment is necessary to protect against oppression.

 Manchu wrote:
Kanluwen -

Not getting very far engaging you because you seem to have barreled into the thread well off the rails. Zucker at NBC put Trump's reality show on TV, both men profited. Later on, Zucker at CNN gave Trump airtime widely criticized as disproportionate. Again, both men profited.

You call my argument nonsense but clearly you don't even know what it is. Second time you have done so. Please, Kanluwen, deep breaths.

Maybe, just maybe, you could have explained your stance to begin with in both cases?

NPR interviewed Spencer because he held a meeting attended by a thousand or so fellow morons in DC. NPR was criticized for giving Spencer airtime. The argument went, this guy shouldn't get a platform for his hate speech and NPR was just capitalizing on a torrid subject regardless of newsworthiness.

Being only well-known within a powerless fringe extremist political group yes very much does translate into being a nobody.

Yes a "powerless fringe extremist political group" with known/outed members in law enforcement, government, working in school systems, and working in media...usually trying to keep a low profile.

Where do we draw the line at who is or isn't okay to give airtime to? Whether or not it was a good idea to interview him or not, it brought him into the forefront as a symbol of something that is inherently wrong with America.

Almighty Walrus -

Why are Americans more worried about freedom of speech than Nazis?

OK this is a simple one.

We don't actually have Nazis in the US, in any meningful way. The ones we have are powerless goofballs no one takes seriously. Richard Spencer is trying to change that by manipulating the media and the media are happy to help because it generates clicks.

On the other hand, there is growing concern in the US that whereas in the past there seemed to be some kind of consensus about the meaning of free speech, it seems today that there is more disagreement about what is ok to say. Just this past week, CNN fired Jeffery Lord for sarcastically evoking "sieg heil" as part of his condemnation of Media Matters as a crypto-fascist organ masquerading as progressive.

It doesn't help that guys like Spencer and Yianopolis are also waving the Free Speech flag.

So in sum, one is not a credible issue while the other is.

Kanluwen -

Sorry my points were unclear to you. Again, Spencer false-flags free speech and the interests of media outlets can align with individuals they report about negatively.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.

Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

There's an element to it that here in the United States, if things are done the proper way--then even Nazis are allowed to speak in public assuming their intent is not to stir up or agitate violence.

That's the thing though, violence is inherent in Nazism. It is the lifeblood of the ideology. That shirt up above is an example:

Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote:The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people
ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a
culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.

He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.

Agitating in favour of Nazism is thus per definition agitating for violence. The triumph of the strong over the weak is the core around which the entire ideology revolves. There is no such thing as arguing in favour of Nazism without arguing in favour of violence, it'd be like arguing for Communism without communally owned means of production or libertarianism without a free market.

When people start putting Hitler quotes on T-shirts and marching with Swastikas you're well beyond even the US definition of free speech.

 Manchu wrote:
Why are Americans more worried about freedom of speech than Nazis?

OK this is a simple one.

We don't actually have Nazis in the US, in any meningful way. The ones we have are powerless goofballs no one takes seriously. Richard Spencer is trying to change that by manipulating the media and the media are happy to help because it generates clicks.

...
Yes. "Powerless goofballs no one takes seriously" aside from the people who listen to them.
You know who else wasn't taken seriously?
Actual flipping Nazis.

On the other hand, there is growing concern in the US that whereas in the past there seemed to be some kind of consensus about the meaning of free speech, it seems today that there is more disagreement about what is ok to say. Just this past week, CNN fired Jeffery Lord for sarcastically evoking "sieg heil" as part of his condemnation of Media Matters as a crypto-fascist organ masquerading as progressive.

It didn't help that he also has defended lynching as a practice, so let's not pretend he was fired solely for "sarcasm".

It doesn't help that guys like Spencer and Yianopolis are also waving the Free Speech flag.

So in sum, one is not a credible issue while the other is.

Strictly speaking, they both are. Domestic terrorism associated with white supremacist groups is one of the larger threats facing national security and has been since the 1990s(remember Timothy McVeigh and the Turner Diaries?).

It just tends to get lost in the hubbub over some brown folks who flew a plane into the World Trade Center in 2001 and the fact that people keep saying "white supremacist" as though it's not interchangeable with "Klansman" or "Neo-Nazi" since the organizations actually have had a lot of overlapping membership for quite some time.

AlmightyWalrus -

You are 100% correct that Nazism and violence are inseparable. But I have to think, actual Nazis from Nazi Germany would be pretty unimpressed with these slacktivists. OK you showed up in your dozens, well done. I guess you could say, everyone has to start somewhere? "They didn't take the Fuhrer seriously at first, either!" Is that something one of these white supremacists would say or is that something that the antifa larpers would say? I mean, both are committed to this fantasy. But actual Nazism is in no way, shape, or form influential in the US, no more so than Communism or the Knights Templar or the Decepticons.

Kanluwen -

Nice illustration of my point above. Yes, the Nazis weren't taken seriously in the Weimar Republic. So naturally they are on the verge of siezing control of the US in 2017. Naturally! Tim McVeigh blew up the fed builing in OK City 22 years ago. So white supremacy terrorism is "one of the larger" (???) national security threats today. Naturally! I'm sorry, I am actually taking this all in good spirits, I know you're concerned but it's pretty out of proportion. We aren't facing a white power campaign to take over the US through terrorism.

 Manchu wrote:
On the other hand, there is growing concern in the US that whereas in the past there seemed to be some kind of consensus about the meaning of free speech, it seems today that there is more disagreement about what is ok to say. Just this past week, CNN fired Jeffery Lord for sarcastically evoking "sieg heil" as part of his condemnation of Media Matters as a crypto-fascist organ masquerading as progressive.

If the Nazi threat is "irrelevant" then how exactly is this any different? A private organization firing an employee for being a poor representative of the company is not a free speech issue. There is not, and never has been, an obligation for private organizations to endorse or support speech they do not agree with, and there is no credible belief that the government is going to take any action against people who say things like that.

Manchu, you're on point on this one.

Are these people reprehensible? Hell yeah. Down right scum.

Are they Nazi's. Flat out no. Just no. Period, end of story.

Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes. Stop trying to do it.

 djones520 wrote:
Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.

Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.

 Manchu wrote:
AlmightyWalrus -

You are 100% correct that Nazism and violence are inseparable. But I have to think, actual Nazis from Nazi Germany would be pretty unimpressed with these slacktivists. OK you showed up in your dozens, well done. I guess you could say, everyone has to start somewhere? "They didn't take the Fuhrer seriously at first, either!" Is that something one of these white supremacists would say or is that something that the antifa larpers would say? I mean, both are committed to this fantasy. But actual Nazism is in no way, shape, or form influential in the US, no more so than Communism or the Knights Templar or the Decepticons.

Except when y'know, you have literal groups that have modeled themselves after the Nazis in terms of their organization and whatnot...

Kanluwen -

Nice illustration of my point above. Yes, the Nazis weren't taken seriously in the Weimar Republic. So naturally they are on the verge of siezing control of the US in 2017. Naturally!

And the Nazis took over the Weimar Republic with nothing but brute force and firepower, not by manipulating the common man and the organisms for government.

Totally.

Peregrine -

Yeah CNN firing Lord isn't government censorship, of course. "Free Speech" is not just a clause on the books. It is a social value. I don't think we're on the verge of rolling back freedom of speech by the US government anymore so than we are facing a credible Nazi political movement - neither of those thimgs are remotely real. What's going on, however, is there is not a consensus one what kind of language is acceptable broadly and what isn't. Yes, I am on board with putting free speech in quotation marks here. It's a question of social values, not law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
- Kanluwen

Following the same logic, how worried are you about the US facing a communist revolution any time soon?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?

We know what white supremacist thugs are like. But they're not on my side, I'm concerned the people on my side are relishing punching and pepper spraying them. That does bother me because it's not being done in self defence, counter protesters chose to meet them head on and brought weapons along knowing there would be conflict, people on both sides had it. I don't know where those on the left draw the line with violence towards nazis, clearly it's illegal to pepper spray them but that's ok because they're nazis. Really? Is that how we're going to manage this situation now?

What should have happened is that the police had managed it better, ready to step in if the demo got out of control. Instead it seems like the police were thin on the ground so counter protesters went out tooled up to oppose them instead. There's only one way that's going to go, thank god no body brought guns to 'stand their ground' and defend themselves.

 Manchu wrote:
Yeah CNN firing Lord isn't government censorship, of course. "Free Speech" is not just a clause on the books. It is a social value. I don't think we're on the verge of rolling back freedom of speech by the US government anymore so than we are facing a credible Nazi political movement - neither of those thimgs are remotely real. What's going on, however, is there is not a consensus one what kind of language is acceptable broadly and what isn't. Yes, I am on board with putting free speech in quotation marks here. It's a question of social values, not law.

This "rollback" seems quite a bit less plausible than the threat of Nazi ideology gaining more power. The social value of allowing people to say whatever they want seems quite a bit more generous than it has been in the past, and there has never been a time when "a company must tolerate anything you say while on the clock and can not fire you for making the company look bad" has been a value. The outrage here seems almost entirely over people who don't like that someone used their free speech rights to say "you're a ".

There no doubt are overlaps between neo-nazis and the KKK and other groups, but the evidence is that the extreme right's numbers nationwide are almost vanishingly small.

If I understand Manchu's argument correctly, it is that while fascist bigots are horrid, the amount of media attention paid to them is a mistake because there are bigger fish for the moderate centre and soft left to fry.

Peregrine -

Nah. Who here has a problem saying Spencer is a nutjob? The problem is inciting violence, as outlined above by Howard Treesong.

Killkrazy -

Yes. And media outlets are effectively "cooperating" with Spencer et al. in the strategy to make their fringe group seem important. The other shoe dropping is, Spencer lures in the equally tiny alt left to scandalize the center right.

The other aspect is that if we suppress the voicing of "crimethink", such as the Google engineer's belief that a Y chromosome makes you better at logic, then we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to publicly refute such nonsense, and worse, we may lend credence to the view that we can't refute it.

Yes, the Google story is a great exampe of how "what is ok to say" is a live issue. But the "maybe there's something to Nazism after all" thing, that's not actually a thing.

Peaceful protesters don't bring bike locks to a protest.

Anyway, I thought US Politics was banned from Off Topic?

If three moderators are posting in a thread about a recent white supremacy rally/homicide charge, rest assured discussion of that topic isn't banned.

I guess we can call 'both sides' if we're willing to consider the side yelling 'Jew will not replace us' and 'blood and soil' and driving cars into people equivalent to the one that isn't.

Given the number of Nazi salutes at that 'peaceful torchlight rally', I'm pretty sure it's valid to use the word 'Nazi' now. Although I will admit you don't typically associate Nazis with the scent of citronella and a lack of mosquitoes...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't think it helps that Antifa turn up in hoodies and rags over their faces (the white supremacists just walk around bold as brass) looking to stir up trouble. People on both sides were involved with pepper spraying the other, and both claim to be the victims. Why are chemical sprays being brought by anyone to a 'peaceful demo'? Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back.

I'm also a bit concerned by the number of people asking why they are allowed to march, fly certain flags, say certain things. The price of having freedom of speech is that some people say stuff you really don't like.

Overall, I'm quite confused by the messages the left wing opposition to these demos want to promote, because it's seems like violence and censorship is bad... except when it comes to the far right. Well, that's not really in the spirit of free speech and seems hypocritical. If anything, these demos being counter protested and resulting in violence feeds exactly into the belief that they're being aggressively persecuted and censored by the left wing and authorities.

This. The scumsucking Nazis have a right to assemble just as everyone else. The antifa crowd is antithetical to that and both sides came to fight. Now the MSM is using it to attack Trump.WTF?
The car attack was a terror attack and should be prosecuted as such. But it is a separate issue.

 Manchu wrote:
If three moderators are posting in a thread about a recent white supremacy rally/homicide charge, rest assured discussion of that topic isn't banned.

So US Politics is permitted now?

 reds8n wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
. You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism .

Spoiler:

and how do they feel about Trump's statement ?

Whilst Gorka works in the Whitehouse.

this is why you let them March. Did you see the losers in those pics?

 Spinner wrote:
I guess we can call 'both sides' if we're willing to consider the side yelling 'Jew will not replace us' and 'blood and soil' and driving cars into people equivalent to the one that isn't.

It's that good old 'centrist' nonsense about how the extreme left and right are as bad as each other. Because 'exterminate an ethnicity' and 'free healthcare for all' are morally equivalent.

Before telling everyone how terrible it is for some lefty to punch a racist in the face, it might be worth asking yourself if you'd be equally disappointed if the recipient was calling for the eradication of the infidel. Similarly, if you're going to claim that 'if you stand on a road you can't complain if you get hit', it would be helpful to quickly mull over whether you would react the same way if the driver was wearing a kaffiyeh and kandurrah.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
If three moderators are posting in a thread about a recent white supremacy rally/homicide charge, rest assured discussion of that topic isn't banned.

So US Politics is permitted now?

OK let me pull out the orange text. I will personally start a thread called US Politics when it is okay to start such a thread again. The topic of this thread is the white supremacy rally in Charlottesville and the guy that drove into the crowd at that event. Futher questions as necessary welcome via PM, off topic posts will be deleted. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, the Google story is a great exampe of how "what is ok to say" is a live issue.

Not really. Of course posting a rant on a company network about how your co-workers are inherently inferior to you and didn't honestly earn their jobs is going to get you fired. That's a basic discipline issue, not anything related to freedom of speech.

But the "maybe there's something to Nazism after all" thing, that's not actually a thing.

Sure, not a thing, you say right after Nazis just held a rally and are boasting about how Trump is "their" president.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't think it helps that Antifa turn up in hoodies and rags over their faces (the white supremacists just walk around bold as brass) looking to stir up trouble. People on both sides were involved with pepper spraying the other, and both claim to be the victims. Why are chemical sprays being brought by anyone to a 'peaceful demo'? Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back.

I'm also a bit concerned by the number of people asking why they are allowed to march, fly certain flags, say certain things. The price of having freedom of speech is that some people say stuff you really don't like.

Overall, I'm quite confused by the messages the left wing opposition to these demos want to promote, because it's seems like violence and censorship is bad... except when it comes to the far right. Well, that's not really in the spirit of free speech and seems hypocritical. If anything, these demos being counter protested and resulting in violence feeds exactly into the belief that they're being aggressively persecuted and censored by the left wing and authorities.

This. The scumsucking Nazis have a right to assemble just as everyone else. The antifa crowd is antithetical to that and both sides came to fight.

Antifa was one of the groups present counterprotesting.

Now the MSM is using it to attack Trump.WTF?
The car attack was a terror attack and should be prosecuted as such. But it is a separate issue.

Actually it's not.

People are rightly calling out Trump as a hypocrite. For years he criticized Obama as being "soft" on Muslims by refusing to refer to terrorist attacks by ISIS and the like as "Muslim extremism". This is another instance where a white supremacist has injured protesters under the auspices of "fearing for his life" and yet again Trump refuses to call it what it is. He tried to, like you, paint it as "both parties are equally at fault" in a very mealymouthed way.

Additionally, the driver of the car is known to be a Trump supporter and had pictures of himself at Trump rallies on social media. He was also photographed as part of the Nazi demonstrations yesterday, carrying a shield.

 Manchu wrote:
The problem is inciting violence, as outlined above by Howard Treesong.

And, as I pointed out, this is a blatant double standard when people on the right are often talking about how we need the right to own guns to protect against oppression. Well, the Nazis are about as clear a case of a legitimate target as you're going to get. If it's unacceptable to incite violence against literal Nazis then you might as well give up those guns, as there's never going to be a situation where you are justified in using them.