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.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
My rambling takeaways from this entirely dirty situation?

-The driver is thankfully being charged with murder. Good. Should also be treated as a domestic terrorist, as frankly, anyone on t.v. would clamor for if he was a muslim workplace/club shooter. The only way to eliminate hateful actions in a civilized society is to crack down harshly and equally to all such actions no matter the source.

-I am also disgusted at the actions of the counter-protestors (not just in Charlottesville). Violent acts on the side of anti-hate group protestors make them just as dirty as those hate groups. The way to combat such groups is not to sound just like them. You need to show you are better than them, dammit. Make your side a stark difference from the ominous undertone of the hate groups, and the moment a collection of people on your side look like they are going to cause trouble, get the cops notified and get them gone so as to not taint your side.

The best way to show the insanity of hate groups is to have a situation where your group looks like well-centered adults while they look like Lord Humongous' goons.

-It was also extremely suprising to learn that a lot of the pictures of what look like cops and swat team officers are actually groups of white-supremacists who used an open carry situation to come loaded for bear, which I feel should be counted as inciting the situation just as bad as if groups on the other anti-side has bats and 2x4's.

If a group of hipsters with a rainbow flag shows up with bats and improvised weapons, they would be accused of coming to a situation ready to do violence. But if 20 Neo Nazi KKK members show up with rifles and body armor, they are just being mindful for their fellow's safety. Wait....huh?

-I think it's so funny that these white supremacist hate groups are built upon what is functionally White Tribalism. So completely ironic.

I find it so completely insane to hate people based on skin color or origin of birth.

All points in this post are just made of unrefined WIN.

@A Town Called Malus

I don't think white supremacists can possibly get the mileage out of Trump as they did Obama, except by alliance with the media. The media is desparate for stories about how since Trump's elections there are suddenly all these "emboldened" white supremacists ... they wanted the same stories when President Obama was elected: the election has emboldened these white supremacists! Once you are willing to go around in public with a giant Nazi flag, whether the NYT is there to cover it or not, you are already emboldened, or rather just beyond shame.

I agree with you in that Nazis have no real power or are any relevance in US politics. But when someone is a nazi, is a nazi. Here, in 50's Argentina or in 1925 Germany.


Plus, about the state issue... how we know hoy many statues where overthrow in the past from the classic or medieval era? The ones that now we take as monuments are normally in honour of generals, killers, etc... when past becomes history and the political dissasociation with a figure occurs, then it becomes national history and not a political party symbol.

EDIT: my bad. I did not realize this discussion was going on too.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Google guy was foolish, sure, however what he did was not gross misconduct and he did not deserve to be sacked for it.

He should have been given a disciplinary by HR and sent on a diversity awareness course.

Er...wrong thread my man?

Its been a separate but slightly related argument about the extent of free speech in business in this thread, no other thread on it afaik.

Galas -

If by "nazi" you mean white supremacist, or someone with strong authoritarian leanings, or just someone who is really a stickler about something minor ... yeah they're "nazis." But this is just a casual insult, not to be confused with a political ideology meaningfully connected to the actual, historical Nazis. And that distinction is being purposefully distorted here so that people can rationalize their fantasy of being important (that's the white supremacy side) or fighting the good fight against them with punches (that's the facebook politics side).

"we're Nazis! better pay attention to us or we will take over!"

- from Richard Spencer's super secret kampf-diary

I never saw it mentioned here, but the mayor announced the removal of more confederate statues after the mess that happened.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
maybe both sides need to think about now, they ratchested the tension to point this happened after all.

maybe time to back off the hate.

Maybe we should hold the people actually killing people responsible for their actions?

as well as that but i mean they don't wake up 99% of time and think oh im gonna ram some people today.

That is becoming exceedingly narrow though. There were plenty of people we would say are Nazis for being members of the NSDAP especially after '33, but in no way share the same views as the 'hardcore' ones such as Hitler, Goebbels or Himmler. More mundane Nazis existed who supported, if not necessarily shared, the views of those higher up. There are certainly some people in the US that go exceedingly far in their views, such as Spencer, that could be called as such. If Spencer is, what would (certain) people that show up to rallies (partly) organized by him be?

 Manchu wrote:
Galas -

If by "nazi" you mean white supremacist, or someone with strong authoritarian leanings, or just someone who is really a stickler about something minor ... yeah they're "nazis." But this is just a casual insult, not to be confused with a political ideology meaningfully connected to the actual, historical Nazis. And that distinction is being purposefully distorted here so that people can rationalize their fantasy of being important (that's the white supremacy side) or fighting the good fight against them with punches (that's the facebook politics side).

"we're Nazis! better pay attention to us or we will take over!"

- from Richard Spencer's super secret kampf-diary

I understand the reasoning behind your argument, and I think is pretty reasonable and correct in his own way, but I just don't think the same way. Lest agree to disagree.

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
maybe both sides need to think about now, they ratchested the tension to point this happened after all.

maybe time to back off the hate.

Maybe we should hold the people actually killing people responsible for their actions?

as well as that but i mean they don't wake up 99% of time and think oh im gonna ram some people today.

That describes all major groups on this planet really, but that doesn't stop some people, including Trump in the spirit of his tweets, of making mountains out of molehills.

Disciple of Fate -

Richard Spencer is a pathetic wannabe Nazi. Maybe he started as a cosplayer and sort of got too far into it, I don't know. But what he absolutely is, is an unabashed white supremacist with views that the overwhelming majority of the people in the US find so embarassing, offensive, and/or idiotic that just the fact of him openly espousing them automatically discredits him. They only way he can get the attention he craves is to do his bizarre song and dance, replete with lurid and tasteless allusions to mass murderers, in front of mainstream media outlets that shamelessly want to get more clicks.

As for what I would call his followers? Misfit loser white supremacists. People whose views mean that they are ostracized by just about everyone in their own communities, much less the larger society.

 Manchu wrote:
Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.

A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.

Terrorist suspect had ties to white supremacist groups per NPR. Plus pic of him with white supremacist shield.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/13/543176250/charlottesville-attack-james-alex-fields-jr

 Manchu wrote:
Disciple of Fate -

Richard Spencer is a pathetic wannabe Nazi. Maybe he started as a cosplayer and sort of got too far into it, I don't know. But what he absolutely is, is an unabashed white supremacist with views that the overwhelming majority of the people in the US find so embarassing, offensive, and/or idiotic that just the fact of him openly espousing them automatically discredits him. They only way he can get the attention he craves is to do his bizarre song and dance, replete with lurid and tasteless allusions to mass murderers, in front of mainstream media outlets who want to get clicks.

As for what I would call his followers? Misfit loser white supremacists. People whose views mean that they are ostracized by just about everyone in their own communities, much less the larger society.

I have read your opinion and rationale via various comments and I get where you're coming from. Realistically speaking Spencer will (likely, I can't see the future) never gain the same traction as that would require some ungodly amount of circumstances coming together. Yet some of his views go far beyond white supremacism in my opinion. Sure, giving him attention generates views as he is a really nasty individual that attracts attention, which the internet has given us plenty to pick from. But if people could call Spencer a Nazi, then certainly so could some of his followers be called as such. I think this comes down on personal view on how big or realistic their ambitions can get/are. But some of his views really get into the spirit if not the letter of Nazi ideology.

Because we have the benefit of hindsight we know what actual Nazis accomplished. Yet just for the sake of completion: Hitler also had to severely tone down his antisemitism to be successful in German elections. Most people found those views distasteful. There is the common saying that if you told the story of Hitler in 1920 without naming a country, people would have assumed it would have happened in France. Still, different times and circumstances I know. History doesn't repeat itself, but people do repeat past mistakes.

@Rosebuddy -

I think you make a good point. Dylann Roof was some kind of weirdo misfit who took it upon himself to murder innocent black people, ridiculously enough to trigger a "race war." But calling him a Nazi completely misses the point of his actions, his origin, his motivation. Roof's malice was not some kind a retro foreign import. That was pure American white supremacy. There needn't ever have been a Third Reich to have a Dylann Roof. And for these other American white supremacists, it is essentially the same although they crudely trot out Nazi symbols in the same way that you might see a Christian cross in Neon Genesis Evangelion.

@Disciple of Fate -

Hitler actually found that he had to ramp up his anti-semitism early in his political career. He was a classic opportunist. He refined his speeches, measuring success by the reaction of the crowd. Actual, historical Nazism is not a very coherent ideological platform for this, among other, reasons. It's most stable pillar was not even anti-semitism directly but rather expansion into a "germanization" of Eastern Europe.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.

A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.

What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.

A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.

What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.

A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.

What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?

Probably wants to stick them in camps. A final solution of sorts

 Galas wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.

A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.

What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

If your enemy is women, is it right to crush them and hear the lamentations of their men?

The president is following his usual pattern of refusing to call out white nationalists for what they are, after pandering to white nationalists for the past year and a half, and we have people trying to pull a Bill Clinton and argue about definitions rather than acknowledge the fact.

I should be surprised, but I'm honestly just sad.

 Manchu wrote:
Hitler actually found that he had to ramp up his anti-semitism early in his political career. He was a classic opportunist. He refined his speeches, measuring success by the reaction of the crowd. Actual, historical Nazism is not a very coherent ideological platform for this, among other, reasons. It's most stable pillar was not even anti-semitism directly but rather expansion into a "germanization" of Eastern Europe.

That is very early in his career for a certain hardened group. which could be exactly what Spencer is doing. For the general public however Hitler certainly toned it down but it was still there, visible for anyone who wanted to look beyond the public facade. It certainly isn't a very coherent platform because it was just one man's (insane) vision. Yet his opportunism didn't take out the core of what he thought would be good for Germany. He always had a certain vague idea in his mind of which ethnic cleansing was certainly a part. Spencer in the same vein has a similar vague idea. I would disagree on the most stable pillar however, yes the drang nach Osten was important, but the main focus was more on Greater Germany that I would consider separate from that. Hitler himself actually started off with the antisemitism, with those views being one of his drivers to get into politics via the DAP. Only later moving into extreme nationalism and from there on moving into anti communist and the intertwined thinking of Lebensraum.

Again though, for the general public, Hitler never really talked openly about antisemitism, greater Germany or Lebensraum until the time was right at certain points, but they were always there in the background. Spencer ticks quite a few of the more generalistic boxes outside of the Germany-centric parts. So taking that into account I would very much say that Spencer would qualify as a neonazi.

I consider myself an intellectual and I support policies on both sides (I want people to defend their weed plants with their guns) and usually have something to say on an issue (though I don't post often in off-topic).

But I don't have words. We're arguing about 'how much power the Nazi's really have' or 'what even is a Nazi anyways' or 'is it wrong or right to advocate violence against people who advocate violence?'

This was a tragedy. A tragedy caused by a horrible Perfect Storm of political motivations.

I have never heard anyone on the Left call for violence against anyone who didn't already call for violence themselves.

I have heard people on the Right call for violence against people who have done nothing to them.

Say what you all must, argue about semantics and definitions if you must, but out here in the real world this single event has caused me to completely rethink the 'well the Right may have a point' that I wanted to believe earlier. The right wing is just wrong, much like how many religious people are wrong: When you point out that the 'extremists in their ranks are bad' they rise to defend them instead of calling them on their bs.

 Manchu wrote:
@Rosebuddy -
I think you make a good point. Dylann Roof was some kind of weirdo misfit who took it upon himself to murder innocent black people, ridiculously enough to trigger a "race war." But calling him a Nazi completely misses the point of his actions, his origin, his motivation. Roof's malice was not some kind a retro foreign import. That was pure American white supremacy. There needn't ever have been a Third Reich to have a Dylann Roof. And for these other American white supremacists, it is essentially the same although they crudely trot out Nazi symbols in the same way that you might see a Christian cross in Neon Genesis Evangelion.

American fascism is obviously its own beast. There are a lot of general material influences (roots in the middle class, hatred of labour, etc) but you can't just look at Nazi Germany and conclude that this is exactly how things will happen again. There are general right-wing extremists who don't fit fully into the nazi mould. But for the purposes of what to do I think it's alright to be somewhat broad with the nazi brush or at least talk about nazi-adjacent people. Groups that merely share most of the ideology and goals of a nazi movement and thus ally with them aren't really worth treating a lot better than you would the nazis proper. I was particularly talking about people who march to classical fascist chants and do nazi salutes, tho, were the similarity to historical nazis is outright intentional imitation.

There's generally more to Christian imagery than what NGE actually uses it for whereas nazi imagery doesn't have the depth or really any redemptive factors to it.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?

Depends on what means are available. If you've got state backing you can arrest them, dismantle their organisations and institute deradicalisation programs to help people who are at risk of falling into the milieu. Since that isn't actually the case the main thing that remains in the way of anti-fascist action is to just beat them (particularly since the Trump administration defunded the deradicalisation programs). If nazis are afrraid of appearing in public then a lot of the problem just doesn't happen. Doing all you can to get out the message of what options exist is also good but you can't cut back on directly protecting vulnerable groups.

One of the things which helps extremism is the belief that they represent the silent majority, that they are just saying what everyone else is thinking. The more people who speak out against extremism, the better because the extremists are emboldened when they perceive that their views are socially acceptable.

It certainly doesn't help when public figures (cough .. presidents .. cough, cough) draw false moral equivalency between fascists and antifascist protesters.

Damn if you do and damn if you don't for Trump.

So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.

I guess I'm just dumb, but this whole thread seems to reek of yelling "no true scotsman nazi".

We used to have this argument about ISIL guys, remember? When you'd have a lone wolf attack by some guy who would scream out he was associated with ISIL. Then it turned out this guy has never actually evere been in contact with ISIL ever, but they believe any publicity is good publicity so they would take credit for the attack. We'd argue, what does it mean to actually be in ISIL? Do you have to go overseas to a training camp, or can you just watch some videos on youtube, or what?

This is useful because this is one of the few times that we actually sort of came to consensus that was widely agreed upon regardless of partisan stripe. In at least 2 threads that I recall, we decided if you want to call yourself a member of ISIL, we have no problem with you being charged with all sorts of anti-terrorism crimes for (whatever you did). If you want to join stupid clubs, you win stupid prizes.

As an analogy, I think it's useful here. People have the right to self determination, and if someone wants to carry a Nazi flag, wear a T-shirt that says Jews are inferior, and scream blood and soil while marching, it feels a little disingenuous to me to decide he's not really a Nazi. At best it seems to be oblivious, and at worse it seems like you're trying to rationalize away some unpleasant truths because you don't like what they say about a group you have sympathies for, or identify with, or what have you - I'm not trying to dogwhistle call someone a nazi, because... look, I don't think I'm putting this as artfully as I could be, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole "they're not really nazis" thing feels like is a way of not seeing something you don't want to see.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Damn if you do and damn if you don't for Trump.

So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.

I remember you specifically starting a thread right here on this forum condemning Obama for refusing to explicitly call out Islamic terrorism. I even linked to it right on the first page of this thread. I wonder what's changed since then. OTOH with that last sentence you might be saying you think he also should have been more explicit so perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

I don't think condemning nazi sympathizers and white nationalists should be a politically dangerous thing.

I think a lot of you on here who defend these pieces of human garbage do so because you say gak that people would punch you in the mouth for if we started thumping Nazi's again.

This whole incident is disgusting and the display in Charlottesville should be a wake up call that things are going off the rails.

This place is fething ridiculous. A woman is murdered and 20 more are injured by a right-wing terrorist, and this fething website goes out of it's way to bellow "but both sides!!!" and argue semantics over whether or not the people marching under the swastika should be referred to as Nazis or not.

Grey Templar wrote:This happens all the freaking time. It's not all people on the left, but it is a significant chunk of people who claim they stand for freedom of speech and expression. Yet they seem all too eager to stamp out anybody who opposes them. What they are doing is wrong. Reacting to this with violence is also wrong. Everybody at that rally, both sides, should be ashamed.

Yeah! Just look how angry and intimidating the crowd of people he went Y'all-Qaeda on are! (warning, image was taken during the crash)

oldravenman3025 wrote:The torch march the night before went off without any problems. It wasn't until the Leftist counter protesters (some of which were armed with improvised weapons, as seen in some of the shots of the Challenger incident) started rolling in that the fuse had been lit.

Originally, the local police had labeled this as an accident caused by a combination of the counter protesters illegally marching in a vehicle-only lane, and a stupid (or panicky) driver. With all of the hubbub surrounding this incident (and event in general), it's a good idea to wait for all of the information before making "ironclad" conclusions.

Yeah, look at how angry all those "Leftist counter protesters" are!

If you ignore the fact that they surrounded the statue before the march reached it, and the march then "peacefully" encircled them with torches and prevented them from being able to leave, the counter protesters were totally the instigators! And even then, the counter-protesters have no reason to be scared or intimidated; groups of white supremacists/neo-nazis/nazis/fascists with torches have never done anything bad whatsoever.