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.

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

I don't like Nazis.

I don't like Antifa.

I appear to exist in a targe rich environment.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

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.

 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

 Steve steveson wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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

Here is an interesting article on Mother Jones about the recent history of anti-fascism in the USA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/anti-racist-antifa-tinley-park-five/

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:


If person A gets to...

No.

 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.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/04/anti-racist-antifa-tinley-park-five/

Keep in mind that Antifa and motherjones share the same believes

Oldmike wrote:

They done a lot more harm then the wannabe nazis

There's a dead woman who probably disagrees.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 d-usa wrote:

Oldmike wrote:

They done a lot more harm then the wannabe nazis

There's a dead woman who probably disagrees.

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".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

And in context of this thread, no company has any obligation to tolerate negative PR based on the speech of their employees.

Well, unless said company asked the person to say it. But that is obviously not the case here

Oldmike wrote:

 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

I'll just repeat this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-left-fact-check.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

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.

 d-usa wrote:

Oldmike wrote:

They done a lot more harm then the wannabe nazis

There's a dead woman who probably disagrees.

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)

Trump just said that there is no reason to condemn white nationalists and neo-nazis unless there is a specific "fact" that needs to be condemned.

We don't have to look far for why they feel bolstered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldmike wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Oldmike wrote:

They done a lot more harm then the wannabe nazis

There's a dead woman who probably disagrees.

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.

Thank you for saying this.

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.