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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.

Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.

Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.

The only legitimate violence that citizens can engage in is self defense. Violently assaulting somebody simply for being a Nazi is still an illegal action, a violent crime and not a legitimate form of public discourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The argument is not about whether we should kill nazis or the Unite The Rightists at Charlottesville.

It is not about whether violence is a crime or whether free speech is protected by the constitution.

The argument is about whether a neo-fascist extremist organisation that promotes racism is morally the same as an organisation that opposes racism.

Who is making the argument that neo fascist extremist organizations that promote racism are morally the same as an organization that simply opposes racism?

Antifa isn't a organization. It isn't even a Ideology like Nazism.

Antifa is like "right" or "left". They are a very broad tag that conglomerates very different groups inside it. Groups that don't even need to have the same ideology.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.

Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.

Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.

The only legitimate violence that citizens can engage in is self defense. Violently assaulting somebody simply for being a Nazi is still an illegal action, a violent crime and not a legitimate form of public discourse.

How does one join Antifa? A google search returns no official website of any organization calling itself Antifa, no information on how to apply, who their leadership is etc.

Antifa is not an organization but rather a moniker anybody can use to describe themselves.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's irrelevant. An organization shares responsibility for what members of that organization do in its name.

Except in this case there is no overall organization to take that responsibility. There is no single "antifa" that organizes and directs its members, only various independent groups using the same symbols. So it's entirely relevant to ask whether the people that attacked police at G20 have anything to do with the people who were in Charlottesville, if there's no overlap between the two groups then they shouldn't be treated as a single entity. And no, that's not the same as the Nazi groups in 2017 or a company and its employees. A Nazi group in 2017 may not be the same people, but they proudly claim a connection and a desire to do those same awful things. Given the anonymous and disorganized nature of "antifa" I don't think you can say with any confidence at all that the people who engage in legitimate violence against Nazis also engage in or endorse violence against innocent victims.

Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.

The only legitimate violence that citizens can engage in is self defense. Violently assaulting somebody simply for being a Nazi is still an illegal action, a violent crime and not a legitimate form of public discourse.

How does one join Antifa? A google search returns no official website of any organization calling itself Antifa, no information on how to apply, who their leadership is etc.

Antifa is not an organization but rather a moniker anybody can use to describe themselves.

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

Antifa isn't the only organization that opposes white supremacists or Nazism. They do have member who are happy to throw Molotov cocktails at other people at events like the G20. If people want to oppose white supremacists and Nazis they don't have to join Antifa, they can join a host of other organizations that don't have members that throw rocks and incendiaries at cops. If you choose to join antifa you don't get to pick and choose who else joins or what other members do in the organization's name and you don't get to limit your association with them to only the good things antifa does and none of the bad.

I know this was discussed before, but I think it's important to point out that "Antifa" is a name many organizations call themselves, and almost by nature, they are less organized and connected than others, because they are not only hailing from the communist-leftist corner, but also from the anarchist corner. There's a large number of different political flows and ideals among the different subsets, and I'm pretty sure not every hot-headed, hoodie-wearing anarcho has "joined" as a "member" of a global Antifa organization.

If Nazis are lawful evil, Antifa is more like...chaotic neutral, I'd say. Less organization, less hierarchy, by nature.

Edit: For example, there is an "Antifaschistische Aktion" - Antifa - in Germany, and they actually do have a website to an extent: https://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/aam/aabo.html , but I'm pretty sure they're not speaking for every left-wing radical, communist or anarchist throwing things at right-wing extremists. From their webpage it's visible that Antifa groups seem to be mostly organized at city levels and will probably have quite a few heated discussions about larger scale operations.

Full disclaimer, I'm not a big fan of Antifa or the black block either, many friends of mine live in Hamburg and had terror-filled weekend around G20 thanks due to the violent extremists. I'm just trying to point out that "Antifa" cannot be called a global, or in many cases even a national organization under one, solid roof.

It was a very difficult and hard to understand argument, so I can see how people might have a hard time following it.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?

De-centralized organization is a strategy. In media terms, it prevents the discussion from crystalizing around specific personalities and policies. Hence this sentiment even ITT that "there is no Antifa." A co-worker told me yesterday that she thinks Antfa is a right-wing conspiracy. Creating this kind of confusion is the goal. The "alt-right" does the same.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?

Look at the term alt-right it use to mean non neocon conservative/libertarian now it's been claimed by the racist
So now they had to abandon the name to not share the blame

Now I yet to see a non violent Antifa group in the US

 Manchu wrote:
De-centralized organization is a strategy. In media terms, it prevents the discussion from crystalizing around specific personalities and policies. Hence this sentiment even ITT that "there is no Antifa." A co-worker told me yesterday that she thinks Antfa is a right-wing conspiracy. Creating this kind of confusion is the goal. The "alt-right" does the same.

It also means that no one leader can be targeted for the purposes of law enforcement.

Of course, it also means that the name is that much easier to be co-opted by other influences, perhaps even when the original mission statement is no longer applicable.

Oldmike wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?

Now I yet to see a non violent Antifa group in the US

That certainly seems to undermine the entire point of an antifascist group, who's whole purpose it is to combat fascism.

Regardless, Antifa as a violent collective has a minuscule base, far smaller than the alt-right.

 Manchu wrote:
De-centralized organization is a strategy. In media terms, it prevents the discussion from crystalizing around specific personalities and policies. Hence this sentiment even ITT that "there is no Antifa." A co-worker told me yesterday that she thinks Antfa is a right-wing conspiracy. Creating this kind of confusion is the goal. The "alt-right" does the same.

Yes, that makes sense. And I'm inclined to believe that a few smart guys in the upper echelons are deliberately handling it like this, but on the other hand I'm also very sure there's enough idiots with a violence fetish calling themselves some kind of Antifa without giving a crap about intricate strategic politcal planning. It's probably a mix of both.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

I think your hypothetical is too convoluted. Here's a better one: David Duke joins the Republican Party and runs for office and a lot of his supporters are white supremacists and attend campaign events he holds. The Republican Party didn't invite David Duke but David Duke is free to register as a Republican and submit himself as a candidate. Is it fair to hold Republican candidates and politicians in office responsible for having David Duke in their Party? Different people, in different places, not directly associated with each other but under the same broad umbrella of the organization that doesn't implicitly have any membership requirements or policy positions that endorse white supremacists but now it does have members who are white supremacists. If the Party is going to have both David Duke and John McCain in it then whatever benefit Duke gets from being in the Party, McCain also suffers a negative for being in the same Party as Duke. McCain can't just say that he's one of the "good" Republicans and that he has no direct association with Duke so it's ludicrous to associate him with Duke or to judge the entire Republican Party based on Duke. If McCain doesn't want to be associated with Duke he can leave the Republican Party and if the Republican Party doesn't want to be associated with Duke it can change it's bylaws and policies to exclude someone like him from membership and officially condemn his positions and adopt clear policies that oppose them.

If "antifa" wants to be an loosely affiliated organization open to membership from anyone or any group then they will still be judged by the actions done by people in their name. If people in antifa only want people to behave a certain way in their name or want its members to follow certain rules, like not throwing molotovs and bricks at cops, then they need to take steps to make that a reality. If they're willing to let anyone do anything under their umbrella then they take the good, the bad and the ugly that comes with it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Is it fair to hold Republican candidates and politicians in office responsible for having David Duke in their Party?

Well, there's established precedent for political parties to undermine candidates within their own parties, so probably.

 Manchu wrote:
The thing about calling them Nazis is, it's what people on the Left call a "dog whistle."

A dog whistle is when you say something that seems innocous or merely slightly cryptic but that the initiated know stand for something that isn't palatable to the public at large. For example, racists talk about "thugs" instead of outright using classical slurs when describing black Americans because doing the latter was firmly made unacceptable. Since using thug became so widespread people figured the dog whistle out and know what it really means.

People say "actual, literal nazis" not because a time rift has opened from the year 1940 but because the ideology and symbolism is the same. It's criminally pedantic.when someone who's walking around with swastikas and chanting about blood and soil can't be called a nazi because they are not, in fact, from 1940. This is why people argue against you and don't like you much in this thread and other threads about the same topic. Yes, sure, academically speaking we can talk about members of the NSDAP, members of contemporary white power movements that do and do not use Third Reich and Third Reich-inspired symbols and so on but the ultimate content and character of their ideology is the same. They're nazis. Actual, literal, nazis. Not some guys who were raised mildly-to-moderately racist against Asians or Latinos, but people who have adopted an ideology of the extermination of non-aryan races.

Oldmike wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?

Look at the term alt-right it use to mean non neocon conservative/libertarian now it's been claimed by the racist
So now they had to abandon the name to not share the blame

...

That's not correct. The term alt-right was coined by that Richard Thingy bloke who last year (?) ago got famous for being a neo-nazi and getting punched in the face and it going viral on YouTube.

No-one had heard of the term before he started to use it.`

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Oldmike wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

No, because then you would not be Republicans, just wannabe Republicans. So it doesn't count see?

Look at the term alt-right it use to mean non neocon conservative/libertarian now it's been claimed by the racist
So now they had to abandon the name to not share the blame

...

That's not correct. The term alt-right was coined by that Richard Thingy bloke who last year (?) ago got famous for being a neo-nazi and getting punched in the face and it going viral on YouTube.

No-one had heard of the term before he started to use it.`

Richard Spencer, the SPLC has a more detailed page on the origins of the alt-right: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right

Thanks for the info.

The "dog whistle" in this instance is appeal to violence. It's not okay - at least in the USA - to publicly call for the murder or maiming of one's political opponents. Violent racists often say things like, "we know how to deal with your type" - it's not an outright death threat but it's clear enough to everyone involved.

"We know how to deal with Nazis" is an explicit reference to American soldiers killing German soldiers in WW2 and the execution of German war criminals in the aftermath of WW2. Nevermind that in this conversation we aren't dealing with any soldiers, German or American, or a war or any other circumstances where there is a legal, legitimate use of violence. Violence is being normalized and advocated and incited anyhow, with this language.

Now let's come back to reality. We are dealing with white supremacists. Unlike Nazism, white supremacy actually was in power here in the US for a very long time - not invidiously or indirectly, either. White supremacy was at one time the absolute political and legal reality of life in America. And it was confronted and discredited and dismantled. How? Specifically, explicitly, directly because of non-violence and the culture of freedom of political speech and action.

Those who insist on pretending we live in a Wolfenstein video game are at best ignorant and selfish. At worst, they are complicit in the deterioration of the civic virtues we absolutely require to continue opposing white supremacy in this country as well as complicit in the dangerous radicalization and escalation of US politics.

Again, Spencer is not looking for a direct appeal to the majority of Americans. He is hoping, and he is being proven correct, that he can get liberals to advocate for violence and restriction of political speech. He is hoping that the Reapers of the world will fire the Clarks of the world. Because Americans are overwhelmingly repulsed by Nazi flags. But we are are also in a very large proportion skeptical about calls for violence and harassment on the basis of someone espousing whatever politics.

He wants to radicalize American liberal progressives and in so doing he wants to discredit American liberal progressivism. Only when you take the time to critically analyze his strategy can you then make the decision about whether or not you are going to be his accomplice.

Daedalus made a very well thought out post that lays a lot of blame at the door of the internet and social media.

I think there is some validity in what he said, but, at the same time, 70 years ago when Donald Trumps' father was arrested at a hooded KKK rally, there was no internet, and the KKK had several million members while now they are down to about 6,000.

Thus I can't blame the internet and social media alone. It's true that the USA is increasingly polarised, but the causes are deeper.

In my view, it started when the Republican Party took a decisive swing to the right under New Gringrich and the New American Century project. Why they did this I don't knwo, but it was done at a time when the US public as a whole had been growing more left-wing, and the lefty tendency continued until today we have general acceptance of gay marriage and so on.

So the Republican Party divorced itself from the mainstream of society and to maintain its grip on power had to increasingly pander to extremist views, blaming immigrants, blacks and social security mammas for the country's supposed woes, and fiddle around with issues like abortion, LGBT lavatories and the cramming of creationism into public schools.

However this succeeded. But, when in power, the Republicans managed to involve the USA in a series of failing overseas wars, presiding over eroding national infrastructure, an often sluggish economy, a series of economic shocks, the increase of inequality and decline of social mobility, and the rapid decline of international prestige and the ties of friendship of the USA with its natural overseas allies.

When in opposition the Republicans devoted themselves to frustrating whatever plans the Democrats were trying to move forwards. Paralysing government while offering no alternative. We see the end results in the pathetic failure of unpopular attempts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with the nothingness they have planned over the past 7 years.

Finally in 2016, the Republicans managed to elect someone who on current records will go down in history as the worst president since the start of the republic. They did it within a two party system using FPTP and an electoral college that handed victory with a clear minority of the popular vote, and associated shenanigans such as interference by the Russian government and voting laws in various Republican controlled states designed to reduce participation by blacks, hispanics and young people.

Given this situation you can easily understand that the lefty majority feel with some justice that they have been cheated out of an election, as well as secure jobs, homes, healthcare and so on that by Republican standards are the privilege of the uppermost in the nation.

The righty minority of course are scared, neglected and nervous, because they've been taught to fear the non-white. They clearly see that in another generation whites will no longer be a majority in the USA. And the majority of them too have lost the secure jobs and so on. The difference is whom to blame.

This demographic change could be a source of enormous strength and vitality, linking the modern US to many economies and cultures in the Old World, India, Africa, the Far East and South America. but on present form it is just another reason for the bilateral division of the nation.

For me as a Brit this is very sad. The USA has since the end of WW2 been the most powerful force for what I might loosely term as "good" in the modern world. I see it being thrown over for a new word order split between the gangster oligarchy of Russia, the Hindu religious nationalism of India, the centrally controlled pseudo-capitalism of China, and the various wobbly emergent economies of Latin American and Africa.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Daedalus made a very well thought out post that lays a lot of blame at the door of the internet and social media.

I think there is some validity in what he said, but, at the same time, 70 years ago when Donald Trumps' father was arrested at a hooded KKK rally,

Did that really happen? The closest thing I could find to that was on snopes

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

There is nothing conclusive about Trump's dad being at a KKK rally.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Then I guess "antifa" has no members since nobody can join it and if it has no membership than it's not an organization and doesn't actually exist.

So if I make an organization called The Republican party with no official connection to the actual Republican Party and then do something illegal, does the actual Republican party bear responsibility for my actions since my organization has the same name despite not being connected in any way beyond that?

I think your hypothetical is too convoluted. Here's a better one: David Duke joins the Republican Party and runs for office and a lot of his supporters are white supremacists and attend campaign events he holds. The Republican Party didn't invite David Duke but David Duke is free to register as a Republican and submit himself as a candidate. Is it fair to hold Republican candidates and politicians in office responsible for having David Duke in their Party? Different people, in different places, not directly associated with each other but under the same broad umbrella of the organization that doesn't implicitly have any membership requirements or policy positions that endorse white supremacists but now it does have members who are white supremacists. If the Party is going to have both David Duke and John McCain in it then whatever benefit Duke gets from being in the Party, McCain also suffers a negative for being in the same Party as Duke. McCain can't just say that he's one of the "good" Republicans and that he has no direct association with Duke so it's ludicrous to associate him with Duke or to judge the entire Republican Party based on Duke. If McCain doesn't want to be associated with Duke he can leave the Republican Party and if the Republican Party doesn't want to be associated with Duke it can change it's bylaws and policies to exclude someone like him from membership and officially condemn his positions and adopt clear policies that oppose them.

If "antifa" wants to be an loosely affiliated organization open to membership from anyone or any group then they will still be judged by the actions done by people in their name. If people in antifa only want people to behave a certain way in their name or want its members to follow certain rules, like not throwing molotovs and bricks at cops, then they need to take steps to make that a reality. If they're willing to let anyone do anything under their umbrella then they take the good, the bad and the ugly that comes with it.

The difference being, of course, that there is no official application process to joining "Antifa" because there is no central organisation. The Republican party has central organisation and could quite simply create a rule where no person representing them could ever have been a member of a organisation designated by them as a hate group, which the KKK obviously should be.

It isn't that "Antifa" is a loosely affiliated organisation open to membership from anyone or any group. Antifa is not a group at all, it is merely a descriptor of the overall objective of a large number of groups whose tactics vary wildly. Without actually identifying the individual groups involved in any action, you cannot arbitrarily assume that they are the same groups who were involved in other actions (Charlottesville groups may have never been to the G20 and vice versa). To do so would be the same as assuming a (hypothetical here) senator who opposes abortion probably took part in firebombing an abortion clinic the other week as both he and the people who firebombed the clinic oppose abortion.

 Manchu wrote:
The "dog whistle" in this instance is appeal to violence. It's not okay - at least in the USA - to publicly call for the murder or maiming of one's political opponents. Violent racists often say things like, "we know how to deal with your type" - it's not an outright death threat but it's clear enough to everyone involved.

...hmm how odd.

It wasn't that long ago, at political rallies in the USA, there was this bloke telling the crowd to "knock the crap out of" people with opposing views.

Even went so far as to boldly claim he'd stump up for their legal fees.

It's lucky that appeals to violence are so unsuccessful.

Otherwise next thing you know he'll be stood in front of the police encouraging them to rough up suspects.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#ytEjsQSYliqQ

David Duke joins the Republican Party and runs for office

What, again ?!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Daedalus made a very well thought out post that lays a lot of blame at the door of the internet and social media.

I think there is some validity in what he said, but, at the same time, 70 years ago when Donald Trumps' father was arrested at a hooded KKK rally,

Did that really happen? The closest thing I could find to that was on snopes

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

There is nothing conclusive about Trump's dad being at a KKK rally.

Actually, it is conclusive that he was there. What is not conclusive is whether he engaged in violence.

reds8n -

Trump is absolutely part of the problem of radicalizing American politics and the sooner he can be completely stymied by centrists, the better. Whether this makes him a powerless president or forces him to become a more thoughtful and less divisive president, I am for either outcome.

Well on the way!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Daedalus made a very well thought out post that lays a lot of blame at the door of the internet and social media.

I think there is some validity in what he said, but, at the same time, 70 years ago when Donald Trumps' father was arrested at a hooded KKK rally,

Did that really happen? The closest thing I could find to that was on snopes

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-father-kkk-1927/

There is nothing conclusive about Trump's dad being at a KKK rally.

Actually, it is conclusive that he was there. What is not conclusive is whether he engaged in violence.

Yeah, but was he part of the rally, or was he just passing by? There's not really any details. It could be that he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the police arrested him just in case he was a suspect.

 daedalus wrote:
Present day: The internet is accessible virtually anywhere and cheaper than cable tv. Targeted communication with anyone in the world based specifically (and even exclusively) on common interest is trivially possible even for people with a sub-average IQ. I get in touch with people who have common stories and hatred. We start to build camaraderie and reinforce each other's views. There's probably even a few better connected people using the group for their own ends that nudge people toward action. I start to think it's actually a good idea to start killing people, and we get organized to try to trigger some violence out of other people, knowing that if we go full extreme enough to provoke counter-demonstrations, it's going to cause someone from the other side to get violent at us, which gives us the final bit of rationalization we need toward being the "good guys on the defense".

I've said it before, but I think history will show that a public and easily accessible Internet was generally a bad idea.

Are you familiar with Marshall McLuhan?

The internet has obviously allowed people of fringe views to find one another more easily, and then target others who may be like-minded. But I think there's also a good case to be made that the nature of our internet communication (especially in the case of social media) also drives us to more polarized opinions and thinking.

Under normal conditions, real life conversations don't have tight character limits, don't reward you with mass attention for expressing extreme viewpoints, and don't have a relative anonymity barrier in place. There's time and opportunity to exchange views in a more free-flowing manner and delve into complexity and nuance. And most people won't act the jagoff to your face even if they disagree with you.

The internet and social media reward all the wrong behaviors, and I think what we've been seeing are those behaviors creeping into real life, shortening our attention spans, making our thinking shallower and more prone to polarization, and just generally turning us into meaner, less pleasant people.

 gorgon wrote:
The internet and social media reward all the wrong behaviors

Including as here baiting someone into being careless while expressing what is at least an arguably reasonable position for the purpose of reporting back to their employer to get them fired.

Is not only America that has become more radical this years. The world has pass a very big crisis, and in times of crisis radicalism emerges like mooshrums. In America, in Europe, etc...

Personally I'm really tired of people that don't want a honest debate, they only see team blue or team red.