US Politics: Locked, Loaded, Fired Up and Capitalized

[James Arryn]

23 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

 

this is literally one of their talking points

...that's not a complete argument, imo.

Also, Many, so disappointed in you today. There have been like 7 or 8 perfect Big Lebowski memeopps that went by with nary a 'yeah? Well that's just your opinion, man.' to be seen. I'm going to assume a death in the family or accidentally shaking Tom Brady's hand or similar, and I'm only giving you that much benefit of the doubt because I love you like a brother I've never met and don't really know well.

edit: all right, your post above earns you some more credit, but I'm telling you, man, you're slipping.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

...that's not a complete argument, imo.

Also, Many, so disappointed in you today. There have been like 7 or 8 perfect Big Lebowski memeopps that went by with nary a 'yeah? Well that's just your opinion, man.' to be seen. I'm going to assume a death in the family or accidentally shaking Tom Brady's hand or similar, and I'm only giving you that much benefit of the doubt because I love you like a brother I've never met and don't really know well.

Problem is I would take that into "8 year olds, dude" territory, and no one wants that. 

 

/Even an inappropriate asshole like myself knows better than to throw gasoline on an open fire.

[James Arryn]

25 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Problem is I would take that into 8 year olds, dude territory, and no one wants that. 

Creep can roll, though.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Seconded. This idea that you're a "mealy-mouthed coward" if you're not down with killing nazis is a 1930's Germany era nazi meme.

"If you're not with us, you're against us". You are adopting the tactics of your ideological enemy if you promote this way of thinking. 

That's not remotely what I said or meant. 

The argument has often been that if you start advocating strong positions it will push the people to the other side. If my advocating violence against nazis is the thing that makes you side with nazis, so be it. At the end of the day you would still be siding with nazis. 

Now, you can choose not to pick a side or condemn both, and that's fine - but one of the arguments is that calling people nazis and racists will make them racist. If that is what makes you turn into a racist, well, it didn't take very much. 

[straits]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I think people in this thread often forget that the success of the Civil Rights Movement relied almost entirely on violating the rule of law.  Apart from one or two posters, most who post here likely support what the mission and goals of the CRM were even if the movement purposely ignored the rule of law in many areas.  

 

It really looks like many of the commenters here are refusing to face this head-on. The law doesn't perfectly reflect what is considered morally upright behaviour, nor does violating it lead to a Mad Max wasteland.

It's kind of interesting how this defense of free speech in the specific case of neo-Nazis implies that embattled ideologies will sort themselves out without government interference. Namely, that neo-Nazis will lose on the battleground of rhetoric because the spectating audience nation-wide will be turned off by their evil ideology. It's heartening to see people calling out this failed centrist proposal  

Interestingly, this defense is analogous to what you'd see in arguments that favour the free market and the idea that the markets will "regulate themselves".

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

That's not remotely what I said or meant. 

The argument has often been that if you start advocating strong positions it will push the people to the other side. If my advocating violence against nazis is the thing that makes you side with nazis, so be it. At the end of the day you would still be siding with nazis. 

Now, you can choose not to pick a side or condemn both, and that's fine - but one of the arguments is that calling people nazis and racists will make them racist. If that is what makes you turn into a racist, well, it didn't take very much. 

Fair enough. I was actually referencing a Sword of Doom post earlier in the thread. I didn't intend to aim that response at you necessarily. 

My beef with the "you're a nazi sympathizer" call out is that I think it's mostly used in the same way as "you're a racist" is. It's not that it's going to make anybody a racist or a nazi, it's that it is likely to get the accused to stop arguing against your view as they don't want to be labeled as a nazi or a racist. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Who's rounding people into camps? 

This is not a classic wartime situation like the one you are equating it to was. There is no clear line that you can draw as there was during the Civil War. The type of war you are advocating would assuredly require the use of deathcamps. Are you cool with that?

 

We are already rounding people into camps. 

We have 25% of the world's prison population. Many are in prison for crimes they did not commit. Many were framed for crimes by the state. These people are overwhelmingly represented by minority populations. 

We have people in deportation centers who have been there for years. One person had been there for 3 years on false charges. 

And then there are extralegal places like but no.

 

[James Arryn]

10 minutes ago, straits said:

It really looks like many of the commenters here are refusing to face this head-on. The law doesn't perfectly reflect what is considered morally upright behaviour, nor does violating it lead to a Mad Max wasteland.

It's kind of interesting how this defense of free speech in the specific case of neo-Nazis implies that embattled ideologies will sort themselves out without government interference. Namely, that neo-Nazis will lose on the battleground of rhetoric because the spectating audience nation-wide will be turned off by their evil ideology. It's heartening to see people calling out this failed centrist proposal  

Interestingly, this defense is analogous to what you'd see in arguments that favour the free market and the idea that the markets will "regulate themselves".

I don't think you mean 'interesting' when you say 'interesting'. 

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We are already rounding people into camps. 

We have 25% of the world's prison population. Many are in prison for crimes they did not commit. Many were framed for crimes by the state. These people are overwhelmingly represented by minority populations. 

We have people in deportation centers who have been there for years. One person had been there for 3 years on false charges. 

And then there are extralegal places like but no.

 

...Gitmo?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

...Gitmo?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

As far as I know, the black protestors who police moved against weren't armed the same way.  Which was probably why the police acted the way they did, of course. Does anyone think that if the police moved against the marchers shooting wasn't going to break out?  The guy who mowed down people with his car was beyond the fringe, he really was a terrorist and should be prosecuted as such.

I don't think he was, and I don't think it's a good idea to act like the threat isn't as large as it is because this guy is somehow different from all the other guys shouting Nazi slogans and waving Nazi flags.

[straits]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I'm not denying that. I'm all for arresting mouthpiece douchebags like Spencer and his ilk if you can prove incitement. I'm not saying yelling fire in a crowded theater is covered by Free Speech, it isn't.

 The problem here lies in being able to draw a logical and fair conclusion based on the facts. I think it's easy to make a conflation here between fiery rhetoric and some nutjob that decides to ram his car into a crowd of people. This type of conflation was made between BLM protest chants and the shooter who killed 5 cops in Dallas. Would you consider that to be incitement? I don't.

 

There's an asymmetry in the ideologies behind the murder of 5 cops in Dallas, and the car ramming in the neo-Nazi rally. 

Neither are justifiable, of course, but the decision of the shooter to kill cops comes from a place of historic oppression, where his ancestors (and possibly his family and community in this day and age) have been oppressed by law enforcement representatives. To some extent, maybe some of these crimes were perceived, and not real to the shooter himself, but that is beside the point.

The decision of the neo-Nazi to ram into a crowd of counter-protesters, on the other hand, comes from a background of white supremacy, racism, and other unsavoury ideologies. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We are already rounding people into camps. 

We have 25% of the world's prison population. Many are in prison for crimes they did not commit. Many were framed for crimes by the state. These people are overwhelmingly represented by minority populations. 

We have people in deportation centers who have been there for years. One person had been there for 3 years on false charges. 

And then there are extralegal places like but no.

Yeah, I suppose that is a fair equivalency. I can buy privatized prisons as a form of detention camp. I stand corrected.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, straits said:

 

There's an asymmetry in the ideologies behind the murder of 5 cops in Dallas, and the car ramming in the neo-Nazi rally. 

Neither are justifiable, of course, but the decision of the shooter to kill cops comes from a place of historic oppression, where his ancestors (and possibly his family and community in this day and age) have been oppressed by law enforcement representatives. To some extent, maybe some of these crimes were perceived, and not real to the shooter himself, but that is beside the point.

The decision of the neo-Nazi to ram into a crowd of counter-protesters, on the other hand, comes from a background of white supremacy, racism, and other unsavoury ideologies. 

Sure, I'm not claiming the acts (or really the ideologies behind the acts) to be symmetrical. I'm saying the conflation between the rhetoric and the action is similar.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I suppose that is a fair equivalency. I can buy privatized prisons as a form of detention camp. I stand corrected.

The public ones are just as bad. (And yes, I did meant Gitmo) That is my point - the state has been sanctioning detention camps for 20 years now, and it is only getting worse. 

That's the real issue I have - which is that right now the rule of law is oppressive. This does not mean a civil war, but it does imply simply relying on the rule of law to solve things is naive at best and actively damaging the cause at worst. MLK didn't advocate violence, but he did advocate breaking the law - and as has been said many times, MLK needed Malcolm X too. 

If the reason the police could not handle the riots and violence was because the people were too well armed, that means they should have those rights removed. Or the police need to confront. As it stands this implies that the police cannot protect the citizens from armed groups of people who wish to cause violence. At that point - when police have admitted they cannot control things - why say to rely on rule of law?

[straits]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, I'm not claiming the acts (or really the ideologies behind the acts) to be symmetrical. I'm saying the conflation between the rhetoric and the action is similar.

The general theme of BLM rhetoric is, as I understand it, equal rights for black Americans and fair treatment by law enforcement. This is easily distinguishable from the actions of a shooter who decided to kill cops without some specific directive from BLM.

The rhetoric of a neo-Nazi rally, and generally the racist implications of alt-right "representatives" is not defensive or egalitarian in its tone. So the deliberate car ramming into a crowd of counter-protesters is more closely related to the actual rhetoric of the alt-right. So far it looked like and it sounded like neo-Nazism. With this attack it's also beginning to act like a radicalized group. It's safe to categorize it as a threat to the general populace, which is not the case with BLM.

[DMC]

Someone mentioned that a lot of European democracies have anti-Nazi laws.  That's true, many do (as well as laws against Holocaust denial).  It's also true that many European democracies do not, or have very few laws against Nazi symbols and expression.  Without question, the most researched issue for European scholars over the past 15 years (hell, maybe 25) is the rise of radical right parties.  Now, there's a lot of factors that have been proposed as contributing to the rise of far right parties, dozens in fact.  But to my knowledge there isn't a single study that offers anti-Nazi laws as a contributing factor - either for or against - the rise of radical right parties.  That's because all you need to do is look at a map to know it's incredibly unlikely there's any relationship between the two.

I mention all this to ask:  do you really think suppressing the speech of white supremacists is going to make them go away?  If not, then it seems we should continue to focus on non-violent means to combat them, like continuing to pressure law enforcement to do their jobs.  @Fragile Bird just mentioned a pretty damn sensible measure - stop allowing people to bring guns to public events.  Kal just mentioned prison reform - and while the primary problem is non-violent drug offenders and the racism of mandatory minimums (rather than people being falsely accused/framed) - that's right on the top of my list of priorities with education.

But I'm not going to entertain unprovoked violence as a solution, nor entertain the insipid notion that makes me on the side of nazis.

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

A lot more then one demonstration where a single person was killed due to violence. 

19 people alone were injured by the guy that killed that woman. Let's talk about that black 20 year old that was beaten with metal rods in the parking structure in Charlottesville. 

I'm guessing you forgot about the neo nazi that stabbed two people to death in Portland Oregon back in May?

How about the stabbing of James Caughlin back in march in NYC?

 

should we go back a few years and talk about that Sikh temple shooting? Or how about that jewish community center shooting?

How about Dylan Roof killing 9 black people to incite a race war?

 

we can go back to just under a week in Minnesota where a mosque bombed.

 

But yea, it was only one big demonstration and it was only one death, by a Nazi in broad daylight with cameras all around. White supremacists haven't been really active over the past few years.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The public ones are just as bad. (And yes, I did meant Gitmo) That is my point - the state has been sanctioning detention camps for 20 years now, and it is only getting worse. 

That's the real issue I have - which is that right now the rule of law is oppressive. This does not mean a civil war, but it does imply simply relying on the rule of law to solve things is naive at best and actively damaging the cause at worst. MLK didn't advocate violence, but he did advocate breaking the law - and as has been said many times, MLK needed Malcolm X too. 

If the reason the police could not handle the riots and violence was because the people were too well armed, that means they should have those rights removed. Or the police need to confront. As it stands this implies that the police cannot protect the citizens from armed groups of people who wish to cause violence. At that point - when police have admitted they cannot control things - why say to rely on rule of law?

Eh, in terms of the whole 'steel beneath the glove' or 'soft option' stuff about Malcolm/Carmichael et al, it's not really easy to determine how complementary or contradictory they were. Certainly King didn't think so, and his rm (Gandhi) had been of a similar mind. Which is not me calling it determined the other way, I just don't think it affords much in the way of easy answers. But, again as Gandhi said, there is a big difference between non-violence and law-abidence. 

An aside, I'm reading that many seem to think Dallas is the next flashpoint, apparently already down that road before Virginia happened. Anyone have any local perspective?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If the reason the police could not handle the riots and violence was because the people were too well armed, that means they should have those rights removed. Or the police need to confront. As it stands this implies that the police cannot protect the citizens from armed groups of people who wish to cause violence. At that point - when police have admitted they cannot control things - why say to rely on rule of law?

 And that point I'm totally onboard with. These sorts of protests require a permit which are typically worded as a request to gather peaceably in a public place. Bringing firearms should be in direct violation to one of the most basic requirements of the permit. I don't understand why this bullshit is allowed. These sorts of actions should result in the police shutting down the event right off the jump.