Goddamn fascist cowards


A car driven by our craven American Nazis was intentionally driven into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville today.

There has been lots of violence by raging Nazis this weekend — Nazis who chant anti-semitic slogans, “Blood and Soil”, and “Heil Trump”.

Let this be a lesson to every city, every where: when white supremacists announce their intention to riot in your town, shut the fuckers down. Don’t send out the police to corral the antifa protesters and shelter the fascist marchers — use them to throw these awful, disgraceful people out and defend your citizenry.

Unless, of course, you suspect the police sympathize more with the racist cowards. Which may be the case.

Comments

  1. weylguy says

    Once again, words fail when trying to comprehend what’s happened to this country. Trump campaigns on a platform of white exceptionalism and minority hatred, then issues phony statements about how America must not tolerate the very principles he got elected on.

    The cable news networks again are competing for ratings, trying to outdo one another as yet another tragedy unfolds. It’s almost as if Trump and his minions are orchestrating all this bullshit to take our focus off Mueller and the Russia investigation. What next? Dear God, I hate to imagine.

  2. Saad says

    Okay, which one of you hacked CNN’s page to put up the “TERRORISM IN VIRGINIA” headline about this car thing?

  3. Saad says

    Don’t send out the police to corral the antifa protesters and shelter the fascist marchers — use them to throw these awful, disgraceful people out and defend your citizenry.

    Why would the police want to alienate a diverse and random part of the white community (i.e. the friends and families of these Nazis)?

  4. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    re @2:
    first is was an case of a collision with a Native at the Standing Rock when they were blocking the road to make a pipeline protest. It was fully accepted by the majority WHITES to allow collisions with Natives to go unpunished.
    NOW it is ANYone opposing the Regime’s Attitude who is allowed to be mowed.

    The parallels to that Htlr guy* seem to be converging ever closer to precise overlay.

    ~45 acts like a “star” of a “reality” TV show, which has little or no actual consequences on “the audience”.

    The cheetoh is totally on a different plane of thought.

    ~45 did not “cause” this, it has been simmering on back burners for decades.
    ~45 is the enabler who brings all the simmering kettles to front burner to boil-over. To his “amused observation”. There’s probably a little snack for him putin [NB] the other room.
    ——–
    * – note, he ended in ’45 to be resurrected as ~45, hmmm

  5. stumble says

    No. Just no. These people are the worst kind of vile despicable humans, but no. They still have the right to protest, and if hecklers want to use threats of violence to shut that down they should be arrested. Our system only works if the right to protest, speak, and appeal to the government is applied to all equally. No matter how horrible the content of that speech.

  6. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Our system only works if the right to protest, speak, and appeal to the government is applied to all equally.

    Before another post, consider the response of the police in Ferguson to non-white folks, and then, and only then, post again. You appear to be somewhat misinformed as to the difference in response of the police depending on the skin color of those protesting.

  7. stumble says

    @7

    No, just because the police need reform, and treat African American’s worse than whites DOES NOT MEAN that we should be picking other groups whose rights can be violated. At best you are arguing that because the police violated the rights of some they should violate this other groups as well… It simply cannot work that way.

  8. emergence says

    stumble @7

    Dude, these fascist assholes attacked and killed people. They didn’t just speak. Also, the alt-right are a threat to anyone who isn’t them. Why should we respect the right for Nazis to speak when they want to take that right, among others, away from us?

  9. Saad says

    stumble, #6

    They still have the right to protest

    Sure.

    But they shouldn’t have the right to intimidate/threaten/terrorize and make the public area unsafe for minorities (which are the target of their so-called free speech).

    You’re acting like they were out there petitioning the city to lower tax or something.

  10. stumble says

    @10

    Because who is next? What group do you next want to take the right of free speech away from? Sure today its the Nazi’s, but who’s up next? Climate change deniers, vaccine denials, black lives matters? The right to free speech is and must be absolute because if it isn’t you will one day find yourself as part of the disadvantaged group.

    And it makes no difference that they want to take that right from us. We must be the better people, and frankly it shouldn’t be hard since they are Nazi’s. My enemies as well as my friends should have the same rights. There can be no privileged groups in a free society.

    @12)
    Your right I do think genocidal ideas should be free to be expressed. What it says about me is that I have faith that my convictions can stand up to critical scrutiny and withstand the lash of hateful rhetoric. It is only those who’s lack faith in their ideas that need to shut down dissent.

    As for what else it says about me… Well I had family murdered in Nazi concentration camps, other family that were killed for seditious acts by the Nazi regime. My mother was almost raped by Southern Segregationists for dating a black man in Memphis in the 1960’s and my father had a shotgun put in his face for promoting a black man to be a factory supervisor in Mississippi in the 1970’s. Neither of them backed down.

    Personally I served my country honorably, in Bosnia fighting against ethnic cleansing and genocide. Volunteered as as pro-bono counsel for the LGBTQ community who needed help when Louisiana was doing everything it could to minimize them, and have fought for the poor and disadvantaged in my community against a criminal justice system gone berserk. What does it say about me? It says that I stand up for my principles even when they aren’t comfortable, even when they support those I loathe, and even when the easy thing to do is try and remove the rights of others.

    So I ask you, what does it say about you that you wish to remove the rights of a minority. No matter how loathsome their ideas?

  11. emergence says

    stumble @13

    You know, there are quite a few countries out there that restrict hate speech and haven’t descended into totalitarian thought policing. Also, you’re not differentiating between being confident that your views are correct and being confident that your views will prevail. There are a lot of whiny, entitled white people in the U.S. who are susceptible to white supremacist ideology. It sounds fine to let fascists promote their ideology when they don’t have much of a chance to gain significant sociopolitical power. Are you really willing to let neo-nazis promote their ideology on principle when it’s becoming a real possibility that they’ll take over?

  12. logicalcat says

    Those saying “whos next?” Well you know what? What is next?

    What is actually next? Because we have tried to ridicule their factually wrong positions, and they got stronger for it. We already tried tolerating the intolerable, and they got stronger for it. We already tried putting their bullshit up against critical scrutiny, and they got STRONGER FOR IT.

    So whats next? So is actually next?

  13. iiandyiiii says

    The suspect driver’s mother speaks:

    “Samantha Bloom, Mr. Fields’ mother, told a Blade reporter her son texted her Friday to say he had dropped his cat off at her Monclova Township apartment so he could go to an “alt-right” rally in Virginia.

    “I told him to be careful,” Ms. Bloom said. “[And] if they’re going to rally to make sure he’s doing it peacefully.”

    It didn’t appear that happened, she said tearfully.

    She had returned from dinner Saturday evening unaware that her son was involved and had not yet been contacted by authorities.

    He had told her about the rally last week, but didn’t offer details about its extremist nature.

    “I thought it had something to do with Trump,” she said.”

    http://www.toledoblade.com/Nation/2017/08/12/Hundreds-face-off-ahead-of-white-nationalist-rally.html

  14. Saad says

    stumble, #13

    So I ask you, what does it say about you that you wish to remove the rights of a minority. No matter how loathsome their ideas?

    Scaring, intimidating, harassing, harming, injuring and killing people who are already marginalized isn’t a right.

    Do not for a second act like their “protests” are about anything other than the above.

  15. Saad says

    Doing a march for ethnic cleansing and genocide shouldn’t be free speech or valid protest.

    I know in America, it is because it targets only non-whites. But it shouldn’t be.

  16. mickll says

    @ 13
    Um, I don’t think the OP actually said to shut down their right to speech. I read this.

    Let this be a lesson to every city, every where: when white supremacists announce their intention to riot in your town, shut the fuckers down. Don’t send out the police to corral the antifa protesters and shelter the fascist marchers — use them to throw these awful, disgraceful people out and defend your citizenry.

    That’s saying that when people show up with shields, helmets and weapons spoiling for a brawl, not when they show up with signs and bullhorns. Different.

  17. thirdmill says

    This is the 1930s all over again, only with a good economy. And the worst of it is that a majority of Americans do not support this — Hillary Clinton won by over 3 million votes — but there are structural obstacles in place to doing anything to stop it.

  18. emergence says

    micll @21

    Yeah, that’s my real issue. The nazis aren’t just protesting, they’re going to a location like a university campus that they perceive to be liberal, and they’re deliberately trying to intimidate people and incite violence. At the very least they shouldn’t be allowed to carry around fucking assault rifles at a supposedly peaceful rally.

  19. thirdmill says

    It is possible to support free speech for all (including Nazis) while at the same time saying that people who cross the line from speech to violence ought to be prosecuted. That’s my position. The Nazi rally was not peaceful speech; it was violence, so I would have been fine with shutting it down even though I’m close to an absolutist on free speech.

    For those who would support suppressing non-violent speech by Nazis as well, you may have noticed that the bulk of the United States is under the political control of the far right, which means that if speech is going to be suppressed, it’s not likely to be Nazi speech. At this point in time, progressives need free speech protections more than the right wing does because they’re in power and we’re not. So, if you think suppressing speech is a good idea, be careful what you wish for. If their speech can be suppressed, so can yours.

  20. Siobhan says

    But Saad, how can we be sure you have a right to safety unless we debaaaate about it?

  21. Siobhan says

    Thirdmill over here arguing that black people have freedom of speech as if “hands up don’t shoot” wasn’t an arrestable offence.

    lol

  22. KG says

    At this point in time, progressives need free speech protections more than the right wing does because they’re in power and we’re not. – thirdmill@24

    And of course we can trust the right to play fair and allow freedom of speech and assembly to those they hate, just like they have done for BLM.

    You might want to consider, thirdmill, that the USA is the only country with a long history of political pluralism where a proto-fascist regime has gained power. That doesn’t suggest that supporting free speech and assembly for Nazis has been a particularly successful strategy.

  23. says

    Unless, of course, you suspect the police sympathize more with the racist cowards. Which may be the case.

    May?

    There’s a rather disturbing overlap between Nazis/White Nationalists and the police…

  24. Ichthyic says

    Because who is next?

    did nobody ever teach that slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies?

    well, apparently you missed that day in class.

  25. Ichthyic says

    . There can be no privileged groups in a free society.

    LOL

    spoken like someone who has never even scratched the surface of his own privilege.

    I got news for ya cupcake… the US has NEVER BEEN a free society.

    never.

  26. thirdmill says

    “You might want to consider, thirdmill, that the USA is the only country with a long history of political pluralism where a proto-fascist regime has gained power. That doesn’t suggest that supporting free speech and assembly for Nazis has been a particularly successful strategy.”

    True,but what we don’t know yet is if Trump’s election was a fluke or the beginning of a trend. There’s probably a half dozen things that if any one of them had gone differently, Trump would not have been elected: The Comey letter, the deplorables comment, Wikileaks, Russian meddling, the idiots who voted third party, the fact that we have an electoral college, and how about the fact that the Democrats were stupid enough to nominate a candidate with all her baggage in the first place. One might even blame Ecuador for sheltering Assange, whose help to Trump was invaluable. So I really doubt that Trump’s election can be laid at the doorstep of free speech for Nazis.

  27. Gregory Greenwood says

    stumble @ 13;

    Because who is next? What group do you next want to take the right of free speech away from? Sure today its the Nazi’s, but who’s up next? Climate change deniers, vaccine denials, black lives matters? The right to free speech is and must be absolute because if it isn’t you will one day find yourself as part of the disadvantaged group.

    Ichthyic has already addressed the slippery slope fallacy @ 29, but lets look at this from another angle. Firstly, free speech is not an unlimited right; public incitement to violence and racial hatred is not covered, and acts of domestic terrorism most assuredly falls outside the definition. We have seen all of the above in this Alt Right rally, and as such it is entirely reasonable for law enforcement to take steps to prevent the recurrence of such events at other planned Alt Right marches.

    Secondly, as observed by multiple commenters, the police response is markedly light to the actions of White Supremacist groups compared to groups like Black Lives Matter, often treating entirely peaceful assemblies of anti-racism groups with far more force than they do the violent protests of fascist organisations. This is not an argument to further restrict everyone’s freedom, but instead an observation that the system is already skewed in favour of fascists and that this has to be taken into account in any such discussion. Arguing for treating eliminationist extremists with kid gloves – while at the same time people arguing that Black people are in point of fact human too are getting a response in the form of tanks on the streets – is not a sustainable position.

    Lastly, what if we simply invert your argument and look at it from the other end? Who should be next to receive the largess of unalloyed, limitless ‘free expression’ up to and including the odd act of terrorism? If we are to tolerate open expressions of violent hate speech from Christo-fascist extremists, why not do the same for Islamo-fascist extremists? If Neo-Nazis should be allowed to march openly in US cities calling for the re-establishment of slavery and the murder of all who oppose them, complete with armed members of their group intimidating anyone who dares to disagree and acts of murderous violence against counter protests, then why shouldn’t Islamic State sympathisers in the US be allowed to do the same thing? If freedom of speech is to be such an inviolate absolute, then it must, according to your own argument, apply equally to everyone. Exactly how consistent on this point is your logic, Stumble? And if you would draw the line at Islamic State, how could you conceivably sustain such a double standard while holding to your absolutist free speech principles? Or is simply that fascists get a pass…. only if they are suitably and reassuringly White and Christian? Surely you can see why that would be a problem, especially in a multi-ethnic, multi-faith (and including people such as the majority of Pharyngulites who don’t believe in god at all) society?

  28. says

    There should be a line between peaceful protesting and intimidation (not just outright violence). Torches, surrounding people, guns, it seems obvious these should not be allowed.

    And of course “free speech” can have limits regarding things like intimidation, threats, harassment, and inciting violence or harassment.

  29. Saad says

    stumble, #13

    What group do you next want to take the right of free speech away from?

    Why do you keep trying to protect a genocide march under free speech?

    Also, does Germany allow armed Nazis to gather with torches and march through public shouting about ethnic cleansing?

    That’s a serious question. I don’t know the answer. But if they don’t, your bullshit slippery slope has been fucked and you’ve decidedly lost this argument.

  30. KG says

    True,but what we don’t know yet is if Trump’s election was a fluke or the beginning of a trend. – thirdmill@31

    Ah! I see, you’ve had your head up your arse for the last few decades. If you hadn’t, you’d know that Trump’s election was the latest stage in a normalization of hate speech and the corresponding actions (militias, picketing abortion clinics, systematic lying by Fox News, Breitbart etc., online harrassment, Tea Party…) that has been going on at least since the 1980s.

  31. KG says

    And of course “free speech” can have limits regarding things like intimidation, threats, harassment, and inciting violence or harassment. – Brian Pansky@33

    Yes, and the display of swastikas, KKK emblems, or Confederate flags, is intimidation, threats, harrassment and incitement to violence. So is dressing in paramilitary uniforms – banned in numerous countreis that appear to be a lot further from totalitarianism than the USA currently does.

  32. thirdmill says

    KG, I’m not going to bother giving a substantive response to someone whose reading comprehension is as bad as yours is. I didn’t say that we didn’t know if the normalization of hate speech was a fluke or a trend; I said we didn’t know if the election of Donald Trump was a fluke or a trend.

  33. KG says

    thirdmill@37,

    You’re a fucking idiot. If you weren’t, you’d have grasped the very simple point I was making: Trump’s election was neither a fluke, nor the start of a trend.

  34. says

    Also, does Germany allow armed Nazis to gather with torches and march through public shouting about ethnic cleansing?

    Germany doesn’t allow any armed people to gather. Being an open Nazi is not permitted. Displaying Nazi symbols will get you prosecuted. And so will public uttering anything supporying ethnic cleansing.

    Also, being a neo-nazi will get you beat up most places in Germany.

  35. thirdmill says

    KG, I’m not going to waste a substantive response on someone whose reading comprehension skills are as obviously lacking as yours are.

    Oh, and by the way, you’re also part of the reason Trump got elected. Telling people they’re idiots — as Hillary Clinton did with her basket of deplorables comment — does not make them more inclined to vote for you. So long as elections matter, deliberately antagonizing people whose votes you need is not a winning strategy.

  36. microraptor says

    No, Trump got elected because a bunch of deplorable people decided that his comments about pussy grabbing and chumminess with white supremacists wasn’t a problem so long as he promised to bring jobs back to white people. Those people were never realistically going to support Hillary, quit pretending otherwise.

  37. erik333 says

    Yeah, nominating Hillary was a monumental mistake by the DNC. She was uniquely qualified to lose.

  38. says

    Nazis are not ideology-free comic book villains. They are real, they want to kill people, and over the last several years they have been operating more and more in the open.

    Here’s a summary of their ideology, hat tip to twitter.com/yonatanzunger:

    1. Nazis believe that the world is a struggle between “races”, meaning roughly “nations” (e.g. the Germans and the French are two different “races”, genetics be damned). “Races” are in a contest to conquer one another; “superior” races do this through sheer might, and “inferior” races do this by infiltrating and corrupting the “superior” races, by immigration, racial mixing, and spreading of “poisonous” ideas.

    2. “Superior” races are driven by their natural “Will”, meaning “instinct” or “gut feeling”, and those who express that “Will” most strongly are the ones who naturally rise to the top echelons of leadership. “Inferior” races (e.g. Jews) have a weak “Will” and rely instead on their intellect. By Nazi reckoning, the smarter you are — and the more logical your arguments are — the more it proves that you are of “inferior” stock, or else that you are a race traitor whose mind has been “poisoned” by an “inferior” race.

    If you see a person expressing these beliefs, they are a Nazi and **they want to kill people**. Do not underestimate them, do not dismiss them, do not ridicule them, do not write news articles about how dapper they dress, do not talk about how fresh-faced and handsome they are, and whatever you do, holy shit, **do not platform them**. They are avowed enemies of the foundations of human civilization. Report them. Fight them. Silence them. Disrupt them. This is not a drill. This is not a drill. All hands on deck.

    And regarding freedom of speech: why is it that so many Americans are convinced that “I will kill you” is an illegal threat (not protected speech), and “this crowd should kill you” is illegal incitement (not protected speech), but “I will change the law so that I can kill you with impunity” is perfectly fine speech to defend as constitutionally protected? You *do* realize that the Supreme Court could just wave its hand tomorrow and reinterpret the First Amendment as permitting a ban on such speech, right? And that they have *already* ruled that laws “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest” (such as not letting Nazis riot on a college campus) can abridge speech while remaining true to the First Amendment, right?

  39. Rob Grigjanis says

    thirdmill @42:

    deliberately antagonizing people whose votes you need is not a winning strategy.

    If she’d said “fuck you, fascist scum”, more people may have felt encouraged to vote for her.

  40. jefrir says

    The terrible baggage Clinton carried was being female; quit pretending otherwise.

    Trump won, primarily, because a very large part of the electorate is sexist, racist and xenophobic. They saw what he was, and they decided that that’s what they wanted. There were assorted side issues that helped get him to that position, but they wouldn’t have worked if he didn’t have a base to play to.

  41. thirdmill says

    Jefrir, there are no doubt some people who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she is female, but in normal times being under investigation by the FBI, her brazen kleptocracy, and her pay-for-play while Secretary of State would have sunk anyone of either sex from being seriously considered for the nomination. Granted Trump is worse by orders of magnitude, but nominating someone with those issues was not a smart thing for the Democrats to do.

    And while it’s easy to blame Trump’s election on racism and sexism, if you look at voting patterns for the past three elections you see that a lot of people who voted for Trump also voted for Obama. So there’s more at work here than just racism, which does not mean that racism had nothing to do with it. But go ahead and keep claiming otherwise if it makes you feel better.

  42. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Granted Trump is worse by orders of magnitude, but nominating someone with those issues was not a smart thing for the Democrats to do.

    Do you believe in democracy? Clinton won the democratic primaries by over 3 million votes over Sanders, and did the same in the general election against Trump. Link 1, link 2.
    Misogyny and lies spread by the rethugs for years played a big part in the electoral college defeat. Denying that is denying reality.

  43. Vivec says

    Thank goodness the commentariat here aren’t the ones making laws regarding free speech.

  44. says

    Our system only works if the right to protest, speak, and appeal to the government is applied to all equally.

    Your system sucks. And useful idiots like yourself will defend the freedom to argue for ethnic cleansing and genocide right up to the point when it is actually happening, at which point you’ll be reprimanding the victims for being so damn loud about their imminent murder.

  45. consciousness razor says

    Nerd:

    Do you believe in democracy? Clinton won the democratic primaries by over 3 million votes over Sanders, and did the same in the general election against Trump.

    I don’t agree with thirdmill, but I’ll reply to this. The primary/caucus system is hardly a paradigmatic example of democracy. First of all, most of them are closed (or semi-closed, etc.), meaning that people who aren’t registered to the party can’t vote in the primary. I don’t know what independents or Republicans said in polls about Clinton/Sanders — for all I know, their input may not have had a positive effect for Sanders — but to the extent such people are unable to express their preferences by voting in the primaries, it is an undemocratic system. Secondly, it’s decided by delegates and superdelegates, meaning it’s indirect at best, even for voters who were able to participate.

    What did not happen is that everyone saw Clinton got more votes in the popular count, for all people who were “eligible to vote” in the general election (disregarding all shenanigans about the electoral college for the moment), thus making her the winner of the primaries. And that’s without bringing up all of the ways the Democratic party had its finger on the scales (in favor of Clinton) for many years leading up to the election, which suggests they don’t “believe in democracy” a great deal. The point is, it certainly doesn’t make you a “non-believer” if you’re not satisfied with how that sausage actually got made.

    Besides, I interpret the claim “nominating someone with those issues was not a smart thing for the Democrats to do” as a criticism of what voting Democrats (not the party or the system) did when they nominated her, however that actually happened. Saying those people didn’t make a smart choice doesn’t imply any kind of general opposition to democracy itself. They’re a relatively small group who should’ve had the sense to pick the other main candidate who was more widely preferred in the whole population (doesn’t have as much “baggage,” etc.), since they recognize everyone else also gets to vote in a real democracy and not just them. That’s assuming of course that Sanders was preferred more — don’t know if the evidence suggests that’s true, but that’s the structure of the argument.

  46. says

    I’ve had it. This is a thread about Nazis and KKK coming in to terrorize a US city and one of their terrorists driving his car through a crowd of people, killing at least one and wounding many others. It is appalling for thirdmill to step in and try to troll it by bringing up the election and smearing Clinton early on.

    I believe it’s necessary at some point in the near future to talk about the Kremlin’s involvement with the growth of white supremacy in the US. But of course I didn’t bring it up in the early comments because it’s not central and this is a difficult and emotional enough moment, with enough relevant arguments to have, as it is. This is not the fucking time or place.

    But since people feel it’s fine to rehash the election using bogus and partial information, including rightwing/Kremlin talking points, I guess it’s anything goes on the thread about white-supremacist terror, so here’s something to check out:

    “Between Trump and Putin: The Right-Wing International, a Crisis of Democracy, and the Future of the European Union.”

    Assholes.

  47. jrkrideau says

    34 Saad

    Does Germany allow armed Nazis to gather with torches and march through public shouting about ethnic cleansing?

    No, the Germans tend to be a bit serious about this type of thing.

    Chinese tourists arrested for Hitler salute in Germany

    Criminal proceedings have been started against the middle-aged men for using symbols from a banned organisation. The pair have been released on bail of €500 (£450; $600) each. Germany has strict laws on hate speech and symbols linked to Hitler and the Nazis. The men – aged 36 and 49 – could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years, according to police.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40842853

    In actual fact, they were fined €400 or €500 and sent home where large numbers of Chinese laughed at them.

  48. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    he primary/caucus system is hardly a paradigmatic example of democracy. First of all, most of them are closed (or semi-closed, etc.), meaning that people who aren’t registered to the party can’t vote in the primary.

    Both Michigan and Illinois you declare your party when you get your primary ballot. Same in lots of other states. Stop with anything other than that, as not all states have closed primaries, and in any case, it doesn’t matter. Clinton got 54% of the democratic primary vote.
    I fail to see evidence in your post unlike mine. Enough said.

  49. thirdmill says

    Salty Current, No 58, I understand your frustration at the direction the thread has taken, but I’m not the one who steered it there. The reason we’re talking about Hillary Clinton is that in Comment No. 27, KG made an incredible claim that amounted to free speech is responsible for Donald Trump’s election, and I responded. Perhaps I should not have responded, but if you’re going to blame someone for a thread hijack, please look at the point at which the hijack occurred. But that’s water under the bridge at this point, and there’s a far more important issue.

    I agree with everyone here that Trump’s election was catastrophic, that white supremacists are vile human beings, and that racism threatens the continued survival of the human race. We are mostly on the same page. And what needs to happen is to have an honest and frank conversation about what is to be done about it, which includes figuring out how we got here in the first place. And calling me a fucking idiot who should fuck off because my analysis isn’t precisely the same as yours doesn’t further that discussion. In fact, it’s precisely that attitude which makes it easier for Republicans to win what ought to be Democratic strongholds like Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The voters in those states mostly see liberals as know it all snobs who piously look down their noses at rural America and its way of life. And people who feel condescended to will not vote for you. They just won’t. If you don’t believe me, you can just keep doing it and keep losing elections.

  50. says

    The reason we’re talking about Hillary Clinton is that in Comment No. 27, KG made an incredible claim that amounted to free speech is responsible for Donald Trump’s election, and I responded.

    Bullshit.

    We are mostly on the same page [blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah].

    I don’t believe you. I’m also an anarchist and I’m not running for office. Go fuck yourself.

  51. says

    I’d like to point out some relevant context: The groups participating in these events included the KKK, neo-Nazis, white-supremacist militias. The KKK is a known US terrorist organization. The Nazis were the most violent organization in history. The vast majority of terrorist killings in the US since 9/11 have been committed by rightwing extremists. They don’t just use violence – they preach it. It’s central to their message and everything about them. Their rhetoric is violent. Their memes are violent. This rally was planned as part of “taking America back.”

    I was commenting here on the previous thread while I watched yesterday’s rally on TV. The previous night, they surrounded people with flaming torches. Yesterday, as I said in horror at the time, many of them had guns. Just out. In their hands. I didn’t see any police for probably more than an hour. People confused their militias for the National Guard. The governor, in a truly bizarre statement, claimed the state police held back because they were outgunned. By Nazis.

    When known terroristic groups that espouse violence are marching through a city carrying semi-automatic weapons, it goes well beyond a free speech issue. If it were ISIS rallying in Charlottesville to “take over America,” I highly doubt people would be having the same debate.

  52. says

    Ah – should’ve read the thread more closely to begin with. I see many of those points were already made above, including the ISIS comparison [!]. Apologies and good night.

  53. methuseus says

    @SC #64:

    The vast majority of terrorist killings in the US since 9/11 have been committed by rightwing extremists.

    You could definitely change that to “The vast majority of terrorist killings in the US other than 9/11 have been committed by right-wing extremists.”
    Don’t forget Oklahoma City, along with some other ambiguous terrorist fatalities that are hard to categorize.

  54. F.O. says

    @methuseus #66
    Without dwelling on numbers and lexicon, Alt-Islamists are most certainly rightwing extremists:
    * They are fundamentally xenophobic and aim at physically eliminating anyone “different”
    * They rally behind authoritarianism, violence, nativism and misogyny
    * They are overwhelmingly dominated by young, angry males who feel powerless

  55. methuseus says

    @F.O.:
    I was thinking the same thing, but couldn’t figure out how to explain why I think they should be considered right-wing. Thank you for helping me in that.

  56. emergence says

    Apparently Richard Spencer was trying to pass off the torch-wielding mob, armed militiamen, and that asshole who ran people over as “peaceful protestors” and accused the anti-fascist protestors of being the violent ones. I know he has to spin this just to maintain his delusions of being the god guy, but goddamn. How the fuck can Spencer be so far up his own ass?

  57. emergence says

    Also, given where this thread went, it’s weird how some people call this place an echo chamber.

  58. blf says

    GoDaddy, which hosts teh daily stormer hate site, has told teh nazis they have 24 hours to move. Teh nazis are apparently trying to pretend Anonymous has taken over the site, presumably in anticipation of it going dark very soon. Affiliates of Anonymous network question role in Daily Stormer ‘hack’ (Grauniad edits in {curly braces}):

    […]
    The Daily Stormer was founded and is edited by US-born Andrew Anglin, who endorsed Donald Trump for president.

    On Sunday Anglin published an article on the site criticising Heather Heyer [the lady murdered by teh nazis –blf].

    The web-hosting company GoDaddy said on Sunday it had given the Daily Stormer 24 hours to move its domain to another provider, after the article denigrating Heyer was published.

    Your Anon News, one of the biggest Anonymous-linked Twitter accounts, said on Monday that it did not think the hack had been perpetrated by an established member.

    “We have no confirmation that ‘Anonymous’ is involved yet,” it wrote on Twitter. Furthermore, the account suggested the post may have been a Daily Stormer stunt.

    The post in the name of Anonymous claims that the website will be shut down within 24 hours, but this was almost inevitable considering GoDaddy’s withdrawal of support.

    “Looks more like a {Daily Stormer} stunt,” the Your Anon News account said. “Wonder if they are having issues finding a new host.”

    […]

    It’s unfortunate it took an odious false spew of bile & hate about a murdered woman to get GoDaddy to act, but kudos nonetheless for this meaningful, if much-delayed, action. (I have no idea what other übernasty sites GoDaddy hosts; I presume there are some, and encourage them — and other hosting providers — to make a more serious & strenuous effort to kick the facists out.)

  59. says

    Who could have guessed?:

    Weimer said Fields left school for a while, and when he came back he was quieter about politics until his senior year, when politicians started to declare their candidacy for the 2016 presidential race. Weimer said Fields was a big Trump supporter because of what he believed to be Trump’s views on race. Trump’s proposal to build a border wall with Mexico was particularly appealing to Fields, Weimer said. Fields also admired the Confederacy for its military prowess, he said, though they never spoke about slavery.

  60. unclefrogy says

    at the risk of adding to any derail I have to say something here because it just pisses me off.
    If you take it as true that HC was and is a corrupt as the guy who played a businessman on TV then the only things that separate, that distinguish them from each other is one is a man and a racist white nationalist and the other is not a racist and is a woman.
    so why did one win again?
    uncle frogy

  61. F.O. says

    so why did one win again?

    Most people seem to be very keen on pointing at a single cause, but personally I think it’s a mix of things.
    Xenophobia certainly played a part, it is an easy sell, as well as misogyny.
    Many people voted for Trump or did not vote at all to punish the dems for doing the interests of the rich, and either did not understand the consequences, either decided “the worse, the better”.
    This in turn can be explained by recklessness, stupidity, privilege, callousness, but also frustration and disaffection.

    I don’t think you can get a genuine picture of the choices of several millions of people by discounting any of these.
    If the dems had a better candidate this wouldn’t have happened.
    If the dems worked on fixing the problems in the US voting system when they were in power, this wouldn’t have happened.
    If Americans weren’t as xenophobic this wouldn’t have happened.
    If the GOP hadn’t spent decades pushing the country to the right and catering to extremist, this wouldn’t have happened.
    If Americans weren’t as misogynist, this wouldn’t have happened.
    If many whites took a stand, this wouldn’t have happened.

    Multiple things can be blamed (and with different priorities) at the same time.
    I don’t think it’s a good idea to ignore this complexity.

  62. says

    @F.O.
    It’s not just xenophobia. It’s disgust based things too. I have files filled with people that hyper-focused on anything health and disease related that they could fling at gay people.

    Homophobia and transphobia have different features. My father just posted an article employment shaming Starbucks for hiring immigrants via TB. I’m mentally deconstructing it.

    And it’s more than fear and disgust. Positive racism suggests so. It’s got more pieces than we wish and many are politically inconvenient. As messey as it gets places like FTB that break up and mess with these parts of society and compare notes with one another are how we figure the problem out.

  63. ck, the Irate Lump says

    F.O. wrote:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tolerance#Paradox_of_tolerance

    I find this article closer to truth: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376
    Basically, it argues the idea of tolerance is like a contract, and more akin to a peace treaty than a moral absolute. The protection of such a treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. Those who willfully violate the contract therefore have no expectation of being protected by it. Under this framework, there is no paradox.

  64. F.O. says

    @Brony, Social Justice Cenobite #76
    I’m not too keen on arguments of lexicon, but you make an interesting (and worrisome) point.

    @ck, the Irate Lump #78
    Yes, I had read it and agree with it.

  65. says

    @F.O.
    People tend to think that. The language is simply convenient because we already have some structure to how we talk about feeling. I want more complexity in how we try to solve the bigotry problem even if I’m not the one with the relevant perspective on the specific manifestations.

    The cognitive reality is that in disgust repulsion is about you and I ejecting some thing from ourselves or our groups (we use it rationally and irrationally). In fear repulsion is about you staying or moving away from something.

    Of course the science is still ongoing and I expect my own language will have to keep changing to reflect what is going on (I also refrain from criticizing a lot just so I don’t act politically inconveniently as I mention things like this here, I try to be an honest political creature). To me though it seems like an advantage to be able to define fear, disgust, anger and other bigoted reactions. As our view of consciousness and emotions improve all we have to do is adjust accordingly.

Leave a Reply