Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Draconaes
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Draconaes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:That's an actually useful move. All this talk about physically punching Nazis is not.


But is it (talk of nazi punching) a harmful move, given the assumption it's is not useful?

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:26 pm UTC

I might humbly suggest that even if not a single person associated in any way with the left lifted their finger, Trump would probably still say what he said about both sides, the alt-left, etc. His relationship with the truth is pretty loose and he doesn't care about getting it right, he cares about scoring as many points for his side as possible even if he's making everything up that he says.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:28 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:That's an actually useful move. All this talk about physically punching Nazis is not.


But is it (talk of nazi punching) a harmful move, given the assumption it's is not useful?


Remember that Trump's approval rating is 79% amongst Republicans and 34% amongst general Americans. Look to your left, look to your right. Among three people, one person is a Trump supporter. Trump is a historically weak President but he represents a huge number of Americans who still support and listen to his words.

And when Trump says shit like this:

"You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that," Trump said. "You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit and they were very, very violent."


Note: the White Supremacists had a permit. Trump is claiming that the violent ones were the "Left", and some 79% of Republicans and 34% of Americans in general will take his words to heart.

-------------

If you start punching people in this political environment, it will only prove Trump correct. It would be a politically harmful move to the cause. The other moves, such as erasing a webpage or posting a few pictures online... are not what Trump is talking about and therefore will be more effective.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Draconaes
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Draconaes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:40 pm UTC

I do find it strange that driving vehicles into crowds apparently isn't harmful enough to the nazi side to counteract nazis being punched by anti-nazis.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:45 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:I do find it strange that driving vehicles into crowds apparently isn't harmful enough to the nazi side to counteract nazis being punched by anti-nazis.


Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:46 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Sableagle wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:
And nobody is worse than a Nazi, it's impossible.
Child rapists?
Hey, why be just one kind of monster?


Okay, so we agree to disagree on whether Nazi or child rapist is worse, but we agree that Nazi child rapist is, by the additive property, worse than either?

So ... hypothetical situation. Bunch of men with "death to jews" tattoos and "kill all n*****s" t-shirts show up near a centre for refugee women and children, hold up Nazi banners, march to the hostel-thingy, prepare precisely one Molotov cocktail each, throw one rock each to break the windows and then start throwing their firebombs in through the broken windows. As throwing a rock through a window that doesn't have anyone immediately behind it isn't a direct threat to life, you can't shoot them for that.


We're getting into nuanced law here, and as I have repeatedly stated, I think people around here are for the most part too angry to deal with nuance or law, but I will just tell you that in at least some jurisdictions, you are wrong. In general, the rule is some variation of "reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Also, please note this is all academic debate and not legal advice, and I am certainly not trying to give you information you can use to engineer your own justifiable homicide situation.

As just *having* a Molotov cocktail isn't a crime, you can't shoot them for that.

Same disclaimer, but again, I don't think you're right on this. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to explosives. In fact, the sale of proper explosives is highly regulated, as is the construction and possession of improvised ones. (Most of these regulations stem from the National Firearms Act, but without actually checking I can't say for certain that the regulatory power doesn't also come in part from some other statute.) For something like a molotov cocktail, which if you want to be incredibly weaselly and disingenuous you might try to argue "isn't a bomb, it's just a bunch of grain alcohol with an improvised cloth stopper," an actual prosecution would turn heavily on proving intent--basically, that you built it to be an improvised destructive device, and not because you lost your cork and didn't want to spill any of that sweet, sweet booze.

Any of them that's already thrown his bomb is not longer a threat to life (unless he's going to start hacking at fleeing residents with a machete or something) so you can't shoot him then either.


Again, this depends heavily on the state, how it treats self-defense, duty to retreat, hot pursuit, etc. Also, in general the right to make a citizens arrest is at its highest when the citizen actually sees a violent felony being committed in front of them. I don't know if any states ever authorize the u[se of lethal force in making a citizens arrest--I can't think of one off hand--but if it is ever legal, this would be it.

Do you have to try really, really hard to hit someone who's *in the act of throwing* a firebomb *without* hitting any other member of the crowd, or wait until it's all over and then hope they all get arrested, or would it be okay to drive a cement mixer truck, snowplough, 40-tonne freezer truck or hail of bullets from an M60 through the lot of them?


Again, it depends heavily on the jurisdiction. In Florida, home of George Zimmerman and what I assume will be one of the more extreme cases, there is no duty to retreat, and both civil and criminal immunity in cases of reasonable self defense. If I see someone robbing a bank, and I fire to stop him, and I am reasonably careful, but one of my stray shots hit a bystander, I can't be convicted for shooting either of them, nor can either of them sue me. So to answer your question, it will depend largely on what the laws are in your state (SC is southern, so I would expect that the answer is "permissive") and also how careful you are. If you see a single Nazi shooting at people, he's surrounded by a bunch of folks who are clearly not with him and trying hard to get away, and you deliberately sweep an automatic weapon across the crowd hitting dozens of innocents in hope that you hit the Nazi, you will probably be charged. They might argue that you were so reckless that you can no longer argue self-defense, or that from your actions they can infer that your intent was to kill a bunch of innocent people, using the Nazi as a pretext, or something else entirely, but you'll be charged. If the entire crowd is comprised of Nazis trying to kill innocent people, Nazis waiting their turn to try to kill innocent people, and Nazis who have just tried to kill innocent people who are now trying to get away, then you can make a pretty convincing argument for self-defense. Blue states tend to be the worst about these things--I can absolutely see California finding that it was murder to shoot a Nazi in the back because he was no longer trying to kill you and trying to flee. In most other states, you can probably make a convincing argument that you thought that the Nazis who were running away were likely to grab another firebomb and come back, but it depends on the law where you are. Again, this is why you hire lawyers admitted to practice in your own state to defend.


If someone idolises a gang who kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered a lot of young women over a 10-year period, collects posters and memorabilia, wears their colours and owns the exact same types of weapon as they used and he's taking photographs of your sister in the streets and making notes on her movements and other habits and she happens to look a lot like most of the gang's victims, do you have to wait until her body's found, or is it okay to drown him now? I'm not aware of any such individual stalking my sister at the moment. I'm just asking, hypothetically.


Again, this isn't an accurate statement of the law in most cases. To unpack it, the first line and a half are protected speech, period. However, all that means is they can't be punished for that speech alone--protected speech can absolutely be probable cause for an investigation and even for a search warrant. So you being a Manson worshiper won't get you imprisoned--it can, however, get law enforcement to put a lot of time and effort into watching you to see if there's anything they can charge you for, and to prevent you from hurting someone else. Depending on how disturbed this person is, the investigation might also give the police enough evidence to invoke the Baker Act. Under the Baker Act, the government can involuntarily commit someone (lock them away in the loony bin) who is mentally disturbed enough to be a danger to himself or others--they can do this even if his mental issues haven't caused him to actually commit any crimes yet.

The next part sounds like the lay definition of stalking. Depending on the jurisdiction, it might violate a criminal law against stalking. In the last decade or so, lots of states have passed anti-stalking laws. Many of them will define stalking as a certain number of instances of harassment over a certain period. Most of them define harassment as conduct that--by themselves--may or may not be illegal, but when done repeatedly to the same person, can get them imprisoned. Even in states that don't have criminal laws against stalking, being stalked is often enough to get an order of protection (restraining order.) At this point, violating that order can absolutely get you arrested.

If the guy attacks you in your home, you can probably defend yourself, but premeditated murder is generally not okay. At the very least, as you're sitting there on trial for murder, the prosecutor will tell you everything I told you and ask, "Why didn't you call the police? Why didn't you use one of the many options available to protect your sister without hunting down and killing someone?"

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:47 pm UTC

Hey you know what nazis do when no one's there to stop them using force (aka punching)?

Fucking pogroms.

The Charlottesville crowd attacked a prayer meeting and later they marched on a predominantly black neighborhood. It's probably safe to assume, given all the beatings and sticks, that they weren't going there to sell cookies. The residents of those neighborhoods and antifa fighters turned them back both times.

If you leave nazis alone, they find someone to hit. Usually the people they find are much more vulnerable than the people who would otherwise choose to put themselves in that fight.

If you have a problem with folk protecting the vulnerable from people who have clearly signalled their desire to harm, then by all means, go human-shield a Nazi.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:49 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.


You've brought this up a couple times but it is actually not relevant in any way. The goal of white supremacists and Nazis (I know you've said elsewhere you don't believe this but it's true) is to bring about a violent race war in which white people rise up and kill people who are impure. This is not comparable to Islam, which does not have a sole core central tenet of committing genocide. These two things are unrelated.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:50 pm UTC

ucim wrote:You're making my point.
No? At that point I was assuming you were playing devils advocate, so "devils intestine" means you are really deep, as it were, into that position. Sorry you got offended! I dont see what point you think I'm making for you, but thankfully we can finally be direct.

ucim wrote:
Weeks wrote:Its not {fill-in}, my dude. Its a group of genocidal racists.
Are you talking about Muslims? They've been accused of this too. When was the last time Nazis killed Americans a thousand at a time?
You mean like the Nazis were "accused" of genocide? Also, World War II.

When you can tell me the difference between the groups, you can tell me the action that has warranted the punch in one case but not the other. And if that's a good reason, then I'm behind you. But being a {this} is not a good reason, even if you hate anyone who is a {this}.

I get it. You hate Nazis. So do I. But hating somebody is not sufficient grounds to punch them, even if you think you have good reasons to hate them. And my point is punching them because you hate them is morally reprehensible.
No...no bro. This isnt about hating Nazis. I don't have to hate something to see how it is wrong and bad. If you can step outside of your rhetorical, hypothetical world-bubble you might be able to consider why violence is viable as a form of self-defense from and complete rejection of Nazism in any form. This is about a dangerous movement of extremists, and they must be stopped...I could go on but you dont seem to want to think about this in terms other than the strict purity of your own moral code which says you cant punch someone even if they are genocidal racists.

I think you know what the difference is between a Nazi and a Muslim.

It's exactly the sort of populist tribalism that the alt-right is fomenting.
Okay but Nazis arent a tribe in this metaphor. It's an invalid tribe. They're not a race or a minority. It's some white people who hate people who aren't white so they think they should die. That is inherently violent. There are other groups that are inherently violent like...say...ISIS. I'm out of my depth there, but for simplicity's sake, lets just say ISIS members dont get citizen rights in the US. That's not outright violent I guess, but like, you cant just *be* a terrorist inside the US. You'd get shot. Right? Unless you're a Nazi I guess.

Opposing Nazi ideology is a Good Thing, but punching Nazis is kind of the opposite of opposing Nazi ideology.

Jose
No thats a false equivalence and quite a bit of a reach on your part. Like they dont have a magical reflector shield that makes your values negative. Opposing a Nazi, even using violence, is still opposing a Nazi.
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:51 pm UTC

It's almost like ideologies aren't just meaningless interchangeable rhetorical tokens and the content of them matters.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6531
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:51 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

Not as effective as convincing everyone to laugh at them. That's sort of how we got rid of the KKK in the 50's; superman radio show made them the butt of all the jokes and no one wants to join something to be made fun of.


I think your latter suggestion is a far better solution to the problem. Punching only makes them a martyr inside of their own group. Similarly, trying to silence them only seems to make them grow stronger. This "Lets punch NeoNazis" thing is extremely short-term thinking. It seriously does more to hamper the viewpoint of the left (IE: ceding the moral high ground) than it does to counteract their movement.

If yall want to counteract the white-nationalism threat that is growing, you're gonna have to make a better large-scale political move than just punching a few of them.

gmalivuk wrote:
speising wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:So for those who are pro-punching Nazis, can I just ask... what's the point? What does it accomplish?


It scares them into hiding, reduces the appeal of membership, prevents them from organizing in the future, etc?

That seems like an extremely naive hope. I can't claim to understand the mental processes of nazis, but i don't think it works that way with them. You cannot scare a violent hate group into hiding with that tactic.
Except, the reduction in public appearances by Spencer after he was punched, and the fact that a bunch of people have now pulled out of Boston's freeze peach rally, would suggest you're just making that up.


Except Trump is beginning to rally the white-supremisist side by painting the "Alt-Left" as violent extremists. So physical violence only serves to prove Trump correct on this issue.

The effective technique this past week seems to have been taking pictures of these assholes and trying to figure out their identities. Risking your job and reputation by marching with the KKK / Neonazi groups is more effective than the threat of some non-lethal violence.

From my understanding, Spencer is still planning to make a new rally in Charlottesville. Except next time, I'm gonna bet he's going to armor up and be a bit more defensive (physically). The fact that he was physically assaulted doesn't seems to have hampered his spirits at all.

Who says you can't marginalized Nazis with force? Just send the cops after them and microagression into jail. If you can indict a ham sandwich, you can indict a Nazi.

Draconaes
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Draconaes » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:55 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Draconaes wrote:I do find it strange that driving vehicles into crowds apparently isn't harmful enough to the nazi side to counteract nazis being punched by anti-nazis.


Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.


Uh... not really the point I was trying to make. More like... if some individuals driving cars into people in the name of nazism doesn't hurt their influence, why does some individuals punching nazis in the name of anti-nazism hurt anti-nazi influence?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:58 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.
There are moderate Muslims. There is no such thing as a moderate Nazi. We're not talking about punching every racist asshole we can find (nobody's hands are resilient enough for that), we're talking about punching Nazis. Nazis are already all extremists, by definition. You might as well be saying we can't blame all of ISIS for the actions of a few or we can't blame all of Al Qaeda for the actions of a few. You're drawing an equivalence between "Nazi" and "Muslim" when the correct analogues are Nazi:ISIS or Christian:Muslim. That false equivalence itself tells us a lot about at least one of how sympathetic you are to Nazis and how virulently Islamophobic you are.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.
The moral high ground never saved anyone from a gas chamber.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:59 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Draconaes wrote:I do find it strange that driving vehicles into crowds apparently isn't harmful enough to the nazi side to counteract nazis being punched by anti-nazis.


Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.


Uh... not really the point I was trying to make. More like... if some individuals driving cars into people in the name of nazism doesn't hurt their influence, why does some individuals punching nazis in the name of anti-nazism hurt anti-nazi influence?


Hell, people are still circulating the misinformation that the driver was antifa. They don't need antifa to actually commit violence to delegitimize them, they'll make something up.

Almost like the actual sin was opposing white supremacy.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:01 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.


You've brought this up a couple times but it is actually not relevant in any way. The goal of white supremacists and Nazis (I know you've said elsewhere you don't believe this but it's true) is to bring about a violent race war in which white people rise up and kill people who are impure. This is not comparable to Islam, which does not have a sole core central tenet of committing genocide. These two things are unrelated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xs_-J3BhUM

Jason Kessler wrote: I disavow anything that led to folks getting hurt


This is the man who organized the rally, the closest thing to the "head" of the rally last Saturday. I know you want to paint all of these people with a broad brush and stereotype them for the violence, but that's simply not the facts.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:02 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Draconaes wrote:I do find it strange that driving vehicles into crowds apparently isn't harmful enough to the nazi side to counteract nazis being punched by anti-nazis.


Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.


Uh... not really the point I was trying to make. More like... if some individuals driving cars into people in the name of nazism doesn't hurt their influence, why does some individuals punching nazis in the name of anti-nazism hurt anti-nazi influence?
Because, as a Good Guy, I cant do something the Bad Guy does. Like punching. Or eating. Or breathing.
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:04 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Draconaes wrote:I do find it strange that driving vehicles into crowds apparently isn't harmful enough to the nazi side to counteract nazis being punched by anti-nazis.


Yeah... do you know about Abdul Razak Ali Artan? We do not blame the actions of a few on the entire group. There are violent Muslims in the world. That doesn't mean we blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

Not if you want to keep the moral high ground anyway.


Uh... not really the point I was trying to make. More like... if some individuals driving cars into people in the name of nazism doesn't hurt their influence, why does some individuals punching nazis in the name of anti-nazism hurt anti-nazi influence?


Because fucking Trump.

Its frustrating, but that seems to be a part of the problem. As "deplorable" as this situation is, our strategy and tactics need to be honed in for the current age.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Jason Kessler wrote: I disavow anything that led to folks getting hurt
An airtight defense if I do say so myself.
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:05 pm UTC

Belial wrote:The Charlottesville crowd attacked a prayer meeting and later they marched on a predominantly black neighborhood. It's probably safe to assume, given all the beatings and sticks, that they weren't going there to sell cookies. The residents of those neighborhoods and antifa fighters turned them back both times.


This. The point of such anti-Nazi violence is to defend those working the non-violent approaches. It's to say to, and show, the Nazis "we will not allow you to shut these movements down". It's not an effective means of opposing Nazi ideology, it's a means to allow the effective opposition to continue in the face of violent intimidation. Now, in a better country the police should be doing that job. They're not doing it, and it's too urgent and too vital to wait until the police get their shit together.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:07 pm UTC

Jason Kessler wrote: I disavow anything that led to folks getting hurt


This is the man who organized the rally, the closest thing to the "head" of the rally last Saturday. I know you want to paint all of these people with a broad brush and stereotype them for the violence, but that's simply not the facts.


He promotes an eliminationist ideology. I think it's safe to assume that any attempt to disavow violence is a transparent PR move. What's the word....a lie. Meant to provide the barest, most threadbare excuse for people who, for some reason, desperately want to excuse nazis.

The kind of lie that wouldn't fool even the world's greatest idiot unless they wanted to be fooled.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:08 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
Belial wrote:The Charlottesville crowd attacked a prayer meeting and later they marched on a predominantly black neighborhood. It's probably safe to assume, given all the beatings and sticks, that they weren't going there to sell cookies. The residents of those neighborhoods and antifa fighters turned them back both times.


This. The point of such anti-Nazi violence is to defend those working the non-violent approaches. It's to say to, and show, the Nazis "we will not allow you to shut these movements down". It's not an effective means of opposing Nazi ideology, it's a means to allow the effective opposition to continue in the face of violent intimidation. Now, in a better country the police should be doing that job. They're not doing it, and it's too urgent and too vital to wait until the police get their shit together.


There's a difference in defending a location from an angry mob (which I will support and agree with) vs rallying everybody to start punching Nazis.

I think I can agree to self-defense. A large chunk of the Unite the Right group came with sticks and shields: they were clearly gunning for a fight. No doubt about that in my mind. So I will always support the right of self-defense, even if it is illegal.

But that's not what a lot of people were talking about in this topic. People seem to be talking about offensively taking on the next Neo-Nazi rally. And I don't think that's quite the same thing.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:09 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
It's exactly the sort of populist tribalism that the alt-right is fomenting.
Okay but Nazis arent a tribe in this metaphor. It's an invalid tribe. They're not a race or a minority. It's some white people who hate people who aren't white so they think they should die.


Umm, tribalism doesn't mean what you think it does. It's an allusion to actual tribal groups of people, but it's actually more of a pejorative term for folks who are loyal to their own social group (whether that is ethnic or otherwise) and for whom that loyalty is a primary concern. So if you're a Republican who votes Republican no matter what, who praises Trump or McCain for advocating escalation in Syria but criticizes Democrats who do the same thing, then one could make the argument that you're motivated more by tribalism than by principles, issues, or specific policy goals.

Also, while Nazis aren't a race in the sense that white people and Nazis aren't identical sets, I would argue that Nazis are entirely a subset of a certain race. (Unless you saw Clayton Bigsby running around Charlotte in his hood.)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:13 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Jason Kessler wrote: I disavow anything that led to folks getting hurt


This is the man who organized the rally, the closest thing to the "head" of the rally last Saturday. I know you want to paint all of these people with a broad brush and stereotype them for the violence, but that's simply not the facts.


He promotes an eliminationist ideology. I think it's safe to assume that any attempt to disavow violence is a transparent PR move. What's the word....a lie. Meant to provide the barest, most threadbare excuse for people who, for some reason, desperately want to excuse nazis.

The kind of lie that wouldn't fool even the world's greatest idiot unless they wanted to be fooled.


Okay, I'm doing a bit more research on this guy, and honestly... he looks like a run-of-the-mill White Supremacist to me. It looks like he deleted his webpage. So here it is from the Wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170610175 ... -west.html

He's anti-immigration and extremely pro-white. But I'm not really seeing "eliminationist ideology". He's not calling for people to die, he's calling for... well people to be white. Which is definitely deplorable but a far cry from supporting violence.

--------

Ultimately, he was there to protest the removal of a Confederate Statue. Which is his right frankly. Let him get the anger out. Then ignore him and take down the statue.

In my experience: White Supremacists know that people think that they are violent. A lot of them will tell you that they aren't for violence first up as you talk with them. I think we all can agree here that their viewpoints are fucked up, but I am confident to say that they don't want innocent blood on their hands as a whole.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:This is the man who organized the rally, the closest thing to the "head" of the rally last Saturday. I know you want to paint all of these people with a broad brush and stereotype them for the violence, but that's simply not the facts.


I'm talking about Nazis who actively identify as Nazis. Being a Nazi means supporting violent genocide. I am not specifically talking about the march.

But speaking of the guy who organized the march. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... on-kessler

"On January 22, 2017, Kessler was arrested for misdemeanor assault after he punched a man while gathering signatures for his petition against Bellamy. Kessler initially filed assault charges against the man but dropped them after video footage revealed that Kessler had swung without physical provocation."

"The Daily Caller later issued a correction noting that Kessler’s take on the day’s events was less than impartial as he had spoken with a luncheon gathering of pro-monument supporters, and praised several racist organizations and called for a second Civil War."

This peaceful dude who CALLED FOR A SECOND CIVIL WAR.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:20 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But that's not what a lot of people were talking about in this topic. People seem to be talking about offensively taking on the next Neo-Nazi rally. And I don't think that's quite the same thing.


If you're willing to stop them when they're on the move toward targets, at some point you have to be willing to stop them from organizing and recruiting too. That's the purpose of their rallies: they're step one. What happened in Charlottesville was step 2. If you only react to step 2, eventually people are going to get lynched and neighborhoods are going to get burnt.

That doesn't mean indiscriminately punching nazis. It *does* mean suppressing their ability to march, speak to reporters, or otherwise reach a platform. Ideally just through physically blocking them but if someone needs to get punched or tackled so be it. It both denies them the ability to recruit and, when it happens on camera, sends a message to horrified onlookers who may be threatened by these nazis that they aren't unopposed.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:He's not calling for people to die, he's calling for... well people to be white.


I'm not sure how you get to a stage where people in the USA are all white without most of the black and brown people dying. Either directly, or when wherever they get forcibly deported to (which most definitely counts as violence in my book) can't cope and they starve or die of disease. Maybe he is just that stupid that he doesn't see the connection between a white nation, and the deaths of most everybody else, but I wouldn't count on it.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:27 pm UTC

Even the historical nazis knew that openly calling for genocide doesn't fly until you've already put people in camps. You just talk about how you're going to magically move all the undesirable ethnicities out of your land somehow and then once you've sold that, you take another step to killing them.

He knows that, he can't not. He also knows that as long as he never outright says it people will make excuses for him
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:30 pm UTC

So then my old question. How do you suppress a deplorable group that has a horrific goal if they haven't technically broken any laws?

Not just neo Nazis, but hizb ut-Tahrir or Scientology or westboro baptists?
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:30 pm UTC

Belial wrote:That doesn't mean indiscriminately punching nazis. It *does* mean suppressing their ability to march, speak to reporters, or otherwise reach a platform. Ideally just through physically blocking them but if someone needs to get punched or tackled so be it. It both denies them the ability to recruit and, when it happens on camera, sends a message to horrified onlookers who may be threatened by these nazis that they aren't unopposed.


I think this is reasonable and can get behind this thought process.

The key is that we need to recognize that the President is going to be an agitator through these sorts of events, and keeping the moral high ground is going to be difficult regardless.

CorruptUser wrote:So then my old question. How do you suppress a deplorable group that has a horrific goal if they haven't technically broken any laws?

Not just neo Nazis, but hizb ut-Tahrir or Scientology or westboro baptists?


We can ignore the ones that the President isn't giving a wink-wink / nudge-nudge towards. Neo Nazis are a problem today because they seem to now have tacit approval from the Presidency.

The other groups do not have that advantage. So we deal with them as we always have: comedy and laughing at them. Comedy probably won't work against the NeoNazis anymore however, which is the difficult part of this discussion.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mcd001 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:34 pm UTC

I'm no nazi, and certainly no nazi sympathizer, but some of the opinions I've read on this forum are truly disturbing.

It seems to me a very small step from 'punching' someone who says they are a nazi (because the original nazis practiced genocide) to punching someone who says other things you find offensive, harmful, triggering, deplorable, politically incorrect, socially unacceptable, or in other ways upsetting. After all, if the opposition is evil then isn't any response, no matter how extreme, justifiable?

I have no trouble believing that some on this thread would receive some degree of satisfaction if I were punched in the face in response to my beliefs (even if they wouldn't do it themselves because they're pacifists, you know). Or if I lost my job because of them. Or were banned from facebook and twitter. (No worries on that front; I'd have to HAVE a facebook or twitter account before they could ban me...)

And the people on this forum are at the educated, articulate, and even-tempered end of the spectrum!

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:36 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But that's not what a lot of people were talking about in this topic. People seem to be talking about offensively taking on the next Neo-Nazi rally.
Yeah! Carry some rocks or something, and drive them the fuck out. As noted above, the police should do that, but they wont so its up to the civilians edit: ninjad by Belial

Netreker0 wrote:
Weeks wrote:
It's exactly the sort of populist tribalism that the alt-right is fomenting.
Okay but Nazis arent a tribe in this metaphor. It's an invalid tribe. They're not a race or a minority. It's some white people who hate people who aren't white so they think they should die.


Umm, tribalism doesn't mean what you think it does.
I may have misused the term slightly here but I know what it means. I was trying to avoid conflating defensible groups (like say republicans...kind of) that people are loyal to, with nazis. Yes they are a tribe but not one that anyone should feel loyalty to and comparing them with other tribes is varying levels of disrespectful (as ucim keeps comparing them with muslims, which is completely unacceptable). Not that they cant be classified, but that drawing comparisons is awful in this context. By saying "populist tribalism" it is implied (or so it seems to me, anyway) that nazis are a group to which some legitimacy can be ascribed, as if this was about dems vs reps, and I dont think they are.
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:37 pm UTC

Draconaes wrote:Uh... not really the point I was trying to make. More like... if some individuals driving cars into people in the name of nazism doesn't hurt their influence, why does some individuals punching nazis in the name of anti-nazism hurt anti-nazi influence?


The simple, superior answer? Because we're better than the Nazis, and the people we want to stand with us are better than the Nazis. By the very nature of their philosophy, Nazis condone violence, and they don't particularly regard the targets of their violence as human. Their goal is a war that they believe they can win. The people they want to recruit won't be turned off by the violence--if anything, they will be emboldened by it, both the violence perpetrated by their side and that perpetrated against their side. Sadly, there are enough people like them to make the movement a potential threat.

I would like to believe that the people opposing Nazis are--for the most part--united by decency. What else do we have? It can't be about race. Minorities, by definition, don't have the numbers, we have our own conflicts on some issues, and in terms of power and influence, we probably can't win without at least some whites. It can't be about nationalism. The resurgence of Captain America notwithstanding, it's much harder to couch this in terms of us versus a foreign invader when most white supremacists are home grown and probably not German in ancestry. Is it about opposing genocide on principle? That's what we tell ourselves, but given our track record, it's hard to argue that our shared distaste for genocide is enough to motivate us to meaningful action (unless I missed the part where "Never again," actually means "Never again in a part of the world we actually care about.") Is it about opposing racism on principle? For many of us yes, but sadly this also isn't enough. Racism is irrational and inconsistent. There were plenty of folks who drew strength from our superiority to the Germans as they exterminated people, yet cheered as we locked up those untrustworthy Japanese Americans. Even today, there are plenty of people who abhor the idea of Jim Crow, but wonder whether a Muslim ban might be reasonable pragmatism. Racism is also shockingly mutable--plenty of people aren't particularly racist when everyone is prosperous and friendly, but can be easily convinced to blame someone if they lose their job, or if their town is attacked. If we're the ones throwing the first punches, then a lot of people will question whether our position is right and the Nazi position is wrong. It's fallacious reasoning, but it's also how quite a few people think.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Weeks » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:40 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:I have no trouble believing that some on this thread would receive some degree of satisfaction if I were punched in the face in response to my beliefs
Just tell me what they are and I'll let you know.

And the people on this forum are at the educated, articulate, and even-tempered end of the spectrum!
I'm an uncultured dude from a jungle in some third world country. God knows what I might do
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:40 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:But that's not what a lot of people were talking about in this topic. People seem to be talking about offensively taking on the next Neo-Nazi rally.
Yeah! Carry some rocks or something, and drive them the fuck out. As noted above, the police should do that, but they wont so its up to the civilians edit: ninjad by Belial


People have a 1st Amendment right to assembly in this country. Frankly, if we start pushing away the 1st Amendment, its Mr. Trump who benefits the most.

So no, I don't condone offensive violence vs the next group of white supremacist marchers. Intelligently building blockades and counter-protests makes sense. Grabbing rocks and throwing them... seems counterproductive (unless shit hits the fan of course. But I hope it doesn't come to that)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:42 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:41 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:It seems to me a very small step from 'punching' someone who says they are a nazi (because the original nazis practiced genocide) to punching someone who says other things you find offensive, harmful, triggering, deplorable, politically incorrect, socially unacceptable, or in other ways upsetting. After all, if the opposition is evil then isn't any response, no matter how extreme, justifiable?


Hey quick question, have you espoused an ideology explicitly predicated on the elimination of other ethnic groups?

Humans aren't as vulnerable to slippery slopes as everyone tends to think. Antifa have been repelling nazis for decades and weirdly it hasn't ever turned into beating up your local college Republicans
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Netreker0
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:44 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:
Umm, tribalism doesn't mean what you think it does.
I may have misused the term slightly here but I know what it means. I was trying to avoid conflating defensible groups (like say republicans...kind of) that people are loyal to, with nazis.


Oh, that is a bit unexpected, sorry that I misunderstood. To me, the idea of tribalism is hugely pejorative. I regard it as a type of conduct that isn't particularly edifying or productive, so it never occurred to me to care whether the tribes in question were "legitimate."

By saying "populist tribalism" it is implied (or so it seems to me, anyway) that nazis are a group to which some legitimacy can be ascribed, as if this was about dems vs reps, and I dont think they are.


By the standards of populism (which honestly I consider slightly negatively as well), the Nazis are legitimate, in that a terrifyingly large number of people buy into their crap. To me, that doesn't imply any sort of moral or ideological legitimacy. Honestly, when I call Trump a populist, I take that to mean "he's a demagogue with zero principles who will say anything to get people behind him and has thus far been successful in that goal." I'm not saying your view is wrong or illegitimate, but please keep in mind that if I ever call someone a populist or a tribalist in the future, it is not in any way intended to convey approval.
Last edited by Netreker0 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:46 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:I'm no nazi, and certainly no nazi sympathizer, but some of the opinions I've read on this forum are truly disturbing.

It seems to me a very small step from 'punching' someone who says they are a nazi (because the original nazis practiced genocide) to punching someone who says other things you find offensive, harmful, triggering, deplorable, politically incorrect, socially unacceptable, or in other ways upsetting. After all, if the opposition is evil then isn't any response, no matter how extreme, justifiable?

I have no trouble believing that some on this thread would receive some degree of satisfaction if I were punched in the face in response to my beliefs (even if they wouldn't do it themselves because they're pacifists, you know). Or if I lost my job because of them. Or were banned from facebook and twitter. (No worries on that front; I'd have to HAVE a facebook or twitter account before they could ban me...)

And the people on this forum are at the educated, articulate, and even-tempered end of the spectrum!
If it seems like such a small step to you, that's probably because you see genocide as merely offensive.

Those of us with our heads slightly less far up our own asses recognize that genocide is not a political opinion on par with "Rich people should pay higher taxes", over which reasonable people might legitimately disagree.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:49 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Weeks wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:But that's not what a lot of people were talking about in this topic. People seem to be talking about offensively taking on the next Neo-Nazi rally.
Yeah! Carry some rocks or something, and drive them the fuck out. As noted above, the police should do that, but they wont so its up to the civilians edit: ninjad by Belial


People have a 1st Amendment right to assembly in this country. Frankly, if we start pushing away the 1st Amendment, its Mr. Trump who benefits the most.

So no, I don't condone offensive violence vs the next group of white supremacist marchers. Intelligently building blockades and counter-protests makes sense. Grabbing rocks and throwing them... seems counterproductive (unless shit hits the fan of course. But I hope it doesn't come to that)
How much more violent do Nazi mobs have to be before you'll admit there's fecal matter on the fan?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:51 pm UTC

Also hey everybody should read this
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Those of us with our heads slightly less far up our own asses recognize that genocide is not a political opinion on par with "Rich people should pay higher taxes", over which reasonable people might legitimately disagree.


And all I'm asking from you is a simple legal metric to use to determine when someone veers from not-punchworthy political opinion to punchworthy political opinion, because you know damn well there will be people intentionally trying to push that envelope and hide behind the law.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ElWanderer, ijuin, Sableagle, WriteBrainedJR and 26 guests