If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

SPLC will now recognize NJ as a hate group.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

SPLC will now recognize NJ as a hate group.

No hyperbole, I'm honestly surprised they haven't labeled MAGA hats as hate symbols.

Some good laughs to be had here, although be warned as the article contains VIOLENCE and ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

 

[Einherjar86]

Meanwhile, Democrat and left-wing media rhetoric is actually whipping up violence, but lets all cry over memes.

Give me a fucking break.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-upsetting-gun-owners/?utm_term=.323629ad7946

 

[Dak]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-berkeley-arrest-20170526-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...hocks-in-gory-photo-1496183372-htmlstory.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...n-wave-of-bomb-threats-against-jewish-centers
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ongressman-road-over-health-care-vote-n758826
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ctice-seems-to-have-been-spontaneous-fbi-says

That took a min to pull up. It's appropos of the atmosphere.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

"The far left is very active in the United States, but it hasn't been particularly violent for some time," says Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

He says the numbers between the groups don't compare.

"In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says.

You have to go back to the 1970s to find the last big cycle of far-left extremism in the U.S. Both Pitcavage and McNabb say we have been in a predominantly far-right extremist cycle since the 1990s — the abortion clinic bombings and Oklahoma City, for example. And, more recently, racially motivated attacks such as the one at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the mass shooting at a black church in Charleston, S.C., and last month's stabbings on a commuter train in Portland.

That took less than a minute. But it's NPR, so it's probably bullshit.

 

[Dak]

I don't think one can neatly classify Jeremy Christian as rightwing. Voting for Bernie Sanders but praising McVeigh. Being racist isn't exclusive to rightwing politics.

Edit: Just saying such classification makes me question the classification of other crimes. Plus gotta love %s over raw numbers - and throwing in something that happened 22 years ago with "the last 10 years".

 

[Einherjar86]

That is certainly true, and it's also probably the case that one can't neatly classify antifa as left-wing, as I know right-wing people who are also anti-fascism; but that hasn't stopped the associations being made here.

I'm just trying to even out the relentless anti-left myopia in this thread.

 

[CiG]

Give me a fucking break.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-upsetting-gun-owners/?utm_term=.323629ad7946

Remember that time a Republican voter tried to massacre Democrat congressmen?

Besides being melodramatic, what is so bad about this NRA ad?

 

[Einherjar86]

Tucson 2011?

As far as what's wrong with that NRA ad, I find plenty. You probably should too.

 

[CiG]

Tucson 2011?

Loughner's high-school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[18] A former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007, prior to his personality transformation, as "left wing, quite liberal,"[41] "radical."[42] The tone of Loughner's online writings and videos from immediately before the attack were described by The Guardian as "almost exclusively conservative and anti-government, with echoes of the populist campaigning of the Tea Party movement".[43]

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that Loughner's political positions were a "hallmark of the far right and the militia movement."[44] Jesse Walker of Reason expressed deep scepticism at the connections drawn by Potok.[45] In the aftermath of the shooting, the Anti-Defamation League reviewed messages by Loughner, and concluded that there was a "disjointed theme that runs through Loughner's writings", which was a "distrust for and dislike of the government." It "manifested itself in various ways" – for instance, in the belief that the government used the control of language and grammar to brainwash people, the notion that the government was creating "infinite currency" without the backing of gold and silver, or the assertion that NASA was faking spaceflights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Views_on_politics

Yeah, totally analogous, what a fucking raging Republican.

As far as what's wrong with that NRA ad, I find plenty. You probably should too.

Perhaps you could just educate me on what I am supposed to be outraged about?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The SPLC even claims the Boston bombers were primarily inspired by Alex Jones.

 

[CiG]

Really?

That is certainly true, and it's also probably the case that one can't neatly classify antifa as left-wing, as I know right-wing people who are also anti-fascism; but that hasn't stopped the associations being made here.

The Hell kind of ridiculous conclusion is this? I am against fascism, am I now a member of Antifa? This is like when people say oh you support equality of the sexes? Then you're a feminist.

It's low resolution to say the least and very disingenuous.

 

[Einherjar86]

Perhaps you could just educate me on what I am supposed to be outraged about?

You already claim to be irritated by what you see as political rhetoric inciting violence--not actions, just rhetoric.

If that video doesn't strike you as rhetorically pugnacious, then your scope needs to be reset.

It hyperbolizes the impact of mob violence in America and associates it unquestionably with the left, all the while insinuating civil unrest (if not outright hostility) and encouraging its viewers to purchase guns.

I'm not making an anti-gun argument here. I'm saying that if the NRA ad isn't rhetorically inciting violence, then neither is leftist political rhetoric. You need to accept both.

The Hell kind of ridiculous conclusion is this? I am against fascism, am I now a member of Antifa? This is like when people say oh you support equality of the sexes? Then you're a feminist.

It's low resolution to say the least and very disingenuous.

That's not what I was suggesting.

I was saying that the conversation in this thread has been skewed disproportionately toward what I think is a hyperbolic fear of violence coming from "the left"--blanket statement, no further specification. But there were references--and many in the past--to the violence coming from antifa as a left-wing group.

Now, in the side conversation that Dak and I had (see above), we suggested that it's often difficult to define individuals down a left-wing/right-wing divide (if anything, it's a spectrum, and even that's difficult--left-wing radicals often look like right-wing radicals). I said that the same point needs to be made about antifa, which is not a recent group but has a long history, and has not always been identifiable as left-wing or, even less so, democratic.

My comment wasn't insinuating that you were a member of antifa. I'm calling out what I see as blanket associations between antifa and the far more general, far less hostile, democratic left in America.

I consider myself left-wing, and I consider myself part of the nonviolent majority. So it's tiresome to constantly see my tribe being called the tribe of violence, being associated with antifa and rampant mob violence, not to mention gun violence against republican politicians.

 

[CiG]

You already claim to be irritated by what you see as political rhetoric inciting violence--not actions, just rhetoric.

If that video doesn't strike you as rhetorically pugnacious, then your scope needs to be reset.

It hyperbolizes the impact of mob violence in America and associates it unquestionably with the left, all the while insinuating civil unrest (if not outright hostility) and encouraging its viewers to purchase guns.

I'm not making an anti-gun argument here. I'm saying that if the NRA ad isn't rhetorically inciting violence, then neither is leftist political rhetoric. You need to accept both.

Specifically which part of the ad? Because I can isolate specific statements and quotes by leftists ("what do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now"), but I get the impression that you're saying the ad feels like violent rhetoric.

I was saying that the conversation in this thread has been skewed disproportionately toward what I think is a hyperbolic fear of violence coming from "the left"--blanket statement, no further specification. But there were references--and many in the past--to the violence coming from antifa as a left-wing group.

Well fuck me if the left doesn't have to be held accountable for violence sometimes.

I said that the same point needs to be made about antifa, which is not a recent group but has a long history, and has not always been identifiable as left-wing or, even less so, democratic.

When has it been not identifiable as left-wing?

My comment wasn't insinuating that you were a member of antifa.

Yes I understand that, I was using it as an example to demonstrate what I saw as a fallacy on your part. Antifa doesn't have a monopoly on opposing fascism, just like the Tea Party didn't have a monopoly on small government advocacy, yet you seemed to be suggesting that it is unfair to tar the left with the actions of Antifa because there are anti-fascists on the right.

If I have that right, it was a very dumb point. If I don't, I apologize and just ask for a further clarification of what you were saying.

I consider myself left-wing, and I consider myself part of the nonviolent majority. So it's tiresome to constantly see my tribe being called the tribe of violence, being associated with antifa and rampant mob violence, not to mention gun violence against republican politicians.

Well sure, I bet it sucks, but that's not an argument or anything. Sometimes I lose hours arguing with the right about the ridiculous misuse of the term liberal (as I do consider myself a liberal I feel a certain impulse to debate people who use it as a slur) but it doesn't mean I'm going to just overlook the ridiculous things going on within the left more broadly.

Especially when, within the left, the overwhelming mentality seems to be:

Smear the right as Nazis and then promote the idea that it is perfectly well within the boundaries of civilized discourse to physically assault or just silence Nazis. The left is overwhelmingly complicit in the rhetoric of dehumanization of the opposition and then we all act shocked when, lo and behold, people on the right are treated like inhuman things.

From the countless random assaults on Trump voters, to de-platforming, to #PunchANazi, to an attempted massacre of Republican congressmen, to the BAMN organization, I see no reason to sweep this away flippantly because you don't like seeing your tribe being blamed for things.

 

[Einherjar86]

Specifically which part of the ad? Because I can isolate specific statements and quotes by leftists ("what do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now"), but I get the impression that you're saying the ad feels like violent rhetoric.

Rhetoric can be imagery as well as words, and that ad contains connotations of violence. I would love to see what Barthes would have done with it, were he still alive.

The quotes you just cited don't reflect the popular attitude of most leftists. And if you think they do, then that betrays the political rhetoric of the media sources that you frequent. The vast majority of democratic voters don't want dead cops; but it makes for a more powerful movement on the right if most of its members believe the left is comprised of bloodthirsty zombies.

Alternatively, I can cite numerous examples of purportedly right-wing violence, but I'm not proclaiming that they reflect general right-wing attitudes. This is what you're doing when you say that the democrats are fanning the flames of violence.

Well fuck me if the left doesn't have to be held accountable for violence sometimes.

It should--but so should the right, and we shouldn't promote blanket statements that the left and right are encouraging violent behavior. We should acknowledge the purported politics of those who commit violence, but we shouldn't assume that the rhetoric and core values of an amorphous group of people are, de facto, violent.

When has it been not identifiable as left-wing?

Since WWII, antifa groups have been comprised of people on the left and right, and those who proclaim to adopt neither. Anarchy promotes neither left- nor right-wing values.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

Antifa are not new. They're a latter-day version of the anarchists and "black bloc" groups who, over the years, have often challenged police and broken windows during May Day protests in Seattle and Portland. Their membership is hard to track, but it appears to be expanding beyond the West Coast. They are also embracing other leftist causes beyond just fighting white supremacists.

Still, their numbers are tiny in relation to the mainstream political left. And, say experts, it's misleading for right-wing groups to suggest that the Antifa are more violent than right-wing extremists.

Yes I understand that, I was using it as an example to demonstrate what I saw as a fallacy on your part. Antifa doesn't have a monopoly on opposing fascism, just like the Tea Party didn't have a monopoly on small government advocacy, yet you seemed to be suggesting that it is unfair to tar the left with the actions of Antifa because there are anti-fascists on the right.

If I have that right, it was a very dumb point. If I don't, I apologize and just ask for a further clarification of what you were saying.

Your comment only holds true if we agree that antifa is definitively a left-wing group. It attracts leftists for sure, but it's a historically anarchist group. You can make your argument that as of today it's a primarily leftist movement, but then all that suggests is that movement membership fluctuates. There's nothing essentially leftist about antifa, it just happens to attract leftists at this given historical moment.

From the countless random assaults on Trump voters, to de-platforming, to #PunchANazi, to an attempted massacre of Republican congressmen, to the BAMN organization, I see no reason to sweep this away flippantly because you don't like seeing your tribe being blamed for things.

But you do this and ignore the "countless" acts of violence from the right, and you deny that rhetoric pieces like the NRA ad foster violence thoughts in the minds of their viewers. Do you actually think there isn't a single right-wing voter who watched that video and had violent thoughts toward democrats? Come on man...

But see, I don't extend those violent thought to all right-wingers, or to republicanism/conservatism in general. In fact, there were lots of NRA members who were pissed at that ad. I watch your posts on this board, and your trend is to single out leftist violence and ignore right-wing violence. What's more, you seem to believe that every act of violence by purported leftists is indicative of some rotten core in leftist thoughts or values.

It's important to understand how/why political ideology can effect reprehensible behaviors, but that doesn't mean you can qualify some consistently essential flaw that secretly drives the words and behavior of that political group.

 

[Dak]

I thought the NRA ad was cringeworthy but "inciting violence" is a bit much.

 

[Einherjar86]

If a small group of leftists shouted that they wanted "dead cops," but the vast majority of leftists heard that and cringed, then saying that those comments incited violence could also be said to be "a bit much."

 

[rms]

canada

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Support Female Filmmakers (As Long As They “Behave”)

 

[CiG]

Rhetoric can be imagery as well as words, and that ad contains connotations of violence. I would love to see what Barthes would have done with it, were he still alive.

The quotes you just cited don't reflect the popular attitude of most leftists. And if you think they do, then that betrays the political rhetoric of the media sources that you frequent. The vast majority of democratic voters don't want dead cops; but it makes for a more powerful movement on the right if most of its members believe the left is comprised of bloodthirsty zombies.

Alternatively, I can cite numerous examples of purportedly right-wing violence, but I'm not proclaiming that they reflect general right-wing attitudes. This is what you're doing when you say that the democrats are fanning the flames of violence.

Perhaps that Black Lives Matter chant doesn't represent most leftists (in my experience, it certainly represents a huge chunk of the left's mentality) but does the overwhelming majority of the left support or denounce Black Lives Matter itself?

I disagree with many on the right who say that Black Lives Matter are violent, but they're certainly guilty of violent rhetoric (as well as just general street protest property damage and stupidity).

The problem I see is that even if you wanted to, you would be hard-pressed to show any large amount of support for right-wing violence on the right, whereas we both know I can spend 10 minutes digging up tons and tons of support for left-wing violence.

Hell, fairly moderate left-wing friends of mine on Facebook were sharing memes that actually justified the attempted Republican congressmen massacre. On the other hand I have many alt-right friends (we can both agree that the alt-right is not moderate) and not one of them shared anything or said anything that justified or glorified the disgusting attack by a right-wing terrorist, who drove into a crowd of Muslims recently in the United Kingdom.

Of course this is not an objective measure of anything, but for me it is an unavoidable reality.

It should--but so should the right, and we shouldn't promote blanket statements that the left and right are encouraging violent behavior. We should acknowledge the purported politics of those who commit violence, but we shouldn't assume that the rhetoric and core values of an amorphous group of people are, de facto, violent.

Actually, I am perfectly fine with tarring the entire right or the entire left with the violence of a small but not insignificant chunk on either side, because what I am seeing is the non-violent moderate masses in many cases are performing apologia for the actions.

The violence needs to stop and it won't stop if the so-called moderates are being apologetic and getting away with it by giving back-handed denunciations of the violence.

"What they did was wrong, but..." kinds of things are bullshit.

Since WWII, antifa groups have been comprised of people on the left and right, and those who proclaim to adopt neither. Anarchy promotes neither left- nor right-wing values.

Antifa =/= generic anti-fascism. These movements are the children of the Red Brigade for example, Antifa has nothing to do with the right.

Your comment only holds true if we agree that antifa is definitively a left-wing group. It attracts leftists for sure, but it's a historically anarchist group. You can make your argument that as of today it's a primarily leftist movement, but then all that suggests is that movement membership fluctuates. There's nothing essentially leftist about antifa, it just happens to attract leftists at this given historical moment.

Antifa has been overwhelmingly leftist since the 1980's. Feel free to prove that Antifa is not overwhelmingly left-wing if you like.

But you do this and ignore the "countless" acts of violence from the right, and you deny that rhetoric pieces like the NRA ad foster violence thoughts in the minds of their viewers. Do you actually think there isn't a single right-wing voter who watched that video and had violent thoughts toward democrats? Come on man...

But see, I don't extend those violent thought to all right-wingers, or to republicanism/conservatism in general. In fact, there were lots of NRA members who were pissed at that ad. I watch your posts on this board, and your trend is to single out leftist violence and ignore right-wing violence. What's more, you seem to believe that every act of violence by purported leftists is indicative of some rotten core in leftist thoughts or values.

It's important to understand how/why political ideology can effect reprehensible behaviors, but that doesn't mean you can qualify some consistently essential flaw that secretly drives the words and behavior of that political group.

Perfectly happy to criticize right-wing violence.

When the left, even the mainstream left, get in on the #PunchANazi hashtag then yeah, I do think the left has a problem at its core right now. Not to mention what they're doing on campuses, smearing people as bigots, getting them fired or blacklisted, essentially ruining peoples' lives.

I disagree that I overwhelmingly single out leftists, I haven't been here long enough for you to really judge my political trends accurately anyway, but I have posted about the alt-right a decent amount and I personally consider Islamic terrorism and extremism as right-wing.

If you're killing people in the name of a radically conservative ideology, that is right-wing.