The News Thread

[CiG]

I think marching at this point in America seems to me like spending a day at the circus or a carnival.

People vaguely identify with the point of the protests and counter-protests but really they want to see the freakshow up close.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, maybe some do. That's not why I attended it. And it's my time. Others might find it boring, but to say it's ignorant because it is de facto a misuse of time is the truly ignorant statement.

 

[Dak]

I can do what I want on a Saturday when I'm not working. My wife and I work all week, and if we want to attend a rally over the weekend because we find it to be morally and ethically responsible, then it's our choice.

I would say the same if you weren't posting here, so that's why I say it wasn't directed at you. I wouldn't hold you ethically (or logically) irresponsible for not marching against the Free Speech rally, as an additional point.

Where do you get off telling me I'm ignorant for spending my free time the way I want? I don't call you out for painting little action figures in your spare time, despite the fact that maybe I find it boring and ignorant (for the record, I do find it boring, but not ignorant).

Well various pasttimes will be boring to various peoples, so I'm not offended or judgey for you finding mine boring or whatever. However, I notice you didn't take to the streets after the Tsaernav bombings. You show your religiousity. Maybe I should have said borish rather than boring.

I don't have time to join a think tank or city council--they demand more time than a few hours on a Saturday. This is what I can do for what I happen to agree with.

Excuses. I don't join my current City council not because of time but because I don't intend to stay here or in a similar environment. You've already expressed at various times a love for major cities like Boston, and only major cities like Boston have institutions which would pay you for your field. Why not put roots down in Boston and/or gain experience in what it takes to succeed in big city politics? Any mouth breather can hold cardboard and walk around mouthbreathing.

 

[CiG]

Well, maybe some do. That's not why I attended it. And it's my time. Others might find it boring, but to say it's ignorant because it is de facto a misuse of time is the truly ignorant statement.

Not passing judgement, mostly just ragging on Americans.

 

[Nate Skalman]

That's a good point, but how can you prove it? You're arguing for an originary cause--that is, if leftists didn't protest, the white supremacists would disappear. History tells us otherwise though; and even if an experimental attempt to see if your claim proved true, you can't dismiss the accompanying threat of the alternative happening (i.e. that if we stopped speaking out against white supremacy, it would increase). The safer option seems to be continuing to speak out and argue against it.



I'm not sure what you mean by "attack," but simply arguing against white supremacy isn't oppressing it. And speaking out against it publicly isn't oppressing it. There's a line there, but I'm not sure a public demonstration reaches it.



If it applies to me, then it is directed at me, isn't it?

I can do what I want on a Saturday when I'm not working. My wife and I work all week, and if we want to attend a rally over the weekend because we find it to be morally and ethically responsible, then it's our choice.

Where do you get off telling me I'm ignorant for spending my free time the way I want? I don't call you out for painting little action figures in your spare time, despite the fact that maybe I find it boring and ignorant (for the record, I do find it boring, but not ignorant).

I don't have time to join a think tank or city council--they demand more time than a few hours on a Saturday. This is what I can do for what I happen to agree with.

Point taken, but then where have these white supremacists been sharpening their knives all these years- they haven't caused a POLITICAL rift in this country for the last 20+ years!- until now...the left has given them the idea to "assemble" but won't tolerate the same basic behavior. Proof that ignoring them hasn't caused an increase in white hate groups is the fact that in the same last 20+ years racial diversity gone crazy in most places. The only reason they're assembling now is because they have an willfully combative audience...and they're GETTING THE BETTER OF YOU IMO. They're certainly fucked up but people who rightfully disagree still don't have the right to "erase" their opinion, OR beat it out of them.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would say the same if you weren't posting here, so that's why I say it wasn't directed at you. I wouldn't hold you ethically (or logically) irresponsible for not marching against the Free Speech rally, as an additional point.

I know you would, but it would still apply to me.

Well various pasttimes will be boring to various peoples, so I'm not offended or judgey for you finding mine boring or whatever. However, I notice you didn't take to the streets after the Tsaernav bombings. You show your religiousity. Maybe I should have said borish rather than boring.

I didn't take to the streets after the Boston bombings. But I did attend vigils and visit the site. Again, I do what I can when I can.

Excuses. I don't join my current City council not because of time but because I don't intend to stay here or in a similar environment. You've already expressed at various times a love for major cities like Boston, and only major cities like Boston have institutions which would pay you for your field. Why not put roots down in Boston and/or gain experience in what it takes to succeed in big city politics? Any mouth breather can hold cardboard and walk around mouthbreathing.

Because I want to be a professor, and when I go on the job market this year there's no guarantee that I'll stay in Boston. Academic careers in the humanities demand flexibility in the early stages. I'm not making excuses, I'm being practical and doing what I can with the time I have.

Please stop being such an ass. You're coming off as more priggish than usual.

Point taken, but then where have these white supremacists been sharpening their knives all these years- they haven't caused a POLITICAL rift in this country for the last 20+ years!- until now...the left has given them the idea to "assemble" but won't tolerate the same basic behavior. Proof that ignoring them hasn't caused an increase in white hate groups is the fact that in the same last 20+ years racial diversity gone crazy in most places. The only reason they're assembling now is because they have an willfully combative audience...and they're GETTING THE BETTER OF YOU IMO. They're certainly fucked up but people who rightfully disagree still don't have the right to "erase" their opinion, OR beat it out of them.

Well, you probably disagree with this, but I don't think that leftist movements have inspired white supremacists to organize--or rather, I don't think they're the only reason. I feel that the current administration has emboldened these groups.

Perhaps you think I'm buying into the narrative that Trump has emboldened them, but I think there's significant evidence to suggest that they do feel emboldened (their outspoken support for him is only one piece of the puzzle).

 

[CiG]

Right-wing street movements have overwhelmingly formed as a reaction to the left-wing ones. Antifa showed up with baseball bats, sticks and pepper-spray so the right-wing groups showed up with helmets, sticks and shields.

I mean, I don't know how anybody could deny that the right-wing street groups are reactionaries, except through sheer ideological blindness.

That doesn't mean the left made them hold their beliefs and come to the conclusions they came to, that would be discounting their individuality and giving too much power to the left, but they definitely played a huge part in making them take to the streets.

I think Trump's influence is entirely overblown. He may have emboldened people who were simply self-censoring before he came along, but that's a good thing. More voices the better.

 

[Nate Skalman]

I agree with you there, but WN groups saw the attention the antifa and anti-trump demonstrations were causing in/by the media. Just saying...As a taxpayer I shouldn't be forced by neo-liberals to "pay attention" to their cause through traffic jams and disruption. It upsets people. To a person not invested in someone else's politics, they LOOK and ACT like any other 'fear group'.

 

[CiG]

The biggest problem is that Antifa and others made these right-wing movements into victims and once an identity group has their victimization complex planted, there's no turning back.

People that want to be victims by any means necessary are garbage.

 

[Dak]

I didn't take to the streets after the Boston bombings. But I did attend vigils and visit the site. Again, I do what I can when I can.

Because I want to be a professor, and when I go on the job market this year there's no guarantee that I'll stay in Boston. Academic careers in the humanities demand flexibility in the early stages. I'm not making excuses, I'm being practical and doing what I can with the time I have.

Please stop being such an ass. You're coming off as more priggish than usual.

Vigils aren't protest ( and I don't do vigils either), and I've been consistently anti-marching, so I don't know how I'm "more priggish than usual", as if "priggishness" is an objective thing. Priggishness supposedly means "excessive conformity", which, given the overwhelming turnout you enjoyed, seems to place you among the priggish bunch. I'm merely the underrepresented rational minority, one way or t'other. I could say something unctuous in the Mort thread like "get better at words" but that seems like a Lost Cause.

Well, you probably disagree with this, but I don't think that leftist movements have inspired white supremacists to organize--or rather, I don't think they're the only reason. I feel that the current administration has emboldened these groups.

Perhaps you think I'm buying into the narrative that Trump has emboldened them, but I think there's significant evidence to suggest that they do feel emboldened (their outspoken support for him is only one piece of the puzzle).

Well, I would say the current non-Fascist DoJ has emboldened them. Holder et al was a total red-shirt.

 

[Nate Skalman]

A lot of things seem to be done in 'bad spirit'...like the Mayweather-McGregor fight, all media seems aimed at ratings...next thing you know there's no integrity anymore. The media proverbially stands in the middle of two dueling duo's and eggs the two on for reasons in 'bad faith'...Jews and Catholics, blacks and whites, rich and poor etc. when honestly the proverbial guy in the middle causing the problem is the one who needs punched in the face. I'm not so quick to get mad at someone, or groups every time the news tells me to. I am quick to get irritated at people ruining my city.

 

[Dak]

As a total Aside:

I think Sessions is offbase in his MJ paranoia/hunting. But that doesn't mean "broken windows" policing is ineffective. We've already seen antifa etc. is fine with breaking windows.

 

[rms]

What do you mean?

Southern identity has been tied to the Confederacy since the war by somehow ignoring the aspect of slavery. Stares rights was the issue for the split, for instance, while slavery is seen as a minor issue to the philosophical problem. I saw a screen cap off an AP textbook for high schoolers that referred to the slave rebellion in the 18th century as crazed lunatics rather than the alternative. We don't really celebrate slave revolts, and we should, no?

I also disagree with you on your evaluation of protest, it does have some significance and power and thus use I just see conflation of being drafted to war in previous generations and showing up on the weekend to protest which is just arrogance to the core. Bunch of cowards want props for doing next.to nothing while they ignore civil service in search for the almighty profit. One of my pet peeves in the police violence debate

 

[CiG]

Protest and media pressures just got Bannon ousted for instance.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

What do you mean?

yeah i had to go and take my like back. I thought he was basically talking about how they've framed the civil war nowadays to just be "the north vs the racists" and are literally trying to erase history. Like i said, they're just running with the ball right now.

 

[CiG]

I think the funniest (or ironic) thing about Antifa and BlackLivesMatter is, if America stamped down hard on police brutality and perhaps did like Germany does and trained their police for 2 years (I think it is) rather than the current 6 month training period, their main arguments would start to go away and they would stop attracting moderates and would be seen for the thugs and left-authoritarians they are.

Then you'd simply have to shine a tiki-torch on the other side and suddenly the Jew-hating ethno-nationalists would be revealed for the fucking retards they are without police brutality on the other side to weigh them against.

 

[Einherjar86]

Vigils aren't protest ( and I don't do vigils either), and I've been consistently anti-marching, so I don't know how I'm "more priggish than usual", as if "priggishness" is an objective thing. Priggishness supposedly means "excessive conformity", which, given the overwhelming turnout you enjoyed, seems to place you among the priggish bunch. I'm merely the underrepresented rational minority, one way or t'other. I could say something unctuous in the Mort thread like "get better at words" but that seems like a Lost Cause.

Priggish means self-righteous, sanctimonious, etc. You were presuming to tell me that how I spend my free time is ignorant. You were being priggish.

It's not worth commenting on all the little private jokes that go on in your head.

I think Trump's influence is entirely overblown. He may have emboldened people who were simply self-censoring before he came along, but that's a good thing. More voices the better.

I'll give you this--if Trump emboldened people who were simply self-censoring, then that strikes me as pure democracy at work, i.e. the opening up of all social positions and perspectives. There's a theorist named Martin Hagglund who talks about the "autoimmunity of democracy," by which he means that democracy guarantees that society can always get better, but it can also always get worse. It's about enabling public discourse.

Personally, I think it's more complicated than self-censorship prior to Trump. Many of these groups may not have been condemning Obama, but that doesn't mean they were totally silent or inactive. They just have a more visible presence now because they can be outspoken in their support for the president. So self-censorship may have played some role, but I think there's more to it than that.

So, if what we're talking about is simply the enabling of discourse--as you say, the more voices the better--then there's nothing wrong with counter-protestors making their voices heard as well. I'm not advocating violence against white supremacists or legal action. I don't want to restrict their ability to assemble or physically prevent them from doing so. I simply want to participate in letting them know that they face public dissent and disagreement. Maybe they already know this, or expect it; but I fear what they might think if they were faced with no public dissent.

Maybe we think that both groups are equally bad, or what have you--white supremacists and counter-protestors. But as you said, if it's the case that Trump's election has opened up a new space of public discourse, then outspoken disagreement with white supremacy is by no means worse or more irrational than the promotion of white supremacy. It's just another voice in the discourse.

Protest and media pressures just got Bannon ousted for instance.

After Boston, 67 America First rallies have cancelled their events.

 

[CiG]

I'll give you this--if Trump emboldened people who were simply self-censoring, then that strikes me as pure democracy at work, i.e. the opening up of all social positions and perspectives. There's a theorist named Martin Hagglund who talks about the "autoimmunity of democracy," by which he means that democracy guarantees that society can always get better, but it can also always get worse. It's about enabling public discourse.

Personally, I think it's more complicated than self-censorship prior to Trump. Many of these groups may not have been condemning Obama, but that doesn't mean they were totally silent or inactive. They just have a more visible presence now because they can be outspoken in their support for the president. So self-censorship may have played some role, but I think there's more to it than that.

Well I didn't say that was the only thing at play and of course anybody would be insane to say Trump started all of this, ethno-nationalism has always existed and always will, all over the world.

Donald Trump is definitely not an ethno-nationalist nor a racist (as in, zero evidence supports this popular slander that he is racist) and at worst he is a civic nationalist with a low opinion of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

In fact I think Donald Trump since his first month in office has plummeted in popularity with this crowd of far-right racialists. No wall, no smackdown against illegal immigration, milquetoast fight to get his Muslim ban passed and so on.

The only method people have for conflating the far-right/alt-right/ethno-nationalists with Donald Trump is that he didn't solely condemn the right-wing protesters but instead condemned both sides for being violent.

Flimsy at best.

So, if what we're talking about is simply the enabling of discourse--as you say, the more voices the better--then there's nothing wrong with counter-protestors making their voices heard as well. I'm not advocating violence against white supremacists or legal action. I don't want to restrict their ability to assemble or physically prevent them from doing so. I simply want to participate in letting them know that they face public dissent and disagreement. Maybe they already know this, or expect it; but I fear what they might think if they were faced with no public dissent.

Well, we both agree here besides the last sentence, people have been ignoring retards in America for decades, it goes nowhere, the KKK have been rallying since forever.

The alt-right need to be debated openly, this is just so obvious to me. You're more moderate than most so of course I'm just stating the obvious here.

I think a lot of people are using the murder of that woman at the protest to virtue-signal about Nazism, as if opposition to Nazism is some accomplishment or obscure/brave political view, especially when the population of far-right people (so not even Nazis but just controversially far-right enough) is smaller than the population of Bronies, UFO conspiracists and other ridiculous groupings of people.

When anti-fascists start protesting and calling out Islamists you can colour me impressed.

And don't even get me started on this absolutely retarded wave of statue demolitions. There is now talk of getting rid of Abraham Lincoln monuments and Mount Rushmore.

 

[Dak]

Priggishness sounds a lot more like an adjective for the counter protestors. "Lips that speak hate shall not be allowed to speak".

 

[Einherjar86]

Priggishness sounds a lot more like an adjective for the counter protestors. "Lips that speak hate shall not be allowed to speak"

They are allowed to speak though. What are you going on about?

The only method people have for conflating the far-right/alt-right/ethno-nationalists with Donald Trump is that he didn't solely condemn the right-wing protesters but instead condemned both sides for being violent.

Well, that's not what my argument would be. It would be more extensive than that. My argument isn't that Trump is a bigot (although he may be), but that he's complicit in organizations that promote bigotry. That's my take on how racism operates, especially on a non-intentional level.

First, it would go back to his refusal to admit that the Central Park Five are guilty despite revealed DNA evidence. Some might chalk this up to his inability to admit being wrong; but even if it is that, the optics are horrible. If he doesn't care enough to mediate between his stubbornness and social interpretations of his comments, then I'd say he contributes to a pattern of racism through which minorities are artificially and unfairly targeted.

Second, I would cite his strange attempts to avoid acknowledging David Duke during his election campaign. He said that he'd only learned who Duke was the day before (giving the interview, that is), despite the fact that he specifically denounced Duke back in 2000 while distancing himself from the Reform Party. So this weird little turn of events suggest at minimum that he wanted to avoid offending David Duke during the election so as to ensure a portion of his base. Even his condemnations since then have been so uncomfortable. He makes condemning racism look like trying not to hurl after chugging sour milk.

Finally, I'd cite his conflicted positions toward the war on drugs. Opioid addiction disproportionately impacts white people, and Trump has spoken about this as a national crisis, something to be treated in a humanitarian fashion. Yet his commitment to "getting rid of the gangs" draws heavily on the fact that they transport and sell illegal drugs, which is suddenly no longer something to be treated humanely but to be targeted with violence. The ostensible logic here is that gangs are violent and need to be met with violence. Okay, sure--but what about the argument that gang violence would probably decrease if the war on drugs was ended? Why do white opioid addicts deserve humane treatment whilst black drug dealers deserve to be met with violence, all the while keeping drugs illegal and perpetuating more gang violence?

Again, these aren't definitive statements on Trump's attitude, just details in what I think is a pattern of complicity.