Jump to content
Crazy Lee

Thoughts on Charlottesville and neo-nazis

Recommended Posts

People online I consider friends concern me.

When it comes to Charlottesville, I do not know who actually started it. I know there were alt-right people, mostly white supremacists, KKK, and similar, and also protesters against them, including supposedly some antifa mixed in with the anti-nazi protesters. Not sure who threw the first punch, or who attacked who. Maybe the neo-nazis beat up some black people, maybe the antifa threw the first punch.

But, a lot of my liberal friends seem to be okay with violence only if it's antifa or anti-neo-nazi protesters. It seems like the popular opinion is, either you want to beat the shit out of any nazi or confederate-flag-wearing person you see, or you're a nazi sympathizer. There is no middle ground. I dislike antifa less than the white supremacists, because antifa only exists because of the alt-right, and otherwise wouldn't exist if they weren't around. Antifa doesn't believe in hating people because of skin color or religion. However, out of the ones I've seen online, there seems to be a tendency for the antifa I've talked to to be okay with violence as a protest tool. Plus, they seem to have the attitude that either you support them 100%, or you're the enemy too. There is no middle ground. Punch nazis or be punched yourselves. I cannot back such an extreme attitude.

According to some of my liberal friends, you have to fight nazis wherever you see them? How? Do you get the government to censor them like they do in Germany? Good luck with that, they're gonna sue on First Amendment grounds, and they will win. In fact, I think in Charlottesville the city tried to stop them and even the ACLU backed them having a right to peacefully assemble. Do you punch anyone who has a nazi or confederate tattoo? Then you're engaging in vigilante violence, and if you get arrested, have fun in jail.

 

I'd like to share a story from my past that got a lot of media attention last year. Back when I was a teen I lived in Ann Arbor. And in 1996, the KKK decided to do a rally at Ann Arbor's city hall. The city didn't want them there, but allowed them on free speech grounds. I was personally not there but the event was all over the media. The KKK set up in front of city hall, and there was a temp fence set up around them, with a few supporters inside the fence and a mass off hundreds, maybe thousands of protesters outside of the fence, screaming and frothing at the mouth. At one point they almost tore down the fence. Then they saw some biker-looking guy with a confederate flag on his body, and the angry mob chased after him and started beating him on the ground. Suddenly a black woman threw herself on him and protected him. As much as I hate the KKK, they at least acted civil. The protesters acted like a pack of dogs, violent and angry and riled up. Sad that the side for good was so savage and uncivilized. Back then and now I was happy with the woman's actions, and agree with what she did. Mob violence solves nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keshia_Thomas
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-woman-recalls-day-saved-alleged-kkk-member-mob-article-1.1501050

 

My opinion does not mean I support white supremacists, they can go eat dicks. I saw video of a bunch of white people, supposedly from Charlottesville and neo-nazis, surrounding a couple black guys and beating them up. That is beyond wrong. But, if it was antifa doing the beating of someone who might be a neo-nazi or just someone who's right wing, and I'd disagree with it as well. I just don't support taking the law into your own hands.

Also, I read about those people who tore down that confederate statue. Some of them were arrested. Yea, that's what happens when you destroy property. I hope they enjoy the consequences of their decisions. But, having that opinion probably means some people would say I'm pro-confederate, which I'm not. I'm just not pro-destruction of property.

TL;DR - Don't agree with mob violence, vigilante violence. Not a fan of Antifa due to seeing supporters online who had a "all-or-nothing", "with-us-or-against-us" mentality. Some liberal friends acting like I should blindly support the left or want to punch every nazi or I'm a sympathizer, and I'm sick of hearing it.

Edit: also because this is Peenix, even though I'm trying to be intelligent with this post this thread might end up a shitstorm. At least I tried to be civil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Do you get the government to censor them like they do in Germany?

I always found it weird when you American's criticize Germany for it's anti-Nazi laws.  We're talking about a country that can never be a 'Zero Holocaust' country but can at best try to not become a 'Two Holocaust' country.  When the Germans ask themselves 'What's the worst that could happen?' they know that the answer is '1939-1945 could happen again'.  The 'Slippery Slope' happened in Germany and at the bottom of that slope was the industrial might of a nation applied to murder on a scale that has yet be replicated and hopefully never will be.  We should be more afraid of allowing history to repeat itself than we should be of 'what could go wrong' if we DON'T stop history from repeating itself.

But hey, I'm in Canada, we were killing Nazi's since 1939 unlike the cowardly Americans who waited for Germany to declare war on them on December 11, 1941, so what would I know?  And my country has somewhat more limited freedom of speech laws which so far have successfully prevented our streets from being filled by men with torches, chanting Nazi slogans.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crazy Lee said:

People online I consider friends concern me.

When it comes to Charlottesville, I do not know who actually started it. I know there were alt-right people, mostly white supremacists, KKK, and similar, and also protesters against them, including supposedly some antifa mixed in with the anti-nazi protesters. Not sure who threw the first punch, or who attacked who. Maybe the neo-nazis beat up some black people, maybe the antifa threw the first punch.

Question: How would who threw the first punch change the situation? One side was still pro-ethnic cleansing, the other was not.

Quote

But, a lot of my liberal friends seem to be okay with violence only if it's antifa or anti-neo-nazi protesters. It seems like the popular opinion is, either you want to beat the shit out of any nazi or confederate-flag-wearing person you see, or you're a nazi sympathizer. There is no middle ground. I dislike antifa less than the white supremacists, because antifa only exists because of the alt-right, and otherwise wouldn't exist if they weren't around.

Antifa's been around for way longer than the alt-right actually.

Quote

There is no middle ground. Punch nazis or be punched yourselves. I cannot back such an extreme attitude.

There's no middle ground because there's not any reasonable compromise to anti-racism, etc. vs. white supremacy at all. It's either you don't support this at all (which any sane, normal person would) or you at least validate the white supremacists in their thinking because "one side has also done something bad". And honestly? People shouldn't have to compromise with the people that would literally murder them without hesitation if Jim Crow was a thing

Quote

As much as I hate the KKK, they at least acted civil. The protesters acted like a pack of dogs, violent and angry and riled up. Sad that the side for good was so savage and uncivilized.

They literally came in with torches and guns, terrorized a black church, tried to destroy an urban development site (but got lost), and drove a car through a group of peaceful protestors and killed someone. What part of that screams civil exactly?

Quote

My opinion does not mean I support white supremacists, they can go eat dicks. I saw video of a bunch of white people, supposedly from Charlottesville and neo-nazis, surrounding a couple black guys and beating them up. That is beyond wrong. But, if it was antifa doing the beating of someone who might be a neo-nazi or just someone who's right wing, and I'd disagree with it as well. I just don't support taking the law into your own hands.

Vigilante justice is pretty extreme sure, but comparing punching a neo-Nazi to beating up black people is pretty stupid. At least the neo-Nazis can just stop being neo-Nazis

Quote

even though I'm trying to be intelligent with this post

more like struggling 9_9

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, its one of the rare moments when liberals are legit in the right. Sort of. 

 

Straight up though, it's hilarious how liberals are somehow coming aware of (Instead of during the Obama "Imma end racism :3" era) confederate statues. Personally, I woulda preferred to see them put aside into a museum, but w/e. I didn't care they were there before, I won't really care that they're gone now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if nothing else it's been proven that average people are still not above forming and even justifying violent mobs under the right circumstances. And many people don't really believe you have a right to your own thoughts or speech. So we've had less progress than we give ourselves credit for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, it was kind of an interesting event. For years liberals have been the one to be like "NOOOOO FIGHTING >:c" but apparently now, it's alright to do it. If only we can get them up and arms about serious shit like ISIS and North Korean instead of a bunch of inbred losers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's a mess. I don't have any deep opinions on it. 
That sort of blatant racism was really fucking...surreal. I don't give a shit about some dirty ass statue. But the mob was just a frightening sight. Turn photos of it black and white, and it's all indistinguishable from the photos of lynch mobs from yesterday...

That asshole in the challenger plowing down those people can seriously get fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it pretty hard to have any sympathy for racial supremacists, considering we've the benefit of quite a lot of hindsight when it comes to the various things those beliefs can lead to and none of them are good. It's not the sort of thing that would make me physically attack someone just for expressing it, but then I'm not immediately endangered by the spread of their beliefs either, so I don't really judge people who would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I can see why people are scared of neo-nazis and the KKK, I still don't see how that justifies groups like Antifa/#Resist bullying everyone into their echo chamber and acting a lot like how they perceive their enemy to be. The very fact that standing up for your first amendment rights, or simply pointing out how regressive these people are somehow makes you a "Nazi sympathizer" while the media is endorsing their narrative, and getting censored for not supporting their hysteria is pretty fucking scary for the future of the most basic human rights. The last thing I want to do is side with these people. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, willow said:

They literally came in with torches and guns, terrorized a black church, tried to destroy an urban development site (but got lost), and drove a car through a group of peaceful protestors and killed someone. What part of that screams civil exactly?

Beating a disabled old man isn't exactly civil either.

35DbqWe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Revates said:

As double Hitler I ban Nazis, let's all get along furriends!

We got a hardcore white supremacist over here, let's ban him on all media platforms in the name of human rights!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

As much as I can see why people are scared of neo-nazis and the KKK, I still don't see how that justifies groups like Antifa/#Resist bullying everyone into their echo chamber

The only unified belief or value of antifascists is resisting fascists and nazis. If that echo chamber is something people ought not be pushed into, I'm not sure why people get so defensive about how much their countries contributed to beating the shit out of nazis in World War 2.

We made those nazis dig graves for the dead of the Holocaust, and the only rest they got was lying in those selfsame graves.

tumblr_mxxjlqGWum1spwf52o1_500.jpg

Now we let the new ones carry tiki torches through Charlottesville wearing polo shirts and MAGA hats.

14 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

acting a lot like how they perceive their enemy to be

This is because violence is a good political strategy. All successful groups in history have employed it.

I'm pretty sure it is what stopped the nazis and fascists in Italy in Germany, as a matter of fact.

It almost stopped them when the parties first formed in Germany and Italy, but those countries preferred helping the nazis and fascists crush the antifascists to helping the antifascists crush the nazis and fascists.

FreikorpsBerlinStahlhelmM18TuerkischeForm.jpg

14 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

The very fact that standing up for your right to call for genocide and white nationalism, or simply framing the opposition in the left as the real nazis somehow makes you a "Nazi sympathizer"

Put that statement into context for you.

17 hours ago, Toshabi said:

Personally, it was kind of an interesting event. For years liberals have been the one to be like "NOOOOO FIGHTING >:c" but apparently now, it's alright to do it. If only we can get them up and arms about serious shit like ISIS and North Korean instead of a bunch of inbred losers. 

Liberals suck.

Luckily enough, people actually on the left have been doing this kind of thing for a long time and know not to listen to liberals.

screenshot_42.png?w=590&h=318

17 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

Well, if nothing else it's been proven that average people are still not above forming and even justifying violent mobs under the right circumstances.

Because violent mobs never solve anything, like when they got rights for some of the lower classes in Rome.

Or when they overthrew the French monarchy and instituted democracy.

Or when they pushed for constitutionalism in England.

Or when they helped push the Thirteen Colonies away from the monarchy.

Or when they forced the Tsar to abdicate and formed the provisional government.

Or when they provided leverage for the Civil Rights movement in the United State.

They sometimes fail, though, like when those Jewish people in whatever Polish city did the whole violent mob thing and got shut down by the law, as they should have been.

Askaris_im_Warschauer_Getto_-_1943.jpg

18 hours ago, Jtrekkie said:

And many people don't really believe you have a right to believe certain types of people are inferior to you and deserve to live inferior lives and die or call for the elimination or exile of whole races and religions. So we've advanced from the times when such policies were instituted in many nations.

Put that statement into context for you.

18 hours ago, Toshabi said:

Straight up though, it's hilarious how liberals are somehow coming aware of (Instead of during the Obama "Imma end racism :3" era) confederate statues. Personally, I woulda preferred to see them put aside into a museum, but w/e. I didn't care they were there before, I won't really care that they're gone now. 

They were aware of them when they were being put up, but considering they were put up during periods when confederate-sympathizers were winning, they couldn't do much about the whole mess.

18 hours ago, willow said:

Question: How would who threw the first punch change the situation? One side was still pro-ethnic cleansing, the other was not.

Listen: It would not be okay to hit even Hitler unless it was legal. Everybody knows the law is the ultimate source of morality.

This is why gay people stayed in concentration camps after the war; they broke the law. Is that really hard to understand?

18 hours ago, willow said:

Antifa's been around for way longer than the alt-right actually.

Honestly, that people don't know this probably has something to do with how we educate about fascism and nazism in early 20th century Europe.

Like we're taught that the nazis and fascists were brutal meanies that forced their way into government, but they were actually supported by moderates - and even by what would be modern liberals - who preferred the nazis and fascists to the left.

Antifascists tried to beat the crap out of the SA in Germany. Antifascists tried to kick the teeth in of blackshirts in Italy. They might have, too, if it had not been for the meddling government and their stupid arms.

18 hours ago, willow said:

There's no middle ground because there's not any reasonable compromise to anti-racism, etc. vs. white supremacy at all

We. Have. To. Compromise.

Instead of either genocide or a tolerant society, let's create legal, cultural, and societal systems that put those that are not straight, cis, white men at a disadvantage but say that the system is fair and moral in the end. We'll write off the many people hurt by these systems as the natural costs of a just system.

21 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

But hey, I'm in Canada, we were killing Nazi's since 1939 unlike the cowardly Americans who waited for Germany to declare war on them on December 11, 1941, so what would I know?

To be fair, you guys did wait until the Germans had fucked over half of Europe and let the Italians do whatever the fuck they wanted in Ethiopia and Albania.

Plus there was the whole Japan annexing swathes of land in China without much retribution, but I guess that really doesn't count as part of the World War because it was only millions more Chinese people dying than English speakers from the Commonwealth and U.S. combined.

21 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

My opinion does not mean I support white supremacists, they can go eat dicks.

Even if you don't agree with them, your actions can still lend support to them. Hindenburg and Hugenberg didn't support nazis, but they did a lot for them. Emanuele III didn't support the fascists, but he did a lot for them.

21 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

Sad that the side for good was so savage and uncivilized. Back then and now I was happy with the woman's actions, and agree with what she did. Mob violence solves nothing.

It was really sad that the Americans killed all those guards in Dachau when they found out that the people calling for genocide were actually committing genocide once they got power.

It is almost ironic that those dogs, frothing at the mouth to spill the blood of genocidal maniacs, screamed "Let's get those nazi dogs!"

DeathTrain.jpg

Do you really think anybody that wants to do this or can do this deserves to be kept from doing this in any way possible? I thought not. That would just be savage, not civilized.

We should honestly restrain ourselves from keeping whtie supremacists out of power and instead let them use any legal means they like to get power as long as they super promise not to genocide.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

To be fair, you guys did wait until the Germans had fucked over half of Europe and let the Italians do whatever the fuck they wanted in Ethiopia and Albania.

Are you suggesting that a policy of appeasement that didn't didn't work then, won't work now? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

TL;DR - Don't agree with mob violence, vigilante violence. Not a fan of Antifa due to seeing supporters online who had a "all-or-nothing", "with-us-or-against-us" mentality. Some liberal friends acting like I should blindly support the left or want to punch every nazi or I'm a sympathizer, and I'm sick of hearing it.

I actually agree, even though I firmly believe that the alt-right is a much greater threat, and that our priority right now should be to take a stand against white supremacist (or whatever the dipshits are calling it now) ideology.

I agree that the people who are saying that "both sides are bad" or that "both sides have done bad things" are overwhelmingly wimpy, cowardly "moderates" or right-wing concern trolls. The liberals are absolutely correct in this case that one side in this conflict was largely comprised of Nazis by any other name, and you shouldn't mince words about that.

But, it does bother me that so many of my liberal friends figure that if you're supposedly fighting Nazis, you can do no wrong, and that anyone who criticizes or questions you when you're "fighting fascists" is obviously an apologist for fascism themselves. That strikes me as incredibly dangerous. History has shown that the road to hell is paved with righteous intentions, and that when you've long stared into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.

I am also sick of my right-wing friends who have glommed onto the idiotic term "alt-left" and who've been screeching about Antifa non-stop like the group buggered their grandma. Other than finding them often rather tiresome and obnoxious, I just can't get too excited about Antifa.

I'm also annoyed with my right-wing Yankee friends who are concern-trolling and crying crocodile tears about the Confederate monuments, and posting all kinds of moronic memes that engage in false equivalence by asking if we should (for example) take down statues of MLK jr. because he "opposed gay marriage." (Spot all of the problems with that, kids! I rang the friend who posted this one through the ringer.)

I am also feeling for my black, Jewish, and other friends who understandably feel unnerved and uneasy right now, and I wish I could do even more to support and comfort them.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Troj said:

screeching about Antifa non-stop like the group buggered their grandma.

Meanwhile, my grand mother actually WAS raped by Nazis. 

Anyway...

I think what baffles me here is that America has a long, long, long history of glorifying it's defeat of the Nazis.  The History Channel might as well be called 'The America Punched All The Nazis Channel'.  Is it June 6th?  Time for the annual Band of Brother's marathon!  Entire documentary franchises cover specific events of the war or the accomplishments of manufacturing or the home front or even just one particular aircraft.  Countless films with various depictions of America at war.  Chrysler has never shied away from semi-frequently basing their advertising on how the Jeep helped defeat the Nazi's and now you can own with power steering and giant cup holders!  To put it lightly, the American victory in WWII is one of the shining pinnacles of 'American Exceptionalism' up there with the moon landing.  Nazi Germany has been the 'Easy Enemy' for opposing everything that the United States stand for, making them a guilt free inclusion in many video games or pieces of fiction.

...So how in the hell did American streets filled with men holding torches, some wearing swastika arm bands and chanting Nazi slogans find ANY acceptance as a flavor of patriotism in America?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

...So how in the hell did American streets filled with men holding torches, some wearing swastika arm bands and chanting Nazi slogans find ANY acceptance as a flavor of patriotism in America?

Ehhh, freedom of speech, plays a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon, some people are just inclined towards authoritarianism. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

From there, my read is that in addition to seeking the usual sense of meaning, order, and belonging, people who join these kinds of movements are also looking to feel important and powerful. Nazis are scary and intimidating, and so people who want to be intimidating and feel powerful themselves may be drawn to Neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups.

This is why I suggest that satire and mockery are powerful tools for de-fanging these kinds of movements.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a mess I'll probably have to deal with - which isn't going to be fun. 

Not one bit

In all honesty, I'm actually fearful of my life: all because of  some political nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tsuujou said:

Ehhh, freedom of speech, plays a part.

That and the answer to extremist is by being on the other side of the spectrum. If a giant fireball came and rained down on that whole rally with both sides getting torched, I'm sure nothing valuable to society would have been lost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Honestly, that people don't know this probably has something to do with how we educate about fascism and nazism in early 20th century Europe.

Like we're taught that the nazis and fascists were brutal meanies that forced their way into government, but they were actually supported by moderates - and even by what would be modern liberals - who preferred the nazis and fascists to the left.

Antifascists tried to beat the crap out of the SA in Germany. Antifascists tried to kick the teeth in of blackshirts in Italy. They might have, too, if it had not been for the meddling government and their stupid arms.

It has everything to do with how we educate about these things. We were taught that Nazism/fascism basically stopped with WWII and the Holocaust and that the only true remnants are just random skinheads you see on occasion. Honestly the only reason I knew that Antifa wasn't just something Americans made up to fight the alt-right was because I saw people using "antifaschistische" symbols.

5 hours ago, MalletFace said:

We. Have. To. Compromise.

Instead of either genocide or a tolerant society, let's create legal, cultural, and societal systems that put those that are not straight, cis, white men at a disadvantage but say that the system is fair and moral in the end. We'll write off the many people hurt by these systems as the natural costs of a just system.e any legal means they like to get power as long as they super promise not to genocide.

Mallet, I know that this is all tongue in cheek, but it still gave me an aneurysm :v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really have an opinion other than the fact that we're still dealing with racism issues in this country in 2017 is stupid as fuck.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2017 at 1:11 AM, willow said:

How would who threw the first punch change the situation?

Its the most important consideration because violent acts always supersede whatever beliefs a person has.

If you take action to physically injure a person and its not in self defense from physical harm (as in, you are initiating the physical act of violence), you are more in the wrong than anyone else involved. Being able to speak heinous views must be protected for the sake of speech on the whole; the violence itself is the most important thing to take into consideration from this event.

On 8/19/2017 at 1:11 AM, willow said:

There's no middle ground because there's not any reasonable compromise to anti-racism, etc. vs. white supremacy at all. It's either you don't support this at all (which any sane, normal person would) or you at least validate the white supremacists in their thinking because "one side has also done something bad". And honestly? People shouldn't have to compromise with the people that would literally murder them without hesitation if Jim Crow was a thing

Quote

Allowing people to speak heinous beliefs does not validate them.

You can tell someone their belief doesn't even hold value or merit without acting violent against them. Punching someone doesn't equate to anti racism. Anti racism is telling a racist that they're wrong while promoting equality.

7 hours ago, MalletFace said:

Listen: It would not be okay to hit even Hitler unless it was legal. Everybody knows the law is the ultimate source of morality.

The reason initiating physical acts of violence is morally reprehensible has nothing to do with the law. The law simply upholds that already preexisting morality.

I agree that the people who are saying that "both sides are bad" or that "both sides have done bad things" are overwhelmingly wimpy, cowardly "moderates" or right-wing concern trolls

Believing that two groups are doing wrongs does not mean the same as believing that they are equally wrong. It is simply easier to denounce everything wrong in one since, in the end, the amount something is bad is not so important as the fact that something bad happened. That everything wrong must be denounced so as to expose poor behavior and encourage behavior that does not reside within everything pegged as bad or wrong. 

Believing that two groups are doing wrongs also does not imply the idea that those with said belief lack any sort of conviction, and as such I do not believe its fair to call such people cowardly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Vae said:

Don't really have an opinion other than the fact that we're still dealing with racism issues in this country in 2017 is stupid as fuck.

It's easy to pretend to get along when there is plenty for all and inequality isn't too bad.

Old racial/religious/etc lines tend to become more apparent when there's not as much to go around and a few elite are grabbing an increasing share of the shrinking pie.

The country in question has had declining energy consumption after 2007 while population and wealth inequality continued to increase:

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/byron-wien-on-why-inequality-has-gotten-worse-in-the-us-2017-5?r=US&IR=T

image.jpg

 

Interestingly enough despite the energy decline there are plenty of claims on wealth (denoted by USD), just not for the majority of people:

Wealth_inequality_panel_-_v1.png

 

An increasing share of this supposed wealth is tied up in paper assets though such as grossly overvalued stocks, which helps explain why there's so much apparent wealth while energy consumption has slightly decreased since 2007 (the other part of the equation is that manufacturing and other energy-intensive and well-paying jobs ex military have continued to be sent elsewhere):

stockmarketcapratios.jpg

Fortunately for the few wealthy it seems that as long as the anger of the poor is directed against each other they themselves will be mostly left alone. Jay Gould said it best:

quote-i-can-hire-one-half-of-the-working

 

So keep up the good fight, fighting each other over smaller and smaller scraps while the country stagnates and the already wealthy take increasing share of the wealth. Doesn't matter whether it's fighting over a shrinking pool of good-paying jobs or in the streets, as long as the few people at the top can quietly clean up.

062c1c90fa8309c390cf0a33c327e9e1--wolves

Pictured: Fighting in Charlottesville. The image is actually rather flattering as most Americans aren't that fit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

[why did this need five images?]

I didn't say I didn't understand why trashy rednecks act like trashy rednecks.

I just said that it's stupid as fuck.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Its the most important consideration because violent acts always supersede whatever beliefs a person has.

If you take action to physically injure a person and its not in self defense from physical harm (as in, you are initiating the physical act of violence), you are more in the wrong than anyone else involved.

But not really? These people were actively terrorizing others. At what point would it have been acceptable for the other side to step in and fight back? When they actually killed a bystander? When they destroyed someone's property?

It's an important consideration, but it's equally as important to consider why this person or group is acting violently.

6 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Being able to speak heinous views must be protected for the sake of speech on the whole; the violence itself is the most important thing to take into consideration from this event.

Haha no. People who believe people like me should be exterminated for simply existing shouldn't be allowed a platform. Period.

6 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Allowing people to speak heinous beliefs does not validate them.

Yeah it does though. By allowing them to have a platform you're at least validating them in that they have a right to publicly express their opinions. You may not necessarily agree with them, but you're at least passive enough that you're allowing them a space.

No one is saying that punching a person automatically equates to being anti-racism, but painting the situation with a broad brush because of violence only helps the oppressors, not the victims.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vae said:

I didn't say I didn't understand why trashy rednecks act like trashy rednecks.

I just said that it's stupid as fuck.

I suppose I should've quoted this instead:

12 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

...So how in the hell did American streets filled with men holding torches, some wearing swastika arm bands and chanting Nazi slogans find ANY acceptance as a flavor of patriotism in America?

Ash see my above post, basically these fights are symptomatic of much larger problems in US society and the economy, which will only get worse with time.

As for all the images, graphs help demonstrate changes over time and everyone loves wolfies ;333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Troj said:

This is why I suggest that satire and mockery are powerful tools for de-fanging these kinds of movements.

I'd agree! On that note, I'm so excited to be seeing Randy Newman, at a small venue next month, who has long tackled such topics via wit and satire...this is a much needed thing, for me now.

I'm hoping he plays Rednecks (1974), and I'm Dreaming of a White President (2012) But his commentary on race, class history has never been more prescient, though so many of his songs. (Or, his 12 serious albums, vs. the soundtracks)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of ever meeting an actual white supremacist, let alone an actual Nazi. I knew a former skinhead in college, who had changed her ways by then, but that's about as close as I've seen. Actual white supremacists and Nazis tend to be shady types who hide behind KKK hoods and whatnot. They exist but they're uncommon, and were driven underground long ago. Thankfully, the alt-right and alt-left only represent a small part of each "wing". Most people fall closer to the center.

That being said, the media and a few billionaires would like us to believe otherwise. Race is a red herring. They have a vested interest in stirring the pot and turning people into pawns to help them achieve their globalist agenda.
 

Why would they this?:

- To avoid having to pay living wages to first-world employees.
- So they don't have to follow our labor laws.
- So they don't have to follow our environmental regulations.
 

What are a the results?:

- Greater income disparity between the wealthy elites and the rest of us. This gives them more power to control and exploit.
- Workers in other countries are taken advantage of and abused, mostly out of sight and out of mind.
- The environment suffers more than it might have otherwise.


 

On 8/18/2017 at 11:39 PM, Crazy Lee said:

Also, I read about those people who tore down that confederate statue. Some of them were arrested. Yea, that's what happens when you destroy property. I hope they enjoy the consequences of their decisions. But, having that opinion probably means some people would say I'm pro-confederate, which I'm not. I'm just not pro-destruction of property.


Same here. I don't like the fact that such statues are on display. They're offensive, but vandalism isn't the answer. If it matters that much to the people, then they should let their voices be heard through petitions and votes. I have little doubt that the statues would quickly be removed in a peaceful and lawful manner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Battlechili said:

Believing that two groups are doing wrongs also does not imply the idea that those with said belief lack any sort of conviction, and as such I do not believe its fair to call such people cowardly.

Context matters.

Like I said, I think it's entirely fair to criticize the tactics, attitudes, and rationales on "both sides."

In particular, I think if people are truly committed to fighting fascism and authoritarianism, they will need to confront their own flaws and their own inner darkness, or else end up morphing into the kinds of people they've been fighting without even realizing it.

But, the "both sides" crowd overwhelmingly comes across as wanting to look emotionally, intellectually, and philosophically superior and "above it all" without actually having to do real research or deep thought.

It's rather like when the teacher doesn't care to investigate which kid started the fight, or when they actually rather like one of the kids, but can't admit to it, and so they sentence both the bully and the victim to after-school detention, and give a little pep-speech about how violence is always wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 3:01 AM, willow said:

It has everything to do with how we educate about these things. We were taught that Nazism/fascism basically stopped with WWII and the Holocaust and that the only true remnants are just random skinheads you see on occasion. Honestly the only reason I knew that Antifa wasn't just something Americans made up to fight the alt-right was because I saw people using "antifaschistische" symbols.

I only learned about it because I got really into learning who let the Holocaust happen.

My conclusion: The only people that are absolved from the blame were those that fought the Nazis in every way that was possible for them, as everyone else - intentionally or accidentally - paved the way.

I also got really into learning about the Spanish Civil War, and the Republicanos were full of groups openly calling themselves movimientos/milicias antifascistas.

On 8/20/2017 at 4:40 AM, Battlechili said:

Its the most important consideration because violent acts always supersede whatever beliefs a person has.

This is the kind of idea that makes John Brown a villain.

John Brown took up arms and was willing to kill to stop this:

article_10099_2_0.jpg

slave-auction-virginia-AB.jpeg

Yes, he threw the first punch as far as open battle goes, but can you tell me in all honesty that his violence makes him a bad person? Does that violence he enacted so that former slaves could be equal to himself make him a worse person than the person approaching the power to start ending slavery and start delivering equality to the slaves that said,

Quote

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

Which one of these two people is the real hero? Which one of these two people is the better person?

What truly makes the two different, where one fought for good before those supporting evil could throw the first formal punch, or the one that only did any good because they were forced to?

Additionally, could one not also argue that supporting/building/continuing the institution of slavery is a first punch? What about with other forms of oppression? With racism? With homophobia?

When people call for these things, are they not inciting the people to put them into action? Are they not stating their intent to make evil possible?

What about when people call for genocide - genocide we know is possible on industrial scales and has happened in one of the most liberal states in the world - is that not a first punch?

When do their efforts shift from harmless nonsense to real, tangible, harmful attacks? When their words lead to families disowning their children, causing those kids to die on the street? When their words lead to activists screaming "never again" getting beaten on the street?

When? When do we have the right to stop them? After my classmates are consistently placed at a social disadvantage because they are Jewish? After my boyfriend gets choked by his dad for being gay? After my friend gets put on the street for being trans?

On 8/20/2017 at 4:40 AM, Battlechili said:

If you take action to physically injure a person and its not in self defense from physical harm (as in, you are initiating the physical act of violence), you are more in the wrong than anyone else involved. 

As I said, when does it become self defense from physical harm?

After you - a person probably nowhere near the receiving end of most of their aims - decide?

Does the well-treated and cared-for slave have no right to rebel? Does the Russian serf who has never even seen an image of the Tsar have a right to rebel?

Should the Nazi elite have been left alive? Many of them never even explicitly called for anything illegal, and many certainly did not do any killing themselves.

When do we the people have the right to give up the moral high ground to defend our existence, I ask you, oh Holier-Than-Thou.

On 8/20/2017 at 4:40 AM, Battlechili said:

Allowing people to speak heinous beliefs does not validate them.

How?

It gives them a platform, and it makes them equal to any other beliefs that may be spoken in public, does it not?

And, if they are given a platform, does it not allow them to spread and become norms and values?

And, if they become norms and values, does that not pave the way for people to begin acting on them in their own lives or on the national stage?

Do we really need to risk going down that path again just to let nazis feel safe calling for genocide?

On 8/20/2017 at 4:40 AM, Battlechili said:

You can tell someone their belief doesn't even hold value or merit without acting violent against them. Punching someone doesn't equate to anti racism. Anti racism is telling a racist that they're wrong while promoting equality.

But how does telling them they are wrong stop them? How does telling them they are wrong keep them from acting out evil?

How many nazis stopped calling for genocide because they saw a good sign? How many nazis stopped calling for genocide because of a statistic?

On the other hand, how many Holocausts were stopped by men with guns and tanks?

On 8/20/2017 at 4:40 AM, Battlechili said:

The reason initiating physical acts of violence is morally reprehensible has nothing to do with the law. The law simply upholds that already preexisting morality.

Belief that the law upholds morality may be right in some ways, but it misses a lot.

The law upholds the morality of the person that made it. This used to be law:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

It was law until violence ended it.

On 8/20/2017 at 4:40 AM, Battlechili said:

Believing that two groups are doing wrongs does not mean the same as believing that they are equally wrong. It is simply easier to denounce everything wrong in one since, in the end, the amount something is bad is not so important as the fact that something bad happened. That everything wrong must be denounced so as to expose poor behavior and encourage behavior that does not reside within everything pegged as bad or wrong. 

Believing that two groups are doing wrongs also does not imply the idea that those with said belief lack any sort of conviction, and as such I do not believe its fair to call such people cowardly.

One side is calling for genocide and punching people telling them to stop so they can act out the genocide. The other side says genocide is bad and is punching the people calling for genocide so they stop calling for genocide.

Not completely siding one way or the other is cowardly. How can you not take a side?

Why is this so hard?

On 8/19/2017 at 11:26 PM, AshleyAshes said:

I think what baffles me here is that America has a long, long, long history of glorifying it's defeat of the Nazis.  The History Channel might as well be called 'The America Punched All The Nazis Channel'.  Is it June 6th?  Time for the annual Band of Brother's marathon!  Entire documentary franchises cover specific events of the war or the accomplishments of manufacturing or the home front or even just one particular aircraft.  Countless films with various depictions of America at war.  Chrysler has never shied away from semi-frequently basing their advertising on how the Jeep helped defeat the Nazi's and now you can own with power steering and giant cup holders!  To put it lightly, the American victory in WWII is one of the shining pinnacles of 'American Exceptionalism' up there with the moon landing.  Nazi Germany has been the 'Easy Enemy' for opposing everything that the United States stand for, making them a guilt free inclusion in many video games or pieces of fiction.

...So how in the hell did American streets filled with men holding torches, some wearing swastika arm bands and chanting Nazi slogans find ANY acceptance as a flavor of patriotism in America?

Right after the U.S. decided the USSR was no longer an ally, and with the Second Red Scare, the U.S. government played a long campaign of trying to paint the nazis as the antithesis of the U.S. 

This meant everything from underplaying the fact that the war was really won by the dirty people of the USSR and Red China to painting the nazis as left-wing.

It really didn't hurt that the nazis loved people thinking they were left-wing and did everything they could to look left-wing - it meant that they could get people that would normally oppose them simply by putting on a nice smile.

When you do that kind of thing, it really opens the way for a nationalist movement already heavily based on pre-existing American ideals to take hold, especially after any type of surge in left-wing thought, as happened during the Civil Rights movement or during the rise of things like BLM.

On 8/20/2017 at 11:33 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

Ash see my above post, basically these fights are symptomatic of much larger problems in US society and the economy, which will only get worse with time.

I promise I'm not actively trying to ignore or contradict the economic portion of this. I really don't have much to say about the information you presented.

I will say that it is really important to remember that economics, culture, and their history cannot be separated. Attempting to do so is just... revisionist, for lack of a better word.

On 8/19/2017 at 11:54 PM, Troj said:

This is why I suggest that satire and mockery are powerful tools for de-fanging these kinds of movements.

Yes, yes, yes.

While I will never disavow violence against people that want me dead, by all means, make them look like fools.

the-great-dictator-globe.jpg?w=700

Remember to remind people that they aren't harmless, though.

A fool can still kill me.

Also on the topic of Charlottesville, I just want to remind everyone that Heather Heyer, the woman killed by the dude in the car, was a socialist, and she was there to fight racism and capitalism in her own way. It seems many news outlets are erasing that.

Not too many liberals at that event; the nazis have a right to call for genocide, after all, and the counter-protesters didn't get a permit.

I will also note that James Fields was a racist, white-nationalist, nazi who was trying to incite a race war in his own violent way. It seems many right-wing sources are trying to claim he was creating a red flag of some sort through being one or more of a Jewish person, a socialist, or a BLM activist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Euarargharrraaaauuuughh....

In other words, there's no opinion I can express on this occurrence that won't make at least half of all the people hate me.  I've already been staring at this post for over two hours to make sure it's juuuuuust right, but I should probably rip this bandaid off since Godwin's Law is an inevitability at this point, and I'm sure I'll be restless unless I pitch in my two cents.  I'm sure I'll regret it more later than I would regret the lack of sleep now.

So yeh, a bunch of assholes showed up to start screaming some toxic stuff one day.  I personally think that had Antifa (or their associates) not shown up at all, a bunch of assholes would have screamed into dead air, the nation would have shaken its collective head, and there would have been the slimmest possibility that some of those assholes would have gone home that night, mellowed out, realized the whole thing was silly, and went on to do something productive with their lives.  But, because these counter-protestors considered violence a good first solution, said mellowing out and feeling silly will never happen, because now they've vindicated this idea the other side has that someone is out to 'get them.'

Imagine a person claimed their thoughts and opinions were too 'dangerous' and 'would revolutionize this country.'  Ten years ago, we'd lump them in with the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists and greet their ramblings with crickets until they realized no one wanted to hear it.  Nowadays, a bunch of people have made it a point to show up with clubs to beat this person for daring to speak the forbidden speech, which I can only imagine gives our rambling racist a nice, big, throbbing ego because part of his paranoid fantasy is being fulfilled.

And let's suppose a person is a bit on the fence on the whole white-supremacy thing.  The best way to win them over to a more reasonable outlook is to give them a way to quietly rescind their opinion and move on with life.  But since groups like Antifa seem pretty keen on the doxings and beatings, the only way for a person to put that kind of thing behind them is to practically prostrate and flagellate themselves before such a group while begging for forgiveness from people who have no intent to grant it.  At that rate, I would not be surprised if a person chose to be an equal among monsters than a sycophant to their enemies.

Maybe I'm sounding a little too sympathetic towards the bad people, but unless the counter-protesters plan to off each and every last person on the other side they will have to work out some way to genuinely convince white supremacists out of that mode of thinking, and belittling and beating a person into submission doesn't tend to make them terribly fond of the point the other person is trying to make.

Also, I think it seems remiss, at the very least, for a person to shriek and flail and sputter admonishments with all their energy and every fiber of their being every time someone so much as flashes a swastika for half a second.  I can only imagine that would burn someone out, or make them look hysterical.  Maybe I'm optimistic, maybe I think flying off the handle and vandalizing property and clubbing wrong-thinkers and everyone standing near them is for the witless, but I imagine there must be much more shrewd ways of dealing with 'alt-right' groups - well-handled satire, reasoning with their recruiting pool, argument from hard evidence and statistics instead of emotions and presumed ethics, speaking with them as equals/peers instead of being combative or looking down one's nose at them.

I guess the tl;dr of this is that I'm in camp 'I don't much care for both groups and would be happy if they both disappeared but they're here so I guess we'll have to deal with them well shit.'

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people so ill-informed about this?

5 hours ago, AyGee said:

...Godwin's Law is an inevitability at this point...

I see you haven't seen Godwin's Second and Third Law:

godwinslaw.PNG

godwinslaw2.PNG

5 hours ago, AyGee said:

So yeh, a bunch of assholes showed up to start screaming some toxic stuff one day.  I personally think that had Antifa (or their associates) not shown up at all, a bunch of assholes would have screamed into dead air, the nation would have shaken its collective head, and there would have been the slimmest possibility that some of those assholes would have gone home that night, mellowed out, realized the whole thing was silly, and went on to do something productive with their lives.  But, because these counter-protestors considered violence a good first solution, said mellowing out and feeling silly will never happen, because now they've vindicated this idea the other side has that someone is out to 'get them.'

You know they marched on a synagogue and churches, right?

The synagogue was fine aside from the realistic fear the nazis presented, but as far as the church went, the clergy thinks you are dead wrong.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html

Like I've put videos from reporters on here of the alt-right dudes screaming that they are about to go beat down antifascists, which they proceed to attempt. I'm also pretty sure nobody was beating on James Fields before he plowed into protesters in his car.

Plus antifascists didn't show up en masse until day two. On day one, the alt-right marched pretty uncontested, except for about 30 peaceful counter-protesters standing around a statue.

They beat the fuck out of those people pretty easily, by the way, as there were about 250 of them. Antifascists showed up on day two largely to counter that.

5 hours ago, AyGee said:

Also, I think it seems remiss, at the very least, for a person to shriek and flail and sputter admonishments with all their energy and every fiber of their being every time someone so much as flashes a swastika for half a second.  I can only imagine that would burn someone out, or make them look hysterical.  Maybe I'm optimistic, maybe I think flying off the handle and vandalizing property and clubbing wrong-thinkers and everyone standing near them is for the witless, but I imagine there must be much more shrewd ways of dealing with 'alt-right' groups - well-handled satire, reasoning with their recruiting pool, argument from hard evidence and statistics instead of emotions and presumed ethics, speaking with them as equals/peers instead of being combative or looking down one's nose at them.

You know people have been consistently doing those things with them since the first nazis and fascists started popping up.

It... it didn't really work. I'm not sure why anybody thinks you can reason with people calling for genocide. Where does the idea that this is the position of a reasonable person come from?

We kind of had to vandalize property and club wrong-thinkers to get rid of them, if you don't recall...

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E0406-0022-001,_Russland,_Kesselschlacht_Stalingrad.jpg

History_Progress_in_Battle_of_the_Bulge_Speech_SF_still_624x352.jpg

917c231db0f1fdaebde889267ec6fe68.jpg

5 hours ago, AyGee said:

I guess the tl;dr of this is that I'm in camp 'I don't much care for both groups and would be happy if they both disappeared but they're here so I guess we'll have to deal with them well shit.'

One of the groups wants genocide and the other one wants not genocide. They're both willing to fight for their goals.

What is everybody's difficulty here?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MalletFace said:

Why are people so ill-informed about this?

I see you haven't seen Godwin's Second and Third Law:

[snip]

Oh no, I didn't mean that there's some mistake in calling this gathering nazis.  They were pretty much that - I agree with you on that front, what with the stormfront posters and people literally flying swastikas.  I meant that more in terms of someone comparing -me- to a nazi or at least a sympathizer because I entertained the idea of trying to reform these people.

And since you keep bringing up the Holocaust, I do feel the need to mention that the rise of the nazis prior to WWII probably wasn't the result of them not receiving regular enough beatings.  Their country was economically crippled and kneecapped as a result of the treaties at the close of WWI, in which the allied forces decided that Germany ought to foot the bill for the entire war while also diminishing their means to pay off that debt.  And there does seem to be a trend of xenophobia rising when people are in dire financial straits.

I should research the above point more, so take it with a grain of salt - just wanted to make that first correction on the mention of Godwin's Law before I go about my day.  I'll try to get more in depth at some point later tonight or tomorrow.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, willow said:

People who believe people like me should be exterminated for simply existing shouldn't be allowed a platform. Period.


I think this sums everything up nicely.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MalletFace said:

One of the groups wants genocide and the other one wants not genocide. They're both willing to fight for their goals.

What is everybody's difficulty here?

Maintaining the status quo of "maybe everyone is a little to blame" is the path of least resistance. MLK pretty famously talked about the issue, and Hitler himself said that his movement started off weak, and could've been easily smashed.

 

To a certain degree, though, there's more than that. Currently, on the 'net, it's popular to hate on "The Left" -- tonnes of people have gotten on board the train, and have made quite a decent sum off it. The boogeyman of the "SJW" stuck, and people have proven themselves willing to leap to great lengths to rationalize their hatred against this universal, intangible, foe. After systemically demonizing "The Left" for the past couple years, reality has hit back hard, and pretty much none of the pundits & grifters have been willing to accept any form of responsibility for their contribution to the radicalization that has occurred -- instead they deflect. Blaming ANTIFA, for example, rather than acknowledge the effect of their endless stream of low-effort, clickbait-y "SJW DEGENERACY WILL LEAD TO THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION" , is just way easier, and people buy it, so why not.

 

I still remember seeing my alt-right youtube news feed getting filled "CANADA IS BURNING TO THE GROUND" on the day a trans civil rights bill passed

kIEhSKt.png

Like, the amount of empty, reactionary, fearmongering bullshit that's pumped into the 'net probably outclasses that of conservative radio at this point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kazooie said:

Maintaining the status quo of "maybe everyone is a little to blame" is the path of least resistance. MLK pretty famously talked about the issue, and Hitler himself said that his movement started off weak, and could've been easily smashed.

 

To a certain degree, though, there's more than that. Currently, on the 'net, it's popular to hate on "The Left" -- tonnes of people have gotten on board the train, and have made quite a decent sum off it. The boogeyman of the "SJW" stuck, and people are willing to leap to great lengths to rationalize their hatred against this universal, intangible, foe. After systemically demonizing "The Left" for the past couple years, reality has hit back hard, and pretty much none of these grifters are willing to accept any form of responsibility for their contribution to the radicalization that has occurred -- instead they deflect. Blaming ANTIFA, for example, rather than their endless stream of low-effort, clickbait-y "SJW DEGENERACY WILL LEAD TO THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION" , is just way easier, and people buy it, so why not.

 

I still remember seeing my alt-right youtube news feed getting filled "CANADA IS BURNING TO THE GROUND" on the day a trans civil rights bill passed

kIEhSKt.png

Like, the amount of empty, reactionary, fearmongering bullshit that's pumped into the 'net probably outclasses that of conservative radio at this point.


This just in: fear mongering clown mocks behavior of other fearmongering clowns with classic smug unawareness.

The nighttime blames the sunrise and the world continues spinning.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kazooie said:

kIEhSKt.png

*looks at this, sitting in her office in Canada, in her job that was once belonged to Americans, but the company moved the crux of it's operations to Canada around 2014 and in the last few months shut down all non-executive/administrative jobs that had remained in California while announcing aggressive hiring in Canada*

Yup, it's all going down hill here in Canada.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

*looks at this, sitting in her office in Canada, in her job that was once belonged to Americans, but the company moved the crux of it's operations to Canada around 2014 and in the last few months shut down all non-executive/administrative jobs that had remained in California while announcing aggressive hiring in Canada*

Yup, it's all going down hill here in Canada.

well acktually, Canada is a SJW dystopian nightmare state

osybB16.png

thank you very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kazooie said:

well acktually, Canada is a SJW dystopian nightmare state

osybB16.png

thank you very much

This WOULD explain why everyone in the area I work rushed out of their offices around 2pm to enter green spaces and parks, staring upwards at the sun in confusion, many carrying crudely constructed box contraptions that I can only assume were 'Free Speech Survival Kits'. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

This WOULD explain why everyone in the area I work rushed out of their offices around 2pm to enter green spaces and parks, staring upwards at the sun in confusion, many carrying crudely constructed box contraptions that I can only assume were 'Free Speech Survival Kits'. :o

CANADA IS LOST, ALSO EUROPE???

RycVg0g.png

ALSO, JAPAN IS MY IDEAL SOCIETY, CANADA SHOULD BE MORE LIKE JAPAN

PcBgGl6.png

ALSO, THE BBC ARE COMMUNISTS??????

jgbnYAD.png

i fukken love neofascist frog internet

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll put it like this: People with terrible views have a right to speak so long as they are not directly inciting violence. The thing is, real fascists and totalitarians never stay on the right side of that line, because their goals are always intrinsically violent on some level. That being said, while violence in the defence of oneself or others is justified, violence is not the sole valid response to violently hateful people; and all told, I feel like a lot of hardcore anti-fascist rhetoric treats non-violent resistance as inherently ineffectual or naïve, as if considering violence a last resort were somehow an ill-considered and cowardly position rather than a thought-through and frequently difficult one. It also undermines and demeans a lot of pacifist anti-fascist groups who do a lot of good work, which is counterproductive and a bit insulting.

Also, I hate to do this, but before it even gets there, could we please avoid any glorification of the USSR here? If any group rivals neo-Nazis in the atrocity denialism camp, it's tankies, and as a left-wing person with some actual fucking standards, I'd really rather not. I also don't care for liberal-baiting for a number of reasons—the irony of po-faced Marxists quoting Popper is astounding—but I feel like that's a whole lot less significant than "actually Stalin was all right."

All this being said... I don't think I have ever been this afraid for my country before. Please, let this be an unmissed opportunity for positive change.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a plot twist for the body-pillow-hugging white identitarian weebs: No, I don't give a Japan a pass for this idiocy, either. Robots alone can't compensate for their rapidly-decreasing population, so they'll eventually experience the consequences of their own racism and xenophobia if they don't wake up.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Troj said:

Here's a plot twist for the body-pillow-hugging white identitarian weebs: No, I don't give a Japan a pass for this idiocy, either. Robots alone can't compensate for their rapidly-decreasing population, so they'll eventually experience the consequences of their own racism and xenophobia if they don't wake up.

There is something of a corporatist or even fascist bent baked into the culture of Japan's government and civil service outside of the weird racist stuff, and it hasn't been doing the country many favours from a socioeconomic standpoint either. The Iron Triangle has been rusting for decades.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mandragoras said:

There is something of a corporatist or even fascist bent baked into the culture of Japan's government and civil service outside of the weird racist stuff, and it hasn't been doing the country many favours from a socioeconomic standpoint either. The Iron Triangle has been rusting for decades.

People don't become hikikomori or commit suicide because they're having a grand old time, I reckon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×