|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 27 2017 07:11 Nevuk wrote:
I feel like using Twitter is a mistake for anyone aside from journalists
Dog rates is fine twitter.
|
On August 27 2017 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
If the context isn't obvious please provide context for your tweets. ScottBaio is an actor who supports trump.
Sorry, forgot about how relatively obscure he is. (Still probably Trump's highest profile celebrity endorsement). He played chachi on happy days and Bob loblaw on arrested development, and has been an outspoken Trump supporter since before the election.
|
On August 27 2017 07:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
If the context isn't obvious please provide context for your tweets. ScottBaio is an actor who supports trump. Sorry, forgot about how relatively obscure he is. (Still probably Trump's highest profile celebrity endorsement). He played chachi on happy days and Bob loblaw on arrested development, and has been an outspoken Trump supporter since before the election.
What was she referring to in her tweet? We just see her response and the other tweet. What was the tweet about?
|
On August 27 2017 07:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 07:29 Nevuk wrote:On August 27 2017 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
If the context isn't obvious please provide context for your tweets. ScottBaio is an actor who supports trump. Sorry, forgot about how relatively obscure he is. (Still probably Trump's highest profile celebrity endorsement). He played chachi on happy days and Bob loblaw on arrested development, and has been an outspoken Trump supporter since before the election. What was she referring to in her tweet? We just see her response and the other tweet. What was the tweet about?
Took a bit of digging, Mrs baio has a private twitter and deleted the tweet now.
Seems like it was in response to this :
And the whole kerfluffle seems to have come about due to scott bail sharing an article calling sandy hook a false flag.
|
|
|
On August 27 2017 07:21 Sermokala wrote:
If the context isn't obvious please provide context for your tweets. ScottBaio is an actor who supports trump.
The wife of an actor that supports Trump said something bad on twitter. Do I have this news correct?
|
I find it hard to take a woman seriously whose twitter handle is WifeOfSomeoneImportant.
|
Yeah, it isn't exactly massive news (I'll admit I thought for a bit about if it was threadworthy), but I thought it might be interesting to talk about how useless twitter is for most people - pretty much no benefit with massive liability.
|
doesn't really seem US politics related, more like general social commentary;
I wouldn't sya twitter is useless, no moreso than many idle activities. It's just best used cautiously (as most things are).
|
On August 27 2017 08:17 Nevuk wrote:
Yeah, it isn't exactly massive news (I'll admit I thought for a bit about if it was threadworthy), but I thought it might be interesting to talk about how useless twitter is for most people - pretty much no benefit with massive liability.
There's little liability there if you look at some people. trump uses it religiously and nothing really ever blows back on him. Some celebs can get away saying some things on twitter whereas others will get dragged through the mud if they "step outta line." I guess it just depends on the person using twitter.
|
On August 27 2017 07:17 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 06:46 mozoku wrote:On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:35 Aquanim wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I saw some really far-right German groups marching in the streets and the papers and ordinary citizens condemning them. So it depends on their restriction, it depends on their constitution, and it depends on what kind of input the German people had on it. It's not really something I'm willing to get too far into in a US Pol thread. I'm sure we'd come down to some things that I'd oppose--but I have no vote in their Bundestag and I'd probably waste my breath as a foreigner telling them the societal harms. Other countries don't have the same free speech traditions or underlying societies. If they want more of what America's got (or had, in some ways), they can take a look. And "they themselves seek to restrict?" I mean, legislatively? Constitutionally? We have many strong institutions left and it takes supermajorities in Congress AND the states to undo a constitutional amendment. We have the courts if they have some nefarious undermining plans, and common sense people will oppose their legislative agenda for all times. I don't see their ideology as infectious ... for example, this forum didn't get any new converts to Nazism based on their march. So I see strong institutions as the necessary and present guard against that small group. We don't have to erode the republic to preserve the republic; naturally, that's the recipe for abuse of power. The federalists and other drafters wrote protections against the power of the mob as well as against monarchs ruling from afar. The basic issue is that by allowing everyone the same absolute rights to spread their ideology, including those who want to get rid of these institutions and legislations that are in their way, you risk these kinds of ideologies being supported by a sizable portion of the population, or even a majority. All these safeguards are utterly irrelevant if the population doesn't back them up. The lesson to learn from Nazi Germany is that you don't get an authoritarian regime overnight and neither do you get popular support for it. There is no "oh shit, now we need to violently rise against this regime because now it went too far"-moment for the majority of the population. These movements grow over years or even decades and are carefully nurtured by those behind them who have bigger plans in mind. There won't be some kind of actual overreaching attack on institutions or legislations until it's highly likely that such an attack will be successful. In the case of Nazi Germany all that was needed was 33% of the popular support, fanatical supporters including a paramilitary force and people who underestimated those who pushed to power until the very last moment in one way or another. And until that point such a movement is able to argue: "But see, this is just our opinion and we're free to share this with everyone!" This approach allows those who want to abolish core values such as freedom and democracy to use these very tools to drive them into the ground - while being defended by everyone else who assumes "Oh, they could/would never go that far" until it's too late. That's the inherent danger of choosing to go down that path and trying to apply the same absolute rules to everyone - including Neo-Nazis, left-extremists or religious extremists who aim for nothing less but the destruction of these rules for everyone but themselves. Is the threat of a Neo-Nazi takeover really greater than the threat of some Putin/Trump/Erdogan-esque politician opportunistically eliminating political enemies by taking advantage the loss of civil rights/liberties by those associated with "enemy groups" though? The slippery slope argument goes both ways. Moreover, what exactly does banning groups like the KKK from publicly organizing even do to stop them from gaining popularity? If they aren't having public demonstrations, they'll still convene on websites, pass out fliers, hold meetings in private, etc. If the proposed solution has (very) questionable efficacy, I'm not on board with increasing other societal risks by restricting civil liberties in implementing it. A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups. By devaluing such a commitment (to civil rights/liberties) in the name of restricting hate groups, you're weakening the institutional barriers protecting the victims of hate in the first place. In the Vice documentary they were stoked about having such a large demonstration. It's a big, loud statement that tells other shitholes or potential shitholes debating their thoughts that their beliefs aren't complete and utter trash and there's a place for it. I would have found TL a lot faster if there was a Starcraft club in my highschool as opposed to finding it myself because I was bad and sucked at the campaign.
I'm not sure whether what KKK members and Neo-Nazis are stoked about is a good indicator of what's actually good for their organization. They're people who chose to be Neo-Nazis, after all. Of course they're thrilled to be able to spew hate in public. That's pretty much the whole point of being in the club.
I don't think Charlottesville was a "success" for Neo-Nazi-ism at all. It was a week of people either condemning them or threatening to resign unless Trump more clearly condemned them. The message from the public was pretty clear. I don't think I read a single defense of their right to protest that didn't condemn the groups themselves (besides Trump who couldn't make out a coherent position).
And your last paragraph is a testament to my point: most people join these things through local networks. These KKK/Neo-Nazi rallies don't really "spread the message" because everyone already knows about these groups (and thinks they're disgusting) anyway, and the way people join these groups isn't by seeing the protest. It's through local organizations that you can't combat simply by rescinding their right to publicly demonstrate. If the government placed a ban on public Starcraft demonstrations, it wouldn't have stopped you from finding your school's local Starcraft club.
|
If everyone already knew those groups were disgusting, why is this the first time my 37 years they a topic of national discussion?
|
On August 27 2017 09:13 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 07:17 Gahlo wrote:On August 27 2017 06:46 mozoku wrote:On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:35 Aquanim wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I saw some really far-right German groups marching in the streets and the papers and ordinary citizens condemning them. So it depends on their restriction, it depends on their constitution, and it depends on what kind of input the German people had on it. It's not really something I'm willing to get too far into in a US Pol thread. I'm sure we'd come down to some things that I'd oppose--but I have no vote in their Bundestag and I'd probably waste my breath as a foreigner telling them the societal harms. Other countries don't have the same free speech traditions or underlying societies. If they want more of what America's got (or had, in some ways), they can take a look. And "they themselves seek to restrict?" I mean, legislatively? Constitutionally? We have many strong institutions left and it takes supermajorities in Congress AND the states to undo a constitutional amendment. We have the courts if they have some nefarious undermining plans, and common sense people will oppose their legislative agenda for all times. I don't see their ideology as infectious ... for example, this forum didn't get any new converts to Nazism based on their march. So I see strong institutions as the necessary and present guard against that small group. We don't have to erode the republic to preserve the republic; naturally, that's the recipe for abuse of power. The federalists and other drafters wrote protections against the power of the mob as well as against monarchs ruling from afar. The basic issue is that by allowing everyone the same absolute rights to spread their ideology, including those who want to get rid of these institutions and legislations that are in their way, you risk these kinds of ideologies being supported by a sizable portion of the population, or even a majority. All these safeguards are utterly irrelevant if the population doesn't back them up. The lesson to learn from Nazi Germany is that you don't get an authoritarian regime overnight and neither do you get popular support for it. There is no "oh shit, now we need to violently rise against this regime because now it went too far"-moment for the majority of the population. These movements grow over years or even decades and are carefully nurtured by those behind them who have bigger plans in mind. There won't be some kind of actual overreaching attack on institutions or legislations until it's highly likely that such an attack will be successful. In the case of Nazi Germany all that was needed was 33% of the popular support, fanatical supporters including a paramilitary force and people who underestimated those who pushed to power until the very last moment in one way or another. And until that point such a movement is able to argue: "But see, this is just our opinion and we're free to share this with everyone!" This approach allows those who want to abolish core values such as freedom and democracy to use these very tools to drive them into the ground - while being defended by everyone else who assumes "Oh, they could/would never go that far" until it's too late. That's the inherent danger of choosing to go down that path and trying to apply the same absolute rules to everyone - including Neo-Nazis, left-extremists or religious extremists who aim for nothing less but the destruction of these rules for everyone but themselves. Is the threat of a Neo-Nazi takeover really greater than the threat of some Putin/Trump/Erdogan-esque politician opportunistically eliminating political enemies by taking advantage the loss of civil rights/liberties by those associated with "enemy groups" though? The slippery slope argument goes both ways. Moreover, what exactly does banning groups like the KKK from publicly organizing even do to stop them from gaining popularity? If they aren't having public demonstrations, they'll still convene on websites, pass out fliers, hold meetings in private, etc. If the proposed solution has (very) questionable efficacy, I'm not on board with increasing other societal risks by restricting civil liberties in implementing it. A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups. By devaluing such a commitment (to civil rights/liberties) in the name of restricting hate groups, you're weakening the institutional barriers protecting the victims of hate in the first place. In the Vice documentary they were stoked about having such a large demonstration. It's a big, loud statement that tells other shitholes or potential shitholes debating their thoughts that their beliefs aren't complete and utter trash and there's a place for it. I would have found TL a lot faster if there was a Starcraft club in my highschool as opposed to finding it myself because I was bad and sucked at the campaign. I'm not sure whether what KKK members and Neo-Nazis are stoked about is a good indicator of what's actually good for their organization. They're people who chose to be Neo-Nazis, after all. Of course they're thrilled to be able to spew hate in public. That's pretty much the whole point of being in the club. I don't think Charlottesville was a "success" for Neo-Nazi-ism at all. It was a week of people either condemning them or threatening to resign unless Trump more clearly condemned them. The message from the public was pretty clear. I don't think I read a single defense of their right to protest that didn't condemn the groups themselves (besides Trump who couldn't make out a coherent position). And your last paragraph is a testament to my point: most people join these things through local networks. These KKK/Neo-Nazi rallies don't really "spread the message" because everyone already knows about these groups (and thinks they're disgusting) anyway, and the way people join these groups isn't by seeing the protest. It's through local organizations that you can't combat simply by rescinding their right to publicly demonstrate. If the government placed a ban on public Starcraft demonstrations, it wouldn't have stopped you from finding your school's local Starcraft club.
everyone would've tended to condemn them beforehand as well; so I don't think condemnation % is a good metric for measuring success/failure.
a better metric would probably be whether they get additional recruitment out of it. just because there's some reliance on local networks for actually running things doens't mean press doesn't benefit them. sometimes any press is good press. sometimes simply spreading the idea that others are out there can be enough to encourage some to seek them out.
|
On August 27 2017 09:30 Plansix wrote:
If everyone already knew those groups were disgusting, why is this the first time my 37 years they a topic of national discussion?
Exactly because we always thought of them as unmentionable, but now the most powerful man in the country all but endorsed them. It sparks the conversation of 'could they maybe be legit'.
And ofcourse when you say 'everyone' you don't mean everyone. There are enough racists around who agree with these groups and their message. They just had to play along before because it was unthinkable to come out as a neo-nazi, but now here is someone influencing and powerful who is willing to stick his neck out and defend them.
That's why Trumps statements were so dangerous. It takes something unthinkable, unacceptable and makes it possible.
|
On August 27 2017 06:46 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:35 Aquanim wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Did you just piggy back nazis on the back of the civil rights movement? StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I saw some really far-right German groups marching in the streets and the papers and ordinary citizens condemning them. So it depends on their restriction, it depends on their constitution, and it depends on what kind of input the German people had on it. It's not really something I'm willing to get too far into in a US Pol thread. I'm sure we'd come down to some things that I'd oppose--but I have no vote in their Bundestag and I'd probably waste my breath as a foreigner telling them the societal harms. Other countries don't have the same free speech traditions or underlying societies. If they want more of what America's got (or had, in some ways), they can take a look. And "they themselves seek to restrict?" I mean, legislatively? Constitutionally? We have many strong institutions left and it takes supermajorities in Congress AND the states to undo a constitutional amendment. We have the courts if they have some nefarious undermining plans, and common sense people will oppose their legislative agenda for all times. I don't see their ideology as infectious ... for example, this forum didn't get any new converts to Nazism based on their march. So I see strong institutions as the necessary and present guard against that small group. We don't have to erode the republic to preserve the republic; naturally, that's the recipe for abuse of power. The federalists and other drafters wrote protections against the power of the mob as well as against monarchs ruling from afar. The basic issue is that by allowing everyone the same absolute rights to spread their ideology, including those who want to get rid of these institutions and legislations that are in their way, you risk these kinds of ideologies being supported by a sizable portion of the population, or even a majority. All these safeguards are utterly irrelevant if the population doesn't back them up. The lesson to learn from Nazi Germany is that you don't get an authoritarian regime overnight and neither do you get popular support for it. There is no "oh shit, now we need to violently rise against this regime because now it went too far"-moment for the majority of the population. These movements grow over years or even decades and are carefully nurtured by those behind them who have bigger plans in mind. There won't be some kind of actual overreaching attack on institutions or legislations until it's highly likely that such an attack will be successful. In the case of Nazi Germany all that was needed was 33% of the popular support, fanatical supporters including a paramilitary force and people who underestimated those who pushed to power until the very last moment in one way or another. And until that point such a movement is able to argue: "But see, this is just our opinion and we're free to share this with everyone!" This approach allows those who want to abolish core values such as freedom and democracy to use these very tools to drive them into the ground - while being defended by everyone else who assumes "Oh, they could/would never go that far" until it's too late. That's the inherent danger of choosing to go down that path and trying to apply the same absolute rules to everyone - including Neo-Nazis, left-extremists or religious extremists who aim for nothing less but the destruction of these rules for everyone but themselves. Is the threat of a Neo-Nazi takeover really greater than the threat of some Putin/Trump/Erdogan-esque politician opportunistically eliminating political enemies by taking advantage the loss of civil rights/liberties by those associated with "enemy groups" though? The slippery slope argument goes both ways. Moreover, what exactly does banning groups like the KKK from publicly organizing even do to stop them from gaining popularity? If they aren't having public demonstrations, they'll still convene on websites, pass out fliers, hold meetings in private, etc. If the proposed solution has (very) questionable efficacy, I'm not on board with increasing other societal risks by restricting civil liberties in implementing it. A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups. By devaluing such a commitment (to civil rights/liberties) in the name of restricting hate groups, you're weakening the institutional barriers protecting the victims of hate in the first place.
1) A strong regulation in this regard has to fundamentally be apolitical while aiming to protect specific parts of whatever the core values of your nation are. That combined with strong, independent courts (it is arguable if the SCOTUS fits that bill considering how judges are appointed) is what keeps such approaches as far away from abuse as possible. The lines between the people you're mentioning and "real" Neo-Nazis are blurry at best - you need to keep in mind that 'the Nazis' didn't start in 1932, but ten years earlier. All of them have at the very least authoritarian tendencies, the main question is how far they can push these and how long it takes for a sizable part of the population to agree with them.
2) What we're discussing here is the basic issue of the paradox of tolerance. While groups like the KKK are merely the tip of the iceberg, they offer strength for sympathizers simply by being able to exist in the public realm. Think about it like this in the context of the US specifically: Did US society really become "more right-wing" very recently or is what we're witnessing merely people who held these types of beliefs for a long time finally feeling emboldened enough to push them into public spaces more than before?
These types of rallies and hate-groups feed on each other, they feed on adversaries that are in the end absolutely powerless to stop them because they're not doing anything illegal - they're just spreading their opinion after all.
In the end all that counts is how likely it is that a non-extremist person becomes extremist compared to how likely it is that an extremist person becomes non-extremist. If the former is more likely then the respective movement will keep growing until it's strong enough that it doesn't feel the need to hide anymore, that in return allows it to spread faster. Think about it, there are literal Neo-Nazis (Richard Spencer comes to mind) who express their support of the current US administration or parts of it - openly, without any fear. Because they know they are protected by values they're aiming to get rid of for everyone except those who fit their own supremacist definitions.
Honestly, if you hit the point where people like that openly make comparisons to Nazi propaganda ("victory of will") and fully endorse the administration of a nation you probably have massive issues because of something that's going on for more than a couple of years. If people who hold some of the most extremist possible positions on the political spectrum are considering themselves winners then you're probably in deeper shit than you realize, presuming they're not completely delusional.
3) "A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups." - If it exists and is maintained well enough, sure, I agree. The main concern should be that this is a rather fragile concept since, again, you're relying on a mass of people making informed and rational decisions - sometimes even against their own interest. Meanwhile those very same absolute civil rights and liberties will be abused in every possible way by those who want to get rid of them.
|
On August 27 2017 09:34 zlefin wrote:
everyone would've tended to condemn them beforehand as well; so I don't think condemnation % is a good metric for measuring success/failure.
a better metric would probably be whether they get additional recruitment out of it. just because there's some reliance on local networks for actually running things doens't mean press doesn't benefit them. sometimes any press is good press. sometimes simply spreading the idea that others are out there can be enough to encourage some to seek them out.
"Any press is good press" is a thing when nobody has heard of you. When everyone already knows about you and thinks you're disgusting, appearances in the national news only serve to remind those who might be sympathetic to your cause that the rest of nation finds your organization repulsive.
I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that the KKK is akin to a desperate consumer tech start-up where they need to do things like go on Shark Tank to raise visibility. Everybody knows who the Neo-Nazis and KKK are and I'm willing to bet that's especially so for current racists who would potentially consider joining such groups. The issue facing KKK recruitment probably isn't visibility; more likely, it's the relatively limited supply of aggressive racists and the social stigma attached to joining the KKK. Putting the KKK's name in the national news and a bunch of Trump administration officials threaten to resign over Trump's waffling isn't doing their social stigma issue any favors, and it's not like it's magically creating more aggressive racists either.
On August 27 2017 11:34 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 06:46 mozoku wrote:On August 27 2017 02:33 r.Evo wrote:On August 27 2017 01:31 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:35 Aquanim wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote:
...
I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I saw some really far-right German groups marching in the streets and the papers and ordinary citizens condemning them. So it depends on their restriction, it depends on their constitution, and it depends on what kind of input the German people had on it. It's not really something I'm willing to get too far into in a US Pol thread. I'm sure we'd come down to some things that I'd oppose--but I have no vote in their Bundestag and I'd probably waste my breath as a foreigner telling them the societal harms. Other countries don't have the same free speech traditions or underlying societies. If they want more of what America's got (or had, in some ways), they can take a look. And "they themselves seek to restrict?" I mean, legislatively? Constitutionally? We have many strong institutions left and it takes supermajorities in Congress AND the states to undo a constitutional amendment. We have the courts if they have some nefarious undermining plans, and common sense people will oppose their legislative agenda for all times. I don't see their ideology as infectious ... for example, this forum didn't get any new converts to Nazism based on their march. So I see strong institutions as the necessary and present guard against that small group. We don't have to erode the republic to preserve the republic; naturally, that's the recipe for abuse of power. The federalists and other drafters wrote protections against the power of the mob as well as against monarchs ruling from afar. The basic issue is that by allowing everyone the same absolute rights to spread their ideology, including those who want to get rid of these institutions and legislations that are in their way, you risk these kinds of ideologies being supported by a sizable portion of the population, or even a majority. All these safeguards are utterly irrelevant if the population doesn't back them up. The lesson to learn from Nazi Germany is that you don't get an authoritarian regime overnight and neither do you get popular support for it. There is no "oh shit, now we need to violently rise against this regime because now it went too far"-moment for the majority of the population. These movements grow over years or even decades and are carefully nurtured by those behind them who have bigger plans in mind. There won't be some kind of actual overreaching attack on institutions or legislations until it's highly likely that such an attack will be successful. In the case of Nazi Germany all that was needed was 33% of the popular support, fanatical supporters including a paramilitary force and people who underestimated those who pushed to power until the very last moment in one way or another. And until that point such a movement is able to argue: "But see, this is just our opinion and we're free to share this with everyone!" This approach allows those who want to abolish core values such as freedom and democracy to use these very tools to drive them into the ground - while being defended by everyone else who assumes "Oh, they could/would never go that far" until it's too late. That's the inherent danger of choosing to go down that path and trying to apply the same absolute rules to everyone - including Neo-Nazis, left-extremists or religious extremists who aim for nothing less but the destruction of these rules for everyone but themselves. Is the threat of a Neo-Nazi takeover really greater than the threat of some Putin/Trump/Erdogan-esque politician opportunistically eliminating political enemies by taking advantage the loss of civil rights/liberties by those associated with "enemy groups" though? The slippery slope argument goes both ways. Moreover, what exactly does banning groups like the KKK from publicly organizing even do to stop them from gaining popularity? If they aren't having public demonstrations, they'll still convene on websites, pass out fliers, hold meetings in private, etc. If the proposed solution has (very) questionable efficacy, I'm not on board with increasing other societal risks by restricting civil liberties in implementing it. A fundamental societal commitment to maintaining civil rights and liberties is its own check on hate groups. By devaluing such a commitment (to civil rights/liberties) in the name of restricting hate groups, you're weakening the institutional barriers protecting the victims of hate in the first place. 1) A strong regulation in this regard has to fundamentally be apolitical while aiming to protect specific parts of whatever the core values of your nation are. That combined with strong, independent courts (it is arguable if the SCOTUS fits that bill considering how judges are appointed) is what keeps such approaches as far away from abuse as possible. The lines between the people you're mentioning and "real" Neo-Nazis are blurry at best - you need to keep in mind that 'the Nazis' didn't start in 1932, but ten years earlier. All of them have at the very least authoritarian tendencies, the main question is how far they can push these and how long it takes for a sizable part of the population to agree with them.
That's exactly my point. When you start making constitutional rights subject to the tyranny of the masses, you open yourself up those rights being abolished by bad guys when bad guys inevitably (as t approaches infinity) gain a following. The only long-term solution is a societal commitment to maintaining the civil rights and liberties outlined in the Constitution. Obviously, there are exceptions made to constitutional rights (as Plansix seems fond of pointing out) but those are uniformly made on utilitarian grounds (and there obviously should be and is a high burden of proof to start limiting constitutional rights) and there hasn't been a solid utilitarian case made for why its more dangerous for the KKK to demonstrate than it is to give ammo to a potential future American Erdogan.
2) What we're discussing here is the basic issue of the paradox of tolerance. While groups like the KKK are merely the tip of the iceberg, they offer strength for sympathizers simply by being able to exist in the public realm. Think about it like this in the context of the US specifically: Did US society really become "more right-wing" very recently or is what we're witnessing merely people who held these types of beliefs for a long time finally feeling emboldened enough to push them into public spaces more than before? These types of rallies and hate-groups feed on each other, they feed on adversaries that are in the end absolutely powerless to stop them because they're not doing anything illegal - they're just spreading their opinion after all. In the end all that counts is how likely it is that a non-extremist person becomes extremist compared to how likely it is that an extremist person becomes non-extremist. If the former is more likely then the respective movement will keep growing until it's strong enough that it doesn't feel the need to hide anymore, that in return allows it to spread faster. Think about it, there are literal Neo-Nazis (Richard Spencer comes to mind) who express their support of the current US administration or parts of it - openly, without any fear. Because they know they are protected by values they're aiming to get rid of for everyone except those who fit their own supremacist definitions. Honestly, if you hit the point where people like that openly make comparisons to Nazi propaganda ("victory of will") and fully endorse the administration of a nation you probably have massive issues because of something that's going on for more than a couple of years. If people who hold some of the most extremist possible positions on the political spectrum are considering themselves winners then you're probably in deeper shit than you realize, presuming they're not completely delusional.
The problem with this is that cutting off the public demonstrations of hate groups isn't at all going to kill them. Hate groups are going to persist as long as they're are hateful people. These groups are ~100+ years old, and they haven't publicly demonstrated in years (decades?) until last week. Clearly, it isn't necessary for their survival, and the jury's still out on whether such demonstrations are even in their own interest.
As for the rise in right wing extremism, you're selectively cutting out important parts of the causal chain. Trump didn't will right-wing extremism into existence. Trump got elected because factors like globalization and automation hurt large parts of the older American workforce who remember a time where their living standards were better and America was less diverse. When large groups of people are hurt economically, people get angry at the current government and start looking for people to blame (as repeated throughout history). This isn't just a US thing--populism was popular across Europe in 2015 and 2016 as well. Trump certainly hasn't helped matters, but he's more a symptom that further aggravates the problem than the fundamental cause.
The bolded part isn't exactly true and the idea has questionable relevance to the present for a few reasons. For one, there's population churn. People are born, and people die. Demographically speaking, racists (relatively old, white, rural) are dying and non-racists are being born. Generations are generally progressively more tolerant, so that's working against the racists in terms of conversion rates. Second of all, there are plenty of reasons to believe this is a local maximum in terms of "racist conversion" as populism appears to be fading and the Trump presidency is failing. Furthermore, more economic policy attention is likely to be given to those that have been "left behind", which will likely satiate them to a degree.
Finally, this still doesn't address the fundamental problem with your argument: you're making a slippery slope argument, but failing to account for the fact that your proposed solution has an opposite and equally bad and more plausible (given recent history) slippery slope outcome of its own.
EDIT: I don't think I made the following point clear enough originally. The most important reason that society can tolerate public demonstrations by hate groups is because there are so many effective ways for society to defend itself that don't involve infringing on civil liberties. Peaceful counter-demonstrations, public education, condemnation of Trump's response by leaders in both parties, threats of resignation for Trump's waffling, etc. are much more effective and don't require the weakening of constitutional rights.
|
On August 27 2017 07:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2017 05:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote:On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:23 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 23:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 26 2017 23:06 Danglars wrote:On August 26 2017 15:19 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying that it's unreasonable to do morally questionable things to people like the Nazis with the justification that their views and actions work against modern Western values? Don't try to weasel around with "morally questionable things." Show me you afford citizens their civil rights no matter who they are and how disgusted you are, or show me the criminal act justifying their removal. Otherwise you're regressing the civil rights movement and totally forgetful of American history. Did you just piggy back nazis on the back of the civil rights movement? StealthBlue talked about old school lynchings. Tell me, did the movement argue to just include blacks in the privileged classes that get civil rights, or was it pretty sweeping? I absolutely consider the disgusting attitude that your hate justifies your violence to be in kind with the attitudes civil rights leaders came against. My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. This has to be some sort of reddit meme or something. You can't have actually wrote this thinking it would be taken seriously? You frame your argument around civil rights, but your total lack of concern for people that aren't Nazis vs the in depth and repeated defenses of Nazi civil rights show's it's not the civil rights you prime on defending, it's the Nazis. Again not because you're concerned about everyone having civil/constitutional rights respected, but because you want Nazis to be able to spread their genocidal message of the complete destruction of people like me. It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is. Because nobody wrote "THEY'RE THE FUCKING BLM DANGLARS." They did that to the neonazi marchers. So umm I'll keep calling it like I see it. I didn't see a lot of concern from you. Furthermore, stop denying its about civil rights. If you want to ever have legitimacy on the other side, you better not be hyperpartisan on the issue ... rights for me but not for thee.
I actually think your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country, but to your point, no I don't support the "right" to advocate genocide equally to people demanding their access to and affirmation of their constitutional rights/ right to exist.
That you do, says more than I think you ever intended.
I've been pretty clear on it, so there is no issue surrounding hypocrisy.
Note: None of the conservatives said "Of course I would prefer BLM getting their way over Nazis".
|
On August 27 2017 14:12 mozoku wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people here seem to think that the KKK is akin to a desperate consumer tech start-up where they need to do things like go on Shark Tank to raise visibility. Everybody knows who the Neo-Nazis and KKK are and I'm willing to bet that's especially so for current racists who would potentially consider joining such groups. The issue facing KKK recruitment probably isn't visibility; more likely, it's the relatively limited supply of aggressive racists and the social stigma attached to joining the KKK. Putting the KKK's name in the national news and a bunch of Trump administration officials threaten to resign over Trump's waffling isn't doing their social stigma issue any favors, and it's not like it's magically creating more aggressive racists either.
Just to clarify, this is less about the actual literal KKK, but about their ability to spread specific messages freely. The target audience in terms of propaganda of these types of groups is twofold. On one hand their very existence supports other groups who agree on fundamental issues, it emboldens them because the reality is that nothing can stop them under the current ruleset when their goal is simply growth. On the other hand the target group aren't extremists, they're people who aren't extremist yet but for who they see potential that they can become one or can be abused as useful idiots.
What this can usually be boiled down is that if your position on any issue is celebrated or endorsed by these fringe groups then you should think really long and hard as for what this position actually accomplishes for them. I fully understand the appeal of the idealistic idea of some form of absolute free speech regarding these issues for example, but at the same time one has to be fully aware that actual extremists benefit more from these types of rights than anyone else. After all, they only need a single massive victory to do damage that can revert potentially decades of advances.
There's a reason groups like t_d celebrate "free speech rallies" or at least try to paint an "last bastion of free speech (because PC is everywhere else!!1)" picture of themselves while policing their own content so heavily. It's because it's a trigger word that causes people who have nothing to do with the movement to start defending it on principle without asking why these groups are so loud about this.
For the bolded part, that's highly questionable. First, it again adds legitimacy and second 'steeling' your supporters against resistance (that has no means to stop them) is something even good old Adolf spoke about:
[We knew] it might take five or ten or twenty years, yet gradually an authoritarian state arose within the democratic state, and a nucleus of fanatical devotion and ruthless determination formed in a wretched world that lacked basic convictions.
Only one danger could have jeopardised this development – if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of these ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.
+ Show Spoiler +On August 27 2017 14:12 mozoku wrote:
That's exactly my point. When you start making constitutional rights subject to the tyranny of the masses, you open yourself up those rights being abolished by bad guys when bad guys inevitably (as t approaches infinity) gain a following. The only long-term solution is a societal commitment to maintaining the civil rights and liberties outlined in the Constitution. Obviously, there are exceptions made to constitutional rights (as Plansix seems fond of pointing out) but those are uniformly made on utilitarian grounds (and there obviously should be and is a high burden of proof to start limiting constitutional rights) and there hasn't been a solid utilitarian case made for why its more dangerous for the KKK to demonstrate than it is to give ammo to a potential future American Erdogan.
I didn't mention tyranny of the masses, I mentioned apolitical regulations.
The potential for future American Erdogan comes from political regulations, i.e. the "you're trying to ban something you disagree with"-trope, there is zero need for this however because most of these issues can be solved apolitically. A reasonable regulation for example would be something that protects core values of the nation. Right now you can literally have an organisation that wants to resemble how Nazi Germany was organized. The defense against such a movement is the assumption that such an organisation would never be able to rally a sizable portion of the population behind them because... "that's not what we do".
There is no slippery slope if, for example, "advocating for the removal of specific groups or the rights of specific groups" becomes a legal framework. Let a Neo-Nazi protest in funny clothing for example, but if he's advocating for removing black people or Mexicans from the country because they're black or Mexican then there's an issue. Then you do exactly the same for people advocating for the literal extermination of Neo-Nazis.
It's funny that you mentioned tyranny of masses being unreliable now that I think of it, because the only real defense against any of these movements is that both popular opinion and the power structure of the nation as a whole opposes them. As of right now, a third of the US population still rallies behind someone who is fully endorsed by Christian fundamentalists and Neo-Nazis. It's not even relevant what this actually develops into, what matters is that such a safeguard that relies on a rational acting population gives massively more potential to extremist populists than to anyone else.
+ Show Spoiler +As for the rise in right wing extremism, you're selectively cutting out important parts of the causal chain. Trump didn't will right-wing extremism into existence. Trump got elected because factors like globalization and automation hurt large parts of the older American workforce who remember a time where their living standards were better and America was less diverse. When large groups of people are hurt economically, people get angry at the current government and start looking for people to blame (as repeated throughout history). This isn't just a US thing--populism was popular across Europe in 2015 and 2016 as well. Trump certainly hasn't helped matters, but he's more a symptom that further aggravates the problem than the fundamental cause.
I fully agree that Trump is merely a symptom of underlying issues, but even without willing right-wing extremism into existence he sure tapped into the potential it seems to have in the US - which emboldened these types of movements quite a bit. Again, if someone like Richard Spencer considers himself a winner then maybe the candidate stood for more than financial relief for people who are hurt economically.
Can you source the bolded claim, that those were the two major factors that swayed people to vote for Trump? Just to have a reasonable starting point. Which parts of his program promised realistic help against automation? How is he helping people who are hurt economically right now?
+ Show Spoiler +The bolded part isn't exactly true and the idea has questionable relevance to the present for a few reasons. For one, there's population churn. People are born, and people die. Demographically speaking, racists (relatively old, white, rural) are dying and non-racists are being born. Generations are generally progressively more tolerant, so that's working against the racists in terms of conversion rates. Second of all, there are plenty of reasons to believe this is a local maximum in terms of "racist conversion" as populism appears to be fading and the Trump presidency is failing. Furthermore, more economic policy attention is likely to be given to those that have been "left behind", which will likely satiate them to a degree.
EDIT: I don't think I made the following point clear enough originally. The most important reason that society can tolerate public demonstrations by hate groups is because there are so many effective ways for society to defend itself that don't involve infringing on civil liberties. Peaceful counter-demonstrations, public education, condemnation of Trump's response by leaders in both parties, threats of resignation for Trump's waffling, etc. are much more effective and don't require the weakening of constitutional rights.
After everything we've seen so far, from the resignations, the counter-demonstrations, the condemnation by leaders the failures of leadership so far - all these things you're mentioning and more, any form of the good old peaceful civilian resistance: Did they convince the, well, nucleus of his movement that maybe something is going wrong? Did it make them less extreme?
I don't think so. In fact, we're slowly learning that a good third of the voter base has no issue with all that has happened so far and still fully stands behind 'their guy' for reasons that nothing that happened so far went against.
|
Talking with my cousins on the farm what he's saying is pretty correct. I was surprised but long time blue bleeding union and coop voters went red in the midwest this election. The loss of jobs and livelyhoods due to the pain of economic transiston caused by automaton was definitely a factor. These people didn't vote for Reagen for gosh sake. It's very dishonest to group a section in support for him without any official opposition to him. Paul Ryan was a major GOP player and was presented as this sort of opposition to Obama. If Trump went against a visual democratic leader I think his support would waver to be a lot less than a third.
|
On August 27 2017 19:05 r.Evo wrote:
I fully agree that Trump is merely a symptom of underlying issues, but even without willing right-wing extremism into existence he sure tapped into the potential it seems to have in the US - which emboldened these types of movements quite a bit. Again, if someone like Richard Spencer considers himself a winner then maybe the candidate stood for more than financial relief for people who are hurt economically.
Can you source the bolded claim, that those were the two major factors that swayed people to vote for Trump? Just to have a reasonable starting point. Which parts of his program promised realistic help against automation? How is he helping people who are hurt economically right now?
There is no easy answer to the damage of automation and globalization, its something the entire world struggles with to this day. The 'easiest' road is when you start before the problem starts, this is where countries switched themselves to a more and more service based economy. Because they saw they could never compete with low wage countries in industry.
The people who flipped to Trump over their job situation didn't do it because Trump offered detailed realistic plans to help them but because he told them "I will make things right for you". Its a strait up lie ofcourse because he can't but the people don't want to hear the realistic, slow and painful plans of the Democrats. They want someone who lies to them with a miracle cure.
People don't like to be told "there is little we can do for you because we're 20 years late in acting". Even if its the realistic answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
