|
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. |
At the mild end of the spectrum are the many outposts of what might be called Confederacy nostalgia, epitomized by the Confederate Museum located just a few blocks away from the Emanuel AME church. Based on the site of an old slave market, the museum has been curated in a hall that in 1861 was used to recruit and arm thousands of secessionist soldiers.
It is still run by the Charleston chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group formed by the female descendants of the soldiers and sailors of the Confederate forces. Its exhibits include the Secession Flag, as well as a captured Union battle flag.
On the more extreme end, South Carolina remains a hotbed of neo-confederacy nationalism calling for a new secession, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center which monitors hate groups and extremist organisations.
“There’s no other state that has this level of pro-confederate sympathies, of hate-group organizations or such an open public display of the Confederate battle flag,” said the SPLC’s Heidi Beirich.
The law center has identified 19 active hate groups in South Carolina, some six of which have secessionist aspirations.
Debate about the prevalence of Confederate imagery in South Carolina was rekindled by photographs of Roof posing on the bonnet of his car that bore a Confederacy license plate. He also made “racially inflammatory” comments during the shooting spree, according to local police.
Though there is no evidence that Roof was directly connected to any hate groups or secessionist campaigns, there are concerns that ubiquitous cultural references to the golden past of the antebellum south may have fueled his racist obsessions.
“He didn’t get those ideas from nowhere,” Beirich said.
One of the most prominent secessionist groups in the state is the South Carolina League of the South. It owns a “Southern Patriot Shop” and a two-acre plot of land in Abbeville, site of the first secession speeches in 1860 that triggered the civil war, which it has turned into a memorial park.
The league’s chairman in South Carolina, Pat Hines, told the Guardian that the purpose of the group was the “survival and wellbeing of the southern people. We feel we are under siege – we’ve been under attack for the past 150 years.”
Hines said that the league’s members in South Carolina wanted to see a new secession of the southern states. He estimated that some 25% to 40% of the population of the state supported the idea.
Then he clarified to the Guardian that he was referring exclusively to white South Carolinians.
“We consider southern people to be whites,” he said.
Hines denied that the new secessionist movement had any responsibility for the crazed violence of the Charleston mass killer. In fact, he said the league was upset by Roof’s adoption of the Confederate flag.
Confederate Flag at Heart of Charleston Controversy
|
While they are on the right side of a lot of issues, the SPLC are in some ways just as extreme and ridiculous as the groups they're critical of
|
On June 22 2015 00:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
While they are on the right side of a lot of issues, the SPLC are in some ways just as extreme and ridiculous as the groups they're critical of
how so?
honest question, everything i heard from them seems pretty good.
|
On June 21 2015 19:34 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 11:54 Introvert wrote:
That just means your knowledge of thing being mocked is sub-par. If you mistake a parody for reality, then in most cases it means all you know is the parody. Yes, funny that it's usually the accused being mocked that are mistaking the Onion for the real thing then. 
In this thread it's the mockers with poor understanding, as demonstrated by that last Onion post 
|
On June 22 2015 03:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 19:34 screamingpalm wrote:On June 21 2015 11:54 Introvert wrote:
That just means your knowledge of thing being mocked is sub-par. If you mistake a parody for reality, then in most cases it means all you know is the parody. Yes, funny that it's usually the accused being mocked that are mistaking the Onion for the real thing then. In this thread it's the mockers with poor understanding, as demonstrated by that last Onion post
How so?
|
On June 22 2015 00:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
While they are on the right side of a lot of issues, the SPLC are in some ways just as extreme and ridiculous as the groups they're critical of
I've been interacting with the SPLC's reports on organized hate groups that are distributed to law enforcement agencies throughout the US for a few weeks now. They are, without a doubt, the single most reliable source for information on hate groups, according to an assistant Attorney General from a large state's Criminal division I asked. Naturally, you'll have to take my word on that specific thing, but reports such as Klanwatch have a fairly sterling reputation if you ask anyone that isn't a bigot, closet door status notwithstanding.
|
I might be late to the discussion but the case is sort of interesting psychologically but also sort of simple. The kid had obsessions of purity, cleanliness, probably some other psychopathy related to his fixations (all generally OCD related). The germaphobia is particularly noteworthy given the way racists usually describe other races. Apparently he'd spend most of his time in his room on the computer, looking at disturbing things - perhaps things like Stormfront or other media like propaganda stats (racist porn even comes to mind due to his claim that blacks are raping his women). There were some expected breaking points or precipitating experiences: a divorce (which included domestic abuse/violence), the girl he wanted chose a black person. Although all these things on their own wouldn't make one a killer (people with mental illnesses are mostly nonviolent), perhaps all of them put together with the view that one is being marginalized and made obsolete and unworthy in the modern world drives a young man who has no life and a possible inferiority complex over the edge. The drug addiction might have something to do with it, I don't know what though. Just my brief thoughts on this.
|
On June 22 2015 04:33 Roe wrote:
I might be late to the discussion but the case is sort of interesting psychologically but also sort of simple. The kid had obsessions of purity, cleanliness, probably some other psychopathy related to his fixations (all generally OCD related). The germaphobia is particularly noteworthy given the way racists usually describe other racists. Apparently he'd spend most of his time in his room on the computer, looking at disturbing things - perhaps things like Stormfront or other media like propaganda stats (racist porn even comes to mind due to his claim that blacks are raping his women). There were some expected breaking points or precipitating experiences: a divorce, the girl he wanted chose a black person. Although all these things on their own wouldn't make one a killer (people with mental illnesses are mostly nonviolent), perhaps all of them put together with the view that one is being marginalized and made obsolete and unworthy in the modern world drives a young man who has no life over the edge. The drug addiction might have something to do with it, I don't know what though. Just my brief thoughts on this.
Well he mentioned this one...
http://conservative-headlines.com/
Along with a lot of the typical rhetoric, some of which is practically verbatim repeats of the stuff I've seen here and elsewhere (Trump).
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 22 2015 00:31 ticklishmusic wrote:
While they are on the right side of a lot of issues, the SPLC are in some ways just as extreme and ridiculous as the groups they're critical of
They're an anti-hate group without a lot of competition in the category. That they're a leftist anti-hate group isn't really here or there without an alternative. If you talk to a rep (as NRO did a bit ago), they'll freely share that it's not set up to cover the extreme left. Take their stuff with a grain of salt.
|
I can understand why people dislike antifa since they do associate being anti-hate with being anarchist/communist, but what is so controversial about calling Neo-Nazi, neo-confederate, Christian Identity, black nationalist, and anti-gay groups hate groups?
|
Nothing, people just like to point to an imaginary Radical Left that is as armed to the teeth and ready for a fight as the Reactionary Right in an attempt at stemming the bleeding reputation of conservatism in this country.
|
On June 22 2015 05:23 farvacola wrote:
Nothing, people just like to point to an imaginary Radical Left that is as armed to the teeth and ready for a fight as the Reactionary Right in an attempt at stem the bleeding reputation of conservatism in this country.
Fairly standard conservative tactic to accuse the left of the exact thing they are guilty of. Creates a "he said she said" narrative which, if you don't pay attention, makes the issue more opaque.
|
On June 22 2015 07:01 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 05:23 farvacola wrote:
Nothing, people just like to point to an imaginary Radical Left that is as armed to the teeth and ready for a fight as the Reactionary Right in an attempt at stem the bleeding reputation of conservatism in this country. Fairly standard conservative tactic to accuse the left of the exact thing they are guilty of. Creates a "he said she said" narrative which, if you don't pay attention, makes the issue more opaque.
On that note I'm a bit curious what in conservatives minds is different about the potential influence of unlimited campaign donations and the potential influence of donations to the Clinton foundation or their speaking fees?
Seems to me one either believes money can influence politicians to say and do certain things or it can't. Seems like total bullshit to say it only corrupts the other side.
|
On June 22 2015 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 07:01 Dapper_Cad wrote:On June 22 2015 05:23 farvacola wrote:
Nothing, people just like to point to an imaginary Radical Left that is as armed to the teeth and ready for a fight as the Reactionary Right in an attempt at stem the bleeding reputation of conservatism in this country. Fairly standard conservative tactic to accuse the left of the exact thing they are guilty of. Creates a "he said she said" narrative which, if you don't pay attention, makes the issue more opaque. On that note I'm a bit curious what in conservatives minds is different about the potential influence of unlimited campaign donations and the potential influence of donations to the Clinton foundation or their speaking fees? Seems to me one either believes money can influence politicians to say and do certain things or it can't. Seems like total bullshit to say it only corrupts the other side.
Without citizens united, Clinton foundation style quid pro quo corruption is the only way to influence policy. Post citizens united, people can pick whomever they want to support and do it on a whim, and quid pro quo corruption is still illegal, just hard to catch (see Clinton).
Meanwhile, the pre-citizens united scene was unworkable and required ridiculous line drawing without principals. Citizens United was a documentary movie, just FYI, and they couldn't release it when they wanted to. How is that different from NBC from airing a special on the same date? No one can reasonably explain.
|
Greenhorizons proving again that he doesn't even know the argument.
The Clinton's problem has to do with things that may have happened while she was serving as SoS. If she wasn't running, nobody would care about all the money. What matters is the applicable laws that may have been violated.
Nobody said money had no influence, either. Conservatives rail against big establishment PACs, but they don't try to ban them.
|
Conservatives rail against big establishment PACs, but they don't try to ban them.
What do you mean when you say "big establishment PAC's"? Super PAC's, SSF's, non-connected, hybrids, or are you distinguishing by who runs them and/or who they represent?
|
On June 22 2015 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Conservatives rail against big establishment PACs, but they don't try to ban them. What do you mean when you say "big establishment PAC's"? Super PAC's, SSF's, non-connected, hybrids, or are you distinguishing by who runs them and/or who they represent?
I didn't phrase that correctly. What I mean is, conservatives talk about politicians being 'influenced' by money, big donors, etc. But they don't try to ban such things.
There are lots of rich donors that donate or setup pacs for the likes of Jeb Bush, and they are in fact quite important.
|
Just trying to understand this,
What matters is the applicable laws that may have been violated.
Is what matters the alleged actions that would be in violation of applicable laws or that the law may have been broken?
Either way, could you give us an example of an incident or a law that we're talking about.
|
On June 22 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Just trying to understand this, Is what matters the alleged actions that would be in violation of applicable laws or that the law may have been broken? Either way, could you give us an example of an incident or a law that we're talking about.
Not really, I'm out right now and only have my phone.
My primary point, however, was the clarify the dispute and "hypocrisy." Nobody says money doesn't matter.
|
On June 22 2015 09:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2015 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Just trying to understand this, What matters is the applicable laws that may have been violated. Is what matters the alleged actions that would be in violation of applicable laws or that the law may have been broken? Either way, could you give us an example of an incident or a law that we're talking about. Not really, I'm out right now and only have my phone. My primary point, however, was the clarify the dispute and "hypocrisy." Nobody says money doesn't matter.
Well I just don't get what the point is. Seems like there isn't a problem with politicians doing things because they got paid to, just a matter of whether there is a law against the particular way they did it.
If there is more to it than that I'm not seeing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WrRVqZR.png)
