Ethics Alarms has repeatedly inveighed against public accommodations that have attempted to discriminate based on customers’ social and political views. This growing phenomenon is part of the ugly legacy of division and and hyper-partisanship created by the Obama years, and it threatens to get worse. If we want an ethical society and a healthy culture, we have to unite and reject this undemocratic tendency quickly and emphatically. It literally threatens all of us.
The specific incident prompting this alarm comes from a restaurant in my region, Maggiano’s Little Italy in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Last week, Maggiano’s was subject to a protest so vociferous that the restaurant has to shut down for the safety of employees and diners. The reason for the protest was that National Policy Institute (NPI), an alt-right group, was having a banquet there. In a grovelling e-mail to the community, Maggiano’s management wrote that
“We were not aware that NPI was dining with us or what the group represents. After the event, an attendee sent a tweet in which she made a “Sieg Heil salute” in support of Hitler and white supremacy. This expression of support of Hitler is extremely offensive to us, as our restaurant is home to Teammates and Guests of every race, religion and cultural background. We want to sincerely apologize to the community of Friendship Heights for inadvertently hosting this meeting, which resulted in hateful sentiment.”
When did it become required conduct for restaurants to investigate the liberal bona fides of a group before it could be granted leave to dine there? When did what a diner tweets after a meal become conduct a restaurant had to account for? If Maggiano’s can be bullied into apologizing for serving the NPI, why would serving any other group or organization that some group of self-righteous protesters find objectionable, fairly or not, pose a similar risk?
Put aside the Nazi salute: that’s inappropriate conduct in a public place, and the restaurant could certainly, and should, tell diners who behaved like that to leave. That’s not what the restaurant is apologizing for, however. They are apologizing for hosting the group, despite its Constitutionally protected political views.
Where will the restaurant draw the line and declare it won’t refuse business to citizens based on their beliefs? Are all groups, families and individuals now going to be required to declare their political and ideological positions before being allowed to order a lasagna? What is an acceptable group? If there is a protest over a Black Lives Matter dinner, will Maggiano’s apologize? If Mike Pence and his family eats there and the “Hamilton” cast protests, does that mean they will refuse to serve cannoli members of the Trump administration? Despite the fact that the protests came from progressives, the attack on the restaurant is totalitarian in substance. What is being commanded is conformity of thought.
Among other examples of this un-American conduct, Ethics Alarms has condemned…
- …the bigotry of a truck driver who refused to tow a car because it belonged to a Bernie Sanders supporter:
“Partyism is just another form of bigotry, just one that isn’t illegal. The United States is predicated on the concept of open political advocacy and freedom of expression, neither of which is worth John Nance Garners’ bucket of warm spit if we face being left in a ditch because of the candidate we support. [This] corrosive behavior…is likely to get worse, and I don’t know how much “worse” our suffering sense of community can stand.Each of us has an ethical duty to do whatever we can to stop and reverse this dangerous trend.We also have a duty to help neighbors who get stranded on the highway, no matter what the bumper stickers on their cars say.”
“I detest this kind of thing, and so should you, because it is ethically indefensible and un-American to the core. The policy, whether it is well-publicized or quietly implemented as this one was, exacerbates societal divisions and embraces bias and prejudice. There may be a legal difference between this and charging a premium (that is, a penalty) to those who have Obama stickers on their cars or who are wearing T-shirts with the logo of the local team’s nemesis, but ethically it is all the same: splitting the world into them and us, good guys and bad guys, the virtuous and the reviled. All of “Mary’s” customers are human beings, and that is the only thing that should matter in the United States of America.”
- …the “farmers only” dating service that portrays “city folk” as unfit for human association:
“These are bigoted and divisive commercials that work to create a them vs. us environment by class and region. That is the last thing the United States needs right now, or ever needed.”
- …the yoga class that segregated participants by race and sexual orientation, in which I imagined a debate question posed to the Democratic Party contenders:
“You claim to be a progressive–what is your response to gay-only, black-only yoga classes as a way to promote diversity? Will you condemn such practices as un-American and a violation of Democratic core principles? Remember, it will cost you the Hypocritical Left voting bloc, which is obviously huge….?”
I know, I know: Neo-Nazis are really bad. Yet I don’t want my freedom to participate in life and society to be limited by someone else’s judgments about my beliefs or politics. Listen to the rhetoric from angry Clinton supporters since the election. If you want to enforce immigration laws, you hate Latinos. If you think the unborn deserve rights, you are a misogynist. If you voted for Trump, you are a blight on humanity. Thanks to the rhetoric of Black Lives Matters and the tacit approval of some well-placed politicians, police officers have been refused service in various establishments (when they aren’t being shot, that is.) The argument that this group or that group is special and doesn’t deserve the same courtesy and service as other groups is simply a rationalization born of bias, like the New York Times declaring that Donald Trump didn’t deserve objective reporting, or the position that the Vice President Elect, alone among all the millions of audience members who are allowed to attend theatrical performances as part of the community, ought to be subjected to personal harassment based on his political beliefs.
If we, as a culture, approve of this abusive treatment of the alt-right, then we are approving similar treatment when the group being discriminated against is the Democratic Party, the ACLU, a mosque, the Shriners, the Boy Scouts, NARAL, or a newspaper editorial board. Rights mean nothing if the most unpopular, most controversial, most offensive individuals and organizations cannot exercise them. Protesters who want to force restaurants to discriminate on the basis of opinions and beliefs must be vigorously opposed, not receive apologies.
This is a slippery slope that leads right to the end of the principles and liberties that make the United States an ethical nation, and perhaps a nation at all.
______________________________
Pointer: Becky
Ethics Alarms 
Where’d you find a picture of a Trump transition team?
Sigh…. Prime example right there of exactly what Jack is talking about.
You know what they say, if you lie down with Breitbart, you get white supremacists.
What are you talking about?
A Con Law question, Jack. You say the sig heil (sp?) diners should have been ushered out of the restaurant because they’re jerks. I agree. I think you said the dopes with the noose around the guy with the Obama mask couldn’t be ushered out of the University of Wisconsin stadium, I think. Was that because the stadium is owned by the State of Wisconsin. Private vs. public facility?
Charles, where do you come down on the Nazi saluters in the Italian restaurant? Does your Marxist power analysis trump the Constitution or are you an ACLU guy right down to your toes?
My gut instinct is ACLU.
Interesting. Thanks.
The noose is a traditional symbol of protest. The Heil is gratuitously rude behavior, and threatening. A stadium is a forum for signs and expressions. A restaurant isn’t. I’d alos ask them to leave if they insisted on singing God Bless America.
And was the context not also explicitly HALLOWEEN?
I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me that there’s a significant difference between an actual, physical noose and a drawing or a miniature model of a noose. Because it is a “device” that, if tied correctly, can be used to kill a person, it seems like a facility owner or a stadium would be on slightly firmer ground ushering out a person with a noose, even if it was intended for communicative effect.
Noose symbol of protest or lynching device?
The whole concept of the government meddling in the “public accommodation” space of private enterprise was a lesser of two evils. It was needed because Black Americans were unable to go about their lives because of the widespread prevalence of whites only accommodations.
The time has come and gone for the need for the public accommodations laws. Want a gay wedding cake? More business will accommodate you than won’t; this isn’t like the days of Jim Crowe.
This example is a perfect one – if the restaurant wants to toss the patrons out for this behavior, the last thing the government should do is stop them. I hold that opinion whether you’re talking about Marxists or BLM or these clowns.
Sorry, that’s crazy. C-R-A-Z-Y. You want separate restaurants for Blacks, Jews, Deamocrats and Republicans? THAT’s a healthy society! This is one more example of where libertarian thinking leads straight to hell, and right off the cliff.
I wonder if Rand Paul and his dad would agree with you?
The time has come and gone for the need for the public accommodations laws. Want a gay wedding cake? More business will accommodate you than won’t; this isn’t like the days of Jim Crowe.
This is not true in all parts of the country. If you live in a city you will almost certainly find a bakery willing to make a cake for a gay wedding, but small towns are still a thing that exist, and some of those small towns only have one or two bakeries. Those are the towns more likely to harbor anti-gay sentiment as a community value. The idea that discrimination no longer really exists in enough degree to make civil rights laws necessary is a nice thought. I wish it were true. But it isn’t.
The hateful rhetoric doesn’t seem to be subsiding after the election, it seems to be growing steadily. What is evident to me is that the opinion bigotry of the extremes is getting worse and worse and it’s sucking moderates into the fold, it’s almost as if it is becoming more popular or even considered to be “acceptable” and that is taking the United States down a dark, dark road.
I’ve heard things out of the mouths of people that I’ve considered to be moderate Liberals, moderate Conservatives, and even Centrist and/or Independents that is way out of their normal character. It’s sad that the ginned up hyperbole political climate over the last eight years has inspired those with differing opinions to actually hate each other.
One could, also, look at it differently. In relation to this Alt-Right crowd I know, and with some certainty, that they deliberately push against many boundaries of what is considered acceptable opinion, speech and action. I also know that the salute is part of an elaborate game of humor. If anything they do it to mess with people. It is deliberate.
And they play that game because in our culture there is an array of things, thoughts, and ideas which are off-limits for acceptable thought. There are certain things that cannot be brought up for discussion. If they are brought up they are immediately attacked and brought down, or there is profound silence, or ridicule, or snideness. You could refer to the recent Mother Jones article on Richard Spencer who is one of them who hosted the offending event. If you (and anyone else) cannot understand this devious, mischevious and underhanded humor, you will miss a significant amount about these people. But I would also suggest that it is likely that you will want to misunderstand. Misunderstandings have their function and they are often maintained.
You have honest feelings about the *extremes* that you notice and you describe that in your comment. I would suggest that it is possible that this opening up, this unleashing, this tearing down of dams, this rupture of boundaries, is necessary no matter what happens politically in the US. There is a tremendous amount of tension in the air and one way to illustrate that is to refer for example to the unnaturalness of the NYTs entire presentation of the US through its biased (incredibly and shamefully biased) ‘reporting’ of late. What I think this means is that there are lies in the air. There are people who are invested in lies. There are people telling lies who don’t even know it, who think their lies are truth.
I may not express this as well as someone else (I always get condemned for the presentation while the content is pushed outside) but I think that what needs to happen is that all the barriers to speech and thought need to be RIPPED TO SHREDS, devastated, annihilated. And like with some couple who have kept up a facade and kept down their feelings, which works against them and destroys them, there needs to be a therapeutic release. This will involve many different levels of conflict and it will, obviously, also involve violence and social strife. Prepare yourselves.
Nazis a la lanterne.
Just my little joke.
A forlorn hope. The progressives will never put up with it. They’ve already got the media, Hollywood, most of the universities, and all of the Democratic party.
“an elaborate game of humor”
Probably. And just as funny and in the same way that Lenny Bruce was funny. It’s funny to challenge the establishment, it’s even risky. Undeniably much more courageous than social justice warrior humor. I appreciate it in the same way I appreciated humorous rule shattering by the ancestors of today’s progressives in the 50’s and 60’s. I even applaud it. But, I have the same sense of approaching cultural chaos I had then. With the added conviction that it will be just as ugly and this time much uglier, because neither Alt-Right nor progressives will go down fighting fair against a ruthless ideology the way conservatism did in the 60’s.
It will soon become the responsibility of EVERY establishment to investigate the liberal bona fides of EVERY organization it does business with. Since the liberals are going to be out of the business of governing very soon, they are going to have a lot more time to post, tweet, and generally otherwise try to grab one another’s attention and get the attention of the general population. Liberals, particularly liberal intellectuals, display both a huge amount of groupthink and a tendency to get outraged easily, quickly seeking vengeance on whoever has outraged them.
It takes only one thin-skinned atheist to post or tweet a video of volunteer schoolchildren singing “Silent Night” to outrage her fellow travelers and call out the out-of-town Freedom From Religion Foundation with promises of free legal aid suing the district. It takes only one bitter Bernie supporter to post a picture of the local police department holding their awards ceremony to get the venue pelted with nasty messages. It only takes one liberal with too much time on his hands to over-analyze a restaurant’s colonial theme to get the place picketed and worse. All of these create a lot of problems and expense.
They can paint on all the moral gloss of defending the First Amendment, standing up for their black brothers and sisters, or getting on the right side of history they want, but in the end what they really want is to control thought and erase those they don’t agree with from public view.
The thing is, those who they tried to erase got fed up and just dealt them a resounding defeat at the ballot box. What makes these people think that continuing in the same vein without governmental power will get better results? Who’s to say that the thin-skinned atheist who threatens to sue over a Christmas carol won’t find herself the target of a counterclaim by the Liberty Foundation? Who’s to say those who cause trouble for a venue over dealings with the cops and make their disdain of the men in blue known won’t go to the bottom of the priority chain for police action? Who’s to say the restaurant owner’s chamber of commerce buddies won’t show up to help out their friend and give the supposedly injured some actual injuries?
We’re becoming an increasingly divided and intolerant society, and I think those who got a little too comfortable bullying and boycotting when their party was in power are about to find out what it feels like to be on the receiving end of some bullying. I can’t wait.
Steve-O-in-NJ said, “Liberals, particularly liberal intellectuals, display both a huge amount of groupthink and a tendency to get outraged easily, quickly seeking vengeance on whoever has outraged them.”
“Groupthink”, I think that’s an understatement; their drones in a hive mind. There can be absolutely no dissent in a hive mind it’s considered a deadly virus. Any variance from the hive mind will be rapidly suppressed through the means of smearing, bullying, false accusations, attacking the messenger, or outright threats.
Steve-O-in-NJ said, “I think those who got a little too comfortable bullying and boycotting when their party was in power are about to find out what it feels like to be on the receiving end of some bullying.”
I think you’re going to see a surge from the right and then a rapid trailing off; however, I think you are going to see a continuing gradual increase from the left and the PC crowd, they see real power in their hateful propaganda tactics in the same way that that evil bastard Hitler saw power in their hateful propaganda. No I’m not comparing the left to Hitler; however, the tactical focus on negative motivation and hateful propaganda are quite similar and have been used in other cultures across the globe. Consistency to the purpose of Liberal purity has always been an underlying drive for the left.
Motivation isn’t optional; everyone is motivated to do nothing or to do something, either negatively or positively. The political left is narrowly focused on negatively motivating our society to force it to change to their “utopia” of one hive mind. They only want you to capitulate to their superior intellect; what are you waiting for, submit already.
Zoltar:
*sees picture of white nationalist alt right Trump supporters sieg heiling Trump*
*accuses liberals of using Nazi-like tactics*
*doesn’t see the problem with this*
Chris said, “Zoltar: *sees picture of white nationalist alt right Trump supporters sieg heiling Trump*, *accuses liberals of using Nazi-like tactics*, *doesn’t see the problem with this*”
I cannot let this go right now; my character will not allow this to slide.
Chris,
Your innuendo is a bunch of hyped utter bullshit!
I was replying directly to statements made by Steve-O-in-NJ not to Jacks blog nor the conditions surrounding the topic of the blog and I intentionally quoted what I was directly replying to so it would limit confusion for idiotic political attack dogs, such as yourself. You’re either purposely being obtuse or you’re comprehensively challenged; either way you’re sounding like a blithering idiot!
So in short Chris; fuck your hyped up bull shit innuendo, you owe me a public apology.
Every single comment of yours in this thread has been to condemn liberals and our supposed need for “purity.” One would think these alt righters throwing up a Nazi salute in praise of Trump does not trouble you in the least. I owe you no apology; if you would like to clarify your position on this, be my guest.
Chris said, “I owe you no apology”
Fine Chris, then kindly FO.
Chris said, “Every single comment of yours in this thread has been to condemn liberals”
Well now, is that so?
Please use that superior Liberal intellect of yours and tell everyone how this comment from above was specifically singling out and condemning Liberals? While you’re at it, notice when that particular comment was posted in relation to this little sub thread conversation, and if by some slim chance that little light bulb in your head goes on then me posting this will have made an additional point; bu I’ve got to say that after reading your nonsense, I’m not holding my breath on that one.
How about this comment from below, how was it specifically singling out and condemning Liberals?
Personally I think you’re displaying both a lack of intelligence and laying out your foot-in-mouth syndrome at our feet again.
That was all rhetorical; I don’t actually want another one of your idiotic replies but maybe you could do us all a big favor and actually learn not to make ludicrous generalized accusatory statements when there are facts in your face that make your statements false.
Can someone please direct me to the website that contains the Liberal/Progressive purity test so I can know who gets into the front door of our church?
Should there be Liberal/Progressive purity checkpoints on highways?
How about Liberal/Progressive purity “metal” detectors at the entrance to every building.
Reeducation camps are in your future if you do not comply.
YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED; RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!
Liberal/Progressive reeducation chambers. 😉
Do you think it reflects well on conservatives for you to keep insisting that objecting to a Nazi rally is simply part of a “Liberal/Progressive purity test?” Why do you feel objecting to Nazis is inherently liberal, and somehow biased against conservatives?
Wow…that was a hell of a leap…
Your Strawman just broke out of his cage…
And the rants about “liberal purity tests” in response to objections over Nazis wasn’t a strawman? You are such a hypocrite.
Hypocrite doesn’t mean what you think it means.
No I think the rant bordered on unhinged and near impossible to associate with the context.
But I’ve also learned, by listening to others, that Zoltar can be relied upon to clarify where he’s trying to go with his commentary.
You know he’s right though…. Right?
Right now, we have media outlets asking alt-right figureheads if they’re white supremacists. That’s an accusation. It’s PHRASED like a question, but the fact of the matter is that media personalities don’t often ask their interviewees whether or not they’re white supremacists.
There’s a perception that people who don’t Think Like You have a higher propensity to be white nationalists… And to be fair, you’re probably right. Maybe not from the Nazi angle… Anti-Semitism is far too entrenched with the BDS elements of the left to make Jew hatred a partisan issue, but Democrats have been pandering to Black America (Hot Sauce!) for long enough that White Nationalism probably did get turned away.
But…. And this is a big thought here… Do you think organisations like NPI, who I full admit probably voted for Trump, and who I think are utterly despicable people are more or less prevalent than say… CAIR, for example, which despite not being listed as a terrorist group by the United States Government, IS labelled a terrorist group by the UAE (of all people) and has somehow punched above its weight class in active terrorists who attempted or carried out attacks.
NPI endorsed Trump? Fair enough. CAIR endorsed Clinton.
By the logic that some miniscule, fractional minority of Trump supporters are white nationalists, therefore aspersions should be lumped into that group, and they have to actively denounce or prove to you that they are not in fact Nazis, I should require you as a Hillary supporter to prove you aren’t a jihadi, or at least sign you up for the no-fly list.
Does that seem stupid? Yeah. It does to me too.
Just saying.
Bravo.
This goes back to the action paradigm…. Is Christianity’s history more or less violent than Islam’s?
The correct answer: Who cares? Muslims are about 2100% per capita more likely to carry out mass attacks than Christians in America. (Real number…. The raw number of attacks IS actually about equal, but Muslims make up about 3% of America and Christians make up something north of 70%, the difference is at LEAST 21 times.)
Are NPI employees more dangerous than CAIR employees? Not by a longshot, they’ll seig heil at eachother and walk like retards until the cows come home, but I can’t find a single example of them bombing something.
So why is the media focusing on NPI when they ignored CAIR for the last… ever.. basically? Well, I don’t know, but my best guess is that NPI voted Trump, and CAIR is brown.
There were some studies back around 2000… They were called the Adverse Child Experiences (ACE) tests, and they measured the lifestyles of adults who had certain ACE markers as children (Daddy hit Mom, Mommy hit Dad, Parents beat the kid, Poverty, Emotional Neglect, Single motherhood, ect… I think there were about a baker’s dozen ACE markers.). It’s a wonderful read, please Google it.
Regardless, they found HUGE, I mean ridiculously HUGE correlations between ACE markers and negative adult behaviour, I remember specifically that people who had three ACE Markers were 1600% more likely to be addicted to meth, and that the people discussing this study almost creamed themselves…. a 10% correlation is usually deemed more than sufficient enough to attract notice. 1600% was almost mind-blowing.
I just found 2100%.
But they’re brown.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Are NPI employees more dangerous than CAIR employees? Not by a longshot, they’ll seig heil at eachother and walk like retards until the cows come home, but I can’t find a single example of them bombing something.
You also won’t find a single example of CAIR bombing something, so I have no idea what you think your point is here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393614/cair-terror-group-daniel-pipes
“At least seven board members or staff at CAIR have been arrested, denied entry to the U.S., or were indicted on or pled guilty to (or were convicted of) terrorist charges: Siraj Wahhaj, Bassem Khafagi, Randall (“Ismail”) Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Rabih Haddad, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, and Nabil Sadoun.”
Specifically related to bombing is harder, I’ll admit. This comes close:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/06/cairs-legal-tribulations
“Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg argued in court, reports Karen Branch-Brioso in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, that Royer is “dangerous … and should be kept in jail pending trial.” As proof, Kromberg offered several pieces of evidence, including these two: (1) Royer’s admission in his testimony before a federal grand jury in St. Louis last year that he fought with jihadists in Bosnia under one Abu Zubar, who had been “sent by Osama bin Laden to Bosnia.” (2) Ramon Royer, Ismail’s father, having rented a room in his St. Louis-area home in 2000 to Ziyad Khaleel (also known as Ziyad Sadaqa), a student at Columbia COLLEGE IN Columbia, Mo. Khaleel bought the satellite phone carried to Afghanistan by Tarik Hamdi (on which, see my article, “Bin Laden and Herndon, Virginia”) and used by Al-Qaeda for planning the two U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998. Kromberg said this showed how “the connections between Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaida are manifold.””
Right now, we have media outlets asking alt-right figureheads if they’re white supremacists.
You’re still engaging in exactly the same type of conflation I’m talking about. “The alt-right” =/= “conservatives,” at least not yet. And you know damn well WHY alt-right figureheads are being asked if they’re white supremacists. I’ve shown you tweets from alt righters calling for Jews to be put in ovens. Your response is usually some variation of “Oh, those youthful jokesters!” which, coincidentally, was Richard Spencer’s exact defense of the sieg heils at this banquet. What would it take, at this point, for you to acknowledge racism within the alt-right as real?
Again, I don’t think the alt-right represents conservatives, and no one is accusing mainstream conservatives of being white nationalists. Keep making excuses for them, though, and see what happens in a few years. The alt-right is very motivated right now to take over the Republican party, and they think they can do it because Trump did it.
“Do you think organisations like NPI, who I full admit probably voted for Trump”
Organizations can’t vote, but…dude. This was an NPI banquet held in Trump’s honor, to celebrate his victory, where the leader said “Hail Trump!” followed by people giving the Nazi salute. Gee, I wonder if they supported Trump?
“By the logic that some miniscule, fractional minority of Trump supporters are white nationalists, therefore aspersions should be lumped into that group, and they have to actively denounce or prove to you that they are not in fact Nazis”
I have never put forth such logic. What I said was that responding to this restaurant’s decision to condemn the NPI for their own choice to engage in Nazi salutes and a promotion of white supremacist ideology, by declaring that the restaurant has a “liberal bias” and simply hates conservative groups, only adds fuel to those who would say that all Trump supporters may as well be Nazis.
“You’re still engaging in exactly the same type of conflation I’m talking about. “The alt-right” =/= “conservatives,” at least not yet”
Look, Chris… First off, I didn’t make that conflation, so you trotting it out REEKS of projection. Second, we aren’t calling it the alt-right because the proponents are left of centre (Although funny enough, a lot of left of centre people are being lumped in for not being lefty enough. Not by you, perhaps, but maybe you should be on the lookout, lest you have to explain to me why you aren’t a terrorist, and to your more pure lefty bretherin how you aren’t a Nazi.) The fact is that your side of the aisle is sloppy with language. Things mean things when it’s convenient and then means something diametrically opposed to the original meaning when it’s convenient. Does the alt-right not equal conservative? What about “Trump voter”, is that a synonym? I think a lot of conservatives feel they’re being lumped into the label, and despite your protestations, they aren’t getting a whole lot of mainstream reassurances to the contrary.
“And you know damn well WHY alt-right figureheads are being asked if they’re white supremacists. I’ve shown you tweets from alt righters calling for Jews to be put in ovens.”
Tweets: The most scientific of conservative cross-sections. Utterly immune from being taken out of context, false flagged, or just absolutely made up.
“Your response is usually some variation of “Oh, those youthful jokesters!” which, coincidentally, was Richard Spencer’s exact defense of the sieg heils at this banquet. What would it take, at this point, for you to acknowledge racism within the alt-right as real?”
On the contrary, I acknowledge it. Explicitly, in fact:
“There’s a perception that people who don’t Think Like You have a higher propensity to be white nationalists… And to be fair, you’re probably right. Maybe not from the Nazi angle… Anti-Semitism is far too entrenched with the BDS elements of the left to make Jew hatred a partisan issue, but Democrats have been pandering to Black America (Hot Sauce!) for long enough that White Nationalism probably did get turned away.”
I just think it’s a MUCH smaller proportion of the population at large than you do. I also think that it’s a smaller proportion of the population than Muslim extremism within the Democratic Party.
“Again, I don’t think the alt-right represents conservatives, and no one is accusing mainstream conservatives of being white nationalists.”
Oh for fucks sake Chris, open your eyes. You want to use Twitter as an example? How about the THOUSANDS of tweets from people very much like you who not only lumped the entire conservative movement in with the alt-right, white supremacy, Nazism, all the isms, phobias and ogynys, but the entirety of White America? For fucks sake I’ve been called a white supremacist by people white knighting for you on Twitter.
“No one is accusing.” This is the most blatantly bias-infused twitterpation from you I’ve ever read. Do better.
“Keep making excuses for them, though, and see what happens in a few years. The alt-right is very motivated right now to take over the Republican party, and they think they can do it because Trump did it.”
“Organizations can’t vote, but…dude. This was an NPI banquet held in Trump’s honor, to celebrate his victory, where the leader said “Hail Trump!” followed by people giving the Nazi salute. Gee, I wonder if they supported Trump?”
Organisations are made up of people, and those people more probably than not can vote, don’t be dense. As to voting for Trump? Of course they did. All 100 of them. My worldview, it is a-shaking,
“By the logic that some miniscule, fractional minority of Trump supporters are white nationalists, therefore aspersions should be lumped into that group, and they have to actively denounce or prove to you that they are not in fact Nazis”
“I have never put forth such logic.”
Except when you said:
“And you know damn well WHY alt-right figureheads are being asked if they’re white supremacists.”
And now you do your song and dance about how the alt-right shouldn’t be conflated with conservatism, even though I can find examples from the lowliest of Twitter trolls to Big Mainstream Media outlets and Democratic House members who aren’t nearly as discerning as you.
“What I said was that responding to this restaurant’s decision to condemn the NPI for their own choice to engage in Nazi salutes and a promotion of white supremacist ideology, by declaring that the restaurant has a “liberal bias” and simply hates conservative groups, only adds fuel to those who would say that all Trump supporters may as well be Nazis.”
You’re right, the optics are awful. But I’m not convinced that the Nazi salutes did anything but make easier a decision that the restaurant would have made absent them, following the basic formula of “conservative gathering” + “progressive outrage” = “Bullshit apology and knee-jerk reactions”.
Chris said, “And the rants about “liberal purity tests” in response to objections over Nazis wasn’t a strawman?”
The “rants” (rant works, so I’ll grant you that one) were not in response to “objections over Nazis” as you claim they were, that’s just showing us your failing comprehension skills again, they were in response to someone else’s comment that approached the topic. Remember Steve-O-in-NJ’s statement, “It will soon become the responsibility of EVERY establishment to investigate the liberal bona fides of EVERY organization it does business with”; of course you don’t remember that, to do so might blow your whole smearing pretense. Now I’ll grant you that my comment posted on November 22, 2016 at 4:05 pm should have been posted as a direct reply to Steve-O-in-NJ’s comment, but it wasn’t so shoot me now, but that’s no excuse for you to blatantly misrepresent the core of my comments.
I think the objection is the accusation that all Trump supporters are Nazis or white supremacists. Many people supported Trump over Clinton for a ton of reasons, many of which had absolutely nothing to do with celebrating the Third Reich. It is as stupid as it is offensive. Trump is being required to distance himself from every idiotic thing any Trump supporter does. Likewise, any conservative is required to object to everything David Duke and his ilk say or do. Please,
jvb
“I think the objection is the accusation that all Trump supporters are Nazis or white supremacists.”
That’s a different objection, and a more valid one. Many–even Jack–have responded to this particular story with some variation of “I guess only liberal groups can be allowed to hold banquets in restaurants now!” which, if anything, only adds fuel to those saying that all Trump supporters are Nazis.
Huh? Whoosh! Right over my head.
Chris,
If all you’re going to do is hype up some nonsense as a reply to everything I write; I think it’s time for you to politely fuck off from replying to any more of my comments. I’m done being “nice” to the likes of you.
Chris said, “Do you think it reflects well on conservatives for you to keep insisting that objecting to a Nazi rally is simply part of a “Liberal/Progressive purity test?” “
Well since I never implied, stated, or insisted that, your question is much like what Humble Talent said below an accusation that’s PHRASED like a question, and also like what texagg04 said below, a strawman. I think your partisan internet troll intentionally lying or an idiot that can’t comprehend that correlation based on your own ignorance does not equal causation; you put 2 and 2 together, do a little reading between the lines, make a pile of assumptions and come up with 3,497,562.
Zoltar, the House Un-Progressive Activities Committee (HUPAC) is coming, just wait for it. If the leftist Borg really ups its game, maybe we’ll get a cultural revolution as well. (What will be the American version of the Little Red Book?)
Republicans currently have the White House, the House and the Senate. Just how do you imagine progressives accomplish this? Are you also concerned about Trump setting up a similar committee to investigate Muslims?
I’d have no problem with a House committee to investigate CAIR, et al. But maybe the Trump administration will allow the FBI to do their job and investigate Islamic terrorism. And even call it that. What a concept.
My idea of HUPAC is more of a satirical nature, I imagine the chances of an actual official committee to be slim. An unofficial one, maybe plausible. I won’t be too concerned, if a committee to investigate Muslims will be focused on people, who have ties to egregious organizations. With all the hubbub about Bannon, Sessions, and company, I’d like to hear some discussion from non-conservative media on a certain Kieth Ellison, his previous connection to Nation of Islam, stance on Israel, etc.
What we really need is for all businesses to ban all Trump supporters or face retribution. We need Uber and Lyft drivers to ask for political credentials before picking up people. While we’re at it, let’s do Internet name searches and even background checks for dinner reservations.
It’s just too damned dangerous to allow Trump supporters to use our public accommodations. Since we can’t outright repeal the First Amendment, let’s by God boycott it — send our holy “Dump Trump” enforcers out to every establishment, and get their signature on an undertaking to not serve anyone associated in any way with Donald Trump’s election under pain of being shut down by protests. Repeat offenders are subject to death threats and possible murder. That ought to stop this outrage!
We should station a True Believer outside every public restroom while we’re at it, too. Every rest stop. Every national park. Stop the Trump madness by making it too dangerous to even think Trump, never mind speak! Let the name of Trump be stricken from every book and writing, stricken from all buildings and public places, stricken from every public writing in America. Let the name of Trump be unheard and unspoken except in vain, erased from the memory of man for all time except as an epithet! 1
This is 2016, and if you don’t belong to the right groups, you by God don’t deserve to be served, and those who do serve those evil “others” will be protested to bankruptcy or worse. This country is too damned important to let the Constitution prevent the right views from overcoming the wrong ones.
So this is America in 2016! Awesome!
My name is Captain Howdy. I really like it here. 2
1. Apologies to Cecil B. DeMille for the abuse of his great work.
2. [Mandatory disclaimer for the intellectually challenged — this is an attempt at *sarcasm*. Do not adjust your Internet.]
“This is 2016, and if you don’t belong to the right groups, you by God don’t deserve to be served”
See also AirBnB where they ask you to agree with their ‘The Airbnb Community Commitment’; You commit to treat everyone—regardless of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age—with respect, and without judgment or bias. If you decline the commitment, you won’t be able to host or book using Airbnb.
( https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1523/general-questions-about-the-airbnb-community-commitment?topic=533 )
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Air BnB wording sounds alot like it is simply mirroring laws that already apply to people providing housing…
We run a couple rental houses and I know state law prohibits denying rent based on the typical gamut of “do not discriminate against so and so”.
You are right, but it bothers me that as a client of Airbnb I have to commit explicitly to such a statement before I can do business with them.
Parallel to ‘innocent before proven guilty’, I would say that clients are assumed to behave according to law and will show decent behavior, until it turns out they do not.
What if every shop, restaurant, hotel, etc. asks you to explicitly commit to such a declaration?
Unfortunately I am aware of some Western Buddhist meditation groups that are restricted “to persons of color” (i.e. No whites welcomed!). This goes against The Buddha’s open Sangha (community) policy where women were welcomed to attend to meditate with him and listen to his dharma talks.
Women were (eventually) allowed only with many restrictions, and Buddha accepted them with the caveat that doing so would corrupt his teachings, causing them to be forgotten in 500 years. Don’t know if he ever came across any White people though.
Remember the cake bakers who refused to bake a cake because of their moral principles? They got blasted by the Left and whacked with a massive fine.
Yet, those same social justice warriors are celebrating a fashion designer’s refusal (pre-emptively, I might add) to make an Inauguration Gown for Melania Trump because of Melania’s husband’s horrid campaign. The fashion designer is held in highest esteem for her stance on principle. What is the difference? Check this out:
https://www.yahoo.com/style/sophie-theallet-vows-not-dress-225503256.html
jvb
Interesting: political principles are to be valued over moral principles.
I see nothing wrong with that kind of perfectly normal thinking, it’s not morally bankrupt at all.
So sad. 😦
Somehow I don’t think she’s Melania’s style. That said, one’s politics are not a protected characteristic the way one’s orientation is (although that protection is not yet Federally recognized), so there is a distinguishability legally. Ethically, however, there is no distinction between refusing service because you think someone is a sinner and refusing because you think they are politically repulsive. I have to add, refusing service yourself is one thing, you aren’t going to do your best for a client you can’t stand, but trying to get a whole industry to refuse service is another. It’s frankly none of your business if another designer decides that he/she wants the prestige of dressing the new First Lady, and it isn’t and shouldn’t be your mission in the industry to try to make the First Lady appear publicly in a potato sack.
“That said, one’s politics are not a protected characteristic the way one’s orientation is
I think that’s moot. That’s the exact point Jack is trying to make…we’re slipping into such political bigotry that it’s un American to refuse service based on ideas alone.
Steve explained one important difference. I’d also add that designing a dress is a lot more of an artistic enterprise than simply putting some words on a cake–presumably the same words a baker would put on a straight couple’s wedding cake. Also, a bakery could be considered a public accommodation; they are expected to serve everyone. A fashion designer, like a director or artist, has no such duty. I don’t expect Theallet to design clothing for me either.
“I’d also add that designing a dress is a lot more of an artistic enterprise than simply putting some words on a cake–presumably the same words a baker would put on a straight couple’s wedding cake.”
No doubt it takes more skill to be a fashion designer. But that’s pretty arrogant to decide whose “art” is more “first amendmenty” than someone else’s art.
“Also, a bakery could be considered a public accommodation; they are expected to serve everyone. A fashion designer, like a director or artist, has no such duty.”
The only discriminator here is available cash and available resource. If someone has the cash to afford the fashion designer and fashion designer is selling her skills and her schedule IS NOT FULL, then designer better not discriminate ON THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT AS THE CAKE BAKER SCENARIO.
That was a weak argument.
Really? A fashion designer is somehow different from a baker? My wife would disagree with you. A custom jewelry designer considers metals and gems a part of the artistic creation. a fashion designer considers cloth, fabrics, cuts, and other elements of style as part of the artistic expression. Yet, a lowly baker is none of that because a baker works in flour, sugar, and colors. That is a distinction without a difference. In fact, there is absolutely no difference.
My point had nothing to do with the medium of expression. My point was a baker considered the cake an expression of an artistic idea and was penalized for that artist’s religious beliefs (rightly or wrongly) because the baker refused to bake a cake for gay wedding reception. If your logic holds true, then the customers should have shrugged their shoulders and moved to the next one willing to bake the cake. Yet, they did not do that. They filed charges against the baker for denial of a civil right and prevailed. Yet, a fashion designer is heralded as a model citizen for refusing to make a dress which she has not been asked to design. That is blatant hypocrisy and you know it, Chris.
However, I do agree that Steve-O-in-NJ’s explanation is worth considering and is important. I wrote imprecisely and I agree that the distinction is important.
jvb
If a baker makes a certain type of cake, they can make the same type of cake for a straight couple as they can for a gay couple.
Fashion designers do not make the same dress twice. Cake bakers generally do.
“Let them eat cake!”
Don’t forget to include businesses that ban lawful CCW permit holders.
Can someone clarify for me what the law is on things like this? I understand that restaurants have to serve individuals regardless of race, gender, religion, and in some states orientation. I’m not sure if political beliefs fall under protected civil rights law, but I think they should. But what about a group banquet like this? Is that constitutionally protected in the sense that if a certain group wants to book a restaurant for a night, the restaurant can’t refuse their request based on those same factors?
If I were the restaurant owner I would have said “We do not agree with the hateful views expressed by this group, but they have the right to dine here just like everyone else. We will be donating half the proceeds from tonight’s banquet to the ACLU, an organization fighting on behalf of the rights of all Americans to free expression.”
Political beliefs are not protected (i.e. part of a protected class) under federal or state law, as far as I know. I know for sure about Federal law, but I’m less sure about every state.
Isn’t just the expression of disagreement sufficient? When we move from disagreement to “your money is no good to me and I want everyone to know it” it’s pure virtue-signalling in my opinion. Many people I know who are not evil racists (at least by any objective definition) would find such behavior a good reason not to go back to a restaurant that did what you suggest. Why alienate desirable customers while expressing opposition to the views of disagreeable ones?
DC law does have political beliefs as a protected class. I believe a small handful of other states do as well.
Based on my understanding, not even a handful states do. In fact, an Internet search finds only Montana has a state law protecting political beliefs, and that law applies only to government employees.
Several cities appear to have such ordinances, though. DC, as you mentioned, and also Seattle. But such laws are vanishingly rare.
Sorry, Jack; there is already too much slope and too much to slip on. The country is past the point of no return. There’s no going back. We can agree on what is ethical and not ethical, even behave according to how we agree. So can millions more Americans. But all the ethical people and behavior that can be brought to bear will not halt or reverse the was-country’s citizens from their inexorable march toward irreparable division, tribal (or tribalist) fragmentation, and violent anarchy. We managed to live in interesting times.
Oh, I think a nice, long, brutal war would reunite the country. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease!
Other than that, it will probably take some kind of disaster. Maybe California really will break off and fall into the pacific. 🙂
Part of my point is that nothing can and will unite (or, “reunite”) the country. There is no “cure,” if the divisions even can be likened to a disease. True, that depending on the kind and extent of the disaster, a disaster can motivate diverse people to cooperate in unforeseeable ways, for a time. But, calling disaster-sufferers or survivors “united,” and then (especially), expecting them to continue in “unity” indefinitely after coping with a disaster and establishing some sustainable level of stability and prosperity, is a risky proposition at best. As soon as some kinds of “identity” become popular priorities once again, the old cooperative spirit is broken, and the cycle of poverty-through-tribalism plays out again, over and over.
“I’d also add that designing a dress is a lot more of an artistic enterprise than simply putting some words on a cake–presumably the same words a baker would put on a straight couple’s wedding cake.”
No doubt it takes more skill to be a fashion designer. But that’s pretty arrogant to decide whose “art” is more “first amendmenty” than someone else’s art.
“Also, a bakery could be considered a public accommodation; they are expected to serve everyone. A fashion designer, like a director or artist, has no such duty.”
The only discriminator here is available cash and available resource. If someone has the cash to afford the fashion designer and fashion designer is selling her skills and her schedule IS NOT FULL, then designer better not discriminate ON THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT AS THE CAKE BAKER SCENARIO.
That was a weak argument.
No artistic difference between a baker and a dressmaker?
How about between a dressmaker and the sandwich maker at my local deli? How about the short order cook who enjoys ‘artistically’ arranging the food on my plate at the local diner?
If there’s no difference lurking in that distinction somewhere, then your difference-finder is broken.
A dress-maker is simply, common-sensibly, plain-speakingly – MORE artistic than a baker; who in turn is more artistic than a short-order cook. It’s no slam, it’s no dis, it’s no insult – it’s simply and obviously true.
I mean, come on.
“No artistic difference between a baker and a dressmaker?”
Did someone say that?
No?
Ok, then I ought not bother with the rest of your comment. But, silly me, I will drag myself against to this brick wall also…
“A dress-maker is simply, common-sensibly, plain-speakingly – MORE artistic than a baker; who in turn is more artistic than a short-order cook. It’s no slam, it’s no dis, it’s no insult – it’s simply and obviously true.”
So the argument is that something can be *more* first amendmenty than something else and therefore get away with more discrimination past simply a client not being able to afford it or a provider not having the time to do it.
Good to know you like to stratify citizens that way.
So the argument is that something can be *more* first amendmenty than something else and therefore get away with more discrimination past simply a client not being able to afford it or a provider not having the time to do it.
Good to know you like to stratify citizens that way.
You’re making this sound ridiculous, but it’s essentially true. For instance, casting directors can discriminate all they want, for whatever reason. I’m not saying that necessarily justifies a dress maker discriminating against someone for their politics, but there is definitely some gray area here.
Casting is a WHOLLY separate case and not, because in that situation, the ‘discriminated’ PEOPLE are the MEDIUM, not the consumer of the art. Any artist has the leeway to choose the right ‘materials’ (by analogy) to maximize the effect of the art.
Bringing that up would be analogous if you were saying that directors have the leeway to discriminate against who gets to come to their theater. (Which they most certainly DO NOT other than the standard discriminators – ticket pricing and available seating)
Casting is a WHOLLY separate case
and not, because in that situation, the ‘discriminated’ PEOPLE are the MEDIUM, not the consumer of the art.That’s actually a pretty good explanation–thanks, Tex.
Remember folks; the the only opinions and free speech that is acceptable are those that have been preapproved by the Liberal/Progressive hive mind.
Oh I forgot; don’t be caught unknowingly walking with, talking to, providing service for, or NOT demeaning someone that “might” be considered a Trump supporter; your livelihood depends on it.
To be clear, the arguments raised above about the “dressmaker” demands the consideration of the root of the original discussion from years ago: What gets to fall under the protected realm of “Art”.
Is a dress maker / fashion designer more ART or more INDUSTRY?
I haven’t decided either way and if I can find my original post on the topic of Art vs Industry I’ll copy paste it, so my comments above to the typical knee jerk lefty crowd should be taken with a bit of devils advocacy to it.
Jack, any comment on these accusations that Secretary Clinton received 7% fewer votes on electronic machines than paper ballots in Wisconsin?*
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html
Does it compare to Pat McCrory’s claims in North Carolina?
*Everywhere is different, my early voting location had electronic machines, but the kind that print a paper receipt that you check before making your vote final.
It appears to be just part of the incredibly distasteful conduct of Democrats who refuse to do now what they insisted Trump pledge to do before the election: accept the result and not destabilize the system and the nation.
Nate Silver has looked at the allegations about Wisconsin and has said that he would be surprised if they were meaningful—and, of course, is being roasted for it. This is exactly what Richard Nixon, in his most noble and ethical moment in the public eye, refused to do in 1960, when many felt that there were questions about the voting counts in Texas and Illinois. He said that the people needed a President, and that it was time to accept the results and get behind the new one.
People are still grumbling and making accusations about Nixon verses Kennedy. We might have done better to have had a recount and settled it.
I notice you said nothing in your comment about Pat McCrory’s little temper tantrum and accusations about a stolen election to go along with his perfectly legal and acceptable request for a recount in a close election. Plenty of blame for Democrats though, funny that.
You’re throwing a hissy because Jack used a national election as an example but didn’t also mention a state election to be “fair”…?
Was the topic about democrat hissy fits or was the topic about graciously accepting results?
The more I read it the more your comment is extra silly. Jack didn’t even mention democrats crying about multiple elections but about one candidate, who happened to be republican (which is immaterial to the discussion and probably why Jack doesn’t mention it), who graciously bowed out because it was time to move on.
The only reason its useful for Jack to mention the Democrats in TODAYS episode is because they are the one’s behaving like hypocrites here.
But if you really need to assuage your anguish over 2016 Democrats acting like toddlers on a national level, then by all means, sure, the 1996 State Race in North Carolina could’ve had more graciousness.
Though I may change my mind after researching that one a little more, I’m just concerned about your feelings.
I specifically asked him about both, he answered about one. And surprise surprise, it was to complain about Democrats.
One involves people looking at numbers and wanting it looked at. And aren’t they just the worst? They must be, they supported Hillary Clinton. One involves a man who has every right to ask for a recount but can’t just do that, he has to make accusations before taking a second look. He’s a republican though, so he gets no mention even though I made sure to ask about both at the same time.
Oh I see your complaint. To be fair, you did de-emphasize the McCrory question by making it more or less a follow on to the analysis of what appeared to be your primary question relating to the temper tantrum being thrown by the Left regarding Hillary’s loss.
I haven’t read about the McCrory bit yet, did he and his supporters absolutely demand that the opposition acknowledge the results during the campaign season or else?
Looks like Jill Stein raised the money to ask for recounts.
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount $2.72M as of this post.
Think she’s feeling guilty over the dumb Bernie Bros she might have attracted? Or maybe for courting dumbass anti-vaxxers?
I understand your position and believe you are correct but as far as Nazis go , screw them.
They have shown by their movements past actions that they wish to deny other human beings their rights and even their lives. If someone picks up the banner of Hitler and Mussolini and follows their beliefs then I say we treat them like Hitler and Mussolini and run their asses out of town.
I have vented some frustrations earlier in this thread and if you have followed some of my other comments over the last few days you’ll have a pretty good understand of where I’m coming from and the source of my frustration. Explain it to others if they don’t know. By the way; it gets “better” but I’m not going to go into it any further, so don’t ask.
Out of respect for all of you I’m going to take a temporary break from commenting to give myself a chance to unclench my teeth, lengthen my fuse, and prevent my head from exploding; however, there is one thing I’m driven to share with you all before I take my break.
Here is the question of the day.
Are you a patriot or a traitor?
Last night I heard an argument from someone who I’ve had great respect for, this person has been a life-long independent but is now an anti-Trumper. Here is my understanding of the argument.
People had the patriotic duty as responsible citizens of the United States and responsible members of humanity to protect the nation and the world from a global catastrophic disaster and stop Donald Trump from being elected President and the only way that could have happened was to vote for Hillary Clinton. Anyone who walked into a voting booth and didn’t vote for Hillary is a traitor to the Republic and humanity.
That appears to be the core of the argument. It’s your choice whether that argument is logical, illogical, ethical, or unethical.
Aside: Most of that argument shouldn’t come as a surprise to many of you because you’ve read that same argument right here in these blogs prior to the election.
Here is what’s becoming rather disturbing; the anger from anti-Trumpers is either in the process of turning or has already turned into genuine hate. Whether individual anti-Trumpers actually act on their hate is their choice; some have already chosen to act.
It is my opinion that from the conversation mentioned above and some others that if you didn’t vote for Hillary then anti-Trumpers considered you a threat, you are responsible for Trump being elected and they intend to hold you personally responsible for the Trump Presidency and their anger/hate is going to be directed at you. Right now it appears that their goal is to directly and indirectly intimidate anyone that didn’t vote for Clinton in an effort to gin up the anti-Trump rhetoric to sway the court of public opinion in an effort to prevent Trump from actually becoming the President of the United States and it seems to me that in their mind the ends justify the means. I get the distinct impression from more than one source of anti-Trumpers that either you join them or you will suffer the consequences of your treachery. Again: anyone who walked into a voting booth and didn’t vote for Clinton is now considered a traitor to the Republic and a traitor to humanity.
The ethical flush is 100% complete for these anti-Trumpers, they are completely consumed; you are either a patriot in the eyes of anti-Trumpers or you are a traitor, there can be no middle ground. That is not hyperbole.
“the anger from anti-Trumpers is either in the process of turning or has already turned into genuine hate. “
I think the hate was already there…
“you are either a patriot in the eyes of anti-Trumpers or you are a traitor,”
Is “patriot” the right term to use? Would the Left classify themselves as patriots? In most discussions I generally get the vibe from the Left that the concept of “patriotism” is poo pooed.
That is to say, I don’t know the best term to use, but they strike me as more likely to call themselves a term best describing being “loyal and proud citizens of the right side of history” before they’d worry about making sure they are “loyal and proud citizens of the United States of America” i.e. Patriots….
Help me out with a term here.
Of course that’s a hefty generalization, but it’s the vibe I get.
texagg04 said, “Is “patriot” the right term to use? Would the Left classify themselves as patriots? In most discussions I generally get the vibe from the Left that the concept of “patriotism” is poo pooed.”
Wasn’t my word choice, also please at least consider the fact that this is not just a lefty vs righty kind a thing, this is clearly anti-Trump and there are non-lefties part of it.
“People had the patriotic duty as responsible citizens of the United States and responsible members of humanity to protect the nation and the world from a global catastrophic disaster and stop Donald Trump from being elected President and the only way that could have happened was to vote for Hillary Clinton. Anyone who walked into a voting booth and didn’t vote for Hillary is a traitor to the Republic and humanity.”
A couple of comments from the Venezuelan peanut galley. Very briefly, but I hope accurate, and sensibly, and rationally, one has to take into consideration *the construction of the post-war ideological position* in order to understand why people generally are so allied to it; and why and how their thinking, at fundamental levels, follows a building group of tenets which defines the very Reality that we live in. It is a metaphysics of our present.
Given that all *narratives* are now in disarray; given that some narratives have splatted into a wall and are seen to non-function; given that discourse is topsy-turvy and there is great confusion how to DEFINE things; and given that most people do not have enough analytical tools to make sense of vast shifts in our present: How can you blame these Progressives and even their ‘conservative’ or quasi-conservatives for reacting to the recent events with anything but a replay of visual tapes of Nazis storming Europe, of bodies piled, of concentration camps, and all the other evils which you have been trained to hate in Pavlovian fashion just by the mention of some key words?
Don’t you see? These people are defending The Good and the very idea of Goodness in this Earthy Plane. And they react against what they understand to be Ontological Evil which now, they notice, has inhabited and infected people near and dear to them.
This is what they have been trained to do.
This conflict, and these contested definitions, are just as visible in those here who assume they resist this hyper-Progressivism, insofar as they too are products of the same ideological machine. Ideological machines mold thinking and mold thinkers. They control and patrol the *borders of thinkable thought* and attack you and annihilate you when you deviate.
Therefor: The object for any thinking person is to reclaim the right to think freely and independently and outside of the control mechanism.
How? What has to be disconstructed and dismantled before it can be reconstructed?
This is of course the perfect scenario for a new zombie genre! A longtime obedient husband wakes up as Trump Zombie and devours his liberal wife and children.
Or perhaps roving bands of Progressive Zombie LGBTies ravage the countryside in search of Trump Flesh?
Where is Phillip Roth in all this?
[There is one supreme benefit here, though it is not for you nor me: Bill Cosby! He sits at home preparing doses for all the girls he will put to sleep like a giant spider. Everyone has forgotten about him…]
Anyone who calls someone who voted differently from themselves a “traitor” is suffering from tyrannical delusions, Zoltar. A vote for Trump was many things–stupid, unethical, hopeless…but not traitorous.
Chris said, “Anyone who calls someone who voted differently from themselves a “traitor” is suffering from tyrannical delusions”
“Anyone…”, really?
“…suffering from tyrannical delusions”; really?
Since that “anyone” you speak of is an open ended statement, there is a really high probability that you’re going to have to eat those words or try to rationalize away someone prominent people that you actually respect.
Again; I think you’re showing off your Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome.
I just heard another representation of the anti-Trump (Clinton supporters) hive mind.
I heard a nearly word-for-word repetition of the “Anyone who walked into a voting booth and didn’t vote for Hillary is a traitor to the Republic and humanity” argument that I mentioned in my comment above and this was from four complete strangers talking at the table next to me at Perkins, all four of them were in complete agreement. They were also going on and on with some rather outspoken anti-Christmas rhetoric.
Luckily we had the same waitress. I left before they did, I paid for their breakfast including tip with cash, left instructions to give them my note after I was gone. The note read…
“I’m buying your breakfast as a gesture of passing real peace from someone that disagrees with you calling others traitors because you disagree with their vote choice. We’re all Americans, act like it.
Please set aside your anger and share real peace.
Merry Christmas!”
OK, what do I do with a reader who makes a good case that he deserves an Ethics Hero honor? That was terrific, ZS.
Thanks but I really don’t want any such honor, I’d rather just not be the only one that learns from my own successes and failures.
The note I’d have left, in my alternative universe, would read:
“I listened with rising horror to what you talked about and, please dont be offended, but I have left a really small and really powerful bomb under your seats which will go off in, oh about 6 seconds. It is a small sample of my Christian charity. Die Marxist Scum! (But don’t feel guilt: I paid your tab!”
::: KA-BOOM! :::
I shouldn’t need to point this out, but I will: anyone giving the Heil! sign isn’t really threatening. He or she is saying, for all to understand, “I’m a moron!” Just like strapping a duck to your head, or wearing shoes on your ears. I for one, am happy for the candor. “Ah! I see that you are an idiot, and proud of it! Good to know!”
Now be still, and you can eat here.
Then ask: Do you serve Spätzle?
I might have agreed with you a year ago, Jack. I would have said that people like that could be a threat to individuals–through hate crimes–but that they were not a threat to the nation at large.
But a year ago, I also said Trump was not a genuine threat to our republic, that he all but openly declared “I’m a moron!” and that no one could possibly take him seriously. Obviously, I was wrong. Do I want to make more predictions about what could and could not happen to our country in the next year? Next two years? Next four? Absolutely not. A nation that can look the other way on Donald Trump’s many failings and elect him president is a nation that can look the other way on just about anything.
I had hoped, just from seeing the title and picture, that your article was warning against the “slippery slope” of white supremacist ideology becoming more pervasive and normalized in the era of Trump. That we had a duty to stop this type of behavior from spreading–and it is spreading–before it becomes seen as no big deal. This was before I realized that the restaurant had apologized for hosting the group–and I agree with you that this is wrong, and a slippery slope–but I still hoped you’d spare a word for the other slippery slope we’re on, which is leading us down a road where the white supremacist “alt right” becomes just another legitimate opinion being debated on the news. This includes precepts, on the far end of the spectrum, such as “Does the U.S. belong exclusively to white people?” “Are Jews human?” and “Did Hitler really do anything wrong?”
That’s the slippery slope I’m worried about, and every time it’s brought up here, it’s dismissed as mere hysteria.
Well.
“That we had a duty to stop this type of behavior from spreading–and it is spreading–before it becomes seen as no big deal. “
You mean like the decades long program of desensitization to communism and hard-core socialism that is completely cool with collectivist policies pushed by Clinton and Sanders and whole swaths of the younger generation pretty much wanting a generally collectivist society?
Do you mean no big deal like we now consider an entire political party that espouses what was once considered anathematic to American liberty to be “no big deal”?
Like that?
“…decades long program of desensitization to socialism and communism…collectivist policies pushed by Clinton and Sanders…entire political party that espouses what was once considered anathematic to American liberty…”
You do realize, don’t you, that we just elected a rather right-leaning president? That within the past few decades we had a few Republican Presidents. That we have and have long had a dominant GOP presence in the national legislature?
You do realize, don’t you, that from a global perspective this is a center-right country, and has been for a least the better part of a century? That a continental European would do a spit-take to hear Clinton described as “collectivist?”
Can you name a single other “collectivist” society in the world today which has our level of income disparity, our level of gun freedom, our level of unfunded healthcare, or our low actual levels of taxation?
The reality of the US today is at odds with your characterization. You are speaking a language at odds with reality.
Not a word of which actually undermines what I said. But keep believing it does.
Oooh, I love it when conservatives act as if we lost the Cold War.
So a lot like Charles, nothing actually said undermining my response to you.
But Chris, I know you’re not big on irony or humor, but you didn’t find it remarkable that a guy who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and calles himself a socialist almost won the Democratic Party’s nomination to run for President? You”re okay with that? I’m not.
And I’d hazard to guess there are, in total numbers, more Commie professors in U.S. universities than in Russia, just given the relative sizes of the two countries and their academic industrial complexes.
” I’d hazard to guess there are, in total numbers, more Commie professors in U.S. universities than in Russia”
Hmmm… Near as I can tell from the miracle of Google, there are about 20,000 members of the communist party in the United States, and about 1.5 million college-and-university level teachers.
Even assuming that EVERY SINGLE US COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBER is a professor, that would suggest 1.3% of profs are communists – and far more likely, it is well below 1%.
What do you think the percentage is in Russia? Well, Wikipedia says there are 570,000 members of the Russian Communist party, and Russia has half our population.
So: half our population, and 30x the number of communists, for a 6,000 percent greater frequency of commies. Now even if the proportion of facuty were massively lower, your claim would still be off multiple orders of magnitude.
Unless of course when you say “communist” you actually mean some vague, left-learning, carefully-undefined category that you and only you are in possession of. Which would suggest a meaningless, inflammatory, kind of claim.
Not that I agree with the assertion, but I know a lot of Communists with out membership cards.
But really, what does that mean?
–Are there Democrats who are not registered to vote?
–Are there communists who are registered democrats?
–Is there a set of beliefs clearly identifiable to all reasonable people as “communist?”
I’m suggesting “communist” is a term that we throw around all too loosely, with a generally derogatory flavor to it, but conveniently lacking in specificity. Indulging too much in such language isn’t healthy small-d-democratically.
I agree with that, Charles. I’m only pointing out that one doesn’t have to be a formal member of the party to be a Communist.
charles, you’re arguing with people who think Communism and socialism are the same thing. Mockery really is the best tack to take here.
To quote a Local Teutonic-Wannabe Sagess:
“2a) The same *big deal* is reflected today in our world. But it is not Communism exactly but another manifestation of it: the collusion of the State with a liberal-progressive front which becomes a neo-Maoist program.”
It is really adorable that you and Charles think that my initial response to you has actually been undermined…
It hasn’t.
I’ll take the avoidance of the harsh reality to be admission to it’s accuracy.
But, by all means, continue the diversions.
Tex is spot on, Charles. I’ll give you two examples of collectivism in your thought: Your insistence that the government can and is obligated to eliminate racism from the U.S. populous. Discrimination is already illegal. But it’s the business of churches to change people’s hearts and minds. You also believe we need to have a country where not only is equal opportunity is assured but equal outcomes are assure. There is income inequality. Some people are better at making money than others. I know a heck of a lot of people who are a heck of a lot better at it than I am. More power to them. You want income equality, find a country where everyone’s poor, except the crooks running the country.
“You also believe we need to have a country where not only is equal opportunity is assured but equal outcomes are assure.”
FYI, OB, I do NOT believe this. I went to Harvard Business School and am a firm believer in people’s ability to earn much more than others, and their right to do so.
I honestly do not know from WHERE you get this obsession that I believe we need a county where equal outcomes are assured. I do not.
Still waiting on a response to this…
At this point, the incessant diversion away from the painful truth of it is probably an admission of some sort.
Yeah, that must be it.
Yep.
This is still unanswered by the Left on here.
This is telling.
How do you respond to something that’s a self-evident inconvenient truth?
To try and contradict what you wrote would shows signs of Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome.
Personally I think it show a decent level of intelligence from the lefties around here that you might have expected to reply.
Still unanswered.
Chris writes: “But a year ago, I also said Trump was not a genuine threat to our republic, that he all but openly declared “I’m a moron!” and that no one could possibly take him seriously. Obviously, I was wrong. Do I want to make more predictions about what could and could not happen to our country in the next year? Next two years? Next four? Absolutely not. A nation that can look the other way on Donald Trump’s many failings and elect him president is a nation that can look the other way on just about anything.
I had hoped, just from seeing the title and picture, that your article was warning against the “slippery slope” of white supremacist ideology becoming more pervasive and normalized in the era of Trump. That we had a duty to stop this type of behavior from spreading–and it is spreading–before it becomes seen as no big deal. This was before I realized that the restaurant had apologized for hosting the group–and I agree with you that this is wrong, and a slippery slope–but I still hoped you’d spare a word for the other slippery slope we’re on, which is leading us down a road where the white supremacist “alt right” becomes just another legitimate opinion being debated on the news. This includes precepts, on the far end of the spectrum, such as “Does the U.S. belong exclusively to white people?” “Are Jews human?” and “Did Hitler really do anything wrong?”
1) You have fallen into a propaganda trap: the media, as per normal, is taking something out of its context — which was a form of high-humor and devilish misbehavior — and broadcasting it all over the world so that people react just as you are reacting. I got the Atlantic video clip in an email from The Times of Israel which comes to my phone direct.
2) NPI is without doubt a white nationalist organization, and Spencer is a white nationalist. But he is not a Nazi. However, he is in some senses a revisionist, as I am a revisionist, of the received history. Not in relation to the Holocaust, but in its description of fascism, pan-Germanic (greater than mere German) ideology, and the currents of thought that went in to form the communism and anti_Marxism movement in Europe. It has to be remembered that Communism and its spread was a very big deal in Europe.
2a) The same *big deal* is reflected today in our world. But it is not Communism exactly but another manifestation of it: the collusion of the State with a liberal-progressive front which becomes a neo-Maoist program. Most of the people who identify as ‘conservative’ (and who question Progressivism) are aware of this in one degree or another. Idea-conformity, limiting of freedom in the name of freedom. All of this you are aware of.
3) The Alt Right has a Jewish critical position, there is no doubt of it. There are numerous Jews of some profile who also have this opinion. You are not allowed to even think such thoughts Chris. Any criticism you have of Jews, Jewish power, Jewish ‘influence’, or the relationship of Jewish interests in fomenting terribly destructive wars in our recent past (I am referring to Neo-Conservatism a largely Jewish movement, if you will, with dubious and questionable links to Israel. So, the Alt-Right is very aware of this. I have read extensively their material and it is Jewish critical but it is not Judenhass. There are true antisemites, and by that I mean violent and completely intolerant ones, but these can be found in both the Left and the Right. What the Alt-Right does (and the New European Right as well, from which the American AltRight gets some of its ideology) is bring out these issues for examination. Consider Kevin McDonald for example.
3a) Any critical position is totally intolerable to Jewish interests generally. Especially the NY Intellectual Establishment. And these people in concert with a non-Jewish liberal faction, in a concerted manner, are the ones that have perverted the NYTs journalism. That is to say, the resistance to Trump and what he represents, or what they think he represents, is terrifying to these people. If an open and honest conversation is allowed to occur in our cutlure there is certainly real fear of where it can lead, but where it can also lead is to understanding certain very controversial facts about very difficult topics.
4) The various media are switching tactics to some degree. They are bringing forward stories about the Alt Righ and the people who make it up, but they are working to *frame* these people in a way similar to HRC with her ‘Basket of Deplorables’ accusation. What will happen next is a continuation of what happened before: these people are going to be lied about and certain clips will be shown (but never their full discourse presented) in the hope that people will develop prejudice against them. This media has phenomenal power in our culture, tremendous idea- and perception-molding power.
5) You are reading the surface and because you have not yourself investigated what the Alt Right writes about or what it says you have no idea what they are about. And that is true even for the farther fringe groups. Such as David Duke, or Stormfront, or any of a wide assortment of people in America who are getting together and publishing talks, conversations, blogs, YouTubes, etc. It seems to me that you owe it to yourself — civic duty — to understand who they are and what they say.
5a) Their European counterparts (as with Alain de Benoit who has 40+ years in GRECE writing in opposition to aspects of Progressivism) is not what you think it is. Not at all. It is a blend of Right and Left concerns about society, government, freedom, responsibility, as well as *truth* and *meaning*. If you brush it off, or them off, as drooling and rabid Nazis you will make a terrible mistake of perception. They connect to all parts of the Occidental traditions: intellectually, philosophically, socially and culturally.
6) You need to understand better how they define themselves before you can call them White Supremicists. What they are is more like ‘scientific geneticists’ who resist the Lysenkoin and Marxist intrusion into biological science and the social sciences generally. It would take a concerted effort to understand their own definition of themselves as European. There are indeed some who might hold to a supremicist position, but those also understand that in comparison, and statistically, many Asians are better endowed in numerous senses than Europeans. But what must be understood, because it is true, is that most of these people resist race-blending and also Multiculturalism for a group of reasons, not only that of race and ethnicity.
Summation: You will not get this aspect of the story from the newspapers. And you and we all must understand that Idea Wars are being waged, here and now. The only way for you to understand any of this stuff (the Alt Right etc.) is if you take the time to read their presentations.
Now, I end this with an appeal for a good recipe for Strudel. (And thus tie up the loose ends with an appeal to a terrible and devious humor which you.will.not.ever.get) (until after your Reconditioning!)
Atendez la créme!
So, to Alizia, a Nazi salute is just “devlish misbehavior.”
I didn’t read further, though I did see the words “Jewish-critical” as I scrolled down.
Fuck you, anti-Semite.
My position is anti-Judaic which is somewhat different. I’m sort of Pauline I suppose. It won’t mean anything to you but I tend to see Judaism as having come to the end of its historical roads. See Waldo Frank ‘The Jew In Our Day’. Once the Shtetl disappears Judaism becomes irrelevant.
I am a limited ‘antisemite’ in the sense you mean but ‘friend to the Gentile Jewish-critical’. There are more of us than you think.
And you said a naughty word . . .
PS: I am not sure who is the more unlikely denizen of this Blog, me or you! But I think me. What a strange path I’ve had to follow. Ah, Postmodernism . . .
A message for liberal progressive Democrat social justice warriors:
Just because “your people” have been oppressed throughout history does not make your cultural ethics beyond reproach, and just because someone has an unethical culture now does not mean they are not also oppressed.
“And they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Nazi.” It sounds ludicrous, but at the rate we’re going, we’re actually coming full circle within the next hundred years or so. The Nazis define themselves in large part based on celebrating that they aren’t other people, and trying to make the other people go away. That’s not really different from other nationalistic cultures, except that Nazis have a more recent and more popular violent history. Nationalists are all Untermensch (“under-person”) in the classical sense, because they draw their self-worth from where and how they were born rather than actually doing something worthy.
At the risk of incurring the ire of the historically illiterate and those who have not seen God on Trial (in which Jews in a Nazi concentration camp have a trial for their deity for breaking the covenant of protection as the “Chosen People”, in the process reflecting on the Nazi-like behavior of their ancestors in the Torah/Old Testament), I would like to point out that Jews as a culture used to be a lot more violent and xenophobic themselves. Granted, during the past millennium or two the Jewish peoples haven’t been nearly as violent about it as they were before the Common Era, and mostly have wanted to be left alone (“May God bless and keep the Tsar… far away from us!”). Being conquered by the Roman Empire will do that to your culture, just like it changed Western and Eastern Europe from barbarians into realpolitik, which is basically the same but with more literacy and haircuts. Can you tell I’m not impressed with the ethics of humans throughout history?
In Fiddler on the Roof, set near the beginning of the 20th Century, Tevye couldn’t condone his daughter marrying a Gentile, though that could be written off as a religious or cultural objection rather than an ethnic one. Some sects of Judaism (e.g. Orthodox) are still fairly xenophobic, in a peaceful, insular sort of way, kind of like the Amish. Unlike the Nazis, they primarily and prominently use a set of values and (sometimes bizarre) rules to positively define themselves, and avoid blaming other cultures for their own problems. I’m not here to diminish the oppression experienced by the Jews, or the bigotry of the Nazis. I’m making a point that Nazis don’t have a monopoly on xenophobia. Xenophobia and oppression are both ethically wrong no matter who subscribes to them, so using either one to counter the other is just stupid.
Part of the problem is humans don’t know how to treat different people as people, because they only know one way to treat people. That usually applies even within their own cultures, which is why they have personal enemies. Now, if you haven’t already, go ahead and listen to “Angels or Demons?” by I Fight Dragons, and think about what it means. I want a five paragraph essay with three citations on how it relates to contemporary politics in your chosen country.
Comment of the Day.
Oh, dear lord. I was in the wrong tab and didn’t realize how old this comment was.
Still a good one, though.