Morning Ethics Warm-Up, Charlottesville Aftermath Edition: 8/14/2017

Charlottesville, Virginia.

Good Morning?

1. Just a side note before the serious stuff: WordPress spell-check thinks “Charlottesville” is misspelled. It says the correct spelling is “Chancellorsville.”

And you wonder why I have so many typos…

2. Either one believes in, supports and will fight for freedom of speech, expression and assembly, or one does not. Those who do not also do not genuinely believe in democracy, the Constitution, civil rights or the core principles of the United States of America. This group, which has been slowly—not so slowly, really—taking over the progressive movement and the Democratic Party, and with them that party’s institutional allies, the U.S. education system and journalism, is far, far more dangerous than the alt-right, racist fools who tried to exercise their own rights over the weekend.

At the center of the implicit rejection of the freedom to say, express, demonstrate for and hold whatever wise, creative, idiotic or hateful opinions and ideas a U.S. citizen chooses were the despicable and anti-American comments of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, ( WordPress thinks I should spell his name “Cauliflower”) who told a group of U.S. citizens that they were not welcome in his state, and that there was no place for them in the United States of America—you know, like the German Nazis told the Jews. Pathetically and dispiritingly, knee-jerk defenders of McAuliffe have spun this as mere “opprobrium,” a deflection that we technically refer to as “baloney.” When the leader of a government points to any group and says, “Get out!” based solely on what the group says and believes, that’s totalitarian oppression. It also paints a bullseye on the backs of every member of that group.

3. In a New York Times profile today of Heather Heyer, who was killed by a car driven into the counter-protesters by James Fields, Jr. (and yes, though President Obama would not have hesitated to condemn Fields as a murderer, thus short-circuiting his rights to a fair trial, President Trump is a hundred percent correct not to characterize or refer to that incident at all, unlike, for example Ted Cruz. I wouldn’t bet that he has not done so out of a recognition of why he shouldn’t comment, but it’s still the correct conduct.), she is called a woman who “stood up against discrimination.” The demonstrators she was arm in arm with, however, were not protesting discrimination; they were protesting free speech by those who advocate discrimination. The counter-protesters’ explicit objective was to interfere with speech they did not agree with, and, in fact, like the Governor, did not want to allow in their community.

This was wrong.

4. From the beginning, the objective of the supposedly liberal town of Charlottesville was to impede free speech. Muckraking journalist Glenn Greenwald, hardly a defender of the alt-right, wrote,

Last week, the ACLU sparked controversy when it announced that it was defending the free speech rights of alt-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos after the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority refused to allow ads for his book to be displayed on public transit. Lost in the debate was that other groups the ACLU was defending along with Yiannopoulos were also censored under the same rule: Carafem, which helps women access birth control and medication abortion; the animal rights group PETA; and the ACLU itself.

For representing Yiannopoulos, the civil liberties group was widely accused of defending and enabling fascism. But the ACLU wasn’t “defending Yiannopoulos” as much as it was opposing a rule that allows state censorship of any controversial political messages the state wishes to suppress: a rule that is often applied to groups which are supported by many who attacked the ACLU here.

The same formula was applied yesterday when people learned that the ACLU of Virginia had represented the white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville after city officials tried to ban the group from gathering in Emancipation Park where a statue of Robert E. Lee was to be removed (city officials tried to move the march to an isolated location one mile away). One board member of the ACLU of Virginia, Waldo Jaquith, waited until the violence erupted to announce on Twitter that he was resigning in protest of the ACLU’s representation of the protesters – as though he was unaware when he joined the Board that the ACLU has been representing the free speech rights of neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups (along with Communists, Muslims, war protesters and the full spectrum of marginalized minorities and leftists) for many decades.

Many attacked the ACLU’s decision to represent Yiannopoulos and these Charlottesville protests as though they were allies of the marchers, while others literally accused them of enabling fascism or even blamed them for the violence…

The flaws and dangers in this anti-free-speech mindset are manifest, but nonetheless always worth highlighting, especially when horrific violence causes people to want to abridge civil liberties in the name of stopping it. In sum, purporting to oppose fascism by allowing the state to ban views it opposes is like purporting to oppose human rights abuses by mandating the torture of all prisoners….

5. There was an obvious, risk-free method to guarantee that there would be no violence as a result of the white nationalist marchers: leave them alone. Let them have their demonstration, and hold a counter-demonstration repudiating them later, after they crawled back under the rock from which they came. This is another reason why the criticism of President Trump for not calling out one “side’s” violence only is a typical, anti-Trump, double-standard gotcha. There is every reason to believe that the counter-demonstrators wanted violence, so their allies could say that the white nationalists “incited the violence,” which is what many news media sources have reported. It is not false equivalence to say both “sides” were responsible for violence. The President would have been justified, in fact—but not prudent or smart—had he said that the violence was a direct result of an alt-left groups deliberately seeking a confrontation.

7. This is supposedly rebutted by the fact that, as Buzzfeed put it,

“The right-wingers were more prepared for violence. Most white supremacist and Nazi groups arrived armed like a paramilitary force — carrying shields, protective gear, rods, and yes, lots of guns, utilizing Virginia’s loose firearm laws.”

As would I be prepared, in their position. We all saw how the hooded alt-left thugs have behaved in the recent past, like during the Trump Inauguration. It is one of the more unethical and Bizzaro World tropes of progressivism that being armed for self-defense is itself intrinsically violent, hence the Left’s hostility to the Second Amendment and the military. The racists knew that the Left would arrive to try to intimidate it into abandoning its protest.  The racists were correct. Being armed is legal in Virginia, and, as events showed, it was also prudent. They cannot be justifiably vilified for exercising their rights. More from Buzzfeed…

“They used militarized defensive maneuvers, shouting commands at one another to “move forward” or “retreat,” and would form a line of shields or a phalanx …to gain ground or shepherd someone through projectiles.” 

They had a right to make their statement, supported by a legally obtained permit, and to demonstrate without having to “shepherd someone through projectiles.” The counter-demonstrators, in contrast, had no legal, ethical or constitutional right to throw projectiles, which, we are told, included containers of urine.

6. Meanwhile, we now know that the Charlottesville police deliberately “stood down,” like the Berkeley police when antifa thugs were running amuck there, like the Baltimore police when black rioters were burning down their own neighborhood in response to media-fed rumors about the death of Freddie Gray. Pro Publica, while predictably blaming the violence on the white nationalists, even wrote,

“Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights.”

Officials in Charlottesville had publicly promised to maintain control of the “Unite the Right” rally, which meant keeping the protesters out of harm’s way. Instead, they allowed the counter-demonstrators to confront them, with completely predictable results. Once the violence reached a sufficient level, authorities shut down the rally and the related demonstrations. The local ACLU has stated that that it believes this was the plan all along. I agree.

7. Writes Glenn Reynolds, “[The Justice Department]  needs to look at who ordered the police to stand down in the face of mob violence, and why. A decision to allow citizens to be assaulted in the exercise of their constitutional rights is a federal felony.

Ann Althouse:

What is Governor McAuliffe’s answer to the critics?

“You can’t stop some crazy guy who came here from Ohio and used his car as a weapon. He is a terrorist.”

That doesn’t explain doing nothing about the fighting and brawling… And if the police had managed the crowds, perhaps the car incident would not have been triggered.

…I’ve seen how the police have managed crowds here in Madison, Wisconsin — huge rallies with opposing sides. I’d like to know how the police in Virginia could be so impotent. Are they so afraid of being accused of doing something wrong that they protect themselves by doing nothing?

Asked about the brawling and why police did not do more to control it, Brian Moran, Virginia’s secretary of public safety, said in an interview on Sunday that “it was a volatile situation and it’s unfortunate people resorted to violence.’’ But, he said, “From our plan, to ensure the safety of our citizens and property, it went extremely well.’’
Governor McAuliffe also defended the police response, saying, “It’s easy to criticize, but I can tell you this, 80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons. You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army,” he added. “I was just talking to the State Police upstairs; they had better equipment than our State Police had,” he said, referring to the militia members. “And yet not a shot was fired, zero property damage.”

Pathetic. The police were afraid of the guns? But no shots were fired, even in response to punching and brawling. That makes it sound as though those people with guns were quite restrained, and yet they terrified the police.

8. The counter-demonstrators, McAuliffe, and the anti-free speech protesters lucked out in a way-–moral luck, that is. The level of hate on both sides was high enough that an antifa nut might have driven a car into the white nationalists.

Then could the President have condemned the hate and violence on “both sides”?

201 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Government & Politics, Incompetent Elected Officials, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, U.S. Society

201 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, Charlottesville Aftermath Edition: 8/14/2017

  1. said, “7. Writes Glenn Reynolds, ‘[The Justice Department] needs to look at who ordered the police to stand down in the face of mob violence, and why.’ “

    I agree.

  2. Frankly, the notion of trying to make the United States a “white-only” nation appalls me, so I can appreciate the desire to defeat such a mentality. However, I can’t appreciate how just trying to silence someone through violence, talking louder, writing laws against them, and all these efforts that avoid directly tackling the mentality actually works. Do these people not have reasoned responses to the white nationalists? Are they so afraid that if the white-nationalists air their views, instead of being mocked on par with flat-earthers, they would somehow gather momentum and bring about sweeping changes to our country? Is the fear that every white person is secretly hoping for the spark that will fundamentally transform our nation into some monochrome utopia?

    What ever happened to those days of lengthy, well-written, thoughtful essays that, in their reasonableness, swayed the opinions of a nation?

    • There are lots of them. I even try to write some myself. But since people only read what they already agree with, changing minds this way is nearly impossible.

    • Perhaps because they have been accusing all whites of being complicit in white supremacism.

      http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/107282105.html

      To quote one of the tweets in that link:

      “”The US was built on racism and catered to white people since day 1, this IS the US”

      If the U.S. was built on racism, there never would have been an equal protection amendment. Instead, the Constitution would have been amended to enshrine racial apartheid and segregation.

      If the U.S. was built on racism, then there would be a patriotic duty to be racist.

      If the U.S. was built on racism, then Martin Luther King Jr. and company were anti-American.

      these people are familair with the trope ThenLetMeBeEvil.

      I would not be surprised if many white people say, “ThenLetMeBeRacist”

      • “these people are familair with the trope ThenLetMeBeEvil.

        I would not be surprised if many white people say, “ThenLetMeBeRacist””

        I completely agree… I think that progressives drawing a line between themselves and everyone else, and then labeling everyone else a fascist is going to spectacularly backfire sooner than later.

        • Humble Talent wrote, “I think that progressives drawing a line between themselves and everyone else, and then labeling everyone else a fascist is going to spectacularly backfire sooner than later.”

          It already has; Trump is President.

    • Ken

      When in the history of the United States did a lengthy, well-written, thoughtful essay display so much reasonableness that it swayed the opinions of a nation? When? Give one example.

      • Can we count “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”?

        • Chris

          Isn’t that a novel, not an essay?

          I take your point about the book swaying a huge swath of the nation. But of course it’s also worth noting that the book, while hugely influential and helpful toward the abolitionist cause, did not end slavery. A war did.

          • The question was about changing people’s minds. No book has ever changed public opinion about an issue like UTC. It removed the mask from slavery; it stripped the evil naked. The testimonials by individuals and slavery enablers who suddenly woke up and reversed their views are amazing.

      • I really should have put some faux html tags around my statement. I just couldn’t decide what exactly the contents would be. Rhetorical question didn’t quite fit. Maybe wistful thinking? Wishful thinking? A desire that we could actually sit down and discuss uncomfortable issues without the words “bigot” and “racist” shutting down conversation?

  3. The demonstrators she was arm in arm with, however, were not protesting discrimination; they were protesting free speech by those who advocate discrimination.

    Is there evidence that the particular demonstrators Heather Heyer was with was protesting the gathering itself, and not merely the message?

    Were her co-demonstrators calling for the protest to be shut down?

    • They were there to shut it down. Heather was in the counter-protest group. The counter-protest group included the antifa thugs, and everyone either knew or had to know that it would,

      I agree, as I have made it clear, too many times, that Lee’s statues should not be purged. I might even go to a demonstration on that point—but not if I know the I am going to be with white nationalists who are exploiting the issue for their own ends. “The good progressives” who joined the thugs.are accountable. They shouldn’t be run down, but you endorse the crowd you run with.

  4. “If an antifa nut drove a car into the white nationalists, could the President have condemned the hate and violence on ‘both sides’ then?”

    Not so sure, wouldn’t that scenario be “workplace violence?”

  5. Chris

    First off, I absolutely support the ACLU, just so you know where I’m coming from. I do not support government interference with the speech of Nazis, or anyone else, for that matter.

    At the center of the implicit rejection of the freedom to say, express, demonstrate for and hold whatever wise, creative, idiotic or hateful opinions and ideas a U.S. citizen chooses were the despicable and anti-American comments of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, ( WordPress thinks I should spell his name “Cauliflower”) who told a group of U.S. citizens that they were not welcome in his state, and that there was no place for them in the United States of America—you know, like the German Nazis told the Jews.

    But telling Nazis they are not welcome is not like telling Jews they are not welcome, of course. The latter is anti-Semitic and bigoted. The former is a reaction against bigotry. The two are not morally equivalent

    I do not favor hate speech laws such as those in Germany, but the existence of laws in Germany banning pro-Nazi speech is not morally equivalent to, say, laws in Russia banning pro-gay speech, or hypothetical laws that would ban Jews from attending synagogue.

    Pathetically and dispiritingly, knee-jerk defenders of McAuliffe have spun this as mere “opprobrium,” a deflection that we technically refer to as “baloney.” When the leader of a government points to any group and says, “Get out!” based solely on what the group says and believes, that’s totalitarian oppression.

    It just…isn’t. Words are not oppression. Action is oppression. Your statement is no less over-the-top than similar statements leftists have made about Trump’s “fascism.”

    It also paints a bullseye on the backs of every member of that group.

    Being a Nazi in public paints a bullseye on the backs of Nazis. This is good; people should be afraid to publicly identify as Nazis. This does not mean they should have to fear violence or government action against them, but they absolutely *should* fear that they will be made to feel unwelcome, and that’s all the governor did in this case.

    Good. Nazis should not feel welcome in America. Do you disagree? Do you believe Nazis should feel welcome in America? If so, why?

    3. In a New York Times profile today of Heather Heyer, who was killed by a car driven into the counter-protesters by James Fields, Jr. (and yes, though President Obama would not have hesitated to condemn Fields as a murderer, thus short-circuiting his rights to a fair trial, President Trump is a hundred percent correct not to characterize or refer to that incident at all,

    What do you think is motivating Trump’s uncharacteristic self-restraint here? Do you think he would be similarly reserved had the murder been committed by a leftist?

    • But telling Nazis they are not welcome is not like telling Jews they are not welcome, of course. The latter is anti-Semitic and bigoted. The former is a reaction against bigotry. The two are not morally equivalent

      Why Chris! The Nazis didn’t want the Jews to get out because they were Jews! They wanted them to get out because they were responsible for for all the ills of Germany!

      Just because political bigotry isn’t illegal (in most states), it is still bigotry. I know you are smarter than this.

      Bigotry is a protected state of mind. Discrimination is conduct. I have known many bigots who do not discriminate. Presuming wrongful conduct and discriminating on that basis is exactly what you just endorsed.

      • Chris

        Hating Nazis is not bigotry. I can’t believe I just had to write that.

        • Bad, Chris. Presuming bad conduct based on political views, no matter what they are, is per se bigotry. Hating someone for what they believe rather than how they treat others is just hate, and that kind of hate cannot be rationally defended. This is where your ideological kith go consistently and tragically wrong.

          • Chris

            You are completely warping the discussion by minimizing the behavior of the group we’re discussing, Jack.

            We are not talking about the “beliefs” of bigots, we are talking about open Nazis and white supremacists forming a torch-wielding mob and chanting “Jews will not replace us” in the streets. That is conduct, that is how they treat others, and it is not mere “belief.” Those are the people McAuliffe told to stay home.

            I don’t know why you constantly minimize the actions of bigots in order to paint the people criticizing bigots as bigots themselves. Well, actually, I do know why: your bias toward false balance. Despite the fact that a Nazi murdered someone in broad daylight the other day, you are convinced that liberals must be just as bad if not worse.

            • No, it’s NOT conduct. It’s speech. Torches are not illegal, and ugly chants aren’t either, and a group with a permit is not a “mob.” Legal, protected, stupid ugly speech, like “hands up, Don’t shoot!” You cannot declare speech conduct and use that to squelch it.

              • Chris

                Speech is a form of conduct, but even if you disagree, in this case, the speech actively promoted discrimination. Your original argument was this:

                Bigotry is a protected state of mind. Discrimination is conduct. I have known many bigots who do not discriminate. Presuming wrongful conduct and discriminating on that basis is exactly what you just endorsed.

                Which had nothing to do with the subject at hand. I don’t doubt you know bigots who do not discriminate; so do I. Do you know Nazis who do not discriminate? That would surprise me, but it would be more relevant to the situation under discussion. Regardless, the Nazis that McAuliffe addressed were engaged in active discrimination. It is not “bigoted” to hate people who choose to engage in racist and anti-Semitic chants. That is behavior, and it is signature significance. It is not an “endorsement of bigotry” to hate people who do this. Hatred of bigotry is not bigotry.

                • Chris

                  Oh, and this:

                  You cannot declare speech conduct and use that to squelch it.

                  Is a complete misrepresentation of my argument, as I have already pointed out that I have no desire to squelch the Nazis’ speech, nor am I defending anyone else’s attempts to. McAuliffe did not squelch anyone’s speech; he merely exercised his own.

                • Jesus, Chris: speech supporting conduct you disapprove of is not criminal or unprotected speech. Get serious.

                  • Chris

                    Jesus, Chris: speech supporting conduct you disapprove of is not criminal or unprotected speech. Get serious.

                    Please show me where, exactly, I said that the speech I’m referring to is “criminal or unprotected speech.” You can’t, because I haven’t; in fact, I’ve made clear multiple times that I oppose hate speech laws.

                    You seem determined to twist my arguments into things I never said, and in fact already explicitly rejected.

                    My argument was that it is valid and non-bigoted to hate people who engage in bigoted speech.

                    This argument is unassailable, which is perhaps why you keep making up arguments I never made and arguing with those instead.

                    • “the speech actively promoted discrimination.”

                      Perhaps I misunderstood, but that sure sounds like an argument that this speech is the equivalent of advocating a crime, just justifying its suppression.

                    • Chris

                      “the speech actively promoted discrimination.”

                      Perhaps I misunderstood, but that sure sounds like an argument that this speech is the equivalent of advocating a crime, just justifying its suppression.

                      You misunderstood because you wanted to. I could not possibly have made it clearer that I was not advocating suppression of speech. That the speech in question at the Nazi rally promoted discrimination is a fact. You attempted to obscured this fact by changing the subject to bigots you know in real life that do not discriminate or treat others badly, despite the fact that the Nazis chanting “Jew will not replace us” were absolutely promoting discriminatory treatment toward Jews.

            • John Staszak

              The video I saw showed a bunch of idiots chanting what seemed to me to be pretty clearly, “YOU will not replace us”. I did find a video titled “White nationalists chant ‘Jews will not replace us’ as they march with torches in Virginia”…it showed a bunch of idiots chanting “white lives matter”. I wasn’t there, so who knows maybe they were chanting against jews, Or. it could be misinformation from the same media that invents entirely new racial classifications (white-hispanic) or edits 911 tapes to support its narrative.

              • Chris

                Yes, who would ever think that white nationalists have a problem with Jews?

                • John Staszak

                  So, the fact that you could imagine them saying it is enough to state that they did say it? I only looked at a half a dozen videos, but I didn’t see it. You’d think if they were, the tape would be everywhere. Look, I’m not saying i can prove
                  they didn’t and that those people don’t hold disgusting views. But it’s pretty important to be sure before making a claim like that.

          • Mrs. Q

            Of course the anti-Semitism of the left in the form of BDS isn’t ever discussed but you know, it’s politically correct anti-jewish hate, so that makes it ok.

            There is no such thing as righteous hate, no matter who is doing the hating. The fundamental flaw w/ SJWarriors is that these folks are looking “solve” hate with hate, anger with anger, offensiveness with offensiveness. Bullying bullies causes what…? More bullying until more are fooled into believing this form of false peace is good.

            My hating a white supremacist isn’t going to give me justice. I tried that & all I got was sick & tired from seething anger that served to destroy the good I could see in others. No matter how much someone hates me, I love them. Doesn’t mean I like or agree with them but at the end of the day, hating someone else only causes more pain & problems, never less. History is an excellent teacher in this way.

            Do neo nazi’s scare me? Well they do about as the BDS’ers do. And how shall I approach either groups insanity? By having my own life, helping those in my community, and keeping one eye open. Same with other elements of life that are unfair. Because that is life…no one escapes assholes, bigots, and villains. There is & never will be a utopia where barriers are removed for ever & ever. Nope. Life involves struggle & “enemies.” We care for what we can w/o forcing others to believe our cares are better. Because sometimes “better” is simply an idea that can be just as destructive as the idea of “worse.” I think of that recent pipeline protest on the reservation where environmentalists left cars, garbage, and even pets behind. They used the Natives (who allowed themselves to be used) and their land for the “greater good” and for the idea of better. Instead they proved hypocrisy is an equal opportunity investor that loves to make the righteous show their true colors. Everyone laughs at Christians when this happens, but really, is anyone truly immune from espousing one thing & unconsciously doing the opposite? Having been a woman’s studies major & 20 year former lefty activist proved one thing: everyone deludes themselves into believing in their own indignation. Very few true peace makers exist & in my humble experience, very few, regardless of stance, ever will.

            • There is no such thing as righteous hate, no matter who is doing the hating.

              No matter how much someone hates me, I love them. Doesn’t mean I like or agree with them but at the end of the day, hating someone else only causes more pain & problems, never less.

              Beautifully said, Mrs. Q.

            • Chris

              Anti-Semitism on the left is just as bad as anti-Semitism on the right. I absolutely condemn BDS. Hating BDS as a result of their anti-Semitism would not be bigoted; it would be an entirely justified response.

            • If we can get more people to realize the truth of what you’re saying, we can get more true peace makers. We’ll need them.

        • Chris wrote “Hating Nazis is not bigotry. I can’t believe I just had to write that.”

          Are you really so blindly ignorant that you don’t understand what bigotry is?

          • Chris

            Yes, I do understand what bigotry is, which is why I know that hating Nazis is not bigotry.

            • Chris wrote, “Yes, I do understand what bigotry is, which is why I know that hating Nazis is not bigotry.”

              The hell you do!

              Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

              If you truly don’t think that hate is intolerance then you are a special kind of stupid.

              • Chris

                I am of course intolerant of Nazis.

                Are you not?

                Why the hell not?

                • Chris wrote, “I am of course intolerant of Nazis.”

                  So you admit that you’re an anti-Nazi bigot.

                  Now let’s get to the core of your argument.

                  “But telling Nazis they are not welcome is not like telling Jews they are not welcome, of course. The latter is anti-Semitic and bigoted. The former is a reaction against bigotry. The two are not morally equivalent”

                  The two ARE morally equivalent, they are BOTH based on bigotry! Yes it IS just that simple! You’re a bigot and you’re allowing your bigotry to drive your rationalizations; own it bigot!

                  How does it feel to be a bigot Chris?

                  • Chris

                    It feels fine. No, it feels good, actually. Hating Nazis is good.

                    But thank you for engaging in the stupidest gotcha ever. “How dare you be intolerant of their intolerance!” is a ridiculous argument. I cannot believe that people here are trying to make me feel bad for hating Nazis. Where am I? What is wrong with you?

                    • Chris wrote, “It feels fine. No, it feels good, actually. Hating Nazis is good.

                      But thank you for engaging in the stupidest gotcha ever. “How dare you be intolerant of their intolerance!” is a ridiculous argument. I cannot believe that people here are trying to make me feel bad for hating Nazis.”

                      Your words have consequences. I’m sure you don’t fully understand just how ignorant you’ve sounded and how character revealing you’ve been in this conversation. You’re no different than a skin-headed Nazi bigot spouting their hate at his fellow man, you just think your hate is “good” and their hate is “bad”.

                      Chris asked, “What is wrong with you?”

                      Nothing’s wrong with me Chris; I’m very deliberate about not allowing my bigotries, bias, or ignorance to drive me to scrap my morals and allow hate, such as yours, to control me.

                      You’ve sunk yourself; our conversation here is done.

                    • Chris

                      Yes, you’re right. Hating Nazis is just like being a Nazi.

                      How wrong I was! Thank you, Zoltar, for convincing me to love Nazis. I will never criticize them again; I will follow your example and only criticize people who criticize Nazis.

                      I see the light!

                    • Chris,
                      Maybe you should reread my initial reply to your comment that started this little conversation, here’s a link.

                      If you’ve truly learned nothing about yourself from this little conversation, then you’re stupid*; I truly hope that’s not the case.

                      *Stupid: Not having the ability to learn.

                    • John Staszak

                      Chris, Can we please get off of the “But…Nazis are bad argument”? I don’t think you’ll find any serious commenter here who disagrees with you. Of course they’re bad. The issue, though, is that they still have the right to express their beliefs. You repeatedly make the claim that you’re not in favor of suppressing anyone’s free speech rights but then make statements like:

                      “Speech is a form of conduct, but even if you disagree, in this case, the speech actively promoted discrimination.”

                      Is it your point that the marcher’s speech, oops…”conduct”, actively promoting discrimination, deserves suppression? Because it sure sounds like you’re trying to draw equivalency between speech and conduct for the purpose of suppressing views you don’t like.

                      Another thing, when Governor McAuliffe makes grandstanding statements about how certain groups are not welcome in his state, he is not a private citizen exercising his First Amendment rights, he is the highest official in his State speaking for the State, whether he likes it or not. The end of this road is the answer to the question, “Who gets to decide which views are so beyond the pale that they can’t be allowed to be expressed?”

                      THAT is the issue that makes it necessary to allow anyone, including lowlife Nazis, to demonstrate.

                    • John;

                      “Who gets to decide which views are so beyond the pale that they can’t be allowed to be expressed?”

                      Put another way: What’s best for everyone is nowhere near as important as who’s deciding what’s best for everyone.

                    • Chris

                      Is it your point that the marcher’s speech, oops…”conduct”, actively promoting discrimination, deserves suppression?

                      No. It deserves social shunning. The only two actions against these losers I’ve supported are 1) employers firing them and 2) McAuliffe condemning them and saying they are not welcome. Both fall under the category of social consequences, not legal consequences.

                      Another thing, when Governor McAuliffe makes grandstanding statements about how certain groups are not welcome in his state, he is not a private citizen exercising his First Amendment rights, he is the highest official in his State speaking for the State, whether he likes it or not. The end of this road is the answer to the question, “Who gets to decide which views are so beyond the pale that they can’t be allowed to be expressed?”

                      But he hasn’t done anything to prohibit them from being expressed. Perhaps he should have chosen his words better, but as of now, they are just words, regardless of his position. As I said, when those words are accompanied with legal action against speech–anyone’s speech–I will stand against him, just as I stand with the ACLU representing Milo Yiannopolous.

                      Evil people still deserve rights. They do not deserve a welcoming embrace.

                • Either there’s some disagreement regarding the terms “bigotry” and “intolerance” or there’s some disagreement regarding the term “Nazi”.

                  If the latter, then Chris is referring to “practicing Nazis”, who actively push for discriminatory policies, as opposed to “Sunday Nazis”, who just sort of believe in a general way and go through a few motions but don’t act racist towards people in daily life. Zoltar Speaks! is saying that it’s bad practice to be intolerant of Sunday Nazis, who can be nice people. Once they start harassing people, we shouldn’t tolerate it. Nazi is as Nazi does. (If someone has a better term, let me know.)

                  If the former, then it seems to me that Chris thinks that bigotry only applies to being intolerant of traits that people did not choose or cannot change, and thus it’s impossible to be bigoted towards opinions. Chris, is that right? If so,
                  is it possible to be bigoted towards a person’s religion?

                  Zoltar Speaks! and Jack seem to be using “bigotry” and “intolerance” to refer to animosity, incivility, or disrespect towards someone based on a trait that does not directly harm anyone, regardless of whether it is a belief that they could change. This intolerance is not necessarily oppression, but may lead to it. The point is that if someone is a racist, but is kind and respectful to everyone anyway, there is no reason to act hostile toward them, and to do so is bigotry and possibly discrimination, depending on how much impact it has on their life. Not to say that we shouldn’t try to change their minds on principle, but it’s nothing to get angry over. Again, Nazi is as Nazi does. Those nice Nazis must be using the principles of my “how not to be a bigot” list.

                  • Chris

                    Either there’s some disagreement regarding the terms “bigotry” and “intolerance” or there’s some disagreement regarding the term “Nazi”.

                    If the latter, then Chris is referring to “practicing Nazis”, who actively push for discriminatory policies, as opposed to “Sunday Nazis”, who just sort of believe in a general way and go through a few motions but don’t act racist towards people in daily life. Zoltar Speaks! is saying that it’s bad practice to be intolerant of Sunday Nazis, who can be nice people. Once they start harassing people, we shouldn’t tolerate it. Nazi is as Nazi does. (If someone has a better term, let me know.)

                    Unless someone is advocating Nazi policies, there’s no way to tell whether someone has Nazi beliefs. If someone is advocating Nazi policies, it is valid to judge them accordingly.

                    If the former, then it seems to me that Chris thinks that bigotry only applies to being intolerant of traits that people did not choose or cannot change, and thus it’s impossible to be bigoted towards opinions. Chris, is that right? If so,
                    is it possible to be bigoted towards a person’s religion?

                    It is possible to be bigoted towards people’s opinions, including not only religion, but also their political views. If you hate all conservatives and think the Republican party is the equivalent of the KKK, you are bigoted. Hating the actual KKK is not bigoted; it is perfectly justified. “Bigotry” to me connotes more irrationality on the part of the bigot than it does an unchosen or unchangeable factor on the part of the victims of bigotry.

                    It is irrational to hate all Republicans, all Muslims, all gays, or all Democrats. It is NOT irrational to hate all Nazis. We, as a society, should respect different points of view; we cannot function if we decide that all Republicans are iredeemable racist monsters, or all Democrats are baby-killing Satanists who want to kill the president, or all gays are diseased perverts, or all Muslims are terrorists, or all blacks are criminals or all whites are greedy racists who want to bring back slavery.

                    Nazis are different. This is a group that says, “Yes, actually, we’d be better off if the gays, blacks, Jews and Muslims were all gone. If not wiped from the face of the earth, they should at least be sent back to where they came from, and if their family has actually been here longer than mine, that doesn’t matter. I just want them gone.”

                    And I think our society can function just fine if we agree that people who think this way are awful, and should be socially ostracized from the rest of us. In fact, our society will be worse off if we treat their view as just another among many, and one that is crucial to the marketplace of ideas.

                    Now, using the force of the government to discriminate against such people would be wrong for many reasons, and I’m only saying that again so that no one responds to this comment by pretending I am advocating government oppression of such people or their views. But social shunning? Not only is that acceptable, it is appropriate and good. It is not bigoted. Shunning such people is rational and necessary.

                    Zoltar Speaks! and Jack seem to be using “bigotry” and “intolerance” to refer to animosity, incivility, or disrespect towards someone based on a trait that does not directly harm anyone, regardless of whether it is a belief that they could change. This intolerance is not necessarily oppression, but may lead to it. The point is that if someone is a racist, but is kind and respectful to everyone anyway, there is no reason to act hostile toward them, and to do so is bigotry and possibly discrimination, depending on how much impact it has on their life. Not to say that we shouldn’t try to change their minds on principle, but it’s nothing to get angry over. Again, Nazi is as Nazi does. Those nice Nazis must be using the principles of my “how not to be a bigot” list.

                    They really want to talk about the “good Nazis” who don’t disrespect others, but they keep conflating those people with the Nazis who marched on Charlottesville the other night. The two groups are distinct. For some reason, everything I have said about the latter group has been warped and twisted to refer to the former group. Yes, there is no reason to act hostile toward a secret Nazi, because there is no way to know whether someone is a secret Nazi. But the Nazis under discussion were not quiet about their views; they were explicitly protesting to enshrine their views into law. These views include racial segregation, unequal treatment, and in extreme cases, genocide. They have every right to express those views without fear of retribution from the government. They have no right to be free of social rejection and shunning.

                    • Ah, okay. It seems that the problem here is that you think hate is useful. As Mrs. Q. said earlier, there is no such thing as righteous hate. I’m surprised that you seem to have read her post and not understood the point.

                      As for me, in particular the Barren [sic] Blauschwartz aspect, I love everyone, to the point that I consider it remiss of me to allow people to believe false things without discussing the matter with them and getting them to actually think about where their beliefs came from. Ideally, we should make people practice good critical thinking about their beliefs.

                      Remember Ender’s Game. It’s easier to defeat people if you love them.

                    • Chris

                      I understood Mrs. Q’s point, and I didn’t argue with it. Whether hate is useful isn’t really relevant to whether it’s bigotry, though. A rape victim may hate her rapist, and that is not bigoted; bigotry implies hatred for no valid reason. Hating Nazis may not be useful, but it is understandable, and there are valid reasons for it.

                      But the “hate” thing is a tangent, and I regret using the word as it seems to have thrown people off. The original “political bigotry” charge was thrown at the idea of telling Nazis they are not welcome in America. This is not bigotry, and in fact, is anti-bigotry.

    • Zanshin

      “Good. Nazis should not feel welcome in America. Do you disagree? Do you believe Nazis should feel welcome in America? If so, why?”

      We are not talking about foreign Nazis. We are talking about Americans with Nazi ideas/mindset. Welcome or not is not relevant from the perspective of government officials.

    • “Nazis should not feel welcome in America. Do you disagree? Do you believe Nazis should feel welcome in America? If so, why?”

      Gotta love this kind of attitude.

      How would you feel about this one Chris?

      Progressives should not feel welcome in America. Do you disagree? Do you believe Progressives should feel welcome in America? If so, why?

      • Chris

        Not similar, but if you honestly believe it is, you are making my point for me.

        • Chris wrote, “Not similar, but if you honestly believe it is, you are making my point for me.”

          I’ve just gotta ask; have you been hittin’ the bottle a bit early today? Seriously Chris, WTF is wrong with you today?

    • Chris writes: “Good. Nazis should not feel welcome in America. Do you disagree? Do you believe Nazis should feel welcome in America? If so, why?”

      If I may interject …

      A good deal of the problem is here, in this statement. A good deal of your own problem is that you use this too-generalizing language to define those you are opposed to.

      In point of fact in respect to Charlottesville (based on the information I have been able to assemble) 20% of the people attending that rally were of the ‘Alt-Right’ (which is a vague term really since even the Alt-Right is a loose confederation of ideas, not an established political party).

      Another 20% were said to be Civic Nationalists (ie not White Nationalists).

      And then 15% were ‘Proud Boys’ who are part of a Souther Identity movement (and I have a friend, an older man, who has explained his sympathy with these people).

      I think another percentage was Identity Evropa. (I think the kid with his car was attracted to that group).

      Finally, there were American National Socialists and I understand that they made up 10-20%.

      You see all these people, and maybe Republicans too, as being ‘Nazis’ but this is a distortion. You can only apply that label to someone who declares themself to be a National Socialist. If you call all your enemies ‘Nazis’ you actually dis-invalidate the label. You are using it far too broadly. You end up making it meaningless.

      You would have to come up with articulated positions against, for example, the Proud Boys, who are definitely not Nazis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys)

      At the bottom of that Wiki Page (as much as I don’t often like Wiki) there is an interesting box with various names. Palmgren, Taylor, etc. These people are not Nazis. Except in your lexicon!

      What you must come to understand is that these people — we if you like — are to use the pop phrase ‘coming out of the woodwork’ and we will soon come into the open political sphere. I myself prefer to see us as ‘rising out of the social body’ and I see us as reactive and reactionary to many different things going on in our present that are seen and understood as ‘normalcy’.

    • I’m… officially annoyed.

      I want to point out, for everyone… That we are talking about a group of about 200 people… plus or minus. Carrying Tiki Torches. And saying mean things.

      Things I don’t agree with, things I’d prefer not to hear, things that I would love to discuss at length with them over beers, were they able to tolerate my constant deriding sarcasm, but just mean things.

      They came loaded for bear, because the left has ratcheted up the violence since the Punch a Nazi Spring of 2016 in this codependent spiral of hate and violence. I remember saying then… On this site… I have no way of searching for it, but I love vindication, so if someone knows how to and can link it, I’d bitterly enjoy being right… But I said that deaths were imminent. That it was only a matter of time before someone punched the wrong “Nazi” and was shot for their troubles (which has also happened) and people were going to die.

      And now… The idea that these guys, idiots though they might be, were asking for violence when they showed up to march… That they asked to be pelted with piss projectiles, that Baked Alaska asked to be pepper sprayed by protesters to the point of permanent eye damage… This isn’t deescalating, guys. More people are going to die.

      You can hate these fuckers all you like, it’s something I don’t disagree with Chris about. You can determine that they are vile human beings, beneath contempt. But what you can’t do is dehumanize them. You can’t take away their rights. Free speech isn’t for discussing the weather over the water cooler; it’s for discussing painful, controversial things. It’s supposed to facilitate discussion, to bring gladiators together in the arena of ideas and allow them to fight it out and to see which ideas win.

      This is the first generation in recorded human history, I think, where there has been a grassroots, populist movement, actively agitating for the reduction of rights. And it’s horrifying.

      • Agreed.

        “…bring gladiators together in the arena of ideas and allow them to fight it out and to see which ideas win.”

        The problem here is that uneducated people (or badly educated people) have no idea how to participate in the arena of ideas, and more importantly, they’re terrified of what might happen if their ideas lose. Total war is the only way they know how to fight an idea, even one as feeble as racism has become. It’s like Martin Luther King, Jr. never existed, for all people have learned. We’re going to need another living symbol of peace and love.

      • Chris

        I want to point out, for everyone… That we are talking about a group of about 200 people… plus or minus. Carrying Tiki Torches. And saying mean things.

        …And killed one woman and injured 19 others.

        >o?You can hate these fuckers all you like, it’s something I don’t disagree with Chris about. You can determine that they are vile human beings, beneath contempt. But what you can’t do is dehumanize them. You can’t take away their rights.

        Point me to the person in this discussion who has argued that the Nazis’ rights should be taken away. I am well aware that lefties in other places have said so, but this comment seems to suggest that someone on this blog has said that. That did not happen.

        • “…And killed one woman and injured 19 others.”

          Are you saying the actions of one person should be extrapolated to a group?

          • Chris

            Well, I was trying to say that you were minimizing what happened this weekend.

            But I do think if one follows an inherently murderous ideology, one does bare a little bit more responsibility when a compatriot acts on that murderous ideology than, say, when someone of a mainstream, non-inherently-murderous party kills someone. A member of the “let’s exterminate the Jews” club doesn’t get to act shocked and outraged when actually someone kills a Jew, nor do they get to play innocent bystander. Don’t let them.

            • wyogranny

              Bear responsibility. As in carry it.
              bear1
              ber/
              verb
              1.
              (of a person) carry.
              “he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses”
              synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
              “I come bearing gifts”

              • Chris

                Boy, was that what I needed right before my first day back at work as an English teacher. 😉

                Always have to remember: the right to bear arms, not the right to bare arms.

                • Chris wrote, “Boy, was that what I needed right before my first day back at work as an English teacher.”

                  Question: Knowing how conversations with you morph; how do you prevent your obvious extreme political bias not to creep into discussions in your classroom?

                  • Chris

                    Easy. I don’t give them my political opinion at all, and present both sides. We write about political issues all the time. Last year their biggest argumentative essay was on Trump’s travel ban. I had plenty of students who argued in favor of it who did B-level work, and they got Bs as a result. (No A-level work from this side, unfortunately, and believe me, I bent over backwards to find it.) On the last day of school I do answer student questions about my party, who I voted for, my religion, etc., but until then they have no idea. I am a passionate progressive, and I am just as passionate about the idea that students should be given the tools necessary to reach their own conclusions, not indoctrinated.

                    • Chris wrote, “I don’t give them my political opinion at all, and present both sides.”, “I am a passionate progressive, and I am just as passionate about the idea that students should be given the tools necessary to reach their own conclusions, not indoctrinated.”

                      Don’t insult my intelligence.

                      It’ll be a cold day in hell when I believe that a fully ideologically consumed Progressive, like yourself, doesn’t allow their politics to be integrated in the classroom to influence the opinions of the students. It’ll also be a cold day in hell when I believe that a fully ideologically consumed Conservative doesn’t allow their politics to be integrated in the classroom to influence the opinions of the students.

                      Chris wrote, “On the last day of school I do answer student questions about my party, who I voted for, my religion, etc.”

                      That is none of the student’s business and you shouldn’t be sharing it with them, you are there to teach them the classroom material that’s all; period! You are wrong!

                    • Chris

                      When did you stop beating your wife, Zoltar?

                    • There is no relative equivalence between the question I asked you and the question you asked me, so you get a well deserved FU Chris.

                      There is a reason I responded to your reply in the manner I did; you couldn’t articulate the answer to the question posed and that indicates to me that you might not know the answer. What astounds me Chris is, from what I’ve gathered, you’re an English teacher and there is a reasonably intelligent answer to the question I posed and you can’t seem to come up with it. This is something you should have consciously thought about long ago and been able to spit out at a moments notice.

                      Now to be very specific Chris; saying “I don’t… simply doesn’t cut it. Reading comprehension is the key here; I asked you how do you prevent your obvious extreme political bias not to creep into discussions in your classroom”, I did not ask you if you do or if you don’t allow it to creep in your classroom discussions. Those without a plan to prevent this kind of influence fail at preventing it; that’s not to say that even some that have a plan don’t fail too.

                      Off the top of my head, I have four or five very close personal friends (varying political ideological beliefs) that are teachers and teach between grades 7 and 12 and I know for a fact that each one of them have a plan as to how they prevent their political views from influencing classroom discussions and they can articulate that plan to you in a heartbeat. I’d trust even the most extreme of these teachers to teach my children and grandchildren without allowing their political views to “indoctrinate” their class.

                      I’m not giving you an answer, this is for you to come up with. I “think” you might know the how but you are failing to articulate it to others. If you don’t know how then you better figure it out!

                      Feel free to try again or just ignore me; I really don’t care which.

                    • Chris

                      I told you how. You’ve made it clear that no answer I give you, on virtually any subject, will satisfy you.

                    • Chris wrote, “I told you how.”

                      Just keep on telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

                      Chris wrote, “You’ve made it clear that no answer I give you, on virtually any subject, will satisfy you.”

                      You’re either openly lying or are you just using your trolling Chris’ified version of hyperbole to deflect again.

                      I’m actually quite selective as to what answers/statements I choose to confront you about; they are the ones that are usually completely ridiculous, like when you said above that “Hating Nazis is not bigotry”; you clearly didn’t understand what bigotry meant, maybe after our little conversation regarding that you have a better understanding. The same thing applies to this conversation.

                      That enough of another one of your nonsense deflections.

                      I’ll take this reply from you as a non reply to my previous comment.

            • So…. You think that Muslims should start deconverting?

          • Chris

            Speaking of shared responsibility, the latest cartoon by Barry Deutsch seems to suggest that the blame for the Nazi mowing down counter-protesters goes beyond just Nazis, and encompasses conservatives who have called for liberal protesters to be mowed down.

            http://amptoons.com/blog/?p=23327

            • That’s because Barry is a shameless partisan hack scribbling for a crowd of seals eager to bark and clap. What that man produces should be taken with about as much seriousness as a fortune cookie.

              • Chris

                That’s nice. Engaging with the argument next time might be more interesting, though. (And I had hoped you’d have a better experience on that blog than you ended up having.)

                • Look, you really like pretending Barry waxes erudite… but his comics are inherently dishonest. If the things he’s talking about are so perfectly, self evidently true, he shouldn’t have to lie about them to make his point, and yet, time and time again, he obviously distorts the truth to suit his narrative. You can carry water for him by pretending that’s a style choice… But at the end of the day, I can’t distinguish it from a load of fake news. I can deal with people who think differently than I do. I have no use for liars.

                  • And yes, I believe he knows better, but posts his tripe anyway.

                  • Chris

                    What did he lie about in that cartoon?

                    • That one on particular? Only biases and lies of omission. I’d compile a list of times he’s outright lied, but I have the feeling that it wouldn’t persuade you.

                    • Chris

                      Why don’t you let me know over at his blog. I’m uncomfortable talking about someone I respect behind their back.

                    • I won’t, because I hurt Barry’s tender feelings when I called him a liar to his well… digital face, over his vidcon comic. He’s asked me not to visit his blog, and I see absolutely no reason to spite him on that.

                    • He ordered me never to e-mail him again, then he entered MY mailbox a few months later to register an opinion. He also banned my comment on his blog because I accurately and strongly pointed out that his readers who declared that George Zimmerman was a murderer no matter what the evidence was were biased fools, and Barry shouldn’t be enabling their lies. Then he removed Ethics Alarms from his links.

                      His blog is still on the EA links, you will notice, because I’m not a petty, cowardly, hypocritical, vindictive SJW weenie.

                    • Chris

                      I regret bringing it up.

                • But on the actual meat of the issue… Have you already forgotten Scalise? I mean… How do you completely erode your lack of self awareness like that? The message from the ctrl-left has been every bit as violent as anything coming out of the alt-right. And when Scalise was shot by an insane Bernie Bro, I made a point of saying that as opposed to standing on the back of a tragedy for political points, I just wanted you to remember this for the next time something tragic happened on the other side of the aisle.

                  Guess how long that lasted?

              • fattymoon

                I took it seriously as in “slippery slope.” The whoe nation is on a very slippery slop. I take that seriously. Seriously, I’m serious.

            • That sounds a little wacky even for Barry, who has been slowly deteriorating since he self-exiled here. Barry, did not, if I recall, make a similar argument when a Bernie Bro shot Steve Scalise and others, though many conservatives did. It’s a cheap shot wherever it comes from. Has be blamed Rush and Sarah Palin yet?

              • Chris

                What prominent liberal pundits advocated shooting Republican congressman? What liberal politicians proposed changing the law to allow such a shooting?

                If you can point me to where either of those things happen, you’ll have a point about double standards on Barry’s part. If you cannot do that, then no such double standard exists.

              • fattymoon

                This was my first viewing of a Barry toon. Haven’t viewed any others, This particular cartoon is not a cheap shot, it’s an illustration of the slippery slope.

                There, that was easy peasy.

                • fattymoon

                  Just had a cool brain fart. I’m going to write a poem before I leave for T or C and it shall be titled <i.Slippery Slope. This one’s gonna be so easy. and I think I can work it so that I offend everyone.

                  • fattymoon

                    Oh, yea, I just might use Barry’s toon for the graphic. I guess I need permission, but I’ll need to write the poem first cause it’s gonna offend him along with everyone else I can think of.

            • Chris,
              Barry Deutsch is a slime bag creator of extended political memes!

              ANTI-MEME CRUSADE!

              • Chris

                What makes him a “slimebag?” That he creates political memes? By that definition every political cartoonist in the world is a slimebag. The whole genre is irredeemably evil?

                I have never met an artist more receptive to criticism than Barry. I’m sure he’s willing to listen to any disagreement you have with the content or style of the piece, though “It’s a political meme!” doesn’t strike me as a very strong objection.

                • Chris wrote, “By that definition every political cartoonist in the world is a slimebag.”

                  In some ways, that’s entirely true.

                  • Not slimebag, just juvenile,biased, under-educated privileged cheap-shot artists who is allowed to skirt fair journalism standards by claiming the Jester’s privilege, and getting away with an absence of wit and humor by purporting to be a respectable pundit. Their primary tool is ad hominem attacks—the “bad guys” are always ugly, like Herblock’s fat “corporations”—and they are usually just name-calling.

                    Put them on the comics page.

                    • Sure all that’s true too and it all sounds like it’s describing a disgusting, despicable, or contemptible person which just happen to be the same words used in various slimebag definitions. 😉

                • Chris wrote, “…though “It’s a political meme!” doesn’t strike me as a very strong objection.”

                  You obviously didn’t fully comprehend what was in the link.

                • “I have never met an artist more receptive to criticism than Barry.”

                  *snort* You need to get out more.

              • Chris

                Also, your definition of “memes” is…incomplete. Lots of memes are not smears. “They’re good dogs brent” is a meme, and doesn’t smear anyone. (Also, several times in that post you have an unnecessary apostrophe in the word “memes.”)

                • Chris wrote, “Also, your definition of “memes” is…incomplete.”

                  You’re an English teacher? When are you, the English Teacher going to learn to read for comprehension; I wrote MEME (as defined by Zoltar Speaks!)”

                  P.S. Unnecessary apostrophe errors fixed. I thought I’d fixed them a while ago, must not have saved it.

                  • Chris

                    I wrote “MEME (as defined by Zoltar Speaks!)

                    I know, which is why I said your definition is incomplete. I would think you’d want to define things in a more complete way. But if you want to define things in a way that is special only to you, I guess that’s…something.

                    You obviously didn’t fully comprehend what was in the link.

                    Yes, any time someone disagrees with you it’s because they just don’t comprehend your brilliance. This is a healthy way to go through life.

                    • I’m curious Chris, why haven’t you tried to intelligently discuss any of the points raised in the Anti-Meme Crusade?

                      How about this point; “memes are, by design, an intentional method to infiltrate the mind with creative language designed to manipulate the reader into ignoring logic and reason and respond in an emotional manner.”

                      …or maybe the point that people like Barry Deutsch, and you spreading his garbage, know “full well that their intention is to spread a smear about someone or something”

                      …or this one, “the implications of memes are false even though the facts they present may be true”

                      …or this point, “Political Meme’s are notoriously false and the implications are almost always outright viscous lies”

                      …or this one, “Meme’s work in today’s society because critical thinking skills have been nearly eliminated”

                      …or how about this dandy one, “meme’s are unethical propaganda spread by people with flaws in their personal character; the phrase morally bankrupt is a really good description of these people.”

                      …or back to the beginning…

                      MEME (as defined by Zoltar Speaks!)
                      1 : an easily repeatable smear that rapidly replicates itself.
                      2 : a virus of the mind that infects weak-minded individuals.
                      3 : an implied smear that’s usually rooted in humor.”

                      Are there more definitions available for word meme; yes there are various definitions for lots of words out there; so what Chris? Are my definitions incorrect; if so, how?

                      Want to have an intelligent discussion about memes Chris, fine, let’s dance.

          • Yes. Just as was done with the Tucson shootings, just as many conservative pundits tried to do with the Alexandria shooting.

            When one suggests that multiple Muslims attacking innocents and shouting religious slogans when the do it might suggest a problem, however….

      • They also came there, and carried their torches there, and said ‘You will not replace us’ as a direct statement about what they will not stand for. To erase their history and those things their previous generations worked for. Those people, and those values, go back to the actual and the real foundation of the country.

        The said ‘blood and soil’ not to transpose Nazism to Americn soil but to express a real and genuine truth that they feel ‘in their blood’ and in relation to their soil.

        I suggest that *you* (a general you) can only go so far in an attempt to erase a people that you do not like. There will come a point where the dog you are kicking turns around and makes his last stand.

        If you want to keep going in that direction, keep pushing. If you hope to come to some accord you had best sit yourself down, right now, and begin to work it all out in your head. But if you desire to go forward with the very real, the very tangible violence against ‘these people’ you had best prepare yourself for reaction. Because they will not allow it. ‘You will not replace us’. That is an emphatic statement!

        This whole problem is generated not by those who have these values (the values that many here overtly deplore) but because a new America has been forged against their will. The will of the original Americans and their progeny. Clearly, *you* do not wish to see things through that lens and yet you are not going to succeed in ‘rewriting people’ unless, perhaps, you can gain access to neurological wiring.

        The question here resoves around identity, ownership, and power. The ‘other side’ is that side which desires to erase the displaced owners because they will soon become more numerous. And they would have the democratic right as a result of the demographic assent, would they not?

        That is why the white nationalists speak of separatism. That is a valid and an ethical choice despite anything that you can say about it.

        It will move to a point — to all appearances — where you will have to move against them militarily (I take this to the furthest point of use of power because that power is ultimately the most real) and literally destroy them, or do so much social harm (like in South Africa) that they will have no recourse against the rising New America that you desire to define and live in. The unlucky secessionists pursued that was not tolerated and they were crushed. That blow was, fundamentally, the destruction of the possibility of identity on their own terms. But it was left along basically, if my understanding is correct.

        Now, they come back for a new phase of mopping up.

        Though I am writing sort of consciousness stream I do think that I am expressing genuine sentiments.

  6. JP

    I have also noticed there is quite a push on Facebook to identify the fascist for the purpose of getting them fired. In fact, with the number of things I have seen on it, I’m surprised it was not part of this post.

    • Chris

      I repeat: Nazis should be afraid of the social consequences of publicly identifying as Nazis and taking part in Nazi rallies. Losing one’s job is a rational social consequence of publicly taking part in Nazi rallies.

      As Popehat is fond of saying: Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      • JP

        Until someone gets misidentified. Then it’s not a fun game anymore.

      • Popehat is a free speech absolutist site, and would gag at being used to support firing people for their expressed political opinions.

        • Chris

          You are wrong about Popehat’s position on this issue. A quick glance at his Twitter feed shows he absolutely supports the rights of employers to terminate employees for being Nazis.

          • “Being Nazis” and expressing views some identify with Nazis are completely different. Ken White would not advocate firing an employee based on private, personal political beliefs, absent conduct that violated a valid contract or risked harm to the employer.

            • Chris

              “Being Nazis” and expressing views some identify with Nazis are completely different. Ken White would not advocate firing an employee based on private, personal political beliefs, absent conduct that violated a valid contract or risked harm to the employer.

              You keep minimizing the discussion into irrelevancy. We are not talking about firing an employee based on private, personal political beliefs, absent conduct. We are talking about employers firing the Nazi marchers in Charlottesville. I don’t care whether White “would” or would not advocate the former; what I said was that he advocates the latter, which is what you originally denied. These constant deflections and misrepresentations are really unlike you, Jack.

              • Question: What will you say when the tables are turned? And they have the power to ‘out’ you, to cause you to loose your employment, and in other ways to demonstrate their power over you?

                According to one possible perspective you, right now, are espousing the abhorant view. If you say that it is socially ethical to do harm to people and cause them to lose their job or income, what if that became a state policy? What if the list kept by the SPLC for example were given to government agencies and they began to round people up?

                You begin to look like the ‘Nazi’ you deplore when you keep backing yourself into this corner of argument. And of course the point is that right now, all over the land, there are millions and millions of people who are thinking just like you.

                The ‘Alt-Right’ (I prefer New American Right) that I know (and read and study) is well aware of your intentions. They tak about how *you* came to be, what produced you, and what can be do to resist you.

                • New American Right?

                  Would supporters of this be called New American Right Boosters?

                  For sake of ease, can I just abbreviate and refer to you as a NARB?

                • Chris

                  If there comes a day when it is normal to fire people for being anti-Nazi, Alizia, then the tables will have already turned so far that all will be lost. On that day, you will have won.

                  If there comes a day when Nazis are rounded up by the government, it will be…I believe the term is “poetic justice,” which differs from real justice in that it is not actually just. But I will stand against that too.

                  Today, though? Losing one’s job because you actively promote hate against the majority of the human race is…a pretty fair and logical social consequence. Why would an average employer want to employ someone who spends their weekends publicly ranting against Jews, blacks and gays? Especially if they oversee a diverse workforce?

              • Here is an interesting video which shows what the ‘counter-protesters’ are up to:

                • fattymoon

                  Sorry for Baked Alaska. I don’t know who he is, but, still.

                  There is so much blame… plenty to go around. No one group is innocent. Tragically, I foresee a rise in rhetoric and violence on all sides. As The Donald would opine… Sad.

                  • Baked Alaska is as close to a genuine Neo Nazi as you’re going to find… Usually, I roll my eyes when the left hurls the epithet, and take people at their words when they say they don’t actually identify as something… but for the purposes of understanding, he either is or affects as a white supremacist, and his words and videos speak louder than his protestations. I think he’s a genuinely bad person.

                    But that doesn’t mean people get to spray shit in his face and blind him. And the things being said about him online right now are horrible. Apparently the hot new thing is to tweet him Nazi puns, because he “not sees” now. Isn’t that funny? Ken White took part, and then offered to send BA the jokes in 14 point font so BA could read them. Isn’t that thoughtful?

                    • It is interesting to see him in this confrontation. He does (BA) not have the ideological platform to defend his posture, and in fact his posture (based on this presentation) is weak. The man he is interviewing has a far more developed postition. Indeed it is an ideological-governmental and intelligence position. He does not see it as an ideological expression though. He sees it, and describes it, as an assemblage of ‘facts’. This is very American. Interesting that he has a position, or had a position, within the US intelligence community in the Middle East. That is where the ‘Americanopolis’ is carrying out vast ‘culture-building’ (sic) ops. There, they have worked wonders.

                      The work of defining a White Identity position is a fraught project. The only way to carry it out is through a separatist movement.

                    • Maybe this is just my bias as a deconstruction user, but why is it important to create a White Identity position as distinct from other “Identities”? If we’re trying to preserve historical European-American culture because it is anthropologically interesting or valuable, I can understand that. I don’t like to see interesting cultural practices or lore die out.

                      What I don’t see, though, is how anyone would benefit from creating an ethnic identity position if they didn’t already have one. Does the ethnic aspect of it help by tying in to preexisting communities and social connections, or what? Is there a reason we need ethnic groups? From my perspective, they just sort of happened in early humanity and we’ve been living with them ever since.

                    • Chris

                      Alizia, some of the commenters here are non-white. Some are even (gasp) LGBT, which I understand would be verboten in your ideal white separatist community. If you truly believe in the cause of white separatism, perhaps you’d be more comfortable at a nice all-white blog.

                    • I long ago respolved to allow myself, even to force myself, to say what I think. When I notice that I am afraid to put into words what I think, and when that dread ‘political correct’ demon rises to snap down some thought or idea, I turn back into myself and spend time looking into what is going on. I read, write, study and think. I want to be fearless and I want to overcome the internal blocks that rise up.

                      I would suggest that my mental attitude — though it surely will ‘offend’ people — expresses and embodies a freedom that you do not have. In any case the ideal of freedom on the intellectual plane.

                      I want to speak carefully and not unfairly when I comment on you. You have an intellect, this I admit, but you have less intellectual backbone than I think is needed. Put another way your thought is determined by political correctness. Not by free thought.

                      I desire to speak from vanguardist positions. And I desire to bring out into the open what lurks behind the scenes, or in the psychological domain, and that keeps people from expressing what they really think.

                      I see this in meta-political terms and I am sure that you have no idea what I mean. If ever you wish to understand just let me know!

                • I posted that more because it speaks of exposing people who are involved in right-leaning politics. Surveilling their homes, properties, informing on them in their work-place, and of course putting out the death threats and the body-harm threats.

                  Baked Alaska is a YouTube personality who is associated with these politics. I know nothing about him.

  7. Exchange on Facebook just now with a virtue-signaling, echo-chamber insulated progressive lawyer who wrote:

    “…there will always be racists and anti-semites and the good people of the world will have to smack them down on a regular basis”

    I responded, “Physically?”.

    Her response: “preferably rhetorically, but we have taken up arms against them before”

    Be afraid of these good people, America..You never know when they’ll rule that YOUR opinions deserve physical abuse too.

  8. Still Spartan

    I am exhausted from writing on this subject on FB. I disagree/nit-pick many of the things you have stated here, but I do want to say that I agree with this:

    “There was an obvious, risk-free method to guarantee that there would be no violence as a result of the white nationalist marchers: leave them alone. Let them have their demonstration, and hold a counter-demonstration repudiating them later, after they crawled back under the rock from which they came.”

    But I agree with it more from a practical standpoint. This was a protest of how many people? 500? I see more people go in and out of my local Starbucks in an hour. Let them have their pathetic protest. They wanted/needed a counter-protest to make them relevant. Liberals shouldn’t have provided them the spotlight.

    Now, I do believe that counter protests are protected speech, as our counter-counter-protests, counter-counter-counter protests, etc. I just don’t see any benefits of having them at the same time.

    • Eternal Optometrist

      Agree and agree. There was once a KKK rally in my town. I forgot about it and only remembered when I came to work on a Saturday and wondered what the chanting was a couple blocks over. But where I was, two blocks away, families were riding bikes, getting ice cream, and enjoying a beautiful summer day. No one cared – no one cared to attend, no one cared to protest.

      They did not come back.

    • Not even 500. I agree… Let them have their little hissy fit, and then the world moves on. The amount of codependency to these movements is such that I think that if either side just… stopped… The other would cease to exist. I don’t know exactly what that would look like, but I tend to pick fewer battles than I used to, and I don’t know if it’s a matter of wisdom or exhaustion but I find myself generally happier for it.

    • Bingo raised to the Bingo-th power.

      The alt-righters are a miniscule joke, despite that the democrat media portraying them as somehow reflective of a huge percentage of the population. There has been a ridiculous microscope-level cluster of these idiots since WW2 times.

      The only people causing their movement to grow is literally anyone giving them media coverage.

      (But I almost feel like the media wants to stoke this drama for its own reasons…both for political confrontations as well as for ratings…But I’ve never been accused of calling the media ethical)

      • Chris

        The president gets a great deal of his news from an alt-right website. The former chair of that website, who bragged about how he had made it a platform for the alt-right, is one of the president’s closest advisers. I wish you were correct that the alt-righters were a miniscule joke, but the fact is that right now, they have a huge amount of power and have risen to that power with terrifying speed.

        • No doubt, in addition to the democrat media giving them plenty of disproportionate coverage compared to their relevancy, that they have grown some, due to other forces, such as the tribal politics that the Left engages in.

          I mean, it’s obvious, I don’t see how your people didn’t anticipate a reaction to dividing the nation by race and gender and creed, that people who only merely matched the race/gender combination that your people decided would be the “enemy” would begin looking at an extremist group that promised to look out for that particular race/gender combination as a possible shelter.

          Or maybe y’all did anticipate that reaction.

          Either way, it’s neither healthy nor ethical to have engaged in those divisive politics to begin with, of course, the reaction is neither healthy nor ethical either.

          But, they are a miniscule joke. But they won’t be forever as long as tribalism is a useful tool of the left.

          • Chris

            Yes, everything the Right does is the Left’s fault. As always.

            • If you think ‘alt-right’ is actually an offshoot of American ‘right wing’ politics, you may want to brush up on political history, especially in the context of international politics and the whole purpose of calling it ‘alt’…

              And yes, tribalism is definitely what your people engaged in *with aplomb* during the Obama years.

              • How would you define the Alt-Right? I would say that alternative right-leaning political positions are surfacing because the American conservative movement is in the middle of an existential crisis as the demographics of the country shift away from what had been its consituents: older white middle-class Christians.

                The Amwerican conservative movement, through various purges in its history, pushed out of itself the more radical (or ‘authentic’) factions, and as it aged it became irrelevant. It is now on the verge of collapse.

                The older version of conservatism — most of which you cannot even think insofar as you self-police your own thoughts and eliminate them before the surface — is now fading, and a new generation is rising to fill the gap. Young, not articulate, angry without really understanding why, unstable in certain ways, definitely a little weak conceptually and unstudied over all, these people are rushing into the vacuum.

                Some, in order to gain more intellectual and ideological background, have shifted their focus and interest to Europe and accessed the Nouvelle Droite which arose as a responcse to 1968 in France. This intellectual right also understands its own links to what you call ‘fascistic’ ideas: right-leaning religionists, traditional Catholics and other Christian groups, anti-Marxist groups definitely, and they also have been forced (as I said to Christ: when people call you ‘Nazi’ at every turn you will be forced to begin to actually research them, and consider the alternative views about them).

                Others have returned to the purged-out American conservatives, and begun to research Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. There is a definite right-leaning (you would call it ‘extremist’) intellectual faction in the US. The thing is, in comparison to Europe, that it is not quite intellectual enough (not theory-driven enough).

                There is another branch and that is the ‘traditionalist’ branch. Again this branch is more European than American and included people like Rene Guenon, Savitri Devi, and Julius Evola. This is much more on the spiritual or religious side of things but it is hard to define exactly. Savitri Devi was a National Socialist apologist who understood Hitler as a manifestation of Vishnu!

                I suggest that you pay very close attention to what is going on now and try to get more insight into what these people (the young right-leaning Americans who are pushing their way in) if you want to keep up on things. My impression is that most of this Blog is older and are seeing things through older lenses. Things are shifting — not so much changing, but shifting — very fast.

                • Chris – Christ is there a difference? 😉

                • fattymoon

                  Alizia, I lived in the deep south, Athens, Alabama, for 30 years. My friends and neighbors were very conservative. A few were rednecks. And a few were simply white trash. I got along with all of them. I was a journalist in the 1970’s through 1981, worked at three different newspapers during that time. Perhaps that’s why I got along? I tried to stay neutral, though, in my heart, I was sickened by some of the comments I heard from city and county officials. Still, such incidents were few and far between.

                  I emailed my ex, Carol, the story I wrote for Medium about how to counter the rising tide of white supremacy. She responded positively. But, want I really want to know is what her friends and neighbors are saying right now? Have they turned bitter? Are they gearing up for a war? I dare not broach these things to her. I just wish I knew because I can’t erase 30 years of my life there.

                • Lemme see, since Socialism is part of the root philosophy of National Socialism (they were so honest in their naming schemes back then)…whether or not it’s an hyper-exclusive version of it…it’s safe to view your worldview as just an offshoot of Leftist government controlled economic solutions.

                  That you willingly admit it is an attempt to replace what you consider ‘conservatism’ or the “old” American right wing, it’s also safe to view your worldview as not-right. Yes, it’s an attempt to bring European-style politics to America…and I can see the seductive lure of that.

                  • Tex said: “Lemme see, since Socialism is part of the root philosophy of National Socialism (they were so honest in their naming schemes back then)…whether or not it’s an hyper-exclusive version of it…it’s safe to view your worldview as just an offshoot of Leftist government controlled economic solutions.

                    “That you willingly admit it is an attempt to replace what you consider ‘conservatism’ or the “old” American right wing, it’s also safe to view your worldview as not-right. Yes, it’s an attempt to bring European-style politics to America…and I can see the seductive lure of that”.

                    To arrive at a fair definition of what moved the theorists of National Socialism would be in my view an interesting feat of intellect. I do not think that you could do this though because, essentially, you are anti-intellectual. You do not seem to even want to deal in or on ideas. Well, that has been my impression.

                    I have come to determine that overall your effort is to destroy the possibility of fair exchange of ideas. You do what you can, and in the way that you can, to end conversations and not to begin them.

                    It is a waste of time to try to respond to you in an honest and forthright way.

                    As I said a day or so ago, I only dropped in because I found the Charlottesville events to compelling. I now take my leave again. I wish you and all others the very best.

              • Chris

                Ah, a No True Scotsman fallacy. That one never goes out of style.

    • Now, I do believe that counter protests are protected speech, as our counter-counter-protests, counter-counter-counter protests, etc. I just don’t see any benefits of having them at the same time.

      If they are not at the same time, cool. No 1A rights were violated. We agree, Spartan!

      No speech was oppressed in the making of this comment

  9. Mark

    snip/ anti-American comments of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, ( WordPress thinks I should spell his name “Cauliflower”) /snip
    WordPress is not wrong. ; )~

  10. fattymoon

    This is an interesting take on the the rally and its aftermath.
    Alt-right critique of “Unite the Right.” (His criticisms remind me of Trump and gang… inept inept inept.)

    I’m going to delete this post in a week or two, partly because I think it has a limited shelf life, and partly because it’s not the kind of thing I really like writing about in this space, but I think this all needs to be said.

    First, a disclaimer: I sympathize broadly with Unite The Right’s stated goals, including preserving the statue of General Lee and keeping whites from becoming a minority in our own country. I also know, like, and admire some of the people involved in CTR, namely Chris Cantwell and Pax Dickinson. That said, what happened yesterday was an absolute unmitigated nuclear disaster. The planning was amateurish, the messaging was unfocused, the optics were horrendous, the expectations were naive, and the outcome was all too predictable. To keep this short, I’ll use bullet points.
    https://antidem.wordpress.com/2017/08/13/charlottesville/

    • fattymoon

      One more of interest… Should America have a zero tolerance of neo-Nazi ideology?

      TO VIEW the footage of crowds in Charlottesville yelling Nazi slogans and flying Swastika banners is troubling anywhere. But do so from Berlin is particularly so. America in 2017 is not Germany in 1933. But the chants about “blood and soil”, the flaming torches, the Nazi salutes, the thuggery and violence turned on objectors—the whole furious display of armed ethno-nationalism—are nonetheless chillingly evocative. Similarly so is the strenuous ambivalence about it all from Donald Trump and some of his media cheerleaders. It could hardly contrast more vividly with how things are done here: Germany today is a case study in how not to give an inch to the dark politics of “Blut und Boden”.

      https://www.economist.com/blogs/kaffeeklatsch/2017/08/charlottesville-context?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email

      • Tippy Scales

        Should America have a zero tolerance of neo-Nazi ideology?

        Hell no. The day America takes a zero tolerance of any ideology is the day we’re no longer America. Hell, this country even allows NAMBLA to spew its disgusting worldview. And it should.

        I’ve seen so many people advocating for the government to shut down free speech — and yet these same people constantly decry the government as racist, sexist, etc.

        Don’t these morons realize they’re opening a very dangerous Pandora’s Box? Probably not. That’s why they’re morons.

        • Chris

          Agreed, Tippy.

          One thing leftists who argue for “hate speech” laws ignore is that with the current group in power, it would not be white supremacists who get targeted the most–it would be groups like Black Lives Matter.

          The argument is really no different from the argument that terrorists should be tortured. In both cases they are saying a group should be denied basic human rights because it is too dangerous to allow them those rights.

          • One thing leftists who argue for “hate speech” laws ignore is that with the current group in power, it would not be white supremacists who get targeted the most–it would be groups like Black Lives Matter.

            slow clap…clap…clap…clap

            This is what I have been saying all along.

    • fattymoon

      Finally, from everyone’s fake newspaper of note… ‘We have drawn a different lesson from history’: How the world is reacting to violence in Charlottesville

      BERLIN — Much of the world looked on in horror and puzzlement as a demonstration by torch-wielding white nationalists in an American college town ended in violence and the arraignment of a 20-year-old man on charges of second-degree murder.

      James Alex Fields Jr. is accused of ramming a car into a crowd of counterprotesters, leaving one dead and 19 injured. That the suspect was a Nazi sympathizer, according to a former teacher, made the weekend’s events particularly wrenching in Germany, a nation still seared by the darkest chapters of its past.

      Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Monday the violence that unfolded in Charlottesville was “sickening.” He described the symbols and slogans employed in “the right-wing extremist march” — including swastikas and chants of “Blood and soil,” a Nazi-era motto — as “diametrically opposed to the political goals of the chancellor and the entire German government.”
      Nigel Farage, the former leader of the anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party, observed on Twitter: “Cannot believe we’re seeing Nazi salutes in 21st century America.”

      In countries such as Germany and France that have adopted strict codes policing hateful speech, there were also questions about why people carrying guns were allowed to assemble and propagate a message targeting racial and religious minorities.

      “Most people in Germany have difficulty understanding that gatherings like in Charlottesville are possible in the U.S., because we have drawn a different lesson from history,” said Matthias Jahn, chair of criminal law at Goethe University in Frankfurt. “Our German law centers on the strong belief that you should hinder this kind of speech in a society committed to principles of democratic coexistence and peace.”
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/charlottesville-violence-condemned-in-europe-elsewhere-around-the-world/2017/08/14/6765c0be-80ef-11e7-9e7a-20fa8d7a0db6_story.html?utm_term=.d160a08f62fd

      • I care very little what effeminate foreigners think of our rights… Euck Furope.

        • Chris

          It’s fair to argue that non-Americans should be listened to less than Americans when it comes to what we should do in America, slick, but your point would be stronger without a bigoted slur like “effeminate foreigners.” This distracts from your point and just gives people prone to disagree with you ammo.

          • fattymoon

            Not only that, Chris. I just gave Slick my badge, so, um, what the hell is Euck Furope?

            • Passions are not allowed on the right. Got it. Just the progressives get to express themselves in passionate terms.

              You are correct that it gives them ammo… to show their double standard when they do the same thing quite often. Not specifically directed at you, Chris, and I appreciate you calm reply.

              And the slur is not bigoted, either. An observation that can be supported is not bigotry.

            • what the hell is Euck Furope?

              Since I never know when fatty is kidding and really does not get the reference: Reverse the E and the F in the phrase. 🙂

              • fattymoon

                I don’t want this badge anymore. I’m just too sensitive to criticism. Here, Slick, you take it.

                Oh, now I get Fuck Furope. I’m just driving slow these days.

  11. Wayne

    Calling somebody a “Fascist” or “Neo-Nazi” is politically advantageous. A very old tactic of the left:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448275/antifa-protest-donald-trump-roots-left-wing-political-violence

    • Sue Dunim

      If they wear the black cross of the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War, and carry around Swastikas… Then it’s not a dishonest tactic, it’s merely stating the truth.

      You know, like calling Trotskyites, Maoists, Spartacists etc that go around carrying red flags and the hammer and sickle, Communists.

      • Chris

        Of course the labels “fascist” and “neo-Nazi” are often misapplied, like every other label. But that’s a weird thing to bring up in a conversation about actual, self-identified fascists and neo-Nazis.

  12. fattymoon

    Everything old is new again. From ProPublica… A New Generation of White Supremacists Emerges in Charlottesville https://www.propublica.org/article/a-new-generation-of-white-supremacists-emerges-in-charlottesville

  13. fattymoon

    Since this is an ongoing story (I’ve been at this computer since 3 this morning and I’m still posting shit here, on Medium, and on Twitter) I will continue with breaking news/events until Jack screams STOP!

    In response to recent events, including the deadly white nationalist violence in Charlottesville this weekend, the SPLC today released a new edition of Ten Ways to Fight Hate, its longstanding guide for effectively – and peacefully – taking a stand against bigotry. https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/08/14/splc-releases-new-edition-ten-ways-fight-hate-guide-after-charlottesville-attack

    The Alt-Right On Campus: What Students Need To Know
    https://www.splcenter.org/20170810/alt-right-campus-what-students-need-know

  14. Tippy Scales

    If we’re going to “have a conversation about racism,” we simply can’t ignore the history of racist tweets by Charlottesville’s Deputy Mayor. If you’re not familiar with them, look them up. His viewpoints are reprehensible — and yet he’s still in office.

    Also: The flashpoint for all this was the removal of the Lee statue. It dovetails into the Confederate flag debate about whether it should be banned because of what it once represented. I know a lot of hillbillies and wanna-be rebels who fly that flag because they think it makes them rebellious — not racism. The Dukes of Hazzard wasn’t promoting racism; it was promoting two brothers who saw themselves as rebels.

    But, fine. If we’re going to ban things because of what they represented 150 years ago, why not ban the Democratic Party itself, since it represented institutional racism for more than a century. What’s that? Oh, so we only want to ban things through today’s SJW lenses when it fits a leftist narrative?

    These people are disgusting.

  15. to think, this was just a morning warm up

  16. Forget about the nutcase that drove the car into the crowd in Charlottesville for a few minutes and answer these questions.

    1. Do the permitted protesters that were protesting against tearing down statues have the right to their opinion?

    2. Do the protesters in question #1 have the right to peacefully protest?

    If you cannot instantly answer yes to both question #1 and #2 then YOU are the real problem in the United States not a few people that choose to voice their opinion in legal protest and you find them and their words offensive.

    Here are some more questions…

    3. Ignore who threw the first punch for the moment; was it reasonable for the counter protesters (social justice warriors) to be protesting without a permit in very close proximity of the permitted protesters knowing full well that the presence of an intentionally confrontational counter protest would likely provoke the exact kind of riotous behaviors that ensued?

    4. Based on the history of violent protests across the United States in very recent history; was it reasonable for the permitted protesters to prepare themselves for an onslaught of possible violent counter protests?

    5. Was the “right” of the permitted protesters to protest peacefully violated by the opposing un-permitted “protesters”?

    6. Was it the responsibility of the police that were presence at the permitted protest to keep the protesters separated and peaceful?

    Here are my answers.
    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. No
    4. Yes
    5. Yes
    6. Yes

    It is my opinion that the presence of the counter protesters was very intentionally confrontational and done in such a way as to create conditions where a riot would ensue and in my opinion the police intentionally allowed this confrontation to happen. It appears that the police were only put there to intimidate the permitted protesters not to protect the permitted protesters from the onslaught of social justice warriors who wanted to instigate a riot.

    The instigators got exactly what they wanted, a riot, regardless of who threw the first punch; they were out to cause a riot and they succeeded, that was their purpose. The social justice warriors were literally the instigators of this riot and they should be prosecuted for their actions.

    It is my opinion that the permitted protesters should sue the City for allowing the un-permitted instigators access to the permitted protest area without forcibly ejecting the riotous instigators as they intentionally blocked the permitted protesters path to start the melee.

    This bull shit needs to stop!

    • Progressives have abused the courts for decades. Time to turn the tactic back on them, when the facts warrant it. Common Americans are tired of this BS.

      AS an aside, Z: there is a functioning Zoltar Speaks! machine in the front lobby of the Buckhorn Saloon and Museum in San Antonio. Just like the one from the movie ‘Big.’ Oh, it takes modern coins and bill now, but otherwise is in excellent shape.

    • fattymoon

      I offer my ham in friendship, Mr. Z. (You like ham, yes?) I echoed your answers. Seriously, I agree with this position. Here, I have another badge, just like the one I gave Slick. It’s yours now. I pray the two of you maintain order here while Jack’s away.

      That said… HOOBOY! I’m so happy to see The Donald self destructing before my very eyes.

    • Now that you’ve had the time to try an absorb what I wrote above, you need to be clear about my motives.

      I am anti-racism!

      Even thought I completely disagree with what the social justice warriors are trying to do with the removal of the statues, I would not have marched in protest with a group that was obviously a bunch of racists!

      Some of the things that the permitted protesters were chanting I have a serious moral issues with and I openly confront this kind of language when it’s appropriate and necessary to do so; however, they have a right to their opinion and they have the right to voice that opinion in protest regardless of whether you or I like it. What the social justice warriors did in opposition to these racists was wrong! What the police allowed to happen was wrong!

      I am pro Constitution!

      We have a Constitution and we have laws, and even though I oppose racism, I believe there was a concerted effort by the City of Charlottesville to violate the Constitutional rights of the permitted protesters. These kinds of anti-Constitutional actions and intentional inaction by a government entity regarding protecting Constitutional rights of protesters will not bode well.

      All that said; the social justice warriors across the United States need to understand something and they need to understand it soon before they end up in a huge violent mess that they cannot control; the enemy of my enemy is my friend! If social justice warriors continue down their path of anti-Constitutional behaviors they will face a foe far worse than a small group of mouthy racist assholes, they will face the likes of me and those like me who will stand up to protect the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic and if we have to stand next to a racist asshole in a foxhole that is also fighting to protect the United States Constitution sobeit – the Julie Principle applies.

      When anti-Constitutional lawlessness breaks out of its shell and the police forces across the United States either stand down (as we have begun to see) or cannot maintain control of the streets, all bets are off, and the social justice warrior protection grid goes down. Social justice warriors have absolutely no idea what they’re in for; social justice warriors “leaders” will be saying “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”.

      Hate me if you must; but, the United States is rapidly approaching dangerous grounds.

  17. There is some interesting things in this article if you can allow you to get beyond the source. Jason Kessler, Charlottesville rally organizer, says he’s in hiding

    “In preparation for last Saturday’s rally, he met repeatedly with Charlottesville police and was assigned a police liaison. He says she went over the city’s safety plan with him, let him see it, but would not let him photograph it. He said that the captain “let slip” that in preparation for the rally, the city and police “did not use government servers because they did not want to get FOIA’d” — referring to the Freedom of Information Act.”

    “He said that police had given the white nationalists a specific entry way to the park. But that as they arrived at the park at 8:30 a.m. on Saturday, the road to that entrance was blocked by police. The caravan of shuttle busses that the nationalists had rented had to detour to the opposite side of the park, where most of the Antifa demonstrators were positioned.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s