So obviously, it's going to be stupid.
Where you and race intersect it tends to be, but I'm an optimist, so let's see.
Of course, of course. Because wrong-think obviously is solely because of stupidity, not for any other reason.
No, because even the most intelligent racist is bound and reduced by his metaphysical astigmatism.
There is no moral equivalence between peaceful nazis and peaceful protestors?
If only you ended on this high note.
Upon what basis are you making this claim?
The belief shared by our greatest generation, that the Nazi is a small and loathsome creature, steeped in racism and an enemy of free men everywhere.
I could supply you with any number of non-violent persons who hold to ideologies that are apparently consistent with, or otherwise endorse, violence.
And I'd note you were off the point and quote.
The "punch a nazi" memes have been making their way on various social media, even by, I am sure, some people who have not themselves committed any acts of violence.
I was talking to a friend of mine about this and, as I believe I did here, I said I'm a lot more sympathetic to the Nazi clocker than I am to the Nazi, mostly because I can understand how the presence of one exercising his right to speak might be seen as an invitation to violence, fighting words, among certain people. Now the idea of Nazi hunting for that purpose is something else. It's a premeditated violence that can't be accepted in a civil society.
There are almost 2 billion muslims in the world, most of whom are not violence, even though their religion most certainly is not, pace George W. Bush, "a religion of peace."
I've said as much. What's your point?
Furthermore, Richard Spencer and the alt-right, so far as I'm aware, don't endorse violence at all.
How is it you imagine their ethnically singular world or state would be accomplished again?
It is certainly true that the alt-right (who are not actually nazis) are in favor of a white ethnostate
And being in favor of a thing doesn't cost anyone a dime or a worry, unless they mean to achieve it, in which case you're right back to my above.
but how is that qualitatively different from zionists who are in favor of a Jewish ethnostate (which actually exists, and which is actually violating international law and oppressing Palestinians, unlike the desired white ethnostate, which doesn't actually exist and oppresses nobody).
Actually, that's not true. Israel isn't an ethnostate, unless it's an ethnostate in the same sense as "the president is deeply concerned with the plight of non golfers".
What precisely is it about these "most peace loving nazis" that somehow distinguishes them from other groups? Because they are "racist"? Ok.
That's certainly enough, as foundations for belief systems go, but it's hardly everything. Being racist is odious. What you do with that racist impulse further defines you. Who you embrace (say, Hitler) and their approach to that racist streak puts the Nazi cherry on top.
Then were you singing this tune when BLM activists on college campuses were demanding segregated dormitories?
In no particular order, what BLM doing so? Citation, authority? Never heard about it. Next, if true for what reason? Safety/fear of not knowing who among their brethren were what? Or was it because they believed themselves to be genetically and morally superior and didn't desire to mix with lower elements? The answer determines my response.
How about when identitarian leftists have been pushing a narrative that only white people can be racist?
Haven't heard that one either. :think: They're mistaken if they're actually saying that. To be meaningfully racist, that is to say to be racist in a way that should alarm your neighbor, you have to have the means to translate that impulse to the harm of other races. For generations whites had this power. We still do, but to a lesser extent and we've barred the exercise as a matter of law.
How about when a BLM activist refused to sell a white person a t-shirt solely because of the color of his skin? How about when an entire chapter of the BLM refused to allow white people to attend their meetings (though still encouraged them to donate money)?
I don't think I've been unclear about my opinion relating to racist nonsense. I don't care who encourages it. It's the same stupidity.
For instance, if you google BLM chapters you'll find this:
[*=left]Please note that #BlackLivesMatter is a network predicated on Black self-determination, and BLM Chapters reserve the right to limit participation based on this principle.
Typically "self-determination" is the same ethnostate nonsense wrapped in a new phrase. If that's the intent then at least the organizational parts responsible don't deserve support, even if some of the concerns still need to be actively addressed by broader minds.
White identitarianism is simply the logical conclusion of the left-wing identity politics and the demonization of and outright racism against white people that has become rampant in this country in the last few years.
You know what I just noticed (I'm kidding, I noticed it every step of the way) you haven't remotely taken on my point.
Why do so-called Nazis deserve our distinctive moral outrage, but not the Black Panthers (which Dr. Cornell West, to his credit, opted not to join, due to his Christian beliefs)?
Mind the matches. But to play anyway, there are any number of reasonable responses, beginning with history and, literally, numbers. But the best answer is the simplest, when the Black Panthers take a militant, exclusionary march into a community I'll be as adamantly on the side of peaceful opposition by groups that disparage racist foolishness and malice.
The simple fact is that, however much you may dislike the ideas of Richard Spencer, his ideas are much more peaceful than many of his identitarian leftist counter-parts.
It's possible, if undemonstrated. At best you've put him somewhere in a sorry continuum. A bit like suggesting this piece of trash is cleaner than that one.
I don't remember you raising an objection when minorities demanded a safe space.
Which minorities on what point for how long and in what context?
All. That's why they use the black/red flag. It's not just a phenomenon in the United States. It's a phenomenon (and a real problem/scourge) in Europe as well.
No, not all. And they're a little divided when you get into them, but again, this isn't a highly organized and centered group here, at least not yet.
A counter-protestor was discharging a makeshift flamethrower at right-wing protestors at Charlottesville, and the media feigned outrage when a right-wing protestor dared to fire a warning shot at him.
The man's name was Long. And he had a lighter and a spray can, which he claimed he found and used after being lunged at by a man using a Confederate flag on a staff. I've seen the video and some still pictures of Long. The man with the flag is taking a swing, but I don't believe Long found them or that he was merely attempting to protect himself during peaceful protest, because in the photo I've seen he's wearing what looks like a black surgical mask. I think he and the other fellow were part of the problem.
Please, tell me about this "fascism" and why the alt-right (who neither generally are violent nor endorse violence), et al. deserves more disdain than the far-left extremists (who actually are violent) and their left-wing apologists (who endorse, or at least, defend the violence).
I'll be happy to explain what I write, not what you write that isn't that. Most of the people who opposed the Nazis, white supremacists, and Klan in Charlottesville weren't racists, weren't Antifa. And there moral superiority is established prima facie for the reasons given prior.
Yes, the people I was actually talking about are making a gentler mistake than the people they distinguish themselves from. But pulling a single word out of that context is one way to avoid the actual proffer. A silly waste of time, but a way.
But you must be joking! Because, apparently, wanton rioting, vandalism and arson are "gentler"!
You must be desperate, because there's no other reason to try to cherry pick and cobble the way you did. The people I'm talking about aren't Antifa. That was made plain enough in the context you removed.
Why on earth should that be the sole criterion? "Yes, I understand that these people are in favor of extrajudicial violence and political terrorism AND ACTUALLY COMMIT SUCH VIOLENCE, but THESE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE MINORITIES! They don't actually advocate violence against them, but they would much rather prefer to live without them than with them. So they are AUTOMATICALLY worse than the people calling for extrajudicial violence!"
None of that is responsive. None of that reduces to my actual position...I didn't think there was much for you to do beyond the "creative" and there you go again.
Are you listening to yourself right now?
One of us has to.
