Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

True, but is it possible some of their marches are infiltrated to some degree by said groups?

Sure, they're not exactly a top down centralized hierarchy tightly controlling every detail. 

[Lord Liaden]

The Belgian Congo was pretty impressive too.

 

Of course there were a whole lot of less industrial, but still effective, genocides in the 19th and 20th centuries, at times involving entire continents.

 

What is probably more common is mass death through famine and disease, related to various proportions of incompetence, neglect and malice. A good example is the Bengal Famine in 1943-44, where it is currently estimated that over 2 million Indians died under the British administration.

 

Genocide is deeply woven into the fabric of human history. Just as one example, Julius Caesar in his famous chronicles of his campaigns in Gaul, boasted of the hundreds of thousands of civilian Gauls he had slaughtered,

[sinanju]

Can we agree that Nazis and white supremacists are their own special category and don't really belong in any "both sides do it" framing?

 

No, we can't. 

 

Using the threat of violence--or actual violence--to intimidate and stifle the speech of people you disagree with is beyond the pale, no matter who you are. No matter who THEY are. If you want to claim to be better than Nazis and white supremacists, then be better. Don't pretend that some folk on your side aren't doing exactly the same things. Don't try to tell us it's different when you do it. It isn't.

[Sociotard]

I think he was saying that right-wingers WANT to be better than Nazis, and generally are better, and it's unfair to have Nazis lumped into the right-wing "side"

[Badger]

Sure, they're not exactly a top down centralized hierarchy tightly controlling every detail. 

 

Fair enough, that tends to be the problem with protest in general.

[Badger]

I think he was saying that right-wingers WANT to be better than Nazis, and generally are better, and it's unfair to have Nazis lumped into the right-wing "side"

 

*sarcasm alert*

 

But, it's easier just to call those who disagree with you Nazis, where have you been the last 10 years.

 

 

(if you don't you might actually humanize those you disagree with*)

 

 

*While I am not sure that is a good thing to do with Nazis and white supremacists, but recent events have shown you throw those accusations at the "enemy" and then make sure it is true. Instead of the other way around.

[megaplayboy]

I think the appearance of actual ​neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. affords a wonderful opportunity for those on the right to create that separation and make that distinction--"We don't support those guys, those guys are a-holes and we're not white supremacists, etc."  That's an easy layup.  Thus far, unfortunately, the current president has failed to seize that opportunity, while plenty of Republican pols have, including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  

[Badger]

I will say a lot of those people, probably are not racist (or rather they aren't to their "knowledge").  As a person who does live in VA, I do know quite a few people who do identify with that flag, due to their ancestry.  I wont claim they aren't heavily misguided, probably.  And have bought into the mystique of that war, that was built from ashes of the South.  But, they aren't racists per se.  (or some of them, some are, of course, but it is obvious that outside of the South, the rest of the country know it only through stereotypes, and no desire to move beyond that).

 

As somewhat of a historian, I don't like seeing things destroyed, good or bad.  People don't really move beyond it towards closure.  They either forget it altogether, or paint it a shade that helps them sleep easier.  When it should be acknowledged for what it is, no mattere how clean or dirty.  "history repeats, and all"

[Badger]

I think the appearance of actual ​neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. affords a wonderful opportunity for those on the right to create that separation and make that distinction--"We don't support those guys, those guys are a-holes and we're not white supremacists, etc."  That's an easy layup.  Thus far, unfortunately, the current president has failed to seize that opportunity, while plenty of Republican pols have, including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.  

 

Well, both parties seem to thrive on racial division, so unfortunately good luck with that.

 

FWIW, I think Trump did speak out condemning the action,  but I don't know how generic or specific he made it. 

[megaplayboy]

I will say a lot of those people, probably are not racist (or rather they aren't to their "knowledge").  As a person who does live in VA, I do know quite a few people who do identify with that flag, due to their ancestry.  I wont claim they aren't heavily misguided, probably.  And have bought into the mystique of that war, that was built from ashes of the South.  But, they aren't racists per se.  (or some of them, some are, of course, but it is obvious that outside of the South, the rest of the country know it only through stereotypes, and no desire to move beyond that).

 

As somewhat of a historian, I don't like seeing things destroyed, good or bad.  People don't really move beyond it towards closure.  They either forget it altogether, or paint it a shade that helps them sleep easier.  When it should be acknowledged for what it is, no mattere how clean or dirty.  "history repeats, and all"

The guy who allegedly ran down the crowd was from Ohio.  I don't think the people assembled for the Unite the Right event fall into the category you're talking about.  

[Lord Liaden]

FWIW, I think Trump did speak out condemning the action,  but I don't know how generic or specific he made it. 

 

Trump did condemn, "in the strongest possible terms," the actions "on all sides." In other words, condemn the result, but don't actually blame specific parties, some of whom probably include supporters of his.

 

In the meantime, his other words -- about immigration restriction, tightened security, loosened bounds for law-enforcement -- are taken by extremists as code-words of tacit support, emboldening them.

[Badger]

The guy who allegedly ran down the crowd was from Ohio.  I don't think the people assembled for the Unite the Right event fall into the category you're talking about.  

 

Probably not,  I am just saying that some of the people there might have been. (still pilfering through info, so my thoughts on that could vary wildly at any moment, I generally avoid the news on weekends)

[sinanju]

I think he was saying that right-wingers WANT to be better than Nazis, and generally are better, and it's unfair to have Nazis lumped into the right-wing "side"

 

Yeah, but calling everyone who disagrees with you, or criticizes your politics, a "nazi" or a "racist" is a great way to smear everyone on that side of the aisle. Which is why they do it.

[sinanju]

Trump did condemn, "in the strongest possible terms," the actions "on all sides." In other words, condemn the result, but don't actually blame specific parties, some of whom probably include supporters of his.

 

In the meantime, his other words -- about immigration restriction, tightened security, loosened bounds for law-enforcement -- are taken by extremists as code-words of tacit support, emboldening them.

 

How extremists (of any stripe) take his words is not Trump's responsibility--or any other politician's responsibility, when extremists take their words to mean whatever they claim. Extremists will hear what they want to hear, or claim to hear it. Some of those extremists will be on the other side, and will use those alleged words of tacit support ("dogwhistles") to villify the politician who spoke them.

[Burrito Boy]

I think the appearance of actual ​neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. affords a wonderful opportunity for those on the right to create that separation and make that distinction--"We don't support those guys, those guys are a-holes and we're not white supremacists, etc." That's an easy layup. Thus far, unfortunately, the current president has failed to seize that opportunity, while plenty of Republican pols have, including Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Is your emphasis on the word actual a sarcastic reference to my saying "actual Nazis" in a previous post? I used that phrase because you used the word Nazi in your earlier post, not the term Neo-Nazi. I assumed you were using the word the way it's used so often recently--as a slur against anybody with opposing views. It seems like everybody is a Nazi these days. There are soup Nazis, grammar Nazis, and so on. Then you have people calling the president Hitler. George Bush is Hitler. Barack Obama is Hitler. Donald Trump is Hitler. The words Nazi and Hitler have been thrown around so much in recent years that they're losing their meaning and belittling the enormity of what the Nazis did. Which is why I made the distinction between "Nazis" as the word is commonly used and "actual Nazis". It was stupid of me not to realize Neo-Nazis were also involved when the KKK was present and I apologize for assuming that you were using the word Nazi simply as a pejorative. However, if you were making a sly attempt at insulting me, I'd appreciate it if you would stop.

[megaplayboy]

Nah, I was pointing out that the people involved here are much closer to being actual Nazis​. No insult intended.  I don't throw the word around casually.  Generally the people I describe as racist, fascist or Nazi are pretty close to the genuine article*.

 

(*though I'd note that racial biases and prejudices are better thought of as a spectrum(0-255) than as a binary construct(1 or 0).)

[Burrito Boy]

Nah, I was pointing out that the people involved here are much closer to being actual Nazis​. No insult intended. I don't throw the word around casually. Generally the people I describe as racist, fascist or Nazi are pretty close to the genuine article*.

 

(*though I'd note that racial biases and prejudices are better thought of as a spectrum(0-255) than as a binary construct(1 or 0).)

Okay. Sorry for jumping to conclusions again.

 

Personally, I would set the spectrum at 0-500, but otherwise I think we're good here.

[Badger]

Nah, I was pointing out that the people involved here are much closer to being actual Nazis​. No insult intended.  I don't throw the word around casually.  Generally the people I describe as racist, fascist or Nazi are pretty close to the genuine article*.

 

(*though I'd note that racial biases and prejudices are better thought of as a spectrum(0-255) than as a binary construct(1 or 0).)

 

Unfortunately, you might be the lone voice of reason. 

 

Note: And yeah, I do put it on a spectrum, don't know the numbers however.  For example, I know of one person in their 70s, whose only racial bigotry is being uncomfortable with interracial marriage, and it is specifically due to when they come of age, it was a stigma towards interracial kids.

[Nolgroth]

For once, I don't have a lot to say. I can argue any salient points later maybe. Right now, it just doesn't seem to be the right time to bicker. I watched the video of the vehicular murder and it is chilling. No matter what label that guy applies to himself, the one I would use is "evil." 

 

My heart goes out to the families of those senselessly taken from this Earth. There is going to be a long road of pain and healing before them. 

[Pariah]

This might sound weird, but I wanted to thank you all for carrying on a rational, respectful discussion. In the face of what's happening in Charlottesville right now, it gives me hope for the future to see people of different backgrounds and opinions trying to understand each other instead of resorting to yelling, name-calling, and threats.

 

I don't know why, but these events have hit me harder than I expected. For really the first time, I've begun to despair for the future of my country, and the world my kids are going to have to grow up in. It's been hard for me to process. I've begun to succumb to cynicism about the fate of the United States and the world.

 

So thank you for reminding me that there are still grown-ups out there who are genuinely interested in making the world a better place than it is today.

[megaplayboy]

I think there should be room, in civil discussion, to respond or object to a statement or sentiment you find objectionable or inaccurate or insensitive, without resorting to hard broad labels that are likely to end a discussion rather than start one.  If someone makes a broad generalization about a demographic group which one feels is inaccurate, stereotyping etc, then one can call out the statement in a way that doesn't immediately end discussion, imo.  "I don't think your statement is entirely accurate" or "that generalization seems overbroad, statistics don't really support that", etc.  People often fall back on their personal experiences and often, while that shapes their perspectives and impressions, it may be a small slice or even create a distorted picture of what the larger overall situation actually is.  To say, "well, that may be your experience, but to give a sense of the bigger picture, let me share my experience, and also talk a bit about what members of [demographic group under discussion] have told me or said about this", may be a productive response and lead to further discussion.  Simply to understand the perspective of another is to learn and gain knowlege and, ultimately, wisdom.  

That said, if one engages in discussion with sensitivity and in good faith, and it becomes clear that the other party is discussing in bad faith or that the dialogue is pointless(e.g., one is talking with a hardcore bigot), then label away!

[Sociotard]

Guys let's be careful. I like having a place to discuss politics on the NGD.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Sometimes there is a place for anger. Historical perspective is all well and good, and certainly informs us, but in times like this we should be angry. Indeed, it is imperative that we be angry when our nature as a nation is under attack.

 

I did something today I have not done in decades. I wrote a letter to the President. He won't read it -- it's possible that nobody at all will read it -- but I had to get it out. He wimped out yesterday, while at the same time singing his own praises as if the point of the exercise was to make himself look good. I actually watched that speech, and my gall rose higher and higher with every word. I had the strong desire to rake him over the coals for it, so I did.

 

I chose my words carefully, but I did not mince words either.

 

Even his own party is calling him out over that speech.

 

There is a time for anger. There is a time for outrage. This is that time.

[Lord Liaden]

How extremists (of any stripe) take his words is not Trump's responsibility--or any other politician's responsibility, when extremists take their words to mean whatever they claim. Extremists will hear what they want to hear, or claim to hear it. Some of those extremists will be on the other side, and will use those alleged words of tacit support ("dogwhistles") to villify the politician who spoke them.

 

There I have to respectfully disagree with you. Most politicians are aware that because they're in positions of authority, their words carry the power of the State, and thus carry the State's implicit backing. That's why most politicians choose their words very carefully, have other eyes vet their prepared statements, to assure as much as possible that the message sent will have only the implications they want.

 

If Trump wasn't aware in advance of how his latest comments would be taken by certain parties, then he's only a fool. But his past pattern of public statements tells me he's not that big a fool. Unlike his harsh and very specific accusations toward and condemnations of other nations, ethnic and religious minorities, political opponents, Trump's responses to provocative statements and even actions by right-wing and white-racist extremists have consistently been muted and vague. To me it seems clear that he believes those people make up a significant part of his base of supporters, or at least that his base has sympathy for their attitudes; and he doesn't want to alienate them.

[Pariah]

This question came up on social media today:

 

If it's appropriate to use tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons against Native American protesters in the Dakotas, then why not against white supremacists in Virginia?

 

I expect I know the answer(s), but it's still worth thinking about.