the alt-right

you think the violence against Nazis is what got people to oppose them??
these ARE nazis but this is not WWII. yes, we don't want things to progress further and lament that we didn't nip it in the bud while we had a chance. but getting pre-emptively violent with them at this point is neither smart tactics or morally laudable imo.

Violence against Nazis is what ended Nazism and made most of Europe a liberal society for the last 70 years.

I mean I'm willing to debate strategy/tactics. As I said upthread, I don't think violence should be the automatic, knee-jerk response, and I don't think it poorly-thought-out, random lashing out type of violence is necessarily effective. But let's face it, the people who descended on Charlottesville were there to start a riot. Once they start it, what do you do? Tell people not to fight back?

No I more mean that people like him need to have people disrupt their echo chambers.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive)

this tends not to work out in practice. nobody is going to reconsider their beliefs because one of their 153 friends is outspokenly anti-racist.

Violence against Nazis is what ended Nazism and made most of Europe a liberal society for the last 70 years.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive)

none of us are fucking eisenhower here, we're rosa luxemburg.

I don't think it changes people's beliefs but I do actually think it weakens people's confidence and makes them more circumspect.

none of us are fucking eisenhower here, we're rosa luxemburg.

― The Saga of Rodney Stooksbury (rushomancy), Sunday, August 13, 2017 10:16 PM (forty-seven seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm just saying that battles are never won by morality. They are won by power. There are lots of forms of power, and many of them are non-violent, but some of them are violent. And sometimes the violent kind is effective, and sometimes it's the only kind that's effective.

self defense is not "violence", man alive otm

as the memes say, we literally fought a war over this. these people literally want to kill us, and are doing so. I totally agree that non-violent demonstrations are ideal and more effective, but I also side with the neighborhood folks who physically prevented these assholes from doing home invasions in a nearby housing project. sometimes you have to fight back.

why would my hypothetical fascist ass be more "circumspect" around an anti-fascist casual acquaintance when i can (1) unfriend them myself (2) set up my friends list so that i don't share with my anti-fascist "friend" (3) ignore everything they have to say while remaining "friends" with them or (4) all of the above? this shit isn't "disruption" except in the meaningless silicon valley buzzword sense, and internet "confrontation" is a fucking joke.

Once they start it, what do you do? Tell people not to fight back?

Thought I've been pretty clear in saying I'm against pre-emptive violence against neo-Nazis, in 2017. I am pro violence against WW2 nazis (ie the ones who invaded countries, rounded up Jews etc) and am pro self-defense against neo-Nazis.
This isn't WW2. The 70 yrs since has dealt with nazism by shunning and legal justice. This is the strategy I support now.

xp http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper

I'm just saying that battles are never won by morality. They are won by power. There are lots of forms of power, and many of them are non-violent, but some of them are violent. And sometimes the violent kind is effective, and sometimes it's the only kind that's effective.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive)

i'm not making the moral argument for non-violence nor am i going to waste my time wagging my finger at someone who punches back when they get hit. i simply have yet to see any persuasive evidence that vigilante anti-fascist violence is a strategically effective use of "power".

http://i.imgur.com/EqgvG8n.gif

^^ a strategically effective use of power

emotionally effective, sure

i bet james hodgkinson wanted to be that guy pretty bad.

btw, unrelated FYI
http://5newsonline.com/2017/08/12/university-of-arkansas-responds-to-rally-photo/ (the prof ID'd by the internet is not the dude in the photo)

thanks for that link, was hearing some rumors that doxxing had gone askew

We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service.

— GoDaddy (@GoDaddy) August 14, 2017

wow, the daily stormer has finally pushed things too far!

i mean, glad they're doing this but maybe they should have thought about doing it years and years ago

xpost This all is why a lack of moral authority at the highest levels of government matters. Even if it is mostly symbolic it matters to have the president calling this shit out. Currently there is a vacuum, and without any sort of moral compass or direction all roads lead to chaos and conflict. Non violence seems most appealing when law enforcement and government does its job. Right now it is not entirely clear that either can or will do what needs to be done.

The fact that it took so long for a host of a white supremacist website to claim they violated the terms of service also seems endemic of this strange moral vacuum.

This flyer is so obviously fake but does anyone have any info on the source?

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20729288_10214398284696672_3450299999332434098_n.jpg?oh=eaebf762b79ba3eb82e6a17abda074b4&oe=5A1F6579

there are uh a lot of dynamics here but for tonight i elect to lol at the tiki torch-bearing internet nazis and the fact that the actual guys with guns are choosing to steer clear of them

Three Percenters (a very large, loose-knit militia org) has finally decided to distance themselves from the white supremacy crowd. pic.twitter.com/Vab3EZr1Hn

— JJ MacNab (@jjmacnab) August 14, 2017

I guess to put my sentiments another way, I'm always open to arguments for non-violence and I always think non-violence is preferable where effective. I just think that some of the anti-violence arguments amount to delicate sensibilities politics disguised as strategy.

E.g.

2. The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding "antifa" beating white nationalists being led out of the park 2/2

— Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) August 13, 2017

Vanilla Isis! Is what someone on my Facebook called these dudes. I laughed.

Demand that authorities break up these groups.

Ahh yes ... the authorities, like Jeff sessions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

There is no particular strategy that works best for fighting fascism or bigotry and to argue about one way or another being the right way is ridiculous - sometimes you have to have the Soviet Union expend 20 million lives rolling it back, sometimes you need damn near 100 years of mostly non-violent action until demographics change.

otm

it's more useful to discuss tactics, not strategy, imo

https://twitter.com/slpng_giants

Kind of a scary interview with Terry McAuliffe I just heard that brought up several of the issues I've wondered about. The interviewer asked him why the state did not do more, and he, very frustrated, said he did the best he could, given the crowd was heavily armed and their intel was that they had violent intentions. So wait, asked the interviewer, you allowed an armed and dangerous crowd, many of whom came in from out of state to cause trouble, to march through the city? McAuliffe was clearly frustrated, first defending the police by rightly pointing out that despite all the guns not a single shot was fired, not a single window broken, but then also reminding that the ACLU (your friend and mine) helped sue the city, which wanted to relocate the gathering to a better controlled open park, and the city lost. Which goes back to what I've been asking: when does free speech butt up against public safety? Because an armed and dangerous mob of white nationalists, while protected by free speech in terms of expression (and the 2nd amendment for guns), is innately dangerous to others. Their viewpoint is dangerous, their history is violent, they are a menace. But how can they be singled out and told they can't assemble? Can you even have a peaceful assembly with guns? If so many weapons prevented the police from getting involved earlier, doesn't that again go back to the issue of whether they should have been there at all? It's a constitutional catch-22 (which the gun-happy right has made great progress with exploiting).

https://www.buzzfeed.com/blakemontgomery/heres-what-really-happened-in-charlottesville?utm_term=.xtQzxYqZ#.knkZrGOE

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. 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 — it’s like they watched 300 a few times — to gain ground or shepherd someone through projectiles. It seemed that they had practiced for this. Virginia’s governor said that the right’s weaponry was better than that of the state police.

If this is the case, it's worth it to consider whether ACLU really did due diligence. Yeah, free speech rights, but if their clients are planning for violence, and they don't check for it, that's their fault, imo. This isn't a mistake, this wasn't unforeseeable, this is a violent ideology that is being planned and funded somewhere. It's bullshit when Greenwald is writing about Milo Literally nothing has helped Yiannopoulos become a national cult figure more than the well-intentioned (but failed) efforts to deny him a platform while actual journalists are digging into the large funding he is clearly receiving from somewhere, probably the Mercers.

I've had a couple friends-of-friends post "BUT BLM IS JUST AS RACIST!!!" shit and I've posted photos of BLM marches full of white faces and asked them to counter with photos of black people marching with the alt-right/kkk/nazis. So far nobody has taken me up on this. Or replied. Or anything.

Also the president of the college republicans at my alma mater/former employer was carrying a torch in Charlottesville on Friday (which is absolutely unsurprising as he's a horrible right wing troll who obviously aspires to be a racist media hero) and there seems to be a huge mass of people arguing for his expulsion and denouncing the new president's wishy-washy statement. Not sure how this ends up but he's backtracking like a motherfucker right now.

hee hee

Blood and soil(ed himself) pic.twitter.com/TzGbVv1Chz

— Jesse Fernandez (@JesseFernandez) August 13, 2017

I've had a couple friends-of-friends post "BUT BLM IS JUST AS RACIST!!!"

Question: are the people saying this mixing up the Charlottesville KKK people with "mainstream" Trump supporters? Or do they really think that Black Lives Matter is equivalent to people who carry swastika flags and AR-15s?

Either way it's an idiotic false equivalence but still. To what extent are everyday Fox News watchers willing to go to bat for something like white nationalism?

my perusal of social media suggests they are very much committed to the idea that BLM is literally the black KKK

Yes, they think of BLM as a violent extremist group that rampages across American cities committing atrocities.

which i'm quite certain, as the heat from this incident dissipates, mainstream conservative outlets will happily amplify

if this asshole (trump) doesn't get his fat ass off his golf course and go give a speech denunciating white supremacy down in charlottesville (where he has a goddamn winery, for fuck's sake) today or tomorrow at the latest, then fuck the entire GOP

every cop killed anywhere, every window broken in civil unrest is a directive straight BLM leaders

*straight from

Fuck them anyway

if this asshole (trump) doesn't get his fat ass off his golf course and go give a speech denunciating white supremacy down in charlottesville (where he has a goddamn winery, for fuck's sake) today or tomorrow at the latest, then fuck the entire GOP

A begrudging denunciation under pressure doesn't mean a lot.

It seems... not in his interest to avoid denouncing them. Like, what is the national approval rating for the KKK? For vehicular homicide?

idk i do think his playing footsie with these clowns is what actually got him elected.

if he denounces i don't see how the Miller/ Bannon element doesn't convince him to make some dumbass equivalencies. and it's p clear those equivalencies (up to this point, anyway) play in Peoria

He won by appealing to some of the ideas the militia people represent -- which appeal to conservative voters -- but I think it's a bit different now that there are images of people carrying swastikas and shit. And because a person has died.

Or maybe I am just wrong and everyone's elderly aunt is down with white power prison gang stuff.

I just want him to become radioactive to the Republicans so we can start the process of that party's disintegration.