White supremacy run amok

[slowtraveler]

I'm personally more scared of butt cancer.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Um, first off, I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable discourse for Dragline to ask Brute to back up his claim that political correctness is a bigger problem than white supremacy. Indeed, I find it quite relevant to the idea that narratives of white persecution are typically false. "Erasing the thread" up to the point Dragline called bullshit on the claim is a little convenient.

@Brute, back it up or back down, please. We'll take silence as the latter.

@C40:

I think a lot of your suggestions were attempted at this event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unit ... ourt_cases

The right wingers applied for a permit in Emancipation park where the statue of an old racist traitor will be pulled down. The city wanted to move the event to the larger McIntire Park where they could better contain it. Their reasoning was safety and logistical concerns, citing the proximity to densely crowded Downtown Mall (where the Nazi ended up killing the protester). The Downtown Business Association of Charlottesville praised this decision.

Counterprotesters ultimately obtained permits to gather at McGuffey Park, Justice Park, and Emancipation Park--not McIntire Park, apparently, where the city wanted the Nazis. They were supposed to be separate.

However, the right-wingers sued for the right to rally in Emancipation Park*, and Bush-appointed judge Glen Conrad decided the night before the event to provide an injunction allowing the rally to go forward in Emancipation park on the grounds of free speech.

In other words, whatever plans the city police had made to contain and keep the rally separate went out the window because a right wing judge decided the free speech of Nazis and KKK was more important than the safety and logistical concerns of the city, business associations, and people of Charlottesville.

All this is ignoring that the rallies and marches both Friday night and Saturday morning were NOT under permit and were deemed illegal and shut down by police. The KKK and its allies formed their torch-wielding mob and beat up students (some as young as 17) on the UVA campus without, to my knowledge, any permit or permission to do so. Likewise, they began rallying (and by some reports, breaking into homes) in unrelated locations at unpermitted times on Saturday.

(*Note also, btw, that the ACLU appears to be defending the Unite the Right organizers in their lawsuit against the city for moving the event. NOT, importantly, over anything to do with the events being shut down once they started the violence they came for.)

I don't really have any opinion or commentary to add except to note again that I don't trust the US government or police to protect the people from right-wing violence.

"I think the government should take more charge in having Supremacists on the "naughty list""

I do agree with this. This is one of the reasons I am insistent on calling the event terrorism and emphasizing the comparison to radical Islamic terror. (The other reason being that denying that the vehicular murder was a political act of terror is the Nazis' self-defense plea and I won't play into it.) I don't deny that terrorism in general, from all sources, is a comparatively minor risk at an individual level compared to disease and other causes of death.

Of course, white supremacy as an ideology encompasses much more than acts of terror, arguably including everything from the bloated private prison system fed by racist drug laws, to the near-daily executions of people of color by police. (Do note this, @Brute, when you go to compare all this against political correctness and the quantity of hurt white feelings.)

But I digress... Basically, I don't necessarily disagree with your measures. I just don't think, even if the government could be trusted to implement and carry them out, that they'd be sufficient to stop violence as a direct consequence of Nazis, KKK, and the like being allowed to organize and commit violence under the guise of free assembly/speech.

Controlling the narrative is indeed important, but that's somewhat up to the media. On that note, the CNN coverage sounds dismaying. I don't really trust CNN, as a rule, so I question that CNN's photograph selection accurately represented what happened. Moreover, it would be foolish to assume that the side with the most injuries was also the most innocent of inciting violence, although I do agree that would be the widely assumed narrative. It's certainly an interesting contradiction to think that "liberal" CNN would sensationalize the event in a way that's sympathetic to the right wing. Interesting indeed.

@Campitor:

"Until you get someone in power who may feel otherwise. This type of abuse was one of the reasons why we revolted against the established monarchy."

I would argue we already have people in power who not only think anti-fascism should be a fringe opinion, but would happily take any excuse to deny more rights to ordinary citizens. It's still a slippery slope argument to assume censoring Nazis will lead to censoring everyone else. I'm curious if there are actual examples of this happening. Again, the most obvious counter-example is Germany, who neatly removed Nazism from its rights to speech and assembly.

"Yet we continue to place our trust in government for our own personal safety - maybe we shouldn't do that. Or perhaps municipalities should pass laws against carrying gladiator gear/bats/batons/torches during marches."

These are somewhat contradictory points, but of the two I think I lean more toward the former. I would also think disarming people is at least as Constitutionally contradictory as limiting their speech.

"I defend speech, regardless of offensiveness, as long as it remains peaceful and outside the realm of violent calls to action... All citizens have the right to defend themselves or prevent harm to the innocent."

Agreed. I think where the substantive differences in our opinions would be that 1) rallying for white supremacist beliefs that necessitate genocide or eugenics in the pursuit of an ethno-state is intrinsically a violent call to action and 2) prevention of harm to the innocent should be proactive, not reactive, to the fullest extent possible.

@Felipe:

See my response to C40 above as to why I emphasize the word "terrorism". I don't deny that terrorism in general, from all sources, is a comparatively minor risk at an individual level compared to disease and other causes of death. I also agree with your other post regarding Bush-era alarmism over the term.

[Spartan_Warrior]

BTW, some scientific reporting I stumbled across the other day, related to the discussion of free speech, prejudice, and fear of political correctness. I would note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but that would just be too politically correct.

Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins 'free speech defense' of racist language

"It isn't so much that these controversies make prejudiced people feel bad about themselves; instead, it seems to be driven partially by prejudiced people feeling like they are not free to live how they want to live and say what they want to say — they feel as if their freedom is under attack."

[C40]

BTW, some scientific reporting I stumbled across the other day, related to the discussion of free speech, prejudice, and fear of political correctness. I would note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but that would just be too politically correct.

Research shows prejudice, not principle, often underpins 'free speech defense' of racist language

"It isn't so much that these controversies make prejudiced people feel bad about themselves; instead, it seems to be driven partially by prejudiced people feeling like they are not free to live how they want to live and say what they want to say — they feel as if their freedom is under attack."

Just to clarify the numbers - if I'm understanding the statistics right, this:

Indeed, the new study reveals a positive correlation (Pearson r = .43) between having racial prejudice and defending racist speech using the “free speech argument” — a stronger correlation than the researchers expected.

means the study found that 18% of people who defend racist free speech using the "Free speech argument" have racial prejudice, and that this amount was higher than they expected to find. (18% is the r value squared)

[C40]

@C40:

I think a lot of your suggestions were attempted at this event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Unit ... ourt_cases

The right wingers applied for a permit in Emancipation park where the statue of an old racist traitor will be pulled down. The city wanted to move the event to the larger McIntire Park where they could better contain it. Their reasoning was safety and logistical concerns, citing the proximity to densely crowded Downtown Mall (where the Nazi ended up killing the protester). The Downtown Business Association of Charlottesville praised this decision.

Counterprotesters ultimately obtained permits to gather at McGuffey Park, Justice Park, and Emancipation Park--not McIntire Park, apparently, where the city wanted the Nazis. They were supposed to be separate.

However, the right-wingers sued for the right to rally in Emancipation Park*, and Bush-appointed judge Glen Conrad decided the night before the event to provide an injunction allowing the rally to go forward in Emancipation park on the grounds of free speech.

In other words, whatever plans the city police had made to contain and keep the rally separate went out the window because a right wing judge decided the free speech of Nazis and KKK was more important than the safety and logistical concerns of the city, business associations, and people of Charlottesville.

All this is ignoring that the rallies and marches both Friday night and Saturday morning were NOT under permit and were deemed illegal and shut down by police. The KKK and its allies formed their torch-wielding mob and beat up students (some as young as 17) on the UVA campus without, to my knowledge, any permit or permission to do so. Likewise, they began rallying (and by some reports, breaking into homes) in unrelated locations at unpermitted times on Saturday.

Jeez.. a last minute decision by the judge to change what had been organized seems like a horrible undermining of the local authorities' ability to help keep people safe. I guess that's the kind of thing you get sometimes with the government.

I wonder if the local authorities had an indication of how numerous the attendees would be? In all the imagery I've seen it looks like the police presence was severely under-manned and in many cases, not present at all.

Also, for the measures I was describing, I had much more in mind that to allow them to go in separate parks. I'm talking a full organized event, where you'd allow the thing to happen in a much larger area than those parks are (McEntire park looks large enough, but not accessible enough), where you can control the movement of groups by allowing the supremacists to on enter on the east half of the area, and the others to enter only on the west half, then you have a no-mans land set up in the middle with two rows of barricades and a lot of police in that no man's zone, and you put a little stage for the supremacists at some point along this no-man's land border, and probably one for the normal people on their side. (you have the supremacists stage close to the border so the normal people can drown out their speeches, but maybe you put the normal people's stage back from the border so their speeches work better, and then in the news and such you have some clear, audible clips for the news of people expressing their disapproval of the supremacists beliefs and actions. This would all take a LOT of police and probably help from other organizations to control where the people go, plus work to set up the barriers and stages, plus work to publicize the expectations and requirements of where people go. But again, if we're fighting terrorism, all this would still be incredible cheap compared to what's being spent on international terrorism. This stuff seems simple. There should be a written Standard for how to manage these events, a little handbook with guidelines and standard practices of how to do it all. It seems like straightforward stuff. If you expect [X] number of people to come, you need [Y] # of police offers, you need the areas for them to gather to be [ABC] size, you need [D] amount of barricades, porta potties, mobile jail or arrest processing stations, etc. Maybe that's a pipe dream to expect that level of organization in the government (in the private sector of manufacturing, this is a level of organization you'd expect to be managed ok by shift supervisors in a factory, which is an entry level position for people with management aspirations).

The military, NSA, etc. definitely seem to operate at a WAY higher level of organization and sophistication in order to fight terrorism.

But I digress... Basically, I don't necessarily disagree with your measures. I just don't think, even if the government could be trusted to implement and carry them out, that they'd be sufficient to stop violence as a direct consequence of Nazis, KKK, and the like being allowed to organize and commit violence under the guise of free assembly/speech.

I agree, I don't think what I'm talking about is enough to control growth, but I think it could make a huge difference in how big events like this one go.

On that note, the CNN coverage sounds dismaying. I don't really trust CNN, as a rule, so I question that CNN's photograph selection accurately represented what happened. Moreover, it would be foolish to assume that the side with the most injuries was also the most innocent of inciting violence, although I do agree that would be the widely assumed narrative.

Yeah, I was perplexed. Particularly when reading reports of the supremacists being the ones that incited violence, but then a liberal news source depicting almost only violence being done to the supremacists.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@C40:

Been a while since I used statistics of that sort tbh, but you may be right. I guess that is a low Pearson coefficient? I don't know, and I can't access the full study for a deeper explanation or any other factors supporting the conclusion.

"Also, for the measures I was describing, I had much more in mind... if we're fighting terrorism, all this would still be incredible cheap compared to what's being spent on international terrorism."

Fair enough. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with those measures.

But should we go to all the same trouble if radical Islamists want to hold a torch-and-gun-bearing rally around the goal of wiping out white Americans and creating an Islamic ethno-state governed by Sharia law? Would we go to the same trouble?

Is it not an interesting dichotomy that the solution to that would likely be immediate state suppression, but the solution to white supremacists doing the same must be one that accommodates their rights to the fullest interpretable extent?

"Maybe that's a pipe dream to expect that level of organization in the government (in the private sector of manufacturing, this is a level of organization you'd expect to be managed ok by shift supervisors in a factory, which is an entry level position for people with management aspirations)."

Well, keep in mind that level of organization is attributable to the authoritarian top-down hierarchical structure of private corporations. You could likely achieve that level of organization with an authoritarian government, whereas in a representative government the inefficiency is considered a feature, not a bug.

"The military, NSA, etc. definitely seem to operate at a WAY higher level of organization and sophistication in order to fight terrorism. "

Right. Without commentary as to whether the current level of attention toward terrorism is correct, I'd like to see that attention applied equally to white supremacist terror. White supremacist groups like Nazis and KKK should be considered terrorist groups roughly on par with ISIS. Are they?

[C40]

Been a while since I used statistics of that sort tbh, but you may be right. I guess that is a low Pearson coefficient? I don't know, and I can't access the full study for a deeper explanation or any other factors supporting the conclusion.

Yeah, IMO, 18% is not a strong correlation. (again, I'm not 100% sure I'm interpreting the statistics right, I never enjoyed the technical parts of stats)

The way of looking at the number that makes it large is like this: if only 4% of the population are prejudiced [number made up for an example], but 18% of the free speech defenders are, then a free speech defender is 4.5 times more likely to be prejudiced than a random person.

Sometimes, using numbers that way can make them look scary, like saying that pooping sitting on a toilet (vs squatting) increases your risk of colon cancer by 50%, but if the risk while squatting is 0.2%, then we're talking about a 0.1% increase in risk. (these pooping cancer numbers are entirely made up for an example)

But should we go to all the same trouble if radical Islamists want to hold a torch-and-gun-bearing rally around the goal of wiping out white Americans and creating an Islamic ethno-state governed by Sharia law? Would we go to the same trouble?

That's a good point. My feeling definitely slants towards not going to the same trouble.(but it's because I think radical islamists are currently more dangerous, as I'll touch on below). I'm sure the vast population of the U.S. would also not go to the same trouble, or would want the U.S. to go straight to the effort of rounding up all of them based on things like their emails and internet comments, and put them in jail for a long time.

Edit - to add, I guess the question is, what are the options and alternatives here? There seem to be:
- Continue as now
- Some amount of government influence like what I'm talking about around managing the events, plus there could be more 'behind the scenes stuff' aimed at causing problems for the supremacists' leaders and making their effort innefective
- Making all Supremacists expressions illegal like in Germany
- Fighting white supremacy with the same kind of strategies applied to international radical islamic terrorism
- Or other cultural methods - To make supremacist views more culturally unacceptable than they are now. I'm not sure what or how - maybe including large scale ostracism of supremacists, or maybe supporting them as you would the mentally ill
- Other methods by (groups of) private citizens, doing similar things the government could above, or attacking supremacists, or ???

Is it not an interesting dichotomy that the solution to that would likely be immediate state suppression, but the solution to white supremacists doing the same must be one that accommodates their rights to the fullest interpretable extent?

Yep, but, well, I'm suggesting to accommodate their rights to the smallest interpretable extent.

But I'm very far from an expert on what the interpretable extents of rights actually are. I guess there's what was discussed earlier in this thread, that if they start talking about killing people, that's outside of their free speech rights. (?)

Without commentary as to whether the current level of attention toward terrorism is correct, I'd like to see that attention applied equally to white supremacist terror. White supremacist groups like Nazis and KKK should be considered terrorist groups roughly on par with ISIS. Are they?

I think I agree that white supremacists groups should be considered terrorist groups and pursued more aggressively**. The impact of supremacists and ISIS within the U.S. borders seems roughly on par over the last 15 years, (when we're not including 9/11). The current worldwide impact of ISIS is way higher than of supremacists. ISIS has literally taken over parts of countries, taken control of commerce, levied taxes, shared videos of them cutting peoples' heads off, and so on. So I guess the comparison starts to get complicated as it brings in the question of focusing on issues in the U.S. vs controlling or policing the world.

** for example, we have politicians calling the guy a terrorist, and a huge deal being made over whether the president calls him a terrorist, but the car crash guy is only being charged with 2nd degree murder, and I haven't seen any big deal being made over how the prosecutors and charges against him aren't calling him a terrorist. IMO, how he's charged speaks louder than what some politicians say in tweets.

[Riggerjack]

They are a marginal group at best, and as C40 has pointed out disinterest and ostracizing work best with fringe groups such as these. What you don't do is give them a national platform and engage in violence with them to protest their existence.

This. We had these fools almost laughed off the stage. For decades, the neonazis and Kkk were a joke. Stupid people playing dress up so they could stand on a soapbox and get a little attention.

For the record I am fine with stupid/unpleasant people standing up and identifying themselves. Even when they do it on a stage, instead of using bumper stickers.

I followed all the links, and it's shocking how different the stories in those links were from how they were presented here. For instance SW linked to the guy beaten by a pole as proof of nazi evil. But when I read it, it was the story of a counter protestor who, with his buddies taunted the other side, a fight broke out, and someone picked up a tool. Shocking. It's almost like evolution has selected for tool use and violence in young men. I'm just saying, if you don't want to get beat by Nazis, finding, and taunting Nazis seems an odd tactic.

From my perspective, severely uninterested in Nazis and nazi hating, there doesn't seem to be a difference between fascists and antifascist. Same tactics, same rhetoric, equally full of shit.

Maybe it is my disinterest, but this fascist/antifascist bs seems far less threatening than the constant call to arms certain members of this forum have been pushing for nearly a year. I get it. You are radical leftists. And that really doesn't work out if you can't find a threatening radical right to play your vicious/evil/ignorant/racist ad nauseum bad guy. So there has been a constant drumbeat of "racist/white power threats " exaggerated and screamed from to rooftops by the radical left.

Great. Now you have them.

They aren't empowered by the WH. They are empowered BY YOU. Everyone else can recognize a basement dwelling loser for what he is, but you need that loser to be a legit threat. And you have done everything in your power to give him the attention and status he craves. I see a basement dwelling loser, who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse. You see the fascist thug capable of bringing this country to it's knees. Which of those narratives do you think recruits Nazis?

There have been numerous calls on people to pick a side. Either you embrace my ideas and join us, or you are a sympathizer. Well, I'm not a very sympathetic person, but as much as I can be, I'm a nazi sympathizer. I am sympathetic to the guy who is so lonely and pathetic, that joining that group of losers seems comforting. I am also sympathetic to the people who feel threatened by said loser. I am also sympathetic to the people of Charlottesville, who had this giant pile of shit hit their town. I know how it feels, it's similar to the WTO riots here in Seattle, back in the day. But, it gets better. With time, this just goes back to "that time when..." stories. And that's really all the sympathy i have, I think.

So there you have it. With you or against you? I'm against you. I'm against radicalizing left or right. I'm against hating any group, regardless of their stupidity. I'm against empowering people with disgusting ideas and ideals to strengthen the bond between me and my faction.

Your emotional neediness has turned Nazis from a joke to a threat. Not a level of threat approaching that posed by lawnmowers, mind you, but no longer a joke.

Congratulations.

[BRUTE]

Your emotional neediness has turned Nazis from a joke to a threat. Not a level of threat approaching that posed by lawnmowers, mind you, but no longer a joke.

Congratulations.

once again, Riggerjack has said it better than brute ever could.

emotional overreaction is not the solution. it creates the problem. in fact, if brute's theory is correct, a decade of PC has revived the Nazi/white supremacist movement and therefore caused the death of that lady.

[BRUTE]

@Brute, back it up or back down, please. We'll take silence as the latter.

no.

brute explicitly stated how hard it is to measure and compare. that it's hard to measure doesn't mean it's untrue. that was why brute posted the absurd butt cancer vs. white supremacy stats example - facts are most often meaningless, and insistence upon them, like Dragline with his hilarious "the data" schtick, is what freshmen do before they learn that it's hard to prove things unless one is already convinced of them.

[C40]

Oh boy.




I do think Rigger brings up a good point about the 'losers in the basement'. I've been hearing more and more about how young men are struggling and not adapting well to society, not learning social skills very well, then getting frustrated because they can't get girlfriends or get laid, can't or don't feel like they can succeed financially, and so on. Then some of these guys start blame groups for their personal challenges and inabilities. They decide the problem is the women, the problem is the feminists, the problem is [and so on]...

I'm curious about how much this is happening compared to the recent past. Is there really an increase? Am I just hearing about it more now? This would probably be worth a whole other thread (if there isn't already one(?))

Some of the problems that cause these young men difficulties are probably huge things like what SW has referred to relating to capital and other things. But I do have the feeling that some of these 'basement dwelling losers' could be helped a lot by being more actively welcomed into society, by being better taught how to socialize and make friends, how to form healthy relationships, etc.

[BRUTE]

Hundreds of neo-Nazis, KKK, the alt-right and other white supremacists have gathered in Virginia for what the Southern Poverty Law Center calls one of the largest hate-rallies in decades.

...

This is what comes of coddling the ridiculous narrative of white male persecution.

in fact, here's Spartan_Warrior's initial claim. maybe discussion should cease until Spartan_Warrior provides some proof that there is a causal link.

[C40]

Huh, so you guys (Spartan and Brute) have said very nearly the same thing - you each mentioned these things that some people would describe as two sides of the PC coin as what lead last weekend's ruckus.

[Riggerjack]

But, if you want data, the CDC keeps a lovely database of all causes of death. So, you could see all deaths by terror attack, whether death by Islamic loser or death by Caucasian loser, are still not as prevalent as death by lawnmowers. Nearly 1000 in 15 years.

And it will break it out into census areas. So, for instance, you are nearly 10 times as likely to feed yourself or another to a lawnmower in the South, as you are if you are in the West. Some might think that is because mowing sand is less necessary, but I'm starting to think it is because in the south, people seem to focus on the threat of the KKK, instead of real dangers... Or, maybe I'm just promoting a stereotype.

[Riggerjack]

BTW, who had the tiki torch parade idea?!?

Have you ever seen one of those things fall over? Splash of oil, with a lit wick? It's an unthrowable malotov cocktail. Why would anyone want to march with a bunch of losers carrying self immolation hobby kits? Why would you be afraid of such fools?

One of SW's links had a spensor quote bragging about moving an enormous load of men and materials into the heart of the city. Got it. He's bragging about his guy's ability to both read a map, and walk, not necessarily at the same time, but definitely able to do both. Or, walk, and know a guy who can read a map, or has an ap, or something...

How safe is your world, that THIS is what scares you?

Remember when Puerto Rican separatists had that shooting spree in Congress? Right. Don't feel bad, nobody does. That is because the world used to be a dangerous enough place that we could put a few nutty guys making threats into perspective. And forget about them entirely, as they deserve.

[Spartan_Warrior]

LOL.

"I followed all the links, and it's shocking how different the stories in those links were from how they were presented here. For instance SW linked to the guy beaten by a pole as proof of nazi evil. But when I read it, it was the story of a counter protestor who, with his buddies taunted the other side, a fight broke out, and someone picked up a tool. Shocking."

Just so I'm sure we're seeing the same article, I'll link it again.

White supremacists beat black man with poles in Charlottesville

There's a video at the top. What I see are indeed greasy losers looking like pathetic LARPers, but they're also already clearly armed with their "tools" for violence. They are then distracted by something that is not evident, and charge into a parking garage where they are seen beating a man. The article's text notes there were no police on the scene, but little else about the circumstances. It gives nothing to indicate the man beaten was even a counter-protester. It gives nothing to indicate he "and his buddies" "taunted the other side". What article did you read that gave you all this insight? Or did you simply choose to take what you wanted from it?

What's next... Oh horseshoe theory, I didn't see that coming. Yes, those opposed to fascism are exactly the same as fascists, "many sides", sure sure. A few ad hominems, what else... Ah--

"They aren't empowered by the WH."

Hm, well, David Duke disagrees. He thinks the Alt-right rally was about "the same issues as your (Donald Trump's) campaign." He thinks, "I say a lot of the same things you say."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dav ... 2472764798

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MYGNXzqwApxw

He thinks European Americans face "massive discrimination". Hm, sounds kinda familiar to the same bullshit white persecution narrative that lets people like Brute claim--without even an attempt at backing it up--that political correctness hurts more people than white supremacy.

"They are empowered BY YOU."

Right, just like Trump is everyone's fault except those who voted for him. Never heard that before. "Accuse your opponents of that which you are guilty of." (Hey, there's that horseshoe again.)

"Everyone else can recognize a basement dwelling loser for what he is, but you need that loser to be a legit threat. And you have done everything in your power to give him the attention and status he craves. I see a basement dwelling loser, who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse. You see the fascist thug capable of bringing this country to it's knees. Which of those narratives do you think recruits Nazis?"

I see basement dwelling losers who couldn't get laid in a whorehouse who are also fascist thugs with demonstrated capacities for violence against disadvantaged people, and I frankly see it as a symptom of a broader tacit approval of white supremacist and fascist notions within the US, which is the context that makes them dangerous as a group.

"I'm a nazi sympathizer... I'm against you."

And to think the other day you and Brute were outraged, outraged, that I would categorize libertarians with the rest of the right.


@Brute:

"a decade of PC has revived the Nazi/white supremacist movement and therefore caused the death of that lady."

A decade of sad losers believing in fictional oppression by PC, you mean.

Fictional oppression that when challenged can't even be defended by an argument.

"in fact, here's Spartan_Warrior's initial claim. maybe discussion should cease until Spartan_Warrior provides some proof that there is a causal link."

This thread and everything in it?

[C40]

BTW, who had the tiki torch parade idea?!?

Have you ever seen one of those things fall over? Splash of oil, with a lit wick? It's an unthrowable malotov cocktail. Why would anyone want to march with a bunch of losers carrying self immolation hobby kits?

Talk about losers. Torches were one of the earliest technological inventions in man kind. And these guys can't even make one. These are not men.

I wonder if any of them even have a workshop... now I've reminded myself of my favorite blog post, which has the line "Well, the main problem I think is that he does not have any kind of shop at home."

[Spartan_Warrior]

@C40: "I do think Rigger brings up a good point about the 'losers in the basement'. I've been hearing more and more about how young men are struggling and not adapting well to society, not learning social skills very well, then getting frustrated because they can't get girlfriends or get laid, can't or don't feel like they can succeed financially, and so on. Then some of these guys start blame groups for their personal challenges and inabilities. They decide the problem is the women, the problem is the feminists, the problem is [and so on]...

I'm curious about how much this is happening compared to the recent past. Is there really an increase? Am I just hearing about it more now? This would probably be worth a whole other thread (if there isn't already one(?))

Some of the problems that cause these young men difficulties are probably huge things like what SW has referred to relating to capital and other things. But I do have the feeling that some of these 'basement dwelling losers' could be helped a lot by being more actively welcomed into society, by being better taught how to socialize and make friends, how to form healthy relationships, etc."

I don't mind discussing it here as I see it as being relevant. I agree, they are literally losers. Primarily economically, but that bleeds into socially, especially in a culture of bourgeois attitudes where wealth and income = value to society. 4chan: The skeleton key to the rise of Trump is an article Brute posted in a Trump thread that I found surprisingly insightful to the trend.

The tiki-torches are definitely a symbol of that patheticness, but I don't think that lessens the symbolism of a torch-bearing mob, either.

[Chad]

I'm curious about how much this is happening compared to the recent past. Is there really an increase? Am I just hearing about it more now? This would probably be worth a whole other thread (if there isn't already one(?))

It's a good question. Since, 1950 the civilian labor force participation for men has fallen roughly 10%.

http://voxeu.org/article/long-term-decl ... address-it

This is probably partially from that, but also because these losers can actually contact more than one or two other losers with the internet and watch people like Alex Jones. It also allows them to see a good portion of the population essentially moving into an upper class. They aren't quite rich, but their life is beyond reach for the losers.

These people also have stronger ties to where they are from than this upper class and have different values.

Chris Arnade's twitter feed is a really good examination of this overall problem. I don't agree with all of his conclusions or certain pictures he paints, but it's about the closest explanation I have found.

https://twitter.com/Chris_arnade?ref_sr ... r%5Eauthor

[Riggerjack]

On the subject of protest security, while the suggestions that c40 came up with could help, I am concerned about the cost to taxpayers.

So might I suggest, we 'Mericanize it!

Fascists and antifascist, going head to head for the hearts and minds of the American people! We'll hold the next rally/antirally in a stadium. Keep it on camera, sell tickets, and TV rights! Pay per view! UFC ain't got nothing on this!

It would be great! But there's a problem. Look at them. Telegenic isn't the word that comes to mind. Oh, and watch the fights. That's going to be a problem.

I mean, watch that video SW posted of. Heavily Armed Militia. Look at the actual guys. Could you imagine any of them starting some shit with anyone they didn't outnumber 3:1? I mean I am a fat middle aged desk jockey, but by comparison, I look like a goddamned Viking warrior.

Then there's these antifascist heroes, whose idea of counting coup on their enemies is to put on a mask, stand behind three rows of their closest friends, lean forward, and spray pepper spray at a nazi and run away. Meanwhile their friends have been blinded by over spray, and the reacting force of Nazis get to hit em while they are blind and coughing. This kind of heroism is not likely to help the team, win the battle, or help ratings.

Maybe we could get the real guys to talk the smack, as is their talent, and about the end of their abilities, and get stunt doubles to do the fighting?

Or, maybe we could all just calmly turn our collective backs on these poseurs, and do something productive for a while.