Violence by White Supremicists on the rise

[creekster]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...eology/595435/

You agree with that thought, that the government should start investigating ideologies and seek laws against certain ideologies?

[frank ryan]

Ha! My favorite part of political CS is when someone tries to summarize a thread (erroneously in this case by SoCalCoug) and then franK uses it as common knowledge. Which is to say, it doesn’t matter if anyone said antifa and white nationalists are the same, what matters is franK believes someone said it.

It speaks to socal's point. Why do people keep bringing up antifa? In the context of this thread it's been all about how they are or aren't the same level of threat as the fascists. It started when I insisted they don't pose a threat nearly as serious. That's the context.

[SoCalCoug]

You agree with that thought, that the government should start investigating ideologies and seek laws against certain ideologies?

Do you not believe there are certain ideologies which are dangerous if allowed to proliferate? Do you not believe there are groups who identify with the white supremacist ideology who have encouraged or endorsed violence?

[creekster]

Do you not believe there are certain ideologies which are dangerous if allowed to proliferate? Do you not believe there are groups who identify with the white supremacist ideology who have encouraged or endorsed violence?

I asked what you thought. And you are unable to answer? Is it too hard? Or are you too embarrassed? Or maybe you want to be the careful attorney? You're the one that suggested that white supremacists are a threat. You posted the link. So what do you mean? It looks like you are saying, implicitly, the threat doesn't just come from their actions or possible actions, but from the ideology?

I think I have made my view pretty clear here. I think allowing, let alone encouraging, law enforcement to police ideology per se is a horrible idea. But, I don't even like the idea of hate crimes. I don't care what people think or say. I don't care why someone killed someone else, I think the issue is the murder. Moreover, I think that exalting white supremacy into a targeted ideology just feeds the problem rather than defeats it. And I don't think it is a peculiar threat to our society or government.

[falafel]

Ha! My favorite part of political CS is when someone tries to summarize a thread (erroneously in this case by SoCalCoug) and then franK uses it as common knowledge. Which is to say, it doesn’t matter if anyone said antifa and white nationalists are the same, what matters is franK believes someone said it.

My favorite part of political CS is when frank characterizes your argument as weird. I've come to realize it's his way of insulting your intelligence while appearing not to.

[creekster]

My favorite part of political CS is when frank characterizes your argument as weird. I've come to realize it's his way of insulting your intelligence while appearing not to.

You think he appears not to?

[swampfrog]

My favorite part of political CS is when frank characterizes your argument as weird. I've come to realize it's his way of insulting your intelligence while appearing not to.

Much of human discourse is indeed verbal symbolism of some kind or another. It's necessary in civil discussion to provide a mechanism to disagree without resorting to more base options or elaborate refutation. It could be worse. I can live with weird. It implies disagreement with a sense of disdain for a position as unjustifiable by a rational person. One could refer to it as "virtue signalling", but that term is overused.

[falafel]

You think he appears not to?

Well, I think he thinks he does.

[falafel]

Much of human discourse is indeed verbal symbolism of some kind or another. It's necessary in civil discussion to provide a mechanism to disagree without resorting to more base options or elaborate refutation. It could be worse. I can live with weird. It implies disagreement with a sense of disdain for a position as unjustifiable by a rational person. One could refer to it as "virtue signalling", but that term is overused.

See, I think the term "weird" as employed by frank does the opposite of what you suggest it does. Instead of simply disagreeing with an opinion and trying to keep things civil, it implies that the opinion, and therefore its author, is crass, base, or simply stupid. frank is one of the posters here most able to support his opinions with discourse and without the need to resort to ad hominem style attacks. In other words, its not necessary.

[LiveCoug]

I'm going to start a "Violence by Antifa on the rise" thread. No discussion of white supremacists allowed!

[Eddie]

No, the threat is not close to equal. We’re dealing in reality not hypothetical land. Trump and the like have postured about making antifa a terrorist group while downplaying the much greater threat from fascists. It’s poor form to paint the threats as equal. It’s interesting that it’s becoming the focus for some in this thread.

Frank - it seems weird to me that you are saying people in this thread have focused on equating white supremacy to antifa antics. Could you point out even one person who did that? Just one person who says they are equal? Or one person who said they are on the same level of "badness"? Some people have said both are bad - but even those folks have stated that white supremacists are worse. So - are you picking a fight with everyone over something no one said? Straw man much?

This is a weird hill to die on. The threat from white nationalists is one of our more serious ones. They are one of the top 2 domestic terrorism threats and it’s not receding.

Insisting that they and antifa are the same is stubborn and uninformed. It’s also unnecessary for this thread.

Weird hill to die on? All I saw him say is that we currently have laws that can address the illegal behaviors of both. Honestly - that's difficult to argue against. There are currently laws against doing physical harm to people (which is, I assume, what is intended by the word "threat".) Many places have hate crime laws to even add an element of penalty to crimes against people being committed due to their belonging to a certain group.

If some are rampaging in the streets and breaking things - or even assaulting people - then there are laws to deal with that.

If others are planning to do worse and kill people or carry out terrorist attacks - then there are laws to deal with that too.

Do you disagree? What laws do you think need to be added to those that are in place?

Antifa and White Supremacists are being discussed in a thread together because they tend to show up in the same places. That doesn't mean that anyone puts them on equal standing as to their "badness". But let's be honest here - I don't think we should put up with white supremacist threats of harm or violence or plans to kill people. And I also don't think we should put up with people like antifa rampaging in the streets and destroying property.

Since I know you're going to try to twist this in some way to make it sound like I'm equating the two (which I'm not) - I don't think that we should put up with murderers, but I also don't think we should put up with people breaking into vehicles and robbing stereos at night. Are they equal crimes? Hell no. But just because one of the crimes is less violent and doesn't result in death doesn't mean we should put up with it. And - there are laws and consequences currently on the books to address both crimes.

[swampfrog]

See, I think the term "weird" as employed by frank does the opposite of what you suggest it does. Instead of simply disagreeing with an opinion and trying to keep things civil, it implies that the opinion, and therefore its author, is crass, base, or simply stupid. frank is one of the posters here most able to support his opinions with discourse and without the need to resort to ad hominem style attacks. In other words, its not necessary.

I think we're in agreement here, I specifically said that "It implies disagreement with a sense of disdain for a position as unjustifiable by a rational person." I was only pointing out that considering the breadth of possible ad hominems, this is pretty mild--so I consider it civil--though still not useful in furthering discourse. I was using a little tongue-in-cheek with the reference to virtue signaling, because the phrase "weird hill to choose to die on" is the epitome of a virtue signal. When unpacked, it implies that the opposing position is indefensible, that it is surrounded by imminent defeat, and is not rational. It declares judgement of good/virtuous opinion to solely exist on one side and signals to the reader how they should react.

[SoCalCoug]

You agree with that thought, that the government should start investigating ideologies and seek laws against certain ideologies?

The link was a response to your question regarding what threat white supremacists posed.

You asked a different question. I think the FBI should investigate evidence of violence and threats of violence. If an organized group of white supremacists are engaged in that conduct, sure, they should be investigated. If the "ideology" you are referring to is the belief in committing illegal acts, then sure, those acts should be investigated, and it would be difficult to separate the ideology from the acts and threats.

[falafel]

The link was a response to your question regarding what threat white supremacists posed.

That was my question, actually.

[bluegoose]

My favorite part of political CS is when frank characterizes your argument as weird. I've come to realize it's his way of insulting your intelligence while appearing not to.

Weird comment, bro.