Charlottesville: State of emergency over US far-right rally

[ray245]

Hence I said "as far as I know", because I don't pretend to have all the information here.

I know, I'm just pointing out that some source indicates that the state police was deployed.

It really does depend on where you are. In Chicago or New York or other major urban centers there will be adequate crowd control. And in some other places there won't be because folks in charge or in law enforcement are themselves alt-right. That's my point, you can't extrapolate from Charlottesville to the entire US.

True, but the places most vulnerable to this sort of things tend to be in the South isn't it? The far-right is probably more active in the South because they are reacting to the removal of Confederate statues. I don't think there are many Confederate statues in the Northern states. Not saying the far-right don't operate in the Northern states, but I think most of the recent controversies lies in the states that were once part of the Confederacy.

[Broomstick]

It really does depend on where you are. In Chicago or New York or other major urban centers there will be adequate crowd control. And in some other places there won't be because folks in charge or in law enforcement are themselves alt-right. That's my point, you can't extrapolate from Charlottesville to the entire US.

True, but the places most vulnerable to this sort of things tend to be in the South isn't it?

I think I mentioned it already, but the West also has a problem with alt-right groups. They manifest a bit differently, but the low populations and empty spaces allow them to do things like drill with weapons you just can't do in an urban area without attracting attention.

This is a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Hate Map" which lets you sort by group or by sentiment. The Nazis are relatively spread out, as are the White Nationalist. The KKK is mainly east of the Mississippi, but extend as far north as Minnesota. Denver is a bit of a hot spot for hate groups, but it's also a population center in the west.

The far-right is probably more active in the South because they are reacting to the removal of Confederate statues.

At the present moment that's true.

[AniThyng]

Oops.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40935419

A university professor has been wrongly described as a white supremacist by amateur internet detectives on social media wishing to publicly shame those who took part in rallies in Charlottesville.
Professor Kyle Quinn who works at the University of Arkansas was mistakenly identified as one of the unmasked protesters taking part in far right protests on Friday.
The professor's ordeal began on Saturday when thousands began sharing an image of a bearded man posted by Twitter user Yes Youre Racist. It has been publishing photos of those who attended the rally under the hashtag #ExposetheAltRight.
Skip Twitter post by @YesYoureRacist

Report
End of Twitter post by @YesYoureRacist
The request didn't go unheard. The internet's digital detectives found an image of Professor Quinn and claimed he was the man pictured at the rally. Although the professor may share a similar look and build to the man photographed, he was in fact more than 1,000 miles away from the demonstrations in Virginia.
Charlottesville white nationalist marchers face backlash
Kyle P Quinn photoImage copyright@YOUNGWAXGOD/TWITTER
But the close resemblance was enough to satisfy many of the internet's amateur sleuths. More than 11,000 people retweeted the photo. One social media user posted: "My Facebook feed says this is University of Arkansas faculty member, Kyle P. Quinn."
Others tweeted the University of Arkansas posting: "@UArkansas FIRE KYLE P. QUINN. There cannot be any negotiation or wavering on this issue."
Another user posted: "@UArkansas FIRE KYLE P QUINN Engineer!!!! OPEN RACIST ON STAFF! What kind of University would keep him employed?"
'It's not me'
On Saturday Professor Quinn was forced to defend his character by by tweeting: "The man in the photo is not me. I am in Fayetteville, Arkansas, not Virginia.
A day later he took to social media again posting: "The individual who wore an engineering shirt in #Charlottesville is not me. I proudly support a diverse environment at U of A."
But his responses didn't stop scores of people from calling him a racist, threatening him, publishing his home address and demanding he lose his job. The reaction prompted a further explanatory tweet from the professor:
Skip Twitter post by @QuinnLab_UofA

Report
End of Twitter post by @QuinnLab_UofA
What is 'doxxing'?
The controversial act of publishing the details of an anonymous social media user without their permission and potentially leaving them open to harassment is known as 'doxxing.'
After the Charlottesville rallies many social media users 'doxxed' those they believed had taken part, in an attempt to expose their identities to friends and employers. But unlike the instance with Professor Quinn their efforts did yield the results they wanted.
White supremacy: Are US right-wing groups on the rise?
A reckoning in Charlottesville
Trump condemns 'evil racism' in Charlottesville
Cole White, one of those who attended the rally has now reportedly been fired by his employer, the Top Dog hotdog restaurant chain in Berkeley, California.
Peter Cvjetanovic, a 20-year-old student who was captured in one of the most widely shared photos, has defended his right to attend one of the rallies.
Doxxing meanwhile remains a controversial way of outing people despite social media platforms considering it a violation of their rules.
A recent doxxing story came in July when CNN was accused of "blackmail" by prominent alt-right social media influencers following the broadcaster's investigation into the identity of a Reddit user who had made a viral wrestling gif.
The controversy arose after CNN, which has not revealed the true identity of the user, took steps to delete offensive material the user had posted. CNN said it: "Reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change".

[ray245]

I think I mentioned it already, but the West also has a problem with alt-right groups. They manifest a bit differently, but the low populations and empty spaces allow them to do things like drill with weapons you just can't do in an urban area without attracting attention.

This is a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Hate Map" which lets you sort by group or by sentiment. The Nazis are relatively spread out, as are the White Nationalist. The KKK is mainly east of the Mississippi, but extend as far north as Minnesota. Denver is a bit of a hot spot for hate groups, but it's also a population center in the west.

It's mostly the rural areas that help these groups, which at the same time also makes the rural minorities population more vulnerable. Harder to organise counter-protest, seek sufficient help from police and etc. The place that need protection the most happens to be places where protection is the weakest. Hence taking things into their own hands and etc.

[Simon_Jester]

If you think your primary mission is to make it home to your family you have no business being a cop. As a cop your job is to see to it that other people make it home to their families, occasionally even at the cost of your life. Don't wan't to run that risk? Don't be a cop.

To be fair, it's really hard to recruit an adequate number of cops while screening out all the ones whose survival instinct overrides their protective instincts. If you fired all the cops who think their primary mission is to make it home alive at the end of the day, you'd have so few cops left, that they'd end up taking higher casualties and be literally unable to stop disastrous events from taking place, not just occasionally unwilling.

---

I'm not laying down covering fire for these punks, I'm laying down covering fire for everyone who enjoys free speech, even these cunts.

Living in a free and tolerant society atleast as far as I'm concerned means giving discourse and a voice to even the most reprehensible parts of society so as to guarantee everyone enjoys the same rights. Yes these are fucking Nazis but like everyone else until they start actually doing more then talking they are entitled to speak their disgusting piece same as I'm allowed to call them disgusting shitbags.

See, this is the standard mouth noise to make regarding freedom of speech, and I get that...

But it's kind of beside the point. What's at stake really, really is not their right to have discourse and a voice. What's at stake is their ability to win the argument. The reason letting Nazis win the arguments is bad is because Nazis don't win arguments the way normal political movements do.

See, you're talking about discourse and voices. But Nazis don't actually do 'win arguments' by participating in discourse and having a voice. Nazis win arguments by using the discourse and voice to quietly organize 5% of the population or so into a violent corps of malcontents, and then using this paramilitary army to bust the heads of anyone who tries to argue with them. This is basically the same way the Klan works, because the difference between the Klan and the Nazis is that nobody thought it was cool to bend the Stars and Bars into a swirly pattern and make a swastika out of it.

...

So the problem is, you have to draw a line between "Nazis have a voice" and "Nazis have ENOUGH of a voice that they can actually pull together this critical mass of head-breakers, at which point NOBODY has a voice, except Nazis."

The transition can be pretty goddamn abrupt, as the Germans learned between 1923 and 1933. Ten years. Not that long a span of time between "Nazis are a bunch of sad-sack idiots who can't take over a Bavarian beer hall" to "Nazis are all-powerful."

A similar span of time passed between "Confederates are getting their asses kicked, blacks freed from slavery" to "neo-Confederate Klansmen terrorists are killing all the 'uppity' blacks and forcing the rest back into sharecropping that is basically slavery under another name with juuuust enough of the overt legal stuff removed that the North doesn't step on it."

Now, before I even go on about this, do you or do you not understand what I am saying? Yes, or no. No mealymouthing, just yes, or no. No "well having Nazis bust everyone's heads would be bad BUUUT." There is no need for buts. Butt me no buts here, on this specific proposition. It's not worth my time to go on, until I know whether or not you perceive that yes, Nazis and Nazi-oid movements actually behave this way.

They still deserve the protection and enforcement of the law same as anyone else, same as their "SJW" opposition. They are just as allowed to protest and make their voices heard and just as responsible when someone commits a violent act. Guess what, I think the SJWs believe in some harmful shit too and commit harmful acts but I think they are just as entitled to spew their bullshit as Hanz Frankfarter waving his tiki torch.

You dodge my question.

Which would you rather have to deal with as the Great Political Threat of the 21st century American political order? Tumblr feminists, or Nazis? Do you think that Tumblr feminists are a bigger threat than Nazis would be, as the dominant antagonistic political problem you might face? Me, I'd rather be dealing with the Tumblr feminists.

And lets not act like these are even real Nazis. These are inbred white trash cousin fucking retard Neo-Nazis who real Nazis would hate.

No, they're real Nazis, they're just the kind of real Nazis you get in a country where no one with a college degree is stupid enough to join the Nazis. Namely, the dumbass Nazis. The real Nazi party had plenty of dumbass Nazis, whom it routinely called on for all its goon-squadding, Jew-brutalizing, and "SCHNELL-"yelling needs.

It didn't put the dumbass Nazis in charge of anything important, that was for the disciplined, brainy bastards... but that's because it had disciplined brainy bastards. In America, all our disciplined, brainy bastards are too busy milking everybody dry on Wall Street to have time to waste trying to organize a bunch of dumbass Nazis.

Conversely, the American dumbass Nazis look like dumbasses instead of looking menacing and sleek, because they don't have disciplined, brainy bastards organizing them and procuring Hugo Boss uniforms and planning their rallies. All they have are each other. The dumbass leading the dumbass. In Trump, they have tried to identify a sort of... uber-dumbass-fuhrer, the supreme maximum leader of dumbassery... but it isn't getting them very far because the ultimate maximum dumbass is still a dumbass. And is, therefore, unfit to organize a drinking party in a brewery.

They are no more real Nazis then then people opposed to them are real anti-facists. They are bunch of idiots protesting and having street fights. If they were actual Nazis then that'd be a different story but they aren't, they aren't enemy soldiers, we aren't at war with them, they aren't members of some hostile state, they are American citizens who believes in straight up bullshit.

The thing about Nazis is that they will cheerfully make a direct transition from being your fellow citizens to being the enemy soldiers who splatter my brains all over the concrete for disagreeing with them. They will not pass GO and will only collect $200 if they goddamn well feel like it. You do not get a warning signal between the time when Nazis feel weak enough to continue practicing politics as usual, and the time when Nazis feel strong enough to wage systematic domestic terror campaigns that cause entire regions to flip to them, for fear of what they'll do next plus the quiet assholes who secretly agree with them finally having the balls to admit it.

Or rather, something like Charlottesville is itself the warning signal. When hundreds or thousands of Nazis are staging torchlight rallies in one of your cities because you just took down a statue honoring a White Power symbol, and when the counterprotestors are getting rammed and run over with cars, and the president is going "um, er, bad things happened on both sides," that is your warning signal. Beyond this point, shit gets exponentially worse, very very fast, so the point at which you flip the hell out and ask "we shitting our pants yet? Because we should be" is pretty much 'right the hell now.'

Even this is not enough grounds to recommend, say, rounding up all the neo-Nazis and shoving them in in internment camps (though the irony would have its charms). But it is enough grounds to recommend recognizing that when you have a small Nazi movement, it really is time to react intensely to keep it from becoming a bigger one. To talk about it a lot, to emphasize how grotesque it is, to denounce anyone who does not themselves denounce it.

The correct response to Nazis in a democratic society is "EWWWW." The response of "well, they're bad but they do have reasons to think the way they do and bad things are being done by both sides and they're bad buuuut..." ends in everyone to the left of Benito Mussolini getting beaten with clubs until they move to the right of Benito Mussolini.

In other words...

http://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/ ... nd-actions

The father of one of the white supremacists publicly denounces his own son. It must have been painful to do...

Peter Tefft, my son... once joked, “The thing about us fascists is, it’s not that we don’t believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We’ll just throw you in an oven."

THIS.

Peter Tefft may have been laughing, but he wasn't joking.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree. I for one would LOVE to see a constitutional amendment that basically says "Fuck. Nazis", but we don't have one. So the only option is counter-protesting them with a larger group, firing them from their jobs etc. And those counter-protests will always always always be violent, just because of the nature of the demonstrations and the people involved. Either some skinhead will start a fight, or one of the more volatile anti-fascists will (not that I blame them), and crowd dynamics take over.

Yeah. What I am astounded by is how many Americans in this thread seems to accept political violence as a part of progress.

It is the tradeoff we make for being able to say almost literally anything, and being able to express unpopular (but not rancid) views. The first amendment protects Nazis from interference by the state, but it also protected the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance at my highschool in 2001, over the protestations of religious conservatives and school administration. There was nothing they could do to stop us legally. If we were to open that up so that the state and its agencies COULD shut Nazis down, there is a good chance whatever legislation enabled that would not be narrowly tailored enough for the task, and other groups would be caught in the backwash.

The tradeoff is that sometimes... the discourse that arises becomes violent, particularly when one side of the "debate" wants to round up their opposition and put them into death camps.

Violence may occur on occasion, but I would not describe it as "necessary" in order to have free speech.

It really should be quite simple to say "You can believe and say whatever you want, as long as you don't call for/threaten/commit violent acts". And when you cross that line, the law comes down on you like the fist of God.

The problem with that comes when you have people in positions of political power tacitly (or even explicitly) condoning and supporting the violent extremists. Hence the increased threat of white supremacist violence under a Trump Presidency, for example. Which is why we need to vote out (or preferably impeach) Trump and his allies, and restore a government that works to impose limits on, not provide political cover for, violent extremists. And until then, state and local authorities need to pick up the slack, as much as the law permits them to do so.

That said, (and I'm addressing this part generally, not to you Alyrium), I am disappointed to see people responding to the terrorism in Charlottsville by saying things like "We need more hate speech laws", or even worse "We need more violent Left-wing militias". Its an understandable response, a predictable response. When something horrible happens people want payback, or they want to do whatever it takes to make sure that it never happens again, whatever the price. But...

When people start calling for restrictions on civil liberties, its usually done in the name of some pressing need. There often is a legitimate concern behind it. But that doesn't make it right.

I remember how America reacted after 911. That was a real attack, far worse in terms of destruction and loss of life than Charlottsville, committed by a genuine and continuing threat. But the response was disproportionate, and overly-broad, and ended up doing more harm that good, and sacrificing some of our civil rights in the process. Many people on the Left rightly criticized Republican-backed suppression of civil rights, and acts of pre-emptive war and assassination, in the name of "national security" and fighting terrorism.

How quickly we forget, huh?

Or maybe its okay when our side does it?

I despise Nazism. I consider white supremacy and Right-wing extremism potential existential threats to our country, and our democracy. But I am deeply suspicious of anyone who says that we need to suppress free speech in order to fight them. There's always a reason. There's always something terrible that we're told we could prevent, if only we're willing to make a few little sacrifices. But that's a very dangerous road to go down. Part of the price for having a democracy is that people get to say horrible things, just as part of the price for having due process is that sometimes a criminal goes free for lack of evidence or judicial incompetence. Changing that won't make us safe. It will simply make us unsafe in a different way.

Besides, much tighter hate speech laws would require either a Constitutional Amendment or the Supreme Court overturning its past rulings on the subject. And we really don't want the current US government to get the Okay to restrict political speech because, let's be honest, its probably not white supremacist speech that the current administration would be restricting.

[Flagg]

Hence I said "as far as I know", because I don't pretend to have all the information here.

I know, I'm just pointing out that some source indicates that the state police was deployed.

It really does depend on where you are. In Chicago or New York or other major urban centers there will be adequate crowd control. And in some other places there won't be because folks in charge or in law enforcement are themselves alt-right. That's my point, you can't extrapolate from Charlottesville to the entire US.

True, but the places most vulnerable to this sort of things tend to be in the South isn't it? The far-right is probably more active in the South because they are reacting to the removal of Confederate statues. I don't think there are many Confederate statues in the Northern states. Not saying the far-right don't operate in the Northern states, but I think most of the recent controversies lies in the states that were once part of the Confederacy.

I live in one of the farthest north and most liberal states. Seattle, the most liberal city in the state has a Confederate memorial. That said, it's because many ex-Confederates came west after the war, and was built in the 1920's during the resurgence of the KKK. And as of yet, no one has gone to tear it down. But if anyone wants some help doing so...

[Dragon Angel]

That said, (and I'm addressing this part generally, not to you Alyrium), I am disappointed to see people responding to the terrorism in Charlottsville by saying things like "We need more hate speech laws", or even worse "We need more violent Left-wing militias". Its an understandable response, a predictable response. When something horrible happens people want payback, or they want to do whatever it takes to make sure that it never happens again, whatever the price.

If one side has been building militias and arms for years, and has been abusing them nearly unchecked, and the other side wants to match their escalation (no use in fighting guns with words now, right?), and you come in and essentially say with all pomposity "We need to stick to the high ground! We can't ever be as bad as them! You're just making it worse by wanting to defend yourselves!"...

If one side has been abusing a certain aspect of our government for decades, and the other side wants to take some inspiration from other countries across the ocean who have tried and tested laws to curtail that abuse, and you come in and essentially say with all pomposity "We're going down the road our enemies did, they wanted to limit our freedoms in <completely unrelated areas>, you don't want to be like THEM, right?"...

How does that make you look?

Or maybe its okay when our side does it?

Principles count for very little when the government tacitly supports people who want you gassed.

If the State will not provide justice for the people, the people will seek to right the wrongs themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

That said, (and I'm addressing this part generally, not to you Alyrium), I am disappointed to see people responding to the terrorism in Charlottsville by saying things like "We need more hate speech laws", or even worse "We need more violent Left-wing militias". Its an understandable response, a predictable response. When something horrible happens people want payback, or they want to do whatever it takes to make sure that it never happens again, whatever the price.

If one side has been building militias and arms for years, and has been abusing them nearly unchecked, and the other side wants to match their escalation (no use in fighting guns with words now, right?), and you come in and essentially say with all pomposity "We need to stick to the high ground! We can't ever be as bad as them! You're just making it worse by wanting to defend yourselves!"...

Okay, let's be clear about something.

I get that you're angry. I get that people are scared, and that we want to stop this from happening again. And I'm sorry if I sounded "pompous", because I certainly did not intend to (although simply having a different opinion from you, and expressing it, does not make me pompous).

But I oppose the use of violence on the Left, and will continue to do so, because, in addition to whatever moral objections I have, I don't think it would do a damn bit of good.

You think your rag-tag band of Left-wing militiamen will deter Neo-Nazis with assault rifles? It won't. What it will most likely do is lead to a series of bloody shootouts in the street, which will cause more people to sympathize with Trump's "both sides are equally guilty" rhetoric, and possibly even give Trump the excuse he needs to turn the National Guard loose on Left-wing activists.

Or maybe you don't want to deter violence and terrorism, and restore democratic norms and the rule of law. Maybe you just want to throw fuel on the fire, so you can have a civil war and shoot people you think deserve to be shot. A war your side would probably lose.

I do, as always, respect the right to use force if necessary to defend oneself or others against an attacker. If someone had, for example, pulled a gun on the white supremacists who were caught on video brutally beating a black man, I doubt I'd have objected.

But there is a difference between self-defence and "I want to form my own militia to go bash in the heads of/shoot the other side." That is not defensive violence. That is retaliatory violence and terrorism. And even if its intended as a purely defensive militia, it will attract people who are looking to start a fight, not prevent one.

If one side has been abusing a certain aspect of our government for decades, and the other side wants to take some inspiration from other countries across the ocean who have tried and tested laws to curtail that abuse, and you come in and essentially say with all pomposity "We're going down the road our enemies did, they wanted to limit our freedoms in <completely unrelated areas>, you don't want to be like THEM, right?"...

How does that make you look?

Careful.

If you want to disagree with me, that's your right. But if you try to suggest that I am sympathetic to or supportive of Neo-Nazis because I believe in the First Amendment, I will report you for libel. Which is a restriction on free speech I do support.

And saying "it worked in these other countries" is partially missing the point of my criticisms, which is that America is not those other countries. America has a Constitution that forbids what you appear to be advocating, and if that changed, if the government got the authority to restrict political speech in the name of security...

Again, do you really think that its the Nazis who would be getting censored, under our current government?

Respond to that argument, instead of validating my 911 comparison by throwing out a thinly-veiled "you're with us or you're with the terrorists".

Principles count for very little when the government tacitly supports people who want you gassed.

In a sense, principles count for everything. Because without them, democracy and the rule of law are dead regardless of who wins, along with a large number of mostly innocent people. Remember, if you start having shootouts in the street, its not just Nazis who will get shot. And if you start encouraging violent extremism, it won't be just actual Nazis who they end up targeting.

And even in an actual state of war (which is not what we have in America), their are lines that you aren't supposed to cross. Like targeting civilians. Or torturing prisoners. Moreover, even in war, perhaps especially in war, perceptions as to who holds the moral high ground are extremely important. And they are also important here and now.

Remember, the country is not divided into "people who want you gassed" and "people who think that its time for the Left to start gunning down white supremacists". Their is a huge number of people who do not support Nazism, but do not support Left-wing militias or violence either. If more people on the Left pursue the course you advocate, they will increasingly see the Left as the aggressors. They will become more susceptible to Trump's rhetoric about violence and hate on both sides being responsible. And Trump and his like will use that to justify suppression of the Left as a whole, and not just the violent ones.

Right now, the Nazis are not winning the day. The majority of the country and the political establishment is united behind us in opposition to the white supremacists at Charlottsville, and in opposition to Trump.

Would you throw that away, much as America threw away the international sympathy and support it had after 911 by plunging headlong into a needless war in Iraq, all in the name of fighting terrorism? Not out of any new necessity, because you've been advocating for political violence long before this, but simply because it is the solution that you want?

There is, as I've said before, a reason why even during the lead-up to the Civil War, when you had entire states committing treason and preparing for war against the federal government, Abraham Lincoln made damn sure that it was as clear as possible that the Union were not the aggressors. Because if he hadn't, he would have lost the border states, as well as a lot of international credibility.

If the State will not provide justice for the people, the people will seek to right the wrongs themselves.

In theory, I do not disagree with that.

What I disagree with is the implication that we are at a point where the only or best way to right those wrongs is by force of arms.

Right now, this is blowing up in Trump and the Nazis faces, without the need for Left-wing militias. But you seem to want to escalate the use of force regardless, in a manner that plays into Trump's and the "Alt. Right's" rhetoric.

And good, innocent people, not just Nazis, would pay the price for that.

[Zaune]

You know what? Just speaking personally here, I am past caring about the moral objections and fast running out of fucks to give about the practical ones, because that "both sides are just as bad" rhetoric has already kicked in to the point where the President of the United States can say that pretty much word-for-word in front of a live audience. And the vast majority of registered Republicans will believe it because it's what they were told to believe, and rationalise away or deny the existence of any evidence to the contrary. What do Antifa or Black Lives Matter have to lose? They're being treated like terrorist organisations without ever having fired a shot. If the cap fits, wear it.

And besides, even if the only thing it accomplishes is temporarily making the people committing the acts of violent retaliation feel a bit better, that's more than I can say I accomplished in most of a year with Occupy.

[Dragon Angel]

I get that you're angry. I get that people are scared, and that we want to stop this from happening again. And I'm sorry if I sounded "pompous", because I certainly did not intend to (although simply having a different opinion from you, and expressing it, does not make me pompous).

Oh for crying out fucking loud, of course I don't view "just having a different opinion from me is pompous". You have a brand of pomposity sometimes that reeks and I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but that's the case. You immediately jumping to the worst conclusion possible also does not help you.

But I oppose the use of violence on the Left, and will continue to do so, because, in addition to whatever moral objections I have, I don't think it would do a damn bit of good.

You think your rag-tag band of Left-wing militiamen will deter Neo-Nazis with assault rifles? It won't. What it will most likely do is lead to a series of bloody shootouts in the street, which will cause more people to sympathize with Trump's "both sides are equally guilty" rhetoric, and possibly even give Trump the excuse he needs to turn the National Guard loose on Left-wing activists.

Or maybe you don't want to deter violence and terrorism, and restore democratic norms and the rule of law. Maybe you just want to throw fuel on the fire, so you can have a civil war and shoot people you think deserve to be shot. A war your side would probably lose.

I do, as always, respect the right to use force if necessary to defend oneself or others against an attacker. If someone had, for example, pulled a gun on the white supremacists who were caught on video brutally beating a black man, I doubt I'd have objected.

But there is a difference between self-defence and "I want to form my own militia to go bash in the heads of/shoot the other side." That is not defensive violence. That is retaliatory violence and terrorism. And even if its intended as a purely defensive militia, it will attract people who are looking to start a fight, not prevent one.

Did the presence of the Black Panthers cripple the Civil Rights Movement? Why should one side be armed to the teeth while the other side should stay defenseless and helpless in the name of your lofty and impractical ideals? Once long ago I would have agreed that we should not build up arms to match the Right's use of them, but after years and years of seeing the government basically downplay the Right's actions, I have long abandoned that belief. Because it's not practical to keep begging for scraps when you don't have muscle behind you.

And god damn, fuck off with "well YOU don't want to deter violence". I'm getting fucking tired of you putting a false dilemma forward every single time someone broaches this subject.

If you want to disagree with me, that's your right. But if you try to suggest that I am sympathetic to or supportive of Neo-Nazis because I believe in the First Amendment, I will report you for libel. Which is a restriction on free speech I do support.

lmao

report me you little chickenshit.

I know your views perfectly well. You're the one who decided to jump to "YOU'RE A NAZI" when you could have easily interpreted me instead as saying "you're being a fucking idiot right now" to you.

You have a long, long fucking history of doing this grand extrapolation of someone even arguing against you and it gets so fucking infuriating to deal with. I've dealt with it a few times from you, numerous amounts of other people on this subforum have as well. Report me. Just try and report me. I double fucking dog dare you to. I'm half tempted to get the mods in on you actually for pulling this shit yet fucking again.

And saying "it worked in these other countries" is partially missing the point of my criticisms, which is that America is not those other countries. America has a Constitution that forbids what you appear to be advocating, and if that changed, if the government got the authority to restrict political speech in the name of security...

Again, do you really think that its the Nazis who would be getting censored, under our current government?

Respond to that argument, instead of validating my 911 comparison by throwing out a thinly-veiled "you're with us or you're with the terrorists".

I would've properly responded to this but since you're just going with your old antics now I've lost the motivation to even debate with you and am now just going to mock any reply you make until you quit that bullshit. The same goes with the rest of your post.

[Knife]

Okay, let's be clear about something.

I get that you're angry. I get that people are scared, and that we want to stop this from happening again. And I'm sorry if I sounded "pompous", because I certainly did not intend to (although simply having a different opinion from you, and expressing it, does not make me pompous).

But I oppose the use of violence on the Left, and will continue to do so, because, in addition to whatever moral objections I have, I don't think it would do a damn bit of good.

9/10 times I would agree. But this is Nazi's. This is not tolerating a different opinion on small things. This is Nazi's who think that certain people SHOULD NOT EXIST.

This is the time you stand up and say NO!

[Broomstick]

When you really get down to it, Nazis believe most people shouldn't exist.

I'm not a fan of violence and normally am against, but at a certain point you have to act in self-defense. We just had a literal torch-waving mob in Charlottesville, and they fucking killed someone and they're celebrating that. At what point do you say "no more"?

[mr friendly guy]

Another Neo Nazi who was at the march turns out to be a snowflake who gets triggered by claims that there is a police warrant out for him (which may or may not be true)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08 ... ies-video/


Watch the before and after videos. The Neo Nazi was talking about how tough he is when interviewed by Vice, now he gets triggered and almost cries. What a cucktastrophe.

[Flagg]

The tears of a clown.

[Flagg]

When you really get down to it, Nazis believe most people shouldn't exist.

I'm not a fan of violence and normally am against, but at a certain point you have to act in self-defense. We just had a literal torch-waving mob in Charlottesville, and they fucking killed someone and they're celebrating that. At what point do you say "no more"?

I don't know why we have Nazis in this country. I don't know why we have NAMBLA. These are organizations that exist solely to promote vile actions.

Well, to be honest I lied, I do know why we have them. It's because people with lofty ideals who are far too sheltered from reality are under the mistaken impression that if you ban these organizations from existing and you ban the public promotion of their ideologies, you are somehow damaging the rights of everyone. And they are all too happy to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the democratic world has laws banning such organizations and are doing just fine.

Frankly, the hardest choices these individuals have ever made is to pick which color Che Guaverra t-shirt they are going to wear that day. And the irony is alway lost on them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, let's be clear about something.

I get that you're angry. I get that people are scared, and that we want to stop this from happening again. And I'm sorry if I sounded "pompous", because I certainly did not intend to (although simply having a different opinion from you, and expressing it, does not make me pompous).

But I oppose the use of violence on the Left, and will continue to do so, because, in addition to whatever moral objections I have, I don't think it would do a damn bit of good.

9/10 times I would agree. But this is Nazi's. This is not tolerating a different opinion on small things. This is Nazi's who think that certain people SHOULD NOT EXIST.

This is the time you stand up and say NO!

Of course they shouldn't exist. They're morally and intellectually bankrupt pieces of shit.

The question is weather going out and beating or killing them in the streets is the best way to accomplish that.

snip

I very, very strongly disagree with most of what you have said, but I acknowledge that I probably jumped to some conclusions I should not have, and I apologize.

I do not feel that that justifies you ignoring or dismissing my arguments in their entirety, however.

I'll post a more detailed reply later, but perhaps its best to wait until we both cool down.

I just wanted to get that out there now.

[Joun_Lord]

See, this is the standard mouth noise to make regarding freedom of speech, and I get that...

But it's kind of beside the point. What's at stake really, really is not their right to have discourse and a voice. What's at stake is their ability to win the argument. The reason letting Nazis win the arguments is bad is because Nazis don't win arguments the way normal political movements do.

See, you're talking about discourse and voices. But Nazis don't actually do 'win arguments' by participating in discourse and having a voice. Nazis win arguments by using the discourse and voice to quietly organize 5% of the population or so into a violent corps of malcontents, and then using this paramilitary army to bust the heads of anyone who tries to argue with them. This is basically the same way the Klan works, because the difference between the Klan and the Nazis is that nobody thought it was cool to bend the Stars and Bars into a swirly pattern and make a swastika out of it.

I don't really disagree with any of what you said but it still comes to the problem of targeting a single group and more or less repressing them because you don't like them (I wonder if their mothers even like them). Yeah Nazis are going to abuse the system and even be violent but they aren't the only ones. Substitute any political group who can be violent or has had violent members and abuse the system like Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, the Tea Party and wonder if it sounds quite so okay to restrict their rights.

Nazis are bad people but are not part of some criminal organization, are not some banned political group, so what reason other then the fact they are Nazis should they be treated differently?

So the problem is, you have to draw a line between "Nazis have a voice" and "Nazis have ENOUGH of a voice that they can actually pull together this critical mass of head-breakers, at which point NOBODY has a voice, except Nazis."

The transition can be pretty goddamn abrupt, as the Germans learned between 1923 and 1933. Ten years. Not that long a span of time between "Nazis are a bunch of sad-sack idiots who can't take over a Bavarian beer hall" to "Nazis are all-powerful."

A similar span of time passed between "Confederates are getting their asses kicked, blacks freed from slavery" to "neo-Confederate Klansmen terrorists are killing all the 'uppity' blacks and forcing the rest back into sharecropping that is basically slavery under another name with juuuust enough of the overt legal stuff removed that the North doesn't step on it."

Thats is part of the price of living in a free society that sometimes bad people might get in charge (not that we'd know anything about that, not a thing). Its a catch 22 of sorts, a free society gives everyone a voice but some people might use that voice to make society no longer free.

We don't guard against this threat by becoming less free, by stopping to the level of the people who would destroy our society and rights by destroying our society and rights. We be vigilant against such groups and hope to hell enough people will stand against them.

Now, before I even go on about this, do you or do you not understand what I am saying? Yes, or no. No mealymouthing, just yes, or no. No "well having Nazis bust everyone's heads would be bad BUUUT." There is no need for buts. Butt me no buts here, on this specific proposition. It's not worth my time to go on, until I know whether or not you perceive that yes, Nazis and Nazi-oid movements actually behave this way.

Hey, I like butts. But anyway I do understand what you are saying (typing) BUT I think your conclusion while good intentioned is the incorrect choice. I think there is the possibility of Nazis busting heads BUT there is the possibility of anyone doing the same with the right motivation. Nazism is not unique or some unholy talisman that drives men and women in committing acts of inhumanity. Its an excuse, a shaw for people who want to do bad things to hide behind. BUT there are a great many shaws, many excuses for people to be bastards. Christianity, atheism, liberalism, conservatism, fucking football, skin color, location, even what shoes you wear can all be used as excuses for do evil. Should be restrict the rights of all those people under those umbrellas too? Butt.

You dodge my question.

Which would you rather have to deal with as the Great Political Threat of the 21st century American political order? Tumblr feminists, or Nazis? Do you think that Tumblr feminists are a bigger threat than Nazis would be, as the dominant antagonistic political problem you might face? Me, I'd rather be dealing with the Tumblr feminists.

I'd rather deal with neither but then I'm, atleast in this case, not so predisposed to histrionics as to think a bunch of morons in probably cheap Chinese vinyl jackboots and morons wearing greasy bandanas and even greasier hair are even the greatest political threat of the decade. Cletus Cousinfucker and his band of merry mein have been around strutting their stuff FAR longer then you or I have been alive but we aren't all speaking German unless you want to.

No, they're real Nazis, they're just the kind of real Nazis you get in a country where no one with a college degree is stupid enough to join the Nazis. Namely, the dumbass Nazis. The real Nazi party had plenty of dumbass Nazis, whom it routinely called on for all its goon-squadding, Jew-brutalizing, and "SCHNELL-"yelling needs.

It didn't put the dumbass Nazis in charge of anything important, that was for the disciplined, brainy bastards... but that's because it had disciplined brainy bastards. In America, all our disciplined, brainy bastards are too busy milking everybody dry on Wall Street to have time to waste trying to organize a bunch of dumbass Nazis.

Conversely, the American dumbass Nazis look like dumbasses instead of looking menacing and sleek, because they don't have disciplined, brainy bastards organizing them and procuring Hugo Boss uniforms and planning their rallies. All they have are each other. The dumbass leading the dumbass. In Trump, they have tried to identify a sort of... uber-dumbass-fuhrer, the supreme maximum leader of dumbassery... but it isn't getting them very far because the ultimate maximum dumbass is still a dumbass. And is, therefore, unfit to organize a drinking party in a brewery

While they are dumbasses (the Swastika is helpful indicator of that) they still aren't actual Nazis. They still aren't enemy soldiers or anything like that. They are dumbass American citizens exercising their rights to be dumbasses (and thats apparently the only exercise some are getting judging from Charlotte) as the law says they can.

Also if they aren't getting very far with the fucking President being in their corner who exactly are they this great existential threat you are making them out to be? How can they be failing but still a serious, OMG tear up the Constitution level threat butt clencher of a threat?

The thing about Nazis is that they will cheerfully make a direct transition from being your fellow citizens to being the enemy soldiers who splatter my brains all over the concrete for disagreeing with them. They will not pass GO and will only collect $200 if they goddamn well feel like it. You do not get a warning signal between the time when Nazis feel weak enough to continue practicing politics as usual, and the time when Nazis feel strong enough to wage systematic domestic terror campaigns that cause entire regions to flip to them, for fear of what they'll do next plus the quiet assholes who secretly agree with them finally having the balls to admit it.

To echo an earlier point, does that make Nazis unique? Plenty of other groups are more then happy to splatter your brains against the concrete for disagreeing with them. And even when they get violent that still doesn't make them enemy soldiers, it makes them criminals. The guy who ran down the lady, not a soldier, not some fucker covered under the Geneva convention, some terroristic piece of shit criminal who is going to be tried and hopefully sentenced very VERY harshly by our laws.

Or rather, something like Charlottesville is itself the warning signal. When hundreds or thousands of Nazis are staging torchlight rallies in one of your cities because you just took down a statue honoring a White Power symbol, and when the counterprotestors are getting rammed and run over with cars, and the president is going "um, er, bad things happened on both sides," that is your warning signal. Beyond this point, shit gets exponentially worse, very very fast, so the point at which you flip the hell out and ask "we shitting our pants yet? Because we should be" is pretty much 'right the hell now.'

Even this is not enough grounds to recommend, say, rounding up all the neo-Nazis and shoving them in in internment camps (though the irony would have its charms). But it is enough grounds to recommend recognizing that when you have a small Nazi movement, it really is time to react intensely to keep it from becoming a bigger one. To talk about it a lot, to emphasize how grotesque it is, to denounce anyone who does not themselves denounce it.

It is a warning signal, yeah, just like the dozens of other times when Nazis, the KKK, and various other ivory power shitbags walked around in our cities sometimes with torches though probably not of the tiki variety. It was a warning back when literally thousands of members of the KKK held public rallies that made this one look like a Democrats for Trump meeting in size and even had Klansmen holding public office. It was a warning when the American Nazi Party was a public legitimate political organization. They were all warnings to be vigilant and people were.

There was violence, never got exponentially worse even though for the most part the response was not more violence. Violence that was far worse then anything we've even came close to experiencing with this current generation of mental midget messerschmitts. Numbers of card carrying KKK and Nazis high enough to fill up a college football stadium. And yet we magically survived all that as a society..

How is this warning any different from all those other warnings?

The correct response to Nazis in a democratic society is "EWWWW." The response of "well, they're bad but they do have reasons to think the way they do and bad things are being done by both sides and they're bad buuuut..." ends in everyone to the left of Benito Mussolini getting beaten with clubs until they move to the right of Benito Mussolini.

No the correct response is not the flip the fuck out anytime you see a Swastika and start acting its something we should all be shitting our pants over when in fact we should be disgusted and weary but not become wannabe thugs ourselves and go beat some fucking Nazis with clubs. You know, act like a rational human being.

Simon, you are a smart person but are apparently blind to fucking history in a manner that seems almost willful. History has shown time and time again that people can stop the Nazis, the KKK, and all the other various sstupid as fuck, inbred sheep shagging pieces of hate filled fucking shits without resorting to violence. History has shown they can exist without them committing massive violence. History has beat it over our heads that we don't need to nor should we restrict the rights of others even the most foul and disgusting of us to protect our society.

Nazis are bastards but legal bastards who are free to express themselves legally same as everyone else. There is a reason even the much "hated" ACLU who is supposedly a wing of the Democrat Party will even defend Nazis. Look up National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie if you don't believe me.

Also butt.

[Gandalf]

Varied Confederate memorials are coming down across the US. Fantastic!

(CNN)More than 150 years after the Civil War ended, the Confederacy is memorialized with statues, monuments and historical markers across the United States.

Some say they mark history and honor heritage. Others argue they are racist symbols of America's dark legacy of slavery.

A nationwide debate surrounding this issue has been underway since Dylann Roof killed nine African-Americans in a Charleston, South Carolina, church in 2015 in an effort to "start a race war." And it flared up again after white nationalists marched last weekend to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counterprotester was killed amid violent clashes between demonstrators.

The National Register of Historic Places does not keep a detailed list of Confederate memorials. In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified 1,503 Confederate "place names and other symbols in public spaces" across the nation but admitted the study was "far from comprehensive." Some Civil War monuments in the South, such as at battlefields, do not have pro-Confederate symbolism.

Many local government officials are now weighing whether to keep Confederate memorials in their cities and towns. Here's a state-by-state breakdown:

California

The Hollywood Forever Cemetery in Los Angeles removed a Confederate monument Wednesday morning, spokesman Theodore Hovey told CNN. The monument memorialized more than 30 Confederate veterans and their families who are buried in the cemetery. It was erected in 1925.

The Long Beach chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the owners of the monument, asked the cemetery to remove it after it was featured in an August 4 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Hovey said. A CNN request for comment from that group was not immediately answered. "It was a mutual decision on the part of the cemetery and the monument's owner that it is best for it to be removed," Hovey said. The graves around the monument were not affected, he said.

In San Diego, a Confederate marker commemorating the Jefferson Davis Highway was removed Wednesday, according to CNN affiliate KGTV. The marker was installed in Horton Plaza in 1927.

An online petition asking Mayor Kevin Faulconer, City Councilman Chris Ward and Scarlett Stahl, president of the California division of United Daughters of the Confederacy, to remove the monument was started earlier Wednesday. It had received more than 160 signatures by Thursday morning.

In a Facebook statement, Ward praised the decision to remove the marker, saying, "Monuments to bigotry have no place in San Diego."

Florida

A Confederate statue called "Old Joe" was removed Monday in Gainesville, Florida. The statue sat outside the Alachua County Administration Building for more than 100 years. The Alachua County Board of Commissioners made the decision to remove the statue in May after two years of debate. It will be relocated by the Daughters of the Confederacy.

The Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners voted in July to remove the Memoria In Aeterna monument, which honors Confederate soldiers, from a county courthouse. The county commission voted Wednesday that the monument will only be removed if donations can be raised to cover the cost, estimated to be as high as $280,000. The money must be raised by September 16, the commission said.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Lightning and Rays donated an undisclosed amount of money to help move the statue, the teams said in a joint statement Thursday. The teams said the monument "does not reflect the values of our community."

"Now more than ever before, we must stand united and committed to diversity and inclusion as we all attempt to heal from the tragedy in Charlottesville," the statement read.

The board is also expected to relocate the Hillsborough County Civil War Veterans Monument.

Kentucky

Lexington will relocate the statues of John Hunt Morgan and John C. Brackenridge after the City Council unanimously approved their removal.

"By relocating these statues we are not destroying, hiding or sanitizing history. We are honoring and learning our history through this relocation," Lexington Mayor Jim Gray wrote on Twitter.

Gray had announced his intent to relocate the statues in a series of tweets just after the Charlottesville attack.

Maryland

Baltimore removed four Confederate statues early Wednesday after the City Council voted unanimously to take down the monuments immediately, CNN affiliate WBAL reported. Mayor Catherine Pugh defended her decision to remove the monuments "quickly and quietly" overnight, saying it was the best thing for Baltimore.

"The city charter says, according to our city attorney, if the mayor wants to protect or feels like she needs to protect the public or keep her community safe, she has the right to keep her community safe. I felt the best way to remove the monuments was to remove them overnight," Pugh said.

New York

Busts of Lee and Confederate Lt. Gen. Stonewall Jackson will be removed from the City University of New York's Hall of Fame for Great Americans because "New York stands against racism," Gov. Andrew Cuomo tweeted Wednesday. "There are many great Americans, many of them New Yorkers worthy of a spot in this great hall," Cuomo tweeted. "These two Confederates are not among them."

Also Wednesday, Cuomo requested that the acting US secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, reconsider his refusal to rename General Lee Avenue and Stonewall Jackson Drive at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn.

North Carolina

Protesters toppled over a Confederate statue Monday in front of the old Durham County Courthouse. The monument depicted a soldier holding a gun and had an engraving that said "in memory of the boys who wore gray." The protest was held in response to the Charlottesville violence.

Virginia

The Charlottesville City Council voted in April to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee at the newly renamed Emancipation Park, CNN affiliate WVIR reported. The violence there over the weekend came after this decision. The removal is on hold pending litigation.

Wisconsin

Madison Mayor Paul Soglin announced Thursday that two Confederate memorials at the Forest Hill Cemetery will be removed. In a statement, Soglin said taking down the "monuments will not erase our shared history. The Confederacy's legacy will be with us, whether we memorialize it in marble or not."

"There should be no place in our country for bigotry, hatred or violence against those who seek to unite our communities and our country," the mayor's statement said.

The removal had "minimal or no disruption to the cemetery itself."

Considering removing

Alabama

Birmingham Mayor William Bell ordered plastic draped over a Confederate monument at Linn Park and a plywood structure built around it while officials decide what to do. State law prohibits a city from taking down the monument, he said, but not covering it up. "This country should in no way tolerate the hatred that the KKK, neo-Nazis, fascists and other hate groups spew," he said. "The God I know doesn't put one race over another."

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he will sue Bell and the city, citing state law that prohibits the "relocation, removal, alteration, or other disturbance of any monument on public property that has been in place for 40 years or more."

Florida

Jacksonville City Council President Anna Lopez Brosche said she asked city officials for an inventory of all Confederate monuments and markers. Brosche said in a statement that she plans to submit legislation to relocate the monuments to museums for "appropriate historical context."

Georgia

The city of Atlanta said it is currently reviewing options for the Peace Monument in Piedmont Park. Mayor Kasim Reed asked the public art commission to review the city's art and determine which pieces have ties to racism and slavery, but hasn't asked to remove any.

Maryland

Gov. Larry Hogan has called for the removal of the Roger B. Taney statue at the Maryland State House. In a statement Tuesday, Hogan said he believes removing the statue is the "right thing to do" and asked the State House Trust to "take that action immediately."

"While we cannot hide from our history -- nor should we -- the time has come to make clear the difference between properly acknowledging our past and glorifying the darkest chapters of our history," he said.

As chief justice, Taney wrote the US Supreme Court's majority opinion in the infamous Dred Scott decision shortly before the Civil War. The 1857 ruling found that slaves were not citizens of the United States and therefore were not protected under the US Constitution.

Texas

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings called for the formation of a task force Tuesday to determine the fate of Confederate statues in city parks during the next 90 days, including the Robert E. Lee statue in Lee Park and the Confederate War Memorial in downtown Dallas, CNN affiliate KTVT reported. "This is simple. We could remove them, the question is, how do we heal on this issue? To do that we have to talk and listen to one another," Rawlings said.

In San Antonio, two City Council members have pushed for the removal of a Confederate monument at Travis Park, CNN affiliate KSAT reported. Councilmen Roberto Treviño and William "Cruz" Shaw jointly filed a consideration to relocate the monument where it could be used in an "educational context."

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner asked city staff to compile an inventory of Confederate statues and make recommendations about whether they should be removed from city property. Members of the public urged the council to take down the statues. "It is my hope that we can, in a very positive and constructive way, move forward," Turner said.

Virginia

Officials in Richmond, the one-time capital of the Confederacy, have started to hold public meetings for community input on the future of the city's many Civil War monuments and statues. According to local reports, the first meeting was civil, with spirited debate on both sides. The city hopes to have a plan in place later this fall.

Washington

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray wants to remove a monument to Confederate soldiers in Lake View Cemetery. The cemetery is on private property, but Murray said in a statement that his office called the cemetery operator to express his concerns about the monument. Murray said the move would send a "strong message by taking these archaic symbols down."

"We must remove statues and flags that represent this country's abhorrent history of slavery and oppression based on the color of people's skin. It is the right thing to do," Murray's statement said.

Not removing

Arizona

Gov. Doug Ducey told CNN affiliate KTVK that he will not remove any Confederate monuments or memorials and will instead leave that decision up to the public.

"It's not my desire or mission to tear down any monuments or memorials. We have a public process for this. If the public wants to be engaged on this, I'd invite them to get engaged in it," Ducey said.

Pennsylvania

Officials with Gettysburg National Military Park said they have no plans to remove any of the park's 1,300-plus monuments, markers or plaques.

Good stuff. Way to go, several parts of the US.

[mr friendly guy]

Another white supremacist beta cucked. Became so scared he took his "uniform" off talking about how scared he is. What a cuck.

[houser2112]

I can understand how these statues could get erected in Southern states, but what baffles me is how they get erected in Union states like New York and Wisconsin (Gettysburg National Park gets a pass from me), which fought against the Confederacy. What baffles me even more is how they get erected in places that did not even fight the Confederacy, like Seattle.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Simon, you are a smart person but are apparently blind to fucking history in a manner that seems almost willful. History has shown time and time again that people can stop the Nazis, the KKK, and all the other various sstupid as fuck, inbred sheep shagging pieces of hate filled fucking shits without resorting to violence. History has shown they can exist without them committing massive violence. History has beat it over our heads that we don't need to nor should we restrict the rights of others even the most foul and disgusting of us to protect our society.

Um ... this is one of the most monumentally incorrect readings of history I have ever seen.

History has NOT shown the ability to "stop the Nazis" without violence. In fact, there was a prolonged discussion of this fact earlier in this thread, which you have ignored (or your head was shoved too far up your own ass to notice). The de-Nazification of Europe was one of the bloodiest and most violent things in the history of the world; and I'm not even JUST referring to World War II (thought, again, it boggles my mind that you would somehow forget about World War fucking 2 when talking about what history has shown about Nazis), but also the DECADES of violence and civil unrest that followed. And the KKK for the vast majority of its history has wantonly committed violence, and they only became widely disenfranchised after the success of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. ... which itself was a movement that involved a good deal of violence.

That's the entire point ... there is NO historical precedent for peacefully and successfully dealing with Nazis. It boggles my mind that you could make that claim with a straight face.

(Also, do me a favor, if/when you reply to this post, can you please just respond in a simple, straightforward manner without trying to distract everyone with all of the irritating 'humorous' rhetorical nonsense you like so much?)

[Broomstick]

I don't really disagree with any of what you said but it still comes to the problem of targeting a single group and more or less repressing them because you don't like them (I wonder if their mothers even like them). Yeah Nazis are going to abuse the system and even be violent but they aren't the only ones. Substitute any political group who can be violent or has had violent members and abuse the system like Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, the Tea Party and wonder if it sounds quite so okay to restrict their rights.

Of all the groups you name only the Nazis acquired an actual army, took over a continent, and butchered millions of people aside from killing millions in battle. One of these things is not like the others.

Another difference is that of the organizations you name only the Nazis have advocated genocide (see above about butchering millions).

It's not a matter of "targeting one group", it's a matter of defense against a group that demonstrably killed millions.

Nazis are bad people but are not part of some criminal organization,

Are you sure about that?

... are not some banned political group,

Because we don't ban political groups.

... so what reason other then the fact they are Nazis should they be treated differently?

What was the death toll in Europe in WWII? There's your answer.

There's a whole bunch of groups that are cousins to the Nazis - the White Supremacist groups, Christian Identity groups - who don't call themselves Nazis. Calling yourself a "Nazi" is a deliberate act to link yourself with the aggressor side in the deadliest, bloodiest war in history.

So maybe we need a separate category and different controls for groups that advocate genocide, overthrow of the current regime by violence, and plans to expand and conquer more territory and eventually the world (by the way, ISIL would fall under that category as well, even if they don't have quite the body count of the Nazis).

Thats is part of the price of living in a free society that sometimes bad people might get in charge (not that we'd know anything about that, not a thing). Its a catch 22 of sorts, a free society gives everyone a voice but some people might use that voice to make society no longer free.

How many people are you willing to sacrifice on that hill? I'm going to take a wild guess that you yourself are not from a targeted group. There have been murderers by Nazis for political reasons since WWII. You don't tend to hear much about them because they've been small scale, here and there. One of Alan Berg's killers in 1984 was a Neo-Nazi, for example.

Some types of bad people, if they're in charge, just make decisions and steal money. Some bad people, when they're in charge, kill people. Not all bad people are created equal.

We don't guard against this threat by becoming less free, by stopping to the level of the people who would destroy our society and rights by destroying our society and rights. We be vigilant against such groups and hope to hell enough people will stand against them.

"Hoping to hell" is not enough for some groups.

Actually, creating a civilized society does call for reduction of certain freedoms. You're no longer free to shit or piss anywhere you want to, you have to do it into something connected to a sewer or otherwise contained. You're no longer free to dominate your neighbors via force. You're no longer free to walk around nude. And that's just to start. Civilization is about constraining individual freedoms so on the balance everyone is more free, and safer.

It was long ago decided by the courts that "freedom of speech" does not include yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater. Your freedoms end when you start to harm others or deprive them of their freedoms. If Nazis are using "free speech" rules to cause harm to others then they can be constrained.

Also if they aren't getting very far with the fucking President being in their corner who exactly are they this great existential threat you are making them out to be? How can they be failing but still a serious, OMG tear up the Constitution level threat butt clencher of a threat?

OMFG - go actually study the history of Germany and the Nazis in the 1930's - they started as thugs, bar-brawlers, and a loser WWI veteran named Adolf. They suddenly got their shit together and the rest is history.

To echo an earlier point, does that make Nazis unique? Plenty of other groups are more then happy to splatter your brains against the concrete for disagreeing with them. And even when they get violent that still doesn't make them enemy soldiers, it makes them criminals. The guy who ran down the lady, not a soldier, not some fucker covered under the Geneva convention, some terroristic piece of shit criminal who is going to be tried and hopefully sentenced very VERY harshly by our laws.

Unless they successfully plead "mental illness", which I think the defense is going to try to so.

Again, the WWII-era Nazis started as thugs and what we would now call "terrorists". They evolved into something else.

And do keep in mind that they way I'm distinguishing them from the run of the mill thugs would also include ISIL.

We classify them as criminals in part because they do not (yet) have a nation for our nation(s) to go to war with. Classifying them as criminals makes it possible to imprison them under our current legal framework. Discussing if that's the proper approach or we should set up something else would derail this thread so I'm not going there.

There was violence, never got exponentially worse even though for the most part the response was not more violence.

People do have a right to self-defense. What form that self-defense should take is open to debate, but I sometimes get the feeling there are folks who think people who are attacked by political protesters should just stand there and take it. I can not agree with that stance.

I would prefer to keep the confrontations in court, but in a public "rally" like this I expect physical violence and I'm surprised when it doesn't happen.

[Broomstick]

A tidbit from Arnold Schwarzenegger:

[Broomstick]

And from June 6, 1944: