Charlottesville: State of emergency over US far-right rally

[Gandalf]

And let's talk about what set this whole thing off for a moment, shall we?

Why the fuck does this country still have monuments on public property to people who committed treason against the United States? Because they committed treason in the name of subjugating black people and overturning an election they lost... sorry, "state's rights", and that makes it okay to Southern racists?

I wager it's the same reason the country still has monuments to the key figures of its genocidal westward expansion. The figures depicted are just really popular.

[The Romulan Republic]

And let's talk about what set this whole thing off for a moment, shall we?

Why the fuck does this country still have monuments on public property to people who committed treason against the United States? Because they committed treason in the name of subjugating black people and overturning an election they lost... sorry, "state's rights", and that makes it okay to Southern racists?

I wager it's the same reason the country still has monuments to the key figures of its genocidal westward expansion. The figures depicted are just really popular.

Yeah, its kind of a rhetorical question.

Its also really fucking stupid, but that's nothing new.

Its kind of darkly amusing to see supposedly patriotic Right-wing Americans proudly celebrating traitors to their country, though.

[Tsyroc]

There's too many photos to embed, but these are the most telling:

Jesus Fucking Christ!!!

People like to whine about the Confederate Battle Flag being a symbol of rebellion and a symbol of their heritage, and not of racism. Well, there it is with a fucking flag of Nazi Germany. Tell me it's not a symbol of racism now!

Wearing a shirt with a Hitler quote.

When I see shit like this it makes me think of the movie Betrayed with Tom Berenger and Debra Winger. Berenger's character was a white supremacist but he still hated Nazis. His dad fought against them in WWII and he wasn't going to support them now. I guess that the same should be said with the Confederacy since it was technically an enemy of the USA.

More and more the racist shit, on both sides, really gets on my nerves. They both seem to feed on and reinforce each other. My mom has been heavily into genealogy for most of my life so I know a lot of my ancestors and I've done a couple of those DNA things. The first one I did was the Genographic study for National Geographic. It showed that my maternal (RNA) and paternal (Y chromosome DNA) ancestors originated in Africa as best as they can currently tell. The test showed some interesting links to the Mediterranean on my father's (Y chromosome) side that we didn't expect. The best thing though, was that I was 2% Neanderthal and 2.5% Denisovan. Dude! I'm white as fuck and I'm only 95.5% Homo Sapien! I find that hilarious and I keep waiting until the white (and maybe Asian) supremacists start going on about how they are better than people who are 100% from Africa because...... caveman.

The second DNA thing I did was from Ancestry.com. That one was amusing because we'd always assumed that our family was "German" in origin. Well, based on the DNA test I'm pretty much the only one who might qualify as that. My parents and my sister all read rather heavily as "British", with my dad (out of the blue) being mostly Irish. So I find that amusing because based on DNA you might not be what you think you are based on where you think your family comes from. The tests do link you to your parents, siblings etc... via DNA pretty extensively. It will give you numbers that can tell you which parent you are slightly more genetically similar to.


On a genealogical note:

My 11th great grandfather was a Puritan ~douche who was married 4 times. He came to America when he was 70. His 4th wife, may have been one of the inspirations for Hester Prynne from the Scarlet Letter. Through him I am related to Winston Churchill, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Louis L'amour (I include that one because my grandfather, who wasn't related to him, loved his books). I mostly mention this because genealogy can be entertaining and it sure as shit can show anyone who isn't a jackass that we're all related and maybe you should stop thinking of fill in the blank being less than you and, at worst, that distant family relation who might be in need of a little help from time to time. Assuming you aren't the type to mooch help off of your more successful cousin.

[Tsyroc]

I'd personally disagree with that. I believe (and this is just my opinion so clearly correct ) that US laws of free speech are excellent. Of course one might disagree because of the question on how free speech is covered. For me personally I think hate speech is still covered by free speech, I don't like how restrictive some Eurocommie laws are. My opinion isn't even born out of some semi noble goal of protecting all rights, its out of a selfish goal of protecting my own rights.

I believe when you start restricting speech as reprehensible, as socially okay to censor, it leaves the door open for your own speech to be restricted down the line. I like being able to say what I want, I like being able to proclaim that I support gun rights, gay marriage, legalized weed, stronger borders, and expanded socialist safety programs. Some of thats unpopular to say now, some unpopular to say in the past, some could be made illegal if religious fundies have their way. Protect all speech except for actual harmful speech (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" kind and not the "my feelings were hurt" kind) and nobody is censored. But thats just my feelings on the matter.

I also feel driving hate groups underground gives them power, gives them free reign to grow and fester and takes people by surprise with their rhetoric and existence. A hate group in the light is going to be far weaker, their stupidity and cancer exposed for all to see, people will be educated on just what a reprehensible ideology they peddle.

I agree with you about the free speech laws in the US. Sure people spew some reprehensible shit but I'd rather they be able to say it, under the law, and we know what they think (and how stupid it is) than for it to be underground. Also, laws restricting free speech, unless very specific, can be turned on anyone at anytime. I don't want to mistakenly give the government power with good intentions only to have them use it against people, or speech, it was not intended at some future time.

I mean, who interprets what is "hate speech" and what is not?

I think the US Supreme Court was pretty clear that "hate speech" still falls under "free speech".

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

[Wild Zontargs]

This shouldn't surprise anyone.

Part of the bargain of civilization is ceding the authority to commit violence to the State. (Has its own problems. Beats the alternative.) Lord knows there are people I’d love to beat the shit out of in the street, but if I don’t get to then neither do you. No, I don’t give a flying fuck who they are; you don’t get to do that.

Lefties say, “Well, that’s Nazis, they only do that to Nazis; Nazis are different, you have to shut that shit down, etc.” Great. Except that Lefties pull the same “shut this shit down!” stuff on mainstream Righties on college campuses, all the while calling them Nazis.

Hell, Lefties said Ted Cruz was a Nazi, Mitt Romney was a Nazi, George W. Bush was a Nazi. I’ve done human rights work that had me working in proximity to the U.S. military, so at a professional meeting a Lefty called me a Nazi.

So if you tell me that I’m a Nazi, and tell me people I respect are Nazis, and tell me you’re in favor of going out and beating up Nazis, guess what? I am suddenly very interested in the physical safety of Nazis.

And I’m Jewish.

Lemme tell you a true story.

In 209 BC, two Qin Dynasty army officers, Chen Sheng and Wu Guang, were ordered to lead their troops on a march to provide reinforcements. Massive flooding delayed them. They couldn’t make their rendezvous time. In the Qin Dynasty, this carried the death penalty. No excuses.

“What’s the penalty for being late?”

“Death.”

“What’s the penalty for rebellion?”

“Death.”

“Well — we’re late.”

And that’s the story of the Dazexiang Uprising.

How does full-on streetfighting start in the United States of America? My guess is: pretty much like that. “What’s the penalty for kicking the living shit out of Leftist protestors?” “Oh, Jesus, we’d be demonized as Nazis.” “…what’ll they do if we don’t kick the living shit out of Leftist protestors?” “They’ll — hmmmmmmm….”

[...]

Bluntly: this is dangerous. The people who do it for the Left are literal Communists. What kind of Righties will it draw? Oh, I dunno, I’m guessing people who’re comfortable with violence, who don’t mind breaking norms or being arrested…



…if you’re now thinking, “Oh shit,” well, guess what? So am I.

[Joun_Lord]

Free speech is generally not curtailed in Europe even if they have stricter rules regulating hate speech. I think it is possible to have a clearer definition of what constitutes hate speech than the US approach. There's a difference between unpopular opinions and hate speech.

If the US public has no belief in the US police to ensure those hate groups don't impose physical harm to people and have to resort to physical counter-protest or even violence to confront these group, I think you are only going to end up embodying such groups for generations.

If years of constant exposure of far-right neo-nazi groups to the limelight doesn't stop such group from carrying out acts of violence and intimidation, I'm not sure what will.

I think there is a fundamental difference between Euro views on the value of hate speech and that of many Americans. And its understandable that the Eurocommies would want to ban hate speech, its a good thing to do but I think it hits a snag on real world problems. The problem atleast for me is the definition of hate speech. To use probably an imperfect example I'm sure everyone but Aholf Ditler can agree saying "death to the Jews" or "one Europe under white German rule" is bad. Most would agree denying the Holocaust is not cool. But where does it go from there? Would my insistence on not toeing the line and only referring to the Holocaust as 6 million dead Jews but 12 million people of diverse back grounds be considered hate speech or Holocaust denial? The definition of hate speech is muddled and prone to change, prone to peoples opinions about what is hateful.

Unfortunately for some because of their opinions, hate speech and unpopular or opposing opinions can be construed as hate speech. If I say "I'm a bible thumping Christian dingbag and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" some might consider that hate speech. If I say the far more truthful, "I am a wingnut atheist emo who believes two or even more consenting adults should be able to get married no matter their gender, skin color, and even species if we discover another intelligent species, love between a man and a Venusian dickhole fucking gas cloud is still love and probably a bringer of some UTIs" other might believe its hate speech and religious persecution (hell some might believe me being a relatively open atheist would be some form of religious persecution because some people are fucking idiots).

It needs only take a election or a turn of public opinion for what is believed to be okay speech to transform and roll out into hate speech, hence my concerns of going after hate speech.

I don't see the Europe system as guarding against this, actually might exacerbate problems of censorship of opinions.

Nazis exist only in popular media for many people in Asia. They're probably akin to the Galactic empire to many people in Asia, aka "bad guys with cool uniforms".

I think thats more or less how it is with some Americans, hell probably the same with some Europeans. Just another villain we see killed in movies, we kill in vidya games, like Imperial Stormtroopers and zombies and for some people about as real. Thats not blaming movies or games but I think they and other forms of media may have unwittingly helped make the Nazis feel like fiction in the minds of some.

[Highlord Laan]

Heather Heyer.

The dead has a name, now. You're welcome to come out of your hole and try your hand at saying how vile scum like the nazis being able to spew their evil is more important than her life.

I expect your attempts will be more of the slippery slope fallacy moral cowards always trot out to defend evil scum, and how some nebulous ideal must somehow be paid for with blood in order for a people to be free. To which I respond; You first.

Pardon. You next.

[Broomstick]

Public Service Announcement:

Fund raiser for those hurt in the terror attack in Charlottesville, those injured by the car driven by a hateful scumbag: Link to GoFundMe for Charlottesville victims

Needless to say, feel free to help out in any other way you can.

[Joun_Lord]

Heather Heyer.

The dead has a name, now. You're welcome to come out of your hole and try your hand at saying how vile scum like the nazis being able to spew their evil is more important than her life.

I expect your attempts will be more of the slippery slope fallacy moral cowards always trot out to defend evil scum, and how some nebulous ideal must somehow be paid for with blood in order for a people to be free. To which I respond; You first.

Pardon. You next.

Oh get off your high horse dude, Heather Heyer wasn't killed because Nazis said bad shit, this woman was killed because someone (who still isn't confirmed to even be related to the protests) rammed their car into a crowd.

It doesn't take a fucking genius to see there is a difference between the two acts nor does it take one to understand that bad people saying bad things doesn't lead to blood being shed usually, its not the automatic end result. Free speech SHOULDN'T be paid in blood, thats the fucking point of it existing, we speak with our words and not with our fists. This shitbag who murdered Heyer was not practicing free speech or even hate speech, he just murdered someone.

[Broomstick]

Oh get off your high horse dude, Heather Heyer wasn't killed because Nazis said bad shit, this woman was killed because someone (who still isn't confirmed to even be related to the protests) rammed their car into a crowd.

The owner and driver of the car was documented via photograph as being with the American Vanguard group during the rally. Yes, he has been confirmed as "related to the protests".

[ray245]

I think there is a fundamental difference between Euro views on the value of hate speech and that of many Americans. And its understandable that the Eurocommies would want to ban hate speech, its a good thing to do but I think it hits a snag on real world problems. The problem atleast for me is the definition of hate speech. To use probably an imperfect example I'm sure everyone but Aholf Ditler can agree saying "death to the Jews" or "one Europe under white German rule" is bad. Most would agree denying the Holocaust is not cool. But where does it go from there? Would my insistence on not toeing the line and only referring to the Holocaust as 6 million dead Jews but 12 million people of diverse back grounds be considered hate speech or Holocaust denial? The definition of hate speech is muddled and prone to change, prone to peoples opinions about what is hateful.

Unfortunately for some because of their opinions, hate speech and unpopular or opposing opinions can be construed as hate speech. If I say "I'm a bible thumping Christian dingbag and I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" some might consider that hate speech. If I say the far more truthful, "I am a wingnut atheist emo who believes two or even more consenting adults should be able to get married no matter their gender, skin color, and even species if we discover another intelligent species, love between a man and a Venusian dickhole fucking gas cloud is still love and probably a bringer of some UTIs" other might believe its hate speech and religious persecution (hell some might believe me being a relatively open atheist would be some form of religious persecution because some people are fucking idiots).

It needs only take a election or a turn of public opinion for what is believed to be okay speech to transform and roll out into hate speech, hence my concerns of going after hate speech.

I don't see the Europe system as guarding against this, actually might exacerbate problems of censorship of opinions.

I see many European societies being capable of a shift in ideas and becoming more tolerant without having such a liberal free speech law as the US. What we've seen so far is that stricter laws against hate speech haven't don't any major harm that you Americans believe it will.

Hate speech is rather different from the simple expression of controversial opinions. Hate speech that says for certain groups deserve to be destroyed is very different from saying gay marriage is wrong. Hate speech thrives on its ability to develop spaces or avenue in which people can express such opinions. If the only solution towards hate speech is merely safe spaces, then it fundamentally undermines a democratic society. A democratic society requires people to be able to make arguments at each other without turning it into a shouting match.

What's happening in Charlottesville is equivalent to a flame war ( with death and violence), with no meaningful exchange of ideas taking place at all.

I think thats more or less how it is with some Americans, hell probably the same with some Europeans. Just another villain we see killed in movies, we kill in vidya games, like Imperial Stormtroopers and zombies and for some people about as real. Thats not blaming movies or games but I think they and other forms of media may have unwittingly helped make the Nazis feel like fiction in the minds of some.

Pop media has a tendency to trivialise historical "bad guys" due to its narrative limitations. Being constantly exposed to protagonists gunning down nazis after nazis undermine just how horrible the nazis were during WW2.

Except, by and large, the public does have the belief the police will do something about those hate groups. In fact, they have - it is now very rare for these groups to act out and commit violent acts, that's why the Virginia rally is such an aberration.

Even in the south? Isn't Charlottesville a relatively liberal part of Virigina to begin with?

Acts of violence by the Nazis and KKK are far less common than they used to be. When I was a kid we still had cross-burnings and sunset towns. Now the town I live next to, once sunset town, is 30% black with a dash of hispanic and Asian. Cross burnings probably do still happen from time to time, but they are far, far less common than in the past and I haven't actually heard of one happening for a long, long time. These hate groups are, in fact, dying out.

Yeah, except I'm not really comparing them to the 60s or 70s. I'm comparing the situation today to how it was like in the 90s or early 2000s. I certainly don't remember things being this bad during Obama's administration.

The problem comes in when you have these public rallies, and to my mind it's obvious the hate groups came hoping for trouble. Clashes between the hate and counter-protesters is always a risk at these, although clashes don't always happen.

I don't feel a need to curtail free speech even with what happened yesterday. The problem yesterday wasn't words, it was acts, and the problem actions are already illegal.

There's no point of the actions being illegal when people are dead. I don't think slamming the books down on the terrorist is somehow enough to deter more crazies from trying out the same thing again. Terrorists are rarely deterred by the laws.

[Joun_Lord]

The owner and driver of the car was documented via photograph as being with the American Vanguard group during the rally. Yes, he has been confirmed as "related to the protests".

I wasn't aware of this yet, though a new article I just picked up seems to confirm this but my point still stands, her death is not a free speech thing.

[Highlord Laan]

The owner and driver of the car was documented via photograph as being with the American Vanguard group during the rally. Yes, he has been confirmed as "related to the protests".

I wasn't aware of this yet, though a new article I just picked up seems to confirm this but my point still stands, her death is not a free speech thing.

Bullshit. And you have no point.

Why were the "alt-right" protesting in Chatlottesville? Because they're fucking nazis.
Why were there counter protesters in Chatlottesville? Because they objected to fucking nazis being in their town.
Why did a subhuman piece of worthless filth decide to drive his car into the crowd of counter protesters and murder a women? Because he's a fucking nazi.
Why did said filth even get the idea in it's head that what it stood for was in any way, shape, form or function at all tolerable? Because people like you keep defending nazis.

Like hell it wasn't a "free speech thing." How does one stop having a problem with nazis? You get rid of the nazis. They are the ones hostile to everyone else, up to and including a long and bloody history of violence. Why the fuck should we make room for or tolerate them when they are the hostile invaders?

Free Speech? Fuck you. I'm not interested in putting lives in danger to protect human garbage.

[Wild Zontargs]

Free Speech? Fuck you. I'm not interested in putting lives in danger to protect human garbage.

And 30 years from now, if the people in charge consider you human garbage, what then?

[Broomstick]

Except, by and large, the public does have the belief the police will do something about those hate groups. In fact, they have - it is now very rare for these groups to act out and commit violent acts, that's why the Virginia rally is such an aberration.

Even in the south? Isn't Charlottesville a relatively liberal part of Virigina to begin with?

Yes, even in the south. The south isn't what it was 50 years ago. If anything the far-right white supremacist Nazi types are in the west these days because the lower population densities makes it easier for them to set up their own little enclaves without pesky other people noticing or doing anything about it.

Acts of violence by the Nazis and KKK are far less common than they used to be. When I was a kid we still had cross-burnings and sunset towns. Now the town I live next to, once sunset town, is 30% black with a dash of hispanic and Asian. Cross burnings probably do still happen from time to time, but they are far, far less common than in the past and I haven't actually heard of one happening for a long, long time. These hate groups are, in fact, dying out.

Yeah, except I'm not really comparing them to the 60s or 70s. I'm comparing the situation today to how it was like in the 90s or early 2000s. I certainly don't remember things being this bad during Obama's administration.

You are correct. It was not this bad during the '90's and '00's.

Progress is never a smooth upward slope, it's a jagged up-and-down thing with a certain amount of backtracking involved. That's why a long view is more informative than a short one.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Free Speech? Fuck you. I'm not interested in putting lives in danger to protect human garbage.

And 30 years from now, if the people in charge consider you human garbage, what then?

I have made this distinction several times. Free speech is about the state. The State may not make laws restricting it, and the state must leave resolving this sort of thing to "open discourse" within the population.

Open discourse can take many forms, and bluntly, they are fucking Nazis. They have nothing to fucking say. What dialogue do you expect to have with them? (Well, for you I suspect you might actually dialogue with them over beer while taking about how mean SJWs are to you)

They literally want to kill the untermenschen und mindervertige.

We've gone to war Nazis and ground them into dust for a reason. If they ever gain political power, well, I am gay and of jewish decent. I know what happens to me. I'm on the fucking gassing block.

So, you can't have a meaningful civil discourse with them, their ideas are the closest thing to an abomination that exists, they want to kill large portions of the population...

"Open Discourse" can and SHOULD take the form of them losing their jobs, being shunned by society, and yes... being punched in the face. Now, we are a nation of laws and the people who do punch them in the face do and should risk legal sanction in so doing (as individuals, not as a class of "nazi opponents", don't start with your false-equivalence bullshit.) but they are perfectly ethically justified because the people they are punching in the face are fucking nazis who want to pile them/others/me into mass graves. Of course, I would be interested to see what the fighting words doctrine would have to say about a jew who's grandparents have a tattoo from Auschwitz punching a nazi in the face.

[ray245]

Yes, even in the south. The south isn't what it was 50 years ago. If anything the far-right white supremacist Nazi types are in the west these days because the lower population densities makes it easier for them to set up their own little enclaves without pesky other people noticing or doing anything about it.

Well, this has certainly not been the case in Charlottesville. With the political climate in the US these days, I find it difficult to believe the police will be able to take sufficient action to prevent such clash once again.

You are correct. It was not this bad during the '90's and '00's.

Progress is never a smooth upward slope, it's a jagged up-and-down thing with a certain amount of backtracking involved. That's why a long view is more informative than a short one.

The younger generation tends to rely on our own personal experience as a baseline for judging "things are getting better/worse". The long view might be a useful thing for future historians, but it doesn't really matter for the people who are being killed in the meantime. I don't think many people are able to think about progress in the long run when their lives are being threatened today.

It's like saying things will turn out better in the long run during WW2.

I have made this distinction several times. Free speech is about the state. The State may not make laws restricting it, and the state must leave resolving this sort of thing to "open discourse" within the population.

Open discourse can take many forms, and bluntly, they are fucking Nazis. They have nothing to fucking say. What dialogue do you expect to have with them? (Well, for you I suspect you might actually dialogue with them over beer while taking about how mean SJWs are to you)

They literally want to kill the untermenschen und mindervertige.

We've gone to war Nazis and ground them into dust for a reason. If they ever gain political power, well, I am gay and of jewish decent. I know what happens to me. I'm on the fucking gassing block.

So, you can't have a meaningful civil discourse with them, their ideas are the closest thing to an abomination that exists, they want to kill large portions of the population...

"Open Discourse" can and SHOULD take the form of them losing their jobs, being shunned by society, and yes... being punched in the face. Now, we are a nation of laws and the people who do punch them in the face do and should risk legal sanction in so doing (as individuals, not as a class of "nazi opponents", don't start with your false-equivalence bullshit.) but they are perfectly ethically justified because the people they are punching in the face are fucking nazis who want to pile them/others/me into mass graves. Of course, I would be interested to see what the fighting words doctrine would have to say about a jew who's grandparents have a tattoo from Auschwitz punching a nazi in the face.

If "open discourse" is merely going to result in physical violence, then what's the bloody point of "open discourse" to begin with?

[ray245]

Double post: deleted.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If "open discourse" is merely going to result in physical violence, then what's the bloody point of "open discourse" to begin with?

Kinda what I am saying. There is no open discourse to be had with Nazis. Some of them you might be able to reach through long and drawn out contact, but that takes one on one investment of time that has to be bi-directional. It is going to be rare. It is certainly not a solution to the nazi problem.

On its own, I would favor something like the German system, where they have provisions written into their constitution regarding Nazis and what should be done with them (arrest and imprisonment), but the US does not have those. So socially sanctioning Nazis--making them complete pariahs devoid of all power (violence optional)--falls to the citizenry.

[aerius]

Videos of the car crashing into the counter protesters. I'm going to stick it in spoilers since it ain't pretty.
View at your own discretion, etc.
Spoiler

[ray245]

If "open discourse" is merely going to result in physical violence, then what's the bloody point of "open discourse" to begin with?

Kinda what I am saying. There is no open discourse to be had with Nazis. Some of them you might be able to reach through long and drawn out contact, but that takes one on one investment of time that has to be bi-directional. It is going to be rare. It is certainly not a solution to the nazi problem.

On its own, I would favor something like the German system, where they have provisions written into their constitution regarding Nazis and what should be done with them (arrest and imprisonment), but the US does not have those. So socially sanctioning Nazis--making them complete pariahs devoid of all power (violence optional)--falls to the citizenry.

And there is going to be massive problems with that. If your only legitimate tool to stopping neo-nazis is counter-protests, then you are effectively relying on violence as a means. ( no matter how well-policed protest and counter-protest are, you cannot deny the situation will be extremely volatile)

Moreover, for all the supposed benefits of the American style freedom of speech, I've yet to see any convincing argument that it's better than the European model. It just feels overly idealistic and not that useful in comparison. I mean your freedom of speech has certainly not stopped someone like Donald Trump stroking the fires and turning a blind eye towards neo-nazis. For all the supposed benefits, you guys still end up with a Donald Trump in power.

Neo-nazis groups thrived on the chances given to show their "strength". Neo-Nazis as isolated individuals aren't really that massive of a threat because they will lack the numbers to intimate people. But if you allow them to gather in public avenue in large number, that's where their strength comes from. It's propaganda for them, to show they are more powerful than what their numbers will suggest.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If "open discourse" is merely going to result in physical violence, then what's the bloody point of "open discourse" to begin with?

Kinda what I am saying. There is no open discourse to be had with Nazis. Some of them you might be able to reach through long and drawn out contact, but that takes one on one investment of time that has to be bi-directional. It is going to be rare. It is certainly not a solution to the nazi problem.

On its own, I would favor something like the German system, where they have provisions written into their constitution regarding Nazis and what should be done with them (arrest and imprisonment), but the US does not have those. So socially sanctioning Nazis--making them complete pariahs devoid of all power (violence optional)--falls to the citizenry.

And there is going to be massive problems with that. If your only legitimate tool to stopping neo-nazis is counter-protests, then you are effectively relying on violence as a means. ( no matter how well-policed protest and counter-protest are, you cannot deny the situation will be extremely volatile)

Moreover, for all the supposed benefits of the American style freedom of speech, I've yet to see any convincing argument that it's better than the European model. It just feels overly idealistic and not that useful in comparison. I mean your freedom of speech has certainly not stopped someone like Donald Trump stroking the fires and turning a blind eye towards neo-nazis. For all the supposed benefits, you guys still end up with a Donald Trump in power.

Neo-nazis groups thrived on the chances given to show their "strength". Neo-Nazis as isolated individuals aren't really that massive of a threat because they will lack the numbers to intimate people. But if you allow them to gather in public avenue in large number, that's where their strength comes from. It's propaganda for them, to show they are more powerful than what their numbers will suggest.

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.

[ray245]

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.

[Broomstick]

Drone footage of ramming car from above: Spoiler

[Broomstick]

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

Americans live in a very violent society.

Which is not something I personally approve of, but that's the reality.