Did I stutter on the last two paragraphs that you omitted?
The trouble with that is that then they should not complain when they are indeed found guilty by association.
Back in the old days it was not just the employers the ones that did make the life of the American Nazis hard, back then the government also did check the funding of the American Nazi movements.
That did the job then. The public and private shame of today toward the Nazis is just one part of what has to be done.
As she said, she won’t be able to give permission for a while. 
I’m still musing about the post’s content, myself, but my first reaction is that even the most minor of protest or action, no matter how peaceful, is ALREADY vilified by the right, as Spice Weasel herself admits, so I’m not sure how even the most organized peaceful effort will “make headway with this administration”.
I also contend that while violence can and does put off “moderates” and the “center right,” I’m honestly not sure how much that applies when the violence in question is (a) against people who politically push towards genocide and (b) against people who have already committed countless acts of even worse, deadly violence against their opponents. Maybe I’m wrong and Spice Weasel is right, but I think it’s a factor that needs to be considered.
Also, I agree with the general point that organization is important, but I don’t see how what’s going on now fools anyone on the left into thinking it’s all that needs to be done. By what I see, there’s a huge number of people on the left who think the entire nation and system is rotten, racist, and corrupt, and all needs to be torn down. That doesn’t say “oh, all we need to do is punch a Nazi once in a while” to me.
Here’s what I wonder, and what I would ask Spice Weasel when she returns: what do you think of the argument that Nazi speech is inherently violent towards the people it advocates action against, and that thus self defense may be necessary, because “turning the other cheek” only plays into the Nazis’ hands?
ETA: is there actual evidence that so called “antifas” actually define themselves as being violent towards the alt right, or is it another “BLM advocates killing cops” thing?
Well, not Spice Weasel here, but I will say that there is the trouble now. The issue popped hard with the Charlottesville incident, and there the Nazis were the ones killing and sending people to the hospital. It is this talk of “just a freedom speech issue” that ignores why we are discussion this issue now.
To try to sum up after some thought: I’m not sure it’s possible to “make headway with this administration,” and I think that a lot of people have given up on that, given the support Trump seems to have from his party and the long held (since before Trump) view of America as a racist country. I also think there are a lot of people who don’t think people who don’t already sympathize with racists and Nazis will become more sympathetic towards them because they get punched, unless the media tells them outright lies, which happens anyway.
Well, and as a photo thing on FB said,
These people have problems with a football player taking a knee during the national anthem, with Black Lives Matter, with liberal protesters. They don’t deserve Free Speech
But Nazis deserve Free Speech.
Just think about that for a bit.
Would you like for this thread to also be a place for you to unwind and report on the sociopolitical happenings from the social media frontlines? This is the second time today you really kind of meandered off the subject of the thread into some inane (IMO, I know others might agree w/your) train of thought. It’s got your name on it. I mean, you’ve got the green light from me, no sarcasm or snideness intended.
As much as I don’t care if players kneel for the national anthem, the controversy isn’t about freedom of speech. It’s about PR and the balance struck by union bargaining. Have a good night!
No, it is a social justice thread ***and ***a dessert topping!
The application form is in the same drawer as my white privelige card.
The Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Sheldon Adelson.
Four billionaires funding the right. I’m sure I missed a few.
So what was the bullshit complaint about Soros and all this money he’s allegedly (but not really) handing out on the left?
Those people are wrong and hypocritical. But they aren’t 1/2 as detestable as many on this board who advocate violence for speech.
What about people who don’t have a problem with a sports player kneeling during the national anthem, do think the BLM movement has a point, and disagrees with liberal protestors but supports their right to protest - and thinks Nazis also deserve free speech, despite finding their views abhorrent?
They’re wrong and hypocritical, and way more detestable. Antifa at least has reasonable goals–stopping Nazism–whereas these other fuckers are trying to maintain white supremacy.
And not only that, but those bastards simply REFUSE to change their skin color, or even go back to where they came from! Those lefties are just provoking the poor white supremacists, amiright?
You don’t understand radical leftism if you think it exists merely to oppose fascism. The opposition to fascism is a rallying cry. It’s not the end game. People conveniently forget how dangerous radical leftists can be.
And BigT, did I read you right? You got banned for attacking a comic book character?
“Social justice warrior” is a dog-whistle for “nigger lover,” or any cosmopolitan Yankee who badmouths heroes like Robert E. Lee.
Chimera is opposed to hatred. The OP is opposed to people who oppose hatred. Both viewpoints are equally valid in today’s America. Repeat after me:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
You know how sometimes when you give a child with a well-developed sense of moral outrage a flamethrower, it doesn’t end well? There are real and legitimate criticisms for the social justice movement, and Chimera is not getting flak for opposing nazis so much as for being incredibly indiscriminate where he’s pointing his flamethrower.
The title of the thread is
Chimera is a social justice warrior
OP should ask a Mod to insert an adjective like “over-reaching” if the present thread title doesn’t match his complaint.
I’ve not conducted my own independent study, but the clips from Chimera I saw skimming seemed fine.
It’s a bit like saying “X is a racist who doesn’t like black people”. That is largely implicit in what people* mean when they use “SJW” as a perjorative. If it wasn’t clear enough, the first post lays it pretty bare.
*(who aren’t idiots and bigots. This caveat is necessary because for enough folks, just being in favor of things like gay rights or women’s rights or against racism is enough of a perjorative. But that’s not who we’re talking about right now.)
I’m in favor of things like gay rights and women’s rights and against racism. I vote accordingly. If that’s all it takes, sign me up.
And to repeat myself, if Bubba Joe says he ain’t a Nazi but he still wants to march with Nazis and beat people up with the Nazis, then I don’t give a damn if he is an official member or not. He can go to jail (or to hell, or both) with his Nazi buddies.
Quick question… did DougK ever come back with his officially approved substitute term for the now unapproved “dog whistle”? It’s been a while.