Banquet Bear, your blatant dishonesty in saying I only “voted” for Hillary, when I volunteered and donated, is noted.
…oh fuck off. Are you reading the conversation? He’s not dictating the terms of our “discussion.” I am. You normalize the conversation when you tell me to ignore his racism and his xenophobia and his religious bigotry to let him stink up this thread by letting him pretend to be the “good guy.” You don’t see any value in addressing him? Fuck off. This is the fucking pit. Stop normalizing his rhetoric. Stop letting him pretend that his abhorrent views don’t really exist. Stop letting him get away with it. This is life or death for people like me. I’m not going to put up with his shit any more. Especially in this thread.
…“volunteering and donated” is not equivalent to starting a pit thread and a GD thread dedicated to getting a black Muslim member of congress thrown out of office. It isn’t equivalent to contacting your congressman, your state senator, your state rep, the Governor and another senator to get her censured or expelled. You’ve spent more effort in the last couple of weeks actively working to get rid of the black Muslim member of congress here than you have ever spend trying to get rid of Trump. We can read what you say.
Don’t try and gas light me. You have openly expressed you don’t want Muslims in America. It isn’t a fucking coincidence that you’ve directed your ire at people like AOC and Ilhan Omar. Do you really think we are stupid you racist piece of shit?
You really have not seen the recent discussions (even in the SDMB) with racists that are using racist fake environmentalism as one item to justify the targeting of minorities, immigrants or refugees.
Point being that the extreme right, as always, find ways to twist movements that are scientifically based and seen proper even by liberals into weapons to use against minorities, immigrants and refugees.
Many disregarded my recent observation when I mentioned that a few, very conservative dopers, appeared first as “scientific” racists, then anti-immigrant proponents, then used that twisted version of fake environmentalism and then came out as holocaust deniers. That progression is clearly IMHO showing up in larger numbers in other places of the internet and social media.
Their sources are not hard to find now in the internet and (anti) social media.
Perhaps I’m being overly generous but that could be a misunderstanding on previous poster’s part.
Southern and Molyneux were granted visas for NZ and do not appear to have had any government restrictions placed on what they could say or to whom they might speak.
The mayor of Auckland, Phil Goff, blocked them from booking / using any council owned venues saying he didn’t want such spaces being used to stir up racial tension.
The pair delayed their trip and then booked a privately owned venue (one often used for concerts). After receiving complaints, and looking further into who they had booked the venue owner decided to cancel the booking. The owner stated that they “can say whatever they want but personally I don’t want it in my venue”.
tl;dr version: no one prevented them from speaking, some people refused to provide a megaphone.
…the “eco-fascist” also said “Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie” before he walked into the mosque and slaughtered 50 people. He’s a shit-posting troll. With a gun. To understand the manifesto you first need to understand alt-right culture. You need to examine the roots of the rise of movements like g@#ergate and 8chan and shit-posting culture. Without that context the manifesto presents itself as something very different from what it actually is.
It’s also seen some push from what are typically assumed to be left leaning environmental activists. The Sierra Club’s had a divisive and long running debate that included narrowly defeating an internal measure to completely oppose US immigration in 1998. Their internal concerns about immigration started before the major nativist groups’ attempting to greenwashing. Very strong positions about population control and overconsumption in developed economies support relatively anti-immigrant policy positions. That can be true even for someone who isn’t a nativist or on the right when they start.
As much as the horseshoe theory is discredited this, is one of those cases where it seems to apply. Of course the shooter including “Fascist” in his identification so I think it’s easy to guess which leg of the horseshoe he sees himself on.
I have no problem whatsoever believing he’s an ecofascist. According to Wikipedia, the Nazis can be described as ecofascist with their “blood and soil” rhetoric. It’s still fascism, after all, pushing a totalitarian government and scapegoating some undesirables.
If he’s claiming it of himself, he’s not using it in its pejorative sense for anyone who supports environmentalism.
Probably because he speaks with this outrageous accent, right?
No, I have no idea either.
Just that, in the fight against Fascism, the French have - to stick with the Monty Python theme - traditionally played the part of Brave Sir Robin.
Do you think his antiquated colonial views mean that his crucial insights into free speech become somehow tainted? I certainly don’t.
Do any of his other views remain valid? He was against slavery and in favour of women’s suffrage so I assume you think he had something useful to say on those subjects.
17th/18th/19th Century philosophy and thought was rife with great ideas from people that also had problematic views. If we can’t take the good on its own merit then the Enlightenment may as well never have happened.
Your understanding of fascism is matched only by your understanding of french history.
That’s not a compliment.
This is one of the most important aspects of this horrific story: that the hatemongers aren’t content simply to slaughter innocents—they need to make sure that all groups who would oppose them are divided, enraged at each other, distracted by arguing over group membership.
The white-supremacist tribalist begins by masquerading as (as you note) someone using science to get to the truth of a situation. Of course a distortion of “science” is what the tribalist is using, but the “scientific” claims get the actual advocates of science enmeshed in disputes and counter-disputes. The tribalist hopes both to gain legitimacy by claiming membership in the group of (say) environmentalists, and to provoke enmity among environmentalists.
‘I’m slaughtering these people because of my concern for the environment’ should inspire nothing but revulsion and rejection—but instead it inspires contentious name-calling among those who actually do care about the environment.
Even an atheist can start to suspect the existence of demonic forces, when faced with this doubling-down on evil.
<Monty Python narrator> “… and there was great rejoicing throughout the land …”
Frustrated white males are dangerous. I think they’re attracted to white supremacy because they don’t feel they’re as important as they believe they should be. These people don’t form healthy social bonds and the internet’s online radicals become their ‘family’
As I said, you could just shut the fuck up. I’m not inciting hatred; I’m calling out right wing animals who have normalized racism for who they are. Take your false equivalency and shove it up your ass.
Just because he wants to say things doesn’t mean a government, a corporation, or anyone else is required to rent him a venue or a microphone, nor are they required to provide him an audience. Let him make speeches from atop a soap box on Speakers’ Corner.
The Mill philosophy I subscribe to is that it’s beside the point to quibble about how suppression of speech (that decent numbers of people would hear if the venues were available for them to do so) is accomplished, by public or private action. It’s not really even about individual rights so much as about how to build the best society:
It doesn’t matter. What you give with one hand, you take with another with your racist trolling.
My favorite response to Anning (and his fellow shit cunts).