Actually, not true. There were jews who voted for Hitler when he was rising, and there were millions of people sent to the death camps who were not jewish.
That doesn’t justify anything, but please, if you’re above age 3, keep in mind that the world isn’t black and white. Not even Nazism. One of the things that bring us to situations like the one in Charlottesville is precisely that manicheism.
Mr. Trump has been the President of the United States now for roughly six months, and he campaigned for the position for several months before that.
In that time, we citizens have gotten to know the man pretty well. And one thing that we have come to understand about him is that—whether you think this is a good thing or not—he is not reluctant to single out people or institutions that he sees as enemies. Surely everyone can agree on that.
Even when it is not in his best interest to do so, even in instances where party members, advisors, or even family members urge him to show restraint, he insists on calling out people as enemies.
He has called out members of Gold Star Families, a sitting senator who was a POW, NATO, the Speaker of the House of his own party, the press, any number of alliances no matter how long standing, and even the Contsitution itself.
It is part of his political DNA. It is a fundamental and irreducible quality of his leadership: if he thinks anyone or anything is an enemy, he will publicly name them with no hesitation, with no regard for previous custom or any notional propriety.
So the fact that he is somehow reluctant to name American white supremacists as enemies is quite easy to explain: he simply does not agree that they are enemies.
In order not to see that, you have to not want to see it, or not care.
It is as clear as day.
This. He’s a known racist, and he and the Republicans were elected because millions of Americans wanted to protect and promote racism and other forms of bigotry. Not in spite of racism, not because they were fooled or stupid; because they wanted racist fascist to take control of the United States, and for non-whites to be persecuted and killed. So Trump voters are going to be very happy to see this, it’s just what they wanted.
Please, tell us about all these shades of gray in NAZISM that make it not all that bad.
Absolutely correct. A friend of mine, originally from Jordan and still a practicing Muslims, agrees with me that Trump is anti-Muslim, but does not agree that Trump is anti-Semitic. His proof is that trump’s kid converted to Judaism. That means nothing to Trump! The man is still racist to a T, still a bigot from the get-go, and still an imbecile, a dangerous one at that.
You are correct that Trump does not see his supporters as enemies. And why not? Obvious answer: They are not his enemies.
The only thing to add to this is that there is clearly a segment that wants to retain the trappings of respectability and so they hide behind “both sides do it” and parsing every incident until they can inject some false ambiguity.
For a Trump voter, a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville is not a bug, but a feature.
I think Nava was referring to how prevalent the Nazis were in Germany during WWII, not to today’s scum. Of course the WWII Nazis had scum, but there were also people who joined not out of conviction, but IIRC that they were required to in order to keep their job, such as government school teachers and other government workers.
My argument is not that Nazis shouldn’t have freedom of speech, but that certain things common in Nazi speech should not be protected speech (for anyone). I argue first that carrying weapons, especially where they can be easily used, while in a protest should not protected speech. That’s not to say you can’t carry a gun normally, but protests are different. Carrying a gun openly inherently carries a message of violence. Using torches has historical precedent of condoning violence and property damage.
I also argue that promotion of genocide or murder or just crimes in general should be restricted. Not necessarily all the time–maybe someone’s just upset. But, if you have a bunch of people carrying weapons around with you, that becomes a credible threat.
I also just generally think that hate speech could be a valid limit to freedom of speech. I’m not sure where the line is drawn between opinion and hate speech, but I think we could draw one, and resist arguments that the current understanding of freedom of speech is sacrosanct.
And, finally, I don’t agree that freedom of speech was created to support vile speech. I still say it was created to keep those in power in a democracy from silencing their opposition and thus having tyrannical rule. That’s not saying that all vile speech should be restricted. It’s saying there may be a category of it we can justify restricting, just as we did before with the exceptions we have now.
It’s basically saying “freedom of speech” is a right, not an excuse. It’s challenging the status quo on freedom of speech as some sort of divine command.
(And, note, I sometimes even do it in the opposite direction. Soldiers disagreeing with the president on their own time is an example where I want more freedom, for instance.)
Disturbingly, I find myself more or less in complete agreement with you there, BigT.
Oh, and I’m also saying (in my first post) that freedom of speech is NOT an excuse to do nothing about Nazism, even if we maintain the status quo on what it means. I hate this trend common on the far/alt right to use freedom of speech as a “get out of consequences free” card.
I also hate how it seems to be unequally applied. One incident of BLM violence? They’re all thugs who need to be shut down. One person gets violent protesting a speaker at their college? They’re all SJWs who should be kicked out of the college. One Nazi commits violence, and we’re still defending the freedom of speech of the rest of them.
Turns out a few of these racist shitheads are discovering that there are consequences to being publicly seen advocating for genocide, and that “Nazi” isn’t a protected class under the law;
Charlottesville restaurateur threatened after he boots patrons for Nazi salute
Charlottesville white supremacist marcher gets ID’d on Twitter and loses job at hot dog restaurant
College Republicans president spotted in Charlottesville: ‘They have no proof that I’m a racist’
Funny how they’re so confident yelling “Heil Trump!” and “Blood and soil!” when they have strength and numbers, but as soon as they get called out outside their safe space, they’re suddenly so ashamed to admit what they are and what they believe. It’s almost as if, on some level, they realize what a sorry bunch of motherfuckers they are and how reprehensible their beliefs are. Maybe that’s why they used to wear hoods to these kind of events.
To borrow from their own vernacular, what a bunch of beta cucks.
I’m not sure how on earth you extrapolated from the selected quotes (or any that have been posted) that we’re against those protections. I think this falls into the category of “You’re just making shit up now”
I think you’ve expressed with more specificity my objections to the kinds of protests that took place in Charlottesville and Portland - nice post, BigT.
I think people should have the freedom to say racist things in contexts where people are less likely to get into a violent conflict and where an actual discussion about the merits (or lack of them) of those ideas can take place. But parading around the streets with Nazi and Confederate flags, torch lights, and firearms is an entirely different matter. It’s a deliberate provocation.
Interesting that, faced with a gang of actual thugs chanting actual incitements carrying actual weapons, not one cop was so “in fear for his life” that he just had to open fire…
(music cue) One of these things is not like the others… (/music cue)
This is a great point and one well worth remembering today. The campaign of Nazism had many messages, and while there were certainly warning signs of what Nazism might turn into, it wasn’t as obvious then as it is now that Nazism would lead to Germany’s ruin and the pain and suffering that took place between 1933 and 1945. A plurality, not a majority, decided that Germany political elites needed to be rattled by someone different.
I’m not clear on where or when to draw these lines, but forcing this issue is what the problematic people seem to want. They are not the Nazis of history any more than I’m a Norse valkyrie; they rattled a college town with a lot of noise and imagery. Provocative, yes, but predictable, designed to irritate the Left.
Just be careful of handing them victories, that’s all.
The SPLC speaks some sense on an aspect of this issue: how to respond to alt right speakers on college campuses:
If they fly the colors of the enemy, and wear the uniform of the enemy, and shout the slogans of the enemy, then I see no reason not to treat them as the enemy.
After a day of cooling off, I can agree with the above.
