Other than one day in September 18 years ago, radical Muslims haven’t been much of a problem in the United States.
Depends on how “direct” a death has to be to pose a “threat.” As much flack as Neil DeGrasse Tyson caught for his insensitive tweet, he had a point: Society doesn’t consider all deaths the same. The 73 deaths that you are talking about are outright killing deaths, but if there is an ideology that “climate change is fake,” that ideology could indirectly lead to millions of American deaths.
You started the thread, why don’t you give us the summarized version of what White Supremacist means because until 2 weeks ago, I thought it meant KKK & Neo-Nazis.
In my understanding, the ADL is using it to describe all the folks who target non white people and Jews for violence. Which seems fair to me.
I don’t know that climate change denial is entirely separated from white supremacism. It is the countries that are full of people who are not white who stand to suffer the most, and who have contributed the least towards the problem.
In fact, a common refrain from those who do not think that we should do anything about climate change is to point at developing countries and demand that they get their act together before we lift a finger in our.
In the future, after climate change has started creating millions more refugees, most of whom will not be white, white supremacy will again rear its head to come up with excuses as to why we cannot take them in.
Then substitute anti-vaxx ideology, or some other ideology that doesn’t involve killing with guns, but nonetheless is dangerous. I think the OP is only referring to violent-killing deaths in his ideology, not indirect deaths.
As for the 73 deaths caused by white supremacists, it has never caused me to worry for my own safety. 73 deaths is an absolutely tiny fraction of a percent of the U.S. population; I have never worried about someone gunning me down while I’m at Walmart or McDonald’s.
OK, just to refine this a hair more. Does target mean active acts or just negative remarks? Creepy jerk attacking any minority group seems pretty easy though I would not have lumped them into White Supremacists myself. But cranky old person both before WWII saying inappropriate things, I’m not going to agree with.
Have there been even 73 deaths due to anti-vaxx in the US? That could become a problem, but at the moment, it’s not really having the viral growth as White Supremacism does. I don’t see anti-vaxx growing in quite the same fashion either.
It’s more than just direct deaths, it is oppression and exploitation as well.
Well, I’m not too worried about being targeted by a white supremacist either, but then, I’m white, so there’s that…
The danger of white supremacy is that it is insidious and infectious. It tells young white men that they are special, that they should have better lives, and that the reason that they don’t, the source of all their problems and ills, is the “other”. It’s easy to fall for, as it is flattering to the listener. The listener feels like they are smarter than, and now less ignorant than the rest of the population that just doesn’t get it yet. The more they listen, the more they get flattered, and the more the “other” is denigrated.
If we had never seen any point in history where white supremacism didn’t get out of control and cause wars and violence, then maybe this would be an academic discussion, and you could compare a white supremacist to people who do hot yoga. But, as white supremacy des in fact have a history of inciting violence and oppression wherever it has taken hold, this is not such an ephemeral argument.
Do you consider there to be a significant difference in culpability between one who commits an act of violence and the others who encouraged it?
This sounds like silly hyperbole.
I think Apple is the biggest ideological threat to American lives.
Look, there’s no need to jump to hyperbole. It’s enough to say that X is bad. Pushing it extremes doesn’t help the case.
If I want to promote an anti-leukemia campaign, I can just say it’s a bad, bad disease. I don’t have to claim that it’s the deadliest killer on the planet.
Fair enough.
It is a much greater danger to those who do not subscribe to White Supremacy than to those who do. For them, things like being anti-vaxx are more likely to kill them and their children.
And of course, if you happen to be of a demographic favored by white supremacists, then you also may not find the threat to be all that great, as the threat is to other people, not to you.
Unfortunately, even if they manage to eradicate or subjugate all the people they feel are inferior, they will still be living on a much worse planet.
Right, if you just ignore the times that race has been used as a reason to oppress or murder people, then you can sweep it under the rug as not that big a deal.
The entire world was at war over this not all that long ago. Is it because the generation is now dying that had to go across the oceans to die for the notion that racial supremacy has no place among us that people are thinking of this as some ephemeral notion that has never taken hold, and so could never pose a threat?
You may not think that it is that big a deal, but you have not posed any argument as to why, just provided examples of other things that we also need to be concerned about, not explained how they are worse than an ideology that has already been shown to be extremely dangerous.
What about nuclear war? The Cuban missile crisis was a lot more recent than the end of WW2, and nuclear weapons are growing ever more prevalent.
[Aging Religious Far Righter]
You see?!? We told you that The Beatles were a menace to America!!!
[ARFR]
By that definition George Wallace and the other segregationist Southern governors of the early '60s were not white supremacists. Want to refine your definition?
Was Islamic extremism a threat before 9/11 but after the first WTC bombing, when the death toll was small?
Yes, nuclear war could very well be a result of White Supremacy getting out of hand. Thank you for the example.
And what have they done on US soil or in US airspace in the past 18 years?
I’m not American, and my knowledge of Wallace is limited, but he seems to fit my definition more than not. He was opposed to interracial marriage and immigration. He may not necessarily have wanted an all white ethnostate but segregationist is only one step removed from that. That said, I certainly think segregationist is a white supremacist policy so I’d definitely expand my definition to include that.