Discussions of free speech in America are usually dominated by hypotheticals — or by slippery slope arguments, if you prefer.
The First Amendment unquestionably and broadly protects what we call "hate speech." If you point that out, you get hypotheticals in return. "Really? So, the day that Nazis march the streets, armed, carrying the swastika flag, sieg-heiling, calling out abuse of Jews and blacks, some of their number assaulting and even killing people, you'll still defend their right to speak?" That literal parade of horribles is invoked when free speech defenders talk about anything from bigot college kids acting out to Alt-Right racism online.
We free speech defenders are just as quick with hypotheticals; it's built into our worldview. "Really? So you'd give the state the power to choose what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't, and use its vast power to punish the difference? You're comfortable giving it that power, even though some day that state might be controlled by an implacable enemy of everything you believe in, a tyrant who overtly relishes the power to punish people who think like you do, encouraged by supporters who hate you?" The unprincipled-tyrant-that-could-be is a staple of First Amendment rhetoric.
Hypotheticals — called slippery slopes when you're dismissing them — are supposed to require some imagination, are supposed to involve some projection about how current events could deteriorate to an ugly future scenario. How will it change our thinking when that ugly future is now?
This weekend the hypotheticals about how far the Alt-Right might go collapsed into a grim reality. Literal Nazis marched the streets of an American city, calling out Jews and blacks and gays, wielding everything from torches to clubs and shields to rifles, offering Nazi slogans and Nazi salutes. Some of their number attacked counter-protesters, and one of them murdered a counter-protester and attempted to murder many others. This is the "what if" and "how far" that critics of vigorous free speech policies pose to us as a society.
So, too, has the malevolent government we fear come to pass. We have a President elected on a platform of denouncing the press, "investigating" protest movements, and "opening up" libel laws (however little he can actually do so). We have an administration and its powerful, megaphone-equipped sycophants who define entire diverse protest groups — Black Lives Matter, as one example — by the violent actions or rhetoric of a tiny fraction of their members, and suggest that the state should treat the whole based on that part. (This, ironically, is exactly what the Nazis are now complaining that people are doing.) Rhetoric from officials and their media supporters about protest groups is full of accusations of incitement of crime and group criminality and conspiracy. Across the country, conservative legislators rush to craft statutes to protect people who run over protesters with cars. The NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, is putting out chillingly totalitarian propaganda videos to gun owners portraying protest against the regime as uniformly violent and criticism of the President as "inciting" that violence, and exhorting them to defend themselves and the regime from the violent protesters and their inciters. And we have a President who seems to respect no American norms.
What do we do when we near the bottom of the slippery slope?
These are hard times. Our values should be our beacons to lead us through them. Those values include due process, the rule of law and equality of all people before it, and freedom of speech and worship.
The Nazis, whether armed with rifles or clownishly clad in khakis, stand against our values — they stand for the proposition that some of us are less American than others by birth, and that America must be "preserved" to the tastes of a particular narrow ethnic prejudice. Nazis attacking and threatening our fellow Americans threaten not just their immediate targets but the foundations of everything we've built. Decent Americans should speak, organize, and lead against them. This is the end of another classic hypothetical — what would you do if America's most shameful ancient wrongs were resurgent? What would you do if the Nazis started marching again?
But you cannot destroy a value in order to save it. Nazis — like terrorists — hope that we will abandon principles and fundamentally change who we are out of fear. Assault is assault, threats are threats, murder is murder, and all of them should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted. The allowance for self-defense by those threatened by Nazis should reasonably be generous. But despicable speech is protected by the First Amendment, and should remain so. Our present circumstances show why it is sheer terrified madness to entrust a broad power to prevent or punish speech upon a fickle state. We've flirted with that madness of abandoning rights in pursuit of safety for our nation's whole life. The flirtation has turned sordid and degrading during the War on Crime and frankly self-destructive after 9/11. It would be philosophical suicide to hasten it now by giving a government — a visibly terrible and amoral government — the power to regulate speech. This is the final hypothetical come to pass: if the state asked you to give up freedoms in exchange for a dubious promise it would make you safer, would you do it? Would you convince yourself that the state would only use the power against Them, and not you?
We're a long way from perfect. But we are better than this place we find ourselves. We can climb out of it.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Now Posting At Substack - August 27th, 2020
- The Fourth of July [rerun] - July 4th, 2020
- All The President's Lawyers: No Bill Thrill? - September 19th, 2019
- Over At Crime Story, A Post About the College Bribery Scandal - September 13th, 2019
- All The President's Lawyers: - September 11th, 2019
One argument I hear made quite frequently nowadays is that fascists should not be allowed to speak, because they take advantage of freedom of speech to spread their message and gain supporters but do not respect freedom of speech at all. The argument goes that since fascists will immediately extinguish free speech if and when they come to power, they should be silenced in order to prevent them from ever coming to power.
This argument concerns me, frankly.
@somebody:
Yes, as a criminal defense attorney, I'm familiar with the argument.
"Criminals don't give their victims due process or a trial, so they don't deserve it."
It's patent horseshit. It's also, by the way, just a riff on the overtly racist arguments that we shouldn't give rights to Muslims or foreigners or whatever who don't respect/agree with our culture or values.
But Ken, this does not address the question of the post-Heller Second Amendment. It is one thing for a "rally" to be allowed under stringent "time, place, and manner" regulations. As much as Nazi speech turns my stomach (and I take a back seat to no one on that score), I understand that allowing Nazi's to speak is the price that our society asks me to pay for my unfettered right to speak.
BUT
Once "time, place, and manner" restrictions cannot include "unarmed", we are in a totally different world.
You wrote:
That does not protect the public when the Nazis are armed.
For over 200 years (from Shays Rebellion until Heller), our system of ordered liberty worked reasonably well (although getting better over time) notwithstanding the understanding that the Second Amendment did not provide for an individual right to bear arms, but only a militia right. You have written that you believe that the Second Amendment was wrongly interpreted until Heller.
Bottom line: How does our civil society continue to allow for mass rallies by Nazis in a world where they cannot be disarmed until after they start shooting?
My answer is: Overturn Heller as wrongly decided and impossible to administer. Nazis can rally, but they cannot carry guns while they do so.
Do you know much about hate speech laws in other countries? I know Germany has laws forbidding certain Nazi imagery and countries like Canada and the United Kingdom have stricter constraints on what sorts of inflammatory remarks are protected (or, at least, that's my undestanding).
Do you think it's possible to crack down on specific kinds of hate speech like that, or is the "genie out of the bottle" and we're past the point where it would be politically feasible? Would such a thing require a constitutional amendment (because of the First Amendment)?
I had sent you a DM over the weekend, but let's just have the conversation here.
Seriously, Mitch. Couldn't you have worked abortion in there somehow?
I think whether Heller is correctly decided is completely, derailingly off-topic.
How we should treat carrying guns in connection with reasonable time/place/manner restrictions would be closer to the topic, albeit in the way that is absolutely certain to turn this into an utter shitshow and destroy any remote possibility of a productive conversation in this thread.
However, the First Amendment isn't absolute. When the freedoms of speech or assembly are in conflict with other fundamental rights, there must be some balancing. The important question is how the rights are balanced and where the line is drawn.
Anytime someone wants to make a law restricting speech or really, any rights, the first question is always:
"How can the people in power and/or the people I am opposed to use this law to shut me down?"
It happens, it will happen. Anti-hate speech rules at universities have been used by the administration to shut down student protests. The students protesting were very chagrined to discover "THAT'S NOT WHO IS SUPPOSED TO USE IT" has very little regulatory or legal power.
Well said, Ken.
Based on my, admittedly, cursory look at what went on in Charlottesville, it seemed to me that the police abrogated their responsibility. I understand that too heavy handed a police response is problematic but allowing assaults under their noses is worse, IMHO.
As you say, assault is assault and murder is murder and last time I looked both were illegal.
@somebody:
The argument you cite implies that the fascists would achieve their goals if only their speech could reach more people. If that were the case, I doubt any special limitations to the first amendment to deal with fascists would be enough to save us.
Ken, I stand truly impressed by your unwavering dedication to freedom of speech even in the face of an event like this. Some hypotheticals are truly important at the moment, as were the gov't to curtail free speech rights, who are the current leaders more likely to silence, the nazi's or those who protest against them?
And Mitchell, I believe what you mean is that we need to discuss is the time, place and manner in which cars can be driven around protests in a post-heller era, as the terrorist who murdered that poor woman did so with an automobile not a gun. Should we not be discussing instead the restricting of vehicle traffic while protests are occurring, after all there is no constitutional right to drive a car for either militias or individuals and there are no hypotheticals involved, or maybe that's just a little off topic?
It is my understanding that zero bullets were fired in the protest/counterprotest.
Apparently the ZOMGGUNZ!! argument is one slippery slope argument that is actually fallacious.
Both the first and second amendments are workable and good things. And the third, fourth, fifth…
@Ryan:
Tropes Three, Four, and Five.
Ken,
With all respect, you wrote "armed" into the hypothetical that is no longer a hypothetical. If you did not want to deal with "armed" (after the armed Nazi occupation of Charlottesville this weekend), you are not prepared to handle the topic.
Very well.
Let me know by DM if you want to state your view on how to deal with Nazi protest in the post-Heller world. Everything is just reiterating positions you have articulated (extremely capably) previously.
I don't get why the nazis are carrying guns at their rallies, it really baffles me. I mean, it's not like people were running around punching them or anything when they were unarmed, right?
The issue of armed protesters is addressed with another hypothetical as Ken suggests. If instead of Nazis we were talking about some LGBT folks having a pride parade in east-nowheresville USA or some BLM protesters marching through the most racist town in the US, would you argue that they should not be able to arm themselves in the event of violence directed against them? That they should simply be limited to hoping the local yokels don't start assaulting them and that the local police actually help them instead of turning a blind eye?
Or more simply, if Donald Trump has the authority to decide who is and isn't armed at protests, what makes you think the good guys will be the ones with permission to be armed?
>>…they stand for the proposition that some of us are less American than others by birth…
That's the part that really scares me. No matter what the demographic, if some other demographic is diminished, then your/my/our rights are less secure.
So, Ken, it appears that when you wrote that you wanted to discuss "America at the End Of All Hypotheticals" you were engaged in False News. :0
Mitch,
I understand that YOU would like to talk about gun control.
I know that every time someone brings up the topic the thread becomes completely useless.
That may not be the reality you like. But it's the reality I have to deal with.
TM – fair question:
That is exactly what the Civil Rights movement did. They marched and engaged in Freedom Rides throughout the South. They did so without guns. They did so knowing that the local authorities would not protect them, and likely would collaborate with the local KKK (or in Mississippi, the CCC). Dr. King and the others did this knowing that their suffering would trigger nationwide horror that would cause the Federal Government to send in the National Guard to protect their rights — and lead to decisive political action in DC.
The movie Selma does a good job of showing exactly this thought process.
This is imperfect. It is extremely suboptimal. It also avoids pitched gun battles every time there is protest that evokes the most radical elements of society.
You may not like my answer, but I have one.
It appears, from initial reports, that the VA State Troopers did not disperse the Nazi/KKK torchlight riot because they saw that they were outgunned. I will be interested to see if that reporting holds up.
Anyone who thinks Heller was correctly decided have a plan for how to deal with massed Nazis with long guns and body armor marching through the streets? That is what Ken promised he would answer in his first paragraph.
I am not comparing Islam to Nazism…so please dont conflate what I am saying.
I am against Nazism/white supremacy. I believe this to be morally wrong. There are people (some who are smart, and respectable) who feel Islam breeds violence and is morally wrong too. I am not one of them.
I believe everybody can believe in whatever awful, magical, archaic, hateful, optimistic thing they want to. The problem is that, no matter what side you're on, YOU believe that you're on the right side of history; the right side morally, and everybody else is on the wrong side.
This is why we allow all beliefs the right to exist. Because one day, people may be in power who do not agree with the idea that everybody should have the same rights, like women or minorities or maybe even white people one day, because they honestly feel they are doing the morally correct thing by outlawing certain views they honestly believe are wrong.
Ken – it is not that I want to talk about gun control. It is that the change in Heller is literally the only difference between this thread and dozens of earlier posts that you have written. And you built this up as if you were ready to deal with "America at the End Of All Hypotheticals".
You — like many of our HLS professors — set up a hypothetical and then assumed the most difficult part of it away.
Bottom line – it may be that it is "completely useless" to try to have a conversation about gun control (that is why I tried to do this by DM). It is equally "completely useless" to run another thread on the old 1st Amendment debate without addressing the armed Nazis in the room.
Maybe this thread was a bad idea.
You seem to be sealioning pretty hard here Mitchell. Insisting that Ken discuss your choice of issue in public or spend his time debating you in private when he has no interest is rude as hell.
Nazis get to carry guns in compliance with states' laws just like anybody else. If Virginia wants to outlaw open carry they can. If they want to restrict concealed carry to those with a permit/license, they can do that, too. Also, they don't need to recognize permits/licenses from other states — even of law enforcement, I believe. No need to overturn Heller.
@CellBlock:
I can help a bit, at least when it comes to Canada.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly protects the following freedoms (among other rights):
However, the Charter comes with a great big "BUT" at the top…
This is called the "limitations clause."
The Criminal Code of Canada has a "hate speech" clause:
It's followed by several exceptions, but, in the U.S., it still would be blatantly unconstitutional, as Ken notes above.
However, back in Canada… This clause was litigated from 1984-1990 (R. v. Keegstra) all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, and the hate speech restriction was deemed to be a limit that falls under the limitations clause; that is, it is "a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
In the thirty-ish years since R. v. Keegstra has been decided, we've had some pretty distasteful governments, no matter your political affiliation. The hate speech exception, to my knowledge, hasn't been used to suppress even vile democratic dissent (see: the rise of Kellie Leitch), and I think, has allowed the most hateful fringe elements to be allowed to stay on the fringes (see: the fall of Kellie Leitch).
Personally, the prospect of slightly-less-restricted freedom of expression does not tempt me even in the slightest to move to the States. But, that's just me.
Yeah, I noticed how unarmed the KKK was before Heller.
Maybe this thread was a bad idea
DanA – I've been close friends with Ken for 25 years. He can stand up for himself in this relationship. As part of our personal lives, we regularly exchange DMs. That is far from Sea Lioning.
@Ken
The only part of what you said that I disagree with significantly is the part where you claim we are better than this. I might, in fact, argue that history is replete with examples showing that, nah bro, we are not better than this (other than temporarily, and then it inevitably collapses).
I would suggest we are closer to an inflection point (Princeps Civitatis Trump, anyone?) than we are any serious rehabilitation of the Republic.
Too many on both sides have, honestly, abandoned the principles – neither the Right nor the Left truly stand for America as those who care about rights understand it. We would need an army of Kens to beat back the ponies at the gate.
Desconhecido – If the Second Amendment were not being used to strike down laws (like the one in DC) banning people from carrying weapons outside of the home, I would agree with you. The question that I am presenting — which I believe is the only NEW question to be answered on the issue of how to deal with America At The End Of All Hypotheticals –is "where does (should) the post-Heller Second Amendment leave the ability of a state to regulate the ability of protestors to carry arms?"
This issue came up with Y'all Qaeda in Oregon. It came up at the Bundy Ranch. Now it has come up again at Charlottesville.
Possibility #1 – No state can prevent a person (other than a felon) from obtaining or carrying a weapon, open or concealed.
Possibility #2 – No state can prevent a person (other than a felon) from obtaining or carrying a weapon, open, but concealed carry is a creature of legislative grace (which would mean it could be regulated as part of "time, place, and manner" restrictions).
Possibility #3 – No state can prevent a person (other than a felon) from obtaining a weapon, but carrying that weapon, open or concealed, is a creature of legislative grace (which would mean that "time, place, and manner" restrictions could include a requirement that participants be unarmed). The biggest problem with this stopping point is that it has absolutely no basis in the text of the Second Amendment – notwithstanding Heller's paean's to protection of one's own home. If Ken (or anyone else) thinks that Possibility #3 withstands scrutiny in a world where Heller is the law, I would love to see those arguments. The DC Circuit just said no.
Possibility #4 – Heller was wrongly decided. There is no Second Amendment right for an individual to bear arms, only a militia right. This was the law for over 200 years. This would mean that any state that wanted to allow concealed carry, open carry, or no purchase at all would have the authority to do so. Each state could decide its own gun policy. It would also mean that "time, place, and manner" restrictions could include "unarmed."
I'm for #4. I would love to read a reasoned argument about how #1 or #2 allows for reasonable regulation of Nazi protest (you can fill in your most disfavored group) so that it does not turn into marauding armed patrols. I
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.
–Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Yes, of course, if that is how the law of the state (or district) works.
@Mitchell
My apologies then. I didn't realize that and there are some regulars here that have the same attitude without the personal connection to justify it.
Hey Ken,
Doesn't the fact that you can do this:
tell you that you are adding nothing new with this thread, unless you address with the issue of how to deal with ARMED protestors?
The police screwup was not in failing to crack down on either side, but failing to keep the two sides separate. That doesn't violate either side's rights, but it significantly lessens the chances of the cliched "clashes."
The "Slippery Slope" debate strategy WOULD be specious, were we actually dealing with a "movement" that wasn't CONSTANTLY and DEMONSTRABLY LYING each and EVERY time they ASSURED us that "All we want is X, Y and Z. THAT"S ALL." The Patriot side IS this. We want and EXPECT the full Constitutional Rule of Law. We just want to live our LIVES, not live for a Cause which requires PROGRESSIVE incursions into the lives of others.
Because such is not the ideology of America.
"Progressivism" however is NOT an ideology. It is a strategy.
The strategy of "Progressivism" IS a long march towards a TOTALITY:
When a concept is brought forth, it is originally said to "Raise Consciousness";
BUT…
It soon becomes a recommendation.
Then a guideline.
Then a law, but don't worry, it only applies to Not You.
Then it applies to you as well, but this is a good thing, because "We're all in this together"(TM).
NEVER do we arrive at a point where the Progs say "this far is enough, no farther!", and actually MEAN it (They lie about this all the time of course, but their unspoken caveat is ALWAYS: "…For Now!")
Eventually the issue is a Totality of an outright ban of that which Progdom has deemed Bad, and or of complete compliance with what Progdom favors.
Whether the issue is Single-Payer Healthcare, bans on The 'Wrong' Foods, burning a log in your fireplace, or Civilian Disarmament (aka "gun control"), the Progressive strategy is the same. As is the goal of Totality.
This is why we Patriots must NOT "compromise" with Progs. Not even a little bit. Because tomorrow they WILL demand more, AND THEY WILL HOLD AGAINST YOU YOUR CONCESSIONS OF TODAY, in their march toward your total compliance under them.
Recognition of this REALITY is why the "Slippery Slope" argument IS in fact valid. AND EFFECTIVE.
Hence the 'backlash' against it…
@DanA – no problem. I'm just getting under Ken's skin because he promised something that he cannot deliver. Normally, the shoe is on the other foot. I'm kinda enjoying it.
Plus, this weekend was the end of the parade of horribles that I have presented to Ken ever since Heller came down.
@David
Doesn't that actually abridge the right of the protesters since their speech is intended to be in direct opposition to that of the Nazi crew? I certainly know that there has been no success in forcing anti-choice protesters to do so away from the targets of their speech regardless of the imposition it causes.
I believe that Ken's response when I first told him that I believed that Heller would eventually be overruled as "ahistoric, unworkable, and wrongly decided" was literally "Cool story, bro."
I'm still waiting for the answer of how our society handles attempts by Nazis (or any other group) to engage in ARMED mass protest.
@DanA – zones of separation have long been approved by courts as "time, place, and manner" regulations.
For example, even when the Supreme Court struck down the Massachusetts "buffer zone" around abortion clinics, it cited as appropriate less restrictive buffer zones in NY and Colorado.
@Mitchell
Armed protesters are nothing new, nor something this country hasn't dealt with before. Deacons for Defense and Justice for one example from the Civil Rights Movement. You're wringing your hands in worry over the wrong thing, as an armed protester is exactly the same as an unarmed protester as long as people don't get violent.
Mitchell Epner,
I for one am glad you are asking the question. I think the prospect of Nazis exercising their free speech rights is pretty scary when most of them are armed with body armor and lethal weapons.
I have personally become convinced that the Unite the Right rally was intended to be an incitement to Violence from the beginning and not an exercise of free speech. The fact that they performed an unauthorized torch-wielding march across the UVa campus Friday night where they beat up bystanders is proof of that and had I been mayor or chief of police I would have immediately denied their permit to assemble on Saturday (or asked a judge to do so).
Although I agree with you on Heller, I have learned a few things from reading the dissenting comments above. I thought the fact that Virginia has no obligation to honor other states Open Carry permits was an important point. Perhaps if the PD and the National Guard setup checkpoints for entry into the rally area and denied entry to anyone who was not properly permitted could have had a dis-empowering effect on the rally-goers. (Because I think for many people, concealed and open carry gives them an almost manic feeling of power and control). It also seems to me that state and local ordinances that ban all concealed carry and open carry when a rally / parade permit has been issued for an area and as long as the ban is applied evenly to both protesters and counter-protesters, then that would be a common-sense law.
But I agree with you it's a pretty damned scary prospect that people will be armed to the teeth when there are permitted Rallies, marches, parades and protests where there is already a very high likelihood of violence. And although no one was shot this time, I think IMO that Heller will pretty much guarantee that one day someone will be.
Mitch, you're my friend, and I love you, but you are really, seriously being a dick.
@TM – "Don't worry, be happy" is not an answer that I find particularly useful. You can keep singing it, if you want to.
Anyone else?
Fin.
Well, look, this is when we find out whether free speech really works. If the remedy for hate speech is more speech refuting it, then we've got a pretty substantial test case ready to go. Yay, science!
Once upon a time, in a little village in the dell, surrounded by bosky woods, there lived a little boy. His job was to watch the village's sheep at night. On one night, he thought to himself, "there is another boy, Jake, who kissed little Karen, and I don't like it." So he ran into the village, screaming, "Jake! Jake is stealing the sheep!" And the men of the village turned themselves out and ran to the fields, where the sheep were sleeping. The little boy congratulated everyone, saying that they saved the sheep, and Jake was duly punished.
Then, a little while later, the little boy realized that Jimmy had a brand new model ship. He couldn't take the ship, but he could punish Jimmy. So one night, he ran into the village shouting "Jimmy! Jimmy is stealing the sheep!" Sure enough, the men of the village roused themselves and ran over, only to find the sheep sound asleep. One the men rebuked the little boy, saying, "I don't think Jimmy did anything, because I'm his father, and when I left he was sleeping." So they told the boy sternly not to accuse people, and went back to bed.
Then, one a night without a moon, a Man came to steal a sheep. He was hard and ragged, terrified and desperate, willing to do anything. He came to the field in a rush, and beat the little boy black and blue. The boy escaped, barely, and is screaming even now, "A man has come to steal our sheep!"
…
The left owes the Jakes and Jimmys of the world an apology. You've been calling Republicans, Conservatives, Policemen, and other good and decent Americans Nazis and skinheads for decades. Well, now real Nazis are here. What do you have to say for yourselves, huh?
@sunnybutt
Mostly the ones that got called that are the direct movements that resulted in the alt-right and the subservience of the Republican party to the overt racists. It is almost as if some people payed enough attention to history to see how hate movements work.
Mitch, you really are being rude. Ken asked to keep on-topic, yet you're completely dominating the responses and persisting on your tangent, apparently based on the reasoning that 2A is the core problem behind everything. But our host – apparently your friend, but that doesn't figure in – specifically asked to keep that out of this thread. It's his prerogative to run the blog how he wants, even if it means discussing something that you think has already been discussed.
First I would need to see a clearer articulation of why "armed mass protest" is a unique problem in need of a unique "answer." The specter of violence hangs over most mass protests, as we saw in Baltimore and Ferguson in recent years–firearms make for some difference in degree, but not really a difference in kind when police are heavily outnumbered by people who can just as easily dispatch them with knives and clubs if push comes to shove.
@sunnybutt
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiW3Iacq9fVAhUCLyYKHTKVADkQyCkIKjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DLQCU36pkH7c&usg=AFQjCNGMm3cJWItAippVXmHcimxKsFfCSw
@Sunnybutt
The real Nazis are here because (some of) the Republicans, conservatives, and (corrupt and/or abusive) cops opened the door for them, if not invited them in directly.
But you already knew that, surely.
I think that's the closest of your possibilities to the way things actually are, as far as I can tell, and the Wren decision doesn't say otherwise. The reasoning of Wren, seems to me, to imply that it is not permissible to demand that concealed carry permits be restricted to those with "special needs." Wren says that weapon carrying is subject to "longstanding restrictions," including licensing. There should be no reason that DC, or any state, may not prohibit all open carry and further restrict concealed carry as to "time, place, and manner."
@Ken White —
Thank you for writing this. I agree absolutely with everything you say, in theory.
Nevertheless, I question your implicit premise: What makes you think that we are nearing the bottom of a slippery slope at which point the free-speech rights of Nazis are at imminent risk? I see no sign that state actors are moving in that direction — and I mean any state actors, including Democrats and those on the left.
In fact, the kind of speech that's presently being systematically threatened with suppression by the state and/or political actors — via, eg, smear tactics, fear-mongering, police action, and legislative efforts– is entirely on the other side of the equation, to the best of my knowledge.
You yourself mention the depiction of Black Lives Matter — which is not only non-violent, but anti-violence, and which does not target people simply for being who they are or call their equality or right to exist into question — as a danger to society. You also mention the attempt to pass laws making it easier for people to run protestors over, which are a response to political speech by non-violent actors on the left.
And I can't count the number of times I have seen antifa — which is an unorganized movement by soi-disant anarchists that's entirely unaligned with the mainstream political left and neither supports nor is supported by them — used to depict people, policies, and viewpoints they have nothing to do with as "the violent left." This literally happens even as prominent Democrats are out there saying that Ann Coulter (or whomever) has a right to speak.
I'm all for the right of Nazis to say what they think and believe as freely as anyone else. I think you're right to defend it. But I wonder why it seems so necessary to you that you do it so exclusively. The speech rights of Nazis seem to me actually to be quite robust, atm. Black Lives Matters protestors, on the other hand, are routinely hauled off by the police for much less than Nazis are. I question your emphasis.
Some recent comments remind me that no matter how bad an argument one side makes, the other side can always find a way to make a worse argument.
NOTE to all: There IS a First Amendment issue — freedom of assembly, but in lines with legit state rights on permits, etc. If Gov. Terry “Lazy Ass” McAuliffe wants to start some amends, arresting a couple hundred people might help. That’s per what Scott S said about a planned incitement to violence.
Mitchell (and Ken): Heller was wrongly decided. Sidebar: I find Larry Tribe to be one of the worst, and most hypocritical, pests on All Things Twitter, ever since he flopped from corporate to invididualist on 2A. (And, sorry, Ken, but the carry, and display, of guns is kind of relevant, even if Fields used a car, isn’t it?)
Shadow: Speaking of, nice try, but, ultimately a strawman. #Fail
Ken: Why is Fields’ charge only a second-degree?
Ed: Gov. McAuliffe was the first responsibility-abrogator.
Argentina: Also a strawmanning fail. 2A, and various state laws related to it, address things such as open carry, concealed carry, etc.
Ken, therefore, this will be my one comment on this thread. Mitchell’s got your number.
==
And, note 2 to Mitchell and Ken — I’m still holding out for the overturn of BOTH Citizens United AND Buckley. And, no, I do not believe “money” (and do not call me out on the use of that one word as a shorthand) is speech.
Ok, I apologize for my participation in going "off topic" and will cease after this one point.
States do not have an obligation to recognize permits/license from out of state but many, probably including Va, do have reciprocity by statute. Virginia could refuse to recognize other states' permits, but probably does accept them.
There was a movement to get Congress to enact legislation requiring states to recognize other states' permits, but, as I recall, it didn't get far.
Ann – Howard Dean wants to have a word with you.
I'm sorry, but one more comment, in light of Richard Spencer being scheduled to speak at Texas A&M next month.
Since money is NOT, NOT, NOT free speech, you charge these people MASSIVE security bonds, justifiable post-Charlottesville, to speak on state college and university campuses, etc.
@SocraticGadfly – it sounds to me like you're not working from principles forward, but instead first deciding the outcome you want, and fishing for rationalization to buttress it later.
@Sunnybutt: so your approach to some of Your Tribe becoming actual Nazi supporters is to blame the Other Tribe for calling the antecedents of the Nazi supporters, err, Nazis?
Meanwhile, has any of Your Tribe hyperbolically falsely labelled anyone, say, a socialist? They have? Ah, so you're being hypocritical as well as attempting to blame-shift.
Got it.
Ann –
My guess is that Ken uses those who use speech in a terrible way, such as Nazis, to defend free speech because they're the ones who tempt us to place restrictions on speech. They incite an emotional reaction that can overwhelm our rational principles.
With respect to Black Lives Matter members being abused and hauled off by police for exercising their right to free speech, I believe Ken has touched on this in the past. I do think it's a separate issue than what this post discusses. Those are actual violations of citizens' civil liberties (which certainly deserve attention) whereas this post is about those things that would tempt the citizenry to accept future limitations to free speech. I think your questioning of Ken's "emphasis" overloooks the fact that what he's emphasizing is more germane to the issue at hand. I certainly don't think he's favoring Nazis by doing so.
At least with the events with which I've been involved, there is a negotiation between the event organizer and the permitting office that covers things ranging from the mundane (such as post-event cleanup) through operational logistics (such as keeping specific streets clear for emergency services, both for people attending the event and for people and property who, for example, live there) and on to more exotic things like food and beverage permits, security, etc.
I have seen push-back from clued-up officials that have (for example) insisted on metal detectors — but hopefully always from a neutral position: more than X people in Y area has an unacceptable risk of fights breaking out, or whatever. But the problem here is that absent (say) an annual event, organizers can certainly argue that their participants are completely fluffy and would never resort to fisticuffs.
An alternative is the Ferguson approach to policing (aka "send in the tanks"), which to my mind tends to do more to provoke confrontation than prevent it.
Ultimately, it seems to me that the best-but-still-suboptimal approach is the usual "more speech" plan. Perhaps the best thing to do with white power loons is to encourage minority cops to provide security….
Au contraire, Chris — If, say, the New Black Panther Party posed a similar threat level to public safety, as well as a similar expense level to the public purse, I would apply the same.
There are yet more ways of skinning this cat. Make parade and similar permits notarized, which means they're sworn to, if they're not already, even for smaller events. That opens the door on perjury charges or similar.
Permits for assembly have long allowed statements on estimated crowd size. The "bond" would escalate not arithmetically but geometrically for larger crowds. If actual numbers are massively off from stipulated ones, with an applicant with a history, and one can prove they recruited well beyond the stated numbers, there's additional legal charges then available.
@ SocraticGadfly I was specifically not making any sort of real point, just poking a little fun at Mitchell for not only going wildly off topic, but even so after Ken specifically asked him not too. Imagine me saying that in the most sarcastic voice possible to get the effect I intended.
@William the Stout —
Howard Dean does not presently speak for the Democratic party. Nor does he represent it. He's a private citizen, and entitled to his beliefs.
To pretend that what he says defines the present-day left, while ignoring that Keith Ellison is speaking up on the other side of the argument is getting pretty far into the realm of alternative facts. And if you're treating antifa — which does not effing support democrats, is not aligned with the political left, and is not supported by it — as representative of it, you've already gone more than far enough.
There is literally no separation between some of those marchers and the Republican party at all — a couple of them are College Republicans. Furthermore, there are prominent and influential people who share their views in the White House of a Republican president right now.
FTM, the right also has anti-government guerilla extremists of its own. They're much more organized than antifa, and one of them just got arrested for attempting to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma. Just two or three months ago the Republican Party of Multnomah County voted to use the militia he belongs to as protection against "the violent left."
If the best you can come up with is a one-time comment by Howard Dean, I rest my case.
@Vincent —
I get that. My point was that I don't see any signs of anyone's giving in to that particular temptation any time soon. In fact, I don't see any signs of anyone's even being tempted. Nazis are sitting pretty. They have friends in powerful places.
And I do see other people and viewpoints in danger — actually and not hypothetically. I question whether it's Nazis, and Nazis alone, to whose free-speech defense advocates for free speech really need to be springing right now. And that's not because I'm in favor of suppressing the free-speech rights of Nazis. As I said, I'd definitely be all for defending them, were they in danger
@TimH:
"Progressive" can mean one of two things, and people who label themselves "progressive" usually support both:
"Progressive taxation" means that those who have more money to contribute should contribute a higher share of what they do have to the upkeep of the community. That is, if you have a flat tax of 15%, then someone making a million dollars will be hurt much less by paying $150,000 in taxes (having $850,000 remaining, which is still a sizeable chunk of change) than the $4,500 paid by someone who makes $30,000 (who will have $25,500 remaining, which will be much more difficult to survive on than even $30,000), so some (or all) of the burden of the latter should go to the former (because how much worse is $845,500 than $850,000?). This doesn't seem to be what you're talking about, so we'll drop it.
The other meaning of "progressive" relates to the changes in society over time, that is, "progress." Seven hundred years ago, the idea that slavery was a natural and perfectly moral thing was the common view (as long as the person being enslaved was of a different religion than the enslaver). One hundred and fifty years ago, the idea that American Indians were "savages," and that their culture should be destroyed and replaced with a more European culture, was widely accepted. A hundred years ago, the idea that women were ill-informed compared to their husbands, and would thus weaken government by voting foolishly, was a centerpiece of the anti-suffragist movement.
Do any of those ideas look outdated to you?
It's been said: "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, […] from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice." This has been true in the past, but it will remain true only if there exist people willing to keep bending it that way.
Some ideas, like slavery, are only hideous to everyone in hindsight, but some have the foresight to see them as hideous in advance. And their moral duty is to make sure that the world progresses in such a way that it keeps bending away from these hideous ideas and towards justice.
Now, I will admit that some people espouse ideas, in the name of progress, that either don't contribute towards that bend, or bend it the wrong way. For instance, I have no doubt that some Islamic extremists fervently believe that bending the world towards a future where everyone believes in Islam is a worthy and desirable goal (and would progress the world in its arc towards justice)… but I'd imagine that maybe six or seven billion people might possibly disagree with that idea of "progress," and certainly with the methods that they use in their attempt to achieve it. But this kind of idea of "progress" is firmly in the minority.
So, if it seems to you that "progressives" move forward, and then move forward again, that's because that's what "progress" is. It's a continual moving forward, as the moral universe's arc continues its long bend. And conservatism — true conservatism, as opposed to regressivism — isn't about bending the beam back away from justice, but keeping things from bending too far, too quickly, and breaking things.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where, seven hundred, one hundred and fifty, one hundred, or even five years ago, everyone said, "Stop. That's enough. We've achieved perfect morality, and we don't need to move forward any further." Much progress has been made, and there is still (and likely always will be) more to make. But, unless we all keep pushing in the right direction (even though we might not all agree what that direction is), those evils which exist today, those things that future generations will look at the way we look at slavery or anti-suffragism or cultural assimilation, will continue to exist. And if they exist for one moment longer than they need to, our descendants will judge us, harshly and correctly, for every instant of delay.
I agree with you that any changes should happen within the Constitution, because, despite its flaws, it offers more protection for the abused than for the abusers. But the rest of your argument I fervently disagree with: morally planting yourself in one spot and saying "These are my morals, and no argument will ever change them," is dooming yourself to be on the wrong side of history, because morals change; they have always changed, and they will keep changing, and, so far, they've been mostly correct to do so.
This scene from A Man from All Seasons is always relevant.
Fuck these Nazi's but as long as they are not breaking the law they should be allowed to express their reprehensible view points. Better out in the open for everyone to see. Let them stand and be accounted so I can know who is a Nazi.
SoctraticGadfly –
I love that idea.
@Evil Malc, my understanding is that the permitting officials did attempt to negotiate on security issues. The Nazis/Alt-rightists didn't like what they were hearing so they ignored it and showed up anyway. With guns.
Dunno how accurate that is, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is. What's an appropriate police response to an illegal march? Try to deter (arrest?) a few hundred marches armed and armored marchers? Let'em march illegally, take pictures, and rescind their licenses later? Look the other way and hope no one gets hurt?
"There is literally no separation between some of those marchers and the Republican party at all — a couple of them are College Republicans."
Damn you, Ann, I laughed so hard I hurt myself when I read this. Oh, no! Not College Republicans! Some of the Antifa are College Democrats. Some of them are fucking Democratic-leaning College Professors.
Note how the Antifa only attacks hate speech from the right. They never utter a peep at hate speech from the left. I guess you're not a fan of the old "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" thing.
And Howard Dean wasn't nearly a one time thing. He was called out for what he said – among the people calling him out was our own Mr. White – and Dean proceeded to double down and triple down and quadruple down.
The extremes of both sides suck on this. They suck on everything. Objective reason is completely impossible for those clowns. And unfortunately, it seems impossible for you as well.
@Scott S
I don't. It normalizes the heckler's veto into law (or at lease policy). It quite literally says that if other people are incapable of controlling themselves in the light of your offensive but perfectly legal speech, then we will charge YOU to exercise your right.
So back when "gay panic" was still a valid legal defense, all the religious right would have needed to do to shut down any and all gay pride events was simply start beating people and causing riots. Then all the LGBT organizations would have to post massive bonds to exercise their right to free speech because other people act badly.
Again, back to the question of "who has the power" why do you think that "use government power to shut down future legal speech by busing in violent assholes" won't be used against the good guys. If you truly believe that all of these neo-nazis are ready and willing to visit violence on those they disagree with when there's no political advantage to be gained, won't they be even more willing and ready when they know it means they can prevent BLM or LGBT organizations or anyone else they don't agree with from ever being able to speak publicly again because of onerous bond requirements?
Some of them are Democratic elected officials.
LOL. So, if the Mayor of Berkeley cracks your skull with a bike lock and you sue him in civil court, would he be granted qualified immunity? This stuff is so confusing………
Yes. They're a part of the Republican Party, and a feeder organization for it.
Source? It strikes me as odd that someone who's a member of an unaligned anarchist group that distrusts government would be a part of an organization that does not support anarchists.
Again, if this is the best you can do to demonstrate that "antifa" = "the left," I rest my case.
If you could actually identify any popular and influential left-wing campus guest speakers who routinely call for various demographic groups to be expelled from the country because of their religious beliefs, or support their mass incarceration, or regard them as a threat to public safety, or think that they're genetically inferior — and yet, were not protested by antifa! — that might mean something.
So please go ahead.
OK, fine. He said it repeatedly. He still does not represent or speak for the left.
In fact, guess what? There's actually a Vermont politician who represents the left-wing of the party who's influential right now! His name is Bernie Sanders, and he spoke out in support of Ann Coulter's right to speak.
What I said before about if Howard Dean is the best you can do, in short.
I agree that antifa sucks and have said so before. They're not a part of the Democratic party, nor are they aligned with it. They're also not influential in any part of the political process, and — afaik — are neither more nor less than a disorganized coalition of autonomous anarcho-communist groups that show up at protests.
The groups that rallied in Charlottesville are highly organized and want to take over the country so that they can run it their way. They actively recruit on college campuses, and are active in the Republican Party, which is itself actively friendly to them. Their members have literally been busted in relation to two terrorist attacks within the last 72 hours.
When something equivalent to that arises on the left, I'll start both-sides-ing it. In the meantime, to pretend that antifa is equivalent is absurd.
@Argentina Orange —
All right.
The score so far stands at Howard Dean and a guy who dissociated himself from his Facebook membership in a militant group when it was made public on the one side and the entire organized political left on the other.
To cite that as evidence that antifa = "the violent left" still proves the opposite point from the one you're intending.
Among other things, it's not like the left is courting the anti-fascist anarcho-communist vote. There is none.
You know who else loves that idea? People in charge of determining who 'those people' who get charged bonds to protest are. But doubtless their analyses will be faultless and they will never impose insurmountable financial difficulties to protests you consider valuable.
"I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party, etc
@William the Stout, @Argentina Orange —
I forgot to mention that the guy in Charlottesville plowed into protestors with his car, which Republican legislatures across the land have introduced bills to allow.
Now tell me how antifa = the left again. So far, we have Howard Dean, a left-leaning college professor, and a guy who may never have been active in a militant group at all outside of Facebook, and doesn't appear to have really been active there.
By all means, keep going.
Ken you have the patience of a saint.
"I forgot to mention that the guy in Charlottesville plowed into protestors with his car, which Republican legislatures across the land have introduced bills to allow….Now tell me how antifa = the left again."
Those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. It's not my intent to defend the right – Republican legislators who vote for stuff like that should be removed from office because it's obvious that their comprehension of the Constitution is less than that of your average eighth grader.
But if you can't admit that a group that only attacks people of the right is clearly of the left (an obvious conclusion that 99.8% of the American public has drawn) then there's really no talking to you about it. If you can't admit that mainstream Democrats have plenty of statist thugs of their own – Feinstein? Kamala Harris? – then you just can't be reached.
From your earlier post – I agree with you about Sanders – almost mentioned him in my post that you were responding to – but one person with integrity on one side isn't much room for comfort either way.
Stipulated: Speech, including that of fascists, shall not be regulated, attenuated, abridged or infringed in any way by the government.
Can one do the above and still hold the following?
Speech, that of fascists does not need to be supported by those who do not want to support its content.
Milo is being defended by the ACLU. Why would be it wrong of me to ask the ACLU not to do so? Surely there are plenty of other civil liberties that my $$ contributed to the ACLU can be used for. Like the transgenders who have been outed by Milo, and their suppressed liberties at the hands of his minions. Or the women who dared to speak up, and had a lot of brave MRA followers threaten them, including stuffing their mailboxes with detailed plans of how to rape them.
Milo is funded by the Mercers. Let them foot for his defense. Why have the ACLU stand up for him so that he can continue to perpetrate his guaranteed speech to invoke an assault on civil liberties of the others?
I am not saying he does not have the right to his speech, simply that ACLU should not stand up for his rights, (or oppose it), just let sympathetic assholes do so for him.
Why is defending Milo's right to free speech the line to defend? Are we running out of cases?
@Ann,
Could you link the text of the "Allowing the Plowing of Cars Into Protesters Act" for us please? I'm sure it's got some contrived acronym for its name, but I can't figure it out to search for it.
Oh wait… APICA is an anagram for AIPAC! ZOMG its THE JOOOOS!
@Jon Marcus…
Excellent point and question, and one which I think cuts to the heart of a lot of the tension between "law enforcement" and the citizenry.
I personally think that "the government" (particularly including the police) is operating from a perspective that disobedience justifies an amplified response. Regrettably, this sort of mindset is encouraged by many "conservatives" who operate on the principle that anyone "breaking the law" must be bad, and bad people deserve whatever happens to them. (I put "breaking the law" in quotes, because sometimes it's really "committing a tort", like many forms of trespass and, apparently, immigration offenses). So failure to stop at a red light justifies a cop shooting you, etc.
So my preferred approach for a group that defies the rules and stages an event under the implicit threat of force should the authorities oppose it would be for the government to use "hands off" tactics: impair the ability of people to get to site of the event absent some good reason (e.g. ID showing that they live or work there), take lots of pictures and mail citations. Sure some/many of the citations would be successfully challenged, but a fair number would not and the overall effect would, I think, serve to discourage people on the margins from crossing over into becoming active participants as opposed to home (or parent's home's basement) supporters.
While most Western countries have protections for speech to some degree, the United States really is exceptional in how far its courts have gone to strike down restrictions on speech (as alluded to by our Canadian friend). I feel like hypothetical arguments get harder to defend when there are plenty of generally well-run, generally free countries with small to modest amounts of restrictions on speech that we can look to as examples when we want to see what it's like.
Germany literally bans swastikas in most contexts. You're free to argue that it's bad (video games with Nazis in them look pretty silly there) or good (they tend not to have people marching down their streets with Nazi flags these days), but you do have an example that you can look to if you want to propose something similar.
Same with "hate speech" laws: Canada indeed has them, they indeed get used on speech that would be protected by the First Amendment here, but they don't generally get used for political purposes to silent dissent to the government in power.
Or laws that restrict spending money on political ads before elections. In the UK, Citizens United would have had to waited until after the election to release "Hillary: The Movie". I am sure they wouldn't have liked that one bit.
I dunno if I have any super profound point to make. I guess mostly what I'm getting at is that broad protections of speech are an American value, but not necessarily a democratic or western value. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think it is possible to persuasively argue that the United State's attitude towards speech is a better attitude, and I think you argue that better than many people do. However, I do think in pieces like this you deliberately blur the line in a way that I'm not sure I'm so comfortable with.
@William the Stout —
I do not dispute that antifa is a movement of the left. What I dispute is that you can characterize the left as inclined to extremist acts of violence because a disorganized coalition of autonomous groups show up at protests where they get in fights and set things on fire.
Keith Ellison also spoke up for Ann Coulter. You can take my word for it or not, but I have seen antifa violence being condemned on left-wing Twitter by plenty of prominent leftists, including — as I recall, though maybe wrongly, I admit — Donna Brazile.
I don't think I've ever seen any present-day influential or prominent Democrat defend them, or the use of violence, or evade questions about it, not including Howard Dean.
Also, to state the obvious, they are anarcho-communists, a tendency that has zero clout on the organized left, attracts no consituency, and is in no danger of making its influence felt generally. They have no political power, and aren't doing anything to acquire it.
To both-sides that with the alt-right and other overtly racist groups on the right who show up to fight — so heavily armed that they outgun the state police, no less — is just crazy. The latter are well organized and politically integrated with the right generally. They have their own media outlets, and (as I said) friends in high places in the federal government. As I also said, members of two extremist right-wing groups have been arrested for acts of domestic terrorism within the last 72 hours.
They have the explicit goal of taking over the United States and turning it into a white nation. Antifa is just a bunch of violent idiots who set shit on fire. I don't say that to minimize the violence. I think it's only a matter of time before someone gets killed or hurt because of what they do.
But they're just not an equivalent political threat. Their explicit reason for being is not to crush and expel all those who are not like them. They are not in danger of winning office or becoming the majority anywhere. You're actually minimizing the threat from the other side by equating the two.
Or…Well. Let's put it this way: I notice that the media platforms and figures of the alt-right seem to be having such a hard time finding photographs, video, or victims of antifa being equivalently violent to the alt-right in Charlottesville that it took them two days to find one. That suggests to me that it's false to say, oh, well both sides were just as bad as each other. And yet, those same platforms and figures started saying it immediately, in advance of evidence, which they were able to do because repeatedly hammering away at the idea that "the violent left" is a national menace enables them to assert it without proof.
I don't think that's good for anyone's future free speech rights, frankly.
_______
Adding: I'm not sure which actions of Feinstein and Harris are being characterized as statist thugism. Could you specify? For all I know, I agree with you in opposing them.
@william the stout:
The enemy of your enemy is very rarely your friend.
Let's take Pope Francis as an example.
Cool Pope is from what you might call the economic left wing of the Catholic Church. He speaks out against unbridled capitalism, against the Prosperity Gospel, and for charity, helping the poor, and such forth. He shuns the rich, gold-embroidered robes of John Paul II and Benedict and clothes himself in simple white.
And so, you'd think Catholics would be Democrats, yes?
Catholics voted for Trump by a margin of 60%-37%.
As far left as Pope Francis is economically, the Catholic Church, like many large religions, is still predominantly a conservative and therefore right-wing organization. And while Cool Pope has toned down the rhetoric against certain "sinners" whose causes Democrats like to champion, he's stopped short of showing them actual support.
What I guess I'm saying is that, although the Pope directs most of his rhetoric against right-wing ideas, I'd have a very hard time saying that he's solidly (or even nominally) in the left wing, beyond his alignment within the Church itself.
And so it is with Antifa. You can't define yourself solely by what you're against. And your assertion that the enemies of Antifa tend to line up on the right, even if true, doesn't put Antifa in the left any more than Lindsay Graham's consistent criticism of Trump does, or Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of soldiers' funerals does.
Richard, re a flat tax?
Simple way to prove how much bullshit it is to point out how often the GOP, Koch Bros., etc., have proposed a corporate flat tax.
(Crickets)
There … that is a progressive thought.
Actually, the word is become more and more vacuous.
Of course, I'm a socialist, and a real one, not a Bernie Sanders one.
Proof? I believe we need a British National Health System, or at least elements of one: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/06/does-us-need-full-blown-british.html
Richard: The enemy of my enemy is usually my temporary ally of convenience.
Well, Westboro's target when protesting soldier's funerals isn't the soldiers themselves or even their families, it's the gays (yeah I know but it makes sense to Westboro). Gay people (am I committing a thought crime by still using "gay"? I can't keep up) are generally in the left, and certainly all of the anti-gay garbage comes from the right. So Westboro is clearly in the right based on their enemy even though it's a weird trip through logic because you've got to follow Westboro logic.
Graham criticizes Trump, but he also criticizes Democrats. He is what he is, but more of his "enemies" are Democrats.
As to the Cool Pope. . The Catholic Church (my wife is a life-long Catholic) in terms of its policies is much more aligned with the left with the right, or maybe more 50/50 depending on how you want to look at it. It is with the Cool Pope and it was with the Uncool Pope that preceded him. The members can vote how they vote, but the churches policies are a mix.
The Antifa is clearly of the left. They only hassle speakers from the right. At the Women's March there was a kerfuffle because two of the speakers were actually women who had been convicted of murder. It was fine with me that they spoke, I don't care, but you can't define much more of a hate-filled action than murder. Not a peep from the Antifa. During the Obama presidency people like Coulter and Milo could speak anywhere they wanted without any action by the Antifa, but then Trump gets elected and they totally went ballistic. And every single member of the Antifa that has been outed has been a leftist. If you want to ignore the obvious that's your prerogative, but it's really beyond any reasonable discussion that the Antifa is a faction within the left.
Shadow: Sorry I missed your tongue in cheek. It's tough on a serious issue like this at times
Scott: A&M pulled the rug on Spencer's appearance. Arguably, since he was deliberately invoking Charlottesville after it happened, and per Ken's "contextual" notes, we were getting toward "fire in a crowded theater" area. He'll use it for Jehovah's Witnesses type hand-to-forehead martyrdom, of course, but that's always a risk.
William: No, the Church of Rome is aligned with nobody. Because, unlike the US religious right, it doesn't focus on politics.
I take back the alignment. Per Martin Luther, and per some conservative Lutherans who still agree, as the Antichrist, the Pope (not Francis individually) is literally aligned with, and the top minion of, Satan!
Argue that one amongst yourselves as a Luther mythology shitstorm lies ahead: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2017/08/luther-legend-shitstorm-is-about-to-hit.html
@Ken
There's a huge difference between basing our treatment on how someone acts, versus who they are. If you want to argue for giving rights to people who don't respect others', fine, but this is not a solid line of argument to do so.
@desconhecido
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
@Ann
Lying Ann is lying yet again.
This sort of dishonest double standards is typical of you. The mere fact that "some" marchers are members of the Republican party is somehow relevant, but the fact that Howard Dean is a member of the Democratic Party is irrelevant as long as you can find another Democrat who disagrees with him. Antifas have nothing to do with the Democratic Party, even if some of them are members of the Party. Everyone at all connected to anything Rightish is a reflection of everyone on the Right, but nothing anyone on the Left does is a reflection on anyone else.
Unless you approve of them, perhaps.
I'm sure I could find some views of some antifas that were shared by members of the Obama White House. Hell, I'm sure I could for the Trump White House.
If the best YOU can come up with is a university failing to fund the advocacy of gender-neutral pronouns, and then dishonestly referring to it as a "prohibition", then I rest MY case.
I mean, seriously, how fucking narcissistic do you have to be to refer to the government not subsidizing your speech as oppression?
It's not like Howard Dean is, as you dishonestly imply, the only example. People could give you examples all day, and you'd just dismiss them. And of course, every time someone gives you an example, you say "That's the best you can do?" like that one example is the entirety of the case.
Why should anyone go to the bother of presenting a source when you have shown yourself to have no concern for the truth, and dismiss any cite that you disagree with? It's not like when I presented a cite for the claim that the 73% gender pay gap is false, and explained how your Gish Gallop arguing the contrary was fallacious, you acknowledged your error in the slightest.
Fixed that for you.
So you're the authority on who gets to represent the "left-wing"? The only objective measure of who represents the Party is who is elected to leadership positions, such as Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders, like Obama and Hillary Clinton, supports amending the Constitution to allow censorship.
So, I'm misremembering that you posted in the discussion on punching Nazis? Or is this yet another example of "I don't see X" really meaning "I've seen plenty of X, but I insist on pretending that it's not X"?
Straw man.
So none of them donate money to political parties or vote in elections, or engage in any speech that is heard by people who do. Riiiiiight.
Only by cherry-picking.
More lies.
This is turning into a Monty Python skit “All right, fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms …”
@Argentina Orange
I'm sure she'll provide a link to a law under which the act in question would not, in fact, be legal, but says something else, like, say “If protesters surround your car and start smashing in your windows, you're allowed to drive through the crowd to get away”, and pretend that it somehow proves she's right, and act like anyone who can't see how is an idiot. That's just how she rolls.
@Socratic Gadfly
You make several accusations of straw man, but do not provide any support, and then you end your post with your own straw man. CU never said that money is speech.
And then you go and show just how bankrupt this "money isn't speech" trope is:
I suspect that you do not understand what the word "geometrically" means. But that is only a suspicion. You might actually intend such an absurd position.
@TimH
Well, aside from your wanton use of all caps, us vs. them stereotyping and hate mongering, there's the fact that either what someone is proposing is good, or it's bad. If it's bad, then the slippery slope argument is irrelevant, and you should just argue that it's bad. If it's good, but you suspect that the people that are proposing it have other things that they would like to work on, and if this current thing passes they will have more energy to devote to the other thing, it's a rather shaky argument to say we should continue to oppose the current thing, even though it's good, just to keep these people occupied. I don't support banning mosques so that Muslims will be too busy trying to overturn the ban to advocate shariah. I don't support prohibiting black people from voting so they'll be too busy protesting to advocate Affirmative Action. I don't support barring Catholics from holding office so they'll be too busy to try to ban birth control.
Ken, all — Ted Rall wants a hyperbolic, self-serving word on this issue. According to him, "free speech" and the First Amendment are separate things!
http://rall.com/2017/08/14/charlottesville-workers-fired-doxxed-censorship
Oh, in the hypothetical, I kind of get where Ted is going, but it's clearly in a self-serving, "look at me taking a new angle" issue.
Encinal: Actually, I know quite well the diff between arithmetic and geometric progressions and that was the whole fucking point. Either YOU don't know the diff, or you're being an even bigger troll than usual.
This is known in informal logic as "the true dilemma."
They are anarcho-communists. Nobody disputes that they are of the left
They only protest speakers they view as racist or bigoted. That's their cause. And I don't think that's an insignificant distinction. As I already said, it only becomes meaningful that the speakers they protest are exclusively on the right if there are speakers on the left that meet their criteria. They don't protest all speakers on the right, simply because they're right-wing
She was not speaking in favor of murder, or promoting it, or arguing in its defense. Her subject is the relationship between gender-based violence and the incarveration of women and girls. Antifa protests racism.
They are of the left. They have no relationship with and are not a faction within the left as a whole.
You know, another thing that's kind of getting lost in the false-equivalency shuffle here is that the people rallying in Charlottesville were there to protest the removal of a statue of a man who is exclusively famous for having led a violent armed rebellion against the United States so that slavery could continue.
That's really a pretty pertinent factor to consider when it comes to evaluating who is or isn't a looming violent menace to our freedoms, don't you think?
@Ann
Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, evaded questions about whether he supported laws banning criticism of religion.
@Richard
You are strawmanning him. He didn't say antifa attacking the right makes them leftist, he said that antifa attacking ONLY the right makes them leftist. If Graham only criticized Trump, or WBC picketed only soldiers, you would have a point. But they don't, and you don't.
@Socratic Gadfly
Why would they propose something that already exists?
Just a quick question, please, from this ignorant but genetically politely curious Canadian: Would a U.S. law violate the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, if said law required that all privately owned guns _ hand guns, rifles, shotguns, derringers, whatever _ weigh no less than, say, 85 pounds (38.6 kilograms)?
I support the right of Nazis to speak their mind, as empty and evil as their minds are. I also support the right of business owners to close their doors to Nazis – Nazism is a chosen characteristic, not a born one, not a protected trait against which discrimination is both illegal and immoral. I also support increasing the quality of our education system, such that fewer minds are so empty, and so devoid of value, as to embrace Nazi values. I understand that right-wing American is against these things – it does not like when we treat white supremacists as though they are human garbage. It does not like when we educate people.
Right-wing America has the right to support Nazis. Just as decent people have the right to fight them.
But I absolutely support their right to speak their mind. Failing all else: how else will we know who they are, if they're forced to silence except in private? How will we know our enemies if we do not allow them to announce themselves, loudly and proudly?
Ann – The decision process that lead Lee to choose the Confederacy over the Union and his relationship to slavery are a hell of a lot more nuanced that the stick figure that you just drew, but I ain't going anywhere near that discussion.
And Milo, the gay guy with the black boyfriend, is racist? Nah. They attacked what they attacked because they didn't like the politics of the people they attacked.
@That old guy:
Depends upon how you read the constitution. The second amendment is the most abused amendment in the whole darn thing: those who 'support' it think it contains only about a third of its words – to them, any restriction at all on weapon ownership infringes the obvious meaning of the third of the words they care about. Those who 'oppose' it think that all the words matter, as do the rest of the words in the constitution. So they'd say that of course it's legal – militia can still own armaments, after all, and most military armaments of any value weigh quite a bit these days, so they'd still have the right to military grade weapons, which was the point after all. Further, the US congress has the explicit power to do almost anything it wants with the militia, including choosing what its armaments will be.
So: the NRA would say it's illegal. Every smart person on Earth would say it's legal. The NRA would win, because gun-nuts have tremendous solidarity in the US. And a few towns would make it illegal to NOT own a gun that weighs at most 84 pounds.
@Socratic Gadfly
Suspecting that you have a characteristic that the vast majority of people share, while admitting that this suspicion could be erroneous, is hardly the act of a troll. Slinging personal insults at someone simply because they disagree with you, on the other hand, is.
No, that's what's known as being an asshole.
@Ann
"They view"? Well, that's a loophole you can drive a truck through.
If they refuse to acknowledge that there are people on the left who are racist and bigoted, then that most certainly is meaningful.
Presumably, you meant "They don't protest all speakers on the right simply because they're right-wing"
And when deciding what speeches to oppose, do the Antifa (or the left in general) base their decisions entirely on the subject matter that the speaker discusses in that particular speech, or do they object to speeches on the basis of the identity of the speaker, even if the particular speech in question contains nothing objectionable?
How many people here are claiming that the left and right are exactly the same?
That said, ignoring the "hypotheticals" here, people all across the South could do what just happened in Durham, engage in non-violent civil disobedience and tear down a bunch of fucking statues.
@GuestPoster
There are two versions of the 2A. In one of them, the third in question are indeed the only ones that are controlling. But as usual, you engage in personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.
@SocraticGadfly
That's stretching the meanings of both "non-violent" and "civil disobedience".
Well, no people were hurt, so, non-violent.
That said, as it was a statue to Confederate soldiers in general, not a Lee, Jackson or Davis statue, I actually disagree with pulling it down, now that I've seen that particular point.
And, given that you don't know terms about sequences, Mr. Cricket Man, why would I look to you for a definition of "civil disobedience"?
William the Stout: Please don't trot out the incorrect, fallacious, plain old wrong "Nice Massa Bobby Lee" if that's where you were headed. That's been refudiated by professional historians.
@That Old Guy
Ignore GuestPoster, they clearly don't know what they're talking about. With respect to your question, such a requirement would likely be found to be unconstitutional. While the 2nd amendment isn't as subject to the strict level of scrutiny as say the 1st amendment is, the courts generally fall on the side of not allowing onerous restrictions that implicitly deny people access to their rights with no true compelling state interest.
For example, a poll tax is unconstitutional. Even though any person in theory should be able to meet that tax and be able to vote, the courts found that it was still an unconstitutional restriction on the rights. Voter ID laws are likely to find themselves challenged on similar grounds, even though most states will give that ID for free.
A requirement that all firearms weigh as much as a middle school aged child would deny the right to arms to almost every upper body disabled person in the US, most people over retirement age and even a decent chunk of healthy adults (male and female, but with a larger and more disparate impact on female adults). It would effectively eliminate firearms for hunting (an activity which some poor and rural individuals use to ensure their families are fed), as well as prevent trained and responsible children from defending their homes and families.
In short, it would be an onerous burden on the right, with no compelling state interest that unequally burdens various protected groups throughout the country. Assuming any such law actually made it through a legislative process, it would likely be struck down by the first judge to encounter it, even in California.
@william the stout —
I said that was what he was famous for, and I stand by it. Also, did he or did he not lead a violent armed rebellion in order to preserve slavery? Because if he did, the nuances don't contradict what I said.
Also:
I see that I was wrong about white nationalist speech rights not being in any jeopardy. Texas A&M just cancelled a rally for safety reasons, which might be in-bounds, but also might not be.
I believe so, yes. But maybe he's just a homophobic, sexist bigot and anti-Semite. Yes, I know he claims Jewish ancestry. In any event, I did say "racist or bigoted."
Yes, ignore the person who was correct, and pay attention to TM, who is not. That is excellent advice.
William the Stout: Please don't trot out the incorrect, fallacious, plain old wrong "Evil Massa Bobby Lee" if that's where you were headed. That's been espoused by leftist revisionist ignorance historians.
Fix that for ya.
@ Gadfly – "William the Stout: Please don't trot out the incorrect, fallacious, plain old wrong "Nice Massa Bobby Lee" if that's where you were headed. That's been refudiated by professional historians."
I didn't, and that's not where I was headed and I don't believe the "Nice Massa Bobby Lee" stuff, as you call it. All I said was that those aspects of Lee were a lot more nuanced than the simple "he was a racist who lead a rebellion". Let's don't take this any further – that discussion is just a trip to nowhere.
@ Ann – "Also, did he or did he not lead a violent armed rebellion in order to preserve slavery?"
I wouldn't say he lead the rebellion as he was opposed to succession. He was a leader of one of the Southern armies. The most prominent one because of the location of his army relative to location of the capitals of the opposing sides, but just one of them. The decision of which way he chose to go and the reasons he fought are a lot more complicated than preserving slavery. Let's just leave it there.
I'll concede your point as to the morons in Charlottesville that their reasoning was related to his fame as a Southern leader. They probably don't understand the nuances of Lee either.
@Ann – Free speech or not I'm relieved that A&M decided to cut those guys off. Let's see if the courts let it stand.
My youngest is in the vet school there (the only vet school in the state of Texas) and last year she innocently wandered into the circus that occurred when Spencer spoke there. She wasn't aware that the event was occurring until she was in the middle of it. She called me to tell me about it and was like "this is nuts". I told her to back off and if she wanted to she should watch for a few minutes just for the entertainment value, then get the hell out of there before any shit started.
It's a curious definition of non-violence that would treat the lawless, destructive Baltimore riots as primarily "non-violent" simply because the violence was directed at inanimate objects.
I would generally recommend paying more attention to the person who engages in some semblance of legal analysis rooted in precedent and likely outcomes than to the person who blithely asserts something is correct on their say-so.
Yeah I know it's secession but it's late and it's been a long day and spell check got me. Sue me.
William: Glad my preventative shot across the bow was misplaced.
But, that said, even by the standards of Southern slaveowners at his time, he was more brutal than average and was at least racist enough to believe the old trope that slavery was good for black people. Good read here on the real Lee: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/
One more thought on the actual issue.
I have no more use, really, for the Black Bloc than I do for the alt-right, and re the Black Bloc, have felt that way since 1998 WTO meetings in Seattle.
And, I think the "lauded" anti-fascist "movement" is probably in large part just rebranded Black Bloc.
@ Gadfly – Yeah, I grew up in the old south. In grade school History in the 60s we were taught what an asshole Lincoln was. 100 years gone and some people were still obsessed with that war. I had a friend whose dad was in the Klan, or at least that's what he claimed. And he was bragging. Fortunately, I didn't get the same stuff at home that a lot of my friends did.
So I've been something of a Civil War buff my whole life. Read every book and article that I could get my hands on. Moved to a northern state by high school and got in big trouble for correcting a teacher as to a fact. Not a philosophical question, a simple fact. My dumbass history teacher tried to incorrectly teach us that Stonewall Jackson was killed at Gettysburg. Should have just kept my mouth shut but he was just fucking wrong, you know?
So, yeah, I know about Lee's good qualities and I know about Lee's faults. Most people who aren't Bull Connor or J.B. Stoner (a real choice asshole – he had a particularly juicy quote when reacting to MLK's shooting) have at least a mixed record. Some good, some not so good. There's just nothing to be gained by discussing it, particularly in this political environment.
@Socratic Gadfly
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=violent
You have absolutely no basis for that remark.
Was that an attempt at humor, or did you get confused between “refuted” and "repudiated"?
@TM
Well, that probably has to do with the fact that the 24th Amendment specifically prohibits them.
@william the stout —
I am not a Civil War buff and know nothing of what you're saying. But I actually didn't mean to suggest that there was nothing more to Robert E. Lee personally or politically than my description of him. I don't believe anyone is that much of a caricature, and that's actually why I put in the "famous for."
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. But I would still maintain that it's both fair and accurate to say that anyone who was a leader of the Confederate army was fighting to preserve slavery and as part of a rebellion, whatever his personal views may have been.
Did you know that most statues of Confederate figures in American cities went up in the Jim Crow/Civil Rights era? I didn't. I just learned it today.
@Socratic Gadfly, in re: black bloc/antifa —
Agree.
"Did you know that most statues of Confederate figures in American cities went up in the Jim Crow/Civil Rights era? I didn't. I just learned it today."
I don't think it's true that "most" statues of Confederate figures went up in the 50s/60s, although that might be true regarding the statues of the famous guys. But you'd have to have spent a lot of time in the south to know that at lot of the little towns down there – maybe virtually every county seat although I'm not certain enough of that to say for a fact that it's true – have a statue of a single confederate soldier on the courthouse square. Most of those were put up early in the 20th century, plus or minus 40 – 50 years after the war. The number of those statues has to vastly outnumber the statues of the well-known people. These statues I'm referring to are just single anonymous soldiers. Usually standing up on a tall pedestal. Facing north, just in case those Yankee bastards try to come back.
It's just a quaint quirky thing, kind of weird if you think about it. Most people never think about them anymore, but they're there.
I have to be honest in these trying times.
Despite all the "whattaboutisms" I just can't see it.
I cannot find the moral equivalence between a a loosely organized, often violent, group who's only real shared goal is "to fight facisim at all times and places" and a set of militant groups which, being most generous, advocate for the formation of hundreds of splintere entho-states (and, being least generous advocate for the genocide of all they deem impure).
That is the choice that I see many online and in the media posing.
If that's the case, I, old and feable as I am, would make the same choice my father did. I would be proud to stand with Antifa and carve more notches in the M1.
Encinal, but I do have a basis for that remark, and as for the second, you're obviously too damned ignorant to know who Sarah Palin is.
Go arithmetize yourself.
==
William, I'm in Texas, and was attacked by some sort of racist type at the first newspaper I was at, when I was covering a Klan rally. Hit by a flagstaff. Had I known it was coming, I would have flopped for the Dallas TV to hopefully film.
@ sparkles – Does this mean I've got to worry about you cracking my noggin with a bike lock? Be nice to know in advance so I can make sure I've got my medical insurance card on me. From what I can tell the distinguishing characteristic that the "anti-fascists" (LOL) use to decide who to hit comes down to "anybody that ain't them". I mean, we've defined Nazi down to the point that the Nazi cabal includes white girls that wear their hair in cornrows and people who wear Native American costumes to Halloween parties. Thanks for defining for us the type of senseless violence you that prefer.
@ Gadfly – yeah, there's crazy fuckers everywhere (see above). Too bad your Nazi interaction was (presumably) pre-internet era. You could have been famous.
The problem with prohibiting white supremacists and fascists from spreading their hateful message is that everyone can be white supremacist. For example, Justin Trudeau is white supremacist terrorist:
https://youtu.be/xHbSbtzPXtU?t=72
@WTS
Actual Nazis are holding rallies where they run people down with cars and you're clutching your pearls about poorly organized anarchists.
Yea antifa is a bunch of violent idiots. No, that is a not a good thing and the antifa perpetrators of violence should be tried in court for their crimes.
But if the conversation is going to be reduced to Soviet-style whattaboutism then I'll be on whatever side is against the nazis/neo-nazis/white supremacists. I can have a conversation about white girls with cornrows with antifa. The white supremacists would hang me from a scaffold long before they would discuss any topic with me.
The child answer – he started it.
The lying child answer, I may add. If one wants to establish victim status based on previous acts involving two other peoples or sets of peoples in the past, we can play and go back to the happy time of US slavery. Or all the way to the triangular trade. Or, why not? The Roman Empire – whose build was driven by the acquisition and exploitation of slave labor. Let's start all of our lectures by Delenda Carthago est.
Also, LOL. White supremacists, Neo-Nazis and other of their ilk going around defenceless. Yeah, sure, the poor lambs. It's not like they indulge in military paraphernalia or that their ideas are centred around the notion that a real man is a strong man, one who can defend himself.
I can accept the idea of Nazis marching down the street, even if that makes me puke. I could even accept that in US, you do things differently and they could be armed.
But presenting Nazis as victims? No. Full stop, no.
I would actually be much more forthcoming of this idea (for what my opinion is worth) if I was sure that other groups of people would be allowed to go as far as these US Nazis went.
I seriously doubt that a group from some Muslim Brotherhood would have been allowed to march down an US street armed with rifles and chanting "we want sharia law now".
I could be wrong. But I would not be surprised if many US Lefties, POCs and other minorities who are so quick to call Trump a Nazi are sharing the same apprehension as me – that far-right people are allowed a lot more freedom of expression than them.
Some people on the right-wing have not been allowed to talk on University campus? Bad, but they still can go give a talk at the coffee shop next door. OTOH, some US biology teachers can not talk about evolution in their own classroom. US people are weird.
tl;dr: I applaud Ken's resolve in standing for freedom of speech, even if, as a foreigner, my take on this is culturally heavily colored and quite different. But I would point out that advocating for everybody to have the same lengths on their chains is going to be very difficult when everybody is convinced that the other side already has longer chains.
As an aside, how people forget. At the time of my grand-dad and briefly during my dad's generation, people were going to union/political rallies armed with crowbars and other blunt implements (right and left were doing it, to be honest – I'm sure you read about some of them in history books).
Only to defend themselves, of course. No way it was for the thrill, or for intimidating any opponent.
Helianthus, you are misreading the argument. He's not claiming "they punched us first, we can punch them back", he's claiming "violence against (perceived) Nazi happens, and is openly encouraged, hence it is reasonable for them to be ready to defend themselves".
(For the fact that political violence is indeed openly encouraged and cheered, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html)
Notice that the same argument applies to many left-wing positions. Moreover, I don't think that being armed would do much to protect me against political violence. However, the argument is still reasonable.
@ Manta
Actually, I badly expressed myself. Yes, I knew of the assault on Spencer.
And I stand by my point. The justification still read as "some other guy attacked some other guy, so I'm going armed".
Also, read again my last sentence from my previous post. I don't believe for a second most of the Nazis armed themselves because they feared violence. Quite the contrary.
Depends on what you read. Some people, like Ken may have, did express disagreement. Funny how we let extreme people in a group define the position of the whole group, eh?
Two points I'm going to try to make:
– I read blogs of people who indeed cheered the assault on Spencer; or more precisely, they were no sorry for what happened to him. But they were also quite angry that so many people went pearl-clutching over a Nazi getting a beating – because most of these critics didn't have much a track record of denouncing the Nazi's discourse, or of denouncing other instances of street brutality.
In short, they went "Now you care! Where were you before when I needed you?"
A bit easy, I know. One cannot be in every fight. But, still. So, now you care. Where were you before, and why didn't you do anything?
Let me try again: the blogger I was reading had this feeling – a Black/Jew/Indian/Gay getting a beating, that's routine, but a Nazi finding himself on the receiving end of a thug, oh, we cannot have this.
– By this metric ("people have been encouraging for violence"), about everybody in the US should arm themselves and start shooting people from the other side.
I don't see this as an attitude to encourage.
"But if the conversation is going to be reduced to Soviet-style whattaboutism then I'll be on whatever side is against the nazis/neo-nazis/white supremacists….the white supremacists would hang me from a scaffold long before they would discuss any topic with me."
Your brothers-in-arms have gone so far as to shut down a community parade because the parade was going to let both Repubs and Demos march in it. They told Portland that if you let ANY Republicans march – not fascists, not Nazis, not white supremacists, just Republicans – that they'd violently attack the parade. So Portland gave up and cancelled it. That's your soulmates in action.
So throw your lot in with them. Me, I'll stand over here with the people that can state or listen to an opinion without violence. You go ahead and get your gun out and start shooting. That'll help.
Helianthus, I did not quote some random guys on the internet. I quoted the New York Times.
Let me rephrase: if the NYT published an article titled "Is It O.K. to Punch a Communist?", or "Is It O.K. to Punch an Anarchist?", I wouldn't blame Communists or Anarchists for arming themselves: I would think it would be a stupid response, but not something I could in good conscience condemn (I agree with you that's not an attitude that should be encouraged, though).
About your points that one should not use the behaviour of few people to condemn a whole group: I agree, but that was not my point or intention: the "few people" that are willing to resort to violence are dangerous enough. And the not-few-at-all that are cheering on violence are a real thing (I don't read right-wing blogs, so I cannot vouch myself for how common is to cheer for violence on, say, BLM: however, on the blog I do read there are lots of wannabe nazi-punchers, including quite a few commenters on this very blog).
About the "nazi", it seems to me the similarity between the actual Nazists and the alt-right is the same as the similarity between ancient roman soldiers and the guys impersonating them in front of the Colosseum: the first were actually dangerous, the latter are a bunch of buffoons wearing paraphernalia. Same thing for "anti-fascists": the "anti-FA" are people only looking for an excuse for a fight, and the clown-nazis are their fitting enemy.
An argument may be made that violence towards "the right" is de facto officially approved of, with the evidence being the various nazi-punchers, vandals and arsonists that are caught on camera, known, interviewed in the national media by name, and never arrested. Eric Clanton (or whatever cutesy name Ken chooses to give him) is an interesting exception and would indicate that sustained public pressure on officials can lead to an arrest (though that's hardly a revelation.)
I think that it's more likely that it's just an example of people excusing criminal behavior by those on their team (a la David Gregory).
Of course, this would indicate that people in the media consider the blackshirts as part of their team, regardless of protestations to the contrary. Again, not surprising, since people (often deliberately) generate ingroup feelings by hating the same people. And everyone hates nazis. Not everyone hates commies though.
AO: I'm confused by your reference to blackshirts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts
Really, you have no idea who/what/how antifa are?
The irony is only lost on their supporters.
Ken what are your thoughts on GoDaddy and Google kicking Daily Stormer off?
@Encial
Yes, for federal elections. For state elections, the courts used (and in subsequent voting rights concerns continue to use) the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as well as later legislation (like the Voting Rights Act).
Where zero shots were fired? You must have an incredibly poor imagination
@Careless,
Well, the cops have flat-out admitted that they didn't intervene because they were outgunned. Need shots be fired if they terrorize the authorities into inaction?
It's been noted that if they were armed with REAL lethal weapons, like squirt guns, skittles, and iced tea, and had their skin been just a lot darker, well, then they probably wouldn't have been allowed to make the fuss they did.
Still: the guns did the job that the Nazis wanted them to do – they intimidated, terrorized, and silenced the opposition to a great extent. That they didn't need to fire just shows how few people were in any doubt that they WOULD open fire, given half a reason to do so.
Thanks, Ken, for contributing another steady voice to the increasingly shrill national conversation over this.
Watching Ann claim that the Chair of the DNC doesn't represent the Democrats is hysterically funny. She's a troll, right?
Cops lie.
Really? I've seen that the governor said it, but given that it's a laugh-out-loud stupid claim to anyone who saw what was being carried and knows what the police carry, I'm guessing the actual police didn't humiliate themselves by claiming that.
The police were driving fucking APCs down the streets. The Nazis weren't carrying RPGs.
And, indeed, the police denied that they were outgunned, as a second of google will show "No, the State Police did not have inferior equipment," Corinne Geller, Virginia State Police public relations manager, told the Free Beacon. "
Um… by all accounts the counter-protesters outnumbered the nazis, they were by no means silent, and in fact there was no small amount of Nazi-beating going on. This is deep into "alternative facts" territory.
Per Guest and the responses to him, it was Terry McAwful, Gov. of the Commonwealth, who said that cops were outgunned — then, later in his presser, claimed, in essence, "But we had this covered."
AO says:
Well, one CAN make all sorts of arguments. Doesn't mean they're true.
@Argentina Orange
She's probably referring to North Dakota House Bill 1203, Tennessee House Bill 668/Senate Bill 944, and North Carolina House Bill 330. Maybe a couple of others, but that's what I turned up with five minutes on Google. Generally, they absolve drivers of civil liability for hitting protesters if the drivers are exercising "due care". Many opponents of the bills are worried that "due care" will be given the same (or less) scrutiny as the "fear" of police officers who shoot unarmed suspects (which many of them feel is insufficient).
"OTOH, some US biology teachers can not talk about evolution in their own classroom."
The government has much more power to control what people say when they are employees of the government who are specifically being paid to speak. When you give the government power to regulate speech, it often regulates that speech in ways that you won't like because sometimes crazy people hold the power.
Not surprising at all.
A major part of the discussion here you will not see reported in the news is the violence, violent rhetoric and stupidity of many groups on the left to include the BLM movement and antifa etc. Sure, many BLM supporters are decent people. There are a bunch that use the movement to spread false lies about every police shooting they hear reported. They spread false narratives about how all police are homicidal, racist thugs. The statistics show otherwise, but why let the truth get in the way of taking a few inflammatory videos? They call for the murder of police at their rallies and the media seems to overlook that…
Nothing would have happened in Charlottesville if the counter protesters to the white supremacists were peaceful, praying and holding signs saying "love, no hate". Instead, they come out just as violent and being just as stupid from the other extreme. It is obvious the liberal media is on one side, so it is absolutely painted that the white supremacist groups were the only people who engaged in foul language or were violent. Not all on the left or right are hateful, violent and wrong. Sadly, there are enough to make both sides look very bad. The sadder reality now is that the media do not do their jobs to report things without playing to their own bias and favorites. It is pretty despicable since it will just feed the beasts of hatred on both sides.
The media will also not report a single word of another reality. Many of the protestors on the right side were not violent or racist. Sure, there were plenty, but the media will paint it with a wide brush.
The left feels more emboldened to be more hateful and violent because the media reports them to only be loving victims. The right goes from a relative few bad apples to being able to recruit more once the average libertarian or conservative sees the news media paint them all as racists.
We need some leadership and enough people who can read through the news reports. Despite what CNN or MSNBC will spout, the majority of America is peaceful and not racist. That won't lead on the news though. They'd much rather cover a Ferguson and even instigate one if need be.
Just to prove we have outlived the era of parody:
It's time for some common sense car control
Or, "no civilian needs more than seven horsepower."
I thought that meant we had outlived the era of parody of parody.
To further note the "ahh, the poor wingnuts, it's open season on them" misclaims …
AO — lemme know when police repeatedly pepper-spray the alt-right the same way they did Occupy, et al.
At the risk of giving a cliche answer, maybe the issue of armed mass protests wouldn't be as big of an issue if we had the legal and social norms to encourage armed general citizenry.
Someone far earlier in this thread questioned whether the police's failure to intervene was due to being outgunned (as opposed to the growing sentiment that it was due to either gross negligence or downright German-style complicity.) I wonder if this is actually a more compelling explanation for police conduct than institutional racism or political favoritism. If you look at the various protests that have prompted a forceful police response, the one common denominator is that the police felt like they had all the power. It's not a matter of violence: I still remember the images of the most passive protesters ever sitting there and taking it while fat police officers stood there rubbing pepper spray in their eyes with Q-tips, clearly not fearing any violence or retaliation as they stood there with their weapons within easy reach of the protesters. Police violence probably isn't equally apportioned to protesters of different races, but there certainly isn't one race that has a monopoly on it, nor is there any race that miraculous avoids being on the receiving end.
However, you start looking at how well-armed the protesters are, I think you start seeing a much stronger correlation. Cliven Bundy and his supporters made far more overt threats to federal agents and law enforcement officers than many other protesters, but they weren't the ones who got tear-gassed. The more common narrative is that the police are far more sympathetic to wealthy white conservatives with connections than protest movements that are more heavily non-white, left-leaning, poor, and powerless, but I'd prefer to apply a modification of Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to evil what can be adequately explained by extreme cowardice. Cliven Bundy's crew, and his son's group later, were in a position to give the police something they never want to face and that they'd never expect from BLM or Occupy protesters or Women's marchers: A fair fight. It's easy to try to escalate a situation by going around telling people to punch you in the face or employing less than lethal weapons when the protesters are largely unarmed. It takes balls to do so when the protesters have the capacity to escalate as well.
As for the question of whether firearms should be considered a valid part of TPM, I think that question is a bit moot. As things stand, there's a lot of daylight between "openly carrying a firearm and not breaking a single law" and "actually shooting innocent people." If a single random individual were carrying a rifle and doing some of the things some of the protesters were doing, they'd probably be charged with brandishing, assault, or one of the many other crimes we have that generally mean deliberately scaring someone with a gun without actually shooting it. At the very least, the police would be exercising their power to approach the guy for a unexpected, unarmed conversation. So before we continuing arguing about the necessity of creating new laws that will further erode the First Amendment, how about we focus more on more fairly and consistently enforcing the ones we already have?
@SG
Well, police have been known to straight-up murder folk on the right, and not only escape punishment but receive awards and optics endorsement deals. So there's that.
But for someone who feigns awareness of math, how frequently do you think alt-righters encounter police, if the population is so tiny that their big national rally only could bring out two hundred people? There have been literally fewer neo-nazis seen in the wild than Occupy Albany, never mind OWS.
But keep pretending that the people who are outnumbered at their own rallies 50:1 or 100:1 or more are the real problem.
@Sam,
Unless you think that the media used the same photoshop they used to erase a few million visitors from Trump's inaugural and destroyed all the originals, you're going to have to put out some evidence to support your assertions.
You think that violence and murder is justified by fighting words from the "other side?" Fine, but do you know who that makes your moral superior? Certain groups on the left. The various left-leaning women's protests against Donald Trump did not turn violent, despite the presence of right-wing protesters and right-wing law enforcement officers specifically trying to provoke them to violence. The Occupy protests at UC campuses did not turn violent, despite the presence of counter protesters encouraging violence and the police using tear gas and pepper spray.
Perhaps more tellingly, when leftists turn violent, people in their own groups have been quick to condemn them. BLM widely condemned the ambush attacks on police in New York and Texas. Bernie Sanders condemned the murderous Bernie-Bro. Just a few years ago, I could honestly say the same about the right, but it seems like we (or at least those in power) have abdicated that responsibility since the election of Mr. Trump. When the Republican Congressman physically assaulted a reporter, the best Paul Ryan could muster was basically, "I think it was very wrong of him to do that, but I look forward to having his vote on healthcare." And of course, after this weekend's tragedy, the best we got out of our Republican president was a lukewarm, victim-blaming generic statement about violence being bad. The guy who has never been shy about making the immediate leap to Islamic terrorism whenever a remotely brown person commits an act of violence (and repeatedly criticized Obama for not doing the same) somehow decided to reserve judgment when a car at a white supremacist rally deliberately drove into the crowd on the anti-white supremacist section.
Of course, this isn't to say that all conservatives or all Republicans are craven, unprincipled hypocrites. I'm simply observing that in the last few years, the ones with principles and the courage to speak out haven't been able to move into positions of prominence and influence. And those few who have get brain cancer at a time when we most need them.
RE: Argentina Orange
Here ya go:
http://www.charlottestories.com/nc-house-just-passed-hb-330-allowing-drivers-legally-hit-protesters-block-roads/
HB 330 passed through the NC House and is still in committee in the NC Senate.
North Dakota HB 1203 also allowed for the same thing, but died in committee, same as Florida SB 1096, and Tennessee SB 944.
Ship owners who were issued a letter of mark would have been quite entertaining standing there waving it at enemy shipping as though a piece of paper would have an effect.
My understanding is that the faschists were liberals big on education and making the trains run on time.
Didn't the militia bring their own guns, lead and powder with them when they assembled?
My suggestion for addressing a massed enemy consisting of infantry would be grape shot, weren't there any civil war era cannons around? Nails and the like works well as would a significantly less amount of modern powder.
Now, a vehicle as a weapon… that poses a different problem, but you asked about people with rifles and body armor.
Ridicule can be another, all be it small, weapon in the arsenal against hate. I point out here, what I've pointed out in all my posts concerning these 'people.:' " 'Torches???' Really?? They were Tiki torches, like they were having a garden party. 'Who brought the hot dogs?' " If it wasn't so 'sad,' [read, FU'd] it'd be laughable.
@ Sam
I beg your pardon? It's satire, right?
On what basis do you believe this?
I'm used to Americans telling us French that we were cowards for surrendering to the Nazis.
I would never have imagined one day to see an American telling his fellow countrymen they should surrender to Nazis – let them dominate the streets and just hope they will go away if you ask politely.
Next month, I'm going to visit the US cemetery of Lyon, France. While I'm here, should I tell the dead GI that they should have brought signs of "Love, no hate" way back in 1944?
@Sam – BLM is not a violent group. The Antifa is. But whether you agree with them or not, calling BLM violent is just not accurate. It just isn't.
@Helianthus – Can kumbaya be sung in German? I guess it can/could have been. Or maybe if the Allies had just brought some nice continent-warming gifts. A nice fruit basket or something. More than one way to skin a cat!
BTW – Don't know if you've ever been to the cemetery above Omaha Beach, but that place just blows you away. One thing you can't comprehend from seeing it in TV and movies is how big it is – the scale is breathtaking. The magnitude of what those guys did on those beaches is just beyond my words to describe.
Let's add a new twist to the debate.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/daily-stormer-website-sending-nazis-to-harass-funeral-of-woman-allegedly-killed-by-white-supremacist-in-charlottesville/
Go ahead, explain to me how this is free speech and how white supremacists are mature, peace-loving people.
Note: this is not an argument to restrict anyone's right to organize a peaceful march. I agree on this.
That's concerning me is the aftermath.
I'm also morbidly curious to see if anyone here would like to excuse this behavior.
Holy fuckin' shit.
The courts have said it's ok for Westboro to do it, so presumably it means it's ok for those douchebags to do it as well. But being legal doesn't always make it right.
If I were her dad/brother/husband (haven't seen if she was married or not) and those guys showed up I might just end the day in jail. Or the hospital.
Maybe the military or some motorcycle guys or somebody will show up to keep those guys far away. Apparently that started happening at military funerals to shoo off the Westbros.
I'm looking to the Black Panthers for the next step in this dance. The Nazis are armed and willing to take to the streets, who else is?
The answer isn't to ban speech, and we'll have to agree not to talk about gun control unless we shoot each other over it first, so I guess it is up to somebody else to wear body armor and carry long guns to counter the threats from the Nazis. I want to see the Perfect Storm, where there are so many angry armed people in a small space with so much hateful-but-legally-protected rhetoric that everybody is reasonably scared for their lives and nobody is doing anything wrong, and everybody gets to start shooting each other based on self defense. It could finally be enough to start some real discussion about those rules and limits.
What Ken and most others seem to neglect about freedom of speech is that we don't have it because it is the best way of doing things, we have it because we have a history of government being despicable in mundane ways. Germany has a different experience, for example, and it is hard to argue that their system doesn't work. The argument rather is that we're just not good enough at implementing civics to have speech limits without abusing them. It isn't really such a high-minded thing as you pretend.
This misunderstanding leads to low quality rhetoric, which is the root evil facing the world today.
@SocraticGadfly
No, you don't, and simply declaring that you do doesn't change that.
Not having instance recall of every gaffe in the last decade is "damn ignorant"? Not remembering every single thing someone has said is the same thing as not knowing who they are? Are you really this stupid?
"we have a history of government being despicable in mundane ways. Germany has a different experience"
Lord knows that nobody's ever had a problem with any decisions made by the German government.
@william the stout —
You're right. Most statues of confederate figures went up in the c. two decades after Plessy v. Ferguson. There was then a lull until the 50s/60s, at which point there was another big spike.
I think it would be fair to say that they go up at times of racial flux and conflict. But even if it isn't, the fact that there was a big spike in the civil rights era does say something about what the people who put them up at that time were memorializing, and why. Maybe not everything. But something.
Is that a fair statement, would you say?
@Argentina Orange; @careless —
I was wrong, it was the governor.
It may be that he too was wrong. But that *Reason* piece sure doesn't prove it. It just gives the casual impression of doing so. All they're actually saying is that the police have lots of weapons, which no one disputes. What the governor said was that the people at the rally were *better* equipped.
I assume that he was talking about the militias It does not seem to me to be at all ridiculous (let alone "laugh-out-loud stupid") that those guys were better armed than the cops. They were very heavily armed.
I don't see how armored vehicles are going to make enough of a difference in a shoot-out to be decisive. Someone still has to get out there and shoot.
But maybe I'm missing something. Is there a reason why it's per se laughable to say that heavily armed militias are more heavily armed than the police are for some reason I don't know?
@william the stout —
The parade was cancelled in response to an anonymous email threatening violence. Two antifascist groups had organized protests against it. Those two things may be related. Or they may not. But to state as a fact that antifa threatened the Multnomah County GOP is to assert an unknown.
As I mentioned upthread, the Republican party in Multhomah County voted to use right-wing militias as security: specifically, the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters — one member of whom was just arrested for plotting an act of domestic terrorism in Oklahoma. They did this a month after the Rose Parade was cancelled, not before — in fact, they did it in response to the light rail racial attack that killed two people. But I presume that they didn't just up and develop an inclination for extremist right-wing groups in a few weeks.
As I also mentioned upthread, antifa is anti-racism. It's something they protest.
In light of all that, I think it's somewhat misleading to frame it as if antifa just can't stand to see republicans, qua republicans, showing their faces in the streets.
That's a crock of…something. Once you make that distinction, where do you draw the line? Nazis, no, John Birchers maybe, Reagan Republicans yes? How do you decide? The county sheriff gives a political allegiance test? What if he doesn't like YOUR politics? What rights can he take away from you?
If the answer to speech is more speech, maybe the answer to guns is more guns?
@Mitchell
"I'm still waiting for the answer of how our society handles attempts by Nazis (or any other group) to engage in ARMED mass protest."
Probably the same way that we handle letting a person who likely committed murder go free if there isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
@Cromulent
"…neglect about freedom of speech is that we don't have it because it is the best way of doing things, we have it because we have a history of government being despicable in mundane ways."
My way of thinking is that it makes freedom of speech imperfect, but nonetheless the best system for the very reason you mention.
@joshua: If you imagine perfection as the best you personally could manage you're willing to accept any mediocre crap as the best thing possible because you wouldn't be able to manage anything better.
I'm not going to argue with you other than to say, wow, that is exceptionally weak sauce. You don't even make an argument that is better than Germany's system. You just concede that we can never do better.
@joshua —
When he was Governor of California, Reagan handled it by passing the Mulford Act, which made it illegal to carry loaded guns in public. The NRA was totally in support of this.
However, the armed mass protest in question was by the Black Panthers. So it may not be predictive for "any other group."
How about eugenics, which was a progressive cause?
I know that countering talking points with facts is passe, but the laws being passed regarding cars and protests don't do anything like allowing people to plow into protestors with cars.
First, it only speaks to civil liability, not criminal liability.
Second, it requires that they be driving with due care.
Third, it does not apply to drivers who took willful or wanton actions which led to injury.
Fourth, it does not apply if there were valid permits to block the street.
It actually is a pretty narrow law.
@Sebastian H
And I'm sure we can trust everyone to examine equally and without prejudice who is exercising "due care" and not taking "willful and wanton actions". #sarcasm
Well, we do it for essentially any law that touches on negligence or requires state of mind, so your critique is essentially about all law in the United States, not this law.
Lot of progressive eugenicists still around, are there?
@neoteny —
Eugenics wasn't just "a progressive cause." During the Progressive Era, It was widely accepted scientific and social consensus that due to biological determinism, the way to a better future lay through breeding.
There were definitely some progressive politicians who were very gung-ho about it — notably Theodore Roosevelt, who thought that white people were committing race suicide. He was also a good friend and associate of Madison Grant, whose "The Passing of the Great Race" he praised. (This book went on to be influential wrt the formulation of Nazi thinking about eugenics at a slightly later date.) But the cause of eugenics was not primarily political in nature at the time.
Also, as the very wide political gulf between Theodore Roosevelt (who was, of course, a Republican) and Bernie Sanders demonstrates, none of that says anything about the present-day progressive left at all. The only people who still believe that eugenics are the way forward are the ones who think that Madison Grant was right in the first place.
That was poorly phrased. What I meant was that in the present,support for racial eugenics is primarily political, and also politically extreme.
Back when the concept was still thought to be scientifically sound, it was more like social science/ a political cause. You wouldn't necessarily have been announcing your political affiliation by agreeing that social ills could and should be alleviated via selective breeding. It was the consensus of the day that they could, and a generally popular idea that they should.
Apples and oranges to compare it to the present, therefore.
RE: BadRoad
In 1980 America had an estimated 200 million guns. The murder count that year was 23,040 for a rate of 10.2 murders per 100,000 people.
In 1991 America had an estimated 250 million guns. The murder count that year was 24,700 for a rate of 9.8 murders per 100,000 people.
In 2015 America had an estimated 320 million guns. The murder count that year was 15,696 for a rate of 4.9 murders per 100,000 people.
More legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens isn't responsible for the entire decline, but it sure helped push those numbers lower.
Do you have any proof to back up that assertion? It doesn't seem to make sense, at first blush.
In 1980, the U.S. population was 226.5 million. So, that's approximately 0.9 guns per person.
In 1991, the U.S. population was 253 million. So, that's approximately 1 gun per person.
In 2015, the U.S. population was 320.9 million. So, still pretty much dead on 1 gun per person.
I don't think that you have a strong argument to attribute any of that decline at all to the "more legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens," considering that per capita gun ownership barely budged during the period where the per capita murder rate has fallen by half.
The serpent's egg is starting to hatch. It can't happen here? It IS happening here. I'm 62, living out in the Oregon countryside and confident that my rural community will get through this, but I have grave doubt that my country will be able to get through this.
There is a beautiful Irony in posters lambasting the left for arguing that the people at the march and part of the alt-right don't represent all conservatives and then in the same breath argue that Antifa and black block represent the left entirely.
Antifa and the black block protesters are generally neither right or left, most are anarchists, some identify as "left" whatever that means and I have no doubt some identify as conservative, again whatever that means. These are young people that want to riot and break things because of perceived anger at society in general. They aren't burning cars and destroying buildings because they have a political view they want the world to address, they are doing it because they want to break things. There is very little different about them than the anarchists of the 60's. Their ilk should be rounded up and prosecuted just as the Nazi's who committed violence in Charleston should be. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of violence and everyone I know, right, left or center is horrified by their violence. These same people are also horrified by wealthy propaganda stations pretending to be news that attempt to equate these anarchists with the left as if they have anything to do with each other. Antifa, black block and it's internet cousin Anonymous are loose groups of individuals all set on causing harm for the "lulz". They should be ridiculed, prosecuted and jailed for their destructive behavior.
But even with all this I consider these groups an annoyance in comparison to the white supremacists that marched through campus carrying tiki torches and chanting racist and anti-semetic slogans. People that brought home made shields, guns and all manner of weapons to what was supposed to be a peaceful march to protest the removal of a statue of a traitor. Those people were scary because their intent was to intimidate, terrorize and threaten violence to intimidate voters and make their views appear more popular than they are.. The appropriate action against these people is to identify the marchers and use speech to make their friends and families aware of what they believe. To allow their speech to have the social consequences it should, not to pass laws attacking their speech.
But above all small groups of people like antifa or the alt-right do NOT represent larger groups of people. These are fringe elements that are generally not accepted by the side they claim (though this boundary has arguably bent heavily during the Trump administration and his cabinet which contains self identified alt-right members). But I have no doubt in my mind the conservative religious voters do not identify with or think those people in Charleston were any part of their voting block any more than I think the urban progressives and left leaning people believe Antifa or black block represents them or represents in any way their voting bloc.
When you say this or that fringe element represents the other sides political views you are either a liar or have been deluded by the largest propaganda campaign in history. You should wake up and try to have a real conversation with the "other side" where you aren't claiming you know what they believe, because you DON'T.
"But above all small groups of people like antifa or the alt-right do NOT represent larger groups of people. These are fringe elements that are generally not accepted by the side they claim… But I have no doubt in my mind the conservative religious voters do not identify with or think those people in Charleston were any part of their voting block any more than I think the urban progressives and left leaning people believe Antifa or black block represents them or represents in any way their voting bloc….When you say this or that fringe element represents the other sides political views you are either a liar or have been deluded by the largest propaganda campaign in history. You should wake up and try to have a real conversation with the "other side" where you aren't claiming you know what they believe, because you DON'T."
I'm in my office giving this post a standing ovation.
That's a bunch of horseshit. There is no correlation there and you don't get to pretend there is. The massive drop in crime rate we've seen over the last 30 years ties almost to the year with when lead was banned from gas, paint and other products. There is a very well defined correlation there, where as with guns there is literally no correlation at all even if you want to pretend there is.
This is besides the fact that correlation does not mean causation. That is something that has to be proved separately. But remember, we have real health studies showing lead exposure makes people more violent because lead disrupts the CNS.
At the time a sizeable part of the political and social elite pretty firmly believed that they had "evidence-based", scientific reasons to implement the progressive policy of eugenics. Today we tend to think that they were misguided in their attempt to better (i.e. progress) society in this particular manner; some even think that it was their hubris which drove them to use the mighty hand of the state to actively "manage" some citizens' lives (for example forced sterilization of the "feeble-minded").
Of course such things can't happen anymore: now we're in possession of true scientific knowledge so we can't make any such mistakes again, all of our progressive aims of betterment of society are surely right, and anyone daring to question these convictions of ours must be a reactionary troglodyte.
@Total,
Don't you know that the correct response to 'wow, the right-wing is doing some terrible stuff right now' is always 'yeah, well what about this horrible thing the party that is currently aligned with the left-wing did many years ago?'
@Trent,
The really fundamental difference between considering Antifa to represent left-wingers in general and Nazis/White supremacists to represent right-wingers in general is that left-wing politicians run on platforms that OPPOSE what Antifa represents: they are a group with little to no political power. Meanwhile, the right-wing elects politicians that bend over backwards to give white supremacists, racists, misogynists, etc. much of what they want.
You may want to engage in 'both sides' type arguments, but they fall apart in the face of reality. Maybe the Nazis don't represent a larger group of people – but the larger group of people they self-identify with sure as heck go out of their way to support the Nazis in everything but their words. If the other side believes something different than that, if the 'religious right' doesn't identify as Nazi, then they should stop fighting for the laws they fight to pass, stop discriminating against minorities, and start acting like decent people for a change. You might consider it to be lying to tell the truth, but, ya know, that just makes you wrong. Because really: who cares what they call themselves, when they all fight for similar goals?
I'm glad you're consistent with all these years of defending free speech. We can't have different rules for "the other" because one day we will be "the other" in the eyes of the state and we won't have rights to protect us.
I'm less glad with the narrow perspective in which you are viewing and presenting these these events.
It's almost as if this post was entirely dedicated to one side (the left) since the gov is the evil censor that wants to shut down poor BLM and violence comes with no apparent motivation from the evil Nazis.
How about you make another version of this post talking about "antifa/radical communist" ideas should not be censored but their unprovoked violence (unless losing an election justifies violence) should be prosecuted by criminal law the same way anyone who engages in violence should be prosecuted.
Go for government censorship too in things like "providing material support to terrorism" just because you decided to donate to WikiLeaks who once was despised by the right and now is despised by the left.
I think you get my point. Try to step on the other side of the fence to reach out to people who are smeared all the damn time just for thinking differently than the left narrative or you won't be able to reach them because you, too, will be smearing them through "the other tribe is bad" lenses.
Oh, ye Gods, by that logic, we should toss out all our scientific knowledge and just go back to living in caves. Excellent! No antibiotics, a substantial majority of children die before age 5, no Internet comment threads…wait, actually, now I'm kind of convinced.
Look, the "progress" concept has all sorts of issues with it, both historically and currently, but pretending because some progressives back in the 1890s brought into some really bad ideas says nothing about the left today except, "hey, let's be thoughtful about what we have government do!"
If we're going to do that, then I'm going to start complaining how William McKinley's illegal annexation of Hawaii in 1898 reveals how the right is and always has been lawless.
As a European, much of this seems pretty crazy. Not just a little bit crazy but actually really hard to believe type crazy.
The USA allows people to own guns – sure, a lot of places do that. But to allow them at protests? That seems crazy.
If I were to want to attend a counter-protest to a Fascist rally I would think twice about it knowing that the people protesting against would be armed. A gun is a tool for killing people. It is common knowledge. Openly displaying a tool for killing people as a theme in your rally cannot be construed as anything other than a threat, surely? Especially now we have knowledge that these people are armed and that there is at least a small minority willing to kill counter-protesters, I can't see that this isn't intimidation and an attempt to quell counter-protests through the threat of violence.
Rallies and protests are an important part of democratic life, and I applaud Ken for supporting this when it is particularly hard to do so, but wielding firearms en mass in a public place is going beyond self expression, especially when some of the members have been violent in the past. Maybe it is better to amend a bad law to better protect free speech. If people are intimidated into silence by this show of firepower then it is in the interests of free speech that there are steps taken to make these people feel safe – either an unarmed Fascist Rally or an exceptionally heavy police presence. Personally I wouldn't feel much safer with armed police like that on the streets, but its a start.
I don't like the idea of levying bonds for rallies. It quashes the ability of the poor in society to protest. The people who may have the most to protest about would find it hardest. That said, if a rally were to be undertaken in such a manner that there was extensive additional cost incurred to police it – such as might be incurred by the protest being armed, then the financial consequences of that choice should rest on those participating in the rally.
@trent, william the stout —
I don't presume to know more about what people believe than they tell me. However, while everybody on Trump's two business advisory councils resigned, nobody on his Evangelical Council of Advisors did. After his press conference on Wednesday, Jerry Fallwell Jr. tweeted in support of his "bold, truthful statement" on Charlottesville. Robert Jeffress told the Christian Broadcasting Network that if we're going to confront some racism, we should confront all racism. And Franklin Graham also spoke up in Trump's defense.
I think it's fair to say that by and large, Trump's conservative religious voters are not unduly bothered by his assertion that there were some "very fine people" chanting "Blood and soil! Blood and soil!" during their "very quiet" and orderly protest. Nor were they outraged when he took the "No puppet, no puppet, you're the puppet" table-turning approach to objections to murderous white supremacist violence by assigning half the responsibility for it to the mythically equal acts of violence on the other side.
I also think it's safe to presume that conservative Christian leaders are not being besieged by cries of moral outrage over Trump's equivocal response to events by their flocks.
Moreover, per a CBS news poll, 67% of Republicans approved of his response to events — which, PS, let's not forget includes a lethal act that's being investigated as a domestic terrorist attack.
We are talking about the failure of the Republican President of the United States — who spent his presidential campaign retweeting white supremacists, whose long history of racist statements and actions is well-known, who is actively supported and championed by white nationalists, and who began his political career by being birtherism's most ardent and prominent supporter — to take a firm stand on the complete unacceptability of white supremacism, racism, and antisemitism. Anyone who thinks that these views don't "in any way" represent their voting block is indulging in magical thinking.
That's not to say that I think any of those people feel hatred or hostility in their hearts towards Jews, blacks, or anyone else, or that they support it, or that they act in accordance with it in their daily personal and professional lives. It is simply to say that the people rallying in Charlottesville very demonstrably are a part of the voting block of conservative Christians (and other Republicans), which the majority of them are OK with doing little, if anything, to oppose or address.
For the millionth time: Antifa is entirely unrelated to — and not even aligned with — the mainstream American left because (among other things) they don't believe in government They are a small, disorganized movement, which doesn't recruit, proselytize, or maintain a prominent online/media presence. They show up and protest racism, sexism, and homophobia, get into street brawls, set things on fire, and commit property damage. That's it. That's all they do and who they are.
Over the last decade, 74% of the murders committed by domestic extremists have been by right-wing groups. Left-wing groups account for 2%. This is not about damning the right generally, or painting conservatives with too broad a brush, or anything of that nature. White nationalism is genunely, objectively a significant problem. It is genuinely, objectively becoming more acceptable and politically popular on the right. Trump actually, actively (if tacitly) embraces this. It is (again, objectively) not comparable to any tendency or movement within, near, around, or adjacent to the present-day political left.
All of this tu-quoque carrying on and all these hurt and affronted feelings are misplaced at best, and serve to obscure the problem at best. There is one. It doesn't help address it to make your offended feelings about being unjustly associated with it the centerpiece of your political response to it. It actually helps the problem continue to flourish.
I'm not happy about it either. But there it is.
@neoteny —
Your argument is called the association fallacy. It's commonest iteration for the purposes of example is "they laughed at Galileo" — the point being that just because they laughed at Galileo, that doesn't mean most people whose scientific ideas are rejected as pseudo- or junk science aren't wrong.
In the case of your formulation of it: The fact that people once thought eugenics were the key to social progress does not mean that all efforts directed towards social progress are bogus, or even suspect. If you believe in reason, judge them on their individual merits. It's the only way.
And what you say is always what you believe… Two statements for you pure as the driven snow liberals.
Robert Byrd
How many wearing white hoods were democrats?
It might be useful to draw the Curtis Culwell Center/Draw Muhammad Contest attack into the conversation for comparison. The organizers were on the SPLC's list of hate groups as I'm sure almost all of those groups formally in attendance in Charlottesville were. Many fire-armed folks in attendance (for good reason in the case of Garland at least). Is there a principled reason to shut down armed Nazi speech but allow armed anti-Islamic speech? Should varying levels of self-defense be allowed based on a formal threat assessment (ISIS vs. antifa sticks and bikelocks)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack
@Sebastian H
A lot of laws don't address violent opposition to political speech. I'm not a lawyer, but to me NC HB 330 and the other bills that inspired it appear to be attempts to indirectly chill political speech. The "due care" and "willful and wanton actions" clauses look like an attempt to make the law seem reasonable while giving unscrupulous officials greater latitude in selecting precisely which protests get chilled.
Ken keeps saying that the reason we protect ALL speech is because we can't always be sure we can trust the people enforcing the law.
And yes, selective enforcement is already a known problem, but it's particularly worrying when it applies to people driving their cars into protest marches.
Oh, look, the corpse of Robert Byrd gets dragged out again. Yes, Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and a stone-cold racist. The Democratic Party of that time was full of them. The Democrats, however, changed, worked for civil rights, and (at least partially) atoned for their past behavior. It wasn't a GOP President signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it wasn't a GOP President signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. And when the racists fled the Democratic Party, guess which one they joined with a lovely hand-crafted invitation from Richard Nixon? The GOP.
(Even poor Robert Byrd, poster child for every pathetic right winger losing an argument about racism, repented his earlier behavior and, among other things, was one of the leaders getting MLK's birthday turned into a national holiday).
The GOP meanwhile, with its Southern Strategy, its carefully coded Willie Horton ads, and now the Racist-in-Chief, has been living off the Civil War for 150 years. US Grant put the south to fire and sword to defeat the Confederates, but he's dead now; Eisenhower put the Nazis to fire and sword to overthrow Hitler, but he's long past. You're alive; what's your excuse for supporting people who hate your country?
Clearly, there are two sides: us, and them.
And I can tell which side each of you are on, with few exceptions.
Times are becoming interesting. Perhaps rural Oregon will soon discover that they have a lot in common with urban Oregon after all.
Both siderism is lovely until one side includes Nazis.
@GuestPoster
Only someone with no convictions would think that sincerely held convictions are a "choice".
Those who oppose it get so excited by the word "militia" appearing in a preluding half-sentence which explains the motivation of the normative sentence that follows it, that their brain falters while reading that normative sentence and makes them think it says "the right of a militia" instead of "the right of the people".
And lets not even get started on the idiotic notion of retroactively imposing the modern-day use of the word "regulated" as a euphemism for "controlled by government directives and legislation", on the 18th century text where it does not mean that at all.
@GuestPoster
Your mistake is assuming that everyone is something because someone in the group is something. There's basically three loosely organized sides to the GOP, the christian and other religious conservatives that are all about social conservatism, the economic conservatives and the racist SOB's. Just because the racist SOB's are a little resurgent and have found a president that seems to support them doesn't mean the whole GOP is. You should stop insisting they are because painting them with this broad brush does you or them no favors. Trump should be called out for his support of these jackasses, and the people in the GOP should call him out as well but we do no one any favors saying that just because Trump and the alt-right identify as GOP that means everyone GOP is just like them. It's not true and it's insulting. It's just as idiotic when people in the GOP point at Antifa and say they are democrats and all democrats are like them. It's a bunch of horseshit, just like you saying all GOP are alt-right.
I think everyone on both sides should be horrified by Trump's equivocating, and I think it's shameful that people, even famous people part of the religious arm of the GOP are defending him. I think many of them do it because they are afraid to make him mad because he's such a thin skinned narcissist but it doesn't excuse them. But Trump doesn't represent the entire GOP electorate any more than anyone else does. You play into the very politics the propaganda is using to try to make Trumps response seem reasonable when you paint the entire GOP with the Trump or alt-right brush. You're better than that.
Well said Ken. The more offensive speech is the more it needs protection. I abhor these racist clowns and I'm perfectly willing to say their speech and ideas are grotesque, abominations. But I sure as hell don't want government deciding what's permitted and what's not. Certainly not this sorry excuse for government (or any other).
"Over the last decade, 74% of the murders committed by domestic extremists have been by right-wing groups. Left-wing groups account for 2%."
And what, 24% was committed by extremist centrists? Are their any of those? And using murder as the standard sets a pretty high bar. It's plain as day that in the last year the split of violence between the left and the right is not 37x weighted toward the right. If any thing the left has been more violent since Trump has been elected. And you think the fact that Antifa (I know, I know, they're not leftists, but bear with me) hasn't killed anybody is because of their mad violence skillz? No way. They've just been lucky. They haven't hit anybody in the right spot on the head, nobody has fallen yet and hit their skull on a curb the right way, so far nobody has been inside anything they've set on fire. The longer this keeps up, the odds increase that they'll kill somebody too.
"It is genuinely, objectively becoming more acceptable and politically popular on the right. Trump actually, actively (if tacitly) embraces this. "
I don't think it is. Most people in the mainstream right tripped over themselves to get in front of cameras to condemn Charlottesville. You're demonizing your enemies.
And I don't think Trump has sympathy for white supremacists. I know that I'm gonna catch shit for this here but I honestly don't think he does. I think Trump has one agenda. That agenda is…Trump. The guy is pathetically thin skinned. He reacts badly and immediately to criticism. Hell, he reacts badly and immediately to praise if it's too faint. The man just has issues. The white supremacists have learned to play to his pathology. So he defends them because unlike 90% of the rest of the people in the public realm they're saying nice things about him, which he can't resist. Attributing anything like rational, intellectual, ideological, principled thoughts to Trump is a mistake. He's simply not capable of that kind of thinking. It's sad that he's the President, but, that's the life we're stuck with until the time comes that he's not.
Which was my exact point.
Doesn't mean that all are bogus; but it does mean that all are suspect. The simple fact that any of them can be deemed above suspicion ("the science is in!") is sufficient condition for repeating the eugenics debacle.
Cf. wicked problem.
If it was, you made it really badly.
Or you misinterpreted it really badly.
@william the stout —
And you base this on what exactly? Recently, a right-wing extremist killed two people on the light rail in Portland. Another right-wing extremist just drove a car into a crowd, killing one and injuring nineteen others, five of them critically and another five seriously. There are also photographs and video of three right-wing extremists all but beating an unarmed young black man to death before his friends were able to rescue him. Multiple witnesses report that they followed him for blocks, taunting and insulting him before the attack.
And those are just the first prominent examples from the recent past that happened to spring to mind. Oh! Last week, here was also a right-wing extremist who got arrested for attempting to detonate what he thought was a bomb in a stolen van he'd parked outside of a bank in Oklahoma City. federal building. A little less than two years ago, a white supremacist shot and killed nine people in a church in Charleston.
I don't know if Canada counts, but in January, a Donald Trump/Marine Le Pen supporter shot and killed six people at a mosque in Quebec.
So for "since the election" only, that would be three murders and an attempted bombing without Canada, and nine murders and an attempted bombing with it.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, antifa showed up at Trump's inauguration, to protest Milo at Berkeley and Charles Murray at Middlebury; and I believe for some right-wing rally in, maybe, Oakland? I might be missing a few, though.
In every case, they got in street brawls, maced, punched, or (in the case of Charleston, at least) hit people with clubs and poles. They also set things on fire and damaged property.
It seems pretty clear to me which side was more violent. It also happens to be the side that's much better organized, larger, and more influential.
What else you got?
I personally would say that they are, and have in fact said it on this thread.
As I've also already said on this thread, I think it's just a matter of time until someone gets killed. I said both that and the above-noted in replies to you , btw.
I don't have enemies and am not demonizing anyone. I don't dispute that most people in the GOP are repelled by and opposed to violent right-wing extremists.
But until this year, it was 100% unacceptable and universally politically unpopular for elected GOP officials to even countenance, let alone associate with, white supremacists. Prior to Trump, nobody with Sebastian Gorka's history would have lasted one minute past exposure in the White House. Trump retweets and refuses to forthrightly condemn murder by a white nationalist in stronger terms than he does antifa.
It is therefore objectively becoming more acceptable and politically popular, which is what I said.
And in view of what we're talking about, I would say that any move away from "100% unacceptable" at all is too significant to dismiss. Those guys are fanatics. They're dangerous. The President of the United States re-tweets them. He goes on their radio shows and gives interviews. He speaks highly of Alex Jones. Mike Cernovich gets leaks from White House staff.
He has nothing to gain politically by responding tepidly to Charlottesville. It also didn't obviously help him to re-tweet white-supremacist memes from accounts named things like "white genocide TM." He already had that vote, easily, just from his position on immigration. He wasn't even in politics when he spent years hammering away at birtherism while getting nothing but ridicule in return.
And he has a long history of very racist words and deeds going all the way back to his professional beginnings. His father was arrested at a Klan rally before he was born. True, he was not there for it. And true, he is not answerable for the sins of his father. But in conjunction with his own history wrt race, it does generally support the idea that this is not a pose but a part of who he is.
In short: He's been consistently, electively very racist in a wide range of circumstances, life-long, whether he had anything obvious to gain from it or not. So Occam's razor, basically.
I forgot the beating of Deandre Harris by three white nationalists with metal poles, the UVA librarian who had a stroke after being hit in the head with a pole by a neo-Nazi, and the nineteen other people injured by the car attack, ten of them seriously or critically.
I call. Show me more violence by the left.
I forgot to say: I presume the remaining 24% percent is "religious or other."
That's an awfully strange thing to say. For some reason, my eye just passed over it earlier.
Why should murders be excluded?
@Trent,
I'm not suggesting that everyone in a group is X merely because some people in a group are X. I'm suggesting everyone in a group is X because EVERYONE in that group is X. That you want to ignore this doesn't change it. The racist SOBs don't have 'a little more power' all of a sudden – they've been the major driving force since Nixon. The GOP has dedicated itself, whole hog, to advancing their goals. They have done so visibly and obviously. That Trump is the most visibly absurd representation of this today does not change that the vast, vast majority of the GOP support the exact same racist, misogynist, and otherwise bigoted goals, and have done so for decades. He's a culmination, not an outlier.
Every single person who votes GOP supports those goals, and helps work towards them. This is not a matter of some metaphysics or quantum ethics: this is simple cause and effect. If you vote for, or otherwise support, racists with racist goals who have a history of accomplishing racism that has not changed in decades, you ARE a racist.
All they have to do to stop being racists is stop being racists.
You can keep pretending that both sides are the same. No matter how hard you pretend, though, it won't suddenly become true. You can keep pretending that decent people vote GOP. Not matter how hard you pretend, though, it won't become true.
How about we hear from the citizens of Charlottesville who saw "both sides" in action?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html
Yes, I know some people consider Slate a biased source, so if you can find any interviews with locals who liked the Nazis better, feel free to post them. This article does make it seem like Antifa waited for a violent action and met it with a proportional response.
No, thanks! I'll stick with my evaluation.
@ Ann – I wasn't suggesting that murder should be excluded. I was saying that only counting acts of political violence which resulted in a death tends to dramatically lower the number of acts of political violence.
The most recent count of Klan members that I can find from the SPLC is 5,000 – 8,000 from 2013. The counts of alt-right marchers in Charlottesville that I've seen are consistently around 300. We're having a national freakout over a "movement" that has 10,000 people in it. Trying to cast that as some mainstream thing on the other side is simply fooling yourself so you can feel that your side is superior. Trust me, from out here somewhere in the middle your side isn't.
But you're certainly reasonable compared to GuestPoster, who is so superior that he can claim that every single person who has voted Republican in the last 50 years is a racist – including, presumably, all of the blacks and Hispanics who have voted Republican in that time. He wins the Hyperbolic Post of the Week contest. In fact, we may have to retire it.
Eldridge Cleaver, famous supporter of racist goals. LOL.
Lenin's "Counterprotesters" were not exactly better than the fascists.
It's funny how the people who insist we must not tar an entire group with the same brush, and blame all members for the illegal crimes of a few "extremists" re: muslisms, BLM, immigrants, etc., are now demanding we tar an entire group with the same brush, because of the actions of literally one guy. In the very same week where we've had yet another muslim terror attack in Europe (but that's every week).
Also note that when black people condemn BLM for killing cops, they are attacked by the left. When Ayan Hirsi Ali condemns muslim terror, she's accused of racism and hate-speech by the left. It's painfully obvious the left actually loves their extremists and hates anyone who turns on them.
The commenter above said it was simple, just stop being racist. How did that work out for the GOP this week? Every single person in government condemned the racists and nazis, and the left simply declared their condemnations invalid. Did they give the GOP a pass, and officially declare them Not Racist? Nope. You can't appease the left, you can only die on their swords.
Thousands of muslim terror victims are "not statistically significant" but every gun death must be prevented by confiscating all guns. 9 people died in Chicago in a weekend, Baltimore had a "don't kill anyone for 72 hours" event (which failed), but oh some white dude killed a girl, I demand action. Okay buddy.
No one is buying this anymore. The left is totally morally and ethically bankrupt. Screaming Racist at the top of your lungs is literally your only argument, and it's not even an argument.
Oh Stout one. All you have to do to prove my post hyperbolic is provide just one counter example: provide the name of just one person who voted for Trump who did not vote for Trump. That's all. Just one single shred of evidence would counter the point entirely.
Of course, such evidence does not exist, which is why I am able to make it. It remains factually accurate, no matter how much you may not like it. But still – it would be easy to counter. Just name one Trump voter who did not vote for Trump. It's that simple.
Well, you didn't say "Trump", you said that Trump was the "culmination" of racist GOP voting "since Nixon".
And if you truly believe that every single person that voted for Trump is a racist, or even supports racist policies, then you're a fool. Seriously, man, you're not worth engaging with.
Sure you do; it is yours, after all. But it isn't right just because of that.
@Ann: I had a response for you at AUGUST 17, 2017 AT 5:29 PM (it was languishing in moderation hell 'cause I put a link into it).
When Nazi websites encouraged their followers to burn synagogues, as we saw in Charlottesville, is this protected free speech?
So, Stout one, are you holding that those who vote in favor of racism and racist policies are not racists? Because that's what you just claimed – that, after all, is unambiguously what Trump promised, and what was being voted for by every single Trump voter. I'll warrant that, perhaps, you meant something different, but that doesn't change what you SAID. And what you said makes YOU the fool, not I. Words have meaning, after all, and that's as close to the literal meaning of 'racist' as one is likely to get.
No, it's right because it's right.
You vote for someone who advocates racist policies, you own the racist policies. You don't get to separate out the parts you like and disavow the parts you don't. You voted to put him in office and now you're in some small way responsible for what he does.
Tautologies are tautologies.
Rightness is rightness.
Tautologies are tautologies.
Exactly what are Trump' s racist policies?
Rightness is rightness.
But what are "our" values and who is "us"?
My values say that free speech is vital, but not everyone's is equally vital. As long as there is no governmental restraint, my values do not force me to defend the right of a Nazi to speak freely.
Given that (as you note) free speech is not under any serious threat (Drumpf cannot "open up" libel laws), why cannot I object to the ACLU trying to defend Milo's free speech?
Fuck him! Let the Mercers defend it, and the ACLU can focus on other liberties.
Like protecting the liberties of the victims of Milo's free speech. The ones subject to torment from his mindless followers who threaten 'em.
The ACLU gets a donation from me; my values at the end of this 'slippery slope' are pressuring me NOT to continue that practice.
Tautologies are tautologies.
It is possible to generate a practically endless stream of statements of the form "A is A". ("Wrongness is wrongness", "Beauty is beauty", "Life is life" &c.) They are all trivially true, and as such contain no information. They aren't profound: they're inane.
Oh, do tell.
Total and Sol – Since the two of you clearly supported Obama you're in favor of the American President having the power to execute American citizens overseas with no due process.
You're a couple of authoritarian assholes. And thanks to your advocacy of that policy now the Cheeto King has that authority.
Thanks, guys.
And since you surely voted for Obama in 2008, you're both opposed to gay marriage.
You're just a couple of fucking bigots.
Oops sorry that was for Total and GuestPoster. They're the authoritarian homophobes. Not Sol.
Apologies, Sol.
Ah, the false equivalence followed by the personal insult. Stout one, your arguments are approaching the level of, say, Encinal's. But do feel free to keep trying: you might accidentally stumble onto a valid point eventually.
@william the stout
I'll start out by pointing out that the choice in 2008 wasn't between candidates who differed on executing American civilians abroad and gay marriage, but those who held essentially the same position, so your point is fucking irrelevant. This is unlike 2016, when you, william the stout, had a choice to vote for the non-racist candidate or the racist candidate and you chose to vote for the fucking racist, you fucking prick.
But I won't even go there: yes, I voted for someone who supported positions on extrajudicial killings of US citizens and gay marriage that I disagreed with, and that's on me. I own that vote, and I'll take the moral hit that goes with it. Why don't you think about getting your head out of your asshole and standing up and owning your own behavior in voting for the fucking racist, you fucking prick.
I just did; you're welcome.
Which brings us back to the real issue at hand: what did you mean when you wrote
i.e. what are the "best practices" of avoiding people buying into some really bad ideas in the name of science (actually, scientism) and then using government (state) power to do violence to their fellow citizens so progress is (supposedly) furthered?
I'm sorry, I fell asleep in the middle of your last comment. What?
Your apparent commitment to uttering inanities.
zzzZZZzzz.
You ought to get that narcolepsy of yours checked out by a competent specialist.
Snore…I'm sorry, what did you say? Anything important? No? zzzZzz.
It could have been important: you did a step in the right direction when you — weakly — recognized the importance of avoiding the repetition of the eugenics debacle, which happened because of the involvement of government (state) power in the scheme. But it seems you've reached the end of your cognitive tether there: for some reason, you're unable or unwilling to explore the issue further.
Nothing you've said was worth waking up for, but it was a valiant try. You'll get there.
Well, it seems like there were not enough woke people on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Now (plural) you are paying the price for your snoozing.
No, we were all awake for that; it's you we nap for.
Then it is even worse for (plural) you: you allowed "a fucking racist" to get elected — with open eyes.
Yeah, that's right because voting against someone is exactly like letting them get elected. Good try, but no.
ZZZZZ.
Total – Sorry, but I didn't vote in this election. And there can't be anything I said that would make you reasonably think I support Trump.
Was it that I called him The Cheeto King? Or when I called him psychotic?
Get off the team shit and read what people are actually saying.
Well done, because sitting out an election between a non-racist and a racist gives you that extra special kind of moral virtue. You fucking prick.
Because sitting out an election between a non-racist and a racist and then going around flaunting how critical you are of the racist and oh, isn't he awful! is just special. You fucking prick.
Because sitting out an election between a non-racist and a racist means that you're just a tiny bit better than all the folks who voted for Trump, but the gap is so small that the sunlight can't even get through it.
You fucking prick.
Which shows that voting against someone is not enough: one has to convince ("wake up") enough of her fellow citizens to not allow "a fucking racist" to get elected. Which (plural) you failed to do. Maybe because you were snoozing when that work should have been done. Or you were having a fun time mocking all those deplorables — who might have voted against the "fucking racist" but for your woke attitude towards them. Or maybe because they did not find the vision of progress offered to them compelling enough.
Owning a vote cast for the winning candidate is easy enough: that brings its own psychic (and for some, material) benefits. Owning a lost election is considerably harder: it takes a special kind of wokeness to be able to take a good hard look at oneself and identify how and why one failed to reach one's goal. Sure, one can always try to double down, try the same strategy and tactic a bit harder, and it may even work. But if it doesn't, then one is left to come up with some more self-justifications.
ZzzZZZZzzz.
Sleep tight, beautiful loser.
Thanks! SNZZZZzzzzt.
@Ann – Do you have any evidence for your assertion that the NRA supported the Mulford act other than the word of a self-aggrandizing senator? Oh wait, I know you don't. See, prior to the late 1970's shakeup and explosive expansion of the NRA as a backlash against the 1968 GCA, the NRA's political clout was mostly that, political. They didn't have the ability to point to their legions of supporters and go, you vote for this and you can kiss your re-election chances goodbye. Thus they worked on a strategy of sweet-talking various authoritarian assholes into lessening their proposed restrictions. The prime example of this where they managed to get pistols removed from the proposed 1934 NFA classifications.
You're blaming me? You political ninnies gave me a choice between an incompetent thin-skinned buffoon and a hopelessly corrupt pathetically dishonest panderer. Just contemplate how awful she had to be to lose to this chucklehead.
Don't blame me for Trump. You gave the market a product it didn't want to buy and now you're blaming your customers. Want my vote? Nominate somebody that doesn't make me puke. I didn't enable a damn thing. You did.
@Total You must be late for your AntiFaFa meeting. Be sure to bring your T ball bat.
@Ann
Here's a report from participant in Unite the Right rally. He seems to imply that from his perspective, antifa attacked indisciminately people who wanted to get in the rally, and then those who wanted to get out.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/14/heres-how-the-virginia-state-police-provoked-violence-at-charlottesville/
If we give the government the right to suppress the free speech of Nazis, then guess what? Everyone who speaks out against the government is suddenly a Nazi. You saw a variation of this under the Obama administration: anyone who spoke out against the government was a racist.
@wiliam the stout —
This thing about my saying what I am in order to fool myself into feeling that my side is superior is entirely your gloss on what I say, and it's a narrative invention. I haven't said or suggested jack to that effect.
The terms of this discussion — ie, whether there's "both sides do it" equivalency between the GOP and Dems wrt violent extremism and the acceptance thereof — were not proposed by me. I would be perfectly happy to address Trump's defense of neo-nazis, the KKK, and other racist/white-nationalist groups and the generally sanguine response to it by most Republicans (according to polls, and also as indicated by the silence of most GOP officials, big donors, and assorted other big cheeses) without any comparisons or relativism whatsoever.
And the reason for that is that I'm actually (and absolutely) opposed to it on its own terms. This would be equally true under all circumstances, irrespective of what anyone else is doing — which does not exclude the possibility that someone else is also doing things I oppose absolutely. This is not a competition, from my perspective.
For example: I'm not and never was a Bob Dole supporter, and was (in fact) pretty much opposed to what his presidential campaign stood for politically across the board. Nevertheless, I would never have risen up in protest of his tolerance for racist-extremists, because in his nomination acceptance speech, he emphatically rejected them, saying that they weren't welcome in the party.
This zero-tolerance-for-racist/fascist-political-groups policy was the official GOP stance for decades. I agree with it. I'm vehemently opposed to any softening of it. I think it's absolutely necessary to reject and condemn. If I need to explain my reasons for that, I'm perfectly willing to. But they seem to me to be so self-evident that they don't need to be explained by any putative need to make myself feel that my side is superior, frankly.
Neither has it been any part of my argument that the movement is dangerous or significant because its members number in the tens of thousands. That's a straw man. But if you think it's OK for the GOP to defend armed and violent racist fascists who want the United States to be a white Christian nation as long as there are only 10,000 of them, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
@ravenshrike —
As far as I'm aware, it's an uncontroversial and literal historical truth that the NRA supported the Mulford Act. I base this belief on the fact that it's unequivocally acknowledged as such across the board.
I don't want to get held up in moderation for links. But here, for example, is what Reason has to say about it:
@szopen —
I don't dispute that person's account, and (obviously) am not in a position to do so. Antifa's tactics are contemptible, dangerous, and reprehensible. I oppose them absolutely.
@neoteny —
WRT wicked problems:
Thanks. I'm sorry I missed your reply.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But if it's "the validity of scientific consensus is never completely guaranteed due to the limits of what science can determine and humans can foresee, therefore all scientific consensus is too suspect to be taken as valid" I don't know how that's not also an association fallacy.
But maybe that's not what you're saying
Maybe invoking the association fallacy too readily can be a manifestation of the association fallacy.
Every time I pop my head into the much more active comment thread down here and consider participating, I am reminded why I'm not.
I say, Hooray! for the antidisestablishmentarian victory in Boston! Keep Them running back into their dungeon lairs and pathetic hovels.
I hope they come to my town, but they wouldn't dare. Well, they were stupid enough to go to Boston, so who knows. Like the cop said, they're not smart enough to be afraid.
Speech is fine, but armed groups as part of traveling show that murdered citizens in other places they visited, totally not welcome. Totally not just speech. "Don't mind the murderous insurrection, we were speaking the whole time I promise." Nope, not a good excuse.
It is one thing to defend speech that is reviled, but when the speaker was saying all along they'd kill their neighbors if they had the chance, the threat might be real. Even if it doesn't meet the "imminent" part needed for government action, it still might meet the "objective risk to the community" standard for people to refuse to accept it, and for it to be unethical to defend.
I blame every death by these nazis on those who defend them in ways that extend beyond their right to legal representation. Shame on all of you who gave them comfort here, or elsewhere.
@neoteny —
Sure. But in order for that to be applicable to me, I'd have to be invoking it too readily.
also, @william the stout
I forgot to say:
Yes, I got that.
But unless you're arguing that a political movement that calls for, plans for, and commits many acts of vandalism (plus gets into street fights) is more violent than a political movement that calls for, trains and equips itself for, plans and sometimes commits lethal acts of violence, why is that an issue?
Murderous/non-murderous is a valid measure of violent extremism, in short. It's not like evaluating it that way is inherently unfair. It actually matters.
I meant but forgot to put "(plus gets into street fights)" on both sides of the equation.
Such invocation is all you've done in the thread with me.
@neoteny —
Yes. But that's because you first argued that being politically committed to social progress is bad because eugenics, then switched to arguing that being politically committed to social progress that's premised on scientific consensus is bad because eugenics.
It's not like I'm just throwing it out there at random, regardless. Make a non-fallacious argument, and I'll respond to it.
I guess that last part should really be "because wicked problems, as in, eg, eugenics."
But same diff. It's still argument by association with eugenics.
Oh Stout one,
You didn't vote. That's the same as your whole-hearted support for Trump. It IS. It is 100% identical. You said, as loudly as you could, that you were fine with whatever everyone else decided to do, that it was the action you supported.
You claim that you were given "a choice between an incompetent thin-skinned buffoon and a hopelessly corrupt pathetically dishonest panderer." Hillary Clinton was an option too – you could have voted for her, and thus not had to vote for a thin-skinned buffoon OR a hopelessly corrupt pathetically dishonest panderer. Instead, you chose to support Trump by not doing the simple thing that would stop him. You are a racist. You helped a racist take office, and you own this stuff. It's on you, whether you want to pretend otherwise or not.
And Ann, I see you've also come across that delightful bit of mindset where the best way to fight against what is good right now is to point out that people claiming a similar ideology in the past did this horrible thing. Which, honestly, you'd think would speak in FAVOR of the ideology – after all, it's absolute proof that the people that adhere to it realized they were wrong and got better. Beats the heck out of conservatism, which used to be decent and has become something its adherents won't even own up to, even while they practice it.
If one takes a look at the form of the association fallacy, in order to commit that, one has to claim that all B is within C. But I'm not doing that: what I'm claiming is that because some element of B is also an element of C (thus element of A), anyone who proposes the utilization of an element which is in B ought to show that the element in question isn't in C as well (and as such being an element of A).
B is the set of governmental (state) actions thought to progress society.
C is the set of governmental (state) actions thought to cause harm to individual citizens.
A is the set of governmental (state) actions which are thought to progress society and thought to cause harm to individual citizens.
Eugenics in its time was in the B set, and it wasn't thought to be in the C set (and as such in the intersecting set A). Later it was (and is) thought that because eugenics is also in the C set (and as such in the intersecting set A), it was a mistake to implement it by governmental (state) action.
What you're claiming is that because the set B doesn't fully overlap with (contained by) set C, it is invalid to point to the existing overlap (set A, of which an element is eugenics). But that is an abuse of the invocation of the association fallacy: just because the set B isn't fully contained by set C, it doesn't mean that any particular (proposed) element doesn't fall into C (and as such into A). It is the task of the proponents of choosing and implementing a particular element of B by governmental (state) action to show that the particular element of B isn't also an element of C (and as such of A).
@Ann: I have a response for you, but it is languishing in moderation hell 'cause I put a link into it.
This assumes the truth of that which is to be proven.
@neoteny
In my area (and a couple of others), a big part of the problem appears to have been systemic voter suppression. Which my area is taking steps to ameliorate.
No. Just no. Look I voted, and I honestly think that people should vote even when they don't like any of the candidates, but this is bull. If someone comes up to you and says "I'm going to shoot you, would you like me to shoot you in the leg or in the arm?", your refusal to make a choice is not consent to being shot. The US election system doesn't allow a "none of the above" vote, so absent that option, and especially given how much our politicians talk about "mandates" it is absolutely reasonable and fair to abstain from voting for any candidate and that abstention should be read as exactly that, a failure to find any of the candidates worthy of support.
Or to put it another way, if the republicans put up the reanimated corpse of Hitler, and the democrats put up the reanimated corpse of Stalin, it would be assinine to assume that someone who votes for neither is ok with one of them getting into power when the inevitable happens.
@neoteny —
Yes. But unless I misunderstood you (and I did say that I wasn't sure I hadn't) that's what you're doing here:
"Suspect" is defined as "not to be relied on or trusted; possibly dangerous or false."
I therefore took you to be saying that all science-based efforts directed towards social progress should be presumed dangerous, false, and/or unstrustworthy because (all) scientific consensus is, as demonstrated by eugenics.
I also took you to be saying that, due to the wicked problem, this presumption is permanently insurmountable.
If all you're saying is that science has to disprove the null hypothesis and that the implementation of policy (whether socially progressive, science-based, or otherwise) should include a rigorous consideration of the potential risks, naturally, I agree with you.
@neoteny —
You seem to be suggesting that racists might have voted against a fucking racist if only nobody had said anything about the racism of either.
Or, IOW: You're saying that the real racism is hurting the feelings of racists by calling out racism.
This is unrealistic. There is not the slightest empirical evidence for it. Also, it makes no sense. Plus it's very snowflake-y.
Speaking of being woke enough to own how the things one did and said evoked a negative response from others: Were you aware that it's a two-way street, and that it also applies to racists?
The presence of the highlighted word makes the assertion in the second half of my compound sentence differ from the assertion in the first half:
If one accepts the existence of wicked problems, then one accepts that in case of at least some problems (i.e. in case of the wicked problems) it is indeed impossible to make a satisfactorily rigorous consideration of the potential risks (i.e. consider all the various possible outcomes and their likelihood). Of course one doesn't have to accept the existence of wicked problems.
Depending on one's view of what constitutes "a rigorous consideration of the potential risks", this "all" can be a tall order indeed.
(In order to provide another example beside eugenics, see the case of residential schools in Canada. Admittedly a paternalistic policy, it was perceived as progressive at the time, i.e. the motivation and expectation was on the side of the governmental authorities that native children would benefit from forced residential schooling through acquiring better skills for integration into mainstream society. Yet apparently it failed even at that for [the majority of] pupils; so the price the native families paid trough the disruption of familiar relations did not even deliver the gains expected by the authorities for [most of] the native children.)
This — in my opinion — involves a few assumptions:
1) there exists an objective test which makes a binary determination of a particular person being racist or not
2) this test is fail-proof, i.e. it never makes neither false positives nor false negatives
3) this test is possessed by a set of people who are able to apply it remotely, with minimal information coming from the test subject
4) (radical) identity politics is conducive to peaceful coexistence in a society
5) no person who ultimately did not vote in the presidential election was turned off from voting against the "fucking racist" by the opposing activists' apparent willingness to label all supporters of the "fucking racist" as deplorable racists
I would like to mention four things without further discussion or analysis from me:
1) the saying: "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
2) Bismarck's saying: "politics is the art of the possible"
3) Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer"
4) Jonathan Haidt's writings, of which quite a few is on the net (I don't link to any because I don't want this to get into moderation)
An interesting question, because you're going from "arms" to… I forget the legal term. Think going from muskets to cannons. While Americans were allowed to own both (not to mention warships) early in the Republic, the 2nd only protects the right to bear arms (muskets, rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc) as I understand it. Not artillery.
Actually, artillery is not nearly as tightly controlled by the government as automatic weapons, to the best of my knowledge.
edit: given that an M60 only weighs 30some pounds with ammo, it seems reasonable that anything weighing twice as much might be classified as artillery.
I really wish folks would keep in mind that the enumerated rights aren't the only rights that we have. We've just let the government take them away any time they want for so long that we are pretty much sheep.
One positive of Trump et al is that he's made fairly clear (to anyone familiar with Occam's razor) that the largest plurality in the Republican party is motivated by racial animus.
Trump voters aren't stupid – they're just voting for the only candidate openly hostile to non-whites. Trump isn't stupid – he's catering to the Republican base. Republican politicians aren't stupid – they're just between a rock and a hard place – and many can't denounce Nazis or the KKK without losing support. And no, it isn't a small government thing, unless you're familiar with President Rand Paul.
Minorities aren't stupid – that's why hardly any voted for Trump. And fewer will next time around. (Seriously, minority does not really correlate with liberal economics – but it does correlate with disliking the KKK and Republicans.) Trump doesn't care – 8 years from now – Republicans will wave a lasting farewell to the presidency – but he'll have had his time.
There's, by and large, no point in persuading or engaging with Trump voters – they got exactly what they wanted. (I mean, minus the competence.)
Reluctant Trump voters will eventually realize that the Republican party is now dominated by the racially motivated / religious right pluralities – and that they're trading real evil for not much economic gain – and some will leave – they're actually worth talking to.
Hypothetically, how much scope for self-defense against Nazi's is there?
Going armed seems reasonable. Shooting when they're warned to back away? When they take a swing? When you feel threatened? When they make a verbal threat? Towards you? Towards someone else? Towards a generalized other?
Rooftop snipers as sort of an advanced neighborhood watch? I figure that little red laser dots might make people really hesitant. And, worst case, someone acts up and lots of Nazis die.
I fully support the right of Nazis to speak freely. But, I'm quite comfortable with people taking fairly final measures to safeguard the community. Ideally, that's the police – but if they're outnumbered – I wonder how thoroughly people can legally protect themselves.
I mean – police can shoot people when they feel like they might be in danger. I'd argue that I feel in danger whenever a group of armed Nazis comes within, um, 500 meters.
@neoteny
It involves no assumptions whatsoever. You referred to "deplorables." These were defined as "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that."
Which, unfortunately, there are. That being the case, that's to whom the word "deplorables" was being applied. Nobody else was implicated. Those, therefore, are the people you're suggesting might not have voted for a racist candidate if nobody had called their racism what it is. That's silly.
@neoteny
Incidentally, I too would like to say a few things without further discussion or analysis.
(1) I'm very familiar with Haidt's work. I recommend John T. Jost's review of it in Science, a slightly longer version of which is on his blog.
(2) It's true that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. However, that has no applicability to practices one condemns absolutely, such as racism.
(3) Bismarck said a lot of very epigrammatic things.
(4) Theodore Adorno's book, "The Authoritiarian Personality."
It was also said by the same speaker:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?"
Even according to her, it did involve some assumptions.
It's not like Ann hasn't clearly established herself as a lunatic over her posts here. The chair of the DNC doesn't represent the Democrats! Completely non-racial content is the real racism!
Ok, I'm not going to go through the rest of her posts in this thread, but we've all been reading her for a while.
@Erwin: Another thing we learned is how anti-democratic and coup d'etat friendly one side becomes when they lose an election.
Not to speak about the laws and calling everyone a Nazi or making everything about race like you do.
But oh well…
@neoteny —
So? It clearly and explicitly applied only to people who met the defined criteria. Trump supporters who didn't weren't implicated by it, and had no reason apart from an inclination for victimhood to insist that they had been.
If you see some relationship between these two sentence fragments, you're going to have to elucidate what it is. Authoritarianism is about absolute authority, not the absolute rejection of something. For example: A First Amendment absolutist absolutely rejects all infringements on the freedom of speech; most contemporary societies absolutely condemn the slaughter of innocent people. Etc.
@Careless
Pop quiz:
(a) Who is the chair of the DNC?
(b) Michael Steele has said that nobody wants to work for "crazy" Trump, who is obsessed with his own self-image and is the cause of all the chaos in the White House. He stated publicly in October that he would not vote for him.
(i) Was he speaking for the GOP, or for himself?
(ii) If the latter, are you a lunatic for thinking that a former RNC chairman who says something the rest of the party does not endorse is not speaking for it?
@Ann
Madam, I am in love with your mind. I am consistently impressed with your comments on this blog. Your comments in this specific post are a good example: your insistence that assertions be supported by evidence and logic, your knowledge and understanding of the facts, your reliable judgment and sense of proportion, your grace on those (exceedingly rare) occasions when someone validly corrects something you have said; and, not least, your unfailing civility when you respond to determined stupidity, whether disingenuous or unfeigned, or to deliberate provocation. All who participate in this forum can take instruction from how you conduct yourself here.
Which makes it a circular argument:
– Whom do you condemn?
– Those who are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.
– Who are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic?
– Those whom we condemn.
It seems to me that this is a definition made up on the fly by you.
Given coverage of things from the weekend, no long line of leftist love for me, thanks. I prefer not to be hospitalized.
@neoteny —
Happily, it was not an argument. Rather, it was a statement deploring those who embrace racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Your claim was that the people implicated by those remarks might have not have voted for a "fucking racist" had they not been made.
I pointed out that this was saying that racists might not have voted for a racist had no one mentioned their racism. And it is. The cause of racism is not that people comment on it.
Not to get held up in moderation for links, but a search for "authoritarianism definition" returns many results showing that it isn't, such as:
* "the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."
* "Authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people."
* "Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime."
So however it may seem to you, authoritarianism is about the absolute authority/power of the state, and not about the unqualified rejection of, eg, bigotry by a private citizen who is exercising her right to free expression, safe from the censorious power of an authoritarian regime.
Incidentally, how things seem to one is not actually a reliable measure of how they are.
@PonyAdvocate —
Thanks!
@Careless —
I just figured out what you were referring to here:
That was not anything I was asserting, it was my characterization of what neoteny was saying — ie, that racists vote for racists because people call them racists, not because that's what they are.
My point was that his argument amounted to saying that the real racism is calling racists racist, because (per his logic), calling people who embrace racism racists is what causes them to embrace racism.
@neoteny —
This — in my opinion — involves a few assumptions:
1) there exists an objective test which makes a binary determination of a particular person being racist (sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic) or not
2) this test is fail-proof, i.e. it never makes neither false positives nor false negatives
3) this test is possessed by a set of people who are able to apply it remotely, with minimal information coming from the test subject
Except Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality wasn't about the absolute authority/power of the state.
Nope: as possibility isn't certainty, claiming that all (elements of a given set) are suspect isn't equivalent to claiming that all (elements of a given set) are bogus.
I've made no statement about comparable risk; only about the existence of some risk.
I've made no such claim.
Of which I said: depending on one's view of what constitutes "a rigorous consideration of the potential risks", this "all" can be a tall order indeed.
It involves one assumption, which is the existence of people who embrace racism, sexism, xenophobia, and/or Islamophobia. No particular individual was implicated, therefore no particular individual was being called racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamophobic.
As I've already said, there is therefore no reason for any particular individual to get all personally hurt or outraged by those remarks apart from a personal predisposition to victimhood.
Nor is it about the absolute rejection of bigotry. In fact, the reverse tendency is a feature. So what's your point?
Also, goalposts much? You said I was making up the idea that authoritarianism is about authority on the fly. This was incorrect.
The "possibly" only applied to "dangerous and false," not the untrustworthy/unreliable part of "suspect." That's why I used those terms in pointing out that you were saying ALL socially progressive policy was untrustworthy and unreliable because of eugenics/wicked problem.
That too is incorrect:
You were very clear about what the risk was comparable to. Explicitly so.
Well, that's one more than what you claimed before:
Which is exactly the claim I made: doesn't mean that all are bogus; but it does mean that all are suspect.
I wrote:
What I said was that the assumption of zero risk is sufficient for the repetition of the eugenics debacle. I wasn't comparing the risk involved in the implementation of any (proposed) public policy to the risk involved in the implementation of public policy of eugenics; I claimed that by ignoring the existence of some amount of risk involved in the implementation of a (proposed) public policy makes it possible to repeat the eugenics debacle.
Are you sure of this? Apparently, the F(ascist)-scale worked out by Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality involved — among others — these personality aspects:
1) Authoritarian Submission: Towards ingroup (not state!) authority figures.
2) Authoritarian Aggression: Against people who violate conventional values.
3) Anti-Intraception: Opposition to subjectivity and imagination.
4) Power and Toughness: Concerned with submission and domination; assertion of strength.
5) Projectivity: Perception of the world as dangerous; tendency to project unconscious impulses.
I would argue that "one [who] condemns absolutely" of perceived but dogmatized bigotry displays (to various extent) these — according to Adorno authoritarian — personality traits.
When I considered it the first time, I decided that the existence of racism (etc) wasn't an assumption but a fact. While that's was still true the second time, I decided, for rhetorical purposes, to make the same point using your language. In short, the "which is not an assumption, but a fact" was silent.
I expected you to understand this, due to the obvious existence of racism.
Which means that you're saying all are untrustworthy and unreliable, which is exactly what I said.
IOW, you are comparing the risk of all progressive social policy to eugenics, which is an association fallacy.
And for the nth time, if all you're saying is that there should be a risk-benefit analysis before the implementation of any policy, I agree.
This is what I said:
Elsewhere on the thread, I also said:
Further, I've said on other threads that I condemn the political violence committed by antifa, which I do, absolutely.
Still yet furthermore, I absolutely condemn all acts of violent terrorism.
The relationship between these positions and the five factors you list is obscure to me. You are again going to have to elucidate the connection. For example:
(1) To whose authority am I submitting?
(2) Against which people who violate conventional values am I aggressing?
(3) What acts of subjectivity and/or imagination am I opposing?
(4) What strength am I asserting, and what concern with submision and domination am I exhibiting?
(5) How am I tending to perceive the world as dangerous and/or tending to project my unconscious impulses?
Please note that absolute opposition to real acts of violence and hatred does not equate to a perception of the world as dangerous. That would be something more like fearing a repeat of the eugenics debacle for no reason other than that it's theoretically possible, or maybe living in continual fear that they're coming to take away your guns when there's no realistic threat of it, or, potentially, feeling that you, individually, have been personally attacked when someone deplores racism in general terms. That kind of thing. The projection part is key.
Also please note that condemning violence and hatred in general terms is not an act of aggression. I look forward to hearing your explication.
The assumption (acknowledged even by Ms. [Senator? Secretary?] Clinton) was that half of Presidential Candidate Trump's supporters were racist (&c).
Yes they are: that's what necessitates "a rigorous consideration of the potential risks".
Nope; I would have committed the association fallacy if I were to say that because of the occurrence of the eugenics debacle, the implementation of all progressive social policies would necessarily result in the same debacle as happened with eugenics.
This is different from your previous statement:
This is important because my contention is that depending on one's view of what constitutes "a rigorous consideration of the potential risks", this "all" can be a tall order indeed.
Then what is the purpose of such exhibition/display of zero-tolerance, vehement, absolute rejection/condemnation?
How about lobbying for governmental policies which implement (by laws, regulations and a particular mixture of the two) such zero-tolerance, vehement, absolute rejection/condemnation?
Mitch, there was a klan rally in Cleveland a couple years ago, post Heller. The police set up a cordon on a one block radius from the rally, admitted people through metal detectors, and restricted people to carrying a single car or house key, period. Nothing in Heller prevents TSA from requiring people entering airports to be disarmed, either.
So the answer is simple – condition the issuance of permits for such organized demonstrations on the establishment of a security zone where armament is restricted.
Yes. As I said, this implicated no particular individual. There is therefore no particular reason for an individual to take offense at it unless he or she has an inclination to victimhood.
"Unreliable and untrustworthy" =/= "requires rigorous consideration of potential risks." The difference is that one assumes a negative baseline. You speak English, so presumably this explanation is merely telling you what you know but failed rigorously to consider.
Then tell me what it constitutes, in your view,
Your position appears to be that a statement of opinion is an act of aggression. If so, perhaps the internet is not for you, and you should seek a safe space. And if not, I have no idea what you're saying. Let's try a hypothetical:
I believe in a zero-tolerance policy for violent acts of terrorism, to which I am vehemently opposed, and absolutely both reject and condemn.
Against whom does that aggress, and why is it aggression?
I'm confused about how you think that would even be possible to do without expressing the opinion that it's an good idea, and even more confused about why you think the two are mutually exclusive.
@neoteny–
Here's another example of the exhibition/display of zero-tolerance, vehement, absolute rejection/condemnation:
The speaker is Chris Cantwell. And "they all have to die" is pretty damn absolute, vehement, and condemning. It's also definitely zero-tolerance.
So. Would you say that this is also an act of aggression? Or would you agree with me that it's merely speech? Because, not to put too fine a point on it, you appear to be classifying opinions you'd prefer not to hear (and/or disagree with) as acts of aggression. This is just a tad authoritarian.
Yet when I said that "one [who] condemns absolutely" might display authoritarian personality traits as described by Adorno, you took it on yourself.
Of course not: the former necessitates the latter.
which is different from
How about lobbying for governmental policies which implement (by laws, regulations and a particular mixture of the two) such zero-tolerance, vehement, absolute rejection/condemnation?
Yes, I would say that it is a speech act of aggression.
Yes, I would agree with you that it is speech. The use of the adverb merely here is unenlightening: what speech isn't merely speech?
You were quoting me, ffs.
You've now suggested that twice, so presumably it has some appeal to you. Feel free, if you wish. I'm not interested in outlawing or legislating people's beliefs, myself.
You still haven't told me how what I said is an act of aggression, or against whom it aggresses. Please do so.
Do tell.
And I'm going to quote you again:
agresses against those who are accused of embracing racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.
If Ann refuses to address Boris, a F2M transgender person by his preferred pronoun (be it 'he', 'ze', 'xir', 'they' or whatever), does Ann commit a speech act of aggression against Boris?
How about if Boris and his allies lobby the government for policies which implement (by laws, regulations and a particular mixture of the two) zero-tolerance, vehement, absolute rejection/condemnation of such speech acts?
How? FYI:
FWIW, "aggressively" is defined as "in a manner that is angry and threatening."
You appear to be suggesting that racists, homophobes (etc) are such fragile blossoms that they simply can't take people saying harsh things about their beliefs, same as everyone else with beliefs does — eg, the left, the right, feminists, conservatives, to name just a few — without experiencing it not only as an attack, but also as traumatic enough for the wound to still be smarting eight months later.
We're all free to believe and say what we want. That includes both racists and their critics. So please explain why the former deserve a special exemption.
No. But to be honest with you, when I saw the phrase "a speech act of aggression," I pretty much concluded that this discussion had descended to the level of farce. I have no idea what it means. So if it means something to you, please define it. What is the difference between "speech" and "a speech act," for example? What are the criteria by which one can determine if it's a "speech act of aggression" or just a strongly held opinion?
Clue me in. I have no idea what you mean by the phrase. It literally seems like nonsense to me.
To answer your question, however, I would say that under those circumstances, Ann is, at most, being inconsiderate of Boris for no evident reason. But I imagine that if she was generally courteous to him while calling him him, he would either deal with it or courteously remind her what his preferred pronouns were. Or whatever. It doesn't honestly strike me as all that big of a deal. If it seems to you like it would be, please tell me why.
Remember how the authoritarian personality is prone to "Projectivity: Perception of the world as dangerous; tendency to project unconscious impulses"? Good.Because in reality, Boris and his allies do not exist, nor is their anyone lobbying the government to implement laws and regulations such that there's zero-tolerance and absolute rejection/condemnation of anyone's speech. Nothing even close to that is happening. And it would be plainly, unambiguously unconstitutional if it were.
So why are you so fixated on the fantasy that it might? What makes that a realistic threat, to your way of thinking? Who's trying to bring it about, and how are they doing it? Please be specific. Bring the facts. Show your evidence. Thanks.
I don't know if this point is lost on you or not, but the only person here who's trying to depict the expression of opinions and beliefs as a threat rather than speech is you. Speaking of projectivity.
In short, I don't know. How about it?
Which conflict can be a verbal conflict.
Alleged racists, homophobes (&c).
This is why.
This is real enough.
As a side note RE: the timeline for the erection of Confederate monuments, it's worth noting that the 1890s and early 1900s were when people started noticing that Civil War veterans were dying off, which sparked a resurgence of interest across the country in honoring the war dead–as can be seen in the matter of the Gettysburg battlefield, which received federal protection in 1893 and official national park status in 1895. As to the 1950s and 1960s, it's also worth noting that it was the period of the Civil War Centennial–which also happened to coincide with the Civil Rights Movement, in one of those weird historical moments.
How does making a general statement about racists, homophobes (etc) on the stump initiate a verbal conflict in a way that making a general statement about Mexican immigrants being rapists — or dozens of other such examples involving numerous different groups — doesn't?
That's not remotely equivalent to the scenario you proposed. Please be serious.
So is this. What's your point?
No particular individual was implicated. So that would either be super-sensitive, easily threatened racist homophobic (etc) snowflakes or frankly paranoid non-racist, non-homophobic (non-etc) snowflakes, I guess.
That's exactly the scenario I proposed: Prof. Peterson refused to use the pronouns demanded by some students.
The video I linked to was (part) of a public hearing in the Canadian Senate about the proposed Bill C-16, which bill adds gender expression and identity as a protected ground to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing. The bill passed the legislative process in the House of Commons and the Senate, and became law upon receiving Royal Assent on June 19, 2017, coming into force immediately. This makes your statement that "[n]othing even close to that is happening" factually false.
@Ann, undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens, whatever you want to call them are criminals. They are violating the immigration laws of the united states. So referring to them as murders, rapists and criminals is in fact accurate. Although they may not be the first two, they are certainly the last. My wife is an immigrant, she has a green card and has for more than 28 years. Either you are for law and order, or you're not. So taking a page from the left's playbook, obviously you're an anarchist since you're not for enforcing the laws of the US. That makes you the same as antifa. So you should be jailed along with them… How's that? You want to accuse those on the right of all being racist, without any regard to actual facts, how does it feel from the other side?
You spent a lot of words disclaiming antifa, but you're just like them. Therefore, you're antifa. So they are the left, all of the left are them. Just a bunch of commie terrorists trying to overthrow the rightful government and destroy everyone's right to speak.
How do you like your logic turned against you? Do I sincerely believe the above? No, but that isn't the point. The point is that you cannot label any group of people simply because they are a group. Remember that prior to your next post.
I wasn't talking about Canada as the context of the entire damn coversation made clear.
The video of Peterson that you posted was of two people having a political conflict that they showed up to have, not about Boris asking Ann to use the pronouns he or she prefers.
I work with people in crisis, a number of whom do sometimes request the pronoun "they," rather than he or she. Neither I nor anyone else ever remembers to adhere to this completely because it's not a natural locution, and nobody who made the request has ever said word one about it. These are people in extremely emotionally volatile shape. And yet, they have no reason to go looking for a fight with others who are treating them respectfully, because (by and large) people don't do that.
But stick to your video of activists fighting if that seems like an accurate reflection of a broader reality to you. It's your shoe-box diorama to live in as you wish if it pleases you. I think it's clear that you and I are never going to communicate our way to common ground.
Cheers.
@cecil —
I neither want to do that, nor have done it. But fwiw, it doesn't bother me to be accused of being something I'm not by a stranger who has no idea who I am or what I believe beyond what I say about it, because such an accusation is self-evidently not about me. I know what my positions are, and am comfortable defending them. For example: You just accused me of wanting to accuse those on the right of being racists. I've told you I don't. And I trust that if I've said something that's capable of being construed that way, you'll let me know.
I would not want to leave a mistaken impression on such a point, of course. But if people insist on hearing that when I'm not saying it, there's only so much I can do. It just doesn't seem like anything to get all hurt about to me. After all, it's just talk.
Well, OK. But then it's not accurate to call them the two things they're not.
I guess I should also add that I don't actually feel that people I don't know are obligated to think a whole lot about my feelings, nor do I expect them to. That makes a difference too.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but… I'm a lot less optimistic about your offered solutions.
Sometimes talk about "entrusting the government with the power to…" is a waste.
Whether or not we "entrust" anything, the only question that really matters is whether, if a particular political office gave an order to do this or that, it would happen.
I don't remember entrusting the President with the power to asphyxiate people in order to interrogate them.
But he gave the order and it happened and no other governmental body did anything to deter it from happening again.
So he apparently has that power, words on paper be damned.
Whether we "entrust" "the government" with power only matters if we can actually expect that if we DON'T entrust the government with power, those things won't happen. Whether they're prevented by norms, by integrity of the elected, by fear of the ballot box, by fear of other branches of government, or by fear that subordinates will resign before carrying out illegal orders, there has to be SOMETHING.
And in that second scenario you spell out, where the Presidency is held by someone who hates my values and wishes vengeance upon all who oppose him… I just don't see any way for a President of that character to win election, while still being effectively bound by the chains you keep urging us to rely upon. Most of those chains rely on his voluntary acceptance of them, which he won't, and the remainder rely on the rest of the government, who's independence and effectiveness as a check on him are compromised by the same forces that put him in power?
Norms and laws stop the tyrannical impulses of otherwise good men, and they stop the small, one off moments when someone terrible rises within an otherwise decent populace. But this?
That doesn't mean I want to defect first and get it over with.
But I feel an awful lot like Charlie Brown, reasoning that without cooperation and trust everything falls apart so I must demonstrate that I hold the faith, as I run to kick a football that Lucy has pulled away every single time I've trusted her in the past. I guess that's my fate for now. I guess the best I can do is be a chump and suffer and lose until maybe a better generation of conservatives arises. But I don't have much expectation that my faith will be rewarded.
And saying that here is a crate of apples, oranges and pears means that each piece of fruit is all three?
@cecil —
What he said was:
So are these true or defensible characterizations?
Well, first of all, being in the country illegally is a civil offense, not a crime. And second of all, the placement of "[t]hey're bringing crime" between the references to drugs and rape makes it completely clear that he means crimes along those general lines in terms of social impact So does the part about how they're not sending their best.
In short, he's saying that, by and large, Mexican people who end up living in the United States illegally are criminal lowlifes, although he assumes that some are good people.
There's no correlation between illegal immigration and rape, or illegal immigration and drugs, or illegal immigration and crime. So it's false to characterize Mexicans who are here illegally as bringing drugs, crime, and being rapists.
Unless I'm missing something, in which case please let me know.
Obviously. Who disputes it?
Not to be excessively snarky, but can you read?
The issue I was contesting was whether racists voted for Trump because Hillary Clinton called out their racism and not because he too was a racist, with whom they therefore agreed.
That non-racists were offended by the remark is beyond question, as was that it was politically damaging. However, as I've also pointed out, this was entirely because irrational super-sensitive, easily triggered non-racist Trump voters felt that Hillary Clinton's reference to racists was directed at them. If they'd been thinking reasonably, they would have merely noted that she was right to say that he enjoyed a lot of quite prominent support from racists.
But it's not like I deny that irrational, super-sensitive, easily triggered non-racist Trump voters exist. Obviously, they do. That's just a political reality.
Wanna know another? Not only are these non-racist Trump voters irrational, supersensitive, easily triggered when it comes to others expressing the opinion that Trump (a racist) has a racist following. So is Trump!
How you can tell is that it's the official position of the Trump administration, for which Sarah Huckabee Sanders speaks, that journalists should be fired for calling Trump or some of his adherents white supremacists, as of this very day.
In short: Reality is the exact opposite of your authoritarian-personality-style fear-based fantasies about how the left is scheming and conniving to outlaw the speech rights of racists, homophobes, etc. The speech rights of racists have never been more robustly championed by the State, in fact. And yet, those non-racist Trump voters are still shouting "Eek!" and smarting over the bad feels they got because of their distorted perception of a threat in something Hillary Clinton said about racists months and months ago, the only real consequences of which favored them.
But as I said, continue to look back in anger and fear if that's how you be you. We will plainly never agree about whether it's justified.
More coherent if argumentative version:
I never said that it wasn't a political disaster for her to have made those remarks. I said that by reacting with outrage to her having called out racist Trump voters — which is not the same as calling out all Trump voters as racists — but not to their racism, you were effectively saying that the real racism is calling racists racists, which makes no sense (except as a crypto-defense of racism, obviously).
You then tried going on some tangent about how it's not possible to say if openly white-supremacist Trump supporters or anyone else is racist because no objective test for it exists.
This too suggests that your real interest is in vilifying people for criticizing racism (as they plainly have the free-speech right to do). So did the part where you tried to recast criticism of racists as a threatening act rather than speech.
The truth is that it was always obvious to anyone who actually cared about First- Amendment rights (rather than the non-existent rights of racists to criticism-free speech) that Trump was a much bigger threat to First Amendment rights than Clinton was.
And if you really cared about the government using its power to say what kind of political speech was acceptable, you'd be a lot more frightened and outraged now about the administration publicly demanding that a private company fire one of its employees for saying something that same administration regards as politically incorrect than you are about something Hillary Clinton said about racists months ago that you decided to take personally and then projected out onto the world as a perceived looming threat to speech of such vast dimensions that it continued to loom in your eyes even after she lost.
But somehow, the only thing that appears to strike you that way is criticism of racism. Broaden your horizons. That's my advice.
So she was right to cause political damage to her bid for the presidency. It wasn't rational behaviour, but it was the right thing to do.
If your argument has dwindled down to taking three-word snippets out of context and imputing meanings to them that were obviously never expressed, you've lost the debate.
Strawmanning, I think it's called.
Time to defend conservatives, whom I vehemently disagree with on many issues.
Irresponsible to not report the events in full. I watched over 5 hours of unedited live streamed footage.
The counter-protesters carrying their own authoritarian paraphernalia(hammer & sickle flags and pro-communist propaganda) who were trying to deny American citizens their 1st amendment rights while chanting racial slurs and remarks(anti-white) started the violence, and even assaulted the police(which the "Unite the Right" rally attendees never did). The police were told to stand down and the rally was surrounded with no way out except through a gauntlet of violent communists("counter-protesters"). Mutual combat ensued, naturally, because people have the right to defend themselves and the police refused to do their job.
Please show me where the Unite the Right was saying anything racist. Also, show me where the Unite the Right people started the violence. I saw them assaulted upon arrival before even reaching the park. I never heard any racist or nazi/KKK talk.
The communists targeted anyone they thought was associated with the rally and proceeded to stalk, assault, and harass them as they were trying to leave, even people who truly had no affiliation and just happened to be in the general vicinity and look a little too "conservative white male" were targeted relentlessly. I saw one man pleading that he was not with the rally chased to his car while the communists beat on his vehicle and used physical intimidation and threats to force him to frantically flee. Communists were throwing water bottles filled with concrete(basically bricks), urine, feces, rocks, etc and not just at the rally attendees, also at cops while screaming stuff like "FUCK THE POLICE"!
I saw one really angry communist banging a bat on the ground and screaming like a savage lunatic in the middle of the street goading the rally people to fight him. They very civilly walked by instead. These are just a few examples. I could go on and on for pages.
Even racists have freedom of speech and the right to defend themselves from violence.
James Fields is schizophrenic. Chances are the voices in his crazy head made him do that, not some vague notion of racism and hate, but that doesn't make for inflammatory "crazy nazi" news. Why aren't people discussing this? Oh, yeah, the propaganda. I almost forgot.
It seems like you binge watched a bunch of mainstream news reports and regurgitated it without any due diligence or journalistic integrity.
The Boston Free Speech rally was also propagandized by the media as a hate/racist rally, but it couldn't have been further from the truth. They didn't even have a fringe immigration stance. That didn't stop 40,000 people from coming out to protest against free speech under the guise of being against "hate speech". Pot smoking new age hippies, an Indian politician running for Senate, a non-violent BLM spin-off "Black Lives DO Matter", etc in no way shape or form represent hate or racism or the KKK or Nazis, but the media sure spun it that way and people like you believed it after doing zero research.
For SHAME. You have lost all objectivity and are officially just another brainwashed tool of the state.
Good job further jeopardizing our constitutional rights with this irresponsible rhetoric and contributing to the divide and conquer technique being employed by the puppet media.
Popehat died this year.
You took pains to point out the non-racist Trump-supporters' irrationality of taking offence at her remarks; I thought that — what with your sharp analytical skills — you have an explanation of how it was rational for her to make those remarks which proved to be politically damaging to her.
@Baker
Where did you find five hours of live streaming to watch? Was it a web site that invited you to "join the fun?"
@Baker —
There is video of a Unite the Right rally member shooting a gun at a counter-protestor, who is non-violently protesting. There is also video of six UTR rally members all but beating a young black man who did nothing to aggress against them, was not an antifa counter-protestor, and who was wholly unarmed to death.
There are also private online discussions showing the UTR ralliers say that their dealings with police have left them feeling they're on their side, and joking about running over counter-protesters. A peaceful counter-protester was run over and killed and another 19 or so were injured.
There was also mutual street-brawling, which was mutual.
This debate has been going on for weeks, and nobody has produced as much as one photograph of counter-protesters doing anything remotely as violent.
Why do you think that is?
They were chanting "Blood and soil!" and "Jews will not replace us!", ffs.
Antifa are reprehensible. But as you say, the five hours of video you watched showed that there was street-brawling and aggression of that kind on both sides.
True. I myself would strike the "even," even. But nobody's arguing with that. What happened to Deandre Harris and Heather Heyer had nothing to do with self-defense.
IOW, you could go on and on for pages listing examples of antifa doing what nobody disputes they did. This is not equivalent to what happened to Deandre Harris and Heather Heyer. As you yourself note, the brawling was mutual.
Schizophrenia is not associated with a predisposition to violence. People with schizophrenia are actually likely than the non-diagnosed to be victims of violence, in fact. Those who are violent are violent for reasons other than the schizophrenia, per research. Having schizophrenia =/= having violent command hallucinations. And even assuming that JF did have violent command hallucinations, it is not insignificant that the caused him to affiliate himself with Vanguard America rather than antifa.
Moreover, his diagnosis doesn't explain the white nationalists/nazis who attacked and killed innocent bystanders in New York, Maryland, Oregon, and California within the last nine months, as opposed to an unprovoked antifa kill record of zero.
Why aren't people discussing this? Oh yeah, the propaganda. I almost forgot.
(This is assuming that he even has schizophrenia. He may well do, and I don't particularly dispute it; it's not a sufficient explanation for lethal violence in any event. But the only evidence for it is something he said to a teacher in high school, which is not definitive.)
Robust evidence has accumulated showing that individuals who develop schizophrenia are at elevated risk when compared to the general population to engage in violence towards others. This violence impacts negatively on victims as well as perpetrators and poses a significant financial burden to society. It is posited that among violent offenders with schizophrenia there are three distinct types defined by the age of onset of antisocial and violent behaviour. The early starters display a pattern of antisocial behaviour that emerges in childhood or early adolescence, well before illness onset, and that remains stable across the lifespan. The largest group of violent offenders with schizophrenia show no antisocial behaviour prior to the onset of the illness and then repeatedly engage in aggressive behaviour towards others. A small group of individuals who display a chronic course of schizophrenia show no aggressive behaviour for one or two decades after illness onset and then engage in serious violence, often killing, those who care for them. We hypothesize that both the developmental processes and the proximal factors, such as symptoms of psychosis and drug misuse, associated with violent behaviour differ for the three types of offenders with schizophrenia, as do their needs for treatment.
[…]
This association between schizophrenia and violent offending is robust: it has been observed by different research teams who recruited samples from countries with different cultures and health and justice systems, and who measured the association of schizophrenia and offending using different experimental designs including longitudinal investigations of birth and population cohorts, comparisons of people with schizophrenia and their neighbours, and diagnostic studies of random samples of convicted offenders. There is no evidence to suggest that the elevated rates of violent offending among persons with schizophrenia when compared to the general population result from discrimination on the part of the criminal justice systems in the different countries where these investigations have been conducted (for a discussion, see Hodgins & Janson 2002). […]
Violent behaviour among people with schizophrenia: a framework for investigations of causes, and effective treatment, and prevention
So there's at least one research publication (containing references to other research publications) which asserts elevated risk (vs. the general population) for (certain type of) people suffering from schizophrenia to engage in violence towards others.
@neoteny —
There are many more than one. But the only truly reliable finding is that schizophrenia puts people at elevated risk of being victims of violence. There are just too many confounders and unexamined assumptions about schizophrenia for there really to be clarity on the question — ie, how do you control for people with schizophrenia who get the cops called on them for trespassing (or whatever) because they're confused about where they are, and then a violent struggle ensues because the police aren't trained to deal with EDPs? Or for the influence that racial, class, and economic factors have on schizophrenia diagnoses, which is significant?
So It's more like: There's some evidence that schizophrenia does correlate with an elevated risk of violence, but it's not at all clear — in fact it's very questionable — that the schizophrenia is what causes it. For example, there's also evidence that the factor that meaningfully corresponds to violence is actually alcohol and substance abuse by people with schizophrenia, not the schizophrenia itself. .
And so on. But sincerely, if you prefer to think otherwise, that's fine and your call to make. You're quite right that there's literature to support that view. And though reality is a lot less straightforward than that, I don't really want to get into a comments-section brawl about it. I often work with people with schizophrenia, who are, you know, people. It bums me out that it's as stigmatized as it is.
And that was the point:
I stand by that proposition. People born in Mexico are less American than I am. Does that make me a nazi?