How dare these people define what it is to be American? "Nativism?" It's ridiculous to call it that unless they are speaking of the indigenous peoples who lived here before the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. These white supremacist radicals are on the losing side of history. THEY are the ones living in a bubble, not the so-called "liberal elites". I really hope that somehow we will get through this divisive and painful period, so the US can rejoin the remainder of the civilized world.
27
It is really an issue ginned up by the MSM now that the "Trump is a Russian spy" story is collapsing.
The clash was a set up, caused by the authorities directing the radical left (who had no permits) into battle range of the white supremist protestors who had permits.
Then we have the problem of law enforcement turing a blind eye to weapons and body armor carried mostly by antifa.
It is not the states job to stage a cage match for political gamesmanship, so our maladroit president can stumble into a "word crime".
Spare me the alligator tears.
The clash was a set up, caused by the authorities directing the radical left (who had no permits) into battle range of the white supremist protestors who had permits.
Then we have the problem of law enforcement turing a blind eye to weapons and body armor carried mostly by antifa.
It is not the states job to stage a cage match for political gamesmanship, so our maladroit president can stumble into a "word crime".
Spare me the alligator tears.
17
I daresay, every person of color and every Jew in America looked at that recent white supremacist torchlight parade in Charlottsville, and not only prayed this was a only fringe movement -- but that it would remain one.
Of course, all hope of this was shattered when Donald Trump just about gave his blessings to their actions by not unequivocally condemning them in public.
In fact, he even went so far as to put their hate march on par with those who were protesting against it.
Just for the record.
There is no such thing as a "fine" Nazi.
Of course, all hope of this was shattered when Donald Trump just about gave his blessings to their actions by not unequivocally condemning them in public.
In fact, he even went so far as to put their hate march on par with those who were protesting against it.
Just for the record.
There is no such thing as a "fine" Nazi.
37
“There should be a one-sided information flow condemning Nazis. And when there’s not, it’s very problematic.”
What's "very problematic" is that there should be more from our Sovietized media "condemning" cultural Marxism and Shariah, for example, but there isn't.
However, the thesis of this piece of self-serving NYT propaganda is that the tyranny of the "free speech" of the majority should always prevail.
Seems Trump and those who put him in office have changed that--at least till New York City's mass-media central (along with our Maoist university reeducation camps) can once again muscle their ad nauseam narrative to the front telling us all "what's acceptable" for discussion in the public square.
What's "very problematic" is that there should be more from our Sovietized media "condemning" cultural Marxism and Shariah, for example, but there isn't.
However, the thesis of this piece of self-serving NYT propaganda is that the tyranny of the "free speech" of the majority should always prevail.
Seems Trump and those who put him in office have changed that--at least till New York City's mass-media central (along with our Maoist university reeducation camps) can once again muscle their ad nauseam narrative to the front telling us all "what's acceptable" for discussion in the public square.
14
Well- What do you liberals expect? This is what happens when LESS THAN HALF OF YOU show up on election day!
Instead of being overpowered and silenced by a large voting mass- these small fringe groups wield influence and impact on our elections cycles. IF YOU LIBERALS would put the same effort and enthusiasm registering voters as you do organizing your protests, poetry slams and drum circles- then these clowns would be rendered insignificant and useless.
Instead of being overpowered and silenced by a large voting mass- these small fringe groups wield influence and impact on our elections cycles. IF YOU LIBERALS would put the same effort and enthusiasm registering voters as you do organizing your protests, poetry slams and drum circles- then these clowns would be rendered insignificant and useless.
20
Sanction Trump? What about censure from the GOP Congress for conduct unbecoming of an American president?
They know too well that Bannon was right-- DT is Archie Bunker & can't be shut up, and those marchers in Charlottesville "clowns and losers" but useful votes.
They know too well that Bannon was right-- DT is Archie Bunker & can't be shut up, and those marchers in Charlottesville "clowns and losers" but useful votes.
14
Ask Trump to his face: if you were President on April 12, 1861 - would you be Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis. I can't ask it but reporters and elected members of Congress can.
21
Take away the lavish financial support provided by the Mercers, the Kochs, the Murdochs, and there would be no "alt-right" movement. Except on the intertubes.
43
The Apprentice's ascension to the Presidency has done more damage to our diversification and civility than we will probably know in short order. The Apprentice has changed what was morally acceptable to another lower level. It will take concerted effort to bury the White supremacists (skinheads in the vernacular) and other racists after Trump's making it ok for them to be in the same room with the rest of us. These types of people have always been outsiders and the sooner we return them to that status, the better.
27
"There should be a one-sided information flow condemning Nazis": sure, everyone can agree on that. But where does one draw the line? Should there be "one-sided information flow condemning those who believe same sex marriage is sinful"? Should there be "one-sided information flow condemning those who want action taken concerning illegal aliens"? Should there be "one-sided information flow condemning those who aren't sure preschoolers can be transgendered"? When you shut all those people up, you have definitely stymied the free discussion that underpins democracy--just as surely as a Nazi would.
34
When the highest court in the land puts out the lie that billionaire campaign donations are 'free speech' protected by 1st amendment, thereby nullifying the influence of the citizen majority, this sets a pattern for our most exploitive politicians.
You can't operate a democracy when the elections are turned over to the richest corporations for sponsorship, who will then set policy while the will of the people is ignored. With our values and norms thus distorted, an authoritarian demagogue can take power using division and hostility.
Honest people with a sense of ethics and duty don't have a chance if they must for compete for billions in campaign money from the 1 Percent.
But columnists don't want to talk about such causes, only about the poisonous effects of such a system.
You can't operate a democracy when the elections are turned over to the richest corporations for sponsorship, who will then set policy while the will of the people is ignored. With our values and norms thus distorted, an authoritarian demagogue can take power using division and hostility.
Honest people with a sense of ethics and duty don't have a chance if they must for compete for billions in campaign money from the 1 Percent.
But columnists don't want to talk about such causes, only about the poisonous effects of such a system.
41
The past two decades have been characterized by tremendous seismic shifts in social mores including greater LGBTQ tolerance and integration as well as the now banal participation of racial minorities in the higher offices of the land.
Coupled with socio-economic disenfranchisement of US white males on a national scale, the backlash is altogether not surprising, though inexcusable.
The rise of Trump's 'shock troops' in the guise of these extreme-right demonstrators is probably a response to the above mentioned social changes and loss of white male status. Perhaps there are greater fears of more social taboos collapsing. The ick factor has probably made most of us forget that the early 1970s was a period very open towards the 'flowering' of juvenile sexuality, particularly in Europe. Different times -- the moral panic ensuing over revelations of massive child sex abuse in various churches and schools starting in the late 20th century is revelatory of the instinctively protective reflex society possesses towards factors which upset social norms of stability.
With the failure of traditional 'authorities' to provide ethical guidance, it is hardly surprising that the most offended segments of society are tempted by authoritarian solutions purporting to possess 'all' of the 'right' answers to the world's complexities.
Coupled with socio-economic disenfranchisement of US white males on a national scale, the backlash is altogether not surprising, though inexcusable.
The rise of Trump's 'shock troops' in the guise of these extreme-right demonstrators is probably a response to the above mentioned social changes and loss of white male status. Perhaps there are greater fears of more social taboos collapsing. The ick factor has probably made most of us forget that the early 1970s was a period very open towards the 'flowering' of juvenile sexuality, particularly in Europe. Different times -- the moral panic ensuing over revelations of massive child sex abuse in various churches and schools starting in the late 20th century is revelatory of the instinctively protective reflex society possesses towards factors which upset social norms of stability.
With the failure of traditional 'authorities' to provide ethical guidance, it is hardly surprising that the most offended segments of society are tempted by authoritarian solutions purporting to possess 'all' of the 'right' answers to the world's complexities.
4
I disagree with the equivalence made in the article about the 'radical' ideas in the chart and nazism, white supremacy and racism. Those in the chart stem from our foundational national documents and ideals as stated in the Declaration of Independence - that all men are created equal. While not a perfect nation, we strive for those and should be unquestioned core values in America.
Those of racial or religious supremacy or bias et al are the antithesis of those core values and have no place as being accepted or defendable in the national discourse or philosophy.
Those of racial or religious supremacy or bias et al are the antithesis of those core values and have no place as being accepted or defendable in the national discourse or philosophy.
14
Maybe it's a good thing that the liberal elitist have to justify themselves. Perhaps if they gave more facts and less righteous opinions, the Trump folks might listen a bit more. Off course so called facts vary widely depending on which side is giving them. Finding real truth is a pretty difficult thing.
13
Neo-Nazism, White Supremacism, anti-Semitism, hatred of immigrants and foreigners, all the forces that drew Trump's fans to his sides....These are not issues to be discussed as: "Well, on one hand and then on the other hand". They are wrong from any moral perspective and must be condemned as such. Failure to do so is to create an environment for the evolution of the next Adolph Hitler- ask the Germans and Austrians who lived through it. Trump's equivocation about the KKK and Nazis tells us that he cannot tell right from wrong. Trump, a life-long racist, only cares about getting pats on the back from his adoring racist fans.
56
Anti-Semitism is rife among black leftists and Muslims. Anti-Asian racism is also rampant among the former. Look at the facts about race/religion and crimes against ppl based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation. If you look at the facts you will see the Dems largest voting blocks have huge problems as much as the extreme far right.
12
Somebody needed a new cause to protest. Obviously there's a minuscule threat from KKK, and there's a zero threat from statues. But, again, somebody needed a new cause...
29
Zero threat from the statues? Never underestimate the power of iconography. Whether it is political iconography or, far more insidiously, Corporate Brand-Name iconography, its aim is the same. It aim is to short-circuit our critical faculties, and thereby rob us of the ability to make rational decisions.
As for the statues -- they are not Art, they are Kitsch. That, of course, applies to "heroic" statuary in general, especially the equestrian sort.
As for the statues -- they are not Art, they are Kitsch. That, of course, applies to "heroic" statuary in general, especially the equestrian sort.
17
Oh please. If you were to apply your opinions on political iconography equally, every statue of every politician and hero since the American Revolution--no, since the first settlements--would have to come down. Get real. All the states at the time of the Declaration of Independence were slave states, and the colonies were dependent on servitude, whether indentured or permanent.
So, pull ALL the statues down, every last one of every Quaker, settler, religious icon, everyone from the 1600s onward until you find your perfected political moment when everyone was free.
Good luck with that perfect moment.
So, pull ALL the statues down, every last one of every Quaker, settler, religious icon, everyone from the 1600s onward until you find your perfected political moment when everyone was free.
Good luck with that perfect moment.
17
A statue is just a statue. But the real cause is racism, and that's as old as civilization, my friend.
3
Combine the two recent events. The solar eclipse + the confederacy.
The creator and only reason for skin color is the sun! Everything else
is a man made socio-political construct. Also known as delusional
xenophobia and make-believe non-sense. Sadly albeit dangerous.
~Djo Yūgen
The creator and only reason for skin color is the sun! Everything else
is a man made socio-political construct. Also known as delusional
xenophobia and make-believe non-sense. Sadly albeit dangerous.
~Djo Yūgen
15
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
25
Donald Trump is liberalizing hate groups, as he himself feels so comfortable spreading fear, hate and division. He has been known to discriminate since his father, a racist, would not allow black folks to use his rental premises. There must be a price to pay for all his stupid remarks. His ouster may be forthcoming if the people have the will to allow justice to prevail.
7
I remember protesting the Vietnam war. Marching for the ERA. We didn't cover our faces, we never carried sticks and bats. We never looked for confrontation. It's a whole new way of protesting.
31
Funny. I remember the police riots in 1968, and the Days of Rage response. I remember Kent State. I remember almost being killed by hardhats while peacefully demonstrating i NYC. We must have been protesting different Vietnam wars.
15
It is not that new. The Anti-Fa covering their faces and carrying sticks and bats and looking for confrontation are similar to some of the extreme fringe protesters of past years (including the KKK, even if Anti-Fa is motivated more by anarchism than racism). Anti-Fa seems to value anonymity. What's crazy is the wacko KKK marchers, carrying guns and shields, were so emboldened as to not cover faces at all. Both fringes unfortunately seem to value mob justice over rule of law and democracy.
5
Anytime someone drives a car into a crowd, it's an act of terrorism. In this country, 100% of the fault goes to the terrorist. When you defend the terrorist in this country not only have you have gone too far, but you are siding with terrorists. Even if this act of terrorism had not occurred, it is clear the intimidation tactics of the supremacists smell and taste like terrorism.
Regarding Gen Lee, he was against putting up monuments to confederates and was instrumental in telling the southern troops to go home and not continue the war, but to put it behind them and get a life. He wanted them to move forward, not backward. He must be spinning in his grave. The entire Charlottesville mess dishonors his memory.
Regarding Gen Lee, he was against putting up monuments to confederates and was instrumental in telling the southern troops to go home and not continue the war, but to put it behind them and get a life. He wanted them to move forward, not backward. He must be spinning in his grave. The entire Charlottesville mess dishonors his memory.
21
Have you forgotten one of yours shot a senator practicing for a baseball game?
Both are one-off's by nut cases and should be treated as such.
Both are one-off's by nut cases and should be treated as such.
7
I read the Red State Blog regularly to get the conservative take on these issues. After Charlottesville, one of their writers published several "takeaways." One was that there is no conservative argument in favor of the white nationalist demonstrators. He said that it's pointless for conservatives to argue, as many have done in this thread, "What about X?" when "X" is something liberals have done that seems inimical to freedom or democracy. That's because nothing liberals have ever said or done can justify supporting racism. Nothing can.
14
The President (or i should say, the person currently sitting at the President's desk) doesn't speak up for human rights or denounce white supremacists with a loud voice, and the people who do believe in human rights denounce him for that.
The question is, which side is going to prevail over time? Will the person sitting at the President's desk win more people over to his side than the human rights supporters gain support for themselves? Only time will tell, but so far the good guys seem to be winning, and i expect that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. At least, we can hope so.
The question is, which side is going to prevail over time? Will the person sitting at the President's desk win more people over to his side than the human rights supporters gain support for themselves? Only time will tell, but so far the good guys seem to be winning, and i expect that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. At least, we can hope so.
5
Much of what explains the Establishment's growing frenzy to crush dissent (e.g., the firing of James Damore by Google for pointing out the science behind Google's behavior) is a growing sense of insecurity and panic that their dogmas are being eroded by obvious empirical reality.
20
What empirical reality? That Jews are trying to "replace" other people? That Confederate generals were American heroes? This is bigger than some doofus coder at Google, and you know it.
27
Simple human decency is not hard to understand in any context once the context is fairly explained. It's the people with angles that try to take over the role of doing the explaining without being cross-examined that creates the problem.
6
Absolutely. Duke it out with a debate.
3
I have the sense that while political ideology and cultural change have long gone hand-in-hand, there has been a shift in the relationship. Politics used to be mostly a reflection of people's experientially-defined norms, but over time as media became more pervasive and group psychology became more predictable, ideology took a decisive lead.
Recently, it has seemed like there is a definite script we are supposed to follow. News reports are clumped by topic, certain themes are picked for the season, and the coverage is sturdily constructed to funnel the audience into one pre-determined attitude. Usually there is single permissible counterargument available, and a non-conforming minority is neatly clustered in there to be eaten.
To be clear, the assigned majority view is usually close enough to what many people would think anyway, but it's neater, with more closed doors and fewer open questions. It's more prescriptive and unnatural.
Ultimately, the consensus rings hollow because it was assigned. Everyone feels uneasy, but no one wants to raise alarm and be marked as an outsider.
Recently, it has seemed like there is a definite script we are supposed to follow. News reports are clumped by topic, certain themes are picked for the season, and the coverage is sturdily constructed to funnel the audience into one pre-determined attitude. Usually there is single permissible counterargument available, and a non-conforming minority is neatly clustered in there to be eaten.
To be clear, the assigned majority view is usually close enough to what many people would think anyway, but it's neater, with more closed doors and fewer open questions. It's more prescriptive and unnatural.
Ultimately, the consensus rings hollow because it was assigned. Everyone feels uneasy, but no one wants to raise alarm and be marked as an outsider.
24
Excellent assessment sir, thank you.
3
It's pretty disturbing when a "one-sided information flow" is praised as a good thing. Bad ideas die when they are argued and discussed, not when they are suppressed.
22
Tell that to the 12 million innocents murdered by Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s.
16
"How are you going to sanction Donald Trump?" Start working now to assure that he's voted out of office in the next election and start working now to get rid of your congressional representatives that support him.
That's called representative democracy.
That's called representative democracy.
16
“… liberals say climate change is human-driven; many conservatives say that it’s not).”
Shouldn’t that read “… the vast majority of scientists say climate change is human-driven; many conservatives say that it’s not).
It’s false to define this as a liberal/conservative argument.
Shouldn’t that read “… the vast majority of scientists say climate change is human-driven; many conservatives say that it’s not).
It’s false to define this as a liberal/conservative argument.
93
The author is comparing the proverbial apples and oranges by citing statistics that seem to reflect societal norms in support of fair play and equal rights and then bringing in the election of Donald Trump as evidence of social change away from these rights.
The majority, which supports racial equality, same sex marriage, women's rights, conservation, and immigrant rights still exists. That majority spoke out loud and clear in the recent election but they were deprived of their win by a misguided minority supported by absurdly obsolescent electoral laws. That minority was comprised in small part by deplorables (KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists) and in much larger part by misinformed have-nots who had believed outrageous campaign promises about turning back the clock to make America what it could never be again.
The fact is, this misguided and misinformed minority has been given an outsized influence over the socio-cultural future of this nation. Until the Electoral college is abolished in favor of a true democracy like those in virtually every other democratic nation except the U.S., our treasured norms and values will be in jeopardy.
The majority, which supports racial equality, same sex marriage, women's rights, conservation, and immigrant rights still exists. That majority spoke out loud and clear in the recent election but they were deprived of their win by a misguided minority supported by absurdly obsolescent electoral laws. That minority was comprised in small part by deplorables (KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists) and in much larger part by misinformed have-nots who had believed outrageous campaign promises about turning back the clock to make America what it could never be again.
The fact is, this misguided and misinformed minority has been given an outsized influence over the socio-cultural future of this nation. Until the Electoral college is abolished in favor of a true democracy like those in virtually every other democratic nation except the U.S., our treasured norms and values will be in jeopardy.
24
Margaret Jay, abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments require ratification by the states. But the Democrats lost over a thousand state legislative seats during the Obama years as Howard Dean's 50-state strategy was abandoned (and as Dean himself became captive and beneficiary of the Establishment). Republicans hold 34 or 35 of the gubernatorial seats, the most in history. Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures. Talk of abolishing the electoral college is not grounded in reality. The Democrats need to reform, and fast, and start following the advice of people like Mark Lilla or Bill Maher.
14
Under the majority rule you advocate, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills would never have passed. The tyranny of the majority is a well known flaw, be careful what you wish for.
8
The Showdown should be over whether or how much media exposure these fringe groups should get versus on whether this media exposure is an effective recruitment tool. If you ask their Leadership they would say yes and Thank You for it. These groups have been an unfortunate part of American life. The KKK marched on Washington in the 1920's and the American Nazi party held rallies at Madison Square Garden in the 1930's.
Donald Trump made his own bed on the campaign trail. Why exacerbate and elevate the racist rhetoric.
We are the point where as country we can't debate issues without resorting to riots. Has anyone asked why, instead of tearing down statues, why aren't we putting up more. Why aren't we promoting what African Americans have done before and since the Civil War. Wouldn't a statue of Harriet Tubman, William A. Jackson, Robert Smalls, Miles James, Andre Cailloux, James Daniel Gardner, people who had an impact on the Civil War and shine a light on African American participation that goes way beyond the slave narrative. It would expose even more the utter nonsense that these fringe groups are the sole protectors of a country when in fact we are really a country where people of many ethnic groups and faiths built and preserved this nation.
Donald Trump made his own bed on the campaign trail. Why exacerbate and elevate the racist rhetoric.
We are the point where as country we can't debate issues without resorting to riots. Has anyone asked why, instead of tearing down statues, why aren't we putting up more. Why aren't we promoting what African Americans have done before and since the Civil War. Wouldn't a statue of Harriet Tubman, William A. Jackson, Robert Smalls, Miles James, Andre Cailloux, James Daniel Gardner, people who had an impact on the Civil War and shine a light on African American participation that goes way beyond the slave narrative. It would expose even more the utter nonsense that these fringe groups are the sole protectors of a country when in fact we are really a country where people of many ethnic groups and faiths built and preserved this nation.
12
Trump fails to understand one thing: there are no good people marching with racists, Nazis, and anti-Semites.
I wonder what Kushner makes of this.
I wonder what Kushner makes of this.
16
Also, Trump and others need to realize what happened in Charlottesville goes way beyond just debating about keeping Confederate statues. The White Supremacists came to express hatred in public, not to debate about a statue.
I didn't here any "Keep the Robert E Lee statue" chants.
I didn't here any "Keep the Robert E Lee statue" chants.
10
Should we say there are no good people marching next to Antifa terrorists? Don't conflate reasonable people with extremists, on either side.
4
The New York time should stop using neo-Nazi to describe these people. There is no such thing as a neo-Nazi. There are Nazis. They shout the same old hate, same old racism and they carry the same old Nazi flag. At least tell us exactly what they are: NAZIS.
8
Neo-Nazi makes it clear that Hitler's Nazis were utterly destroyed.
The 1000 year Reich was crushed as soon as it began.
These angry ignorant people marching with Tiki torches and shouting their ignorance in public have no history and no future.
The 1000 year Reich was crushed as soon as it began.
These angry ignorant people marching with Tiki torches and shouting their ignorance in public have no history and no future.
8
I disagree -- to me, the term "Nazis" reflects not only an ideology (distinct from the white supremacist ideology among Neo-Nazis) but also a state and a whole totalitarian regime, as well as the genocide that it was responsible for. We don't have the same conditions as existed in Germany and which supported not only the Nazi ideology but the Nazi state.
As well there are some important differences with the Neo-Nazis just in ideology. The Nazi ideology in Germany was not about "white supremacy" or white people generally -- it asserted the superiority of the Germanic people in specific. Non-Germanic white people, for instance Slavs, were viewed as "subhuman,", eg "Untermenschen." Disabled people -- such as children with Down's syndrome -- were also viewed as subhuman, and a great many were siphoned away from families and murdered by the Reich. See this site for info on that:https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/people-with-disabilities
"Between 1940 and 1941 approximately 70,000 Austrian and German disabled people were killed under the T4 program, most via large-scale killing operations using poison gas. "
Are the neo-nazis we see in the US in line with these same views as were implied by the actions of the German Nazis?
As well there are some important differences with the Neo-Nazis just in ideology. The Nazi ideology in Germany was not about "white supremacy" or white people generally -- it asserted the superiority of the Germanic people in specific. Non-Germanic white people, for instance Slavs, were viewed as "subhuman,", eg "Untermenschen." Disabled people -- such as children with Down's syndrome -- were also viewed as subhuman, and a great many were siphoned away from families and murdered by the Reich. See this site for info on that:https://www.ushmm.org/collections/bibliography/people-with-disabilities
"Between 1940 and 1941 approximately 70,000 Austrian and German disabled people were killed under the T4 program, most via large-scale killing operations using poison gas. "
Are the neo-nazis we see in the US in line with these same views as were implied by the actions of the German Nazis?
3
Donald Trump is attempting to radicalize homegrown terrorist groups like the Neo-Nazis and the KKK.
Their leaders support Trump and welcome his equating highly armed violent thugs with those who peacefully seek equality and peace.
The Nazi brownshirts tactically used heated rhetoric to spark violence that would provide them cover for escalation.
The alt-right fringe assault peaceful areas of the country armed with assault weapons, mace, and clubs and rant hateful messages.
The people of Boston cracked the code on how to disarm and defang these violent extremists seeking publicity and violent confrontation.
Separate the extremists from counter protesters to let them rant unheard and unpublicized, surrounded by police that prevent violence.
Let the vast numbers of peaceful sane American citizens overpower the disturbed maniacs with a message of love and peace.
America will never descend to the depths of the violent disturbed KKK, Neo-Nazis, and white nationalist groups that attempt to amplify their tiny numbers.
Their leaders support Trump and welcome his equating highly armed violent thugs with those who peacefully seek equality and peace.
The Nazi brownshirts tactically used heated rhetoric to spark violence that would provide them cover for escalation.
The alt-right fringe assault peaceful areas of the country armed with assault weapons, mace, and clubs and rant hateful messages.
The people of Boston cracked the code on how to disarm and defang these violent extremists seeking publicity and violent confrontation.
Separate the extremists from counter protesters to let them rant unheard and unpublicized, surrounded by police that prevent violence.
Let the vast numbers of peaceful sane American citizens overpower the disturbed maniacs with a message of love and peace.
America will never descend to the depths of the violent disturbed KKK, Neo-Nazis, and white nationalist groups that attempt to amplify their tiny numbers.
6
The article states: "Far-right activists gathering in Boston over the weekend were outnumbered by thousands of counter-protesters seeking to show whose ideas constitute the fringe."
This is an significant understatement.
It was evident that there were less than 50 right-wing protesters, and according to Boston Police Commissioner William Evans there were 40,000 anti-Nazi protesters. That is a number of protesters equal to approximately 6% of the total population of the City of Boston. That is not merely "outnumbering" the neofascist far right, it is outnumbering it by a ratio of 800 to 1.
That is not just "seeking to show" that the far-right ideology is a negligible fringe element in American society, it is showing it conclusively and beyond any doubt.
Why the extraordinary and misleading understatement by the Times?
This is an significant understatement.
It was evident that there were less than 50 right-wing protesters, and according to Boston Police Commissioner William Evans there were 40,000 anti-Nazi protesters. That is a number of protesters equal to approximately 6% of the total population of the City of Boston. That is not merely "outnumbering" the neofascist far right, it is outnumbering it by a ratio of 800 to 1.
That is not just "seeking to show" that the far-right ideology is a negligible fringe element in American society, it is showing it conclusively and beyond any doubt.
Why the extraordinary and misleading understatement by the Times?
9
Back in the 20th century, when many World War 2 survivors were healthy enough to tell their stories, the world understood something called "the singularity" of Nazi atrocities. That meant that no nation in the world could in good conscience offer some fig-leaf, some legal nicety that would allow a systemic racism like Nazism or White Supremacy to flourish - or to ever become part of the body politic of any civilized nation. It was understood that, here in the United States and in Europe, if a political group espoused a form of Nazism, a system racism, you crushed them. You didn't let them march around saying "Jews will not replace us." You didn't let them carry torches on your college campuses shouting Nazi slogans like "blood and soil." That's because concentration camps and burning crosses were fresh enough in people's minds that any civilized society would find quickly locate such pathetic noise and squish it out with our thumb. You don't let it gain a foothold. You don't argue about freedom of speech. You crush Nazis. You crush White supremacists. End of story.
Today, we let these miserable white boys onto our campuses, onto our streets, we let them chant their causes on our airwaves. That's because America has grown really stupid. Our parents knew better: Nazis and White Supremacists should be crushed.
Today, we let these miserable white boys onto our campuses, onto our streets, we let them chant their causes on our airwaves. That's because America has grown really stupid. Our parents knew better: Nazis and White Supremacists should be crushed.
10
Yes, Nazi-ism was awful. But it's hard to say that it was more awful than Mao' killing something like 50 million Chinese. What's more Mao has not been renounced by the present Chinese government.
4
This is just not historically accurate at all. The US has always allowed hate-filled groups like the KKK, Nazis, Fascists, etc. to march and chant slogans, and we have always argued about freedom of speech most vociferously in such contexts. In fact, such activity was much more widespread in the past than it is now. The US has never "crushed" such groups. We as a nation have stood by the principle that more speech is better and that, when debated openly, hate speech will fail to persuade.
1
The claims of deaths of tens of millions of people during Mao's reign have not been substantiated and cannot be substantiated. They were greatly exaggerated by right wing sources during previous intervals of extreme anti-communism in the USA. Mao is the father of modern day China, which overall is an amazing success story. To compare him to the totally evil Hitler is absurd.
2
President Carter - Restoration of Citizenship Rights to Jefferson F. Davis Statement on Signing S. J. Res. 16 into Law.
"Our Nation needs to clear away the guilts and enmities and recriminations of the past, to finally set at rest the divisions that threatened to destroy our Nation and to discredit the principles on which it was founded. Our people need to turn their attention to the important tasks that still lie before us in establishing those principles for all people."
People
Chill.
"Our Nation needs to clear away the guilts and enmities and recriminations of the past, to finally set at rest the divisions that threatened to destroy our Nation and to discredit the principles on which it was founded. Our people need to turn their attention to the important tasks that still lie before us in establishing those principles for all people."
People
Chill.
8
Fringe groups, on the left and the right, have always existed. Have you read the daily kos today?
4
Almost every day. Sure it's a liberal commentary on the news, but it's candid about that, and unlike our president they don't just make stuff up.
3
Who gets to decide? Apparently the ruling party. If the Standing Rock Sioux can stage a peaceful protest against an unwanted pipeline that jeopardizes their drinking water and still get shot at with rubber bullets, water cannons and have dogs set on them, but a bunch of white domestic terrorists brandishing automatic rifles in a show of intimidation can "protest" their loss of a few statues and purportedly their "white privilege", then it's whoever is in charge that is making the rules, and it's not about what is right or what is wrong.
15
We have reduced the political landscape to two boxes. Left or right? Democrat or Republican? Approve or disapprove? How many people's views actually neatly fit into a one word box?
It seems we spend a lot of time assigning thoughts and opinions to others based on a one word answer. And the one word answer is getting increasingly narrower. Who ever heard of the "alt-right" a year ago, or the "alt-left" before last week? As a result, are we cornering people into defending positions that they really don't support?
I would probably check the box labeled "liberal". But what I have discovered, in the last year, there are a number of "conservatives" and (gasp!) Republicans who I actually like. What next, cats and dogs living together?
It seems we spend a lot of time assigning thoughts and opinions to others based on a one word answer. And the one word answer is getting increasingly narrower. Who ever heard of the "alt-right" a year ago, or the "alt-left" before last week? As a result, are we cornering people into defending positions that they really don't support?
I would probably check the box labeled "liberal". But what I have discovered, in the last year, there are a number of "conservatives" and (gasp!) Republicans who I actually like. What next, cats and dogs living together?
7
Way to start with facts and statistics then completely abandon them for non-fact-based opinions for the rest of the article.
6
I find it very interesting that the author appears to think that fringe views only revolve around race and the problems only reside amongst descendants of European immigrants. The reality is that prejudices of all types, race, religion, gender, politics, the list goes on, has been around for centuries. And will continue for centuries.
There are two sides to every coin and an infinite number of possibilities in between. Which is something the media, of all stripes, ignore because it impacts their profitability. It's far more profitable to tighten their focus on one "side" or the other. The reality is the vast majority of Americans reside somewhere closer to the center.
Individually these represent person's opinions. As the saying goes, an opinion is like a certain part of our anatomy. What spews forth is somehow comforting to the owner but mostly noxious to those around them. More so to some than others. Since the media, in it's entirety, seems determined to only cast the negatives we will continue see these problems.
There are two sides to every coin and an infinite number of possibilities in between. Which is something the media, of all stripes, ignore because it impacts their profitability. It's far more profitable to tighten their focus on one "side" or the other. The reality is the vast majority of Americans reside somewhere closer to the center.
Individually these represent person's opinions. As the saying goes, an opinion is like a certain part of our anatomy. What spews forth is somehow comforting to the owner but mostly noxious to those around them. More so to some than others. Since the media, in it's entirety, seems determined to only cast the negatives we will continue see these problems.
7
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we had de jure discrimination in many parts of our society. I remember the "Whites Only" signs in Virginia when I was visiting college in 1961. There were protests and demonstrations against that kind of racism.
Some people reacted to the changes by accepting them; others resisted. It was a time of turmoil.
That we elected Barack Obama president and then re-elected him to a second term says a lot about how attitudes have progressed. That racist dog-whistles have been effective political tools demonstrates that we still have a way to go.
I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump can take us back to the days when overt racism was acceptable, but the fact that unapologetic racists still find a home in Republican ranks ought to worry people who believe in Liberty and Justice for All.
Some people reacted to the changes by accepting them; others resisted. It was a time of turmoil.
That we elected Barack Obama president and then re-elected him to a second term says a lot about how attitudes have progressed. That racist dog-whistles have been effective political tools demonstrates that we still have a way to go.
I find it hard to believe that Donald Trump can take us back to the days when overt racism was acceptable, but the fact that unapologetic racists still find a home in Republican ranks ought to worry people who believe in Liberty and Justice for All.
7
I have friends who hate republicans, have never voted for anyone not a Democrat and are racists. They did not vote for Trump. Your contention that "unapologetic racists still find a home in Republican ranks" is rewriting our country's history. Who were the true racists in politics through the 1960's, Democrats.
5
I am too young to know about that. I wish you had explained more details.
Who all switched party to republican after the civil rights act was passed in 1967
3
What far right groups hosted a rally in Boston last weekend? The press were not allowed within the police barricades. One of the speakers was an Indian man with black lives matter banners held up behind him.
5
What the article chooses to ignore is the real elephant in the room: the liberal left. The ability of the liberal left to influence the media and push its political agenda has never given a dispassionate vetting in the press.
The violence in Charlottesville occurred because the local authorities were inept, and unable to separate the two parties and ensure a peaceful protest. This salient fact is ignored by the liberal media. Trump spoke to the fact that violent acts were perpetrated by both sides. The liberal left demonized Trump for acknowledging that we live in a pluralistic society.
The ACLU has taken up the torch in defense of the United Right.
We're the conservative right to have protested against Obama in the same manner as the liberal left does towards Trump, they would have been labeled racist by the liberal media.
In short, does the liberal left have the right to force acceptance of their views on society?
The violence in Charlottesville occurred because the local authorities were inept, and unable to separate the two parties and ensure a peaceful protest. This salient fact is ignored by the liberal media. Trump spoke to the fact that violent acts were perpetrated by both sides. The liberal left demonized Trump for acknowledging that we live in a pluralistic society.
The ACLU has taken up the torch in defense of the United Right.
We're the conservative right to have protested against Obama in the same manner as the liberal left does towards Trump, they would have been labeled racist by the liberal media.
In short, does the liberal left have the right to force acceptance of their views on society?
13
Exactly how is the liberal left forcing it's views on the country?
5
That is simply a dishonest statement. The liberal left is complained about 24/7 at FOX news, conservative talk radio and by republican politicians and pundits. The conservative self victimization is rather tiring. Now conservatives even got a president blasting mainstream media as fake news 24/7. When are conservatives going to be happy, when there is no news left with alternative views to their own?
Conservatives DID stage massive protests and complaints against Obama. Saying they didn't is simply lying. That Trump has gotten more protests than almost any other president, is not due to liberal bias, but because he has behaved worse than pretty much any western state leader in 70 years.
I've lived in several countries and follow politics in several countries. It is hard to find any state leader behaving as outrageous as Trump. To simply label that as a liberal bias borders on conspiracy theory. Trump is described this way in pretty much all media on the planet. This is not exclusive to American media. Are you suggesting the whole planet is unfairly biased against Trump?
Conservatives DID stage massive protests and complaints against Obama. Saying they didn't is simply lying. That Trump has gotten more protests than almost any other president, is not due to liberal bias, but because he has behaved worse than pretty much any western state leader in 70 years.
I've lived in several countries and follow politics in several countries. It is hard to find any state leader behaving as outrageous as Trump. To simply label that as a liberal bias borders on conspiracy theory. Trump is described this way in pretty much all media on the planet. This is not exclusive to American media. Are you suggesting the whole planet is unfairly biased against Trump?
14
Let me help you out with your confusion, George. Self-avowed racists who openly cheered Trump and called him "their president" came armed with firearms, clubs, and shields, looking to beat anti-racist, peaceful protesters. Antifa activists showed up and declared that they would protect the non-violent protesters. The Nazis and their ilk attacked the non-violent protesters FIRST, and the Antifa respnded with violence in order to protect non-violent protesters. They saved lives. Of course, I guess for you and your ilk, self defense only counts for conservatives.
3
Why you people keep on saying that Trump did not condemn white supremacists forcefully? I understand your politics and branding Trump as a racist fit your agenda. But the truth of the matter is that Trump condemned white supremacists much more forcefully than Obama condemned Islamist terrorists. You people refuse to call terrorists who kill others in the name of Islam and Allah as radical Islamic terrorists, but more than happy and insist to call white groups who kill others as white terrorists. If somebody don't use "white", you brand them as sympathizers of white supremacists. Your arguments doesn't square with facts. That is why Trump is still standing even after all these horrendous attack.
17
The strength of the condemnation hardly rests on the name used to label these groups. The problem with Trump wasn't that he DID'T use the word white supremacist or Nazis. He could have used whatever labeled he liked as long as he had acknowledged there was no moral equivalency between the two groups.
The refusal to use the word "islamic terrorists" is just an American oddity. It is not a contentious issues in my home country of Norway, where we are far more liberal than in the US. The refrain from using this label is not unique among liberals in the US. I believe Bush also declined to use that word.
Anyway the argument over this is a storm in a water cup. Why on earth does it matter that much what you call them?
The refusal to use the word "islamic terrorists" is just an American oddity. It is not a contentious issues in my home country of Norway, where we are far more liberal than in the US. The refrain from using this label is not unique among liberals in the US. I believe Bush also declined to use that word.
Anyway the argument over this is a storm in a water cup. Why on earth does it matter that much what you call them?
4
President Obama is no longer in office so what he did or did not do while he was in office is now a moot point. The current occupant of the White House did not condemn the actions of the white supremacist Nazi's because he is a sympathizer. Everyone who believes in equality and racial tolerance can see this fact. Stop obfuscating the facts. Trump is a racist.
8
"You people" ought to ponder the fact that a young man was radicalized by a violent ideology and drove his car into a crowd in Charlottesville. Hateful ideologies ought to be condemned without generalities. Killing in the name of Adolf Hitler is very similar to what happens with people radicalized by ISIS.
Hateful ideologies preaching that some people are subhuman and don't deserve to live are the problem.
Hateful ideologies preaching that some people are subhuman and don't deserve to live are the problem.
7
I sat watching the Americans from Oregon to Wyoming to Nebraska, to Missouri (where I used to live), to Illinois, to Kentucky, to Tennessee, to South Carolina come together in groups of thousands at one time in one place "in awe" (as another Times article reports) of an astronomical event no more miraculous than the sunrise and sunset or the appearance of Orion in the sky in September of every year (here in Tokyo). As I heard them gasp, cheer, watched them all put the glasses on, take the glasses off, put the glasses on, because they all were human beings with sensitive eyes experiencing a potentially dangerous once-in-a-human-lifetime event, I marveled at how they all came together in their humanity as men, women and children always have for such events, rare and wondrous only because we are human. The contrast with the confrontations we have lately seen between groups of Americans was like, forgive me, night and day. Really, this should teach us a lesson, though I suppose there are those few who don't want to learn it, so sure are they that our differences outweigh our similarities.
9
Naturally all decent people (including myself) utterly loath racist and anti-Semitic views.
Nevertheless, Internet censorship is a dangerous business. Gigantic corporations with important vested interests are arrogating to themselves the decision as to what public discourse is acceptable.
How long will it be before there is pressure to censure far left views, even ones that are not violent (such as Trotskyism)? During the anti-communist hysteria of the early 1950s works by Marx and Engels were removed from public and academic libraries as a result of political pressure.
I am not at all religious, but I appreciate the wisdom of the Biblical verse quote as you sow, so shall you reap unquote.
Nevertheless, Internet censorship is a dangerous business. Gigantic corporations with important vested interests are arrogating to themselves the decision as to what public discourse is acceptable.
How long will it be before there is pressure to censure far left views, even ones that are not violent (such as Trotskyism)? During the anti-communist hysteria of the early 1950s works by Marx and Engels were removed from public and academic libraries as a result of political pressure.
I am not at all religious, but I appreciate the wisdom of the Biblical verse quote as you sow, so shall you reap unquote.
5
I agree, it has bothered me for a long time how big American corporations get to decide what is morally right. While Americans view Facebook and Google as extremely leftist biased, I'd say for Europeans, it is the inherent American conservative bias of Facebook and Google which is our typical problem.
E.g. nudity, breast feeding etc is not taboo to the same extent in Europe, yet our messages to each other get censored according to American pious morality standards, rather than our own.
The Google firing of an employee with opposing views, illustrates another fundamental problem with how freedom of speech is defined in the US. In Europe freedom of speech tends to be defined as a right protected by government, while in the US, speech is defined as something government may not infringe upon.
The result is that in public Americans can be quite extreme in their speech, while speech on any sort of private property or at companies can be arbitrarily restricted. In many European countries, it would be difficult for companies to restrict your speech as it is protected by the government. I know American companies coming to Europe has been surprised when they learn they can not set whatever rules they want about what employees may discuss at work.
I notice there is a trend in the US of balkanization of speech. People create their own little bubbles, where only views similar to their own are allowed. This simply further more polarization in American society.
E.g. nudity, breast feeding etc is not taboo to the same extent in Europe, yet our messages to each other get censored according to American pious morality standards, rather than our own.
The Google firing of an employee with opposing views, illustrates another fundamental problem with how freedom of speech is defined in the US. In Europe freedom of speech tends to be defined as a right protected by government, while in the US, speech is defined as something government may not infringe upon.
The result is that in public Americans can be quite extreme in their speech, while speech on any sort of private property or at companies can be arbitrarily restricted. In many European countries, it would be difficult for companies to restrict your speech as it is protected by the government. I know American companies coming to Europe has been surprised when they learn they can not set whatever rules they want about what employees may discuss at work.
I notice there is a trend in the US of balkanization of speech. People create their own little bubbles, where only views similar to their own are allowed. This simply further more polarization in American society.
7
“How are you going to sanction Donald Trump?”
That will be up to US in next year's midterms. If We the People don't care enough to roust him and his party from the halls of power we will deserve what we get.
Everyone is somewhat afraid of change. Some people more so, and the so called president's so called supporters more than most, and those people are the most difficult to get to see reality.
And that reality is most of US want to live and let live and it doesn't really matter what anyone calls their culture: African. European, Asian..... whatever, it all adds up to a very interesting Nation and mass culture.
That will be up to US in next year's midterms. If We the People don't care enough to roust him and his party from the halls of power we will deserve what we get.
Everyone is somewhat afraid of change. Some people more so, and the so called president's so called supporters more than most, and those people are the most difficult to get to see reality.
And that reality is most of US want to live and let live and it doesn't really matter what anyone calls their culture: African. European, Asian..... whatever, it all adds up to a very interesting Nation and mass culture.
3
This past weekend I heard right wingers defending the civil rights of Nazis. Strange, I'd never known this group of people to care about ANYBODY"S civil rights before. I don't think Nazis should be given parade permits. Why should civil rights be afforded to a group of people who, if they achieve the kind of political power they are trying to achieve, will DENY CIVIL RIGHTS TO EVERYBODY! I'd like to leap past the civil rights questions and ask this question; WHAT GOOD IS EVER GOING TO COME FROM ALLOWING NAZIS TO MARCH AT THE LOCAL PARK?
10
How incredibly sad that there even needs to be a discussion of this in 2017. I honestly never ever thought I'd live to see the day when Nazis march in the streets of America and the President says, "Meh. They aren't so bad."
12
Learn to read and listen. The President did not say such a thing. (although the liberal media wants you to believe that).
8
Typical "progressive" narrow minded, bologna. Stopped reading after the first lie. Trump supporters are not anti-immigrant we are anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. It is a sensible position given the finite resources in the US and the fact that we are at well over 300 Million people already here. It has ZERO to do with racism.
15
Lots of ORDINARY AMERICANS are going to state the case in blunt terms.
My GI dad who fought in WW II knew, and said out loud, that "The only good Nazi is a DEAD Nazi."
If you are not one of them, and definitely if you are a member of groups they despise, including Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Muslims, they would gladly kill you if they had their way.
If those are going to be the rules of the game, they deserve the same treatment that they would meet out.
My GI dad who fought in WW II knew, and said out loud, that "The only good Nazi is a DEAD Nazi."
If you are not one of them, and definitely if you are a member of groups they despise, including Jews, blacks, Hispanics and Muslims, they would gladly kill you if they had their way.
If those are going to be the rules of the game, they deserve the same treatment that they would meet out.
7
Trump has not only supported racism, hatred, nazism, antisemitism, and inequality by claiming that there were some "very fine people" on both sides. That is blatant racism. The man who is supposed to be a role model in supporting the Constitution is now the man supporting racism, bigotry, antisemitism, hatred. This is a disgusting predicament this country is in now and I bet those who voted for trump must be shaking their heads and wishing they didn't. Not only is he supporting hate he is now escalating the war in the middle east, perhaps some of his cronies, or he himself, is making money on the spoils of war. As for Pense I bet he is not different.
6
"Houston man arrested, accused of attempting to blow up Confederate statue"
Today's news, not fake news
The man is the son of a liberal art promoter wealthy family; over 150k paid for damages caused in similar offense 4 years earlier, probation revoked few months ago for "good behavior"
Not a peep from the NYT, If I dare ask why, I may be scolded with "it is all false equivalence"
Today's news, not fake news
The man is the son of a liberal art promoter wealthy family; over 150k paid for damages caused in similar offense 4 years earlier, probation revoked few months ago for "good behavior"
Not a peep from the NYT, If I dare ask why, I may be scolded with "it is all false equivalence"
12
Not only that, he didn't even succeed in blowing up the statue, and got caught.
4
Except for pockets of highly educated and liberals in big cities and along both coasts, the US is basically a racist country populated by people who are isolated culturally, intolerance of changes, and suspicious of people who don't look like them. That's why the electoral map looks red all over with pockets of blue. That's why Nixon plotted his election prospect based on Southern strategy and successive Republicans from Reagan to Trump and those in Congress ran, baited, exploited and benefited from racial prejudice.
This country needs moral outrages from political and religious leaders and yet these voices are mostly silent or equivocal or hedging. It's depressing.
This country needs moral outrages from political and religious leaders and yet these voices are mostly silent or equivocal or hedging. It's depressing.
5
These highly educated liberals are the white ruling class, aren't they? I guess they think they have little to fear from any competing groups.
4
Don't kid yourself. There are plenty of racists in the cities and in parts of the West Coast.
4
Paraphrasing something that Pema Chrodron has said, '...all anyone really wants is to have someone agree with them.' This causes such problems, maybe all of them.
Today, I watched Vice coverage and interviews with white supremacists in Charlottesvile, featuring Christopher Cantwell. In it, he calls for ethnic cleansing of America to insure the purity of the white race. He says many will die before they are through. He displays his weaponry, which is extensive.
In the video following, he faces the prospect of arrest by Charlottesville Police and will answer to 3 other warrants. He is terrified to the point of dissolving into tears. He pleads for the authorities to safely remove him from his hideout. He believes that he will be thrown into prison. He defends the peaceful and law abiding manner in which the march was conducted. All he wants is to keep America safe and pure. He tearfully begs for someone to tell him what else could have been done beyond having procured permits and keeping contact with the police by way of respecting their requests.
There he was, alone with overwhelming fear that he could not contain. All his weaponry could not shield him from his terror in that moment. It was stunning to realize that this is what he wishes for those who do not agree that there are people who should be eliminated.
He wants to instill terror in others of the same sort that overcame him.
Mr. Cantwell, do not want this.
Today, I watched Vice coverage and interviews with white supremacists in Charlottesvile, featuring Christopher Cantwell. In it, he calls for ethnic cleansing of America to insure the purity of the white race. He says many will die before they are through. He displays his weaponry, which is extensive.
In the video following, he faces the prospect of arrest by Charlottesville Police and will answer to 3 other warrants. He is terrified to the point of dissolving into tears. He pleads for the authorities to safely remove him from his hideout. He believes that he will be thrown into prison. He defends the peaceful and law abiding manner in which the march was conducted. All he wants is to keep America safe and pure. He tearfully begs for someone to tell him what else could have been done beyond having procured permits and keeping contact with the police by way of respecting their requests.
There he was, alone with overwhelming fear that he could not contain. All his weaponry could not shield him from his terror in that moment. It was stunning to realize that this is what he wishes for those who do not agree that there are people who should be eliminated.
He wants to instill terror in others of the same sort that overcame him.
Mr. Cantwell, do not want this.
2
What is wrong with the NYT writers!? Trump unequivocally condemned white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then said some of those protesting taking down the statue were very fine people. WHO can't understand that he did not say the supremacists and Neo-Nazis included very fine people?
The Left is listening to what it wants to hear, not to what was said. I guess the Left cannot imagine someone protesting the removal of Lee's statue who is not a white supremacist or a Neo-Nazis. That's a serious lack of imagination.
The Left is listening to what it wants to hear, not to what was said. I guess the Left cannot imagine someone protesting the removal of Lee's statue who is not a white supremacist or a Neo-Nazis. That's a serious lack of imagination.
8
Marching in a group of people carrying Nazi flags, shouting Nazi slogans, and carrying torches and being a fine person? Didn't the surroundings make these fine people uncomfortable and cause them to question the company they were in? Sorry, but fine people don't march with, next to, or part of Nazi and white supremacist demonstrators. Trump was put on the spot and didn't want to insult his supporters too directly so he uttered the fine people comment. Most people who heard that cringed at his stupidity and immorality, that is, most people who didn't agree with him. He is a disgrace to this country for normalizing racism and anti-semiticism.
5
The US Constitution protects all manner of speech, no matter how disgusting -- except speech that endangers lives and property -- shouting fire in a theater and inciting to riot.
RIOTING is a crime and ALL those engaged in street riots should be summarily arrested, booked and charged. Groups organizing outside "protesters" to appear and engage in riot should be charged with "conspiracy to riot".
ALL sides -- Nazis, Antifas, and even Church and Community Groups if they are guilty. No one should get a pass on public rioting or on the more serious charge of conspiring to riot.
RIOTING is a crime and ALL those engaged in street riots should be summarily arrested, booked and charged. Groups organizing outside "protesters" to appear and engage in riot should be charged with "conspiracy to riot".
ALL sides -- Nazis, Antifas, and even Church and Community Groups if they are guilty. No one should get a pass on public rioting or on the more serious charge of conspiring to riot.
11
Social media gives these nuts an audience, a universality and power- that's the difference, not permission.
3
The rise of Nazism and Fascism was ignored in the 1930s.
It grew and grew and we all know what happened.
Enabled and ignored in the United States from the 1920s until the 1960s, the KKK, Nazis and Fascists flourished in many states. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands in our country.
It went back underground after being spotlighted in the 60s and 70s.
It has now reincarnated itself as the Alt-Right, encouraged by our current government.
Most people in the United States have opted this time to face it straight on by photographing, filming, posting and identifying these believers, in other words, shining a brilliant spotlight on this using current technology.
I think we are making inroads. Not the government, but the citizens.
And that is the saddest statement of all.
It grew and grew and we all know what happened.
Enabled and ignored in the United States from the 1920s until the 1960s, the KKK, Nazis and Fascists flourished in many states. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands in our country.
It went back underground after being spotlighted in the 60s and 70s.
It has now reincarnated itself as the Alt-Right, encouraged by our current government.
Most people in the United States have opted this time to face it straight on by photographing, filming, posting and identifying these believers, in other words, shining a brilliant spotlight on this using current technology.
I think we are making inroads. Not the government, but the citizens.
And that is the saddest statement of all.
10
If some belief is important to you, you either express it in words or deeds? It's a very bad idea to suppress words. By all means, suppress bad deeds, but trust that bad words can be met perfectly well with better words.
7
A nitpick:
"The United States military ... began to desegregate in the late 1940s."
The U.S. Army began integration in 1944.
"The United States military ... began to desegregate in the late 1940s."
The U.S. Army began integration in 1944.
5
A big part of the problem here is that right- and left-wing media outlets in this country don't even use the same set of terms to talk about common issues. Fox News won't call people neo-Nazis, and CNN refuses to acknowledge the right's charge that there is an "alt-left." Unless pundits and journalists start engaging critically-- not just with the rhetoric of the "other side," but with the terms they themselves are using-- it's going to be impossible for our public discourse to find a common language. And when we don't have a way to communicate with one another, violence becomes the default solution.
9
There is no such thing as "alt -left". There is just "left." Liberal ideology does not need to be "repackaged" as Richard Spencer did for the neo-Nazis and white supremacists, to mask their views. Liberals are PROUD of what they stand for: equal OPPORTUNITY (not equal OUTCOMES, as the RW news would have you believe) regardless of race, sex, national origin. "Alt left" was made up by the RW media and used by Donald Trump as justification for his failure to condemn the abominable views of the people marching in Charlottesville. Just because the RW media and the President wish that term to be used, doesn't mean that the MSM has to use it. And Antifa calls itself Antifa -- not "alt left"
4
Back when I was a kid, crazy people spread their fringe views via mimeographed newsletters advertied ideas in the back of magazines. Today, thanks to the internet and personal computers, the dispersal of these ideas is far more widespread. But that doesn't mean they aren't still fringe and beyond the norm. Unfortunately, our news media appears to be the last to get that message. Why did I just see Ari Melber interview a Breitbart editor on MSNBC? Breitbart is like a political "Weekly World News." Why legitimize them? Same with Alex Jones' Infowars. These people get legitimized because the legit news media gives them exposure.
8
I think he makes some good points, but I think the answer is much simpler. Just as history is written by the victors, I think those who are in power are setting the terms for and defining who constitutes "fringe groups and fringe views". Trump and the GOP own all three branches of the federal government, and the majority of governors in individual states are Republican. They are deciding who is "fringe" and who isn't. If people didn't believe in what the GOP and Trump espoused, they wouldn't have voted them into office. I think Nazis, the KKK and white supremacists are fringe groups with fringe ideology, but obviously the President and the majority of Congress don't. They've been silent on calling these groups what they are, and silence equals acceptance, if not support. I commend the few who have spoken out, but there's too few of them. I fear that we are heading into a very dark period that will damage the country irrepairably.
5
I guess the Alt right are neo nazi's responsible for millions of deaths through genocide.Think Hitler. That means the Alt left are the communists who are responsible for millions of unjust deaths.Think Stalin. As far as I am concerned both these groups are despised by the average americans. The vast majority including Trump supporters like 99%.
3
There is no "alt left." "Alt right" is a name created by Richard Spencer to disguise his racist and anti-Semitic views with a "cute" name. "Alt left" is a phrase used by Donald Trump in his statement of false equivalency. No one who participates in "left leaning" ideology is attempting to "repackage" his or her beliefs because they are unacceptable. We are open and forthright about believing that people should be treated fairly and have equal opportunity (that word is important because so many on the right misrepresent our views as requiring equal RESULTS. They do not), and that believing that someone with different skin pigmentation or of a different religion or national origin is, ipso facto, "lesser." WE AREN'T ASHAMED OF THOSE VIEWS. So there is no need for a new "disguising" term.
8
Alt Right is a term adopted by white supremacists and neo-nazis to sanitise the repugnant views. Alt Left is a term coined by Trump in an attempt to put the opposition to the nazis at the same level. They're not communists - they're anti-nazis.
Furthermore, neither side is responsible for the mass killings from 60-70 years ago, but the neo-nazis certainly endorse the actions of Hitler, et al, whereas those groups counter-protesting against the neo-nazis do NOT support what Stalin did.
Please don't tell us you think opposing nazis is a bad thing.
Furthermore, neither side is responsible for the mass killings from 60-70 years ago, but the neo-nazis certainly endorse the actions of Hitler, et al, whereas those groups counter-protesting against the neo-nazis do NOT support what Stalin did.
Please don't tell us you think opposing nazis is a bad thing.
11
One thing these comment threads always reinforce is how powerful the right wing propaganda machine is. As many posters simply repost talking points. In fact the reason things that were generally unacceptable in terms of racism, Nazism, Russia, etc are so prevalent is because of the propaganda machine.
On the left these insidious fringe views that became mainstream resulted in civil rights, acceptance of LGBTQ as simply other members of society, a discussion on how women are treated and what we can do to improve. On the right the fringe ideas are represented by shouts against Jews, calls for an ethno-clean state, etc. Freedom vs oppression.
On the left these insidious fringe views that became mainstream resulted in civil rights, acceptance of LGBTQ as simply other members of society, a discussion on how women are treated and what we can do to improve. On the right the fringe ideas are represented by shouts against Jews, calls for an ethno-clean state, etc. Freedom vs oppression.
7
Some things are NOT negotiable, in our society. Rationalizing, excusing or winking at Nazi beliefs and behavior is not compatible with decency, period.
Buy your own island, far, far away.
Buy your own island, far, far away.
16
From Charlottesville to Boston
Is attacking police with rocks and bottles of urine - a fringe view?
"Struggling to find neo-Nazis to condemn in Boston on Saturday, some activists decided to attack the police instead. Or perhaps that was their objective all along."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-charlottesville-to-boston-1503343123
Is attacking police with rocks and bottles of urine - a fringe view?
"Struggling to find neo-Nazis to condemn in Boston on Saturday, some activists decided to attack the police instead. Or perhaps that was their objective all along."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-charlottesville-to-boston-1503343123
7
In Boston, 5 people attacked the police. FIVE. Out of 40,000. But since that suits the narrative of the RW media, I'm sure that's all the FoxNews reported on. The same way y'all object to "biased" reporting by the MSM, you ought to be looking at your own news sources for the same bias.
4
@TiredofGOPlies.
Of course - 40,000 were students and other normal people. But we're talking about Antifa, those criminals. Please don't change the topic.
Of course - 40,000 were students and other normal people. But we're talking about Antifa, those criminals. Please don't change the topic.
3
If these are fringe views--and I think that they are--then why be concerned about how they are defined?
I have faith in my country. Having actually read the Daily Stormer website (yuck), I don't think that Nazis are going to get much traction here. We are, truly, blowing this up into more than it really is. Those who point to Germany and say "It could happen here" forget that Germany is not the United States. We don't have hyper-inflation here like they did in the days before Hitler came to power. We don't have crushing reparations. Bad as our economy might be at times, we're nowhere close to the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
So, how do we address these fringe elements? One, we address income stratification so that folks have decent jobs and decent incomes. No one's gonna join the Nazi's if they have good jobs with decent pay. Two, whenever these idiots show up for demonstrations, we don't play into their hands by getting violent. I like the tact of a German town where folks dress up as clowns and line the streets as the nutballs march, then douse them with rainbow confetti at the finish line. They also donate to anti-nationalist causes.
But what to call them? Idiots. Nutballs. Morons. I really don't care. What I do care about is everyone getting all worked up by such a tiny group of folks. We have better things to do than pay attention to them.
I have faith in my country. Having actually read the Daily Stormer website (yuck), I don't think that Nazis are going to get much traction here. We are, truly, blowing this up into more than it really is. Those who point to Germany and say "It could happen here" forget that Germany is not the United States. We don't have hyper-inflation here like they did in the days before Hitler came to power. We don't have crushing reparations. Bad as our economy might be at times, we're nowhere close to the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power.
So, how do we address these fringe elements? One, we address income stratification so that folks have decent jobs and decent incomes. No one's gonna join the Nazi's if they have good jobs with decent pay. Two, whenever these idiots show up for demonstrations, we don't play into their hands by getting violent. I like the tact of a German town where folks dress up as clowns and line the streets as the nutballs march, then douse them with rainbow confetti at the finish line. They also donate to anti-nationalist causes.
But what to call them? Idiots. Nutballs. Morons. I really don't care. What I do care about is everyone getting all worked up by such a tiny group of folks. We have better things to do than pay attention to them.
6
The First Amendment still holds. Within bounds set by the Supreme Court, people with extreme views -- white supremacists, neo-Nazis, communists, anarchists -- can say whatever they like in public, even if you find it hateful. Any attempt to silence or intimidate a speaker is more dangerous than anything the speaker might say. You don't have the right to harm someone for something they said, even if it makes you very, very angry.
7
Best comment of all.
1
This idea that there are two legitimate sides to ever issue is simply not true. To be pro-Nazi or pro-white supremacy is simply not correct and should never be treated as legitimate.
6
But where is the line? If I like the statue of Robert E. Lee and don't want it torn down, does that make me a Nazi or a white supremacist? Painting people with broad brushes never works . . .
2
The problem isn't just Trump, but the Republican party. Trump is merely saying out loud and in a very crass way what conservatives have been thinking, and saying in more veiled ways, for decades. The Republican "leadership" - McConnell and Ryan and the so-called "Freedom Caucus" - with their tepid objections to his most egregious racist and sexist comments, are normalizing Trump's behaviour. They may not echo what Trump says, but their failure to strongly condemn him makes them complicit.
And so 35% of the country has a champion who brings out the worst in them. As long as Trump remains president, nothing will put the racists back in the corner where they belong.
And so 35% of the country has a champion who brings out the worst in them. As long as Trump remains president, nothing will put the racists back in the corner where they belong.
5
The Constitution is the creed which brands Trump and his fringe supporters as 'heretics'.
2
When one of the two American major parties is so far right it has no counterpart in any other industrial democracy, "fringe" has exhausted its usefulness as a category.
10
I think the problem with a lot of our discourse around race is that we can't agree what it means to be "not racist."
Am I a racist if I believe people should not be discriminated against, but at the same time I do NOT support the government manipulation of housing or forcibly busing students to "integrate" schools? Am I racist if I support legal and social equality for all, but not racial preferences? I am racist if I support racial equality, but I think the language of identity politics - the useless concept of "white privilege", a fetish with "black bodies," obsessions with "representation," and "safe spaces" - is utterly ridiculous, counter productive, and serves only to set up a new power structure with the authority to censor?
In my experience, as a white person, the majority of white people are not "racist".
But they are tired of being berated for their "whiteness", or lumped into such a thing to begin with, which is absurd when "white" in this country includes Scots-Irish hillbillies, European "ethnics", New England WASPs, and the descendants of Old West pioneers, all very different cultures. They don't want their communities manipulated by the government. And they resent being berated as "privileged" when being a minority DOES confer cultural privilege TODAY (see Michael Derrick Hudson or the "Toxic YA Twitter" controversy).
We need an HONEST conversation about race, and it needs to include white people, not just Ta-Neisi Coates disciples.
Am I a racist if I believe people should not be discriminated against, but at the same time I do NOT support the government manipulation of housing or forcibly busing students to "integrate" schools? Am I racist if I support legal and social equality for all, but not racial preferences? I am racist if I support racial equality, but I think the language of identity politics - the useless concept of "white privilege", a fetish with "black bodies," obsessions with "representation," and "safe spaces" - is utterly ridiculous, counter productive, and serves only to set up a new power structure with the authority to censor?
In my experience, as a white person, the majority of white people are not "racist".
But they are tired of being berated for their "whiteness", or lumped into such a thing to begin with, which is absurd when "white" in this country includes Scots-Irish hillbillies, European "ethnics", New England WASPs, and the descendants of Old West pioneers, all very different cultures. They don't want their communities manipulated by the government. And they resent being berated as "privileged" when being a minority DOES confer cultural privilege TODAY (see Michael Derrick Hudson or the "Toxic YA Twitter" controversy).
We need an HONEST conversation about race, and it needs to include white people, not just Ta-Neisi Coates disciples.
14
In regards to your opening while you might not be a racist per se you would be facilitating and supporting institutional racism and efforts to overcome it. The Color of the Law lays out a very cogent and well developed case on that issue. As does the documentary 13th on NetFlix. Both show how those very folks you note do, and have, wanted their communities manipulated by the government.
1
I love your comment --- thank you. I dont' see eye to eye with you on every part of your comment but I do appreciate your thoughts and I agree with this:
...they are tired of being berated for their "whiteness",
I think the conversation including white people is starting to happen in some corners..for instance your comment was published.
Amen to that. I said it elsewhere, and it's worth saying again...one of the most significant problems with "identity politics" is its exceeding shallowness. And that it has no room for white people, except as perpetrators or oppressors, or as an audience/allies to the important people, who are the non-white people. Identity politics insults white people by implying, for instance, (through the term "people of color") that white people are colorless, transparent people who have no color and basically no use. A political/philosophical perspective such as "identity politics" which can only incorporate white people by insulting them is mean-spirited, lacking in holism, and essentially racist.
I say we replace the shallow and racist "identity politics" with something more meaningful -- namely, a collection of mythologies, which allows every living person to find their valuable place. Every ethnic group/people has mythology/ies, and by focusing on what's actually beautiful about our particular people, instead of how we can get power by making ourselves into victims and blaming others, we create a much more positive world.
...they are tired of being berated for their "whiteness",
I think the conversation including white people is starting to happen in some corners..for instance your comment was published.
Amen to that. I said it elsewhere, and it's worth saying again...one of the most significant problems with "identity politics" is its exceeding shallowness. And that it has no room for white people, except as perpetrators or oppressors, or as an audience/allies to the important people, who are the non-white people. Identity politics insults white people by implying, for instance, (through the term "people of color") that white people are colorless, transparent people who have no color and basically no use. A political/philosophical perspective such as "identity politics" which can only incorporate white people by insulting them is mean-spirited, lacking in holism, and essentially racist.
I say we replace the shallow and racist "identity politics" with something more meaningful -- namely, a collection of mythologies, which allows every living person to find their valuable place. Every ethnic group/people has mythology/ies, and by focusing on what's actually beautiful about our particular people, instead of how we can get power by making ourselves into victims and blaming others, we create a much more positive world.
6
In your experience as a white person, you do not believe most white people are racist. Read that over and over again. That's like me saying in my experience as a white woman, I believe Asians feel less discriminated against. In other words, neither your feelings about the racism of white men nor my example hold any merit because it doesn't matter how WE feel! We're not the ones being discriminated against! You do get that now right? It's like you telling me what pregnancy feels like. Not valid.
3
It may be difficult to sanction Donald Trump because, as noted, his supporters have embraced perverseness. Still, what's the alterrnative if we are to protect the constitutional order? Restoring common sense, civility, and empathy will not be easy or quick. Trump demonstrates how the power to tear down is easier to exercise than the power to create. At some point, some of his followers might recognize the emptiness of his design and worldview. That this is not already seen by the ostensibly evangelical adds to their shame.
2
There is a limit on free speech when you assemble as a group to express it. The group-expression must be "peaceable."
There is no constitutional right of non-peaceable assembly. Behavior that is not peaceable -- with or without guns -- is not a protected constitutional right.
mB, SCOTUS practitioner
There is no constitutional right of non-peaceable assembly. Behavior that is not peaceable -- with or without guns -- is not a protected constitutional right.
mB, SCOTUS practitioner
3
The ACLU made the right call withdrawing support from hate groups that march in public AND protest with firearms.
4
"Society" does not consist of "universities, employers, cultural institutions, the military". These are just some of the visible institutions within it. They would often like to believe that they can shape the norms of society, and they often try. But these norms arise spontaneously from the accepted ways of behaving and the shared beliefs of those who make up society. They can sometimes be influenced by institutions, but only when people are already inclined to accept them. For example, health authorities like to think that they successfully eliminated smoking, but it is easy to make a case that most non-smokers, and many smokers, already disliked the habit and simply needed signals that it was acceptable to suspend the ordinary norms of courtesy and refuse to tolerate smoking in their space.
Similarly, protesters like to believe that they change attitudes. But it can be argued that the two most successful protest movements of recent times, anti-Vietnam and Civil Rights, simply prompted people to become aware of beliefs, such as justice and fairness, that they already held. Most protest endeavors simply provide gratification to their supporters.
It is fortunate that norms cannot easily be imposed, even for the better, because that would make the population highly malleable and far too susceptible to demagogues.
Similarly, protesters like to believe that they change attitudes. But it can be argued that the two most successful protest movements of recent times, anti-Vietnam and Civil Rights, simply prompted people to become aware of beliefs, such as justice and fairness, that they already held. Most protest endeavors simply provide gratification to their supporters.
It is fortunate that norms cannot easily be imposed, even for the better, because that would make the population highly malleable and far too susceptible to demagogues.
8
Sorry, but reading your last paragraph suggests a cause for concern rather than optimism in thelight of the election of Trump.
2
"Norms" have become way more malleable than I can believe. Too many people seem to no longer have any idea between what is right and what is wrong. *sigh*.
6
Well, my comment about the Missouri Senator who advocated assassination of the President hasn't shown up - is that a good enough example? She needs to step down.
Where do you draw the line and do you have the ability to understand that sometimes you yourself steps over the line?
Where do you draw the line and do you have the ability to understand that sometimes you yourself steps over the line?
10
Did Trump abandon his campaign for President after he suggested that the 'second amendment people' take care of Hillary?
Let me be clear, I am in total opposition to both of these comments, but hypocrisy rarely ever helps.
Let me be clear, I am in total opposition to both of these comments, but hypocrisy rarely ever helps.
10
Hopefully she will be removed. She stepped way over the line of morality and treason.
3
Any speech or speaker in contrast to the extreme left wing (Hollywood) ideology is labeled as "hate speech". No meaningful, even-tempered conversations on social issues is ever allowed on main stream TV in the United States.
10
Could you be more specific with regard to what you see as 'meaningful, even-tempered conversations' that you say aren't allowed on main stream US tv?
3
There are limits to protected speech. Justice Douglas put it this way in1949:
"Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."
Well, when people show up to a rally in military gear, carrying AR-15s, Glocks, knives, clubs and other weapons, do you really think they're there for meaningful, even-tempered conversations? You don't have to be left wing at all, let alone extreme, to figure these guys are there to make trouble. When people shout hate (Jews will not replace us, Blood and soil), is this amenable to meaningful, even-tempered conversations? I think you should wake up.
"Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."
Well, when people show up to a rally in military gear, carrying AR-15s, Glocks, knives, clubs and other weapons, do you really think they're there for meaningful, even-tempered conversations? You don't have to be left wing at all, let alone extreme, to figure these guys are there to make trouble. When people shout hate (Jews will not replace us, Blood and soil), is this amenable to meaningful, even-tempered conversations? I think you should wake up.
7
There is a cultural, sociological and political war going on. Most of that war is focused on the current presidency. The chasm is great between urban and suburban America; working-class and the cultural elites; and specifically, extremism on the left and right. President Trump is a lightening rod for criticism, and his every word construed under the guise of negativity. His in-articulation and thuggish demeanor casts this president in alliance with the white-supremacists! As the hostile press focusses in and scrutinizes his every move, this apolitical president battles and confronts a press that he sees as bias, stilted and supporting a political agenda to derail his presidency. Yes he could have condemed the violence earlier without equivocation; but he is an outsider who sees established Washington norms and institutions as rigged and untrustworthy. To that end, President Trump will never apologize but will always confront those who dare to combat him. It is Ironic, when Trump was citizen Trump, he supported liberal candidates Summer and Clinton; under the Obama administration the confederate statues were a non issue; and when Black Lives Matter burned Ferguson, President Obama stood and remained silent; yet no-one accused him of endorsing violence. If anything can be learned is the hypocrisy of our political institutions.
17
"Apolitical President?" Can you be serious? While he may attack the GOP as well as Democrats, he's HARDLY "apolitical!" His every move is designed to roll back anything --even the most logical and needed -- actions of the previous administration. He is political -- it's just that his only "political" interest is his and his family's financial enrichment, and pandering to the base which makes him feel loved.
5
Obama remained silent about the unrest in Ferguson? He openly admitted that he should have spoken out more and sooner, but just type "Obama Ferguson Response" into your favorite search engine and you'll see that "silent" isn't the best characterization of his response.
2
When is Free Speech no longer free? When subjectivity is defined as "correct" and "moral".
9
You mean that The Romantic movement and symbolist poetry have some kind of government imprimatur? Charming conceit.
It's pretty clearly defined in a 1946 Supreme Court decision by Justice Douglas:
"Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest." And Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "No one has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater." Simple. Not very subjective at all.
"Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest." And Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "No one has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater." Simple. Not very subjective at all.
1
There are plenty of issues - taxes, for example - on which reasonable people can hold differing views. Is it a good idea to encourage home ownership by making mortgage interest tax deductible? Some think one thing, some another. But issues like racial equality are quite different because of the life-altering consequences of differing views. If some races are not given the same economic and political rights as others, some members of the disfavored races simply will not want to live in this country.
Historian Eric Foner wrote elsewhere in this paper that there was at an earlier point in our history a conflict over whether citizenship here should be a matter of birth or should be reserved for people of a certain race. As we know, the former view won public acceptance and the latter view was pushed to the margin. If that debate is going to be revived, then we should all consider the consequences of doing that. They will be very, very significant for all of us. Just ask anyone who lived in South Africa during the Apartheid era.
Historian Eric Foner wrote elsewhere in this paper that there was at an earlier point in our history a conflict over whether citizenship here should be a matter of birth or should be reserved for people of a certain race. As we know, the former view won public acceptance and the latter view was pushed to the margin. If that debate is going to be revived, then we should all consider the consequences of doing that. They will be very, very significant for all of us. Just ask anyone who lived in South Africa during the Apartheid era.
6
I should know better than to read an op-ed in the Times and expect it to cover the fringe left.
10
Or misrepresent who Trump described as fine people.
1
The part they don't figure:
They are the fringe left..
They are the fringe left..
2
Ahh, dear sir, just where is it to be found? Most GOPers and right wingers claim that the NYT itself, as a liberal paper, is already a fringe leftist rag. Just as the vast majority of violent and destructive acts are on the right, not the left, so too, the fringes in this country are saturated with right wing sites and channels and cable news.
4
Please please help me understand. Why does the left accept Antifa bullying and violence? People have been hit in the head with a bike lock. Looting, breaking windows, setting fires. BLM also, destruction of property, etc. Five cops were shot in Dallas during a BLM march! Why weren't the Democrats, and President Obama, called upon to speak out against the violence and property destruction? Protests should be peaceful.
When Donald Trump is called upon to disparage the obviously disgusting tiny fringe group KKK and White Supremacists - he doesn't do it quickly or emphatically enough...and the media goes wild. The real mistake he made was mentioning that the other side is violent too - shhhh
The American people can see the double standard a mile away, they are sick of it. They are scared. The law should be applied equally - that is what Trump is trying to do! Violence is unacceptable.
The left is purposely inflaming racial conflict and dividing our country because they lost an election. They have no respect for the legitimate votes of their fellow Americans. So disappointing.
When Donald Trump is called upon to disparage the obviously disgusting tiny fringe group KKK and White Supremacists - he doesn't do it quickly or emphatically enough...and the media goes wild. The real mistake he made was mentioning that the other side is violent too - shhhh
The American people can see the double standard a mile away, they are sick of it. They are scared. The law should be applied equally - that is what Trump is trying to do! Violence is unacceptable.
The left is purposely inflaming racial conflict and dividing our country because they lost an election. They have no respect for the legitimate votes of their fellow Americans. So disappointing.
22
I am no fan of Trump, but I agree. It is unfortunate the minorities were held to a double standard in the past. But holding whites today to another double standard doesn't solve that, it just makes people angry.
1
Obama immediately condemned the Dallas police shootings in the strongest terms. Look it up took me about six seconds. Guess it was not on FOX.
3
No one on the left "accepts" antifa violence. No one. None. They often suspect that the antifa movement is there to give liberals a bad name and excuse violence on the right so that our President can claim "both sides do it." The people targeted by Mr. Fields in his Dodge Challenger were not "antifa"--they were peaceful demonstrators.
1
Opposing white supremacy and racism is the mainstream of American political opinion. Plain middle of the road and morally superior to anything that promotes it.
8
The real showdown is over whether Americans will continue to look the other way as morally offensive speech is forcibly suppressed by gangs threatening violence, whether they come from the "left" or the "right".
It's been happening a lot lately. Even to the point where the police themselves have looked the other way as just occurred in Charlottesville, a fact which hasn't gotten much attention in the New York Times or similar outlets.
Few seem to care. The ACLU does, but of course everyone knows they're just loonies, on the fringes of sensible discourse. The really important thing is to get rid of Trump, whatever that takes.
Right?
It's been happening a lot lately. Even to the point where the police themselves have looked the other way as just occurred in Charlottesville, a fact which hasn't gotten much attention in the New York Times or similar outlets.
Few seem to care. The ACLU does, but of course everyone knows they're just loonies, on the fringes of sensible discourse. The really important thing is to get rid of Trump, whatever that takes.
Right?
9
Don't you wonder why the name of Alex Fields is very rarely mentioned in the press but James Hodgkinson was all over the front pages?
3
Nope, because it ain't so.
9
False.
1
@ religon...
Your handle says it all - the intolerance of the "progressive" left.
Your handle says it all - the intolerance of the "progressive" left.
1
You are not a fringe minority when you carry weapons. You are a terrorist.
A fringe minority abides by moral accepted codes that you don't threaten everyone who disagrees with them. Fringe minorities leaders ask for peaceful movements and gathering. Governments have crumbed and laws have changed when the most peaceful resistance is take by fringe groups- ask Gandhi and Rev King.
A fringe minority abides by moral accepted codes that you don't threaten everyone who disagrees with them. Fringe minorities leaders ask for peaceful movements and gathering. Governments have crumbed and laws have changed when the most peaceful resistance is take by fringe groups- ask Gandhi and Rev King.
12
It is an alarming that so few of the comments address the very interesting and informative points made by the article. The column describes the process by which socially unacceptable (“fringe”) views become acceptable and “mainstream,” and quotes sociological experts who believe that in the current moment racist and white supremacist views are making progress in that process the way that LGBT views, for example, did in the last couple of decades. Yet the comments section seems to be dominated by (mostly misinformed) debate over the legal right to, and morality of, free speech.
Ironically, this mimics a very common pattern when discussing the right to free speech: The important details of when, where, how, and why speech is limited under law are tossed aside for angry combat over the content of the speech and absurd but earnest charges of oppression and censorship.
Let me set a different example: I think the column makes a fascinating and very troubling set of observations. I do not believe that mainstream acceptance of racist ideology is desirable; it will bring myriad suffering for millions of Americans, reduce the liberty and freedom we all share, and potentially undermine the entire American project. It is appropriate that views that are antithetical to American values and hurtful to American society be held socially unacceptable by Americans.
So please, follow-up with more information about what we might do to arrest and reverse this vicious process.
Ironically, this mimics a very common pattern when discussing the right to free speech: The important details of when, where, how, and why speech is limited under law are tossed aside for angry combat over the content of the speech and absurd but earnest charges of oppression and censorship.
Let me set a different example: I think the column makes a fascinating and very troubling set of observations. I do not believe that mainstream acceptance of racist ideology is desirable; it will bring myriad suffering for millions of Americans, reduce the liberty and freedom we all share, and potentially undermine the entire American project. It is appropriate that views that are antithetical to American values and hurtful to American society be held socially unacceptable by Americans.
So please, follow-up with more information about what we might do to arrest and reverse this vicious process.
17
I think the best and most effective thing any of us can do to condemn overt racist philosophies is to make the best and most effective arguments -- be they via protests, or via sermons, or via advertising, or philosophical or political discourse, public dialogue, blogs, what have you - for our point of view. Which I believe will be most effective if it does not sound like didactic identity politics and politically correct sermonizing. That's been done to death, and it's preaching to the choir at this point. .To reach the people who need most to be reached, a moderate approach will be needed, which does not use the detested lingo of what is viewed as the looney left. I believe that the mistake the left has been making for far too long, is that people have engaging in preaching to make themselves feel righteous, instead of to actually reach people who need to be reached.
Bridges need to be built, and you don't do that by bopping people over the head and shaming them, which is what the left has been destroying itself by doing.
Bridges need to be built, and you don't do that by bopping people over the head and shaming them, which is what the left has been destroying itself by doing.
One persons fringe view is another persons patriotism.
6
So your saying that white nationalists, Nazis & racists are just practicing another form of American patriotism? This is the kind of silliness that Trump promotes & some of his base believe. Sad!
3
"Jews out " is patriotism?
6
Really? So your patriotism is equivalent to someone else's wish that Trump hadn't "given" his daughter to a Jew?
4
1 - assure that all eligible voters get to vote
2 - vote on the issue
Get it? Democracy . . .
2 - vote on the issue
Get it? Democracy . . .
9
Vote again on whether non-white races and non-Christian religions should be accepted as full participants in the American experiment? I don't think so....
3
This is really a discussion about power, not beauty or truth.
We're talking about public shaming, ostracism, suppression, and deliberate marginalization. When those in power wield their instruments of power to enforce certain norms, they always enforce with special alacrity those norms essential to preserving their power. Whether it's Mormons exiling those members who are insufficiently conservative or it's universities suffocating those who are insufficiently liberal, the story is always the same: those with the cultural capital (usually but not always the ones with the money) make a final determination that those who threaten them must first be silenced, and if that fails--eliminated through an auto-da-fe. Truth is irrelevant in such matters.
The right approach to beliefs we find offensive is typically a soft touch, one so gentle and reasonable and tolerant that John Stuart Mill would approve. If we demand public shaming, mass demonstrations against "fringe" elements with hardly any true adherents and few prospects of ever gaining any, persecution through social media, and maybe even a little soft violence against hated parties like Charles Murray, all I can say is: 1793 was neither as far away nor as long ago as any of us would like to believe.
We're talking about public shaming, ostracism, suppression, and deliberate marginalization. When those in power wield their instruments of power to enforce certain norms, they always enforce with special alacrity those norms essential to preserving their power. Whether it's Mormons exiling those members who are insufficiently conservative or it's universities suffocating those who are insufficiently liberal, the story is always the same: those with the cultural capital (usually but not always the ones with the money) make a final determination that those who threaten them must first be silenced, and if that fails--eliminated through an auto-da-fe. Truth is irrelevant in such matters.
The right approach to beliefs we find offensive is typically a soft touch, one so gentle and reasonable and tolerant that John Stuart Mill would approve. If we demand public shaming, mass demonstrations against "fringe" elements with hardly any true adherents and few prospects of ever gaining any, persecution through social media, and maybe even a little soft violence against hated parties like Charles Murray, all I can say is: 1793 was neither as far away nor as long ago as any of us would like to believe.
7
Note: while the mormons literally exiled dissenters, universities don't literally silence or suffocate dissent. Conservatives simply pretend that disapproval is the same as censorship. Liberals don't.
2
This country has always had fringe groups through out its history and always will. It has also had leadership that respected the right of free expression up to a point so long as that free expression didn't cause destruction of property or person. Today however our leadership is lacking, and more then ever we need to watch over that leadership to make sure it doesn't take us down the wrong path. This will be the greatest test of this nation, and god help us if we fail the test.
5
There is NO MORAL COMPASS residing in the Oval Office today, and the REPUBLICAN PARTY has made a Faustian bargain with the ultra-conservative right wing for the privilege of being targeted in primaries. President Trump has a long track record of cheating people - often those without resources to engage in a protracted and expensive legal process. Trump is proud of not paying taxes, and when you declare bankruptcy, you pay NO TAXES. Furthermore, I believe Mueller's team will expose Trump Enterprises (and Donald in particular) for relationships with organized crime syndicates and very nefarious individuals for his personal financial gain (and very survival). To expect Trump to behave with empathy and compassion is a pipe dream - not going to happen.
Neo-Nazis. White Supremacists, Para-Militarists, and Alt-Right thugs are all cowards, and easily manipulated by smarter (and wealthier) people/groups who are more sinister. You can get even with those who protest violently by taking their photographs and posting their identities once confirmed. What Jeff Sessions DOJ needs to do is to investigate the money and organization sources behind the front people carrying the torches and shouting. Follow the money - gut the sources of financial support.
Neo-Nazis. White Supremacists, Para-Militarists, and Alt-Right thugs are all cowards, and easily manipulated by smarter (and wealthier) people/groups who are more sinister. You can get even with those who protest violently by taking their photographs and posting their identities once confirmed. What Jeff Sessions DOJ needs to do is to investigate the money and organization sources behind the front people carrying the torches and shouting. Follow the money - gut the sources of financial support.
3
We have the reached the end game of equating being white to being racist.
While there are racist whites (just as there are racist blacks), most of us just want to mind our business, but call me (a white, hetero male) a racist, bigot or sexist for no reason other than the color of my skin, my gender or my sexual orientation and yes, I'll fight back.
While there are racist whites (just as there are racist blacks), most of us just want to mind our business, but call me (a white, hetero male) a racist, bigot or sexist for no reason other than the color of my skin, my gender or my sexual orientation and yes, I'll fight back.
21
Amen to this.
2
Dennis, this is utter, whining nonsense. No one has called you a 'racist' for being a white male, and it is sheer narcissism to make this issue all about your fragile ego and deficient self-esteem. If you have an issue, work on it. Do not for one second compare your status as a 'white hetero male' in America with that of the people the 'free speech, alt right fringe' came to Charlottesville to threaten with subjugation or extinction.
We are talking about a group of people who carry military style weapons, fire up torches, and march about town declaring ownership of public streets ('whose streets, our streets!). People who provocatively wave the flag of the Third Reich and chant 'blood and soil,' the very same chant that led to the violent occupation of much of Europe, the extermination of six million Jews and many tens of thousands of gay, disabled, Roma and other innocents the Nazis deemed 'degenerate' and 'unfit.' And we are talking about others who openly wear the costume of the Klan, which brutalized and lynched blacks, Jews and others for decades in an effort to maintain the power they wielded during the heyday of slavery in America.
These are evils that many died to defeat, and evils that must remain defeated, lest the rise up from the dead and claim more lives.
Quit whining about poor little white guy me. 'Hey mommy, what about me, pay attention to me' is for three year olds, not grown men.
We are talking about a group of people who carry military style weapons, fire up torches, and march about town declaring ownership of public streets ('whose streets, our streets!). People who provocatively wave the flag of the Third Reich and chant 'blood and soil,' the very same chant that led to the violent occupation of much of Europe, the extermination of six million Jews and many tens of thousands of gay, disabled, Roma and other innocents the Nazis deemed 'degenerate' and 'unfit.' And we are talking about others who openly wear the costume of the Klan, which brutalized and lynched blacks, Jews and others for decades in an effort to maintain the power they wielded during the heyday of slavery in America.
These are evils that many died to defeat, and evils that must remain defeated, lest the rise up from the dead and claim more lives.
Quit whining about poor little white guy me. 'Hey mommy, what about me, pay attention to me' is for three year olds, not grown men.
8
If your a racists, bigot and / or sexist its because of the content of your character, the political / social views you espouse & the behavior you practice or approve of. The majority of those who protest too much are either disingenuous or dishonest with others or themselves. The false equivalency between white & black racism pretty much says it all.
3
Whose views belong on the fringe? People who don't think there will be a conservative Republican in the White House come January 2021
2
So Bill, in your world the fringe is the opponents of racism, Nazis & bad people in general. You might of liked 1933 through 1945 Germany, that's when those type of people were "on the fringe" too.
3
"...simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: VAPORIZED was the usual word." - 1984, George Orwell
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
11
I'm going to explain something to this author and her fellow leftists that they don't understand. Listen carefully. Trump is not trying to make white supremacy socially acceptable.
He is rejecting all "identity politics". Which means the culture of grievance, victimhood and guilt the left has furiously cultivated since the 1960s potentially becoming less socially acceptable.
Removing the double standard that says it's ok to be racist against white people, ok to be sexist against men, and ok to practice religious discrimination and against Christians.
That's why the left and the media they control are howling so furiously at Trump's condemnation of all violence. They're afraid that their views may become as unacceptable as white supremacists.
He is rejecting all "identity politics". Which means the culture of grievance, victimhood and guilt the left has furiously cultivated since the 1960s potentially becoming less socially acceptable.
Removing the double standard that says it's ok to be racist against white people, ok to be sexist against men, and ok to practice religious discrimination and against Christians.
That's why the left and the media they control are howling so furiously at Trump's condemnation of all violence. They're afraid that their views may become as unacceptable as white supremacists.
19
I will be honest. I grew up in the rural Midwest, in a town right out of Garrison Kiellor (we had St. Paul's Lutheran for Swedes and Germans and St. Mary's Catholic for Poles and the other Germans). I went to college in Appalachia. I went to graduate school in NYC, where I took all the mandated classes in "Multilcultural Theory" and "Diversity". I live in now in an affluent Connecticut suburb. My spouse works for an urban school district in his hometown (he is the son of dirt poor, illiterate European "ethnic" immigrants).
The most provincial, intolerant people are on the East Coast. Hands down. No contest.
I am not particularly conservative. But I find the hatred and ignorance about working class whites in "flyover country" among coastal elites to be appalling.
Especially the concept of "white privilege." Really, you think someone living in a rusted out trailer in Follansbee benefits from "White Privilege"? Is Mark Zuckerberg donating a million dollars to their schools? Are cultural elites wringing their hands over their fate as their lifespan declines? Are NYC publishing houses demand their #OwnVoices novels and memoirs? Are they winning Pulitzers for telling their stories? Do they have a Beyonce or Oprah (or Toni Morrison, or Will Smith, or a bizillion other minority celebrities) proving them with "representation"?
Or are they derided as "deplorables" who should just die off?
"White Privilege" my patoot.
This is why Trump is president, people.
The most provincial, intolerant people are on the East Coast. Hands down. No contest.
I am not particularly conservative. But I find the hatred and ignorance about working class whites in "flyover country" among coastal elites to be appalling.
Especially the concept of "white privilege." Really, you think someone living in a rusted out trailer in Follansbee benefits from "White Privilege"? Is Mark Zuckerberg donating a million dollars to their schools? Are cultural elites wringing their hands over their fate as their lifespan declines? Are NYC publishing houses demand their #OwnVoices novels and memoirs? Are they winning Pulitzers for telling their stories? Do they have a Beyonce or Oprah (or Toni Morrison, or Will Smith, or a bizillion other minority celebrities) proving them with "representation"?
Or are they derided as "deplorables" who should just die off?
"White Privilege" my patoot.
This is why Trump is president, people.
8
So lets explain something to the Trump supporters and apologists in denial. Trump is trying to make white supremacy acceptable again. Bigotry was part of his business education & practices learned at his fathers knee. It was part of his appeal when engaged in the birther nonsense & the dog whistle dogma when running for president and its part of his defensive twitter rants & rages now. Trump is either a racist or plays one on TV (or on twitter), the idea that white conservative males are discriminated against because they can no longer just have their way is dishonest on its face. Sorry despite what Rush says to the contrary your not the victim here.
3
Again the both of you are simply repeating propaganda. These people may have issues, relatively new ones, but African Americans in particular have ones of long standing and that are institutional in nature. All of which has been clearly documented and the effects are prevalent and long term.
6
The political fringe is whatever far left-wing multlculturalist values-relativist college professors of sociology, anthropology, philosophy, history, and literature are teaching your children it is.
15
Your far left sounds pretty mainstream and morally acceptable. As opposed to uneducated far right, morally corrupt and deceitful.
9
You were referring to obama right?
Oooh, I love that now "multiculturalism" is used as a dirty word. No, it isn't -- it's an American value. Those who inhabit what used to be considered the traditional "American" life are outnumbered by those who don't. If we want America to be great again (at least as great as it was before 1/20/17), everyone needs to work together.
4
Why is it that professors are not referred to as "Dr." and instead either as Mr. or Ms.?
1
The only professors that are referred to as Dr. are those with PHD's.
1
Trump's is trying to suppress the free speech by going after leakers, press, opinioned individuals and opposition. So, his support to the fringe elements' rallies makes absolutely no sense (like anything else in his agenda).
The Free Speech rally should have incorporated free press like CNN, NY Times, Breitbart, BBC, WSJ and others who exercise the first amendment, not suppress it. Nazis, Communists, KKK and similar organizations suppressed free speech.
The Free Speech rally should have incorporated free press like CNN, NY Times, Breitbart, BBC, WSJ and others who exercise the first amendment, not suppress it. Nazis, Communists, KKK and similar organizations suppressed free speech.
2
The Apprentice has set back the successful diversification of our Nation almost immeasurably. The loss of civility in the United States in just 7 months of Trump's presidency is unsettling. To have a white supremacist as our President is a black mark on the office.
The weaklings in Congress are despicable in their own right. McConnell and Ryan are passe'. They are party first, Nation second.
The weaklings in Congress are despicable in their own right. McConnell and Ryan are passe'. They are party first, Nation second.
13
Thoughtful, decent Americans are plainly a fringe—and a tiny one at that. Our elections have proven this over and over.
11
How dare Ivanka and Jared stay silent in a time like this. They need to stay on vacation forever. They are not welcome to participate in anything that could impact my life. They are cowards of the worst kind. To think, for one second, they have been given any responsibility in making decisions on how this country functions or doesn't function is terrifying.
5
As far as who gets to define what is fringe is a matter of credibility. There are such things as right and wrong, true and false. If you base your views on debunked lies, racism (which has no rational justification), and a complete misunderstanding of history you have no credibility and therefor are part of the fringe. These traits are much more likely to be found on the right in this country at the moment. Sure, there is the vaccine issue, and yes, there are liars on the left. But, the right is founded in several lies and myths meant to stir up white resentment. Mexicans aren't taking your jobs. Obama was not born in Kenya, nor is he a Muslim. Yes, Trump is a liar. Anthropomorphic climate change is real, a snowball in the Senate means nothing. Etc. Etc. If your foundations are mostly false, you are the fringe, on either side.
13
"if your foundations are mostly false, you are on the fringe, on either side."
Not necessarily. Jonathan Swift and George Orwell I think convincingly demonstrated that falsity and delusion, as well as evil, can become the "mainstream" force in a society....or even the "only" force. Certainly we saw that in the mid-twentieth century in Germany with Hitler and in the Soviet Union with Stalin. As well, think about how useful it is to equate falsity with fringe-ness, for a group of principled, honest, good people living in the truth, who find themselves herded onto trains and toward concentration camps and their deaths.
Not necessarily. Jonathan Swift and George Orwell I think convincingly demonstrated that falsity and delusion, as well as evil, can become the "mainstream" force in a society....or even the "only" force. Certainly we saw that in the mid-twentieth century in Germany with Hitler and in the Soviet Union with Stalin. As well, think about how useful it is to equate falsity with fringe-ness, for a group of principled, honest, good people living in the truth, who find themselves herded onto trains and toward concentration camps and their deaths.
Is putting a bomb under a Confederate statue - as yesterday in Texas - is a fringe view?
Is destroying with a sledge hammer the oldest in North America monument to Columbus - as yesterday in Baltimore - is a fringe view?
Is destroying with a sledge hammer the oldest in North America monument to Columbus - as yesterday in Baltimore - is a fringe view?
12
I'm not willing to budge one millimeter on the issue of free speech. I've seen countless articles coming from our college campuses, from supposedly responsible journalists, and elected political leaders that make it clear there is a growing movement to crush dissenting views and differing ideological opinions under the jackboot. All in the name of "fairness" of course. All in the name of getting rid of "hate" (oh, how malleable and flexible that word is; imagine the evil-doers we can get even with once we have the power to define every word from their mouths as "hate").
14
I think the "antifas" should be labeled by the U.S government as a terrorist organization because of their violent and intimidating tactics to suppress speech they disagree with.
8
I agree, right after the KKK, armed militias, neo-nazis & other fringe groups with a much longer history of violence & intimidating tactics designed to suppress pretty much everybody else are labeled terrorists & terror organizations. Don't hold your breath on that happening as long as the chief enabler is president.
4
Can you define "antifas" for us? And exactly how many of them do you think participated in the various marches which occurred? 27 arrests out of 40,000 people in Boston -- and 22 of them were for disturbing the peace. I'm 64, white, married, gainfully employed, upstanding member of my religious community, etc., and participated in a march in my city. Didn't call to kill the police, to commit violence, to bring down the government. Am I part of your "Antifa?" FoxNews would probably say I am -- but I assure you, I am not!
4
An atheist President?
5
We can only hope.
4
I think the problem is different, and the key to understanding it is the near universal contempt Americans have for Hitler and Nazism, by which I mean, over the last few years, you’ll notice that progressives have compared, depicted, and finally identified conservatives as fascists. Conservatives, for their part, have done the same to progressives. So, we have two halves of America, each seeing the other as heavy-handed authoritarians. When real Nazis show up, progressives see conservatives, and conservatives see Nazis all around. (It probably does not help that the only value, and perhaps only purpose, of mass demonstrations today is intimidation.)
4
Polarization has gone too far, that's clear. Trent Lott was near the border line of approving Thurmond's racist past, but Southern politicians can say good things about their friends. He apologized. I heard Lott speak to a financial organization and was impressed by his articulate intelligence. Good opposition makes good government. Replacing any Republican Senator with Trent Lott would be an improvement!
3
Well, big wars help advance racial equality when the US fights them for some sort of value, like freedom or anti communism, which is inconsistent with racialism.
I doubt big wars fought for other reasons, like the Spanish American War, advanced racial equality.
If the US a war now that seems to be on Islam....caused by ISIS or Trump or a combination of both....I don't think that'll advance equality.
I doubt big wars fought for other reasons, like the Spanish American War, advanced racial equality.
If the US a war now that seems to be on Islam....caused by ISIS or Trump or a combination of both....I don't think that'll advance equality.
1
People say a lot of things they don't really believe or support. I support fair housing laws. "I voted for Clinton." Mix-marriage is OK with me. Don't believe the hype. The empirical evidence with just these few examples tells us folk lie. This so-called widening acceptance of equality: please tell me where it is located? We have some of the most segregated schools; neighborhoods; Silicon Valley is Lilly white (with a few Asians); and all major US sports corporations (NBA, NFL, MLB,NASCAR) are owned by white men (except Michael Jordan has a basketball team. Get real.
1
In the comments section of the Times over the last several months I have seen thinly veiled calls for the assassination of Trump. Should that be protected speech?
And apparently a Missouri state legislator called for his assassination. Protected speech?
BLM walks through the cops chanting -- "what do we want, dead cops."
Is that OK with everyone?
How about calls for impeachment of a sitting president since the day after he takes office -- strictly because someone doesn't agree with his possible policies -- is it ok to stir up hostility and rancor and attempt to disenfranchise those who voted for the president?
How about someone who has the temerity to suggest that all races and sexes are not equal in every single human trait? Would that make them a racist, a nazi, someone who should not be allowed to speak?
Regardless of how odious the speech or symbol, it is a slippery slope when we try to judge what speech should be allowed.
In most of the examples -- such as calling for the assassination of the president -- the speaker would say they were speaking metaphorically -- much like Madonna when she said she had considered bombing the WH. That they really didn't mean it, and anyone would understand that.
What if the Nazis and White Supremacists really don't have extreme views, they are simply tired of special treatment for minorities. Much like BLM perhaps might claim...they didn't mean they want dead cops -- (even though they got what they chanted for).
And apparently a Missouri state legislator called for his assassination. Protected speech?
BLM walks through the cops chanting -- "what do we want, dead cops."
Is that OK with everyone?
How about calls for impeachment of a sitting president since the day after he takes office -- strictly because someone doesn't agree with his possible policies -- is it ok to stir up hostility and rancor and attempt to disenfranchise those who voted for the president?
How about someone who has the temerity to suggest that all races and sexes are not equal in every single human trait? Would that make them a racist, a nazi, someone who should not be allowed to speak?
Regardless of how odious the speech or symbol, it is a slippery slope when we try to judge what speech should be allowed.
In most of the examples -- such as calling for the assassination of the president -- the speaker would say they were speaking metaphorically -- much like Madonna when she said she had considered bombing the WH. That they really didn't mean it, and anyone would understand that.
What if the Nazis and White Supremacists really don't have extreme views, they are simply tired of special treatment for minorities. Much like BLM perhaps might claim...they didn't mean they want dead cops -- (even though they got what they chanted for).
8
Good letter.
3
Really, "special treatment for minorities?" See, this is the problem. NAZIS WANT JEWS DEAD! White supremacists BELIEVE THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE INFERIOR! Your comment suggests that you believe that allowing Jews to live and Black people to compete equally with whites constitutes "special treatment." And before you say "why should they be treated differently at all," you should do some research. Study after study shows that the SAME resume is treated differently if the name on it is "Jamal" instead of "James," and also differently if the name is "Janice" instead of "James." The data is there; you just don't want to see it.
5
Ralphie, your comments are odious, and my guess is that you actually are some kind of white supremacist. And yet you have just written to a slightly left-of-center newspaper without being censored, threatened, hurt, or bothered in in any way. This fact is why America is a great country - please remember it.
1
Regardless of how people "feel" about racism and what they will tolerate, the U.S. is a racist society. Black people can not live safely anywhere their financial means allows them to. Police departments all over the country harass black people continuously. Racism is built into the policies that guide the criminal justice system. This is a direct legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws. Attitudes are nice to have, but protection by the law is still largely reserved for white people.
14
So, when did the 1st Amendment stop applying to everyone? I totally disagree with the views of extremists on the right and on the left. However they have an absolute right to hold their views and express them publicly. Violence by those on either side is not acceptable. It seems that many folks, particularly on the left, support the violence of BLM , Antifa, et al, but wail in outrage when it comes from the other side. Have the integrity to condemn this behavior on both sides, not just the side you disagree with.
19
Saying that Nazi and neo confederate ideology is evil isn't censorship. It's just more speech.
7
The better historical questions when did the First Amendment START applying to everyone? For most of our history, it has been very, very selective. Indeed, speech today in America is more unconstrained for a far greater collection of people then at any previous point in American history.
This is because over the last half-century, free speech maximalists (those who think should be as unconstrained and fettered as humanly possible) in both parties have promoted the value of free speech in law and culture, arguing that it outweighed or otherwise trumped various other values, liberties, or interests.
I am sympathetic to your view that people have "an absolute right to hold their views and express them publicly," but you must understand that such a right did not exist as a lived reality as recently as when my parents were children. It is something new under the sun.
This is because over the last half-century, free speech maximalists (those who think should be as unconstrained and fettered as humanly possible) in both parties have promoted the value of free speech in law and culture, arguing that it outweighed or otherwise trumped various other values, liberties, or interests.
I am sympathetic to your view that people have "an absolute right to hold their views and express them publicly," but you must understand that such a right did not exist as a lived reality as recently as when my parents were children. It is something new under the sun.
3
"Who gets to be part of civil society, and whose views belong on the fringe?" If everyone is honest, the question practically answers itself. Take Trump for instance. His attempt to move fringe views into civil society relies on lies and distortions. He misrepresents the facts themselves, reasonable interpretations of the facts, and others' perceptions of the facts. If Trump (and his critics) were scrupulously honest, and people listened thoughtfully, things would sort themselves out. Fringe views are on the fringe because they are driven by fear, hate, superstition, tribalism and irrationality. Civil society is civil because civil people know better than to indulge fear, hate, etc.
6
But all must have freedom of speech and assembly. The first step away from that standard moves us toward a Soviet tyranny.
7
I couldn't agree more!
1
I agree we must have free speech and assembly if a society is to be free; that is a fundamental tenet of Liberalism. But surely you understand that what what seems pure and simple from the distance of philosophical concept is more complex, textured, and even surprising up close.
For example: "Freedom to Assemble." Great. What about public safety of you assemble too many people without toilets or the ability for medical treatment and other first responders to get through? What about when one group assembles to block or break-up another groups assembling? Are all assemblies the same; a motion picture promo just like a funeral? What about (to take a current issue) if the assembled are heavily armed beyond the ability of the local constabulary to guarantee protection of life, liberty and property? Etc.
The devil - and our freedom - is in the details.
For example: "Freedom to Assemble." Great. What about public safety of you assemble too many people without toilets or the ability for medical treatment and other first responders to get through? What about when one group assembles to block or break-up another groups assembling? Are all assemblies the same; a motion picture promo just like a funeral? What about (to take a current issue) if the assembled are heavily armed beyond the ability of the local constabulary to guarantee protection of life, liberty and property? Etc.
The devil - and our freedom - is in the details.
2
The canard sewn through this article and so many others is that pathology and political violence is only sewn through the Right and does not appear commensurately on the Left.
We see this in the new disquisitions against free speech popping up in the NYT and the LAT and Vox -- as if somehow a few hundred white nationalists in Charlottesville means that it's time to reconstruct the First Amendment for 330 million people, 99.999% of whom have never been politically violent.
The media will cherry pick which sort of violence to OCD about for weeks on end (Charlottesville) and which kind to quickly brush under the rug (the shooting of Scalise). One is deeply reflective of the Right's philosophy, the other, the merest aberration reflecting nothing about today's Left. A crazy person, a one-off.
One can of course critique identity politics -- at least when coupled with violent rhetoric -- across both Right and Left -- and say let's not have a world where tensions are raised between groups along ethnic lines. (Or partisan lines, or any other sort of line.)
Yet somehow this immeasurably commonsense approach is equated tacitly with denying our country's painful history of racist oppression.
There are humanistic, utilitarian grounds for not amping up voltage between groups.
People should speak out against ALL violence and also defend the absolute firewall between speech and action that some are trying to tear down, acting as if offense itself equals bloodshed.
We see this in the new disquisitions against free speech popping up in the NYT and the LAT and Vox -- as if somehow a few hundred white nationalists in Charlottesville means that it's time to reconstruct the First Amendment for 330 million people, 99.999% of whom have never been politically violent.
The media will cherry pick which sort of violence to OCD about for weeks on end (Charlottesville) and which kind to quickly brush under the rug (the shooting of Scalise). One is deeply reflective of the Right's philosophy, the other, the merest aberration reflecting nothing about today's Left. A crazy person, a one-off.
One can of course critique identity politics -- at least when coupled with violent rhetoric -- across both Right and Left -- and say let's not have a world where tensions are raised between groups along ethnic lines. (Or partisan lines, or any other sort of line.)
Yet somehow this immeasurably commonsense approach is equated tacitly with denying our country's painful history of racist oppression.
There are humanistic, utilitarian grounds for not amping up voltage between groups.
People should speak out against ALL violence and also defend the absolute firewall between speech and action that some are trying to tear down, acting as if offense itself equals bloodshed.
27
You mix and match censorship and violence with condemnation. Nazis and neo confederates have a right to march, but they don't have a right to silence from others, don't have a right to avoid condemnation, and don't have a right to respect.
Everyone with unpopular ideas wants to claim that they are being stifled when really, they are just being disagreed with. Or in the case of Nazis, hated. Hatred and disagreement aren't against the First Amendment, because if it were, ironically, those marches would have been forbidden in the first place.
Everyone with unpopular ideas wants to claim that they are being stifled when really, they are just being disagreed with. Or in the case of Nazis, hated. Hatred and disagreement aren't against the First Amendment, because if it were, ironically, those marches would have been forbidden in the first place.
7
It is not that violence is not on the left, it is just remembered differently.
Stonewall was an anti-police riot in 1969 and became a US National Monument in 2016.
Malcolm X said in the early 1960’s:
No, I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I’m not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver—no, not I. I’m speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.
And:
The modern 20th century weapon of neo-imperialism is "dollarism." The Zionists have mastered the science of dollarism: the ability to come posing as a friend and benefactor, bearing gifts and all other forms of economic aid and offers of technical assistance. Thus, the power and influence of Zionist Israel in many of the newly "independent" African nations has fast-become even more unshakeable than that of the 18th century European colonialists... and this new kind of Zionist colonialism differs only in form and method, but never in motive or objective.
And:
"The common enemy is the white man."
In 1987 Lenox Avenue from 110th St to 147th St was renamed Malcom X Blvd. to honor Malcolm X.
Stonewall was an anti-police riot in 1969 and became a US National Monument in 2016.
Malcolm X said in the early 1960’s:
No, I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy. So, I’m not standing here speaking to you as an American, or a patriot, or a flag-saluter, or a flag-waver—no, not I. I’m speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare.
And:
The modern 20th century weapon of neo-imperialism is "dollarism." The Zionists have mastered the science of dollarism: the ability to come posing as a friend and benefactor, bearing gifts and all other forms of economic aid and offers of technical assistance. Thus, the power and influence of Zionist Israel in many of the newly "independent" African nations has fast-become even more unshakeable than that of the 18th century European colonialists... and this new kind of Zionist colonialism differs only in form and method, but never in motive or objective.
And:
"The common enemy is the white man."
In 1987 Lenox Avenue from 110th St to 147th St was renamed Malcom X Blvd. to honor Malcolm X.
2
And yet, black people have not separated themselves from the community of America. They have continued to try to work within the system. They organize. They vote. They contribute to our society. Malcolm X had real, true points. But most people considered him fringe-- and still do. So what's your point?
3
To all the "free speech" advocates out there, would you support the right of ISIS to hold recruitment rallies on college campuses all over the country?
Apparently you would, as CONTENT seems to make absolutely no difference to you people what-so-ever.
Hate speech should not be tolerated anywhere at any time. And if a racist isn't considered a "hater" then what in God's name is?
Apparently you would, as CONTENT seems to make absolutely no difference to you people what-so-ever.
Hate speech should not be tolerated anywhere at any time. And if a racist isn't considered a "hater" then what in God's name is?
7
And people who hold up signs saying KLAN=COPS do not preach hate? Or rap artists who condone killing cops are not hate-mongers? Or imams preaching in Arabic death to unbelievers in store-front mosques. This isn't hate speech? Strange this hasn't bothered anyone in the lying media--until now. It has been going on awhile; wasn't IceT a guest at the white house at one time?
7
Presumably you will be the judge of what constitutes "hate speech". I would rather trust the founding fathers than trust you.
6
The question is will the loud alt-right voices and tiki torches convince anyone who didn't already agree with them? Not really. Will the loud alt-right voices and tiki torches embolden those who already agree with them. Absolutely.
This seems to be an extension of Trump's political calculus. He pumps up his base but does nothing to increase the the size of it. It reminds me of creatures who are able to appear much larger or menacing when approached by a predator. So will Americans fall for this neat trick? I think most will say, close but no cigar.
This seems to be an extension of Trump's political calculus. He pumps up his base but does nothing to increase the the size of it. It reminds me of creatures who are able to appear much larger or menacing when approached by a predator. So will Americans fall for this neat trick? I think most will say, close but no cigar.
9
In addition, people who have "lightly racist" views will see themselves as not so bad in comparison to the tiki torchers, while secretly agreeing to policies that dismantle programs that are meant to help the "other."
7
tiki torches??? You must have read Jonah Goldberg's article today.
1
No. Chris looked at the photographs and videos. All of them are carrying tiki torches. Home Depot must have made a killing.
7
" the line between acceptable and ostracized views has started to become less stark"
All views are acceptable. It is called freedom of speech.
What we need in order to avoid more Charlottesville's is to ensure that speak is all that demonstrators and "counters" are allowed to do.
This would require overwhelming police presence, which should be paid by the demonstrators before receiving a permit.
All views are acceptable. It is called freedom of speech.
What we need in order to avoid more Charlottesville's is to ensure that speak is all that demonstrators and "counters" are allowed to do.
This would require overwhelming police presence, which should be paid by the demonstrators before receiving a permit.
5
"All views are acceptable."
No, all views are permitted under law.
Even the unacceptable, evil ones. But unacceptable and evil they remain.
Let's not engage in the moral relativism of every idea being equal.
No, all views are permitted under law.
Even the unacceptable, evil ones. But unacceptable and evil they remain.
Let's not engage in the moral relativism of every idea being equal.
6
Sorry, but forcing protestors to bear the cost of police protection is in itself a limitation of their speech and 1st Amendment rights. It would never stand up in court and would only allow the wealthy and well financed organizations to practice their 1st Amendment rights. BTW, that's why we pay taxes too, at least us conservatives.
3
Charlottesville DID have overwhelming police and national guard forces. You also need a officials who don't want the fighting, or at least a media that can hold their feet to the fire when they do.
1
Maybe fringe-ism is like pornography and art. Not easy to define or describe sufficiently to say where the line is drawn exactly between what is and what is not, but we know it when we see it.
To some it is on a parallel with the "one drop" rule of the Jim Crow era. For most the line is blurred, not crisp and clean. Sorta like death, in a way. Most demises are not the instantaneous bug-smear-on-the-windshield quick. Fringe beliefs and behaviors are adopted and abandoned usually in analog fashion, imperceptible degree by imperceptible degree, with the occasional epiphany thrown in to spice up the argument.
To some it is on a parallel with the "one drop" rule of the Jim Crow era. For most the line is blurred, not crisp and clean. Sorta like death, in a way. Most demises are not the instantaneous bug-smear-on-the-windshield quick. Fringe beliefs and behaviors are adopted and abandoned usually in analog fashion, imperceptible degree by imperceptible degree, with the occasional epiphany thrown in to spice up the argument.
1
Seems to me all of the "polls" in 2016 predicted a Clinton landslide.
Now about those "fringe views"???
Now about those "fringe views"???
12
There is a difference between "views" and statistics. Statistics are based around probability, not "beliefs", and are based on assumptions that researchers try to explicitly identify - they are based around mathematical science.
Things like Comey's last-minute decision to attack Clinton after most of the polls were done, population differences between pre-election and day-of voters, a skew in people who didn't vote for Clinton but said they did, inclimate weather, etc, etc, etc shifted the underlying assumptions. It's why it's probabilistic, with a standard deviation and a margin of error.
(I really wish that statistics were required for high school graduation!)
Things like Comey's last-minute decision to attack Clinton after most of the polls were done, population differences between pre-election and day-of voters, a skew in people who didn't vote for Clinton but said they did, inclimate weather, etc, etc, etc shifted the underlying assumptions. It's why it's probabilistic, with a standard deviation and a margin of error.
(I really wish that statistics were required for high school graduation!)
6
he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind.
2
Trump is being sanctioned—and in ways that really upset him.
Chief executives who didn’t fully accept Trump in the first place due to his bankruptcies and other business failures have resigned in droves from his presidential advisory boards. Trump can’t attend the Kennedy Center Honors because some of the honorees have said they’d boycott the event if he’s there, and he’s afraid of being booed by the rest. The members of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities quit en masse and issued a statement telling Trump to repudiate his soft-on-Nazis stance or resign from office. Leading nonprofits are canceling philanthropic events at his resorts.
Sources have told the Washington Post that all these criticisms and snubs have left Trump in a “sour mood.”
Donald Trump has always wanted to be an A-lister and to be esteemed by A-listers. He never has been, and it’s gotten worse since Charlottesville.
Trump has said that he loves “low-information,” poorly educated Americans because they voted for him. He enjoys basking in the adoration of those who attend his rallies. But he doesn’t respect those people, and he doesn’t value their respect. He wants to be admired by the “elites” he pretends to scorn, and he never will be.
Chief executives who didn’t fully accept Trump in the first place due to his bankruptcies and other business failures have resigned in droves from his presidential advisory boards. Trump can’t attend the Kennedy Center Honors because some of the honorees have said they’d boycott the event if he’s there, and he’s afraid of being booed by the rest. The members of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities quit en masse and issued a statement telling Trump to repudiate his soft-on-Nazis stance or resign from office. Leading nonprofits are canceling philanthropic events at his resorts.
Sources have told the Washington Post that all these criticisms and snubs have left Trump in a “sour mood.”
Donald Trump has always wanted to be an A-lister and to be esteemed by A-listers. He never has been, and it’s gotten worse since Charlottesville.
Trump has said that he loves “low-information,” poorly educated Americans because they voted for him. He enjoys basking in the adoration of those who attend his rallies. But he doesn’t respect those people, and he doesn’t value their respect. He wants to be admired by the “elites” he pretends to scorn, and he never will be.
23
White supremacy is a fringe view. It's not complicated.
6
Black Lives Matter (BLM): Black lesbian separatist globalist anti-“hetero-patriarchal” Marxists are hardly run of the mill, agreed? http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/
6
I don't agree. I think white supremacy is actually the status quo. How do you explain a criminal justice system that disproportionately convicts and imprisons black males, furthering the disenfranchisement of African American families? Police and prosecutors are carrying out the will of white America.
5
Free speech and guns don't mix well. And the 'ammo" people can load their weapons with is anything but defensive. To say nothing about motorized vehicles.
6
So it goes like this. What do you stand for? If the Liberal center that asks all the nice questions and gives fascists the benefit of the doubt falls, which side are you on?
3
We find the greatest utility (benefit) in allowing freedom of expression according to John Stuart Mill. Consider the possibilities regarding the censoring of “fringe speech”:
1. A censored opinion might be true.
2. Even if literally false, a censored opinion might contain part of the truth.
3. Even if wholly false, a censored opinion would prevent true opinions from becoming dogma.
4. As a dogma, an unchallenged opinion will lose its meaning.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#FreExp
It is and will be painful indeed to maintain our liberty and freedom in the face of opinions we find immoral or false, but the consolation is that the truth will out. What it means to live in a democracy and in the greatest country in the world. Once people come out of echo chambers and enter the universe of discourse they will not get the same feedback; and here is where CIVILITY must prevail. You cannot annihilate ideas, but in civil discourse you may disabuse people of the wrong ones.
1. A censored opinion might be true.
2. Even if literally false, a censored opinion might contain part of the truth.
3. Even if wholly false, a censored opinion would prevent true opinions from becoming dogma.
4. As a dogma, an unchallenged opinion will lose its meaning.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#FreExp
It is and will be painful indeed to maintain our liberty and freedom in the face of opinions we find immoral or false, but the consolation is that the truth will out. What it means to live in a democracy and in the greatest country in the world. Once people come out of echo chambers and enter the universe of discourse they will not get the same feedback; and here is where CIVILITY must prevail. You cannot annihilate ideas, but in civil discourse you may disabuse people of the wrong ones.
20
an opinion is an opinion...they can be true or not...your point is?
Absolutely wrong, the truth will not "out." Nazi Germany was a free society with a representative government just like ours. Nazis were a "fringe" group exercising free speech until they were elected into control. Try reading some real history instead of cherry-picking philosopher quotes which just reinforce your opinion.
4
Abolitionist were once a fringe group. In “Emancipation for Slaves or Emancipation for All: Women, Free Speech and the Abolition Movement” Wendy L. Giere-Frye noted: “The maintenance of free speech was critical to the success of abolition, and it was the drive to deny free speech to women within the movement that ultimately harmed the antislavery crusade. Oddly, many of the staunchest abolitionists fought to suppress the right of women to speak, and ongoing struggle led women to question not only their role, but also their rights as integral members of society. As the contention over abolition grew, the struggle for free speech evolved into a struggle for equality. The abolition movement may have been the vehicle that ended slavery, but it was also the spark that ignited the debate about women and their own emancipatory claims."
12
Far-right activists gathering in Boston?
Two people scheduled to speak at the Free Speech rally included:
- a Bernie Sanders supporter
- an ethnic Indian candidate for US Senate
One of the organisers of the rally said that he was prompted to organize the rally (planned long before Charlottesville) because of the violent suppression of speakers at Berkeley (and Middlebury College).
Just what makes you call this a 'far-right gathering'?
Two people scheduled to speak at the Free Speech rally included:
- a Bernie Sanders supporter
- an ethnic Indian candidate for US Senate
One of the organisers of the rally said that he was prompted to organize the rally (planned long before Charlottesville) because of the violent suppression of speakers at Berkeley (and Middlebury College).
Just what makes you call this a 'far-right gathering'?
23
Well, if you had TWO Sanders supporters, then we could all agree it is a broad cross section of America. Not just cranks who are mad that other cranks had their invitations withdrawn from two whole colleges.
2
"Far Right" is coming to mean anyone who doesn't toe the line. Right now, that line apparently is trying to subjugate the first amendment. It's a good time to get reasonable people to stop toeing that line.
4
A civil society and one dictated by the mores of the majority are not necessarily the same. If they are, morality is a totally relative object and there's no point even trying to discuss it objectively.
4
The author seemingly accepts NO responsibility for her friends on the Left causing the Hard Right to feel completely abandoned and disenfranchised during the failed Obama administration. She them glances around in awe that these people were here all along, although there aren't many.
But free speech is free speech, and any on the fascist Left crusading for political correctness has to admit that they are only for a little free speech if they would join the hired hands of Antifa in hurling bags of human waste products at political opponents.
But free speech is free speech, and any on the fascist Left crusading for political correctness has to admit that they are only for a little free speech if they would join the hired hands of Antifa in hurling bags of human waste products at political opponents.
19
What makes you think that the Obama administration was a falied administration?
6
So, it's the Lefts fault that morally bankrupt racists started to feel abandoned and disenfranchised? Who on the Left wouldn't gladly accept responsibility for that? For you, "the big problem", isn't with racism and racists, it's with those who make them fell uneasy? Got it!
You must absolutely love Donal Trump. Apparently, he's everything you admire.
You must absolutely love Donal Trump. Apparently, he's everything you admire.
7
Fascism is considered right wing/conservative BTW. Socialism/communism is left wing/liberal.
Not sure where the label "fascist liberal" started, but it's wrong.
Not sure where the label "fascist liberal" started, but it's wrong.
5
Germany outlawed anything to do with Nazis and they are a peaceful, prosperous nation. The United States continues to provide a public stage for Nazis and white supremacists and our country is in continual upheaval.
People who advocate for the killing of others do not deserve the right to free speech.
People who advocate for the killing of others do not deserve the right to free speech.
19
Does your rule apply to Black Lives Matter that advocates the killing of police officers?
10
everyone deserves the right to free speech, no matter how ugly or stupid you think their opinions or ideas may be.
this is not the same thing as incendiary speech invoked with the motive of causing some harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater.
similarly, it's not ok and not exactly the same thing as free speech to incite, such as calling for a group of hooligans you're addressing to shoot a rabbi who happens to be walking by. that's more like being an accessory, isn't it? different from expressing your opinion that it's a good thing Bannon is out of the WH or President Trump is a jerk who should be removed from office... v calling for people to join your plans for storming the WH with piitchforks and assault weapons.
this is not the same thing as incendiary speech invoked with the motive of causing some harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater.
similarly, it's not ok and not exactly the same thing as free speech to incite, such as calling for a group of hooligans you're addressing to shoot a rabbi who happens to be walking by. that's more like being an accessory, isn't it? different from expressing your opinion that it's a good thing Bannon is out of the WH or President Trump is a jerk who should be removed from office... v calling for people to join your plans for storming the WH with piitchforks and assault weapons.
2
It's no longer free speech when people have semi-automatic weapons.
Hate speech is not free speech.
Hate speech is not free speech.
6
defining "the fringe,"or "social norms"... on the New York Times?
4
To understand the Trump phenom better and why he has the support that he does, is to recognize that most of his support has nothing to do with Neo Nazis and nothing to do with fringe. 35 plus percent of the population is not fringe. There are people who see him as a law and order candidate. They could be smart enough to see that Black Lives Matter - but also hold a view that the majority of police are not the wild cards seen in videos in the same way a gang thug in Chicago does not represent the majority Black population. So they may say All Lives Matter. For which they are brow beaten. They can also be people who do believe sterner immigration makes sense with the likes of Barcelona happening regularly. And that decrying a hundred years of US foreign policy to excuse the terrorist threat does not help in the near term to protect the people.
We can disagree with these views but they are not fringe.
The fringe from the Left has made Trump their piñata. And the fourth estate is playing kingmaker or breaker.
I do not support Trump. And hope that by deeper understanding of where people who supported him really are coming from, we can build a base for a much improved number 46.
Trump is the most obvious and clumsy political target I hope I will ever see in my life. He is America's piñata at the moment. No doubt a regrettable president on so many levels.
We can disagree with these views but they are not fringe.
The fringe from the Left has made Trump their piñata. And the fourth estate is playing kingmaker or breaker.
I do not support Trump. And hope that by deeper understanding of where people who supported him really are coming from, we can build a base for a much improved number 46.
Trump is the most obvious and clumsy political target I hope I will ever see in my life. He is America's piñata at the moment. No doubt a regrettable president on so many levels.
14
Trump is the best argument for our style of democracy being a poor one. Without a major upheaval, we are stuck with this incompetent, uniformed con man for four years. A parliamentary democracy would being giving us the opportunity to remove him much more quickly.
3
Au contraire...
Trump is exactly why the constitution (and our system of government) is what it is. The people voted a vulgar, celebrity-seeking real estate developer to be the leader of the free world. The people are not the entrenched party apparatus that you would see in a parliamentarian form of government. The people are not the urban-elite that would impose their values on working class middle America (as you might get in a pure democracy). Look at the electoral map at a county level. The country is a sea of red with a few blue islands bracketed by deep blues on the coast. Trump holds far, far more geographical and demographical support than the liberal establishment candidates supported by the huge liberal populations and associated media concentrated in urban centers.
The Founding Fathers did not want this kind of concentration of elitist powers. They did not want absolutist powers to hold sway over the country. They wanted to give the people, all the people, the opportunity to disrupt the corrupting influence of power. Sometimes the vessels for such disruption is deeply flawed (e.g. Trump), but that's what makes our system so deeply American. Nothing should change about that just because you find this particular guy so unappealing.
Vote the bum out in 2020. Vote all the congressional, state house, local officials out if you don't like them. This populist power to reshape the political hierarchy is what truly makes America great.
Trump is exactly why the constitution (and our system of government) is what it is. The people voted a vulgar, celebrity-seeking real estate developer to be the leader of the free world. The people are not the entrenched party apparatus that you would see in a parliamentarian form of government. The people are not the urban-elite that would impose their values on working class middle America (as you might get in a pure democracy). Look at the electoral map at a county level. The country is a sea of red with a few blue islands bracketed by deep blues on the coast. Trump holds far, far more geographical and demographical support than the liberal establishment candidates supported by the huge liberal populations and associated media concentrated in urban centers.
The Founding Fathers did not want this kind of concentration of elitist powers. They did not want absolutist powers to hold sway over the country. They wanted to give the people, all the people, the opportunity to disrupt the corrupting influence of power. Sometimes the vessels for such disruption is deeply flawed (e.g. Trump), but that's what makes our system so deeply American. Nothing should change about that just because you find this particular guy so unappealing.
Vote the bum out in 2020. Vote all the congressional, state house, local officials out if you don't like them. This populist power to reshape the political hierarchy is what truly makes America great.
3
O sure, the right fringe doesn't exist
2
Name one thing that the GOP has done in the last 50 years that has benefited the majority of Americans?
I'll be waiting for the non-answer false equivalences and inane smoke screen diatribes, because the fact is they don't have a single accomplishment to stand on.
If this was a civil society, the modern GOP wouldn't even exist.
I'll be waiting for the non-answer false equivalences and inane smoke screen diatribes, because the fact is they don't have a single accomplishment to stand on.
If this was a civil society, the modern GOP wouldn't even exist.
68
Is the goal of a modern capitalist democracy to benefit the most citizens, or is it to offer the greatest opportunity for class mobility to its citizens? I can get richer than at any point in history. We live in a democracy and not in a socialist nation.
What is the objective or duty of a modern capitalist democracy? Certainly to ensure justice and equality before the law, but is it also to ensure fiscal equality? I am not certain about that.
What is the objective or duty of a modern capitalist democracy? Certainly to ensure justice and equality before the law, but is it also to ensure fiscal equality? I am not certain about that.
1
@richguy
I noticed you didn't answer my question, but that aside, firstly, we don't live in a democracy. In a democracy the person with the most votes wins, a condition that would have prevented the last two Republican Presidents from entering the White house. And secondly, a capitalist country such as ours puts profits above everything else. Everything. And that, essentially, is the real problem. Money before ethics, morality, caring, fairness, justice, equality, compassion, even basic human dignity. All come second, or not at all.
If we lived a socialist nation that would not be the case. We don't even have single payer healthcare, the way almost every other industrialized nation on the planet does.
Ours is a brutal society, and my big point is that it doesn't have to be. And coddling racist views under the guise of "free speech" isn't going to get us there.
I personally believe the primary function of a civilized society is to ensure, as best as it can, that every individual has equality of education and equality of opportunity, how ever you want to categorize it.
I don't believe that the quality of someones life should be determined by the "lottery of birth" - As so many Conservatives apparently do.
Society should provide the "equality". And what people do with it, should be up to the individual.
There should be no free rides, and no one saying, "You don't get to ride anywhere". Civil Society lies somewhere in between.
I noticed you didn't answer my question, but that aside, firstly, we don't live in a democracy. In a democracy the person with the most votes wins, a condition that would have prevented the last two Republican Presidents from entering the White house. And secondly, a capitalist country such as ours puts profits above everything else. Everything. And that, essentially, is the real problem. Money before ethics, morality, caring, fairness, justice, equality, compassion, even basic human dignity. All come second, or not at all.
If we lived a socialist nation that would not be the case. We don't even have single payer healthcare, the way almost every other industrialized nation on the planet does.
Ours is a brutal society, and my big point is that it doesn't have to be. And coddling racist views under the guise of "free speech" isn't going to get us there.
I personally believe the primary function of a civilized society is to ensure, as best as it can, that every individual has equality of education and equality of opportunity, how ever you want to categorize it.
I don't believe that the quality of someones life should be determined by the "lottery of birth" - As so many Conservatives apparently do.
Society should provide the "equality". And what people do with it, should be up to the individual.
There should be no free rides, and no one saying, "You don't get to ride anywhere". Civil Society lies somewhere in between.
1
Chicago guy...
isn't that a little off point?
isn't that a little off point?
1
Here are a couple of questions for all of the white right-wing "free speech advocates."
Would you tolerate people of color marching through your small town, armed to the teeth and chanting slogans against white people?
Would you still believe in free speech if Muslims went to the Deep South and advocated for sharia law in town squares?
Or would there be violent repercussions in both of these incidents?
I'd like an honest assessment of just how far your free speech absolutism goes.
Would you tolerate people of color marching through your small town, armed to the teeth and chanting slogans against white people?
Would you still believe in free speech if Muslims went to the Deep South and advocated for sharia law in town squares?
Or would there be violent repercussions in both of these incidents?
I'd like an honest assessment of just how far your free speech absolutism goes.
116
The part I would have a problem with is "armed to the teeth." I wish open carry was not legal in our country, but sadly, that is not the case. As for advocating ideas I find offensive, the First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. I'm for that.
4
False equivalency.
1
We don't have open carry in Massachusetts. And the demonstration this weekend didn't feature heavily-armed "peacekeeping" militia whose sheer presence worked against the police doing their job. Any wonder we didn't have a repeat of Charlottesville? I'm hopeful, in fact, that the Virginia event represents the point at which the white supremacists top out.
Then again, look how many people turned here against the "free speech" people. As my daughter says, in this Puritan state we've always known how to do public shaming.
Then again, look how many people turned here against the "free speech" people. As my daughter says, in this Puritan state we've always known how to do public shaming.
4
It would be very interesting to read actual real research data regarding prejudice and bias. How do people develop their prejudice? Can they identify how and why and when it developed for them? Personal untoward experience, familial leanings, religious teachings, bullying, and what other issues could cause the prejudice development? Are people able to identify those factors? What ages are vulnerable for the development of prejudice? How have people become resilient to developing prejudice?
It is difficult to understand, for many of us, how people feel and think about others due to skin color, gender identity, religious affiliation, and other bias.
Perhaps if we could have more of an idea of the why's, we could find an understanding. Would an understanding make a difference?
I recall an Oprah program where a group of guests who had previously been very prejudiced changed their mind and apologized to aAfrican Americans who had suffered in the civil rights movement not. It was interesting see and wonder what their individual stories might have been.
We're all human and not one of us is responsible for what we are born into. It is how we manage our humanity, though, that is our choice.
It is difficult to understand, for many of us, how people feel and think about others due to skin color, gender identity, religious affiliation, and other bias.
Perhaps if we could have more of an idea of the why's, we could find an understanding. Would an understanding make a difference?
I recall an Oprah program where a group of guests who had previously been very prejudiced changed their mind and apologized to aAfrican Americans who had suffered in the civil rights movement not. It was interesting see and wonder what their individual stories might have been.
We're all human and not one of us is responsible for what we are born into. It is how we manage our humanity, though, that is our choice.
2
Bring back an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine, and quickly.
7
The glaring, false assumption of this piece is that there is one arc moving toward what you view as justice.
History, however, promises no such thing.
What is viewed as right and good in one era might well be viewed as the opposite in another.
And there is nothing anyone can do about this.
History, however, promises no such thing.
What is viewed as right and good in one era might well be viewed as the opposite in another.
And there is nothing anyone can do about this.
19
I had to write this down. Thank you. Would love to see someone take issue with this point without talking past it.
But isn't that what an arc of justice is? Something harmful viewed as acceptable in one era which is correctly repudiated and corrected in the next?
1
Yes, there is. We can get out there and fight. What's been "good and right" for this country from day one with "all men are created equal" is being threatened. Those of us who care will fight for our "reality," you can fight for yours, if you have one.
2
Like Justice Stewart I know porn when I see it, and I saw quite a lot of it last week from Trump and his Nazi supporters.
8
Unfortunately – the election of Donald Trump as president is not the cause of all our problems but rather the effect of a much deeper issue: that of a deeply divided nation.
And while I agree that a potential a Nazi/racist come-back is a shameful absurdity o – I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) – and yet, are as stunted as our president in condemning violence coming from the far left (Antifa) or the oppression of hundreds of millions of women – denied of basic identity and education – because they are too politically correct to offend a religion they would like to embrace as entirely peaceful (willful blindness).
Freedom, like Truth, is a fundamental value one must embrace completely – not partially. If you embrace Peace – you cannot promote violence in order to achieve it. If you promote Tolerance – you cannot embrace it while denying the freedom of others (women and homosexuals in Islam).
Both sides must take on a very hard and self-critical review process in order to review – and understand that a real democracy demands the ultimate sacrifice of compromise.
We must stop demonizing other Americans and start electing leaders with enough integrity and wisdom to engage in dialogues where both sides are heard, and respected.
And while I agree that a potential a Nazi/racist come-back is a shameful absurdity o – I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) – and yet, are as stunted as our president in condemning violence coming from the far left (Antifa) or the oppression of hundreds of millions of women – denied of basic identity and education – because they are too politically correct to offend a religion they would like to embrace as entirely peaceful (willful blindness).
Freedom, like Truth, is a fundamental value one must embrace completely – not partially. If you embrace Peace – you cannot promote violence in order to achieve it. If you promote Tolerance – you cannot embrace it while denying the freedom of others (women and homosexuals in Islam).
Both sides must take on a very hard and self-critical review process in order to review – and understand that a real democracy demands the ultimate sacrifice of compromise.
We must stop demonizing other Americans and start electing leaders with enough integrity and wisdom to engage in dialogues where both sides are heard, and respected.
28
I'm taking serious issue with your claims that the left turns a blind eye to both political violence and human rights problems in Islamic countries. First, not one of the groups or individuals who killed police or destroyed property around the country ever associated themselves with the left or Democrats, nor the left with them. Second, what do you think we were doing fighting dual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during the first Obama administration, or the aid liberals been giving to human rights and women's-rights organizations there? I'd be very curious to hear more proof of what you claim.
8
Violence was the only way to stop Hitler. No amount of peaceful demonstrations and understanding would have freed the Jews from the concentration camps. Peace, in that case, was the direct product of unimaginable violence. So, I have to disagree with you on that.
And, as I've said repeatedly over the last few years, tolerance of intolerance is not the exercise of it, it's the end of it.
"Violence is never the answer!", sounds nice, but, history has proven that to be incorrect. And tolerance of intolerance is what gave rise to the Nazi's.
The only thing that saves these kinds of arguments is an embrace of moral relativism. As in, "Who's to say what's good or bad? What's good or evil?" But, I'm sorry, there is no such false equivalence.
Racism is wrong - period. There is no, "That's just your opinion". It's wrong and it's evil.
And, as I've said repeatedly over the last few years, tolerance of intolerance is not the exercise of it, it's the end of it.
"Violence is never the answer!", sounds nice, but, history has proven that to be incorrect. And tolerance of intolerance is what gave rise to the Nazi's.
The only thing that saves these kinds of arguments is an embrace of moral relativism. As in, "Who's to say what's good or bad? What's good or evil?" But, I'm sorry, there is no such false equivalence.
Racism is wrong - period. There is no, "That's just your opinion". It's wrong and it's evil.
4
Sir, I think you grossly misrepresent me. And in your blind passion you also misquote me:
I said: “I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) –
Meaning, these are crucial human equality issues. That I take them seriously – issues of equality – and support their progress not only with my note, but also with my money.
It is interesting you bring up using violence against the Nazi as most of the peace appeasers were left wingers – including this paper at the time, the NYT.
I usually compare appeasers to liberals who deny the brutal oppression of women and homosexuals under Islam – including the ‘covering up’ of legalized and widespread practice of female mutilation, torture of gay men and child marriage. Like the Nazi/holocaust appeasers, many supposedly progressive people act as if these practices are not in place on a very, very, wide scale (hundreds of millions).
The difference here – is that Hitler was not really democratically elected, if you know your history at all.
And we also shouldn’t equate all conservatives with fascist – that’s actually a position that is the very definition of political intolerance.
I said: “I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) –
Meaning, these are crucial human equality issues. That I take them seriously – issues of equality – and support their progress not only with my note, but also with my money.
It is interesting you bring up using violence against the Nazi as most of the peace appeasers were left wingers – including this paper at the time, the NYT.
I usually compare appeasers to liberals who deny the brutal oppression of women and homosexuals under Islam – including the ‘covering up’ of legalized and widespread practice of female mutilation, torture of gay men and child marriage. Like the Nazi/holocaust appeasers, many supposedly progressive people act as if these practices are not in place on a very, very, wide scale (hundreds of millions).
The difference here – is that Hitler was not really democratically elected, if you know your history at all.
And we also shouldn’t equate all conservatives with fascist – that’s actually a position that is the very definition of political intolerance.
2
If white nationalists didn't get bad publicity, they would get no publicity at all. But white nationalist leaders no even bad publicity is better than no publicity. They are delighted by the front page news coverage. The number and size of white nationalist groups have been shrinking for decades, but the media frenzy over Charlottesville will boost membership. The movement's leaders will trying to follow up by scheduling as many rallies as possible. They are expecting AntiFa militants to do their part, and would probably be delighted if they kill few white nationalists. Every movement needs its martyrs.
9
The solution to free speech is simply more speech. Once you start limiting free expression is like the leaders of a town forming a vigilante posse to eliminate local criminals: just where do you stop? Can you stop when you reach whatever point you said you would stop?
7
Simple--just don't allow people to advocate genocide. No other western democracy allows people to spread such destructive ideology and none of them are fascist countries. The slippery slope argument is illogical when confronted by reality. Karl Popper's tolerance paradox shows that you have to draw the line somewhere as a society or risk self-destruction.
6
Unfortunately – the election of Donald Trump as president is not the cause of all our problems but rather the effect of a much deeper issue: that of a deeply divided nation.
And while I agree that a potential a Nazi/racist come-back is a shameful absurdity o – I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) – and yet, are as stunted as our president in condemning violence coming from the far left (Antifa) or the oppression of hundreds of millions of women – denied of basic identity and education – because they are too politically correct to offend a religion they would like to embrace as entirely peaceful (willful blindness).
Freedom, like Truth, is a fundamental value one must embrace completely – not partially. If you embrace Peace – you cannot promote violence in order to achieve it. If you promote Tolerance – you cannot embrace it while denying the freedom of others (women and homosexuals in Islam).
Both sides must take on a very hard and self-critical review process in order to review – and understand that a real democracy demands the ultimate sacrifice of compromise.
We must stop demonizing other Americans and start electing leaders with enough integrity and wisdom to engage in dialogues where both sides are heard, and respected.
And while I agree that a potential a Nazi/racist come-back is a shameful absurdity o – I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) – and yet, are as stunted as our president in condemning violence coming from the far left (Antifa) or the oppression of hundreds of millions of women – denied of basic identity and education – because they are too politically correct to offend a religion they would like to embrace as entirely peaceful (willful blindness).
Freedom, like Truth, is a fundamental value one must embrace completely – not partially. If you embrace Peace – you cannot promote violence in order to achieve it. If you promote Tolerance – you cannot embrace it while denying the freedom of others (women and homosexuals in Islam).
Both sides must take on a very hard and self-critical review process in order to review – and understand that a real democracy demands the ultimate sacrifice of compromise.
We must stop demonizing other Americans and start electing leaders with enough integrity and wisdom to engage in dialogues where both sides are heard, and respected.
1
Antifah are anarchists, not part of "the left." Similar to how hardcore Libertarians embrace near-anarchy (government should exist solely to promote and protect capitalism).
2
Steve Bannon described himself as a "Leninist anarchist."
2
I don't know if this is off topic or not, but what so many of us still don't realize is that to a large degree, Trump was elected not in spite of his obvious racism, but because of it. A large number of American voters either agree wholeheartedly, or sympathize with, the idea that whites are being oppressed. Listen to talk radio, watch the bozos on Fox News prime time,etc., and realize that this through the looking glass world is inhabited by millions of loyal dedicated voters. These neo nazi marchers are the tip of the iceberg. There are millions who see their point of view ( remember the "silent majority"? ) and will follow their media leaders blindly to the end.
12
Correction: What group has the MONEY to decide these questions? Democracy we have not. Rational discourse has been absent from our politics since Bush Sr's Lee Atwater built a campaign of disgraceful lies. Birth of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Trump and Steve Bannon. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are the only center of political discourse today and they own the GOP.
9
I don't believe that statues themselves are the problem. After all, they are just inanimate objects. It is the individual person who looks at them, that is where the problem is. It is the unhealed memories of War brought out by these monuments that brings out the emotions of war within each individual, which is the cause of upheaval.
How the healing takes place is a choice of each individual. Either each individual can either act out…actually re-create war…in an attempt to heal the war within, or, people can go inside themselves to heal the war being carried within…go through the very old, deep seated emotions that bind us to war and free ourselves of the war, coming away with a wisdom about not creating war in the first place.
The question would be “how does a person go within to heal past emotions”? Meditation, Past Life Regression, but also, and this is my recommendation, it only takes a simple prayer.
Pray, ask God to put into the music you listen to, whatever God knows you need to help you to heal. The type of music won’t matter, Mozart to Megadeath, the sounds of a running brook to the sounds of highway traffic…it won’t matter. It costs you nothing. You choose the sounds. You choose the timing (although I do recommend being in a safe, comfortable place, not driving any vehicle or at work). It doesn’t matter what race, religion, sex, skin color, walk-of-life, or even if you believe in this or not.
How the healing takes place is a choice of each individual. Either each individual can either act out…actually re-create war…in an attempt to heal the war within, or, people can go inside themselves to heal the war being carried within…go through the very old, deep seated emotions that bind us to war and free ourselves of the war, coming away with a wisdom about not creating war in the first place.
The question would be “how does a person go within to heal past emotions”? Meditation, Past Life Regression, but also, and this is my recommendation, it only takes a simple prayer.
Pray, ask God to put into the music you listen to, whatever God knows you need to help you to heal. The type of music won’t matter, Mozart to Megadeath, the sounds of a running brook to the sounds of highway traffic…it won’t matter. It costs you nothing. You choose the sounds. You choose the timing (although I do recommend being in a safe, comfortable place, not driving any vehicle or at work). It doesn’t matter what race, religion, sex, skin color, walk-of-life, or even if you believe in this or not.
1
Statues to the violent racists who attacked the United States remember, first shots were from the Confeds directed at Fort Sumpter) should be taken down. But the first issue is the replacement of the man encouraging the re-awakening of the darkest impulses in our society, the president.
5
The Civil War ended May 9 1865. Approximately 620,000 people died in that war. But we also have the Nazis involved. WWII ended September 1, 1945. As many as 80 million people died in that war. No one is still alive from the Civil War. There are approximately .5 million "veterans" still living from WWII. Now either the only people marching are rickety old WWII vets or past lives for millions of people are still being acted out.
Most Confederate statuary was erected some 50-60 years after Lee surrendered, as a Jim Crow extension of the middle finger toward the North and blacks.
5
Unfortunately – the election of Donald Trump as president is not the cause of all our problems but rather the effect of a much deeper issue: that of a deeply divided nation.
And while I agree that a potential a Nazi/racist come-back is a shameful absurdity o – I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) – and yet, are as stunted as our president in condemning violence coming from the far left (Antifa) or the oppression of hundreds of millions of women – denied of basic identity and education – because they are too politically correct to offend a religion they would like to embrace as entirely peaceful (willful blindness).
Freedom, like Truth, is a fundamental value one must embrace completely – not partially. If you embrace Peace – you cannot promote violence in order to achieve it. If you promote Tolerance – you cannot embrace it while denying the freedom of others (women in Islam).
Both sides must take on a very hard and self-critical review process in order to review – and understand that a real democracy demands the ultimate sacrifice of compromise.
We must stop demonizing other Americans and start electing leaders with enough integrity and wisdom to engage in dialogues where both sides are heard, and respected.
And while I agree that a potential a Nazi/racist come-back is a shameful absurdity o – I’m also appalled by supposedly ‘progressive’ friends, who support the same human issues that I do (gay, gender, race equality issues are HUMAN issues, in my opinion) – and yet, are as stunted as our president in condemning violence coming from the far left (Antifa) or the oppression of hundreds of millions of women – denied of basic identity and education – because they are too politically correct to offend a religion they would like to embrace as entirely peaceful (willful blindness).
Freedom, like Truth, is a fundamental value one must embrace completely – not partially. If you embrace Peace – you cannot promote violence in order to achieve it. If you promote Tolerance – you cannot embrace it while denying the freedom of others (women in Islam).
Both sides must take on a very hard and self-critical review process in order to review – and understand that a real democracy demands the ultimate sacrifice of compromise.
We must stop demonizing other Americans and start electing leaders with enough integrity and wisdom to engage in dialogues where both sides are heard, and respected.
6
The MSM media is living in a alternate reality. All people of good will equate Facism on the left(alt-left) and facism on the right (alt-right) as repugnant.
The fact that you HATE Trumps makes you blind to reality. The fact that you are pushing a coup to invalidate the Electoral College makes you traitors to the U.S. at worst and simply stupid and venal at best!
The fact that you HATE Trumps makes you blind to reality. The fact that you are pushing a coup to invalidate the Electoral College makes you traitors to the U.S. at worst and simply stupid and venal at best!
6
The fact that the Left spent 8 years claiming that all opposition to President Obama was due to his skin color has nothing to do with this? Pretty much everything the Left disagrees with becomes "racist" and "white supremacist" according to the mainstream media, so when the works shows up it takes a lot longer to believe he's here.
18
That should have been "so when the wolf shows up"
autocorrect is the bane of my existence.
autocorrect is the bane of my existence.
5
Mischaracterization of the Left.
5
Be Warned:
The far left and the far right, "the fringe" are not making USA a better place to live.
The press is self-serving. They live for chaos. Chaos pays their bills.
The far left and the far right, "the fringe" are not making USA a better place to live.
The press is self-serving. They live for chaos. Chaos pays their bills.
57
There is no far left in US...
20
There is but it gets absolutely zero coverage in the mainstream media.
5
People who are vigorously opposing the rise of white supremacy, and anti-Jewish groups are to be respected.
2
I read in the NY Times that whites have higher incomes than blacks, more education, and more job opportunities. At the top of every corporation, in the seats of power in every level of government, it's all white men. Who runs the universities, the media, the medical system?
So only worthless losers advocate white supremacy, while those whites who actually are supreme denounce them. I would be much more impressed if the rich and powerful white men offered to voluntarily give up their positions in favor of poor minorities. But that will never happen, will it? In order to get money and power, you have to get it for yourself, because no one is going to give it up.
So only worthless losers advocate white supremacy, while those whites who actually are supreme denounce them. I would be much more impressed if the rich and powerful white men offered to voluntarily give up their positions in favor of poor minorities. But that will never happen, will it? In order to get money and power, you have to get it for yourself, because no one is going to give it up.
4
It's an unfortunate truth:
The fringe appears to be everything and all but the far left.
The fringe appears to be everything and all but the far left.
11
White supremacy is still a fringe idea even though the rally featured unmasked participants and was not denounced by our president.
And the 30% who still support Trump are overwhelmingly not white-supremacists either, they just enjoy bothering liberals through any means necessary. Back any Trump supporter into a corner and they always go to "Well he won and she lost." That's the only substance of his platform thus far.
After the subsequent removal of Confederate statues across the country and additional rallies, we may get more done for Civil Rights in 2 weeks than we did in 8 years of Obama's presidency. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.
And the 30% who still support Trump are overwhelmingly not white-supremacists either, they just enjoy bothering liberals through any means necessary. Back any Trump supporter into a corner and they always go to "Well he won and she lost." That's the only substance of his platform thus far.
After the subsequent removal of Confederate statues across the country and additional rallies, we may get more done for Civil Rights in 2 weeks than we did in 8 years of Obama's presidency. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant.
7
RE: More done in two weeks than 8 years.
I talked to someone at NARF (The Native American Rights Fund) and they said during the President Obama administration, they accomplished more for their cause then in the 50 years prior to it.
I talked to someone at NARF (The Native American Rights Fund) and they said during the President Obama administration, they accomplished more for their cause then in the 50 years prior to it.
6
White supremacy is still a fringe idea even though the rally featured unmasked participants and was not denounced by our president.
===================
Of course he denounced it, do you have wax in your ears?
===================
Of course he denounced it, do you have wax in your ears?
1
Trump won the electoral vote and surveys show that 30% openly agree with him and more probably secretly. It sounds like this is the situation that the second amendment what written for!
1
What does this mean? Is it a threat? that is what it sounds like.
I'm confused - can you can what you mean by "this is the situation that the second amendment was written for"? Do you think guns are needed for self-defense in this situation, or are you talking about the first amendment and mistyped?
It is crucial to keep remembering - the problem with Trump is not Trump, as disgusting and unfit as he is.
The problem with Trump is the people who support him.
Those who opposed the abolition of slavery have been holding America back for over 150 years.
How long will we let those who support Trump hold America back?
The problem with Trump is the people who support him.
Those who opposed the abolition of slavery have been holding America back for over 150 years.
How long will we let those who support Trump hold America back?
34
In the recent election many voters decided Trump was not really racist and that it was not an important issue to them. With each passing event where Trump foments white supremacists and racial divisions, he is helping the progressives get the vote out in next elections. In addition, if there continues to be events of white supremacist violence, the future elections could be landslides.
4
You and others on this board are making the assumption that those who voted for Trump did so based on racial issues. Certainly some did. However, the race echo chamber causes "opiners" here to miss the fact that much of Trump's support comes from people who struggle to make ends meet, who struggle to put food on the table, who have lost apartments or homes. Don't forget that most of those living in poverty in this country are white people, many of whom you and others here want to vilify.
Since you and others are so very eager to point out reasons for Trumps "victory", check the African American voting patterns/turnout in Michigan and Wisconsin. I think you will find that if they had voted in numbers similar to 2012, the EC would have been a lot closer. I will leave it to you to dig into the PA numbers.
There are many reasons we have a kook as President and there is ample blame to go around. The Dems would be well served by proposing constructive fixes to O Care, the deficit and infrastructure instead of talking about the "so-called" - it is already crystal clear what he is or, rather, isn't.
Since you and others are so very eager to point out reasons for Trumps "victory", check the African American voting patterns/turnout in Michigan and Wisconsin. I think you will find that if they had voted in numbers similar to 2012, the EC would have been a lot closer. I will leave it to you to dig into the PA numbers.
There are many reasons we have a kook as President and there is ample blame to go around. The Dems would be well served by proposing constructive fixes to O Care, the deficit and infrastructure instead of talking about the "so-called" - it is already crystal clear what he is or, rather, isn't.
5
"...very fine people..."
So, if Hitler once helped a kitten out of a tree, it that a mitigating factor on how we should view the destruction of Europe and the Holocaust?
So, if Hitler once helped a kitten out of a tree, it that a mitigating factor on how we should view the destruction of Europe and the Holocaust?
7
Hitler was a vegetarian. And supposedly loved animals. Go figure.
5
"When President Trump declined to condemn white supremacists more forcefully. . ."
What on earth does this mean? He condemned them on three different occasions. His condemnations seemed perfectly clear and forceful to me.
Frankly, I don't think that there's anything he could have said that would have satisfied the Times. When people are determined to distort your words, there's nothing you can say that is clear enough.
The notion that President Trump has any sympathy for white supremacy is a fantasy and delusion. There's simply no evidence for it and every reason to think it's untrue. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it so.
What on earth does this mean? He condemned them on three different occasions. His condemnations seemed perfectly clear and forceful to me.
Frankly, I don't think that there's anything he could have said that would have satisfied the Times. When people are determined to distort your words, there's nothing you can say that is clear enough.
The notion that President Trump has any sympathy for white supremacy is a fantasy and delusion. There's simply no evidence for it and every reason to think it's untrue. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it so.
25
And after all we know about his lying going back decades, you just happen to believe him on this?
6
Stop the act. Just stop it. His responses are clearly dog-whistling and back-handed to make sure he doesn't alienate supporters. Enough, already. This is so transparent - no one is wishing anything. This playing dumb thing doesn't fool anyone. Stop.
9
Well, when you have a nationalist, quasi-racist as your right-hand advisor, one does have to wonder, no?
4
Why not make bigotry, ethnic cleansing and white supremacy like any perversion- like explicit graphic passionate discussion of S&M, B&D or pedophilia. It is obscene and not fit for public discourse.
It cannot be forbidden since many people harbor appalling private thoughts...but they must be kept private.
The public space should be protected by defining standards of civility--within democratic principles of free but decent speech.
If Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Kathy Griffin's joke blunder can stir such adamant indignation - so should neo-fascist explicit violent speech. It is simply unacceptable on the airways.
Children should be protected from poisonous murderous rage.
It cannot be forbidden since many people harbor appalling private thoughts...but they must be kept private.
The public space should be protected by defining standards of civility--within democratic principles of free but decent speech.
If Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Kathy Griffin's joke blunder can stir such adamant indignation - so should neo-fascist explicit violent speech. It is simply unacceptable on the airways.
Children should be protected from poisonous murderous rage.
5
I agree about protecting children from this perversion.
2
Finding a norm isn't hard, folks.
If you think that any race or religion or nationality has a lower value than you do, then you're a bigot (or neo-Nazi, white supremacist, etc. Whatever label you like.)
On the other hand, if you believe that everyone should have equal access to opportunity and equal under the law, then you're not a bigot.
And calling the latter group the 'alt-left' is monumentally stupid. Plenty of Republicans, even conservatives, have made their positions very clearly against the alt-right's delusional nonsense.
To my deluded brothers and sisters, 'Jump on in, the water's fine here in the melting pot.'
If you think that any race or religion or nationality has a lower value than you do, then you're a bigot (or neo-Nazi, white supremacist, etc. Whatever label you like.)
On the other hand, if you believe that everyone should have equal access to opportunity and equal under the law, then you're not a bigot.
And calling the latter group the 'alt-left' is monumentally stupid. Plenty of Republicans, even conservatives, have made their positions very clearly against the alt-right's delusional nonsense.
To my deluded brothers and sisters, 'Jump on in, the water's fine here in the melting pot.'
11
The right wing propaganda desperately tries to make this about "freedom of speech". Henceforth, all these freedom of speech gatherings of white supremacists and their ilk at the Confederate statues. They hope that they can "debate" the racism and white supremacy on their terms, and by doing so "normalize" the disease.
For the rest of sane Americans it has always been about hate speech, not freedom of speech. No point of debating evil here, students at Berkeley had enough of this "debating" ad nausea, same for protesters against nazi and white supremacy in Charlottesille. Moral decency absolutely requires protesting, not debating, the debating part has ended long time ago.
For the rest of sane Americans it has always been about hate speech, not freedom of speech. No point of debating evil here, students at Berkeley had enough of this "debating" ad nausea, same for protesters against nazi and white supremacy in Charlottesille. Moral decency absolutely requires protesting, not debating, the debating part has ended long time ago.
7
i am a true free thinking and free speech advocate (speech is a little different, but you get the idea.)
I think NO ONE wants to be told what is acceptable to think or feel. We all have the right (G-d given) to evaluate the world as we see it.
The Left is making an error by trying to stamp out thought. Especially when they use violence of any kind.
People are less wedded to any view they may have than the right to hold, to feel, to express that view. That is what first amendment gives us. Period!
I think NO ONE wants to be told what is acceptable to think or feel. We all have the right (G-d given) to evaluate the world as we see it.
The Left is making an error by trying to stamp out thought. Especially when they use violence of any kind.
People are less wedded to any view they may have than the right to hold, to feel, to express that view. That is what first amendment gives us. Period!
15
You call white supremacy a thought? I guess we have normalized evil. If so, it should be stamped out rigorously, not debated....
3
I refuse to have any tolerance for those who advocate genocide. If you can't draw the line there, your free-speech absolutism comes at the expense of any semblance of decency.
3
If you are the true free thinking and free speech advocate that you describe, then a person can stand and insult you to your face? Can walk up to your mother and say whatever filth might pop out of his/her head? A person can speak to children about anything, anything at all?
Can anyone threaten the life of the President?
Let's not forget the old prohibition against yelling "Fire!" in the theatre.
Hence, saying "white power" is one thing; speeches steeped in violent rhetoric or otherwise inciting people to violence is something wholly different.
Can anyone threaten the life of the President?
Let's not forget the old prohibition against yelling "Fire!" in the theatre.
Hence, saying "white power" is one thing; speeches steeped in violent rhetoric or otherwise inciting people to violence is something wholly different.
3
The article ends with the question of who's going to sanction Donald Trump. There's an answer for that: the people shall judge. In a own in Germany, neo-Nazis parading were met with quiet protest. Those opposed stood with their backs, dropped trou and showed the Nazis the moon. Trump, who has now demeaned his office to the point where no respect for it is necessary as he has none, should be met similarly.
1
" The urbanization of the country exposed more people to egalitarian cultural ideas"
Thus demonstrating the narrow minded parochialism of our ruling elite. Apparently the folks in south Boston didn't get the exposure while Hubert Humphrey, from an small virtually all-white town in South Dakota elected to office in largely all-white Minnesota did. The reality is that urbanization likely had nothing to do with it and there is no evidence to support that idea. It is the same kind of ignorant bigotry that drives racism.
What is really being disapproved of here is not the racism so much as the crudeness of its expression. Much as the media hysteria around Trump is not about his actual policies, which have been little more than standard republican ideology when he isn't veering into left-wing democrat territory on trade, but the crude way in which he expresses them.
The problem is not the Nazi's, its that they have fertile ground to sow their poisonous message. It ought to have been obvious to anyone who didn't live in a media fantasy world that racism was still out there and being openly expressed. If you really want to understand racism consider how the media created a white evangelical christian movement by simply expunging black evangelicals from consideration. Who sanctioned them? Nobody.
Thus demonstrating the narrow minded parochialism of our ruling elite. Apparently the folks in south Boston didn't get the exposure while Hubert Humphrey, from an small virtually all-white town in South Dakota elected to office in largely all-white Minnesota did. The reality is that urbanization likely had nothing to do with it and there is no evidence to support that idea. It is the same kind of ignorant bigotry that drives racism.
What is really being disapproved of here is not the racism so much as the crudeness of its expression. Much as the media hysteria around Trump is not about his actual policies, which have been little more than standard republican ideology when he isn't veering into left-wing democrat territory on trade, but the crude way in which he expresses them.
The problem is not the Nazi's, its that they have fertile ground to sow their poisonous message. It ought to have been obvious to anyone who didn't live in a media fantasy world that racism was still out there and being openly expressed. If you really want to understand racism consider how the media created a white evangelical christian movement by simply expunging black evangelicals from consideration. Who sanctioned them? Nobody.
3
What about the views of the powerful, paranoid, libertarian Mercer family that throws millions of dollars behind the likes of Cruz or Trump for their own mysterious, nefarious purposes?
11
There should be no debate about whether Nazis are allowed to march with guns through American streets. People too often equate legality with morality. There is no moral defense for the monsters who embrace Nazi ideology. If you say, "I hate Nazis but..." then you are part of the problem.
6
Sort of like the Democrats who forgave Robert Byrd, the former KKK leader, and made him their Leader. The Democrats claimed to hate the KKK, but . . . somehow one became their Leader.
6
Always, always different when it pertains to the Democrats and Liberals (the latter apparently don't know the meaning of the word).
3
Again with this. What would Republicans do without Byrd? He apologized, publicly and repeatedly, and then devoted himself to passing civil-rights legislation. It's amazing to me to see how often this argument gets aired. Whereas the conservative Southwrn Democrats who did not renounce racism, like Thurmond and Helms and Lott, all became...Republicans, and worked to support segregation, oppose even MLK Day, and support the White Citizens' Council. Why is that, I wonder?
5
It's a shame the commentary from the media about Trump isn't actually more media savvy. Trump road to the White House playing the "heel" or bad buy. He's adopted a certain role, and it's been working for him. But, it's also working immensely for the Democratic party because Trump's pretty clearly trapped in his role, and no bad guy can maintain his likability if his character is judged completely unredeemable. So here's hoping that dems don't get to far ahead of themselves and somehow prevent Trump from serving out his 4 years!! Let Republicans lose absolutely all credibility even in the eyes of their own voters. I don't want to win an election in 2020. I want the Republican party never to implode forever and eternity...
1
They say they believe in fair housing, but white flight has never been more popular especially among impeccably progressive upper middle class types.
Talk is cheap. Behavior speaks loud and clear.
The media and the left are now in the process of labeling anyone who does not slavishly toe the progressive-left line in every particular as a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi." Don't really mind it because it's going to keep hurting the democrats, big time. But it is mindless and obnoxious.
Talk is cheap. Behavior speaks loud and clear.
The media and the left are now in the process of labeling anyone who does not slavishly toe the progressive-left line in every particular as a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi." Don't really mind it because it's going to keep hurting the democrats, big time. But it is mindless and obnoxious.
31
White flight is not the opposite of fair housing.
4
"Talk is Cheap": why not tell that to every politician in the Republic Party immediately?
1
When is the liberal media going to condemn violence perpetrated by their ideological brothers?
25
"Who gets to be part of civil society, and whose views belong on the fringe?" As the author points out, views certainly can shift over time, and probably should. Things that happened in my lifetime: Integration of the armed services; passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; legalization of marriage between races; allowing women to attend military academies; opening combat roles to qualified female soldiers; allowing gays to serve openly in the armed services; legalizing same-sex marriage; passage of Title IX; women running for vice-president, president, and appointed to the US Supreme Court; our first black popularly-elected President. Progress.
Then there's the Nazi Party. There can be no "debate" here about whether its ideas "belong on the fringe." Watch the newsreels documenting the liberation of the death camps. Read the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials. There is no universe in which the Nazi ideology, as practiced before the judgment of history, is anything utter than sheer moral depravity.
Civilized societies do not have to engage in a periodic examination of whether Mein Kampf contains useful ideas, any more than they need to re-examine whether sacrificing terrified young women on an altar will improve prevailing weather patterns.
Then there's the Nazi Party. There can be no "debate" here about whether its ideas "belong on the fringe." Watch the newsreels documenting the liberation of the death camps. Read the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials. There is no universe in which the Nazi ideology, as practiced before the judgment of history, is anything utter than sheer moral depravity.
Civilized societies do not have to engage in a periodic examination of whether Mein Kampf contains useful ideas, any more than they need to re-examine whether sacrificing terrified young women on an altar will improve prevailing weather patterns.
145
"Which ideas are beyond the pale?"
Illegal violent activities and genocides are beyond the pale...unless one admires people like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin...or lesser mass murderers like Benito Mussolini and Vlad Putin (Donald Trump's favorite leader).
Illegal violent activities and genocides are beyond the pale...unless one admires people like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin...or lesser mass murderers like Benito Mussolini and Vlad Putin (Donald Trump's favorite leader).
8
As an alumni of The University of Texas, I was please this morning to receive an email from the president of the university stating that all confederate statues have been removed and put in a museum. Hook em Horns!
10
The Republican Party has been playing footsie with the white supremacists since the mid 1960s. But it wasn't until after the 2008 elections that the GOP began to encourage and embrace them into their fold. Trump's incendiary rhetoric emboldened extremist groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis and brought them out of the shadows. The fact that Trump has not forcefully repudiated then but instead provided false equivalence between these groups and the protesters will only encourage more of this ugly activity in the future.
6
What the hard right and others don't understand is that free speech does not mean respect for that speech. Once upon a time it was perfectly acceptable to use racial epithets in polite society or anti semitic epithets and the like, likewise expressing racial superiority was not in many quarters looked at askance, these days it is. The difference is these days it is in many quarters socially unacceptable to use racial epithets, religious epithets, anti gay statements, etc. The other thing with 'free speech" is that there is no equality of beliefs, simply because someone believes something doesn't mean it is true, or that there won't be consequences for it. One of the things especially conservatives are wont to do is scream "first amendment" when people react to something most people find repugnant being said, and they confuse free speech with reaction to the speech. If someone says something that is repugnant, or attends a white supremacist rally and loses their job, that is not free speech, that is consequences. It is funny how when the page turns conservatives whine, when people complain that gays can be fired in most states simply for being gay, they say "that is the employers choice based on their beliefs", but when some redneck or neo nazi does something their employer finds intolerable, that is 'suppressing their rights" or "marginalizing themselves".
18
Most of us decent, tolerant right-siders see it as exactly the opposite - (Speaking for the vast majority of whom are normal, "non-Nazi", "Non-white-supremacist", etc). What we see, (and it is pushed continually further by the way-left-of-center media), is that the Left loudly and often violently shouts down anyone who does not agree with them. If you cut the fringe groups out of the picture, what percentage of protests would you attribute to liberal causes, vs, conservative ones? If it isn't 100%, it is darned close to it. We sit back an marvel at how y'all are offended every single day, by so many things. Flags. Statues. Thugs getting what they deserve. We sit here and wonder "What will they be offended by next?". It is getting beyond nauseating... If we all decide to organize and select a theme or topic to protest, it will likely be to protest the constant whining and protests themselves. We are sick of it. Please get jobs and hobbies, so you can spend your time more constructively, and so the news media can go pursue real news stories, instead of stirring you folks up to create the next frenzied drama... Sigh.
2
Why is it that the left is held responsible for anyone who even slightly agrees with its ideology, while the right wing gets to write off every one of its crazies as just some fringe nut? Why the double standard? Why do right wingers consistently set a higher moral bar for their opposition than for themselves?
7
There is a very simple litmus test for what is extreme\fringe or not .
If you believe that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is applicable to every citizen ( without exception ) then you are part of the mainstream.
Furthermore, you believe that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law is applicable to everyone as well. ( from immigrants to Presidents )
It is not a zero sum game, where if you push one down to achieve the other, that it is acceptable, nor is the above for all of one kind. It is for all.
What ''side'' do you fall on ?
If you believe that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is applicable to every citizen ( without exception ) then you are part of the mainstream.
Furthermore, you believe that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law is applicable to everyone as well. ( from immigrants to Presidents )
It is not a zero sum game, where if you push one down to achieve the other, that it is acceptable, nor is the above for all of one kind. It is for all.
What ''side'' do you fall on ?
8
The agitation and views of groups like Black Lives Matter has normalized deadly attacks against white police. Our laws have already largely settled what is acceptable speech. If it advocates violence or armed insurrection it is not acceptable. If the KKK advocates killing or violent attacks against people it is not acceptable. It should be condemned. The problem is that the media is refusing to condemn violence perpetrated by liberals against those (Neo-Nazis, KKK, white supremacists, etc) who only now say objectionable things but do not openly advocate violence.
11
While the basic principles of Nazism, Communism & White Supremacy should be anathema to all Americans, one ponders the scope of the 1st Amendment and its application to hate speech. Here the issue is how far can one take the protections of free speech until it becomes unprotected "hate" speech? Certainly, many would find the speech of the Nazi protestors to be a form of hate speech. Is it still protected in America? And how do we define what is hate speech? Is it speech that we don't like? That we really don't like? That undermines our freedom and values? Or is it just any speech that we disagree with?
The Constitution purports to defend all speech: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." The Supreme Court has protected nearly all speech that does not cause a major disruption (shouting fire in a crowded theater) or advocating violence. Where does hate speech fit in the constitutional structure that we have created? As the whole concept of hate speech becomes more prevalent, we can be sure that the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to determine what hate speech is and whether it is protected under the Constitution.
The Constitution purports to defend all speech: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...." The Supreme Court has protected nearly all speech that does not cause a major disruption (shouting fire in a crowded theater) or advocating violence. Where does hate speech fit in the constitutional structure that we have created? As the whole concept of hate speech becomes more prevalent, we can be sure that the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to determine what hate speech is and whether it is protected under the Constitution.
2
There is no such thing as 'hate' speech.
2
A joke reportedly goes viral on the internet in China and has this punchline:
Mao: What about my Cultural Revolution?
Chinese people: Exported to the U.S.
Of course, they forget that the U.S. is a democracy, where the existence of a right fringe will give rise to an opponent on the left or vice versa. Mao's Cultural Revolution had only the left fringe, and a right fringe could not have emerged under his dictatorship. Political systems matter, for better or for worse. That said, I believe the extremists should be left alone in their destructive Me-Domination bubble and try to eat each other alive. It would be foolish to work with them because everyone is their tool for pushing extremism.
Mao: What about my Cultural Revolution?
Chinese people: Exported to the U.S.
Of course, they forget that the U.S. is a democracy, where the existence of a right fringe will give rise to an opponent on the left or vice versa. Mao's Cultural Revolution had only the left fringe, and a right fringe could not have emerged under his dictatorship. Political systems matter, for better or for worse. That said, I believe the extremists should be left alone in their destructive Me-Domination bubble and try to eat each other alive. It would be foolish to work with them because everyone is their tool for pushing extremism.
4
At least the Red Guards didn't hide their faces when they went attacking people.
2
The pendulum seems to swing back and forth. I draw the line at groups like the neo-Nazis and KKK. I am also not liking some of the rhetoric from some people who are left-leaning a la Sanders and Warren. Their inflexible shrieking is bad: one of them tried to kill Republican Congressmen practicing for a charity ballgame, for God's sake. Politics has its place and can bring peace or chaos: for example the way it was played, it was valuable in promoting civil rights; and it also suppressed civil rights. I think we need to hold our leaders accountable for setting the moral tone of our Country. I don't mean in a religious way, I mean in having sensitivity to what people need and a willingness to listen and find common ground to work through problems with others, and doing so respectfully and civilly. This does require our leaders to have a moral compass and to be more centered on others rather than themselves. I certainly don't see that in Trump, and I have my doubts that he will change. And I want to see both Parties in Congress quit hanging exclusively on to their agendas, and reach out to each other to form a common agenda that addresses the needs of our Country. Wouldn't that be refreshing!
3
I warned people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary about a scary future, but too many thought these warnings were false alarms.
The scene from 1984 comes to mind:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
I've been wondering how safe we will remain under a Trump administration. Is this just the beginning?
https://michaelchabler.com/2017/07/30/the-threat-to-freedom-and-safety/
The scene from 1984 comes to mind:
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
I've been wondering how safe we will remain under a Trump administration. Is this just the beginning?
https://michaelchabler.com/2017/07/30/the-threat-to-freedom-and-safety/
3
I still would not vote for the unethical hack. Ever. The thought of her corrupt persona being in charge of the free world is still way scarier than anything I have seen yet.
3
Trump is a moral disgrace and the most corrupt "persona" in my lifetime to sit in the Oval Office.
If the vast majority of people in this country regardless of age, education race, gender, religion, region, political party do not believe that the views expressed by and the actions of the american Nazis and KKK are detestable then we are more serious trouble than I thought.
The Constitutions gives the american Nazis and the KKK freedom of speech.
True Americans should not give them anything but our utter contempt for their views and their person.
The Constitutions gives the american Nazis and the KKK freedom of speech.
True Americans should not give them anything but our utter contempt for their views and their person.
11
And that contempt also goes for those people defending them.
5
It may well be that condemning a position is a means of suppressing and eliminating it. But I wonder what social science has to say about idea, closely associated with the first amendment, that in the long run, allowing an idea to be expressed, and subjected to criticism, is the best way to end it. Recent events seem to show that condemnation and silencing only exacerbate the underlying objections of those with minority views. I'm Jewish, but I can't believe that those shouting anti-Semitic slogans really believed Jews were going to replace them. Rather, I surmise that their general feelings of alienation, silencing and rejection by society were being expressed in an arbitrary and stupid way. So: let them have their marches, get it out of their system, and then start complaining about how free trade agreements, with no protections for workers, are threatening their economic security.
6
Any article that focuses on equality without mentioning wealth is a sham. There are no poor or middle class people living in Trump Tower. Garden City, NY is rich and 99% white and the adjoining Village of Hempstead, NY is poor and 99% minority. Congresswoman Rice (D NY) is from Garden City and wouldn’t lift a finger to combine the two school districts of allow minorities to swim in the white pools of Garden City. The good people of Garden City pay a lot of tax dollars to keep the riff raff out.
New York Democrats are all for local control to preserve segregation and property values. In real estate, Trump’s area of expertise, location and local [exclusionary] zoning are everything.
It is hard to “Define Fringe Views” in the area of equality. Chinatown, Little Italy, Harlem, Greenwich Village, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, etc. are just a few of the now self-segregated communities that support important cultural communities that defy literal enforcement of fair housing laws.
The Alt Left are hypocrites that fake insult over selective War Memorials while the Alt Right have become more willing to tolerate at least some discrimination in business and personal choices as a necessary part of freedom. Live and let live. The government may forbid certain actions but has no place judging human motivations.
New York Democrats are all for local control to preserve segregation and property values. In real estate, Trump’s area of expertise, location and local [exclusionary] zoning are everything.
It is hard to “Define Fringe Views” in the area of equality. Chinatown, Little Italy, Harlem, Greenwich Village, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, etc. are just a few of the now self-segregated communities that support important cultural communities that defy literal enforcement of fair housing laws.
The Alt Left are hypocrites that fake insult over selective War Memorials while the Alt Right have become more willing to tolerate at least some discrimination in business and personal choices as a necessary part of freedom. Live and let live. The government may forbid certain actions but has no place judging human motivations.
10
Interesting how you focused on the only Democrat representing Garden City.
County Executive: Ed Mangano, Republican
State Senator: Kemp Hannon, Republican
Presiding Town Supervisor: Anthony Santino, Republican
Town Councilman (pending trial) Ed Ambrosino, Republican
State Assemblyman, Ed Ra, Republican
Blame it all on Rice? Nice try.
County Executive: Ed Mangano, Republican
State Senator: Kemp Hannon, Republican
Presiding Town Supervisor: Anthony Santino, Republican
Town Councilman (pending trial) Ed Ambrosino, Republican
State Assemblyman, Ed Ra, Republican
Blame it all on Rice? Nice try.
3
Also, Rice is a member of Congre$$, that has NO ability to consolidate districts. That is something that can ONLY be taken up at the State Level. So cast your shade at Ra and Hannon. They are the ones with the portfolio to make it happen, and they won't.
3
The fear about Nazi beliefs gaining traction is insanity. Because here's the truth, racial and religious equality is an ingrained part of our culture. The problem now becomes the part of a culture that doesn't know how to do anything other than hunt for injustice. The frankly childish over-reaction to a group of pretty small in numbers Neo-Nazi rallies have shown that people have in fact forgotten how to deal with people with repugnant beliefs. Shaming only galvanizes, firing people for their beliefs only gives them a reason to become angrier and hypocrisy in condemning left wing violent, illegal tactics, in fact, is what gives them their legitimacy. Want to push back smartly on this? Show the members of these groups their views are so off the grid that they have no impact on you. Let them march, let them scream, the scream only has an impact if someone reacts to it.
16
When a miniscule minority of Americans publicly crawl out of their homes across America to display their ugly, racist deplorable ideology, I would define that as fringe views. They without a doubt the neo-nazis, white supremacists, alt right and Jew haters who are a disgrace to America are the fringe groups whose ideology needs to be eradicated by all possible means. Peaceful protests against these groups in overwhelming numbers should show them that they are not welcome in the American main streets.
1
I recently read this comment from a conservative: "It's a bunch of black people who were never slaves protesting a bunch of white guys who were never nazis."
That helped me understand how they view this. They do not take this seriously -- not just the liberal general view, but also the white supremacists and nazi protesters.
That helped me understand how they view this. They do not take this seriously -- not just the liberal general view, but also the white supremacists and nazi protesters.
7
No question, Berkeley "free speech" street-thugs are as violent and reprehensible as anything on the "right"--but that's not "news" to our Sovietized press coming out of New York City's mass-media central, children of a Maoist reeducation public university system.
However, if you're looking for the real enemy of the people--debt and those who add more--U.S. Congress.
However, if you're looking for the real enemy of the people--debt and those who add more--U.S. Congress.
5
Fringe?
White supremacy under the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is treason against the United States of America.
Nazism under the swastika is treason against the whole world.
White supremacy under the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia is treason against the United States of America.
Nazism under the swastika is treason against the whole world.
4
Marching at night with flaming torches and carrying banners with a design that is topologically homeomorphic to "+" is not good P.R..
They used to do that in Nuremberg and things did not turn out well for anyone.
They used to do that in Nuremberg and things did not turn out well for anyone.
6
CNN charts that trace the rise and fall of hate groups show that the number of white nationalist groups are in sharp decline white the number of black separatist groups is on the rise. The number of white nationalist groups bell from 146 groups in 2011 to 100 groups in 2016 while the number of black separatist groups rose from 81 groups a decade ago to 193 groups in 2016. However, the Second Amendment guarantees both groups the right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their ideas, even if most Americans disagree. The danger in ignoring one right in the Bill of Rights is that, if one can be ignored, they all can be ignored.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/charts-explain-us-hate-groups/ind...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/politics/charts-explain-us-hate-groups/ind...
6
LOL, the chart shows the trend you describe sharply change immediately when Trump became President and the number of white nationalist group numbers increased. You conveniently left that fact out, huh?
2
You need to provide a link to statistics that support your assertion that the number of white nationalist groups have increased since the inaugural. The Charlottesville was a response to the Charlottesville City Council decision to remove the Lee statue. It was a reaction to Trump's election.
1
Dear JS,
I reviewed the chart and you are quite wrong.
It seems that the Black Separatists groups began surging rather dramatically beginning in 2014 and peaked around 2016.
The neo-Nazis and other white Supremeist groups have declined a bit or remained about the same during that same period.
I presume you looked at charts N°6 & N°7. If not you need to go back and look again.
I reviewed the chart and you are quite wrong.
It seems that the Black Separatists groups began surging rather dramatically beginning in 2014 and peaked around 2016.
The neo-Nazis and other white Supremeist groups have declined a bit or remained about the same during that same period.
I presume you looked at charts N°6 & N°7. If not you need to go back and look again.
2
Excellent analysis of the shifting of societal norms and the forces that can erode a civil society. America has the potential to enter into a transformational moment where is will clearly articulate what it deems acceptable and unacceptable. Contrarian disruptor Trump will exert his dark force to tilt America into an uncivil society but I am hoping the majority of enlightened Americans will exert the opposite and opt for a just and civil society.....please.
2
For most people, a "fringe group" is code for "someone with whom I disagree."
19
I think we're a divided country, but I don't think we're that divided yet (although maybe it's coming). I disagree with almost 100% of Republican policies, and consider that party aligned with white supremacists, but don't think they're a fringe group. The scarier situation than fringe group ideas is when those same ideas become accepted by a majority of people.
8
LOL. I know lots of republicans and they are not aligned with white supremacists. Really, get out of your know-it-all bubble.
2
"Polls don’t necessarily capture how people truly feel; they capture what people are willing to say to a pollster." that is probably the most accurate point in this article. Indeed many will loudly approve of "integrated" schools - BUT have decisively voted against forced integration schemes such as school bussing. Most will claim to support equal opportunity but are opposed to most affirmative action solutions - and carry that opposition straight into the voting booth. The same applies to "integrated" housing. Most attempts to build housing for poor and minorities are blocked in affluent and middle class communities. Why don't these academics attempt to reach out to those torch bearers and find out exactly whey embrace racism? What motivates these viewpoints? Sweeping "unpleasantness" off to a corner is no solution for America or any other country.
11
The opening paragraph does not appear to match well with the opinions of black and white Americans regarding perceived racism in different areas. Support for a black president or for biracial marriage means little if structural and systemic racism persists.
Recent Pew Research polling found the following views on whether blacks are treated less fairly than whites (percentage who think blacks are treated less fairly):
By the police
Whites 50%
Blacks 84%
By the courts
Whites 43%
Blacks 75%
When applying for a loan or mortgage
Whites 25%
Blacks 66%
In the workplace
Whites 22%
Blacks 64%
In stores or restaurants
Whites 21%
Blacks 49%
When voting
Whites 20%
Blacks 43%
Perception does not necessarily equate with reality, but nearly half or more of whites and most blacks feel that blacks are treated less fairly than whites by the police and courts, which are the structural faces and muscle of legal racism – where it exists. There is also the well-known school-to-prison pipeline and the fact that once someone has almost any kind of criminal record, their chances of finding a decent job decrease dramatically. Making it very difficult to work for a living and earn a decent wage is suppression and very damaging for life.
In the other categories, whites appear to see much less of a problem than do blacks. I would note the loan and mortgage category as another area where racism can be used to influence who can grow businesses and what housing a person can buy and where.
Recent Pew Research polling found the following views on whether blacks are treated less fairly than whites (percentage who think blacks are treated less fairly):
By the police
Whites 50%
Blacks 84%
By the courts
Whites 43%
Blacks 75%
When applying for a loan or mortgage
Whites 25%
Blacks 66%
In the workplace
Whites 22%
Blacks 64%
In stores or restaurants
Whites 21%
Blacks 49%
When voting
Whites 20%
Blacks 43%
Perception does not necessarily equate with reality, but nearly half or more of whites and most blacks feel that blacks are treated less fairly than whites by the police and courts, which are the structural faces and muscle of legal racism – where it exists. There is also the well-known school-to-prison pipeline and the fact that once someone has almost any kind of criminal record, their chances of finding a decent job decrease dramatically. Making it very difficult to work for a living and earn a decent wage is suppression and very damaging for life.
In the other categories, whites appear to see much less of a problem than do blacks. I would note the loan and mortgage category as another area where racism can be used to influence who can grow businesses and what housing a person can buy and where.
17
Which group, black or white, do you think has the better perspective for accurately answering these questions?
What does it mean when a white person answers that blacks are treated the same as whites in these different aspects?
What is the basis for their opinion?
What does it mean when a white person answers that blacks are treated the same as whites in these different aspects?
What is the basis for their opinion?
1
rhuffie: I really don't know the answer to that - it is just a survey of opinions, which sometimes are inaccurate. I would guess that whites are less sensitive to bias and/or out and out racism and bigotry because they do not often feel it directly, so I think that black folks on average as a group probably reflect the reality of what's going on, although it is possible that they are overly sensitive, but given history and what I see going on often, my opinion is that they are probably right.
I know that there are many, many white folks who do worry about this and vote for better policies and try to confront racism and bigotry, but I also know that there appears to be a fairly large group of white Americans who hold racist and/or bigoted beliefs - a group much larger than the extremist types on display at Charlottesville. I am actually more concerned about this larger group and how their voting and other behaviors generally influence politics, policies, and practices nationwide. The extremists represent a very small segment of the population.
I know that there are many, many white folks who do worry about this and vote for better policies and try to confront racism and bigotry, but I also know that there appears to be a fairly large group of white Americans who hold racist and/or bigoted beliefs - a group much larger than the extremist types on display at Charlottesville. I am actually more concerned about this larger group and how their voting and other behaviors generally influence politics, policies, and practices nationwide. The extremists represent a very small segment of the population.
One thing the article did not mention is that the alt-right terrorist hate fringe threatens many with immediate physical harm and intimidation on the basis of race, religion or personal beliefs. There are many many clear examples of this. On the other hand the progressive movements do not threaten to hurt or shoot anybody. It's hard to find even one bona fide example. Who is hurt by taking down the statue of a traitor, providing medical care, allowing women a role outside the home, gay marriage, environmental protections or inclusion of all in American live, etc. etc? These are all part of the future and that future is coming like it or not.
74
"On the other hand the progressive movements do not threaten to hurt or shoot anybody."
I think you haven't been paying attention to the antifa jokers.
I think you haven't been paying attention to the antifa jokers.
3
Really?
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/12/chicago-man-attacked-beate...
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/14/insane-reactions-alexandria-shooting...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/12/chicago-man-attacked-beate...
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/14/insane-reactions-alexandria-shooting...
2
Open carry at protests and demonstrations is nothing new. In fact, white nationalists who carry guns to protest are guilty of cultural appropriation. The Black Panthers openly carried rifles and shotguns to 1960s demonstrations. New Black Panthers militias clad in combat fatigues revived the tactic beginning in 2015 when they begin showing up at Texas protests and demonstrations armed to the teeth with semiautomatic rifles. (Go to Google Images and type in “New Black Panthers armed to see photos.) New Black Panthers in other states began carrying firearms to protests. Oddly, none of this seems to have unduly concerned the New York Times.
So far, black protesters have been quicker on the trigger than white protesters. In 2016, a New Back Panther named Micah Johnson carried his semiautomatic rifle to a Black Lives Matter protest Dallas protest and murdered five policemen. The new media describes the Dallas protest as peaceful and claims the shooter wasn’t part of the protest, but of course the shooter was as much a part of the Dallas protest as James Field was part of the “deadly” Charlottesville protest. At least the white nationalist at Charlottesville at least didn’t have itchy trigger fingers. In fact, the videos seem to show that none of the armed white nationalist assaulted anyone or were assaulted by anyone. There were like a small isle of nonviolence admit a sea of violence. The rifles seemed to work as a deterrent. The deadly weapon was a Dodge Charger.
So far, black protesters have been quicker on the trigger than white protesters. In 2016, a New Back Panther named Micah Johnson carried his semiautomatic rifle to a Black Lives Matter protest Dallas protest and murdered five policemen. The new media describes the Dallas protest as peaceful and claims the shooter wasn’t part of the protest, but of course the shooter was as much a part of the Dallas protest as James Field was part of the “deadly” Charlottesville protest. At least the white nationalist at Charlottesville at least didn’t have itchy trigger fingers. In fact, the videos seem to show that none of the armed white nationalist assaulted anyone or were assaulted by anyone. There were like a small isle of nonviolence admit a sea of violence. The rifles seemed to work as a deterrent. The deadly weapon was a Dodge Charger.
6
The events of the past week, if not the last two years, show that most people cannot handle the concept of free speech well. Let's admit it -- we are not a smart country. Therefore, we have grave difficulties identifying obvious political and racist propaganda, and differentiating them from proved facts. It takes training to think like a scientist, to control subconscious biases, and most of us haven't had it.
That's why Reagan getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was such a big deal. If we cannot easily distinguish fact from propaganda, then well-organized factions can lead a nation astray, as history has shown many times before.
That's why Reagan getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine was such a big deal. If we cannot easily distinguish fact from propaganda, then well-organized factions can lead a nation astray, as history has shown many times before.
133
Given the exploitation of resentment politics by Republican politicians and the rightwing media, it's easy to see why extremism continues to attract a subset of their followers.
When Fox loops videos of "New Black Panthers" at polling places and the GOP propagates the myth of minorities stealing votes, a large segment of gullible whites will become angry over these imagined injustices. And a subset of these angry people will be goaded into extremist action.
Race-baiting politics isn't the only cause of racial politics. But until Republican politicians hit the reverse button on their inexcusable drive to deny minority voting rights, their disavowal of extremist politics shouldn't be taken seriously.
If Republicans are serious in opposing appeals to hate, they will abandon the imposition of stringent voter ID laws and overly broad voting roll purges.
When Fox loops videos of "New Black Panthers" at polling places and the GOP propagates the myth of minorities stealing votes, a large segment of gullible whites will become angry over these imagined injustices. And a subset of these angry people will be goaded into extremist action.
Race-baiting politics isn't the only cause of racial politics. But until Republican politicians hit the reverse button on their inexcusable drive to deny minority voting rights, their disavowal of extremist politics shouldn't be taken seriously.
If Republicans are serious in opposing appeals to hate, they will abandon the imposition of stringent voter ID laws and overly broad voting roll purges.
140
Given the exploitation of identity politics by Democratic politicians and the leftwing media, it's easy to see why extremism continues to attract a subset of their followers.
When the NY Times loops articles that refuses to accept the shortcoming of a Democratic candidate or President it propagates the myth of liberal infallibility and liberal minions follow, convinced that their viewpoint is the only correct one.
Race and class baiting politics are not the only cause of the problem. But until democrat politicians hit the reverse button on their inexcusable desire to redistribute money to people who do not want to take care of themselves or violate laws by violating our borders, their disavowal of extremist politics shouldn't be taken seriously.
If Democrats are serious in opposing appeals to jealousy and hate, they will abandon the desire to tax the more successful without attempting to change behavior at the other end of the spectrum.
I couldn't have said this better myself.
When the NY Times loops articles that refuses to accept the shortcoming of a Democratic candidate or President it propagates the myth of liberal infallibility and liberal minions follow, convinced that their viewpoint is the only correct one.
Race and class baiting politics are not the only cause of the problem. But until democrat politicians hit the reverse button on their inexcusable desire to redistribute money to people who do not want to take care of themselves or violate laws by violating our borders, their disavowal of extremist politics shouldn't be taken seriously.
If Democrats are serious in opposing appeals to jealousy and hate, they will abandon the desire to tax the more successful without attempting to change behavior at the other end of the spectrum.
I couldn't have said this better myself.
30
I think it's hilarious your saying this, given the $1.2 billion President Trump has been handed by taxpayers over the years, the wife's iffy immigration, and the physical disaster area the man is.
Not to mention the little detail of his astonishing lack of the slightest self-discipline.
Not to mention the little detail of his astonishing lack of the slightest self-discipline.
63
Robert- I said nothing whatsoever in my response about Trump. Nothing at all. You illustrate my point perfectly.
5
I am sure his republican colleagues are coordinating a full throttle, no holds barred, itemized condemnation of Trump. It will be satisfying to all interested parties and possibly some of the people who voted for Trump. It is sure to come sometime before the next full eclipse of the sun. Probably.
6
A new McCarthyism seems to have emerged with it's usual associated witch hunts.
25
The fact that someone could equate this to mccarthyism is chilling, the government is not arresting people, they are not legally putting people in limbo the way we did in the McCarthy era. The idea somehow that Neo Nazis and the hard right deserve equal time under the son with no consequences from the rest of society is not McCarthyism. The thing the hard right is generally investigated for is not their beliefs, it is their action, the hard right, despite what Trump and the GOP believe, is exceedingly violent, and unlike the left it is at people, and we are talking often deadly force. What happened at Berkeley or Middlebury college, while regrettable and wrong, pales in comparison to people armed with semi automatic weapons and clubs being allowed to march, someone being shover and a guy being beaten and put into intensive care, or killed, are not the same thing, legally or otherwise.
7
Employment terminations, blacklists ...
1
Well, we do have the Republican party to thank for the reduction in employee protections, so I'll leave out any remarks about poetic justice.
5
It would be interesting to see where different demographic groups would fall on the "Changing Attitudes" graph of the last five decades. I'm thinking, for example, graphs of fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, Republican legislators, and Trump supporters would all show flat lines.
17
The position of Democrats needs to be stern, unequivocal, and repetitive on this: the Republican Party is aligned with the white supremacist movement. No qualifications or the usual cheap appeals to political "civility." When a party is headed by someone aligned with white supremacist beliefs and he is not immediately thrown out, then that party is white supremacist. The logic on this cannot be ignored.
247
You can say that but it is not true.
18
Yep. They only overlap quite a bit.
6
You JS, are the reason democrats will fail. Your sentiment is no truer than saying that every democrat is a supporter of murdering police.
A little suggestion.... remember when Romney made the awkward statement about "binders full of women?" Just an awkward statement from a man who by any standard is a decent person. The liberals went nuts on it and painted him as the devil.
Given what happened since, aren't you sorry that your fellow liberals were not a bit more understanding and did not seize upon something so silly to demonize a good man? Perhaps the White House would be a different place right now.
We need responsible PR, not propaganda. See where that has gotten us?
A little suggestion.... remember when Romney made the awkward statement about "binders full of women?" Just an awkward statement from a man who by any standard is a decent person. The liberals went nuts on it and painted him as the devil.
Given what happened since, aren't you sorry that your fellow liberals were not a bit more understanding and did not seize upon something so silly to demonize a good man? Perhaps the White House would be a different place right now.
We need responsible PR, not propaganda. See where that has gotten us?
6
Liberal tolerance and even embrace of illegal immigration has provoked the right-wing fringe. Many conservatives think that illegals are headed for citizenship and will vote Democratic, ultimately driving Republican politicians out of office. Even Dems seem to gloat over their demographic future in this regard. This issue has legitimized the right-wing fringe, which makes racist statements that rest on legitimate concerns. It has been stupid of Democrats to embrace illegal immigration and to denigrate border control as racist. This helped elect Trump.
58
First-generations Americans tend to be very conservative, in my experience. I grew up among Greek-Americans, and most were Republicans.
10
But I wonder if that might just be specific to Greek-Americans? Where I grew up, the Greeks voted Republican but the Irish and Italians did not (all groups with many newcomers).
2
Demographics are changing with or without illegal immigration. And fairly rapidly.
The odd thing is your assumption that non-white=Democrat.
Odder still is your obliviousness to the reality that by way of threatening behavior, deceptive information, thoroughly un-American policies, and the laughable myth that the ballot is corrupted by ineligible voters,not mention blatant gerrymandering, Republicans have stood themselves in good electoral stead for some time to come no matter who tries to vote.
You guys are just fine with that because you clearly don't want to live in America. You want to live in a magical place where you win all the time.
By the way, immigration was at its lowest level for some time under President Obama, and heading downward. And deportations, as you well know, were way up.
The odd thing is your assumption that non-white=Democrat.
Odder still is your obliviousness to the reality that by way of threatening behavior, deceptive information, thoroughly un-American policies, and the laughable myth that the ballot is corrupted by ineligible voters,not mention blatant gerrymandering, Republicans have stood themselves in good electoral stead for some time to come no matter who tries to vote.
You guys are just fine with that because you clearly don't want to live in America. You want to live in a magical place where you win all the time.
By the way, immigration was at its lowest level for some time under President Obama, and heading downward. And deportations, as you well know, were way up.
6
Emily-thanks so much for writing this. This is a very important way to view and frame what is happening today, and the redefining of what is fringe and appropriate in the way that is happening now is terrifying. Please feel free to take a look at my piece in which I looked at ethnonationalism's history in the Republic of Georgia and the similarities of that ugliness with Trump's white ethnonationalist movement in the US: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/republic-georgia-shows-trump-his-fans-dep...
1
Making it unacceptable for people to express racist views is one thing; getting them to abandon those views is another and more important thing. I'm not persuaded that accomplishing the first helps with the second.
44
the second thing is not the prerogative of politics. Liberalism should NOT set out to cleanse the minds of souls of the commonwealth. That's the Spanish Inquisition. Democracy should safeguard people from injustice. I think that's about all we can ask for and should ask for.
I'm Jewish. I know some people will always hate Jews. I don't ever hope to change that.
The longer I live, the more strongly I endorse Capitalism as more than just as an economic mode. I see it as connected with atheism and basic Lockean liberal thought. To my mind, capitalism is the sole force strong enough to combat religion, ideology, and hatred. we just need more poets of capital. F. Scott Fitzgerald was a poet of capital, but a conflicted one.
We need to celebrate democracy. Not diversity. Not tolerance. But democracy. Democracy (not liberalism) is the great achievement of the 600 years since the end of the English middle ages.
I'm Jewish. I know some people will always hate Jews. I don't ever hope to change that.
The longer I live, the more strongly I endorse Capitalism as more than just as an economic mode. I see it as connected with atheism and basic Lockean liberal thought. To my mind, capitalism is the sole force strong enough to combat religion, ideology, and hatred. we just need more poets of capital. F. Scott Fitzgerald was a poet of capital, but a conflicted one.
We need to celebrate democracy. Not diversity. Not tolerance. But democracy. Democracy (not liberalism) is the great achievement of the 600 years since the end of the English middle ages.
3
You make an interesting common argument, but it actually isn't correct. In a mass-media society, allowing racists to spread their views at will and debating those views too much only lends them some legitimacy and spreads those views to those who might be receptive. It also sucks up time spent on more pressing civic problems.
2
You may be right -- I'm reminded of "Strangers In Their Own Land" by Arlie Hochschild. Some of her interview subjects (in Louisiana) believed that "racism" was the public expression of prejudice. They did not say it aloud so they considered themselves not racist. But they still felt that way.
Making repugnant and discriminatory statements acceptable to say in public is the hallmark of the Trump campaign and presidency and emboldened his supporters (as well as the opposition) to reduce the civility of public discourse to the level of young children squabbling in the sandbox. When did all the adults in the room disappear? To add to the problem, everyone is playing the victim card whether the far right or the far left. Claims of suppression of free speech are merely a disguise for those who want to say in public what they used to keep private no matter how low, vile and repugnant.
14
Nobody in the far left is playing the "victim card" on free speech. That is false equivalence. You need to read up on this issue more carefully.
102
"When did all the adults in the room disappear?"
January 20, 2001.
January 20, 2001.
51
Actually, Nazis would hold rallies at Madison Square Garden during FDR's presidency.
http://mashable.com/2016/07/27/nazis-madison-square-garden/#NK069cZ2Vaqm
https://longreads.com/2017/08/14/a-look-back-at-the-1939-pro-nazi-rally-...
http://mashable.com/2016/07/27/nazis-madison-square-garden/#NK069cZ2Vaqm
https://longreads.com/2017/08/14/a-look-back-at-the-1939-pro-nazi-rally-...
2
How do you sanction Donald Trump? The same way you sanction any other political figure. Censure. Impeachment. Calls for resignation. Eventually, the primary and the election. The methods are there. What's missing is the courage to use them.
268
Good points. One thing not mentioned that should be of great concern: What does Trump's ascent and the fervent support he continues to receive from about 35 percent of population say about democracy itself? If 30-odd percent of the people support him at a time when the unemployment rate is 4 percent and inflation is nonexistent, what could happen if a deep recession or another 2008-type financial panic occurred? And what if a far more clever and able demagogue appears in the future? Our "democracy" already appears suspect, more like an oligarchy or rule by the rich, as in the Gilded Age. Where are we going?
201
Poorer conditions might not automatically lead to more expression of views not acceptable to the majority. There was very little in the way of social protest and fringe views at the start of the Great Depression. Only after FDR was elected and the New Deal was starting to be implemented, but the state of the country had yet to change, did the Huey Longs and Father Coughlins start to make their presence known.
I am not so sure the economy and health of the United States is as strong as some think
GDP has been on a downward trend for years. Maybe that is normal for an economic entity the size of the US
Inflation is low, yes, but deflation is worse.
Interest rates are also scarily low. In other countries (Germany and Japan)they have had negative rates. More are predicted in the EU, the interest rates offered on CD's now are essentiallly negative. I cannot see how this is a positive.
The world is awash in debt and huge pension and other obligations. How do they get paid at our current "stuck in the mud" GDP?
When problems like these exist chronically, folks get upset. Rightly or wrongly they do bad things, on all levels, from ignorant and clueless young men that crash cars into people to millionaire and billionaire leaders of all countries.
I hope The leader that exists to help his people live peacefully, eat every day, work and make a living, become educated, and raise a family if desired will be found soon. He/She will the leader that helps all humans, of all races, of all ethnicities. Might be a little late, but I have faith that we have not become too fractured.
GDP has been on a downward trend for years. Maybe that is normal for an economic entity the size of the US
Inflation is low, yes, but deflation is worse.
Interest rates are also scarily low. In other countries (Germany and Japan)they have had negative rates. More are predicted in the EU, the interest rates offered on CD's now are essentiallly negative. I cannot see how this is a positive.
The world is awash in debt and huge pension and other obligations. How do they get paid at our current "stuck in the mud" GDP?
When problems like these exist chronically, folks get upset. Rightly or wrongly they do bad things, on all levels, from ignorant and clueless young men that crash cars into people to millionaire and billionaire leaders of all countries.
I hope The leader that exists to help his people live peacefully, eat every day, work and make a living, become educated, and raise a family if desired will be found soon. He/She will the leader that helps all humans, of all races, of all ethnicities. Might be a little late, but I have faith that we have not become too fractured.
3
I am pretty sure that the 35% that continue to support Trump are not members of the oligarchy. Methinks you got your memes confused.
2
In Charlottesville the Neo Nazis and fascists were simply there to assault the public with their phrases of "Kill All Jews," "Jews Will Not Replace Me," and "Blood and Soil." Trump's defiant response was to state that the Neo Nazi's, "had a permit." That's nothing.
Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, the man who for eight years, manufactured outrage against, President Obama faster than a Tiki salesman in Charlottesville has still said nothing against Trump's statements. Of course, there's Netanyahu's statements about Hamas/Iran desiring to drive Israel into the sea ad nauseam. Netanyahu's hysteria ensured that President Obama delivered to Israel the largest US military aid package in history, with the F-35 and MV-22 Osprey as the crown jewels---all despite Israel's number one weapons customer being China. I'm so sure that there is no US weapons technology to be harvested, there no, siree, Bob. Trump and Netanyahu are so much alike, they both use extremists to achieve stagnation, for them no progress is progress.