Look at immigration stats, Jews get harassed in Sweden.That's interesting.
Why would those countries be friendlier to Americans than Sweden? Considering it is all Scandinavia (maybe not Finland) I would figure would all be the same.
Look at immigration stats, Jews get harassed in Sweden.That's interesting.
Why would those countries be friendlier to Americans than Sweden? Considering it is all Scandinavia (maybe not Finland) I would figure would all be the same.
Which mainstream media? Fox News is the most watched cable network in the US. Sinclair Broadcasting owns the most local news broadcasters. Both lean conservative. The New York Times and CNN lean left on some issues (values based), but have a very mixed record on economic and foreign policy issues. Blanket statements on the state of media have never worked out and honestly the term "Mainstream media" needs to be retired because the data on consumption patterns shows that there is no main stream, but multiple streams people are exposed to across a multitude of access points.The msm in the u.s. has an undeniable left-wing bias.
In the aftermath of that one 17 year-old kid who was shot when he was beating some dude up, Obama commented something to the effect of He could have been my son.
I'd say that's courting extremism. He knew full-well the reality he was ignoring with that statement. And it was entirely predictable that it would inflame and not quell violent people on the left (people who were looking for an excuse to commit crime). During the Obama regime, there was occupy Wall Street, more leftist yayhoos trying to make something change by getting together and hanging out.
Leftists in the U.S. seem to have more free time on their hands from how I observe it from the outside.
I'm neither a Trump supporter nor detractor, AND I don't follow u.s. politics that much. But I wonder, his bullshit rhetoric aside, what policies the guy has enacted to warrant that description.
These are good points, especially about the tests to free expression and about people's sense of righteousness pushing them all the way past the edge sometimes. The Weather Underground is actually a great example of that and I agree that it was a great documentary.If these people could somehow accomplish exactly that then they probably would. I have little doubt that many of them would be more than happy to topple American democracy if they could and establish a new authoritarian regime in its place.
My point, as should be clear, is that they have a viewpoint and believe they are justified in doing whatever is necessary to achieve their goals, giving no thought or concern to the rights of others who think and believe differently. They believe this is okay because they are morally justified by being "right."
I am reminded of the documentary The Weather Underground--one of my favorite docs of all time BTW--and one of the former Weathermen recounts his time in the group and says, "When you believe you have right on your side you can do some pretty horrific things."
So much fucked up shit has happened in the world because people got suffused with a sense of righteousness because they became convinced that they were the good and moral ones and those who disagreed with them were evil and needed to be stopped at all costs.
I take a lot of issue with white nationalists because I think their philosophy is thoroughly un-American.
Even beyond all the racial stuff, their political philosophy is incompatible with American values. Richard Spencer, for instance, I know has said that he's not a fan of democracy and that his proposed white ethno-state would espouse socialism. Quite literally Nazi shit.
But regardless of how I feel about it, I still respect their right to think, believe and say whatever they want. The first amendment, after all, was not put in place to protect popular speech, but rather to protect unpopular speech. I think that fringe voices challenge our dedication to free thought and free speech, so if you decide that these people need to be silenced then you failed the test.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that it added fuel to a type of thinking. He's not dumb, he knew full well it would give some people the justification they wanted to further push their agenda. It was calculated and put the presidential seal on the BLM movement. And that movement was a direct consequence of the initial false narrative which was pushed in the media. They had access to all the accurate information but their agenda was to first push stories that congealed the reactionaries.What is the extremism courted by Obama's statements about Trayvon Martin? That's maybe the farthest rhetorical leap I've read.
I don't see it your way. Unless his policies reflect a fascist shit to what past administrations have done, then there's no justification for anti-fascism groups to now have formed (unless the media has in some way contributed). That isn't me saying those policies don't exist, I don't know if they do or don't. But how I see it, Obama's regime was at war for his entire two terms- that's a lot of money going into killing people but his supporters seemed alright with it. He seemed to have kept the ball rolling from where Bush left off but experienced very little international criticism for it. Trump makes some tweet and everyone goes fucking nuts. To an uninformed outsider, that's how it looks.Regarding Trump, saying "his bs rhetoric aside" is simply not possible. We cannot set his rhetoric aside. He didn't run on policy and he's barely governed on policy, but it's becoming increasingly common for people to try to shift the discussion away from his rhetoric as if it doesn't matter and hasn't shaped the implementation of policy or the reaction to it across the world (it has). Decoupling his rhetoric from his administration is impossible.
Peaceful protesters.
View: https://twitter.com/chuckcallesto/status/1028789092098695169?s=21
Wonder if these thugs were arrested @Kneeblock?
I got a question, I don't follow established news outlets very much these days but have any major media outlets been giving them any credibility?if antifa were actually attacking KKK members and actual nazis i wouldnt give a shit. they can all kill each other and the world will be a better place. they are not though. they call anyone they want a fascist they attack police and journalists. they come to start shit. as for the rest of the protesters why the fuck are they chanting no more KKK?? what they fuck is that about?lol when is the last time the klan showed up in hoods to a rally? .im pretty sure everyone would run them out of town.no one wants to be associated with real nazis and klansmen.they just lump in oathkeepers and proud boys as fascists and feel justified in assaulting them .when you see antifa unmasked they are a bunch of pencil neck geeks and old weirdos
i dont know about giving them credibility but they definitely downplay their acts of violence .early on they kind of made them out to be "the good guys". i think that is really going to change now that journalist and cameramen are being assaulted.I got a question, I don't follow established news outlets very much these days but have any major media outlets been giving them any credibility?
I flipped around the MSM this morning there were little blurbs about the protests involving white nationalists & "counter-protesters" & when they mentioned the violence they didn't get around to mentioning who actually committed it. I only watched for 10 minutes or so before my patience for their stupidity was up, so maybe it was different at other times. This was after a couple of weeks of claiming Trump was inciting violence against the media & hyperventilating about Trump putting their lives in danger, but they didn't seem to worried about Antifa going after their own. Pretty standard from the media here, it was almost all Omarosa coverageI got a question, I don't follow established news outlets very much these days but have any major media outlets been giving them any credibility?
Yeah, don't fuck with the press if you want positive coverage.i dont know about giving them credibility but they definitely downplay their acts of violence .early on they kind of made them out to be "the good guys". i think that is really going to change now that journalist and cameramen are being assaulted.
It won't change their coverage at all, some may have some hurt feelings about it but they'll get over it.i dont know about giving them credibility but they definitely downplay their acts of violence .early on they kind of made them out to be "the good guys". i think that is really going to change now that journalist and cameramen are being assaulted.
i dont know about giving them credibility but they definitely downplay their acts of violence .early on they kind of made them out to be "the good guys". i think that is really going to change now that journalist and cameramen are being assaulted.
I'd honestly be curious to know when the last time any of them did anything productive was
this is the highlight of their livesI'd honestly be curious to know when the last time any of them did anything productive was
might be one of their biggest paychecks alsothis is the highlight of their lives
What type of thinking? What agenda? Black Lives Matter didn't exist in 2012 when Obama made those remarks about Trayvon Martin. It wasn't founded as either a movement or even a hashtag until 2013 and didn't begin in earnest with on the ground organizing until 2014.From an outsiders perspective, it seems that it added fuel to a type of thinking. He's not dumb, he knew full well it would give some people the justification they wanted to further push their agenda. It was calculated and put the presidential seal on the BLM movement. And that movement was a direct consequence of the initial false narrative which was pushed in the media. They had access to all the accurate information but their agenda was to first push stories that congealed the reactionaries.
What makes you think they wouldn't be or wouldn't be sought by police?
View: https://twitter.com/chuckcallesto/status/1028789092098695169?s=21
Wonder if these thugs were arrested @Kneeblock?
I think sometimes that there are perhaps few things more dangerous than a pure, unwavering sense of righteousness.These are good points, especially about the tests to free expression and about people's sense of righteousness pushing them all the way past the edge sometimes.
It was THE documentary that really impressed upon me the power of the documentary form. It was a great independent work by Sam Green.The Weather Underground is actually a great example of that and I agree that it was a great documentary.
Do you really think so though? Antifa often strikes me as Weathermen with training wheels. Trump is their Nixon.But Antifa and the Weathermen are not compatible in any way ideologically. The Weathermen were protesting capitalism in the abstract and American militarism and were part of a constellation of groups acting at the time. Antifa is directed at attacking fascism in the abstract and organizationally harkens back to the 1930s.
Well that's how it's supposed to work. The thing is, I don't think that Antifa respects the white nationalists' right to speak. If they did they would allow them to present their arguments, and then counter those arguments with better, more rational arguments, and therefore win the war of ideas.Free speech likewise is premised on negation, generally negating the state from interfering in the expression of ideas. This is meant to leave it up to the citizenry to debate and disagree and make democracy for themselves. So in that regard, there is nothing contra-free speech about either supremacists or Antifa. They both actively engaging in contestation in the marketplace of ideas.
I see both as legitimate threats to democracy, as both have shown that they are happy to act un-democratically and literally force their viewpoint on others.But when you examine their ideologies closely, one is premised on restricting access of certain groups to participation in democracy on the basis of things they can't control, i.e. race, national origin, ethnicity whereas the other is premised on stopping the participation of groups who have attributes they can control, i.e. subscribing to racism, ethnocentrism or sanction of state based violence against communities. I think we can all agree that one is more problematic than the other
As you've said before, a lot of these people are young. I think they like the action. They want to get out there and kick ass. They probably go home and think to themselves "That was awesome!" and pat themselves on the back.But the real problem is tactics. Antifa's ideal of "positive self defense" is deeply troubling because of easy to figure out slippery slope arguments and because they often show up at demonstrations uninvited. Black Lives Matter, for instance, has condemned and sought to distance itself from Antifa from near the outset and not surprisingly the demographics of Antifa based on what we can see are generally pretty white and often privileged. That's what makes this a very different circumstance from the clashes between the brown shirts and the communists and anarchists in Weimar Germany. In that case, it was largely working class people who were actively contesting state power because they were starving and suffering. This moment is instead full of trolls and pretenders on all sides because our bellies are generally pretty full.
Sadly more than you realize. It's not a new thing as is portrayed by the media at times but it does seem as though the crowds have been bigger at the few that I've seen in the past couple of years versus the ones I had previously seen in my life.why the fuck are they chanting no more KKK?? what they fuck is that about?lol when is the last time the klan showed up in hoods to a rally?
A lot of good points in your post. I'm singling out this portion just to note that freedom of expression has never meant unlimited rights to say whatever one chooses at any time. There have always been qualifications on freedom of speech, especially in European law, but also in American. Classical liberalism even had embedded in it strict limits on who could say what by carefully policing the boundaries of subjectivity. If you were not a property owner, or enslaved or some kind of cultural or racial "Other," or a woman, you never had freedom of expression in any meaningful way. Gradually this gave way to more formal limitations on speech for the purposes of public safety and security, though that's a line states have often used to restrict the movements of their adversaries. Since the middle 20th century, we have at least had one agreed upon international framework for understanding free speech in the form of Article 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which says that:Well that's how it's supposed to work. The thing is, I don't think that Antifa respects the white nationalists' right to speak. If they did they would allow them to present their arguments, and then counter those arguments with better, more rational arguments, and therefore win the war of ideas.
But I've seen enough to believe that Antifa thinks they are justified in actually silencing their opposition and I have little doubt that many of the Antifa guys, if possible, would physically stop the WN guys from speaking if they could. If this weren't the case, there would be no need for the cops to be out there to constantly enforce the buffer zone between the two groups.
I see both as legitimate threats to democracy, as both have shown that they are happy to act un-democratically and literally force their viewpoint on others.
This is the irony of being loyal to democracy and classically liberal ideas, though. If I say I believe in freedom of expression and democracy, then that means that I have to tolerate even those voices that seek to tear down the structures that enabled these people to speak in the first place.
To return to something I said earlier, nearly everything that white nationalists believe is counter to what I believe as an American. If somehow their message actually took root to the point to where America, or some large portion of America, was transformed into a white enthostate then we'd be in trouble. Non-whites would be uprooted from their homes and cast out into the wilderness (if not killed) and democracy would be torn down as a Nazi-esque fascist state is erected in place of what once was the United States.
So that would suck. But still, the solution is not to try to take their voice away. We instead have to continue to believe in democratic ideas and values and have faith that regular people will hear their ideas, reject them and relegate them to the fringe where they've been for decades now.