Recent Political Violence in America

[Darth Wedgius]

I can honestly see some truth to both sides. I don't know that calling someone a racist would make that person racist (and my kneejerk thought if to hold individuals responsible for their own actions, vs. collective responsibility), but I can see how, if you think you're going to be called a racist anyway there might be less resistance from social stigma to a slide into racism.

In short, it may well grease the slide, but there's still got to be a push from elsewhere.

I might be wrong. Hell, I might be wrong on both points. I have ideas, but nothing solid enough to share. It might be getting off topic, anyway.

Now, I don't think y'all are stupid. Quite the opposite. Maybe the responders can help with something.

To those on the right, how would you take the win out of the sails of the alt-right, or at least the violent ones or those advocating for violence? "Alt-right" here meaning the current common usage of white nationalist.

To those on the left, the same, but for antifa, or at least the punch-a-Nazi ones?

NOTE: I'm not saying the two are morally equivalent. I'm also not saying they are not morally equivalent. I'm also not saying any of you are a perfect fit for your political side.

I am not asking what the other side could do to mollify the more extreme members of your political leaning. Assume that the other side doesn't give a centimeter (not an inch, 'cuz we're bein' all scientific-like here).

And take your time. Better a full idea two days from now than half an idea later. But I'd take even half an idea two days from now. Most of you can get a ballpark on my political leanings, and I'll admit that I don't have much of an idea myself. I'll keep my trap shut for now, though, in the interest of some sense of neutrality.

Thanks.

[Arkle]

I can honestly see some truth to both sides. I don't know that calling someone a racist would make that person racist (and my kneejerk thought if to hold individuals responsible for their own actions, vs. collective responsibility), but I can see how, if you think you're going to be called a racist anyway there might be less resistance from social stigma to a slide into racism.

That is so ridiculous, there is no way I can adequately convey how ridiculous it is without getting myself banned.

It's not that it never happens where someone gets called a racist unfairly, but 999,999 times out 1,000,000 when I see someone crying about being called a racist, it was because they did something racist. The problem stems from the sad reality that way too many people, White Americans in particular, fail to recognize forms of racism that aren't violent and overt (KKK rallies, beatings, etc.) as actually being racist. They don't see ending early voting on Sunday after research shows that many Black people vote on Sun days in states with early voting as racist. They don't see Black people getting jail time for crimes that White people who commit the EXACT SAME crime get community service and a fine as racist. It is. Either give both of them jail, or both of them community service if you truly believe in equality. I could go on and on really.

The point is, if someone tells you they wouldn't be racist if they weren't getting called racist by "the Left," they were racist already. Either that, or they are so gullible and easily led that you could probably convert them to Scientology in less time than it takes to make a veggie burger

Now, what I want to know from these racists is this; why should we take you seriously when you are openly declaring that you basically make your political decisions the same way a bratty teenager decides to start smoking; i.e. adults told them it was bad for them? I mean, it frankly scares me that right now my country is the hands of people whose approach to life, at ages higher than mine and I'm in my mid-30s, can be summed up "YOU DON'T GET TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO, MOM!"

[Darth Wedgius]

That is so ridiculous, there is no way I can adequately convey how ridiculous it is without getting myself banned...

So, I say that being called a racist isn't sufficient to make someone racist, and you write about how ridiculous it is to think that being called a racist makes someone racist.

Arkle, you once again read what you wanted to read rather than what I've written. Maybe you are capable of rational discussion, but the consistent indications otherwise have led me to decide it's a possibility too slim to pursue. I'm simply going to ignore you from now on.

[Arkle]

That is so ridiculous, there is no way I can adequately convey how ridiculous it is without getting myself banned...

So, I say that being called a racist isn't sufficient to make someone racist, and you write about how ridiculous it is to think that being called a racist makes someone racist.

Arkle, you once again read what you wanted to read rather than what I've written. Maybe you are capable of rational discussion, but the consistent indications otherwise have led me to decide it's a possibility too slim to pursue. I'm simply going to ignore you from now on.

This is the quote I was replying to. You said, "I can honestly see some truth to both sides. I don't know that calling someone a racist would make that person racist (and my kneejerk thought if to hold individuals responsible for their own actions, vs. collective responsibility), but I can see how, if you think you're going to be called a racist anyway there might be less resistance from social stigma to a slide into racism."

So, yeah, you didn't say that being called isn't sufficient to make someone a racist. You said you could see that happening. Don't get mad at me for responding to your words that you typed. If you honestly think that just being called racist won't turn you racist, don't use lanuage like "both sides" and "but I can see how..."

I read what you wrote, quoted you verbatim, and responded to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Rocketboy1313]

As a general rule, when one side says, "I want to exterminate the lesser races so that my pure children can live in a world free of the lesser races influence" and the other side says, "Let's not genocide people, let's not label people as lesser based on race (a social construct)" I don't think there is a compromise.

One side wishes for the destruction of the other entirely, and in many cases views them as inhuman. Any compromise with such a group is sacrificing the liberty, safety, and future of someone or large groups. It is the duty of the social contract to protect all citizenry, Nazis and other white nationalist movements are in violation of the social contract and are to be treated as "Hostis humani generis" for their desire to destroy people on such scales.

If you advocate for the destruction of another race on these grounds I am uncomfortable with you having a job in which you might exercise these views, for instance turning down loans to people of color. As such, I feel that those participating in white nationalist marches should lose their jobs and should suffer a measure of public shaming at the very least, and in some cases put on terrorist watch lists when they have a history of white nationalist rhetoric and hate speech.

I think we are finally finding an answer to the question:
How many times do you have to call someone a racist before they just shrug their shoulders and say "well, I guess I'm racist. Now what?"

The idea that calling someone a racist makes someone a racist is deeply flawed reasoning. Calling someone stupid, for example, does not degrade their intelligence. Saying that someone is religion X enough times will not convert them to religion X. Perhaps instead of blaming other people for one's racism, the people being called racist would be better served by asking, "why are they calling me racist?"

And the people yelling racist never should ask. Am i right? Does my definition make sense? Am i to influenced by groupthink? etc...

You want a no compromise one way street in an open society?

Vinod, I don't know what you are saying here.
Rewrite this using more words, or different words, but it needs to be clearer and the grammar needs to be fixed if you even want a meaningful response.

[Antiboyscout]

To those on the right, how would you take the win out of the sails of the alt-right, or at least the violent ones or those advocating for violence? "Alt-right" here meaning the current common usage of white nationalist.

Thanks.

Every time Richard Spenser gets punched in the face he becomes more popular and sympathetic. Every time he opens his mouth people reject him. The answer is and always was to just let them speak. All you have to do is let them say their piece and then move on. The more they are attacked and the more they are silenced, the more people wonder what are you afraid of.
Couple this with AntiFa's might makes right approach to enacting communist revolution and city admins who refused to allow police to do their jobs. (this mess could have easily been avoided if the protest and counter protest had simply been kept physically separated by use of barricades or fencing) We get a perfect sh*t storm.

[LittleRaven]

Every time Richard Spenser gets punched in the face he becomes more popular and sympathetic. Every time he opens his mouth people reject him. The answer is and always was to just let them speak.

This....or at least, this is a start. Ultimately, you have to crush this ideology in the marketplace of ideas, and that can only happen if it's allowed to represent itself. So you let them march, and you let the counter-protesters march, and you try to keep violence to a minimum. We mourn the Heather Heyers of the world, and we prosecute the James Alex Fields Jrs, and the battle goes on.

By the way, we should also prosecute the people who did this. Nobody can be allowed to disregard the law if they decide it is inconvenient to the cause. If you want a statue gone, petition your local government, enlist the help of your neighbors, and get it removed through proper channels. Don't just go and start pulling it down.

We have 330 million people in this country, with an incredibly diverse set of beliefs and priorities. Our democratic processes, as slow and frustrating as they often are, have allowed us to remain relatively united for almost 250 years, and we cannot afford to abandon them now.

[Rocketboy1313]

We have 330 million people in this country, with an incredibly diverse set of beliefs and priorities. Our democratic processes, as slow and frustrating as they often are, have allowed us to remain relatively united for almost 250 years, and we cannot afford to abandon them now.

I would argue the US system is deeply flawed in such a way to generate these kinds of divides rather than express and expel them.
If a system that emphasized and empowered proportional representation had been assembled from the start, rather than a system that favored and empowered territorial representation we would not have these kinds of issues now.

The US system is deeply in need of amendmending.

[Arkle]

By the way, we should also prosecute the people who did this.

No we shouldn't. Fuck those statues. If the states keep dragging their heels on tearing down these cheaply made, mass produced monuments to murderers and slavers that were put up not just after the war but during the height of the Civil Rights movement as a backlash*, then the people need to do it. I'm glad that I don't live in an area that has one of those godawwful monuments (and let's be clear; if you defend keeping those statues up, that makes you a pro-slavery racist by default. "Heritage not hate" is a lie), but at the same time, I kinda wish I did just so I could take part in dismantling them.

* Source: https://qz.com/1054062/statues-of-confe ... the-north/

[LittleRaven]

I would argue the US system is deeply flawed in such a way to generate these kinds of divides rather than express and expel them.

Well, it's certainly flawed. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and I would argue that our system is still firmly on the side of good. Proportional representation is no panacea - just look at Israel. The need to build ruling coalitions means that extreme factions often end up with MORE legislative power than they would in a two party system. And while there's no question that our current system is elevating rural voices over their urban counterparts, I'm not convinced that this alone justifies blowing everything up. There is nothing in the world that has more potential as a force for good than the United States. Sure, we almost always fall short of that potential, but it endures, and it is worth preserving.

The US system is deeply in need of amendmending.

I actually agree with you. The constitution was never meant to be a piece of scripture - the founders always intended for it to be continually amended. We're probably due for a tuneup - but first, someone needs to build a pretty air-tight case for it, and given our current political gridlock, it's clear that hasn't happened yet.