Germany, in a First, Shuts Down Left-Wing Extremist Website (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: An influential website linked to violence at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg last month has been ordered to shut down, in the first such move against left-wing extremists in the country (alternative source), the authorities in Germany said on Friday. Thomas de Maiziere, the interior minister, said that the unrest in Hamburg, during which more than 20,000 police officers were deployed and more than 400 people arrested or detained, had been stirred up on the website and showed the "serious consequences" of left-wing extremism. "The prelude to the G-20 summit in Hamburg was not the only time that violent actions and attacks on infrastructural facilities were mobilized on linksunten.indymedia," he said, referring to the website. The order on Friday was the latest move in a long battle against extremism in Germany. It comes in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., this month and amid worries about "antifa" factions that use violence to combat the far-right in the United States.

Comments

Now you see

[Anonymous Coward]

Why we must protect freedom of political speech in the US. Fortunately we have strong laws to do this. Google and Facebook should not be the arbiters of speech. Universities should not live in fear of letting people talk.

We do not want to hand the power they have in Germany to silence people to a man like Trump, or anyone who claims to be a fascist or anti-fascist (aka, communist)

Re:Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

Google is not government and may censor whatever it wishes on its property.
DUH!
If the University was staging the counter protest you might have a point.
it is not.

Re: Now you see

[Anonymous Coward]

Texas A&M is a public university. What part of the first amendment do you fail to understand?

Re: Now you see

[BlueStrat]

So you want to require universities to let White Supremacists speak?

Why not? What are you afraid of? Do you think their words will somehow trigger your latent, inner-Klansman?

Let them speak, it gives us all some comic-relief and a chance to laugh them back into irrelevance. There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people. They have no power. They're silly little goose-stepping idiots. They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.

You actually empower them with media attention they'd never get anyways. Makes me wonder if maybe you're actually a recruiter.

Strat

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Oh, cool, so if we label someone as a Nazi they no longer have civil liberties.

You're a Nazi, now give me all of your stuff and stop offering your opinion.

Re:Now you see

[sexconker]

It's never a good idea to make sweeping generalizations.

Never? That seems to be quite the sweeping generalization!

Re: Now you see

[rogoshen1]

you do realize that trying to forcibly quell a viewpoint or movement is akin to putting a fire out with gasoline.

The only way to get them to actually go away is to ignore them completely. A speaker labeled as a white supremacist comes to speak at campus? Let them, so long as they aren't actually inciting violence directly.

If the only people who show up are the their supporters -- which despite all the hand-wringing consist of a vanishingly small number of people (especially relative to the fervent left-leaning types, particularly on college campuses). That will do much, much, more in the long run.

These people thrive on the controversy, they thrive on near-riot situations breaking out when they come to speak; then they get to cry "oppression", and gain even more supporters.

It is funny though, the extreme left has some appalling rhetoric of their own -- yet the seemingly get a free pass in the US. It takes some amazing double-speak and mental gymnastics to not notice the double standards.

Re: Now you see

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not?

Why so?

What are you afraid of?

What are you afraid of?

Do you think their words will somehow trigger your latent, inner-Klansman?

Do you think their words somehow merit public resources devoted to them?

Let them speak, it gives us all some comic-relief and a chance to laugh them back into irrelevance.

Ah, but you won't let us mock them either.

There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people.

According to who? The FBI wasn't allowed to produce a report on them.

They have no power.

That explains the people they've killed over the years.

They're silly little goose-stepping idiots.

Silly little goose-stepping idiots killed millions once upon a time.

They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.

Tell that to their victims. Or more precisely, go to the graves and memorials.

You actually empower them with media attention they'd never get anyways. Makes me wonder if maybe you're actually a recruiter.

You believe the stupidest things, BlueStrat, you claim they're empowered by media attention after claiming they should be exposed for their buffoonery. Makes me wonder if you have suffered severe brain damage.

Re: Now you see

[ClickOnThis]

There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people. They have no power. They're silly little goose-stepping idiots. They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.

Tell that to the family of Heather Heyer. It took only one of them to allegedly kill her.

Re: Now you see

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple errors with your post. Moderators, please mod the parent down as a troll.

Texas A&M is part of the Texas A&M University System, controlled by nine regents that are appointed by the governor. It is, therefore, operated by the state of Texas, and is a government institution. Because of the due process clause in the 14th amendment and incorporation of the first amendment rights through Supreme Court decisions to apply to state and local governments, the state of Texas cannot infringe upon the freedom of speech. Seeing as Texas A&M is operated by the state of Texas, they are subject to the first amendment.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

"public university" = "government".

FTFY.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

There are only a few thousand of them in the entire US of ~350M people. They have no power. They're silly little goose-stepping idiots. They are no serious threat to anyone or anything.

Tell that to the family of Heather Heyer. It took only one of them to allegedly kill her.

Holy shit!

How did he kill her with words?

Oh wait, you mean the guy who hit the person blocking the street with his car, immediately after said car was vandalized by an angry mob swinging baseball bats (one could almost think he was reacting to the assault)?

Yea, I bet ideology had a lot less to do with that situation than the actual situation itself. Funnel that much stupid into one place... hell, I'm amazed only one person died, to be honest.

Re:Now you see

[LynnwoodRooster]

Facts say you are wrong.

Re:Now you see

[meglon]

Google takes money from the government, making it quasi-governmental.

No, it makes it a private company that gets money from the government; there's nothing quasi-governmental about it. Additionally, they are not the ones determining what speech is acceptable on the "public internet," but they are the ones determining what speech they allow on THEIR OWN SERVERS and running through THEIR OWN SERVICES.

I would agree, however, that you're using words/phrases that you don't understanding the meaning of.

https://xkcd.com/1357/ ...because maybe it's easier for you to understand as a cartoon.

Re: Now you see

[GerryGilmore]

Just the fact that you are justifying MURDER tells us all we need to know about you. Sadly, yes, in my old-fart experience, delusional, paranoid, hard-right extremists who can just make shit up (or, hear/see it on Fox and talk radio) and believe it like it's Holy Gospel are MUCH more common than earlier and makes me really, really glad that I am on old fart so that by the time your type of Idiocracy spreads too much further, I'll be gone and won't have to see it.

Re: Now you see

[ClickOnThis]

Conceded. Thanks for the correction. I should have done more research before posting.

But please, modding me troll is harsh. I posted incorrect information in good faith.

Re: Now you see

[guruevi]

No, public universities take money from the government to extend services to the public. Hence there are various safeguards in place, eg. you can't require people to register their names to use your libraries, even Internet services have to be able to be used anonymously, political organizations have to have reasonable and equal access to your services etc.

Private universities don't have to abide by a lot of the rules unless they take government money for grants where the rules have to be followed again.

Re: Now you see

[drinkypoo]

Oh, cool, so if we label someone as a Nazi they no longer have civil liberties.
You're a Nazi, now give me all of your stuff and stop offering your opinion.

If they don't want to be labeled as Nazis, they shouldn't march with Nazi flags. And if they were just there to march on behalf of slavery, then they should have told the people with the Nazi flags to fuck off and get their own rally, but they didn't.

Your concern would be justified if the people this were happening to weren't Nazis, but they are in fact Nazis.

Re: Now you see

[Darinbob]

However access to the university is not necessarily open to the public. You cannot just walk into any classroom and start talking. A university is not a public square. If you want to give a speech in a classroom then you need to get permission. If you want to stand on an outside corner on campus commons area and give an extemporaneous speech then you can do so. Most universities are well known for the bizarre people who put up a milk crate and start talking.

Re: Now you see

[Whibla]

At the risk of seeming callous:

There are roughly 15,000 murders a year in the US, and this year so far there have been 9 mass shootings. Sounds to me there's serious threats to those living in the US alright, but mostly not from those far right groups. Singling out one killing from all of these, although very emotive, in order to make your point probably doesn't do what you think it does...

Moreover, the point of posters above you is that the best tactic to employ when one of these far right groups or individuals wants to talk or protest is simply to let them. Now I in no way approve or support what happened to Heather but ask yourself, if she had followed the advice of these posters, (i.e. just carried on with her life and let the various groups march in protest against the removal of the statue) what do you think would have happened to her?

Now, I know whatever I say at this point is going to be 'tainted' by what I've just said but, it's possibly still worth emphasising:

What happened to Heather was a tragedy. She did not deserve it and she did not 'bring it on herself'. The only person responsible for her death was the driver. But, while she had a right to peacefully counter-protest, and props for standing up for what she believed in, everyone on 'the other side' also had a right to be there. If there had been no counter-protesters there would have been no violence*.

But the media got their 'story'...

*(Ok, this bit is actually an unprovable assertion, and one I'm not totally sure I believe myself. There are substantial questions over the entire affair, and it's entirely possible that 'quislings' within the protesters would have sparked violence anyway. But, even if that were the case, at least then the responsibility for it would be fully with the protesters.)

Re: Now you see

[Darinbob]

They don't really go away though. The KKK has not quite died down, despite being so old and archaic. There's a backchannel that keep these groups alive. They talk with each other and recruit without needing to have big rallies to do so.

The neo nazis won't dry up and die by being ignored anymore than ISIS will vanish by being ignored. Of course, giving them free press coverage will just encourage their growth.

Re: Now you see

[Darinbob]

Making errors does not make one a troll. Comments should never be marked as "troll" merely because someone disagrees with its views.

A university does have the right to control when certain facilities are used by others. The buildings are not open for anyone to walk in at any time of the day. If you want to reserve the use of a building for a special purpose then you need to arrange this with the university. The university can refuse this on several grounds, but cannot refuse it on the basis of the nature of the speech you intend to give. Ie, they can refuse it as being irrelevant to the purpose of the university and unrelated to any on campus student groups. There are significant costs to the university for any event that is held, even if the event is free the university still ends footing the bill.

This is similar to wanting to hold a rally on the steps of the US capitol. Despite being a clear and obvious part of the US government, you cannot hold that rally without permission.

The courts have also decided that some speech is not protected under the first amendment.

Re: Now you see

[LynnwoodRooster]

It only took one "Black Lives Matter" protestor to kill five officers.

Re: Now you see

[PopeRatzo]

The only way to get them to actually go away is to ignore them completely.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but that's not how we got rid of the original Nazis. The Jews ignored them until they were being sent to concentration camps. Europe ignored them until they had taken Poland, France, et al. England ignored them until bombs started falling. The US ignored them until they couldn't any more.

Ignoring nazis does not make them go away.

Re: Now you see

[Anonymous Coward]

You concern would be justified if the GP wasn't actually a Nazi. They said that a certain group didn't have a right to free speech just because they didn't like the speech. Not liking certain speech is not enough make it forbidden. Unless you are a totalitarian, like (for example) a Nazi. A march demanding suppression of free speech or even suppression of other people's rights is not the same as the action of suppressing those rights. Those who march are infinitely better people than those who take actions to suppress the right to speak (even the rights of totalitarians to speak). It's more than just moral standing. It's a practical one. Marching is engaging in a conversation. Forbidding certain speech is shutting down of conversation, so that the only course of actions which remains is actions taken without prior discussions. Bad ideas can be aired out and dissuaded. If they are not aired out, they cannot be dissuaded, moderated, negotiated or corrected. So shutting down speech will to violence. Of course, if you are the ones initiating violence, it doesn't matter what ideas you oppose. You are the ones guilty.

Re: Now you see

[drinkypoo]

I think it's stupid to ban people from saying stupid shit like the holocaust didn't happen, those ideas need to be laughed at. But I don't think it's stupid to take calls for violence seriously.

On the third hand, violence may actually be necessary to achieve certain positive goals, so I see the down side. But government can't afford to ignore threats of violence, either.

Re: Now you see

[lucm]

Heaher Heyer's death is squarely on the shoulders of the US Left.

But only the white US Left, as the black US Left wisely mentioned that "#SAYHERNAME IS NOT FOR HEATHER HEYER OR OTHER WHITE WOMEN".

Heather Heyer’s death is not an excuse to further perpetuate white supremacy and the erasure of women of color.

https://wearyourvoicemag.com/i...

Re:Now you see

[Rockoon]

or anyone who claims to be a fascist or anti-fascist (aka, communist)

All the Marxist "class struggle" is baked right into the Antifa rhetoric, but is now under the guise of identity politics. Still treating people as groups. Still ignoring the individual.

When your only importance is defined by what group you can be classified as belonging to, you arent important at all. In fact, you don't matter one bit.

Re: Now you see

[Rockoon]

Making errors does not make one a troll.

This is bullshit because he didn't just make an error. People know when they are guessing. People that pretend to not be guessing when they know that they are, are dishonest fucks. It is not simply an error. Its an intent to mislead not on the "fact" given (which could have accidentally been right, and many people just as dishonest as this fuck are more often right about their facts than wrong), but on this dishonest fucks claim of knowledge.

What can this guy now do when he really does know something, that doesn't look exactly like this case where he was just fucking guessing while presenting the case that he knows something? When you are guessing you are supposed to communicate that fact. Its the only way to distinguish. He is incapable of being involved in an honest discussion because there is nothing he can do to indicate when he really knows. He is a fucking dishonest fuck.

Re: Now you see

[Tenebrousedge]

Heaher Heyer's death is squarely on the shoulders of the US Left.

I have rarely seen a more malicious falsehood, and it staggers belief that you of all people would be arguing against personal responsibility. For shame, sir.

Re: Now you see

[wkwilley2]

I wish I had mod points for you. Kudos!!

Re: Now you see

[MarcusOutrageous]

Pope - You make a cogent and succinct point here. One that I will re-use myself as it is so compact yet laden with the momentum of both image and weight. Unarguable. Your ability to do this is why I asked (later in thread) for you to help me understand your opinion better (on that later topic.) Thanks.

Re: Now you see

[BlueStrat]

I have rarely seen a more malicious falsehood...

Then you haven't listened to a word the US Progressive/Left has said for over 50 years. "Malicious falsehoods" are the Progressive's stock-in-trade. Ask Rev. Al.

it staggers belief that you of all people would be arguing against personal responsibility.

Of course if the driver is found guilty he will pay his personal responsibility with the sentence the court hands down. That's only the *legal* portion of responsibility, there is also a greater moral responsibility here for the entire situation occurring to begin with as well.

That moral responsibility lies with the Progressives and Leftists who have been stoking the fires of hatred and division among as many cultural, religious, racial, and political/ideological sub-groups as they could for 50+ years, and throwing gasoline on the fire once their plans backfired and Trump was elected.

Neither of these two people would have been in Charlotte if it wasn't for the hatred and rage fomented and incited by the Progressive Left via their Trotsky-ite/Alinsky-ite class/group/identity politics, even using groups of hired thugs to start riots, and setting people against each other to gain political power.

For shame, sir.

I'll never feel shame for standing for truth. No matter how unpleasant or inconvenient some may find it.

It's too bad the Progressive Left in the US seems incapable of shame. Perhaps if they were capable of feeling shame for all the hatred and division they've deliberately caused over the decades to advance their ideological/political agendas, maybe Heather (and many, many other Progressive 'collateral damage' victims over the decades) might still be alive today.

Strat

Re:Now you see

[MoarSauce123]

This is not against free speech, but against politically motivated terrorism. Grab any one of the rioters from Hamburg and ask them what they are rioting against and what their demands are. At best you get a response like "kill capitalism" or something meaningless like that. Germany has one of the strongest free speech protections, but all in balance. As often stated, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not free speech, neither is inciting violence. The articles and especially the summary make it sound as if Germany never did anything against the radical left. That is far from true. One clear example is the year long fight against the RAF. They, too, ultimately had no clear agenda other than kill high profile personalities. Further, and that just shows how grossly uninformed and utterly naive you are, anti-fascists are not communists. The US and UK were anti-fascists during WWII and following your definition they were all communists. I frankly doubt that you have any clue.

Re: Now you see

[MoarSauce123]

I strongly doubt that racism and inciting violence is covered by the first amendment. You cannot excuse any crime with the first amendment just because you ran out of real arguments.

Re: Now you see

[malkavian]

Seriously? You could say the same of any war. Side (x) ignored the increasingly vocal behaviour of side (y) until it was too late, then War! I call post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Re: Now you see

[Hognoxious]

No problem at all: I don't like SJWs or Nazis.

Re:Now you see

[jellomizer]

Whatever political/religious philosophy you follow there is always be a sub group that will go to the extreme. There is a natural human tenancy to feel like they are not doing enough or they are not suffering enough for a particular cause. This is partly due to the fact real life we need to make trade offs. Do I go to the party or do I study for a class. Should I put in an extra 3 hours of work, or do I go home to my family. Should I go to church every morning or should I go to the Gym, or perhaps get some extra sleep. Every choice that we take means a lot of things we will no longer be able to do.
The extremists like to focus on one goal. When faced with a choice which will improve that one goal or something else, they will go towards the goal. This can often lead to violence as when confronting someone with a different philosophy on the topic, you could let him talk to try to convince others, or find a way to silence them so your voice is the only one heard. The extremist choice will be to silence the other viewpoint.

The paradox of this problem, we need to stop at all cost (for the greater good) people who will stop at nothing (for their cause, who thinks it is the greater good). The only difference between the extremist and the counter extremest is that the counter extremest has a reasonable line well beyond their comfort zone of opposing ideas where they say it has gone too far.

Life is complex, the world is complex. That is why we have problems, we don't have simple answers that can fit in a tweet. Or in a book, there are a lot of things, that can lead to good or evil. And it is often tough to determine where it leads until we see the results.

Re: Now you see

[Tenebrousedge]

Right, how terrible of leftists to object to systemic oppression. When you stop trying to legislate morality, science, and people's genitalia and the color of their skin I'm sure we'll have fewer social issues.

The hatred on the left is a reaction to your team's bigotry. Your values are un-American and antisocial. Which is fine, really, because they're also not shared by the younger generation. Whenever your crowd dies off the social unrest will too. Trump and Arpaio are looking pretty old. And if it comes down to it, you bigots are in the minority, and you've lost pretty consistently throughout history. There isn't a path to victory for you. I'd say it's sad, but you're so far out of touch with the real world that your frothing is actually somewhat comical. Maybe I can start a pool on which will happen first, your death by apoplexy or Trump's resignation.

Re: Now you see

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hot air, as opposed to hot bullets. I guess you're more afraid of comments that killers?

Voltaire said it best:

What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.

I guess not tolerating hearing the opinions or positions of others really does strip one of all humanity. Great to see that the Left wants to formally codify that position!

Re: Now you see

[rastos1]

Let them speak, it gives us all some comic-relief and a chance to laugh them back into irrelevance

It's all fun and games until you realize that there are 60 millions of voters in US that think that Trump is a good idea.Why do you think they won't give more power to white supremacists or other idiots in a few years?

Re: Now you see

[HornWumpus]

Marx wrote a book titled 'On the Jewish Problem'...it theme wasn't 'make nice'.

In the 1930s 'Capitalist' was code for 'Jewish banker'.

Re: Now you see

[HornWumpus]

Be fair, the other choice was ever worse.

Claiming anybody who voted against Hillary is a white supremacist pretty much ends your argument. You're just a moron...

Re: Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

I will argue that any public university is on par with any Government run institution and must allow equal access
if NO political rallies are allowed,nobody gets a permit.
That works well enough

Re:Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

Google is not government and may censor whatever it wishes on its property.

Google takes money from the government, making it quasi-governmental.

Wrong. A private entity paid by government for some purpose is NOT a publicly owned entity

Aside from that, the websites they crawl actually aren't on Google's property...

The publicly-funded internet being in control of private companies, who can determine what speech is and is not acceptable on the public internet is a bit of a Hobson's choice, wouldn't you agree?

Nope
They are not regulating those vile sites. They are regulating THEIR server time.
nice try though, if a little ignorant of law

Re: Now you see

[ganjadude]

spoken like a true fascist pope....

Re: Now you see

[ganjadude]

the ones who march with nazi flags ARE universally condemned

the problem as you are well aware is the liberal use of the word nazi today labeling anything that someone doesnt like as being nazis. Even in charlottesvill they managed to get a whopping 300 people to show up with months of advertising... they are a boogieman nothing more

Re: Now you see

[ganjadude]

if they are getting government money - yes, it does

Re: Now you see

[ganjadude]

maybe if someone didnt hit his car with a bat he wouldnt have panicked and stepped on the gas. Her own friends and allies are to blame for what happened to her

Re: Now you see

[ganjadude]

no one is justifying murder. we are claiming it wasnt murder but it was at best self defense at worse manslaughter.

Re:Now you see

[micahraleigh]

It's up to private individuals to push for other platforms, but google's censorship is so poorly reported and the big 5 are so effective at demonizing and restricting alternate platforms (like gab).

Re:Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

True enough.
lack of competition, no matter how honorably acquired, is the death of Capitalism as a POSITIVE social force.
THat's why Disney bought an administration, (no names) to get their monopoly on Mickey to run for the LIFE OF THE CORPORATION PLUS 99 YEARS
So much for "limited time" as specified by the Constitution Article 1

Re: Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

And bringing guns and pipes, shields and body armor to rallies YOU schedule and YOU announce proves intent to initiate violence.

Re:Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Google takes money from the government, making it quasi-governmental.

No, it makes it a private company that gets money from the government; there's nothing quasi-governmental about it. Additionally, they are not the ones determining what speech is acceptable on the "public internet," but they are the ones determining what speech they allow on THEIR OWN SERVERS and running through THEIR OWN SERVICES.

I used to think that way.

Then, I heard about this right-wing Christian baker that was sued by a gay couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake based on religious grounds.

See, the baker lost the case because, according to the courts, their privately owned bakery didn't have a right to religious discrimination, because it was "open to the public."

So, that said, if a baker can't determine what customers he will serve based on the fact that any member of the public can walk into his establishment, then it flows logically that a "private" web host (especially one taking tax dollars and turning them into private profit) would be treated in the same manner, as anyone with an internet connection can "walk into their establishment," ie browse their web page.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Just the fact that you are justifying MURDER tells us all we need to know about you.

The fact that you've already convicted the defendant despite having seen zero evidence tells us all we need to know about you.

Remember 'innocent until PROVEN guilty? You know, the entire basis for the US Justice System?

Go back to Berlin, Adolf.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Apparently, to the slow kids, a conviction in the Court of Public Opinion is all that's needed to order an execution.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Unless you are a lawyer it would not be wise to accuse someone of murder when they haven't been convicted.

Actually, even if you were a lawyer, that would be a bad idea.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

...I don't think it's stupid to take calls for violence seriously...violence may actually be necessary to achieve certain... goals...

Sweet zombie Christ, you actually said that... probably with a straight face...

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Actually, it could very easily be argued that those weapons were present because they knew they would be assaulted.

Besides, A) it's completely legal to be armed in the US, per the 2nd Amendment, for the purpose of self defense, and B) "intent" only matters when you've committed a crime. Organizing a legal protest, and exercising your legal right to armament do not count as crimes, no matter how much you don't like their ideology.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Even in charlottesvill they managed to get a whopping 300 people to show up with months of advertising... they are a boogieman nothing more

Should have hired Crowds On Demand like Antifa did.

$25/hr and a free lunch can drum up a lot of "support"

Re:Now you see

[KingBenny]

zee germans ... its a sign of power(less ness) actually, they don't know what to do against it. Let's hypothetically say that Merkel and zee germans have been the glue of the eu (someone drop a beat on that) ... and the eu is considered by about way over 50% of eu-sers to be just another layer of tax on top, something that ofcourse is gladly fuelled by the extremes and populist demagogues who have been rising the last years, but they actually live up to their name too , more often than not ...
and then after virtually handing over the continent and the paper union to the extremists and separatists on a golden platter now it seems the only way to stop them is very un-democratic AND ... ignoring the fact that fringe won't disappear if you censor it, they push it all underground and into dispersion which in the end makes it more unmanageable than it already was and eventually leads to even less popularity
i dont see this ending very well really ... i read putin is behind it ofcourse (what is the dude not involved in) because starting wars in europe will somehow help the rise of russia as i understood but i dont think he has to, the EU, and from what i read lately the united lobbies of the free world themselves too are quite capable of fucking it up without fancy bears or harder goon squads or do you think putin planted the white supremacists in america too ? what do they plan to do with them ? censor them ? bust their houses over a webpage (that went down well) or maybe just put them all in jail and turn them to the white centipede ? i say this close to civil war is where this is going but i have to be careful before i'm "informed on" inciting blah in soviet pc-europe here

Re: Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

Actually, it is only legal to be armed to serve "a well regulated militia..." said 223 years of precedent. Heller will fall
Organizing a legal protest and bringing lethal weapons proves intent.

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

Actually, it is only legal to be armed to serve "a well regulated militia..." said 223 years of precedent. Heller will fall

Wishful thinking isn't precedent, silly goose. Heller is the law, whether you like it or not.

Re: Now you see

[AutodidactLabrat]

Sorry, but even Scalia noted that they were vitiating 223 years of precedent with Tiller. Trump will leave. The court will turn left. it will be overturned

Re: Now you see

[CanHasDIY]

First it was Heller, now it's Tiller?

You can't even keep your precedent straight, bro.

You don't stop people from talking

[Crashmarik]

You stop them from breaking the law.

This is just bass ackwards.

Re:You don't stop people from talking

[AmiMoJo]

It's the same as other "speech only" crimes like fraud. "But I just wrote some numbers on a piece of paper! My freeze peach!" isn't much of a defence.

Re:You don't stop people from talking

[Crashmarik]

The article doesn't say that not saying it isn't true but if it is then the German Government is real slow about it.

Why not just "Extremist"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't someone's political ideology separate from how they achieve it? Anyone that uses violence to politically motivate, whether it be left-wing or right-wing, is what is being contained.

To hedge off the first round of comments:
1) Yes, I will admit that some sects of ideology are more prone to using such tactics but these exist everywhere on the political spectrum.
2) No, this doesn't mean we should or shouldn't tolerate an idea. It is that we should consider how a group is trying to influence change. If it is sitting in someone's basement minding their own business should we care? Probably not. If it is setting fires to buildings? Yeah, I care almost no matter what the purpose.

Re:Why not just "Extremist"?

[Rockoon]

It is exactly this. The solution to "the problem" of Free Speech is MORE Free Speech.

That idiot that drove his car into a crowd in Charlottesville was not exercising free speech.

There was so much violence on both sides before this happened that the police had already declared an unlawful assembly several hours before the vehicular homicide. The UCLU has condemned Charlottesville for "dispersing" the declared unlawful assembly in a manner that forced the two groups already committing violence together.

Speaking as a lefty

[rsilvergun]

Good. Every large group has it's version of Soccer Hooligans. The left is no different. The difference is (as Noam Chomsky noted) the Right is _much_ better at violence than the Left. Their love of strong authority figures means they can organize better and they've got more ex-military guys. The Left can win on issues because our policies work. But we can't win on violence because, well, we're not nearly as violent (and yes, that's probably a slightly controversial idea, but that doesn't make it less true).

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and tell all these peopled killed by the left that you're not nearly as violent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't left wing at all. You are a centrist liberal which since being pro-capital is firmly right wing. When our comrades overthrow the bourgeoisie, you will get the bullet too.

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[sorenstoutner]

The Left can win on issues because our policies work.

There are many people in this world who have looked closely at the policies of the Left and have come to the opposite conclusion. For example, those who have studied the policies of Leftist Venezuela have generally come to the conclusion that it isn't working out well for them right now.

But we can't win on violence because, well, we're not nearly as violent (and yes, that's probably a slightly controversial idea, but that doesn't make it less true).

One of the interesting things about the so-called spectrum from the Left to the Right is that it isn't really a line, but rather a circle. If you move far enough left or right you meet at the bottom of the circle. Therefore, even thought the words they use to describe it are different, in practice there is very little difference between Communism (Stalin) and Fascism (Hitler).

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[JoeMerritt]

Your post seemed strange to me, because off hand I would consider the USSR to be a prime example of "left" in practice (not theory) and they were very good at violence.

This led me to look up the definition of left wing vs right wing, and I see on Wikipedia it is defined as a measure of how hierarchical the power structure is, with flat being left and triangle being right.

This form of left vs right seems to be an unimportant nuance; I can predict an argument that the USSR was not "left" but "right" because while it talked about equality, it led to a singular despot in a very sharp triangular power structure. But that seems to be the problem of the difference between theory and practice. In theory "left wing" policies would be wonderful, but in practice. . .

Re: Speaking as a lefty

[moronoxyd]

The difference is that with the Left you get mostly property damage and a few rocks thrown, whereas the Right is more prone to shoot and bomb people.

Note that in the past this was different. In the 70s and 80s Germany was dealing with Left-wing terrorism by the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion).

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[LynnwoodRooster]

Is that why Antifa violently attacks and destroys property on UC Berkeley's campus?

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[lucm]

as Noam Chomsky noted

Noam Chomsky is a buffoon. He once complained during an interview with Larry King that he was silenced and ignored by the mainstream media. He's basically a white Al Sharpton with no cause.

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[PopeRatzo]

Antifa has battered people for many months now and the police have been told to stand down on numerous occasions and even funneled people into their hands.

Suck it up, snowflake. If you want to claim victim status, get in line behind the guy with the tiny violin.

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[Carewolf]

Good. Every large group has it's version of Soccer Hooligans. The left is no different. The difference is (as Noam Chomsky noted) the Right is _much_ better at violence than the Left. Their love of strong authority figures means they can organize better and they've got more ex-military guys. The Left can win on issues because our policies work. But we can't win on violence because, well, we're not nearly as violent (and yes, that's probably a slightly controversial idea, but that doesn't make it less true).

Well. Germany does have a history with left-wing terrorists like Rote Arme Fraction, and is still dealing with occational 80s style BZers in Berlin that won't leave the buildings they are not paying rent for (though with large parts of Berlin formerly communists and some building occupied since the fall of DDR, the ownership is a lot more vague in places).

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[doctorvo]

Suck it up, snowflake. If you want to claim victim status, get in line behind the guy with the tiny violin.

We aren't "claiming victim status", we are expressing our disgust at the violence and intolerance of the American left.

And, of course, "the American left" includes both the fascists and the anti-fascists.

Re:Speaking as a lefty

[HornWumpus]

He cited a Cambodian holocaust denier (Chomsky). That ends his credibility.

Tomorrow's fascists will be the antifascists

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'm a big believer in free speech and all that, but I am glad that Germany is at least applying whatever laws against extremist speech they have to both sides equally. Keep in mind though that they have an extensive and fairly recent history of actual left wing terrorism.

It can be hard to tell the fascists and antifascists apart sometimes, in methods, ideology and in appearance. Just how hard it can be was nicely illustrated today in an article on a Dutch left wing (and fairly sympathetic to Antifa) blog about how the altish-rightish FvD party has ties with neo-nazis. The article itself isn't relevant, but it carried a picture of a group of scary looking masked people with red, black and white banners, one of them flashing what at first glance appears to be a nazi salute. That blog could be forgiven for the fact that these are not neo-nazis, but Antifa. You can tell by looking closely at the flags.

Re:We have the opposite problem in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Right wing extremist groups are not "propping up everywhere". They only reason they have a platform, and any coverage, of ANY sort... is because the misguided media keeps showing up with their cameras. Left wing extremism is real and it's causing just as many problems, if not more. I don't see Nazi groups destroying property and setting cars on fire over a speech at a college.

Both sides have extremist factions that they ignore, because they like that those extremist factions will do the dirty sh!t that the more "normal" (read: need to get re-elected) people won't do. That is why the president denounced violence on both sides. Problem was, the left isn't used to being called out for such dirty tricks, so they kept at it with "the president needs to apologize the CORRECT way, he needs to only blame the violence on the RIGHT".

This isn't a first at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Websites have been shut-down before. Left-wing websites as well. And once, the French even sank a ship.

Re:We have the opposite problem in the US

[Mr D from 63]

Right wing extremist groups are not "propping up everywhere". They only reason they have a platform, and any coverage, of ANY sort... is because the misguided media keeps showing up with their cameras. Left wing extremism is real and it's causing just as many problems, if not more. I don't see Nazi groups destroying property and setting cars on fire over a speech at a college.

Both sides have extremist factions that they ignore, because they like that those extremist factions will do the dirty sh!t that the more "normal" (read: need to get re-elected) people won't do. That is why the president denounced violence on both sides. Problem was, the left isn't used to being called out for such dirty tricks, so they kept at it with "the president needs to apologize the CORRECT way, he needs to only blame the violence on the RIGHT".

THIS. There are no more than there ever were. But the media seeks them out and actually helps them by making it look like a growing movement, sparking idiots on the other side to come and confront. Too bad we can't take the ultra left and ultra right and put them in a room together and lock the door, let the media cover the aftermath.

Not sure, this was a good decision

[mseeger]

If this web site was the worst site that needs to be shut down, Germany would be a happy country ;-). It was in the large part only a forum with anonymous usage. The name associated it with the left and the moderators surely had their sympathies rather on the left end on the spectrum.

The site was used by extremists to announce their deeds and to blurp their justifications. On the other hands, they were constantly taking a beating by the far bigger majorities of lefties. It was always clearly visible, how isolated the extremists were.

Tactically the police robbed themselves of one of the best intelligence sources they had on the extreme left.

Re:Not sure, this was a good decision

[lucm]

Tactically the police robbed themselves of one of the best intelligence sources they had on the extreme left.

The police doesn't need this kind of intelligence. All they need is the green light from the politicians, then they can go pick up a troublemaker or two and they'll topple the whole pyramid because those people have no loyalty, they're just in for the lols.

Re:Not sure, this was a good decision

[mseeger]

Previous experience shows that does not work like that.

Re: Correct summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ Almighty...

Why does this have to be left vs. right?

Can't it be civilized people vs. violent monsters?

I don't care which stupid insane ideology you follow if you're hurting innocent people! Fuck off everyone! If you want my attention, this is how you won't get it.

Shuts Down Pro-Violence Website

[Anonymous Coward]

I could give a shit less about ideology (left, right, niche, mainstream, underground, outer-space).

Can we please stop calling it out as though it matters?

Let's focus on the important thing:
- People who use violence to force or intimidate others into doing things their way

That behavior belongs in the stone age or after a zombie apocalypse.
The ill-reasoning behind the behavior doesn't matter at all.

Violence doesn't work.

[Gravis Zero]

Politically motivated violence (short of genocide) has been shown to be ineffective and many times counterproductive. However, if you think genocide is the answer then you have lost sight of what you were fighting for. Combating extremism with more extremism is a losing move.

Re:Violence doesn't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Politically motivated violence (short of genocide) has been shown to be ineffective and many times counterproductive.

The American Revolution was effective. The violence against Reconstruction in the American South was effective. Hitler's violent seizing of more complete control was effective (and was prior to the genocide of the Holocaust). The October Revolution in Russia was effective. The Irish War of Independence was effective. A large number of revolutions, in fact, were successful and effective.

It's not nearly as simple as political violence is ineffective and counterproductive. Often, we tend to remember the successful examples as something.

They're surprisingly well organized

[rsilvergun]

given that several European governments are tamping down on them. Antifa are mostly anarchists. By definition they're poorly organized. A well organized anarchist isn't an anarchist.

Also, you do know that Islamic Terrorists are right wing, right? They're conservative and authoritarian. As for economics, sure, they'll take control of all the money, but everybody but the anarchists does that. And the anarchists are really just giving that control up to the right wing (nature abhors a power vacuum).

And if you live in the United States it's a fact that there is more right wing terror acts than Left wing. I can't be bothered to google the proof for you right now, but you could find it by highlighting the last sentence and clicking "Search google for..."

You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative. They're doing this so they can take more money from the working class for themselves. And that's sorta why I'm on the Left...

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[JaredOfEuropa]

I live in Europe and believe me: the right do not control the media in my country. Not at all.

Antifa aren't anarchist, they are mostly anti-establishment. And over here they are highly organized, there really isn't any comparison with the far right on that score. I'm not sure what the situation is in the USA but it would seem to be very different. As for the islamic terrorists, that's where the notion of left and right kind of break down. For one, the left are far more sympathetic to fundamentalist islam than the right. Fundamentalist islam (not necessarily terrorists) identifies and associates far more with the left than the right as well. The idea that islamic terrorists can simply be lumped in with the far right extremists is ridiculous beyond belief... a bit like saying that the actual Nazis were left wing ("National Socialism, says so right there on the tin!")

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[meglon]

When we in the US talk about far-right, we typically mean conservative. It's not necessarily interchangeable, but it's used that way most the time.... in Europe you draw more distinction between the two. The fundamentalist Muslims are the most conservative, just as the evangelicals here in the US are.

The left, here in the states, are more sympathetic to Muslims in general (over conservatives) because we believe that everyone has the same rights, regardless of what their religion is, and we see conservatives being complete authoritarian asses to a whole religion while at the same time suggesting that they're upholding some patriotic duty to the US (as opposed to basically acting like the NAZI's did against the Jews after taking power pre-WWII). So the left is really rooting for the small things in life... like the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, things that conservatives hate (while giving lots of lip service to).

In addition, conservative here in the US include actual NAZI's, along with other vile pieces of shit... so while Europe has kept the farthest right pieces of shit mostly out in the cold, here in the US their dogma is embrace by a lot of conservatives.... far more than actually realize they're fucking NAZI's.

..and, yeh, we have some mentally challenged dipshits over here that thing NAZI's were socialists for that exact reason.... some even on this board. I'm sure they'll be down voting my post here ASAP because they really hate being told the truth, and they want everyone to be "PC" to them while they're being complete asshats to anyone they want.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[Whibla]

You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative. They're doing this so they can take more money from the working class for themselves. And that's sorta why I'm on the Left...

You must be watching different media coverage of the US to me, I think...

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[Tyler Durden]

For one, the left are far more sympathetic to fundamentalist islam than the right. Fundamentalist islam (not necessarily terrorists) identifies and associates far more with the left than the right as well. The idea that islamic terrorists can simply be lumped in with the far right extremists is ridiculous beyond belief... a bit like saying that the actual Nazis were left wing ("National Socialism, says so right there on the tin!")

It's not ridiculous at all to label Islamic terrorists as far right extremists. Strict fundamentalists within their religion who want to enforce their morality through an authoritarian government? They'd be right at home as a more violent version of the Religious Right here in the US; it's just that the details of their religious beliefs are a bit different. But nothing that wouldn't exclude them from the right wing.

I agree that the radical Islamists like to play the victim to appeal to the left wing, and the left wing tends to be more sympathetic. It's really too bad that the left can't see more often what they are as they push for violence against homosexuals and many restrictions specific to women. It's unfortunate that the Western right wing can't reflect what they hate about the radical Islamists and consider that it's in them also. Oh well.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[LynnwoodRooster]

You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative.

The right owns the media and controls the narrative? I guess that's why members of the press self-identify as Democrats versus Republicans at a 4:1 ratio. Must be all those right-wingers at the New York Times, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. I guess the 20 to 1 endorsement rate of Hillary! over Trump is just the right wing manifesting itself in the media.

Seriously, put down the bong, drop your copy of Hillary!'s excuse/blame-fest "What Happened?", and, well - go away.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[Rockoon]

You dont understand. This guy thinks the Democrats are also right wing because they arent Marxist enough. He is a classic Antifa representative. Anything that isnt Marxist is fascism in his book. Capitalism is fascism in their book.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[AmiMoJo]

That's a funny definition, considering the left does it's best to accommodate violent, expansionist Islam whenever it gets the chance.

How does this bullshit get modded up?

The left wants people treated fairly, not lumped together and treated as one group. Muslims, like Christians and Jews, are not one homogeneous group.

It's entirely possible to oppose Islamic values, morality and terrorism while still objecting to mistreatment or unwarranted discrimination against Muslims.

The rest of your claims are just slander.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[JaredOfEuropa]

A lot of our far right groups are not big on religion. They may have some, and may share some views with religious extremist, but the driving force is conservatism and tradition, not religion itself. Most European far right groups are not at all the same as the religious fundamentalists in the States, though there are a few similar ones (mostly in eastern Europe IIRC).

But who knows. Suppose that Islam in the west wasn't associated with a vulnerable and economically disadvantaged group of immigrants, but with a group of confident, strong and self-supporting people. I am sure that in this case the left would rip into islam with the same enthusiasm they showed when they ridiculed christian faiths in the 60s and 70s. And in this case, the far right might well cosy up to extremist islam, abeit for a common cause rather than common viewpoints.

Asking the far right to reflect is a bit of a stretch... but their focus on radical islam is easily explained. They don't like immigrants, and in Europe Islam is a very large common denominator amongst immigrants, so they fight Islam too. To them, extremist muslims are just examples they can point out while explaining why all of islam sucks.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[malkavian]

Largely speaking, both left and right want people treated fairly. The further away from the centre ground you go, the more polarised the group becomes on what they deem an unfairly treated group to be, and the extent to which that group is disadvantaged. Also, they're usually wrong about the 'why' of the disadvantage.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[AmiMoJo]

I agree to some extent, but I think even moderates on the right tend to want to force people to accept their morality and religion. For example, on same sex marriage or abortion rights.

The left tends towards the principle of doing what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. I suppose conservatives would argue that too, except that two guys getting married "injures" them somehow, but leftists are just making trouble when they complain about naming that building after the guy who owned their ancestors.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[Reziac]

Islamic terrorists (and Islam in general) have a great deal more in common with the Bolsheviks than with any genuinely right-wing groups. They don't really care about "conserving" anything; they care about overthrowing anything they don't control. It's just easier to control that which you've knocked down to medieval levels.

Re: They're surprisingly well organized

[AmiMoJo]

Give me just one example of a European left wing leader being paralysed by fear of being labelled islamophobic when faced with mass murder.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[Dirk Becher]

The problem is that the notion that "not all muslims/christians/jews are evil" usually results in the left to do nothing at all or only something against the most criminal ones. This is pretty much the spear counterpart to the rightwing variant where the notion that some people of a group are evil will lead to the condemnation of the whole group.
Of course, the leftwing version of this fallacy is seen as more sympathetic as the consequences are born by their own demographic.

Re:They're surprisingly well organized

[VisceralLogic]

I agree to some extent, but I think even moderates on the right tend to want to force people to accept their morality and religion. For example, on same sex marriage or abortion rights.

I agree with this.

The left tends towards the principle of doing what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. I suppose conservatives would argue that too, except that two guys getting married "injures" them somehow, but leftists are just making trouble when they complain about naming that building after the guy who owned their ancestors.

But I disagree with this. The modern left tends toward the principle of doing what you like as long as it doesn't offend or have the potential for offending someone less-privileged than you.

It's the libertarians who support doing what you like as long as it doesn't harm others.

Re: Correct summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

If you think hatred and violence is monopolized by any one political ideology, you're sorely mistaken. History shows us hatred and violence are an easy vice for any group to fall into, and it's one that we should attack regardless of whether "our team" is doing it or not.

Re: Correct summary

[CanHasDIY]

Trolling for those Troll mods, I see.

Hope you get 'em.

Re:We have the opposite problem in the US

[mapkinase]

I confirm this indirectly. I tried to gather statistics on popularity of neonazism in Europe and all I got is Golden Heart (or whatever it called) winning 7% in Greece in parliamentary election.

Rise of right-wing xenophobia is a real thing though. Denmark is flooding propaganda waves with shows like Gidseltagningen, for example.

No, not this

[rsilvergun]

It's the exact opposite. A simple google search will show thatright wing violence is 74% more common than left.

This shouldn't be surprising. Antifa groups are anarchists. By definition they're unorganized and loose knit. They reject authority on the face of it. The Right OTOH make authority a central plank of their ideology. Better organization leads to more effective violence. That's why militaries use a chain of command instead of voting.

Re:No, not this

[CanHasDIY]

It's the exact opposite. A simple google search...

No such thing, sadly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:No, not this

[Mr D from 63]

It's the exact opposite. A simple google search will show thatright wing violence is 74% more common than left. This shouldn't be surprising. Antifa groups are anarchists. By definition they're unorganized and loose knit. They reject authority on the face of it. The Right OTOH make authority a central plank of their ideology. Better organization leads to more effective violence. That's why militaries use a chain of command instead of voting.

The google search does not given results that say right wing groups are growing. The NPR opinion piece you referred to limits its description of left wing violence to those done by "groups", but compares against all RW violence, individual or group. NPR is not exactly an objective source when it comes to L v R, I guess you know.

Re:No, not this

[Darinbob]

So try duckduckgo or other anonymizers.

Re:No, not this

[DRJlaw]

NPR is not exactly an objective source when it comes to L v R, I guess you know.

No, I don't know. Perhaps you could provide systematic evidence, rather than an anecdote or two, to back that assertion.

The NPR opinion piece you referred to limits its description of left wing violence to those done by "groups", but compares against all RW violence, individual or group.

Talk about not being an objective "source," you need to check yourself. "In the past 10 years when you look at murders committed by domestic extremists in the United States of all types, right-wing extremists are responsible for about 74 percent of those murders," Pitcavage says."

LW violence by individuals was not excluded from that figure. It was a division of a uniformly selected population.

Re:No, not this

[mmdurrant]

Something this argument consistently fails to address:
A majority of these murders are being committed by people who are so focused on survival that things like politics aren't a concern aside from the microspheres that govern their existence. I guarantee these people aren't reading treatises by Marx or Hayek and any political affiliation is almost accidental.

Re:We have the opposite problem in the US

[Mr D from 63]

^I'll faint the day we see a major Hollywood movie with leftist extremest as the bad guys. Far right bad guys are a Hollywood staple.

Re:Correct summary

[Straumli Perversion]

but because some of the black people are fed up and fighting back, they're the bad guys

The ones committing acts of violence are the bad guys as far as I'm concerned. Whatever cause they may believe in.

In related news

[cirby]

Congressman Scalise is improving, and is undergoing physical therapy so he can walk again.

After, you know, a Bernie Bro shot him and some other people.

And the former professor - again, a leftist - who slammed a bike lock into four people's heads, is still awaiting trial.

Not to mention the 200 or so leftists who are facing charges after their violent riots in Washington, DC.

Re:In related news

[LynnwoodRooster]

Don't forget the five police officers shot and killed in Dallas because a leftist was upset over supposed police targeting of black men (even though that is a lie). But you know, the whole "no true Leftist..." defense...

Re:In related news

[Cederic]

Well, that depends whether he did it or not.

Although the online community's research into the masked bike lock attacker's identity was a wonder to behold, I'll wait for a court of law to pass judgement before demanding attrition from a specific individual.

Up next

[easyTree]

Germany expands the category 'left-wing' to include anything objectionable.

Re:Finally a move against the REAL threat

[meglon]

Way to embrace your inner NAZI. Takes a pretty sick, twisted, fuck to stick up for old Adolf, but i guess you were the right person for the job.

I suggest you look at who owns your media

[rsilvergun]

and then look up what their political views are. I think you'll be surprised (and mildly horrified). By 'media' I mean your radio, television and major newspapers. There's plenty of smaller fringes out there.

The media typically goes left on social issues (the ones that don't matter much) and right on economics (where real decisions are made).

There is one exception I can think of oddly enough, the BBC. Them and Al Jazeera are proabably the last bulwark of journalism left in the world. Though to be honest I don't follow the BBC's national coverage. I'd like to think if they'd been more on their toes Brexit wouldn't be happening right now.

Re:I suggest you look at who owns your media

[Cederic]

The BBC are not a bulwark of journalism. They're a horribly anti-male, anti-British propaganda outfit if you go by their website.

The radio news tends to be more balanced, but the non-news radio then reverts back to the pro-female agenda.

Shit, we're talking an organisation that still broadcasts a daily Women's Hour. No Men's Hour; they tried that as a once a week thing, devoted it to nonsense topics, didn't address any of the societal challenges facing men.

Actually we don't mean conservatives

[rsilvergun]

Conservatives want to keep things as is, unchanged. The Far right has taken over that term to disguise their radical agenda (I know, I hate that word too, but I don't have a better one for a group that want to make radical changes to our civilization).

There's an old line about the greatest trick the devil ever pulled and the Right did just that by branding "Conservative". Most folks are a tad on the Conservative side as soon as they have something to lose. By calling themselves that the Right hide their true nature.

Re:Actually we don't mean conservatives

[markdavis]

>"Conservatives want to keep things as is, unchanged. "

As far as USA Conservatives, no they don't. That is a big and unfair over-simplification. Conservatives want to keep the PRINCIPLES things were built on unchanged. Most importantly the concept of smaller government, especially Federal. Most Conservatives emphatically support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights inside it; they do not believe it is a flexible document that should be changed on a whim or twisted to meet the latest craze. They want people to be free of overbearing and over-reaching laws and regulations, and free to pursue happiness while also forced to take responsibility for their own actions and lives. They believe in equal rights and opportunities, not in quotas, handouts, reparations, affirmative action, and generations of people dependent on government spending with high taxes and debt. They also believe that free-markets work, and much better than government, as long as monopolies are kept in check and consumers are informed and free to make choices.

Re:Actually we don't mean conservatives

[Pfhorrest]

To be fair, conservativism and right-wing politics, while not cointensive (don't mean the same thing) were coextensive (referred to the same people) at the start, far predating the modern conflation of the two terms. The original right wing were the party of the established elite, who already had all the power and didn't wan't anything to change from that, aking authoritarianism originally coextensive as well. The original left wing, representing the interests of the general populace, wanted change, making them progressive, and they wanted to achieve that change through reducing the authority of the elites, making them liberal.

That original left-wing, the liberal progressives, won, and established a new status quo. Then over time, after Marx, the left wing (still, by definition, representing the common people) started to think authority could be used as a tool for good (i.e. to help the common people), and so stopped being technically liberal; but in some places, like the US, we continued calling anyone on the left "liberal" anyway. Those who opposed those authoritarian-egalitarian changes in favor of the new status quo thus became the new conservatives, who in some places (outside the US) continued to be called "liberal" as well.

Since then the right have adopted many of the same authoritarian techniques of the new left (that's what's called neoconservativism), and then gone further into the worse authoritarianism of the old right, while the left, still more authoritarian than the original left or the until-recently-new right, are once again less authoritarian than the right, so things are tilting back toward their original alignment, at least between left-right and liberty-authority. But for a while back there, the until-recently-new left had largely won, so the direction of change away from their status quo (the New Deal) is now toward the right, making the left technically the conservative side, and the right the "progressive" side, at least inasmuch as "progress" can just mean "change" without value judgement. (i.e. since everything is drifting toward the right over time lately, those wanting to keep things more to the left are the ones in favor of keeping things how they were, or in other words, conservative).

Re:Actually we don't mean conservatives

[markdavis]

Most Republicans are Conservative, but they have their own twist. Many religious Republicans do co-mingle their religious conventions with politics, true Conservatives do not. The Constitution clearly separates the two- religion and government.

You are correct that Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans, and much, much more so than most Democrats. But the whole "left vs. right", "conservative vs. liberal", "progressive vs. regressive" are all two-dimensional oversimplifications of a much broader set of choices that go in many other directions. But the USA loves to make everything polarized- has to be "A" or "B"; the whole voting system is geared around the concept and our country suffers due to it.

As far as the marriage thing (which is another topic, but since you mentioned it)- Conservatives, including [I believe] most Republicans, believe that is reserved to the States and should be decided there (which is consistent with the Constitution). Marriage in religion is one thing, but in the eyes of Law it is just a construct that is [obviously] flexible. If marriage is not between a man and woman, it could be two men, two women, two men and a woman, two women and a man, four people, etc. The construct, in many ways, is actually pretty outdated. Most marriages ultimately and easily end, start again, etc. Almost half of children are now born outside marriage (over 40%). In each subsequent generation, fewer and fewer people are even bothering with getting married. Even the CURRENT concept of marriage is unfair if it conveys any privileges denied to those who are or want to remain single, or have relationships that do not fit the notion of just two people.

Re:Actually we don't mean conservatives

[markdavis]

>"Nope, as if you did, you wouldn't have tolerated"

Me tolerated? You don't know what I do or don't tolerate...

>"And yet Republicans, aka, self-professed Conservatives freak out over that and decry that it belongs to religion,"

Actually, I agree that it belongs to religion and should have no standing or observance by government. That is the simple solution.

>"Why is that a problem?

Unfairness? That is pretty self-explaining.

>"What unfairness do you see that you find objectionable?"

I said "if it conveys any privileges". Does it?

Re:Actually we don't mean conservatives

[markdavis]

>"No take-backsies. Proceed."

No thanks, better things to do with my time right now.

I'm not at all pro-capital

[rsilvergun]

not sure what the hell gave you that idea. I'm a Democratic Socialist. And your comrades are going to get stomped to death by real, live Nazis long before you get around to shooting me. Not that that'll help either of us. They'll do the same to me. Meanwhile those same Nazi's will be laughing their asses off at the beer halls because your silly anarchist dreams were no match for their highly organized groups of brown shirts.

Join or Die friend. You're gonna have a government whether you like it or not. The only question is do you bother to participate.

Re:I'm not at all pro-capital

[Rockoon]

Socialism isnt good enough for the Marxists known as Antifa.

Major cities North East cities are pretty liberal

[rsilvergun]

they tried just that in Boston and a few dozen showed up. Meanwhile 2000+ counter protesters showed up. Their rallies tend to be down south where racism is strong enough to bring them out. But they're spreading, and since they get along well with the economic and Christian right they've got a power base to grow and expand off of.

The USSR is far right

[rsilvergun]

and couldn't be more far right if they tried. What they do is use left wing Rhetoric and far right policies. That's where your confusion is.

It's important to have labels and shorthand to get a message across fast. Working Class people have limited time and attention spans. If you're trying to organize and help them you've got to work in those constraints. The Right can and will to your detriment and mine.

Re:We have the opposite problem in the US

[LynnwoodRooster]

I didn't realize that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, Castro, etc. were right-wingers...

Re: Correct summary

[ShanghaiBill]

Both sides are violent, but in different ways. In the last century, the left killed more than the right, but most of those deaths were due to economic incompetence rather than intentional actions. Killing out of hate is far more common on the right. Stalin allowed millions of Ukrainian kulaks to starve, not because he hated them, but because he saw them as a threat to his power. But the Jews were not a threat to Hitler, they had supported the Kaiser in WW1, and they got along with Fascists like Franco, who did not share the Nazi's anti-semitism.

The same is true today. In Charlottesville, the alt-left directed their anger at their opponents on the alt-right. The alt-right chanted against leftists, but also blacks, Jews, gays, etc.

Re: Correct summary

[Khyber]

"Can't it be civilized people vs. violent monsters?"

Looking at the laws we have right now in the USA, I daresay not a damned one of you are civilized.

Re: Correct summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to define what left and right mean to you. I think you are conflating the politics of a group and the people attracted to the label. I would define Nazi party as hard core authoritarian Left wing. Right wing doesn't mean Fascism, the political ideal of alt-right includes widening state power vs federal. So, less power to one person or group of people.

Ineffective for what?

[rsilvergun]

It's worked great for dictators for millennia. Sure, every now and then one of 'em gets toppled, but that's surprisingly rare.

Re:Ineffective for what?

[Gravis Zero]

I was writing about violence within a democracy. Dictatorship is a totally different topic.

Re: Correct summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I would define Nazi party as hard core authoritarian Left wing.

In which case you would be a stupid American. Mussolini's idea of fascism as being a more-or-less corporate enterprise would fit in just fine with the small-government libertarians. Fascists tended to adopt Roman fripperies and you may also recall a certain brand of 'ubermensch' ultra-individualist philosophy. Add in a hefty heaping of nationalism, and restrict social benefits to a privileged class, and the Stormfront crowd will eat it up.

Re:Finally a move against the REAL threat

[lucm]

I'm sure you feel better after this long rant, but basically you're the one who looks like a tool, not the other guy.

Re:Major cities North East cities are pretty liber

[Rockoon]

they tried just that in Boston and a few dozen showed up.

Looked to me like the "few dozen" that showed up at Bostons free speech rally were a bunch of hippies and anti-gmo people. While they were talking about hippy things and gmo's, the counter protesters were screaming "Nazis!", "Fascists!", and "Racists!"

Re: Correct summary

[Rockoon]

..and by nazi's they mean people like the homosexual jew with the black boyfriend.

Does not compute

[SuperKendall]

Good. Every large group has it's version of Soccer Hooligans. The left is no different. The difference is (as Noam Chomsky noted) the Right is _much_ better at violence than the Left.

So why is it that the Left in the U.S. are the only ones so far that have shot or killed anyone?

Granted the ones who killed people were rather crazy and it's hard to label them exactly, but they all mostly read eliminationsist rhetoric from the left.

"The right is better organized" is a "fact" I would heavily dispute, since the most violent leftist felons are controlled by someone who all he literally knows how to do is organize communities. The right is only now trying to catch up but they are light-years beyond at shipping around people who make violence a profession.

Re:Does not compute

[rsilvergun]

They're not.

Re: Correct summary

[Z80a]

Even if it were just real nazis, it's never ok to kill people.
Yes, when they have guns, tanks and shit and don't want to surrender, you need to kill em, but it's still not OK.

Again, you're missing my point

[rsilvergun]

US "Conservatives" aren't. They're Radical Regressives. Trying to regress society back to some imaginary 'good 'ole times'. They're borrowing the Rhetoric of true Conservatives in exactly the same way Stalin borrowed the rhetoric of Progressives; to mask ill intent.

Ignore what they say, pay attention to what they _do_.

Re:Again, you're missing my point

[markdavis]

>" US "Conservatives" aren't. They're Radical Regressives. Trying to regress society [...] to mask ill intent. "

If you think that following both the words and intent of the Constitution is "radical" then nothing else I say to you will make any difference.

That's just it they're not coexistent

[rsilvergun]

they can't coexist because the Right wing want radical, sweeping changes to our social and economic order. You can't be Conservative and support that. As soon as you do you're no longer Conservative. Like an Anarchist trying to be Authoritarian. The two are fundamentally opposed.

They Right realized that a substantial number of people are Conservative out of fear of losing what they had. So they synced their rhetoric with those peoples wishes to hide their true intentions.

Re:That's just it they're not coexistent

[Pfhorrest]

I'm not really arguing against anything you're saying, but I think you misread a word I wrote.

I didn't say "co-existent", I said "co-extensive". That means that the extension of two terms is the same, where "extension of a term" means the objects that that term refers to. I was saying that, when the terms "conservative" and "right-wing" were coined, even though those mean different things and so might not always refer to the same people, at that time they did: right-wing favors the elites, at the time things were in the elites' favor, so they people who favored the elites didn't want anything changed, and people who oppose change are called conservatives.

So back in the beginning of the terms, they referred to the same people, so the connection between them is an easy thing with historical inertia, even if it's not technically accurate now because the present right-wing are the ones pulling us away from the current status quo, as you say. That is a historically unusual thing: usually, change has been leftward, so people pulling toward the right were opposing change, making them conservative.

Re: Correct summary

[Rei]

Where exactly do you get your information on "antifa"? You are aware that there is an active movement right now by pro-Trump trolls running fake "Antifa" twitter accounts, don't you? Even the pro-trump troll who created the "declare antifa a terrorist group" White House petition claims to have twitterbot armies of his own stoking the fires.

Antifa is not a "movement". It has no "ideology". It simply means "anti-fascist". Anyone who considers themselves anti-fascist can (or not) adopt the label.

Re: Correct summary

[Z80a]

It's a label that have quite a bit of blood splattered over it (mostly by the european branches), and not a good solution for the nazi at all.

Re: Correct summary

[Anonymous Coward]

"This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors."

Re:Finally a move against the REAL threat

[meglon]

Well, "being a tool" must now be synonymous with calling out Nazi sympathizers and defenders of Hitler. That's the kind of tool i'll happily be till all the fucking Nazi's die off. I know, you just had to defend your buttbuddy nazi in arms 'mi.' Good for you Hitler lovers to hang together and have each others backs.

Heather Heyer's Family

[MarcusOutrageous]

What I would 'tell the family' is that MORE SPEECH is the best herd-immunity against hate speech. If white-supremacists were allowed to speak freely (without antifa mobs rioting) they would just look like fools. LESS people would be swayed to their side rather than more. Just imagine Anna Kasparian debating a white supremacist. In a bikini. (her not him you schmuck!) In general when speech is suppressed then WORSE societal behaviors often end up fomenting in the fringes. You're outspoken on slashdot. You'll take on a white supremacist idiot in the public forum. I have faith in people like you. And if you find any bikini pics of Anna Kasparian (blonde era), do forward them. P.S. Here's the 'Battle of The Blondes' Coulter vs. Kasparian at Politicon and Toure being sexist by calling it a catfight. Yeah, I'm being sexist too but look at her legs when she gets up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Hate Speech

[MarcusOutrageous]

The best defense against hate speech is more speech. Let these idiots be ridiculed in the public square. NONE of them could handle themselves in a debate on the news. They'd just look like uneducated, uninformed, tribal, socially backwards members of some particularly regressive religions. Seriously -- those guys do NOT get the hot girls. So let them speak. When the ACLU defended the right of actual NAZI's to march it was the right thing to do. (although it was funnier when Mel Brooks dressed as Hitler.)

Racing Racers Reveal Racism!!!

[MarcusOutrageous]

Strat - I surmise that a good deal of the anti-speech movement on the left comes from, as one philosopher phrases it, "A Desire to Be Heroic." It is, as of yet, unclear to me what the highest quality approaches are to discussing this. Some of us believe the best defense against hate speech is MORE SPEECH. Suggesting this quickly got you labelled a member of the aryan nation by one responder. No doubt I'll get flamed too for responding to a couple of them. I included images of what MORE SPEECH means to me (Anna Kasparian's legs, Mel Brooks impersonating Hitler, Woody Allen as Castro). However the 'YOU ARE A WHITE RACIST' response quickly follows. And it's worthless, in my case for example, to explain that I'm not white. Nor will I pass the 'paper bag test' any time soon.

Re:Racing Racers Reveal Racism!!!

[BlueStrat]

Strat - I surmise that a good deal of the anti-speech movement on the left comes from, as one philosopher phrases it, "A Desire to Be Heroic." It is, as of yet, unclear to me what the highest quality approaches are to discussing this. Some of us believe the best defense against hate speech is MORE SPEECH. Suggesting this quickly got you labelled a member of the aryan nation by one responder. No doubt I'll get flamed too for responding to a couple of them. I included images of what MORE SPEECH means to me (Anna Kasparian's legs, Mel Brooks impersonating Hitler, Woody Allen as Castro). However the 'YOU ARE A WHITE RACIST' response quickly follows. And it's worthless, in my case for example, to explain that I'm not white. Nor will I pass the 'paper bag test' any time soon.

Pretty much agree 100%. It's going to take grownups like you & I to show them that we have far, far more in common as Americans than anything that would separate us.

The name-calling simply proves they have no argument or they'd make it, and it's also a weaksauce attempt to shame people like us in order to silence us (cluebat incoming, Progs!: Ain't happening!).

Strat

The ATF Store

[MarcusOutrageous]

dfenstrate - That was a lucid, logical and cogent response. Thank you. Valuable for me to paste into my debate points for future reference. Needed a concision in my response to "White Supremacist terror is the greater threat." Okay, maybe 'concision' isn't a word. Yet. Until I repeat it enough. Muhahahaahahahah. P.S. The 'marine' who recently killed the two cops also happened to be Black (by casual observation), a Black Lives Supporter (by Facebook posts), and Muslim by, oh, his new name Muhammad Ali (Facebook again, which also contains his anti-white rants.) http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... Yeah, well, anyway, I just can't find myself to be worried that, in general, it would be former marines that are going to ram a building with aircraft full of passengers or shoot up a gay nightclub.

Article is incorrect

[Knuckles]

Only one specific subdomain was declared illegal, lots of others and the indymedia domain itself are unaffectec

Capitalism is Fascism

[MarcusOutrageous]

Rockoon - Your response is intriguing. I've been trying to figure out the [reason] so many people in USA would think the media is right-wing. I mean, the number is FAR over the few points of fringe in any standard deviation. My placeholder for [reason] was [lives in an alternate universe]....and I think you just described that universe to me. Which will assist with my own active efforts to bring further rationality. Can you elaborate more on this mindset? Even if you were joking -- your explanation is still the MOST logical one I have encountered for any normative human to be able to say "the press right-wing dominated". P.S. Did you notice that Trudeau in the great north is deporting record numbers of immigrants? What happened to his tweet welcoming refugees with open arms in response to American enforcement of border law. Maybe one day our 'right wing' dominated press will report on that. And the collapse of Venezuela.

Biggest Laugh Today

[MarcusOutrageous]

Was seeing a Democratic Socialist being effectively called a Right Wing Zealot. Much more amusing than my being called out for being a White-Nationalist for my defense of freedom of speech in the public square. Seriously - I'd be THE MOST AWESOME White Nationalist EVER because I'm so brown that I should sue UPS for cultural appropriation. Oh shit...that's not actually funny because Yoga is under attack and universities can't have Mexican Food Day. But I REALLY REALLY like white women. So maybe I'm a white nationalist in that respect. Why white women you say? Easy. The flavor and the aroma. However -- back to serious points -- any defense of the tenets of Western Culture (including use of the words Western Culture) trigger the "You are a racist capitalist white supremacist!" against even those of us who are philosophically and biologically incapable of such feats. Then the dialectic fails. Shouting begins. Fighting possible. (That ALWAYS means fewer white women in bikinis, unless it is in amateur female jello wrestling which I am familiar with as I once managed Hillbilly Hussy). What, if any, could be a way to enter this debate without being labelled a KKK Grand Dragon?

The Right is More Willing to Shoot And Bomb

[MarcusOutrageous]

moronoxyd - I am interested in your point that leftist violence is mainly property damage while rightist violence leads to greater shootings and bombings. Some would debate your point by saying "millions of people were killed by the left (Stalin, Mao)" but that's pointless and doesn't apply to a point you're making about TODAY. The Stalin/Mao point is often an intellectually lazy knee-jerk response. I appreciate you're talking about TODAY. I am interested in your 'left=property damage VS. right=guns+bombings'. As of TODAY the most recent history is that a leftist wing-nut attacked a baseball field of Republican congressmen with a semi-automatic combat rifle. Two FL policemen were assassinated by a 'former marine'. Former Marine sounds rightist until one find out the media covered up he is actually a BLM supporter, Black Power rant-maker, Muslim Convert, Black himself, and Leftist based on his social media data. Okay, I agree those are micro datapoints. Lets go macro - about 13% of the population is responsible for about 50% our murders -- done mainly with guns. That 13% is virtually entirely comprised of a Democratic constituency. Gun violence is highest in Democrat controlled cities like Detroit, Chicago, D.C. These are cities controlled by the left for DECADES. While on the other hand virtually zero NRA members are violent criminals because felons cannot own guns. (Even if every NRA member was a closet felon they aren't killing at 4x-5x their population count). Okay -- in the interest of brevity, I will cease at two TODAY micro points and two TODAY macro points. All easily googled. Of course I could be wrong in seeing more leftist gun violence. I am human (albeit a suave and charming one, still flawed and prone to error). Please tell me why I should change my opinion to yours. I have an open mind. Thank you.

You're A Fake News Purveyor

[MarcusOutrageous]

Kirby (sic) -- now you STOP IT with your true-facts which happen just not get reported by the press unless they are FORCED TO. Did you not realize some former Obama voter and Occupy dude recently declared himself a white nationalist and killed some chick at a protest. And for that we should impeach Donald Trump and install Maxine Waters as president. And we should take all of Trumps stuff because after DECADES in the public eye with HORDES of enemies (Rosie O'Donnel counts as one or more hordes herself) we now realize he's racist. Black people winning The Apprentice was cover and his employees like Omarosa (she's white house staff!) are really white chicks wearing shoe polish. Viva la revolucion!!!

Re: Correct summary

[DNS-and-BIND]

Shutting peoples opinions down is not fighting fascism. It *is* fascism!

The word "nazi" today more often indicates the presence of a radical leftist nut (or slimy left-wing propagandist) than it does actual nazis.

"right wingers on college campuses"

[MarcusOutrageous]

PopeRatzo - you often reply cogently and wittily. I look forward to your posts whether I agree with them or not. (Actually, disagree is MORE interesting cuz you put out some some really really good slapdowns.) Can you explain however how you believe that right nationalists appear on college campuses? Not even feminist, black woman and former muslim Ayaan Hirsi can appear on campus without riots threatened and honorary degrees revoked (Brandeis) because of leftist campus control. Maybe you consider Orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro to be 'white supremacist' because he's caucasian even though the skinheads want him dead. He is also highly protested and even locked out of some campuses. (youtube video of police blocks available). Berkeley rioting shut down Milo and has, for now, halted Anne Coulter. If Milo is a WS that means White Supremacy now contains fantabulous (and often flaming ) gays who prefer black lovers. (shit man, that's almost a white supremacy that I could get into) And he's proud to state he's catching, not pitching, and I don't think one bottoms their way to supremacy. (I could be wrong. I'm heterosexual so maybe I just don't know.) So help me understand how I come over to your side and espouse that college campuses are where white supremacists foment. BTW -- the story you linked is absolutely an example of awful violent detestable white-supremacist cowards who should be put away for decades or more. It underscores they are thankfully a minority. According to 2014 FBI Homicide statistics 8% of black murders were by whites - no doubt often like the skinhead scum in your link. However 15% of killed whites were murdered by blacks. Whites are 77% of America, and blacks are 13%. Seems like one group there is underrepresented as murderers and the other vastly over-represented. I always enjoy your thoughts and I am interested in why I should adopt your points instead of what appears to be factual information to the opposite. I am rational enough to change my opinions based on properly understanding facts. Yeah -- and I'm man enough to handle your quick slapdowns. I'll probably enjoy it (but hey -- I'm not coming on to you, just so you know....unless you're really cute, clever and female and about 22-28 but I suspect you're not precisely in that ven intersection ) P.S. Ever see 'Midnight Cowboy'? Oscar winning 60's film. Dustin Hoffman's character is called 'Ratzo' at times in the movie. Whenever I see your handle the images that hit are Hoffman + Pope Of Greenwich Village. The set of memes it invokes for me is really cool.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[PopeRatzo]

Can you explain however how you believe that right nationalists appear on college campuses?

Charlottesville was like two weeks ago, when Nazis and KKK marched on the University of Virginia campus. You may have seen it on the news or seen pictures on the Daily Stormer. It as kind of a big deal. They killed someone.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[PopeRatzo]

So help me understand how I come over to your side

I don't want you on my side. You don't even know how to use paragraph breaks. You've been posting on 4chan so long, it's seriously degraded your ability to write cogent English.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[MarcusOutrageous]

Pope -- Ironically I decided this morning that Slashdot was in fact an important enough forum that yes, community standards require that I don't half-ass myself if I'm going to engage in debate, as such, properly formatted my post on Conflicts in Defining Libertarianism: Vampires or Villagers

https://slashdot.org/comments....

I appreciate your pointing out that lack of decorum would suggest I was a 4chan cookie. I've actually never been on 4chan...but how would anyone know that if I stream text in an ungracious and unseemly way, right? Such presentation would only serve to betray my points. A bit glad I chose to upgrade behavior before being upbraided by you, yet I am always open learning how & where I may be wrong.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[PopeRatzo]

I've actually never been on 4chan..

That's exactly what someone from 4chan/pol/ would say.

Anyway, welcome to Slashdot. But remember, I'll be keeping an eye on you.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[MarcusOutrageous]

Can you explain however how you believe that right nationalists appear on college campuses?

Charlottesville was like two weeks ago, when Nazis and KKK marched on the University of Virginia campus. You may have seen it on the news or seen pictures on the Daily Stormer. It as kind of a big deal. They killed someone.

Yes Pope, you're absolutely correct that Charlottesville VA was a Campus action by White Supremacists. I took that single event as an outlier not a trend.It looked to me like you were indicating this was happening regularly as you wrote:

No, when the Right holds its rallies, they go on fucking college campuses...

So now that we better understand one another, can you explain how you believe the Right holds rallies on campuses? You certainly didn't mean mean College Republicans who are domiciled on campus as your 'Right,' in your words ...go on fucking college campuses.

You are clearly an informed, thoughtful and lucid person. I regularly find I enjoy your posts. If you are aware that multiple rallies are held on a growing coterie of campuses -- as per what you wrote, it would be valuable to share that information.

If White Supremacists and Neo Nazis on campuses is genuinely a trend it would be very important to know. Especially for me as I am an actual brown person. Who visits Universities for speaking engagements. Sometimes in the South. (actually preferably in the South as I really do like southern girls. on the tree of American charm it is, to me, an ambrosia.)

The evidence I see suggests the Charlottesville event is, so far, a single isolated appearance of White Supremacists on higher academic soil. If so, suggesting America is awash with David Dukes duking it out at Durham or Drake (or even Duke!) is perhaps not the highest quality interpretation of reality. I am open to learning. I am especially open to where I am wrong. That place is exciting because I can learn something and improve myself. Thank you for your time.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[PopeRatzo]

You are clearly an informed, thoughtful and lucid person. I regularly find I enjoy your posts.

And you are an excellent judge of Slashdot comments.

If you are aware that multiple rallies are held on a growing coterie of campuses -- as per what you wrote, it would be valuable to share that information.

Berkeley, Princeton, University of Virginia, University of Alabama all come to mind. I could look up more if you'd like.

You certainly didn't mean mean College Republicans

I certainly did not. Richard Spencer was at all of the rallies I mentioned above and he is not a "College Republican". In fact, if you take a look at the list of speakers at these nazi rallies, you will see that none of them are "College Republicans". They are your garden variety homegrown nazi terrorists. Richard Spencer, Chris Cantwell (now in jail), Johnny Monoxide, Jason Kessler, et al are not fucking College Republicans .

So yeah, the alt-right, white supremacists, nazis or whatever you care to call them, most certainly do hold rallies on college campuses.

Re:"right wingers on college campuses"

[ganjadude]

not sure what happened to him but he has gone full potato lately.

Re:Major cities North East cities are pretty liber

[MarcusOutrageous]

rsilvergun - the 'spreading' of the white nationalist movement is indeed of concern. I can see how there will be some overlap with the Christian Right. It is not exactly clear to me how they fit with the Economic Right. I am willing to learn about all of these points. Can you links or recommendations for high-quality sources for this info? I ask for recommendations because finding non-politicized data about divisive issues can be labor intensive. And I am truly interested in updating my fact set via the advice of other rational men. I also like bourbon and women and I find all of these can be combined at the same bar -- however we are, as of now, confined to slashdot. I know there is media narrative of growth of white power. But this is the same media that colluded with the DNC (Wikileaks emails) to destroy Bernie Sanders' ability to compete with Hillary Clinton. The 'growth of white power' reports from the Obama admin appear to be an exaggerated story expressly created to replace any discussion of Islamic Terrorism. But I am human and all the bourbon and woman-chasing could easily make me miss the trend you're seeing. I'm not debating your observation with counterpoints. I do not have an opinion on the growth of white supremacy because I thought the SPLC killing off the Klan's brand was a milestone in the successful process of ridding ourselves of those people. I have a vested interest in non-tribalism as an American and an actual, bona-fide brown man myself. Who should I trust, or what direction should I search to learn about the growth of White Supremacy in the USA? P.S. I like to hang out in the south. (I do so like southern girls.) As a brown man on a motorcycle I'm both more obvious and more vulnerable. My girlfriends are always white. (is this jungle fever or racism? I say sexual preference -- no heritage performs better in bed for a man of my ethnicity than white women. That discussion another day.) So I guess I'm a really good target for white supremacists -- a brown northern tech exec who dates very attractive white women and celebrates Pride. Great you asswipe -- now you've made me paranoid. :) Kidding aside -- yeah, your point matters. What is best way to learn? (and I actually would avoid getting lynched if there's hotbeds of that about to occur. contrary to Road Warrior type films a motorcycle IS NOT a good attack or defense platform.)

Canon from The Pope

[MarcusOutrageous]

Dangit honkey! That's what I mean by a PopeRatzo slapdown! Not a factual response, yet humor doesn't require agreement and I do (as previously stated) enjoy the wit even its not (yet) backed up by fact. Scott Adams espouses the use of "linguistic kill shots" - enjoyable and rational reading.

Re:We have the opposite problem in the US

[LynnwoodRooster]

Juche became the official North Korean doctorine in 1992. It's goal is to bring about a strong North Korea so "that by becoming a self-reliant and strong nation one can achieve true socialism.[3]" I guess you can say that North Korea is not Communist, but Socialist. That's a big plug I'm sure the socialists will like - look, North Korea is Socialist!

The reality is that Communism and Socialism both rely upon a strong, central Government. The needs of the People are paramount, but in order to guarantee those needs are met the State must be strong and centralized. And therein lies the absolute failure of such political philosophies. When you provide for an all-powerful State, you will give a position of power to those running the State. And human nature being what it is, there will be people who seek to use that power for their own personal gain.

The other approach, libertarianism, capitalism, the original concept of the United States (and what is still practiced in Switzerland who has a very weak and small Federal Government) recognizes human nature and allows for self-reliance. A man can make what he wants to provide for himself, and thereby maintain independence. Individuals are self-reliant for the most part, and Government acts as the means of adjudicating conflicts.

In reality, the socialist/communist approach is really a call for fascism - the merging of economy and Government with force to back it up. Capitalism and libertarianism is the exact opposite - it purposefully keeps economy and Government apart, and thereby guarantees individual liberties (if you can provide for yourself, then Government loses its ability to coerce or control you). Socialism and Communism reside on the left, politically - and at least Socialism is highly regarded by the Democrats! Libertarianism and capitalism reside on the right, politically - and capitalism is a central tenet of the GOP and libertarianism is a strong streak (not strong enough) within much of the GOP.

When you get beyond the labels you like to sling about, and look at what really results, fascism is THE central step of all leftist ideologies. It is the step between "identify and communicate the ideal" and "utpoia". It is that step where the central Government becomes all powerful in an attempt to move to utopian results - but is never exited except by force. Because the entire concept of Socialism and Communism is inherently flawed because it denies human nature.

Re: Correct summary

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Muslims are easily fascists by your definition. Time to start punching!

Oh crap that was hilarious! & My Pennance.

[MarcusOutrageous]

I've actually never been on 4chan..

That's exactly what someone from 4chan/pol/ would say.

Anyway, welcome to Slashdot. But remember, I'll be keeping an eye on you.

Dude -- that was the first belly laugh of the day. Well done. I myself wish I could be so succinct and punchy when writing. My writing is painfully verbose (as you are suffering now, I sympathize). I don't suffer the same malady in speech. Quite the opposite where I can approach Robin Williams multi-manic.

However now I must visit 4chan for the first time and actually post something. This is to memorialize a good moment and an excellent cap to my being hazed by a veteran slashdotter.

The absolutely GEEKIEST thing that I have is a Skyrim necklace. Even Slashdotters have to admit a Skyrim necklace is pretty darned Nerdtastic even in North Dweebistan. I possess a Skyrim necklace because the young woman who sells me replacement elements for our gaming consoles decided I was such a good client that she would present me with the pewter dragon centered rhombus.

There are some phenomena in life that come with their own rule. With this it was "If someone gives you a Skyrim necklace with extremely high intent, then you must wear the Skyrim necklace to learn something about yourself." So I wore the Skyrim Necklace for like 3 days. Each day worried that someone would find out. What's funny is that I was alone in this facility for those three days. This is not irrational. If women knew exactly how weird I am, there would be a LOT less sex. And probably referrals to therapy.

On the upside when I wear it I'm +5 Int and +20 Dex, albeit limited to fingers only. But that's countered with -50 Sex Appeal. :[

Thanks for White Supremacist Campus Visit List

[MarcusOutrageous]

Much appreciated. That list is more than enough for me increase the level at which I am informed. Will hail you to learn more as this suggests I'm missing an important information input. I am moderately certain that knowledge of this trend of White Supremacists on college campuses is largely unknown by many, many people who are aware that conservative speakers (Coulter, Shapiro, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali) are yet persona non grata. This is some form of double crime if WP's are allowed while fiscal & social conservatives (who are not racists and often black, like Ayaan or WP targets like Orthodox 'Funny Hat Wearing'-his words- Shapiro) are defacto barred. Yep -- I've got something to learn here about actual reality. Thanks.

P.S. I have decided that in light of recent events I must visit 4chan over a multi day period. And post something meaningful. If that is possible on 4chan. When I do that I must wear The Skyrim Necklace. It sits here now. On my desk. Mocking...yet seducing me. Now that I look at it -- it's actually quite nicely machined. Smooth...very little torsion yet still flexible -- not brittle. Much better metal than I expected.

Example please?

[SuperKendall]

You ofter no links to prove our absurd assertions, and the very last shooter to attack people was a die hard Sanders supporter with the Republican he shot just learning to walk again. What an asshole you must be in real life to ignore violence like that against anyone!

Re:Example please?

[mmdurrant]

You have an awfully short memory if all you remember is what has happened in the last 4 months.

Links aren't necessary. Off the top of my head:

Orlando San Bernardino Charleston (2015, not recent) McVeigh Kazincki (not gonna take the time to spell it right, fuck you Ted) Roberts (Olympic bomber as your memory seems particularly short) Multiple anti-abortion nuts Dude that shot up the Sikh temple

And "No links to prove your assertions" - you linked to a _ridiculous_ site in your first post. It's not ridiculous because Catholic, it's ridiculous because it Not to mention that you made a claim without any real proof except "organized cuz he has organizer in his name" and he's the favorite bogeyman of the right because WJ Clinton was 20 years ago.

Re:Finally a move against the REAL threat

[thesupraman]

Well put.
However I suspect you will receive no reply.

It is important to remember that the Left to not embrace their failures, they deny them, or claim 'it will be different this time'
They also deny their damage.

Basically, they dont believe in responsibility,m at least not for themselves.

Re: Correct summary

[ganjadude]

the trolls you speak of (arazona antifa and bostona antifa on FB) make it pretty obvious they are mocking antifa.....

Re:You are racist

[AutodidactLabrat]

RNC - Led in 1998 by the three times keynote speaker at the WHITE POWER CONFERENCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CONSERVATIVE CITIZENS (uptown klan, originally "League of white decency")
BTW, Byrd resigned from the Klan in 1964.
There is a hell of a difference between 1964 and 1998 chump

Re:You are racist

[CanHasDIY]

I think all either of you have proven to me is that both parties consist primarily of old, racist assholes.

Re: Correct summary

[Khyber]

You're American whether you want to be or not - our country owns this planet. You're obviously too chickenshit to stop us from what we're doing now.

Re:You are racist

[AutodidactLabrat]

A 44 year old transgression by Byrd is nothing compared to the ongoing TODAY involvement of the RNC in racist causes.
Think "Wall" and the case is proved

Re:How about Gifford???

[cirby]

Giffords' shooter was supposedly non-political, but had actually worked on her campaign at one time.

He was certainly not a "right winger."