Hacker News Reader

Comment by remarkEon | Hacker News Reader

I used to think it was fairly easy to identify who was/is a "Nazi" or Nazi sympathizers (The Daily Stormer obviously passed the smell test). What I'm concerned about is that the scope of who's included in that group seems to be expanding. Immediately after Chancellorsville plenty of Liberal pundits, on and off Twitter, explicitly stated there was no difference between Republicans and the NRA and Nazis, which is of course a ludicrous statement. But people don't think it's ludicrous anymore. It seems a reasonable expectation at this point that this expansion will continue, because anyone who doesn't sufficiently condemn/signal their agreement with policing speech in this manner might find themselves branded a "Nazi sympathizer". Is this where we're headed? I sincerely hope not, because it's going to lead to a frightening trend of self-censorship. This is a sign of a seriously unhealthy political culture.

View on HN

That's exactly were the USA is headed. The vocal minority wants the civil war to happen. They want to affirm their own epic narrative (https://sivers.org/drama). David defeats Goliath, for the common good.

A lot of young people can't get a hold of their identity, so they grab on to their gender, race, being liberal, whatever. They make a virtue out of anything they already are. Then the journalists exploit the collective search for meaning by selling outrage and a scapegoat. Some people need the "nazis": their identity depends on it.

Isn't that also what the Nazi alt-right people are doing: grabbing a radicalized ready made identity off the shelf because they don't know who they are?

I see a ton of this today. Maybe it's the social media version of the couch potato. This is what it looks like when people lose themselves in social media.

> This is what it looks like when people lose themselves in social media.

No, this is what it looks like when you have a racist country that doesn't address its institutional racism for decades combined with a racist political party that panders and dogwhistles to them for (at least 5, more like 20) years combined with broken ideas about free speech.

The Democratic vice-mayor of Charlottesville has publicly said he hates white people. Racism goes both ways and some people in both parties are guilty of it.

He has since apologized for and disavowed those tweets. He wrote them before he was in public office:

“I sincerely apologize for the inappropriate things I posted to social media many years ago,” Bellamy said in his Facebook post. “Elected officials should be held to a higher standard, and while I was not in office at the time, in this instance I came up short of the man I aspire to be.”

He attributed the tweets to an immature phase of his life.

“At the time of the tweets that I saw posted on the website, I was a young man in my early 20s living outside the Deep South for the first time,” Bellamy said. “In the course of trying to mature and find my way I came to some false conclusions about the world around me and made them known.”

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2016/11/wes-bellamy-cha...

>The Democratic vice-mayor of Charlottesville has publicly said he hates white people.

Ok. How many white people have been beaten by police under his vile, racist vice-regime?

Oh. Zero, you say?

How many white people have had guns pointed at them by Black Panthers under his vile, racist vice-regime?

Oh. Zero, you say?

Then I think there's a difference. One side says mean things on Twitter, the other side infiltrates police departments and burns down churches.

Zero, I did not say.

According to the ACLU and ABC, police allowed the violence at the march to happen.

> [ACLU Tweet:] Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police says "We'll not intervene until given command to do so."

> Video replayed over the weekend on cable news and social media appears to show long brawls between protesters and counter-protesters that went uninterrupted by police.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-face-criticism-eruptions-vio...

Fighting racism with racism will just make the racists even more racist.

Whilst I can't defend him saying that, I will point out that it happened in 2009 and it's possible his opinions have changed since.

(Also mildly amusing that the person highlighting these tweets was one "Jason Kessler", a local Charlottesville bloggerm and now presumably the same one enjoying worldwide fame for organising a Nazi-themed march which left someone dead.)

> the person highlighting these tweets was one "Jason Kessler"

I saw it on CNN's website, where Bellamy said he'd grown since 2011 (that's the year he mentioned).

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/13/charlottesville-virg...

Yeah, he did say plenty of stupid things 2009-12 but the "I hate white people" was 2009. Not that I'm giving him a pass for any of this - they were legitimately dumbass idiot things to say anywhere, much less in public.

Besides the party pandering, they even elected these monsters into the US Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan

He also filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But he outlasted his "Dixiecrat" origins and repeatedly expressed regret and apologized for his past views. Still, he was never a very progressive party member and not really representative of the party overall.

Other Dixiecrats, like Strom Thurmond, switched to the Republican party when the found the Democratic party no longer in line with their racist views.

Top-notch Whataboutism, there...

> a racist political party that panders and dogwhistles to them for (at least 5, more like 20) years

Closer to 50; the Southern Strategy started with the 1968 Presidential election.

And, really, it was longer than that, in a sense, the Southern Strategy was just the Republicans taking up what LBJ closed the door on Democrats ability to exploit in the South when he backed the Civil Rights Act.

I would frame this on my wall - spot on

This is a pretty thin slippery slope argument. No one is arguing the Republican Party are literally terrorists. The idea that they often flirt with white nationalists far more than they should is not tantamount to a call for banning their websites. It is a call to hold them accountable for their words and actions.

Here is Markos Moulitsas[1], founder of DailyKos and Vox Media: "NRA and American conservatives/Nazis are one and the same."

[1] https://twitter.com/markos/status/896760610242912260

Soooo many people say BLM is the same as ISIS. It's not policy

I mean yes, with 140 characters, you get some hyperboles. Before 2017, when we said someone was basically a Nazi, we didn't mean it literally. It'll take some time for our lexicon to catch up, but that doesn't mean this Tweet is saying there's literally no difference between the NRA and the KKK.

Sounds like he is saying the NRA and conservatives are Nazis to me. The same kind of garbage deranged conservatives said about Obama throughout his presidency.

This "hyperbole" or sometimes "humor" defense is often pulled out to justify all crazy things said by Trump, conservative talk radio hosts, and so on. Always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

This is serious stuff. Should we be exaggerating it or joking about it? If we assume Moulitsas' tweet is hyperbole, the nicest thing you can say about the tweet is that it is completely devoid of content, as apparently its only assertion is just hyperbole. In which case Moulitsas was just name calling.

I feel as liberals we have strong, rational arguments as to why conservative policies and ideology are harmful to our society. Let's stick to those and drop the name calling.

> Sounds like he is saying the NRA and conservatives are Nazis to me.

The NRA, recently, has taken a hard shift in the alt-right direction recently; they are clearly, area minimum, drawing inspiration from and making common cause with the Nazi and affiliated organizations gaining power on the right.

Call me when the NRA starts advocating genocide. I have no love for the NRA, but comparing people and groups with the Nazis is a rhetorical disease. People have increasingly become unable to differentiate between ideas they disagree with and genocide.

I think what annoys people is the doublestandards, as in that people on the right have to regularly denounce the radical elements while the extremes on the other side often gets a pass. As we saw over the weekend, even moderate pacifists that condemned all political violence and the president were labeled sympathizers because they didn't denounce the 'bad guys' hard enough.

This may get me downvoted to oblivion, but here we go anyway:

  and the president were labeled sympathizers

After the president's press conference yesterday, there can't be any doubt that he's very, very chummy with some of the vilest elements of society.

The president appeared on the Alex Jones show to drum up support during the election.

Alex Jones said that the Nazi protestors at Charlottesville were actually Jewish actors.

http://www.newsweek.com/nazis-charlottesville-were-jewish-ac...

So, yeah.

I mean one side was literally advocating the extermination of all/most minorities in this country and chanting things along those lines.

If there are people chanting and advocating the extermination of all white people on the left I haven't really been exposed to it, and I'm 100% confident that around 99% of people on the left would denounce it in a heartbeat.

> the president were labeled sympathizers

He has a decades-long reputation for being anti-POC. I'd be amazed if he wasn't a sympathiser with the people sharing the same views (and still most everything he says and does points to him being a sympathiser.)

> He has a decades-long reputation for being anti-POC.

He has also received awards for his work helping POC. Personally I value someones actions over what others think of them, but maybe I'm just crazy.

> He has also received awards for his work helping POC.

Those I'm not aware of. Can you give citations or links?

> I value someones actions over what others think of them

Ok, how about him being sued for racial discrimination in 1973?[1] Or his extremely racially charged ad about the Central Park Five?[2] Or his comments about Mexicans?[3] Or his "Voting Rights Commission" which exists largely to disenfranchise POC?[4]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2015/07/30/1973-meet-d... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park... [3] http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-37230916/drug-dea... [4] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/30/opinions/voter-rolls-deman...

So do you judge him on convictions against him about not selling to non-whites? About hiring the man who ran the self-described 'beacon of the alt-right'? Of constantly calling perfectly rich places 'crime-riddled inner cities' beacuase they're less than 90% white? Of claiming that am American-born judge can't be unbiased because his parents are Mexican?

The Left aren't nominating Stalin apologists to their Presidential ticket.

It came very close to nominating one: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/bernie_sanderss_...

After the election there was a commentator who attributed Trump's win to "whitelash". If true, I think one could say in the media we're experiencing an aggravated allergy to anything that does not toe the PC-line.

No doubt the most of the protestors were white supremacists and sympathizers, but to equate everyone who coincidentally shares anything with them (they vote R, they support NRA) is automatically binned with such groups is just as bad as what the left complains about when people on the right equate people who share some values with extremist-terrorists as equal to being a member in those kinds of groups.

Charlottesville literally had people with Nazi flags doing the salute.

Claiming they aren't Nazis in the coloquial sense is an absurdity that belongs only in the Onion

And there are plenty of hammer and sickles at left leaning marches, but nobody argues that they're trying to reinstate a soviet state and put millions in death camps.

You have not addressed the point though. If you're saying the flags and chants of "blood and soil" mean something else, you should just say that and substantiate the claim.

What he means is all this is a far cry from an actual Nazi movement. I don't think you really appreciate what the NSDAP was. The NSDAP was build on a very strong military base (disenchanted veterans) and was using very strict military rules. They were not fat morons parading with tiki torches, but trained assassins organized in armed militia used to impose their order through authority and fear. Labeling a bunch of morons Nazi because they are white, they chant and they have a Swastika flag is a moral fallacy, an insult to all the people that suffered actual Nazism, and a gross oversimplification.

When people are being called Nazis, it's about ideology, not skill set.

Though the modern white supremacist movement does also include a fair number of disenchanted military veterans [0], who are often influential in their organized groups and militias (and, the NSDAP itself included and was supported by a lot of other disaffected citizens that weren't “trained assassins”.) So, even aside from being dubiously relevant, the distinction you try to paint is at best overblown.

[0] e.g., http://taskandpurpose.com/nathan-damigo-charlottesville-mari...

When people wave Nazi flags, chant Nazi slogans, perform Nazi salutes, etc. it is not unreasonable to call them Nazis.

It's not unreasonable. The point I am trying to make (and at which I am obviously failing) is that it's not because Nazis carry one kind of flag, perform one kind of salute and chant one kind of chant, that people doing the same things are Nazis.

Historically, all this folklore was a mean to an end. But the end came first. There was a plan to overthrow the government, a failed coup d'état, an relatable ideology, a strong, trained and motivated leadership, a propaganda, active enrollments and daily militia marching. In two words, actual politics.

Given their complete lack of all these, it seems to me very hasty and politically motivated to call these morons Nazis. Instead of dealing with these people for what there are - lunatics, it creates a fear for something that simply does not exists.

Just because they're not currently very good at what they do doesn't preclude them from being one, especially when many of these groups self identify as neo-Nazis. It's the same intent with the same goal. The Nazi's in Germany in the early 1930's were pretty much a bunch of screw-ups when they started. Many Germans at the time regarded them as fringe "lunatics", but we all know how that turned out.

> but trained assassins organized in armed militia

Nothing like these fucks then? https://twitter.com/SheldonKJordan/status/897795096325836804

Right. Nothing like these fucks. What you are showing me are boy-scouts. Cosplay enthusiasts. I am talking about this: http://bit.ly/2fKTuib. And this: http://bit.ly/2i6UZrK. And this: http://bit.ly/2fLS46Y. One of us is being purposely dense. I am probably biased but I don't think it's me. Get real.

EDIT This is not a qualitative comparison especially since my point is that both instances are not comparable.

"Not as bad as 1930s Nazis" does not seem like a sensible argument to keep pushing.

That's a false equivalence that's very popular with European right-wingers.

I believe centrists and conservatives argue exactly that, all the time.

> Immediately after Chancellorsville plenty of Liberal pundits, on and off Twitter, explicitly stated there was no difference between Republicans and the NRA and Nazis, which is of course a ludicrous statement

First, it's Charlottesville. Second, given the massive shift to right-wing, authoritarian, racist politics of the Republicans, and ESPECIALLY their role in getting Trump into office, it is an exaggeration to call them Nazis, but certainly allowed in my opinion.

Also: whoever in the Republican party does not want to get called a Nazi, must condemn Trump, Bannon and the entire alt-right/tea party mess. Everyone who allows these guys to remain in the Republican party or the Republican-led government acts as an accomplice of Nazis and thus deserves to be called a Nazi and be treated as such.

> This is a sign of a seriously unhealthy political culture.

No. Calling out racists, sexists, white supremacists, KKK and alt-right as Nazis is not an "unhealthy political culture", it's the last line of defense a civilized society has. Shit's been accepted for YEARS now since the birth of the Tea Party movement and later the alt-right, it's time to dump them on the trash heap of history where they belong.

Racism, sexism and all other forms of hating against minorities must be condemned, no excuses.

I wouldn't call the GOP the same as the neo-Nazis, they're more analogous to the Conservative party in Germany on the eve of The Third Reich, they thought they could control the Nazis and use them as part of their voting block but quickly found out they had lost control, this is quite similar to what appears to have happened to the GOP.

You are essentially saying that about, or slightly less than, half the US is nazies? If so then either a) the label has been expanded and watered down so much it is essentially pointless or b) you have already lost the fight (in 33 "only" about 30% voted for Hitler) and must therefore be sitting at a minimum in house arrest.

> You are essentially saying that about, or slightly less than, half the US is nazies

25% of US population voted for a known sexist and racist all while knowing that he was backed by neo-Nazis. Still, right now, 36% of US (per http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-app...) approve with Donald Trump, and thus, with a man who openly supports Nazis. In fact, I believe that the "alt-right" is the only base Donald Trump still has - just look at his economy advisors, they're jumping ship left and right because no one wants to be associated with this.

> you have already lost the fight

Which is something that is very well possible, I am afraid to say. I'm a German - and while our local neo-nazi party has recently lost poll rates from 25 down to 7-8%, their major positions got incorporated into the positions of our center-right parties CDU and especially CSU, and even the center-left-ish Social Democrats have shifted to the right. The neo-nazis don't need to actually win elections to succeed, they only have to succeed in getting their positions into the "mainstream".

you have to know that every single time you bring up sexist and racist that someone is going to retort, very reasonably, with Bill Clinton, and how his policies affected black people in the 90s.

Yes, and he was part of the same system, back when it was still acceptable to be part of that system in the public discourse.

This was a tragic mistake, and we're now (reasonably) not accepting such policies or the people who advocate them anymore.

Not that I agree with GP, but:

> You are essentially saying that about, or slightly less than, half the US is nazies?

Republicans are only a quarter of Americans. [0]

> you have already lost the fight (in 33 "only" about 30% voted for Hitler)

Weimar Germany had a different electoral and political structures than the US, which directly contributed to the Nazis ability to take power with that little electoral base.

[0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

> there was no difference between Republicans and the NRA and Nazis, which is of course a ludicrous statement.

It's reaching, sure, but it's not ludicrous - the GOP has an avowed platform of disenfranchising minorities, punishing them through punitive taxes and withdrawal of services. Sure, they're not using guns but they're committed to effectively wiping them out.

Please, please, point us to this in the GOP party official platform documentation.

This is the sort of hyperbole bandied about casually by liberals that so infuriates the right-leaning and empowers Nazi assholes to attract "mostly normal" folks who would otherwise never consider such a thing.

Of course they're not written down in plain language - even the GOP is smarter than that. But it's evident in the laws they want to pass.

Disenfranchising minorities:

Texas: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/texas-voter-id-la... Indianapolis: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/10/the_indian... Milwaukee: http://urbanmilwaukee.com/pressrelease/gov-walkers-refusal-t...

etc.etc.

Punitive taxes and withdrawal of services can be entirely covered by their Medicare / Medicaid plan - https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/house-g...

The Milwaukee link above has some more specific examples.

Reading those references... you basically admit inflammatory, hyperbolic, and inaccurate characterization of the GOP? Not a single one targets any ethnic group or minority.

I'm not a GOP supporter, but you are not helping the situation.

Make a reasonable argument with supporting evidence in clear language if you want to change someone's mind. Stop contributing to the bipolar political bullshit in this country.

By your logic one could easily argue that the Dems target minorities for repression as well. They want to keep some minorities in poverty (progressive taxes for higher income) and steal from other minorities (rich people).

I think the growing Nazi movement is a far more serious sign of an unhealthy political culture than some anti-nazi hyperbole on twitter.

I agree we should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush but it's obvious the GOP has a very very real Nazi problem (the man they elected President went on tv yesterday and normalized them). Maybe some of the hyperbole will serve as a wake-up call to the fake centrists who whisper "I'm against Nazis" and shout "the reaction to Nazis is the real problem here".

I believe growing right-wing sentiment is a partial reaction to a PC culture that doesn't allow for any discussion of certain issues.

Oh, you're against illegal immigrants taking lower class jobs? You're a racist.

You don't like the idea of multiculturalism diluting the culture of an area? You're ignorant.

You don't like outsourcing because it's hurting you and your family? You're a bigot that doesn't think of other people.

You believe biological and psychological differences between the sexes may lead to differences in career preferences? You're fired for creating an "unsafe work environment."

All of this is also amplified by the fact that most people outside of big cities have been experiencing a declining quality of life. If moderate people with nuanced opinions that differ from the left don't have an avenue of discussion, they will tend towards extremism since that is the only way they can express their opinions. Combined with a growing sense of anxiety from the declining quality of life, and you get what is happening now.

It's not that you can't discuss issues. It's the extremists who twist issues and promote falsehoods to support their racists ideals that are the issue.

Maybe there will be increased self-censorship, or maybe words like "Nazi" will lose their power as more people stop caring if they're labeled with them.

Nazis support Trump. If he doesn't disown them then people conclude it's mutual. Trump is the Republican president, so that makes people wonder.

Maybe it's a Democrat trap, but if so he is stepping right into it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com