I hear this. It's frightening how some people can rationalize taking extremely punitive actions in response to encountering mere disagreement or differing identity.
Everyone needs to remember that the people they disagree with are people too, and treat them as they'd like themselves to be treated.
> I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous.
I would call it polarization. The discourse is just a consequence of that.
As a liberal atheist who has spent most of his life in the deep red parts of the south, I can assure you that you're wrong.
I find it terrible that when you're only given two options, and both of them suck, choosing one over the other can be seen as such a treason. To me these conversations sound like "You prefer diarrhea to vomiting! I'm never going to sit on your couch again!"
> Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.
That is creepy to me. You have the ingredients of a witch hunt.
"can't easily distinguish them" aka "anyone could be a witch", "can't use legal methods to attack or 'regulate' them" aka "something... must be done", that's what I'm reading.
There's no evidence that the altright as a group are plotting to murder other citizens. The reverse, threats to do violence to altrighters, I see that on a daily basis without looking for it online e.g. the "punch a nazi" meme. Going from that to "beat up a nazi" to injury/death is not a leap.
And who are they? It's a large collection of loosely connected right wing groups. A full list would take several A4 pages. Most of them hold beliefs little different to our grandparents or possibly great-grandparents in the case of the monarchists. Anybody to the right of the Republican party could be 'altright'. This isn't true but that seems to be how most people have built their classifier.
It's easy to prove that because if you ask (as Trump did to a reporter) people to define the group, they don't know how to do it. I think there is a definition but nobody in the media has mentioned it AFAIK, it's not something that is well understood and so "Nazis!". That nazi flag at the charlottesville rally? A singular item unless the photographers were holding out on us. There are lots of photographs and it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag.
There seems to be a curious motte and bailey argument going on here. The altright is a relatively small set, but in the media and twitter they are either a fringe sect of right wing lunatics or they are an all pervasive threat to society. It can't be both. Not unless you have an infinitely extensible definition that you can be using for ulterior political purposes.
https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-alt-right-chat-logs-are-k...
Perhaps not "murder" but certainly "attack and maim". Please don't try excuse this with the "but they're only JOKING" trope - their intent is blatant and clear.
> it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag
This article has a photo with two different guys holding two different flags - that makes at least 3.
https://azjewishpost.com/2017/hate-in-charlottesville-the-da...
If you're looking for people talking shit about their ideological rivals on the Internet you're going to find it. We can find examples of nazis or tankies threatening people any day of the week. They're nearly always posturing. What's different about "Punch a Nazi" is that it's a widespread meme across Twitter, Facebook and Reddit.
Imagine the reverse for a second. A meme called "Cut a Commie" receiving widespread acceptance from large groups of people across social media, including authority figures and celebrity endorsement.
> This article has a photo with two different guys holding two different flags - that makes at least 3.
Barely getting to plural!
It's the same as with that NPI conference in which 3-5 people raised their arms in a Nazi salute. The rise of the 4th Reich this is not. It's possible even those people are doing it 'for a laugh'. They're edgelords.
Have you any idea how many protests feature the flag with the hammer & sickle? Quite a lot more. I am not worried about Communist infiltrators interfering with my bodily fluids. They're nearly all edgelords, not Bolshevism 2.0
This is a moral panic, we have the media fanning the flames.
I strongly suspect if a lot of people on this forum simply turned off their television or newsfeed they'd be in a healthier place.
Ah, there's the "they're only joking" trope we know and love.
> Imagine the reverse for a second. [...] "Cut a Commie"
I know where this is going. I say "Oh, but communists aren't as bad as Nazis, that would never happen" and you bring up that wikipedia page showing that more people died under communism than nazism and we all mark you down as a "whataboutism" sympathiser and the world is a little bit shittier.
> Barely getting to plural!
But definitely more than "a singular item".
> Have you any idea how many protests feature the flag with the hammer & sickle?
Oh, there's the whataboutism.
It's not like that. I don't want to trivialize the death of the girl in Charlotte either, it's a domestic terror incident.
There's a constant background hum of political violent extremism throughout Europe and America. The key indicator for which species is ascendant is whether the popular media narrative is leaning one way or the other. The validation of these group's concerns seem to give them the entitlement they need to turn rhetoric into activity.
There's already been an attempt on one Congressman's life so imagine what will happen if something similar succeeds.
> I know where this is going. I say "Oh, but communists aren't as bad as Nazis, that would never happen" and you bring up that wikipedia page showing that more people died under communism than nazism and we all mark you down as a "whataboutism" sympathiser and the world is a little bit shittier.
I see you've been here before. We can always hold a truce and declare both groups unworthy.
>> Have you any idea how many protests feature the flag with the hammer & sickle?
> Oh, there's the whataboutism.
It does bug me. One gets consternation. The other "meh".
Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women...
...unless you have a different definition of what is considered "good".
/much like christians claim "everything god does is good" - you know, like genocide via a flood...
Indeed, if you were to assume that every vote for a candidate is de facto support of everything they do/are, I don't think I ever could have voted for anyone.
They really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their investment holdings. Nothing but some numbers on an account.
If you take that stance, then your options are:
1. 45% of the voting people in USA support sexually assaulting women.
Are you OK with that understanding? Do you not find something unsettling about saying 45% people in USA are OK for sexually assaulting women? The same conservative family oriented people, the same law and order people, the same god and sins people are supportive of sexually assaulting women? Can we have survived as a nation so far if so many people supported sexually assaulting women?
2. Hillary still lost to such person. What does that say about Hillary?
If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin. What does THAT say about Hillary? Why do you think that was the case?
Unless you can show some evidence for this, it's just an unprovable counterfactual and completely useless.
In other words, if you don't agree, you can safely ignore the comment, or take upon yourself to prove it wrong.
The risk materialized for victims of terrorism.
The risk materialized for victims of drug gangs.
The risk materialized for victims of illegal aliens committing crimes including identity theft.
The risk materialized for victims of outsourcing. The risk materialized of well paying manufacturing jobs disappearing.
It's wasn't fear, it was the materialized risk. Many voted for Obama overcoming fear, choosing hope. But they realized you can't just choose hope, you have to go and bend reality to be what you want it to be. And they put a bend in flow of reality, choosing Trump.
The elite fail to sympathize with their own countrymen in peril, because having compassion for your fellow countryman means you were being a 'xenophobe'. That label is not very vogue in elite circles.
I, for one, am glad that the risk of Trump being elected materialized.
However, you can still have irreconcilable differences in belief systems at an existential level.
That's a quote.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer...
You may not like that fact but it remains a fact. Extra points for referring to himself in the third person because, you know, Obama was so arrogant.
Net neutrality was a disappointment, but myself and others in the tech community will learn to deal with the inconvenience.
The plight of illegal immigrants and the "religion of peace" has zero relevance to me, I simply don't care enough one way or the other to vote in favor of them.
Left wants to hold all whites responsible for crimes of slavery.
Left wants to give clean sheet to DACA recipients for crimes of their parents.
Why do you want to hold kids responsible for parents crimes when it comes to white people?
I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. I made the mistake of mentioning that once and somehow that turned me into a pro-Trump spokesperson. I can do that for the sake of a rational conversation, but I somehow ended up being the Trump supporter spokesperson despite the fact that I can't stand the guy.
I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous.