> If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed?
Charlottesville was an internal protest of limited global consequence. This is the disassembly of a system of limited democracy and rule of law. It’s much more meaningful on a broader scale, and interesting as a result.
I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.
Thank you for putting this here. White nationalism has blinded many people who are unwittingly pushing the agenda to move past this difficult conversation.
Charlottesville was actually the downfall of those white nationalist groups. Ever since then they have lost supporters, been deplatformed, and pushed back into obscurity. Also, the type of militant white nationalism you saw at Charlottesville has definitely not had any real influence on the administration (just like how antifa protesters don't have any influence on the Democratic party).
> Also, the type of militant white nationalism you saw at Charlottesville has definitely not had any real influence on the administration (just like how antifa protesters don't have any influence on the Democratic party).
I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic here.
No, I am not. Many of these white nationalist types want to send all African Americans to Alaska gulag-style, yet you don't see Trump talking about that, do you? Where's the wall? What happened to Steve Bannon and all the non-mainstream Republicans that were in the white house? Why isn't Trump talking about deporting all Muslims? Moreover, these people also hate Israel because they are anti-Semitic, yet Trump is one of the biggest champions of Israel. You see, I am not talking about alt-lite people like Ben Shaprio, I am talking about the neo-nazi, "Defend Evropa" people who were the main sources of outrage during Charlottesville. These are not Fox news Republicans. These people have no actual power compared to the Koch Brothers and lobbyists who are the actual influencers in the white house.
Ah, I was looking at this the other way around, as a lot of people would say that Antifa protesters do in fact have some influence over the Democratic party.
> I'd say the rise of white nationalism is pretty meaningful and its impact on this administration (and foreign policy) has had significant consequences.
Like what?
Edit: no really, I'd like to know what you mean by this. As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration. I have absolutely no idea what foreign policy decisions "oshitsdom" is referring to, which have supposedly been influenced by a "rise of white nationalism". That would be a very serious event, and I genuinely want to know if there's some legitimate way of squinting at our shared reality which could give that impression.
Edit 2 because I'm rate limited:
This is not a rhetorical question, except that nobody has answered honestly. It is a question that is answerable. To form it more explicitly: "Name an example of a consequential foreign policy decision of the current administration which is white nationalist in nature (invokes a desire to create a state where citizenship is contingent on having white skin), and which has clearly been influenced the a cultural force of a 'rise of white nationalism'."
>>As far as I can tell, white nationalists make up an extreme minority voting bloc, and are explicitly denounced and distanced from the current administration.
You are very wrong about the latter part. Trump's response to Charlottesville was so bad that the phrase "both sides" became a meme. To this day, he continues to downplay the problem.
Sure, if you make every possible bad faith effort to misinterpret and obscure what somebody is saying, you'll come away with lots of spicy memes to share with your friends while you're busy agreeing with eachother. That doesn't so much mean you've made a sober assessment of the facts.
Trump saying that there were "good people on both sides" does not mean that he supports white nationalists, since not every group on the "unite the right" side was made of white nationalists.
You can certainly argue that he does, but please come up with things that aren't quite so easily argued around. (and I've yet to hear an argument for how he's a Nazi when his favorite daughter is literally an Orthodox Jew) The more we allow easily refuted arguments to propagate unopposed, the easier it is to assume that there are no legitimate arguments for a position.
Is it actually rising or is everyone not a part of it just becoming more aware of it because they're being reported on more?
I think the increased visibility of extremist groups even if said groups aren't increasing in number fits the recent trend of increased polarization. Both sides are screaming their heads off about "look-at all these terrible people on the other side"
Edit: The fact that the down-vote to "legitimate answer so my question" ratio right now is 3:1 makes me think that this is a very ideologically difficult question for people here.
* The Southern Poverty Law Center reports a dramatic increase in the number of white nationalist groups in the U.S., from 100 chapters in 2017 to 148 in 2018.
* The Anti-Defamation League reports a 182 percent increase in incidents of the distribution of white supremacist propaganda, and an increase in the number of rallies and demonstrations by white supremacy groups, from 76 in 2017 to 91 in 2018.
* A study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the number of terrorist attacks by far-right perpetrators quadrupled in the U.S. between 2016 and 2017, and that far-right attacks in Europe rose 43 percent over the same period. Among those incidents, CSIS states, the rise of attacks by white supremacists and anti-government extremists is “of particular concern.”
'After years of smearing good people with false charges of bigotry, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has finally been held to account. A former Islamic radical named Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” and this week the SPLC agreed to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public apology.'
They've done this for a while. They've even put subreddits (theredpill) as a hate group as well. (Yes, they're a less savory sub.. but an organized group no).
Also a thing to note: They've put pepe as an official hate symbol. (Sigh.. poor pepe)
I see that they made one mistake in that opinion article. FRC is a hate group and Charles Murray is racist, or at least he was when he wrote The Bell Curve.
I think the FBI numbers are more reliable, though not perfect, and they show a 17% increase but that figure also includes anti-white violence. So there is s rise but not to the degree claimed by those other orgs.
I think the FBI is neutral whereas other sources tend to have biases so they’d require additional scrutiny.
And even the FBI's numbers are vulnerable to a reporting bias. (People may report things as a hate crime today that they would not have five years ago due to interested visibility)
Measuring this sort of thing is hard, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
The FBI is required to collect data about hate crimes, but local police departments are not required to report the data. So the FBI data only represents voluntary reporting.
Unless that changes from year to year (NYC reports this year, but not next), this should still be representative of the overall trend.
Interest groups, although well meaning, are like internal organizations preparing next year’s budget. Borderline issues cease to be borderline. (Was it domestic violence, was it hate? Obviously there is potential for both, but there’s interpretative subjectivity)
The point is the FBI is a neutral collection point, but the source of data isn't as stable or systematic as those by advocacy groups trying to make more complete estimates.
> According to the FBI, there were 7,175 hate crime incidents in 2017, a 17 percent increase from 2016 and the third year in a row with an increase. The number of incidents in 2017 was also the highest yearly total since 2008. About 58 percent of the hate crimes in 2017 were motivated by race/ethnicity/ancestry.
In addition, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified back in April that White nationalist violence is a “persistent, pervasive threat”.
The SPLC is an extremely unreliable source, who has been successfully sued for arbitrarily defaming people. Their classifications of incidents are deliberately misleading, and classify anti-government acts as "right wing", despite the fact that a huge number of lefty anarchists exist in the U.S.
> Among those incidents, CSIS states, the rise of attacks by white supremacists and anti-government extremists is “of particular concern.”
Why combine these? This would include lefty anarchists, who have a consistent and increasing record of well documented political violence. It completely obscures the point you're supposedly trying to make.
(P.S. wtf did they have to call it CSIS? Very confusing since this is the acronym for our intelligence services here in Canada)
> Rather than attacking the source, perhaps you could consider the findings?
I do that too, if you look at what I said. But surely an unreliable source can't be allowed to burden everyone with continually disproving them. The SPLC has no credibility, I don't see why anyone should have to dismantle their arguments any more than any other activist publisher (occupy democrats, the daily mail, the daily stormer).
It is very difficult to win a defamation suit in the U.S. The SPLC have been proven a fraud in the courts, that's an extremely high bar of bullshit.
Well for me, many technology companies do their best to do business in China. Apple, which loves to tell the world how much they support human rights, builds iPhones and other products in China regardless of how bad China's record is and more.
Yeah, my latest soap box is, companies have no right to tell us how great their rights support is, human, privacy, or otherwise, if they continue to produce product in a country like China, which seems to be doubling down on suppression.
Exactly. It’s not enough to say “oh we are trying to stop flame wars” when we are trying to talk about these topics to stop literal wars from occurring.
If Charlottesville posts did not fly on this board why is this OK to be discussed?
I'm all for talking politics by the way.