No lynching here; another comment of mine points out irony as well. That said, white male isn't some sort of exception just because some do/did abhorrent things -- the white males who don't (and they certainly can't control whether they descend from those who did) do abhorrent things don't deserve it. Feel free to define a set of people who suck based on their actions, but white male can't be an analogue for that definition.
Well, have clear rules, clear penalties and due process, saying crap about any skin color is hate speech. You have no shortage of that in the US right now.
That's not my country and not much of my business but if half of your country is fine using its free speech defending KKK apologists and the other half only meets that with apathy, don't be surprised if some Black Panthers come back to life and use their own free speech fighting back.
And maybe I am less shocked by this affair because in many European cities, wearing a MAGA hat would be seen pretty close as wearing nazi insignia. Under it, lies either someone very racist or someone very confused. And either way probably someone that is not going to have a constructive participation.
So yeah, probably lack of clear rules, lack of due process, I hope that's the takeaway they'll get from it.
Arbitrary enforcement of vague rules is authoritarianism, but you can have clear rules and due process to limit hate speech. It has been done successfully in several places.
What you think MAGA stands for is not what it actually stands for. You're stating all kinds of extremist positions that 99% of people in the US do not hold.
Anyone can stir up outrage against a made up situation.
MAGA stands for "make America great again". It's as positive as it gets for terminology.
Some extremists carry the American flag. Does that mean someone who flies the American flag as a patriotic symbol are the same? Clearly not, because that would be attributing an extremist position to the majority using the most tenuous of associations. I don't see how that's a productive start for any discussion.
Getting my comment flagged doesn't make you right, just so you know.
Just see my list of links below. It's undeniable that the very reason why people use the term MAGA is to voice support for hypernationalism, as a way to justify racism and hatred. This is what the term was created to be.
There's nothing tenuous in the association when the president himself is retweeting white nationalists using the term, when he's using it in blatantly racist ads, when it's used to justify walls, when it's used to justify abandoning international responsibilities, etc.
The flag wasn't created by a group campaigning on hate. MAGA however is.
MAGA is used by the majority as a show of support for the president, their party, and general conservative beliefs along with American pride. You refuse to believe those people, and yet believe any extremist who claims MAGA. Why?
If you have such dogmatic views and think half the country is "campaigning on hate" then unfortunately there's no rational debate to be had here. By the way, CNN had the leader of the white nationalists on prime time. By your own definition, CNN is now a white nationalist channel. Do you disagree?
The evidence is literally all over his Twitter account. Like considering people murdering others by hitting with cars to be fine people. Promoting "false flag" conspiracy theories when his supporters attack people, claiming democrats are responsible. Language indicating support for civil war.
No, it doesn't carry other connotations that are universally recognized. The fact that some extremists use it does not override the vast majority, as I described regarding the American flag.
The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else. The majority is the extremists in that case, and they specifically changed the direction and removed the dots from the Asian versions to do so.
The president does not support violent extremists, openly or otherwise. "Nazis" are not a real problem anywhere in the modern world.
And what makes you believe that? Literally the people who introduced and promotes it are the people who promote its use by extremists. I've told you so already. What makes you believe the term still don't carry such meanings?
India haven't stopped using the swastika, actually. But the context of its use typically makes it obvious they do not use it to support nazi ideology.
You haven't read the president's Twitter stream? Because it's pretty blatant.
There's literally academic studies on it. You believe otherwise requires ignorance.
Extremists by definition are a small fringe faction. This situation is similar to thousands of other gestures and symbols, even though the vast majority do not recognize or care about what some extremists use. Literally everything has a extremist use somewhere.
Also I'm from India and as I just explained, the Indian swastika is a different design and direction. The Nazi swastika is not used by anyone else, they made it for themselves which is why it's only associated with them.
If you won't listen to the majority group that uses the term telling you it's positive for them, and instead apply the extremist interpretation, then what exactly do you need to hear as a counter position? Seems like it's not open to any other understanding.
No it's not. It's literally any faction with hardline dogmatic views. An extremist faction that manage to kill all their opponents doesn't suddenly become non-extremist when they're the new majority.
I have seen the arguments for "why it's positive for them" and they're bullshit. They're using it to justify racism and corruption and to defend politicians on their own side that even break the law (like a certain raid of a certain meeting concerning classified information).
I'm open to actual evidence, not just mere statements of disbelief. Can you provide counterevidence?
That's a far cry from 'defending KKK apologists'. Then again, having seen other responses you've made in this post, I'm skeptical I should be trying to persuade you.
Disclaimer: I am Asian and like to point out irony, don't lynch me.