Social Justice Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread

[birdup.snaildown]

I think the GOP clearly embraces white supremacy as a party.

I think that is a ludicrous statement.

 

[✿Dai₷y✿]

Meh, in a perfect world, there would be the incentive of capable people to bring in and include a broad spectrum of views and with their ability to communicate effectively

Alas, this is the way it is, cant say im surprised.

/out

 

[cduggles]

I think that is a ludicrous statement.

Perhaps I should have stated that white supremacists embrace the GOP, and the GOP doesn’t mind in the least.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Maybe you should just admit that you're a white supremacist.

 

[rickolasnice]

White supremacists don't deserve anywhere near as much attention as they get. They're a fringe group that serves little to no real threat to society.

 

[cduggles]

They were fairly prominent on January 6th of this year.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

How was that a race thing?

 

[JessFR]

They were fairly prominent on January 6th of this year.

Not to mention how many mass shooters of late seem to identify as either white supremacist, or the off brand version where they say "no I'm not white supremacist, I just believe my race is under attack and need to kill other races before we're replaced!"

Same outcome, just one version believes "white people should remain in power" while the other believes "non white people shouldn't be able to come to power".

 

[birdup.snaildown]

it is amazing how many mass shooters either A) identify as white supremacists or B) don't identify as white supremacists.

Black people are way more likely to be shot by black people than white people. The data does not reflect white supremacists as a significant threat to people (black or otherwise) in the US. If I'm wrong, show me the numbers.

 

[rickolasnice]

They were fairly prominent on January 6th of this year.

Did that event scare you or? That is pretty much the extent of their power. They played a part in steering a protest into Capitol building. Do you believe that what happened on the 6th is somehow worse than what had been going on in various American cities all year?

Europe has a bigger problem with racist terrorists. But we can't talk about them. That's racist.

 

[cduggles]

I’m guessing it scared the hell out of the people barricaded in their offices and those hiding in secure areas after being rushed away by Capitol police. (I don’t have to be personally to empathize. I’m sure it was terrifying.)

And a Capitol policeman was bludgeoned to death by a fire extinguisher, and over a hundred Capitol police reported injuries as serious as losing an eye. It was pretty bad.

And if they had gotten their hands on Pence or Pelosi or any number of politicians or their pipe bombs had exploded, I’m guessing things would have been even worse. Would that satisfy you?

Do I think it’s somehow worse than other things that happened in cities this year? Who cares? I think it was a great example of how much of a threat white supremacists really are.
So do articles like this one:

FBI Director: White-Supremacist Violence Accounts for Majority of Domestic-Terrorism Arrests Since Last October | National Review

FBI director Christopher Wray told Congress on Tuesday the majority of domestic-terrorism arrests since last October have been linked to white supremacy.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[Xorkoth]

Fact of the matter is, riots and looting tend to happen in huge gatherings by opportunistic people. Hell, rioting and looting happens after soccer world championships every year when people are celebrating. I am not excusing it, because it's wrong when people do it, but BLM protests have been happening in nearly every major American city since it started, and the vast majority of them have been peaceful, despite conservative media constantly trying to paint the entire thing as a movement of violence. In fact most cities never had violence erupt one time. It did get bad in some places, obviously. However, the reason for these protests happening is an attempt to force police reform, which is a good thing, or even if you disagree, it's an exercise of American freedom that is part of what this country is built on, the right to protest. On the other hand, the January 6th violence was literally an attempt to overthrow the election and undermine our democracy. So yes, it was worse. Riots and looting have been happening during protests and even simply large public gatherings/parties forever. But this is the first time a group of citizens has ever stormed the capital building in an attempt to hang the vice president and kill senators, and establish their candidate as the president after he lost the vote. Although both of these involved violence, they are not the same thing.

I realize most people at the protest on January 6th didn't participate in the violence, and those people were perfectly within their right to protest and I have ni problem with them. But I have a bigger problem with the ones who did storm the capital than I have with any of the BLM violence because of the fact that this was an attempt to undermine our democracy.

 

[deficiT]

Which African Americans are we talking about here? Is it not wrong to judge a person by their race?



Yeah I'm not a fan of the rich spawning the rich - that isn't right.. but what is with the fixation on race? I mean - Asian Americans, on average, are wealthier, have higher graduation rates, etc etc.



What racial justice are they seeking and how are they going about it? BLM have gotten where they are by manipulating the narrative using tragedy, falsely stating that unarmed black folk are being murdered by the state because they are black. If you anger enough people that they cause enough chaos, the world will take notice and believe whatever narrative they're being told. By the time anyone knows what really happened nobody believes it because it contradicts what they've been being told to believe.



How? If it is - how do we solve this?

Unarmed black folks are being killed by the state. Just look at the case of Breonna Taylor.

 

[SKL]

I don’t think it’s appropriate for a US Congressman to give the keynote in front of a white supremacy group and take their money.

AFPAC and it's precocious leader Nick Fuentes are actually pretty mild in the world of groups you might identify as supremacist and/or nationalist. You can easily find problematic statements (particularly because Fuentes is young and has no filter) but calling them overtly WN let alone supremacist is a bit of a stretch. AFPAC would identify as a civic nationalist. They are entryist, they want to work within the GOP to promote their brand of nationalism. Their programme doesn't focus on race, though. Like the Proud Boys, who are also not WN, some of the key figures are debatabley White at best.

In fairness though Fuentes has been known to associate with people like Patrick Casey, former leader of Identity Europa, who is a White nationalist. However, laying down with dogs may give you fleas but it's not going to give you a tail to start wagging. These associations, and a variety of statements made on social media, do paint Fuentes in a problematic light. For someone who often goes off about optics, his are really bad. He's a huge jackass (and incidentally if the rumor mill is to be believed, plus some social media parapraxes and ill-advised oversharing, he's a closet-case gay. Some of his associates have sexual allegations against them floating in the rumor mill as well.) He is almost certainly accurately called a racist on a personal basis (or possibly someone who says this shit to be edgy) but AFPAC's programme is not.

Words are important and using them indiscriminately dilutes them. The biggest example of this of course is "Nazi," which is a step or two up the hierarchy of extreme right wing views and denotes a specific ideology. As a perfect example of terms being diluted, that one is incorrectly applied to various groups including Identity Europa (disclosure: I'm a former member. Left because reasons.), even by Wikipedia.

Of course, painting AFPAC as hardcore supremacist is a good talking point for the supporters of their enemies. In truth AFPAC merely represents the hard right wing, but not extreme right wing—that'd be overt WNs and some of the Qanon crowd—within Trump coalition with a focus on nationalism.

Unfortunately statements made by Fuentes and others (including ones making light of the Holocaust) have already made AFPAC politically toxic. They have no future and will taint anyone who associates with them forever. They are irrelevant in the long run and the only reason they could put on their little shindig and gain more relevance recently was because of the curious case of a Frenchman who gave Fuentes six figures in bitcoin a few months back, and significant but smaller amounts to various other figures in the same orbit, all shortly before completing suicide due to the unendurable pain of trigeminal neuralgia.

Fuentes is reasonably charismatic and can speak pretty well and talk on his feet, if it wasn't for his social media he might have a future as a party operative for the GOP or possibly even run for local office once he got a bit older. He's dead on arrival though. But basically he's just a Gen Z-er with poor impulse control who's high on the Internet and mainlined too much edginess on social media, ruining any political potential he might have. As mentioned, he has money to burn right now though.

As for his organization, it doesn't have a future either, but I don't think that Gosar was intending to give a speech to the Klan or anything (it's been done during my lifetime.) Politicians give speeches and even shout outs to groups without doing adequate research all the time. I don't think he has much to apologize for in this case. AFPAC members and leaders have some shady associations but AFPAC is hardly a "hate group." Of course, political reality being what it is, he will have to, and will, apologize and disavow.

As for campaign contributions...

Spoiler

 

[cduggles]

Unfortunately statements made by Fuentes and others (including ones making light of the Holocaust) have already made AFPAC already politically toxic.

Here we agree.
I don’t agree with the whole “he’s just young and has impulse control”. I’ve seen some of his quotes (some were included in the article on Gosar above for those who are interested), and they are not simply the product of youthful indiscretion. He clearly has an agenda of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.
Anyway, if a group chooses to follow someone who makes those kind of statements, they also have a clear agenda. I don’t think a group had to adopt an official platform with planks spelling out their belief in white supremacy to be a white supremacist group. And if there’s one person a group is defined by, it’s their leader (and his public statements, not just on social media).
Gosar can (and has) made already statements to disassociate himself from Fuentes, but bottom line he took their money and was their keynote speaker. Actions speak loudly.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@Xorkoth

Sure. There is often violence at big rallies, but the murder and destruction at BLM rallies is significant. 19 people died in the George Floyd rallies alone.

I have a bigger problem with the ones who did storm the capital than I have with any of the BLM violence because of the fact that this was an attempt to undermine our democracy.

Undermine your democracy? I've heard variations of this before. I have no idea what it means. Sounds like vague nonsense to me.

Would that satisfy you?

Do I think it’s somehow worse than other things that happened in cities this year? Who cares? I think it was a great example of how much of a threat white supremacists really are.

This wasn't a white supremacist event. Last time I checked, Pelosi and Pence are white.

No, it wouldn't satisfy me.

Unarmed black folks are being killed by the state. Just look at the case of Breonna Taylor.

Why in a population of a third of a billion people do we keep hearing about the same woman?

 

[SKL]

I’ve seen some of his quotes (some were included in the article on Gosar above for those who are interested), and they are not simply the product of youthful indiscretion. He clearly has an agenda of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.

¿Por qué no los dos?

I'm not trying to say Fuentes isn't racially prejudiced and anti-Semitic, he is. Not to put too fine a point on it, but he's not really a White supremacist or White nationalist in the traditional sense of the word and the organization he heads certainly is neither of those things. I don't want to get too far afield into semantics though. It's not like there's an official yardstick, some of this is a matter of opinion.

But Fuentes is a walking "youthful indiscretion." It's abundantly evident in his social media and livestreams, and it's to an extreme degree. He definitely got caught up in memes and social media bubbles. Not to deny him agency, he believes what he believes. He's a product of certain fallacies of his generation though. It's a shame because he's as I said reasonably charismatic and reasonably smart.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets sick of it, loses some of his youthful edginess, and spontaneously deradicalizes in a few years and becomes whatever iteration of a mainstream Trumper will be those days. Sadly (or not), the Internet being forever, he'll have no future in politics.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

But basically he's just a Gen Z-er with poor impulse control who's high on the Internet and mainlined too much edginess on social media, running any political potential he might have.

That's been my impression of him and a number of others on the right nowadays. There's been some issues between preaching to the choir online, basically, and converting your rhetoric/propaganda to the wider political realm, and there's definitely been some issues with that IMO. I think that there's been a movement on the far-right away from "mainstreaming"/entryism towards clandestine and/or subcultural political action. They had a high point of political influence in late 2016/early 2017, from Trump's election to Charlottesville (although their influence was also repeatedly exaggerated in the American media during that time IMO), but since then they've kind of backslid into the "underground" echo chamber that kind of lives on the internet nowadays but has no visual presence outside the online realm.

It seems like there has long been that tension within the American right, between those who want to enact their program via the baggage train of a successful "diet reactionary" candidate like Donald Trump, or the ones who take more of a revolutionist-type view which largely rejects "mainstream politics", like some of the far-right groups and figures of the 1980s and 1990s. It seems to me like the far-right has been trending more towards the latter tendency in recent years, from what I've been seeing anyway, and that's a troubling sign for the health of their movement IMO...I'm more aligned with the left, but you can see the same kinds of dynamics in any number of left-wing historical examples. The retreat into these subcultural, vanguardist-type political conceptions just won't play in this country when you have a belief system which is soooo far outside the mainstream of American society like fascism or neo-nazism or whatever

That's been my view of their movement anyway, as an outsider looking in

 

[Xorkoth]

Undermine your democracy? I've heard variations of this before. I have no idea what it means. Sounds like vague nonsense to me.

What doesn't make sense about it? The people (some of them anyway) who stormed the capitol building went in with the intent of kidnapping or killing congresspeople as well as hanging the Vice President, and forcing them to overturn the election to keep Trump in power. The reason they went in then instead of some other time was because they knew that congress was in there right them certifying the election. They believed that Trump was telling them to do this. So... yeah, that's literally an attempt to overthrow our democracy.

In fact it is the single best example of an attempt by the citizenry to undermine our system that has ever happened. Even in the Civil War, it was an attempt to secede and become a separate entity.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@Xorkoth

They had no chance of undermining democracy. You are giving them more power than they deserve. I hear all this hype from the anti-Trump crowd about how the world is ending. The world isn't ending. The Washington Post said "Democracy Dies in Darkness" during Trump's entire first term, but - lo and behold - democracy is alive and well.

The Capitol riots were terrible, obviously. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The difference between BLM and the Capitol riots is: the latter is an example of the system working. The Capitol riots were condemned. Those responsible have been held accountable.

If a rally has any white supremacist element, it is condemned and everyone who attends is guilty by association, but it seems like BLM rallies can do and say whatever they damn please?