[microcolonel]

> I called on all leaders to condemn the white supremacists and their ilk who marched and committed violence.

If you're implying here that President Donald Trump did not condemn the white supremacists, I don't know what to say except that you are wrong. He can condemn white supremacists, radical National Socialists, and radical Communists at the same time. If he picks sides in this debate, much like the center picked sides in the Weimar republic, then we would be one step toward either gulags or concentration camps.

I do not think it is fair to expect the President to do something patently unwise to stir up further tensions and deny the concerns of many, because of the violence of some. Political violence is picking up precisely because political speech is suppressed.

[shmerl]

Wise is not something you'd necessarily expect in this case.

[notreallythough]

I'm going to go ahead and say it's ok to deny the concerns of white supremacists

[microcolonel]

> I'm going to go ahead and say it's ok to deny the concerns of white supremacists

All of their concerns? I'm sure you realize that people don't pick up an ideology like that unless it looks like their society isn't functioning.

White supremacy is an answer in search of a question, and the question need not (and ought not) be posed.

We shouldn't be ignoring the concerns of the radical Communists either; that doesn't mean we all should become Communists and repeat the atrocities of Stalin. Likewise, we don't need to become National Socialists in order to ease the pains that make them turn to the ideology.

[epistasis]

This sort of sophistry is a mental virus. Say what you mean, stop with the mealy-mouthed "whataboutism" and vague questions. There are no communists involved in this discussion. Nobody calls Nazis "National Socialists" unless they're trying to blame the nebulous "left" for the evils of the Nazis.

We've been through these arguments since the 1940s. Karl Popper's view of the Paradox of Tolerance [1]

>Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

If we want an open society that permits maximal freedom, we can not permit those who wish to destroy freedom to override those who wish for freedom. The white nationalist movement includes people who explicitly endorse fascism and "throwing into ovens" those who exercised their free speech. [2]

Stop defending this evil.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[2] http://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/4311880-letter-family...

[kaden]

Just for the record, this is in his bio:

>you can be accosted for publicly engaging a wrongthinker.

I don't think he cares about rationality, let alone having the fortitude to say what he means. "Everyone else is wrong and when I get called an asshole it's clearly because it's 1984."

[epistasis]

I agree that he's probably an impossible case. He's too arrogant and far too emotionally weak if he thinks public rebuke of ideas is "accosting."

But we are in a public space, and the commonly-endorsed tactic of ignoring trolls has the unfortunate effect of letting this sort of pablum spread. I care about not letting stupid ideas and weak thinking persist without the easy counterarguments. When I say "mental virus" I really mean "mental virus." It's a sickness that only reason can defeat.

[microcolonel]

> when I get called an asshole it's clearly because it's 1984.

Well, it seems like my concerns are well-founded; because the first thing you did was look at my profile. Clearly you were looking to investigate me in some fashion, who knows why, I'm sure it'll do me no good if you're more than a peon.

Now imagine somebody else who doesn't feel comfortable with the (fairly mild here, thank you folks) level of hostility that I do; that mild-mannered person is the one I want to have an outlet for their thoughts so they don't stew in their own heads.

[kaden]

> because the first thing you did was look at my profile. Clearly you were looking to investigate me in some fashion, who knows why

Technically I read the thread and then looked at your profile. Because people such as yourself always have some self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual nonsense in your bio that -- to everyone else -- clearly displays your ego, irrationality, and how wholly unprepared you are to seriously discuss matters in a forthright manner without trying to weasel your way around the topic. It's almost absurdly comical at how consistently you find such silliness.

>I'm sure it'll do me no good if you're more than a peon.

I'm quoting this just to draw attention to it.

[microcolonel]

> This sort of sophistry is a mental virus. Say what you mean, stop with the mealy-mouthed "whataboutism" and vague questions.

It seems like you had this line in your clipboard, it is inaccurate, irrelevant, and puzzling in the context of this discussion.

> There are no communists involved in this discussion.

Well, there were communists at the rally, and they came with (thankfully blunt) weapons, ready to brawl. They dressed in black instead of red because that's the trend as of late. Radical communists have been regularly assaulting people at protests and assemblies in America for at least a year.

> We've been through these arguments since the 1940s. Karl Popper's view of the Paradox of Tolerance [1]

I'm not interested in tolerating political violence, but political speech I will.

We need to make ethnonationalism and other seductive ideologies obsolete, instead of suppressing the people who go to them for help.

[threatofrain]

I think you'd be better received if you didn't speak so cryptically. What do you mean an answer in search of a question? Do you want us to meditate on that like a Buddhist koan?

You're implying a hidden knowledge of just what critical concerns people are ignoring, but you won't tell us.

[microcolonel]

> I think you'd be better received if you didn't speak so cryptically. What do you mean an answer in search of a question? Do you want us to meditate on that like a Buddhist koan?

Sorry if I was unclear. I meant to make the same statement as the first, in a different form. I hoped that providing two versions of the same statement, folks would have a better chance of understanding what I meant.

Once more: Nobody just chooses one day to become a white supremacist. Nobody is born a white supremacist. Nobody in their right mind would identify as a white supremacist without good reason, because doing so is mortally dangerous.

Clearly there's something wrong in their life for them to accept an ideological solution as severe and impractical as white supremacy. That is, they have a serious question, which the answer of white supremacy has found.

> You're implying a hidden knowledge of just what critical concerns people are ignoring, but you won't tell us.

I suspect their concerns are pedestrian: unsatisfactory employment (or lack thereof), the cost of health care, security, the uncertainty of demographic shifts (especially the shrinking proportion of their own race, and the growing relevance of race in public discourse), the moral conditions for their children (though largely an unfounded concern, given how safe America is).

[mnm1]

Many people are concerned about jobs, healthcare, and security but only fucking nazis and other white supremacist pieces of shit are concerned about "the uncertainty of demographic shifts (especially the shrinking proportion of their own race, and the growing relevance of race in public discourse)." That's not a normal concern and choosing to become a white supremacist because you have such concerns is no excuse for these lowlifes. These people choose hate and no amount of apologizing for their disgusting choices is ever going to make that ok. They could choose to talk to other people who are different than them and realize that good people come in all colors, nationalities, etc. But no, they choose hate and they choose violence. Fuck them. We've had hundreds of years of this shit all over the world but especially in the U.S. and finally people are standing up to this shit en masse and refusing to accept it. It's about fucking time to stop being tolerant of these hateful, violent fucks. Society is slowly moving on.

[notreallythough]

so you're saying that I should be responsible for the mental well being of an adult who thinks eradicating entire races of people will solve all of their problems

[notreallythough]

Don't pull that alt-right logic-gymnast bullshit where suddenly we're calling nazis "national socialists" and all socialism are the same. It's fine if you've convinced yourself that you can't smell your own bullshit, but don't ask us to be party to it.

[kaden]

>All of their concerns?

Yes.

>We shouldn't be ignoring the concerns of the radical Communists either;

Not even remotely the same thing. Not even in the same galaxy. Not even in the same universe.

[cgmg]

"Not even remotely the same thing. Not even in the same galaxy. Not even in the same universe."

What do you mean? They're both totalitarian ideologies and have much in common.

[notreallythough]

So you agree with white supremacy because there are similarities between a specific group of communists and specific group of socialists. Fascinating.

[cgmg]

"So you agree with white supremacy..."

You've got to be kidding me.

Point out exactly where in my comment I agreed with white supremacy.

I disagreed with literally one point in your comment and that means I suport white supremacy? Fascinating.

Looks like you're only reading what your emotions want you to read and not what people are actually writing.

[microcolonel]

> Yes.

I'm sure white supremacists are concerned about employment, the decline of the American manufacturing sector, and the cost of health insurance. In fact, I'm pretty sure these concerns contribute to their desire to join others who say they have the solution.

> Not even remotely the same thing. Not even in the same galaxy. Not even in the same universe.

Now, I'm not generally one to nickel-and-dime the deathtolls of genocidal ideologies, but I don't think you could credibly argue that in the 20th century National Socialism was more deadly than Communism. At least you'd have to concede that they are in "the same universe", or "the same galaxy".

Don't use hyperbole, else all of your blood will drain instantly from your eyes.