I see, that was both unclear and unadvisable....but I'll play along.....
I think you misunderstand, they want reparations for a past theft that was never recouped or returned. The Nazis returned what they stole and paid dearly for their crimes, and they admit and have shame for the crimes of their nation/countrymen. Slave owners couldn't return the lost lives, families, property, or cultures, and largely didn't even try to pay compensation, and they and their descendants have acted like releasing the slaves WAS reparation AND just punishment for the kidnappers/slavers, so any further complaint is unjustified.

The sins of the father are the father's, but if the son takes the money dad stole and lives on it, knowing it's stolen, then the son is complicit. If my dad kidnaps your child and rapes it to death, and makes a fortune selling tickets to the event, I'm a complicit monster if I live on that money instead of giving it to you even if I wasn't born when he did it....no?

It's largely because the crimes have never been addressed and also because the victims are still, to this day, harassed and attacked as if they were the kidnappers rather than the victims.
If your mother was kidnapped, worked to death, and you were shunned and denied because of it, and so were your children and grandchildren, would you not want your great grandchildren to try to get justice for her from the people whose wealth was created by selling people like her? Would you not hold a grudge against them?

Considering the wrath provoked by niggling perceived slights against the right, can you even imagine how you and they would react if positions were reversed? I think they would demand deportation of the descendants of slave owners and forfeiture of all their assets, judging from recent behavior.

*quality sentiments, *promote

We can't deport them. We can't jail them. We can't shun them. The only option I see is engage them and educate them. Their beliefs come from a miseducation, clearly, since they somehow see their failed causes as superior.
Remind them the Nazis lost...and are anti American.
Remind them the confederates lost...and are anti Americans.
Remind them the white power movements lost...and are anti American.
Remind them that, if they are working to eradicate all but a master race, they have proven repeatedly to not be that master race, so they should start by eradicating themselves.

Wait....what? Who says you cannot control the membership of a private club?

Um...Pastafarians do eat pasta....religiously (see what I did there). We would be more inclined to shun a non pasta eater, but we're an inclusive group.

No one has EVER said churches should have atheists or people from other religions in their hierarchy...no sane person anyway. That's coming from one of the most anti religious people who you will ever meet. Where on earth did you come up with that insanity?

You went off on some insane tangent decrying something that has never happened and likely has never been suggested, and something that absolutely is not part of the left's platform. Huh?

To be clear, I do think it's ok to punch an ACTIVE Nazi in the face, but a douchbag who's just giving Nazism lip service, they just need ridicule and shunning, not violence. That goes for all fascists, right or left wing.

I tend to view the stigmatisation of a word to this degree as counter-productive since it shifts the focus away from the real problem - i.e. chronic inequality of income between black and white communities through poor public services that feeds a lack of opportunity for income mobility. Time spent discussing the degree to which users of the word should be shunned, whether it's said by a comedian, other black people, actual racists, is time not being spent discussing those material issues.

The base case of racism, i.e. the perpetuation of the view that black people are somehow genetically inferior or deserve to be subjugated in rights still certainly exists. What I suspect is more prevalent nowadays is discrimination founded in economic inequalities - the view that because black people are more likely to be poor, making the reflexive assumption they are more likely to resort to crime, and therefore are more dangerous and should be implicitly subject to harsher penalties. Which comes back to my main point, the best way to fix that is to actually narrow those economic inequalities.

I just want to point out that I posted this video because it reminded me of another classic show from many years ago, All in the Family.

As to my personal opinion, we need to get past words, guys and gals. I am a white male of Italian descent. In my life I have been called a lot of names, by people of all ethnic backgrounds. I have been called a wop, a dago, a greasy (wop/dago), a cracker, whitey, and many other things. As a kid, it definitely hurt sometimes, but I came to understand that it could only hurt me if "I" let the names define me as a person. The N word, the C word, whatever word, only can hurt you if you allow it to do so.

Now treating someone different, directly based on their ethnicity, that is something that needs to be addressed. It will ALWAYS need to be addressed because human nature is to shun differences. In the US, we have problems with racism and sexism, but out of all the countries I can think of, we are blended enough that it is actually (slowly) starting to work out. We definitely aren't the worst, even countries in Europe that pride themselves on being accepting of diversity are flipping their shit right now with the influx of so many strange people (refugees). Countries like Japan and states like Hawaii, that is where you need to visit if you want to see some hardcore cultural racism.

Stop. Because I think that doesn't mean I write them off. No person is perfect, I don't write people off because I disagree with them, or even if I think they do things I find distasteful. The minority blatant racist faction, however, I can't forgive, even though it might be the best solution. Some behavior shouldn't be tolerated, imo, but that's just, like, my opinion, man. I don't expect others to agree, and don't shun them if they disagree. I get that I'm abnormal.

Clearly, a huge percentage, mid 40's, found him the lesser of two evils or better. I agree, if the center wants them back, they'll have to reconcile, but forgetting what they're willing to accept to deny a Clinton power is a horrible idea, imo.

I'm not a democrat, but technically, Clinton won the election, she lost the electoral college. The Senate and house, your totally right on, though, which is more frightening to me, because THEY are elected democratically, unlike the president. At least they weren't actively appealing to and courting racists, though.

They did come out to vote against a black guy, but the left and center came out to vote FOR a black guy....but they didn't go vote for an underhanded over connected white woman, IMO. Also, Trump was the first candidate to court the white racist voter rather than shun and insult them....so he got far more of their votes.

@newtboy
i agree in theory,but disagree in practice.
as i stated in my comment:discernment.

it appears we approach news and journalism differently.

i do not consume the institution,but rather the individual reporter.which is why i will watch a report by shepard smith from FOX,but ignore anything by tucker carlson or bill o'reilly.

the HUGE mistake you make about hedges,is just that,an assumption.

chris hedges mistake.
is the same mistake that other media personalities have made,such as cenk uynger when he was on MSNBC.

hedges criticized power.
in fact,in the run up to the iraq war hedges was pushing out story after story that was highly critical of the bush administration,and..ironically..was using the very intelligence reports that you mentioned.he was challenged by the new york times editorial board to either cease and desist,or face disciplinary action.

he chose to retain his integrity,and honor his father (great story right there,he always chokes up when telling it) and walked away from a successful career,full of adulation and respect,rather than bow at the foot of the kings throne and kiss the feet of the powerful.

the man has guts,in spades,and i admire him very much.

but if you think my opnion is biased,then let us take phil donahue who was hosting the most popular show on the newly founded MSNBC.

he too,was critical of the bush administration and had guests on that were countering the avalanche of white house narratives flooding the cable news networks.

he was fired,while simultaneously hosting the most popular and highest rated shows on MSNBC.

what i am saying,is exactly what hedges is saying:
criticize power and you will be branded,blacklisted and shunned from the "mainstream media".you will be relegated to the fringe for your defiance to power.

/chuckles..i find it interesting that pretty much everybody uses the term "mainstream media" to epitomize:lazy journalism,propaganda,fake news and yet the media THEY choose to consume..well...thats not mainstream at all.the media THEY choose to consume is top notch journalism.

i am not saying my choices are right,but i do choose them carefully.i do not subscribe to institutions but rather individuals who have proven the test of proper journalistic integrity:chris hedges,matt taibbi,bill moyers,henry giroux,laura poitrus,jeremy scahill,amy goodman,paul jay

you may notice that every one of these people are critical of power,and that..my friend..is the basic premise of the fourth estate.

the washington post,along with the new york times and wall street journal have become rags.just my opinion,feel free to disagree.

Mea Culpa Notarobot and @dannym3141 ... I'd clicked on a 'suggested' video link to the right of a watched one because it looked interesting [and it was]. I hadn't seen any of this guys videos before and had no idea this was one of "those" channels. I too shun this type of rip-off. My apologies for not noticing the ruse as I was rushed and didn't look closely at the channel itself. I'd be happy to kill this if that's the consensus ... lemme know

My experiences are in direct conflict with your worldview and opinion of the kindness of some Christians. Judged at my own wedding reception in beautiful, nonjudgmental southern california, I was called out and asked if I believed in Jesus and I said no. Why would I say otherwise if it was not true?

Not all of the Christians in our families objected, but many of them did. In fact, many of them refused to be a part of our marriage and begged my wife to leave me. Since then, no one speaks to me on a personal level. They might not have all openly judged me but I'm practically an exile. A thought criminal unfit to converse with on topics of church and state. All of the christians in my life are guilty of this shunning.

The sad thing is, I never make it a big deal (other than when I post my thoughts onto the internet -- where I dump all of my problems) and I don't challenge the beliefs of the people I love -- but they sure do.

You aren't wrong in your logic that not all xtians are judgmental, but you're wrong in your overemphasis of it. Christians need no defender of the faith because God is on their side.

In my own experience and social strata, almost all Christians commit some form of microaggression or judgement upon my lack of faith. Even my wife can't help but occasionally sprinkle a bit of the ol' christian guilt upon my head from time to time. And then she has the gall to talk to me about Christians being treated unfairly.

But that's my life, not yours. I'm sure your flavor of Christ worship is much less judgmental. I don't believe it, but maybe in time I will meet one of these majestic nonjudgemental Christians who don't constantly believe the rest of us will burn in hell for all eternity while they frolic in the basking glow of a jealous, hating God. Sorry, loving... I'm sure it's only love and not a pyschopath's Barbie playset made entirely of humans enslaved to an all powerful being capable of anything.

For most of our "civilized history", homosexuals have been attacked and murdered by people like him, not loved and encouraged. For most of our "civilized history" men have had the option to rape women with impunity.
If only, for most of our "civilized history", people like this were shunned when they could not be educated, we would be far more civilized.

Actually, Gohmert, what the founders said clearly was....."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" This statement was ratified unanimously by congress in 1797. The constitution was based on English Common Law, which existed in England long before the Romans brought Christianity, so if we are founded on a religious doctrine, it's PAGANISM, you fucking moron.

*promote the *fail

One of my favourite movies and a great insight. Scorsese also does not shun the edits, the hard cuts. Other directors preferred or still do prefer the "hidden" edits, Scorsese turns this around and makes edits just when you think something is off or as visible as possible. This is imo why the different scenes all appear to be encapsulating their own little comedic story.

So, if playing Call Of Duty means you can't hug/love your family, doesn't military service mean the same thing to a much greater degree, so logically those that have served in the military should be shunned and feared?

That was some serious ridiculousness and baseless, fact free, illogical arguments coming from 3/4 of the panel.
*quality interjection of a tiny bit of fact and reason by Penn

and they thought Goddard was crazy.

Going to WPI I always heard the story how all the other professors would shun him even in the lunchroom.

When his recognition switched course they supposedly all sat with him at lunch and he got up and went to another table.

But he has a building or two named after him.