Making America Hate! Now OK to be out in the open about it again. A setback of 60-70 years due mostly to the weak ineptness of our current Asshat in Chief who can never condemn or call out that element of his revered base. So much more than ... SAD. This is *terrible

Adding video to channels (Terrible) - requested by PlayhousePals.

At least they're not wearing blackshirts and smashing jewish businesses.. yet

For the record:
Yes, I upvoted a video of a car crashing into people. However, this was not the reason for it. I do not nor have I ever condoned or endorsed such behaviour. Running a car over people is wrong.
I can not speak for the other upvoters.

White Power Rally In Virginia Canceled Because Of Violence has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy on that post.

100% agree ... I upvoted because there was room to place it in the terrible channel which in turn compelled me to voice my utter disdain and disgust.

Apparently, wouldn't this be snuff?

Yes, and would be improper if it didn't meet the criteria for exemptions to the snuff ban.
I did intentionally avoid posting the much more graphic videos of the same attack, but it's important news, so exempt (imo).

@bobknight33

Is this winning? Is this what you want?

Any news yet as to what triggered this dude?

Did he lose a stick/shield fight and snap or something?
Was this the guys grand entrance?

-scheherazade

It's easy to agree with you, because your not wrong.

I would add the caution though that oversimplifying things risks underestimating this threat to us all. This level of hatred, division, anger and violence doesn't cease to exist if we could go back and make Clinton president. It might move it down a notch, but just as good of odds it would have set it off sooner and stronger.

The threat from identity politics, nationalism and hatred is much worse than just Trumps failures as a president. The divide between people has been growing for long before even Obama was in office. It used to be that a push from the extreme left or extreme right was met by a push to more centrist ideas. Lately though the political parties and media have started taking the opposite approach and it's destroying our society.

The Republicans pushed in the direction of the extreme right with the tea party. The left push back though wasn't to woo moderate right-leaning folks, but instead pushed out to the extreme left with SJW movements like BLM. The right then pushed back again not wooing the moderate left, but doubling down the tea partiers. Then the pinnacle of this insanity was Hillary Clinton's campaign arrogantly believing she could win without wooing the moderates because who in their right minds would follow the extreme right leanings that Trump represented?

The end result has become not only less choice for all us moderates on election dates. The sinister part is it has bled off the number of moderates and made them more extreme.

The Nazi's used the brutal reparations against Germany to rise to power. The Neo-Nazi's and nationalists in america are able to similarly use the SJW policies of the left, even affirmative action, to similarly expand their base. A former coal mining town filled with young, unemployed white people that start feeling like affirmative action is making them second pick for what few jobs remain is BAD.

The situation is MUCH worse than anybody is giving credit to. The problem isn't this crowd of neo-nazis that we can outnumber, push into a corner and beat up or throw behind bars. The real threat is the tipping point were a dangerously meaningful number of folks decide joining the likes of them is in their own self interest. It ALREADY went as far as that number voting Trump. The fact the democratic party and members still don't see this threat and still don't realise they need to stop chasing this base of people away and start trying to reach out and appeal to them is baffling, and terrifying.

Well put. Spreading the "punch a Nazi" message is counterproductive. You don't need to encourage more people to hate Nazis. You need to stop making others feel physically threatened. All that will accomplish is provoke sympathy for those being attacked, and grow their numbers.

Yes.
They read "punch a Nazi" as "kill whitey", and convince others that's the message.

I would like to think "punch a nazi" isn't especially extreme though, certainly not extremely leftist. You can certainly pickup a large number of right leaning people who are on board for punching nazis.

It's other things from the left that I fear are needlessly driving away right leaning folks.

Calls for halting parts of the economy to save the world from catastrophic climate change, be that banning coal or oil or to a lesser extent carbon taxes. Instead taking the positive approach of promoting non-fossil fuels on the power grid and electric vehicles accomplishes more and doesn't directly attack the industry and livelihood of a large part of middle America.

Anything that amounts to calling it immoral to define a man as a human with a penis and a woman as a human with a vagina. How many voters do you really need to alienate over semantics?

Anything that amounts to demanding everybody accept and encourage your life choices, sexual or otherwise. The notion of judging one another based on our decisions and behaviours is a big deal to right leaning people, telling them that certain behaviours or choices are not only unquestionable but must be approved of is again pointless and needlessly drives away voters. There is common ground in love and let live, pushing beyond that to get back at the old guard is driving away potential allies at a time that can't be afforded.

Labelling any criticism of Islam as Islamaphobia. For that matter, use of pretty much all the morality-a-phobias should be done away with. Go back to demanding people live and let live without the requirement everyone embrace or endorse other people's decisions without being shouted down as immoral.

BLM

Refusing to allow rational discussion of statistically factual trends or differences between populations because it's racist or sexist. Those differences are a part of our reality and just demanding everyone put their heads in the sand drives many people unwilling to do so away. It also is damaging because many problems in society that we need to fix are informed by that data.

There's a big difference between accept and endorse.
I don't think it's unreasonable to demand acceptance....our constitution demands it imo. If it didn't, being a Nazi would be illegal.

Fair enough, but I thought my longer explanation by examples made my meaning more clear. Making calls that people should not be allowed to deny membership into private clubs/groups based upon behaviors and choices is going to dive away people you need to get the support of.

IMO the Dems need to stop calling out the flying spaghetti monster club for denying membership to people who eat spaghetti. Spaghetti eaters still have their right to eat spaghetti, they just don't need to join a club of people who think that's immoral. Save the outrage for the FSM branches that deny membership to those without noodley appendages, as that has now crossed over from a choice/behavior and into something immutable.

If we can agree on that in principle, let me then step forward to the real example.

Stop telling Christians that not accepting non-christians as members or leaders in their churchs is immoral or intolerant or bigotry or evil. Most of the major religions in the world on some lesser or greater extent declare each other immoral. Live and live is enough, you don't need to demand they accept membership or leadership candidate from other religions with beliefs or practices they consider incompatible with their own. Oh, and if the Dems really want bonus points here, who you choose to have sex with and how you choose to do it can be included in this.

The extreme right IS growing it's base off the people the extreme left are alienating. It is NOT enough for the left to just hope to similarly grow it's base by those alienated by the extreme right. That didn't work so well for Hillary. "Growing it's base" is code for gaining power and support, aka more people that can act and vote. The Dems need to do more to draw in extra voters, the current trend of doubling down harder in condemnation of anyone that didn't vote Hillary is exactly the opposite of what they need to be doing. That's chasing away voters that need to be won over. Go back to those same voters with some of the olive branches I mentioned, or come up with some others, but at least make a blasted effort to grow your base out too or else your shrinking your own base while the right extremists are growing...

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?

@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

I'm Canadian so maybe that's only a problem here from my country. We have complaints and confrontations against churches for not hiring or rejecting a hire based on sexual practices, or even in one case for being an atheist. We also have a 'women's only' nude spa facing human rights complaints for keeping out people with penises because they are women too.

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/will-atheist-rev-gretta-vosper-obtain-no-fault-divorce-from-church

A 5 second google at least has some American tracking of demanding sexual practices be untouchable when religions or other clubs add new members or hires:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/lgbt-employment-discrimination-churches_n_6082846

It is happening, and more importantly, whether the laws are all there already or not, the fact a complaint likely would travel to the supreme court at least is certainly a pretty legitimate concern about where that line is being drawn.

And hey, maybe the Dems don't want to try and find common ground with that particular demographic. The fact is though that there are plenty of anti-nazi people in that demographic and many others that the Democrats have currently cast as 'enemy' thinkers. The Dems need to pick some things they are willing to compromise on that will help them reach out to voters that didn't show up for Hillary.

Ahhh...ok...so there are a smattering of insane idiots that don't get they advocate forcing their group to accept, let's say Nazis into their hierarchy.
I certainly hope your leaders understand and don't support those short sighted idiots.
Keep in mind, there's a big difference between 'my group will hate you and complain if you do "x"' and 'you may not do "x"'.
Hires for businesses the church owns can't be discriminatory, not church hierarchy. Sounds right to me.
If there's no law, no complaints will be heard in the courts, at least here in the U.S.. Does Canada litigate legal civil behaviour?

You totally lost me with your last paragraph....but it sounds like you are confusing the ultra far left for democrats....they aren't. Sadly, they are being courted by democrats, something I would like to see stop.

What's a moderate to do?
Stand up and make your voice heard, making it clear that inclusion of fascism in the platform means you are out the door.
We must make it unavoidable that adding the ultra left to the party removes the moderates and independents, and undeniably kills the party. Have them look at Republicans as an example of what you get when you court the extremists, and show them that the gains moving towards center are far greater than those on the fringe.
It's outrageous to think they need to be told that, but clearly they do.

Really, because I chose to stick with your terms, I'm being less clear. Above, when I wrote "accept" I mean "tolerate".

If the choice is between a few people on the left being upset about trigger warnings, etc and ACTUAL FUCKING NAZIS, then they're isn't a choice to be made.

There's no moral relativism here. "Gee, Nazis are bad and all, but some transgender people demanded to be treated as the gender they choose" WTF??

I agree, but that's why the antifa people do far more harm than good, even though their stated intentions may be good their methods aren't.

They allow it to be framed as a choice between actually violent Nazis/right and actually violent PC fascists/left. (This couldn't be better for the Nazis, as the extreme right is far larger, older, better prepared, with far more resources than the extreme left and I think they're orgasmic they're managing to turn the national narrative into a battle of extremist ideals.)

I think that's the moral relativism being attempted, and no reasonable person wants either choice.
All that said, I also think there isn't really a choice to be made between the two, but I still firmly refuse both.

@newtboy

dude..seriously..are we related?

i reject both as well.

and since WHEN is it considered brave and courageous to condemn and denounce nazis?

i am seeing this stupidity all over the social sites,as if bashing nazis is now some blow for justice.

jesus,how can some people be so fucking dim to the gigantic circle jerk they are engaging in....fucking pathetic.

how about take a stand on a more nuanced subject and then get back to me.otherwise you're just smelling your own farts and calling it febreeze...

/drops mic

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

Oh....that's....really? And here I thought Canadians were reasonable people.

The 'no penis' thing....yeah, that's kinda nuts, but couldn't they get around it by becoming a private club with membership dues rather than spa fees? At least here, private clubs make their own rules the members agree to when they join.....so far.

Public businesses that use public services to operate and serve the public, they have different obligations to society, imo.

I absolutely agree, the dems need to get their head out of their ass, denounce the extremists in their midst, understand that Clinton was a HUGE mistake, and move back to the center some, but I also see that the right has moved so far right that what one might consider 'centrist' today would be extremist right 25 years ago, so they need to be careful to not move past center and go right, or they'll lose for being republican light.

"The 'no penis' thing....yeah, that's kinda nuts"
giggle

"I also see that the right has moved so far right that what one might consider 'centrist' today would be extremist right 25 years ago"

Which reminds me that in the entire conversation I've been pretty much writing off the Reps and the right. I'd really like to see them do all the same things just flipping left for right and all.

I would argue that the right hasn't gone so much further from the 'center' than the left has. Of course, the 'center' is always subjective, but my barometer is basically the only mantra from the libertarians I can agree on, your rights end were mine begin. Maximizing that mantra as much as the practicalities of real world allow is what I would consider an ideally centrist goal line.