Far Right Extremists

[DMT]

Who are you referring to? 'Cuz the only one from the other side (as I see it), is Nots...

Right I said in my first response in the thread not to expect much of a response.

[onejayhawk]

You start by accusing your debate partner with terrorism. Why do you expect rational discourse?

J

[Teenwolf]

You start by accusing your debate partner with terrorism. Why do you expect rational discourse?

J

I have a very low bar set up for you, not sure how you keep ramming into it.

You're welcome to provide any link that support your position. Until you're able to do that, quit whining!

[fuhrdog]

Britain to use MI5 to combat rightwing terrorism in the UK. The ideology will now sit in the same portfolio as Islamist terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/28/mi5-lead-battle-against-uk-rightwing-extremists-police-action

[B-Fly]

I would be interested in B-Fly's response to whether the Anti-Defamation League is the Holy Bible (so to speak) of objectivity on the issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but in general I also think you are trying to figure out how to best get your points across. if the ADL is a group whose pros and cons you have studied, at all, and you have concluded that they are a very reliable source, that's fine - because then if they publish another report that goes against your preconceptions, you presumably would defer to them (maybe even post it here).

but if such a report would lead you to dismiss them, then you would just be someone who has an ax to grind and is looking around randomly for an ax-grinder.

do you like to be surprised by articles that are counter to those preconceptions? those are the best kind, seriously. it's great to feel as if you understand something, only to find that new knowledge can persuade you otherwise.

The ADL is decidedly not "leftist" in any sense, regularly call out anti-Semitism on the left, and I would be inclined to trust their data on the issue.

[Teenwolf]

I would be interested in B-Fly's response to whether the Anti-Defamation League is the Holy Bible (so to speak) of objectivity on the issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise, but in general I also think you are trying to figure out how to best get your points across. if the ADL is a group whose pros and cons you have studied, at all, and you have concluded that they are a very reliable source, that's fine - because then if they publish another report that goes against your preconceptions, you presumably would defer to them (maybe even post it here).

but if such a report would lead you to dismiss them, then you would just be someone who has an ax to grind and is looking around randomly for an ax-grinder.

do you like to be surprised by articles that are counter to those preconceptions? those are the best kind, seriously. it's great to feel as if you understand something, only to find that new knowledge can persuade you otherwise.

The statistics back up what I'd previously learned when Trump decided to end the tracking and counter measures aimed at white nationalism. Again, I welcome you to show counter statistics from a reliable source.

White Nationalism is clearly a more widespread threat to a greater number of Americans than Muslim extremism, yet the right wing has decided to protect the extremists as the Southern Strategy 2.0. They prefer the easy votes to be mined through traditional fear mongering of all "others". Mexicans, Muslims, "Globalists" (Jews), transgender people, "angry mobs"... it's all Scare Tactics 101. Some of the extreme from your camp become radicalized and murder in the name of supporting their concept of "the Right". The fact is, nobody from the left embraced or supported left wing terrorism in the Steve Scalise case, they universally denounced it. Yet the Right wing are too fucking morally compromised to abandon those "deplorable" votes... they'd rather give comfort in times of attacks from the left, such as Trump calling out the "Globalists" to chants of ""Soros! Soros! Soros!" and Trump chuckles... on the same day of the synagogue massacre, and less than a week after Soros had a bomb sent to him. All from a script, it's clearly intentional!

[onejayhawk]

I have a very low bar set up for you, not sure how you keep ramming into it.

You're welcome to provide any link that support your position. Until you're able to do that, quit whining!

Thatis easy enough. After all, you said it.

Buckle up for hearing the name Steve Scalise a million times in the wake of the right wing extremist attacks, both with the mail bomber and the synagogue shooter.

The reality is that right-wing extremists commit acts of violence with far more frequency than any left wing counterparts (Antifa only show up to fascist congregations, and they're only a threat to fascist sympathizers). Take a look at these statistics from a study published by the Anti-Defamation League:



Do the math. Less than 3% of the extremist murders were by left-wing extremists. It's an interesting article. Keep it in mind as the media debates the "violent rhetoric and actions on both sides" this week. Fox News literally interrupted coverage of McConnell's upsetting dinner experience to deliver breaking news about the bombs... without a hint of shame or irony. "Both sides", everyone!

https://www.adl.org/resources/report...states-in-2016

I love the way you make antifa violence acceptable. Kudos on that. It's straight of the SA handbook.

J

[Teenwolf]

Thatis easy enough. After all, you said it.


I love the way you make antifa violence acceptable. Kudos on that. It's straight of the SA handbook.

J

I quoted murder statistics! Refute them!

[Judge Jude]

thanks for your response, B-Fly.

from last week's Time magazine (I think it's paywalled):

"Civility is a style of argument that implicitly welcomes response. It is a display or respect and tolerance, which makes clear that you are engaging in a conversation, not delivering the last word. Unlike contempt, which generally seems less about your targets than about creating an ugly spectacle for your own partisans to enjoy, a civil argument is a plea to all fellow citizens to respond, even if in opposition. It invites the broader body of concerned citizens to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, to correct the flaws in my argument and to continue to deliberate in a rapidly changing world." - Phil Klay

[Teenwolf]

thanks for your response, B-Fly.

from last week's Time magazine (I think it's paywalled):

"Civility is a style of argument that implicitly welcomes response. It is a display or respect and tolerance, which makes clear that you are engaging in a conversation, not delivering the last word. Unlike contempt, which generally seems less about your targets than about creating an ugly spectacle for your own partisans to enjoy, a civil argument is a plea to all fellow citizens to respond, even if in opposition. It invites the broader body of concerned citizens to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, to correct the flaws in my argument and to continue to deliberate in a rapidly changing world." - Phil Klay

It all starts from the top down with your piece of shit immoral leader.

[B-Fly]

thanks for your response, B-Fly.

from last week's Time magazine (I think it's paywalled):

"Civility is a style of argument that implicitly welcomes response. It is a display or respect and tolerance, which makes clear that you are engaging in a conversation, not delivering the last word. Unlike contempt, which generally seems less about your targets than about creating an ugly spectacle for your own partisans to enjoy, a civil argument is a plea to all fellow citizens to respond, even if in opposition. It invites the broader body of concerned citizens to fill in the gaps of my knowledge, to correct the flaws in my argument and to continue to deliberate in a rapidly changing world." - Phil Klay

And 95% of the time, I will select civility as my go-to style of argument. I do, however, think that there is sometimes a value in widespread societal contempt that makes no acceptable place for certain ideologies/behaviors/actions. For example, I'm sure there are still many Americans who believe that blacks and whites should never intermarry and would be happy to see the state still in the business of enforcing anti-miscegentation laws. However, any politician who proposed reinstituting anti-miscegenation laws or expressed an anti-miscegentation viewpoint would draw so much societal contempt that we don't have politicians (or at least any credible ones) expressing anti-miscegentation positions. That's an example where contempt, rather than civility, can be a net positive for our society.

[Art Vandelay]

It all starts from the top down with your piece of shit immoral leader.

I seldom venture into this forum but the title interested me.

I am curious teenwolf, do you support antifa and their ways?

and as an outsider looking in, you sound angry.

[B-Fly]

I seldom venture into this forum but the title interested me.

I am curious teenwolf, do you support antifa and their ways?

and as an outsider looking in, you sound angry.

I know this is for Teenwolf, but from my perspective, while I oppose the use of violence or the threat of violence for political ends, I think the statistics and evidence make incredibly clear that setting up "antifa" as a fount of left-wing violence/terror equal to or greater than that of right-wing extremists in America is bogus. Who has anyone supposedly affiliated with antifa killed? To the extent they have engaged in vandalism or catalyzed street fighting or even violated administrative regulations/guidelines about public demonstrations, they should be held accountable by law enforcement. But the answer to right-wing extremists in America most decidedly is not or at least should not be, "But antifa!" or "But Maxine Waters and Eric Holder!" False equivalency.

[Gregg]

And 95% of the time, I will select civility as my go-to style of argument. I do, however, think that there is sometimes a value in widespread societal contempt that makes no acceptable place for certain ideologies/behaviors/actions. For example, I'm sure there are still many Americans who believe that blacks and whites should never intermarry and would be happy to see the state still in the business of enforcing anti-miscegentation laws. However, any politician who proposed reinstituting anti-miscegenation laws or expressed an anti-miscegentation viewpoint would draw so much societal contempt that we don't have politicians (or at least any credible ones) expressing anti-miscegentation positions. That's an example where contempt, rather than civility, can be a net positive for our society.

I agree with this whole statement. My concern/question is when this is used are we really instigating change or just making it unacceptable to discuss?

This very thread is an example. Teenwolf may find his tactics successful in quieting down some posters, but does he move the needle one bit left? Nope.

You on the other hand selecting civility have actually made a few people see things differently and even changed a few minds on some topics.

[Teenwolf]

I agree with this whole statement. My concern/question is when this is used are we really instigating change or just making it unacceptable to discuss?

This very thread is an example. Teenwolf may find his tactics successful in quieting down some posters, but does he move the needle one bit left? Nope.

You on the other hand selecting civility have actually made a few people see things differently and even changed a few minds on some topics.

And B-Fly wouldn't be giving his civil take if I didn't bat the hornet's nest in the first place.

I dont believe anybody here is changing minds.