# Nonsense of the alt-lite / proud boys



## narad (Oct 27, 2018)

So sort of randomly throughout the past couple of weeks I kept hearing this term pop up, Alt-lite, that I might have heard before but never really stopped to wonder how it differed from other groups it was mentioned along side — alt-right, white supremacists, nazis, etc. — but it also popped up in a podcast so I got a good dose of the ideology:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/626/white-haze

Although this is not a super recent podcast, it dealt with the proud boys, who just that week popped up on my newsfeed as instigating a bar fight.

The gist of it (/proud boys) being that it’s the alt-right without the racism. But still espousing that white male civilization is superior. As the podcast points out, that's not a big leap from "white men are superior", so do you think there is any way that can be interpreted that isn't still racist? Because I'm definitely not getting it. I mean, clearly a lot of the guys interviewed are still very racist anyway, so I wonder if this just a rebranding to get less internet censorship? White supremacists can't get into a club, so..., let's just use a different noun phrase, and then do the same shit.

It also seems kind of hypocritically resentment-driven. If you go up for a job against a woman, and you lose, and then suddenly <your group> is being oppressed by <that group> vs. <you> lost to <that person>. This is basically the story of the founder.

* I mean, not so serious a discussion. You can't take an ideology whose core tenets involve rules about not wanking too seriously.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 27, 2018)

It's the same old shit just trying to be packaged a bit differently. In another couple years we'll see the same folks calling themselves something different.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 27, 2018)

narad said:


> The gist of it (/proud boys) being that it’s the alt-right without the racism. But still espousing that white male civilization is superior. As the podcast points out, that's not a big leap from "white men are superior", so do you think there is any way that can be interpreted that isn't still racist?



No- I don't think there's any leap at all. I can't see any philosophical or functional difference, let alone a semantic one. The attempts nowadays by idiots to add a veneer of intellect to their hooliganism is remarkably pathetic.


----------



## watson503 (Oct 27, 2018)

Proud Boys initiation - getting "clicked-in" ='s getting punched by these douchebags as you name 5 breakfast cereals...pathetic.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 27, 2018)

This became a cringe thread rather quickly.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin (Oct 27, 2018)

watson503 said:


> Proud Boys initiation - getting "clicked-in" ='s getting punched by these douchebags as you name 5 breakfast cereals...pathetic.




"I'm a proud western chauvinist."
Holy crepe, what's with some people?


----------



## narad (Oct 27, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> This became a cringe thread rather quickly.



To be fair, I cringed a little while starting it.

But yea, actually seeing these guys does take it to a whole other level. Not really the people I had envisioned during the podcast.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin (Oct 27, 2018)

I hope memberships come with one of these.


----------



## zappatton2 (Oct 27, 2018)

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I hope memberships come with one of these.


Since we know that this is an actual poster that really exists, I still have to wonder, who looks at this and thinks to themselves "I'm totally cool with the way my country is going."


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 27, 2018)

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I hope memberships come with one of these.



The cognitive dissonance required to think that a draft dodging rich kid who has been protected by private security their whole lives wouldn't shit their pants in any situation remotely resembling battle.


----------



## mastapimp (Oct 29, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The cognitive dissonance required to think that a draft dodging rich kid who has been protected by private security their whole lives wouldn't shit their pants in any situation remotely resembling battle.



The artwork is from Sharpwriter/Jason Heuser (https://www.jasonheuser.com/) He does all the presidents in some outrageous fashion, but this one is definitely fitting of how Trump (and some of his diehard base) probably views himself. In fact, the FL bomber guy had this same picture plastered to his van next to pictures of trump enemies in cross hairs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 29, 2018)

mastapimp said:


> The artwork is from Sharpwriter/Jason Heuser (https://www.jasonheuser.com/) He does all the presidents in some outrageous fashion, but this one is definitely fitting of how Trump (and some of his diehard base) probably views himself. In fact, the FL bomber guy had this same picture plastered to his van next to pictures of trump enemies in cross hairs.



He does packaging graphics for a local brewery here too.

I don't know what his typical subject matter is, but that shirt is from American As Fuck which supplies the official wardrobe of terrible people.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 1, 2018)

narad said:


> The gist of it (/proud boys) being that it’s the alt-right without the racism. But still espousing that white male civilization is superior. As the podcast points out, that's not a big leap from "white men are superior", so do you think there is any way that can be interpreted that isn't still racist? Because I'm definitely not getting it. I mean, clearly a lot of the guys interviewed are still very racist anyway, so I wonder if this just a rebranding to get *less internet censorship*? White supremacists can't get into a club, so..., let's just use a different noun phrase, and then do the same shit.



So I don't know anything about the proud boys or any of this stuff, but I'm going to take a complete shot in the dark here.
Perhaps there's people that think being alt-right without the racism is fine. These people probably think that _*western*_ civilization (words matter) is something to _*be proud of*_. Similar to all of the white identitarians (however the hell you spell that) that are upset that it isn't socially acceptable to be proud of being white, while society is consistently shoving every other conceivable type of pride in your face.

Rebranding for these people in an effort to catch less censorship makes sense, since as soon as you start to go down that path people are absurdly quick to make very venomous assumptions of you. And if you're a normal, well-adjusted person who doesn't hold crazy regressive ideas like white supremacy or "the jews did this," you'd want to do everything you can to not be associated with people that do. 

So to lead into your question of "can this be interpreted in a way that isn't racist," I think yes. I think you're right in the assessment that the statement "white male civilization is superior," is intrinsically racist, but if the stance is instead "western civilization is superior," then no, I don't think it is. It's still inflammatory, even if it was objectively true, those that do not believe in a western society would feel attacked- and it certainly isn't objectively true. But it's a valid opinion, and doesn't indicate bigotry imo. Lots of people around the world think that their culture is "better" or that X culture is "better."


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 1, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So I don't know anything about the proud boys or any of this stuff, but I'm going to take a complete shot in the dark here.
> Perhaps there's people that think being alt-right without the racism is fine. These people probably think that _*western*_ civilization (words matter) is something to _*be proud of*_. Similar to all of the white identitarians (however the hell you spell that) that are upset that it isn't socially acceptable to be proud of being white, while society is consistently shoving every other conceivable type of pride in your face.
> 
> Rebranding for these people in an effort to catch less censorship makes sense, since as soon as you start to go down that path people are absurdly quick to make very venomous assumptions of you. And if you're a normal, well-adjusted person who doesn't hold crazy regressive ideas like white supremacy or "the jews did this," you'd want to do everything you can to not be associated with people that do.
> ...



In a vacuum, sure. But it's been shown time and time again that the "Proud Boys" have no problem marching with Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK. Even if they are aligned merely in the context of "yay white people", are those "friends" worth having?

Not to mention that the founder of the group promotes violence and is on video swinging at reporters (including a woman). 

But, as a white dude, it's bullshit to claim victimhood. Which is what it comes down to. The narrative of the white man as a vicitim is garbage. The 115th Congress is 81% white. We have a white (orange) president with a staff that's over 86% white. The Supreme Court is 7/9 white. About 70% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are white. Whites are almost twice as likely to have completed post secondary education. We rule the roost. There's no attack on "white culture" whatever the fuck that is.


----------



## Cabinet (Nov 1, 2018)

These subgroups are products of hyper connected social media and political identities moving further and further into extremes. Which poses a proper question: Why should a modern government be a democracy?

There is an underlying connection between hard activism (high profile) and polarity of ideology. You'll even see it in the military as civilian society moves more left, the military will tend to yield more right. An interesting thought from the book The Soldier and the State.


----------



## broj15 (Nov 1, 2018)

The proud boys will occasionally make an appearance at one of the dive bars around here. Thankfully my area of the city is populated mostly by poc, immigrants and socially concious punk kids, so it doesn't take long for someone to run them off.


----------



## Randy (Nov 1, 2018)

Cabinet said:


> These subgroups are products of hyper connected social media and political identities moving further and further into extremes. Which poses a proper question: Why should a modern government be a democracy?
> 
> There is an underlying connection between hard activism (high profile) and polarity of ideology. You'll even see it in the military as civilian society moves more left, the military will tend to yield more right. An interesting thought from the book The Soldier and the State.



Bits and pieces track with what I've observed. 

The big one being the constant jockeying for validation from each groups respective social media camps, and the constantly climbing extremes people will go to get that validation. In non political circles it's about who's got a bigger butt, who cooks more exotic food, who visits more countries and in the political sphere, it's who can collect more scalps.


----------



## narad (Nov 1, 2018)

Randy said:


> non political circles it's about who's got a bigger butt, who cooks more exotic food, who visits more countries and in the political sphere, it's who can collect more scalps.



Who has the newest BKPs...


----------



## narad (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So I don't know anything about the proud boys or any of this stuff, but I'm going to take a complete shot in the dark here.
> Perhaps there's people that think being alt-right without the racism is fine. These people probably think that _*western*_ civilization (words matter) is something to _*be proud of*_. Similar to all of the white identitarians (however the hell you spell that) that are upset that it isn't socially acceptable to be proud of being white, while society is consistently shoving every other conceivable type of pride in your face.



You're right -- I mistyped, thinking ahead in the sentence. It's that western civilization is superior/the best, is the quote I'm hearing.

But having thought about it, western civilization is too broad to be meaningful apart from its tendency to be considered white civilization. Is there another thread of commonality??

For instance, many white supremacy groups like to make references to Sweden or other scandinavian countries -- like hey, western civilization is great -- the US, sweden, UK, Germany. My Swedish friends are probably the most critical of the US, of all my random international friends. As are most of my UK friends. Various bits of Western civilization are extremely different along just about any axis you care to cluster them into, so I'm not really sure I understand what being proud of western civilization could really mean. And, for many western civilizations, what is built is built on the backs of the less fortunate, not by the leadership one would attribute the Western ideologies to.

So yea, I've mostly come around to viewing this as a racist statement. The only non-racist interpretation is like, "What civilizations are the greatest? Rank them" "Oh hey, all my top choices happen to be Western!", etc. -- The way the proud boys pitch it, it feels causal.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> In a vacuum, sure. But it's been shown time and time again that the "Proud Boys" have no problem marching with Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK. Even if they are aligned merely in the context of "yay white people", are those "friends" worth having?
> 
> Not to mention that the founder of the group promotes violence and is on video swinging at reporters (including a woman).
> 
> But, as a white dude, it's bullshit to claim victimhood. Which is what it comes down to. The narrative of the white man as a vicitim is garbage. The 115th Congress is 81% white. We have a white (orange) president with a staff that's over 86% white. The Supreme Court is 7/9 white. About 70% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are white. Whites are almost twice as likely to have completed post secondary education. We rule the roost. There's no attack on "white culture" whatever the fuck that is.



Like I said, I'm not familiar with these guys and if that's what they think the best course of action is to make their statement, I'm inclined to agree with you.
All of those stats though ring hollow to me, since even the US Census estimates that nearly 80% of the American population is white. It makes sense that there would be a proportionately high amount of them in positions of power, since that's representative of total population count. I agree that citing white guys as a 'victim' is a far overreach, but to deny that there's a cultural attack on young, white males is kind of disingenuous. 



narad said:


> You're right -- I mistyped, thinking ahead in the sentence. It's that western civilization is superior/the best, is the quote I'm hearing.
> 
> But having thought about it, western civilization is too broad to be meaningful apart from its tendency to be considered white civilization. Is there another thread of commonality??
> 
> ...



I'm nowhere near as well-traveled as you are, so I don't have the insight on that front that you do. It makes sense though that most would differ in fairly significant ways, but I think the sentiment is closer to western ideology. All of the places you've mentioned vary in terms of government, laws, societal norms, etc; but I think it wouldn't be too far off base to say that they all have adopted a collective set of "western values," the idea that all men are created equal, folks should be judged on the content of their character, every human being under the sun deserves equal rights, etc. When people refer to "western civilization," I tend to assume that they're referring to nations that have collectively adopted these ideals.

Which, running with that assumption, is something I can see being proud of. There are many parts of the world that aren't like that. Sure, every country has it's baggage and yes, the US/UK etc are certainly no exception, but a lot of that was overcome, and I think that's also something worth being proud about.

Circling back to what I said initially (and again at the start of this post) I'm not too familiar with the proud boys themselves, and I'm not really _defending_ them since I don't really know who they are and what they do, but I'm trying to play a bit of devil's advocate and answer some of the points brought up in your initial post. Judging by what Max said, the people you're talking about are clearly not people with the worldview I'm describing.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Like I said, I'm not familiar with these guys and if that's what they think the best course of action is to make their statement, I'm inclined to agree with you.
> All of those stats though ring hollow to me, since even the US Census estimates that nearly 80% of the American population is white. It makes sense that there would be a proportionately high amount of them in positions of power, since that's representative of total population count. I agree that citing white guys as a 'victim' is a far overreach, but to deny that there's a cultural attack on young, white males is kind of disingenuous.



The point isn't "there are too many white people in power" its "the greater majority of those in power, public and private, are white". A power imbalance, even if natural, is still an imbalance.

Per the 2017 census, the United States is just over 76% white, which drops down to just a hair over 60% when you remove "white, Hispanic" from the count.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/IPE120217

Can you give an example of "a cultural attack on young, white males"? Real stuff, not just young, white males getting pissed they can't be as racist and rapey anymore without being called out.

I'll leave this here:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...lief-that-white-people-are-under-attack-88622


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> The point isn't "there are too many white people in power" its "the greater majority of those in power, public and private, are white". A power imbalance, even if natural, is still an imbalance.
> 
> Per the 2017 census, the United States is just over 76% white, which drops down to just a hair over 60% when you remove "white, Hispanic" from the count.
> Can you give an example of "a cultural attack on young, white males"? Real stuff, not just young, white males getting pissed they can't be as racist and rapey anymore without being called out.



I'm not sure what you're proposing to be the issue there, then. We can't just say that the senate needs X number of Y ethnic group. There is no institutional barrier to minorities attempting to enter these positions, and unless a majority of the voting public is racist, then that isn't a block either. It sounds to me like the issue is that all we have to draw from is a small group of people within an already smaller group of people, and aside from getting others from within that group interested, I don't see what there is to be done about that? Or why it's even a problem, to be honest. It's not like asians are unable to advocate for indians in their district or vice versa. Maybe it's a "you'll understand when you're older" thing (I'm only 23 and presumably pretty naive to the intricacies of delicate racial relations in terms of governing on a national scale), but I think I could reasonably make policy decisions taking _*all*_ of my constituents into account, and not just the ones that share my ethnic group.

As far as your example, sure. You don't even need to go back further than a couple days. You just had Don Lemon, a well established host of a mainstream media mega-titan, calling white men the most dangerous group in America. Immediately after calling for "more unity."
I want you to do me a favor. To understand what I'm talking about, for the next month, whenever you read an article or listen to the news, try and replace the word "white" with "black," or "white men" with "the jews." All of the comments and statements that you see will instantly feel more abrasive and outlandish. Even if every mass murderer for the last 10 years was a jewish man, it'd be *insane *if a news anchor went on national television and said that "the biggest threat to american safety is the jews."

That article seems to be hyper-focused on the subset of that group that said "YES white people are better, and YES white people are being discriminated against," which I can't help but feel is a very small number on the national stage. In which case sure, the point can be made that that's a dangerous perception since those people are the type that could be more easily swayed toward committing actual discrimination to 'fix' their perceived problem. They also don't mention the actual numbers attained from that study, and while they link to it, I'm not going to pay $35 to read the study and make a point. The reliance on the word "some," while not mentioning any numerical data is suspect.
Without access to the study, I also can't know if they experienced participants that did not indicate a preference for the racial hierarchy but _did_ believe whites were being discriminated against, which is a demographic that I suspect to not be insignificant.

They also specifically mention that these people can reasonably be expected to discriminate against others in return, justifying it to themselves because they perceive their own group to be persecuted. This is a fairly broad brush to paint people with. For example, _*I*_ believe white men are "under attack" (which is an overly dramatic statement, but you get what I mean), but I do not believe we are being discriminated against. And while I don't support the idea of 'discriminating back,' to balance things out, what I _*am*_ worried about is the possibility that if people say nothing and just let this happen, and over time it gets worse to the point where one day it's _actual discrimination_ and the pendulum has gone too far, well, now I'm a member of an affected group. It was bad when we did it to black people, I think it'd be bad if we did it to me one day too. I think people need to discard this double standard of what's acceptable to say about who.

I don't really want to derail this thread into a debate on racial politics because that's a conversation where nobody wins, but something isn't right right now, and I'm concerned for the future. I think things are only going to get more and more polarized unless people stop pushing each other further and further to the right/left. What I'm talking about here is just _fueling_ the alt-right, it's pushing impressionable young boys right into their arms. Then anything the alt-right does just pushes people further into the radical left since there's now an enemy to 'unite' against. People are radicalizing each other and it's literally just getting worse every day.


----------



## Drew (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> That article seems to be hyper-focused on the subset of that group that said "YES white people are better, and YES white people are being discriminated against," which I can't help but feel is a very small number on the national stage.


I think, though, the thing that's important to keep in mind, is while they may be a minority, they're a LOT larger and more vocal a minority than they used to be, and when you have a President doing things like refer to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville (where the Proud Boys attended in force) as a situation with "lots of good people on both sides" and giving them a much larger national stage and implicit support, then yeah, I think there's every reason to be hyper-focused on them.

I mean, this is America. We've literally fought wars over white supremacy in the past. Both the Confederacy and the Nazis lost. I thought this was a settled matter, you know? If you've fumigated your house and then one day you see a cockaroach back on your floor, then yeah, you absolutely put your foot down and crush the fucker. That's not "radicalizing the left," that's just not wanting to fight a war for the third time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm not sure what you're proposing to be the issue there, then. We can't just say that the senate needs X number of Y ethnic group.



Again, you're not quite understanding. 

All I'm bringing attention to is the power imbalance. 



> There is no institutional barrier to minorities attempting to enter these positions



That's not true at all. 

From under funded schools in minority neighborhoods, red-lining practices of financial institutions, higher instances of policing (not necessarily crime) as well as statically harsher legal recourse are all systematic elements that limit access to advancement in our society. 



> and unless a majority of the voting public is racist, then that isn't a block either.



There are different level of racism. Not everyone who rather not vote for someone not of the same race/gender/whatever is a skin head with a swastika carved into their forehead. 



> It sounds to me like the issue is that all we have to draw from is a small group of people within an already smaller group of people, and aside from getting others from within that group interested, I don't see what there is to be done about that? Or why it's even a problem, to be honest. It's not like asians are unable to advocate for indians in their district or vice versa.



It's about scale. Again, I'm not saying that the power imbalance has to be corrected, but it would be foolish to believe that it's not benefiting white men. 



> Maybe it's a "you'll understand when you're older" thing (I'm only 23 and presumably pretty naive to the intricacies of delicate racial relations in terms of governing on a national scale), but I think I could reasonably make policy decisions taking _*all*_ of my constituents into account, and not just the ones that share my ethnic group.



I think you can too, because even though we can disagree about things I don't think you're a racist scumbag. 

But, if history has shown us anything, most politicians are as sell serving as possible. 



> As far as your example, sure. You don't even need to go back further than a couple days. You just had Don Lemon, a well established host of a mainstream media mega-titan, calling white men the most dangerous group in America. Immediately after calling for "more unity."



Is he wrong? Every static I read says that a white dude is more likely to kill me than anyone else. Not an Islamic terrorist, not an illegal Mexican immigrants, not a black teenager. Just another white dude. Most deadly terrorist attacks in this country have been from far-right aligned white guys. Most mass shooters are white. Most school shooters are white. And because white people, regardless of income and credit history are more likely to be approved for a car loan, I have a better chance of getting run over by somone white. 



> I want you to do me a favor. To understand what I'm talking about, for the next month, whenever you read an article or listen to the news, try and replace the word "white" with "black," or "white men" with "the jews." All of the comments and statements that you see will instantly feel more abrasive and outlandish. Even if every mass murderer for the last 10 years was a jewish man, it'd be *insane *if a news anchor went on national television and said that "the biggest threat to american safety is the jews."



I'm sure it's not very pleasant to hear some truths about the world around us. 

But, using your example, white folks are three times more likely than blacks or hispanics to carry out a mass murder, and ten times more than someone of Asian decent. 



> That article seems to be hyper-focused on the subset of that group that said "YES white people are better, and YES white people are being discriminated against," which I can't help but feel is a very small number on the national stage. In which case sure, the point can be made that that's a dangerous perception since those people are the type that could be more easily swayed toward committing actual discrimination to 'fix' their perceived problem. They also don't mention the actual numbers attained from that study, and while they link to it, I'm not going to pay $35 to read the study and make a point. The reliance on the word "some," while not mentioning any numerical data is suspect.
> Without access to the study, I also can't know if they experienced participants that did not indicate a preference for the racial hierarchy but _did_ believe whites were being discriminated against, which is a demographic that I suspect to not be insignificant.
> 
> They also specifically mention that these people can reasonably be expected to discriminate against others in return, justifying it to themselves because they perceive their own group to be persecuted. This is a fairly broad brush to paint people with. For example, _*I*_ believe white men are "under attack" (which is an overly dramatic statement, but you get what I mean), but I do not believe we are being discriminated against. And while I don't support the idea of 'discriminating back,' to balance things out, what I _*am*_ worried about is the possibility that if people say nothing and just let this happen, and over time it gets worse to the point where one day it's _actual discrimination_ and the pendulum has gone too far, well, now I'm a member of an affected group. It was bad when we did it to black people, I think it'd be bad if we did it to me one day too. I think people need to discard this double standard of what's acceptable to say about who.
> ...



It's our job to ensure the future is better than the past, but before we can do that we need to be more honest about things, even though that might not paint ourselves and our ancestors in the best light. 

White people aren't under attack, in the same way a mouse can't hurt an elephant. We control everything. We're the default. 

Most problems of white society are completely self imposed. Here's another good read: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/02/men-left-behind.aspx

I think it'll give a good amount of insight into why young men are having problems right now. Spoiler: it's all our own fault.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

Drew said:


> I think, though, the thing that's important to keep in mind, is while they may be a minority, they're a LOT larger and more vocal a minority than they used to be, and when you have a President doing things like refer to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville (where the Proud Boys attended in force) as a situation with "lots of good people on both sides" and giving them a much larger national stage and implicit support, then yeah, I think there's every reason to be hyper-focused on them.
> 
> I mean, this is America. We've literally fought wars over white supremacy in the past. Both the Confederacy and the Nazis lost. I thought this was a settled matter, you know? If you've fumigated your house and then one day you see a cockaroach back on your floor, then yeah, you absolutely put your foot down and crush the fucker. That's not "radicalizing the left," that's just not wanting to fight a war for the third time.



All of this is true- but similar to how you referenced the president catching bigots in the net of "lots of good people," you're also going to catch a lot of well-intentioned, normal folks in with the bad guys. Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a growing problem, but what I *am* saying is that in incredible focus and incessant coverage both sides have of both extremes is absolutely _not_ doing anybody any favors. Drew I know you're a reasonable guy and I'm sure an incredible percentage of people that lean left are as well, but there _is_ a "radical left" just as much as there is a "radical right." These are the type that corrupt and take over movements like Black Lives Matter, that say crazy, ridiculous stuff like "kill all white people," the types that show up to counter-protests with knives and people that vandalize their own neighborhoods because someone may have said something insensitive maybe. 

_*Those*_ people feel vindicated whenever they read about how the alt-right just marched in a local town, or whenever the media reports a shooting as a hate crime when they may not have been evidence for that. 
Similarly, whenever these people do their own outlandish thing, or whenever the conservosphere contorts something into some left-wing conspiracy, it just incites the alt-right more, and each news cycle pushes more people toward each fringe movement, who may otherwise wouldn't have. By all means, crush your cockroaches, but I think that should be done in a courtroom with lawyers, and not on the news.

I don't want to fight a war for a third time either, which is why this trend alarms me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> All of this is true- but similar to how you referenced the president catching bigots in the net of "lots of good people," you're also going to catch a lot of well-intentioned, normal folks in with the bad guys. Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a growing problem, but what I *am* saying is that in incredible focus and incessant coverage both sides have of both extremes is absolutely _not_ doing anybody any favors. Drew I know you're a reasonable guy and I'm sure an incredible percentage of people that lean left are as well, but there _is_ a "radical left" just as much as there is a "radical right." These are the type that corrupt and take over movements like Black Lives Matter, that say crazy, ridiculous stuff like "kill all white people," the types that show up to counter-protests with knives and people that vandalize their own neighborhoods because someone may have said something insensitive maybe.
> 
> _*Those*_ people feel vindicated whenever they read about how the alt-right just marched in a local town, or whenever the media reports a shooting as a hate crime when they may not have been evidence for that.
> Similarly, whenever these people do their own outlandish thing, or whenever the conservosphere contorts something into some left-wing conspiracy, it just incites the alt-right more, and each news cycle pushes more people toward each fringe movement, who may otherwise wouldn't have. By all means, crush your cockroaches, but I think that should be done in a courtroom with lawyers, and not on the news.
> ...



Who are these "well-intentioned, normal folks" that march along side Neo-Nazis and the KKK? Is that a thing? Can you be a "well-intentioned" person who sympathizes with known, well documented, violent hate groups?

The President of the United States did say that, I haven't seen anything credible relating to BLM saying to "kill all white people", though are those really equivalent? The President of The Free World vs. a volunteer for an open social change movement? 

It's interesting that BLM, an organization mostly organized by black folks always gets bad press, when Red Neck Revolt (ignore the name, they're further left than right) doesn't get any press even though they're an organization that's older and more militantly anti-Nazi/Rascism, though they are also white.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, you're not quite understanding.
> 
> All I'm bringing attention to is the power imbalance.



I understand that- but why I'm stating is that I don't think it's a relevant power imbalance. I don't think the black people of America would be any worse off if we had a 100% white governing body, and vice versa, so long as each ass in each seat is there to _*govern*_ and not to serve themselves.




> That's not true at all.
> 
> From under funded schools in minority neighborhoods, red-lining practices of financial institutions, higher instances of policing (not necessarily crime) as well as statically harsher legal recourse are all systematic elements that limit access to advancement in our society.



This is a much larger debate, and I think a lot of these points are a result of other circumstances- I'll just leave this at agree to disagree. 




> There are different level of racism. Not everyone who rather not vote for someone not of the same race/gender/whatever is a skin head with a swastika carved into their forehead.
> 
> It's about scale. Again, I'm not saying that the power imbalance has to be corrected, but it would be foolish to believe that it's not benefiting white men.



Sure, but I don't think it's occurring at a large enough level to affect election results. Call me a fool, but I don't think it does. I think it affects _*those*_ white men, but I don't think any ethnic group as a whole are positively or negatively affected by having a majority/minority in washington outside of any legislation that is pure pandering (affirmative action, for example), and even then, it doesn't necessarily come into play. This may also just need to be an agree to disagree thing. 




> I think you can too, because even though we can disagree about things I don't think you're a racist scumbag.
> 
> But, if history has shown us anything, most politicians are as sell serving as possible.



I appreciate the vote of confidence 
While it's definitely true that everyone is looking out for #1, again, I don't think this rolls downhill to include a collective ethnic group. You could easily make the argument for social status, or maybe even a localized area (I can see a senator elected from Smalltownville favoring things that would directly benefit Smalltownville but not necessarily their whole state), but I think an ethnic group is too broad a brush. It'd be totally transparent, the people would be in uproar; I don't think they could do it even if they wanted to.



> Is he wrong? Every static I read says that a white dude is more likely to kill me than anyone else. Not an Islamic terrorist, not an illegal Mexican immigrants, not a black teenager. Just another white dude. Most deadly terrorist attacks in this country have been from far-right aligned white guys. Most mass shooters are white. Most school shooters are white. And because white people, regardless of income and credit history are more likely to be approved for a car loan, I have a better chance of getting run over by somone white.
> 
> I'm sure it's not very pleasant to hear some truths about the world around us.
> 
> But, using your example, white folks are three times more likely than blacks or hispanics to carry out a mass murder, and ten times more than someone of Asian decent.



This was his justification, too. This was why I made the alternate example. It would be bombastic for me to go on national television and say that black people are the most dangerous group in America, even if all of these white perpetrators were black instead. The backlash would be *enormous*. The only difference is that PoC are all somewhat of a protected class, and white people are not. If somebody makes bombastic, sweeping generalizations about white men, and I take offence to it, the general response is along the line of "get over it, cry more from your ivory tower." The double standard is what I have an issue with, especially with this specific case, and not so much the statement itself. 

There's also the fact that that same statement could have easily been made in a manner that was not as incendiary, but gaslighting is kind of Lemon's schtick. Which again, is what I'm talking about. If I made a habit of making provocative statements about muslims, I would have a much worse reputation than Lemon has.



> It's our job to ensure the future is better than the past, but before we can do that we need to be more honest about things, even though that might not paint ourselves and our ancestors in the best light.
> 
> White people aren't under attack, in the same way a mouse can't hurt an elephant. *We control everything. We're the default. *
> 
> ...



I agree, but consistency is key. 
Lets also not forget that that's likely to not be the case for long. Even from that same article from your previous post, whites are expected to be a minority in the US somewhat soon. What happens then? Is it still okay to be dismissive of them? Or will people just happen to start caring a bit more about what they say so as to not offend since we're a minority now?

I don't think it's a major concern right now, but it has potential to become one is all I'm saying.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Who are these "well-intentioned, normal folks" that march along side Neo-Nazis and the KKK? Is that a thing? Can you be a "well-intentioned" person who sympathizes with known, well documented, violent hate groups?
> 
> The President of the United States did say that, I haven't seen anything credible relating to BLM saying to "kill all white people", though are those really equivalent? The President of The Free World vs. a volunteer for an open social change movement?
> 
> It's interesting that BLM, an organization mostly organized by black folks always gets bad press, when Red Neck Revolt (ignore the name, they're further left than right) doesn't get any press even though they're an organization that's older and more militantly anti-Nazi/Rascism, though they are also white.



That's not what I meant and I think you know that. When you speak collectively, you pull in people by association.
Any person that has ideas along the line of what I referenced in my initial post gets lumped in with the alt-right by the media. "You're alt right, you're alt right, your friends are alt right, this guy you respect is alt right, the alt right did this! The alt right sucks!"

Shit, I dislike a lot of people that painted as 'alt right' but it's hard not to feel attacked when they get blasted because a lot of them _*aren't*_. 

BLM as a whole could have been an entirely peaceful movement, but one person shows up with a sign saying "Kill all white people" and now some of the well-intentioned protestors are going to get lumped in with that guy. Guilt by association is everywhere and both sides are doing it.

BLM was all over the news receiving glowing praise from left-wing media that ignored it whenever a branch of the movement got destructive, which happened somewhat frequently. Remember the "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" chant? There were a lot of not-good people wrapped up with them, and they tarnished the image of the movement as a whole.
I've never heard of RNR _ever_, so I can't explain that one too you. Perhaps they were smaller scale? Didn't have controversial ideas? Anti-nazi sounds pretty uncontroversial to me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I understand that- but why I'm stating is that I don't think it's a relevant power imbalance. I don't think the black people of America would be any worse off if we had a 100% white governing body, and vice versa, so long as each ass in each seat is there to _*govern*_ and not to serve themselves.



Again, in a vacuum, you're correct, but in the real world it doesn't quite work out like that. 

There are real world examples of majority governments not giving a shit about minorities. 



> This is a much larger debate, and I think a lot of these points are a result of other circumstances- I'll just leave this at agree to disagree.



If you're not willing to debate it, don't use it as the crux of your argument. 



> Sure, but I don't think it's occurring at a large enough level to affect election results. Call me a fool, but I don't think it does. I think it affects _*those*_ white men, but I don't think any ethnic group as a whole are positively or negatively affected by having a majority/minority in washington outside of any legislation that is pure pandering (affirmative action, for example), and even then, it doesn't necessarily come into play. This may also just need to be an agree to disagree thing.



Again, if you don't want to talk about it, don't use it. 

Though, there are examples that exist. 



> I appreciate the vote of confidence
> While it's definitely true that everyone is looking out for #1, again, I don't think this rolls downhill to include a collective ethnic group. You could easily make the argument for social status, or maybe even a localized area (I can see a senator elected from Smalltownville favoring things that would directly benefit Smalltownville but not necessarily their whole state), but I think an ethnic group is too broad a brush. It'd be totally transparent, the people would be in uproar; I don't think they could do it even if they wanted to.



I don't know what to tell you. 

While the aim might not be "enrich those like me" its closer to "fuck those who don't matter" and those who "don't matter" are those whose vote doesn't matter: typically minorities.



> This was his justification, too. This was why I made the alternate example. It would be bombastic for me to go on national television and say that black people are the most dangerous group in America, even if all of these white perpetrators were black instead. The backlash would be *enormous*. The only difference is that PoC are all somewhat of a protected class, and white people are not. If somebody makes bombastic, sweeping generalizations about white men, and I take offence to it, the general response is along the line of "get over it, cry more from your ivory tower." The double standard is what I have an issue with, especially with this specific case, and not so much the statement itself.
> 
> There's also the fact that that same statement could have easily been made in a manner that was not as incendiary, but gaslighting is kind of Lemon's schtick. Which again, is what I'm talking about. If I made a habit of making provocative statements about muslims, I would have a much worse reputation than Lemon has.



Using hypotheticals is useless. We don't live in hypothetical universe, we live in this one, and in this one what Lemon said, as much as it hurt some feelings, was accurate. 

As for Lemon himself, I'm not really a fan, I usually just read Reuters and AP, Guardian every now and then. TV news is mostly junk. 



> I agree, but consistency is key.
> Lets also not forget that that's likely to not be the case for long. Even from that same article from your previous post, whites are expected to be a minority in the US somewhat soon. What happens then? Is it still okay to be dismissive of them? Or will people just happen to start caring a bit more about what they say so as to not offend since we're a minority now?
> 
> I don't think it's a major concern right now, but it has potential to become one is all I'm saying.



Yes, we might be the "biggest minority" at some point in the future, but that doesn't apply to right now, and I'd imagine while our actual numbers will be smaller relatively, we'll still hold onto power much, much longer. 

It's not like we're going to wake up one day and be at the station of Native Americans.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, in a vacuum, you're correct, but in the real world it doesn't quite work out like that.
> 
> There are real world examples of majority governments not giving a shit about minorities.



Are any of these examples from a country with as robust of a system designed to _prevent this_ as most western governments? 
I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious; since this is what I would count as criteria for a relevant example.



> If you're not willing to debate it, don't use it as the crux of your argument.
> 
> Again, if you don't want to talk about it, don't use it.
> 
> Though, there are examples that exist.



I just don't think this is the place for that. If we keep going deeper we'll be here all day 



> I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> While the aim might not be "enrich those like me" its closer to "fuck those who don't matter" and those who "don't matter" are those whose vote doesn't matter: typically minorities.



Fair enough, I can concede this. I'm not sure when this would be exercised though? Even if you don't care about their vote, acting on that belief would be bad for your polls. You have a vested self interest to not cast them aside.



> Using hypotheticals is useless. We don't live in hypothetical universe, we live in this one, and in this one what Lemon said, as much as it hurt some feelings, was accurate.
> 
> As for Lemon himself, I'm not really a fan, I usually just read Reuters and AP, Guardian every now and then. TV news is mostly junk.
> 
> ...



I still think you may be missing my point on this one. I'm not disagreeing with you that Lemon was technically accurate. What I'm saying is that it's unjust to me that it's culturally acceptable to make statements like that, but if all you did was change the word 'white' to 'black,' there would instantly be blanket outrage. One standard needs to go- either harsh truths need to be accepted across the board, or we plug our ears and 'la la la' for _everyone_. I think we both agree which one should happen; all that's left is execution.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> That's not what I meant and I think you know that. When you speak collectively, you pull in people by association.
> Any person that has ideas along the line of what I referenced in my initial post gets lumped in with the alt-right by the media. "You're alt right, you're alt right, your friends are alt right, this guy you respect is alt right, the alt right did this! The alt right sucks!"



Again, who are these people? I've never seen or met or even heard of a person who promotes "white pride" that's not at least a little racist. 

Some organizations say they are, but it typically falls apart once you do some gentle digging, such as receiving financial support from known hate groups or the leadership belonging to them previously or even currently. 



> Shit, I dislike a lot of people that painted as 'alt right' but it's hard not to feel attacked when they get blasted because a lot of them _*aren't*_.



Aren't what? 



> BLM as a whole could have been an entirely peaceful movement, but one person shows up with a sign saying "Kill all white people" and now some of the well-intentioned protestors are going to get lumped in with that guy. Guilt by association is everywhere and both sides are doing it.
> 
> BLM was all over the news receiving glowing praise from left-wing media that ignored it whenever a branch of the movement got destructive, which happened somewhat frequently. Remember the "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" chant? There were a lot of not-good people wrapped up with them, and they tarnished the image of the movement as a whole.
> I've never heard of RNR _ever_, so I can't explain that one too you.



BLM: Shows up with nasty sign.
Alt-Right: Runs over protestor, killing them.
BLM: Mean chant about cops.
Cops: Killed nearly 200 unarmed people in the last three years.

Again, the level of impact is not even. 



> Perhaps they were smaller scale? Didn't have controversial ideas?



It's just harder to target a bunch of blue collar, 2nd amendment supporting, southern white dudes as the enemy and keep the base happy. 



> Anti-nazi sounds pretty uncontroversial to me.



Tell that to the President.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Are any of these examples from a country with as robust of a system designed to _prevent this_ as most western governments?
> I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious; since this is what I would count as criteria for a relevant example.



Does America count? 

What system is in place to prevent that here? 

Look up gerrymandering of districts and voter suppression. 



> I just don't think this is the place for that. If we keep going deeper we'll be here all day



If you don't want to talk, stop posting. 



> Fair enough, I can concede this. I'm not sure when this would be exercised though? Even if you don't care about their vote, acting on that belief would be bad for your polls. You have a vested self interest to not cast them aside.



Polls mean nothing, elections do. See above.



> I still think you may be missing my point on this one. I'm not disagreeing with you that Lemon was technically accurate. What I'm saying is that it's unjust to me that it's culturally acceptable to make statements like that, but if all you did was change the word 'white' to 'black,' there would instantly be blanket outrage. One standard needs to go- either harsh truths need to be accepted across the board, or we plug our ears and 'la la la' for _everyone_. I think we both agree which one should happen; all that's left is execution.



What are these "harsh truths" no one wants to hear? 

Please don't come swinging with "blacks aren't as evolved" or "Jews control the world", we've done so well so far. 

I'll choose truth over everything else, as bad as "my people" look.


----------



## Drew (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> All of this is true- but similar to how you referenced the president catching bigots in the net of "lots of good people," you're also going to catch a lot of well-intentioned, normal folks in with the bad guys.


Well-intentioned, normal folks in the Proud Boys? Going to alt-right rallies? Carrying Nazi flags? 

I mean, these sorts of things are usually pretty reliable _tells_ on who AREN'T the well-intentioned, normal folks, you know?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

Drew said:


> Well-intentioned, normal folks in the Proud Boys? Going to alt-right rallies? Carrying Nazi flags?
> 
> I mean, these sorts of things are usually pretty reliable _tells_ on who AREN'T the well-intentioned, normal folks, you know?



That's exactly what I'm saying.
There are people that are proud of their country, proud of their heritage, and _*aren't*_ part of the alt-right. That's the entire crux of what I'm saying. These people get lumped in with all of those types that you mentioned when _*they aren't like that*_. They don't associate with these groups, they don't condone them, but people are all too eager to pidgeonhole them into an ideology they don't have. At no point here was I trying to defend the actual straight up alt-right.



MaxOfMetal said:


> What are these "harsh truths" no one wants to hear?
> 
> Please don't come swinging with "blacks aren't as evolved" or "Jews control the world", we've done so well so far.
> 
> I'll choose truth over everything else, as bad as "my people" look.



The best example would probably be the disproportionately large numbers regarding black crime statistics. It's an uncomfortable subject and causes a lot of tension, but in a lot of circles, it's a topic that isn't even open for discussion. It gets really complicated when people start coming at you with numbers saying that blacks get arrested more than whites "because racism" and you actually have to worry about citing your supporting evidence out of fear of being accused of racism. Stuff like this you have to be really, really careful about bringing up because if you mention it anywhere outside of the _exact right_ time and place, people treat you like a bigot.

You've got to know what I mean here. Why do you need to watch your words with one crowd but not the other? Why are there people that *will* get upset that I used the phrase "blacks" when the term "whites" is just fine? It goes alllllll the way down. I can joke about white kids shooting up schools all day and no one will bat an eyelash, but if I make a joke about a black kid stealing my bike, suddenly I have poor taste.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying.
> There are people that are proud of their country, proud of their heritage, and _*aren't*_ part of the alt-right. That's the entire crux of what I'm saying. These people get lumped in with all of those types that you mentioned when _*they aren't like that*_. They don't associate with these groups, they don't condone them, but people are all too eager to pidgeonhole them into an ideology they don't have. At no point here was I trying to defend the actual straight up alt-right.



But we're talking about a very specific incident that involved some very specific groups. Again, not hypotheticals.

This country wasn't just white people, it took many races and creeds, so by definition, being proud of this country shouldn't exclude anyone. 

You can also be proud of something without glorifying or hiding the bad. That seems to be lost in the discussion here. You can be proud of your heritage, but loudly condemn things like racism, slavery, police brutality and sexual assault in the armed forces. 



> The best example would probably be the disproportionately large numbers regarding black crime statistics. It's an uncomfortable subject and causes a lot of tension, but in a lot of circles, it's a topic that isn't even open for discussion. It gets really complicated when people start coming at you with numbers saying that blacks get arrested more than whites "because racism" and you actually have to worry about citing your supporting evidence out of fear of being accused of racism. Stuff like this you have to be really, really careful about bringing up because if you mention it anywhere outside of the _exact right_ time and place, people treat you like a bigot.
> 
> You've got to know what I mean here. Why do you need to watch your words with one crowd but not the other? Why are there people that *will* get upset that I used the phrase "blacks" when the term "whites" is just fine? It goes alllllll the way down. I can joke about white kids shooting up schools all day and no one will bat an eyelash, but if I make a joke about a black kid stealing my bike, I accused of poor taste.



A lot of this depends on context and quality of sources, so without some specific examples it's hard to really pinpoint where you might have gone wrong.

To talk more about crime, it's important to understand that those who usually commit more crime are poor and uneducated. Since this country has worked for centuries to keep everyone who isn't white, and more specifically white male, poor and stupid (see Black Wallstreet, Red-lining at financial institutions, school district structuring post CRA, etc.) minority communities are more prone to crime, similar to poor and underserved white communities (see: Appalachia). But, where it really diverges is in over-policing and sentencing, coupled with our draconian prison industrial complex. Blacks are given harsher sentences for the same crimes as white defendants, and black children are almost twice as likely to be tried as adults for the same crimes. Look at our country's treatment of Native Americans as well. It's sad. 

There's also the concept of "punching down": https://www.glaad.org/blog/punching-down-navigating-jokes-someones-expense

But, a lot of this is useless without specific context. You very well might be dealing with folks who are overly sensitive, or just plain wrong, that happens. But before getting bent out of shape, maybe try to understand where they're coming from. 

I live in the Midwest, and grew up in the South, so I've meant and known my fair share of genuinely racist people, and most had absolutely no idea. No one had every engaged them about it in an open and direct way. That's why it's good to have a dialog.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> *But we're talking about a very specific incident that involved some very specific groups. Again, not hypotheticals.
> 
> This country wasn't just white people, it took many races and creeds, so by definition, being proud of this country shouldn't exclude anyone.
> 
> ...



I think we may have branched off from each other because I was using examples to get to overarching themes, and less so to debate those specific examples.
I agree with just about this entire post, _*especially*_ the bolded bit up front. Seriously, this is like the entire core of what I was getting at originally. 

Your response to what I mentioned about crime is also precisely what I'm getting at. More often than I would like to see, those types of comments are brushed aside, cast off as closet racism, or just ignored. I don't bring up black crime statistics because I think black people are more inclined to commit crime, I bring it up because I don't necessarily think the police are racist, I just think that they're doing their job. There could be any number of reasons why there are more black offenders, and we can go as deep as you want with it because there's any number of contributing factors (with the clearest case being intentionally trapped in poorer communities that they haven't recovered from yet); WAY more to it than "cops are racist" or "black man bad. white man gud." The point is that that kind of claim should be listened to and debated, not discarded for optics.

I understand that context plays a role, but I think the bar for 'acceptable' context is just lower for white people than it is for others. It's looser.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think we may have branched off from each other because I was using examples to get to overarching themes, and less so to debate those specific examples.
> I agree with just about this entire post, _*especially*_ the bolded bit up front. Seriously, this is like the entire core of what I was getting at originally.
> 
> Your response to what I mentioned about crime is also precisely what I'm getting at. More often than I would like to see, those types of comments are brushed aside, cast off as closet racism, or just ignored. I don't bring up black crime statistics because I think black people are more inclined to commit crime, I bring it up because I don't necessarily think the police are racist, I just think that they're doing their job. There could be any number of reasons why there are more black offenders, and we can go as deep as you want with it because there's any number of contributing factors (with the clearest case being intentionally trapped in poorer communities that they haven't recovered from yet); WAY more to it than "cops are racist" or "black man bad. white man gud." The point is that that kind of claim should be listened to and debated, not discarded for optics.
> ...



I think the biggest problem is that, typically, this discussion isn't happening in good faith. 

The folks who bring up "black crime statistics" are more often than not, racist shitheads. Not always, and I'm certainly not saying you are, but there's a reason it tends to illicit a certain response.

Especially if the context is so roundabout way to say that somone deserves to get shot by the police.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 2, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think the biggest problem is that, typically, this discussion isn't happening in good faith.



Done and dusted. We figured it out, everybody go home.
Just be excellent to each other.


----------



## Humbuck (Nov 2, 2018)

My head hurts.

Proud boys...get lost already.


----------



## narad (Nov 2, 2018)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Maybe it's a "you'll understand when you're older" thing (I'm only 23 and presumably pretty naive to the intricacies of delicate racial relations in terms of governing on a national scale), but I think I could reasonably make policy decisions taking _*all*_ of my constituents into account, and not just the ones that share my ethnic group.



I think it's more an understand when you've heard the story of how a lot of bills get passed, but I think this is generally impossible. It's just really difficult to imagine all the constraints on a life that's entirely different from the one you lead. 

For instance, voter ID law. When I first heard this I thought, well, duh -- verifying who is voting is just common sense! Yes, please! But then later I discovered (/or reconsidered) that in a lot of poor communities, people don't have cars, so they don't have driver's licenses. The recent legislation on the table push for photo ID, and so what photo ID do you have if you don't have a driver's license? Some other BS ID that you have to go to a DMV and get, and when you don't have a driver's license or a cushy job that let's you run over there during DMV hours, that's a significant constraint. And cutting out just one out of ten or twenty people from this demographic can have important effects on voting.

So, we know that's the case. And yet the bills are all being pushed as preventing voter fraud, which is a problem that has no real documentation in the US at all. 

So obviously if you're in the right position, people come to you and explain multiple angles to a bill -- people voting on Voter ID bills have heard these arguments. But that's not always going to be the case. 

Put another way -- why do we have X numbers of representatives chosen along state lines? Is it not under the assumption that life in Michigan and the interests of the people there are different than those in California? And then we predominantly fill them with people of one race and one gender? I think my life as a white male new yorker was much closer to the life a white male michigan guy than it is to a black female new yorker, and yet it's quite common for a guy like me to speak out on the behalf of the latter and not the former.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 3, 2018)

Just a few things to add here, for the sake of clarification/honesty:

• Gavin McInnis, the leader of the Proud Boys, has actually disavowed the white nationalist alt-right, and refused to rally with them. I know this because he made it clear on a podcast I happened to catch him on a year or so ago. I’m not sure where the idea that his crew supports the white nationalists came from. If I’m not mistaken, the Proud Boys have non-white members, so like another user here said, I believe they value western culture, not whiteness. Not that the universities and media are helping to make a distinction between the two, but it’s there. (Note: Gavin is an asshole and provocateur, which is a another word for asshole. Don’t misunderstand this as a defense of his character)

• We somehow jumped from the unchallenged assertion that white people are the most dangerous group in America, to delicately handling the statistics that instead give that nod to black people. I would fully expect white people to be a bigger problem in terms of violence, in the same way that, if you were in a room with 9 wolves and one bear, wolves would be a much bigger problem for you. However, because the statistics on racial violence swing so wildly in the opposite direction (for an unknown number of complicated reasons, to be sure), Don Lemon’s claim should instead be read as questionable at best. It’s already been mentioned, but the discussion about race/violence is usually so intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt that even tip-toeing around it in the way we have here pisses people off. Which brings me to my next point:

• We simply can’t determine the potency of a racist comment or sentiment by taking stock of how much group-power is held by the offended. Nobody is smart enough to see where it will go. If you don’t draw the line at individual acts and statements, then where? When the scales finally tip? When/where would that be? At some point in the distant past, things took an ugly turn for what would become the modern day African American community, and I have a hard time believing that anybody saying things like “you can’t be racist against white people” would agree that the very first racist sentiments measured against black people, before power dynamics had been established and said ugly turn was taken, were impotent. All racism is potentially catastrophic and regressive, period. 

• Charlottesville wasn’t only about white supremacists rallying - it was also about preventing statues of southern army leaders from being taken down. While those statues might symbolize empowered racism in your mind, and nothing else (and of course it would follow that you would want them removed), for others they serve as important markers in history. Ever hear about people who hate/are horrified by the holocaust but collect literature and imagery of it? Well, it’s a thing. Jordan Peterson, for example, despite being obsessed with criticizing communism and far-left politics has his home decorated with soviet art and memorabilia. History has a different meaning to people that don’t see everything as a power struggle. Some of those people protecting those statues in Charlottesville may very well have been decent people (I honestly don’t know, and neither do you - maybe they were all monsters, maybe not)) that had no idea they were in the presence of white suppremacists, and even if they did, it doesn’t follow that if they stuck around, they were clearly joining the cause. Simply showing up to the same event as an ideologue doesn’t constitute ideological alignment.


----------



## narad (Nov 3, 2018)

Adam Of Angels said:


> If I’m not mistaken, the Proud Boys have non-white members, so like another user here said, I believe they value western culture, not whiteness. Not that the universities and media are helping to make a distinction between the two, but it’s there.



What does one value about western culture, separate from white culture?

Yes, proud boys do have non-white members -- two were interviewed in the linked podcast. I think unlike a white supremacist angle, they aren't actively hating on other races, but sometimes what that ultimately boils down to is unclear.


----------

