[Discussion] Police, White Nationalists, and the Rise of Fascism

Screw the presentation on that article.

Really? I enjoyed it.

I refuse to subscribe to trash, can someone give me the tl:dr?

RawkGWJ wrote:

The Pacific North West is appallingly racist and fascist. The Portland, OR BLM protests are a direct response to the racist police practices in the region. The white communities there were founded on white supremacy.

100% this was my experience as well. There is a lot of bitter back and forth within the states between the liberal cities of Portland and Seattle and everyone else in those states. A lot of the conservatives and alt-righters hated being associated with such arty, hipster, progressive hippies in a solid blue state, and see blm as an extension of that group's social justice that challenges white supremacy.

The cops are the branch of that, but empowered by the law to bully and harass non-whites, immigrants, gays, women, etc. The inhumane cruelty and smug mugging they don't bother to hide when dealing with the homeless and mentally unwell makes it seem like sport to them. It's disgusting that they're pretty well groupthinked into believing anyone who isn't a cop or cop-adjacent is less than human.

Welcome to the NYT normalizing MAGAS and fascists, Part Eleventy-hundred. They *just* produced this crap mere days ago.

Humanizing them, not normalizing them. Most are perfectly ordinary people that have gotten themselves into serious cognitive holes that make them dangerous. If we're going to recover them, as opposed to just lining them up and shooting them, understanding them is a necessary first step.

You're doing the same thing they're doing, dehumanizing the opposition. You may believe your motive is noble, but so do they.

If both sides keep dehumanizing the other, the only possible outcome is violence, very possibly horrific violence. It doesn't mean we have to cooperate with their bullsh*t, but it does mean we need to understand they they think they're the heroes.

They cheer for Captain America, and they think he's on their side. There was at least one Cap cosplayer involved in the Capitol siege.

These are regular people who are caught in nasty cognitive loops. Defusing them before they go off would be a much better outcome than just fighting them.

Malor wrote:

Humanizing them, not normalizing them. Most are perfectly ordinary people that have gotten themselves into serious cognitive holes that make them dangerous. If we're going to recover them, as opposed to just lining them up and shooting them, understanding them is a necessary first step.

You're doing the same thing they're doing, dehumanizing the opposition. You may believe your motive is noble, but so do they.

If both sides keep dehumanizing the other, the only possible outcome is violence, very possibly horrific violence. It doesn't mean we have to cooperate with their bullsh*t, but it does mean we need to understand they they think they're the heroes.

They cheer for Captain America, and they think he's on their side. There was at least one Cap cosplayer involved in the Capitol siege.

These are regular people who are caught in nasty cognitive loops. Defusing them before they go off would be a much better outcome than just fighting them.

Here we go again. This isn't even missing the point, it's missing the threat when all lights blink red. Talk about both sides-ing this issue. Wow.

I don't care what they think. Of course they think they're heroes and salt of the earth heartland folks. So what?! I don't care about their "cognitive loops" or the fact that their daddies smacked them around. They must be suppressed by every instrument the federal government can bring to bear ASAP or there will be *more* horrific violence. F*ck defusing them, warm cups of Ovaltime, and campfire songs. They can't be "recovered" until the leadership and propaganda networks are disabled. The conflict will be generational.

Natus wrote:

The conflict will be generational.

It already is. We're still fighting the goddamn civil was because Lincoln was assassinated and Reconstruction was abandoned.

Malor wrote:

Humanizing them, not normalizing them. Most are perfectly ordinary people that have gotten themselves into serious cognitive holes that make them dangerous. If we're going to recover them, as opposed to just lining them up and shooting them, understanding them is a necessary first step.

You're doing the same thing they're doing, dehumanizing the opposition. You may believe your motive is noble, but so do they.

If both sides keep dehumanizing the other, the only possible outcome is violence, very possibly horrific violence. It doesn't mean we have to cooperate with their bullsh*t, but it does mean we need to understand they they think they're the heroes.

They cheer for Captain America, and they think he's on their side. There was at least one Cap cosplayer involved in the Capitol siege.

These are regular people who are caught in nasty cognitive loops. Defusing them before they go off would be a much better outcome than just fighting them.

I totally agree. Exactly how we should do that is the great unknown.

I’m convinced that accountability plays a big part in the process of pulling the ones who can be saved back from the cliff’s edge. It’s so tricky though. How can we hold them accountable without ruining their lives. I can’t believe that mass incarceration is the answer, so what is the answer?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect anti-Q and anti-fascist folks to feel good about unifying with this extreme fringe group without some kind of accountability. Centrists shouldn’t be ok with it either.

"Gotten themselves into" is an extremely passive approach to accountability, friend.

Needing to dismantle a racist institution can run concurrent with needing to deprogram toxic behaviour. Having standards and not tolerating racist or bigoted behaviour from our civic servants and wanting them to be held accountable to the same letter of the law that they hold every single one of us to is not an unreasonable ask. We are literally asking them to treat Black people like human beings with the most fundamental standards of basic decency and the response was... no.

You can fundamentally disagree with a person's entire ideology, but once they start using it to harm others, you remove their ability to do harm. That doesn't necessarily mean a sudden descent into violent chaos and erasure of one's personhood. There's a gradient of other less binary options that don't fall into immediate dehumanization?

Paradox of intolerance, etc, etc, etc. Moderate bothsides-isms is what got us here. Think of it like the rachet effect.

The only alternative to speech in conflict resolution is violence. Are you ready for a new Civil War? I think that would be a bad place to go, but if nobody will flex, it comes down to who's willing to kill the other side more.

What I'm hearing here is a bunch of people who are ready to go to war. Is that really what you want? If you reject other solutions, that's the only one left.

I mean, sure, it would work, after a fashion. If you kill enough of the other side, their opinions lose, your opinions win. Lots of conflicts throughout history have been resolved in exactly that way.

But I would submit to you that victory is far from certain. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, win the war first, then declare it.

My best guess is that if it comes down to a Civil War, we will never recover, and there will never be any kind of liberal state here. We'll end up with horrific and slightly less horrific areas of the country.

Nobody will win. Everyone will lose.

I don’t think anybody here is advocating for civil war.

I agree that we need to be holding these people responsible for their actions (and that NYT has a long history of hamhanded and irresponsible coverage of white extremism), but the “f*ck ‘em all” attitude is 100% going to further radicalize people and drive more people into more extreme acts of violence. You can see it beginning to happen in real time right now in conservative safe-spaces like Patriots or Gab or the chans. We need to hold people accountable but we also need to allow pathways back to society and avoid dehumanizing people.

ruhk wrote:

I agree that we need to be holding these people responsible for their actions (and that NYT has a long history of hamhanded and irresponsible coverage of white extremism), but the “f*ck ‘em all” attitude is 100% going to further radicalize people and drive more people into more extreme acts of violence.

Bolding mine. WE ARE ALREADY THERE. It was a few mistakes on their part that resulted in the Capitol siege not being the bloodbath they planned. Would you be so docile in the face of this had the Democratic leadership been summarily executed? We got lucky only through their incompetence. They won't always be so incompetent. I can't believe this has to be said.

ruhk wrote:

You can see it beginning to happen in real time right now in conservative safe-spaces like Patriots or Gab or the chans. We need to hold people accountable but

Stop right there.

ruhk wrote:

we also need to allow pathways back to society and avoid dehumanizing people.

No. They need to stop with the fascism and violence. It's not a two-way street.

If you think “we are already there” then you are woefully out of touch and need to either start listening or back out of the conversation. Things are just getting started. The 6th wasn’t a culmination, it was a dry-run. That was a small group of radicals successfully pushing a much larger group of zealous but largely law-abiding people into a criminal act, and reactions like yours are actively pushing more and more people from the second group into the first. That’s not speculation, you can see it happening right now in conservative circles.

Malor wrote:

The only alternative to speech in conflict resolution is violence. Are you ready for a new Civil War? I think that would be a bad place to go, but if nobody will flex, it comes down to who's willing to kill the other side more.

What I'm hearing here is a bunch of people who are ready to go to war. Is that really what you want? If you reject other solutions, that's the only one left.

I mean, sure, it would work, after a fashion. If you kill enough of the other side, their opinions lose, your opinions win. Lots of conflicts throughout history have been resolved in exactly that way.

But I would submit to you that victory is far from certain. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, win the war first, then declare it.

My best guess is that if it comes down to a Civil War, we will never recover, and there will never be any kind of liberal state here. We'll end up with horrific and slightly less horrific areas of the country.

Nobody will win. Everyone will lose.

So give into the terrorists or they will blow the place up. That threat has been ongoing for decades now, but much more so since 2015. I think it's crazy that you are quoting Sun Tzu in order to argue that progressives, liberals, moderates, and #NeverTrumpers back away from the fight the far Right wants so very badly and will have whatever we do about it.

But it doesn't have to be Civil War. That's your drama-rama excuse for doing nothing, just as there were people defending Trump's friendliness with Putin. "Oh, so you want to have a hot war with Russia, now??" There's a new administration in town. There's a lot that can be done to quell this KKK Krap.

ruhk wrote:

largely law-abiding people

I think this is your mistake. One of these "law-abiding" folks swung a fire extinguisher at a police officer while he was down. And from what I saw, dozens of other people without criminal records cheered or at least stood by while it was happening. Turn the sound up on any of the hundreds of video's and listen for the racial epithets from your "law-abiding" people. Or the innocent little Lost Cause idiots waving confederate flags everywhere.

These people are already radicalized. They're already in that second group you spoke of primarily because we've allowed politicians to rewrite history and news networks to stoke their hatred for years. Without repercussion.

mindset.threat wrote:
ruhk wrote:

largely law-abiding people

I think this is your mistake. One of these "law-abiding" folks swung a fire extinguisher at a police officer while he was down. And from what I saw, dozens of other people without criminal records cheered or at least stood by while it was happening. Turn the sound up on any of the hundreds of video's and listen for the racial epithets from your "law-abiding" people. Or the innocent little Lost Cause idiots waving confederate flags everywhere.

These people are already radicalized. They're already in that second group you spoke of primarily because we've allowed politicians to rewrite history and news networks to stoke their hatred for years. Without repercussion.

All that happened after things kicked off. The entire event was instigated by a small handful of people that initiated the actual attack on the building and got everyone else who was just standing around shouting to join in. They crowd was radicalized, but not to the stage of active murder (this may shock people but radicalization isn’t an on-off thing, it’s a process). You can watch first hand accounts of some of the people streaming like the realtor and see how she’s going there for a fun time, is initially put off by where things are going, and then actively joins in as the crowd turns. There was a lot of violent rhetoric but you can tell in their reactions afterwards that they didn’t have any actual plans for violence beyond a vague idea of what is involved in a typical protest. Not until they were pushed by those who came prepared.

I am all for working to help deprogram the radicals if possible. If you're saying not to prosecute those who attended the insurrection you're wrong. We need actions to show the consequence. Those involved can sue the press that put them into a bad position and that can further the cause but we need to either end the fascism or continue to help deprogram them.

This isn't about unity with fascism it's about cutting it out like the disease it is.

Like I said a few posts up, hold them accountable for their *actions.* If they committed a crime (such as entering the Capitol Building), by all means prosecute them. I’m not asking for unity with fascists (I’m not the New York Times), I’m just saying that if we just castigate everyone and don’t offer them a path back to rational society things are just going to get worse and the people who are complaining about how their family members won’t talk to them anymore will likely become the people taking potshots at politicians or building fertilizer bombs.
Obviously there’s more work to be done than just that, we need to do something about the conservative media trap and teaching media literacy, for example.

Agree with Ruhk. The alternative is to declare more than 74 million people enemies of the state.

ruhk wrote:

...I’m just saying that if we just castigate everyone and don’t offer them a path back to rational society...

How many opportunities are these people going to be afforded when they've already shown they have no interest by their statements and actions? What could possibly be done to interest them in returning? At what point do you write them off as a lost cause? They've been fomenting violence and intolerance for decades, now they've moved to insurrection. When is enough enough?

In order for someone to want to make a change they have to see value in making that change, and these people don't. They see support for their way of thinking and their actions, which have no repercussions, only embolden and reinforce it.

Natus wrote:

So give into the terrorists or they will blow the place up.

Do you understand what the idea of "wiping out those conservative monsters" means? It means shooting soccer moms.

You're complaining that the NY Times is "humanizing" conservatives. They are doing that because they are human.

If you're a sports fan, imagine the last time you were at a stadium. Now, out of that giant crowd of perfectly ordinary people you remember, pick out about 1 in 5, and then imagine lining them up against the wall and shooting them. And remember, these are people who are (or were) cheering for the same team you root for.

They're not faceless monsters, they are the people you see every day. They're ordinary people that are being misled by those who actually are monsters.

That threat has been ongoing for decades now, but much more so since 2015. I think it's crazy that you are quoting Sun Tzu in order to argue that progressives, liberals, moderates, and #NeverTrumpers back away from the fight the far Right wants so very badly and will have whatever we do about it.

Then you need to really own what you're advocating for. If you can't talk to people, the only other option is violence. If that's what you want, be honest about it.

It may be necessary. We may truly not have a choice. But if we really don't, own it. Admit what you are really arguing for, instead of being angry that a newspaper dared to describe other humans as humans.

Some of you are mistaking leaving a path for redemption open with complete forgiveness with no consequences, and no one here is advocating for that.

Malor wrote:
Natus wrote:

So give into the terrorists or they will blow the place up.

Do you understand what the idea of "wiping out those conservative monsters" means? It means shooting soccer moms.

You're complaining that the NY Times is "humanizing" conservatives. They are doing that because they are human. If you're a sports fan, imagine the last time you were at a stadium. Now, out of that giant crowd of perfectly ordinary people you remember, pick out about 1 in 5, and then imagine lining them up against the wall and shooting them.

They're not faceless monsters, they are the people you see every day. They're ordinary people that are being misled by those who actually are monsters.

That threat has been ongoing for decades now, but much more so since 2015. I think it's crazy that you are quoting Sun Tzu in order to argue that progressives, liberals, moderates, and #NeverTrumpers back away from the fight the far Right wants so very badly and will have whatever we do about it.

Then you need to really own what you're advocating for. If you can't talk to people, the only other option is violence. If that's what you want, be honest about it.

It may be necessary. We may truly not have a choice. But if we really don't, own it. Admit what you are really arguing for, instead of being angry that a newspaper dared to describe other humans as humans.

^This is textbook white supremacy apologetics. Either let the Nazis and QAnon cultists off the hook "because they are human" and "ordinary folks" just like me (and my family and friends), or shoot them all. This is a binary choice, there is no other way to handle this situation. What trash!

They're ordinary people that are being misled by those who actually are monsters.

No. They are all monsters. They have human agency and they have brains. They are ALL choosing this, and they are willing to die for it. Your adjacency with them is the problem here.

JLS wrote:

Agree with Ruhk. The alternative is to declare more than 74 million people enemies of the state.

Here we are with the binary choices again. But to take your construction to its logical conclusion: aren't the Capitol rioters and those who encouraged it de facto enemies of the state? What more do they need to do to earn that prestigious title?

JC wrote:
ruhk wrote:

...I’m just saying that if we just castigate everyone and don’t offer them a path back to rational society...

How many opportunities are these people going to be afforded when they've already shown they have no interest by their statements and actions? What could possibly be done to interest them in returning? At what point do you write them off as a lost cause? They've been fomenting violence and intolerance for decades, now they've moved to insurrection. When is enough enough?

In order for someone to want to make a change they have to see value in making that change, and these people don't. They see support for their way of thinking and their actions, which have no repercussions, only embolden and reinforce it.

This is all interrelated with the other actions that need to be taken. There are really too many things that need to be done and it will likely take generations, but a good place to start is by attacking the conservative media bubble and the things that allow it to exist and spread blatant propaganda and misinformation. Conservative media is largely the reason why people are so zealous, why what used to be fringe ideology is now mainstream republican thought.

Stengah wrote:

Some of you are mistaking leaving a path for redemption open with complete forgiveness with no consequences, and no one here is advocating for that.

All the +1’s to this.

Stengah wrote:

Some of you are mistaking leaving a path for redemption open with complete forgiveness with no consequences, and no one here is advocating for that.

So what does "leaving a path open for redemption" look like, in your view, when most MAGAS and QAnons would rather die than redeem themselves?

I think many of you are saying the same thing but arguing about how it was said.

ruhk wrote:
mindset.threat wrote:
ruhk wrote:

largely law-abiding people

I think this is your mistake. One of these "law-abiding" folks swung a fire extinguisher at a police officer while he was down. And from what I saw, dozens of other people without criminal records cheered or at least stood by while it was happening. Turn the sound up on any of the hundreds of video's and listen for the racial epithets from your "law-abiding" people. Or the innocent little Lost Cause idiots waving confederate flags everywhere.

These people are already radicalized. They're already in that second group you spoke of primarily because we've allowed politicians to rewrite history and news networks to stoke their hatred for years. Without repercussion.

All that happened after things kicked off. The entire event was instigated by a small handful of people that initiated the actual attack on the building and got everyone else who was just standing around shouting to join in. They crowd was radicalized, but not to the stage of active murder (this may shock people but radicalization isn’t an on-off thing, it’s a process). You can watch first hand accounts of some of the people streaming like the realtor and see how she’s going there for a fun time, is initially put off by where things are going, and then actively joins in as the crowd turns. There was a lot of violent rhetoric but you can tell in their reactions afterwards that they didn’t have any actual plans for violence beyond a vague idea of what is involved in a typical protest. Not until they were pushed by those who came prepared.

Ok, lets run with your realtor example. You're saying she went all the way to the Capitol yet somehow managed to completely avoid any of the millions upon millions bits of violent rhetoric that beens circling right wing boards for at least the past 5 years? No, she and the hundred or thousands of other idiots knew exactly what could have happened in DC, but for the sake of being civil I'll be a bit generous and say they were either too naive or too stupid to fully understand the implications until they began to take action while no longer anonymous.

Maybe being a minority with an infant daughter has left me a bit sensitive to this situation. When I see a pack of @ssholes waving confederate flags INSIDE the capital building, terms like forgiveness or law abiding tend to set me off.