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

OG_slinger wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Captain not chief, it doesn't name the guy so we can't check, but at most the guy could be he commander of a precinct house but not likely. This isn't upper leadership giving the instruction.

The affidavit of Rittenhouse's lawyer embedded in the article identifies the officer as "Captain Tim Schaal." A quick google shows him to currently be the 3rd shift commander for the Kenosha PD's Patrol Division. An org chart for the Kenosha PD shows that there are four captains--one for each patrol shift and one for investigations--who report to the Inspector of Police, who reports to the Deputy Police Chief, who reports to the Police Chief. That might not quite be "upper leadership," but it's pretty damned close.

It seems that earlier in his career Sgt. Schaal was the Administrative Sergeant serving the police chief (2015) and by 2018 he was a Lieutenant who served as the department's public information officer, professional standards officer (ironic), and webmaster. His promotion to captain must have happened recently because newspaper articles from November 2020 still have him listed as Lt.

SO it's like the third shift produce manage told me it was fine to clean out the beer department without paying and i definitely should trust that to be accurate information that would not result in any consequences from higher up.

this also strongly implies the officer told them this while off duty, unless they were desperately seeking information about how to fill out their legal paperwork at 2 in the morning.

thrawn82 wrote:

SO it's like the third shift produce manage told me it was fine to clean out the beer department without paying and i definitely should trust that to be accurate information that would not result in any consequences from higher up.

this also strongly implies the officer told them this while off duty, unless they were desperately seeking information about how to fill out their legal paperwork at 2 in the morning.

Third shift or not Schaal was one of only four captains in the entire Kenosha PD. There were only two other officers above him in rank before you got to the police chief. Two Lts., three Sgts., and 38 police officers reported to him. The budget for the third shift Patrol was over $6 million. That's not remotely "like the third shift produce manager."

Rittenhouse was bailed out at about 2:00 PM on November 20th. The paperwork mentioned was filled out earlier than that. It was done in the Kenosha County Public Safety Building, which also contains the Kenosha PD.

So all Rittenhouse's lawyer saw was a senior PD officer approach him in the building where the police work and advise him not to include the information. No reasonable person would feel the need to ask whether a police officer in a police station was on duty or not. They're there. It's a police station. As if an off-duty police officer in a police station somehow carries less weight than an on-duty police officer in a police station. They're police. In a police station. Both can arrest or shoot you.

Nor am I apt to believe based on, well, American history, that Schaal was the only officer in that police station (or senior command) that was sympathetic to Rittenhouse.

Gremlin wrote:

I know that I always want my lawyer to take advice from the police on when to commit perjury.

Surely they are the experts in this field.

Parler CEO says board fired him for planning to ban “neo-Nazi” groups

Matze hoped to bring Parler back online quickly, he said, and to have it restored to both the Google and Apple mobile app stores. To that end, he proposed expanding automated content moderation on the platform as well as a full ban on people and groups tied to designated domestic terror organizations, adding, "there are a lot of neo-Nazi groups that would fall under that category."

So he's talking about banning designated terrorists, but the Parler board was so offended by the idea that terrorists might not be able to use their platform that they fired him. That board is all-in on supporting Nazis.

I mean, allowing them is kind of their big point of differentiation compared to other social media networks.

They claim to be in favor of free speech, but they'll ban anyone who shows the tiniest hint of being leftist. They ban way way way more people, as a percentage, than the supposedly-censorious big tech sites do.

They say they're about free speech. What they're really about is white supremacy.

I hadn't heard that, but I can't say I'm surprised if it's true.

That ex-CEO has bragged, publicly, about how good they are at detecting and banning leftists.

So who did he plan to remain on his platform after he banned all the leftists, who signed up to troll, and the Nazis? 'Cause when your rallying cry is "they keep kicking out Nazis over on that other site," you don't tend to attract many non-Nazis.

hbi2k wrote:

So who did he plan to remain on his platform after he banned all the leftists, who signed up to troll, and the Nazis? 'Cause when your rallying cry is "they keep kicking out Nazis over on that other site," you don't tend to attract many non-Nazis.

There are plenty of lefty sh*t posters who love to troll the white power crowd.

hbi2k wrote:

So who did he plan to remain on his platform after he banned all the leftists, who signed up to troll, and the Nazis? 'Cause when your rallying cry is "they keep kicking out Nazis over on that other site," you don't tend to attract many non-Nazis.

He wasn't going to ban white supremacists. He was going to ban only members of designated terrorist groups. He probably figured that as the minimum possible he could get away with. Even that much, banning people who actually are terrorists, was too much for the Parler board. They want the terrorists, dammit.

And left-wing people on Parler weren't just trolls. Even minor expressions of anything resembling fact would get you banned. From what I've read, they were even worse than r/The_Donald and r/conservatives on reddit, both of which are notorious for banning people.

It's funny how conservatives scream about free speech, but then refuse to grant it in any position where they have power. Rules for thee but not for me.

Malor wrote:

It's funny how conservatives scream about free speech, but then refuse to grant it in any position where they have power. Rules for thee but not for me.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time."

--Frank Wilhoit

I repeat that quote constantly. Didn't this time because I thought people were bored of hearing it from me by now.

I used to have it as my signature, but removed it because it felt too political for the rest of GWJ.

The Kenosha Police Department declines to be involved:
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtaA-YjXEAE9RqJ?format=jpg&name=900x900)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/FnP9R1j.png)

It’s official. White fascists are ok with letting other white fascist seditionists take vacations.

On Friday, Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the DC District Court granted her request. McFadden, a Trump appointee, noted that the Justice Department did not oppose Cudd's request to visit Mexico.

"The Court also notes (Cudd) has no criminal history and there is no evidence before the Court suggesting the Defendant is a flight risk or poses a danger to others," McFadden wrote in a written order.

538 article comparing left/right and how it's notably asymmetric

Reflecting on the actions of both sides, you can see why conservative attacks on liberals are much more problematic than the inverse. And that’s why it is hard to imagine Biden being able to unify America or end this uncivil war — his side is not the one feeling most aggrieved and taking anti-democratic, even violent, measures to win.
croaker wrote:

538 article comparing left/right and how it's notably asymmetric

Reflecting on the actions of both sides, you can see why conservative attacks on liberals are much more problematic than the inverse. And that’s why it is hard to imagine Biden being able to unify America or end this uncivil war — his side is not the one feeling most aggrieved and taking anti-democratic, even violent, measures to win.

False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency.

... and a big handful of what-aboutism.

RawkGWJ wrote:
croaker wrote:

538 article comparing left/right and how it's notably asymmetric

Reflecting on the actions of both sides, you can see why conservative attacks on liberals are much more problematic than the inverse. And that’s why it is hard to imagine Biden being able to unify America or end this uncivil war — his side is not the one feeling most aggrieved and taking anti-democratic, even violent, measures to win.

False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency.

... and a big handful of what-aboutism.

The article, or just the quote? I don’t really follow.

Blind_Evil wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:
croaker wrote:

538 article comparing left/right and how it's notably asymmetric

Reflecting on the actions of both sides, you can see why conservative attacks on liberals are much more problematic than the inverse. And that’s why it is hard to imagine Biden being able to unify America or end this uncivil war — his side is not the one feeling most aggrieved and taking anti-democratic, even violent, measures to win.

False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency. False equivalency.

... and a big handful of what-aboutism.

The article, or just the quote? I don’t really follow.

I'm not following either, as 538 is VERY specific about which side is doing the harm:

Perry Bacon Jr wrote:

The Jan. 6 insurrection and the run-up to it is perhaps the clearest illustration that Republicans are being more hostile and anti-democratic than Democrats in this uncivil war. Biden pledged to concede defeat if he lost the presidential election fair and square, while Trump never made such a pledge; many elected officials in the GOP joined Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results; and finally, Trump supporters arrived at the Capitol to claim victory by force. But there are numerous other examples of conservatives and Republicans going overboard in their attempts to dominate liberals and Democrats:

Republican officials at the state level have engaged in a sustained campaign to make it harder for liberal-leaning constituencies, particularly Black people, to vote.
GOP officials have used aggressive gerrymandering and attempted to manipulate the census-taking process to ensure GOP control of state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives, even if Democrats are winning more votes.1
Trump supporters and conservatives have threatened not only to physically destroy institutions they view as hostile to conservative causes, such as CNN, but to kill or injure prominent Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And, in attempts to intimidate liberal protesters, these conservatives sometimes show up at Black Lives Matter demonstrations wearing military gear and brandishing extensive weaponry.
Trump, conservative lawyers and most Republican members of Congress tried to disqualify the election results in some swing states, which would have in effect invalidated the votes of millions of Americans, particularly Black people and residents of large urban areas. And, as mentioned earlier, that effort culminated in an attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters.
State-level Republican officials have tried to criminalize the types of protests organized by liberals who support Black Lives Matter and oppose the expansion of oil and gas pipelines. In fact, conservative lawmakers in Missouri and other states are considering provisions that would limit legal liability for people who drive into protesters blocking traffic.
State-level GOP officials have limited cities and other localities from enacting policies meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19, essentially preventing elected officials in cities (usually Democrats) from taking measures to save the lives of their constituents.
GOP officials at the state level are engaged in a broader effort to preempt laws passed in Democratic cities, meaning that mostly white GOP state legislators elected in conservative, rural areas are often determining education, economic and other policies for heavily Democratic cities with large numbers of people of color.

Aloe can alleviate burns.

croaker wrote:

538 article comparing left/right and how it's notably asymmetric

Reflecting on the actions of both sides, you can see why conservative attacks on liberals are much more problematic than the inverse. And that’s why it is hard to imagine Biden being able to unify America or end this uncivil war — his side is not the one feeling most aggrieved and taking anti-democratic, even violent, measures to win.

What I found odd was the use of "inverse" because I did just that to the next sentance. "it is easy to imagine the republican president being able to unify America...." and I coulnd't wrap my head around that. While I don't think Biden has a great chance of doing it I can't see how a republican (not even trump but any republican) could do it. "We beat the cheaters and liars. We stopped the steal. Now we have to work with those liberals that tried to do it to be more unified....." Yeah it just doens't work.

The Jan. 6 insurrection and the run-up to it is perhaps the clearest illustration that Republicans are being more hostile and anti-democratic than Democrats in this uncivil war

This is crap framing. The Dems aren't doing any of this. "Our report found that Germany was more hostile and aggressive than Poland. "

Dems do some gerrymandering and occasionally use some not great rhetoric to talk about the Republican base, and Obma signed some executive orders that may have been iffy, but that's about it.

Yeah it's comparing apples and oranges nuclear weapons. Not in the same ballpark.

farley3k wrote:
croaker wrote:

538 article comparing left/right and how it's notably asymmetric

Reflecting on the actions of both sides, you can see why conservative attacks on liberals are much more problematic than the inverse. And that’s why it is hard to imagine Biden being able to unify America or end this uncivil war — his side is not the one feeling most aggrieved and taking anti-democratic, even violent, measures to win.

What I found odd was the use of "inverse" because I did just that to the next sentance. "it is easy to imagine the republican president being able to unify America...." and I coulnd't wrap my head around that.

I don't think that's what it means, though. It's referring to the inverse of "conservative attacks on liberals", which would be "liberal attacks on conservatives". I think Biden was specifically mentioned because he's the one who's been talking about unity and ending the uncivil war - which seem exceptionally unlikely to happen.

Reflecting on the actions on both sides, Conservative attacks on Liberals are much more problematic than Liberal attacks on Conservatives because the Conservatives are doing everything they can to undermine democracy and believe that elections where they don't win must be illegitimate, and will bend or break the rules because their vision of White America is worth paying any price. Liberals don't like Conservative policies, but don't (generally) engage in extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics to try to rig a fair election, and don't go to court because "the election was rigged" when they lose.

It's hard to imagine Biden, or any Democrat, being able to unite the country because - even though they might want to - the entire Republican base has been completely turned against them, and many Republican voters don't see them as legitimate.

It's hard to imagine any Republican being able to unite the country because they don't want to. Republicans don't run on a message of unity, and it's not what their voters want.

That's why the Republican attacks are more problematic than the Democratic ones - they're convincing their own voters that they're the only legitimate government. As long as those attacks continue, neither side is going to be able to have unity.

I dont think the issue with the 538 article is the content or conclusions of it, but the framing of them. It quickly makes it clear that only one side is the problem, but it initially approaches things as if both sides could be blamed equally in a misguided attempt at neutrality. It also pretends that reaching some compromise between the two sides is the best course of action, as if getting Republicans to be 50% less deplorable is all we need to solve the problem.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

In the 1950s, if you were accused of being a communist, you'd lose your job and more. The left didn't create "cancel culture".

You’re kind of missing the point. The term cancel culture started being used frequently on Twitter. Its probably a reference to Rosanne Barr’s more recent show being canceled as a result of some awful horrible garbage that she posted on Twitter.

Besides. McCarthyism and the red scare was more of a witch hunt IMO.

I read it as a protective reaction to the growing movement to do something about all the propaganda pumped into the media by the Republicans. Same with the "You can't cancel me for free speech!" argument against holding people responsible for hate speech, threats and so forth.

Rosanne's show wasn't canceled. She was fired. The Connors without her is in season 3 now