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

So my problem with what has happened is Rawk is doing good and fighting the good fight. It seems many here are tired of the argument and I can understand and I've been there before. But don't sit here and throw rocks at him or just lambast his coworker. How do you think it's helping? If you need a break from the fight take it. Cut folks out but don't shoot your own cause in the foot. No one wants to bring a biggot, racist, Nazi, or other awful to the table. I too have great and caring friends who can't see the GOP horrors yet but they were raised to be blind to it. I hope to help him break that one day but I don't need to be degraded for having him as a friend or try to justufy why he isn't a goose stepping lyncher.

Fight the good fight or let others but don't f*cking tear down the rest of us for trying.

Find an outlet somewhere else.

lunchbox12682 wrote:

Well that is the single most awful thing I have read lately.

I am already seeing tweets about this story focusing on the three girls. As if it's OK to treat little black boys like pre-ciminals. Sexist and gross.

ruhk wrote:

Super weird how when anyone suggests we not descend into reactionary necropolitics they get jumped on for placating, appeasing, or over-accommodating the MAGA chuds when all that is being suggested is that you don’t act exactly like them.

Take a deep breath. No one is getting "jumped on", certainly not now and not in previous discussions. I can't speak for anyone else, but what I am calmly objecting to is an implicit attitude that says that "these people who supported Trump/attacking the capitol/deporting and imprisoning refugees and immigrants are salt of the earth decent people who have been misled via social media by con artists and grifters." Again and again, these people show us who they are, and the national response seems to be Rawk's writ large: endless patience and empathy for people who don't deserve it and whose politics are frankly dangerous.

As for your "reactionary necropolitics", you may not have had time to focus on the national landscape while inventing cool hybrid words, but as Mr. Kagan describes here, the alarms are already blinking red. It was perfectly appropriate to be intolerant of MAGAS of every stripe in 2015 and it's doubly so now. A major reason we are in this slow descent is that one third of this country--including Democratic members of Congress--don't take the threat seriously. But of course they won't be the ones at risk if the wolf once again gets its head in the door.

ruhk's words are appropriate:
We run the risk of sounding like we support locking them all up because of how they vote, what they post online and who they donate to. Or that we think that the only alternative to locking them all up is appeasing them.

I support using the judicial system to regulate or charge the leaders and the organizations funding/creating them and anyone else who has resorted to violence or anyone who abetted the violence.

If you think people like me lack bite, I often lose my temper to the daily games and shenanigans of the GOP. I then get angry that more 1/6 terrorists were not shot, gassed, manhandled/beaten and imprisoned without a key. You don't want to ask me how traitors should be dealt with. There is a popular Conan quote.

I also think we need to wrestle with the word conspiracy. Because it has been completely defanged in the last 5 years. It cannot be a collection of annecdotes that is believed by a large body of people. That is what it has come to mean with things like Q Anon. That while dangerous on its own, it is doubly dangerous because it can be used to deflate actual conspiracy like Russian interference in our elections and social media, and Trump's Quid Pro Quo with the Ukraine or the Stolen Election.

It is interesting that misinformation has also neutered the word theory. Further that theory and conspiracy have been at the media forefront since 9/11 at least and more than likely going back to the 2000 election. (Iran Contra too?) It would be bad enough if one or the other's misuse was proliferated. But that both are misused and proliferated and together, hits at the heart of our country's division.

In other words, "next time they coup again in the same way, we'll really give it to them." Well, we didn't and they won't. You can either act with preventative measures or wait as, like the frog, you're slowly boiled to death. We as a nation "lack bite" because we are too used to this. We are too close to it and we are afraid of doing what must be done.

But like the meme "there is no Planet B", there is no "US democracy B." Once it goes, it's gone.

No. And you are now guilty of the same twisting of words to fit your narrative that the MAGA heads are.

I’m only continuing this conversation because I feel it’s relevant.

Chuck and I had another heart to heart conversation this morning. I was holding the many criticisms that I’ve received in these forums in my mind during the conversation. I was also holding the many criticisms of Chuck from these forums in my mind. I consciously steered the conversation towards the issues and concepts contained in the criticisms that both Chuck and I have received in these forums, but I never asked him point blank to comment on them specifically. I will attempt to convey the essence of our long conversation here.

Chuck and I have a friend named Jay. Jay is sort of a rank and file Democrat and liberal. Jay can best be described as a dopey stoner who is extremely passionate about politics but who’s knowledge of politics is fairly shallow. Jay and Chuck are not on speaking terms because Jay loudly shouted, in front of Chuck, that all Trump supporters are Nazis. This exact sentiment was posted verbatim on the previous page. Chuck tried to appeal to Jay’s rationality by explaining that he is 100% against Naziism. Chuck calmly tried to explain to Jay how inaccurate that statement was. Jay wasn’t having it and doubled down on his “Trump supporter = Nazi” narrative. This offended Chuck so deeply that he and Jay have not spoken since. That happened in January 2021. You can probably guess what event inspired Jay to behave this way.

I’ve heard this story from both Jay’s point of view and Chuck’s point of view and to my surprise, both versions of the story are in complete agreement.

Though my political leanings are much closer to Jay’s than they are to Chuck’s, I feel that Chuck is completely justified in his anger towards Jay. TBH, I’m a little angry at Jay for being such a callous asshole towards Chuck. I’ve made this clear to Jay on several occasions.

Chuck and Jay both went through difficult divorces at about the same time. Chuck’s divorce was completed just as Jay’s was beginning. Chuck was incredibly compassionate towards Jay during Jay’s divorce. Chuck was very generous to Jay with his time and support. The two of them formed a strong bond during Jay’s most difficult times in his divorce. Clearly, Jay places very little value on the support Chuck offered. Honestly, I’m not surprised about that. Jay is a very narcissistic person. Jay is incredibly charismatic and uses that to manipulate others. In order to be Jay’s friend, you need to have something useful to offer him. Jay would make a great cult leader. As to why Jay and I are such close friends is a bit of a mystery to me. I don’t stroke Jay’s ego or appease him in any way. My best guess is that Jay values my friendship because I’m one of the few friends he has who will call him out on his sh*t. And similarly to how I treat Chuck with dignity when I call him out, I treat Jay with dignity as well when I tell him that he’s full of sh*t.

My uncle often tries to talk politics with me. He puts forth ideas which are very similar to the things Chuck believes. I react to him in a similar manner as to how I interact with Chuck. But I can’t talk politics with my uncle for very long because he gets angry when I politely disagree with him. When my uncle get too upset I have to end the political talk. He doesn’t have the ability to to converse with someone who disagrees with him without getting really angry. Chuck isn’t like that. Chuck calmly considers my point of view and mulls it over before he calmly lets me know that he disagrees with me.

I have friends who are liberals who are unable to stay calm and objective when they disagree with me. I no longer talk politics with these folks.

I hope this shines new light on my friendship with Chuck for y’all.

Mixolyde wrote:

I am already seeing tweets about this story focusing on the three girls. As if it's OK to treat little black boys like pre-ciminals. Sexist and gross.

If those people had actually read the story they would know that police officer also wanted to lock the boys up for fighting. But they were only five- and six-years old and even that racist POS officer (who had 37 disciplinary actions and nine suspensions in her 23-year history on the force) knew that was too young.

Of course having the two boys be too young to lock up is exactly why the she targeted every other kid in the video: she felt someone, anyone needed to be punished for the incident. This is why ten kids were locked up over the fight, including the four--not three--girls from the same school.

That, and probably trying to make points with that Judge and her superiors who are presumably allied with him?

Rawk, you are a good and kind man and your defense of Chuck reflects well on you. However, I disagree that it is possible to be 100% anti-Nazi if you are pro-Trump. The people who stand beside you and who support your beliefs *matter* and the fact that actual American Nazis vote with and for the same candidates as Chuck kind of nullifies the possibility of Chuck being 100% anti-Nazi. Our politics are what we say and do - and if you support people who support Nazism, it really doesn't matter what you personally feel, you are supporting Nazis.

I get it, man - this is tough. My stepdad, who I have known all my life and who has been a huge influence to me, is a Trumper and we aren't currently on speaking terms after his refusal to get vaccinated and my wife and I having to stop seeing him and my mom for our safety(delta variant is bad in MO, and our kids are too young for the vaccine). I have always thought of him as a good man, but it turns out that he is only willing to be good on *his* terms, which isn't goodness at all. (He ultimately did end up getting vaccinated, but is angry at us for forcing him so now we aren't speaking out of resentment).

You have said that Chuck would run into a burning building to save a stranger - would he vote to give that same stranger healthcare or citizenship?

Robear wrote:

That, and probably trying to make points with that Judge and her superiors who are presumably allied with him?

It's in the article.

SallyNasty wrote:

You have said that Chuck would run into a burning building to save a stranger - would he vote to give that same stranger healthcare or citizenship?

I recall this generalization posted here some time ago. Paraphrasing: Often doing good for Republicans is action on an individual/one-on-one basis, while doing good for Democrats is action on a group/broad basis.

I'm guessing that Chuck would quite likely help a particular stranger with healthcare issues or with striving toward citizenship, but won't support doing that for the country as a whole.

Well… I had this revelation while talking with Chuck this morning and I’ll share it here.

If you see a person who has various Nazi symbology tattooed on their skin, sewn onto their clothing, and decalled onto their car, to call them a Nazi is a safe assumption.

If you see a person with an American flag decal on their pickup truck who is wearing a red MAGA hat, to call them a Nazi is a personal attack, and you should expect them to be extremely offended by that accusation.

If you’re able to put your personal biases aside, you’ll understand why this is a valid and logical argument.

I’m not saying that the person in the MAGA hat is NOT someone who knowingly and willingly does racism, or unknowingly and naively does racism. It’s very possible that the the person in the MAGA hat knowingly or naively does racism, but to label them a Nazi is a gross misrepresentation that further drives a wedge between Americans who think like a MAGA and Americans who think like a centrist, liberal, progressive, Democrat, or leftist. A MAGA is so much more similar to a centrist Democrat than they are to a Nazi.

Furthermore, if you’re granting them the principle of charity, (and you should), you must acknowledge that the person in the MAGA hat has been lied to and victimized by the far right propaganda machine. There is a VAST difference between someone who has been a victim of misinformation and someone who tattoos a swastika on their skin and sews an SS patch on their black bomber jacket.

And that's why the word appeasement gets tossed around. The MAGA hats don't realize they are being used by Nazis, so they're a patsy. Either way Nazis are winning.

croaker wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

You have said that Chuck would run into a burning building to save a stranger - would he vote to give that same stranger healthcare or citizenship?

I recall this generalization posted here some time ago. Paraphrasing: Often doing good for Republicans is action on an individual/one-on-one basis, while doing good for Democrats is action on a group/broad basis.

I'm guessing that Chuck would quite likely help a particular stranger with healthcare issues or with striving toward citizenship, but won't support doing that for the country as a whole.

Interesting. I’ve never considered that. On first glance it does ring true for me. I will pontificate upon this in the coming days.

Thanks, Croaker.

Chuck has confided to me that he donates to a charity that helps prison inmates educate themselves while incarcerated. I’m not suggesting that Chuck is representative of a vast percentage of Trump supporters. It’s more of a reminder that human beings contain multitudes and you can’t paint every conservative with the same broad brush.

croaker wrote:

I'm guessing that Chuck would quite likely help a particular stranger with healthcare issues or with striving toward citizenship, but won't support doing that for the country as a whole.

And I'm guessing Chuck would only help a stranger who was similar to him (straight, White, and Christian at a minimum) and would *maybe* help someone not like him, but only if he considered them "one of the good ones." Either way those cases would be exceptions to the rule of not helping people in need and certainly not helping non-Whites become citizens.

I mean are we already forgetting all the people who eagerly voted for Trump in 2016 only to express shock and dismay when Trump ordered ICE to arrest and deport their undocumented spouses, business partners, and friends?

Natus wrote:

As for your "reactionary necropolitics", you may not have had time to focus on the national landscape while inventing cool hybrid words

Not going to get into another row with you because what’s the point, but I should point out that “necropolitics” isn’t something I made up. It’s an actual political theory term that’s been around for at least a couple decades and it would have taken you literally two seconds to find out what it means.

Yeah, I couldn't finish the article, OG.

I will contest the idea that Centrist Democrats are anything like MAGA types, politically. I don't see any of them advocating (or indeed implementing) massive corruption in the government, or trying to overturn legitimate elections, or trying to break the back of the rule of law, or even participating in a cult of personality. They don't hide racial supremacist ideals behind mealy-mouthed "all lives matter" rhetoric. I'm sure there's more but these really draws a line.

Robear wrote:

or even participating in a cult of personality.

Oh they absolutely do this one at least, there just isn’t a Trump analogue for the Dems so it tends to be spread out over multiple individuals. To be fair most political groups have varying levels of this though.

Rawk, as someone who has multiple well-educated, cultured *relatives* buying into the MAGA movement, I am not unsympathetic to your dilemma. It's just that I see you bending and contorting yourself to give Chuck (and therefore people like him) the benefit of the doubt ("how dare you call them Nazis! Oh my word!") which is what white people have been doing for the MAGA set ever since Trump's entry into the race. There was a previous argument here about this, how each person is different and you can't condemn them as a group because they all have their own issues, pockets of goodness, and I hear Cletus gives to his local food pantry, so give him a break.

But those making excuses for Trumpists are clearly not nearly as concerned what will happen to Black people, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, refugees, and women (and this is just for starters) if the GOP re-takes Congress and if Trump or a Trumpist wins the presidency by hook or by crook. This is what gets me so fired up, never mind the idea of democracy being consumed from within by a kleptocratic, authoritarian regime. The Trumpists--Chuck and my relatives included--have already shown us what they will do and that they will go even farther given the chance. The fact that this doesn't disgust a large portion of the electorate is alarming. If we aren't fighting these SA thugs in every arena with every trick in the book, they will take that as encouragement. They already have.

EDIT: nah. I deserve a weekend.

ruhk wrote:
Natus wrote:

If we aren't fighting these SA thugs in every arena with every trick in the book, they will take that as encouragement. They already have.

I agree with you on this, the problem arises from the fact that most of the ways you suggest combating them actually feeds into their radicalization pipeline and makes the problem worse.

With all due respect, the problem already *is* worse. They are already radicalized. They tried to slaughter the Vice President and the entire Congress. I'm surprised they aren't flying planes into buildings. And again, this reveals people's implicit biases. Do you believe that the Trumpists radicalized themselves (via social media, FOX, and QAnon, etc) or do you believe that liberals and progressives radicalized them through mockery and condemnation. I really don't see how the MAGA radicalization could possibly be worse. Look at Portland. Look at our police forces. How in god's name is the Virginia gubernatorial race close?

ruhk wrote:
Robear wrote:

or even participating in a cult of personality.

Oh they absolutely do this one at least, there just isn’t a Trump analogue for the Dems so it tends to be spread out over multiple individuals. To be fair most political groups have varying levels of this though.

There's hero worship and then there's a cult of personality.

Democrats are guilty of hero worship where they hold up individuals as people to be admired and venerated. This often requires their shortcomings to be purposefully overlooked or criticisms of their actions or behaviors to be conveniently ignored or downplayed.

Cults of personality are way worse and almost universally tend to be authoritarian (and paternalistic) in nature.

Dems mostly have a fond remembrance of Obama* that overlooks or downplays his shortcomings and failures.

Most Republicans still think that Trump was literally ordained by their Christian god to rescue America from clutches of communists and non-Whites and that he himself is infallible.

Dems have multiple heroes because they are a big tent party with lots of different sub-groups. Some really like Bernie. Others AOC. Others someone else.

That's not the case for Republicans because their party isn't ideologically (or even demographically) diverse. It's mostly comprised of non-college educated whites who are primarily evangelical Christians (or conservative Catholics). And those groups are pre-wired to believe in messianic individuals and that a big, powerful sky daddy is going to come down to set the world straight.

One's a warm afterglow of positive feelings that overlooks the flaws and foibles of someone you like and the other is straight up coocoo crazy.

* I was going to use Bill Clinton, but then I realized he's no longer considered a hero to Democrats any longer. That feeling faded, especially as people have become aware of the high negative cost of the popular policies of his administration in recent years.

Natus wrote:
ruhk wrote:
Natus wrote:

If we aren't fighting these SA thugs in every arena with every trick in the book, they will take that as encouragement. They already have.

I agree with you on this, the problem arises from the fact that most of the ways you suggest combating them actually feeds into their radicalization pipeline and makes the problem worse.

With all due respect, the problem already *is* worse. They are already radicalized. They tried to slaughter the Vice President and the entire Congress. I'm surprised they aren't flying planes into buildings. And again, this reveals people's implicit biases. Do you believe that the Trumpists radicalized themselves (via social media, FOX, and QAnon, etc) or do you believe that liberals and progressives radicalized them through mockery and condemnation. I really don't see how the MAGA radicalization could possibly be worse. Look at Portland. Look at our police forces. How in god's name is the Virginia gubernatorial race close?

Dude I live in Portland, and if you don’t see how it could get worse than you clearly aren’t familiar with the problem. Radicalization isn’t an on/off switch, there are degrees to what people are willing and able to do even within reactionary spaces. Most MAGA chuds are just keyboard warriors who at most might show up to shout at school boards or politicians or make a fool of themselves in public, but there are organized white supremacist groups and militia orgs actively recruiting within the MAGA spaces with intent toward widespread, decentralized, revolutionary violence. We aren’t at an end state of conservative radicalization, we’re early middle at most.
I sort of envy your naïveté that you think the right is currently as bad as it will ever get.

Hey, if ruhk and I are supporting each other, there's got to be hope

And ruhk's words above strike at the heart of what I fear.
There are plenty of avenues to tackle authoritarianism within the system still to pursue. There are also avenues that are currently being used that we should be doing everything in our power to strengthen and speed up.

If we decide we are tired of having to use these systems when the authoritarians do not then we embolden the authoritarians. More keyboard warriors will carry weapons and show up or participate in violence. We will also break those core systems and have to hope that they can be repaired when we are no longer in a civil war.

Even if/when civil war erupts, we still have to be the party of the constitution and rule of law.

ruhk wrote:

I sort of envy your naïveté that you think the right is currently as bad as it will ever get.

That's precisely why I have been arguing non-stop that we need to shut it all down. Use whatever measures are available to that a full (instead of partial) GOP takeover of existing institutions cannot happen. Run the militias underground. Make it very clear that we aren't tolerating any of it.

Instead of what we are doing now, which is the opposite.

fangblackbone wrote:

Even if/when civil war erupts, we still have to be the party of the constitution and rule of law.

Thank you for stating this so plainly. I absolutely fundamentally disagree about this.

It should be the goal of the Democrats and democrats to prevent civil war or a fascist takeover by any means necessary. This is the real world here...it isn't a game or a conceptual situation. Real lives are at risk....millions of them. You do what has to be done. You do not leave it up to the courts or Congress. The GOP is an anti-democratic party and it should not be tolerated in a democratic system. There. That's all the justification you need.

All the justification you need to do what exactly?

The GOP is an anti-democratic party and should not be tolerated. That isn't in question.

ruhk wrote:

EDIT: nah. I deserve a weekend.

Haha. Yes!! On that note, I’m going to play some Xbox.

Since it has been missed every time I've posted it, i just want to clarify. The way you say you interact with Chuck is GOOD. I hope you can get through to him. I have no issue there. It's your emotional labor so spend it how you see fit.

The issues I do have are twofold.
First: that by insisting that he's really a good person to others, you're making excuses for the bad things he does on his behalf. He gives to charity, great, but his votes against social programs (or those that are against them) do far more harm than any donation he could make as an individual. He'd run into a burning building to save minorities, how noble, but he supports the group of people who would have their followers set those buildings on fire in the first place. Any good person points he deserves at an indivual level are massively overtaken by the bad people he chooses to empower.

The real danger of giving people like him the benefit of the doubt so readily is that when they get brashly called out for their BS like how Jay did, you'll side with them over the person calling them out. You'll choose to side with the polite fascist over the rude anti-fascist, taking another step towards the middle for the unjust man.

Second (and its more based on what others have said, so I'm not saying you yourself have said this): the suggestion that this is how everyone should treat their own personal Chuck. Basically it's asking that we spend our finite supply of emotional labor on understanding trumpists rather than on helping those they're actively hurting. If it were a shooting, you don't tell everyone they should stop and to consider the shooters point of view before trying to stop them or help their victims. It's fine for anyone who wants to do that themselves, but those that choose not to aren't doing anything wrong by not wanting to waste their time on trumpists. It is important to try to understand them, but not nearly as important as stopping them.