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

Seth wrote:

But - and this is especially true if you’re not a straight white male, but even SWMs are at risk if they voted blue - they will come for you, and they are already comfortable with their firearms.

Yes, but won't putting up any kind of resistance radicalize them further? I have it on good authority that what Leftists really need to do is offer a sympathetic ear, and be polite and patient with the nascent MAGA death squads. It's not like they are already tabulating kill lists and planning their own Operation Condor. Such hysteria!

/s

Natus wrote:
Seth wrote:

But - and this is especially true if you’re not a straight white male, but even SWMs are at risk if they voted blue - they will come for you, and they are already comfortable with their firearms.

Yes, but won't putting up any kind of resistance radicalize them further? I have it on good authority that what Leftists really need to do is offer a sympathetic ear, and be polite and patient with the nascent MAGA death squads. It's not like they are already tabulating kill lists and planning their own Operation Condor. Such hysteria!

/s

Haven't those death squads been through enough without also having to deal with people confronting them and calling them nasty names? After all, economic insecurity!

There’s a difference between writing a post that says MAGAs are coming for you and the relationship people have with their individual neighbors, even as they watch those individual MAGAs radicalize. I’m sympathetic to that difference, because I also think there’s a self radicalization process that needs to happen before people can see what monsters these neighbors are turning into. Yes, privilege is a huge part of it, but another part is that there’s a natural resistance toward radicalization, and admitting your neighbors are ready to scrap everything just so they can spite the libs is a pretty radical idea.

Tl;dr: I’m the one liking all your posts, Natus, but things can be blindingly obvious on a population level while also being very complicated on an individual level.

Seth wrote:

There’s a difference between writing a post that says MAGAs are coming for you and the relationship people have with their individual neighbors, even as they watch those individual MAGAs radicalize. I’m sympathetic to that difference, because I also think there’s a self radicalization process that needs to happen before people can see what monsters these neighbors are turning into. Yes, privilege is a huge part of it, but another part is that there’s a natural resistance toward radicalization, and admitting your neighbors are ready to scrap everything just so they can spite the libs is a pretty radical idea.

Tl;dr: I’m the one liking all your posts, Natus, but things can be blindingly obvious on a population level while also being very complicated on an individual level.

I hear you, but as a privileged person myself, I hate that privilege and shared whiteness is creating this "treating MAGA with kid gloves" routine not simply on a personal level, but on a journalistic and judicial level as well. After what we know they have done and plan on doing, it's unforgivable on every level.

Natus wrote:
Seth wrote:

But - and this is especially true if you’re not a straight white male, but even SWMs are at risk if they voted blue - they will come for you, and they are already comfortable with their firearms.

Yes, but won't putting up any kind of resistance radicalize them further? I have it on good authority that what Leftists really need to do is offer a sympathetic ear, and be polite and patient with the nascent MAGA death squads. It's not like they are already tabulating kill lists and planning their own Operation Condor. Such hysteria!

/s

Every time this discussion has come up it’s explicitly been about how to deal with friends and family members, not rando republicans. You know, people that you have social obligations to. Most people’s direct social groups don’t want to kill each other regardless of political opinions or radicalization, so the fact that you keep insisting this says more about you than anything else, I think.
I mean, I have an uncle in a literal dominionist cult in central Illinois and even he doesn’t want me dead.

If we aren't listening, how will we ever know that they were shamed into and/or changed their mind?

It is so sad that just because we aren't yelling and screaming, it is assumed we aren't fighting?
That because we aren't building our own ideological wall, we don't want to punch Nazis.

MAGAheads make my blood boil over and over. We just don't have to constantly scream how much we want to fight to prove we will fight for our democracy.

ruhk wrote:
Natus wrote:
Seth wrote:

But - and this is especially true if you’re not a straight white male, but even SWMs are at risk if they voted blue - they will come for you, and they are already comfortable with their firearms.

Yes, but won't putting up any kind of resistance radicalize them further? I have it on good authority that what Leftists really need to do is offer a sympathetic ear, and be polite and patient with the nascent MAGA death squads. It's not like they are already tabulating kill lists and planning their own Operation Condor. Such hysteria!
/s

Every time this discussion has come up it’s explicitly been about how to deal with friends and family members, not rando republicans. You know, people that you have social obligations to.

Here's a newsflash: you *don't* have mandatory social obligations to anyone. You choose to have them because you don't want to take a more confrontational stance.

ruhk wrote:

Most people’s direct social groups don’t want to kill each other regardless of political opinions or radicalization, so the fact that you keep insisting this says more about you than anything else, I think.
I mean, I have an uncle in a literal dominionist cult in central Illinois and even he doesn’t want me dead.

No, ruhk, they just want every Black, brown, Muslim, Jewish, and actual anti-fascist person dead. So what does it say about you that you play nice with these people because they just want to kill others, or would sit by and applaud the building of the gibbets in the town square?

ruhk wrote:

Every time this discussion has come up it’s explicitly been about how to deal with friends and family members, not rando republicans. You know, people that you have social obligations to. Most people’s direct social groups don’t want to kill each other regardless of political opinions or radicalization, so the fact that you keep insisting this says more about you than anything else, I think.
I mean, I have an uncle in a literal dominionist cult in central Illinois and even he doesn’t want me dead.

Or it says that some people have studied history a bit more and fully recognize that multiple countries have quickly gone from "hey, what's a little disagreement between family, friends, and neighbors" to "why did you report me to the secret police and now they're taking me away to a concentration camp?" or "why are you trying to hack off my limbs with a machete?"

It also completely fails to account for the fact that "good" conservatives are still bad people because of who they voted for and the policies they make possible as well as the fact that should the red hats regain political power again all those "good" conservatives are either going willfully turn a blind eye to what the more extremist conservatives are going to do either because they don't want to rock the boat and call attention to themselves (just look at how quickly every Republican bent a knee to Trump) or because deep down they honestly support the goals of those extremist conservatives and don't really care too much about how those goals are achieved.

So the best situation we can expect with a "good" conservative is that they're going to feel really bad that the mobs of the political leader they support killed or imprisoned you. And then they'll probably claim your property.

Natus wrote:

No, ruhk, they just want every Black, brown, Muslim, Jewish, and actual anti-fascist person dead. So what does it say about you that you play nice with these people because they just want to kill others, or would sit by and applaud the building of the gibbets in the town square?

Well, if I treated them like you suggest they might actually be out there building those gallows and trying to murder people like so many people did on the 6th instead of messaging me in disgust of what was happening like they actually did on the 6th.

Look, I don’t really want to have this discussion again because you’ve continuously shown a lack of good faith in them and constantly argue against ghosts instead of what people are actually saying.

ruhk wrote:

Every time this discussion has come up it’s explicitly been about how to deal with friends and family members, not rando republicans. You know, people that you have social obligations to.

When is it ok to be upset? If your direct social contacts are obviously ok, how about their direct contacts? How about third degree? Fourth? When do people - who share an ideology to at least enough of a degree to fall in the same political camp - move from “the good ones (because obviously I wouldn’t associate with the bad ones)” to rando Republicans that obviously are the bad ones (there are bad apples in every barrel)?

I find nothing wrong with Natus' faith. You don't have to agree with him, but he is consistent, honest, and engaged. Calling him a bad-faith actor means you aren't following his oeuvre... faithfully.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Every time this discussion has come up it’s explicitly been about how to deal with friends and family members, not rando republicans. You know, people that you have social obligations to.

When is it ok to be upset? If your direct social contacts are obviously ok, how about their direct contacts? How about third degree? Fourth? When do people - who share an ideology to at least enough of a degree to fall in the same political camp - move from “the good ones (because obviously I wouldn’t associate with the bad ones)” to rando Republicans that obviously are the bad ones (there are bad apples in every barrel)?

I might not be the best arbiter of that because I live 2000 miles away from my family, only see them in person maybe once every few years, and the only people I’ve met in the last several years who are openly republican are the people I’m facing off against in protests.

SallyNasty wrote:

I find nothing wrong with Natus' faith. You don't have to agree with him, but he is consistent, honest, and engaged. Calling him a bad-faith actor means you aren't following his oeuvre... faithfully.

Aside from the constant digs, straw men, and repeated mischaracterizations of peoples arguments, I’m sure you mean.

No, I don't mean that at all.

fangblackbone wrote:
Natus wrote:

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?

I'm still waiting for the answer to this one...

OG_slinger wrote:

It also completely fails to account for the fact that "good" conservatives are still bad people because of who they voted for and the policies they make possible as well as the fact that should the red hats regain political power again all those "good" conservatives are either going willfully turn a blind eye to what the more extremist conservatives are going to do either because they don't want to rock the boat and call attention to themselves (just look at how quickly every Republican bent a knee to Trump) or because deep down they honestly support the goals of those extremist conservatives and don't really care too much about how those goals are achieved.

So the best situation we can expect with a "good" conservative is that they're going to feel really bad that the mobs of the political leader they support killed or imprisoned you. And then they'll probably claim your property.

ACAB. It works for cops and conservatives.

*Also for Christians, but that's mostly for another thread. Although the Venn diagram of evangelicals and white supremacists....

I think it's perfectly fine to keep an open line of communication with friends and family that are even hard-core Trumpists, so long as you don't let that line tie your hands when it comes to admitting to yourself and others where their loyalties lie and the atrocities they're okay with supporting. You might only get to use that line against them if they're like the idiots who bragged about their part in the 1/6 attack to their friends and family. But you might also get really lucky and be able to use that open line to pull them out of it, though that's almost entirely dependent on them having a major philisophical change or revalation on their own, it's not something you can initiate for them, no matter how nice or respectful you are to them.

Stengah gets it.

My wife just got off the phone with her mom. MIL was surprised to hear her daughter tell her that no, Sean Hannity is not an unbiased news source. BIL and FIL were loyal Rush listeners for years. They know better than to talk politics with me anymore, but I'm glad my wife is still working on her mother.

They feel bad about the screaming and threats I'm dealing with on the school board, but can't or won't make the connection. I look for opportunities to point out that yes, these are their people.

We've already severed ties with extended relatives who agree with them. I'm trying to support my wife but she's about done with her family. I don't wish that challenge on anyone.

JLS wrote:

My wife just got off the phone with her mom. MIL was surprised to hear her daughter tell her that no, Sean Hannity is not an unbiased news source.

This gets me. Like, if you like him, fine. But I'm not sitting here pretending that Sam Seder is playing it straight down the middle or anything.

fangblackbone wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
Natus wrote:

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?

I'm still waiting for the answer to this one...

I apologize, I thought this was quite obvious. It's all the justification you need to suppress the GOP, their media, and especially the pro-Trump militias. If they want to behave as a responsible party, fine, but they should be treated rotten lock, stock, and barrel as a domestic terrorist cabal that will do *anything*, legal and not, to retain and gain power. How many years are we going to ignore this threat and pretend it won't cause lasting harm?

Addendum 1: I really don't see how any of this is remotely controversial knowing what we know of Trump and the GOP, not to mention what we've learned about Germany in the 30's.

Addendum 2: there are now sectarian clashes in Lebanon, a country I dearly love. Does that seem like an exciting future prospect for the USA?

Stengah wrote:

I think it's perfectly fine to keep an open line of communication with friends and family that are even hard-core Trumpists, so long as you don't let that line tie your hands when it comes to admitting to yourself and others where their loyalties lie and the atrocities they're okay with supporting. You might only get to use that line against them if they're like the idiots who bragged about their part in the 1/6 attack to their friends and family. But you might also get really lucky and be able to use that open line to pull them out of it, though that's almost entirely dependent on them having a major philisophical change or revalation on their own, it's not something you can initiate for them, no matter how nice or respectful you are to them.

What I am annoyed with is this was what I was saying and it seemed to cause an uproar. I think when reading posts people are not often seeing what is said but seeing what they want in an argument.

I think that's more of a case of having multiple people talking to multiple other people and responses getting mixed up in crossposting to look like they're responding to just the latest post instead of several different earlier ones. That and sometimes a post meant to agree with and build off an idea in the previous post can sometimes look like it's disagreeing with it or arguing with it for not going far enough.

EDIT: nvm

This is odd. A black woman that has been missing for two weeks was found dead in a police van.
A cop did this.

There are no details yet. The cops aren't letting the family see surveillance video so I'm sure a cop murdered her.

There's a lot of assumptions in here entirely too focused on what yall think someone thinks and then a judgement of that person's character based on what you think that person thinks. I feel like every page, in various threads, we have to keep telling people to discuss the topics and not what we assume each other's personal beliefs are? Please stop.

Police officer slams black woman's head into the ground multiple times and this was after she was beaten up by a couple of kids.
Wow

The lady is so small it looks like he is slamming a child face first into the ground by her hair. Again this is the victim.

Q's running for Congress.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/9hp68xJ.png)

Dude's not getting his clearance, anyway...

Jan. 6 committee recommends Trump adviser Bannon face contempt charges

NBC News wrote:

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol voted Tuesday to advance a measure to refer former Trump adviser Steve Bannon to the Justice Department for criminal charges of contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with its investigation.

The committee voted 9-0. The recommendation is expected to go before the full House for a vote. The committee comprises seven Democrats and two Republicans, who are participating without the approval of their leadership.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the full House will take up the vote Thursday.

If it passes the House, a criminal referral would be sent to the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., which would decide whether to press charges. A conviction could mean a year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000. In the past, no criminal charges have ever been filed when an assertion of executive privilege is involved, according to legal scholars.

The committee's chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in his opening remarks that it was "shocking" that Bannon refused to cooperate.

"So it's a shame that Mr. Bannon has put us in this position. But we won't take 'no' for an answer," he said. "We believe Mr. Bannon has information relevant to our probe, and we'll use the tools at our disposal to get that information. I expect that the House will quickly adopt this referral to the Justice Department and that the U.S. attorney will do his duty and prosecute Mr. Bannon for criminal contempt of Congress."

EDIT: It's now being reported that House GOP Whip Steve Scalise told Republican House members to vote 'no' on the criminal contempt referral during a conference call this morning.