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

Hobear wrote:

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

^^This.^^ There needs to be consequences*; we cannot look the other way. To do so it to invite a repeat, which we cannot afford.

*The devil is in the details; I would argue we need to use all the tools available with appropriate measure (even if some of them are socially unsavory) as half measures invite historical rhymes.

At any point those supposedly salvageable zealots could have not marched to the capitol. They could have stopped at the door or steps to the capitol. Once they were on the steps they could have realized that climbing walls, shoving and grabbing cops and breaking windows was too much and walked away. They could have seen the "Camp Auschwitz" t-shirt or the confederate flag and drew the line there.

You know how I know they could have done it? Because 10's (100?) of millions of people across the world have done it during Trump's presidency. Those millions were just as angry and even had justification based on reason and facts.

Those rioters at the capitol had more government representation than they deserve and they were angry enough to storm the capitol to grab more if not to have complete government control. Note that the rioters should have representation they deserve but representation doesn't mean complete acquiescence to their demands. Representation means that your demands are heard and understood not regurgitated and mimicked. I am also using the word deserve not to infer that they should be punished with less representation in government. It can fluctuate as well. But this 20% of the country had the presidency, a stranglehold on the senate, plus ~40% of the house complacent in their disruption, destruction and oppression.

The people that wanted to be there but did not go, even if only because of something like means, are redeemable. If you attended, marched and were present at the riot, you should be prosecuted. I may have some leniency for those that remained on the steps or just outside. But even those are culpable if they were egging on, streaming and posting to social media. There is a hard line surrounding level of participation that should be prosecuted.

The insurrectionists are actually Nazis or Confederacy, same difference. They want everyone who isn't a white hetero Christian dead or enslaved. There is no appeasement.

Everyone at the Capitol was a terrorist and should be treated as such. Including the organizers, Trump, and several Congress members.

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.

THANK YOU.

mindset.threat wrote:
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.

I think you've totally hit on it. The reason there are endless excuses, hugs, gift baskets, and extending the olive branch towards the MAGAS, QAnons, and actual Nazis is nothing more than shared whiteness. Look at the language: "they're ordinary people...they're human...they're our neighbors." It's not just people in this thread, it's my family members too, who manufacture apologetics based on class and economic status to explain the insurrectionists. But it all boils down to a feeling of "they can't be that bad, they're redeemable, they're just like me."

Hard pass.

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.

But it sure seems that people are saying we should be really nice to a bunch of people who *checks notes* killed a cop and tried to crush another one to death while they were committing millions of dollars in property damage which was really just a side effect of their true goal which was to storm the Capitol so they could capture and execute politicians they didn't like so they could somehow re-install Trump as president--lest they somehow become more radicalized and do something worse in the future. That's ignoring the fact that MAGAheads are already so radicalized that they've tried to make bombs and send them to Democrats and members of the media as well as kidnap and execute a sitting governor.

Others are saying we should hammer those f*cks into the ground for what they were trying to do so, as a society, we show the other 70+ million people who voted for Trump that there's a hard limit to their behavior and we'll (barely) tolerate their ignorant, racist asses if they stay on the right side of the line and will absolutely f*cking destroy them if they cross over it.

Anyone who showed up at the "Stop the Steal" rally is the equivalent of the getaway driver of a bank robbery gone bad. They all need to be charged so they can repay their debt to the society they tried to violently overthrow and, hoo-boy, that debt is *massive.*

As for the MAGAf*cks who didn't try to violently overthrow our government, their path to redemption begins with them acknowledging how badly they f*cked up and them showing true contrition for their beliefs and actions. That means disavowing Trump and Republican politicians, calling out conservative media, turning in their red hat brothers, etc. They need to (repeatedly) show how much they want to be part of the real America instead of framing it as America needs to apologize to their deplorable asses and accommodate their prejudices.

I don't think just being at the rally turned terrorist event means someone should be arrested. If they went into the building or did anything illegal or tried to get other people to attack the building sure or was just there to provide cover for the terrorists. The reason being people have the right to protest even for reasons I don't believe in. I don't see a reason to lump protestors in with the terrorists. This is no different than when people try to lump BLM protestors in with people raiding target.

Each and every person that entered the Capitol should be prosecuted as a domestic terrorists and serve the maximum penalty for that crime against America. The other people that just stood outside yelling with their signs should be left alone just like people should be left alone if they don't take part if destruction of property for any other protest. It might be obvious to you that the entire event was a terrorist attack but you can't prove that every one on ground felt that way. I don't want the thought police judging people.

The entire rally was built on the completely fabricated fantasy that the election wasn't legitimate. That's a dangerous precedent to entertain.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

I don't see a reason to lump protestors in with the terrorists. This is no different than when people try to lump BLM protestors in with people raiding target.

BLM protestors have legitimate grievances that they were trying to get their elected officials to hear, acknowledge, and address. Those grievances are literally backed up by police statistics and decades of academic research.

The "Stop the Steal" insurrectionists where explicitly trying to overturn a legitimate, validated election because the media they consume and the politicians they elected repeatedly lied to them about what really happened. They had no legitimate grievance. They were just mad their guy lost.

The state--our government--had absolutely no problem charging BLM protestors for the worst offenses that were possible. All I'm saying is that that same prosecutorial zeal should be applied to MAGAheads.

It's cruel. It's unfair. It's overzealous. And that's the entire point. Trump supporters should experience the full force of the state that they're entirely happy to see deployed against people who aren't white Christians.

It's also the only way they'll understand they f*cked up and need to change their ways. Letting most of them off with a light slap on the wrist because they didn't quite succeed in violently overthrow the government will just embolden them try to do it again.

I don't know how to properly communicate what should happen to these people given this forum's rules. Unfortunately for all of human civilization violence--especially state violence--has been a damned effective tool for getting things done.

It was very effective in keeping millions of Americans slaves for over two hundred years. It was very effective in keeping millions of Americans effectively as slaves for another 100+ years after we killed hundreds of thousands of traitors. And it's been damned effective for the keeping those same Americans down for the past 70+ years.

Now we need to give a bunch of white people a small dose of that same state violence so they don't continue on the path they're already well down--which was to use violence to overthrow our government.

I mean I really cannot emphasize how serious what happened really was. It was the kind of thing Rome responded to by crucifying thousands of people along the Via Appia and we're talking about making sure their fee-fees aren't hurt so they don't do something worse down the road.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

I don't think just being at the rally turned terrorist event means someone should be arrested. If they went into the building or did anything illegal or tried to get other people to attack the building sure or was just there to provide cover for the terrorists. The reason being people have the right to protest even for reasons I don't believe in. I don't see a reason to lump protestors in with the terrorists. This is no different than when people try to lump BLM protestors in with people raiding target.

Each and every person that entered the Capitol should be prosecuted as a domestic terrorists and serve the maximum penalty for that crime against America. The other people that just stood outside yelling with their signs should be left alone just like people should be left alone if they don't take part if destruction of property for any other protest. It might be obvious to you that the entire event was a terrorist attack but you can't prove that every one on ground felt that way. I don't want the thought police judging people.

The protestors went to the rally to ::this is going to be heavy, so bear with me:: STOP THE STEAL. They went to the protest with the express purpose of stopping the machinery of democracy. They had no problems with violence or Nazis or with the prospect of killing legislators and policemen. You don't want to encroach on their rights? How about stopping them before they try again? Might not that be a good idea?

Considering that this would make folks guilty for falling for dumb stuff and getting sucked into bad thought. I think thought crimes would be a bad idea. Go the route of post Nazi Germany it sounds like would be better and take our threats seriously.

There is no law against gathering for dumb stuff in this country. You'd be hard pressed to ever arrest those who didn't participate. I agree with Baron here. Just because we treat BLM like crap can we not make this a standard? That was due to Trump's fascist agenda....Let's work to correct course here. Work on deprogramming the masses of Tumpers and prosecute the terrorists, starting with the leaders and fake news people for doing exactly what they planned.

I think (and I am aware I am coming at this from a position that is nice and safe up here in Canada) there needs to be a difference drawn between (a) the people that went to DC to protest as is their right and just stood there and yelled things or held signs; and (b) the people who went there and actually bum rushed the buildings and trashed/looted the place with an intent to forcibly overthrow the government.

(a) is perfectly fine and needs to be accepted and allowed. (b) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

mudbunny wrote:

I think (and I am aware I am coming at this from a position that is nice and safe up here in Canada) there needs to be a difference drawn between (a) the people that went to DC to protest as is their right and just stood there and yelled things or held signs; and (b) the people who went there and actually bum rushed the buildings and trashed/looted the place with an intent to forcibly overthrow the government.

(a) is perfectly fine and needs to be accepted and allowed. (b) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The good news is those who did part (b) posted online and videoed mostly without a mask! So that is the easy part.

Hobear wrote:

Go the route of post Nazi Germany it sounds like would be better and take our threats seriously.

Post Nazi Germany bans the display of the swastika, prohibits groups promoting Nazi views, and German children are required to learn how their grandfathers were Nazi pieces of sh*t.

America allows--almost celebrates--the display of the flag of traitors, has had multiple political parties who's primary purpose was to *promote* Confederate views, and their kids are taught that the Civil War was really a lost cause that they should be proud to take up to fix the fact they were defeated instead of acknowledging it's worst treachery imaginable that they should be so deeply ashamed about that they'd rather die than admit their ancestors fought on the wrong side of humanity.

Hobear wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

I think (and I am aware I am coming at this from a position that is nice and safe up here in Canada) there needs to be a difference drawn between (a) the people that went to DC to protest as is their right and just stood there and yelled things or held signs; and (b) the people who went there and actually bum rushed the buildings and trashed/looted the place with an intent to forcibly overthrow the government.

(a) is perfectly fine and needs to be accepted and allowed. (b) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The good news is those who did part (b) posted online and videoed mostly without a mask! So that is the easy part.

Whether we have the political will to do part (b): RNG? Magic 8-ball?

OG_slinger wrote:
Hobear wrote:

Go the route of post Nazi Germany it sounds like would be better and take our threats seriously.

Post Nazi Germany bans the display of the swastika, prohibits groups promoting Nazi views, and German children are required to learn how their grandfathers were Nazi pieces of sh*t.

America allows--almost celebrates--the display of the flag of traitors, has had multiple political parties who's primary purpose was to *promote* Confederate views, and their kids are taught that the Civil War was really a lost cause that they should be proud to take up to fix the fact they were defeated instead of acknowledging it's worst treachery imaginable that they should be so deeply ashamed about that they'd rather die than admit their ancestors fought on the wrong side of humanity.

Which is why I suggested it....Unless I misunderstand you.

Hobear wrote:

Which is why I suggested it....Unless I misunderstand you.

Then I 100% completely agree with you that we should ditch the 1st Amendment and do all we can to silence the MAGAhead f*cks. Our country would be immeasurably and immediately be a better place if Fox/OANN/Newsmax/PatrioitNewz.ru were silenced and the people who espoused those views were run down.

OG_slinger wrote:
Hobear wrote:

Which is why I suggested it....Unless I misunderstand you.

Then I 100% completely agree with you that we should ditch the 1st Amendment and do all we can to silence the MAGAhead f*cks. Our country would be immeasurably and immediately be a better place if Fox/OANN/Newsmax/PatrioitNewz.ru were silenced and the people who espoused those views were run down.

Not exactly what I said but I think we're playing in the same lake. Hate speech and fascism bad.

Don't even have to ditch the 1st. It doesn't allow you to yell fire in a theater when there isn't one, and if a theater said it was ok to do so it would be shut down in a heartbeat. So it seems there's a pretty clear precedent to not allowing people to yell "stolen election" when there wasn't one, and to shutting down any platform that believes it's ok to allow that.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Don't even have to ditch the 1st. It doesn't allow you to yell fire in a theater when there isn't one, and if a theater said it was ok to do so it would be shut down in a heartbeat. So it seems there's a pretty clear precedent to not allowing people to yell "stolen election" when there wasn't one, and to shutting down any platform that believes it's ok to allow that.

Hobear wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Hobear wrote:

Which is why I suggested it....Unless I misunderstand you.

Then I 100% completely agree with you that we should ditch the 1st Amendment and do all we can to silence the MAGAhead f*cks. Our country would be immeasurably and immediately be a better place if Fox/OANN/Newsmax/PatrioitNewz.ru were silenced and the people who espoused those views were run down.

Not exactly what I said but I think we're playing in the same lake. Hate speech and fascism bad.

What Mao said.

There is a big difference between these situations:

1. following an aggressive mob, and then sitting there encouraging or participating in ransacking of our capitol building while looking for kidnapping and execution.
2. marching the streets calling for social justice without invading government buildings with the aim to hang public servants

Now mind you, riots did happen during some of the BLM marches but there is a big difference in scope. We've had science marches, women marches, gun control marches and BLM marches for days and months respectively. All with only a few nights of rioting by the overwhelming minority of those present.

These MAGA riots couldn't last a few hours without escalating to violence, desecration, and significant damage and threats to government officials as high as the Vice President. And the majority actively participated while the minority documented or encouraged them.

Like I said before: one side had minimal rioting with 10's of millions of people. The other side ransacked our capitol with violent aims on our most senior public servants by a few thousand participants.

Natus wrote:
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?

You'd be better off asking someone who deprograms cult members for what the path looks like for your average magahat, but if they're willing to go through that and accept the consequences for willingly being part of a hate group, why wouldn't you let them try? Is denying them out of spite really going to help anyone? It shouldn't be an easy path by any measure, but if they honestly want to renounce it, there should be a path for them to do so.

For the people who organized or spoke at the protest and those that entered the capitol, their path to redemption can't even start until after serving jail time for their crimes. For the non-participating magahats who only went to the rally, they ought to be monitored like the active members of an extremist group that they are.

Another thing that people seem to be confused about is that the path is only there for those that want to take it, they're not redeemed until after they've put the work in (and even then their participation will always hang over them to some degree). The unrepentant ones should be treated like members of any other extremist group.

The Capitol Police union says nearly 140 officers were injured during the riot.

Nearly 140 police officers from two departments were injured during the Jan. 6 pro-Trump mob attack on the Capitol, including officers who suffered brain injuries, smashed spinal discs and one who is likely to lose his eye, the Capitol Police union said on Wednesday.

Two officers who defended the Capitol have died by suicide, a police chief says.

The leader of the Proud Boys has cooperated with the police before to help convict others.

Hobear wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Hobear wrote:

Which is why I suggested it....Unless I misunderstand you.

Then I 100% completely agree with you that we should ditch the 1st Amendment and do all we can to silence the MAGAhead f*cks. Our country would be immeasurably and immediately be a better place if Fox/OANN/Newsmax/PatrioitNewz.ru were silenced and the people who espoused those views were run down.

Not exactly what I said but I think we're playing in the same lake. Hate speech and fascism bad.

My comment was me being the snarky dick I can sometimes be.

Unfortunately we can't do what Germany does with Nazi sh*t because of the 1st Amendment. Even though we absolutely should.

Our country isn't going to suddenly ban the Confederate or Trump flags, officially recognize red hats as a symbol of hate, or do anything to restrict one of the most watched cable news channels. We won't because a lot of Americans don't consider these things to be hate speech.

So now we need to have a painful national discussion that goes over the same ground every social media company traveled the last few years: restricting certain speech because it's hateful is going to overwhelmingly impact conservatives because their political ideology has openly embraced hateful things for so many years now. Back in 2019 Twitter abandoned efforts to police white supremacist speech like it did ISIS-related speech because the algorithms they used to detect and block white supremacist speech also swept up tweets by Republican politicians and they didn't want to be considered partisan.

We already know how well conservative White Americans will react to having to examine their prejudices and privileges (they won't and they'll scream bloody murder about how they're being attacked and silenced).

But if we really want to address the radicalization of conservatives then we really need to go after how they're being radicalized and that means re-examining the 1st Amendment and taking aggressive steps to purge the entire conservative media ecosystem from Fox News down to social media groups and individual accounts because they all played a central role in what happened in D.C. and are playing a central role in the next attack, which will happen.

Case in point, a California man was just arrested for making pipe bombs and wanting to use them and the 49 (*forty f*cking nine*) guns he owned to go to "war" against Democrats because he believed they had stolen the election from Trump.

How depressing is that.... Instead of recognizing and enforcing that language matters and politicians that are spewing this crap should change/modify their language (not stop, just change); they're allowed to continue with the vitriol because "we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings." Yet again, it comes down to a private company looking out for their own best interest, and loads of cash, while humanity and ethics gets set on fire and thrown out the window. It would be great if once a private company reaches some set number of subrscribers, (500 million, 1 billion?) there are additional rules put in place around their platform, taxes, speech, etc. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

JC wrote:

How depressing is that.... Instead of recognizing and enforcing that language matters and politicians that are spewing this crap should change/modify their language (not stop, just change); they're allowed to continue with the vitriol because "we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings." Yet again, it comes down to a private company looking out for their own best interest, and loads of cash, while humanity and ethics gets set on fire and thrown out the window. It would be great if once a private company reaches some set number of subrscribers, (500 million, 1 billion?) there are additional rules put in place around their platform, taxes, speech, etc. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

Why is your focus on a private company when you have direct evidence of politicians literally inciting hate? Seems like you've missed the actual issue by cutting off the preceding sententce: "restricting certain speech because it's hateful is going to overwhelmingly impact conservatives because their political ideology has openly embraced hateful things for so many years now."

There, thats the part that should open your eyes.

mindset.threat wrote:
JC wrote:

How depressing is that.... Instead of recognizing and enforcing that language matters and politicians that are spewing this crap should change/modify their language (not stop, just change); they're allowed to continue with the vitriol because "we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings." Yet again, it comes down to a private company looking out for their own best interest, and loads of cash, while humanity and ethics gets set on fire and thrown out the window. It would be great if once a private company reaches some set number of subrscribers, (500 million, 1 billion?) there are additional rules put in place around their platform, taxes, speech, etc. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

Why is your focus on a private company when you have direct evidence of politicians literally inciting hate? Seems like you've missed the actual issue by cutting off the preceding sententce: "restricting certain speech because it's hateful is going to overwhelmingly impact conservatives because their political ideology has openly embraced hateful things for so many years now."

There, thats the part that should open your eyes.

Because the first amendment protects political speech. So politicians are, sadly, able to say whatever they want. Where you can have an impact is at the bullhorn, which is owned by private companies like Facebook and Twitter. The companies are within their rights to decide what type of speech is allowed on their platform. They currently don't because they're making money off of the hate speech and eyeballs.

Should politicians be held accountable for what they say? Abso-f*cking-lutely. But I don't see how you can realistically get the hate speech spouting politicians to stop directly. They're feeding their abhorrent base and using the tools at their disposal to get that message out. Restricting the tools, restricts their message.

Natus wrote:

I think you've totally hit on it. The reason there are endless excuses, hugs, gift baskets, and extending the olive branch towards the MAGAS, QAnons, and actual Nazis is nothing more than shared whiteness. Look at the language: "they're ordinary people...they're human...they're our neighbors." It's not just people in this thread, it's my family members too, who manufacture apologetics based on class and economic status to explain the insurrectionists. But it all boils down to a feeling of "they can't be that bad, they're redeemable, they're just like me."

Hard pass.

I can't emphasize this enough. I'm black, my wife is white. With the exception of her younger brother, the rest of her family (parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins etc etc) are the very definition of white evangelical. The sort that will decry anything related to minorities (ie BLM) yet fall all over themselves with excuses when it comes to far right supporters and the last president.

We got to a point when our daughter was born that we were just done. No amount of logic or reason or fact will penetrate their complete inability to think critically. So rather than play their game by tap dancing around these issues, we cut them off. Completely. If anyone wants to sit down and have a legit discussion at some point in the future, we're open to that, but they'll never admit how wrong they've been. So, f*ck em.

So now we need to have a painful national discussion that goes over the same ground every social media company traveled the last few years: restricting certain speech because it's hateful is going to overwhelmingly impact conservatives because their political ideology has openly embraced hateful things for so many years now. Back in 2019 Twitter abandoned efforts to police white supremacist speech like it did ISIS-related speech because the algorithms they used to detect and block white supremacist speech also swept up tweets by Republican politicians and they didn't want to be considered partisan.

Ha, Twitter, that was a feature....not a bug...Seems when you spout whitey crap it still is whitey crap