nht said: White nationalists are considered terrorists in large part because followers of their beliefs have blown up federal buildings. McVeigh... ... The Sovereign Citizens movement got their start as an offshoot of the Posse Comitatus white supremacy group.
... If you hang around guys wearing swastikas don't be overly surprised to be tarred by that brush when "peaceful protests" explode like in Charlottesville. ... Equating the SPLC to white supremacists as equal terrorists is plain stupid.
How about James Hodgkinson or Floyd Lee Corkins III? Fortunately, neither was able to do as much damage as others, but it's similar kind of dehumanization and thinking behind their actions. A top expert on USA political extremism noted about SPLC, "specialized a highly developed and ritualized form of defamation ... a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated."
As I said previously, terrorism is maybe too strong a term if we're comparing them to other more violent organizations (or at least with more violence in their history). But, they operate in a terroristic manner in how they dehumanize, label people, list people, and direct hate at them.
re: Posse Comitatus - I grew up during their rise to 'fame' and actually lived not all that far away.
Yes, white nationalists groups can certainly be quite dangerous and their ideology is terrible. No argument there. That doesn't excuse the SPLC, though.
re: Charlottesville - that's a whole other discussion... those weren't Nazis, but appeared to be similar to the Svoboda party 'blood and soil' that Obama, Hillary, and McCain supported when trying to regime change in the Ukraine. There was one guy (same guy) with a Nazi flag and swastikas, though, who curiously made it into most of the MSM photos. I could discuss this for hours, but the whole thing smells setup in so many ways.
But, I'm kind of missing the connection to SPLC here other than that you're saying, 'white supremacists are bad'.... well, no duh. So are Islamic terrorists. So are SPLC... they are just a bit more mellow kind of bad.
I actually know people who are on the SPLC hate list (and no, not for anything to do with racism). My gosh, they've got the American Family Association on their list. It's a 'your ideology doesn't match ours' list more than anything.
GeorgeBMac said: Yeh, that's a pretty good synopsis of what the hate groups say about them. And, in today's world of Alternative Facts, some will believe it.
So, Dr. Michael Brown, theologian, linguistics expert... Jewish Christian, etc. is a hate group? Or, my fellow apologist, Dr. James R White is a hate group? Maybe you should question who has the alternative facts here. Sheesh! And, re: super-funded, last I checked, they were heading towards $half-a-billion.
Still trying to explain away your beloved hate groups and those who defend them?
Have these guys forgotten about following the law? Apple is obligated to follow the law wherever it does business. I can't believe these guys have the gall to lecture Apple about promoting freedom in other countries. American foreign policy has never been based on principle.
Take a trip through history and you'll find that America has supported some pretty repressive governments. Mobutu Sese Seko is one such example. Mobutu is one of the worst dictators in post-colonial African history. He brutally suppressed opposition. He milked the country of every last penny pay for everything from his trademark leopard spot pattern hat to his giant palaces to his meals. America rewarded this man with foreign aid dollars. Hissene Habre is another brutal African dictator who is now serving a life sentence. America helped not only bring him to power but also keep him in power. America gave him military support and helped train agents who would form his secret police force that was used to wipe out political opponents.
I'd like to hear Ted Cruz and Patrick Leahy explain this.
In the same way that the PRC is the successor state to the ROC and the ROC was the successor to the Qing Dynasty (whos ruling elite wasn’t Han Chinese).
So how does “foreigners coming in and overthrowing a country’s government and committing genocide on the native population” make it a “successor state” to said nation (and therefore the restoration of said nation by its original people a “successor state” to the previous)?
Posession of territory is 9/10ths.
Ha! I wish that was so.
Especially if the new people in charge are in charge because of an internal revolution rather than external conquest.
Do you really think that the only form of external conquest is land annexation?
The Republic of Poland is the successor state to the Kingdom of Poland despite hiatus of the partition.
So where do you draw the line? How is Poland not the Vandals?
…a KGB thug is always a KGB thug.
A far stronger case can be made for the permanence of a specific human’s nature–based on genetics and upbringing–than for successor national governments. Particularly from such swings as kingdom to totalitarian oligarchy to oligarchical democracy.
As a kid and as a young man it puzzled me that, if Communism was THAT bad, then why did so many prefer it? Unfortunately, you simply weren't allowed to ask that question.
Speaking of questions you can’t ask, how about when you’re in a communist country and can’t ask, “If communism is so good, why can’t we question it without being executed?”
I can't believe these guys have the gall to lecture Apple about promoting freedom in other countries. American foreign policy has never been based on principle.
Right, just domestic policy. Is the issue, specifically, with historic practices of the communist government of China? Specifically, banning companies/entities/media when they contradict the government’s desires? Or is it something on Apple’s part?
Yes, I would say in general, there is. Not so much in a sense of rooting for one's country or extended community, culture, etc. The problem comes in when it turns into, 'our nation/culture/race is superior to your nation/culture/race, therefore... fill in some form of hostility this is believed to justify.'
White nationalism like the Nazis is particularly bad because it's based on some immutable property, and typically an actual belief that this property (grounded in pseudo-science) is what constitutes the superiority/inferiority. I suppose the same plays into your other examples to some extent (though I'm not familiar enough with the details to comment on that).
The problem with SPLC is that they have become fairly leftist in ideology and have started putting anyone (or organization) who doesn't **agree** with them on 'hate lists' and worse. You can be the nicest, most peaceful person around, but if you dare cross their ideology, you're marked. I'd be on their list if I were more of a public figure. That is a terrorist tactic, though not at the same level of bombing, etc. People have been attacked by their followers, and directly due to their rhetoric and marking of those who have been attacked.
My gripe with Apple in this regard, is that they aren't simply saying... we're rule followers. In places that aren't China or Saudi Arabia, etc. they seem quite happy to use their clout to push for change in law and policy, and state what they believe is right and wrong. But, when it comes to big markets where they might lose business if they don't tow the line, they back down and hide behind... we're just following the laws of the land.
So, the question is... is it OK for free-speech to be trampled on in China, but not in the USA? Is it OK to throw a gay person off a roof in Saudia Arabia but not in America? If we're talking ethics, and not just law, then it's the same answer for both places. So, is Apple a company of principal, or a rule-follower? If it's the latter, maybe we shouldn't be trusting them with our privacy either.
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF SAFARI CRASHING CONSTANTLY IN IOS 11
I lost this post twice, over halfway though.
cgWerks said: The problem comes in when it turns into, 'our nation/culture/race is superior to your nation/culture/race, therefore... fill in some form of hostility this is believed to justify.'
Nationalism isn’t supremacy. So what’s wrong with nationalism?
The problem with SPLC is that they have become fairly leftist in ideology
Become?
and have started putting anyone (or organization) who doesn't **agree** with them on 'hate lists' and worse. You can be the nicest, most peaceful person around, but if you dare cross their ideology, you're marked.
There’s an old quote related to this that I can’t post here. Ironic, given its author.
I'd be on their list if I were more of a public figure.
Same here.
That is a terrorist tactic, though not at the same level of bombing, etc.
On the diagram, you could say it fits in under “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda.”
My gripe with Apple in this regard, is that they aren't simply saying... we're rule followers. In places that aren't China or Saudi Arabia, etc. they seem quite happy to use their clout to push for change in law and policy, and state what they believe is right and wrong. But, when it comes to big markets where they might lose business if they don't tow the line, they back down and hide behind... we're just following the laws of the land. So, the question is... is it OK for free-speech to be trampled on in China, but not in the USA? Is it OK to throw a gay person off a roof in Saudia Arabia but not in America? If we're talking ethics, and not just law, then it's the same answer for both places. So, is Apple a company of principal, or a rule-follower? If it's the latter, maybe we shouldn't be trusting them with our privacy either.
Hear hear. The company doesn’t want to lose China as a market, and so holds a double standard. If we pretend that companies are people, this can raise some ire (because of the expectation that a sane, healthy person doesn’t have cognitive dissonance), but a company isn’t a person, and so the concept of “holding a company to an ethical and/or moral standard” isn’t an accurate portrayal of reality. It’d be great if they either shut the fuck up about domestic posturing or demanded freedom from foreign markets, but since a company isn’t a person, seeing the falsehood isn’t as big a deal as if it was an individual.
tallest skil said: Nationalism isn’t supremacy. So what’s wrong with nationalism?
The problem with SPLC is that they have become fairly leftist in ideology
Become? ... On the diagram, you could say it fits in under “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda.”
My gripe with Apple in this regard, is that they aren't simply saying... we're rule followers. In places that aren't China or Saudi Arabia, etc. they seem quite happy to use their clout to push for change in law and policy, and state what they believe is right and wrong. But, when it comes to big markets where they might lose business if they don't tow the line, they back down and hide behind... we're just following the laws of the land. So, the question is... is it OK for free-speech to be trampled on in China, but not in the USA? Is it OK to throw a gay person off a roof in Saudia Arabia but not in America? If we're talking ethics, and not just law, then it's the same answer for both places. So, is Apple a company of principal, or a rule-follower? If it's the latter, maybe we shouldn't be trusting them with our privacy either.
Hear hear. The company doesn’t want to lose China as a market, and so holds a double standard. If we pretend that companies are people, this can raise some ire (because of the expectation that a sane, healthy person doesn’t have cognitive dissonance), but a company isn’t a person, and so the concept of “holding a company to an ethical and/or moral standard” isn’t an accurate portrayal of reality. It’d be great if they either shut the fuck up about domestic posturing or demanded freedom from foreign markets, but since a company isn’t a person, seeing the falsehood isn’t as big a deal as if it was an individual.
I agree nationalism isn't necessarily supremacy, though it has become so in many of the mentioned movements. For example 'white nationalists' are a bit tricky, as some are clearly supremacists (ideologically), others racists (ex: stereotype of a Jew applied as hostility, etc.), while others are fighting against Critical Theory, counter-racism, world-government movements, etc.
re: SPLC become? - I don't know their history well enough to defend that, I guess. My *impression* had been that they started as a more legitimate defense of people being subjected to racism and such.
re: diagram - I suppose that is about right on the whole, though certain aspects might move up the list some.
re: corporations and cognitive dissonance - though I guess economically they are viewed as a 'person', but I agree. That said, I'm not sure how many people fall into that sane, healthy person w/o cognitive dissonance, either.
re: SPLC become? - I don't know their history well enough to defend that, I guess. My *impression* had been that they started as a more legitimate defense of people being subjected to racism and such.
This is because defending minorities against racism has almost always been a left wing thing.
The only counterexample I can think of, which is more the exception that proves the rule than anything else, is Zionism. Which arguably more defends the majority Jews in Israel vs minority Jews elsewhere.
For the extreme right wing in the US there is no such thing as the legitimate defense of minorities against racism and therefore SPLC=terrorist.
The only times I’ve seen different is when tactically they want to exploit a wedge issue and usually not even then. They rail against “RINOs” for any sort of accommodation.
I’m sure you’re thinking “but I’m not a racist” right now when the truth is even the most ardent left wing tree hugger is one. It’s part of the human condition. We all suffer from biases that impact our thinking and actions.
nht said: This is because defending minorities against racism has almost always been a left wing thing.
And that because only the left thinks that the solution to racism is to destroy all races.
For the extreme right wing in the US there is no such thing as the legitimate defense of minorities against racism...
You misstate the baseline situation, which leads you to a false conclusion.
I’m sure you’re thinking “but I’m not a racist” right now when the truth is even the most ardent left wing tree hugger is one. It’s part of the human condition.
Of course I’m racist, especially by leftists’ definitions. The problem is the left’s claim of exclusivity regarding hate.
Comments
Take a trip through history and you'll find that America has supported some pretty repressive governments. Mobutu Sese Seko is one such example. Mobutu is one of the worst dictators in post-colonial African history. He brutally suppressed opposition. He milked the country of every last penny pay for everything from his trademark leopard spot pattern hat to his giant palaces to his meals. America rewarded this man with foreign aid dollars. Hissene Habre is another brutal African dictator who is now serving a life sentence. America helped not only bring him to power but also keep him in power. America gave him military support and helped train agents who would form his secret police force that was used to wipe out political opponents.
I'd like to hear Ted Cruz and Patrick Leahy explain this.
(You should check if Wilfrid Laurier has any openings.)
Ha! I wish that was so.
Do you really think that the only form of external conquest is land annexation?
So where do you draw the line? How is Poland not the Vandals?
A far stronger case can be made for the permanence of a specific human’s nature–based on genetics and upbringing–than for successor national governments. Particularly from such swings as kingdom to totalitarian oligarchy to oligarchical democracy.
Speaking of questions you can’t ask, how about when you’re in a communist country and can’t ask, “If communism is so good, why can’t we question it without being executed?” So how are you not saying the same about the SPLC?
Let’s bring this discussion back to the thread’s topic. So Chinese nationalism is terrible. Liberian nationalism is terrible. Jewish nationalism is terrible. Okay. Let’s explain why this is.
Right, just domestic policy. Is the issue, specifically, with historic practices of the communist government of China? Specifically, banning companies/entities/media when they contradict the government’s desires? Or is it something on Apple’s part?
White nationalism like the Nazis is particularly bad because it's based on some immutable property, and typically an actual belief that this property (grounded in pseudo-science) is what constitutes the superiority/inferiority. I suppose the same plays into your other examples to some extent (though I'm not familiar enough with the details to comment on that).
The problem with SPLC is that they have become fairly leftist in ideology and have started putting anyone (or organization) who doesn't **agree** with them on 'hate lists' and worse. You can be the nicest, most peaceful person around, but if you dare cross their ideology, you're marked. I'd be on their list if I were more of a public figure. That is a terrorist tactic, though not at the same level of bombing, etc. People have been attacked by their followers, and directly due to their rhetoric and marking of those who have been attacked.
My gripe with Apple in this regard, is that they aren't simply saying... we're rule followers. In places that aren't China or Saudi Arabia, etc. they seem quite happy to use their clout to push for change in law and policy, and state what they believe is right and wrong. But, when it comes to big markets where they might lose business if they don't tow the line, they back down and hide behind... we're just following the laws of the land.
So, the question is... is it OK for free-speech to be trampled on in China, but not in the USA? Is it OK to throw a gay person off a roof in Saudia Arabia but not in America? If we're talking ethics, and not just law, then it's the same answer for both places. So, is Apple a company of principal, or a rule-follower? If it's the latter, maybe we shouldn't be trusting them with our privacy either.
I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF SAFARI CRASHING CONSTANTLY IN IOS 11
Become?
There’s an old quote related to this that I can’t post here. Ironic, given its author.
Same here.
On the diagram, you could say it fits in under “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda.”
Hear hear. The company doesn’t want to lose China as a market, and so holds a double standard. If we pretend that companies are people, this can raise some ire (because of the expectation that a sane, healthy person doesn’t have cognitive dissonance), but a company isn’t a person, and so the concept of “holding a company to an ethical and/or moral standard” isn’t an accurate portrayal of reality. It’d be great if they either shut the fuck up about domestic posturing or demanded freedom from foreign markets, but since a company isn’t a person, seeing the falsehood isn’t as big a deal as if it was an individual.
I agree nationalism isn't necessarily supremacy, though it has become so in many of the mentioned movements. For example 'white nationalists' are a bit tricky, as some are clearly supremacists (ideologically), others racists (ex: stereotype of a Jew applied as hostility, etc.), while others are fighting against Critical Theory, counter-racism, world-government movements, etc.
BTW, here's an article you might find interesting on Critical Theory in light of recent news events: http://quillette.com/2017/12/09/white-women-tears-wilfrid-laurier-critical-theory/
re: SPLC become? - I don't know their history well enough to defend that, I guess. My *impression* had been that they started as a more legitimate defense of people being subjected to racism and such.
re: diagram - I suppose that is about right on the whole, though certain aspects might move up the list some.
re: corporations and cognitive dissonance - though I guess economically they are viewed as a 'person', but I agree. That said, I'm not sure how many people fall into that sane, healthy person w/o cognitive dissonance, either.
The only counterexample I can think of, which is more the exception that proves the rule than anything else, is Zionism. Which arguably more defends the majority Jews in Israel vs minority Jews elsewhere.
For the extreme right wing in the US there is no such thing as the legitimate defense of minorities against racism and therefore SPLC=terrorist.
The only times I’ve seen different is when tactically they want to exploit a wedge issue and usually not even then. They rail against “RINOs” for any sort of accommodation.
I’m sure you’re thinking “but I’m not a racist” right now when the truth is even the most ardent left wing tree hugger is one. It’s part of the human condition. We all suffer from biases that impact our thinking and actions.
Of course I’m racist, especially by leftists’ definitions. The problem is the left’s claim of exclusivity regarding hate.