10
   

The dilemma of protesting white supremacists

 
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2017 05:52 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

chai2 wrote:
No mention of the WS need be made. They are just that unimportant.


I'll have to disagree on that.


Ok, I'll have to amend what I said. Still may not be a perfect thought though...

When I say no mention of WS need be made, that doesn't mean mention can't be made.

When I say they are just that unimportant, I wasn't meaning that WS isn't an important issue. More like feeding them and their egos directly with your signs, while they are standing there with their signs, could make them feel like they are getting free attention and publicity....and they are.

I may be wrong, but I don't think one group of people shaking signs with opposing slogans will make anyone looking at them change their point of view. It feels to me like one group of toddlers screaming at another group of toddlers.

The message would be fairly clear, if their was a WS group chanting, waving signs and what not, and other groups can make it known that "Sure, you can stand around and yell at them, or hold hands in solidarity or whatever. Or, you could participate with these other groups that are doing active good, even if it's just sharing a meal.

In other words, don't just stand around, do something. If while a positive helpful event is taking place the subject of WS is being brought up, fine. Sorry, I didn't mean to pretend like the WS weren't there. Acknowledge they are there. But, they are the losers, you are with the winners.

Be a living example of co-existence and future building through right thought and right action.


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2017 05:54 pm
@chai2,
Hear hear. Well said Chai.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2017 05:54 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I do love that Robert.

That's kind of what I meant by a positive action negating a hate groups importance.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2017 09:36 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It should also be noted that half the Country feels about Colin Kaepernick the way that liberals feel about Richard Spencer.


The two are not equivalent. Legally, I think people should be allowed to say almost anything. Morally, I think Kaepernick is entitled to his own opinion, whereas Spencer isn't entitled to his own facts.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2017 09:36 am
I can't say I have much knowledge about whatever message Richard Spencer has to bring, nor do I have a desire to find out: there doesn't seem to be much difference in the content of the speeches given by white supremacists throughout the decades, and it's probably equally disturbing and disgusting to other such drivel I was unfortunate enough to experience.

I do however have my doubts about such things as protesting or counter protesting these movements. While the numbers that show up in protesting rallies are larger, if not far larger than those that come to the white supremacists meetings, I think that's at least partly so because I think the number of people that show up at white supremacists meetings isn't representative of the number of believers in said white supremacists. Going to white supremacist meetings just isn't the PC thing to do, and I reckon a lot of people who entertain similar notions and ideas will not show up to these meetings for fear of being publicly associated with them: they might feel they have something to loose, be it a job, or a relationship/marriage, or something else.

The problem is that the message still finds the bigger audience by means of the interwebs and the Ewwtube. What you want to block in my opinion is not the people going to these rallies, but rather their means of documenting/recording these rallies and place them online for a larger audience to reach.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2017 12:07 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:


Extremists of all types – including white supremacists, Islamists, and others – share several key characteristics: They espouse a singular and simplistic interpretation of a particular history; believe that their way of life is under attack and must be defended; and use symbolism and imagery to inspire their followers and instill fear in their targets.

Extremists have a very parochial and warped interpretation of a particular history. Many white supremacists and white separatists claim to display the Confederate flag as a celebration of Southern heritage. Their view of what constitutes so-called “Southern heritage” is actually romanticized, if not completely fictional. Despite all their rhetoric about “the rebels” and “the war of Northern aggression,” theirs is a history based on selective memory that can best be boiled down to this – white people and white culture are superior to that of non-whites.

Islamic extremism is grounded in a similarly selective historical reading. Like white supremacists, Islamic extremists romanticize a golden age and an interpretation of Islam that conveniently highlights only carefully selected aspects of the past. The concept of a modern caliphate as propounded by ISIS is a near fantasy, ripped from the days when Islam was monolithic under the first four caliphs, who were successors of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic extremists’ misinterpretation of historical fatwas are another example of historical cherry-picking. Muhammad issued fatwas that allowed women to choose their husbands and seek divorce and created safe spaces for religious minorities. And yet, what we see from Islamic extremists today ignores that rich heritage and historical complexity in favor of religious purity, which conveniently gives its leaders absolute power and the right to enslave and punish those who do not adhere to their strict and narrow interpretations.

Both extremist ideologies only recall a past in which “the other” is an adversary. There can be no middle-ground, no interfaith or interracial tolerance – no coexistence. There are only manipulated facts in support of dominance and hate.

Both white supremacists and Islamic extremists believe they are victims and their way of life is under attack. White supremacists in the United States will cite concerns about black-on-white crime and oppose the "mixing of races," arguing for “traditional families” that are “pure.” Today, the KKK continues to recruit using slogans like, “Save Our Land. The KKK wants you. The brown is bringing us down,” and more blatantly, “Help Save Our Race.” Roof repeated the messaging found echoing in the dark caverns of white supremacist sites, expressing fear that people of color were raping women and “taking over the country,” a narrative common to white supremacists throughout the world.
Islamic extremists similarly believe their religion is under attack and is being diluted by Western democracies. Moreover, any Muslim who veers from the extremist Islamic narrative is labeled kafir (an infidel). All kuffar (infidels), whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or others, are targeted by extremist terror. Bolstering the need to perpetuate victimhood, Islamic extremists repeat references to centuries-old grievances such as the Crusades, or build intricate conspiracies around the presence of foreign soldiers  in the Middle East, particularly those from the U.S. 
Symbols matter, especially as tools of power and fear. Extremists use symbols to broadcast a message and exert power over others. The Confederate flag was popularized among white supremacists during the 1950s and 1960s as a direct response to the growing civil rights movement. Not only does this confirm the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, but it also illustrates how white supremacists use it to assert dominance over non-whites. Some white supremacists have appropriated yet another anachronistic symbol, the apartheid-era South African flag. The banner is appearing more and more often at white power marches and online forums.
Similarly, ISIS extremists misuse the Quran and Muslim traditions to justify their brutality and inspire fear. They adhere to a strict interpretation of the Quran, carefully picking words to legitimize their violence. A particular passage from the Quran is often used as a justification for beheadings, though it is contradicted by other passages. In another example, a particular passage is used to encourage jihad and self-defense, yet the Quran explicitly prohibits the killing of civilians and innocents.
The black banner, flown by al-Shabab, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and now ISIS, dates to the 8th century and the Abbasid Caliphate. It bears the words, “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.” This shahada, also on the flag of Saudi Arabia, is a Muslim faith declaration, but today has come to symbolize the brutality and bloodshed of extremist propaganda videos.
The ISIS flag, the Confederate flag and other symbols evoke an ideology and shape a threatening narrative. They help assert a power over others and perpetrate the very violence and oppression that they claim to resist.
White supremacists and Islamic extremists of course have different origins, ideologies and goals. Nonetheless, they use some of the same tools and present similar dangers, both to America and humanity as a whole. They both must be rejected and overcome.



source

There have been more violence committed by white supremacy groups than radical Islamics in the US. So imagine if you will a Muslim giving a similar but opposite speech at Berkley. I am not talking about anyone accused of terrorism or suspected of having terrorist ties, but someone who has similar views as a white supremacist on radical Islam. More than likely the speaker would be hauled off to Homeland Security and Berkley might even be shut down even if no jihad was called out to other Muslims.

My point is that free speech is not a given and we need to quit thinking it is.

(I have been having a ton of technical trouble with my stupid mouse, it has been bizarre, anyway, I am terrible with a touchpad so, my posts might show it.)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Oct, 2017 05:21 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Strategically, the best thing is to ignore them and let them collapse unto themselves, but going out to protest isn't a bad choice providing it doesn't involve the attempt to shut them down or violence.

The latter two actions only give their position attention and, in some minds, credence. It's self-defeating, but then those who avail themselves of such actions are no better than those who they despise.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/21/2017 at 05:55:46