Man attacked for peacefully holding up a sign at Antifa protest [London] - General

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51885257]I feel that is an unfair comparison. Technology has changed. Back then there was no ability for the rest of the world to instantly see what someone says and collectively shit on it. The trouble is people are now overusing that ability and making this sort of thing meaningless. If a real racist party rose under actual racist pretenses, in the west, then it would get shut down quicker than you can say "Who's streets?". Every person should be allowed a platform, especially if they managed to secure it themselves with the organizer. Bad ideas will come up and be laughed down, good ideas won't. The trouble is, granted, that people are still very susceptible to rhetoric, but the ability for cross examination that the internet provides does mitigate its effect, to an extent.[/QUOTE] You say this as if the west literally wasn't built upon racial superiority, genocide, and the exploitation of peoples in the new world as they were viewed as barbaric, inferior, and so on. To say "it would get shut down quicker than you can say 'Whose streets?'" is a moot point.

[QUOTE=so;51885250]And in a democracy if these ideas spread does that make them legitimate?[/QUOTE] You talk about these ideas spreading like they are some secret nazi virus. People who openly advocate [i]actual[/i] fascism are idiots and are very, VERY, unlikely to gain traction by just allowing the public to hear them speak.

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885244]I don't agree with blindly violent antifascists, and I definitely don't agree with nazis. If Antifas throw the first punch at Nazis, I'd rather get the hell out of there [/QUOTE] Oh no don't get me wrong, I'm not Rambo, I'd get out of there with my skivvies 'round my ankles. What I mean is that I don't want to see violence come to those who just shout and scream stupid things just because someone disagrees with them. [quote]So, you can have fun with your "But free speech!" idea here.[/quote] But w/e, gotta throw in a zinger eh?

[QUOTE=Camdude90;51885264]i don't think "stand by" literally means he's gonna jump into an antifa vs nazi brawl, he's just saying if antifa attack nazis they're objectively in the wrong[/QUOTE] Regardless of what he means by "stand by", I'd get my ass out of there before I became a target as well. [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51885273]Oh no don't get me wrong, I'm not Rambo, I'd get out of there with my skivvies 'round my ankles. What I mean is that I don't want to see violence come to those who just shout and scream stupid things just because someone disagrees with them. But w/e, gotta throw in a zinger eh?[/QUOTE] Violence and any zingers aside, really, let them kick each others asses while people with actual points to debate on, get to debating. Nazis are dumbasses, violent antifas are dumbasses.

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885270]You say this as if the west literally wasn't built upon racial superiority, genocide, and the exploitation of peoples in the new world as they were viewed as barbaric, inferior, and so on. To say "it would get shut down quicker than you can say 'Whose streets?'" is a moot point.[/QUOTE] You mean by people in an age that isn't addressed by my argument? Yeah, sure, people in the bushes do some crazy shit when billy and eugene who happen to also be in that sector agree. The sphere of social influence has expanded and you cannot expect an actual nazi to gain any sort of power short of rejiggering the entire narrative so that nobody notices. Trump isn't even really a racist nazi devil, and yet look at all the push back he has gotten. Granted, he won, but do you think that would've been the case if he had actually started saying some shit like "we must stop the white genocide" or some shit?

[QUOTE=so;51885250]And in a democracy if these ideas spread does that make them legitimate?[/QUOTE] I don't know if I understand your question. Democracy or not, ideas spreading doesn't mean legitimacy, no.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51885287]You mean by people in an age that isn't addressed by my argument? Yeah, sure, people in the bushes do some crazy shit when billy and eugene who happen to also be in that sector agree. The sphere of social influence has expanded and you cannot expect an actual nazi to gain any sort of power short of rejiggering the entire narrative so that nobody notices. Trump isn't even really a racist nazi devil, and yet look at all the push back he has gotten. Granted, he won, but do you think that would've been the case if he had actually started saying some shit like "we must stop the white genocide" or some shit?[/QUOTE] You don't have to mention white genocide in order for these people to fill in the pieces on their own. With how Trump speaks, he lets his own supporters fill in those gaps after his own unfinished sentences, and they let their own narrative put together the puzzle of who they believe their enemy to be, what they want, and so on. With how blatantly stupid and narrow-minded his supporters, I honestly wouldn't be surprised at all if by mentioning anything as straight forward as "white genocide" that he'd still have as much of a following and support as he does now. Also, really? Just Billy and Eugene in the bushes? What built the west effected millions and millions of people, regardless of how big of a picture they were seeing in the centuries since the colonization of the western hemisphere. Whether or not they'd see everything on the internet in a matter of seconds, versus seeing it occur over decades and centuries is almost irrelevant. Also, just so you can understand me further, YES, I know people are resisting this and people will continue to do so because we have a much better and faster way to look at the past. NO, I don't think Trump is an actual Nazi devil, but much more of a disgusting old man whose age is getting to him. His ideology and attitude being unchangeable just like that of a disgusting, old man who can't figure out that the bad things he wants are actually bad. As well as the bad people he's surrounded himself with are actually bad, not his friend, and only in it for their own benefit.

[QUOTE=so;51885236]Man, if only Jews had debated better in Nazi Germany[/QUOTE] if only they had a platform to do so

[QUOTE=Primigenes;51885326]Like how fucking socially inept do you have to be. [/QUOTE] Inept enough to not want violence to be brought upon others because one may disagree with them.

[QUOTE=upsideonion;51885116]when i see fucking idiots like these it makes my political alignment go from slightly center right to the top right corner fuck i want a helicopter[/QUOTE] "I hate this people who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being a fascist, it makes me want to be a fascist"

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885299]You don't have to mention white genocide in order for these people to fill in the pieces on their own. With how Trump speaks, he lets his own supporters fill in those gaps after his own unfinished sentences, and they let their own narrative put together the puzzle of who they believe their enemy to be, what they want, and so on. With how blatantly stupid and narrow-minded his supporters, I honestly wouldn't be surprised at all if by mentioning anything as straight forward as "white genocide" that he'd still have as much of a following and support as he does now. [/quote] In order to make what you said hold, do we not have to make an assumption about, if not a majority, then at least a significant portion of trumps voter base? More specifically, do we not have to assume that they are in fact racist and that Trump is in fact a racist candidate - a 'fascist' candidate? [quote] Also, really? Just Billy and Eugene in the bushes? What built the west effected millions and millions of people, regardless of how big of a picture they were seeing in the centuries since the colonization of the western hemisphere. Whether or not they'd see everything on the internet in a matter of seconds, versus seeing it occur over decades and centuries is almost irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Billy and Eugene are not intended to be part of the list of people effected, but rather a list of the people who's moral views on things were taken into consideration - people who had an impact on not only the development of thought, but also ultimately the extent of powers being authorized. Just because there were empires before does not mean that my argument regarding who ultimately influenced those empires doesn't hold. In the past power was localized such that was only really influenced by the ruler and his, for lack of a better general term, court. Now a decision such as sacking a local village is not simply something that the high governor and your local band of functionaries would worry about, rather it is something that will have social ramifications everywhere. Any attempt to go on a village sacking spree would be stomped out, at least to the extent that it threatens western interests (See Saudi Arabia). [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Primigenes;51885326]No they won't. Bad ideas get passed all the time. What reality do you live in? Nobody wants to give Neo Nazi's a platform for obvious fucking reasons. When you start trying to defend them because of there so called free speech you're exhibiting you're pseudo intellectualism and how cool you must be to defend Nazis spreading what is basically hate speech. And people always try and argue this shit. Like how fucking socially inept do you have to be. No matter how many dumb George Carlin skits anyone here or online watches you aren't going to fool society into being ok with the proliferation of NeoNazi shit under the guise of free speech.[/QUOTE] Who gets to decide who is a nazi? What if I decide you are a communist? [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TAU!;51885299] Also, just so you can understand me further, YES, I know people are resisting this and people will continue to do so because we have a much better and faster way to look at the past. NO, I don't think Trump is an actual Nazi devil, but much more of a disgusting old man whose age is getting to him. His ideology and attitude being unchangeable just like that of a disgusting, old man who can't figure out that the bad things he wants are actually bad. As well as the bad people he's surrounded himself with are actually bad, not his friend, and only in it for their own benefit.[/QUOTE] Trump is a fucking idiot, I grant you. But I don't think he is a racist nazi whatever. He's at worst a dumb lucky orange clown.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51885341]In order to make what you said hold, do we not have to make an assumption about, if not a majority, then at least a significant portion of trumps voter base? More specifically, do we not have to assume that they are in fact racist and that Trump is in fact a racist candidate - a 'fascist' candidate?[/quote] A man who promotes (cyber) attacks on the US from Russia. A man who was quite literally advocating for violence against minorities, by his supporters, at his own rallies. A man who paints non-white people as enemies. A man who says "America first" (a bit actually taken from an old white nationalist group). A man who does all this, and you're asking me if we can't assume he and his complacent supporters are racists or if they are supporting a racist/fascist spewing racist/fascist ideals? The intersectionalism here is thick enough for me to shout "Yes!" on a mountaintop and have it heard worldwide. [quote]Billy and Eugene are not intended to be part of the list of people effected, but rather a list of the people who's moral views on things were taken into consideration - people who had an impact on not only the development of thought, but also ultimately the extent of powers being authorized. Just because there were empires before does not mean that my argument regarding who ultimately influenced those empires doesn't hold. In the past power was localized such that was only really influenced by the ruler and his, for lack of a better general term, court. Now a decision such as sacking a local village is not simply something that the high governor and your local band of functionaries would worry about, rather it is something that will have social ramifications everywhere. Any attempt to go on a village sacking spree would be stomped out, at least to the extent that it threatens western interests (See Saudi Arabia).[/quote] Okay, there will be opposition, but there will also be support. [quote]Who gets to decide who is a nazi? What if I decide you are a communist?[/QUOTE] We can look at history and see what Nazis are. We can look at history and the same for Communists. Although I'm sure we can look at leaders of both parties at significant points in history and know that they took advantage of their own people and destroyed their own nations by going against their own people in the end.

[QUOTE=Primigenes;51885373]No you're inept because you think being a Nazi is about disagreements. "I hate your people and would like them to either be relocated or ethnically cleansed" :cool: Wow, well I hope you enjoyed your free speech when someone inevitably retaliates your violent ideology with violence. Like goddamn, you sound like a dude who sits in a corner who doesn't understand how people actually work. Also lol at "want" You preach a doctrine of inherent violence and you will inevitably get your ass kicked. You preach a doctrine once put into actual effect hence the general populace expresses some fear of and you will inevitably get your ass kicked. Maybe instead of trying to downplay Nazism by calling it a fucking disagreement like a spat at a street corner you stop bullshitting and realize most people do not want to deal with an ideology that wants to support the genocide of their people.[/QUOTE] How am I downplaying Nazism? How am I supporting it? What??? I don't preach any of what they say! I consider it abhorrent and I believe it has no place in a modern society! Good god I'm one of their targets!

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51885341]Trump is a fucking idiot, I grant you. But I don't think he is a racist nazi whatever. He's at worst a dumb lucky orange clown.[/QUOTE] Is it really so difficult for people to just call him a racist or bigot of any kind? Is calling a bigot a bigot counterproductive?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51885377]How am I downplaying Nazism? How am I supporting it? What??? [/QUOTE] It's easy for people to interpret what you're saying as downplaying Nazism when you're boiling it down to "a disagreement" when it's infinitely more than that. My merge has forsaken me

[QUOTE=Judas;51885340]"I hate this people who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being a fascist, it makes me want to be a fascist"[/QUOTE] more or less yeah i'd be a fascist either way to them

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885385]It's easy for people to interpret what you're saying as downplaying Nazism when you're boiling it down to "a disagreement" when it's infinitely more than that.[/QUOTE] I'm actually not though? I hate it? Nazism is a scourge on humanity as much as communism? But using violence to prove a point in a country that values free speech is [I]wrong[/I]

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885370] [b] My replies in bold[/b] A man who promotes (cyber) attacks on the US from Russia. [b]Irrelevant to the discussion of racism, and frankly not illegal.[/b] A man who was quite literally advocating for violence against minorities, by his supporters, at his own rallies.[b]I will need a refresh on this one I recall some veiled threats but If I recall it was just against shit disturber protesters. Please remind me which incident(s) you are referring to.[/b] A man who paints non-white people as enemies. [b] umm... see above? [/b] A man who says "America first" (a bit actually taken from an old white nationalist group). [b]Nationalism needn't be racism, but I can see the tension if it was literally inspired by that. Even so it seems innocuous enough to not necessarily be racist.[/b] A man who does all this, and you're asking me if we can't assume he and his complacent supporters are racists or if they are supporting a racist/fascist spewing racist/fascist ideals? [b] Yeah, I don't think he has actually spewed any real 'racist' 'fascist' ideals. I think he has said some inflammatory stuff, but no where have I gotten the impression that any of it comes from some ideal about race. I am not arguing that there are no racists that support him, that would be obviously false, but what I am arguing is that there is no clear case that Trump is racist as opposed to simply being an inflammatory clown with the tact of a gorilla in heat.[/b] The intersectionalism here is thick enough for me to shout "Yes!" on a mountaintop and have it heard worldwide.[b] Um, ok? [/b] [/quote] [quote] Okay, there will be opposition, but there will also be support. [/quote] Yes, as with any movement. But do you really think that that means we should shut away any and all ideas and people that we think might be racist? It seems that the more you shut something away the more it bubbles to the surface. Perhaps it is the case that the better course of action is to speak better than they do instead of fear some invisible horde of hill billies that will gather from the mountains if someone yells heil at just the right pitch. [quote] We can look at history and see what Nazis are. We can look at history and the same for Communists. Although I'm sure we can look at leaders of both parties at significant points in history and know that they took advantage of their own people and destroyed their own nations by going against their own people in the end.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't think the early communists saw the whole mass crimes against humanity thing coming.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51885401]I'm actually not though? I hate it? Nazism is a scourge on humanity as much as communism? But using violence to prove a point in a country that values free speech is [I]wrong[/I][/QUOTE] Okay, fair enough, but why simplify supporting Nazism as just "differing opinions" then?

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885378]Is it really so difficult for people to just call him a racist or bigot of any kind? Is calling a bigot a bigot counterproductive?[/QUOTE] Oh, I'll agree that he is bigoted, but I don't think it is really racial or gendered in the way you take it to be. I feel like trump is probably best described as a meritocratic bigot. He sees greater value in 'productive' citizens, 'successful' people, and 'the best' people. If you really want a label for him you can call him Ableist, and, it seems, a bit trans-phobic. But he isn't hitler. [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TAU!;51885418]Okay, fair enough, but why simplify supporting Nazism as just "differing opinions" then?[/QUOTE] Because it is not as simple as injecting a dye and seeing all the parts that form swastika polka dots. Politics is a nuanced issue and if you start throwing around labels to justify silencing someone then don't be surprised if your opponents do it to you the next time around.

[QUOTE=Primigenes;51885373]No you're inept because you think being a Nazi is about disagreements. "I hate your people and would like them to either be relocated or ethnically cleansed" :cool: Wow, well I hope you enjoyed your free speech when someone inevitably retaliates your violent ideology with violence. Like goddamn, you sound like a dude who sits in a corner who doesn't understand how people actually work. Also lol at "want" You preach a doctrine of inherent violence and you will inevitably get your ass kicked. You preach a doctrine once put into actual effect hence the general populace expresses some fear of and you will inevitably get your ass kicked. Maybe instead of trying to downplay Nazism by calling it a fucking disagreement like a spat at a street corner you stop bullshitting and realize most people do not want to deal with an ideology that wants to support the genocide of their people.[/QUOTE] so what if i view your disdain for freedom of speech as inherently fascist? am i justified in assaulting you because your beliefs left unchecked inevitably lead to fascism?

[QUOTE=idiot;51885446]so what if i view your disdain for freedom of speech as inherently fascist? am i justified in assaulting you because your beliefs left unchecked inevitably lead to fascism?[/QUOTE] Yeah I think I recall fascism as being defined as inciting or defending violence against your political opponents. Looks like we're gonna have ourselves a good ol' fascist showdown.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51885416]Irrelevant to the discussion of racism, and frankly not illegal.[/quote] Yes, it is illegal, and he could be tried for treason for promoting an attack on the USA. Not like that'll actually happen, but still. [quote]I will need a refresh on this one I recall some veiled threats but If I recall it was just against shit disturber protesters. Please remind me which incident(s) you are referring to.[/quote] Do you live under a rock? [url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html]1[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kicker/oh-yes-donald-trump-defin_b_9461016.html]2[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913]3[/url] [url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html]4[/url] It doesn't matter if they were "just shit disturber protesters", he was promoting violence against minorities at his own rallies, which his own supporters rallied behind. They also actively attacked and manhandled these "shit disturber protesters", to which he followed the physical altercations by saying some things along the lines of "if this were back in the day, they would be out of here on a stretcher", to further support violence against them, relating strictly to them being minorities in a space crowded with bigoted white people. Get your head out of your ass. [quote]Nationalism needn't be racism, but I can see the tension if it was literally inspired by that. Even so it seems innocuous enough to not necessarily be racist.[/quote] Nationalism usually leads to ethnic/racial/religious superiority, y'know, like how the "us versus them" mentality usually goes. [quote]Yeah, I don't think he has actually spewed any real 'racist' 'fascist' ideals. I think he has said some inflammatory stuff, but no where have I gotten the impression that any of it comes from some ideal about race. I am not arguing that there are no racists that support him, that would be obviously false, but what I am arguing is that there is no clear case that Trump is racist as opposed to simply being an inflammatory clown with the tact of a gorilla in heat.[/quote] See the links I pasted above, and understand that his bigoted statements on muslims, mexicans, and other minorities only fuels the fire he's supporting. Not only that, but he seems to be ignoring that the majority of terrorist attacks on US soil have been committed by white men (NO, don't worry yourself too much, I don't hate white people), but every time a mass shooting is committed by white men, any major news outlet will label them as a "lone wolf" or "isolated case" rather than part of a bigger problem.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51885465]Cool the Mccarthysm jets there.[/QUOTE] The fuck is this even about [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] That I'm a McCarthyist? That I support the hunting down and silencing of political opponents? Did you close your eyes and shout "LALALA" as you scrolled through the thread, intentionally refusing to read my posts? Did you look at a single one of my fucking arguments? At [I]ALL?[/I] Like good lord man it ain't that black and white as you want to paint it. But if not wanting violence from the Red Flags or Brown Shirts makes me a McCarthyist? Then well rootin' tootin' bring me to the White House

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51885440]Oh, I'll agree that he is bigoted, but I don't think it is really racial or gendered in the way you take it to be. I feel like trump is probably best described as a meritocratic bigot. He sees greater value in 'productive' citizens, 'successful' people, and 'the best' people. If you really want a label for him you can call him Ableist, and, it seems, a bit trans-phobic. But he isn't hitler.[/quote] Trump has repeatedly viewed and referred to women, disabled persons, and minorities in this country as objects to demean and mock. His bigotry is as clear to me as the morning sun is to the beginning of the day. A bigot is a bigot, and he is quite clearly many types of bigot. Of course he's not Hitler, Hitler is Hitler, and Trump is Trump. [quote]Because it is not as simple as injecting a dye and seeing all the parts that form swastika polka dots. Politics is a nuanced issue and if you start throwing around labels to justify silencing someone then don't be surprised if your opponents do it to you the next time around.[/QUOTE] Throwing around labels without hitting any correct targets is counterproductive, yes. Politics is also very complex, yes. But if someone supports many different aspects of Nazism, whether they do it quietly or openly, then it's pretty damn hard for me to look at them and [i]not[/i] think they're a Nazi.

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885458]Yes, it is illegal, and he could be tried for treason for promoting an attack on the USA. Not like that'll actually happen, but still.[/quote] It's actually not. Asking russians to 'look into' the DNC [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjo16QamjIc"] does not violate any laws.[/url] [quote] Do you live under a rock? [url=https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html]1[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kicker/oh-yes-donald-trump-defin_b_9461016.html]2[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-violence_us_56e1f16fe4b0b25c91815913]3[/url] [url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html]4[/url] It doesn't matter if they were "just shit disturber protesters", he was promoting violence against [B]minorities[/B] at his own rallies, which his own supporters rallied behind. They also actively attacked and manhandled these "shit disturber protesters", to which he followed the physical altercations by saying some things along the lines of "if this were back in the day, they would be out of here on a stretcher", to further support violence against them, relating strictly to them being minorities in a space crowded with bigoted white people. Get your head out of your ass. [/quote] While the fact that he encouraged the roughing up of people intruding on the rallies to cause a scene lends support to your argument for him being a fascist, it also can be taken to mean that he just sees being roughed up as a fair punishment for someone who crashes a party as it was in 'his day'. I don't agree with it as I don't agree with any violence unless the issue is really black and white or pragmatically necessary, but what he did isn't racist, and that was the main point of contention. If he said something like "get that beaner our of here" or "if you punch an illegal it's okay", then maybe you'd have some more ground to stand on. As is, he was not advocating violence against any [i]minority[/i] unless you are using that term flippantly to refer to either the fact that the protester is in the minority in that room, or that the person HAPPENS, on some of the occasions, to not be white. He advocated political roughness/vigilantism in removing people from events, that's about it. I don't agree with him, but it doesn't make him a racist. [quote] Nationalism usually leads to ethnic/racial/religious superiority, y'know, like how the "us versus them" mentality usually goes. [/quote] And socialism leads to the typical "the many over the few" mentality where people get thrown in, y'know, a gulag. Then again, maybe it doesn't, but that's the argument you are making. [quote] See the links I pasted above, and understand that his bigoted statements on muslims, mexicans, and other minorities only fuels the fire he's supporting. Not only that, but he seems to be ignoring that the majority of terrorist attacks on US soil have been committed by white men (NO, don't worry yourself too much, I don't hate white people), but every time a mass shooting is committed by white men, any major news outlet will label them as a "lone wolf" or "isolated case" rather than part of a bigger problem.[/QUOTE] Ok, two points here. Firstly, the statements he has made have been lacking in any manner of tact, but at not point has he said something along the lines of "All x are y" and doubled down on it. He has said that they (mexico) are sending their rapists, but that can be taken to mean simply that rapists are coming from mexico - that there exists some person such that that person is a rapist and from mexico. Secondly, yeah, I agree, confirmation bias is a bitch. But let's not pretend like people actually are not seeing any patterns in the shootings. The discussion is more complicated and has to due with gun culture, mental illness, individual shooting circumstances, and yes, the bias of the people reporting. But, that is hardly pertinent to our discussion regarding the status of Trump's alleged fascism or racism.

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885491]Trump has repeatedly viewed and referred to women, disabled persons, and minorities in this country as objects to demean and mock.[/QUOTE] When has any of this happened

[QUOTE=TAU!;51885491]Trump has repeatedly viewed and referred to women, disabled persons, and minorities in this country as objects to demean and mock. His bigotry is as clear to me as the morning sun is to the beginning of the day. A bigot is a bigot, and he is quite clearly many types of bigot. Of course he's not Hitler, Hitler is Hitler, and Trump is Trump.[/quote] Again, if you have more quotes in specific that you want me to attempt to defend against the specific charge of sexism or racism, I will attempt to oblige. I am willing to be convinced as I have already ceded some ground to you on his charges of potential fascism (due to inciting vigilante 'roughness' at rallies). [quote] Throwing around labels without hitting any correct targets is counterproductive, yes. Politics is also very complex, yes. But if someone supports many different aspects of Nazism, [B]whether they do it quietly or openly[/B], then it's pretty damn hard for me to look at them and [i]not[/i] think they're a Nazi.[/QUOTE] See, and this is the problem. You don't know if they support it quietly as that is the nature of quiet support. You may as well accuse Obama on those grounds. All we are left with, then, is blatent support, and his words, and actions. Those have thus far been untactful, irresponsible, inflammatory, and idiotic, but not necessarily racist.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51885665]You're really giving Trump a whole lot of benefit of a doubt for a politician who bold faced lies and makes shit up on the spot on the regular. You really think Trump would have been able to get as far as he did outright, without plausible deniability saying Mexicans/muslims were inherently inferior/danger to america? [/quote] Ok, so I you are making an argument from the assumption that it is true that he is secretly a racist/sexist/homophobe trying to get into power (it seems irrelevant whether it is [I]for[/I] that purpose or for another). Let's see where it goes. [quote] Trump like a lot of racists/sexists/homophobes etc, know they can't get by if they don't at least slightly conceal their, true motives. so they say things like "family values" "traditional marriage" "ban muslims from entering the country until we """"""figure out whats going on,"""""""" ...excepttheonesihavebusinnesstieswithdespitetheirlonghistoryoffundingterrorism. [/quote] Alright, a little bit to unpack here. Family values and traditional marriage isn't a nazi issue yet, and I certainly don't see it as such. That being said, traditional marriage in the form that does not allow an equally legally useful contract between same sex people is wrong from simply an egalitarian point of view. I disagree with that, but that doesn't make him a nazi, and certainly neither does his support for family values. Next is the 'muslim ban'. There is firstly the legitimacy lent to him by those countries being singled out by the Obama administration, but also an argument can be made for why the countries not on the list aren't the same sort of threat. It almost seems to be a case of cognitive dissonance where, given your hypothesis of a 'racist muslim ban', one would expect all the muslim majority countries to get banned, but seemingly they are not, and so you adjust your theory to compensate. What you will say in return, obviously, is the the business ties can account for that. What I would say to you is that maybe it is other factors that come together to make it that Trump didn't invest in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and fucking [I]Somalia[/I]. [quote] If you were to take a racist rant about muslims and mexicans off of your annoying uncles facebook posts and replace "all" or "mexicans and muslims" and replace them with "many mexicans and muslims" you end up with the transcript of a Trump Rally. Something that allows you to drum up the innumerable closet racists we have in the country for racist ends. [/quote] Right, except I would challenge you to find a quote where trump says "Many mexicans are x" or "Many muslims are y". At best he will says that "there is a problem of x coming from mexico" or "there is a problem of y coming from these muslim countries". Granted, the truth of these statements is up for debate, but that doesn't put him into hitler territory moreso than it did any other fear mongering president that the US has had before. He is nationalist and is obviously bound to identify problems as coming from certain external regions, it's basically in the definition of nationalism. I'm not saying I agree with it, but there it is. [quote] "Oh Trump isn't racist, he's just incensing a tribalistic furor and paranoia against minorities that has transparently racist result!"[/QUOTE] The fact that there are some stupid people still does not make your case for him being a racist in power trying to do racist things for racist purposes. He may do racist things in some sense, such as building a goofy fucking wall, but that is more an element of nationalistic othering than anything else. It is an appeal to the privelege of citizenship that has been the cornerstone of just about every society so far. If he starts talking about revoking citizenship to people who are here legally, then maybe we'll talk some more. He's not a racist, he's just a nationalistic buffoon. [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;51885665]Those two hunters that tried to shoot someone, they for some reason assumed was an illegal immigrant? Not racist. Nope. That Muslim couple being harassed on the plane? Well, he didn't say anything about race, so we can assume race had NOTHING to do with it. That guy who shot, killed and injured indian immigrants while screaming racist slurs? Not connected to Trumps rhetoric at all, no way someone could have foreseen that![/QUOTE] The actions of idiot followers do not equal the actions of the leader. Those things are horrible, and we can talk about profiling or about the lack of education that people have, but that is not our conversation, what we are talking about is whether trump himself is a secret 'hitler' (or whatever), or whether he is just a celebrity manchild that fell into a position that he is not equipped to understand the gravity or complexity of. [editline]27th February 2017[/editline] Also, I feel I should emphasis that I am not supporting trump's tendency to lie so much like he has a fucking condition or something. For that matter, I am not supporting trump at all, I am just arguing against the claim that he is necessarily racist fascist what-have-you.

Nazism gains traction when there is social strife for it to breed in, trying to suppress it by limiting speech only sweeps the problem under the carpet where you can't see it, but the problem is still there. Moreover, Nazis saw surges of support whenever their rallies were attacked, and slumps when they were the attackers. The solution is to solve the underlying issues causing people to be forced to turn to extremism, by finding equitable solutions to economic and social problems rather than burying your head in the sand whenever the cause is something that goes against your political faction's ideology.