Poll: Most California Democrats want to restrict free speech from white nationalists - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681472]Well, if you get a government that redefines extremism, then yes, you will have fallen down the slippery slope. For now it's working out for you because no one has used it to their advantage. [B]Because all it'll take (being slightly hyperbolic) is someone in the government starting the conversation of "hey you know what's extreme, not liking us, we should ban anti-government protests".[/B][/QUOTE] ...And the majority of the population somehow agreeing with this, since we live in a democracy. How likely do you think that is? If we go the hypothetical route, the US first amendment could be removed from the constitution.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52681214]Again, there's no such thing as a moderate Nazi. In espousing Nazi ideology, you are perpetrating a terroristic ideology of violence and genocide. I have zero interest whatsoever in trying to "save Nazis from themselves" by coddling their victim complex or rationally engaging them, because they are already far beyond the point of extremism where rationality has any factor in their decisionmaking processes to begin with. Nazi ideology is [B]inherently[/B] violent and harmful, and the unmitigated spread of that bullshit [I]does[/I] directly endanger innocent lives. Much like the propaganda of Islamic extremists, it radicalizes and turns violent those who sympathize with a core set of fears and outrages, meaning that all who believe in the bullshit narrative of "white genocide" in the US are at risk of radicalization. I would waste no breath trying to befriend and convince a violent Islamic extremist that their perspective is flawed, nor would I on one of America's own terrorist cells. They are beyond rational discourse and now pose an imminent threat to the lives of innocent people. Protect their would-be victims by arresting and charging the extremists who threaten them with domestic terrorism, under the very same legislation that already exists (though clarified, if necessary) [i]and then[/I] focus on rehabilitation when they are no longer able to directly endanger human lives. And make no mistake: terrorists are exactly what they are, and they should be treated as such. They must be monitored and pursued with the same vigor, if not more (only because of proximity and imminent danger), as ISIS cells, agents, and sympathizers.[/QUOTE] For the record, I'm not trying to rationalize or play down Nazism. It aint a cool ideology no matter how you lay it out. My point here is that no matter what the speech says, so long as its not threatening or calling for violence, it shouldn't be censored. Nazis rallying in the US is one of the worst things to happen in the last decade, but until they start building bombs or culling minorities its senseless to round them up. The last thing any country should do is put in place laws and tools that can eventually be used to oppress people. Especially in the US where we have a president who would love nothing more than to silence those who oppose him.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681472]Well, if you get a government that redefines extremism, then yes, you will have fallen down the slippery slope. For now it's working out for you because no one has used it to their advantage. Because all it'll take (being slightly hyperbolic) is someone in the government starting the conversation of[B] "hey you know what's extreme, not liking us, we should ban anti-government protests"[/B].[/QUOTE] We actually had that happen more or less here. Got shut down super fucking hard because everyone agreed it was bullshit and also because we don't have the weird one party rule you guys have going on there.

[QUOTE=CunningHam;52681497]The "poor lil nazis" treatment is silly and naive, Neo-Nazis and their like are exceptionally good at fabricating persecution complexes no matter what and not a thing will dampen that. So why bother coddling them?[/QUOTE] Why bother censoring them if it effectively achieves nothing? [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52681505]...And the majority of the population somehow agreeing with this, since we live in a democracy. How likely do you think that is? If we go the hypothetical route, the US first amendment could be removed from the constitution.[/QUOTE] Laws are not voted in by the popular vote of the entire population of the US. Hell, the Mighty God Emporer could pass an EO to the patriot act restricting speech if he wanted to. It would be battled in the Supreme Court but my point is that lawmaking requires nothing from the US population. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;52681447]Most European countries don't have the same kind of Freedom of Speech you guys do. We can get arrested for expressing extremist views. Did we go down the "slippery slope" of censorship?[/QUOTE] No, but the potential is always there. I don't want that potential to exist in the US.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52681590]Laws are not voted in by the popular vote of the entire population of the US.[/QUOTE] Neither are they in Europe. But elected officials are. [QUOTE]No, but the potential is always there. I don't want that potential to exist in the US.[/QUOTE] It exists in the form of changing the constitution. You can never reduce a potential to nothing. Heck, the constitution is only worth anything if the people in power actually follow it.

the problem is that limiting the spread of extremist ideas is functionally impossible if you can't stop ISIS from spreading their extremist ideology, then you aren't going to be able to stop the KKK from spreading theirs No one controls the social climate anymore. Propagandists and extremists are free to prey on the weak minded and the gullible with impunity. There really isn't anything you can do to stop it. at the same time I think the fears of a slippery slope are ridiculous If the US population is stupid enough to vote in the kinds of people who would censor negative views of the government, then that's what you'll get in the end, regardless of what's done today. No amount of regulation or red tape can keep a democracy from committing suicide if they all agree to do it. Which we probably will.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52681618]the problem is that limiting the spread of extremist ideas is functionally impossible if you can't stop ISIS from spreading their extremist ideology, then you aren't going to be able to stop the KKK from spreading theirs No one controls the social climate anymore. Propagandists and extremists are free to prey on the weak minded and the gullible with impunity. There really isn't anything you can do to stop it.[/QUOTE] You can stop its spread by reducing the amount of weak minded and gullible people.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52681621]You can stop its spread by reducing the amount of weak minded and gullible people.[/QUOTE] I am more and more convinced every day that that is also functionally impossible

[QUOTE=MrBob1337;52681385]It is unacceptable for views like this to be supported and advanced in the public square and sphere. It is foolish, shortsighted, and historically blind to try and prevent this by law. The State and its instruments can always be co-opted, corrupted, cajoled, coerced, or convinced to operate in service of influential groups by influential groups, oftentimes by undemocratic means, whether they be back-door deals, threats of violence, or demonstrations of force. For groups like fascists, it is especially straightforward and appealing to do this. An ideology that exalts the state as a set of necessary checks on the counter-constructive impulses of the public not only sees the state as a natural ally, but readily appears as a natural ally in times where the state is facing opposition to its hegemony. Any laws passed to limit or restrict speech place a loaded gun in the hand of the government. Narrow, limited laws - like the definition of hate speech - weld the gun in place, fixed more or less in a narrow arc where we perceive violent hate. But even with these strong limits, the gun is still there. It can be removed from its emplacement by legislation or extralegal action. No matter what limits we place on it, that gun can be pointed towards us. Fascists, white supremacists, Nazis, and the rest of the alt-right coalition must be forced into irrelevance by the public, and the public alone. It is unsafe and ineffective to rely on law or good intentions to accomplish this. We must make it too hard to be a Nazi in 2017. We must out them at work when they spout hate, we must block their marches when they take to the streets, and we must bloody their noses when they take up arms. There is no other way.[/QUOTE] So legal suppression of speech is bad, but violent extrajudicial suppression of speech is good. [I]Riiight.[/I]

[quote]Remember that one of the oldest slippery slopes wasn't gay marriage, it was interracial marriage. I wonder what you would have said during those times, while I remember that society proves itself a net-gain of progress.[/QUOTE] Comparing restricting someone's rights (under the law) to expanding their rights seems like a bad comparison. Right now, a white supremacist is granted the same rights under the law as anyone else. With interracial or gay marriage being illegal, interracial or gay couples were (and sadly still are in some places) specifically having their rights restricted. [QUOTE=CunningHam;52681554]Slippery slopes arguments only work in a hypothetical vacuum that's more suited to tracking the curvature of a line across a coordinate grid. This is removed from basic intuition and devoid of any faith in the will and ability of the people to make decisions as they are needed.[/quote] Have you seen the state of some of the elected positions in the US government recently? For example, the climate change denial by elected officials from states that are already being seriously impacted by climate change. So forgive me if I don't have trust in the voting populous, and most certainly not elected officials, to make good long-term decisions in the face of being able to "solve" short-term problems (or short-term personal gains). I mean, just look at how many short-sighted actions were taken by politicians (often with favorable public support at the time) in response to 9/11 that are still having an impact now (invading countries, mass surveillance, disregarding the rights of individuals in the name of fighting "terrorism").

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52681643]I am more and more convinced every day that that is also functionally impossible[/QUOTE] Just improve education. The hard part is most governments don't seem too interested in that.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52681121]I like to think that peoples sensibilities aren't so fragile that hearing genocidal rhetoric wont make them genocidal, or physically/mentally scar them forever just because they heard/read bullshit.[/QUOTE] I agree that making a law wont solve this, but do you think those people became Nazis spontaneously?

I expected most Democrats to support it but the numbers of Republicans and no preference are surprisingly high. Also interesting to see the drastic difference between Whites, latinos, and African/Asian Americans.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52681728]Just improve education. The hard part is most governments don't seem too interested in that.[/QUOTE] as important as education is, I don't know if it's really the solution to the problems we're dealing with ignorance isn't the issue here, people being drawn to attractive lies over truth is

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52681765]as important as education is, I don't know if it's really the solution to the problems we're dealing with ignorance isn't the issue here, people being drawn to attractive lies over truth is[/QUOTE] Proper media fact checking not being be taught in school may be the issue here.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52681564]For the record, I'm not trying to rationalize or play down Nazism. It aint a cool ideology no matter how you lay it out. My point here is that no matter what the speech says, so long as its not threatening or calling for violence, it shouldn't be censored. Nazis rallying in the US is one of the worst things to happen in the last decade, but until they start building bombs or culling minorities its senseless to round them up. The last thing any country should do is put in place laws and tools that can eventually be used to oppress people. Especially in the US where we have a president who would love nothing more than to silence those who oppose him.[/QUOTE] Sorry if you thought I was trying to accuse [I]you[/I] of supporting Nazism. I honestly wasn't trying to imply that you were personally supportive of it at all, I just have a bad writing habit of using the word "you" in an overly general sense when discussing ideological points. I basically stop addressing the person I'm talking to, and start addressing the person (or people) that I'm talking [I]about[/I]. I gotta work on that, because it's obviously led to some misunderstandings! [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52681121]Theres a difference between holding Nazi views and acting on them/threatening to act on them. Thought policing is pants on head retarded and doesnt work. Giving a group a persecution complex does nothing to stop them or dissuade them from holding racist or genocidal views. People like that tend to think "if I'm facing resistance, I'm heading the right direction". Giving them exposure and even restrictions just enables them. Nazis spreading a message is simply that; a message. Its not violent, it hurts no one, and hearing it wont make you suddenly grow a red armband. I like to think that peoples sensibilities aren't so fragile that hearing genocidal rhetoric wont make them genocidal, or physically/mentally scar them forever just because they heard/read bullshit.[/QUOTE] You have to understand that extremist rhetoric doesn't turn people into extremists overnight. You talk is if we're saying that all it takes is a stray word to make somebody accept violent extremism as a necessary means to an end, but that's just not the way it works. Extremist ideology is not a switch that's suddenly flipped, but a dial slowly turned over years of exposure. Limiting the voice of terroristic ideology like Nazism and the KKK helps reduce the exposure necessary to dial people into increasingly extremist mindsets.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52681813]Proper media fact checking not being be taught in school may be the issue here.[/QUOTE] people don't read breitbart or stormfront because they think they're the most impartial and factual publications available, they read them because they say what they want to hear They [I]want[/I] to believe that their problems are caused by immigrants, and that by kicking them out everything will get better. They [I]want[/I] to believe they're a member of the master race, and not just some fuckwit that doesn't matter. They [I]want[/I] to believe all the things that make them uncomfortable are fake, and that they're the chosen ones who can see through the liberal lies. They [I]want[/I] to believe they're a part of a huge movement to bring down the globalists, and not just a bunch of retards being taken for a ride by a con man. No amount of education is going to stop that, because it isn't an education problem. They want validation and comfort that can only come from lies.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681317]So lets spell this out, barney style: You ban nazis from protesting, and get the legal precedent set. Now you can legally ban other groups from protesting too, like pro choice people, or people protesting for better healthcare, or people protesting against cop violence. THE LAW WORKS FOR BOTH SIDES. So what ever ammo you're going to use, just remember the other side is going to use it as well.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree. There's an important caveat you're glossing over here that would disqualify the overwhelming majority of said groups. Nazis are directly responsible for genocide.

[QUOTE=eldomtom2;52681699]So legal suppression of speech is bad, but violent extrajudicial suppression of speech is good. [I]Riiight.[/I][/QUOTE] It's not about suppressing speech. There's no way to stop Nazis [used as shorthand here] from saying Nazi shit, especially in the age of the Internet, without trampling civil liberties. Nor would it really solve anything; the ideas are out there no matter how many posts are removed and histories rewritten. [B]It's about preventing Nazis from being able to safely build support, influence, and strength in public.[/B] There's a reason public protest marches are called 'demonstrations'. A gathering of organized people shows that whatever political cause you're marching for has a lot of people willing to fight for it, whether by voting or fighting, whether legally or illegally, whether peacefully or violently. Being able to march unperturbed in public is in and of itself an indication of tacit tolerance from the public and from the authorities. Taking space in public also, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, creates the appearance of acceptance. More Nazis marching makes it seem like being a Nazi isn't that taboo, like maybe their ideas have some merit. Once the fact that Nazi views are held [I]by Nazis[/I] is no longer a disqualifying factor, people will begin to consider them a little less insane. And so a few more people become Nazis. And so a few more Nazis march. Just look at the presidential election. Even the [i]perception[/i] of acceptability - even with (belated) public condemnations by Trump - caused the biggest swell in far-right groups for decades. Nazis demonstrating in larger and larger numbers gives them an air of acceptability, but more importantly it gives them real, tangible power. It's simply impossible to ignore enough people organized for a cause, even if they never become violent. Something as basic as a sit-in or stopping traffic demands a response from authorities. And often these authorities eventually acquiesce to the protestors' demands, as you have no doubt seen in the last few years of protest. I shouldn't have to explain why fascists having the smallest sliver of influence on public policy is unacceptable. And as upsetting and alien as it sounds, there is always the threat of violence on top of this non-violent base. White supremacists are not asking for lower taxes or new zoning; they are asking for the removal of non-whites from public life and public space. We have seen throughout history that armed groups of critical mass are capable of simply ignoring, running off, or co-opting authority figures and committing horrifying violence. Throughout the 20th century, from Tulsa to Selma, there are untold hundred of graves holding bruised black bodies as a testament to this truth. Simply put, allowing Nazis to organize undisturbed lets them become a political, physical, and popular force. If there is no-one willing to show up against them, to block their marches, to demonstrate that they are not acceptable, that they should not be listened to, that they are not being given free reign in the streets, they will grow unchecked. I have already outlined why official forces cannot be relied upon to do this. There are no other candidates but you and me.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52681611]Neither are they in Europe. But elected officials are. It exists in the form of changing the constitution. You can never reduce a potential to nothing. Heck, the constitution is only worth anything if the people in power actually follow it.[/QUOTE] Sure the potential is always there but I wouldn't ever want to increase that potential. Putting a law in place to suppress one group makes it very easy to suppress many more. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=laserpanda;52681747]I agree that making a law wont solve this, but do you think those people became Nazis spontaneously?[/QUOTE] No, my post literally says that it doesn't. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52681817]Sorry if you thought I was trying to accuse [I]you[/I] of supporting Nazism. I honestly wasn't trying to imply that you were personally supportive of it at all, I just have a bad writing habit of using the word "you" in an overly general sense when discussing ideological points. I basically stop addressing the person I'm talking to, and start addressing the person (or people) that I'm talking [I]about[/I]. I gotta work on that, because it's obviously led to some misunderstandings! [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] You have to understand that extremist rhetoric doesn't turn people into extremists overnight. You talk is if we're saying that all it takes is a stray word to make somebody accept violent extremism as a necessary means to an end, but that's just not the way it works. Extremist ideology is not a switch that's suddenly flipped, but a dial slowly turned over years of exposure. Limiting the voice of terroristic ideology like Nazism and the KKK helps reduce the exposure necessary to dial people into increasingly extremist mindsets.[/QUOTE] I knew you weren't specifically addressing me, I just wanted to state ahead of time that me defending free speech is not me defending Nazism as a whole. No issue on your part, just wanted to state my position. I know they people dont just swap viewpoints because they hear just one speech or one online video. There was a great post on imgur a few weeks ago about how modern Nazi rhetoric speaks very little on ending non-whites, instead talks about defending whites from the ever impending white genocide, or being bred-out of existence. The people modern Nazis prey on are weak minded individuals who are scared of the modern "radical feminist"/SJW movement. The types of people that are scared of Muslim migrants or Mexican migrants (the same people that Trump preys on). The rhetoric they use to attract those people rarely contains "Kill all niggers/Jews/Mexicans/ect." The rhetoric they use talks about defense and protection, almost completely nom-violent. The kind of speech that is protected by free speech and should be protected. The best way to take care of these people is not to throw them in prison, but to out-educate them. People are scared of things they don't know about or understand. For Muslims, the only thing Americans are taught about them in school is them being violent in the middle ages, 9/11, and the wars in the middle east. The American education system alone gives them a pretty bad rep, not to mention what US media does to minority groups. Mexicans don't fare much better. Proper education about world cultures would do wonders for the US.

many of the neo-nazis are very often people who have become socially isolated, atomized, lack strong identities and social relationships, and feel as though the suitable response is to revolt against the society that they feel created those conditions (in their case however they blame the jews for some reason instead of corporate bodies and managerialist leeches) one could of course introduce restrictions on speech to control it, but considering those that are already open alt-righters have nothing to lose, it will probably make them figure that opposition to an increasingly hostile government is the way forwards. if america continues on a downwards slope, they'll become increasingly dangerous america is already a divided federation (not just by politics, but increasingly by ethnic groups, economic divisions, linguistics, etc) and i really think this is more them attacking the symptoms of a problem more than actually bothering to look into fixing the roots of it.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52681447]Most European countries don't have the same kind of Freedom of Speech you guys do. We can get arrested for expressing extremist views. Did we go down the "slippery slope" of censorship?[/QUOTE] In some cases yes, especially if you live in Germany :v:

Good thing those Democrats can't violate the first amendment. [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52680333]So I'm assuming that Republicans, being the defenders of free speech that they are would have no issue allowing some members of ISIS into the country to spread their message[/QUOTE] Republicans are bombing, shooting, and executing people of multiple nationalities / religions including their own medieval religion? Sounds like a strawman to me! The constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, and freedom of speech isn't comparable to violence. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;52680737]I think there's good reason to not let nazis protest or express their political views as they please, one of the reasons being that it actually has a direct impact on how safe minorities feel who are in the area where the nazis are expressing their views.[/QUOTE] That's how fascism starts. [QUOTE=Crumpet;52680940]Being a Nazi isn't simply holding 'unreasonable views'.[/QUOTE] Who gets called a nazi? Someone who supports Trump? Someone who is pride of their race? Someone who doesn't like other races? Because you don't like certain races or like Trump does [B]not[/B] make you a nazi. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52681214]Again, there's no such thing as a moderate Nazi. In espousing Nazi ideology, you are perpetrating a terroristic ideology of violence and genocide. I would waste no breath trying to befriend and convince a violent Islamic extremist that their perspective is flawed, nor would I on one of America's own terrorist cells.[/QUOTE] Oh, please. I don't think you have any understanding of the climate and you're just being sensational. Racism and nationalism is not a sole concept given to one group of people that you can easily demonize and fear monger around.

[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52683552]Good thing those Democrats can't violate the first amendment. Republicans are bombing, shooting, and executing people of multiple nationalities / religions including their own medieval religion? Sounds like a strawman to me! The constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, and freedom of speech isn't comparable to violence. That's how fascism starts. Who gets called a nazi? Someone who supports Trump? Someone who is pride of their race? Someone who doesn't like other races? Because you don't like certain races or like Trump does [B]not[/B] make you a nazi. Oh, please. I don't think you have any understanding of the climate and you're just being sensational. Racism and nationalism is not a sole concept given to one group of people that you can easily demonize and fear monger around.[/QUOTE] I never said that racism solely belonged to any group. I said that Nazism is a terroristic ideology, and that racists and white nationalists are at risk of radicalization through exposure to it. Address the points I'm actually making, not the points you WISH I were making. Furthermore, I need you to understand that I'm discussing actual Neo-Nazis here, not white nationalists as a whole. So, unless you subscribe to Nazi ideology, a policy of racial supremacy through the extermination, enslavement, and/or forced removal of non-whites or "lesser races," I am not calling you a Nazi. Leave your victim complex at the door, please.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52683658]I never said that racism solely belonged to any group. I said that Nazism is a terroristic ideology, and that racists and white nationalists are at risk of radicalization through exposure to it. Address the points I'm actually making, not the points you WISH I were making. Furthermore, I need you to understand that I'm discussing actual Neo-Nazis here, not white nationalists as a whole. So, unless you subscribe to Nazi ideology, a policy of racial supremacy through the extermination, enslavement, and/or forced removal of non-whites or "lesser races," I am not calling you a Nazi. Leave your victim complex at the door, please.[/QUOTE] You're right. I did not read your post correctly and jumped the gun. I was wrong. Apologies. Regardless, the term "white nationalist" was listed 5 times in the article posted, whilst national socialist / nazi was not present at all. You can guess why I'd be a little confused. There is nothing legally wrong with being a white nationalist. There is nothing wrong with being an Arab nationalist if there is such a thing, but when you verge onto extremist like the Ku Klux Klan and ISIS, you get into dangerous territory. My question is was there this big of a reaction against the Black Lives Matter protests? Now, I recall that Obama defended BLM the same way people seem to think Trump defended the national socialists. Is there really that much of a difference besides the rhetoric? They're of same nature as your definition of terrorist cell. They are both extremist groups who threaten and commit violence to get their way.

[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52683552] Who gets called a nazi? Someone who supports Trump? Someone who is pride of their race? Someone who doesn't like other races? Because you don't like certain races or like Trump does [B]not[/B] make you a nazi. [/QUOTE] Please shove more words down my throat. Are you here to argue properly or make terrible assertions, misrepresent points, and flame people?

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52683740]Please shove more words down my throat. Are you here to argue properly or make terrible assertions, misrepresent points and flame people?[/QUOTE] I think you missed an oxford comma there. Read my post above there. Big Dumb American actually did some clarification which says the exact thing as my post you quoted does. The words aren't interchangeable, yet they seem to be used as the same thing. It's quite an important distinction, especially when you start throwing ideas around like censorship. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52680870]White nationalists, on the other hand, are hateful little shits with disgusting and ignorant perspectives of the world, but they have every right to preach their ignorance so long as violence or subjugation aren't their aim.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52683746]I think you missed an oxford comma there. Read my post above there. Big Dumb American actually did some clarification which says the exact thing as my post you quoted does. The words aren't interchangeable, yet they seem to be used as the same thing. It's quite an important distinction especially when you start throwing ideas around like censorship.[/QUOTE] I was typing my post before your reply up there so I didn't see it. I'm fully aware the distinction needs to be made and I don't think anyone was confusing them. You did indeed jump the gun. As for comparing BLM to Nazism... really? That is so absurdly out of touch and ignorant of almost everything to do with the two groups I don't know where to start. For one, BLM isn't an ideology with some central tenets, and it isn't some kind of centralised organisation. That's just a huge whataboutism crammed onto a bent horseshoe.

[QUOTE=WhiteGirl88;52683746]I think you missed an oxford comma there.[/QUOTE] Are we really doing this?

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52683756]I'm fully aware the distinction needs to be made and I don't think anyone was confusing them. You did indeed jump the gun.[/QUOTE] The article makes no distinction. I only jumped the gun by misreading American's post. [QUOTE=Crumpet;52683756]As for comparing BLM to Nazism... really? That is so absurdly out of touch and ignorant of almost everything to do with the two groups I don't know where to start. For one, BLM isn't an ideology with some central tenets, and it isn't some kind of centralised organisation. That's just a huge whataboutism crammed onto a bent horseshoe.[/QUOTE] What's the major difference between yelling "what do we want? dead cops" and something that's sympathetic to Nazism?