Post-Charlottesville "White Lives Matter" rally being organized in Texas; UPDATE: It got cancelled - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Marcolade;52573869][media]https://twitter.com/MWatkinsTrib/status/897221522879909889[/media] Good, fuck off back to your hidey-holes.[/QUOTE] Good. Here's hoping they don't make a move on Austin next.

[QUOTE=Marcolade;52573869][media]https://twitter.com/MWatkinsTrib/status/897221522879909889[/media] Good, fuck off back to your hidey-holes.[/QUOTE] Think they'll still try going?

[media]https://twitter.com/MWatkinsTrib/status/897229179669942273[/media] Governor Abbott was involved with nixing the rally.

Good. Go home, nazis.

[QUOTE=Flicky;52573904][media]https://twitter.com/MWatkinsTrib/status/897229179669942273[/media] Governor Abbott was involved with nixing the rally.[/QUOTE] So glad to see this.

So what's the main cause of this extreme right resurgence? I have bets on 4Chan and Fox news but I don't think just those two were responsible for this kind of mass.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52574801]So what's the main cause of this extreme right resurgence? I have bets on 4Chan and Fox news but I don't think just those two were responsible for this kind of mass.[/QUOTE] They decided to. A lot of people in this country feel this way and have just been waiting for somebody to say it for them.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52574801]So what's the main cause of this extreme right resurgence? I have bets on 4Chan and Fox news but I don't think just those two were responsible for this kind of mass.[/QUOTE] It's always been there. But it's being made more-prominent due to social media, and has been emboldened since 9/11, and especially the election of Trump. Who as we saw earlier, was prepared to effectively turn a blind eye to the white supremacists, until the public pressure got to him.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;52572671]this train isn't going to just stop, is it?[/QUOTE] This train has been going for about 6000 years, and the cycle has ebbs and surges. In a way it's "good" that it's happening because people need to be reminded that extremism does not and has not produced good things, pretty much [I]ever[/I]. Policies and beliefs based around intolerance and hatred need to be exposed to the sun and taken apart, and in a clinical logical manner, not just armchair internet smuggery. For better or worse, people need to be continually reminded freedom and liberty are not naturally occurring resources that just lay around waiting to be handed out. They are earned, and they have to be maintained.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52574801]So what's the main cause of this extreme right resurgence? I have bets on 4Chan and Fox news but I don't think just those two were responsible for this kind of mass.[/QUOTE] It's a network of news sites, forums, youtube channels, and allied movements with access to lots of people that know how to exploit the vulnerabilities of larger, uninvolved sites for their own gain in ways that the mainstream media does not.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52574801]So what's the main cause of this extreme right resurgence? I have bets on 4Chan and Fox news but I don't think just those two were responsible for this kind of mass.[/QUOTE] I've been thinking about this for a while and my personal guess is that it has to do with the gradual normalization of ethno-nationalist talking points in combination with the loss of collective identity in many areas of culture as a side effect of an increasingly interconnected, globalized world. This is pretty heavy stuff so I'm going to break it down a bit and give some historical context. This might seem a little bit disconnected at first, but hopefully by the end it'll come together and make sense. Back in the 1960s, a subsection of computer programmers were making progress in an area of artificial intelligence research that involved creating 'chat bots'- essentially really simple computer programs that would string words together from a database based on what a person typed into a computer. They were basically just machines that would repeat what people said back to them but by rephrasing it in such a way as to make the person using the bot think they were having a conversation with a real person. One of these programmers was Joseph Weizenbaum and he had the idea of creating a 'virtual therapist' based on this technology after realizing that most psychologists just rephrased and repeated what their patients said to them. Eliza, as he called it, was amazingly successful. People using the program felt immediately better about themselves and their life situation, this was despite the fact that they knew that Eliza was just a computer program. Years later, Mark Zuckerberg creates Facebook, which was initially only meant to be a way to keep track of other students and their photos at Harvard University, which he was attending. As Facebook has become a global phenomenon its focus has shifted from being a way to share photos with friends and family members to being the main source of news for many people. This has actually been mostly [url=http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/facebook-sharing-decline/]unintentional on the part of the Facebook company itself, and they have actually been losing money because of it.[/url] The social media echo chamber has sprang almost organically out of social media platforms, not as a result of deliberate marketing or financial incentives. The two previous paragraphs might seem tangential to each other, but I think they might be related. The success of Eliza came from the fact that it simply repeated back to people what they wanted to hear, i.e. their own thoughts and opinions. The success of Facebook comes from the fact that it uses an automated computer algorithm that feeds a user a constant stream of information based on what they 'like'. This is different from a conventional echo chamber like what people often accuse this forum of being. A conventional echo chamber is a place where everyone shares the same opinions and anyone who holds views that are too dissimilar from the group are ostracized. Facebook and Eliza are, on the other hand, almost mindless. What I mean by this is that in a conventional echo chamber there's still discussion going on. Ideas are being bounced back and forth, and ideas can still be challenged (though you'd have to be very careful about doing so, and only do so in baby steps). On the other hand, Eliza and the kind of environment cultivated by using Facebook over time is just having your own thoughts repeated back to you. Every belief is reaffirmed, every uncertainty is either dealt away with or magnified until it encompasses an entire conspiratorial worldview. How it works is that when you like a Facebook page, the algorithm notes that you like that kind of content and gives you more of it. As you like more pages, it starts providing more and more similar content so as to provide a steady curve of increasingly fringe political views. Because it eases you into it instead of showing you the most extreme stuff first, you gradually become more and more accepting of it without realizing. This is helped by the relative mindlessness of Facebook. It's a passive experience, where all you have to do is scroll down an infinite page without any need to actively think or be critical of what you're reading. Another thing that happens over time is that you start cutting off the sources that go against the narrative you're gradually forming in your head. Cutting off a source is as easy as clicking a single button, so it's increasingly tempting to unlike a page or unfollow a friend or family member that's making your head hurt too much. There's one last element I'd like to add, which is the economic context surrounding all of this. Prior to and during the rise of Facebook, the world is becoming increasingly globalized and interconnected. It is no longer possible to hold one job position for most of your adult life, people are constantly moving and often only have contact with others through social media. People no longer have close relationships with colleagues. [url=https://www.livescience.com/16879-close-friends-decrease-today.html]25 years ago people had on average three close friends, now they only have two.[/url] As the article indicates, this is less because human beings are less social as a whole, but more because people get more of their sense of social belonging from social media rather than workplace or real life friends or family. [QUOTE]"Interestingly, among those respondents who reported only one discussion partner, a number of them reported that their associate would not provide any of these benefits," Brashears said. "This leads me to think that we should be less concerned about social isolation, or lacking any social contact, and more concerned about social poverty, or not having adequate support."[/QUOTE] This is concerning because real life friends and family are what can really pull us back from the downward spiral of being indoctrinated into increasingly fringe political views. I don't believe arguing with people on the internet can actually convince someone who is genuinely invested in fringe political views or alter their opinion. In fact [url=https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/]cognitive studies suggest that challenging someones deepest held convictions only makes them more certain of themselves[/url]. The only thing that actually works is actually meeting people you disagree with politically in real life and seeing that they aren't bad people. To me, [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.00924b84ca5f]this was made most apparent in the case of Derek Black, son the founder of the neo-nazi website Stormfront.[/url] Who realized the wrongfulness of his beliefs by attending a jewish shabbat dinner with a christrian, an athiest, a black man and an hispanic man. They didn't talk about politics, at least initially. Instead they talked about common interests that they all shared, like historical reenactments and arabic grammar. Gradually Derek learned about the life experiences of some of these people. Only eventually and very gradually, they began to discuss political issues, and Derek was slowly convinced bit by bit, without even realizing it. Eventually he realized he no longer agreed with his father and the white supremacist movement. This is almost the exact inverse of how Facebook unintentionally slowly indoctrinates people into extremist views. So basically, that's how I believe we've seen a recent right wing resurgence of late. So naturally the next question is what can we do about it? Well I have an idea about that too. I stated earlier that facebook is losing revenue from people using it as a news platform and not sharing 'original content', i.e. personal information contained within status updates and photos, which is then sent on to third party advertising companies- which is ultimately how Facebook makes it's money. Another factor that I didn't mention is that in addendum or perhaps because of this process, [url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/22/facebook-princeton-researchers-infectious-disease]Facebook has a certain life expectancy where after it reaches a certain critical mass, it is expected to begin to decline[/url]. People may also [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/20/502567858/post-election-overwhelmed-facebook-users-unfriend-cut-back]stop using the website as it increasingly becomes taken over by political radicals and they become put off.[/url] Assuming this is true, the current resurgence of extreme right wing rhetoric will likely hit a crescendo and then fizzle out as people get sick of it and a mass exodus of facebook occurs. The true believers, those who are so indoctrinated in the ideology that they follow it onto other platforms, will likely move to whichever smaller alternative platform will take them. We've seen a microcosm of this occur with reddit and voat as well as 4chan and 8chan. It's unlikely that this will be the end of any and all social unrest, as I believe that stems from the deeper factors of people not having jobs or proper emotional networks around themselves, although it may be the end of the current wave of the far right political rhetoric. The only question is, can we survive until this happens?

[QUOTE=Zyler;52575016]Another factor that I didn't mention is that in addendum or perhaps because of this process, [url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/22/facebook-princeton-researchers-infectious-disease]Facebook has a certain life expectancy where after it reaches a certain critical mass, it is expected to begin to decline[/url].[/QUOTE] This is pretty tangential to your point but I'm actually really curious how the article's number of losing 80% of its users by 2017 holds up to current user numbers. Last I heard, Facebook's user count is still increasing. Though I think that count includes inactive accounts and those of dead users.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52575061]This is pretty tangential to your point but I'm actually really curious how the article's number of losing 80% of its users by 2017 holds up to current user numbers. Last I heard, Facebook's user count is still increasing. Though I think that count includes inactive accounts and those of dead users.[/QUOTE] I think the number of actual 'real' facebook users is vastly outnumbered by paid for bots and duplicate accounts. There's no way of actually knowing. [editline]15th August 2017[/editline] [url]http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/social-media-and-news-2016-appendix-a-2013-and-2016-trends/[/url] Pew research says that the percentage of facebook users who use it for news has increased between 2013 and 2016.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52572583]White nationalists really need to fuck off.[/QUOTE] Now I'm curious. I think it's slightly off-topic, but might aswell: Which precisely is it people are opposing? White nationalism or white [I]supremacy[/I]? From a linguistic viewpoint, people seem to use the two as if they're one and the same. I'll wager it's the supremacy we're against. It only seems obvious, after all. But white nationalism? Wikipedia: [QUOTE]White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity. Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation. White nationalists seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost. Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race, and some argue that it amounts to white genocide.[/QUOTE] Merriam Webster: [QUOTE]one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation.[/QUOTE] Merriam paints the word as a specifically aggressive, militant variant of white person, while Wikipedia is relatively flexible. What precisely is a white nationalist supposed to be? A supremacist is basically just a Nazi by these definitions, but how would you "grade" simpler, more benign traits of this, how would you even call it... mentality? For example, whites certainly are a race, and any man and woman of any culture and race seeking to maintain a cultural and national identity is not a bad or shameful thing. People who just love their roots and fellow people, NOT at the expense of other cultures or people, seems like a positive to me. What would you call these kinds of white people? There are certainly rather paranoid tenets listed, especially the bit about white genocide, but what kind of "label" would you apply to a white person who simply loves his or her country, it's people and it's culture and doesn't want to see them fade. Just as any man and woman from around the world should be able to love their homes and their fellow men and women and their unique cultures. Patriot? Simply nationalist? Even these have come to possess questionable connotations to some. White patriot? That sounds even weirder. I'm genuinely curious what label would you assign in this case.

Someone who just takes pride in white heritage and patriotism would simply be a patriot, probably. But the important part is that last bit: [QUOTE]They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost. Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race, and some argue that it amounts to white genocide.[/Quote] That's what turns a patriot into a nationalist and yeah my point kinda remains. Both white supremacists and white nationalists can fuck off. [editline]15th August 2017[/editline] I think too that it's hard to say that there's a "white culture" outside of jokes about not being able to dance. When I think culture, I think beyond skin color. Like there's Italian culture, Finnish culture, German or Polish culture. These are all what most people would label as "white" but they're more tied to where your family comes from originally, rather than what you look like. That's not to say that everyone practices things from their original geographic location or anything but "white people" aren't really one big collective in my mind because they can come from lots of different places. That's why I think nationalism and supremacy as a whole is stupid as shit. It's based solely on the fact that your skin meets a standard of "just light enough" and nothing else. If I was a shade lighter I'd probably be able to easily pass as white. So like. What's the point lol.

Why can't it just be regular nationalism. Why does it have to be white nationalism? It's just an excuse to be a racist and blame all your problems on a scapegoat.

[QUOTE=OvB;52576121]Why can't it just be regular nationalism. Why does it have to be white nationalism? It's just an excuse to be a racist and blame all your problems on a scapegoat.[/QUOTE] Nationalism in general seems to have a need for blaming problems on anything else than yourself or your country even if that's what actually caused the problems.

[QUOTE=OvB;52576121]Why can't it just be regular nationalism. Why does it have to be white nationalism? It's just an excuse to be a racist and blame all your problems on a scapegoat.[/QUOTE] Not that nationalism as a whole isn't pretty crap to begin with. It tends to center on an "us first and everybody last" approach to things which in the end results in making things worse for everyone.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52577144]Not that nationalism as a whole isn't pretty crap to begin with. It tends to center on an "us first and everybody last" approach to things which in the end results in making things worse for everyone.[/QUOTE] This is very true. Look at Mexico - the inclusion of Mexico into NAFTA essentially went "hey, Mexico has problems that are hurting us too - if we help them reach our level economically those problems will disappear and the country will stabilize." Now look at our administration's policy. Fuck you, pay for a wall, we're not helping, it's your fault. Instead of bringing Mexico up to our level and fostering a future major trade partner (like Mexico is rapidly becoming), we doubled down on nationalist rhetoric, started saying "why is NAFTA helping Mexico more than us?" We've been lashing out at other nations, instead of cooperating with them and solving domestic issues to benefit both the American people and their neighbors. It's pathetic.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52577144]Not that nationalism as a whole isn't pretty crap to begin with. It tends to center on an "us first and everybody last" approach to things which in the end results in making things worse for everyone.[/QUOTE] The thing to keep in mind is there's different types of nationalism. You have the infamous racial/ethno-nationalism that Nazis and fascists profess (which is absolutely incompatible with what our modern Western society stands for), but you also have liberal nationalism (which is non-xenophobic and promotes good civic values) and left-wing nationalism (which is a beefier version of liberal nationalism) for example-- both of which are good ideas and ought to be encouraged. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Civic_nationalism_and_liberal_nationalism[/url] What we [i]shouldn't[/i] do is fall for the fallacy that we're better than everyone else because of pseudo-factual reasons or nonsense like what skin color dominates our society. American Exceptionalism for example is complete shit and an example of bad nationalism. Racial/ethno-nationalism is obviously terrible, as history demonstrates.

[QUOTE=OvB;52576121]Why can't it just be regular nationalism. Why does it have to be white nationalism? It's just an excuse to be a racist and blame all your problems on a scapegoat.[/QUOTE] I prefer planetism, and perhaps someday universism. To have a loyalty to help humans and the Earth.

[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;52577534]I prefer planetism, and perhaps someday universism. To have a loyalty to help humans and the Earth.[/QUOTE] the word you want is humanism