(02-02-2017 10:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/white-nationalist-richard-spencer-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

Well, I didn't know who he is, who he leads, how many they are, and still don't know where they are from. I really don't consider him associated with my political beliefs, any more than (I assume) you consider Raul Castro associated with your political beliefs.

this is the thought that offends me:
"But I understand the desire to minimize who he is".

because you are generally a good guy, I presumed that it was inadvertent. But now you are doubling down on it.

I don't know the name of the leader of the KKK or Westboro Baptist, so I will have no reason to minimize who they are.

I presume you are equally unaware of the names of some of the far left leaders.

I consider all white supremacists to be fringe and cult. I don't like them being associated with me in any way, nor do I agree with them in any way. Being conservative is not the same as being racist, although I hear that a lot.

I had no ulterior motive in calling him a fringe cult leader. Seems apropos.

OO, again, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying and perhaps the tone came across harsher than necessary - I didn't really think you had an ulterior motive in the way it seems like you're suggesting. I don't think that your comments about Spencer had any air of racism to them (like I said already).

I understand that you don't like Spencer and his ilk being associated with you in anyway, and that is why I said I understood why you were minimizing who he was - because, in essence, you don't believe he is your type of conservative. And while you don't think he is associated with your political party, the reality is that he has latched himself onto your side of the spectrum and he and those he represents have become not only emboldened since the inauguration of Trump, but they have become a fairly loud voice in politics. Therefore, whether your like it or not, when these alt-right wackos start posting their hateful crap, your side of the political divide has to deal with it unless it is fervently denounced by the party as a whole. And it's especially bad when their ideas/beliefs start oozing their way into Trump's actions, as they are. Heck, just look at what David Duke said:

Quote:‘Everything I’ve been talking about for decades is coming true and the ideas I’ve fought for have won. #winning’

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/david-duke-says-hes-winning-2017-02-01


As I said, it's not different than how fringe liberal groups get lumped into the Dems, even though they rarely represent the mainstream liberal identity.

Or perhaps it is just a semantics issue. I could agree with a characterization of Spencer and the alt-right as a fringe element on the right, but they are no cult. These guys are politically active and are trying to push an agenda of hate and racial superiority into our politics - cult leaders don't get political.

(02-03-2017 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find it very interesting that some tell others that they need to quote the extremists like Spencer and try to associate that ilk with anything on on the Republican side, but utterly fail to do the same association with the extremists (or 'rioters') associated with their own side of the pond.

Alt-right might be a problem, but it seems that it is the fing riots of the alt-left that tend to burn cars, buildings, atms.....

This is not a defense of wackjobs like Spencer and Duke, but when you are complaining about extremism, at least dont seemingly be blind to the left-side of extremist thought. (unless riots aren't extremism in your mind...)

Hate to tell you but the violence from the left isn't constrained to Berkeley --- looking back on it the riot and assualts at the Trump rally in San Jose during the campaign season wasn't a one-off it was just seemingly a precursor to what the alt-left *actually* seems to do very well these days.

Edited to add:

another wonderful example of alt-left tolerance in action:

http://www.nyunews.com/2017/02/02/2-2-news-gavin/

Just putting this up there as a reminder that the issues with extremism is not limited to the right.....

(02-03-2017 07:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find it very interesting that some tell others that they need to quote the extremists like Spencer and try to associate that ilk with anything on on the Republican side, but utterly fail to do the same association with the extremists (or 'rioters') associated with their own side of the pond.

Alt-right might be a problem, but it seems that it is the fing riots of the alt-left that tend to burn cars, buildings, atms.....

This is not a defense of wackjobs like Spencer and Duke, but when you are complaining about extremism, at least dont seemingly be blind to the left-side of extremist thought. (unless riots aren't extremism in your mind...)

Hate to tell you but the violence from the left isn't constrained to Berkeley --- looking back on it the riot and assualts at the Trump rally in San Jose during the campaign season wasn't a one-off it was just seemingly a precursor to what the alt-left *actually* seems to do very well these days.

Edited to add:

another wonderful example of alt-left tolerance in action:

http://www.nyunews.com/2017/02/02/2-2-news-gavin/

Just putting this up there as a reminder that the issues with extremism is not limited to the right.....

First of all, I am not trying to stretch and associate Spencer and Duke with the Republican side - they are doing it themselves out in the open.

Quote:And the key problem with your comparison between the anarchist rioters and these public figures is that these rioters were not aligning themselves with a particular person on the left - there were no chants for Hillary, Schumer, or even Bernie. So that is a key distinction - Spencer and Duke are publicly supporting a candidate and their action associated with one of the mainstream parties, while the other group you mention (these anarchists) are not.

Quote:So you're right, there are extremes on the left side of the ideological spectrum, but the reason they are not getting the same attention is because either: 1) they aren't in direct support of a candidate; 2) they are being actively denounced by a candidate they are associated with; or 3) the actors aren't even associated with the party.

Quote:There is no attempt on my part to try and avoid the acts of violence perpetrated by some individuals like the anarchists in Berkley recently. These acts are senseless, illogical, illegal, and cruel.

Quote:But I do not see Democratic politicians openly calling for violence

Quote:or dog whistling calls to arms. If you want to provide me some sources saying otherwise, I'd be happy to read them.

(02-03-2017 10:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Problem is that rational people really don't 'blame' the mainstream left for the riots and punching bag syndrome that suddenly seems to be the fashion du jour, nor would they be openly be chastising the mainstream left for the *actions* (actions, mind you) that the alt-left seems to like to leave in its smoking wake these days.

But the left seems very worked up to blame the mainstream right for the words (yep, words, not actions) of the alt-right and very easily blames the mainstream right for the alt-right without ever bothering to see that it enjoys (imo) pretty much the same relationship with the alt-left.... its a very interesting (ironic) dichotomy there in my opinion.

So what we are left is that wackjobs openly support one side and say bad things, so it is okay and decent to apportion that bad stuff to side with that 'support' notwithstanding the relationship isnt bilateral. But blame dogwhistles and secret decoder rings and secret commands and surreptitious support (because they are racist, of course).....

Then we have wackjobs who openly support the other side and burn property, destroy property, loot, and beat people who support those who openly support Trump, and it is not okay to apportion that stuff to the the political side that they support. Sounds logical to me......

Side note: does anybody find a strong bit of irony in a crowd, carrying anti-fascism slogans, being complicit in inaction (or the odd bit of cheering) while those who they disagree with politically are beaten or pepper-sprayed? It is really disturbing, but still ironic....

(02-03-2017 12:21 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

Also for those denying that it ever happened:

(02-03-2017 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find it very interesting that some tell others that they need to quote the extremists like Spencer and try to associate that ilk with anything on on the Republican side, but utterly fail to do the same association with the extremists (or 'rioters') associated with their own side of the pond.

(02-05-2017 03:11 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 03:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I find it very interesting that some tell others that they need to quote the extremists like Spencer and try to associate that ilk with anything on on the Republican side, but utterly fail to do the same association with the extremists (or 'rioters') associated with their own side of the pond.

You have this entirely backward. RiceLad's point was that Trump blew another dog whistle, crafted to prick up the ears of anti-Semites. You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but Trump's team is doing this stuff with intent. Who is Trump's number one influencer, his Karl Rove? Steve Bannon. Who is Steve Bannon? The guy who turned Breitbart News into what he himself described as the "platform for the alt-right" ( http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news ). And what is the alt-right*? A big mix of extreme conservatism, heavy on the white nationalism and anti-Semitism.

If you want evidence that a dog whistle has been used, what can you do but listen for the barking? I pointed out the Stormfront barking after Trump's subtly anti-Semitic campaign ad. Here, RiceLad is pointing it out in the Richard Spencer quotes. Barking.

Your references to the rioters are not comparable. Yes, those people are shitbags. Now if you were positing that Democratic leadership (Hillary, Obama, ...) is dog whistling them, it would support your contention that what Trump is doing is normal and happens on both sides. But you're not.

*If you want to know more about the alt-right, well let's see: Who does Milo Yiannopoulos (Breitbart's top writer) tell us "founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought"? Why, none other than Richard Spencer! http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

(02-05-2017 03:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Dog whistle means something that is heard only by the dog. These so-called "dog whistles" keep generating a lot of reaction from everybody but the "dogs" and, so far at least, not much of a reaction from the "dogs." One would logically conclude that they are not "dog whistles."

(02-05-2017 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would venture to say that neither Richard Spencer nor David Duke would need to wait on any dog whistles before speaking up.

(02-05-2017 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would venture to say that neither Richard Spencer nor David Duke would need to wait on any dog whistles before speaking up.

You're right that they don't need to. But that they have responded directly to some of the actions by the Trump administration. That is the key.

(02-05-2017 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have congressional contacts on both sides of the aisle who have told me that probably 90% of congress actually get along and understand the issues, and could resolve most of them if only we could lock the president and congressional leaders up long enough for them to do it. For example, back during the shutdown/sequester time frame, I heard from both sides of the aisle that the solution was easy if only we could get Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Boehner and McConnell to quit posturing and shut up.

(02-05-2017 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would venture to say that neither Richard Spencer nor David Duke would need to wait on any dog whistles before speaking up.

You're right that they don't need to. But that they have responded directly to some of the actions by the Trump administration. That is the key.

Lets sum this up:

Trump makes a statement
Spencer comments on that statement
Therefore there must be intentional dog whistles in Trump's statement....

With all due respect there is a *major* lack of substance and/or backing in that chain.

I guess anytime Spencer, or Duke, or Westboro (or anybody like that) comments on anything that Trump did or said, we will pretty much always expect from this time going forward that it is "obviously" dog whistles being blown intentionally expressly for that purpose; glad I have that figured out now.

(02-05-2017 03:11 AM)JOwl Wrote:  You have this entirely backward. RiceLad's point was that Trump blew another dog whistle, crafted to prick up the ears of anti-Semites.

(02-05-2017 09:02 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have congressional contacts on both sides of the aisle who have told me that probably 90% of congress actually get along and understand the issues, and could resolve most of them if only we could lock the president and congressional leaders up long enough for them to do it. For example, back during the shutdown/sequester time frame, I heard from both sides of the aisle that the solution was easy if only we could get Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Boehner and McConnell to quit posturing and shut up.

If the problem is intransigent leadership, can't the supposed 90% of hunky-dory congresspeople just replace the intransigent leaders with less intransigent ones? Or perhaps Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Boehner (Ryan) and McConnell aren't the only ones posturing. Kind of like congressional Republicans being more than happy to send a million repeal-ACA bills to Obama when they were sure he would veto them, then "suddenly" having a serious case of buyer's remorse when they realized Trump might actually sign one of the damn things. It takes more than two congressional leaders to pass a bill.

(02-05-2017 08:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 04:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would venture to say that neither Richard Spencer nor David Duke would need to wait on any dog whistles before speaking up.

You're right that they don't need to. But that they have responded directly to some of the actions by the Trump administration. That is the key.

Lets sum this up:

Trump makes a statement
Spencer comments on that statement
Therefore there must be intentional dog whistles in Trump's statement....

With all due respect there is a *major* lack of substance and/or backing in that chain.

I guess anytime Spencer, or Duke, or Westboro (or anybody like that) comments on anything that Trump did or said, we will pretty much always expect from this time going forward that it is "obviously" dog whistles being blown intentionally expressly for that purpose; glad I have that figured out now.

So, setting aside the debate regarding whether this is an appropriate use of the term "dog whistle," RiceLad's larger point remains: Whom, exactly, was Trump trying to please/incite/pander to by conspicuously neglecting to mention "Jews" when addressing the Holocaust?

(Of course, this assumes the oversight was intentional. But, given Trump's apparent belief that Frederick Douglass is still alive, I suppose he might also be ignorant of the fact that the Holocaust involved Jews. If this is the case, well, sure, no dog-whistling is occurring and you win this debate ;-)

Quote:Of course, this assumes the oversight and direct actions were intentional.

(02-03-2017 12:41 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:21 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

Also for those denying that it ever happened:

Bowling Green deniers!

Please tell me that Bowling Green plays on a grass field. I mean, they have to, right?