Charlottesville Protests

[Time the Crestfallen]

43 minutes ago, Comrade said:

That's a meme but it accurate represents my feelings about collectivists.

1. Fucking /pol/ memes.

2. Do you not see how responding to a terrorist attack by Neo-Nazis by expressing an intent to murder people from ideologies you disagree with is a bit tone-deaf and inappropriate? And doing so with a fucking /pol/ meme no less?

43 minutes ago, Comrade said:

It seems to me that people who don't like what I say are frustrated that I'm simply not echoing the party line of "we must only condemn Nazis because clearly everyone else is pure-hearted and good". I reject that and condemn all genocidal ideologies.

Your 'condemnation' was followed by defending their right to hoist the Nazi flag in public (completely missing the point), the aforementioned /pol/ meme, and then followed up with a paragraph of straw-man, victim-blaming bullshit about how it's the left's fault that white supremacists murdered someone. Funny how you seem to get more worked up blaming the left for the rise in White Supremacy and dragging Anti-Fa/Communism into this than you do about a Neo-Nazi murdering someone.

43 minutes ago, Comrade said:

If that means that I have no decency, sure. If anything, it would seem that I have more than you because I'm not apologizing for an ideology that is inherently murderous.

The only 'inherently murderous' ideologies in this issue are White Supremacy and Nazism. This 'both sides are equally bad' shtick is stupid, especially considering the topic at hand.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Mortarion

[Shoblongoo]

We're putting our thoughts in meme form now? Okay:

Edited August 17, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

18 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

We're putting our thoughts in meme form now? Okay:

That seems to very accurately sum up the past six pages of conversation.

[blah the Prussian]

Alright, serious question: do you think it should be legal to punch Nazis, and what are the mechanics of this? How Nazi does this have to be? How hard are you allowed to punch them? Look, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I feel like people who advocate political violence like this haven't thought through a lot of the neccesary details.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

Alright, serious question: do you think it should be legal to punch Nazis.

As a general rule--no. With a caveat. 

Aversion to private, extralegal violence as an answer to hate groups presupposes the adequacy and attention of lawful channels of protection against them.  

Where a uniformed officer of the law will immediately use lethal force within seconds of arriving in a park where a 12 year old black boy is playing with a toy gun, and the law will deem his actions justified and appropriate in the reasonable interests of law enforcement. But an entire department will standby and watch columns of armed skinheads terrorize a community for hours, with not-so-much as a stand down order. And where the leader of the country cannot morally distinguish between the White Supremacists and the opponents of White Supremacy, but from the podium of high office declares an equivalency between the two.    

Then I cannot say punching Nazis should be legal. But I won't say that it is without excuse, or without grounding in reasonable fear whether everything will be OK if you just follow the law and leave it to the police and to the Justice Department to do their job.

Like—if I’m a municipal court judge. And I’m sitting on the bench hearing a simple assault case. And if the Defendant tells me “Judge. That man is a Nazi. He was marching with Nazis. So I punched him.”  

I’m not dropping charges. But I’m weighing that as a mitigating factor, and giving the Defendant the lightest possible sentence I’m allowed to give him.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

34 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Alright, serious question: do you think it should be legal to punch Nazis, and what are the mechanics of this? How Nazi does this have to be? How hard are you allowed to punch them? Look, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I feel like people who advocate political violence like this haven't thought through a lot of the neccesary details.

Self defense only, belligerent enough to attack a neutral, and as hard as it takes to be able to retreat. The only political violence I advocate is when oppression is de jure, universal, dehumanizing, and long term.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

As a general rule--no. With a caveat. 

Aversion to private, extralegal violence as an answer to hate groups presupposes the adequacy and attention of lawful channels of protection against them.  

Where a uniformed officer of the law will immediately use lethal force within seconds of arriving in a park where a 12 year old black boy is playing with a toy gun, and the law will deem his actions justified and appropriate in the reasonable interests of law enforcement. But an entire department will standby and watch columns of armed skinheads terrorize a community for hours, with not-so-much as a stand down order. And where the leader of the country cannot morally distinguish between the White Supremacists and the opponents of White Supremacy, but from the podium of high office declares an equivalency between the two.    

Then I cannot say punching Nazis should be legal. But I won't say that it is without excuse, or without grounding in reasonable fear whether everything will be OK if you just follow the law and leave it to the police and to the Justice Department to do their job.

Like—if I’m a municipal court judge. And I’m sitting on the bench hearing a simple assault case. And if the Defendant tells me “Judge. That man is a Nazi. He was marching with Nazis. So I punched him.”  

I’m not dropping charges. But I’m weighing that as a mitigating factor, and giving the Defendant the lightest possible sentence I’m allowed to give him.

Fine answer. I'm not denying the moral okay ess of punishing a Nazi, but yeah, I'd give someone probation at worst. Now, if he was a member of Antifa that might change a bit, if he had a consistent record, etc. but spur of the moment? Absolutely. And I do think that the government's kowtowing to a White Supremacists is a worse problem than punching said White Supremacists.

[peener weener]

5 hours ago, Comrade said:

That's a meme but it accurate represents my feelings about collectivists.

 

It seems to me that people who don't like what I say are frustrated that I'm simply not echoing the party line of "we must only condemn Nazis because clearly everyone else is pure-hearted and good". I reject that and condemn all genocidal ideologies.

 

If that means that I have no decency, sure. If anything, it would seem that I have more than you because I'm not apologizing for an ideology that is inherently murderous.

 

 

and you do not see the irony in this post, i assume

[Shoblongoo]

If you equate Nazism, the KKK, and neo-confederates to shit like Antifa, Occupy Wall Street, and ISO. Then yes—you are apologizing for an ideology that is inherently murderous.

Because you are equalizing said ideology to things that aren’t even in the same moral universe.  

Edited August 17, 2017 by Shoblongoo

[Phoenix Wright]

thank you identity politics for making it that much harder for humans to reason. 

life, the left and right are not sports teams. when your nfl team does something wrong (dirty hit or something) you can talk to me and say, yeah well the rams did such and such. that works. 

a nazi ran over a politically left-leaning woman because that's what they do. it is not surprising, though is plenty tragic. 

yes, violence came to the nazis as well. but no one was even beaten, let alone killed. 

they are not equal. you cannot aim to defend nazis because they are, at the end of the day, right-leaning. that is madness. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

And I'm back.

On 8/14/2017 at 6:06 AM, Jotari said:

RE: Basically everyone who responded to my last point. I'm not saying that intolerance should be taken lying down and just accepted or ignored. But I do think that treating opinions as the be all and end all of a person isn't the way to go (actions are much more important than opinions). People are more than the sum of their beliefs and treating someone as a demon because they follow a philosophy that you see as monstrous isn't going to actually help anyone. Rationally debating and disproving their world view is what should be done. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of the speech I agree with. It means everyone get's a say, everyone gets their opinions expressed even if you strongly disagree with it.

Can't change minds without figuring out WHY people believe what they do.  Some of the people I see on a daily basis have personal beliefs that are drastically different than mine, at least one of which puts me at increased personal risk.  Simply outcasting doesn't address the root of the issue - figure out whether it's a true personal flaw, or simply a belief based on screwy information.  People can change for the better.

The minute ideology turns to harming other people, though, is when I put my foot down.

On 8/14/2017 at 6:43 AM, blah the Prussian said:

I used to be firmly against removing statues, but my perspective changed in the Czech Republic. There, and indeed in all of the former Warsaw Pact states, you had statues of men like Lenin and Stalin, people who represented foreign domination and Communist oppression to the peoples of these countries, and depending on the country, i.e. Ukraine, genocide. To take down those statues is definitely right and just. People like Lee and Davis(incidentally the idea that Lee treated his slaves well is a myth, especially relative to how they were treated by their former owners, source is here:https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/arlington-bobby-lee-and-the-peculiar-institution/61428/) play a similar role to Black Americans as men like Lenin and Stalin did for Eastern Europe. If you think removing the statues of the latter is good, you should be in favor of removing those of the former, and if you oppose removing the former statues, ask yourself if you would feel the same if the topic concerned the removal of the statues of Communist leaders, or Saddam Hussein.

I'd much rather have an educational inscription added to any existing statues - that way, people can learn about the people depicted, and the artist's creation is intact.

On 8/14/2017 at 8:06 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Trump had harsher condemnation for the African-American CEO who resigned from the president's advisory board in protest to Trump's response to Charlotsville then he had for the Nazis or Klansmen. It's his base--and not by accident--he actively courted them. I don't think Trump himself is a hardcore racist so much a user and an enabler, who saw Political advantage in elevating these bozos. Trump not being sufficiently repulsed by Nazis and Klansmen to think this is a really bad idea has less to do with racism, imo. And more to do with him just being universally amoral and without shame or social conscience in all aspects of life and business.

. . .and. . .bingo!

This may also be a matter of self-preservation as well.  If these guys are willing to attack people, and Trump pisses them off, it may end up worse for him, personally.  If there's one thing I'm absolutely sure about Trump, it's that he will serve his personal interests.

---

My reaction to the mess is this: When things like this are being tweeted, it's time to roll the military in.  There's a difference between protests and showing up with torches and weapons.  The latter shows intent to start shit, and THAT shouldn't be tolerated.

[Stephen the Great]

7 hours ago, eclipse said:

This may also be a matter of self-preservation as well.  If these guys are willing to attack people, and Trump pisses them off, it may end up worse for him, personally.  If there's one thing I'm absolutely sure about Trump, it's that he will serve his personal interests.

Well, one would have to blind to not see just how self-serving and hypocritical Trump can be. Besides, these far-rightists have a tendency towards being vengeful. If they see Trump as having offended them, they will call him traitor and besiege the White House for all they are worth.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

My own two cents are a remarkably prescient statement from a prominent writer 97 years ago:

Note the last sentence.

Spoiler

If I might be honest, if I was in Charlottesville myself, I would be marching with the counter-protesters even if my views may differ from theirs on some issues. I wholeheartedly agree with the left in that racist nonsense ("Jew will not overtake us!"), violent bigotry against any group, and white supremacism cannot and should not be tolerated. As one of the posters said, there is a major difference between protests and marching with torches (which was one of Hitler's favorite tactics).

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Ottokar

[Jotari]

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

And I'm back.

Can't change minds without figuring out WHY people believe what they do.  Some of the people I see on a daily basis have personal beliefs that are drastically different than mine, at least one of which puts me at increased personal risk.  Simply outcasting doesn't address the root of the issue - figure out whether it's a true personal flaw, or simply a belief based on screwy information.  People can change for the better.

The minute ideology turns to harming other people, though, is when I put my foot down.

I'd much rather have an educational inscription added to any existing statues - that way, people can learn about the people depicted, and the artist's creation is intact.

. . .and. . .bingo!

This may also be a matter of self-preservation as well.  If these guys are willing to attack people, and Trump pisses them off, it may end up worse for him, personally.  If there's one thing I'm absolutely sure about Trump, it's that he will serve his personal interests.

---

My reaction to the mess is this: When things like this are being tweeted, it's time to roll the military in.  There's a difference between protests and showing up with torches and weapons.  The latter shows intent to start shit, and THAT shouldn't be tolerated.

Exactly. Humans mighty be greedy and selfish but we're not random. There's an under lying reason for everything. Facism didnt come about because a disproportionate number of evil people were born in the early twenthieth century. There are reasons and causes for these things. The most sensible thing to do is undestand these factors and educate people on why it doesnt justify violence or discrimination.

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Exactly. Humans mighty be greedy and selfish but we're not random. There's an under lying reason for everything. Facism didnt come about because a disproportionate number of evil people were born in the early twenthieth century. There are reasons and causes for these things. The most sensible thing to do is understand these factors and educate people on why it doesn't justify violence or discrimination.

Easier said than done mate. Even on this issue alone, there is a metaphorical mountain of information out there debunking both the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and the myth of General Lee being a kind, anti-slavery soul standing up for State Rights, and yet here we are.

If change ever occurs, it will be accomplished through a mutual effort where both parties put their best foot forward, not through this idea of out-of-touch, ivory-tower leftists leaving their bubbles and trying to understand the poor, hard done by rural communities. I bought into the latter crap in the wake of Trump's election, and the experience can be charitably described as banning my head against a brick wall.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Mortarion said:

Easier said than done mate. Even on this issue alone, there is a metaphorical mountain of information out there debunking both the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and the myth of General Lee being a kind, anti-slavery soul standing up for State Rights, and yet here we are.

If change ever occurs, it will be accomplished through a mutual effort where both parties put their best foot forward, not through this idea of out-of-touch, ivory-tower leftists leaving their bubbles and trying to understand the poor, hard done by rural communities. I bought into the latter crap in the wake of Trump's election, and the experience can be charitably described as banning my head against a brick wall.

It's important to mention that there is a difference between the poor whites who voted for Trump and the people at Charlottesville, I.E. there isn't much of an overlap. White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, etc. don't tend to be poor; Richard Spencer, for example, was a prep kid.

I don't advocate we try to change the minds of poor Conservatives throug debate. We need action; show them we support their interests through advocating public works programs, increased attention to rural areas, etc. Right now liberal activism is focused too much on Trump as a person and not what his election represents.

[Time the Crestfallen]

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

It's important to mention that there is a difference between the poor whites who voted for Trump and the people at Charlottesville, I.E. there isn't much of an overlap. White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, etc. don't tend to be poor; Richard Spencer, for example, was a prep kid.

1. Not all Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists? Sure, absolutely. But it doesn't change the fact that varying degrees of racism and sexism are better predictors of support for Trump than the much touted 'economic anxiety'.

2. Obviously there isn't a complete overlap. That the Alt-Right is a largely internet based movement is evidence enough of that.

3. Related to the above two points, racism ≠ Neo-Nazism/White Supremacy. I don't doubt that the majority of Trump supporters don't believe in the whole Aryan master-race crap, but if you asked me if a majority of them held negative, reductive views on one or a combination of feminism, homosexuality, immigration, Islamic terrorism and BLM, I would absolutely say yes. Continuing with the point I made above, one need only look at past controversies involving the Confederate Flag/monuments. State Rights, Southern Pride, White Pride, I've seen so many different defences of the Confederacy that it's almost comical. Is the existence of such reasoning not the entire point of the Lost Cause? The point here is that rural communities are living in a far bigger bubble than urban communities, albeit ones purposefully created and maintained (#FuckMurdoch). Neo-Nazi or not, Republican and Evangelical propaganda has led to the rise of some very toxic ideas that urban communities alone cannot address.

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

I don't advocate we try to change the minds of poor Conservatives throug debate. We need action; show them we support their interests through advocating public works programs, increased attention to rural areas, etc. Right now liberal activism is focused too much on Trump as a person and not what his election represents.

1. Yes, but Hillary Clinton did have a plan for fixing problems with rural areas and she was spurned in favour of Trump, who only offered empty promises and scapegoating because apparently nuking the political establishment was more important than having a qualified candidate and in spite of the fact that many of the political problems domestically can be traced back to Republican obstructionism.

2. Even if they have been forgotten by the government, who's fault is it? Rural communities are, overall, significantly over-represented at all levels of government, especially at the Federal level (and this is without mentioning the extremely aggressive gerrymandering going on in Republican states). If they can be forgotten by the government despite being disproportionately represented by said government, then they're doing something wrong.

3. I wouldn't say they're too focused on Trump as much as it is a poor effort at multi-tasking. While there are other things that need to be done, I'd say Trump's scandals are receiving a due amount of action considering that he's the POTUS, that he's deliberately courting Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists, and that his campaign is currently under investigation for collusion with a foreign power

Edited August 20, 2017 by Mortarion

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Mortarion said:

1. Not all Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists? Sure, absolutely. But it doesn't change the fact that varying degrees of racism and sexism are better predictors of support for Trump than the much touted 'economic anxiety'.

2. Obviously there isn't a complete overlap. That the Alt-Right is a largely internet based movement is evidence enough of that.

3. Related to the above two points, racism ≠ Neo-Nazism/White Supremacy. I don't doubt that the majority of Trump supporters don't believe in the whole Aryan master-race crap, but if you asked me if a majority of them held negative, reductive views on one or a combination of feminism, homosexuality, immigration, Islamic terrorism and BLM, I would absolutely say yes. Continuing with the point I made above, one need only look at past controversies involving the Confederate Flag/monuments. State Rights, Southern Pride, White Pride, I've seen so many different defences of the Confederacy that it's almost comical. Is the existence of such reasoning not the entire point of the Lost Cause? The point here is that rural communities are living in a far bigger bubble than urban communities, albeit ones purposefully created and maintained (#FuckMurdoch). Neo-Nazi or not, Republican and Evangelical propaganda has led to the rise of some very toxic ideas that urban communities alone cannot address.

9 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

I agree with pretty much all of this. However, I want to emphasize that, no matter how racist one is, that does not mean that one is less deserving of one's due. Economic security, healthcare, etc.-frankly, you could be a neo Nazi and still deserve all of this.

7 hours ago, Mortarion said:

Yes, but Hillary Clinton did have a plan for fixing problems with rural areas and she was spurned in favour of Trump, who only offered empty promises and scapegoating because apparently nuking the political establishment was more important than having a qualified candidate and in spite of the fact that many of the political problems domestically can be traced back to Republican obstructionism.

 

She also ran one of the most incompetant campaigns in the history of the country, didn't visit many of the areas she wanted to help(so how to communicate that) and communicated her ideas in general very poorly. This isn't an indicator that her ideas on this matter wouldn't be popular with working class White's, just that Hillary Cointon was an incompetant candidate.

[Time the Crestfallen]

50 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I agree with pretty much all of this. However, I want to emphasize that, no matter how racist one is, that does not mean that one is less deserving of one's due. Economic security, healthcare, etc.-frankly, you could be a neo Nazi and still deserve all of this.

I don't recall ever saying that their views means they don't deserve such things. Unless I've implied something I didn't mean to, everything I've said is;

a) explaining my views on the current divide between urban and rural communities
b) explaining why they don't have the things they want, despite having a vastly disproportionate voice in US politics relative to their population size
c) about how the incubation of toxic ideas damages their causes, regardless of whether or not most of them could be considered to fall under far-right extremism.

50 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

She also ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in the history of the country, didn't visit many of the areas she wanted to help(so how to communicate that) and communicated her ideas in general very poorly. This isn't an indicator that her ideas on this matter wouldn't be popular with working class White's, just that Hillary Clinton was an incompetent candidate.

Yeah, her campaign was pretty shit. However, this is undercut by the fact that she was running against Trump, who realistically shouldn't have even made it to the primaries considering his weekly gaffs and the irradiated skeletons that came tumbling out of the closet. As poor a job as Clinton did, I doubt anything she did comes close to that of Trump University, his antics over the Central Park 5, his childish criticism of war veterans despite being a draft-dodger, his housing discrimination or his taped confession to sexual assault. This holds true when one considers that despite her poorly run campaign, she still won the popular vote. So how does one arrive at the conclusion that Trump was a better candidate than Clinton?

a) As the link I posted about voter trends would imply, a majority of his supporters (slim or large) agree with everything he had to say about women, minorities and immigrants, which proves my point about the incubation of toxic ideology within rural communities

b) That the right-wing media bubble *cough couch* Faux News *cough cough* (#FuckMurdoch) significantly downplayed Trump's controversies and significantly exaggerated Clinton's controversies in order to aid in pushing Trump's anti-establishment angle because as unpopular as he was with the GOP establishment, they couldn't afford the loss. This would fit in line with both what I've said about rural communities living in a deliberately cultivated media bubble as well as the fact that the demonisation of Hillary is far from something new.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Mortarion

[blah the Prussian]

Agree with everything; I wasn't saying you thought they shouldn't have this, just that as of late I've seen some Liberals arguing that because these people are disproportionately racist, sexist, whatever, that that excuses not caring about them. That's the subtext I've seen in people saying, for example "they're just angry their privilege is gone".

[Time the Crestfallen]

22 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Agree with everything; I wasn't saying you thought they shouldn't have this, just that as of late I've seen some Liberals arguing that because these people are disproportionately racist, sexist, whatever, that that excuses not caring about them. That's the subtext I've seen in people saying, for example "they're just angry their privilege is gone".

Oh yes, I've certainly seen this. Not without cause though; if this is on the internet, the majority of people they come across with this beliefs will tend to be the alt-right, /pol/, t_D, KIA types who do tend to fit the 'angry because their privilege is gone' type, and then applying the same logic to the rural communities who, despite exhibiting the same overall beliefs, have said beliefs originate in different ways and results in legitimate grievances getting swept under the rug through a failure to differentiate between the two. People raised in evangelical rural communities in the right-wing media bubble who nonetheless have valid issues don't deserve the same scorn as basement-dwelling, neckbeard incels getting pissy about the SJW feminazis censoring/corrupting his vidya gaems. Same genus, different species as it were.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Mortarion

[Phoenix Wright]

On 8/19/2017 at 11:09 AM, eclipse said:

I'd much rather have an educational inscription added to any existing statues - that way, people can learn about the people depicted, and the artist's creation is intact.

what is the point of having a statue (a symbol of praise and admiration) of a bad historical figure? 

what you're describing is a museum exhibit. you give the apollo 11 astronauts a statue, not the most prominent enemies of the united states.

[Stephen the Great]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:10 AM, blah the Prussian said:

I wasn't saying you thought they shouldn't have this, just that as of late I've seen some Liberals arguing that because these people are disproportionately racist, sexist, whatever, that that excuses not caring about them. That's the subtext I've seen in people saying, for example "they're just angry their privilege is gone".

Yeah, I've heard that a lot from my liberal acquaintances. But all human beings are created equal and thereby have the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of race, religion, sex/gender, political affiliation, etc.. It is patently unjustifiable to deny someone something they need to live on account of something that they do not hold in common with you or the Establishment.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men (read: human beings) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…" 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Ottokar

[Stephen the Great]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:32 AM, Mortarion said:

Oh yes, I've certainly seen this. Not without cause though; if this is on the internet, the majority of people they come across with this beliefs will tend to be the alt-right, /pol/, t_D, KIA types who do tend to fit the 'angry because their privilege is gone' type, and then applying the same logic to the rural communities who, despite exhibiting the same overall beliefs, have said beliefs originate in different ways and results in legitimate grievances getting swept under the rug through a failure to differentiate between the two. People raised in evangelical rural communities in the right-wing media bubble who nonetheless have valid issues don't deserve the same scorn as basement-dwelling, neckbeard incels getting pissy about the SJW feminazis censoring/corrupting his vidya gaems. Same genus, different species as it were.

Duly seconded. The distinction between those two types of person needs to be made.

[Res]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:32 AM, Mortarion said:

People raised in evangelical rural communities in the right-wing media bubble who nonetheless have valid issues don't deserve the same scorn as basement-dwelling, neckbeard incels getting pissy about the SJW feminazis censoring/corrupting his vidya gaems. Same genus, different species as it were.

I don't know; the latter are *largely* harmless. The former actually wield a lot of political influence and are the ones making the laws (including laws that would allow people to legally mow down protestors, Texas's new 'rape insurance' bill, etc.).

6 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

what is the point of having a statue (a symbol of praise and admiration) of a bad historical figure? 

what you're describing is a museum exhibit. you give the apollo 11 astronauts a statue, not the most prominent enemies of the united states.

Yes... it's also worth bearing in mind that most confederate statues were erected decades after the civil war with the sole purpose of being white propaganda - they were also largely mass-made, were cheap (hence the photos of them being easily crumpled) and have next to no artistic value. 

 

[Time the Crestfallen]

11 hours ago, Res said:

I don't know; the latter are *largely* harmless.

Not really? I mean sure, they're not responsible for as much wide-spread issues, but anybody who tells me stuff like the Red-Pill is harmless IRL is getting a smack.

11 hours ago, Res said:

The former actually wield a lot of political influence and are the ones making the laws (including laws that would allow people to legally mow down protestors, Texas's new 'rape insurance' bill, etc.).

I wasn't trying to apologise for what they do, so sorry if it came across that way. It was more saying that while the views aren't any less contemptible, I have a bit more understanding for people born into a toxic culture and blasted by right-wing propaganda every day (#FuckMurdoch) than a person who has access to all the information we have available proving that such views are wrong, and managing to be just as bad and sometimes worse, as well as acknowledging that for all the shittiness that they do have legitimate issues that need to be addressed.