The debate "Whataboutism is ruining our political discourse. It is a worthless distraction" was started by
November 22, 2017, 11:53 am.
28 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 23 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
blue_rayy, hindsightnow, rani and 25 visitors agree.
soccer19 and 10 visitors disagree.
Okay, I believe we can actually have a discussion using this.
Events besides Charlottesville have been shown, which is pretty good. Yet these events have been acknowledged as some of the events. If I wanted to say an expansion has occurred, I wouldn't have to prove many were, just that enough had. and with enough high profile cases, I believe we can acknowledge that. I will admit my wording was less percise than I should have.
I repeat myself for the purpose of drawing the conversation back to the intention of the question. I realise talking about a subject risks being misunderstood, and I do believe that I had made the right effort, since we are now talking with substance.
Ben Shapiro statement isn't entirely incorrect much as it is correct. I did say that the relationship was spurious, which would include a fringe that few would like to admit. However, I have made it clear that this fringe is not the defining factor with previous discussions on why this is a factor that emerges with current politics. Identity politics will happen, yes, and while I would advise against it people cannot be removed from identity. This goes back to the "out group" discussion.
But how could I say that a fringe in one group is important for it's protests while the other is negligible? The point being a connected goal and perceived benefits. A purely racist or white identity may focus on border policy for different reasons than a normal person, but if border policy proves to be important it does not validate the racist or devalue the nonracists reasoning by shared opinion. In contrast we cannot say that it is a purely racist movement because the actual racist policy isn't there.
With this same reasoning, antifa is not damned as a whole, but cannot claim the mantle if it is not as uniform as you claim either. Neither seem to be, all we really have is working definitions with less history behind them.
By no means would I argue for Antifa's perfection, if the alt right isn't perfect. But shouldn't activism be acknowledged if there is a more active, larger group? Frequency is a factor to consider.
I believe I've made myself pretty clear on what I've said at this point, and don't really have much more to say on the subject. I wouldn't argue you on the boycott semantic, as it could just as easily be a misunderstanding as my reference to certain protests was misunderstood as well. Furthermore, a mechanic of expansion of definitions isn't going to get far.
so your wrong on the claim that the college protests are antifa, just because a few, recently only, were.
And the answer to your question to me about whether the speakers were supremacists was... some were.
oh man I wish I could be ben's only audience member. that would be a fun debate. stupid kids.
"What is the alt-right? The alt-right are a group of people who believe that ideology and ethnicity are inextricably intertwined, just like the identity politics Left. On the identity politics Left, if you?re a black person who is a leftist, you?re a leftist because you?re a black person. On the identity politics Right, Western civilization was not built by people with good ideas, it was built by people with white skin. And that means that people who don?t have white skin cannot properly assimilate into Western civilization. This has no grounding in reality. The fact is that there are lots of white people in Britain before the Romans arrived, and they weren?t living a civilized life, as we would currently call it, under Western civilization."
a quote from Ben Shapiro in the berkley speech with some definitions.
is this an accurate definition of alt right and their view?
he most definitely is not a supremacist, or even a racist based on this speech. although I do think he oversimplifies reality and disagree with many of his conclusions.
the other speech I linked is most definitely a supremacist, the author of the bell curve.
the Berkley protest was antifa.
If I Google antifa college speaker protests there is tons of evidence....
But if i Google just college speaker protests, you get plenty of counter examples, like:
your assertion that "college speaker protests are antifa" is false, as plenty have nothing to do with it. if you meant that some high profile ones were, then you should have phrased your point more clearly and less "blame everyone"y. one of my qualms with alt right media is their habit of generalizing, the logic behind stereotypes, and sometimes racism.
scrolling through my posts from 5 days ago (and there were many on that day) I used the term protest REPEATEDLY. it is very possibly I used boycott, maybe once, and very likely in DIRECT response to your usage of the term in order to keep in line with your context. however, aside from that questionable isolated use nearly a week ago, I have exclusively used the proper term protest. boycott would have been simply not attending.
And I have not seen media agreement regarding this issue. the anti marchers were called anti fascist protectors. the anti speakers were called student protestor. they were not a national group mobilizing to protest (maybe an insignificant fraction), they were the local students protesting in their own colleges. completely different.
I too am worried about the convo. You make statements that I clearly state I disagree with, but instead of providing evidence you simply restate them and assume they were proven. I was hoping you would show me a picture of the speaker protesters with a few antifa flags and a crowd largely in black with their faces covered, but instead I am expected to take your premise as gospel due simply to repetition.
In the 'you didn't make me...' paragraph, five days ago, you referred to the protests against speakers as boycotting. Yes, you did use this phrase. I'm beginning to get worried about this conversation, because you seem to have trouble following, or create arguments that I am not using.
The goals of the formerly political party are not the same, though they did fashion their self view after. This isn't the reemergence of a party that exists on a different continent.
I am not asking you to prove they were not, I'm asking you how you can claim these two incidents were not from the same group, despite universal agreement by media, the right, the left, and antifa themselves on their presence. Their overall effect may be argued, purpose, but not their presence. You claimed that these groups were different, so I am asking how you can state that, not that you must prove this.
The analogy with Shapiro was not directed to represent the Marchers, rather the idea that criticisms are devaluing, humanity denying attacks. I agreed the expanded definition by Antifa's presence at the event, and overall claims that antifa would be there to fight bigotry. The example was a salient topic that one could try to use to reason one way or the other, but I did ask you to define how these speakers are hate speakers. I am not denying you an answer to your question on how it relates to other races and Creeds, I am explaining that no such claim has been put forth, yet the claims of "hate" come forth. Why? How? It has yet to be proven, however, we can know who may say these things, and it was the people at the event who probably didn't care to know who was speaking. A "point and bite" situation, kind of easy to expect in a fragmented group, and regularly seen in these fragments.
Unfortunately, I cannot separate the college protests from the Charlottesville protests, because it was the same political group, with the same wide net. My proofs of an expanded definition was on what action was taken for different things.
I think it would be better to refute why I have not demonstrated what I mean by my attempts, rather than saying I have not. Otherwise, it seems like you are not keeping up with the conversation. I wouldn't blame you though, real life comes first, so if there's a distraction don't worry about responding late.
just because someone does other activities doesn't negate what they did prior. just because they have economic agendas doesn't mean they aren't confronting neo Nazis where ever they may show. doing other protests doesn't negate or take anything away from their antifascistness.
can you actually show them expanding the definition? you keep going back to that but I havent seen it.
antifa was an old group in Europe. the first 30 times I saw the name was on alt right websites. the first time I heard it on mainstream (or as you say, liberal) media, was the host asking the reporter for a definition and some context about them. well after I've been awash in the term from right wing sources. And there is nothing stopping people naming the other as "anti-them". the right sometimes labels the left as "anti-white".
What do you mean why are the protesters not antifa? do you expect me to prove a negative? why are they antifa? solely on the fact that they are protesting bigots at their local college? (no it's not a boycott). I think most of the speakers disparaged lbgt, not race. bigots they are, but I never said supremacist. You keep conflating the Charlottesville Nazi counterprotest with the college campus speaker protests without establishing why they are the same.
And you never addressed my questions:
is that Ben Shapiro analogy accurate to the marchers? What exactly is their disagreement with Jews or black people? does the feeling of being cheated, even if one hasen't been, justify the rest of society appeasing them? especially if your pointing the resentment of being cheated at scapegoats who are innocent and in fact been cheated themselves? who are then told to point their resentment at you.
And remember. the supremacists are the charllotesville marchers. the speakers are plain old bigots, or at least I'm not aware of supremacist tendencies of theirs. and ive seen no evidence to suggest the local college protests are primarily antifa. PLEASE STOP JUMBLING THESE. If you can't keep them seperate then I will insist on discussing ONLY ONE. this is creating confusion and preventing a conclusion.
And I haven't once used to word boycott.
Okay, so the definition works to boost antifa numbers, however the self perception of fighting against a group that pushes injustice isn't quite the measure of reality.
Expanding the definition would be pushing certain political figures as Supremecist or the spread of misinformation. The people protested on various different events, aside from Charlottesville's niche group, were not Nazis.
I also don't see the confusion in the explanation that Antifa named themselves, but I see that you did combine it with Nazis. So let's try again. Did the media label the group antifa, was it the right wing? If it truely is the way you suggest, then that would hardly be a disparaging analysis, and confirms the idea that there are fascists they are opposing. The right hardly feels the same way, and perhaps the media is saying so. However, antifa self identifies as antifa and it is much more likely that they named themselves, because the name implies that their opponents could not make such a label without putting themselves on the other side of the "anti" statement.
I think self identifying counts as at least one count, media pretty much uniformly agrees that this particular groups identification was there. You did agree that they had a right to "boycott" certain speakers, though I would say that your comments on the speakers or calling it a boycott doesn't really portray the events or people in it. Again, interpretations are plenty, and I suggest an expansion of the definition by protests that do not involve supremisists. Saying I did not demonstrate? I believe we had agreed that these events happened. So why are those protestors suddenly not antifa? Which speaker listed is a Supremecist?
I do see that much of the argument made shifted right back to Charlottesville, the only Nazi gathering, and by the logic of fighting Supremecist that probably would be the only antifa protest, marches not included. That is not so.
I really want to be sure I am not misunderstood here, so I will try to remove room for error by restating.
Antifa are not solely antifascist, because their perceptions would not match reality if that were the case.
Antifascists have protested more than fascists, and their protests against certain people did not manifest in boycotts.
Outside of Charlottesville, antifa has not proven those they have protested are bigots, and the logic saying they do relies on a tautological reasoning.
We know this group is antifa because of their self identification.
I did not say they are just against supremacists. I said they are a group that is motivated to confront supremacists in counter protests, and if need be, in brawls.
there is no expanding of definition of Nazi. You keep going back to that but you haven't demonstrated it. the people they confronted were self proclaimed neo Nazis and supremacists. they defined themselves as that, not the antifa. I have no idea what your talking about.
are you again calling the anti speaker protesters as antifa without answering my question of how they qualify for that label?
Again, the point of spurious relationships in a group means that not everyone will fall under the definition, and an uncentralized cause will lead to this.
However, this doesn't mean that the listed statements do not apply for many. You are under the impression that the antifa group is against supremacists, so all would be aligned under this. While you have a few, or many that will fit these terms, their own definitions can be found to be vague, which is why I refered to it as tautological. To which ends? Who is unfair? Is there a goal for equality, and how do you measure it? Some would measure using socialist terms, and many in communist terms, so within the group we find that this is applicable.
To which the example I provide, and ask, how are these hate speakers or demigogues? As far as I know, there is no placement of a superior race, group, or otherwise, and I presented an example of a controversial topic that allows protesters to conflate the issue, or as you may think of it, expand the definitions of "bigot", "Nazi" and so forth. If you asked how this compared to the minority groups, frankly, it doesn't, and his claims do not suggest they should cover antifa, there is hardly a relationship.
But we should recognize that criticisms do not equal an attack... Furthermore, I want to backtrack to the point of self identifying Antifa. Antifa named themselves antifa, because it means antifascist. Would you think that a group that doesn't identify with fascism would suddenly claim that their political opposition was antifascist? And furthermore, if it had such a component as solely fighting Nazis, would that be something to consider? Prior to their official listing by themselves, they were considered rioters. I believe self identification should apply, especially if the group unifies, though I acknowledge the ambiguity
In conclusion, while I admit my definitions do not fit a one size all, they cannot claim to be fighting bigotry, since they fight more than bigots. Furthermore, the definitions have been simplified to justify action against politically opposed views, which do not entail equality because 1. Their definitions of equality extend to an economic state and 2. define criticisms as attacks on identity, a "attack against one is against all" mentality against non-supremecist ideals. It's identity politics with the benefits of a religiously egalitarian stance, plus the "cheated" element.
is that Ben Shapiro analogy accurate to the marchers? What exactly is their disagreement with Jews or black people? does the feeling of being cheated, even if one hasen't been, justify the rest of society appeasing them? especially if your pointing the resentment of being cheated at scapegoats who are innocent and in fact been cheated themselves? who are then told to point their resentment at you.
I'm not saying everyone is racist. far from it. but in any spectrum there is tons of grey area. but there is always 2 poles of clearly shaded area. the definition of racism as it applies to any conversation that mention supremacists and especially Nazis, is the deep deep black one. the one I really feel you should not be defending from a moral perspective. this wasnt the alt right. this was the stormknights and all the rest of the crusader crews.
I don't think 2 and 3 are specific enough. 2 covers much of the left including communists and most forms of socialists, meanwhile 3 covers almost the entire left and significant chunks of the right. would someone who is strongly anti fascist on the social side but pretty indifferent about economics count as antifa? I think they would, but I'm not familiar with antifa so I'll await your counter. how about a socialist concerned purely with economics and doesn't care about social struggles? he would likely fit #2 and #3, but he would hardly qualify as an antifa as I believe you imply it.
If I can take a stab at the definition, antifa are a group of people whose primary motivation is confrontation and retaliation against supremacists. they certainly tend to a far left political view, but the defining characteristics are the confrontations. (because being left involves a ton of people, alt right tend to have conservative beliefs, but I didn't use those in my definition because that would be a definition of the right, not a specific part of it.) is that an acceptable definition? also accepting the name of course (your #1)
But is accepting the name really membership? considering the term means a quality that I think most of the free world would gladly accept. I am anti fascist and anti Nazi just as I am anti dictatorship and anti corruption. I have even said "Im antifa" when the term was first explained to me, probably to you. does that mean most of the free world (and you know vastly most of europe is) members of antifa? and considering that question, how do you determine that the speaker protesters were antifa?
I'll admit that saying a new group rising says little, but I do believe that I have said certain circumstances can be attributed to pumping the numbers of ideologically diffused groups. With one thing in common, I can say this much about the motivations of both:Both feel like they have been cheated, and both have claims and goals that stand them outside of the standard situation.
Defining membership can be difficult, but I hope that the following standards can help as a test.
1. The members identify themselves by this name, and as it's been shown members do not reject this title, but introduce themselves by this name.
2. The belief that capitalism has failed us, whether it is a complete replacement or partial integration, there is a belief of an economic ruling class where the empoverished are unacknowledged. this may have a variety of beliefs of minority oppression, or none at all.
3. The rejection of Donald Trump, if a person has clothes that support Donald Trump or voices their support they will be seen as "racist", and no person in the first 2 categories that still supports Trump either by spite of cheating Bernie or otherwise will be accepted. The demographics are slightly different too.
Their mantle is broader than bigots, search online and it's possible to find marches against non-bigots (getting there in a second) and sometimes against nobody at all and just blocking streets.
And here I position an argument on 'against bigots'. Their definitions of bigots are on an idea of hate, which feed bigots, which feeds hate. Tautological. Is the hate from seeing a group lower than another? I have heard no such sayings, or arguments of inferiority. Racists may claim a biological, religious, or even social reasons for inferiority, but that can be easily conflated with a biological or social evidence against an idea.
Example, Ben Shapiro claims Trans. is a mental health issue, and that a trans person is not biologically who they claim to be. Genetically, it is the truth, and the example he gives to say it is not hateful is that his grandfather, a schizophrenic, thought his radio talked to him. Does he hate his grandfather? No. But is his grandfather wrong? Yes.
Maybe I need a bit of help in defining hate, I'm sure the intuitive reasons are part of a political divide.
I'm must have missed your attempts at defining the alt right and antifa. You are quite verbose and as far as i could tell, your definitions involved something like "a new, diffuse, political group that has been active", which says absolutely nothing about them. who counts in this group? how exactly do those kids in the speech protests qualify as antifa?
we are debating. You don't need a perfect definition to start the discussion. I'm sure my alt right definition isn't perfect, but it is a clear affirmative statement of the topic as I see it, and over the course of the debate i hope it will be confirmed, debunked, or refined. what is your affirmative definition of the antifa group? What qualifies membership? Or is it a catchall propaganda term to lump together political opponents?Based on your definition we can judge them by headwear? besides Charlottesville, can you point them out in any of the other protests which you attributed to "antifa"? and based on your slogans, wouldn't they just be communists?
they absolutely can wear the mantle of fighting bigotry, they are fighting bigots! the views they *may* or may not hold is irrelevant. that type of disgusting false logic seeks to discredit any group trying to fight bad actors, and excuse all kinds of heinous activities. "who are they to judge, they aren't any better"! classic whataboutism. ESPECIALLY when the discrediting factor *MAY* exist.
i would not go unarmed because these are people who advocate violence regularly. not too long ago an entremeist bigot stabbed 2 white liberals just for verbally defending a Muslim teenage girl. And lo and behold, a supremacist murdered a protestor. this isn't racism discriminating against someone with completely innocent birth features, this is fighting against people who chose an ideology of hate. again, you draw a moral equivalency.
even if i gift you the question of is hatred of bigots a form of bigotry, are you saying that hating a group for voluntarily promoting an evil ideology is akin to hating people for involuntary aspects of heritage? would you be willing to denounce Nazis and other supremacists?
My attempts to define antifa by need or by goals have not panned out well in this discussion, though I do believe that I did well enough for the alt right. The emergence of a political group sudden enough to warrant a title such as "alternative" suggests a reaction, rather than the slow burn that changes a political group fundamentally.
Without those, I can only define Antifa by the stated goals in antecdotals, such as claims that "capitalism is the disease, Trump is a symptom, socialsim is the cure", or by the people that they protest. Their protests aren't a number of people, coincidentialy showing up together, having decided to wear black and cover their face from the cold. And they do appear to do more than fight bigots, blocking roads, where no person travelling can actually be determined any way politically hardly seems to be bigot fighting.
Of course, to say they stand for nothing means they'll fall for anything, and that they can't claim the mantle of fighting bigots since there may be people in their with different bids. I was able to draw a conclusion of spurious relationships in alt right groups with a reasonable goal, I believe, so perhaps Antifa members have a spurious relationship as well. Which does mean a shared goal or political hot topic can be defined, as the alt right was earlier. There must be a condition.
And, I would like to address a statement. What did you mean when you said it would be wise to bring weapons when facing Nazis in a March? As far as I know, there is no civil war, and it is no defense to Nazis to say that bringing weapons means expecting conflict, unless I missed something. And it hardly seems like a boycott when property damage happens either, maybe I can't claim that antifa likes to destroy things to shut people up, but boycotting a product doesn't mean a few of the goers will be fine going to the market and breaking the merchendise.
My point on the speakers is that it was vague to say that they are bigots. What ideology specifically made them bigots? Is it racism, sexism, a kind of phobia? Again, it's lumping, which might be fine if you can define a dependent variable that affects multiple groups to unify, but there's hardly a mechanism at work to define the bigotry or it's expression, they merely are.
And that's something I find a bit weak, an argument of "merely bigoted", and very easy to create a tautological argument when defining who is a bigot and who isn't.
what does it matter who has how many events unless there is otherwise a moral equivalency. the issue isn't the quantity but the quality of their group. I would hope the nonNazi group would be greater. And what do you mean by regular antifa events? What events would that be? are you claiming that all the college protest of speakers is antifa? is everyone in the nation who is anti fascism a member of this antifa group with the specific flag? how do you define the membership of the antifa group?
I never said the Nazis were aiming for confrontation. I said I wouldn't go to a rally of hateful bigots unarmed, I never spoke to their intentions. as for the speakers, if they want to talk about is bigotry, people have a right to not listen. personally I would prefer verbal engagement, but I find it fun, engaging even with flat earthers and najam. many people don't want to argue over the shape of the earth, basic math, or the idea that people are people. it would be akin to me visiting churches to preach atheism.
And yes, I would consider the speakers to be 1 of 2 categories. bigots (probably equally valid to say supremacists). I'd like to get back to the topic of whataboutism. You said you disagreed with how i presented my conclusion, but for the life of me, I could not understand the logic of your explanation.
Ah, I agree tone is hard to read over discussions.
I don't believe pointing out one group is larger provides an equivalency or moral danger. Between a large group that is active regularly and a smaller, sporadic group that is not known for events but by events not even twice a year, which one actually carries influence? People see that.
Confrontations seem to exist in the absence of Racists or Supremecist as well. And admittedly, if the Nazis had that as their goal, they would have attacked the night before when they were the majority (which still doesn't say much, 10 people when crossing the street will likely be more than enough for anyone you cross)
I listed those individuals because they are prominent speakers that have not pushed for policy that influences other, arguably, tax policy is more effective than them if speaking hate is the goal. Of course, that doesn't stop any wild claim of this. Tell me though, is it an unreasonable to say that antifa stands for something? If they want to protest these speakers, which hasn't manifested as a boycott, why do they not announce their goals? A open dialogue would not affirm racists as powerful, Richard Spencer practically trips over himself talking about hateful ideology.
Which I suspect they have, but to argue against a fragmented group and outside of it, I probably don't hold the credibility outside asking "what good is chaos?" if no person can assess what they want.
Bits naturally need to be speculative, if that is the case! And strangely enough, to assume most (in the best case) gatherings were to protest bigots, it would be a bigot epidemic! And again, a reason why the alt right gains traction, because by creating "wrong think" a desirable feature is added as an unintended consequence.
Enough speculation on that, though. "Hateful" is rather vague, and while we might agree naturally on Nazis, It is still a 2 dimensional word, much like bigot. People are rational, to a fault, which naturally results in spurious relationships. I did say that there was a push to conflate Supremecist and non alike, and people will not always see the mechanism, just the act.
Here is my point. What makes the speakers I listed different from Supremecist? Even naturally, you know there is a difference, but the treatment isn't different. So, is the treatment by Antifa an all-inclusive, all-purpose resolution? I understand that they can be considered fragmented, but maybe we can work past "chaotic group".
You didn't make me angry, but I wasnt about to let what appeared to be fallacious arguments slide. I guess it's hard to read emotions online but what I was going for was blunt and dismissive. Not angry.
I didn't spot that disclaimer, but disclaimer or not, if what you say after the disclaimer completely counters it... it doesn't change what ends up actually being said. stating That "the Nazis are a small group so let's focus on this other larger group" implies some level of equivalency between them with the major distinction is scale.
when supremacists march, decent people confront them. And I would not recommend going to a rally of violent hate mongers unarmed.
Milo is not known for his fiscal conservatism so I'm assuming the other names you listed are also not what I was asking for... so my point stands. If they were just out for partisan politics or self interest they would boycott any conservatives. instead it appears to only be against bigots.
the things you did that were disingenuous was the moral equivalency and listing seemingly random, purely speculative, and entirely negative motivations for people protesting bigotry. is it that hard to believe that they are simply against bigots and don't want to listen to their hate speech? This isn't a different tax policy, this is hate.
Okay, I don't know what I did to get you angry. I did not draw a moral equivalency, I went out of my way to say that.
I didn't say all, I said a demographic that fits a need pumps up the numbers. In no way is that even a bad thing necessarily
Off of the top of my head, recently Ben Shapiro, Milo Yinninopoles and Gavin McInnes for specific instances that were a bit chaotic. Last I heard, a Jew can't be a Nazi. Each person could be controversial, but supremecist or bigot is reaching.
And no, antifa did pick the name for themselves. Ever see the logo for a red and black flag? A particular section pulled from history and dubbed themselves.
Interpretation of facts can be very hard if it gets polarizing, so we must return to the facts if we want to continue. I don't appreciate the slant claim at all, since I do not see what attack I have done.
how would I define antifa? I wouldn't, considering it's a fake term that y'all made up (or at least repurposed from europe). I'm guessing anyone who fit the previous propaganda label y'all made up (SJW) fits snuggly into the antifa label. probably someone figured out you are all SJWs, and needed something more specific.
there is a ton of character assassination here.
first off, are you trying to draw a moral equivalence between the antifa and supremacists?
second, are you saying that a significant factor in the protest of bigoted speakers is a partisan desire to escape debt?
don't you see that these distortion tactics. excellent example of alt right "arguments". twisting equivalence between those who hate people for existing and those who fight against them. And brain storming miscellaneous negative intentions and claiming, " if it's even remotely possible, let's pretend like it's true".
maybe, just maybe, they don't like those bigots because they are bigots (or sometimes trolls). tell me, when was the last fiscal conservative that was stopped from speaking?
I realized my explanation wasn't quite descriptive enough, I agree that antifa chapters can be found at various campuses, while the Klan is probably a couple hovels in how many thousand holes?
I also realize I just said I don't mean to drag this out, but looking over it again, I wonder how you would definitely antifa? If it is fragmented, what can the average person consider Antifa's claim or ideology? They don't seem to be a response to a rise in racists, because their representation or action is not always against Nazis, mostly not if I was pushed on the events I am aware of.
I believe we're pretty clear on our interpretations now.
I don't mean to drag this out, but I should address your questions too. National is in reference to their presence, not their actual organization. Racists will exist where ever whenever... but their numbers are nigh negligible in many areas. If the racists are emboldened, then why is Charlottesville the only major time we know they gathered along with others, nonracists? I'm sure we'd have seen at least a few publicized, Antifa has been to more than just Charlottesville at the very least.
We do also see them at universities, because there is an appeal to that demographic as well in (but not limited to) student debt issues or protesting speakers. Im sure the Bernie Sanders demographic is at least a partial contribution (with no offense to them, or claims on their character, just an observation). Perhaps appeal, combined with a demographic, fueled by a need pumps the numbers. Racists have no need to be racist, it is an outlet they use, but the outlet is narrower by at least a magnitude.
This probably also goes without saying, but this isn't to mitigate the damage racism can do, or where it can be found, but an antebellum resurrection is hardly the case. Comparing the groups in a better/worse would be wrong obviously, so I believe antifa individuals can be held to the same moral standard as the rest of people, and assumed until otherwise shown.
reluctance was the issue more so then the timing, but the 2 often go hand in hand. I mean if he was busy delicately handling potential war with a rogue nation, it could have waited, but the timing was not due to distraction or procrastination, but actual reluctance.
this is also not isolated. remember the refusal to denounce David duke? I don't think he actually agrees with them, but they are the most dedicated and loyal section of his base and it may be more politics then ideology behind his reluctance.
on the supremacist side, they feel emboldened (sorry for assuming). They know no mainstream leader can praise them nowadays, but a reluctance to denounce them may as well be a direct show of support given their controversial position.
when you say national group, are you talking about the random, ununified, uncoordinated groups college kids who mostly just protest events at their local campuses? Can that even be considered a "national group"?
okay, it seems like the timing was the biggest factor in deciding whether or not denouncing was effective.
I don't think arguing timing or circumstance would go anywhere, based on the discussion so far, so I think we can skip to the application question.
What should I take reluctance to denounce neo Nazis as? If we are being intuitive this does not denounce but still shifts blame. Emotionally, it could be construed as sympathy for Nazis. Should I assume that the driving force behind shifting blame is to mitigate damage to Nazis or put a focus on a more Nationwide group?
I don't mean to guide the question, but to ask how I should feel about someone avoiding denouncing Nazis is too open ended, since reluctance is an interpretation and not necessarily the first interpretation.
well considering you said:
"So what objectively makes it half assed? If he says that he condemns Neo Nazis, that should be taken as the words said, correct?"
it implied only the words matter. The body language, along with tone and context, were just examples to disagree with that. Regarding trump, idk about the tone and body language, but context matters. The fact that he refused to denounce it, and played the whataboutism game with it before caving to pressure and complying. we don't need expert analysis to see this. we are human, reading context is instinctual, and although there is no set objective borderline, you aren't being honest with yourself if you think his words were honest.
Your right, I jumped the gun with the antifa. The 2 are different. I'm definitely antina tho
I was not saying that words only count, I was saying that the relevance Maxim is being actively ignored in Trump's case (which oddly enough, is also the Maxim used to condemn him as well as the Maxim he used to mention antifa.)
Of course body language matters, but I asked what parameters made the apology half assed. Should I take it that he used exaggerated featured, a relaxed posture, and a divided rather than joint attention with the crowd, leaving an issue fundamentally unaddressed?
I don't believe you would say either of our interpretations of a planned, scripted denouncement by body language would be skilled enough for a professional, so I just ask the if body language parameters are fair to you, and if you feel body language is the significant factor in why you shouldn't accept his denouncement. We don't even have to argue about it, I can't tell someone how they should feel, I just want to know the thought process.
I would not necessarily say that being anti Nazi means being anti fascist, that's a bit off topic too, but I feel a need to address this.
denouncing Nazis is a no brainer.
I denounce Nazis. heck, call me antifa.
are you seriously saying that words are all that matters? that tone, context, and body language have no meaning?
so if someone knocks over your ice cream, and keeps walking. when you press them for an apology, they say "im sooooo sorry" while rolling their eyes and then just a
walk away laughing... The only part that matters is that they said "im so sorry" and everything else your own eyes and ears saw is irrelevant?
that's not how language and communication works.
So what objectively makes it half assed? If he says that he condemns Neo Nazis, that should be taken as the words said, correct? Controlling a conversation as they speak is Paramount to reporters and politicians alike (and call representatives), Trump's public condemnation at a later occasionally might be more meaningful because it doesn't carry the responsibility of needless deaths and neonazis (cringing from actually typing that, but with prior justifications I did explain that as well as conflating) together. The claim might seem crazy to you, but consider the purpose I suggested, and consider if there is an objective measure or mechanism.
Media does try to conflate the issue, otherwise what is the point of saying "Trump refuses to denounce neo Nazis" if they weren't specifically addressed? It wouldn't be a refusal, now, and to come to that conclusion as a possibility, just as a possibility, you would need to have the same functions that apply to language, and can easily be applied to a "no brainer".
It should be fair to punish what the are responsible for, not what they aren't.
I believe I made the circumstances surrounding the question clear, and it is demonstrable what headlines would have been run in either situation. Double standard vastly simplifies my statements on the occurrence. I want to be sure that we understand Grice's Maxim of relation, or speaking about relevance. If, after I inform you about a cruel dog fighting ring, ask you whether or not you condemn dogfights, is it morbid curiosity?
I'm pretty sure you'd argue Trump violates all other Maxim's, so for now, let's try sticking to the one.
I would like to ask again, why ask if it's a no brainier? Historically, we can look back and say with retrospect these things were no brainers, and lacking the context of who asked under what instance these are reinforced. And so you may be justified in saying that presidents have been asked to denounce things before. But again, consider that I have said on circumstance.
All presidents are asked to answer difficult questions and denounce something controversial. trump's last announcement was half assed, and came after a bunch of his pussy-footing around the subject. there's no double standard no matter how out of context your presumed sources presented it as.
whether or not trump denounces Nazis isn't whataboutism. got nothing to do with it. I would think its a no brainer, and a no would be a seperate discussion. but an affirmative no isn't the same as some passive aggressive deflection, especially when that is part of a routine pattern. it's unleader like beta behavior in the self labeled "super alpha". c mon, look thru the bullshit.
But what would the question be in the Charlottesville whataboutisms? Is it whether or not Trump denounces Nazis? We both know it's not just that, because the media will still draw attention to and conflate groups. Like asking somebody if they beat their wife, we know it is a loaded question because it is unreasonable to submit such a question. Deny, and it still draws attention to the question. Accept, and receive immediete denouncing. Both options seem pretty shitty to me, because the headline wouldn't be "Trump denounces Nazis", we know this because he did on a separate occasion, for the same instance. Where is that headline? They do exist.
Any furthermores that could suggest that media doesn't care about the actual response, just the question, could be misconstrued as a whataboutisms, and so police inaction and ineffectiveness on the state of emergency could be another debate, if only the question.
I can leave those other subjects in another conversation, but I believe I've submitted a reasonable explanation that does address the immediete question.
in fact I stated that I wanted to pursue all those topics in an alt right media discussion right after we wrap this one up. I just want to actually finish one.
I feel you are missing my meaning often thru defensiveness. I did not dismiss your points as simple bait. I said they are tangent bait, and although they are tangental here, they are each worthy of their own discussion, but in a discussion about a different topic, they are tangent bait. We can't discuss all topics at once because we won't conclude any topic at all.
can you please elaborate on this difference as defined vs what is shown? what i see is a bunch of people routinely stating "what about this other situation" in attempts to not answer questions about their situation.
Agree to disagree is about right, though I would agree with "whataboutisms" as they are defined and not as it's been shown. If it is possible to condemn the condemners and pivot to another point without solving the issue, that is about right.
To close up, I suggest that the whataboutisms aren't proper whataboutisms, as they address illocutionary statements made or drawn with questions. I'd like to see my controversial statements as more than bait, because I see myself in part of a voter group that is very similar.
Hillary's slogan was stronger together. as good a slogan as any other and an excellent contrast to trumps claim that only he can solve our problems.
you bring up alot of controvertial tangent bait. I'd like to make a seperate thread regarding the validity of alt right news, but let's wrap this one up, especially since we are way off topic already.
whataboutism is not valid, even if a similar offender is getting off. the other offender and the protection of him is a valid concern, but doesn't excuse the same actions being taken by this party. in fact, pointing to the other offender is a clear acknowledgment that the action the first offender did was indeed wrong. yet they argue to stay the consequences.
the trump administration and right wing media (not just the alt) are not only using whataboutism in isolated cases, justified or not, but are abusing it routinely. which is deceptive, and are almost certainly dodging accountability.
good chance we will agree to disagree after your closing statement and I'll make a new thread regarding alt right media in general.
Yes, that was a whole two long posts providing a context, and appears to be somewhat repetative, but to provide contexts for goals as well as the mechanisms at work. Mainly
1. Establishing an out group
2. Denying a problem
3. Creating an out group by denying a problem
4. A melding of idelogically different people by being in the out group ("basket of deplorables")
4 is then defined by assuming an out group stance is held because it is an outlet to racist tendencies, but not all racists even take this outlet, as not all racists are white supremacists.
2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, they could deny a problem and create an out group if it was not on a macro level, which instead of racists the proper 'political opponents' could be applied. 2 could exist to create a confirmation bias by itself, so no action is taken unless shown there is a problem.
1 is self explanatory
And these 4 points are solely confined to the perceived "xenophobia" issue.
Not really in short terms, I will try to do better to condense the idea here. The Trump vote was a counter culture against an establishment. Sure, you could say Trump is establishment because he is rich, but it lacks the formal "memes" and opts for informal ones.
I refer to memes in the traditional and not online sense, culturally shaped values and patterns over a period of time and when referred to in animals genetically ritualized acts. By ignoring big button issues, a large demographic did go to Trump. Assuming mere xenophobia really underestimates people as a whole. There are legal, non raping Hispanics that want secure borders and there are Muslims that run away from their countries because they recognize America has better opportunities and values.
These demographics were ignored and taken for granted when large news organizations claimed there was the "sleeping giant" vote, which would be disgruntled, angry Hispanics. As it turns out, minorities started voting more for Trump, though admittedly the bulk of the votes would be white people. But why shouldn't it be, since white people make up most of the US, and addressing the everyday man addresses the biggest demographic, hand in hand. On the surface, it appears the giant still sleeps.
Instead of considering Hillary ran a weak campaign (sloganwise, it wasn't helpful from a marketing perspective. Hell, her campaign groups name was "correct the record"), that Trump addressed people that didn't feel addressed this election, and that news pundints didn't poll accurately, it was considered a whitelash.
Which, when looking at the situation, there are plenty of explanations that didn't involve blaming white Supremacy. Why was it the first guess? Furthermore, the Identity movement on the left lauded a diversity it didn't care to understand and took it's voters for granted, which in turn created a "out" identity based on these concerns, because it's just "losing to fear, being racist." But is it really?
So I couldn't deny a racist element exists, as it would appeal to them as well, but the appeal is again because the offered reward is mutually valuable. Perhaps the left could have done this as well, I certainly will admit Bernie had people roped in with young, free college desired and debt ridden voter but we can see that is no longer the case.
We also still see that the numbers of actual racists isn't enough to carry the election. So another explanation is needed besides racism.
I do not believe that border security policies are Xenophobic, nor does avoiding some I'm compatibilities with Western civilization. If we cannot properly vet out dangerous people, that is at least a concern to address. Trump's way does seem to be overt and far reaching, but the alternative party presented no address. Perhaps if there was at least an acknowledgement or moderate plan, there would be a chance.
However, we know that this is not the case because of sanctuary cities. Not only are they unwilling to vet, there is a proud declaration that laws should not be followed. Don't get me wrong, people do want to move to America, and we should have a proper vetting system. However, DACA is "Deferred" and not the removal of deportation. If the plan was to actually have people admitted, why wasn't a plan inplemented? There was nearly 8 years to draw a plan.
Not just that, but radicalization is not recognized either. Certainly there are crazy people, some of which we know have ties. But why is it that these ties are mentioned after an attack? We knew we should have watched these people, and often times the means and motive are clear. Yet, we do not prevent these things, tensions rise, and eventually a rise of home grown terrorists occur.
I find that it is claimed there are two kinds of people, people who are not divided by fear, and racists. Modern media has told us this, there are interest groups and persons who frame the issue this way, and being told that their fears only mean that people are racist is bound to have negative reprecussions, or rejection. The alt right did receive Nazis early enough on to nearly co-opt the title, but in the end much of it is the rejection of identity politics, which really is difficult in itself. I think the "ethnic kekistani" joke is more representative of the movement than white pride, since much of it is based on the idea that minority prides get affirmation, meanwhile culturally significant white holidays (thanksgiving) are often shit on.
At the very least, not being acknowledged does mean not getting the vote, the assumed rust belt, Pennsylvania, and even the one extra point possible in Maine shows that Trump's campaign strategy worked, that visiting and appealing within the state does get votes. Not just that, but it also accounts for the angry Bernie or bust voters that would rather see the system bust. Bernie Sanders had tons of momentum, the younger demographic, and made promises wildly accepted near and far.
And alt right media is the reflection of those stereotypes.
Small demographic of violent and oppressive Nazis.
large demographic of people full of stereotypes and short on any meaningful interactions with the "others".
the reason behind the remarks was that trump didn't run a policy centered campaign. he ran a campaign based on attacking groups of people. which is why his victory is attributed to xenophobia. Sure he mentioned taxes and regulations a few times. But Mexican rapists, Muslim terrorists, and Chinese cheaters was center stage of every speech. second only to his own self bragging.
combine that with the voters simply voting against Hillary, it doesn't leave many trump economic supporters.
Except even a small demographic of racists would not carry the results of the presidency, which is what the claim was.
I do not expect perfection in retractions, but realistically apologies do not gain traction in the same way these dividing claims do.
The numbers do not back up the rise in hate crimes either, and many of the hate crimes reported on Election night were, surprise surprise, found to be baseless and redacted.
Please understand that the claim is not all racists, or a fact that racists exist. It is that there is a significant figure of racists, and that certain political support is racist. Now, this claim is also misleading, because even Malcom X got support from the KKK when he wanted a Black Nation, since he believed America wouldn't look after them, perhaps a white supremest group would value border security. Point being, just because something is mutual doesn't mean that the value derived from is the same or unimportant. To a hyperbolic example, Hitler did breathe oxygen.
So Trump got marginal support from a group that isn't significant by a percentage point. And how many electoral votes, which translates to how many states is it? To defend Van Jones statement, you'd have to claim that there are more white supremacists and basically say that there is a political problem that exists among them, not that they are something that will always exist. Certainly, there will always be racists, but it really doesn't add up.
And yes, Van Jones did a political tie in, because he did a standard come together apology, which tied the left with an "elite" expectation of winning and the right with racists. I wonder which concession is more damaging?
There is a demographic of racists in the Republican party.
an apology often makes headlines in of itself. And combined with the retraction is a powerful tool. are you expecting perfection?
hate crimes spiked tremendously after the election.
Attached should be a link to a CNN video of Van Jones explaining his comment on a "whitelash". It is apologetic of his view, and suggests that there is a demographic of racists in the republican party that allowed Trump to win. While he does say "not all" in his explanation, a headlining comment will always receive a bigger audience than the clarification. Not just that, but CNN must have felt the need to make a clarification, if it could be taken "the wrong way".
During the initial statement of "Whitelash" it was an barrage of claims that minorities don't feel safe, with unverified ancedotals. It may be better to just watch the video first before I make any further claims about it, but do you feel the characterization is justified? I don't think CNN is low hanging fruit, and I'd like to start with this one in particular. We can do more examples, argue the authenticity of claims, but we should agree about what the claim may bring to the table as a claim or question.
I understand that these lumping of republicans is horrifying... If it were true. but as far as I can tell, this is just fiction.
idk about those analysis or comments, I don't keep a running archive of all CNN articles in my head. If you want to reference them, please link to them. note, I'm sure CNN has ran articles about the subject, especially after right wing sites started pushing that narrative. for your claim, it won't be enough for them to simply discuss this potential clumping, but actually conclude that most right wingers are some form of Nazi or whatever.
also, I don't think those definitions have changed. fascist was always a ultra nationalist, why do you think Hitler always hyped up the deutchland? Nazis have always been bigoted fascists.
I'm not sure what evidence you want me to provide. I'm claiming something is not happening. there aren't any articles proving that something isn't happening because we would need infinite stories about infinite possible things that aren't happening. it is logically impossible to prove a negative point. you are claiming there is a lumping. please, show it. defend your positive claim, with an actual link I can review.
also, your whole claim to fascism being not right is in a misguided view that all of the right hates strong government, while the left loves it. right now the right is highly liberitarian and the left is socialist, but there are other views in those areas. some on the right favor a strong government with strong law and order, regulations on who can marry who, and prohibition of anything unfavorable. meanwhile anarchists and hippies on the left hate most forms of government. your split only views one factor (government size) and ignores all other aspects of fascism and nonliberitarian right wing views.
The YouTube and redditor was a weaker point, I admit, but I also wanted to include them because they are communities to be examined. If a newspaper firm does character attacks on an average to nobody person (maybe that's a bit harsh, some people make pretty good followings or livings), and lump them together politically, that says a lot about the ideological differences. Mainly, that anyone farther right than center left is alt right, and that is a frightening aspect.
Frightening in that there are "in" and "out groups being created by media. If they would go after Trump AND an ordinary person, what does it say about their out group? What does it mean when dissent is the only quality needed to be in the out group (obviously, "alt right".)
So I would ask this as well - does the mass media labeling issue not concern you if it's just ordinary people in a nonpartisan community?
I suppose the CNN statistical analysis and Van Jones comment doesn't count, or BuzzFeed analysis of Trump's America, or the illocutionary act of asking someone to confirm there is a Nazi problem or if they are a part of the problem. If claiming supporting a right wing candidate is a whitelash doesn't suggest a "white" attack, paraleling a campaign to Nazi Germany, or asking someone if they are a nazi is not "endorsed", then why are these elements Central to the narrative?
Why is the result of analysing the election demographics "supremacy", the intent of a candidate "supremacy" and a question on if "supremacy" is a growing part of the problem lost on you? Of course, I admit I repeated three things three times to 1. Clarify what has been previously said 2. Direct attention to the Central themes in these cases 3. Show that these elements were not removed from "Supremacy".
So the thing is, I already have shown, and maybe you could throw back some examples of what is favorable in your case (the opposite being?) but in the end, you can't deny that media institutions have run with these themes, and made a clear stance on them. What I find important is that these things we're discussed but overlooked. Why is that?
I think there was plenty of lumping done, and I think we need to be more honest about that. And part of that is creating a standard for bias. What could prove to you that there is an expansion push on who is considered a Nazi, or a push for the definition to be changed. I know that the definition for fascist was recently changed to emphasize "right wing", and that was a bit off putting.
Fascism- A system of government characterized by dictatorship, belligerent nationalism, millitarism, etc. first instituted in Italy.
Now... What does it say in online dictionaries?
Perhaps someone could argue a straw republican of the same values but that would still lack dictatorship and ignores other millitarism and nationalist enthusiasts like Winston Churchill. I don't know what you would qualify him as, since I'm not quite versed in British politics, but I don't believe he was a fascist.
Furthermore, I believe you and I had already been in a debate on Fascism and how it may be a bit ridiculous to claim right leaning politics.
I hope this doesn't seem like a tangent, because this is the takeaway I'm looking for- Institutions have pushed to redefine fascism, not everyone on the left, sure, but institutions. Now we see it happening for "Nazi".
can you show me an example of lumping all conservatives into the Nazi camp from any non YouTuber or redditter?
no "liberal" media does that. this whole scapegoating is made up by alt right media blowing nobodies on YouTube up out of proportion, meanwhile their numerous and populous sites do the very same thing and done so for decades with accusations of terrorists and traitors. communists and Satanists.
your entire argument should be taken to heart as you examine your own sources. because the direction you frame it in makes no sense. I refer back to my original request. show me proof of Mainstream leftist lumping of the right, because I can easily show the reverse.
In fact, I think there is a pretty good set of examples to suggest that the definitions of white supremacists and racists are expanding.
Voting statistics were analyzed after the election and news programs told you what demographic voted for Trump. If it was CNN, they would tell you about the "whitelash", and BuzzFeed had previously released videos about what "Trump's America" would look like. Border security was conflated with and then replaced by examples of the Berlin Wall. Universities have caved to pro Trump etchings complaints and called the mere advertisement hate speech.
So I wouldn't say that everyone on the left is racist or is expanding the definition, but there are powerful institutions that would benefit from this and act on it. Mass media, and universities. There is no truth vetting principle that created this hyperbole, but there are promotion methods that will get you a comfortable position in these institutions that are based on this. Mass media probably more than universities, because universities yield to public pressure, but universities are inclined to be left leaning for profits.
You have not, which I believe should be normal. However, it is also pretty normal for people on the right to be lumped into these categories. I do agree that there are idiots on either side that will say any label that suits them, however, when it comes to republicans, it doesn't go away as easily even if it's obviously untrue. And I would go so far as to say that it has been a campaign strategy on the left. During the 2008 election, anyone who didn't vote for Obama was a racist and in 2016 Mitt Romney was called a racist up until the day he lost. Afterwards, nobody really calls him racist anymore.
There are also numerous figures that are considered alt right or called racist despite either being classically libretarian, centrist, or even left but disagree with identity politics. While these examples can be expressed in the YouTube communities (Sargon of Akkad, Someblackguy, Warski, etc.) I do not believe it is limited to them. And I believe it was Vice that ran a video on Bigmantyrone and his acting as "president of Kekistan", which is often called a racist alt right meme, which it is not. Still, a biased narrative can be seen against the right this way, the definition is expanding.
I remember during the election people would call the right or alt right fascists, and even though they could be just about any idiot for either side, it didn't feel endorsed until the definition shown on online dictionaries added "right wing" explicitly.
My main point about the media lumping in racists with one side of the political spectrum is that not everyone on the left is saying it. But there is an endorsement, and when left leaning media does have a bid on what is considered a favorable report, it's fair to ask why racism is implied.
Why was the president even asked to condemn neo Nazis? They are a minority so small, that no actual political traction or policy could occur, and so hated that nobody would endorse them. If I asked you if you were racist, that would be as out of place as calling you a racist. I think we are better than that, neither you or I are racist and implying will do us no good.
have I ever called you a racist?
about as many people say every one on the right is a Nazi as people who say every one on the left is a commie or a traitor. idiots aside.
No one on the left says everyone on the right is a racist.
the Charlottesville people were chanting "Jews will not replace us".
I'll give you that nowadays people use Nazi, supremacist, and klansman pretty interchangeably, but their differences are irrelevant to the objection at hand.
they are bigots of the 'actually doing oppressive shit' kind. f*** them.
I would be inclined to agree with you that pointing out someone else's faults do not excuse your own. However,it does seem like the right is oftentimes lumped in with other groups to then leave little room for conversation.
When someone is lumped in with racists or called racist, backpedaling or creating apologies or even denying it does not save their image. Think about the neo Nazi question in Charlottesville as an accusation of character, rather than pointing out the faults of a political side. Nazis are not a part of the political spectrum, try as they may to be represented. Admitting responsibility to the Nazis (which in this case, may not even be, as the individuals motives do not specify a specific group just anyone outside his car) would only further the modern, in-group defined "Nazis", anyone right of center left.
Would you agree with me that the term "Nazi" has been used widespread and in a broad sense to many non-white supremisists, or even just supremisists? would you also agree that Nazis were the "minority" of the people gathered that day?
I ask these questions not to imply Nazis don't exist, but to confirm what the numbers of people that gathered were. If we can agree these are true, asking Trump to denounce Neo Nazis seems pretty stupid, since there is no reason to assume political affiliation. He has also on a separate day denounced them, so this particular instance isnt indicative either. And yes, the examples of whataboutisms is not solely tied to this instance in a debate, but I do think that there is merit in arguing these cases one by one.
In this case, we get valuable insight in how a political play may try to separate meaning from statement, by focusing on the locutionary statement. There is, in context, relevance rather than deflection, and an answer of blame. I think I made my thoughts clear on what is making political tensions raise, so the question of "how did it get so far, who is to blame" bundled in a request to disavow could not actually be asking Trump to condemn the violence or an actual group. Why? Because the resulting answer decides how the story is run, and since there was no condemnation it was a weaker version of what the media wanted, a widespread "nazi scare".
It should be good to note from my previous statements that Nazis are so few in number, their revival has no case, and their intent for marching did not show the same violence that day. It does not mean agreement, but media perception can be seen.
yes, I am Icallbull.
Even if the events are related, it doesn't matter. a previous wrong doing by someone else doesn't excuse a present wrong doing by an individual in question. it should be a seperate conversation, but not an excuse to change focus in the present conversation.
the thing is that the whataboutism in this administration, and much of right wing media isn't an isolated incident in the Nazi march, but the default strategy on almost every issue. not only is it irrelevant on an individual level, this constant use of it is damaging to the entire nation.
So what is the source of this political tension? If we picked terrorists, looked at their political affiliations, looked at their victims to check, then made an assumption on politics as a whole, it may suggest a political motivation where there isn't one and still misses the connection and support of others in the community.
For example, if we looked at the Last Vegas shooters political affiliation during women's marches, looked at the victims of a country concert, and then assumed this was an attack on the right that would be incorrect. With the driver we know he belonged to a nationalist group, drove into a group of varying people, but for what political goal? For what gain? Can we say he was targeting any individual, or someone outside of his car? Do white nationalists support him?
I find these answers a bit telling when that is supposed to lump responsibilities on Nazis, as well as lump the right in with Nazis. However, the question asked by media is "fair" in the sense that Nazis do have an unfair, UN-american ideology. And it is not what the media's illocutionary act is focused on. What the media asked is if he will condemn neo Nazis after the event had occurred, relationally in time/space Grice's Maxim of relativity suggest that there is a Nazi problem.
Condemning says there is Nazis, saying No suggests Trump is siding with Nazis. So when we think of what could cause political tensions, I know many people on the right would say antifa is recognized for this, some because of reasons outlined in the first section, others because politicians on the left will allow antifa to act as they please, otherwise the state of emergency would have actually done something to save people.
Also, I'm not sure if you are known as Icallbull on Opinly, but it is I, Eo. I was here first, and changed my username when I moved platforms.
In the case of whataboutisms shown, they appear to be more like neutralization, specifically "Condemning the condemners". It would be a different if these pivot points in conversation were unrelated, but in most cases the illocutionary purpose of a statement is filtered to suggest that a statement is nonsensical, rather than with purpose.
To use one of their own examples, and probably a popular one, Trump is said to have ignored the alt right in favor of condemning the alt left, in the context of a tragedy from a nationalist mass killer running over people. Even more so, another politician calling it a false flag, then moving to "fake news" didn't help perceptions on the other side.
While on the surface of this Trump's statement seems to change the subject and ignore, it takes away from the context. For example, the actual amount of neonazis at this even isn't astronomical, it isn't even average for a political gathering, or even a convention. It is farmers market levels of low, maybe 300 actual Nazis, the most in one place in comparison to thousands of whoever else. Regular occurrences of violence could not be attributed to them because the day before with their tiki walk, they were the majority to every two or three people they passed, and could have done something if that was their goal, so why wait?
The next day is the only time we see violence, and with people tightly packed together, of course some confusion could occur. So what happened? At 11:00 a state of emergency was called, police stood by... and did nothing until the car rammed into people at 2:00. It would be difficult to say how violent the event was either way because if tensions were high enough and conflicts occurred, why did the police wait so long? Was it because they would have to arrest the "wrong" people? In any case, this inaction is what makes many conspiracy theorist raise eyebrows, I don't know about the validity of the car or why airbags didn't go off.
In the case of Trump, it isn't that he's denying neonazis, it's the media suggesting we have a neonazis problem. With the higher numbers of antifa, the ever widening definition of Nazi/alt right, and the "bash the fascist" slogan, I find that harder to believe,and so to avoid validating the media's illocutionary statement, you can't actually say yes or no. Instead, you suggest a different source for the problem. To Be continued on the next paragraph.
a John Oliver clip regarding the subject.