5 ms·

I've already given the answer to your question: Whoever marches in Charlottesville represents those who march in Charlottesville. They don't speak for the rest

I've already given the answer to your question: Whoever marches in Charlottesville represents those who march in Charlottesville. They don't speak for the rest of the "alt-right", whatever that is.

tptacek 9y ago
Can we safely assume that people who literally march in solidarity with neo-Nazis lose the rhetorical privilege of objecting to comparisons between them and Nazis? (That doesn't make them "actual Nazis", it just makes the comparison germane). Can we assume that if some duly constituted group --- whatever definition we choose --- sponsors a march in solidarity with neo-Nazis, and the group is not riven with dissent over that action, that it's germane to compare members of that group (or, at least, those who knowingly remain after the march) with Nazis? Again: the action isn't dispositive; it just means the comparison, right or wrong, isn't frivolous.
- leereeves 9y ago
  > Can we safely assume that people who literally march in solidarity with neo-Nazis Are we talking about anyone who's done so here? If not, why bring them up?
  - tptacek 9y ago
    I answered that question directly one comment prior. Is the question I just asked hard to answer? I am not building to an indictment of James Damore, if that's what you're wondering.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      If you're asking about "the alt-right", you'll first have to define it. As far as I know, that's not some duly constituted group - it's an insult used against a wide variety of people ("everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders") by their political adversaries. And the intention of the insult is to encourage exactly what happened here - to associate people like James Damore with people like those marching in Charlottesville.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        That's specifically not the question I asked. I wasn't asking about "the alt right". I deliberately removed "the alt right" from the question to avoid a pointless debate about what "the alt right" is. One of the very first things I wrote here said not only that I don't have evidence that Damore is part of "the alt right" ---- one of his enthusiastic supporters did --- but to reject the logic that would assign him to any such group. Conservatives are not neo-Nazis. I'm not a conservative, but I have plenty of conservative friends, and I actually enjoy talking to them about policy more than to my fellow liberals. So, again, I'm just interested in the principles here. Could you check out those two questions I asked upthread and give me a quick take on them? Thanks!
        leereeves 9y ago
        I think we've strayed too far off topic here. Since you've confirmed we're not talking about James Damore or even "the alt-right", I'm pretty sure nothing we're discussing is on-topic anymore.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Ok, but then I'm going to suggest that it is effectively impossible to compare anyone to a Nazi on the Internet, even if they are actual neo-Nazis. I think that's a weird outcome but I believe that's where we're at.
        leereeves 9y ago
        I don't know how you came to that conclusion from my statement that such a discussion is off-topic here...
        tptacek 9y ago
        Well, I guess because it's not off topic? Here's what happened on this thread (all paraphrased): 1. "This firing was so dumb that it's going to drive lots of people into the arms of the alt-right". 2. "That's useful for the left because it allows them to call people Nazis without invoking Godwin's law". 3. "That's not what Godwin's law says, and regardless, the Nazi/alt-right comparison isn't frivolous. And here we are. My stake in this discussion isn't about Damore, who, for the third time, I don't believe is an alt-right figure (much as the alt-right would love to claim him as one). Rather, it's in challenging the trope that some accusations --- racism, Naziism, maybe communism? --- are so outré that they can't be made. That creates a safe space for people to actually be Nazis.

I've already given the answer to your question: Whoever marches in Charlottesville represents those who march in Charlottesville. They don't speak for the rest of the "alt-right", whatever that is.

tptacek 9y ago

Can we safely assume that people who literally march in solidarity with neo-Nazis lose the rhetorical privilege of objecting to comparisons between them and Nazis? (That doesn't make them "actual Nazis", it just makes the comparison germane). Can we assume that if some duly constituted group --- whatever definition we choose --- sponsors a march in solidarity with neo-Nazis, and the group is not riven with dissent over that action, that it's germane to compare members of that group (or, at least, those who knowingly remain after the march) with Nazis? Again: the action isn't dispositive; it just means the comparison, right or wrong, isn't frivolous.

leereeves 9y ago
> Can we safely assume that people who literally march in solidarity with neo-Nazis Are we talking about anyone who's done so here? If not, why bring them up?
- tptacek 9y ago
  I answered that question directly one comment prior. Is the question I just asked hard to answer? I am not building to an indictment of James Damore, if that's what you're wondering.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    If you're asking about "the alt-right", you'll first have to define it. As far as I know, that's not some duly constituted group - it's an insult used against a wide variety of people ("everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders") by their political adversaries. And the intention of the insult is to encourage exactly what happened here - to associate people like James Damore with people like those marching in Charlottesville.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      That's specifically not the question I asked. I wasn't asking about "the alt right". I deliberately removed "the alt right" from the question to avoid a pointless debate about what "the alt right" is. One of the very first things I wrote here said not only that I don't have evidence that Damore is part of "the alt right" ---- one of his enthusiastic supporters did --- but to reject the logic that would assign him to any such group. Conservatives are not neo-Nazis. I'm not a conservative, but I have plenty of conservative friends, and I actually enjoy talking to them about policy more than to my fellow liberals. So, again, I'm just interested in the principles here. Could you check out those two questions I asked upthread and give me a quick take on them? Thanks!
      - leereeves 9y ago
        I think we've strayed too far off topic here. Since you've confirmed we're not talking about James Damore or even "the alt-right", I'm pretty sure nothing we're discussing is on-topic anymore.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Ok, but then I'm going to suggest that it is effectively impossible to compare anyone to a Nazi on the Internet, even if they are actual neo-Nazis. I think that's a weird outcome but I believe that's where we're at.
        leereeves 9y ago
        I don't know how you came to that conclusion from my statement that such a discussion is off-topic here...
        tptacek 9y ago
        Well, I guess because it's not off topic? Here's what happened on this thread (all paraphrased): 1. "This firing was so dumb that it's going to drive lots of people into the arms of the alt-right". 2. "That's useful for the left because it allows them to call people Nazis without invoking Godwin's law". 3. "That's not what Godwin's law says, and regardless, the Nazi/alt-right comparison isn't frivolous. And here we are. My stake in this discussion isn't about Damore, who, for the third time, I don't believe is an alt-right figure (much as the alt-right would love to claim him as one). Rather, it's in challenging the trope that some accusations --- racism, Naziism, maybe communism? --- are so outré that they can't be made. That creates a safe space for people to actually be Nazis.