7 ms·

I moved to San Francisco from a small, deeply red town. I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I

I moved to San Francisco from a small, deeply red town. I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just economically). The leadership at the company was very reasonable, but the politically active folks terrified me, and didn't just think that those that held conservative viewpoints were misguided, but that they were actively evil. There's a big difference. I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. I made the mistake of mentioning that once and somehow that turned me into a pro-Trump spokesperson. I can do that for the sake of a rational conversation, but I somehow ended up being the Trump supporter spokesperson despite the fact that I can't stand the guy. I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous.

plandis 9y ago
In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own.
- austenallred 9y ago
  I don't agree with those policies, but can you imagine any non-evil reason a rational person would hold those beliefs?
  - mfringel 9y ago
    Define "rational". If you mean "Can someone justify those beliefs to themselves through a logical chain, while allowing for personal belief systems", then yes, of course, there are plenty of non-evil reasons a rational person could hold those. However, you can still have irreconcilable differences in belief systems at an existential level.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    No, I can't. And it really isn't up to my imagination either. If this 'rational' person has a 'rational' argument for wanting to ban Muslims or gays then let's hear it because I can't imagine it. Yes, you will get pushback on that.
    - combo432 9y ago
      It wasn't a Muslim ban. The ban didn't include Malaysia, Indonesia, or Algeria for instance and many other Muslim countries. There were 6 countries on the travel ban list. There are 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on That's a quote.
        Agustus 9y ago
        That is not a quote, that is a paraphrasing of whatever the original statement was.
        CalChris 9y ago
        That's a quote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... You may not like that fact but it remains a fact. Extra points for referring to himself in the third person because, you know, Obama was so arrogant.
      - zimpenfish 9y ago
        POTUS himself called it a Muslim ban several times, especially when asking Giuliani how to accomplish a Muslim ban legally.
  - taylodl 9y ago
    Fear. Fear of the other. Fear of a widening disparity between the haves and have-nots - and they're increasingly in the have-not category. Fear that their children won't be able to do as well or better than they did. Fear. And Donald Trump expertly capitalized on that fear while Hillary chose to ignore it. Trump won. I'm not convinced we progressives/liberals fully understand this because we're still ignoring this fear.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      Just Fear, or fear of risks materializing? The risk materialized for victims of terrorism. The risk materialized for victims of drug gangs. The risk materialized for victims of illegal aliens committing crimes including identity theft. The risk materialized for victims of outsourcing. The risk materialized of well paying manufacturing jobs disappearing. It's wasn't fear, it was the materialized risk. Many voted for Obama overcoming fear, choosing hope. But they realized you can't just choose hope, you have to go and bend reality to be what you want it to be. And they put a bend in flow of reality, choosing Trump. The elite fail to sympathize with their own countrymen in peril, because having compassion for your fellow countryman means you were being a 'xenophobe'. That label is not very vogue in elite circles. I, for one, am glad that the risk of Trump being elected materialized.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    The only widespread reason that I have seen for restricting the rights of gay folks is one of ignorance fueled by religious dogma. This was a common view at the churches I attended during my youth. I wouldn't call this "evil", but I would call it harmful.
  - plandis 9y ago
    Logical reason for wanting to restrict the rights of gay people and ban all Muslims? I'm all ears, I literally cannot think of a rational reason for supporting such policies.
    - narrowrail 9y ago
      The guy is a pathological liar, there is not one proposal I've seen that would, "restrict the rights of gay people" or "ban all Muslims."
- JSONwebtoken 9y ago
  Honestly, none of those things matter to me. I vote on the second amendment and fiscal policy. As a libertarian, I am an advocate for civil rights, clean energy, equality, and so forth. I care about those issues, but you can't be a moderate without making idealogical compromises. Net neutrality was a disappointment, but myself and others in the tech community will learn to deal with the inconvenience. The plight of illegal immigrants and the "religion of peace" has zero relevance to me, I simply don't care enough one way or the other to vote in favor of them.
- otp124 9y ago
  Let's rewind a bit of history and look back to what the Democratic Party did to civil rights and a race for the next 100+ years after a bold Republican emancipated the slaves. People everywhere can do horrible, horrible things. Read your history books, and try hard to prevent history from repeating itself.
  - Can_Not 9y ago
    Let's not pretend as if political parties are immutable over periods of time such as 150 years.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own. Why are all white people being asked to pay for some white slave owners? Why are they being punished for the sins of their forefathers? No white person alive now, ever owned slaves, it is illegal. No black person alive now, was ever enslaved, it is illegal. Are you giving a clean sheet to all white "kids" because slavery was no fault of their own? Ben Affleck's ancestors were slave owners, does that mean Ben should be punished and have to pay reparations? >They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own. The interpretation for someone considering crossing border illegally: If you can sneak in with a less than 10 year old child into USA, stay hidden for 5 years or so, you can claim that the kid grew up in USA, is in USA for no fault of her own, and her family of undocumented parents should get to stay as well since USA doesn't want to separate families, which means we are all safe. That's Amnesty for entire family. I would be safe. Totally worth giving lives savings and taking loans to pay the human traffickers, there is risk of death and rape, but after that ordeal we would be safe. May be I will carry some drugs on me to pay for the trip. Tell me why that interpretation is wrong? You sympathize with the well-off, but still illegal, DACA recipients in USA. I am concerned about that family in South America starting the journey where enslavement and rape is real certainty. >Muslim ban Campaign rhetoric vs. reality. See his Saudi visit. That was a way to explain extreme vetting. > Civil rights of gay Trump is the first USA President who came to office while supporting Marriage Equality for gay and lesbian. Hillary and Obama declined Marriage equality for political gains. I see this as a pure power play: Let me do what I want to do without any questioning, because somebody somewhere somehow, by some interpretation, is being oppressed.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Do you seriously think there's any moral correspondence whatsoever between trying to make a living in the US against its will, and owning/importing slaves?
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      A person alive today, who happens to be white, never owned slaves in his life. Why is left hell bent on punishing that white person for some crimes that that person's ancestors, may have done. Most whites never owned slaved even in those days. It was white people who fought for and paid with their lives ending slavery. Left wants to hold all whites responsible for crimes of slavery. Left wants to give clean sheet to DACA recipients for crimes of their parents. Why do you want to hold kids responsible for parents crimes when it comes to white people?
Merad 9y ago
> I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just economically). As a liberal atheist who has spent most of his life in the deep red parts of the south, I can assure you that you're wrong.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I had plenty of liberal atheist friends in school in a small town. They were fine. A gay guy was a candidate for homecoming king, even.
- otp124 9y ago
  Your personal anecdotes don't prove OP's anecdotes wrong. I can re-assure you of OP's view with my own personal anecdotes, but I wouldn't go as far as to say you are "wrong".
Chaebixi 9y ago
> but the politically active folks terrified me I hear this. It's frightening how some people can rationalize taking extremely punitive actions in response to encountering mere disagreement or differing identity. Everyone needs to remember that the people they disagree with are people too, and treat them as they'd like themselves to be treated. > I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous. I would call it polarization. The discourse is just a consequence of that.
cr0sh 9y ago
> I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women... ...unless you have a different definition of what is considered "good". /much like christians claim "everything god does is good" - you know, like genocide via a flood...
- austenallred 9y ago
  I don't disagree that those comments were wretched (again, I didn't vote for Trump), and neither do the majority of the people I know that voted for him, but it seems entirely possible to me that someone would vote for him in spite of those comments, not because of them. Indeed, if you were to assume that every vote for a candidate is de facto support of everything they do/are, I don't think I ever could have voted for anyone.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Yep. I have relatives who voted for him because, in their words, "look at the markets!! We're doing great!" They really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their investment holdings. Nothing but some numbers on an account.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  >Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women... If you take that stance, then your options are: 1. 45% of the voting people in USA support sexually assaulting women. Are you OK with that understanding? Do you not find something unsettling about saying 45% people in USA are OK for sexually assaulting women? The same conservative family oriented people, the same law and order people, the same god and sins people are supportive of sexually assaulting women? Can we have survived as a nation so far if so many people supported sexually assaulting women? 2. Hillary still lost to such person. What does that say about Hillary? If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin. What does THAT say about Hillary? Why do you think that was the case?
timthelion 9y ago
I agree that the west coast left is getting too jumpy with regards to Trump. I'm far left and certainly not a supporter of Trump ( I voted Stein because I felt Hillary to be too wealthy ). Once I mentioned to a family member on the west coast that I thought it was interesting that so many of the smart and kind people in the woodworking community come directly from Trump-land and that it was a paradox that such hateful rhetoric comes from a place that I associate with such intelligence and sharing. And my family member got very angry at me and was unable to continue the conversation. I find it terrible that when you're only given two options, and both of them suck, choosing one over the other can be seen as such a treason. To me these conversations sound like "You prefer diarrhea to vomiting! I'm never going to sit on your couch again!"
observation 9y ago
This gem from HN the other day: > Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce. That is creepy to me. You have the ingredients of a witch hunt. "can't easily distinguish them" aka "anyone could be a witch", "can't use legal methods to attack or 'regulate' them" aka "something... must be done", that's what I'm reading. There's no evidence that the altright as a group are plotting to murder other citizens. The reverse, threats to do violence to altrighters, I see that on a daily basis without looking for it online e.g. the "punch a nazi" meme. Going from that to "beat up a nazi" to injury/death is not a leap. And who are they? It's a large collection of loosely connected right wing groups. A full list would take several A4 pages. Most of them hold beliefs little different to our grandparents or possibly great-grandparents in the case of the monarchists. Anybody to the right of the Republican party could be 'altright'. This isn't true but that seems to be how most people have built their classifier. It's easy to prove that because if you ask (as Trump did to a reporter) people to define the group, they don't know how to do it. I think there is a definition but nobody in the media has mentioned it AFAIK, it's not something that is well understood and so "Nazis!". That nazi flag at the charlottesville rally? A singular item unless the photographers were holding out on us. There are lots of photographs and it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag. There seems to be a curious motte and bailey argument going on here. The altright is a relatively small set, but in the media and twitter they are either a fringe sect of right wing lunatics or they are an all pervasive threat to society. It can't be both. Not unless you have an infinitely extensible definition that you can be using for ulterior political purposes.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > There's no evidence that the altright as a group are plotting to murder other citizens https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-alt-right-chat-logs-are-key-to-charlottesville-lawsuits/ https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-alt-right-chat-logs-are-k... Perhaps not "murder" but certainly "attack and maim". Please don't try excuse this with the "but they're only JOKING" trope - their intent is blatant and clear. > it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag This article has a photo with two different guys holding two different flags - that makes at least 3. https://azjewishpost.com/2017/hate-in-charlottesville-the-day-the-nazi-called-me-shlomo/ https://azjewishpost.com/2017/hate-in-charlottesville-the-da...

plandis 9y ago

In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own.

austenallred 9y ago
I don't agree with those policies, but can you imagine any non-evil reason a rational person would hold those beliefs?
- mfringel 9y ago
  Define "rational". If you mean "Can someone justify those beliefs to themselves through a logical chain, while allowing for personal belief systems", then yes, of course, there are plenty of non-evil reasons a rational person could hold those. However, you can still have irreconcilable differences in belief systems at an existential level.
- CalChris 9y ago
  No, I can't. And it really isn't up to my imagination either. If this 'rational' person has a 'rational' argument for wanting to ban Muslims or gays then let's hear it because I can't imagine it. Yes, you will get pushback on that.
  - combo432 9y ago
    It wasn't a Muslim ban. The ban didn't include Malaysia, Indonesia, or Algeria for instance and many other Muslim countries. There were 6 countries on the travel ban list. There are 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on That's a quote.
      - Agustus 9y ago
        That is not a quote, that is a paraphrasing of whatever the original statement was.
        CalChris 9y ago
        That's a quote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1401/establish-ban-muslims-entering-us/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer... You may not like that fact but it remains a fact. Extra points for referring to himself in the third person because, you know, Obama was so arrogant.
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      POTUS himself called it a Muslim ban several times, especially when asking Giuliani how to accomplish a Muslim ban legally.
- taylodl 9y ago
  Fear. Fear of the other. Fear of a widening disparity between the haves and have-nots - and they're increasingly in the have-not category. Fear that their children won't be able to do as well or better than they did. Fear. And Donald Trump expertly capitalized on that fear while Hillary chose to ignore it. Trump won. I'm not convinced we progressives/liberals fully understand this because we're still ignoring this fear.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Just Fear, or fear of risks materializing? The risk materialized for victims of terrorism. The risk materialized for victims of drug gangs. The risk materialized for victims of illegal aliens committing crimes including identity theft. The risk materialized for victims of outsourcing. The risk materialized of well paying manufacturing jobs disappearing. It's wasn't fear, it was the materialized risk. Many voted for Obama overcoming fear, choosing hope. But they realized you can't just choose hope, you have to go and bend reality to be what you want it to be. And they put a bend in flow of reality, choosing Trump. The elite fail to sympathize with their own countrymen in peril, because having compassion for your fellow countryman means you were being a 'xenophobe'. That label is not very vogue in elite circles. I, for one, am glad that the risk of Trump being elected materialized.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  The only widespread reason that I have seen for restricting the rights of gay folks is one of ignorance fueled by religious dogma. This was a common view at the churches I attended during my youth. I wouldn't call this "evil", but I would call it harmful.
- plandis 9y ago
  Logical reason for wanting to restrict the rights of gay people and ban all Muslims? I'm all ears, I literally cannot think of a rational reason for supporting such policies.
  - narrowrail 9y ago
    The guy is a pathological liar, there is not one proposal I've seen that would, "restrict the rights of gay people" or "ban all Muslims."
JSONwebtoken 9y ago
Honestly, none of those things matter to me. I vote on the second amendment and fiscal policy. As a libertarian, I am an advocate for civil rights, clean energy, equality, and so forth. I care about those issues, but you can't be a moderate without making idealogical compromises. Net neutrality was a disappointment, but myself and others in the tech community will learn to deal with the inconvenience. The plight of illegal immigrants and the "religion of peace" has zero relevance to me, I simply don't care enough one way or the other to vote in favor of them.
otp124 9y ago
Let's rewind a bit of history and look back to what the Democratic Party did to civil rights and a race for the next 100+ years after a bold Republican emancipated the slaves. People everywhere can do horrible, horrible things. Read your history books, and try hard to prevent history from repeating itself.
- Can_Not 9y ago
  Let's not pretend as if political parties are immutable over periods of time such as 150 years.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own. Why are all white people being asked to pay for some white slave owners? Why are they being punished for the sins of their forefathers? No white person alive now, ever owned slaves, it is illegal. No black person alive now, was ever enslaved, it is illegal. Are you giving a clean sheet to all white "kids" because slavery was no fault of their own? Ben Affleck's ancestors were slave owners, does that mean Ben should be punished and have to pay reparations? >They want to deport kids who have lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own. The interpretation for someone considering crossing border illegally: If you can sneak in with a less than 10 year old child into USA, stay hidden for 5 years or so, you can claim that the kid grew up in USA, is in USA for no fault of her own, and her family of undocumented parents should get to stay as well since USA doesn't want to separate families, which means we are all safe. That's Amnesty for entire family. I would be safe. Totally worth giving lives savings and taking loans to pay the human traffickers, there is risk of death and rape, but after that ordeal we would be safe. May be I will carry some drugs on me to pay for the trip. Tell me why that interpretation is wrong? You sympathize with the well-off, but still illegal, DACA recipients in USA. I am concerned about that family in South America starting the journey where enslavement and rape is real certainty. >Muslim ban Campaign rhetoric vs. reality. See his Saudi visit. That was a way to explain extreme vetting. > Civil rights of gay Trump is the first USA President who came to office while supporting Marriage Equality for gay and lesbian. Hillary and Obama declined Marriage equality for political gains. I see this as a pure power play: Let me do what I want to do without any questioning, because somebody somewhere somehow, by some interpretation, is being oppressed.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Do you seriously think there's any moral correspondence whatsoever between trying to make a living in the US against its will, and owning/importing slaves?
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    A person alive today, who happens to be white, never owned slaves in his life. Why is left hell bent on punishing that white person for some crimes that that person's ancestors, may have done. Most whites never owned slaved even in those days. It was white people who fought for and paid with their lives ending slavery. Left wants to hold all whites responsible for crimes of slavery. Left wants to give clean sheet to DACA recipients for crimes of their parents. Why do you want to hold kids responsible for parents crimes when it comes to white people?

Merad 9y ago

> I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just economically). As a liberal atheist who has spent most of his life in the deep red parts of the south, I can assure you that you're wrong.

humanrebar 9y ago
I had plenty of liberal atheist friends in school in a small town. They were fine. A gay guy was a candidate for homecoming king, even.
otp124 9y ago
Your personal anecdotes don't prove OP's anecdotes wrong. I can re-assure you of OP's view with my own personal anecdotes, but I wouldn't go as far as to say you are "wrong".

Chaebixi 9y ago

> but the politically active folks terrified me I hear this. It's frightening how some people can rationalize taking extremely punitive actions in response to encountering mere disagreement or differing identity. Everyone needs to remember that the people they disagree with are people too, and treat them as they'd like themselves to be treated. > I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous. I would call it polarization. The discourse is just a consequence of that.

cr0sh 9y ago

> I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women... ...unless you have a different definition of what is considered "good". /much like christians claim "everything god does is good" - you know, like genocide via a flood...

austenallred 9y ago
I don't disagree that those comments were wretched (again, I didn't vote for Trump), and neither do the majority of the people I know that voted for him, but it seems entirely possible to me that someone would vote for him in spite of those comments, not because of them. Indeed, if you were to assume that every vote for a candidate is de facto support of everything they do/are, I don't think I ever could have voted for anyone.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Yep. I have relatives who voted for him because, in their words, "look at the markets!! We're doing great!" They really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their investment holdings. Nothing but some numbers on an account.
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women... If you take that stance, then your options are: 1. 45% of the voting people in USA support sexually assaulting women. Are you OK with that understanding? Do you not find something unsettling about saying 45% people in USA are OK for sexually assaulting women? The same conservative family oriented people, the same law and order people, the same god and sins people are supportive of sexually assaulting women? Can we have survived as a nation so far if so many people supported sexually assaulting women? 2. Hillary still lost to such person. What does that say about Hillary? If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin. What does THAT say about Hillary? Why do you think that was the case?

timthelion 9y ago

I agree that the west coast left is getting too jumpy with regards to Trump. I'm far left and certainly not a supporter of Trump ( I voted Stein because I felt Hillary to be too wealthy ). Once I mentioned to a family member on the west coast that I thought it was interesting that so many of the smart and kind people in the woodworking community come directly from Trump-land and that it was a paradox that such hateful rhetoric comes from a place that I associate with such intelligence and sharing. And my family member got very angry at me and was unable to continue the conversation. I find it terrible that when you're only given two options, and both of them suck, choosing one over the other can be seen as such a treason. To me these conversations sound like "You prefer diarrhea to vomiting! I'm never going to sit on your couch again!"

observation 9y ago

This gem from HN the other day: > Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce. That is creepy to me. You have the ingredients of a witch hunt. "can't easily distinguish them" aka "anyone could be a witch", "can't use legal methods to attack or 'regulate' them" aka "something... must be done", that's what I'm reading. There's no evidence that the altright as a group are plotting to murder other citizens. The reverse, threats to do violence to altrighters, I see that on a daily basis without looking for it online e.g. the "punch a nazi" meme. Going from that to "beat up a nazi" to injury/death is not a leap. And who are they? It's a large collection of loosely connected right wing groups. A full list would take several A4 pages. Most of them hold beliefs little different to our grandparents or possibly great-grandparents in the case of the monarchists. Anybody to the right of the Republican party could be 'altright'. This isn't true but that seems to be how most people have built their classifier. It's easy to prove that because if you ask (as Trump did to a reporter) people to define the group, they don't know how to do it. I think there is a definition but nobody in the media has mentioned it AFAIK, it's not something that is well understood and so "Nazis!". That nazi flag at the charlottesville rally? A singular item unless the photographers were holding out on us. There are lots of photographs and it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag. There seems to be a curious motte and bailey argument going on here. The altright is a relatively small set, but in the media and twitter they are either a fringe sect of right wing lunatics or they are an all pervasive threat to society. It can't be both. Not unless you have an infinitely extensible definition that you can be using for ulterior political purposes.

zimpenfish 9y ago
> There's no evidence that the altright as a group are plotting to murder other citizens https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-alt-right-chat-logs-are-key-to-charlottesville-lawsuits/ https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-alt-right-chat-logs-are-k... Perhaps not "murder" but certainly "attack and maim". Please don't try excuse this with the "but they're only JOKING" trope - their intent is blatant and clear. > it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag This article has a photo with two different guys holding two different flags - that makes at least 3. https://azjewishpost.com/2017/hate-in-charlottesville-the-day-the-nazi-called-me-shlomo/ https://azjewishpost.com/2017/hate-in-charlottesville-the-da...