Why tolerance does not extend to Supremacist groups

Violence, oppression, even the encouragement of violence towards other groups shouldn’t be tolerated, yet the dotard encourages everything White Supremacist groups stand for. It has even been suggested in some sources that the dotard is a white supremacist. He probably is, but that’s another topic. The thing is, supremacist groups have increased since the dotard took over the Big House and the NAACP since the dotard began his occupation of the Big House, has had a travel advisory for the state of Missouri. Supremacist groups don’t accept those who are different from them by way of complexion, culture, religion, heritage, and probably some I missed and will resort to violence if other groups don’t “stay in their place” and accept their “supremacy”, which they do not have. Oppression of others is what they do mostly by violence and instilling fear. This article was from February 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html?fbclid=IwAR3uQteeXJtVSPXHwOlAh8ozDSg3CXmc5aGtyvDNu1iOORBryz1ZwfNUIWw

The law center said the number of hate groups rose by 7 percent last year to 1,020, a 30 percent jump from 2014. That broadly echoes other worrying developments, including a 30 percent increase in the number of hate crimes reported to the F.B.I. from 2015 through 2017 and a surge of right-wing violence that the Anti-Defamation League said had killed at least 50 people in 2018.
“Trump has made people in the white supremacist movement move back into politics and the public domain,” Ms. Beirich said. “He is a critical aspect of this dynamic, but he is not the only reason why the ranks of hate groups are growing. The ability to propagate hate in the online space is key.”

This quote from the article refers to an ADL report, which agreed with SPLC’s report:

That report said that right-wing extremism was linked to every extremist-related killing the group tracked in 2018, at least 50, and that jihadist groups were linked to none. It said that made 2018 the deadliest year for right-wing extremism since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

So Jihadist are not the problem in the U.S., but Right wingers like to make people believe this. Instead White Supremacists are the issue. The Extremist groups target Jews, Latino, Native Americans, anti-LGBT and others. However, there was also a rise in Black Supremacist groups (AKA Nation of Islam) too, which basically are similar to White Supremacists, but are anti-white, instead of anti-black. They all use violence of some sort (AKA bombings, beatings, lynchings etc) and that’s just one of many reasons why such groups should not be tolerated.

However, as said before, the dotard encourages Supremacist groups and that too should not be tolerated. People in the U.S. should all be able to practice their religion and cultural activities, as well as have their celebrations of their heritage, without fear of harm. To me diversity is the U.S.A. and that should be accept. The issue is how do we eliminate Right Wing Supremacist groups without doing the same thing they are attempting- harm, oppression, forced assimilation (unless your complexion is dark then separation), discrimination etc.? How do we stop the increase hate crime and teach others to be accepting and tolerant of diversity? IMHO, assimilation shouldn’t be the goal, but rather living with each others differences in a peaceful manner, learning and sharing our diversity with each other. I think it is fun learning about other people celebrations, traditions, languages, and ways of life, instead of trying to make everyone cookie cutters of everyone else. It is, as in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek, the Vulcan IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations).

“Until humans learn to tolerate -- no, that’s not enough; to positively value each other -- until we can value the diversity here on Earth, then we don’t deserve to go into outer space and encounter the infinite diversity out there.” -- Gene Roddenberry
Gene Roddenberry Jr. says the entire show was

“…based on the idea of IDIC, which was one of the backbones of the original series. It’s the philosophy that’s always really kind of resonated with me. I did not grow up watching Star Trek. I liked Knight Rider and The Dukes of Hazzard. It wasn’t until later in life, through the fans, that I got a different perspective of what Star Trek was, and then I went back and I’d start to get it. We all know the term “IDIC,” which means “infinite diversity in infinite combinations.” It’s the idea that it’s universal acceptance.[4]”

See to my husband, many fans, and myself, what has become the Roddenberry philosophy, which is very humanistic (Gene’s views were humanistic) and far more than just IDIC, it’s more than a show, the philosophy is a way of life and even a goal or dream of how we want the world to be. Until Majel died, there was a whole community, with a forum and we all shared Gene’s philosophy. Rod and Majel continued the philosophy after his death. His philosophy can be found in the humanist manifesto and have even been the topic of many humanist podcasts, so what I’m talking about I’m not at all alone in and as I said, we can find this idea in the Humanist Manifesto, albeit not in exact words.

Well, I guess I should turn this topic over to everyone else for discussion and put more of my two cents in as we continue.

@Mriana: People in the U.S. should all be able to practice their religion and cultural activities, as well as have their celebrations of their heritage, without fear of harm.
Like I said, I grew up in New York and everybody is there. Going into Queens was like leaving the USA. Well, the USA, to me, was Manhattan. Everywhere else in the boroughs across the river were people of various ethnicities living in their respective enclaves as they would in their countries of origin. There were no white supremacists and no racist issues. Generally, life there was as good as in London, Paris or Rome. Things have not changed. Granted, every now and then there are hate crimes and gun violence in one place or another, all over the country since forever. It's not perfect but that's who we are.

Somehow I don’t think you read the article to understand why I said what I said. There’s been an increase in Supremacist groups since the dotard took office. In other words, there has been a vast increase in hate crimes all over the U.S. Things have changed, whether you know it or not and we don’t have to be like that. We can be more tolerant of each others.

That report said that right-wing extremism was linked to every extremist-related killing the group tracked in 2018, at least 50, and that jihadist groups were linked to none.
If the group only tracked what they considered to be extremist-related killings we should expect them to be related to extremism. That there were no jihadist related killings might tell us that the jihadists have decided to turn peaceful or we might conclude that we have done a really good job of detecting jihadist threats and preventing attacks. Of course, accepting the latter would mean giving the current administration a pat on he back and some would cut off their hand before doing that.

I think it would be really difficult to detect right-wing threats and prevent attacks without violating civil rights and establishing a police state, something most people wouldn’t want. People tend to react violently when threatened, including right-wing people. If we could reduce or eliminate what they perceive as threatening we might reduce their reaction to it. Of course there are many who would never admit that what they see as right and righteous should threaten anyone.

That’s not what it said Bob. Stop assuming or adding what isn’t there.

I think it would be really difficult to detect right-wing threats and prevent attacks without violating civil rights and establishing a police state,
Which is the thing that I don't like about Trump. If he was doing something to stop all extremist groups, instead of violating the rights of specific ethnic groups in the name of reducing violence, then I would support him. Just take out the underlined word above, and you have correctly identified the difficulty. But you solve the problem by putting that word in. Why is it difficult do that only for right-wing threats? Think about it what you said there.

The paradox of the 2nd Amendment is; a gun is safe when it is unloaded and properly stored, a gun is useful when it is armed and ready. So the guy in Vegas was acting legally, right up until he pulled the trigger while pointing his gun at innocent people. This is why the American people supported red flag laws and background checks, bills that passed congress, but Mitch McConnell won’t put before the Senate. Before Trump, even Sean Hannity was starting to say we might need some gun control, then Steve Bannon figured out he could flip the electoral college in states like Michigan, the rest is history, and might make America history.

I agree with you, Lausten. The dotard and his cronies have peeled away the civil rights gained since MLK Jr and they are currently working on at least dodging voting rights if not changing them of affect minorities disproportionately so Repugs can stay in office. They have managed to throw people off voter rolls, mostly minorities and to add to that, it’s sad to see that the NAACP has (or had) a travel advisory for the state of MO since the dotard took over the Big House.

The thing is, supremacist groups don’t need your tolerance.

The thing is, supremacist groups don’t need your tolerance.

That might be true in some local environments. But do you think it is true on a national scale?

The thing is, supremacist groups don’t need your tolerance.
That's not a thing. It's not a consideration. I don't know why you said that.
Why is it difficult do that only for right-wing threats?
It might be because many don't see left-wing activity as a threat. Surely you did notice the cited article didn't mention left-wing at all.

If you are talking about left-wing as in the group who did the sign over a government building (I think it was Greenpeace) where was the violence in that? Most of the left-wing stuff is non-violent. There’s my favourite- Jane Fonda and her Friday Fire Drills. Not once has their been an act of violence or terrorism, despite the number of people joining her in the protest. PETA? With their nudity and talk about fur? I don’t see any violence or terrorism there, especially nothing like the Right wing groups. ARM or ELF or ALF? While PETA, ARM, ALF, and ELF are extreme, I don’t recall them being in the news for acts of violence or domestic terrorism. ACLU? AU? NAACP? Rainbow Coalition? SLPC? ADL? Sierra Club? Not that I’ve heard of read and I could name more. When was the last time you heard of any left-wing groups in the news concerning violence and/or acts of domestic terrorism? Name one left-wing group who did something violent or terroristic like Right-wing groups? I don’t think any left-wing groups’ protests are a threat to anyone. Maybe individuals, but not the groups as a whole. IMHO, post stunts they do are funny and/or dangerous to the one(s) doing the protest (ie not safe to put the sign over a building like they did). Funny as in “Got beer”, which was a PETA protest against drinking milk- a dumb one, but nonetheless funny.

Why is it difficult do that only for right-wing threats? -- Lausten It might be because many don’t see left-wing activity as a threat. -- Bob
I have a tendency to drop words out while I’m typing, so, maybe I wasn’t clear. My question is asking you to explain your statement. You said it is, “ difficult to detect right-wing threats and prevent attacks without violating civil rights” and I agree with that. Except, I don’t see why you limit it to right-wing threats. We want a free and open society, so we can do our commerce, buy bread, see a movie, do something of no value. We don’t want walled cities. It’s literally enshrined in our history. The center of commerce, Wall St, is called that because there was once a wall there. Because we decided not to make New York a fortress, Washington had to escape in a boat across the Delaware.

But since you stated it that way, and other things you’ve said, it seems you don’t care about profiling Muslims, frisking black boys, detaining children at the border, or any other number of violations of civil rights against anyone, as long as they aren’t on your team.

Surely you did notice the cited article didn’t mention left-wing at all. -- Bob
It seems you don’t know how studies work. If a study claimed to find the rise in violence is associated to right-wing groups but ignored left-wing group violence, then it would be a really bad study. It would easily be countered by a better study that included all relevant data and the NYT would probably only publish a story on the better study. If they didn’t, they would suffer consequences for that.

Here’s how they defined hate group:

For the purposes of its study, the center said it considered any organization whose leaders, activities or statement of principles attacks an entire class of people to be a hate group. Violence is not a prerequisite.
Any good study will make its methodology available. You can go find out if they did what they say here. I’m sure someone already has and has put it in their blog somewhere. Anyway, I don’t know how you are defining “left” but they did count radical black nationalists who are anti-white.

If you have some honest critique of the study, I’m glad to hear it, but you are showing that you are tuning it out because it doesn’t agree with what you already believe.

One can also make a case that when you are being robbed and you resist forcefully, that you are a violent victim. But that logic doesn’t fly in my book.

The law specifies that people have a right to defend themselves, violently if necessary.

I have never heard of a left-wing organization that killed a dozen people engaged in prayer in a church or synagogue.

p.s. being a religious zealot does not make you left-wing.

I have never heard of a left-wing organization that killed a dozen people engaged in prayer in a church or synagogue.
I have never heard of a right-wing organization that killed a dozen people engaged in prayer in a church or synagogue.

The acts we all deplore have been committed by individuals, not groups. There have been no conspiracies other than by the jihadists.

But since you stated it that way, and other things you’ve said, it seems you don’t care about profiling Muslims, frisking black boys, detaining children at the border, or any other number of violations of civil rights against anyone, as long as they aren’t on your team.
I do not believe all Muslims are terrorists, but all jihadists have been Muslims. I do know that, per the Koran, Islam has world domination as its goal. I feel no compulsion to tolerate Islam as long as it has that goal. Islam is not just a religion, it is a culture, an economic system, a political system, a system of government. The Islamic invasion of Europe is well underway; it is gaining traction in the USA. Just because it is slow and non-physically violent here doesn't make it any less of a threat to our way of life. In order for it to be compatible with the rest of the world Islam must change.

“The center said it considered any organization whose leaders, activities or statement of principles attacks an entire class of people to be a hate group. Violence is not a prerequisite.” So, since Islam meets that standard, especially with respect to Israel, shall we call it a hate group?

The reports I have heard said that stop-and-frisk worked to reduce crime quite significantly. Bloomberg said that he put the most police in minority neighborhoods because that’s where the crime is. Well, duh, where else would the residents of minority neighborhoods want police protection?

I don’t see how a person bringing children into the country illegally magically gains the civil rights of a citizen. I hope we all can agree that criminals cannot be allowed to benefit from their criminal actions. You know that once the children are admitted, the parents gain an advantage toward getting in legally. It has been claimed that most if not all of these kids could be placed with family members already living in the US. I have to wonder how many of these families would be prepared to return to the kids’ country of origin in order to care for the kids until their parents could enter the country legally. Right.

Illegal immigration when those trying to immigrate illegally use children as a foil is a tough issue, but the fault can only be laid on the parents. The most compassionate thing to do would be to have the parents and the kids exit the country and apply legally. Maybe the families already living here would pay for their transport and support them temporarily. Sure they would.

When was the last time you heard of any left-wing groups in the news concerning violence and/or acts of domestic terrorism?
Yesterday evening during coverage of the Dem caucus in Nevada.

Does overthrowing the Constitution eliminating the Electoral College and replacing our entire economic system with Bernie-land communism qualify as domestic terrorism? Many think it does.

Does eliminating individual property rights, the foundation of western civilization, with big government owning everything qualify as violence? Many think it does. What else would be any more of a violent assault upon our freedoms of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

Wake up Bernie-landers, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone somewhere pays. Of course there are some that don’t give a damn who has to pay as long as it is someone else.

Bob said: Yesterday evening during coverage of the Dem caucus in Nevada.
I didn't see any AK47s, did you?
Wake up Bernie-landers, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone somewhere pays. Of course there are some that don’t give a damn who has to pay as long as it is someone else.
How naive can you get? You are right , there is no free lunch. But what makes you think you pay more for a not-for-profit "single-payer health care system" than a for-profit "private health care system" that costs the consumer billions more ?

Can’t you see the obvious fact that the European single payer health care systems are cheaper and better than our current US health care system?

What is this foolish Nationalism that prevents you from comparing which system yields the best results for the consumer rather than the seller?

Since the United States is a very rich nation, many would like to believe Americans are healthier and better off with their public healthcare system compared to their European counterparts. On the contrary, when it comes to public or universal healthcare access, the US lags behind even medium-developed European countries; what more the truly advanced like the UK, France, Belgium, and Germany?

In Europe, the Principality of Monaco has the highest life expectancy at 89.47 years old. There are also 19 other European countries that have a life expectancy rating of more than 80 years old. These include San Marino, Andorra, Italy, Liechtenstein, France, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Ireland, Norway, Germany, the UK, Greece, Austria, Malta, Luxembourg, and Belgium. The US ranks No. 53 exceeded by Taiwan and slightly above Bahrain.

And all this at less cost to the consumer.

https://i0.wp.com/socialworkhelper.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/costofhealthcare.gif?resize=694%2C596&ssl=1


https://socialworkhelper.com/2016/11/10/comparing-public-healthcare-us-europe/

For once, be smart and actually check out if what you have been sold a clever “snake-oil” scheme.

Yesterday evening during coverage of the Dem caucus in Nevada. --Bob
Bob, get help. Those things aren't happening. When you have to make up something and stretch ideas into some mythical violent act, you have lost your argument. Reconsider your evidence and rethink your stand.