“Boston Free Speech Coalition(?)”, did the Boston horde get it wrong?

[icehorse]

(Note: this is an expansion from a post on a separate "Boston" thread)

I think a potentially important mistake was made in Boston today. The “Boston Free Speech Coalition” is not “alt right”. It has been described instead as “alt lite”, and I believe the two groups should not be conflated. (Also, it’s not clear that the BFSC would describe themselves as alt-lite.)

Now you can choose whether to take the group at their word, but this is what they claim to stand for:

Boston Free Speech Coalition: “(we are), a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents” that is willing to “peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties…”We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence.’’

The alt-lite is characterized as being critical of: PCness, Islam, feminism, welfare, and illegal immigration.

If so, then the tens of thousands of counter-protesters - IMO - screwed up. I don’t think the horde was protesting what they thought they were protesting. It's as if they were protesting a strawman??

 

[Mister Silver]

My brain hurts.

Alleviating my brain of all this label nonsense, what I can state for certainty is I am against the violent actions perpetrated by people and the derogatory terminology people use when addressing others.

If someone uses the "N" word regularly or shows disdain for people of color, that person is not good in my book. If someone commits a violent act against another individual, that person is not good in my book.

 

[leibowde84]

(Note: this is an expansion from a post on a separate "Boston" thread)

I think a potentially important mistake was made in Boston today. The “Boston Free Speech Coalition” is not “alt right”. It has been described instead as “alt lite”, and I believe the two groups should not be conflated. (Also, it’s not clear that the BFSC would describe themselves as alt-lite.)

Now you can choose whether to take the group at their word, but this is what they claim to stand for:

Boston Free Speech Coalition: “(we are), a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents” that is willing to “peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties…”We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence.’’

The alt-lite is characterized as being critical of: PCness, Islam, feminism, welfare, and illegal immigration.

If so, then the tens of thousands of counter-protesters - IMO - screwed up. I don’t think the horde was protesting what they thought they were protesting. It's as if they were protesting a strawman??

I really couldn't care less about the alt-lite. They are free to setup protests whenever they want. They were free to protest today as well. But, all you have to do is look at the speakers they originally had planned before Charlottesville messed their plans up. There were plenty of alt-right, white nationalist speakers. So, to believe their claims about their group is pretty naive.

It doesn't matter what the other protesters were there to say. The massive (counter) protest was against naziism, white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right in the US. The success of their protest doesn't rest on it being a counter protest. They were just out to show how many are willing to fight against hate. They did a tremendous job, and they kept it practically violence free. Considering how many people showed up, that is a huge accomplishment.

 

[icehorse]

It doesn't matter what the other protesters were there to say. The massive (counter) protest was against naziism, white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right in the US. The success of their protest doesn't rest on it being a counter protest. They were just out to show how many are willing to fight against hate. They did a tremendous job, and they kept it practically violence free. Considering how many people showed up, that is a huge accomplishment.

Wow, low expectations?

 

[Augustus]

If so, then the tens of thousands of counter-protesters - IMO - screwed up. I don’t think the horde was protesting what they thought they were protesting. It's as if they were protesting a strawman??

They disinvited one of their own speakers after getting worried that having a pro-eugenics holocaust denier might go down badly after last week.

What percentage of invited speakers would need to promote fascistic views before you would accept a counter-protest as not being a strawman?

Amid the uproar, Medlar said the Boston rally organizers were unsure how to respond and panicked. They wavered over whether to continue with their rally or cancel it.

In the confusion, he added, one of the group’s six organizers notified headliner Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, to not to come to Boston. Invictus attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016. He told the Globe this week that organizers said they were worried about statements he has made espousing support for a “second American civil war.”

Tensions between Invictus and the group soared.

“We do not support him due to his willingness to support violence, as well as his Holocaust denial,’’ said one member who would only identify himself as Louis. “So he has been disinvited, and he has pulled out.”

 

[YmirGF]

Frankly I think the best way to deal with people that espouse ludicrous ideas is to laugh and point at them. Treat them as a joke in a very light hearted way. Violently opposing them simply feeds them. Laugh at them and they just might feel silly. What concerns me with this "in your face" response is that repression rarely is a good thing. Let the nut-jobs show their colours, then laugh heartily when they start to speak. Almost any other reaction simply treats them with a seriousness that is not warranted.

 

[idav]

(Note: this is an expansion from a post on a separate "Boston" thread)

I think a potentially important mistake was made in Boston today. The “Boston Free Speech Coalition” is not “alt right”. It has been described instead as “alt lite”, and I believe the two groups should not be conflated. (Also, it’s not clear that the BFSC would describe themselves as alt-lite.)

Now you can choose whether to take the group at their word, but this is what they claim to stand for:

Boston Free Speech Coalition: “(we are), a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents” that is willing to “peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties…”We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence.’’

The alt-lite is characterized as being critical of: PCness, Islam, feminism, welfare, and illegal immigration.

If so, then the tens of thousands of counter-protesters - IMO - screwed up. I don’t think the horde was protesting what they thought they were protesting. It's as if they were protesting a strawman??

Sounds like quite the mix in that bag including alt-right. There is no consistency with any of those views it's a bunch of folks using free speech to complain about everything.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Frankly I think the best way to deal with people that espouse ludicrous ideas is to laugh and point at them. Treat them as a joke in a very light hearted way. Violently opposing them simply feeds them. Laugh at them and they just might feel silly. What concerns me with this "in your face" response is that repression rarely is a good thing. Let the nut-jobs show their colours, then laugh heartily when they start to speak.

That's what Germans did with Hitler and actual Nazis. People didn't taken them seriously rather than crushing them without mercy. Look how that turned out.

Almost any other reaction simply treats them with a seriousness that is not warranted.

Do you not think that Neo-Nazis - a group that calls for the mass murder or enslavement of entire sections of the population - should be taken seriously? Do you think these minority groups being targeted should find it funny?

 

[YmirGF]

That's what Germans did with Hitler and actual Nazis. People didn't taken them seriously rather than crushing them without mercy. Look how that turned out.

Oh, good grief. I might take them seriously if they manage to find a leader that can actually speak their position clearly and decides to enter into the political arena.

Do you not think that Neo-Nazis - a group that calls for the mass murder or enslavement of entire sections of the population - should be taken seriously? Do you think these minority groups being targeted should find it funny?

These people are on the fringe of the fringes. There is no possibility they will emerge as a political force anytime soon. So, until then, yes, I will point and laugh at them and look on with worry at those who violently attack them.

 

[icehorse]

Sounds like quite the mix in that bag including alt-right. There is no consistency with any of those views it's a bunch of folks using free speech to complain about everything.

I would say you're correct - on both sides of these protests.

 

[idav]

I would say you're correct - on both sides of these protests.

When people are taking issue are with groups trying to spread various forms of bigotry and hate.

 

[YmirGF]

When people are taking issue are with groups trying to spread various forms of bigotry and hate.

And I include groups like Antifa, who openly say they will resort to violence, in this. Theirs is nothing short of bigotry in and of itself. The flaw in @A Greased Scotsman thinking is that neither group will ever become mainstream, certainly not without a lot of blood and carnage along the way. Do we seriously want to empower anarchists who, by default, do not play well with others and are spoiling for confrontations?

I would, in a heartbeat, vote for a law that banned both types of organizations. If people are serious about being opposed to neo-Nazi groups, in particular, then why not ban them outright. Not all speech IS protected speech.

 

[idav]

And I include groups like Antifa, who openly say they will resort to violence, in this. Theirs is nothing short of bigotry in and of itself. The flaw in @A Greased Scotsman thinking is that neither group will ever become mainstream, certainly not without a lot of blood and carnage along the way. Do we seriously want to empower anarchists who, by default, do not play well with others and are spoiling for confrontations?

I would, in a heartbeat, vote for a law that banned both types of organizations. If people are serious about being opposed to neo-Nazi groups, in particular, then why not ban them outright. Not all speech IS protected speech.

If they will openly resort to violence isn't necessarily the criteria either, I used hate as in spreading hate for specific groups of people. In my logic a nazi can be defined as terrorism but not an eco evangelist. There is another word for groups which commit crimes, they are called gangs.

Gang: 1. An organized group of criminals.

 

[YmirGF]

If they will openly resort to violence isn't necessarily the criteria either, I used hate as in spreading hate for specific groups of people. In my logic a nazi can be defined as terrorism but not an eco evangelist. There is another word for groups which commit crimes, they are called gangs.

Gang: 1. An organized group of criminals.

Are you seriously suggesting that so-called "eco evangelists" and I gather, Antifa, should simply be referred to as gangs? Nice pretzel logic at play there.

 

[idav]

Are you seriously suggesting that so-called "eco evangelists" and I gather, Antifa, should simply be referred to as gangs? Nice pretzel logic at play there.

I can't seriously compare an eco evangelist with an LGBT suicide bomber. Illegal is illegal but in the US the law often see a difference when something is considered a hate crime.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Oh, good grief. I might take them seriously if they manage to find a leader that can actually speak their position clearly and decides to enter into the political arena.

So until then you're going to be complacent and just assume nothing will come of their race-baiting and agitating? Cool. By the way if you wait for fascists to become organised before you start considering them to be a credible threat you're probably too late.

These people are on the fringe of the fringes. There is no possibility they will emerge as a political force anytime soon. So, until then, yes, I will point and laugh at them

Up until three days ago one of the far-right's main figures was the Chief Strategist in the White House. Pointing and laughing is your prerogative but you're displaying a significant level of white privilege in doing so. I suspect plenty of minorities don't find these white supremacism marches all that funny.

and look on with worry at those who violently attack them.

Why on earth are you worried about people attacking Neo-Nazis? Do you think it's irrational to attack people who espouse an ideology calling for the murder of entire sections of society, or something?

And I include groups like Antifa, who openly say they will resort to violence, in this. Theirs is nothing short of bigotry in and of itself. The flaw in @A Greased Scotsman thinking is that neither group will ever become mainstream, certainly not without a lot of blood and carnage along the way. Do we seriously want to empower anarchists who, by default, do not play well with others and are spoiling for confrontations?

First off; Antifa aren't just anarchists. They're anybody who is anti-facist. The group name is a contraction of this term and, frankly, it should be the default position for all reasonable people. I wish people would stop acting as if Antifa and other leftist groups are in any way just as dangerous as white supremacists. Who was it that drove the car into that counter-protest? George Soros?

Secondly, opposing bigotry that has a proven track record of causing violence & death (to the tune of millions) is not bigotry - it's actually quite a reasonable response - unless you consider the Allies in World War 2's European theatre to be bigots for opposing the Reich? Watch this:

"And I include groups like Antifa, who openly say they will resort to violence, in this. Theirs is nothing short of bigotry in and of itself."

And I include groups like CEMB who openly say they will resort to protesting, in this. Theirs is nothing short of Islamophobia in and of itself.

Do you agree with sentence number two? You should if you want to be logically consistent.

****ing centrists...

I would, in a heartbeat, vote for a law that banned both types of organizations.

Because people with clubs and hoods who will use methods up to and including violence to protect minorities and anti-far-right demonstrators are just as dangerous as people who carry semi-automatic rifles, have better gear than the police and call for the deaths of various kinds of minorities. Hooray for false equivalences. You're also forgetting that if you got rid of Neo-Nazi and other far-right groups, groups like Antifa wouldn't have much of a reason to operate and would probably disband.

If people are serious about being opposed to neo-Nazi groups, in particular, then why not ban them outright. Not all speech IS protected speech.

Because most people don't make law and these Neo-Nazis more than likely have sympathisers in government. Especially but probably not limited to the Republican Party.