#people throw around nazi accusations and comparisons so much and i. hate it

[mbat]

you know, i just wanna say that if were gonna put any word up on the high shelf, 'nazi' should probably be one of them. very heavy word that people throw around way too lightly, i think

[titan-god-helios]

(tw the holocaust, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, murder, war, brief vomit mention, gore, violence) okay while i'm here, might as well just say something real quick

in my history class at the moment, we're learning about WW2, specifically the holocaust, and it made me remember things about this horrific event that should have never been forgotten, by anyone, ever. for the longest time, I only thought that jewish people (bless their souls and may they forever rest in peace) were targeted by hitler and his sickos. but in the last few years or so, i learnt about his persecution of transgender, queer, black, asian and otherwise poc, disabled and autistic people, as well as jewish. i learned about the atrocities of the collaboration between hans asperger and his fellow nazis, i learnt about how the killings happened and i read and read and read all the while growing sicker and sicker. because these are my people. countless autistics who were not deemed "useful" were thrown to the lions so to speak, the same with trangender and queer people of all races. these people, these minority groups are ones which i belong to. and it still makes me beyond sick to think about what happened during that bastard's reign of fucking terror. and it wasn't just these groups he targeted (duh). he targeted the world. he wasn't just a dictator over his own, he wanted to purge the fucking world of people he deemed unworthy of his reign. he was sick. fucking sick. everytime i think of the events that transpired during the holocaust and world war two, i feel like throwing up until my guts are out on the floor in front of me. what really kills me ? what makes me lose even more faith in humanity ? people want this fucking despicable, evil, downright vile monster to carry on his work, posthumously. how do people not fucking understand, how do these bastard neo-nazis not realise the sheer... i don't even have a word for it. i'm just speechless. and angry. hateful. filled with fucking rage, because no matter how much i don't want to admit it, i know that the question isn't, "why don't they understand," but, "why do they ignore their understanding. knowingly." hitler was like a plague. every single vile accusation or dehumanising comment or phrase or comparison between inhuman pests and jewish, poc, queer, trans and disabled people, slavic people and every single person who did not fit his "standards" - every single one is simply an apt description of the monster himself and all his bastard followers who had full consciousness of what they were doing and supported him. who hailed him. who willingly and authentically danced through the streets of fallen nations, ravaged by theirs and screamed hitler's name in joy. who saluted to "mein fraulein" with a happy heart. who still do. to anyone who does, i genuinely hope you cease to exist. the world needs to be eradicated from the likes of you. you bastards who parade your beliefs around like they're honourable and ruin the lives of the world's jewish and minority siblings. who ruin the lives of our people. to everyone who is sick and twisted and beyond evil and supports or is a neo-nazi, just know that we are chasing you out with fire. and we will win.

[sulpher]

what do you call someone with a strong annoyance borderline hate of men specifically men who are incredibly (masculine) toxic but would be the shit out of anyone who tried to say a man could be assaulted, or that men should be belittled and mistreated like women?( a rant?)

I remember I got called a terf like maybe two or three months ago and it bothers me because I worry if I could be aligned in that horrible theory. I always thought the main core of terfism was that you are “ gender critical “ and you ironically just like the patriarchy don't think a woman could ever be smart enough to know the difference in literally - anything? i like trans woman too many folks...i like women - cis and trans...they're cute and awesome ...so like how could you not?  Im bringing this up because as of late ive had a very angry and almost cold voice that respond when i see violence against women because people felt entitle to people bodies and just like school shootings and trumps camps I have to numb myself too it or otherwise i would literally go on a suicidal/homicidal spree.  “ a women’s death is nothing in comparison to a man’s freedom. a woman;s discomfort is nothing in the way of a man entitlement “ I dont like that phrase. i feel like if come off to me as the epitome of femi nzai if that’s even a thing anymore since the men who hated them are most likely real nazis. Listen im 28 and stuck in a house with two men who double-crossed me and are only taking care of me because i decided to quit my job. im only in this house with someone who i thought was literally going to harm and someone who stolen moeny from me becuase as a soceity i have been mold to bend until i break and be gaslighted as “ an irrational fuhmal” not even human if i bring it up. its 2019 and im still tlaking to people who think its ok to count thier two stay at home mothers as an example of why women get paid less because they work less but tell em that the 50 women i work with at a company dont count becuase that’s my just my feelings  and smirk and bring up “ toxic feminity” like that not a sub division of toxic masculinity - Because women DID NOT tell other women to compete with other women in order to get men  Because women DID NOT teach other women that it’s ok to hit men and that men shouldn't cry  Because other women DID NOT teach other women that men couldn't be raped, should always pay the bill Not in the beginning ...that was toxic masculinity but how dare I expect men to accountability for responsibility - that’s just one of the privileges of being a male. and stop telling women when they get hurt by a man that they should of got a guy form thier family. You mean the same guy who was allowed to walk around in thier underwear while i had to fully dress in my home at 9 years of fucking age because my body attracted raped and his didn't or as i like to say it “ boys will be boys but girls should know better by knowing nothing at all” 

Listen I don't think the world would be better if men didn't exist. I don't think the world would be better if men were put under the social pressure of women . Im just dont exist in this society any more as hetero passing individual because i dont get along with it’s morals. im so fucking tired of watching women dying because “ a man has his needs...and his excuses “ and before the misandry parade comes put the cuffs again - i dont mind being a misandrist as much as i don't want to be a terf but again im not looking to get in fights with men. I honestly wish i was invisible to them since seeing me as anything as a female is so socially ingrained is impossible and understanding - im not even mad. make go back in the kitchen jokes, shit on my existence, make me play this doll for the sake of your “ cool girl because if i dont letyou hug me, if i show even a sign of resistance to your sexual banter or your anti feminist logic or your victim-shaming statements...im no longer an object of convenience...and i potentially become a another death statistics  and to the “ protect the boys” brigade aka the people who come screaming from/the corner of this hellsite like someone told your child santa doesn't exist when a woman says something like  “ you know i like getting dress up for other women I try not to think about men “ “ im not here for emotionally unavalible boys” “ I'm not here for men who don't want to fix themselves” ” I'm not worried about children and men “ ” I didn't find him interesting so i didn't give him a chance ” and then you mofos come of the fucking woodwork screaming like a motherfucking banshee  ” BOYS NEED LOVE ! IF YOU DONT WANNA FiX HIm HOW IS HE GOING TO GROW ?!” ” DONT SAY MEN ARE TRASH ! TOXIC MASCULINITY IS A RESULT OF HIM NOT BEING LOVE PROPERLY !” ” IGNORE THEM BOYS WE WONT LET THEM FORGET YOU “ * animal like screeching To you ; you dont care about men. You care about the status quo. You think if men become “ as emotional as fuhmales “ (because half of you don't see women as anything but her genitals ) that they will break down. you don't want men to make a connection between the idea that men need to sex in order to be valuable even if that means taking it and that anyone who take sex is a rapist because then men would have to be accountable for their actions. They would feel bad and you wouldn't want your favorite child to feel bad, after all if they feel bad they cant let loose and be the “ best version” of themselves- even if that version of themselves is a fucking dumpster fire. You want them to be the full end of this spectrum at the expense of your less favorite child ( women ). You might be someone who just, in general, have fed into the bullshit that woman are liars ( another concept that makes it easier for rape culture to be prevalent and strong ) and that men are calm, collective beings who are being neglected thanks to feminism and woman not focusing on them. you might think “ well logically if you only tell men they're trash they're going to be trash “ Ive been told i was a bitch , a fake, a slob( that is true. i am dirty af and i will not put on deordorant unless someone coming), pathetic and useless.  I decide one day that if i didnt like any of those things i would change it , becuase if i didnt like being those things that i needed to change them for me. I CHANGE WHEN I DIDNT LIKE MYSELF and before anyone says anything i have had depression and anxeity. i have been gaslighted and bully for years but at the end of the day my change didi not come from people cheering me up or tearing me down it came from ME being critical of myself nad my actions. And that’s why you “ what about the boys” people dont love men as much as you say you do . You're so afraid of them becoming something more than your baby boy being more than what you want, greater than what society has allow that you would rather make in a pacified monster than a human being. you guys hate men and i cannot stand any of you  to the young man who has  been discriminated against because you weren't born as a cis male  were raped by women and wasn't respected by either woman or men when you look for support  gritted your teeth and read through all my rambling you're valid. you worried about having your whole life ruined by false rape accusations or in general, you are generally afraid of adding to a woman’s concern when it comes to men. you dont like being around certain woman becuase you feel they are too touchy are they are the one who the moment you dont find them attractive and everyone includes other men invalidate you're right to not want to be touch. you fucking have to control your urge to gut punch every time you here the phrase “ men are trash “ becuase you understand the phrase isnt about you and some smart ass is like “ if its not about you why are you getting mad “. Like we all know why you're mad - but we know you're better than that.  I appreciate you questioning your friends on thier used of rape jokes and trying to implied that sexual assault doesn't exist becuase “ if the guy attracted females dont complain “ I think you're wonderful...but i want out  becuase my death is just another occurrence. being someone’s property as a child, wife or even friend means nothing now. my death is nothing different than throwing out an aluminum can. i no longer wonder if the person im talking to is capable of rape. i know longer wonder if ill makes it home safely. i know get angry about wanting to do things like move out on my own, be respected by men and not feel that my feelings are constantly being pacified like a battery operated doll who the owner is cooing to work.  I expect it. and when it doesn't happen i hold my breath and try to not think about tomorrow where ill pretty much have the bar set that low again. I expected to have my feelings band aid with “ well im sorry someone hurt you “ or “ youre apart of the problem thinking like that”. when something im uncomfortable with happens i dont go out in a rage but belitting my feelings as “ sensitive” or “ stop being a bitch “ roll off me.  Humankind is capable of amazing thing and i know change is possible...but i dont expect it anytime soon. ....I really just want out. its 2019 and women are still getting killed becuase of entitlement and the only ing most of you is complain that it happens to men too.....Im tired of pretending this society cares if i was murder right now. you only careif i fit the commodity of the day...I want out for i am so very tired 

[fdhfjdafdajfa]

Maybe another reason I'm accused of claiming to be a dalit, despite never EVER having said anything even REMOTELY close, is because I am up front about being affected by caste issues. But the reason I am affected by caste issues is not becauase I in particular belong to any certain caste. The reason I am affected by caste issues is because I live in India (or under Indian occupation, now) and everyone who lives in (or under) India is affected by caste issues.

It is my savarna detractors who are mistaken in their beliefs. Those beliefs are first that they themselves are not affected by caste issues, and second that my social position is similar to theirs.

As regards the first I do not need to go into very much detail about it. As they are the privileged in society it does not require much suspension of disbelief to consider that they might be very mistaken as to the mechanism of their social dominance. The belief that they are unaffected by caste is a simple chauvanism; nothing more, nothing less. They believe that caste means Dalit, that caste is found not in their own families and universities and overseas poc networks and stupid overbearing social media presence, but in rural Dalit households. Nothing new. These are the people who will run countless studies on Dalits and none on themselves, searching up and down and all around, searching for the elusive caste everywhere except under their own noses. Fortunately my second wave training made it pretty obvious to me where I might find it. I was right on the mark in my initial assessment that to Savarnas, caste is an enclosed patriarchy, and caste can be found in what is now called Brahminical Patriarchy, which is something that Brahmins who say stuff like “sex work is work” in a country where prostitution is an ancestral profession can hardly be expected to understand the nature of.

As regards the second, I will dispel it, but not to prove my own victimhood -- victimhood is not the basis of ability to speak and I need no such thing -- but to establish to the Brahmins that we are not and will never be anything alike. This is an assertion of boundaries only.

I need to say that even if the second premise was truethat we did occupy comparable social position,  I would still be required to talk about caste and the way it affects me in order to mount a serious social analysis. That they do not do so shows that they are not serious social analysts full stop, but just Brahmins after social clout. As if their choice in "issues" to "discuss" and the ways they "discuss them" didn't already make that obvious.

But the bigger issue is this. As I said in the post that started all of this, upper caste Hindus have this very weird thing about white people. Now as part of this Very Weird Thing, the Hindus have a strong desire for white approval and wrongly consider that their culture has anything in common with white western culture, especially in comparison to groups they consider to be ignorant, backward, and more conservative and less enlightened than them. 

This isn’t really true. Hindus have no history of womens’ struggle, no belief in social equality, they love wasting food -- do the people constantly making fun of white people for casseroles really think that we won’t notice or be bothered by the fact that they consider food to be polluted and unshareable once it’s eaten from? It’s viscerally repellant to me to see a Brahmin throw away perfectly good food that’s still warm even -- they hate beef which is at least three food groups for Americans. So we’re talking about two very different groups of people, and while the Brahmins claim that all of these repellant traits of theirs are “Indian things”, that isn’t true, they’re just savarna things, and we have them in common with Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and other groups in society that Brahmins look down and despise because of these traits. A Savarna who turns green at the sight of an omelette doesn’t like it any better because a white person made it. They still ain’t gonna wanna share utensils.

The only reason this stereotype persists at all is due to aggressive propogation of it by Brahmins abroad and all Savarnas in India, made easier by the systemic exclusion of everyone else from English language education.

Not only do Brahmins hate people because of these traits on a personal level, but it is legal, and the rule, not the exception, to discriminate openly based on not only them, but also on race and nationality itself.

Where the stereotype that white people are unaffected by this comes from is that it is true that in places like South Bombay and Gurgaon, where my haters live, there are neighbourhoods (the term we use in India is “colonies”, but without the same connotation, any neighbourhood can be a colony regardless of who lives there) where some very rich white expats live where they can pay a great deal of money to insulate themselves from India. It’s true that they don’t have to worry about discimination in housing, and are nonplussed at everyday occurrances like being charged extra for stuff. These people probably constitute a decent percentage of white people in India; the exact statistic probably isn’t known but they’re highly visible for the same reason all rich people are. What else should be kept in mind is that they may be privileged in society, but no moreso than Savarnas of their income level. All of these traits are things they share with rich Savarnas -- so maybe they have this in common with this particular group of white people.

What is not talked about much is the other two groups of white people that I know to exist in India, those being Israelis and Russians. Now Israelis are actually pretty well integrated in Goa and Himachal, they’re mostly like me -- long term tourist visa stays. The stereotype that they overstay their visa is largely not true. The stereotype that’s even less true is that there’s an “israeli mafia” that runs drugs back and forth between Himachal and Goa, which owns businesses and land in towns like Kasol, and is also heavily involved in other underground crimes. The BJP’s 2017 electoral campaign centred largely around this fictional Jewish Mafia, and it won this campaign. I should also note that antisemitic and nazi imagery is even more common in Himachal than in the rest of India. I even saw Indians walking around with Third Reich flags on their t-shirts a couple times.

So that’s the Israelis. What are the Russians doing? Well, some of them are economic migrants. But more visibly they’re being sex trafficked just like everywhere else in the world. A hookup once told me that in her ex’s apartment building, there was a floor full of Russian prostitutes that would go missing during election season. The political parties openly commit crimes like this and since the parties also control the police there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Their position is very similar to Bangladeshi and Nepali women. Does this affect peoples’ perceptions? You tell me.

So, getting back to the issue of the bizarre Hindu craving for white approval, this takes the form of sexual harassment very, very often. Another thing contributing to this is the widespread use of porn in India; the women in porn are mostly white. Bollywood has this problem too, where it’s a common plot that the protagonist of the film dates a “sexually open” white woman to get his bullshit phases out of the way before realising he needs someone who can cook and clean to spend his life with and marries an Indian woman (implicitly of his caste). 

So, acknowledging the following non-exhaustive list of some formal disabilities that I experience BY LAW -- 1. it is legal to discriminate in housing, 2. it is not legal for me to seek employment, 3. I am not allowed a vote or representation 4. There is no available path to citizenship from someone of my socioeconomic class 5. I cannot take advantage of government programs -- we are left with two remaining possible sites in which white privilege could possibly be found. 

The first one of these is uncomplicatedly fake. It was RSSBJP propaganda in the late 00′s and early-mid 2010′s that everyone in India is brainwashed by white people to believe that they are culturally inferior. This is pretty clear and flagrant fascist propaganda that has been weaponised to some pretty destructive ends. For example, it was asserted that Hindi is the indigenous language of India and natural language of all Indians (it’s not) and the reason anyone wants to learn English is because white people have brainwashed them into believing it’s superior to Hindi. Actually what this was was RSSBJP brainwashing a bunch of savarnas into believing that they’re race traitors for speaking the “coloniser tongue” (In reality Hindi is the coloniser tongue, and this is again a caste issue, but this is long already) and that this was white peoples’ fault. White people remain a preferred target because the imagination of the colonial era lends itself easily to the claim, because India’s millennia-old obsession with light skin bears a superficial resemblence to colour discrimination in the west, and because the “opposition leader” at the time, Rahul Gandhi, is half-Italian on his mother’s side.

Yes, the party in power criticises the “opposition leader” on the basis that he’s the half-white son of a naturalised citizen of the Republic of India. Yes, it works. Such privilege! Even Obama’s accusers at least had to cloak it, they couldn’t just come out and say “it’s bad that you are that race”.

Anyway, as white people have no such mind control ability, and no control over Indian media or any other resource through which they might promote such an idea, and the source of the claim has a clear conflict of interest, we can not only dismiss it but be reminded to keep a look out for it as it has ingrained itself into social imagination and in fact become another nonsense accusation against which I must constantly defend myself.

The second site is one I am willing to entertain, and it’s that white privilege is extant in relation to other groups of foreigners. If this is the case it’s still something that native-born Indians have absolutely no business grilling me on, because to be a foreginer is itself to face a certain level of social exclusion, which makes them the privileged class on the foreigner/native axis. This one, I’m, y’know, willing to talk about, but only with people who have any damn business bringing it up, not a bunch of Brahmin social climbers. Something often brought up is that people do make room for white foreigners (at least). This is true. I can’t really speak to whether people from other groups have the same experience (except for one or two anecdotal examples, which, for the record, indicate that they do) but even acknowledging that is an admission that such efforts are necessary. What else should be kept in mind is that they are spectacularly unsuccessful. 

So returning to the elephant in the room (get it because elephants are a symbol of buddhism which... yeah) is that there are power dynamics in India which matter other than race and class and that’s religion. As already established, this country is run by a genocidal, anti-Muslim hate cult. Now you can argue that because I’m white it doesn’t matter than I’m a Muslim, and I’ll be counted as a Christian, which is a very Hindu conclusion, and the most staggeringly ignorant thing imaginable to say but it turns out Hindus can just say any words in whatever order they want, so I’ll deal with this argument anyway.

The genocidal hate cult that runs the country is also anti-Christian. So, that’s that on that. The only thing is, the Good Brahmins don’t have any more good to say about Christians, particularly white Christian missionaries, than their RSSBJP immediate relatives do. Attacks against Christians, including white missionaries, are a daily occurrance in India being most common in the liberal paradise state of Tamil Nadu, and they are celebrated by Good Brahmin and Bad Brahmin alike as well as their boot lickers on social media, including this website.

But if we want to acknowledge the reality that I am a Muslim, then we have to take into account that BJP rhetoric assumes all Muslims to be infiltrators and foreigners. The only reason this is not taken into account by Good Brahmins on this website is that harbour the same prejudice as their immediate relatives, and so are unable to recognise them as harmful. For instance I’ve been accused of being undocumented or overstaying my visa by several people in the past few days. Careful readers will remember this stereotype from the Israelis earlier. It’s not true for them, and it’s not true for me -- I’m here legally but in a compromised, non-citizen status compromised by widespread discrimination and ground-level lack of access to theoretically available resources on account of my socioeconomic class. If this screams “invulnerable” to you, hoo boy.

TL;DR To quote one of my favourite Urdu poets, “The only thing we have in common is I’m a dick and you suck.”

[nicemango-feed]

About that NYT Nazi Article...

Remember when we didn't need to discuss Nazis all the time? Like...back in the day...early 2016-2015. Good times, those were :( So what's this big fuss over the New York Times Nazi Article? What's got everyone so upset? Are the Regressive Leftists being regressive again? God why can't they tolerate different ideas... Did these lefty cucks really think an article would push people into being Nazis? ------ *deep sigh* ---Well--- ...While there were some (I didn't see too many tbh) people going overboard and calling the NYT a literal Nazi Sympathizing paper (like come on, I don't actually think they have a secret Nazi agenda), there were a lot of other good reasons to be disappointed with this article. I'm wary of both ends of this too, carelessly throwing around the term Nazi *and* being overly defensive/underusing the term Nazi, even when it CLEARLY applies. There are people who have accused me of being a 'Nazi sympathizer' because I have been critical of the hijab and niqab as a woman who had to live through 'modesty' enforced by the state in Saudi Arabia. You bet your ass I'm going to be critical...and it's not at all for the same xenophobic fear-mongering reasons most far-righters hate muslims/hijabs in this current climate....And then, there's the other side, where I'm surrounded by supposed 'Rational Skeptic' thinkers who are so 'anti-left' that downplaying Nazis is kind of their embarrassing trademark now. They will literally argue that someone shouting 'Heil Hitler' at a white nationalist speech is "not a Nazi" - because they aren't time-traveling from Nazi era Germany, you see...so technically they can't be Nazis.

Wtf? I thought there were no nazis any more. http://pic.twitter.com/oGZBTTxq3Z

— ＣＨＲＩＳＴＭＡＳ ＩＳ ＣＯＭＩＮＧ🎄 (@Neobabylon2) November 7, 2017

(clip via @neobabylon2)

Some are simply so anti-Muslim that it serves their interest to downplay Nazis in a way that would be better suited to The Onion. 

There are great intellectual Atheist takes that will put the swastika and Star of David in the same category, and when someone politely explains why that's an issue they will double down and insist that Judaism is *worse* than Nazism actually....

There are tons of examples of this type of ignorant nonsense from Rational Skeptics in the online Atheist scene. If you were to go by some of these commentator's timelines...there is apparently *no* problem with a rise of (neo) Nazis in Trumpian America. It's all just leftist hysteria. According to them, time is best spent arguing against those who refer to Richard Spencer as a Nazi....because he's not a time traveler... *eyeroll* So while I agree, that there are definitely people who overuse the term, I'm also increasingly frustrated by people who downplay the danger of the far-right, who insist Nazis don't exist at all today, who pretend like this is still some fringe issue and not a growing movement with a President who has has created a welcoming space for them. The rest of us, as reasonable humans, should try and exist between these two incredibly stupid and toxic extremes. And with this article, it seemed that NYT was sort of playing the tune of the 'Nazi downplayers'... ----- Let me jump right into why I think the piece was not well received....In fact it was so badly received that the editor had to chime in and explain wtf they were thinking. How the NYT put it in their headline, "Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond" is a fairly accurate description of most of the criticism. So while not literally Nazi sympathizing, but *normalizing* a Nazi sympathizer....I think that's fair...a case can be made for this article doing exactly that, whether it intended to or not. There's also the fact that the writer of this now notorious piece also wrote an additional piece about how he knew it was missing something, and how he could 'feel the failure' because he didn't get to the heart of why this Nazi turned to his vile belief system. It read like an excuse, something else to pin the colossal failure of this article on, other than the awfulness of the piece itself. I can tell he had enough to write a better piece on this very subject just by reading what he put out. And come on, if you're writing to explain your article and saying you could feel the failure, then I think you've conceded that it was pretty bad. On top of that, there were also factual errors:

The @nytimes "Nazi next door" article appears to have basic factual problems, too https://t.co/EKGTsvemJn http://pic.twitter.com/fpRvrVpA6X

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) November 27, 2017

So much went wrong here. --And it's not that I don't understand what was being attempted. I know this kind of piece, and it can indeed be done very well...the juxtaposition of horrific genocidal beliefs with mundane snippets of everyday existence. There is something to that contrast for sure...but there has to be an actual, proper contrast for that to work. It won't work if it's heavy on the minor details of what everyone was wearing and eating but glosses over the, ya know...genocidal beliefs part. That's when it becomes lopsided..and people start to wonder wtf you were even trying to do, if not a cushy profile? There also has to come a point where the article serves a purpose beyond describing what the nazis were wearing/eating/having on their wedding registry. It should inform us in some way? Tell us something about the movement and radicalization process...other than making the Nazi grievances seem legit. "His faith in mainstream solutions slipped as he toured the country with one of the metal bands. “I got to see people who were genuinely hurting,” he said. “We played coast to coast, but specifically places in Appalachia, and a lot of the Eastern Seaboard had really been hurt.”" This type of article done properly, delves into the extremist's beliefs and frames them in a way that no borderline-nazis reading, could mistake for free promotion. It lets the subject hang himself by his own words, so to speak... but it doesn't jump immediately from him saying *Hitler was chill* to sympathetically telling his story about how society is not fair to him, and what his dream fascist-utopia would look like...punctuated with cute details about Cherry pie tattoos and wedding planning. I mean yeah, of course I understand the need to humanize evil, and to show us that it doesn't come in the shape of an unrelatable monster, it can live, breathe and walk amongst us in the form of our neighbours, coworkers, teachers, friends, etc. That's an important message...it's just that this article failed to deliver it. There is a line between 'humanize' and 'sanitize'...the same line exists between whether one is journalistically exploring an extremist subject or providing a glossy advert for them. This is the difference between Louis Theroux and Dave Rubin (alt-right propagandist) for example. Louis can explore all manner of disturbing extremist subjects but people don't assume he is sympathetic to them because of the way he frames those stories. Dave on the other hand enters his interviews with a clear agenda of wanting the extremists to present their best side, while talking shit about The Left with them. Now, I don't think this NYT piece was like Dave Rubin sanitizing 'migrants are cockroaches' 'we need a final solution' Katie Hopkins bad....There was better intent behind it and it just didn't work out, I want to make that clear. Dave's is an intentional sanitization, this was a poor job of framing the article which resulted in what appeared to be a normalizing effect. When you are trying to show that evil exists among us and goes to Applebee's just like us...then actually position the piece in that way. Then the absurdity of combining white supremacist ideology with a causal turkey sandwich will perhaps even be entertaining. But the key is you make it clear that you are trying to demonstrate how banal evil can be... If done well, this kind of piece can be very effective. The 'banality of evil' genre isn't a write off...but you've got to get the tone right. Don't approach Nazism as if it's a mere cultural curiosity. Don't do it in a way that it serves no purpose other than simply boosting a white supremacist signal out into the world...on a popular, respected mainstream outlet - Because *that* could potentially embolden more borderline white nationalists in this particular white power-y climate....they'll see that they're getting such a fuzzy profile which isn't really demonizing them at all. One that's in fact helping to mainstreamize them! See guys, their hopes and dreams are just like ours! They have muffin tins on their wedding registries! They talk about having kids too! Aww... Nazis *love* mainstream media coverage, so at least try to do it in a way that makes them not love it? “I love mainstream liberals. Those are my favorite journalists.” - Richard Spencer  If you're going to give someone space to say 'Hitler was chill' ffs, the next paragraph better be something to balance that and signal to others like him that this ideology is not tolerated. The shiny new Nazism of 2017 isn't some rare ornament that you can report on in a detached manner...it's a pretty urgent issue we're facing in the west, lives have been lost. Pieces on this subject without a sense of urgency or a sense of purpose will cause people to question the motives of such a project. Picture this same type of article featuring a Jihadist or an Islamist.. the same people whining that The Left wants audiences spoonfed basic facts like 'Nazis are bad' would themselves be outraged. Not an exact comparison, but this situation reminds me of the time a ridiculous Asim Qureshi of CAGE referred to ISIS murderer Jihadi John as 'a beautiful man', and people were rightfully appalled. Now obviously he wasn't referring to the ISIS version of the guy as beautiful, but rather the guy he knew in the past. But *still* wtf was he thinking saying that about a beheader? Similarly, its not that people need to be spoonfed the position that Nazis are bad, but they are just appalled that someone with genocidal beliefs and sympathies for a monster like Hitler can be portrayed in such a soft lens. People are understandably sensitive about how vile ideologies and their adherents are portrayed. You just can't be downplaying this kind of thing....The Asim Qureshi thing was a sentence, but imagine the outrage if he was profiling a Jihadi for a known publication...and he focused on his wedding plans, and on the fact that he didn't see himself as a jihadist, just someone fighting for freedom for his family, the kinds of sandwiches they shared and didn't address the elephant in the room, that woah those are some very fucked up and dangerous beliefs. The most upsetting thing to people is that this story ran in a climate where nazis are becoming emboldened by the day. Where the US president is inspiring them and is unable to properly condemn them. This article came across cold and with no comment on the victims of this ideology. Despite mentioning Charlottesville, there was no sympathy for Heather Heyer. They literally included a link to where you can purchase a swastika armband ffs. WHYYY.

'Facepalm' doesn't quite cut it. 

Now, I personally enjoy the use of absurd and comedic tactics to combat extremism, It's why I liked the real housewives of ISIS skit...it's why I enjoy Contrapoints' channel, especially her older videos involving bedazzling swastikas on her chest....it's why we've done two episodes together on a strangely specific topic like 'Fascist Fashion'. I absolutely think theres a way to talk about a Nazi's food preferences and make it valuable and entertaining. But it has to add something, it has to have a point...and the point can't just be detailing the kinds of sandwiches they eat. The article seems incomplete...like there could have been a useful point made afterwards but there just wasn't and the writer stopped at minor food details. Ok, so he eats at Applebee's and? This could have been a piece about the tactics they use to mainstreamize their views and almost appear normie, but it wasn't. Heck this could have even been a piece about how Nazis consume the same pop culture as us and the cognitive dissonance behind that... it could have been a 'how to spot signs'....but instead it really served no purpose at all. ----- Here are some excerpts from the piece that I found particularly cringeworthy:

I mean look at how it starts off, painting them as any other sweet couple with a wedding registry at Target, people who bake muffins and slice pineapples.....and? AND wouldn't mind some ethnic cleansing of non-white people....how about adding that? 

Then there was this gem....like...what...?

 O___O 

I had to check a couple of times to make sure I wasn't missing some quotation marks or something...because, did the writer really write that himself? Is that his opinion? Or is he sharing what he thinks the subject of his profile feels like? It's all too vague and blurry to be reassuring that it's not the writer himself saying that, "it can FEEL toxic to openly identify as a far right extremist" - What do you mean it can FEEL toxic? It is toxic, it's fucking extremism...  

What is he trying to do there, I don't know tbh....Aww poor white nationalist is having a hard time coming out of the closet because the horrible environment is too toxic for him to be his genuine self. Ffs. 

So here we start with how polite and 'low-key' he is, aww....he's literally the Nazi sympathizer next door...what a 'wholesome' image. And then we actually hear a tiny sprinkling of his vile views...almost as if they slipped in by accident to ruin his nazi-next-door image. No worries, the writer jumps straight to his cutesie cherry pie pop-culture tattoos because we can't dwell on the uncomfortable vile beliefs too long for some reason...

Here, again with the fucking manners. He's a fucking Nazi who thinks white people are superior to other races and Hitler wasn't so bad....that's not very polite is it now? 

It just seems odd to give him space to spout this anti semitic conspiracy on such a large platform without adding a remark or two, or at least a mildly disapproving adjective somewhere. 

See how harmless and non-racist he is? He's even having mixed-race couples at his wedding. 

--How about you don't add that right after talking about how he says he's not a white supremacist?--

People trying to split hairs between white nationalist and white supremacist should really be challenged on that at the very least if they are being given such a large platform. 

I don't know maybe it's just me but you've got to inject some expression or commentary as a writer when your subject is engaging in holocaust denial and saying Hitler was 'chill'. In a documentary profiling extremists perhaps the interviewer can rely on facial expressions or just a tense awkward atmosphere... to convey appropriate framing. But in an article if all we get is cold detached reporting and obsessive detail on nazi eating habits, people are not going to take it well. 

And it ends on a note of them sharing their hopes and dreams like any other couple (exactly how it began), woven badly with a quick mention of Charlottesville. And what. is. with. the. food. obsession. in. this. article? Turkey sandwiches, muffin pans, Applebees, Pasta. What a normal year 2017 has been. ----- A huge thanks to Patrons who make this work possible. If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon here. 

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2kcfc0B via IFTTT

[junker-town]

The Ravens got me thinking ... if the royal family were NFL teams, which teams would they be?

All the major British royals matched up with their most similar football teams.

The Baltimore Ravens tweeted out a very weird and slightly disturbing picture of Queen Elizabeth II with the team logo painted on her face this week. While the tweet from Tuesday night aimed to get fans excited for the Ravens game this weekend in London, it backfired and was quickly deleted.

I hate to break it to the Ravens and their social media strategists, but the queen isn’t really a match for the Ravens. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a British royal out there ready to be adorned in purple.

To show that Baltimore just poorly executed a good idea, I decided to match members of the monarchy with the NFL teams that best fits their statures and personas.

There are only two parameters I gave myself:

The NFL teams must have traveled across the Atlantic to actually play a London game.

The British royals included are only the most prominent members of the extended family, otherwise this list would have taken forever.

So, you won’t find out below why Autumn Phillips is a good fit for, say, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex makes for a solid Chargers comparison. But, I will gladly converse with you elsewhere on those choices because I have thoughts.

Queen Elizabeth II: Cowboys

Dear old Liz has been rumored to be a fan of both West Ham and Arsenal in recent years, and both of them match up with the Cowboys. Their peak periods of success are in the past at this point, whether two decades gone by or twice that, and all of these teams are hoping for a resurgence with varied results.

The Queen’s preferred soccer teams aren’t the only things that match up with the Cowboys; she does too. Like “America’s Team,” QEII is beloved by many, with steadfast support despite any missteps, bad PR, or mismanagement over the years. She and Dallas have significant detractors, though, because not even the most valuable football team or the figurehead leader of the UK can win everybody over.

Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh: Washington’s Football Team

This one was easy, because of all the racism. So much racism.

Washington’s Football Team has a more malicious brand at this point, but there are enough racist statements over the years from both parties that they’re two peas in a pod in that respect.

Charles, The Prince of Wales: Browns

Despite waiting forever to do so, neither Prince Charles nor the Cleveland Browns has ever ascended to their respective peaks — whether that’s sitting on the throne or winning a Super Bowl.

Despite never being at the top, both Charles and the Browns have a small set of dedicated fans who hope they will, with plenty of people being totally fine if that never comes to fruition.

Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall: Saints

Camilla had a truly rough stretch where nobody wanted to be associated with her and she just couldn’t get a win no matter what. Sound similar to New Orleans’ longtime plight with their fans? They’ve both had their share of scandals too!

Then, finally, things turned around for the most part — she finally married Charles and the Saints finally won a Super Bowl.

That doesn’t mean things have been smooth sailing since then. The Saints are struggling again and public sentiment for Camz is still not stellar. But compared to how things used to be? Goodness, this is above and beyond better than years ago.

Anne, The Princess Royal: Jets

As the internet’s own Fug Girls have pointed out many a time, Princess Anne constantly looks like she’s solving mysteries and unearthing shenanigans. As any NFL fan will remember, the Jets be snitchin’.

Anne and the Jets both had great stretches in the 70s too, even though Anne has held up far better than whatever the Jets are doing these days.

William, The Duke of Cambridge: Colts

For the past 20 years or so, both William and the Colts have had things relatively easy. The Colts had Peyton Manning as their quarterback and then completely tripped into getting Andrew Luck right after him. Wills is the heir to the throne, and one that everybody can’t wait to have as a leader which is more than his father can say right now.

Could they both be doing more, in the public’s opinion? Oh, sure. But overall things have been free and easy compared to those around them who deal with more constant troubles and accusations.

Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge: Patriots

Kate Middleton would have been just fine in life if she never married into the royal family. She came from an upper-middle class family that was, and is, successful enough to live well and have the finer things.

Similarly, the Pats were decent and had fair support in the seasons before Brady and Belichick came along, and it’s fair to say that the New England fan base didn’t absolutely require five Super Bowls to be happy with their team. Some moderate success and maybe one big win would have probably been just fine.

But both, in a matter of years, suddenly had all the success in the world and more — with few people having seen the Patriots becoming a juggernaut like this or Prince William marrying Kate. Fans of Kate and the Pats are fervent, intense, and like to live vicariously through them (whether it’s via clothing choices or wins on Sunday).

That hasn’t stopped controversy from bubbling up or name calling (i.e. the Wisteria Sisters, Spygate/Deflategate) from swirling, but they’re both still on the top of the world so how much are those types of things even affecting them at this point?

Even more, they both look great in navy blue.

Prince Harry of Wales: Bengals

Both prominently feature an orange color scheme. While they are more or less harmless on balance, they’ve certainly both had their controversial moments over the years. Whether that involves ill-advised draft picks or Nazi uniforms. On top of that, there’s constant talk lately of who their long-term partner will be.

They’ve also both had some nudity unexpectedly caught on camera.

Prince George of Cambridge: Giants

Well, he was born into a family of success and has a really pouty face sometimes. Will make the Hall of Fame/become king one day pretty much in spite of anything he does to indicate that shouldn’t happen.

Also known for throwing tantrums in public if he’s sleepy, like a certain Giants wide receiver we all know.

Princess Charlotte of Cambridge: Texans

The newest addition to the royal family, and the newest addition to the league. Neither has done much of consequence yet, but the expectation is that they will eventually make their mark.

And neither will be the latest arrival for long.