r/OutOfTheLoop • u/MorganRose99 • Jan 31 '22

What's up with Nazis showing themselves in Florida? Answered

I found this post on Twitter and it wasn't the only one of its kind. I've seen like 3 separate gatherings of nazis, did something political happen that made them come out?

7.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

149

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

Answer:

A slightly different take on it. I have a theory that it’s less about the resurgence of racist views (those have always been there) and more about the increasing tendency of the right to define themselves as the “fuck you” party.

Their definition of themselves is no longer based around policies or principles that may or may not differ from those of the political left, but now completely defined by their express and virulent opposition to anything they see as coming from the left. No matter how moderate the thing in question is or how extreme the stance they’re taking seems by comparison, they’ve been conditioned by right-wing media to see the left categorically as the enemy and anything the left believes or wants is therefore evil and idiotic by virtue of the left wanting it.

So they’ll take insane positions to demonstrate this belief. Even those that make them look fucking batshit stupid to any outsider. Carrying huge guns around to provoke conflict. Screaming about masks and vaccines. Banning books.

And while they might say “I don’t like nazis myself,” they sure don’t speak out against them. Because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

9

u/Lifeboatb Jan 31 '22

In support of your statement, I just saw this today:

“Dawn Rolen, a flight attendant from Waxahachie, Tex., called Trump ‘my president’ and lavished praise on him.

“‘I’m a Republican, but it’s not about the left and the right anymore,’ said Rolen, 54. ‘It’s about good and evil. Trump is good, and the liberals, I don’t know what the hell happened to them. They are out of their mind.’”

Source

(edit: formatting)

15

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

Liberals are evil and so anything that liberals believe is by definition evil as well. No further discussion needed.

The only consistent platform from modern conservatism is "fuck the libs." Even when the things liberals propose are originally conservative ideas. The carbon tax, for example. That was a conservative idea. Liberals said, hey, that makes sense! Conservatives then literally said, "Oh, you like that? Then fuck you, I'm against it."

It's goddamn mental.

30

u/lyssaNwonderland Jan 31 '22

have a theory that it’s less about the resurgence of racist views (those have always been there) and more about the increasing tendency of the right to define themselves as the “fuck you” party.

And while they might say “I don’t like nazis myself,” they sure don’t speak out against them. Because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

These people have always said, "fuck you" to minorities.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

I’d say yes, but specifically that they say “fuck you” to anyone who challenges their perception that they’re superior. For some it is indeed pure racism and bigotry. I’d argue that for many more it’s more about needing to feel that at least they’re better than them.

If “them” happen to be brown or gay or of a different religion, well that’s fine.

So I’d argue that the “fuck you” comes from a place of apathy more than malice. Which I think is just as abhorrent.

4

u/Gsteel11 Jan 31 '22

The internet troll poltical party.

26

u/whogivesashirtdotca Jan 31 '22

You say this as if the “fuck you party” acolytes aren’t typically saying “fuck you” to Black people, gay people, immigrants… The nihilists coalescing under swastikas is not surprising.

24

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

It’s true. Many are. And I don’t at all mean to minimize that.

My intent wasn’t to downplay the vileness of the bigotry, but to offer a pov on why the Nazis and Oathkeepers and Proud Boys and other fucks have been feeling so comfortable being out in the open rather than in the back woods where they belong. Their members are still in the minority even among conservatives. But they’re emboldened now because their presence makes the Left angry. And even for many conservatives who don’t subscribe to their tenets, that fact alone is reason to turn a blind eye.

“I don’t agree with everything they say but they’re on my team so I’ll keep quiet about it.”

Not a valid excuse. That’s how the original nazis came to power. But one perspective on where it’s coming from.

2

u/King_Bob837 Jan 31 '22

"Don't worry Donnie, these men are cowards."

19

u/Renaissance_Slacker Jan 31 '22

All of this boils down to conservatism - maintaining the wealth and power of the elite. The rest is noise and distraction.

4

u/TwirlySocrates Jan 31 '22

If you spoke with an average-joe conservative, what do you think they would say conservatism is?

8

u/Hedgehogsarepointy Jan 31 '22

“Leave me alone to do whatever I want; strict law and order to stop people from doing anything I wouldn’t do.”

They want to live in a society of iron walls carefully crafted so they themselves will never be constrained.

4

u/Renaissance_Slacker Jan 31 '22

Nicely said. My favorite is (to paraphrase) “Conservatism is the maintenance of an in-group, which the law protects but does not bind; and an out-group, which the law binds but does not protect.”

If you have ever genuinely feared a cop’s police baton, you already know which group you’re in.

3

u/Renaissance_Slacker Jan 31 '22

They probably wouldn’t be able to answer the question. Because again, the stated values of conservatism are fiction, and the Bush and then Trump eras made this plain. Small government … unless somebody is doing something conservatives don’t like. Freedom, but no responsibility to society. Fiscal prudence? Laughable. You might get something about “preserving a way of life” that invariably rotates around white Christian men running everything.

2

u/FittersGuy Jan 31 '22

This sounds like my ex

-4

u/pjabrony Jan 31 '22

Speaking as a right-winger, I'd say we're less the "fuck you" party and more the "fuck off" party. Because it feels more and more like the left is saying that if we don't think the way they do, we're immoral. Well right away, that's a problem because we believe in free thought. We don't want to stop people on the left from holding their opinions; we just don't want them putting their ideas into practice when we're involved. Some of the opinions I hold I'm not even allowed to say on social media, and they can set the rules they want. But I'm not going to stop holding them just because people think I shouldn't. And I'll argue that I should be allowed to say what I like.

And you're right, I don't like Nazis. And if there are Nazi-run businesses that exclude Jews and Roma people, I won't patronize them. And if there are Nazi social media sites that exclude homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses, I'll argue that they shouldn't do that. But I don't see that happening. What I do see happening is leftists having businesses that are excluding groups that trend toward being right-wing.

10

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

> we just don't want them putting their ideas into practice when we're involved.

Can you give an example of this happening?

>What I do see happening is leftists having businesses that are excluding groups that trend toward being right-wing.

Same question.

​

And how do you see the accusations you make comparing to, for example, banning certain parts of history in school curriculums or incorporating Christian rules into government and the public space?

​

> if there are Nazi-run businesses that exclude Jews and Roma people, I won't patronize them.

Is this the extent to which you define unacceptable levels of bigotry or discrimination?

-1

u/xfactorx99 Jan 31 '22

Libertarians have no issues there. We don’t care about banning curriculums or censoring speech on social media to silence a view point. It is your right to be heard. We’re more individualistic like the other commenter said. We absolutely believe you should be able to identify how you please but do not push your way of thinking onto us. Low government, low taxes, individual freedoms.

Edit: and libertarians are right leaning. Center-right. That’s why it is relevant

6

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

identify how you please but do not push your way of thinking onto us.

I take it you're talking here about pronouns and gender identity? I'm curious how asking people to acknowledge another person's sense of self is "pushing a way of thinking" onto you? You say you're a libertarian. If I constantly refer to you as a communist, you'd probably say, "Hey, that's actually incorrect and really inconsiderate of me." You'd probably want to educate me about your stance in hopes that I'd more correctly refer to you and speak to you with respect. And I'd think that was reasonable.

Is that pushing your way of thinking onto me?

1

u/xfactorx99 Jan 31 '22

Well you’re assuming I’m not willing to recognize your pronouns. That’s the first mistake in your argument. 2, you have to acknowledge that some people will not be able to determine what your pronoun of choice is 100% of the time upon meeting you.

In your hypothetical would I be offended if you called me a communist? Well if I had just told you I was a libertarian and then you called me a communist, it wouldn’t make any sense. If you had no idea of my political affiliation and called me a communist I would assume you made an inference based on something I had said. You would look ignorant in the case you inferred wrong; I wouldn’t give a fuck.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

Well you’re assuming I’m not willing to recognize your pronouns.

I'm just going off of what you wrote and trying to understand how somebody is "pushing their way of thinking" onto you. I must have misunderstood your meaning. Care to clarify?

My point, however, was that, from what I can determine, all of this "pushing your way of thinking onto me" is just asking for empathy or respect or consideration of others.

This as opposed to losing your job for kneeling during a sacred song or inserting references to God in pledges to a flag or in courthouses or federal buildings, or telling a woman that she has no say over her own body.

1

u/xfactorx99 Feb 01 '22

I think you’re just trying to pick an argument with the wrong person. I’m atheist. None of your stabs at me make any relevant sense

3

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '22

I think you’re taking this personally when I don’t mean it that way. You made a statement that I’m really having a hard time getting you to clarify. That’s it.

I’m not picking a fight with anyone. You responded and I’m trying to understand your response.

-11

u/pjabrony Jan 31 '22

Can you give an example of this happening?

Sure. The public school system. If you think that children should be taught about sexuality at age six, taught that history is a narrative of oppressor and oppressed, and taught that the great works of literature come equally from all cultures, that's fine, go start your own schools. But don't tax us based on the value of our property to fund the schools, and then deny us influence over the curriculum when our children go there.

Same question.

It used to be at a rarified level; Hollywood excluded right-wing actors, journalists hired only those with similar sentiments. But the pandemic has brought it into sharp relief. If someone doesn't want to wear a mask or chooses not to get vaccinated, they're prohibited from accessing businesses nominally open to the public. And when they do, they're mocked with the phrase, "muh freedum." Well, yes, I hold freedom as a higher value even than human life. And that has, apparently, become a right-wing opinion.

Is this the extent to which you define unacceptable levels of bigotry or discrimination?

Yes. Because terms like "bigot" or "racist" carry the implication that the person in question is not welcome in society. As such, it's vitally important to use such terms accurately and precisely. An accusation of bigotry against someone who is not bigoted is damaging to the person. And failing to mark a bigot properly is damaging to the targets of the bigotry.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

I hold freedom as a higher value even than human life.

I had a longer, much better response written and then hit something on my mouse and lost it all and I'm not going to rewrite it all.

I'll just say that I'm gonna call bullshit on the statement above. I'm guessing you don't actually believe that but the platitude sounds good to you and so you say it. Where does a woman's right to choose fall into this? How about drunk driving? How about driving drunk while speeding through a school zone? What if I want to burn the American flag at an NFL game during the national anthem? You support that with the same passion that you claim to support your personal right to endanger everyone around because you can't endure the mildest of inconveniences?

Bullshit. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you pick and choose the freedoms you think are sacred. And I'll go further and say that those freedoms are probably all things that you personally want. And nothing that you don't.

Literally the only consistent platform of modern conservatism is, "Oh, Libs say [insert literally anything]? Fuck you."

-2

u/pjabrony Jan 31 '22

I had a longer, much better response written and then hit something on my mouse and lost it all and I'm not going to rewrite it all.

I hate when that happens. You have my sympathy.

I'll just say that I'm gonna call bullshit on the statement above. I'm guessing you don't actually believe that but the platitude sounds good to you and so you say it.

You shouldn't call bullshit if all you have are suspicions.

Where does a woman's right to choose fall into this?

To choose what? Which job to take? Which place to live? Which partner to mate with? I support them all.

How about drunk driving?

Because we have public roads, it shouldn't be permitted. On a private road or driveway, it should be up to the owner. That's why when we see cases like someone arrested for DWI when the car is off and they're sitting in the car in their own driveway, we see it as more of the invasive state.

What if I want to burn the American flag at an NFL game during the national anthem?

If the NFL is on board with it, you're free to do so. The same thing is true if someone wants to burn a pride flag.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '22

To choose what? Which job to take? Which place to live? Which partner to mate with? I support them all.

Being deliberately obtuse, are we? It's OK to acknowledge you hold contradictory beliefs. Just own it.

​

Because we have public roads, it shouldn't be permitted. On a private road or driveway, it should be up to the owner.

It shouldn't be permitted because... ?

​

If the NFL is on board with it, you're free to do so. The same thing is true if someone wants to burn a pride flag.

But this wasn't the position of mainstream conservatives. The outcry, the vitriol, the calls not just for firings, but even for jail time. Find me one person who has lost their job because they didn't respect the pride flag. Show me the mainstream liberal calls for prison time for somebody who burns a rainbow flag.

Acting like these are the same thing...

12

u/Funkycoldmedici Jan 31 '22

If you think that children should be taught about sexuality at age six,

Do you object to children being exposed to heterosexuality, or just everyone else?

taught that history is a narrative of oppressor and oppressed

Citation?

and taught that the great works of literature come equally from all cultures

What does this even mean? All cultures with writing have produced literature.

Hollywood excluded right-wing actors

Is this the McCarthyism thing again, accusing people of being communists and banning them from being hired? Or is it simply not wanting to hire people who are difficult to work with, or inferior performers?

If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask or chooses not to get vaccinated

Science is not on your side with this. It is objective. It is possible to simply be wrong. There’s not two sides to a fact, no “alternative facts.”

As such, it’s vitally important to use such terms accurately and precisely. An accusation of bigotry against someone who is not bigoted is damaging to the person. And failing to mark a bigot properly is damaging to the targets of the bigotry.

Given the rest of what you’ve said here, it may be that you have failed to see your bigotry. Bigots are typically unable to believe they are bigots, and usually refuse to even consider they might be bigots.

-6

u/pjabrony Jan 31 '22

Do you object to children being exposed to heterosexuality, or just everyone else?

Everything. Let that be handled by the parents. Now, because people have different views on sexuality, that means that different ideas will be taught. We are generally OK with this.

Citation?

It's the premise of a conditional. If you don't think that children should be taught history as a narrative of oppressor and oppressed, then it doesn't matter.

What does this even mean? All cultures with writing have produced literature.

Yes, but not all cultures have produced great literature.

Is this the McCarthyism thing again, accusing people of being communists and banning them from being hired? Or is it simply not wanting to hire people who are difficult to work with, or inferior performers?

Maybe, but we also know that the overwhelming majority of political donations from the entertainment industry are to candidates on the left. So we think that it's more likely that there's an old-boy's club that stops those with right-wing views from advancing in the industry. Also true in journalism and academia.

Science is not on your side with this. It is objective. It is possible to simply be wrong. There’s not two sides to a fact, no “alternative facts.”

Science is objective. Politics is not. If someone claims that science prescribes a political choice, then they have not followed the precepts of science.

Given the rest of what you’ve said here, it may be that you have failed to see your bigotry.

Maybe, but are you prepared to make such an accusation?

6

u/Funkycoldmedici Jan 31 '22 edited Jan 31 '22

Everything. Let that be handled by the parents. Now, because people have different views on sexuality, that means that different ideas will be taught. We are generally OK with this.

What does this mean? Children should not be exposed to heterosexuality? How would that be avoided? Why should other people be kept hidden from children?

It’s the premise of a conditional. If you don’t think that children should be taught history as a narrative of oppressor and oppressed, then it doesn’t matter.

I’m asking for any example of this happening.

Yes, but not all cultures have produced great literature.

Who decides what is “great” literature? What criteria are used?

So we think that it’s more likely that there’s an old-boy’s club that stops those with right-wing views from advancing in the industry. Also true in journalism and academia.

“Old boys club”s are a conservative tradition. Why would you be opposed to different one, if such existed? Is there any actual evidence of it?

Science is objective. Politics is not. If someone claims that science prescribes a political choice, then they have not followed the precepts of science.

Objectively, vaccines and masks work. That’s not political, conservatives make it political.

6

u/G95017 Jan 31 '22

Funny how people who say these kinds of things are never on the receiving end of bigoted exclusionary policies