There Will be Blood: Boston's Straight Pride Parade.

[kellyb]

The SPLC agrees with me, that neo-nazis are inconsistent with their beliefs. Just based on what I believe about human nature, I don't assume they are genocidal, or even wannabe genocidal, without a pretty slam-dunk reason. You do. I guess that's an agree to disagree impasse.

I'd say "Neonazis are NOT genocidal" is a much more extraordinary claim than "Neonazis are genocidal".

I need a slam-dunk reason to rule OUT aspirations of genocide with people who openly identify with the genocidal Nazi movements of the past.

Yeah, agree to disagree.

 

[Checkmite]

I'd say "Neonazis are NOT genocidal" is a much more extraordinary claim than "Neonazis are genocidal".

I need a slam-dunk reason to rule OUT aspirations of genocide with people who openly identify with the genocidal Nazi movements of the past.

Yeah, agree to disagree.

Indeed. Given that neo-nazis, even who haven't declared themselves to be "for genocide", freely identify with and venerate a markedly genocidal regime, then it's safe to say that at the very least they're okay with genocide, and wouldn't intervene or even complain should their more positively genocidal compatriots choose to pursue their desires. To me that's just as bad, and makes "they haven't claimed to be genocidal" a form of prevarication, expounding a distinction without a real difference.

The same argument works on "non white-supremacists" who chose to attend the white supremacist Charlottesville rally because they felt so badly about a statue being taken down that they were willing to consciously walk arm-in-arm with white supremacists, in a white-supremacist march, to protest it.

 

[uke2se]

You're bobbing and weaving again. I already conceded that it would be time consuming for me to prove the negative, although we both know they do openly oppose it, but as you just said to dann, you simply handwave it. Saves me the trouble, I guess. But I think we can agree that anyone endorsing genocide is going to be less than forthright about it publicly?

It's not proving a negative. You made the claim that not all Nazis espouse genocide. It should be trivially easy for you to find a single Nazi who publicly expresses that position. This is not proving a negative.

Oh for christs sake. Even SLPC in their definition acknowledges that they are inconsistent in their core beliefs. That's what we are arguing about. You can't just declare your opinion correct without evidence. There is a term for that.

First, the SLPC - for all the good they do - isn't an authority on Nazi beliefs.

If you have a problem with the default position, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to deal with it. Your assertion is pretty far out.

Spencer is a neo-nazi. Agreed?
Spencer publicly advocates against violence. Agreed? So your statement is factually false, unless you handwave it.

Nope. Spencer is a liar.

Now back to Schoep, who you offered. What are...er, were... his public opinions on genocide?

He's a Nazi, so he's all for it. I know that because it's a Nazi staple. Doesn't really matter that you don't believe it.