Comment by shadowgovt

A commenter below helpfully provided links to pages talking about increases in hate group counts. As you suggest, this could mean either more hate groups, a more effective SPLC (that's better at finding them), or a broader definition. The last one might be written in the original reports somewhere. I have no idea how to distinguish the first two.

It seems like the definition is "broadened" but no actual definition is provided. All we can look at is who gets labeled as "white supremacist" and draw our own inferences. Notably, a lot of garden-variety egalitarians--people who are against any kind of racial ideology including critical race theory, "anti-racism", and other left-wing racial ideologies--are frequently labeled "white supremacist" (including an awful lot of people of color, jewish people, homosexuals, etc).

We should be very wary of rhetoric that depends on changing definitions of terms without providing precise definitions (see also "racism"). Put differently, everyone's ideas should be criticized on their own terms, but you oughtn't be taken seriously if you don't even define your own terms (and defining them in terms of other poorly defined terms--e.g., "'anti-racism' opposing racism"--doesn't count).

On the contrary, I've been traveling across the US quite a bit over the last several months, from New England, the PNW, and the South. While I've seen plenty of signs and a few rallies supporting BLM and other progressive causes, I've yet to see, in person, a single sign or rally or any supportive material for white supremacy. I hear about it a lot on the internet but from my travels anyway I haven't seen it yet.

Edit: I did see some confederate flags being flown in middle of nowhere Mississippi, but I honestly believe they're not flown as a symbol of hatred (at least not always) as some people had banners next to their flags saying things like "Pride not hate", or the rainbow flag, or other phrases trying to distance themselves from the negative connotations of the flag.

Your first link literally says “FactCheck.org Rating: Experts Disagree”

Acceptance of the confederate flag has definitely decreased a lot the last half century.

So if that's your measure, white supremacy is not doing well at all.

Many people experience legitimate problems in life to which the've only been offered solutions like xenophobia.

Just a follow-up, that Trump not only refused to condemn white supremacy during the debate tonight, he told Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by."

Yeah, if you pay attention to the world (and I'm not implying grandparent does not - please don't draw that conclusion), you will see a lot of "symptoms" before 2016 happened.

I believe the person grandparent is referring to's rise to power was one more symptom in what's been happening, and not a cause in any way. Of course, these things tend to enter a sort of feedback loop. If you'll allow me a parallel with the rise of antisemitism in Europe in the early half of the last century: It was not Nazism that emboldened and bolstered antisemitic feelings across Europe. Nazism was a symptom of the established and pretty mainstream antisemitic current in western society at the time. Even the US was not immune to hating on the Jew.

This rise in far-right political strength is most likely associated with a backlash against the (mostly? totally?) left-wing push for inclusivity and rapid social progressivism. In a way, among those that wouldn't identify themselves as far-right but do manifest ideals associated with the far-right of today, I can identify a certain undercurrent of "we're going too far, we're making too many changes, we need to slow down". Of course, things like "cancel culture", Spotify's staff wanting complete creative control over a 'controversial' podcast, etc., as well as the social bubbles we isolate ourselves in on our chosen social media platforms do not help at all with empathy or viewing others' viewpoints, which greatly exacerbates the issue.

What does the rise of nationalism have to do with the war? Do you expect some of these parties to try invading their neighbours?

Many people were accused of being xenophobic, mostly by self-important brats, of course they loose their reluctance towards it. It is much stronger than 10 years ago.

>Far-right ultra-nationalistic movements are gaining speed in many places in the world.

That may be true, but far-left movements are certainly gaining speed as well. And I'm talking about real actual 'cease the means of production'-communists. Politics is certainly getting more polarised.

There has been many wars in Europe since WW2, from Cyprus to Yugoslavia and Georgia. You don't need to be 80 years old to have experienced war. Or maybe you need to explain what a "real war" is.

Question answered: Being reactionary to reactionaries is idiotic. It wasn't even an issue 10 years ago and some people fucked it up big time.

> The richest people in the US are whites (e.g. Besos, Gates, Buffet), but not suprematists.

And what of the Kochs and Waltons?

Either way, you're only thinking about the 0.01%. But consider the many many more people in the 1%. Big fish in small pond types that are part of the Old Boy's Club in your local area. People that wouldn't call themselves white supremacists or even racist, but also wouldn't really want Black folks joining their country club.

If you don't think deep-seated racism is profoundly prevalent across large areas of the US, you are probably just in the position of having enough privilege to be oblivious to it. I grew up in the South, and it is everywhere. You just have to scratch the surface a bit to see it.

The US was largely founded on white supremacy and it has been part of the state institutions for two hundred years. It didn't disappear at the end of the civil war, or in the 1960s, or in 2008.

Federal immigration control almost exclusively focuses their attention on deporting and denying asylum to Latino refugees and asylum seekers.

Last week it was uncovered that mass hysterectomies had taken place at an ICE facility in Georgia without the informed consent of patients - this falls under the UN's definition of genocide.

This policy shift towards targeting exclusively Latinos came under the Trump administration calling Mexican immigrants "rapists" who bring crime and drugs. Melania Trump is a white immigrant who was granted the exclusive EB-1 green card for "extraordinary abilities".

I find it nearly impossible in these circumstances to come to the conclusion that the state is not explicitly catering to white supremacist ideology...and immigration policy is only the tip of the iceberg.

I never mentioned the contrary.

"Embrace" by the definition "continuing to parrot white nationalist points of view uncritically, and having a white nationalist as senior adviser for policy."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/trump-w...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_advi...

That's the point, it is broken. It's how "white supremacy" has gained so much traction in the US. Of course it will have gained traction if you expand the definiton to include almost 50% of the population.

Litterally the picture I linked, would you like more examples. Here's another where they redefine the "white" in white supremacy to mean more than having white skin. https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2020-07/whiten...

I can keep going if you want me to.

Every authoritarian and totalitarian regime that ever existed agrees with you.

As long as it is used against Nazis, definitely. I mean, we can all agree that Nazis are bad.

The problem is when governments go against legitimate opposition and abuse social pressure.

People in America dont live in random places. You have parts where everyone is white and parts where everyone is black. Then you have parts where one group is severely dominant. For many if not most businesses, their customer base does not have same racial ration as whole America.

One business' potential customer is another's potential employee and a third's potential competitor.

How many websites have multiple translations available and put effort into accessibility proportional to the amount of the population that could be helped by it? It's not anywhere near 100%.

Why is it that Facebook ignores white supremacist content and targets Amazon labor union content?

For example, SaaS companies aren't going to create white supremacist technology, but they will sell to white supremacists.