Surveillance sentences to ponder

The mostly male crowd that participated in Friday night’s tiki-torch-lit rally did not cover their faces, and they were widely photographed. A Twitter account, @YesYoureRacist, began posting photographs of participants and uncovering their identities. White was among the first it named. The account would soon identify students enrolled at the University of Nevada and Washington State University, leading both of the schools to issue statements condemning racism.


A white nationalist who participated in the torch-lit march through the University of Virginia’s campus this weekend has lost his job at a Berkeley, Calif., hot dog restaurant after Twitter users posted his photo and place of employment. The employee, Cole White, was identified online after he was photographed among a shouting and torch-wielding mob during the march Friday night in Charlottesville.

Effective social monitoring, or dangerous slippery slope?  Or both?  Sometimes the undercover sleuths are wrong (NYT).  Many colleges are being asked to expel those students.

Here is the full article, via Michael Rosenwald.



It's important to note it is a Libertarian hot dog outlet. They put out a statement:

Top Dog issued a statement to the Washington Post that read, in part:

“Cole chose to voluntarily resign his employment with Top Dog and we accepted his resignation. There have been reports that he was terminated. Those reports are false. There have been reports that top dog knowingly employs racists and promotes racist theology. That too is false. Individual freedom and voluntary exchange are core to the philosophy of Top Dog. We look forward to cooking the same great food for at least another 50 years.”

"Cooking the same great food" of 50 years ago (basically when Martin Luther King was shot) is a dog whistle.

But is it a top dog whistle?

Apparently, it is. Their business' name itself makes clear what they are.

"Individual freedom ... [is] core to the philosophy of Top Dog"

Except where it isn't, like the individual freedom to attend a political march.

How did you only read the middle of that quote?

"Cole ... voluntarily ... promotes ... Dog ... cooking ... for ... 50 years."


And individual freedom to hire and fire whoever the fuck you want.

Why do racists think their tender feelings should be protected from the social consequences of their speech? Maybe you guys need a safe space to go cry in.

Your perfectly delineated public/private distinction is facile. Consider for example that the government allows firms to be sued for discrimination for creating a "hostile work environment." Choosing to retain a "known" racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever employee will be used against the company in a harassment lawsuit. This is backdoor government censorship imo. (And please note that the government is very one-sided in what it considers "hostile.")

Companies are curiously responsive to leftist agitation. Why is this? In addition to the legal threats, I suspect it's largely a matter of companies wanting to avoid headaches and negative attention. If a single employee's presence is generating angry phone calls, emails, threats of protest, and unfavorable press, they are causing more trouble than they are worth. But this is largely an extension of leftist institutional dominance whereby leftist groups are given a very free hand and their efforts are amplified by a complicit media. If any of that were to change, it would be a very different game and employers would be more inclined to tell these goons to pound sand.

Free speech should be a fundamental cultural commitment, not narrowly defined to direct government censorship, which will become less and less important, particularly when the government can indirectly push private actors to censor for them. This will be especially important as communication moves towards what are essentially public internet-based utilities that selectively "de-platform" whoever they don't like.

It's simpler than that. Corporations have decided they will make more money doing it this way than catering to hate groups. That's all corporations care about, what decision will make us the most money? As it should be!

We have in our hand a list of 200 known white nationalist sympathizers that have infiltrated our hot dog stands....

It seems to me that white supremacy and communism were both defeated because they are deeply flawed ideologies that run counter to core American values, not because we manage or managed to suppress the expression of those ideas or through shaming and purging campaigns. The purging can only happen *after* the ideologies have already been defeated because people will not be ashamed of holding widely held views. Speaking out against the white nationalist movement is essential to defeating it. I'm not sure that hunting down individual sympathizers in their non-political private lives is though.

Those terms are typically used as slurs and they are almost always accusations rather than self-applied labels. Hardcore free market types will call you at minimum a socialist if you don't want to abolish social security. Right now you will get called a "white nationalist" if you support *any* immigration restriction whatsoever.

"Libertarian hot dog outlet"

Have you eaten there? They are, indeed, a vocally Libertarian hot dog stand. With many cartoons and articles pasted on the wall proclaiming their Libertarian-ness.

The real story is how is a hot dog stand employee so flush with cash that he can afford to take time off and fly across the country to participate in a protest? Wait...Berkeley's minimum wage is currently $12.53 and is set to go to $13.75 in 2 months.

OMG...the minimum wage crowd enables racism. Tomorrow's headline.

Antifa wear masks but is there any evidence that they actually have jobs to lose?

Both. The future is coming, and the older we get the scarier it is. But the people who grow up in it won't notice it as a problem.

Old people always think that society is going to hell in a handbasket. Sometimes, however, society actually does go to hell in a handbasket.


Why is it always a handbasket? It feels more like a straight jacket.

When has it ever gone to hell in a handbasket?

Venezuela is a good example at the moment.

"When has it ever gone to hell in a handbasket?"

The US Civil War.


OK, Civil War, Zimbabwe, Venezuela. I'll add WWII and WWI. There are bad events, terrible countries. These are far outweighed by successful countries and general improvement in human welfare forever. So I guess my point is, pessimism is generally wrong. Check out The Rational Optimist, the book and the blog.

Sure, but you asked a general question “When has it ever gone to hell in a handbasket?” and you got appropriate answers.

You didn't ask is it likely that it's going to hell in a handbasket. If you had, I would have said no. Also, I would point back to my original statement. We're going to hell in a straight jacket. Or at least towards a much more socially & economically restrictive world.

I was responding to dan1111 who seemed to think that sometimes it does GTHIAHB, and was implying now was one of those times.

However the world changes, there will be greater restrictions on some things and less on others. There's no doubt the world will be a different place in the future, and the older you are the scarier that will be as it will be so different from how you grew up. To the young people in that future, it will just be what is.

"There’s no doubt the world will be a different place in the future, and the older you are the scarier that will be as it will be so different from how you grew up. To the young people in that future, it will just be what is."

You know who you never see complaining about anything? The millennials.

@Anonymous: LMFAO! Touche.

The dumb ones, sure. But many will be able to read their history books and regret the coming of the pillarised society.

So what time in history is better than this one? If there isn't one, why are you so sure it will get worse starting now and not keep getting better as it always has?

"So what time in history is better than this one? "

Strawman, I didn't say it would be worse in every respect, we may have technological breakthroughs. But the pillarization has gotten worse over the past few decades and it will continue to do so.

OK thanks. What is "pillarization"?

I see "pillarization" used here:

Scary for whom? More information allowing for an increase in mutually desired interactions isn't scary. Allows people who want to disassociate from white nationalists, the opportunity to do so, and allows white nationalists the opportunity to form their own communities. Both sides will move closer to their preferred world.

Of course, there's the chance some will end up living in the world that they desired, and realize it doesn't live up to their mental models. Scary!

Indeed! Everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.

No need to strawman. It's better than the counterfactual world without this information. These guys are mooching off the empathetic externalities from those with more decency. Let them live in their world, with their primitive collectivism, and realize the full price of the world they wish for. They don't get to keep better white people locked in with them.

It did occur to me but once you have a genetically pure population, they just fight each other over football matches.

"and allows white nationalists the opportunity to form their own communities."

No it doesn't, anti-discrimination laws assure that freedom of association is for me, not for thee. Even in a non-racial, officially political manner, discrimination against those who aren't white nationalists will be ruled to have a disparate impact on non-Whites and thus be illegal.

"Of course, there’s the chance some will end up living in the world that they desired, and realize it doesn’t live up to their mental models. Scary!"

Maybe wrong but I sense you are a libertarian. Note that many liberals will consider you to be almost as bad, certainly worth shaming and shunning, and I rather doubt the "zen" attitude will remain if that happens to you.

"No it doesn’t, anti-discrimination laws assure that freedom of association is for me, not for thee. Even in a non-racial, officially political manner, discrimination against those who aren’t white nationalists will be ruled to have a disparate impact on non-Whites and thus be illegal."

Maybe, I should've added the word "eventually". One step at a time. Clearly they don't want to live with people who are different at a tribal level. So, removing interaction into school, business, relationships, etc is a step towards that. The internet allows people to form the digital communities they want now, and now we're at the beginning stages of it creeping into the real world. Eventually, I see a separation occurring, rather than everyone deciding we're all in it together.

"Maybe wrong but I sense you are a libertarian. Note that many liberals will consider you to be almost as bad, certainly worth shaming and shunning, and I rather doubt the “zen” attitude will remain if that happens to you."

If I asked libertarians, I probably don't live up to their definition. However, I'm pro-freedom but the particulars of my views aren't topical to this discussion. I'm very well aware of how liberals view the libertarian types, including those like myself.

However, I'd rather live under the misery of Silicon Valley's equal gender rights and listening to lectures about white guilt, than to live under those who's moral compass is based on an embattled view of white civilization vs non-white barbarism. Liberals are clearly the lesser evil, and it's not even close. Studies have consistently shown that they're better educated and empathetic than conservatives. This realization goes against my intuitions, but it's obvious when applying the Ideological Turing Test.

The Overton window within a society will not ever be between the values of civilization vs liberty. There is a clear, linear hierarchy. It goes from barbarism-to-civilization-to-equality-to-liberty. So, if you care about free markets and civil liberties becoming a mainstream concept, that is competing for a majority of minds, then the window must shift away from conservatives towards liberals, before reaching libertarians.

Sounds a lot like when Stalin thought fascism was a step on the evolutionary road to communism

"However, I’d rather live under the misery of Silicon Valley’s equal gender rights and listening to lectures about white guilt, than to live under those who’s moral compass is based on an embattled view of white civilization vs non-white barbarism."

That's a false dichotomy. No one is suggesting those are the only choices we have.

If more info is always good, why not write under your real name, with social media accounts linked? What you really mean is "dissents must be punished" which is not the original thought you think it is.

You're hallucinating a strawman. I didn't say "more information is always good".

Congrats on winning another argument in your reality.

What, exactly, is your point supposed to be? I will take it as "the dissidents must be punished."

Voluntary exchange requires mutual consent. If you respond again, I can provide an example to help.

In many other countries including southern Europe, employment is already a cultural phenomenon : which means you need to belong to get a job even for the lowest paid. Same will happen in US soon, for the same reasons, and not only at Google.

It's already like this but not for the reasons you think. Silicon valley and many software companies have specific "nerd cultures" that you are really expected to fit in with. This is nothing new.

LOL. No.

Silicon Valley is amazingly accepting if one does their job.

At least until very recently where SWJs have acquired some level of power and now probe for thought crime continually.


Never worked in silicon valley itself but that's been my experience in the industry.

> At least until very recently where SWJs have acquired some level of power and now probe for thought crime continually

You're either horribly oversensitive, high, or some flavor of men's rights whiner. I've worked in Silicon Valley my entire career, and the sort of crap you're whining about is, comparatively, far less intrusive than the conformist pressure you get form firms like McGraw Hill or Johnson & Johnson. (I pick those two because I have former partners who worked for both, and got to hear about the shit they pull.)

Watching a state-mandated sexual harassment and being asked to treat your cow-orkers as equals is not oppressive.

Easy prediction: if the doxxing of the alt-right demonstrators proves to be effective, they will start wearing bandanas and masks the way the Antifa and Anonymous demonstrators do. I'm a little surprised they aren't covering their faces already, the KKK used to do that.

They will, but then they'll find out that many states have mask laws. With a few exceptions, it's illegal in Virginia to wear a mask/hood/etc in public for the purpose of concealing your identity. Doing so is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $2500 fine.

Seems like the leftists thugs got away with it.

They haven't always gotten away with it.

"Some conservative media sites have criticized the University of California for not cracking down on protesters from the left, and have lauded the tough stance taken by the authorities at Auburn University in Alabama. Before a speech by the white nationalist Richard Spencer at the Auburn campus last week, the police stopped anti-fascist protesters and ordered them to remove their masks."

"{California} - After that case, the state enacted a far narrower provision: It is illegal to wear a mask in the act of committing a crime. The University of California, Berkeley, also has its own regulation for masks: People who are not affiliated with the university cannot wear masks on campus for the purpose of intimidation.

But Mr. Risher said the university had not tried to enforce its regulation against protesters who were merely wearing masks, probably because the word “intimidation” is vague and open to many interpretations.

It's a case of selective enforcement. It's also not too surprising that the Auburn, AL protest was relatively peaceful.

Where is the 5 years of imprisonment? Sounds like they got away with it.

But people who are affiliated with the university can wear masks? What are they going to do, stop every mask-wearing idiot and ask to see a student ID?

Not all states have laws as strict as Virginia's. Most that have such anti-Klan laws are limited to misdemeanors, not felonies. Virginia's law *has* been used against people wearing Guy Fawkes masks and so forth.

It's fairly common to wear a mask of the sitting president to protest his policies.


Many states, such as Virginia have old laws on the books from the fight against the KKK making it illegal to wear a mask in public for the purpose of committing violence with impunity. The federal government has a law that may (or may not, depending on how it is interpreted) do the same.

Those laws largely hadn't been enforced against masked leftist thugs of the Black Bloc variety, which is one reason why there has been so much semi-leftist violence over the last couple of years. But there has been growing demand for enforcement of anti-mask laws since the anti-Trump, anti-Milo, anti-Murray riots of recent years.

I had no idea about these laws. I remember all the masked anti globalization protesters at the seattle demos way back in the 90s. Did they get off with impunity?

Don't know about the state of Washington.

There is a lot of reason to worry that Attorney General Sessions is less forgiving of masked vigilantes than Attorneys General Lynch and Holder were:

I think the antifa thugs tried to use masks at Auburn and the campus police made them remove them. An unmasked leftist thug is meeker than a masked one.

The gardener ties on a bandana every time he fires up the leaf blower .. I suggest carrying a rake.

In my neighborhood blowing leaves with those things is a crime.

Gardeners can carry sharp machetes too. It's a man's life.

Apologists for mob violence are so cute.

is it even accurate to call the anarchists "leftists"? they don't seem to have a coherent political program and define themselves only by who their enemies are. Does being an enemy of the far-right necessarily make them the far-left? I don't think that logic holds up.

They're anarchist thugs. They have no ideological orientation as far as I can tell. Only tribal conflict.

"is it even accurate to call the anarchists 'leftists'?"
"Does being an enemy of the far-right necessarily make them the far-left?"

Of course not, but when did Trumpists ever bother themselves with facts?

As accurate as it is to call national socialists "far right", I suppose Political Activities Outside of Working Hours:

California law also prohibits employers from adopting any “rule, regulation, or policy” that bars employees from running for public office, or participating in politics outside of work. However, if you decide to run for office or attend a protest outside of working hours, your employer could legally terminate you if these activities distract you from work to a point that your job performance suffers.

It seems to me that the hot dog Berkeley guy has grounds for suing.

'It seems to me that the hot dog Berkeley guy has grounds for suing.'

And if he does, he will discover that such public policy institutes will in no way, shape, or form accept the premise that an American at will employer should have their right to immediately terminate an employee for any reason at any time restricted in any way.

So many commenters still seem unaware that they are opposing one of the most highly prized freedoms enjoyed by American companies, a freedom which is the result of a long and well financed struggle.

Entirely agree on the freedom, Prior :-) But the California law is therefore an ass.

p_t is trying to hold on to his own facts.

Except for all those links over the past few days - and below - concerning American at will employment.

And the fact that the 1st Amendment applies to government, not private entities. No one has a right to peaceably assemble in a company's parking lot, for example, without the permission of the company, and it is impossible to claim a 1st Amendment right to do so.

This would be an excellent response if the law being cited were the 1st Amendment, which it is not. the CA Labor Code provisions at issue (1101 and 1102 if memory serves) unquestionably apply to private employers, and would apply here. At will employment does not apply where there is a statute specifically on point.

Except - the hot dog stand claims he resigned and was not fired. If this is true (and assuming he resigned, not "resigned") there's no legal violation.

I doubt California law is broad enough to cover all First Amendment-protected activity. Consider what happens if a restaurant knowingly employs a vocal racist and that restaurant is subsequently accused of racial discrimination -- the plaintiff's attorney would have a field day.

The website you linked to mentions there is an exception for "conflicts of interest" and it seems clear there is a pretty big conflict if an employee's public statements create liability or cause the employer to lose business. An employee of a lobbyist, think tank, political campaign or corporate PR department could almost certainly be terminated for taking a public position in direct opposition to the position being put forward by the employer.

Sure, but without a doubt the application of "conflict of interest" will result in viewpoint discrimination which could mean that the law is unconstitutional itself.

I know that some of you on here enjoy willfully misinterpreting statements to cast them in a bad light so I'll give an example. If Mississippi had an identical statute and it was disproportionately used to fire people who make pro-abortion statements or align themselves with BLM, that would be the reverse of what is likely to happen in California, and, in my opinion, a violation of the first amendment because it is de facto viewpoint discrimination by the government.

The CA law is broad. All First Amendment activity? No. But participating in peaceful political protest would be covered. Arguably the C-ville mob was breaking the law, and it would be ok to fire him for breaking the law.

Saying "it would cause me to lose business" is not a defense. Lots of companies tried this in the 60s - but my customers will never come here if we have to hire blacks! Courts did not care for that argument.

On paper he resigned. I assume that they made him an offer he couldn't refuse, and there is a notion of "constructive dismissal " ( making working conditions intolerable) but that has to be solved.


So that's what America has become: the Cheka hunting down the Gestapo...

I can't help it I love these kind of Thiago posts. The ones that invariably start with "So that’s what America has become..." followed by the inevitable hilarious bullshit. That is some serious troll fu martial arts type stuff.

Not sarcasm, I love these. He just keeps coming up with new ways to end that starting phrase, new, completely imagined and fabricated ways.

If you work hard, you can still get to anger this year and reach bargaining before the midterm elections.
The great question here is, can Americans get along? We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. Are Americans so different from the rest of us?

No, this isn't what I meant at all. Do the good one!

Which one?

So that's what America has become, a post-apocalyptic wasteland ruled by the few remaining non-mutants who control the vital gasoline supplies. In Brazil, where I am most certainly from, it is only natural to live peacefully in harmony under the watchful gaze of Cristo el Redentor. A superior civilization in every way imaginable.

Thanks fake Thiago! That was close enough to the real thing, works for me.


Thiago:"We all want to help one another."

No. We only want to help those within the tribe.

You need to read the latest - last 20-30 yrs - literature in psychology, behavioral economics, and neurology : Kahneman, Gazzaniga, Haidt, Ariely et al ...

He has a gift.

For once he has a point. The left radicals {"antifa"} are hunting down the right radicals.

First they came for the Nazis - I did not speak out because I was not a Nazi. Then the came for the Fascists -I did not speak out because I was not a Fascist. Then they came for the Neoconfederates - I did not speak out because I was not a Neoconfederate. Then they came for me - they asked me if White lived next door. I said "yes" and that was the end of history. It is almost dinnertime.


'The mostly male crowd that participated in Friday night’s tiki-torch-lit rally did not cover their faces, and they were widely photographed.'

One assumes because they were proudly exercising their right to free speech, and were not cowards hiding behind a mask. Or hood, as the case may be, of course, as many people supporting of Robert E. Lee memorials have a long history of hood wearing.

'Effective social monitoring, or dangerous slippery slope?'

Neither - the right to express an opinion is balanced by the right of others to express theirs. And the right of a private employer to fire a at will employee at any time, for any reason or none at all, is the sort of freedom that American employers enjoy, a slope that was slid down decades ago in the U.S., and the sort of thing that Mercatus Center studies value highly when determining standards for economic freedom.

The strange thing is why a neo-Nazi thinks that most Americans would want to have anything to do with them. But thanks to their right to freely express their opinions in public, they are now being introduced to what the majority of their fellow citizens think about those who hold such opinions. This is one of the most important functions of the 1st Amendment - it guarantees anyone the right to show their true colors, without needing to worry about government retribution, while still allowing their fellow citizens to make private choices, without any government interference at all. Such as who a private citizen wishes to associate with.

Do German employees have the right to leave any employment at will for any reason, or none at all? They do in the US.

American workers and employers also have the right to agree to all sorts of contracts, including ones with more employment protections...and some do so. But this isn't forced on everyone like it is in Germany.

The German laws in this area, as noted below, are the legal minimums, even without a contract. Vacation time works the same way - there is a legal minimum, and any contract that falls beneath that limit is void in that area.

German labor law establishes minimums which no contract is allowed to violate.

"why the American economy is such a mess, at least in German eyes."

Is this why German companies have to commit fraud and cheat on environmental regulations in order to sell their cars? How many billions of dollars is Volkswagen fraud going to cost the company? Deservedly so, of course. But hey, as long as the car workers are getting paid, everything is good, eh.

'Is this why German companies have to commit fraud and cheat on environmental regulations in order to sell their cars?'

Maybe - but then, this happened after the scandals came to light - 'Volkswagen has become the world’s biggest car manufacturer, overtaking Toyota in the number of new vehicles sold in 2016 despite the damage it suffered in the diesel emissions scandal.'

'How many billions of dollars is Volkswagen fraud going to cost the company?'

A large number. But as just about every loyal commenter here likes to point out, VW does not pay, its customers do.

'But hey, as long as the car workers are getting paid, everything is good, eh.'

And do you honestly think that the GM workers will have any different opinion if this case turns out to be true? 'General Motors has become the sixth automaker to be accused of using some form of cheat device to pass its diesel emissions tests.

A class-action lawsuit filed Thursday claims 705,000 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks equipped with the company’s Duramax diesel emit two to five times more than the legally acceptable levels of nitrogen-oxide. The trucks impacted are 2011-2016 model year pickups.

“GM sold its Duramax line as a powerful diesel that magically emitted lesser amounts of harmful NOx pollutants,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of the Hagens Berman firm, which has filed suit against other lawmakers claiming similar violations.

“But as our firm’s testing revealed, GM could not accomplish what it promised consumers. Instead, it used complex devices to mask its vehicles’ output of emissions, cheating emissions test, cheating purchasers, and putting all of us at risk of increased respiratory illness.”

The lawsuit means GM joins Volkswagen — which admitted guilt and has paid more than $25 billion in fines and fees — Daimler AG, Subaru, Peugeot, Nissan and Fiat Chrysler in being accused of or sued for using some sort of software or hardware to get around emissions rules.'

"A large number. But as just about every loyal commenter here likes to point out, VW does not pay, its customers do."

Funny, I don't recall you saying that every time you gloated about Walmart pulling out of the German market and having a $1 billion write off.

Do you ever begin to fathom how inconsistent you are?

'But this isn’t forced on everyone like it is in Germany.'

Nobody feels that having a legally binding contract is a disadvantage. Hire and fire is considered one of the reasons why the American economy is such a mess, at least in German eyes.

The past discussions of Kurzarbeit provide some insight into the subject. In practical terms, this is demonstrated by the success of the German exporting economy since the Finanzkrise, where German manufacturers were able to retain their skilled workforce for a couple of years of drought, remaining fully poised to take advantage of the situation when orders improved.

No, generally speaking German employees, almost all of whom have employment contracts, do not have the right to quit until the Kündigungsfrist - notice period - is over. In Germany, the legal minimum is 4 weeks, from the 15th or end of the month, and the law is equally binding on employers and employees (German - )

However, there is a German expression which could be translated as no harm, no foul when it comes to an employee not giving notice - if both sides agree, employment could end immediately. Though an employee acting that way unilaterally becomes pretty much unemployable in any job worth having, and could conceivably be sued for damages (think skilled machine operator whose absence leads to a contract not being fulfilled). Of course you can give notice at any time (well, 15th or end of the month - give notice on the 1st, the 4 weeks starts being counted from the 15th) for any reason as an employee.

What your employer pretty much cannot do is fire you for any conduct outside of the workplace that is legal. As Walmart discovered, being broadly ridiculed in Germany for trying to ban employee romantic relationships.

Someone marching in a neo-Nazi demonstration is very much in a gray area, but as few Germans have any sympathy for anyone wishing to replace the BRD's government with a genocidal totalitarian regime (which was already given the opportunity to demonstrate its true colors), the neo-Nazis in Germany tend not to be a bunch of whiners complaining that their rights are being violated. In other words, march as a neo-Nazi in a demonstration marred by violence and death, don't expect VW to keep you employed.

Though the cynical would say that the real reason such an employee would be let go is only for VW's own PR benefit, as really, who wants to buy a Nazimobile? In this area, terminating employees for impacting future sales or damaging the company's image, one can be fairly confident that American and German companies are the same. And socialist hell hole that it is, one can still be fairly confident that a German court, even an Arbeitsgericht (call it 'work court,' as it has nothing much to do with unions in any sense), will be extremely sympathetic to the employer perspective in such a case.

Germans seemingly continue to feel that being considered supporting the ideals of a mass murdering ideology is a real disadvantage to an exporting economy. Of course, there are other reasons, but in mercantilist Germany, trying to keep history in its place is a big part of how German companies react when accused of being supporters of Nazism.

(There is a framework for being fired for cause, but the Arbeitsgericht plays a much larger role in general in such decisions - steal from your employer, you can be instantly terminated, for example. Steal a couple rolls or sandwiches after being employed for 23 years? The decision from the court is that an initial warning would be appropriate, not termination - )

My thoughts on the matter pretty closely mirror yours. Interestingly, I have a progressive friend who has been arguing on Faebook for "ideological" protections in the workplace. Not necessarily with respect to hard-core white nationalists, but people with more "mundane" ideologies. Say, someone whose only offense was to vote for Trump. Or to be pro-choice. Or to have said, "I'm a Republican". It's been an interesting discussion.

" hard-core white nationalists,"

Who decides whom is a "hard-core white nationalist"?

Yes, that's one of the flaws in his plan. He proposed to set up a mediation system, with "guidelines" for mediators to follow, whereby employees who are terminated for (allegedly) ideological reasons can appeal to the mediation board. Employers would, presumably, be tasked with presenting a reason why the employee's ideology either prevents him from doing his job, or creates a "reasonable risk" that he'll expose the employer to future liability. For instance, if you ran a day care and fired an employee after finding out he's a NAMBLA member, and then he appealed the termination, it would almost surely be upheld. If you fired a different employee after finding out he was pro-choice (on the basis that nobody who supports legal abortion can properly care for children), that would probably not be upheld.

The difficulty would be in creating the guidelines for mediators to follow, monitoring mediators for bias, etc.

US Nazis death total: 1

German Nazi death total: 9 million.

Spare us the lectures, German worshiper

So, when I write 'genocidal totalitarian regime' to describe the German government between 1933-45, do you honestly think I am worshipping one of the most criminal governments in human history?

Not me. Though it seems as if American neo-Nazis do. And do you honestly think that Germans are not aware of the evil that was committed? It isn't as if they are not reminded about it at every opportunity, after all.

", do you honestly think I am worshipping one of the most criminal governments in human history?"

He called you a German worshiper not a Nazi. You habitually sing the praises of Germany and point out the failings of America. So, it's a reasonable description.

An addendum will undoubtedly be added as soon as Prof. Cowen reads this article, right?

That is the sort of thing that represents a threat to the 1st Amendment, not an employer enjoying the sort of freedom to terminate any at will employee at any time for any reason. The sort of freedom which undoubtedly is fully supported by a public policy institute like Mercatus or Heritage - here, for example

p_t has discovered a First Amendment right to visit websites in secret.


More of a fourth amendment right

Yep, that was what occurred to me while riding on the A8 - it would appear that the person did not actually bother to read the article, which mentions that dragnet investigations are not considered constitutional generally.

It is not a question of secret or not as such, it is a question to what extent the government is not allowed to abuse the 4th Amendment.

So freedom of speech and assembly, but not really.

The American government is bound by the 1st Amendment, and if your employer is a federal, state, or local government, as Volokh points out tirelessly, they must take the 1st Amendment into consideration when handling employment relationships.

A private employer in the U.S. has precisely zero legal need to respect the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. To put it differently, if you tell a company manager that you think they are incompetent, they have every right to fire you as an at will employee. And if you and ten co-workers decide to peaceably assemble in the company parking lot holding banners saying that company management is incompetent, the company has every right to point out that your assembling is on their private property, and that you need to stop, immediately if the company so directs.

You do respect private property rights, one hopes. The 1st Amendment right of peaceful assembly does not apply to your living room, after all.

Why so many Americans seem to be confused by this is really eye-opening, certainly when looking at the type of people who never seemed to think that the rights of an employer to treat their at will employees in any way that the employer wishes applies to every employee. It is the sort of thing that makes American more economically free than so many other countries, after all.

I understand this distinction. Nevertheless the constitution is based upon values and this move to shame people who are doing something protected by the constitution contrary to those values and in opposition to one of America's greatest achievements.

'Nevertheless the constitution is based upon values'

Of course it is - and there is a long history of the Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution is the basis for how employers are allowed to treat their employees. Why people seem so confused about this remains mystifying. Employers are under no obligation to continue employing any at will employee, and this is clearly constitutional, stretching back for more than a century. Of course, the Roosevelt era did lead to a different perspective, but luckily for America's economic freedom, places like the Mercatus Center have been working tirelessly to bring back the good old days of 1898.

There are certain exceptions in terms of at will employment. Firing an employee because an upper level manager just discovered that the employee is black, and the upper level manager writes that company policy is to never hire black people to start with, so the black employee must be immediately terminated would not be allowed. Noting, of course, that the burden of proof in such a case is on the employee. Union organizing is another exception, though one that is more a formality of seemingly outmoded laws from the Roosevelt era that are not considered appropriate to modern America..

State laws can also apply.

But your private employer has zero obligation to care about your beliefs concerning the Constitution, and if you are an at will employee, it is completely within an employer's rights to fire you for having them.

If you don't like it, work on improving worker's rights on the U.S. Just don't think your employer has any obligation to continue to employ you while you exercise your constitutional rights in the meantime.

'and this move to shame people who are doing something protected by the constitution'

The people who are doing the shaming are equally protected by, and proudly using, one of America’s greatest achievements, which is the 1st Amendment prohibition from the government using its power to decide whose opinion is right or wrong in the public marketplace of ideas.

Again you're missing the point. I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking about right and wrong and what is best for the country.

'I’m talking about right and wrong and what is best for the country.'

And a number of other Americans, using their 1st Amendment rights, clearly disagree with you concerning what is best for the country. Which is what the 1st Amendment protects - the marketplace place of ideas should be where winners and losers are determined, and not through a government's decision.

That the American marketplace of ideas just might declare neo-Nazis losers is not exactly surprising, is it?

This is the 1st Amendment in practice - only losers whine that it is not working out like they hoped, because so many people are rejecting them.

"That the American marketplace of ideas just might declare neo-Nazis losers is not exactly surprising, is it?"

This is true. And frankly it's much better than the authoritarian approach of attempting to outlaw them.

"authoritarian approach of attempting to outlaw them"

Germans only know authoritarian approaches to problems.

Speaking as an American citizen who was not living in Germany in 1989, I'm pretty sure that the East Germans who broke down the Berlin Wall were not showing an authoritarian approach to a problem. You are free to believe otherwise, of course.

"You are free to believe otherwise, of course."

There you go again with the passive agressiveness.

Freedom of speech for racists - but not for people who criticize racists!

It would be different if the guy were a factory worker, a,faceless drone. But he works in services, since the customer is always right....fired.

people outside of mainstream beliefs is always treated like this. It doesn't matter if it's a hippie, tree-hunger, pot smoker, etc. The issue is guys like him are not aware they're at the margins of society. DIY punks enjoy and feel proud of being there, being rejected nurtures them. other individuals cry when they feel rejected.

'It would be different if the guy were a factory worker'

Nope, not if he is at will employee. In that case, his employer can immediately terminate him, for absolutely no reason at all. Enjoy reading a link that is almost impossible for anyone employed in the EU, for example, to believe would be possible in a modern society -

Non-Americans can certainly be forgiven for not realizing just how different American employment relationships can be, but any American not aware of this is simply showing a profound lack of knowledge of the American labor market that public policy institutes like the Mercatus Center (and basically the entire GMU law and economics crowd) have been working so tirelessly to create in its present form for a generation.

At will employment is not absolute but is subject to a long list of exceptions as I am sure you know. In addition to the federal anti discrimination ones , California protects political affiliation and political activities outside of the workplace.

Leading me to cynically point out that if there is no paper trail, it is quite possible to fire someone who is an at will employee, and an employee's ability to question such a dismissal is as limited as a public policy institute like Heritage can make it. This includes the burden of proof resting solely on the employee. (It is possible that California has a different framework in such cases, but I would be surprised if it is effectively different.)

Plus, getting even more cynical, though your political affiliation and political activities outside of the workplace may be protected, your rights to make the company look bad in public are not protected. In other words, associating with a domestic terrorist (pretending that pictures/video exist of an employee and a murdering domestic terrorist standing shoulder to shoulder, shouting slogans like 'Jews will not replace us') just might not make the cut of being able to enjoy protection as being covered under political affiliation and political activities.

Certainly the sort of thing that could go to court, assuming the employee can put together the resources to pay for it. But not to the U.S. Supreme Court in all likelihood, as only state law would apply, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that such protections do not exist at the federal level for at will employees.

Come on Prior, this is not about laws, it's about culture.

If the guy worked for a landscaping or construction company, no one would have cared to point at the business.

Nope - an employer can fire anyone at any time, and if the landscaping company owner was a brother of Senator Orrin Hatch, it is likely that he would share Orrin Hatch's publicly expressed opinion - 'We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home. -OGH' - and fire such a neo-Nazi supporter immediately.

Unless you are seriously arguing that being anti-Nazi is about culture. As these neo-Nazis are discovering (and Trump, for that matter), American culture is not really all that sympathetic to people parading around shouting 'Sieg Heil' and carrying torches, regardless of what such believers may have thought beforehand. They have the 1st Amendment right to do so, of course. But as pointed out by Sen. Hatch, don't expect such ideas to go unchallenged. Which is why the 1st Amendment is so useful - anyone who disagrees with a neo-Nazi is free to publicly express that disagreement. And in America's current labor law framework, that includes firing someone when in a position to do so, at least in most American states.

This has been really strange to witness - the 1st Amendment does not protect people from calling someone who is shouting 'Sieg Heil' from being called a neo-Nazi asshole, after all, nor from acting on that opinion in their private decisions.

George Mason rejected the US Constitution, so his friend George Washington shunned him. So now, GMU is ...

Dangerous slippery slope for employers and effective social monitoring tool for the NSA/Homeland Security/FBI apparatus. Americans should protect themselves accordingly.

"Tools of surveillance, whether public or private, coercive or voluntary, have never been more powerful or sophisticated, and while the reactions of private employers to employees’ speech vary, it doesn’t take many incidents like those listed above to create a chilling effect. Every engine of online expression is also a tool with which our bosses might investigate our lives and our opinions. They will also therefore be key instruments of employer coercion going forward. As businesses gain new ways of observing the private lives of employees, they will become more adept at policing those off-the-clock moments, and all of us will become less free."

Of course, “conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential” to the success of the right-wing social movement. What the election of Donald Trump and the Charlottesville white supremacists demonstrate is that the right-wing social movement has been so successful that its participants no longer feel the need for secrecy. Undermining confidence in government and public institutions was the first priority of the leaders of the right-wing social movement, to be achieved by disseminating tales of dark conspiracies among the elites, fomenting division among social, ethnic, and racial groups, and disenfranchising the opposition, while diverting attention away from increasing income and wealth inequality. The public institutions that have been the primary targets of the movement have been the two most successful public programs, public education and social security, the goal being to privatize both. The success of the movement has come at a high cost to order, stability, and shared prosperity. How we arrived at this low point in American history is only recently coming into view, and it wasn't by accident. The irony is that those behind the "conspiratorial secrecy" have the most to lose as a result of the disorder and instability they have wrought.

Lithium carbonate works, so I am told ...

@YesYoureRacist is a heavy self-promoter and always makes sure to link to their Patreon account, which has been growing at about 500 Patrons a day of late. Even assuming a small average donation and rapid donor fatigue they're going to make at least ten grand off this Charlottesville rally and probably a lot more, and there's no end in sight.

I doubt it's actually true but it would be hilarious if they were just an amoral grifter... could even set up multiple aliases to rake in donations from all sides...

So my question remains: what are the accepted social positions for actual racists what degree of "pursuit of happiness" are we going to grant to people who hold repugnant views?

After all, we seem to think that even felons should be allowed to overcome their rapes and assaults to become productive members of society. I find it extremely odd that a huge portion of society supports "banning the box" because that would relegate people to the margins of society, but also feel the need to make sure that some one who holds repugnant views is unable to make hot dogs for a living via doxxing.

I mean I could somewhat see being leery of having avowed racists being school teachers, police officers, etc. but if we are at a point where a known white supremacist cannot have a job making hot dogs, what do we expect him to do with his life? Does not all the social theory saying that lack of legitimate opportunities force ex-felons into the black economy and recidivism also apply? Do we really want a bunch of angry, disgruntled racists who we believe are prone to violence to lose all ability to legitimately support themselves and lose all their connections to civil society?

If we buy that personal hardship and grievance lead to violence, this people would be exactly the worst sort of individuals to lock out of the legitimate labor market from a safety perspective.

'but if we are at a point where a known white supremacist cannot have a job making hot dogs, what do we expect him to do with his life'

Turn to white supremacist conspiracy theories concerning Jewish domination? Oh. wait ....

And then what?

Grant they are delusional conspiracy theorists ... so what do we want to do with them?

Make them unemployable so they have no options other than crime? Keep them on welfare doles indefinitely?

Of all the people I want to be working a low wage job that occupies their time, conspiracy theorists with a penchant for violence are high on the list. Unemployment is a major risk factor for violence, at least in my patients, so I am not seeing the logic of increasing the likelihood of violence in delusional crackpots.

You are expecting rational behavior from dogs who smell blood.

It seems as if you are concerned about preventing violence. Perhaps (likely) the doxxers haven't thought through the logical consequences of their actions, but maybe a few of them have and they are just cynical. While white supremacists committing acts of violence are clearly bad for the country, they are actually good for the at least certain quarters of the left, as they bolster their claims that the right and the alt-right are terrorist movements that should be quashed using the powers of the state.

Actions have consequences full stop. You say 'jobs program for antisocial racist thugs'. Well, what about people who don't take showers? Or people who like to yell obscenities at everyone? Guaranteed jobs for all regardless of behavior? Nope, employers are under no obligation to hire jerks. Now, you of course are free to do so, and find others who think like you do, to employ these jerks. But to suggest "society" owes them jobs is really stupid.

"You say ‘jobs program for antisocial racist thugs’. Well, what about people who don’t take showers? Or people who like to yell obscenities at everyone?"

Let's be clear, this is not about a "jobs program" this about not shaming employers who otherwise would employ these people. I routinely wish more people would be open to hiring patients who have poor hygiene or regular obscene outbursts in positions where these are not major concerns (e.g. litter removal, trucking).

Because I see no reason to punish taxpayers because of some idiots racism. After all my patients with poor hygiene and obscenities end up on welfare, have worse healthcare, and present in the ER which EMTALA means we all pay for. Personally I would rather dump those tens of thousands of dollars into services for non-racists.

Again, so we make it so these people have no employment options whatsoever, what do you want to do with them:

1. Imprison them

2. Place them on welfare

3. Have them turn to crime

4. Have them die

Options 1 and 2 are pretty expensive to the non-racists of the world. Option 3 is even more expensive and somehow I suspect many of these idiots will end up back at 1. Option 4 is likely to going to involve them taking a lot of other people with them and be the most expensive of all.

So how many millions of dollars do you want to take from the rest of society to deal with the effects of making them unemployable?

You know, people are free to change their repugnant views and/or keep them to themselves.
Unlike skin color.

I mean, you might as well ask how much freedom to pursue happiness should people with black skin have?

You know people are free to stop smoking, eat healthy, drink less, and exercise more. They are also free to join churches, make friends, and get more education. They are also free to practice monogamy and

Building public policy off the idea that individuals will change deep seated habits and identities just because it is socially unacceptable is a very expensive option to accomplish very little.

I cannot convince people to find a friend to call once a week (it will do more to reduce their risk of death than ANYTHING I can medically do for them); asking people to give up a community where they actually feel a sense of belonging is inordinately harder.

So say we make them fully unemployable THEN WHAT?

Do you want to jail them, give them welfare, have them turn to crime, or die? All of these are more expensive than letting them cook hotdogs for a living. All of them are much more likely to impair the pursuit of happiness of African Americans.

Even when it comes to looking at just racism issues themselves, unemployment is much more likely to intensify their racism (they now have a personal grievance) and more likely to have violence result (unemployment is a major risk factor for violent altercations).

Is it or is it not now the consensus view that it was wrong to blacklist people during the McCarthy Era for being or having ever been a member of the Communist Party?

'that it was wrong to blacklist people during the McCarthy Era for being or having ever been a member of the Communist Party'

Certainly not for many who comment here. And do note that blacklisting is not quite the same as terminating an at will employee's employment.

As p_t basically indicates, no, there's no principled distinction. And he's trying to fool you about the facts. As others have noted, California is not an at-will jurisdiction; termination based on political views is restricted by law, and these restrictions were inspired in large part by the blacklist of Stalinist screenwriters.

No, there is a distinction between being fired and being blacklisted so you can no longer work in an industry at all. Whether you wish to consider that a distinction without principle, please, be my guest. In which case, I am sure that you are 100% behind Colin Kaepernick playing as a QB again in the NFL, to give a considerably more modern example of seeming blacklisting.

'As others have noted, California is not an at-will jurisdiction'

It most certainly is - 'In California, most employment is, by default, defined as being “at-will.” Employment that is “at-will” may be terminated at any time at the will of either party—either the employee or the employer—with or without cause.' Then come all the California specific details, which anyone is welcome to read.

Such as this - 'The Supreme Court of California has held that a requirement of good cause for termination can be implied even when there is no contract explicitly providing for it. So, even if the terms of employment would appear to be at-will, it is possible that a court will interpret the relationship otherwise. In other words, a court may still require that the employer have good cause for terminating an employee, even if there is no contract with a good cause requirement.

Courts will try to look at the conduct of the employer and employee to determine if they had any unspoken understandings. If the parties acted in a way that suggests an implied contract exists, employees can often require their employer to terminate them only in the event of good cause.

To determine if an implied contract exists, courts will look at a number of factors, including:

The personnel policies or practices of the employer.

The employee’s longevity of service.

Actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment.

And the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.

If an implied contract requiring a good cause termination exists, the employer must have a fair, honest, and good faith reason for terminating the employee. Legitimate business reasons are normally required.'

And causing a company bad PR is most certainly a legitimate business reason in the eyes of just about all employers in the U.S., though it is quite possible that a court may disagree.

As further noted here - 'California law provides numerous other situations limiting an employer’s ability to terminate workers at-will. Employers, for instance, can’t terminate employees for their political activities. Nor may they terminate employees for their lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.

There are a variety of other statutes that may protect employees from termination for certain reasons. At-will employees (or former employees) that believe they might have been terminated for an unlawful reason should contact a local employment attorney.'

So, is California an at-will employment state? Yes. Does it offer more protection to employees than a state like Alabama? Yes. Is the burden of proof on the employee? Yes. Does anyone here honestly think that an employer cannot come up with a good reason to terminate an employee that will stand up in court? If yes, then one has no experience of being an American employer. Though maybe in socialist California, things are different.

As soon as I saw the photographs, I knew this would happen. They, too, should have known it would happen.Those white supremacists were very foolish to believe that they could conduct such a march and suffer no social consequences for their actions.

"white supremacists were very foolish"


Its the car murder that is triggering the intense counter-reaction. The racists have these marches multiple times each year at multiple locations and no one cares.

As it should be. If you want to go somewhere and be an idiot and shout evil racist things, go ahead. Someone gets hurt, consequences. That said, Top Dog would likely have fired that guy even if no one got hurt and he was doxxed anyway. Because actions have consequences. Wanna be a racist jerk? Find an employer who's cool with that. Or be a consultant, how to be a dumb Nazi, $50 an hour.

"That said, Top Dog would likely have fired that guy"

It seems pretty reasonable to fire an employee who is involved in a White Nationalist march.


Cant imagine anything going wrong with trusting a random twitter account to prove someone was at a rally. Absolutely no tools exist that could effectively doctor a photo to make someone look like they were there but were not.

I personally have no problem seeing these losers suffer for their idiocy, but by god we all better hope the worm never turns.

There is a doctor in Missouri already falsely identified and receiving many threats.

I suspect as the tech keep evolving the norms and counter-tech will too. Pretty soon I imagine there will be apps to prove someone ISN'T you. That said, the world has always had mistaken identity issues, and we've survived.

Fan of peaceful protest here. Carrying a torch should not be sufficient grounds for ejection from a school. Possibly for removal (or better transfer) from a public facing job.

As far as public, open source, surveillance. It is what it is at this point.

If its a public school, expulsion would be pretty obviously illegal.

Anyone who fires an employee based on the say so of a random twitter account deserves what they get.

If the employee says "yeah, that was me" and you serve a sensitive community, what would you do?

I would prefer to transfer him to a non-public job, and issue a statement.

The real problem here is that social media allows random people to leverage themselves to be pseudo company spokesman. That's what the Google guy did. He wrote a quote internal memo, but of course it got out and became and underground position paper for the company. This is complex stuff. It becomes message control.

Probably fire him, i guess. If he owned up to it. Depends a lot on what he/she was doing. My main concern would be trusting some random asshole on twitter to be conveying reliable info.

Still pictures are one thing .. but the video..

Related info

'Anyone who fires an employee based on the say so of a random twitter account deserves what they get.'

Which is absolutely zip in most cases of at will employment in the United States (California a is bit more protective of employee rights to political affiliation and activity, but we all know that California is a socialist hell hole anyways, right?)

An at will employee can be immediately fired at any time for no reason at all. Welcome to the sort of economic freedom that makes America such a fine place to be an employer.

Cant stop you from getting bad press, which is what you were presumably trying to avoid in the first place.

Also, there are a number of exceptions to at will employment, despite what you might think.

"An at will employee can be immediately fired at any time for no reason at all. Welcome to the sort of economic freedom that makes America such a fine place to be an employer."

Yes. Firing an employee engaged in a White Nationalist march seems pretty reasonable to me.

Somewhat off topic, but does anyone know of a reliable estimate of how many people were actually at the rally? Its weird to me that we keep hearing how ascendant these hate groups are but ive never seen any evidence that they are anything more than the lunatic fringe.

Estimates I have heard indicate around 200 white nationalists. I think there were probably more cops than white nationalists at the event.

"Several hundred white nationalists gathered on the University of Virginia campus with torches in hand Friday night. "

"Hundreds of far-right demonstrators wielded torches as they marched on to the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville on Friday night and reportedly attacked a much smaller group of counter-protesters who had linked arms around a statue of Thomas Jefferson."

"Far-right monitoring groups estimate that between 500 and 1,000 people and 30 prominent speakers and groups will descend on the downtown area for the Saturday afternoon event, organised by local rightwing activist and former Daily Caller writer Jason Kessler."

It looks like there were around 200 on Friday night and then an unknown number on Saturday. Saturday was after the terrorist attack and I haven't seen any firm numbers, but I'd speculate it was probably substantially less than 500, judging from the pictures. And of course the rally never took place.

"The Unite the Right rally was scheduled to start at noon but it never happened. By 11:30 a.m., with demonstrators and counter-protesters fighting in the streets, Charlottesville and Albemarle County officials declared a state of emergency and later declared the rally an illegal assembly, slowly clearing the park."

Imagine what would have happened if all the counterdemonstrators stayed home and each donated $10 to their local food banks. The White Supremacists would be shouting at nobody, and several hundred people would have had meals. Now that's justice.

Instead the White Supremacists have been empowered!

And, while his point was very badly made, there is real hate on both "sides." I stay as far away from the "Antifa" crowd as I do from the White Nationalists. They both hate us Jews just as much!

Some charts of trends here. I guess it is sad but a bit funny that some groups can only be classified as "general hate."

It mentions a rise in groups classed as neo-confederate.

I am not sure where we see "black separatist" in real life.

Yea, i dont believe data coming from the SPLC one bit. Too many examples of them classifying groups as 'hate' groups that fall way short of the mark.

Still, even if their numbers were accurate, doesnt look like more that 10,000 in my opinion.

JWatts, do you happen to have any links to that? It would be really nice if we could put this all into some perspective.

"I am not sure where we see “black separatist” in real life."

The ongoing demands for segregated spaces suggest this may be a common sympathy on the social justice left.

Watch the video Thomas, to see what fascism, and anti-fascism, really is.

In their own words.

I have no appetite for their bile. All of these people feed off this, all this attention. If you really want to stop this, deny them the press they crave.

Interesting charts, but data is coming from Southern Poverty Law Center. Pretty shitty source. Are there better sources out there?

To satisfy you guys I went to the FBI and Homeland Security, but seriously think about your complaint. Who else would be following the KKK? Who else thinks it is their job?

"Who else would be following the KKK? Who else thinks it is their job?"

The ADL is much better at creating reliable data. The SPLC is a partisan organization that tends to be very sloppy in their methodology.

I have seriously thought about my complaint, what makes you think i haven't? The SPLC's problems are pretty well documented, if you care to look. In any event, if hate groups were really the problem that they are being made out to be, then finding information on them would be easy. What did you find from the FBI/homeland security?

There was this as well. Rising activity vs rising numbers?

"There was this as well. Rising activity vs rising numbers?"

Rising numbers? White nationalists have been declining for decades. Those charts you are posting are "groups" not actually people. The KKK membership collapsed and the remainder have splintered into sub-groups. There's not really evidence indicating there are more than a few thousand across the country.

"1924 = 6,000,000"

"In the early 1990s, the Klan was estimated to have between 6,000 and 10,000 active members, mostly in the Deep South."

"The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small independent chapters across the United States.[198] According to a 1999 ADL report, the KKK's estimated size then was "No more than a few thousand, organized into slightly more than 100 units."[199] In 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors extremist groups, estimated that there were "at least 29 separate, rival Klan groups currently active in the United States, and they compete with one another for members, dues, news media attention and the title of being the true heir to the Ku Klux Klan."

"For some time, the Klan's numbers have been steadily dropping. This decline has been attributed to the Klan's lack of competence in the use of the Internet, their history of violence, a proliferation of competing hate groups, and a decline in the number of young racist activists who are willing to join groups at all.[204]

According to a 2016 analysis by the SPLC, hate groups in general are on the rise in the United States.[205] The ADL published a report in 2016 that concluded: "Despite a persistent ability to attract media attention, organized Ku Klux Klan groups are actually continuing a long-term trend of decline. They remain a collection of mostly small, disjointed groups that continually change in name and leadership.""

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Perhaps it is rising activity rather than rising numbers. I mean who cares about anyone who stays home and shouts at the tv?

Watch the Vice video. It is powerful.

Rising activity is fairly uninteresting if the absolute number is small.

For me it is worth watching for the contrast. People in normal clothes, sane, saying "this was supposed to be over." And then some guy in camo carrying an assault rifle, with three or four concealed pistols(?!) calling the first group "animals" and saying "more people will die before this is over."

Even more powerful:


Jeez Watts. Do you really "but what about" hate and murder?

You should have more self-respect and more self-control.

"Jeez Watts. Do you really “but what about” hate and murder?

LOL, your attempts to create a narrative and artificially create out of bounds lines on a blog on the internet crack me up.

Whenever you don't have a good rebuttal, you try to make the argument about the other poster instead of crafting a logical counter argument.

Legally, there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Anyone can photograph you in a public space including the government, police, private citizens, etc. Public bathrooms might be one exception as there is an expectation of privacy there. Using your ATM might be another. If you think about it, enforcing privacy or a no-photographing law in public spaces would be impossible. Even restricting the right to photograph in public in any way would be pretty hard to enforce. Harassment is a different set of issues, and that could interact with creepy stalker style photographing behavior in public.

"Arkansas engineer Kyle Quinn seems like a great guy, and his Friday sounded quite pleasant.

After a day of work at the Engineering Research Center at the University of Arkansas, Kyle Quinn had a pleasant Friday night in Bentonville with his wife and a colleague. They explored an art exhibition at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and dined at an upscale restaurant.

Saturday, however, didn’t go quite so well.

Then on Saturday, he discovered that social media sleuths had incorrectly identified him as a participant in a white nationalist rally some 1,100 miles away in Charlottesville, Va. Overnight, thousands of strangers across the country had been working together to share photographs of the men bearing Tiki torches on the University of Virginia campus. They wanted to name and shame them to their employers, friends and neighbors. In a few cases, they succeeded.

The forces of fury had a picture of a person and went to work. The headline to Daniel Victor’s story at the New York Times calls them “amateur sleuths.” He goes on to explain how things went awry.

A man at the rally had been photographed wearing an “Arkansas Engineering” shirt, and the amateur investigators found a photo of Mr. Quinn that looked somewhat similar. They were both bearded and had similar builds.

By internet frenzy standards, that was proof enough.

So the crowd got it wrong? This is unfortunate."

From Little Green Footballs, two days ago - 'But as we’ve observed many, many times before, right wing bloggers immediately began pushing out invented stories that the perpetrator was actually a leftist.

For example, the Stupidest Man on the Internet, Jim Hoft, who immediately seized on a random tweet and named someone who had nothing to do with the attack:

White supremacist Rage Furby Chuck C. Johnson also immediately jumped out there and smeared the same unrelated person:

Needless to say, this has now become gospel truth among large segments of the right, and you can easily find them repeating it endlessly on Twitter and Facebook — even though Hoft and Johnson have both deleted their libelous false posts by now.';_Right_Wing_Bloggers_Identified_Wrong_Person

And how someone can respond if defamed in such a fashion - 'A Michigan man was falsely accused by conservative and alt-right websites as being the driver of Saturday’s deadly car attack on anti-racist protesters in central Virginia, in the hours after the tragedy, according to the man's attorney.

The man, who the Detroit Free Press is not naming because his family reported online they have received threats, wrote on Facebook that he drives a 2009 Chevy Impala, not the vehicle involved in the fatal attack in Charlottesville, Va.

"im not the one," he wrote on Facebook, adding he was from Michigan. His Facebook page says he lives in Detroit.


The attorney who specializes in defamation cases said he planned to use the full power of the law against those who falsely claimed that his clients had anything to do with the fatal crash.

"I don't think it's careless," he said. "I think it was their intent to try to muddle" the truth of what happened in Charlottesville.

The episode, Sommerman concluded, was another example of innocent people in Michigan being thrown in harm's way by the alt-right.

"They have become very fearful," he said of the man and his family after online threats. State police were notified and the family has been warned they may need to leave their home, according to Sommerman.'

One of my biggest concerns is they'll misidentify people. This is why I never partake in this, and if I happen to have a "friend" who retweets something like this on social media, I promptly unfollow him.

We even stopped purchasing products from The Foundry / Modo after their CEO posted pictures of a photoshop hoax showing people allegedly holding up a sign saying "Make America White Again" (the sign was Photoshopped). After the CEO refused to correct himself, we cancelled our contract with them. (Snopes article about this hoax here: )

I'm "neutral" over whether people participating in a public demonstration should be identified. But I'm strongly against misidentifying people and witch hunts.

Another famous case was Spike Lee maliciously tweeting the address of a couple who happened to share the name "Zimmerman" and were completely unrelated to the Mr. Zimmerman who defended himself/shot someone in Florida. (See ) Twitter, of course, never suspended Spike Lee or his celebrity re-tweeters.

Racism is rightly a vice. But the overly zealous search for racists and the potential for false accusations of racism can never be anything but a virtue, because it shows your heart is in the right place.

One might say that for progressives, extremism in defense of anti-racism is no vice.

Bias check: online feminists are routinely harassed and intimidated by vigilantes. The slippery slope should have been apparent for a while now.
Involving universities and employers means these guys are getting more due process than the folks who get SWATted.

By all means take a stand against this sort of thing but this is a weird place to draw the line.

"online feminists are routinely harassed and intimidated by vigilantes."

Has even 1 of the 8,500 reported death threats by Gamergate, for instance, been substantiated? It's as if incentives matter, and death threats are currency among online feminists. Hmm.

What exactly does 'substantiate' mean in this context? Are you assuming that the Internet is such a nice place that it would be absurd for people to say ugly things or even make death threats under the cover of anonymity?

It's not exactly like the FBI or local police often bring a lot of charges for online death threats when there is no apparent offline link, like an ex-bf or husband.

Ahh, "Feminists!"

You do know a difference with someone having an argument--even a heated one--over social media and people tweeting names and addresses of people who they think they recognize from a photo (and may well be wrong.)

These feminist "women" think anyone who disagrees is a rapist.

Let's speculate at to the reaction that might happen due to these doxxings.

Might say an organization develop employment opportunities for its followers who will then owe even more to their "party"? Might then, the organization develop a network to keep their followers employed and dependent?

Does it seem like a good idea that people who are deemed to hold bad ideas become even more dependent upon the organization that feeds off those ideas?

This will not end well.

Social media/new tech has made balkanization a lot easier and more plausible. It certainly is possible that a few companies called say Nazi Lobby and so on will spring up, providing jobs to and goods and services to "their people". I just don't see it being a major thing.

"Let’s speculate at to the reaction that might happen due to these doxxings."

This particular even wasn't a doxxing. A doxxing is revealing somebody who is trying to remain anonymous or revealing details that aren't normally knows such as address, phone number, etc.

This was someone who was seen and photographed at a public event.

So a few years ago I was hearing stories about how you should be careful what you put on Facebook. Young people ace an interview with a company for a great job....they are top students and project a great impression but opps, here's your public Facebook page with a pic of you mooning cops on spring break while you're totally drunk.....job offer rescinded....

A few months ago a woman petitioned her Representative in NJ (Rodney Frelinghuysen R-NJ 11th). She didn't like his support of the health bill Republicans were trying to push and she didn't like the fact that Frelinghuysen refused to make public statements or provide town halls for his constituents. What did he do? Did he send her a form letter explaining his position? Politely dismiss her saying he took her concerns seriously but he was voting how he felt was best? Nope he sent a letter to her employer asking for money to fight 'liberal ringleaders' and said she was one of them trying to get her fired or at least have her boss intimidate her (

These, however, are not problems. The problem is the inability of people to proclaim themselves modern nazis and then lose friends because of that?

This is what did it for me. I won't be reading a comment section on this site ever again.

I miss him already.

There was this as well. Rising activity vs rising numbers?

Absent anti-discrimination law, social sanctions are the ONLY thing which prevents open racial discrimination against blacks and other minorities.

If you don't want to live in a place where everyone is a racially tribal asshole to eachother, if you'd rather live in a place where people generally treat one another like equal human beings, then it's in your interest to participate in the enforcement of social norms that forbid racism. That means that when racist say racist shit, you ought to respond to it in some way that makes racist feel like they have to keep their mouths shut.

If the price of a society where black people are treated like humans is that racists can't be them selves in public, I'm okay with that.


Comments for this post are closed