SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-y'all-love-social-sciences dept.
It's 2017. Why are there still Nazis?
It's a question many observers are asking after hundreds of white supremacists, many displaying swastikas and Confederate battle flags and shouting racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-communist slogans, took to the streets of Charlottesville, Va., this weekend, provoking violence that claimed the life of one counter-protester and resulted in multiple injuries.
The continued existence of people who hold openly white supremacist ideologies more than seven decades after the fall of the Third Reich can be explained, in part, through a social theory developed in the early 1990s. Social dominance theory seeks to explain how hierarchy-enhancing ideologies do not just drive social inequality, but are also a result of it. It suggests that a single personality trait, called social dominance orientation (SDO), strongly predicts a person's political and social views, from foreign policy and criminal justice to civil rights and the environment. What's more, it offers insight into how ideologies such as racism, sexism, and xenophobia tend to arise from the unequal distribution of a society's resources.
"Social dominance theory provides a yardstick for measuring social and political ideologies," says Felicia Pratto, who developed the theory with fellow psychologist Jim Sidanius. "SDO is one way – not the only one – to try to figure out what those ideologies are 'about.'"
You too can take the Social Dominance Orientation quiz to determine your nazi quotient.
(Score: 5, Informative) by number11 on Sunday September 17 2017, @01:29AM (9 children)
That's nuts. Groups like BLM and Antifa aren't "creations of the Democratic party", they view the Democratic Party as a center-right party controlled by corporate interests. And it is. The fact that the Republican party now includes extreme-right elements doesn't make the Democrats leftists. And while Antifa does include some people who believe violence works (much like the US and state governments believe)(and a few of who are likely agents provocateur, not unlike those who work for the FBI and hustle disaffected people to form terrorist cells, so that they can then arrest them and brag about how the FBI is protecting everyone). BLM seems pretty peaceful, as far as anti-person violence goes. Note that BLM is not crowds rioting. And in any case let's not conflate breaking a window with terrorists who drive into crowds.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 17 2017, @01:41AM (8 children)
"Note that BLM is not crowds rioting."
Yes, of course you're right. Stores weren't burnt, automobiles weren't destroyed in Ferguson. Not by BLM anyway. It was all part of the vast right wing conspiracy to make some lefties look bad. And, everything was covered by insurance anyway, right?
/sarcasm
BLM is just another fascist group ready and willing to resort to violence when it suits them. Racist assholes are always willing to rally to one flag or another. BLM has chosen their banner.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @04:30AM (6 children)
As happens repeatedly WRT protests, the folks doing the damage were undercover cops. [google.com]
It's obvious that that's the reason those folks weren't arrested and we don't know their names.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 17 2017, @07:40AM (5 children)
Yeah, well, if all of that be true, then someone needs to dig into it, and PROVE IT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @09:45AM (4 children)
It's well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 17 2017, @10:15AM (3 children)
Ferguson doesn't seem to be mentioned on that page . . . or black lives matter . . . black is mentioned, specifically "black leaders", but it doesn't reference anything about Ferguson.
Besides which, it has often been pointed out that the wikipedia is NOT an authoritative source for anything. I mean, you can't take your suspicions to court, and use Wikipedia as a source for evidence. Did I mention something like "dig into it and PROVE IT" or did I not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 17 2017, @11:02AM (1 child)
Just calm the fuck down and shut the fuck up, Runaway. Yes, accepted fact contra-indicates your Fox News driven worldview. It is not the first time, man! Buck up, get ahold of yourself, and just deal with it, OK? You are wrong, again. Just accept it, and try to learn from the error. Or you will be mocked mercilessly, and with out end. Do you want to be mocked, Runaway? I have a few choice descriptives all ready to throw down on you, if you want them!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 17 2017, @12:08PM
You, Mr/Ms AC, have this preoccupation with Faux Noise. When do you understand that I don't use Fox as a news source very often? Oh, I click on them now and then, because the do have stories that the rest of MSM doesn't cover. But, I've clicked on more Canadian stories this month, than I have Fox. More Indian stories than Fox. Probably as many Chinese stories as Fox. Even in my non-Progressive world, Fox is a third-rate news source. In your more progressive world, the US MSM is probably your prime source of news. Hey, get out of your little echo chamber, and add some foreign news sources to your news feeds. Russia, China, Oz, India, Israel, Iran, Canada - there are a lot of points of view other than your US-centric MSM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 18 2017, @07:06AM
Wikipedia is not a source but a collection of sources...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by number11 on Sunday September 17 2017, @05:35AM
Exactly right. There was destruction, but not by BLM. You don't think that all blacks are BLM members, do you? There were a lot of pissed off people who'd been getting screwed for years, and who saw that cops would cover for each other, and governments and courts would cover for them, regardless of what they had done. (Now, I'm not saying that that was necessarily a correct view, but that's what a lot of people saw.)
Nah. The only right wing conspiracy is to pretend that cops can do no wrong (or that, if they do, the consequences to them are the same as the consequences would be to you or me). I wouldn't call BLM particularly leftist, either (race is kinda orthogonal to politics, if you're not a racist). BLM is mostly concerned with the fact that cops kill black people pretty much with impunity. We still have to see if the case in Minnesota where a black cop killed a white woman is treated the same. (It might be, in which case All Lives Matter, though your odds are a lot worse if you're black.)