CBS says it's OK to "punch a Nazi"

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-17-2019, 10:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I guess my use of "well known" should be "prominent leaders". They absolutely aren't household names unless you live with white supremacists.

 You either ignore them and do clue others into the fact that this is happening and needs to stop or you report on them and spread their views to new people who are susceptible to them. I don't discredit your view and I think it's valid, I just feel like more good than harm is done by shedding a light on them. Exposure does them more harm in my opinion. 

I don't think people lumping all conservatives in with them is as prominent as you're suggesting, but I can only speak from my experiences. I remember there was a lot of pushback initially with Charlottesville, and I told people point blank that they were defending Nazi's when they defended those individuals, using evidence to show the march was populated by Neo Nazi's and that their chants were Nazi chants. Those people were the ones who can could absolutely label as racists and white supremacists, and they have been banned here. There certainly were people who were hesitant to call them out at first, assuming they weren't all Nazis/White Supremacists, and having the leading member of the GOP suggest some of them were "good people" didn't help. 

Fair enough. I just thought "well known" was giving them far too much credit and power for hateful little internet circle jerks. They might be the leaders of their little circle jerks, but unless you're a white supremacist, or spend a lot of your time following them online in order to hate them, I feel the vast majority of the US wouldn't have any idea of who they are if you took a poll.

- - - - - - - - - -

Yeah, I am obviously not 100% sure that my idea of shun-and-neglect is THE solution. I just don't believe that giving them a camera and microphone is the answer either. All the news stations giving Trump a microphone and camera in the election sure didn't help. If they give him the same coverage as every other Republican candidate... does he win? Not sure. The news obviously can't shun a Presidential candidate and pretend like he doesn't exist, because that's a whole different problem for the elections, but a white supremecist? The less people his message reaches, the better. The less people his message reaches, the less hate he is able to spread. If white supremacy was an incurable disease (for some people it is, you'll never be able to change their mind) then my method is basically quarantine. Isolate the sickness, let it die off, and prevent it from infecting others. I don't see the end game otherwise because there's a certain segment that will always be terrible.

You will never be able to get 100% of the population of the human race to ever believe in a single concept. Regardless of that concept. See: flat earthers and anti-vaxxers. Believing that shedding light on them will make them all change their ways and step in line with shame and condemnation seems a bit naive to me. At least that's my opinion on it.

Granted, for all I know, I am wrong as hell and your way might be the best way. We'll see, I suppose.