It's been a day or so and nope, we still can't wrap our head around why GitHub would fire someone for saying Nazis were storming the US Capitol GitHub is under fire for apparently sacking an employee two days after warning colleagues in Washington DC that “Nazis are about” during the ransacking of the US Capitol last week. The unnamed staffer sent the message on an internal Slack channel last Wednesday, and was reportedly challenged by another employee who criticized …
ROFLMAO!
No one has thinner skin than a Trump worshipping Cult45 MAGAt. They throw epic hissy fits from the front seats of their penis compensating raised pickup trucks anytime they perceive a threat to their white, hetro, Xtian supremacism world view. They are so deeply trapped in the US right wing media shart bubble they cannot see what a joke they are to the rest of the world.
If the ex employee can show that the claims of behavior patterns is utter bollocks, show that his employer knew of his religious beliefs prior to the firing, then show that they were fired after said comment, the lawyers fighting for said ex employee may just wind up earning themselves a few million dollars for their pain & suffering. The ex employee might get enough to pay for a Starbucks cuppa swill but not much more.
Wrongful-termination and hostile-workplace suits are hard to win in the US, particularly as most employment is at-will, and as a Microsoft subsidiary GitHub have deep pockets. This firing certainly looks suspicious based on the information available (and I would not be at all surprised if it was unjust), but a settlement - with no admission of fault - for something less than what GitHub's team estimates it will cost to defend against the suit is probably the most the employee can hope for.
Internal employee communication channels controlled, monitored, and recorded by the employer are very handy for HR actions against employees. Be cautious about how you use them.
I can't speak to me specifics of the case. If there is an antisemitic problem within Github the EEOC or the courts can speak to it.
However the words used trouble me. There were quite probably people best described as Nazis or Klansmen involved in the storming of the Capitol. But the majority were not.
We've heard this before from those describing Black Lives Matter protestors as looters. Certainly there were some but the majority were not. Or calling Mexicans rapists when only a small percentage of them are.
Words have power and neither the right or the left should feel that they have the privilege to use them in attack mode.
A good book for the time is Sir Terry's Jingo. Or, at least listen to Elvis Costello's (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love And Understanding.
Peace
"The majority" were there to protest a perfectly legitimate, free and fair election. The State officials (of both parties) have said so, almost sixty judges have said so. It is a pure fiction that the election was stolen, a fiction turned into a successful grift by our horrible outgoing Prez. They were there on the basis of repeated lies and vicious, idiotic allegations that the lawyers would not dare repeat in court where they would actually have to prove them. The date was deliberately picked to interfere with the concluding formality of that election. To pressure Congress into changing its mind.
I have no sympathy for the "good people" who showed up to support such BS.
And do NOT create false equivalencies between BLM who protests actual murders by cops, actual violent acts caught on tape that everyone can see, and a cult of personality believing in unproven and unprovable nonsense that Trump pulled out of his ass to assuage his pathetic ego.
This is nitpicking, but lawyers are almost certain to get disbarred for lying in court and/or to judges, so I think this is why they were reluctant to bring election fraud cases to trial, and struggled to substantiate those claims in court.
I agree that there is a double standard - people are quick to sling insults such as 'communist' and 'libtard', or falsely accuse pedophilia or terrorism which is swept under the carpet, whereas calling people who are members of neo-nazi groups or carry nazi flags nazis and people who are open racist bigots is censorship, outrageous and unacceptable.
The word communist is not an insult, it's a description of a political preference. The fact that US propaganda over the years has made this word an insult within the country shows just how broken the political system is there.
Personally I'd find it more concerning living in a society where laws and regulations are bought and sold in the open for personal gain.
There's no real difference between a communist and a nazist. Different preferred color, same hell.
Both create the most cruel and dangerous dictatorships of the XX century. Feel free to go in any country who was under the communist toe for fifty years (and more, if you were in a Baltic Republic) and ask what they think about communism. My grandparents had to flee a communist-occupied country to save their lives. Concentration camps and gulags were exactly the same thing.
Do you believe people tried to jump the Berlin Wall risking their lives just for "a political preference"?
Or feel free to look at China or North Korea - being Communist is not a political preference - and it looks if that's not your political preference too, you disappear in some "re-education" camp. Why Hong-Kong prefers to stay away from such "political preference"?
Now that the far right in the US accuses of communism those who are mildly left-center (as the "communist" Denmark) to scare people is a whole different matter. Moreover while praising that ex-KGB officer named Vladimir Putin, or saluting their followers with a raised fist.... Lenin and Stalin would be proud of them.
Wow - what a lot of false equivalence. The Nazis were a particularly unpleasant death cult. Many communist regimes have acted with equivalent unpleasantness. But that does not mean Nazi = Communist. And communism with a small c is a political philosophy that at least aspires to maximise human happiness. It may well be an impractical political philosophy, because it may be that human beings are too venal to make it work. Not sure there is such a thing as a small n Nazi - about the best that could be said is the incarnations of fascist states may have been slightly less hypocritical.
Anyway - seems like no one felt the need to worry about communists storming the Capitol, so why are we talking about them?
It's not a false equivalence to equate two movements that established totalitarian dictatorships with cruel slave labor camps.
That's true even though the ideological window-dressing of Communism is largely in accord with universal moral principles, whereas Nazism let some of its hatred show on the surface.
But what does have to be remembered is the Red Scare of the 1920s and McCarthyism, compared to the kid glove treatment Nazi sympathizers got in the United States. The U.S. only joined World War II after Pearl Harbor, while it fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam - which would have been like the U.S. joining World War II after Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, and continuing on to fight the Nazis during the Spanish Civil War.
That wasn't because the United States learned its lesson from the consequences of appeasement in World War II, although the changed reality due to nuclear weapons did also play a role. The main reason running through this like a thread is that Big Business feared the Communists would make labor unions more uppity.
But the trouble is that Communism really is evil, so it's a tragedy that many liberals in the United States ended up being convinced by McCarthyism that the evils of Communism were nothing more than a right-wing hoax. This is a lesson from history from which we must learn.
"The U.S. only joined World War II after Pearl Harbor, [...]"
It is debatable that the US were forced into the European theatre of war only because Hitler decided to declare war on the USA after the bombing. Had he not done that - then US public opinion would possibly have maintained its reluctance to get involved.
It's not a false equivalence to equate two movements that established totalitarian dictatorships with cruel slave labor camps.
Of course it is. It's a naive, childish generalization that is almost entirely vacant of any useful insight.
It's like claiming the Hundred Years' War and World War II are equivalent, because they were both wars. Or jellyfish and gorillas are equivalent - hey, they're both animals.
Things can share attributes without being equivalent. That's why we say "attributes", plural.
Of course here in the Reg forums, as elsewhere on the Internet, many people feel the need to posture by tossing out strongly-worded sophomoric opinions as evidence of their trenchant reduction of complex phenomena to a soundbite. Well, congratulations; you and LDS can do it too. That only shows that you're not inclined to do any real thinking about the subject.
Nazism is a specific political movement, represented by a political party, its brief (if horrific and violent) time in power, and its remaining followers. Communism is a much broader term, covering a series of economic and political philosophies, an international political movement (or arguably multiple movements), and a series of national governments (which more or less failed to actually implement most of the tenets of their proclaimed ideologies).
Even in a most superficial comparison the equation LDS made is a category error, since Nazism is a species of Fascism, which would be the more appropriate point of comparison.
No. Marxism could be a political philosophy, Communism is an authoritarian idea and rule that everywhere got power acted exactly like Nazism did. Feel free to show me a Communist state which didn't become a bloody dictatorship.
Trying to deny it and building fake news about the communist paradise and its "fine people" is exactly acting like the far right does. It's not a surprise, far right and far left are two faces of the same medal.
"seems like no one felt the need to worry about communists storming the Capitol "
They stormed many other Parliaments, not yet the US one. But you fail to understand that as long as Communism is downplayed, people who are really and with very good reason scared of it won't condemn the far right as they see it as a counterbalance to the communist menace. That is actually how Fascism and Nazism got power.
Feel free to show me a Communist state which didn't become a bloody dictatorship.Yugoslavia?
They stormed many other Parliaments, not yet the US one.Which is the subject under discussion here, so your whole digression about communism is a red herring.
Now go back to your compound and lord it over your wives.
There is no “false equivalence”. The equivalence is quite real.
Both ideologies are driven by hatred. Which is why the same Germans who voted for Communists later switched to voting for National Socialism.
Communism is guilty of murdering more people than National Socialism managed.
Both are criminal hate-driven ideologies.
Well no, Communism is not about hatred. Nazism specifically is -- it is hatred directed at people based on their ancestry, not their worth. Communism when implemented in Russia was hijacked by Stalin who used its power to harm people, and likewise in China Mao did cruel things with it. But it was not a system of hate, but a system of power run amok. Very different, though both ended up killing people. Who they killed was selected quite differently though.
While I wouldn't go so far as to put an outright equality sign (not only because my family having suffered substantially more under than the Nazis than under the Communists), I think the fact that LDS got so many downvotes starkly shows the informational deficiencies in "the West" regarding Communism.
Yes, in theory Nazism is overtly much more hostile to the "out-groups" than Communism. The basic tenets of Communism do not advocate outright genocide. But hey, guess what? Neither do the Nazi ones! Have you people never heard of neo-Nazis spouting apologist nonsense to the tune of "oh, we don't want to kill <GROUP X>, we just want them gone"?.
The fact is, however, that both Nazism and Communism have caused the deaths of millions of people, and both due to systemic genocide. And even if it wasn't systemic, so what? Do the millions of victims cared that, as the Soviet apologists say, Holodomor wasn't caused on purpose?
I think one of the reasons Communism is viewed more favorably in "the West" is the romantic perception that it's about class warfare. Well, if you think communists wouldn't pursue ethnic/religious groups in general, and haven't performed antisemitic purges in particular, are you in for a treat when you finally open a relevant history book!
There's a reason why, in some countries, Nazi and Soviet symbols are both considered expressions of hate speech.
I don't think many people in the West have a romantic view of Communism, whether in it's Soviet Bloc incarnation or the various obnoxious exports.
But it's not unreasonable to view communism as a political philosophy as being preferable to fascism.
Historically i'm guessing states proclaimin themselves as Christian have imposed a lot more pain and suffering than satanism (and probably more than the two 20th Century bad boys), but christianity as religious philosophy is more attractive than satanism.
But remind me - what has communism got to do with the pathetic personality cult that we saw on Washington's streets last week?
> I don't think many people in the West have a romantic view of Communism [...]
It's hard to quantify "many". I've certainly personally met a number of "Western" people with a favorable view of historical Communism stemming mostly from ignorance, whereas with neonazis it's always either manipulative apologists, or outright sociopaths.
> But it's not unreasonable to view communism as a political philosophy as being preferable to fascism.
Yes, I explicitly said I wouldn't "put an outright equality sign", that was right in the very first sentence.
> Historically i'm guessing states proclaimin themselves as Christian [...]
Over here we have high ranking Church officials essentially running blood libel against LGBT people (with such Christian epithets as "rainbow pestilence") while simultaneously whitewashing child abuse from within their ranks. So, no you don't need to convince me about that.
But you kind of inadvertently illustrated something important. Individual Nazis are almost always bad, and a Nazi state leads to crimes against humanity. Individual Christians are often good people, but even a partial theocracy is a recipe for human rights abuse. Individual communists are likely to be harmless, but state Communism infallibly ends up with a record of atrocities.
> But remind me - what has communism got to do with the pathetic personality cult that we saw on Washington's streets last week?
Nothing. I was specifically addressing the thread I posted in. It's not abnormal to address individual aspects of a discussion within the same discussion, is it not?
And just in case anyone here is trying to get a moral superiority high, I'll have to sadly disappoint them with the following: I'm not fan of the anti-Democratic assault on the 6th (to put it mildly), and I believe the guy's statement of “stay safe homies, Nazis are about,” was completely factually accurate.
Evidently you never read Marx. The communism violence is implied in the "philosophy". There's nothing which is better than Fascism in Communism. Keep on thinking it would be a labourers paradise without private property, etc. etc. - it's the dream of those who just wait to expropriate others of their rights and become them the leaders with all the rights. Not once that "paradise" materialized. It always become a cruel, bloody dictatorship, because that's the "philosophy" DNA. Exactly like Nazism.
Feel free to read Orwell's "Animal Farm" - Orwell understood very well what Communism is and where it leads, he saw it with his very eyes. But keep on being like Orwell's sheep.
Well, if the choice becomes between Fascism/Nazism and Communism, I have to find another Universe to migrate to. I will fight both of them - I don't want to live nor in Nazi regime nor in a Communist one. Both of them will take away my freedom and will jail or kill whoever doesn't follow the Party rules.
"states proclaimin themselves as Christian have imposed a lot more pain and suffering"
Yes, all religions, including communism, are dangerous. Because all of them imply subjugate people and eliminate those who don't comply. It's no surprise communism has to suppress other religions to ensure it becomes the only one.
"But remind me - what has communism got to do with the pathetic personality cult that we saw on Washington's streets last week?"
Well, pathetic personality cults are a trait of communists and fascists cultures, to start with, and read the rest of the thread to understand why we got here. Thinking the atrocities of communism are "fake news" is very, very dangerous. It's exactly like being Holocaust deniers.
Most Families practice communism. Just take a look at how the family resources are allocated. They tend to be a located by need.
It's a good thing otherwise everyone would be kicking their babies out in the streets as a bunch of no good free loaders that need to get a job.
Communism Works well in small scale groups of extremely close association and dependency.
Like human being themselves, becomes monstrous and corrupt outside of small scale closely associated and interdependent groups.
Just like City raccoons are crazy broken vicious creatures, So do high populations render humans.
No - most families practice communalism. There's a world of difference between that and hard Marxism.
It's very true an early definition of Communism was the same as communalism, but brutal regimes of Stalin, Mao et al mean current definitions of Communism need to take account of the large Fascist element it now includes in practice.
"It's a good thing otherwise everyone would be kicking their babies out in the streets as a bunch of no good free loaders that need to get a job."
19th century England had an underclass of children on the streets. Some as young as five had been kicked out by their parents The kids organised themselves into groups - and many depended on exploitive adults. "Oliver Twist" was Dickens's characterisation of a common situation. See "Fagin's Children: Criminal Children in Victorian England" by Jeannie Duckworth
There are people commenting here to say Communism isn't as bad as Nazism. To those people, all I can say is that you are wrong, whether you believe this on grounds of morality, philosophy, ideology or anything else. I don't mean to be condescending, but you are ignorant of the truth.
The regimes were morally and ethically equivalent, and both were repugnant. They had no regard for humanity or decency or truth, they had one aim: glorification of the state and the people above all else. The regimes imposed untold cruelty, barbarity, horror, despair, fear, uncertainty, indifference to suffering and unending terror on their populations, and those they were able to subjugate.
Many people have a vague knowledge of the Gulag, of arbitrary imprisonment, punishment, shootings or torture in the Lubyanka, but few understand their true scope and horror. Stalin kept a whole population in abject fear for three decades, he kept the whole country in a state of unending anxiety by jailing and / or shooting anyone, often on a whim. If the first red scare wasn't bad enough, in the second during 1937 he had over 600,000 innocent people murdered after being snatched from the families during the night. At the end of WW2 he effectively sanctioned the rape of millions of German, Austrian, Hungarian, Yugoslav, Hungarian, Latvian, Chek, Albanian, Romanian and Polish women, justifying it with:"what is so wrong with a man who wants a little fun with a woman after fighting the war?" As a result, the suicide rates of young women in those areas went through the roof.
He murdered - starved to death - several millions of Ukranian children and adults for reasons of ideology, expediency and racism. During the purges he would sign off death warrants for tens of thousand at a time - not for an legal or other reason, but because he didn't enough people from each region had yet been shot. He killed all his wife's family, imprisoned jewish doctors who tried to help him.
A Russian soldier in WW2 had no more rights or autonomy (likely less) than a Jew under the Nazis. The unthinking brutality with which he and his generals viewed the soldiers was beyond terrible. The reason they eventually toppled the Nazis was simple - they had more soldiers and viewed the life of each with indifference and contempt. Around the time of Stalingrad Stalin issued order number 227 - it compelled soldiers to move forward when told or they wouldn be summarily shot, their whole families imprisoned in the Gulag and children in orphanages. Of the Russian soldiers who started the war when Germany invaded in 1941, only 3% survived trhe war.
You should read about the Katyn massacre - 22,000 Polish officers killed on Stalin's orders in case ONE OR TWO might be spies. He even built a concrete shed with a sloped floor and sluice gate for hosing down the fluids. His executioner wore a butchers cap, rubber boots and apron while he shot several hundred innocent, terrified and decent men every night.
The horror of the Gulag is indescribable in a few sentences. Truly as bad as the Nazi camps, but they lasted 30 years not just 3 or 4 and tens of millions suffered privations there that you or I cannot imagine. I'll give one tale from tens of millions:
A family of Kulaks (peasants) from Ukraine were sent to a work camp in 1930s just for their identity. They were packed on trains for 30 days, standing room only like cattle, it was freezing cold, they were fed once every few days, water every few days (one mug) - their child fell ill, needed water, got sicker and sicker. Eventually he died for no reason other than the cruelty and indifference of the guards to 'enemies of the people' like them. When the train next stopped the boy's body was ripped from the screaming and distraught parents' arms in darkness and thrown or buried somewhere close to the train. The doors closed and the train pulled away - all they knew is that his body was left somewhere near lake Baikal in Siberia. This happened time and time again, it's inhumanity and suffering on a titanic and terrible scale.
During and after the war, Stalin invaded and controlled tens of millions in east europe, deporting and killing millions on a whim. He condemed those populations to decades of fear, control, terror etc.
I agree that the Nazis were the worst regime in human history. What they did was unspeakably cruel and horrific. But the Soviets were the worst regime ever too, they were just as heinous and cruel ( you could choose Mao, Pol Pot and others - who were just as bad as Stalin). When you got so extreme and horrific the minor differences between ideologies and cruelties don't really matter, they are all evil. These regimes were identical in two fundamental areas: they were totalitarian ideologies and they refused to recognise the reality and value of human dignity. That should be a lesson for our future.
Seriously, if you don't think the communist regimes of the 20th century were as bad as the fascict regimes, you should educate yourself. To start with, try: Gulag (by Anne Applebaum) and The Whisperers (by Orlando Figes). I say this not to be a smart arse, but because I believe it is vital that people understand all the horrors of the 1900's, not just the Nazis.
Well said. I wish I could give you more than one up-vote. Instead, here's a virtual beer. --->
To add to the literary works that you cited, I would also add Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and Anna Funder's Stasiland, an eye-opening insight into life in the GDR running up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. I've read them all and they are simply heart breaking. Thanks for the recommended reading. I've just ordered them from Amazon. However, next on my reading list is Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
Regards
Agreed. I don't know why so many people here think that you have to accept an idiotic error in simple logic to show you disprove of the (notionally1) Communist regimes.
On the other hand, A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch is an excellent novel.
1Which is not to suggest that I think an actual Communist regime, of whatever flavor, that actually operated along the principles articulated by Marx or Mao or any of the other promulgators of Communist political philosophy, would be a good idea. I am dubious of the prospects of any planned economy, even if it were wrapped in a coating of beneficent goodwill toward all with rainbow sprinkles. I'm just acknowledging that the self-ascribed Communist governments haven't made much progress at implementing most core Communist tenets.
No - the commenters have universally acknowledged that the avowedly Communist societies of the last century were ghastly violent repressive etc. Some have suggested that communism as an end-point philosophy wouldn't be a bad thing, where everyone had equal opportunity and equal access to societies resources, You can aspire to Utopian ideals (of whatever political flavour) without expecting Utopia to be realisable.
But the key point in this discussion is that in the wake of the attempted violent overthrow of a democratic government several commentators have sought , if not to defend, to deflect by saying 'what about the communists?'. To which he answer is - they weren't involved last week.
If I get caught stealing my house mate's milk from the fridge, whining that 'Fred ate my yoghurt last month' is just that; whining. I did the crime I should do the time. Bringing Fred into the case is irrelevant. Though a riposte by my house-mates to remind me of the level of sanction imposed on fred might not be out of place.....
Serious question. In what way is anything in modern US politics akin to Marxist ideology? Do you really think that it's the most imminent danger to democracy in the USA?
Please both pick up some basic economics textbooks, and some history textbooks.
Indeed the Stalinist era is widely agreed to be Evil.
But if you actually read the first Communist Manifesto, Marx (1848) do you know what it’s key demands were?
A progressive tax on *income* (there had never been such a thing before), higher inheritance tax (2-10% at that time), abolition of child labour, free public education, nationalisation of the means of transport and communication, creation of a national bank to provide credit.
If that sounds evil to you.....
Or is it the Fabian manifesto (which became the Labour movement) you have a beef with?
Try this on for size: a national minimum wage “to stop British industries compensating for their inefficiency by lowering wages instead of investing in capital equipment”.
And for balance: “slum clearances and a health service for the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race which would be more productive and better militarily”
The world has changed, indeed.
Communism and socialism are not what you think they are.
Is that most people miss the point that Communism and National Socialism are the same. Due to the lost war and persistent attempts of socialists to obfuscate this, it became hidden from public view. Since Communism and National Socialism are both socialist, they need to find someone to steal from, socialism is based on the idea that you steal something from someone and give it to someone else, a.k.a. taxes.
Modern age Communism is class based theft, you tax the working class to death, but not the billionaires since they pay your election campaign and use their resources to silence and spread fake news about competitors. National Socialism is based on the assumption that the ideal of socialism will be achieved if a state consists of people with similar cultural background, since they will trust each other more than people in societies with a high level of diversity and will on their own make socialism work without the need for the state to enforce it on them. To pay for economic follies they steal from the "others" who are vilified. Both political systems need a heavy handed approach to enable theft on a grand scale, resulting in oppression to a level where many are sent to camps for re-education and extermination. This is the outcome for every communist or national socialist system that existed and still exists until now. Leaving marketing perception out, being called a communist is therefore as bad as being called a National Socialist since they both address someone who favors defunct political ideas above life and freedom.
One cannot steal if no license to exclusive use is currently being honored by the dominant power.
All you can do is gather.
outside campaigns of shared imagination there is no such thing as property. Outside a legal framework there is no such thing as stealing.
Just as the squirrel gathers from the tree, The squirrel did not steal from the forest The squirrel gathered from the forest.
The concepts of property in stealing have no objective basis. Objectively all there is is gathering reconfiguring and redistributing.
Beyond that, all definitions are arbitrary.
Communist leaders carry a history and reputation no less close minded and bloody than Nazi ones.
Neither form of government gets high marks.
The US government is tilting more towards Plutocracy at the expense of other interests. The disenfranchised were easy recruits for a deadly farce at the US Capital.
People are missing my point. I would have no problem labeling those who stormed the Capitol as traitorous insurrectionists. Neither would I have a problem labeling those who gathered to support the BLM movement as protesters. I have a problem when the left calls the former Nazis or the right calls the latter looters. It's painting with too broad a brush.
The Nazis were an abomination far beyond what the insurrectionists were. And for me it's personal. While fighting with Franco they sent my great grandfather to a concentration camp where he died. I understand that Godwin's Law makes the use of the Nazi insult inevitable but I don't have to like it.
So before you downvote me (or even after you've downvoted me) try to understand my point
Your problem is that you talk about "when the left calls [those traitorous insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol] as Nazis", while the subject of this discussion is (a guy who got fired for pointing out) the fact that those traitorous insurrectionists included actual self-confessed Nazis. Nobody, OTOH, said that there were communists among them... Nobody, that is, until some participants here began trying to deflect from the issue at hand. It's irrelevant whataboutism. Take your red (Heh!) herring and shove it somewhere, all of you.
"The majority" were there to protest a perfectly legitimate, free and fair election. The State officials (of both parties) have said so, almost sixty judges have said so. It is a pure fiction that the election was stolen, a fiction turned into a successful grift by our horrible outgoing Prez.
All of which is completely true, as is the rest of your post, but that still doesn't mean that all the protesters were Nazis. I read the OPs comment as protesting against the use of a loaded, pejorative, term to smear all of the protesters, when it only applied to a minority of them.
This is one of the classic approaches to propaganda, take a small kernel of truth and expand it to an inflammatory accusation:
Party 1: "You should be nice to animals"
Party 2: "How dare you accuse me of being a sick pervert who tortures of animals for pleasure"
it's a dangerous way to escalate a discussion, and can lead to the very events that we saw last week.
Sure, they were thugs and troublemakers who had been misled by the orange idiot, but I doubt if more than a small percentage truly espoused Nazi ("national socialist") ideals (or could even explain what they were). Smearing them all with the blanket insult "Nazi" isn't helpful.
It's striking how some commenters insist that "they were not ALL Nazis" - but ultimately, they all confirm that the fired guy was right: there WERE Nazis about.
Does it really matter what the exact percentage was? Or is that a not-really-subtle way to blame the victim, implying he should have been asking each of the terrorists storming the US capitol for the exact brand of extremism they're espousing?
Or is that a not-really-subtle way to blame the victim, implying he should have been asking each of the terrorists storming the US capitol for the exact brand of extremism they're espousing?
What a ridiculous suggestion.The thugs and extremists who invaded the Capitol should be found and punished for their behaviour, but dismissing them all with the attitude of "I hate what they did, so they must all be Nazis" is a simplistic mistake. Some undoubtedly were, and the GitHub employee was (IMO) justified in his comment, but lumping them all in one indiscriminate category is essentially what led to McCarthyism. If you want to stop people like that you need to attack what they stand for, and to do that you need to understand why they are attracted to it. Dismissing them all as "just" Nazis gives them a form of twisted legitimacy, with the risk that they take the attitude of "everyone says I'm a Nazi, so fuck it, I'm going to be a Nazi". Is that what you want, the (re)creation of a unified bloc?
Could you perhaps help us out. we shouldn't use the word Nazi - because some of the protestors don't want that label. What word should we use, Traitors? Idiots? Deluded Cult Members? Dupes?.
I guess if we did call them Traitors they might decide they are Traitors and try and illegally bring down a legitimate government....oh wait... they did that all already.....
I think the usual term for those in a failed coup, or an armed* attack on a seat of power is terrorist.
If BLM protesters had assaulted the Capitol, or someone of a Middle-Eastern appearance (or the wrong subset of Abrahamic faith) I'm sure there would have been no hesitation in using the word.
*The attackers might not have used guns, but I did see footage of at least one using tear gas on the police, a secreted pipe bomb was found, and Nazi Jamiroquai had a fucking spear. I read reports that at least one "protester" had abseiling gear, used to abseil into the chamber, and a good number of them were militiamen, so it's pretty evident that at least a core of them went there with clear intentions, and to some degree, they were cloaked by a crowd of useful idiots.
@Loyal Commenter
"If BLM protesters had assaulted the Capitol, or someone of a Middle-Eastern appearance (or the wrong subset of Abrahamic faith) I'm sure there would have been no hesitation in using the word."
Yet attacking federal buildings wasnt a problem until it was the Capitol or even the wrong mob. As for destruction of property Pelosi apparently said “People will do what they do.”.
Other instances during this administration where those in charge have failed to use the word "terrorist" where it applies spring to mind.
For example, where a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd and killed a peaceful protester. If I remember rightly, The Orange One, on that occasion, claimed there were "very fine people on both sides". He has also been quite vocal in labelling "Antifa" as a "terrorist organization", despite the fact that being opposed to fascism doesn't either make you either a member of a fictitious organisation or a terrorist. The cynical might suggest simply that an anti-anti-fascist is a fascist.
Of course, if you take any crowd of people, there are going to be some "bad eggs". BLM was (and is) a massive movement, on the simple grounds that most people can see that racial inequality, not only in America, but also elsewhere, is a serious problem. It doesn't take a lot of looking around to see that the vast majority of violence at BLM protests was orchestrated by the far right counter-protesters, or by those in power. A good example of this is Trump himself using riot police to move a non-violent sitting protest from in front of a church, with force, so that he could have a photo-op holding a bible up. A book, which, whatever you might think about its contents, is almost certainly one he has not read and taken in.
So, yes, there was some violence associated with BLM protests, including some impromptu statue-dunking in this country*, but it is self-evident that the majority of BLM protesters have been, and continue to be peaceful and respectful. Contrast this with a rioting mob last week, where there may indeed have been some non-violent protesters, but there were also a large number of thugs, some of whom had gone prepared to enact acts of violence. I don't recall BLM protesters chanting about executing people. The two things are just not comparable, and by trying to equate them, you are putting yourself firmly on the side of the fascists.
*With regard to the Colston statue; I have been quite clear throughout on this matter that those who tore it down and threw it in the docks in Bristol had to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, which means, unfortunately for them, arrests and criminal damage charges. Justice is blind etc. Personally, I think the statue should have been put into a museum of slavery a long time ago, and it is to this country's shame that we cover over inconvenient parts of our history. Failure to learn from the mistakes of history means we are doomed to repeat them.
@Loyal Commenter
"The Orange One, on that occasion, claimed there were "very fine people on both sides"." and "Of course, if you take any crowd of people, there are going to be some "bad eggs"."
Seems you and Trump agree.
"He has also been quite vocal in labelling "Antifa" as a "terrorist organization", despite the fact that being opposed to fascism"
The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea would explain that issue.
"on the simple grounds that most people can see that racial inequality"
Where any black person killed by cop is cause for a riot until the truth came to light.
"It doesn't take a lot of looking around to see that the vast majority of violence at BLM protests was orchestrated by the far right counter-protesters"
Who tore down statues? Looting, burning and destroying? Really? Then I assume you will claim it is far left protesters who stormed the capitol building.
"A good example of this is Trump himself using riot police to move a non-violent sitting protest from in front of a church, with force, so that he could have a photo-op holding a bible up"
Was that the Church burned and damaged by the protesters? The one boarded up behind him?
"So, yes, there was some violence associated with BLM protests"
No shit. Just as there was some violence at the capitol
"including some impromptu statue-dunking in this country"
Criminal damage of public property yes.
"but it is self-evident that the majority of BLM protesters have been, and continue to be peaceful and respectful"
As with most of the protesters at the capitol I would expect.
"Contrast this with a rioting mob last week, where there may indeed have been some non-violent protesters, but there were also a large number of thugs, some of whom had gone prepared to enact acts of violence"
And here is the problem. You have just there described the BLM/ANTIFA protests and the capitol protest. To me I read both events as you describe. Look at the above quote and the one before to see the difference in your description of the same trouble. One is peaceful and respectful, one with a large number of thugs. Yet in both instances you accept the same thing, A protest with a number of 'bad eggs'.
"I don't recall BLM protesters chanting about executing people"
https://www.newser.com/story/295004/2-cops-injured-as-portland-protest-is-declared-a-riot.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-hope-they-die-11600031160
"The two things are just not comparable, and by trying to equate them, you are putting yourself firmly on the side of the fascists."
So if I point out the serious similarities between the actions of violent groups and violent groups you think I am a fascist. But if I ignore one violent group but condemn the other I am not fascist? Why cant I be against both?
"tore it down and threw it in the docks in Bristol had to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, which means, unfortunately for them, arrests and criminal damage charges"
And it should be equally in the eyes of the law shouldnt it?
- Seems you and Trump agree.
Nice out-of-context shot there, but no score. A few bad eggs amongst tens or hundreds of thousands does not equate to one neo-nazi running down a non-violent protester.
- The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea would explain that issue.
Care to explain your nonsequitur? What has the DPRK got to do with anything?
- Where any black person killed by cop is cause for a riot until the truth came to light.
Where any number of black people killed by white cops, who often don't even get sacked is cause for protest. Especially where that is caught on camera. You have to be especially obtuse to not see that there is some preferential treatment going on there.
- Who tore down statues? Looting, burning and destroying? Really? Then I assume you will claim it is far left protesters who stormed the capitol building.
You obviously didn't read my full post, because I was quite clear that criminal damage should be punished. I'm also pretty sure that most BLM protesters are not looting, burning or destroying anything, despite being frequently charged by riot police (who were notably absent at last week's insurrection). Your last sentence here, is, of course, pure straw man.
-No shit. Just as there was some violence at the capitol
Five people died. The seat of government of a nation was ransacked. People went equipped with cable-ties and built a gallows with the intent of executing elected representatives. That does not equate with "some violence" no matter how hard you argue that it does.
You seem hell-bent on equating the BLM protesters with last week's terrorist mob, so let me lay this out clearly for you.
One of these was a wide scale movement advocating equality, and demanding justice for people who demonstrably have been murdered. There is plenty of evidence here for all to see, unless, for example, you would like to claim that the murder of George Floyd was faked, or represented proportionate policing. This movement encompassed millions of people worldwide, the vast majority of whom have been peaceful throughout despite frequent violence from those who oppose them.
The other was a mob of people "protesting" against a fair election because of a number of easily debunked lies from Trump. They were whipped into a frenzy and sacked the seat of government of their own country. The violence was wholly on their part, there were no counter-protesters involved, no police violence, and no timely condemnation of their actions. There was no attempt from those in power to stop them, unless you count Trump telling them he loves them, and it's time to go home as such.
The two things are not equal. They are comparable in the same sense that you can compare a cabbage and the Eiffel tower. Because, you know, both contain iron, or some such spurious argument.
@Loyal Commenter
"Nice out-of-context shot there, but no score. A few bad eggs amongst tens or hundreds of thousands does not equate to one neo-nazi running down a non-violent protester."
I just worked through your logic. Not my fault if you disagree.
"Care to explain your nonsequitur? What has the DPRK got to do with anything?"
You tried to claim ANTIFA = anti fascist which as a label maybe but by action not quite. Hence DPRK which gets the Korea bit right.
"Where any number of black people killed by white cops, who often don't even get sacked is cause for protest."
A protest continuing after a swift trial where they did everything they could to convict the officer and quickly.
"You have to be especially obtuse to not see that there is some preferential treatment going on there."
Lets accept that for the moment. So why are you giving preferential treatment to one lot of protesters/rioters over another?
"because I was quite clear that criminal damage should be punished"
You were clear that BLM protesters were mostly peaceful while the capitol had a lot of thugs, but didnt seem to find anything to differentiate them significantly. You seemed to excuse the violence of the former as 'orchestrated by the far right counter-protesters, or by those in power' but the latter as 'a large number of thugs, some of whom had gone prepared to enact acts of violence'. Your footnote mentioned something about being treated equally, which is what I am pressing you for here.
"Five people died"
But how many at the Capitol protest?
"People went equipped with cable-ties and built a gallows with the intent of executing elected representatives"
Vs protesters going with masks and Molotov? Home made shields to protect from tear gas?
"That does not equate with "some violence" no matter how hard you argue that it does."
I dont argue it equates with 'some violence'. Just as the riots before wernt. As much as you argue it does.
"One of these was a wide scale movement advocating equality, and demanding justice for people who demonstrably have been murdered"
Police called to deal with criminals even being seriously attacked by armed criminals being protested. Demonstrably.
You are trying to justify mob violence but condemn another mobs violence. Then telling me they are not equal because you believe in one set of reasons (which have proven to have errors) but not the others (as you say has also got errors).
Three of the attackers on the Capitol were *Republican Congressmen*.
Did you not read that bit?
The collaborators may not have had spears, but their actions included passing Capitol ground-plans to the “terrorists” the previous days, preventing defence arriving, guiding the armed guys to named Democrat congressmen’s doors during the incursion, and removing the panic buttons in offices before time.
This was not a “terrorist plot” by a few malcontents. This was an armed fascist coup attempt.
It failed only because Trump has been so effective at firing anybody competent in the hierarchy, that they literally couldn’t organise it once they were inside.
we shouldn't use the word Nazi - because some of the protestors don't want that label.
You really are determined to twist my words to fit your own agenda, aren't you?
I said nothing about what these thugs want, indeed I don't care what they want to be called. My concern over the use of labels isn't for them, it's for the society they are attacking. Arbitrarily labelling every extremist as a "Nazi" (or a "Commie", or a "Zionist", or an "Islamist" etc.) makes it harder to distinguish between extremes, and just leads to ever more bigotry. Thank about the McCarthy era, when everyone with even the slightest leftward lean was called "UnAmerican". Did that actually help anything? No, of course not, it just created the "reds under the bed" scares, which took years to recover from.
If you want to attack something, use a meaningful label. Overly-broad generalizations hurt your cause far more than you hurt theirs.
What word should we us
There are many which accurately describe their behaviour. What about: Thugs? Rioters? Vandals? Criminals? Felons? Extremists? Trump Lackeys? Gullible Fools?
"dismissing them all with the attitude of "I hate what they did, so they must all be Nazis" is a simplistic mistake"
OK, so which ones should we dismiss? I suggest starting with the ones proudly displaying literal Nazi flags and t-shirts, then go from there. I'm sorry if the guy sending out a warning in a single sentence wasn't describing them to your complex tastes.
"they take the attitude of "everyone says I'm a Nazi, so fuck it, I'm going to be a Nazi"."
If all it takes is some name calling to make someone go full Nazi, then they didn't start as far away from being one as they want to claim.
I'm sorry if the guy sending out a warning in a single sentence wasn't describing them to your complex tastes.
Let me repeat, yet again, I have no problem with the guy's original warning. It was accurate.
My issue is with the commenters here who choose to label every anti-government thug as "Nazi". It's a dangerous and inaccurate over-simplification.
The Capitol storm troopers aren’t all Nazis
They are however all Fascists.
Current POTUS is a fascist, because his stated viewpoints include “might makes right; there is no such thing as truth; I am the strong leader that this country needs; the law doesn’t apply to me, or to my supporters; ethnic and other outgroups within this country are to blame for all this country’s ills, and should be imprisoned or killed if necessary”
More than half the current Republican Senators are Fascists, because they share those viewpoints.
I agree, Github guy mis-spoke - he should have said Fascists are on the hunt looking to kill people, rather than Nazis.
He probably chose not to, though, because in the current US climate being anti-fascist (Antifa) is considered an insult and would be roughly equivalent to painting a target on your back.
Does that give a clue as to what the problem is?
I agree. Anyone who says outgroups within the country are to blame for all their ills, and should be imprisoned or killed if necessary, is a fascist, no matter what label they wear. Glad we can come to that agreement. We should probably make such ideology straight up illegal and put people in prison who espouse it.
Cough, rich people, helicopters and guillotines, cough.
This post has been deleted by its author
«...dismissing them all with the attitude of "I hate what they did, so they must all be Nazis" is a simplistic mistake»
You know, dear Nazi-enabling-terrorist apologists, it really stands out like huge fucking sore thumb that the only ones doing that here ARE YOU. NOBODY ELSE has said "they ALL" were Nazis.
Maybe y'all ought to consider whether a position that can't be justified other than based on a lie isn't really justifiable at all?
No one, other than some whining idiots ever said 'all the protestors were Nazis' - equally only the literally blind and deaf would be unaware that some of them were Nazis. And really, if you plan on walking behind a flag, it's worth checking who is carrying it, and if their arm band is red and black with a reversed sanskrit symbol, maybe, just maybe, you walking behind the flag is just a little bit Nazi-ish.
This is one of the classic approaches to propaganda, take a small kernel of truth and expand it to an inflammatory accusation: Oh can I do one?
Party 1: "Police shouldn't get away with unwarranted street execution of black citizens'
Party 2: "How dare you say that black people are more important than other lives"?
or
Party 1: "A universal health care system would make citizens lives better'
Party 2: "How dare you try and steal my Grandma's medicines"?
@First Light
"It is a pure fiction that the election was stolen"
And yet for 4 years all we heard was how the Russians stole the election. Even a dodgy dossier, wire-tapping a contented for the presidential election and trying to impeach him due to delusions of a stolen election.
"I have no sympathy for the "good people" who showed up to support such BS."
What sympathy can be given to the BLM rioters and those 'good people' who showed up to the destruction of federal property, killings, riots and looting. Good job calls to defund the police were ignored otherwise the mostly peaceful protest at the capitol could have been a problem.
"a cult of personality believing in unproven and unprovable nonsense"
Or worse disproved nonsense where riots and protests start because of criminals actually attacking police officers and civilians. And those democrats who set up funding to bail out such people should be treated with the same even hand of justice as applied to Trump.
I am sure we can agree?
I checked yesterday, and it takes about 30 seconds to find Hillary Clinton's concession speech of November 9, 2016. YouTube has it in full.
In about the same length of time, one can find a full recording, also on YouTube, of the telephone call of January 2, 2021, in which President Trump, attempted to bully the Georgia Secretary of State, into reversing Biden's victory there.
Nobody that I remember tried to impeach the incumbent because of the 2016 election. The Democrats did not have a majority in the House of Representatives until 2018. The House did impeach the president because of his attempt to barter with the Ukrainian government--dirt on Biden in return for (approved and appropriated) aid.
So, no, we (at least for "we" defined as codejunky and disgrunted yank) cannot agree.
@disgruntled yank
"I checked yesterday, and it takes about 30 seconds to find Hillary Clinton's concession speech of November 9, 2016. YouTube has it in full."
Congrats. It takes about the same amount of time to find her complaining about the Russians interfering in the elections and that Trump is Putins puppet. Poor dear cant seem to understand she lost.
"attempted to bully the Georgia Secretary of State, into reversing Biden's victory there."
Ok. And? Do you think I am going to try and justify that?
"Nobody that I remember tried to impeach the incumbent because of the 2016 election"
Really? Because it certainly looked that way. And followed on from the Steele dossier which followed the 'tax' claims which was an ongoing assault on a presidential candidate and elected president.
"The House did impeach the president because of his attempt to barter with the Ukrainian government--dirt on Biden in return for (approved and appropriated) aid."
While the FBI sat on evidence against Hunter Biden so as not to influence the election. Which had a Ukraine connection if I remember right.
"So, no, we (at least for "we" defined as codejunky and disgrunted yank) cannot agree."
Thats ok. Difference of opinion and all. I dont defend Trumps actions, I do however see he is using a similar approach as his opposition but now they are trying to impeach him again! Almost as if they are afraid of him running in 2024.
At no point though did Hillary refuse to accept the actual result of the election, or contest it in court. Neither did she encourage a mob of her supporters to go to the capitol and storm it, or otherwise create violent mayhem.
Obama invited Trump to the whitehouse in the time after the election and before Trump was inaugurated, there is film of this visit.
I really don't see how you can try to draw parallels here?
@NerryTutkins
"At no point though did Hillary refuse to accept the actual result of the election, or contest it in court."
Instead promoting the Russian interference to the public which of course fuelled anti-president sentiment.
"Neither did she encourage a mob of her supporters to go to the capitol and storm it, or otherwise create violent mayhem."
I too dont know of Hillary doing so. I do remember Dems defending the actions of rioters damaging federal property and promoting bailout funds for criminals of the riots. Violent mayhem being a good way to describe it.
"Obama invited Trump to the whitehouse in the time after the election and before Trump was inaugurated, there is film of this visit."
And? What does this have to do with the price of fish?
"I really don't see how you can try to draw parallels here?"
Destruction of property. Anti government riots. Dissent encouraged by a political party. The progression of events doesnt seem to have deviated just because its the other sides mob that did something.
Instead promoting the Russian interference to the public which of course fuelled anti-president sentiment.There was Russian interference. The Muller investigation proved it in court; people went to prison. Funny how you Nazi-enabling-terrorist apologists fail to see that little difference.
@CRConrad
"There was Russian interference. The Muller investigation proved it in court; people went to prison."
Which an entire impeachment effort against Trump exposed the Steele report and spying on a presidential candidate with probably knowledge by the acting president. Yet she still peddled the idea that Trump won because of it.
Amusingly a report on interference this time showed Russia for Trump but other interference from other countries for Biden. Is that why Trump lost?
"Funny how you Nazi-enabling-terrorist apologists fail to see that little difference."
I assume if I am Nazi enabling terrorist apologist then your a commie enabling terrorist apologist?
The Russian interference was not fake news...
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections
If that was enough to steal an election or not we don't know - and no one ever asserted it.
Still, there's Trump on record asking Russian cybercrooks to compromise Democrats systems - and it happened, also.
Another kind of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, it looks. After all, dictators understand better each other than they understand those pesky democratic leaders. who keep on talking about "respect", "rules", "checks and balances", etc. etc.
@LDS
"The Russian interference was not fake news..."
Ok, Interestingly interference from other countries in favour of dems was left out for the recent election.
"If that was enough to steal an election or not we don't know - and no one ever asserted it."
Hillary doesnt think Trump could win without it.
"Still, there's Trump on record asking Russian cybercrooks to compromise Democrats systems - and it happened, also."
Was that when Trump wanted someone to expose the deleted information from the server Clinton shouldnt have been running and had data removed before it could be investigated?
"After all, dictators understand better each other than they understand those pesky democratic leaders. who keep on talking about "respect", "rules", "checks and balances", etc. etc."
Dont disagree.
Which ones? References, please.
"Hillary doesnt think Trump could win without it."
Hillary is free to think what she likes. But she didn't refusedto accept the outcome and assert they were rigged by the Republican Party, and sent a mob to the Capitol to block the declaration.
"Trump wanted someone to expose the deleted information from the server Clinton"
And he asked Putin instead of the FBI and US courts? But oh yes, FBI and US courts are rigged too, despite he put his people in those places as well.
That said, Clinton should have never used her personal mail server for State mails, just like Trump should have never used his own Twitter account for the same reason.
@LDS
"Which ones? References, please."
Valid request. China and Iran officially mentioned- https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53702872
"Hillary is free to think what she likes."
As is Trump.
"and sent a mob to the Capitol to block the declaration."
Instead of asking for peaceful protest to the Capitol fermented the idea that the Russians got Trump elected and was their puppet.
"And he asked Putin instead of the FBI and US courts? But oh yes, FBI and US courts are rigged too, despite he put his people in those places as well."
The same FBI that had tapped his phones because of a dodgy dossier? The same FBI with evidence against Hunter Biden but not willing to follow it up until after the election? That one?
"That said, Clinton should have never used her personal mail server for State mails, just like Trump should have never used his own Twitter account for the same reason."
Agreed. I aint trying to justify the actions of one over the other. To me its a continuation of the same. Even now some people try to justify BLM and ANTIFA riots and destruction but condemn this mob. Its all the same and all wrong.
@Loyal Commenter
"I notice he has been very quiet about how well brexit is going as well."
Have I? Last I remarked was the success of the vaccination purchase, except by the EU who screwed it up badly.
A lack of brexit bad stories seems to have kept the remainers quiet.
"I'm thinking about getting myself a "Project Fear was right" T-Shirt made up..."
Please do! It will be so funny! I wish those who wanted the Euro in the UK did that too! Then we could see those who quietly shamed back to the shadows.
A lack of brexit bad stories seems to have kept the remainers quiet.
Got those eyes screwed up nice and tight when looking at literally any news site then?
Last I looked, even the likes of the Daily Mail had stories about how the customs arrangements are screwing over production pipelines across the country, companies are having to not ship to the UK, supermarkets in NI are running out of fresh fruit and veg, people are being stung with import charges, musicians can no longer tour the EU, car manufacturing plants are on a 3-day week, and so on, and so forth. None of these things has a jot to do with the ongoing pandemic (although the mismanagement of that is down to the same culprits), and are all to do with the absolutely execrable "deal" that Johnson and Rees-Mogg rushed through parliament with no scrutiny at Christmas.
@Loyal Commenter
"Got those eyes screwed up nice and tight when looking at literally any news site then?"
I assumed you ment here unless you stalk me. But you know this isnt a topic about brexit yes? But as your bugbear you want to go completely off topic? Or did you just want to run the T-Shirt idea by people?
> People are being stung for import charges.
No. They aren’t. Remainers not reading the piece of paper they were given with the item.
The items aren’t being delivered *because the seller hasn’t paid VAT*. The difference is crucial.
Since forever, there has been a loophole that EU sellers have been driving a coach and horses through, combining two separate and apparently benign rules. Firstly, VAT, all VAT, not import tax, has been charged at the border rather than at point of sale. It’s called import VAT, but it is just the normal VAT payable, it’s nothing separate or additional. Secondly, there is a minimum threshold of £15 per item where they don’t bother collecting.
The loophole is that if I buy a £10 widget here in the U.K. from a U.K. seller, the U.K. seller has to charge VAT as you would expect. But if I buy the same widget “on the internet”, so that it has to cross the border, no VAT end up payable. And thus was Amazon Netherlands fulfilment born.
The Brexit change is the £15 minimum loophole has been removed. That’s it. That’s all.
So, yes, EU sellers are incandescent that they no longer have a 20% price advantage over a U.K. seller for the same cheap widget. And they are trying to get the customer to pay, because they would rather not, and being deliberately confusing in their terminology. But HMRC, god love ‘em, are being straight down the line, and providing all the links you need to read the correct version on HMRC website. But that’s all it is - EU companies trying to avoid paying tax on a loophole they have come to rely on to undercut U.K. companies.
Which is just one step in the process of actually vaccinating the entire population. And the fact that second shots are going to be postponed well past the recommendation of the respective manufacturers can be seen as a significant process failure.
What also appears to have been somewhat less successful is keeping the infection rate low enough that health services can keep up. The phrase "dog's breakfast" comes to mind.
and while we are on the subject, the MHRA approved the vaccine to be used based upon its trial record. This is unlikely to be affected by the delayed second shot but the efficacy percentage WAS based upon the timing of the second shot. This government has ignored that so it can get headlines showing how many have been vaccinated. We won't get 90-95% protection unless the vaccines are administered as prescribed by the manufacturers.
Yup - I did. Because I'm evilly stealing my employer's electrons to comment, and i really shouldn't. And I'm think you ren't really sitting in Moscow in a fur hat, but I'm not really really sure you aren't, or that you aren't getting most of your ideas from those who are...useful idiots is I think the phrase
Still remind me,has any politician since Hilary been found to be using non federal systems for handling email?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ivanka-trump-used-a-personal-email-account-to-send-hundreds-of-emails-about-government-business-last-year/2018/11/19/6515d1e0-e7a1-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/politics/donald-trump-secure-phone-calls-impeachment/index.html
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-officials-private-email-ivanka-jared-kushner-betsy-devos-1449556
But the fact that they believed those lies only shows that they wre stupid, not that they were evil.
To me, it's just evidence of the ironic absurdity of the world we live in that people can be heroic patriots (in their hearts) and terrorists (by their actions) at the same time. And so I wouldn't be against including some mercy, along with severity, in our handling of some of the Capitol intruders. But not the guy with the zip-tie handcuffs, obviously.
An inversion of, or corollary to, Hanlon's razor: Sufficient stupidity is indistinguishable from evil.
Nobody really has to be that stupid. If they were, they couldn't sit upright and breathe at the same time (both somewhat less demanding than walking and chewing bubblegum, respectively). You have to let yourself be that stupid.
Actually written by Nick Lowe in the Brinsley Schwarz days, but any publicity is good publicity, right? Even if it's fake news, or includes misleading atttribution ???? ;)
Thanks for the mention anyway, it's a grand tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy3LpV0THB0
or there's this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szAMOyTe1IY
or there's this one quite recently (May 2020):
https://www.nme.com/news/music/watch-sharon-van-etten-and-josh-hommes-home-video-for-whats-so-funny-bout-peace-love-and-understanding-cover-2672687
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(What%27s_So_Funny_%27Bout)_Peace,_Love,_and_Understanding
"Words have power and neither the right or the left should feel that they have the privilege to use them in attack mode."
Facts and knowledge can have power too :)
I was watching a bit of it live and they did have a couple of prominent people who had pretty open nazi paraphernalia. Granted most of the racists and bigots was carrying the Confederate flag but there was also a couple of nazis.
We warned people in the office because there was 3 terrorists at Burough Market 2017 even though it was just 3 of them and most people was just trying to get away.
In my view the people supporting trump planned terror attacks but probably for several different reasons most of which wasn't really because they have a strong support of the NSDAP but because they wanted to win an election by any means necessary.
"There were quite probably people best described as Nazis or Klansmen involved in the storming of the Capitol. But the majority were not."
No, if you associate willingly and knowingly with Nazis, then you are a Nazi as well.
And if you associate willingly and knowingly with KKK, then you are KKK as well.
This is quite simple. If you look at people on your own side, and see Nazis or klansmen, then you are on the side of the baddies.
Or...There were a disproportionate larger amount off actual Neo Nazis in Washington Dc than your average Jew would expect to meet.
I am sure this wasnt directed at every right wing person there, but any right wing nutter who thinks this is directed at them has just effectivly self identified as Nazi.
This post has been deleted by its author
Other problems with the fellow that would be difficult to fire for (low quality, but no that low, ruffles feathers, poor time keeping) but soon as he put his neck out on something they could point to a rule about, they got the excuse to shove? Maybe, there's usually more to it then what you can get in a news article, otherwise, if it's just for saying nazi, they're going to have to let the CEO go too...
More like a snowflake with connections whinged about how it was wrong for a person to call an insurrectionist a Nazi (even if one of them was wearing a Camp Auschwitz shirt) so HRs response was to come up with some vague bollocks to justify getting rid of somebody who didn't quite fit in.
And it's more than likely that the aforementioned snowflake was of the extreme right variety. Honestly, I've never seen such snowflaky people as these right wing violent neo-nazi nitwits. There aught to be an internet law for it: The more one witters on about snowflakes, the more snowflaky one is. I'm perfectly happy for it to be called "GeoffreyW's Law.
Whiskey should be and is widely used. But as a staple of one's diet, it has its drawbacks.
Yes, absolutely, invade the Capitol in a Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt, "Nazi" is precisely the term, unless you want to tack a "neo-" on in front. The kid at GitHub deserves a thumbs-up, not disciplinary action. But if we're going to bring the 1960s and 1970s back, and use the term indiscriminately, well, that will not be an improvement.
It's also possible that the reaction could have just resulted from a desire to preserve "PR" by not being associated with a "non-word". I suspect that this echoes recent attempts to "de-discriminate" technical terminology - efforts to be seen as the most woke corporations in the business.
Management with too much time on their hands and too few braincells in their heads is bound to lead to dysfunctional decision-making. Clearly they didn't weigh up the consequences of alternatives. Who said the sky will fall in if we 'do nothing'? Watch them hide behind 'procedures'. Yeah... How about the 'procedures' derived from 'employee safety'. Those delicate traceries of tissue should be fun to audit.
While we dont know the specifics this is where silencing, no platforming and general intolerance to opinion can lead to overreaction. Maybe it was his prior attitude and actions and this was a last straw or excuse to get rid, mentioning there were nazis there should be no different than mentioning socialists/Marxists were at BLM and ANTIFA 'protests'
If an even hand was applied to the political situation this might possibly have gone differently.
@Geoffrey W
Very possible. His misdemeanour's may not have been enough to remove him and maybe it is an issue of the company or its higher ups. It does sound an overreaction for the single comment of 'nazi' but seems to have a lot of space for prior and further problems by mentioning past actions and 'battle of words'.
There is enough missing information to make it difficult to ascertain right and wrong.
Judging by cases in the USA this skit was not so much satire as actual reportage; Crimes such as being black while going home, being black while walking in the park, being black while shopping, being black while drinking coffee, being black (and a scary adolescent) while using your IPhone, on and on, Ad very much Nauseum.
In a lot of stories about people getting fired, we only get one single information about the employee. There are people who are assholes every day for months until they get fired. But from time to time they might say something innocent as well; and the story that they will tell the world is "I said something innocent, and I got fired".
I completely agree with this point; with the slight caveat that if it is true that he was reprimanded for the comment shortly before being fired, yet the company hasn't said anything public about the CEO making the same claim, then the company has put the onus on itself to demonstrate it was acting fairly in this case.
Because those people were banned for trying to incite violence, and the other was a single employee mentioning that there were Nazis storming the Capitol. Legit nazis too - there are people wearing shirts that say "Camp Auschwitz" with "STAFF" on the back. Bit of a false equivalence isn't it?
This post has been deleted by its author
GitHub’s head of HR resigns in light of termination of Jewish employee
“To the employee we wish to say publicly: we sincerely apologize,” Brescia said in the blog post.
... he was fired, with a human relations representative citing a “pattern of behavior that is not conducive to company policy” as the rationale for his termination ...
Question: Did GitHub apologize for firing the employee (without/before any thorough investigation) or the "accusation" of "pattern of behavior"?
@sanmigueelbeer
This looks to be quite an important update. It is a shame there isnt more detail of what went on but that would only invite the judgement of public opinion (as we are all doing here).
I do wonder if Gia Colosi's comments flipped around would cause uproar with the feminazi brigade. But the falling on her sword is somewhat noble.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
