Season Two Talk: FFwSB

[iMonrey]

Quote

It seems Samantha's message about the pro impeachment crowd was that those people would be better off, and having a greater impact, going to the ballot boxes and voting for Democrats - especially during the midterms - rather than marching in the streets demanding a long drawn out action that would probably never happen, at least as long as Republicans control all levels of government. 

Yes, but people politically active enough to march in a protest probably already vote in mid-terms. As possibilities points out above, what evidence does Sam's crew have that these protesters did not vote in the last mid-terms? Did they even ask? I mean, I get that it's a genuine issue but if these people are politically active enough to vote all the way down to the local level what's the point of trying to make fun of them? It sort of smacks of "normalizing" Trump, as ruby24 pointed out above. And I know Sam B is the last person on earth to do that so . . . what the hell was the point of this segment?

Quote

The same way mouth breathing idjuts like Gohmert and Steve King get elected. because a district that has people with very right wing views think they're the best persons to represent them in Washington.

Yeah, I get that but . . . this guy? Seriously? I mean, just listen to him talk. Oh, what the hell am I saying? That district probably went for Trump too.

[Lantern7]

I would have marched. I mean, I know it's futile, and a lot of the hope hinges on enough people getting to the front of the runaway train and pulling the brake really hard (as opposed to letting it run wild and make their dreams come true), but that is a feasible possibility. I know: hope in one hand, shit in the other, which one fills up first?

You think Sam has as many people on staff to watch cable news as Jon did on TDS? Whomever pointed out the barren floor with the nutters talking nutty things deserves a fat bonus.

[Victor the Crab]

There's nothing wrong with marching in the streets protesting impeachment. But that crowd would be better off using that energy to educate their districts about the importance of voting - and smartly, so as not use it to protest your preferred candidate not getting the nomination. And to keep the likes of Drumph and other destructive Republicans out of office. Or, better yet, how about protesting Republicans efforts to roll back voting rights and prevent certain groups of people from voting with laser like efficiency, like what Kobach is trying to do. As I said, that ties up those two segments with the same bow.

[ChelseaNH]

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

I thought going after the pro-impeachment people was a waste of time and counter-productive.

Which is interesting, since I think marching for impeachment is a waste of time and possibly even counter-productive.  Yes, it feels good, but what will it actually accomplish?  The Republicans control the impeachment process and liberal protests don't scare them.  They'll only impeach Trump if he's unpopular with their base, and so far he isn't.  So you protest and nothing happens, are you going to keep protesting?

Sam's point was to put your energy into efforts that have a chance of paying off.  Yes, get mad, but get tactical.

[Lantern7]

I can try, though my district is red as heck. But I still think impeachment proceedings are feasible if enough people in power decide to bail out to save their jobs, if not the nation itself. Biggest downside is that Mother's Husband will take over, and we'd get The Handmaiden's Tale bit that Sam alluded to in her special.

[Victor the Crab]

7 minutes ago, Lantern7 said:

I can try, though my district is red as heck. But I still think impeachment proceedings are feasible if enough people in power decide to bail out to save their jobs, if not the nation itself.

But, as Republicans like McConnell and Ryan have proven, its party over politics. And as long as their base is happy in their party's efforts to "stick it to liberals" and "tear down everything the 'black guy' did", that's not going to happen for quite a while.

Quote

Biggest downside is that Mother's Husband will take over, and we'd get The Handmaiden's Tale bit that Sam alluded to in her special.

All the more reason why it's so important to get out the vote, which is what Samantha was alluding to her audience about.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I'd never heard of Dana Rohrabacher before this episode and yet there's another article about him in the news today:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-rohrabacher-gets-bottom-martian-civilization-wasnt-214828498.html

I don't get it. How did the good people of SoCal elect such a moron? 

His name hit the news recently when a pre-election recording was discovered of the House majority leader cracking to his colleagues, including the Speaker, that Rohrabacher and Drumpf were on Putin's payroll.

The next Congressional opponents of these mouth breathing morons should just run ads of nothing but the C-span footage. 

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

Is there any evidence that the demonstrators don't vote for Dems? Why would Sam or her crew assume that? Are people actually supposed to sit quietly until election day? Public pressure works more than passive silence, of that I'm certain. Often you don't see the results until it reaches critical mass, but it never gets there if people don't try.

Based on many years of life and multitudes of jading experiences, I get impatient with unbridled idealism, and perhaps the FF team does, too.

[peeayebee]

Dana Rohrabacher's district is in Orange County, which is pretty Republican.

[BoogieBurns]

35 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Dana Rohrabacher's district is in Orange County, which is pretty Republican.

Just ask Sam Seaborn

[Totale]

6 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

Sam's point was to put your energy into efforts that have a chance of paying off.  Yes, get mad, but get tactical.

Exactly.  Plus right down the line every choice following a successful impeachment is worse.  Pence is even more evil than Drumpf plus he's an experienced politician, and it doesn't get any better after him.  So the tactical move is to keep 45 in court, pissed off, fuming and useless until the Congress can change hands - trying to limit the damage.

[Fable]

I didn’t really mind the third segment either.  I didn’t getting the feeling Sam was trying to normalize Trump, He isn’t going to be impeached soon, if ever.  I think protesting him is fine, but a reminder that there are other things we can do in the meantime is well stated. 

[ganesh]

If the constant protests keep people aware and turns out the vote, I'm all for it. I'm not for people not knowing what impeachment is though. 

I would have liked the team to have found out if any of those protesters voted for what is a leppo guy or the moron Jill Stein. 

I knew the KS secretary of state was a bad guy but I didn't realize how bad. He's reprehensible. 

[wknt3]

On 7/20/2017 at 0:30 PM, iMonrey said:

I'd never heard of Dana Rohrabacher before this episode and yet there's another article about him in the news today:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-rep-rohrabacher-gets-bottom-martian-civilization-wasnt-214828498.html

I don't get it. How did the good people of SoCal elect such a moron? 

 

On 7/20/2017 at 4:24 PM, peeayebee said:

Dana Rohrabacher's district is in Orange County, which is pretty Republican.

 

Hmmmm. Maybe instead of just highlighting the idiocy of Rohrbacher and Gohmert they should have explored more in depth how they ever got elected? It would be interesting exploring factors like how those who share broad political goals enable blowhards and idiots by equating any criticism of the foibles of their own side by those within the movement as surrendering to the opposition. Or that it's counter-productive infighting. And how that they are enabled by those who insist that we need to embrace the critics of those we disagree with no matter what. I'm sure we all would have loved to see that and found it very interesting. And then we could have been thankful that those of us who agree with Sam and the Full Frontal crew would never fall for that kind of lazy groupthink.

[attica]

The whiny baby Trump made my night. That could not possibly be more perfect.

I of course liked the musical, but maybe it needed another run thru or two before air time. It wanted tightening and a bigger bounce on the lyric-buttons.

[iMonrey]

Loved the Music Man parody, but I did not know who the singer was (Javier someone?) - I assumed of course it was someone from Hamilton because it seems like that's about all we ever hear about anymore is Hamilton but I wish TV in general wouldn't assume everyone in the country has seen Hamilton. That's a very Broadway/New York specific kind of thing.

[Lantern7]

Liked the first two segments, cringed at the third. I think Sam's "Music Man" parody holds up to the one on SNL making fun of Wells Fargo, featuring Lin-Manuel Miranda. I remember Kenan Thompson's character trying to start the "trouble" chant, only to get smacked in the face.

[attica]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I did not know who the singer was (Javier someone?)

Javier Munoz, currently playing the title role in Hamilton. Was Lin-Manuel Miranda's understudy and took over the role for realsies when LMM left. A better singer than LMM, imo. Openly HIV pos.

[Hanahope]

Better episode than last week (that Laffer interview was very poor, the correspondent never even reported whether he asked Laffer as to why tax cuts for the rich would work nationwide if they didn't work in Kansas).

I too didn't know who the singer was, but assumed he was the new lead from Hamilton since he resembled how LMM looked in the part.  but it was great parody again on how those people running Kansas are doing a very piss poor job, yet they keep getting rewarded for it.  Seems like no one cares that Kansas is going toes up because of its badly run government, and its leaders are spreading their destruction everywhere else they go.

[DXD526]

Quote

 but it was great parody again on how those people running Kansas are doing a very piss poor job, yet they keep getting rewarded for it. 

Gotta love how these Republicans keep failing upward. It certainly is an Orwellian thing to watch.

The line of the night: when speaking about healthcare, how Pence thinks 'risk corridor' is a White House hallway with a woman in it! Complete with graphic of a spooked veep about to confront a scarlet temptress alone in a hall. Watch out, she might jump you, you smokin' hot hunk of manmeat, you!

[scrb]

One of the best moments was that Kurdish guy telling the translator that Sam is kind of shrill and wanting her to translate what he said.

Audience gasped.

Seemed to roll right off Sam though, like she didn't give a shit what this probably sexist guy had to say about her.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Better episode than last week (that Laffer interview was very poor, the correspondent never even reported whether he asked Laffer as to why tax cuts for the rich would work nationwide if they didn't work in Kansas).

That piece really kind of pissed me off because it seemed like a vanity puff piece and waste of time. Both mine and the show's.

The piece in Kurdistan was frustrating for different reasons. I had always had an offhand sense that the Kurds were the grown-ups in the middle eastern conflict, but to learn about their attitudes and perceptions about our current president was jarring and disheartening. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

11 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

The piece in Kurdistan was frustrating for different reasons. I had always had an offhand sense that the Kurds were the grown-ups in the middle eastern conflict, but to learn about their attitudes and perceptions about our current president was jarring and disheartening. 

They want a country.  They think that Trump might help them get it.  Our domestic policies are not their concern, and when you've been fighting for generations, I don't think that global warming is a high priority, either.  It makes sense to me.

[iMonrey]

I'm tempted to read "Devil's Bargain" but . . .  it would probably just depress me. More.

[Lantern7]

I'm impress with Sam. I don't think any of the other satire shows goes to "problem areas" of the world, let alone shine a spotlight on people that are seen as weak that can take care of themselves. And they teach men not to be pricks!! I'm guessing Sam went to that area in one trip. Does anybody know if we'd get a few more segments like that in future episodes?

[attica]

47 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I'm tempted to read "Devil's Bargain"

I found it interesting that Josh Green does his own audiobook, and still doesn't read the text without a ton of 'uh's. Do we suppose it was something the director got tired of making him do retakes, or just that nobody cared/noticed? (Completely off the point of the shitshow the book explores ably (I'm sure!). but it caught my notice.) (Because I'm clutching distractions wherever I can.) (Sue me.) (Parenthetically.)

[peeayebee]

I thought what we were hearing was from the NPR interview.

 

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I'm tempted to read "Devil's Bargain" but . . .  it would probably just depress me. More.

I had heard about this book before and seen/heard the author interviewed, and I was interested. I still am, but after watching Sam's piece I fear I would also get depressed about it. After the show I was just thinking about how unstoppable the far right/white supremacy seems. I was actually thinking about being dead being a positive because I wouldn't have to deal with it. Yikes.

It was nice to end the show with those wonderful women doing great work.

[purist]

Three things:

1. I am gobsmacked that Bannon's rise came from rallying the disgusting 'penis goblins' on gamer sites. Honestly, watching that segment I thought I was hallucinating.

2. Wonderful segment on women making good things happen in refugee camps and among Kurdish people.

3. The segment about judicial nominees was so depressing I almost couldn't watch it. What have you done, American voters? You're going to be fucked for decades.

[wknt3]

1 hour ago, purist said:

Three things:

1. I am gobsmacked that Bannon's rise came from rallying the disgusting 'penis goblins' on gamer sites. Honestly, watching that segment I thought I was hallucinating.

I've felt that way much of the last year or so...

Quote

2. Wonderful segment on women making good things happen in refugee camps and among Kurdish people.

Yeah that was one of the best field pieces the show has done. It was both informative and (more important) funny and it really showed off Sam's unique voice. This actually delivered on the unfulfilled promise of last week's segment.

[Hanahope]

Omg, that Bannon got his rise from a game I loved.  I never bought anything 'off line' but I had heard about the Chinese gold farmers.  And I loved the Leroy Jenkins bit.  Someone on Sam's staff played Warcraft for a few years. 

[Lantern7]

Apparently, Sam is off for a few weeks. Tonight, TBS runs the episode with the interview of President Obama. I didn't want anybody getting flatfooted at 10:30. I figure we need her today, because she can wield a scalpel and a sledge hammer with relative ease.

[ruby24]

You know, I wish she would TELL us when she's going on vacation! All the other talk show hosts mention it at the end of their shows when they're going to be off for a few weeks or one week or whatever. 

Sam never does though, and then I always find out like the day of, and get disappointed. 

[Victor the Crab]

5 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

You know, I wish she would TELL us when she's going on vacation! All the other talk show hosts mention it at the end of their shows when they're going to be off for a few weeks or one week or whatever. 

Sam never does though, and then I always find out like the day of, and get disappointed. 

THIS TO THE FUCKING MAX!!!!! I love Samantha's show, but her not letting us know when she'll be off for any length drives me up the fucking wall! After the events in Charlottesville this weekend, we could use her style of voice to perform verbal lingchi on bastard Drumph.

[possibilities]

I feel like the show is off more than it's on, and they do like maybe 1 show, then take a few weeks off, then do another. Do they have any kind of regular schedule?

[iMonrey]

Quote

I feel like the show is off more than it's on, and they do like maybe 1 show, then take a few weeks off, then do another. Do they have any kind of regular schedule?

It's like any other show on basic cable, like if it were a half hour sitcom. It gets picked up for a specific number of episodes and then TBS decides the best times to air them for maximum ratings. It's not like the late night shows that air continuously aside from vacation breaks. And that's unfortunate, because while the format does suit Sam B, the show doesn't seem to be gaining any momentum. 

[attica]

It's getting harder and harder to tamp down my rage when I hear 'don't punch Nazis' by well-intentioned nimrods like Armisen and Brownstein (and the ex-Nazi dude). Hugging somebody who agitates for the elimination of peoples, and for the shrinking of civil rights of everybody but themselves? Nope. Not having it. Don't care that you're lonely and traumatized -- so are we all. You're killing people? I don't hug you. You don't think you deserve to be punched? You're getting off easy compared what you're advocating. 

[Lantern7]

*sigh* There was a new episode last night, wasn't there? Did not occur to me until I was on the train this morning. Will there be one last week? John Oliver came back from a break last week, but there's no show on Sunday because of the Emmys. Wouldn't blame Sam if she did the same thing.

[Slovenly Muse]

Man, I thought Sam was on FIRE last night! That Homeland-credits right-wing-terrorism spoof? AMAZING! And while I agree, the idea of hugging a Nazi is difficult to stomach, I like that Sam and others are exploring solutions that actually WORK to reduce violence and prejudice, rather than ineffective, counterproductive acts (like punching) that might make us feel better but ultimately make the problem worse. People may not like hard solutions, but I will always side with those saying "things are bad, let's make them better" over people who say "an eye for an eye, sucker." 

It's the same reason I kind of got where she was coming from with her piece on the anti-Trump demonstrations, which I know others didn't like. It's difficult to understand how counterproductive demonstrations can be when the big message is "Impeach Trump"... but the small message is "because I don't like him and I have no facts or specific examples of impeachable offences to back up my message, I just don't like him." That's the kind of thing Republicans were saying about Obama for years, and without respect for the legalities surrounding impeachment this sounds a lot like the same baseless temper tantrum (and you better believe it looks that way to Republicans). There ARE legitimate reasons to impeach Trump, so if the people demonstrating "because they don't like him" would educate themselves on specifics and change their messaging to "Impeach Trump for legally-defensible reasons I can tell you about", and/or do things like personally demanding to know what their elected representatives are doing about specific offences and why, they'd stand a better chance of putting real pressure on the people who could make impeachment happen. Rallies are a great way of getting people fired up and drumming up support, but they need to be rooted in, and paired with, real, justifiable, reason-based concerns and strategies, or they won't be effective at changing the minds of the people in power. I like that Sam took the unconventional route of calling out anti-Trump protesters for having all feelings and no facts, thereby undercutting their own message, and showing us how to really be part of the solution.

I am so glad this show is back from hiatus. I really, really needed it!

[biakbiak]

The thing I didn't like about the don't punch Nazis storiy is the way the ex skinheads/neo nazis characterized them as having experienced trauma, been under educated or economically displaced when that is not an accurate view of many of the leaders of the current movement and the crowd they are trying to appeal to are in fact well educated whites who are not economically disadvantaged. 

So I will never not find glee in someone punching Richard Spencer in the face, a man who grew up in privilege, educated at private schools has a BA from U.VA, a masters from the U of Chicago and dropped out of the doctoral program at Duke and actively spreads hate. 

[ruby24]

5 hours ago, attica said:

It's getting harder and harder to tamp down my rage when I hear 'don't punch Nazis' by well-intentioned nimrods like Armisen and Brownstein (and the ex-Nazi dude). Hugging somebody who agitates for the elimination of peoples, and for the shrinking of civil rights of everybody but themselves? Nope. Not having it. Don't care that you're lonely and traumatized -- so are we all. You're killing people? I don't hug you. You don't think you deserve to be punched? You're getting off easy compared what you're advocating. 

I agree 100%. I found that segment appalling, tbh.

[wknt3]

2 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

Man, I thought Sam was on FIRE last night! That Homeland-credits right-wing-terrorism spoof? AMAZING! And while I agree, the idea of hugging a Nazi is difficult to stomach, I like that Sam and others are exploring solutions that actually WORK to reduce violence and prejudice, rather than ineffective, counterproductive acts (like punching) that might make us feel better but ultimately make the problem worse. People may not like hard solutions, but I will always side with those saying "things are bad, let's make them better" over people who say "an eye for an eye, sucker." 

It's the same reason I kind of got where she was coming from with her piece on the anti-Trump demonstrations, which I know others didn't like. It's difficult to understand how counterproductive demonstrations can be when the big message is "Impeach Trump"... but the small message is "because I don't like him and I have no facts or specific examples of impeachable offences to back up my message, I just don't like him." That's the kind of thing Republicans were saying about Obama for years, and without respect for the legalities surrounding impeachment this sounds a lot like the same baseless temper tantrum (and you better believe it looks that way to Republicans). There ARE legitimate reasons to impeach Trump, so if the people demonstrating "because they don't like him" would educate themselves on specifics and change their messaging to "Impeach Trump for legally-defensible reasons I can tell you about", and/or do things like personally demanding to know what their elected representatives are doing about specific offences and why, they'd stand a better chance of putting real pressure on the people who could make impeachment happen. Rallies are a great way of getting people fired up and drumming up support, but they need to be rooted in, and paired with, real, justifiable, reason-based concerns and strategies, or they won't be effective at changing the minds of the people in power. I like that Sam took the unconventional route of calling out anti-Trump protesters for having all feelings and no facts, thereby undercutting their own message, and showing us how to really be part of the solution.

I am so glad this show is back from hiatus. I really, really needed it!

 

Agree 100%! This was one of their best shows yet. The opening was a tightly written masterpiece with one great joke after another and Sam was on fire. The DACA segment was great. And as far as the Nazi segment is concerned it was one of their best interviews/field pieces yet. It had a really good content/schtick ratio (addressing one of my ongoing concerns with Sam's interviews) and the schtick was great. It did what this show does at it's best, much like Last Week Tonight in taking The Daily Show model one step further and not only calling out BS and bringing to light truths that the news media ignores through laziness or timidity, but engaging in advocacy by telling their viewers how they can actually take action to change things. As far as the content is concerned I feel like a lot of people are ignoring all the context about how white supremacist terror is a big problem - one that the government should do more to fight and that we should be concerned about and do what we can to stop. And I strongly suspect that the Full Frontal team would agree that violence can be cathartic, that the leaders are evil, that the ideology is evil, that this is not simply all misguided and misunderstood victims. What they are saying is that the problem can't be solved simply by attacking every white terrorist and that approach empowers white extremists. That many on the fringes of these white terror groups can be reached through an effective communications strategy and we should try to understand how they are recruited and how they can be deradicalized. And that we should aggressively monitor these white extremist terrorist organizations, disrupt their plots and take actions against their leaders and the hardcore members at the same time. If they made the same point replacing white with Islamic I don't think it would be particularly controversial here and we would be rolling our eyes at the Fox News types who can't understand nuance and think that the problem can be solved easily if we are just tough enough and keep hurting them and anything else is just surrender. That said I would be totally in favor of punching Fred Armisen. Not because I think he's soft on Nazis. Just because I never could stand him going back to SNL.

[Lantern7]

Caught the episode. I'm getting numb from the day-to-day news, but Sam still kicks ass. I like the idea of "Life After Hate," though I'm thinking some people can never be saved. Also: Portland was founded by racists?!? Insert Trail Blazers joke here, then feel bad about it afterward.

[ChelseaNH]

22 hours ago, attica said:

You don't think you deserve to be punched?

It's not about who they are, it's about who you choose to be.

[ganesh]

On 9/14/2017 at 11:09 AM, attica said:

It's getting harder and harder to tamp down my rage when I hear 'don't punch Nazis' by well-intentioned nimrods like Armisen and Brownstein (and the ex-Nazi dude).

There this false equivalency being spread about these white nationalist protests. The racists seem to think free speech means that they get to say what they want and everyone is required to sit and listen. That's not how it works.

So yeah, ok, going around punching people is problematic. But there's a bunch of self avowed racists coming to my town stomping around, *running people over*, and I'm just supposed to put a pot of tea on? 

I applaud the efforts of the Life After Hate group, but I felt like the piece was putting the burden on the people who aren't racists. 

The Kansas secretary of state is one of the worst people ever. I don't know why this guy is raked over way much more than the others in the administration. He's completely horrible.

[iMonrey]

Well, I would stand in line all day long just to punch Kris Kobach in the face. So long as everyone else in line was waiting their turn to punch him in the face too. 

Quote

I applaud the efforts of the Life After Hate group, but I felt like the piece was putting the burden on the people who aren't racists. 

Bingo.

[peeayebee]

I agree with the statement that some of the people who join these white supremacy marches and rallies are people looking for a group to belong to, just like some people join ISIS or gangs because they want to belong and feel important and needed. Of course one needs to ask why they join white supremacist groups instead of, say, the Peace Corps, the Army, or Habitat for Humanity. It's hard to deny that they join because the message appeals to them. They may be out-and-out Nazis or nascent ones. There are probably some people in these rallies who think it's just a bunch of fun and like to troll people. I'm not excusing any nor saying there are good people on both sides, just that there's a mix of people there.

When did Chris Cuomo get so muscular? It kind of freaked me out.

I don't know why, but the image of the Merriam-Webster dictionary shooting itself in the head cracked me up.

[ganesh]

11 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Of course one needs to ask why they join white supremacist groups instead of, say, the Peace Corps, the Army, or Habitat for Humanity

Because they're cowards. Joining those other groups means you stand for something. People who join nazi terrorist groups look around at a diverse and rapidly changing world and are scared that it's passing them by. They're scared that they aren't as brave as the people who escape their war ravaged homeland to come to the US and work hard to make a nice life for themselves. They think they're entitled to a state of the world that never existed in the first place. Even if the world was the way they wanted, they'd still be on the bottom rung.

[Slovenly Muse]

On 9/15/2017 at 11:13 AM, ganesh said:

I applaud the efforts of the Life After Hate group, but I felt like the piece was putting the burden on the people who aren't racists.

How so? I am curious. The group is made up of former racists working to de-recruit and de-radicalize current racists. This looks EXACTLY like an example of people cleaning up their own messes. The only thing they're asking the general public for is some funding (which they already had, but the Trump government revoked) and a bit of understanding. And the best part is, what they do WORKS, even if you don't like the idea of it. As I think was pointed out in the piece itself, if they were having this exact converstion about ISIS or Al-Quaieda or any other radical Muslim terrorist group, we would call this common sense. Keep them from getting recruited in the first place, use education and outreach to help them understand how their ideology is wrong, and give them access to better opportunities so that they no longer need to be radicalized to feel relevant. In fact, if you imagine that everyday Muslims feel about ISIS the same way everyday white folks feel about Nazis, you can really begin to understand and close some of the racial and cultural divides in America.

I get that punching Nazis is cathartic, but I would rather live in a world where there are fewer Nazis to punch, and I'm willing to pitch in to make that happen. Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.

[ganesh]

I'm not talking about the group; I'm talking about the tone of the piece. The group shouldn't have had their funding cut. 

I'm not going to hug a nazi. If that's what that group is doing, that's one approach. I feel like there's a general narrative going around that anti-nazis; i.e., normal society, has to be nice and sit quietly while nazis spew their garbage and then quietly and politely respectfully disagree with them. Nope. They come to my house they stfu and gtfo and I will say so in no uncertain terms. They're scum and don't get anything from me. *I'm* not doing anything wrong, and the piece made me feel like the burden is on me to civilize these people. 

[biakbiak]

3 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

get that punching Nazis is cathartic, but I would rather live in a world where there are fewer Nazis to punch, and I'm willing to pitch in to make that happen. Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.

The reasons Nazis fell out of favor wasn't because they were hugged it's because they were defeated in war.i find the notion of the piece that all these people need is love and understanding very naive and unrealistic. In the Charlottesville instance the people who got shamed online for their beliefs were the ones who tried to back track on their racism, creating a no tolerance policy for nazis seems to work better than hugging them. See also Richard Spencer and his whining when his words and actions have negative consequences on his life.

[Slovenly Muse]

Wow. I feel like I watched a totally different piece than you did!

10 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm not talking about the group; I'm talking about the tone of the piece. The group shouldn't have had their funding cut. 

I'm not going to hug a nazi. If that's what that group is doing, that's one approach. I feel like there's a general narrative going around that anti-nazis; i.e., normal society, has to be nice and sit quietly while nazis spew their garbage and then quietly and politely respectfully disagree with them. Nope. They come to my house they stfu and gtfo and I will say so in no uncertain terms. They're scum and don't get anything from me. *I'm* not doing anything wrong, and the piece made me feel like the burden is on me to civilize these people.

But isn't the "punch a Nazi" strategy still putting the onus on non-Nazis to "do the work" of combating the Nazi ideology? I haven't heard any suggestion that the solution is to "do nothing" and "let the Nazis do whatever they want" or "stop protesting Nazis" or "welcome Nazis into your home." This piece was targeted towards people who want to be active and DO something about the Nazi threat, who already feel the onus is on them to act. Sam is just suggesting a method of accomplishing the goal we all want to accomplish (fewer Nazis with less influence) through a method that actually WORKS, rather than just punching. Punching Nazis might feel good, but it also validates them and makes them stronger... it teaches them that they are important and powerful enough to be worth punching, and ultimately makes the problem worse. No one is suggesting that you, personally, should literally hug a Nazi, or do the work yourself of counselling and rehabilitating them. Only to act as an advocate for those who are actually defeating Nazis through rehabilitation. The purpose of the piece, as I saw it, was to educate us about the one and only group working to productively combat the Nazi threat, and how difficult their work is because the Trump administration is actively working against them. And to help those calling for violence to understand that punching a Nazi is just shooting ourselves in the foot.

7 hours ago, biakbiak said:

The reasons Nazis fell out of favor wasn't because they were hugged it's because they were defeated in war.i find the notion of the piece that all these people need is love and understanding very naive and unrealistic. In the Charlottesville instance the people who got shamed online for their beliefs were the ones who tried to back track on their racism, creating a no tolerance policy for nazis seems to work better than hugging them.

Yes... and the tactics that Life After Hate uses on white supremacists are the same tactics we are using to deradicalize people with whom we are actually currently at war. So I'm not sure I take your point. I think the problem here is the term "Hug a Nazi." It's not a literal call to literally hug a literal Nazi and take no other action, just a soundbyte that some have taken a bit TOO much to heart (perhaps Sam included). They are not suggesting that all Nazis need is "love and understanding." As the LAH founder said, what they need are jobs, education, counselling... they need to understand how to feel worthy without treading on others. Many join the movement because they feel powerless and are looking for someone to blame, and a way to feel validated. There is a way out of that, but not through punching. Violence doesn't defeat the CAUSE of Nazism, just plays whack-a-mole with the symptom. But just because violence is counterproductive, doesn't mean the only alternative is tolerance. Of course a zero-tolerance policy is the best policy. Of course we should not tolerate their actions or ideology. The piece never suggested we should. Disrupting their ability to recruit others and spread their message is absolutely crucial for combating this threat, and that is the kind of work Life After Hate does (or did, before their funding was cut). The leaders of the white supremacist movement organized that Charlottesville rally to be held without hoods, because they WANTED their members to be identified and shamed, so that they would be ostracized and recognized as a Nazi for life, and would feel like they had no way out of the movement. It was their way of forcing a lifetime commitment. To me, that shows the leaders' greatest fear is exactly the kind of work Life After Hate is doing, and that's good enough for me.