It would be enlightening to have a complete explanation of the military uniform that Sheriff Leon Wilmot was wearing and its decorations. What do the four yellow stripes on his sleeve represent? Ditto for the six yellow rectangles on his left sleeve. The three rows of medal ribbons: what are they and when did he win them? Do sheriffs take part in military campaigns?
Chuckle. Someone told me the stripes are for years of service -- Wilmot has been in the sheriff's office for decades. I suspect the pins are for like professional orgs -- but there's no real rules and some dont wear dress uniforms at all. (It might be helpful to note that Wilmot's hobby is restoring old military tanks.)
I was thinking more about this, and I think the military-style uniform does imply something in the context of these hearings -- that the USA is at war with "migrants" -- which I think is poisonous (and immoral). His outfit is claiming the authority of a general in this imaginary "war," which is false -- he's not a general, he's not an immigration expert, and the militarization at the southern us/ mexico border is not the same as immigration policy. Conflating the idea of the southern border as a "dangerous war zone" with the ages-old activity of people moving from one country to another (which is what people do) is impactful for people prone to look for a scapegoat to very real societal problems (like fentanyl overdoses). The outfit makes it looks like Wilmot is "on the ground" in some kind of war -- which seems bad! But, of course, that's what these hearings are all about.
Good question. So, I prefer the term "far-right" because I think it more properly encompasses the view. "Far-right" indicates a political viewpoint that is moving towards fascism, totalitarianism, etc. The reason I use it is because of the viewpoints it represents: desire for gender/ sex conformity (so, anti-trans and anti-feminism), xenophobia, racism or white supremacy, chauvinism, and theocratic. Adherents to far-right ideologies do not necessarily agree with all of these things, but they are all united with a desire to move "back" to an imagined past that is homogenous, religious, and generally oriented towards traditional gender roles.
I use it as a general framing. There are different categories for far-right ideologies that do different things. They make take actions to support those views including political or violent oppression, ethnic cleansing, and armed insurrection.
I am not quite sure what you mean. The far-right engages in many actions -- some are oppositional to the government, like protest or excluding out-groups, and some are with the government, like passing laws, lobbying, holding hearings etc. So, the House Judiciary hearings are far-right activity when their rhetoric is anti-immigrant and their goals are ending immigration to the US. But, as you mention, social media campaigns or other types of online actions can also be far-right activity. All social movements use these tactics. This is why personally I don't use the word "extremist," which generally implies "using extra-judicial violence as a tactic." I am referring here to a set of beliefs. The tactics are all the same -- as you say, you might work with the political system to change laws or lobby (which is how government works) or you might engaging in activities like social media campaigns, protests, etc etc.
Data shows that far-right protest activities and beliefs are correlated with greater violence, as in more people die as a result of far-right activities. For example, mass shooters are more likely to express far-right belief systems. January 6 was a violent, far-right protest.
I feel as though this question is not really in good faith -- I don't know what distinction you are making. In terms of trans rights, yes, of course, some people seek to change laws or prevent laws from passing (again, how government works) and some people might hold a rally or a social media campaign. Whether such movements are "successful" or not seems subject to many other things.
The truth is that in terms of violent results, like genocide or violent oppression, the far-right is more willing to use that as a tactic, proven both materially (e.g. militia movements, historical and today, mass shooters, the killing of abortion providers) and theoretically (e.g. the use of violent rhetoric or rhetoric that makes people believe violence is okay, like suggesting people are under an "invasion," uplifting people who commit violence, suggesting that people may need to resort to violence means.). So "functionally," as you say, I am more concerned about the far-right because data shows they produce more violence both within the political system (e.g. mass incarceration) and without (e.g. January 6).
I don't know who "we" and "us" are...my focus is on political movements (of which lots of people write plenty more than I do) than on individual beliefs. I have a law degree and I have taught "rhetoric" because I also have an MFA, and I have literally no idea what you are trying to get me to say. I think I was pretty clear. I agree the definitions are vague, and I can only explain why I say what I say, but cannot make some sort of universal justification.
In the above post, I mean specifically that the House Judiciary "border" hearings are invoking rhetoric designed to make people fear and loathe migrants -- which is something Wilmot is well familiar with because he has long belonged to groups whose goal is net zero immigration using the logic of "migrants are changing our culture." The use of "we" and "our" (much as you use it) implies an Othering that is known to lead to political violence.
No, I don't have a solution here, other than to point out that othering migrants/ people from other countries is not productive to creating an inclusive society. Also I make no money on this, so whatever my bottom-line is, my random substack about sheriffs hardly is doing anything as glamorous as you imply. I am flattered to think I am so much influence.
Also, the notion that far-right political violence is a problem (and vastly more of a problem than "far left political violence") is supported by facts from the FBI and otherwise. It has been true since Reconstruction and the Klan. Gun violence as a problem is, yes, more complex and not well-studied because it was illegal for many years (thanks to the right, mind you). I am not saying there aren't other causes of violence, but you asked, in a roundabout way, what I mean by far-right and why. Not all people on the far-right use violence, but some do, and some throw around rhetoric that encourages some people to be violent. Do I think that is bad? Yes, I do. I have been in far-right spaces, so it's not like I don't talk to people or know what they mean. I DO know what they mean, and that's why I am concerned and write a substack so people can understand why I think it's a concern. I don't generally think anyone is a "murderous psychopath" but I do think encouraging people to see migration as a threat to their way of life (eg Paul Gosar) leads people to believe that violence is necessary, indeed justified. It's the exact opposite of irrational. It is also dangerous if your goal is some sort of democratic, socially diverse, tolerant, caring, and non-violent society. Is that my goal? Yes, indeed, it is.
Okay. You obviously aren't in any way unclear as to what you think. You asked your question in what seems to be bad faith in order to denounce the "evil Leftists".
It would be enlightening to have a complete explanation of the military uniform that Sheriff Leon Wilmot was wearing and its decorations. What do the four yellow stripes on his sleeve represent? Ditto for the six yellow rectangles on his left sleeve. The three rows of medal ribbons: what are they and when did he win them? Do sheriffs take part in military campaigns?
Chuckle. Someone told me the stripes are for years of service -- Wilmot has been in the sheriff's office for decades. I suspect the pins are for like professional orgs -- but there's no real rules and some dont wear dress uniforms at all. (It might be helpful to note that Wilmot's hobby is restoring old military tanks.)
I was thinking more about this, and I think the military-style uniform does imply something in the context of these hearings -- that the USA is at war with "migrants" -- which I think is poisonous (and immoral). His outfit is claiming the authority of a general in this imaginary "war," which is false -- he's not a general, he's not an immigration expert, and the militarization at the southern us/ mexico border is not the same as immigration policy. Conflating the idea of the southern border as a "dangerous war zone" with the ages-old activity of people moving from one country to another (which is what people do) is impactful for people prone to look for a scapegoat to very real societal problems (like fentanyl overdoses). The outfit makes it looks like Wilmot is "on the ground" in some kind of war -- which seems bad! But, of course, that's what these hearings are all about.
Good question. So, I prefer the term "far-right" because I think it more properly encompasses the view. "Far-right" indicates a political viewpoint that is moving towards fascism, totalitarianism, etc. The reason I use it is because of the viewpoints it represents: desire for gender/ sex conformity (so, anti-trans and anti-feminism), xenophobia, racism or white supremacy, chauvinism, and theocratic. Adherents to far-right ideologies do not necessarily agree with all of these things, but they are all united with a desire to move "back" to an imagined past that is homogenous, religious, and generally oriented towards traditional gender roles.
I use it as a general framing. There are different categories for far-right ideologies that do different things. They make take actions to support those views including political or violent oppression, ethnic cleansing, and armed insurrection.
I don't know why you bothered replying, and so cogently too. It is obvious that your questioner has no interest in learning.
I actually think the use of terminology is a fair question, but I suspect you are right.
I am not quite sure what you mean. The far-right engages in many actions -- some are oppositional to the government, like protest or excluding out-groups, and some are with the government, like passing laws, lobbying, holding hearings etc. So, the House Judiciary hearings are far-right activity when their rhetoric is anti-immigrant and their goals are ending immigration to the US. But, as you mention, social media campaigns or other types of online actions can also be far-right activity. All social movements use these tactics. This is why personally I don't use the word "extremist," which generally implies "using extra-judicial violence as a tactic." I am referring here to a set of beliefs. The tactics are all the same -- as you say, you might work with the political system to change laws or lobby (which is how government works) or you might engaging in activities like social media campaigns, protests, etc etc.
Data shows that far-right protest activities and beliefs are correlated with greater violence, as in more people die as a result of far-right activities. For example, mass shooters are more likely to express far-right belief systems. January 6 was a violent, far-right protest.
I feel as though this question is not really in good faith -- I don't know what distinction you are making. In terms of trans rights, yes, of course, some people seek to change laws or prevent laws from passing (again, how government works) and some people might hold a rally or a social media campaign. Whether such movements are "successful" or not seems subject to many other things.
The truth is that in terms of violent results, like genocide or violent oppression, the far-right is more willing to use that as a tactic, proven both materially (e.g. militia movements, historical and today, mass shooters, the killing of abortion providers) and theoretically (e.g. the use of violent rhetoric or rhetoric that makes people believe violence is okay, like suggesting people are under an "invasion," uplifting people who commit violence, suggesting that people may need to resort to violence means.). So "functionally," as you say, I am more concerned about the far-right because data shows they produce more violence both within the political system (e.g. mass incarceration) and without (e.g. January 6).
I don't know who "we" and "us" are...my focus is on political movements (of which lots of people write plenty more than I do) than on individual beliefs. I have a law degree and I have taught "rhetoric" because I also have an MFA, and I have literally no idea what you are trying to get me to say. I think I was pretty clear. I agree the definitions are vague, and I can only explain why I say what I say, but cannot make some sort of universal justification.
In the above post, I mean specifically that the House Judiciary "border" hearings are invoking rhetoric designed to make people fear and loathe migrants -- which is something Wilmot is well familiar with because he has long belonged to groups whose goal is net zero immigration using the logic of "migrants are changing our culture." The use of "we" and "our" (much as you use it) implies an Othering that is known to lead to political violence.
No, I don't have a solution here, other than to point out that othering migrants/ people from other countries is not productive to creating an inclusive society. Also I make no money on this, so whatever my bottom-line is, my random substack about sheriffs hardly is doing anything as glamorous as you imply. I am flattered to think I am so much influence.
Also, the notion that far-right political violence is a problem (and vastly more of a problem than "far left political violence") is supported by facts from the FBI and otherwise. It has been true since Reconstruction and the Klan. Gun violence as a problem is, yes, more complex and not well-studied because it was illegal for many years (thanks to the right, mind you). I am not saying there aren't other causes of violence, but you asked, in a roundabout way, what I mean by far-right and why. Not all people on the far-right use violence, but some do, and some throw around rhetoric that encourages some people to be violent. Do I think that is bad? Yes, I do. I have been in far-right spaces, so it's not like I don't talk to people or know what they mean. I DO know what they mean, and that's why I am concerned and write a substack so people can understand why I think it's a concern. I don't generally think anyone is a "murderous psychopath" but I do think encouraging people to see migration as a threat to their way of life (eg Paul Gosar) leads people to believe that violence is necessary, indeed justified. It's the exact opposite of irrational. It is also dangerous if your goal is some sort of democratic, socially diverse, tolerant, caring, and non-violent society. Is that my goal? Yes, indeed, it is.
Okay. You obviously aren't in any way unclear as to what you think. You asked your question in what seems to be bad faith in order to denounce the "evil Leftists".