Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That is all you have? He's a poor ole misunderstood white nationalist Nazi?

All I have what? You are the one claiming he advocates for genocide. Sounds like to me, you are the one with the burden to back up that claim, not me.

I think that these National Socialist groups support genocide generally, but one particular individual and especially a spokesperson won't admit it because they're trying to appear legitimate as part of a strategy for growth.

 

[laughing dog]

That is all you have? He's a poor ole misunderstood white nationalist Nazi?

All I have what? You are the one claiming he advocates for genocide. Sounds like to me, you are the one with the burden to back up that claim, not me.

I thought genocide was an integral part of Naziism. A Nazi who did not advocate or approve of genocide would be a rare Nazi indeed. What reason would you have to doubt that a Nazi did not advocate or approve of genocide?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Just to recap...

Hovater comes from a town where kkk killed person/people.

He ran for office as a white nationalist. Said he was always a white nationalist.

Co-founding member of party went to group meet up with kkk to burn crosses. That member got a slap on the wrist from united alliance group because they are supposed to appear modern and mild.

Hovater helped to organize charlottesville. He was interviewed on the street where he pretended to be an average joe. He said he converted to white nationalism after seeing white poverty in Appalachia.

Meanwhile, his group plans a white takeover of Appalachia with purges of theoretically unknown methods but in practice we know how the purges would happen.

Hovater works as a cook at a restaurant with wife and brother-in-law. Took 2 day trip to charlottesville. Restaurant would have known what was going on.

Months after Charlottesville, ny times does a puff piece on this guy and his average joe schtick. Not well-researched. Calls him your nazi next door with mild midwestern manners. People make a stink. Restaurant alleges they received threats and hovater and crew are forced to pack up as average joe "victims" of the regressive the left.

In reality the restaurant knew he was a nazi all along. They would have had to let him go because their business was being boycotted. There could in theory have been threats, too, but i doubt the restaurant is a reliable source.

Fascist propaganda probably...

 

[blastula]

So the failing NY Times is fake news.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So the failing NY Times is fake news.

Our reporter and his editors agonized over the tone and content of the article. The point of the story was not to normalize anything but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think.

We described Mr. Hovater as a bigot, a Nazi sympathizer who posted images on Facebook of a Nazi-like America full of happy white people and swastikas everywhere.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/...ormalizing-a-nazi-sympathizer-we-respond.html

I think the failure of the particular article was because they agonized over style and not content. They wanted to present a juxtaposition between Nazism and ordinary life. So much so, that they failed to research and illuminate Hovater's background as well as check the veracity of what he said and the restaurant said (in any follow-ups). They're playing damage control now for their style still, but not correcting the content problem by supplementing information about Hovater.

 

[Arctish]

So the failing NY Times is fake news.

Our reporter and his editors agonized over the tone and content of the article. The point of the story was not to normalize anything but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think.

We described Mr. Hovater as a bigot, a Nazi sympathizer who posted images on Facebook of a Nazi-like America full of happy white people and swastikas everywhere.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/...ormalizing-a-nazi-sympathizer-we-respond.html

I think the failure of the particular article was because they agonized over style and not content. They wanted to present a juxtaposition between Nazism and ordinary life. So much so, that they failed to research and illuminate Hovater's background as well as check the veracity of what he said and the restaurant said (in any follow-ups). They're playing damage control now for their style still, but not correcting the content problem by supplementing information about Hovater.

They should start by dropping the term 'Nazi sympathizer' and just go with 'Nazi'. Mr. Hovater as a bigot and a Nazi.

Some Americans are Nazis. It's time to face that fact squarely and stop trying to dance around it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/...ormalizing-a-nazi-sympathizer-we-respond.html

I think the failure of the particular article was because they agonized over style and not content. They wanted to present a juxtaposition between Nazism and ordinary life. So much so, that they failed to research and illuminate Hovater's background as well as check the veracity of what he said and the restaurant said (in any follow-ups). They're playing damage control now for their style still, but not correcting the content problem by supplementing information about Hovater.

They should start by dropping the term 'Nazi sympathizer' and just go with 'Nazi'. Mr. Hovater as a bigot and a Nazi.

Some Americans are Nazis. It's time to face that fact squarely and stop trying to dance around it.

Yeah, I gotta agree. It's like calling members of Charles Manson's cult, "murderer sympathizers."

ETA: to continue...Hovater's party is called Traditionalist Workers Party. The other leader of the party was found outside the courthouse where Fields was being arraigned or held or something...that leader was screaming about how Fields ended up killing the girl and running over people because of lack of police presence, not, you know, because Fields is a disturbed Nazi who was a fan of Adolf Hitler since middle school. The media ran over to Heimbach (I think is his name) to cover his ranting and raving. Finally, one of the people who were beating the black guy with the pipes had two symbols on his person: one was an "88" which stands for Heil Hitler and the other was a Traditionalist Workers Party symbol.

 

[Underseer]

Just to recap...

Hovater comes from a town where kkk killed person/people.

He ran for office as a white nationalist. Said he was always a white nationalist.

Co-founding member of party went to group meet up with kkk to burn crosses. That member got a slap on the wrist from united alliance group because they are supposed to appear modern and mild.

Hovater helped to organize charlottesville. He was interviewed on the street where he pretended to be an average joe. He said he converted to white nationalism after seeing white poverty in Appalachia.

Meanwhile, his group plans a white takeover of Appalachia with purges of theoretically unknown methods but in practice we know how the purges would happen.

Hovater works as a cook at a restaurant with wife and brother-in-law. Took 2 day trip to charlottesville. Restaurant would have known what was going on.

Months after Charlottesville, ny times does a puff piece on this guy and his average joe schtick. Not well-researched. Calls him your nazi next door with mild midwestern manners. People make a stink. Restaurant alleges they received threats and hovater and crew are forced to pack up as average joe "victims" of the regressive the left.

In reality the restaurant knew he was a nazi all along. They would have had to let him go because their business was being boycotted. There could in theory have been threats, too, but i doubt the restaurant is a reliable source.

Fascist propaganda probably...

Whoa, whoa, whoa there!

First, you're not allowed to call them white nationalists, white supremacists, Nazis, or fascists anymore. We're supposed to call them "alt right free speech advocates" in order to avoid triggering conservolibertarian snowflakes.

Also, you're not allowed to criticize alt right free speech advocates unless you use a "both sides" argument to try and make them seem less bad. By failing to do this, you could trigger most Republicans and establishment/moderate Democrats.

Now apologize for being politically incorrect!

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, it is a war crime when enacted. Just like discrimination is a crime when enacted.

Moore-Coulter much?

I did not suggest they were equal in magnitude.

A person holding discriminatory views, or even arguing that discrimination should be legal... is not the same as a person actively discriminating.
A person believing that pot should be legal, or even preaching from a soapbox that it should be legal... is not the same as a person actively smoking pot.
A person believing, or even arguing, that genocide should be adopted as a policy... is not the same as a person murdering large groups of people - no matter how odious and hateful their belief is.

Me believing that your "fallacy" is a silly and weak attempt at self-aggrandizement by inventing a politically-motivated and transparently flawed comparison is not the same as me saying something to you directly that would be prohibited by the rules of this forum. You've always been pretty good at walking right up to the edge of the line and peeking over while keeping your toes on the right side of it. You should be able to see that distinction.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Me believing that your "fallacy" is a silly and weak attempt at self-aggrandizement by inventing a politically-motivated and transparently flawed comparison is not the same as me saying something to you directly that would be prohibited by the rules of this forum.

Yes, yes, and being a Nazi who likes to terrorize black people and kill them when no one is looking isn't the same thing as being their political leader who needs to keep a milder cover in order to have a legitimate political party ala David Duke's strategy. You really seem to get nuance, but harping on those differences is like trying to rearrange the chairs of the burning Reichstag.

You've always been pretty good at walking right up to the edge of the line and peeking over while keeping your toes on the right side of it. You should be able to see that distinction.

You haven't. Moreover, you're just repeating tired, refuted arguments, trying desperately to cling to distinctions you've made and mistakenly thought the law supported.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I seem to believe in basic rights of right to life and liberty of which those who want to commit genocide are against and actively undermine and so as a potential owner of a hypothetical establishment I would not hire any genocidal maniacs or serial killers because that would be too much risk of infringement on those rights to life and liberty of my patrons.

Are you under the impression that all Nazis are genocidal maniacs or serial killers? Do you feel that their belief is equivalent to action?

Really, you can't not hire someone to a private restaurant with no govt contracting who is a serial killer who wants to kill your customers? Please show me the law that says that.

I am not forced to hire someone that I **KNOW** is a serial killer. If I **KNOW** a person is a serial killer, I should turn them in to the police.

This, however, is pretty much irrelevant. Wile it's certainly possible that some Nazis are serial killers, it's extraordinarily unlikely that all Nazis are serial killers. Using that as the basis for why Nazis should be denied employment is fallacious.

 

[Emily Lake]

Look it is simple. Nazis are fucking evil.

It's actually not simple.

Actually, it is. Nazism is evil. The nazis marching with tiki torches in Virginia were chanting for the blood of Jews. That's evil.

Actually, it is that simple. Pro-Choicers are evil. They organize and rally to have the right to kill babies. That's evil.

See how easy it is? Just take your morality, and apply it unflinchingly on "them" and ta-da! It's perfectly acceptable to justify denying those evil-doers their rights!

Oh, and just for fun: Atheists are evil. They organize and protest their ungodly ways, and undermine the true reason for Christmas. That's evil.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, it is. Nazism is evil. The nazis marching with tiki torches in Virginia were chanting for the blood of Jews. That's evil.

Yes, Nazism is evil. That's simple enough, but if you read beyond the first five words of my post you might discover what I mean with "It's actually not simple".

See, that is the problem. A person adheres to evil Nazi principles, fuck 'em. See, that simple. That someone wants to write paragraphs as to why firing people who advocate for genocide is problematic is not of my concern.

A person adheres to something you think is evil, therefore 'fuck 'em'. They don't deserve their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Jimmy said so, so it's cool that way? What happens when someone else decides that your beliefs are evil and unacceptable... and thinks you're the one it's okay to fuck over? Is that still acceptable to you?

 

[Emily Lake]

You clearly do not know anyone who survived the Holocaust or who had family killed by the Nazis. I do. Whether you believe it or not, it would be the traumatic for anyone of them to hire a know Nazi or to keep a known Nazi in their employment.

That's an absurd bit of mind-reading. Not only is it wrong, it's illogical. You're arguing that I should throw principles and reason out the window in favor of raw emotionalism.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, there is no point. Defending the right to advocate genocide is despicable behavior, no matter how high of a pedestal you try to do it from.

Defending the right to murder babies is despicable behavior, no matter how high of a pedestal you try to do it from.

Seems those pro-lifers have a Jimmy-approved basis for their arguments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You clearly do not know anyone who survived the Holocaust or who had family killed by the Nazis. I do. Whether you believe it or not, it would be the traumatic for anyone of them to hire a know Nazi or to keep a known Nazi in their employment.

That's an absurd bit of mind-reading. Not only is it wrong, it's illogical. You're arguing that I should throw principles and reason out the window in favor of raw emotionalism.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, there is no point. Defending the right to advocate genocide is despicable behavior, no matter how high of a pedestal you try to do it from.

Defending the right to murder babies is despicable behavior, no matter how high of a pedestal you try to do it from.

Seems those pro-lifers have a Jimmy-approved basis for their arguments.

Are you seriously going down the 'use the Holocaust for cheap political points' path? Usually an argument is void if you have to use the holocaust to try and defend your point, unless of course one is discussing people who don't condone the holocaust and march about calling for the blood of Jews.

But honesty, I really wasn't expecting any better with your response. *shrug*

 

[laughing dog]

You clearly do not know anyone who survived the Holocaust or who had family killed by the Nazis. I do. Whether you believe it or not, it would be the traumatic for anyone of them to hire a know Nazi or to keep a known Nazi in their employment.

That's an absurd bit of mind-reading. Not only is it wrong, it's illogical.

As usual, you fail to even bother to substantiate your claims. Which makes them indistinguishable from crapola. My comments are based on experiences with real people with real feelings. It is reality-driven observation. Try it some time.

You're arguing that I should throw principles and reason out the window in favor of raw emotionalism.

I am not arguing that you should do anything. I am defending my position.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I seem to believe in basic rights of right to life and liberty of which those who want to commit genocide are against and actively undermine and so as a potential owner of a hypothetical establishment I would not hire any genocidal maniacs or serial killers because that would be too much risk of infringement on those rights to life and liberty of my patrons.

Are you under the impression that all Nazis are genocidal maniacs or serial killers? Do you feel that their belief is equivalent to action?

Nazism is belief in actions that they will commit to when allowed by circumstance. It's not like a belief in Buddha or a belief that the sky is red. It's an ACTIONABLE belief system. So, if a Nazi can get away with killing or hurting a minority, the probability is strong that they will do so. Some Nazis of course also don't gas all the minorities, they might just be cogs in the machine, making the gas and giving it to others. So, for example, a Nazi cook might not try directly to kill a black customer, but instead he might call his violent friends to show up at the restaurant and tail the black customers until they catch them and do what they will.

I will add that in the specific case of Tony Hovater, his group members seem to be violent, but he is supposed to be the political leader with the face of mildness like David Duke. If you would hire David Duke to supply black churches with food across the South, then that is just naive and reckless with other people's lives.

Really, you can't not hire someone to a private restaurant with no govt contracting who is a serial killer who wants to kill your customers? Please show me the law that says that.

I am not forced to hire someone that I **KNOW** is a serial killer. If I **KNOW** a person is a serial killer, I should turn them in to the police.

This, however, is pretty much irrelevant. Wile it's certainly possible that some Nazis are serial killers, it's extraordinarily unlikely that all Nazis are serial killers. Using that as the basis for why Nazis should be denied employment is fallacious.

Not only are you not making sense, you are ascribing beliefs to me I did not state.

As I already wrote and now I have to repeat for the interested reader, I am looking at this from a position of risk for specific jobs, not a global ban of Nazis from anything. So, let's look at risk. Risk is a convolution of probability and severity. Severity in this case could be trying to poison all the Jewish customers or minority customers. Or calling one's friends to give info about minority customers. Or spitting and pooping in the food of minorities. Or something as little as anti-social behaviors and not working well with others. Probability in this case would be small for someone trying to kill all the minorities, but overall the risk assessment is not acceptable for this job function.

Should a Nazi be a lifeguard in a black community? Nope, not that either. How about a wood worker in a white community? Sure. Someone boxing shelves in the back of a grocery store with no or little risk to customers? Sure.

Again, this is the same thing as saying a pedophile should not work at a daycare center. It's an analysis of risk for specific conditions.

Now, you never addressed that and dodged it, so you are not using that as an analogy while still ascribing to me a position I do not have of a blanket ban against Nazis from employment.

Finally, I will add that you're still dodging every single analogy. Now, it's that you'll call the police on serial killers...but not addressing the issue of pedophiles. So, what if it's a serial killer who used to kill little girls and got out of prison after 60 years? Are you going to hire him to be your girls' soccer coach?

 

[fromderinside]

Go west, then north, then further north, then west.

Turn around. Go go east, then south, then east, then north. Turn around.

Go south, then west, then further west, then south. Turn around

Go north, then east, then south, then east. Turn around

Repeat until you are told to stop.*



*^{_{What Hitler did until he came up with the idea of the swastika.}}

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nazism is belief in actions that they will commit to when allowed by circumstance. It's not like a belief in Buddha or a belief that the sky is red. It's an ACTIONABLE belief system. So, if a Nazi can get away with killing or hurting a minority, the probability is strong that they will do so. Some Nazis of course also don't gas all the minorities, they might just be cogs in the machine, making the gas and giving it to others. So, for example, a Nazi cook might not try directly to kill a black customer, but instead he might call his violent friends to show up at the restaurant and tail the black customers until they catch them and do what they will.

I will add that in the specific case of Tony Hovater, his group members seem to be violent, but he is supposed to be the political leader with the face of mildness like David Duke. If you would hire David Duke to supply black churches with food across the South, then that is just naive and reckless with other people's lives.

Really, you can't not hire someone to a private restaurant with no govt contracting who is a serial killer who wants to kill your customers? Please show me the law that says that.

I am not forced to hire someone that I **KNOW** is a serial killer. If I **KNOW** a person is a serial killer, I should turn them in to the police.

This, however, is pretty much irrelevant. Wile it's certainly possible that some Nazis are serial killers, it's extraordinarily unlikely that all Nazis are serial killers. Using that as the basis for why Nazis should be denied employment is fallacious.

Not only are you not making sense, you are ascribing beliefs to me I did not state.

As I already wrote and now I have to repeat for the interested reader, I am looking at this from a position of risk for specific jobs, not a global ban of Nazis from anything. So, let's look at risk. Risk is a convolution of probability and severity. Severity in this case could be trying to poison all the Jewish customers or minority customers. Or calling one's friends to give info about minority customers. Or spitting and pooping in the food of minorities. Or something as little as anti-social behaviors and not working well with others. Probability in this case would be small for someone trying to kill all the minorities, but overall the risk assessment is not acceptable for this job function.

Should a Nazi be a lifeguard in a black community? Nope, not that either. How about a wood worker in a white community? Sure. Someone boxing shelves in the back of a grocery store with no or little risk to customers? Sure.

Again, this is the same thing as saying a pedophile should not work at a daycare center. It's an analysis of risk for specific conditions.

Now, you never addressed that and dodged it, so you are not using that as an analogy while still ascribing to me a position I do not have of a blanket ban against Nazis from employment.

Finally, I will add that you're still dodging every single analogy. Now, it's that you'll call the police on serial killers...but not addressing the issue of pedophiles. So, what if it's a serial killer who used to kill little girls and got out of prison after 60 years? Are you going to hire him to be your girls' soccer coach?

I will add the following... laughing dog pointed out holocaust survivors may have ptsd around nazis. This specific case is representative of harm that hiring a Nazi may have to employees. So this is also a risk I would have to look at as a potential business owner. I would try to be responsible to my customers, my business strategy, and my employees.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hypothetical: So you've hired one Nazi and two Nazi collaborators at a small family-owned business that prepares and serves food to the general public, to include minorities.

What does your business continuity plan look like?

What types of events and disasters have you planned for? Are you mitigating them to acceptable levels? Are you eliminating them?

Show you work.

 

[Emily Lake]

I will add the following... laughing dog pointed out holocaust survivors may have ptsd around nazis. This specific case is representative of harm that hiring a Nazi may have to employees. So this is also a risk I would have to look at as a potential business owner. I would try to be responsible to my customers, my business strategy, and my employees.

1) Holocaust survivors are in their 80s now. While they should certainly be respected, they are not a core customer segment of most businesses.
2) They would have to actually KNOW that the person is a Nazi for them to experience ptsd. How would they know?
3) How do you know a person is a Nazi before you hire them? Is this a question that you ask during their interview? Do you ask about any other political ideology or belief system during your interview?

++++

4) Here's where you're engaging in special pleading: Survivors of the current middle-east conflict may have ptsd around people of middle-eastern descent. Survivors of 9-11 may have ptsd around people of middle-eastern descent. Do you support an argument that people of middle eastern descent shouldn't be allowed to hold jobs where they might trigger someone's ptsd?
5) Let's extend this special pleading just a tiny bit - it's not even very far... Survivors of sexual abuse may have ptsd around men in general... should men not be allowed to hold jobs where a woman might be exposed to them and experience ptsd?