Proud Boys - what are they?

[Angry Floof]

Many individuals within Proud Boys are white nationalists and the group hangs out with white nationalists. Recall Charlottesville was organized by one of these GIANT turds. Since a couple of years ago, they have been desperately seeking legitimacy and so they took on a Latino leader and replaced words like "white" with "western" and words like "race" with "culture." They got rid of Gavin McInnes who said something about Jews among other terrible things. Aside from constantly being at Black Lives Matter rallies to beat people in the head with baseball bats while they scream "fag," they do have a small percent of black members...some of them paid actors and some not. I mean, you have crazy people everywhere like Kanye West or that black guy that supports the Confederacy. So without invoking the No True White Nationalist Organization fallacy, I am going to say that at present they are more like a gateway drug to White Nationalism. And as in the video many individuals are actual white nationalists. So, if it makes someone butthurt to call them white nationalists, fine, just don't do it. You have freedom to call them something else, like neo-fascist, neo-white-nationalist, white-nationalist-adjacent, white-supremacist-allied, useful idiots to white supremacy, nascent Nazis, the counter revolution, whatever. The question of who they are is answered, though, and so you don't need to dwell on it further.

You seem to be so "triggered" that you missed that the post was to illustrate my claim that Wiki has a lot of opinion stated as fact. It was in response to Angry Floof's claim that Wiki is infallible.

Please show where I said it is infallible.

 

[skepticalbip]

You seem to be so "triggered" that you missed that the post was to illustrate my claim that Wiki has a lot of opinion stated as fact. It was in response to Angry Floof's claim that Wiki is infallible.

Please show where I said it is infallible.

Ok. I used a metaphor (infallible) rather than your long rant over how unbiased, reliable, objective, and dependable Wiki entries are.

 

[Angry Floof]

You seem to be so "triggered" that you missed that the post was to illustrate my claim that Wiki has a lot of opinion stated as fact. It was in response to Angry Floof's claim that Wiki is infallible.

Please show where I said it is infallible.

Ok. I used a metaphor (infallible) rather than your long rant over how unbiased, reliable, objective, and dependable Wiki entries are.

Aaaaand please show where I said "unbiased, reliable, objective, and dependable."

Putting words in my mouth that validate whatever shit you want to believe today doesn't mean I actually said it. Wikipedia has strict standards and requirements. Bullshit gets through, but rarely is it anything that a human with a brain can't tell. You can tell when a statement in Wikipedia has a source associated with it, right? You know how to click the citation number link to the references section and from there you usually find a link to the source material or at the very least a citation of a non-digital source, right?

Is it because you don't understand all this that you can't tell whether it's reliable and therefore you can just refute whatever is there that you don't like without examination?

Wikipedia is useful when you are trying to get information. Just like the old print encyclopedia, Wiki has to constantly update because the world changes constantly.

Also, "infallible" is not a metaphor.

Anyway, Proud Boys are a far right white supremacist group no matter how much you try to dance around that fact.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You seem to be so "triggered" that you missed that the post was to illustrate my claim that Wiki has a lot of opinion stated as fact. It was in response to Angry Floof's claim that Wiki is infallible.

Please show where I said it is infallible.

Ok. I used a metaphor (infallible) rather than your long rant over how unbiased, reliable, objective, and dependable Wiki entries are.

Conservatives get triggered over facts and science all the time. That's why they have to invent their own versions of websites. In this instance, they invented conservopedia to fight an imaginary fight against conservatism and religion. Because you know, Satan is tricking people into believing in Evilution. It's just part of the whole cultural learning of being a conservative that you become biased against Wikipedia...but science is science. A study was conducted checking the accuracy and detail of Wikipedia and results published in Nature. The results were actually nearly comparable to Encyclopedia Britannica. Now, you can complain all you want about this but it doesn't help you to get at what you purported to want to know. You wanted to know who the Proud Boys are and whether they are white supremacist or not. You've got an even better answer in the thread, complete with examples of members and their violent, sometimes racist actions. Why split hairs now over trying to make a label when you have actual recorded actions, the thing you said is more important than words??

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It would appear gay men have taken over #ProudBoys on Twitter.

 

[repoman]

It would appear gay men have taken over #ProudBoys on Twitter.

Nice, like taking over the rainbow. I approve.

 

[Copernicus]

Proud Boys certainly does vociferously protest any claim that they are white supremacists, but it is also true that white supremacists don't often want to be branded with that label. They are not as diverse racially, as some might think. I only know of one person who looks to be of African descent, and that is the Florida leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio. He is a fairly dark-skinned Cuban American who is also the head of Latinos for Trump. He freely flashes the 'white power' hand signal, just like any white supremacist, but he also clearly uses his appearance to promote the idea that Proud Boys is racially integrated, even though many of its members go out of their way to promote white supremacist propaganda, e.g. white genocide conspiracy theory. The white power gesture is another way of conveying the message without acknowledging overtly their prejudice. I suspect that Enrique Tarrio considers himself more of a dark-skinned Latino than an African American.

Wikipedia correctly labels them as "affiliated with white supremacist groups", but the dogwhistling could not be louder. They are engaged in the now common practice of whitewashing rhetoric surrounding their racism in order to convey the impression that they are respectable and mainstream. This kind of thing has been going on since David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK, promoted himself for public office. Proud Boys promotes what the call "western chauvinism", but that label clearly maps onto white supremacy. The "western" part refers to Europe-dominated culture, which is overwhelmingly white in racial terms. Chauvinism refers to the supremacy of a group. That's how dogwhistling works. I would urge people not to simply accept their denials of white supremacist dogma at face value.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Yes, he looks black enough to question white supremacy part.

Yes, that's entirely the point.

I think that their being a militant right wing extremist group is the reason they have been labeled as 'white supremacists'. People use labels damned sloppily. If they were burning black churches or chasing blacks out of restaurants and bars then the label would apply. As it is they are a militant right wing extremist group that confronts militant left wing extremist groups.

Before I opened the thread and began reading elsewhere what they did, the only thing I had heard about them is that they were white supremacists. I kinda expected to find their behavior focused on separating blacks and whites in society, assaulting mixed race couples, etc. but didn't find that.

So, basically only the stuff they can go to jail for will convince you - and probably they'd have to be convicted, and openly admit that they only did it because they are white supremacists? Pretty difficult to start a 'movement' that way. Incidentally, how do you know they didn't burn a black church, or mosque? Because they didn't take out an ad in the paper or brag about it on their website?

aa

 

[fromderinside]

That is a serious question. I have heard the news calling them "white supremacists" but I know nothing about the 'organization'. I just googled to see what they are and found that the chairman (Enrique Tarrio) is black and Cuban hispanic... that clicks two of the favored groups. Is the news media mis-characterizing this group? They do seem to oppose antifa (which is mostly whites). Does that make proud boys white supremacists in the minds of the media personalities?

They are racist because they set up the muddle in Charlotte that lead to the injury of several and the death of one by attack by car. Broadly defined a racist is one who believes he is above others and a law until himself. Proud Boys are not really racist. The are just a huge waste of unthinking conspiracy enabler flesh on American soil.

The choice of which of my labels you prefer are for you.

 

[southernhybrid]

It would appear gay men have taken over #ProudBoys on Twitter.

I read about this today. It's a wonderful idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/05/proudboys-twitter-lgbtq-takei/

At last week’s presidential debate, President Trump refused to condemn white supremacists and far-right groups like the Proud Boys, an organization that has been known to incite violence.
The president’s comment telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” provided a boost to the group on social media, emboldening its members to use Trump’s words as a rallying cry. Two days later, amid rising outrage, Trump denounced the group.
But then actor and activist George Takei suggested a clever comeback — a way to drown out the hate on social media and replace it with something, well, gay.
“What if gay guys took pictures of themselves making out with each other or doing very gay things, then tagged themselves with #ProudBoys. I bet it would mess them up real bad. #ReclaimingMyShine,” Takei, who is gay, tweeted on Thursday.

I hope they totally wipe out the racist, homophobic childish proud boys with this effort!

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is a serious question. I have heard the news calling them "white supremacists" but I know nothing about the 'organization'. I just googled to see what they are and found that the chairman (Enrique Tarrio) is black and Cuban hispanic... that clicks two of the favored groups. Is the news media mis-characterizing this group? They do seem to oppose antifa (which is mostly whites). Does that make proud boys white supremacists in the minds of the media personalities?

Racism is out of fashion now. Even among the extreme right. The left media will label anything they don't like on the right as "white supremacist". It's just guilt by association.

Fascism often correlates with racism. But it isn't necessarily racist.

Even racist far right movements can be supportive and encouraging of other races, assuming the representative of that race is impressive somehow. Which complicates things further.

I have a Swedish friend who is black and was a professional elite athlete. Very tall and built like a house. Also intelligent and extremely funny. As well as pretty relaxed about things in life. An all around perfect specimine of manliness. He was doing some sports charity thing in the Swedish sticks next to where there was a neo Nazi conference of sorts. When they saw his impressive physique they invited him over and bought him drinks. According to his retelling of this story everybody wanted to be his friend. They thought he was awesome. I think this is pretty standard for how racists think. They only have a problem with brown people when they do less than impressive things. So I don't think there's necessarily a problem for a racist to join a far right movement led by a black person. Not if the black guy is cool enough.

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, he looks black enough to question white supremacy part.

Wait till you hear about Jesse Lee Peterson.

Or for that matter, William Hannibal Thomas.

For that matter, a lot of the current black conservative grifter class repeats anti-black talking points at CPAC and the like, specifically because they find easy marks there. Candace Owens is a great example of this.

 

[southernhybrid]

Yes, he looks black enough to question white supremacy part.

Wait till you hear about Jesse Lee Peterson.

Or for that matter, William Hannibal Thomas.

For that matter, a lot of the current black conservative grifter class repeats anti-black talking points at CPAC and the like, specifically because they find easy marks there. Candace Owens is a great example of this.

When we lived in Raleigh, NC, my husband worked with a Black guy who was always putting down other Black people. Yes. Black people can be racist in regard to their own. Members of this forum have accused White people of being racist toward other White people, so why would anyone think that some Black people don't hate people who share their own physical characteristics.

Anyone remember hearing of the paper bag test ? Black folks who had much lighter skin were often very prejudice toward Black people who were darker than they were. That was in the past, but there will always be people who have racist views toward their own kind.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, he looks black enough to question white supremacy part.

Wait till you hear about Jesse Lee Peterson.

Or for that matter, William Hannibal Thomas.

For that matter, a lot of the current black conservative grifter class repeats anti-black talking points at CPAC and the like, specifically because they find easy marks there. Candace Owens is a great example of this.

When we lived in Raleigh, NC, my husband worked with a Black guy who was always putting down other Black people. Yes. Black people can be racist in regard to their own. Members of this forum have accused White people of being racist toward other White people, so why would anyone think that some Black people don't hate people who share their own physical characteristics.
.

This seems to be a good example of how the word, racist, has been so overused and misused that it has become almost meaningless. Blacks, like whites, can have differing political views. Having a different political view is not racism regardless of the race of the person holding an opposing political view.

 

[southernhybrid]

When we lived in Raleigh, NC, my husband worked with a Black guy who was always putting down other Black people. Yes. Black people can be racist in regard to their own. Members of this forum have accused White people of being racist toward other White people, so why would anyone think that some Black people don't hate people who share their own physical characteristics.
.

This seems to be a good example of how the word, racist, has been so overused and misused that it has become almost meaningless. Blacks, like whites, can have differing political views. Having a different political view is not racism regardless of the race of the person holding an opposing political view.

Would you prefer the word prejudice or bigotry? The point is that just because a person is Black or White doesn't mean they aren't capable of hating or judging members their own race or ethnicity. It doesn't really matter which word you use, the result is the same.

 

[skepticalbip]

When we lived in Raleigh, NC, my husband worked with a Black guy who was always putting down other Black people. Yes. Black people can be racist in regard to their own. Members of this forum have accused White people of being racist toward other White people, so why would anyone think that some Black people don't hate people who share their own physical characteristics.
.

This seems to be a good example of how the word, racist, has been so overused and misused that it has become almost meaningless. Blacks, like whites, can have differing political views. Having a different political view is not racism regardless of the race of the person holding an opposing political view.

Would you prefer the word prejudice or bigotry? The point is that just because a person is Black or White doesn't mean they aren't capable of hating or judging members their own race or ethnicity. It doesn't really matter which word you use, the result is the same.

A black (or white) who strongly disagrees with another (either black or white) over their politics is not racial prejudice or racial bigotry. It is political disagreement. If the political disagreement degenerates into personal animosity over politics of the other individual then it is personal, not racial.

Otherwise the majority of those on this board are racists, racists against whites because the strongly disagree politically with people who are white and conservative. The question is do you claim that they are they racists against blacks because they strongly disagree with the political views of black conservatives? ... This would apparently include you if you disagree politically with people like Candice Owens, Ben Carson or Justice Clarence Thomas or the many other black conservatives.

 

[Copernicus]

Would you prefer the word prejudice or bigotry? The point is that just because a person is Black or White doesn't mean they aren't capable of hating or judging members their own race or ethnicity. It doesn't really matter which word you use, the result is the same.

A black (or white) who strongly disagrees with another (either black or white) over their politics is not racial prejudice or racial bigotry. It is political disagreement. If the political disagreement degenerates into personal animosity of the other individual then it is personal, not racial.

I don't know why you have so much trouble with the concept of racial bigotry. Denying its existence is really part of the problem, and that plays very well in the rhetoric game that racial bigots have come to use these days. Segregation did not come about because of political disagreements, but Republicans can use segregation to gerrymander voting districts, because African Americans tend to vote Democratic these days. All they need to do is call it political gerrymandering, and the Republican-controlled Supreme Court will bless it. Personal animosity is not prejudice, unless it is personal animosity directed at an entire group of people, most of whom the person with the animosity does not know and never even met. Racism has always existed in America, and Proud Boys is an example of a racist group. The white power hand signal figures prominently in group photos. That is not a coincidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

Would you prefer the word prejudice or bigotry? The point is that just because a person is Black or White doesn't mean they aren't capable of hating or judging members their own race or ethnicity. It doesn't really matter which word you use, the result is the same.

A black (or white) who strongly disagrees with another (either black or white) over their politics is not racial prejudice or racial bigotry. It is political disagreement. If the political disagreement degenerates into personal animosity of the other individual then it is personal, not racial.

I don't know why you have so much trouble with the concept of racial bigotry. Denying its existence is really part of the problem, and that plays very well in the rhetoric game that racial bigots have come to use these days.

WTF. Do you really have such a serious problem with reading comprehension? Hell yes there is bigotry, prejudice, and racism among people of all races. However political disagreement is not any of those things.

 

[Deepak]

I don't know why you have so much trouble with the concept of racial bigotry. Denying its existence is really part of the problem, and that plays very well in the rhetoric game that racial bigots have come to use these days.

WTF. Do you really have such a serious problem with reading comprehension? Hell yes there is bigotry, prejudice, and racism among people of all races. However political disagreement is not any of those things.

So the 3/5ths compromise wasn't racist since it's a political difference?

I don't agree with the grammar of your assertion, and the reason people are looking askance at it is because whether something is political and whether something is racist is orthogonal.

If you're saying that people call any political disagreement racism, well then it doesn't seem that you've supported that assertion - and more it seems like you're trying to do an end-around.

 

[Mumbles]

Would you prefer the word prejudice or bigotry? The point is that just because a person is Black or White doesn't mean they aren't capable of hating or judging members their own race or ethnicity. It doesn't really matter which word you use, the result is the same.

A black (or white) who strongly disagrees with another (either black or white) over their politics is not racial prejudice or racial bigotry. It is political disagreement. If the political disagreement degenerates into personal animosity over politics of the other individual then it is personal, not racial.

Otherwise the majority of those on this board are racists, racists against whites because the strongly disagree politically with people who are white and conservative. The question is do you claim that they are they racists against blacks because they strongly disagree with the political views of black conservatives? ... This would apparently include you if you disagree politically with people like Candice Owens, Ben Carson or Justice Clarence Thomas or the many other black conservatives.

For those who don't know:

William Hannibal Thomas wrote that black people are "inherently inferior" to white people, while Peterson praised god for slavery and refers to Dolt 45 as "the great white hope", and told primary candidate Andrew Yang to "go back to China". He's joined in such nonsense by Candace Owens, who said Adolf Hitler's only problem was wishing to expand beyond Germany's borders, offered to send black Americans "back to Africa", and is one of the black grifters who blathers about how black people are "on the democrat plantation".

I feel perfectly fine saying that all three are racist against black people despite themselves being black, regardless of motivation.