They call themselves a “fraternity” to give ideological cover to their far-right beliefs and history of violence.
Instead, why not use the designation of a professional third-party, like the @splcenter, which calls them a “hate group”?
-
I did because you were, Shane. You jumped in to mansplain Atomwaffen to a female far-right researcher, like she had no idea what she was talking about. Making that kind of bad-faith assumption is sexist. Taking issue with someone’s word choice is not.
Think about it for two seconds— literally no one who has heard of the Atomwaffen is unaware that they’re white supremacists. Why would you make that assumption?
-
-
This plays on a long used rhetoric of vague "extremism," which is also extended to militant left revolutionary organizations and creates a broad set of impacts from joint terrorism task forces.
-
So you read a tweet, didn’t get the context, and assumed a woman didn’t know what she was talking about. Gotcha.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So the statement seemed to lack measure because it made behavior that could easily be on the radical left the issue rather than the open white supremacy. The mention of the flag burning seemed particularly strange.
-
She was describing what they were doing in their latest recruitment video, Shane. It’s the fact that a white supremacist murder cult is recruiting that alarmed her, not that they were burning a flag. Learn to read with good faith, not like you gotta explain stuff to women.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I didn't make that assumption, I didn't like that specific post. The post suggested that what was scary about Atomwaffen was their shooting of guns and the burning of the flag. That uses a narrative that it is those characteristics that make it frightening, I disagree.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.