Intolerance for intolerance feels better to me. Why, I wonder?

@2 because the dividing line between avowed progressive liberals and klansmen is much, much, muuuch smaller than you think.

Just don't eye their women.

Individual, local actions do not create mass change and white supremacy has to be dismantled institutionally, not in people's hearts. Impugning the guy in his quest to save souls seems harsh and unnecessary. It is a personal crusade and that's as noble as someone living in a tiny house and producing zero waste. Good for them!

I feel similar to @5 - This guys mission is admirable (as far as I can tell), and no, he's not going to change the world. But neither are the "radicals," on their own. We're talking micro level and macro-level; both are okay; both are needed. I don't think he's causing harm. We need more positive action of all types if we want things to change.

Look, this is war, and in war we need all the tactics; the full-frontal D-Day invasion, the clandestine partisan maquis, the paratroopers, the Air Force, and yes, diplomacy.
To impugn one or another tactic, especially when *it's clearly working* is counterproductive at best, and reactionary at very worst.

@3,

Interesting point. Albeit one with absolutely no logical basis whatsoever, nor grounding for construction thereof, but interesting.

@8 you're right,I guess some of us are ascended beings who are immune to certain ideologies. Perhaps you've evolved some special organ that senses Gaia's rules for fairness in the universe. I mean there's no possible way that people from a particular region who heavily skew towards one ideology could be equal to another group who skews towards a different ideology, right? Obviously we must make sure that it's abundantly clear that one group is inferior and the other inferior; one is capable of rational thought and the other are subhuman troglodytes who obviously can't think for themselves.

I favor a diversity of tactics. If this guy's approach works on some people, great, glad he's doing it. Does that mean in-your-face activism should end? Hell, no.

We can do both. The people who want to go the Martin Luther King, Jr route are needed just as much as the people who want to go the Malcolm X route. Nothing succeeds without both.

@9,

I didn't suggest folks aren't susceptible to a broad range of ideologies. I'd just be interested to see a correlation between liberal progressives and klansmen, because it seems highly suspect.

@9,

Turns out I owe you a pretty serious apology. Here I'd thought your comment was nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense, but damn if I didn't do a search for something corroborating your claim and land on some pretty damning footage. My bad. You seen this? Problem is even worse than I could've imagined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnyZ7WbY…

Thanks for calling it to my attention!

@11 the difference, literally, is who your parents are and what community you grow up in. That's it. You'r born in the middle of the teeter totter. One sweet word to 6-year-old you, and you'd be high fiving your friends right now over the Sessions confirmation and hitting "interested" on the Diamond Bar Klan Much event on Facebook. That's the entirety of the difference.

#13: Ideology matters, ends matter. This is something the idiots trying to compare liberals and leftists who laughed at Spencer getting punched to fascists (they're exactly the same) don't seem to get. It is categorically impossible for me to be as bad as Spencer because I don't advance or advocate for genocide, ethnic cleansing or racial purity. Spencer's ends make him fundamentally different from the guy who punched him, his political objectives if carried out would end in mass murder. What he believes actually does fucking matter.

The idea that because two groups have an ideology or both groups have enemies, real or perceived, they're are basically the same a disingenuous argument. There is a significant difference between loathing someone because of the ideas and beliefs they've accumulated and loathing someone because of the accident of their birth. "Race" and sex are highly distinct from political class because they are based on biological traits. Right-wingers are not born, they're made, and they have beliefs that are verifiable and can be argued with. The notion they're somehow victims is absurd, and the idea that liberals dislike their beliefs is tantamount to racism is idiotic in the extreme. Political beliefs are all up for debate. Not only do ends matter, so do means, and your comparison is stupid on that front too. When liberals start threatening to intern, ethnically cleanse or shoot people, then you can compare them to the far right, but that's not happening because liberals tend to believe in things tolerance and nonviolence. They might shit on your beliefs but they're not gonna LARP in the woods with assault weapons over them.

Your beliefs matter, your efforts to turn them into concrete policies that affect people matter. And in liberal democracy, certain ideas should be condemned. That doesn't make us the same as the KKK because we're calling people biologically inferior, We're not arming ourselves and threatening violence, We're not calling for violent war against the government, attacking immigrant groups we don't like or annihilating racists. It doesn't matter how much we hate their stupid beliefs; we're not the same.

#13: You're also a concern troll.