If a neo-Nazi breaks the law, that’s why we have law enforcement.

I gave you the SPLC story showing that membership in the KKK has ebbed and flowed, significantly, over time.

Are you saying you want to declare martial law against anyone that voices an opinion you don’t agree with? That anyone in the US that espouses an ideology you hate requires that war be declared against them with you leading the mob?

No, I haven’t been the victim of violence from a neo-Nazi, or an antifa member, in my life.

Like I said: People claiming to be anti-fascist yet relying on fascist tactics to defeat other fascists is the height of irony. It should not be applauded.

Your map measures the number of groups since 1990 and not members of each group so it’s a little misleading in that regard.

I guess this means you can’t go to MSU and talk or something. I’m sure being flagged for hate speech on the internet is the worst thing she could think to do to you. People really take things to heart here.

She gave the exact answer you wanted:

Please. Far-right groups in the US have always ebbed and flowed in both raw numbers claiming to belong to such groups as well as the number of such groups. The ebbs and flows tend to be tied to economic factors. When our economy is in the tank, they draw members. When things are going well, they don’t.

If showing up and protesting Nazis actually resulted in shutting them up, I’d agree with your stance and join you in it. That would be a good result worth protesting to achieve.

Yeats got it right:

It’s true that you send a message to the Nazis, but it may not be the message you want to send. In the Boston example, the Nazis are thinking “Wow, only 30,000 people came out to protest against us in a city of 700,000! And I bet most of those 30,000 came from New York City!” or something similar.

That’s where most of these threads end up. If you won’t agree you must be psychotic. It’s truly the only explanation for why everyone can’t agree with me. They’re all psychotic while I’m perfectly normal. It’s science.

I still subscribe to the time is like a rubber band and am eagerly awaiting the Big Crunch although I have a long wait ahead of me. But it’s hard to argue with Rust Cohle.

I think that actually protesting something makes sense. If you want to fight against, say, a pipeline being built across land you consider sacred, by all means get a protest going.

Your assumption that time is actually linear, instead of simply how we perceive it, shows your knowledge of physics is as limited as your knowledge of American jurisprudence. You may want to do some research into Relativity.

No. It’s a definite fact you’re never going to repeal the First Amendment.

If you truly understood it, you’d understand being critical of Constitutionally-guaranteed protections amounts to nothing. You can criticize the First Amendment all day long, every day of your life.

Great, now we’re at the “I know you are, what am I!” stage! This is always fun.

I think your fundamental failure to understand the American legal system is at the root of your problem. You’re arguing about something you do not understand and, obviously, that hinders your ability to talk intelligently about the issue.