Unless James Damore is planning to march tomorrow, how is that relevant to this discussion?

You're again using exactly the tactic I described: bringing up white supremacists to derail any discussion and discredit any person the left doesn't approve of.

I'm not the one saying that Damore is part of "the alt right". Neither is 'geofft. One of his supporters is. I have no particular reason to believe they're right. Most conservatives, even the ones who write bad memos, aren't "alt right" people, just like most liberals aren't actual communists. My interest is in establishing something about "the alt right", not about Damore. So, can you answer the question now?

I've already given the answer to your question:

Whoever marches in Charlottesville represents those who march in Charlottesville. They don't speak for the rest of the "alt-right", whatever that is.

Can we safely assume that people who literally march in solidarity with neo-Nazis lose the rhetorical privilege of objecting to comparisons between them and Nazis? (That doesn't make them "actual Nazis", it just makes the comparison germane).

Can we assume that if some duly constituted group --- whatever definition we choose --- sponsors a march in solidarity with neo-Nazis, and the group is not riven with dissent over that action, that it's germane to compare members of that group (or, at least, those who knowingly remain after the march) with Nazis? Again: the action isn't dispositive; it just means the comparison, right or wrong, isn't frivolous.

> Can we safely assume that people who literally march in solidarity with neo-Nazis

Are we talking about anyone who's done so here?

If not, why bring them up?

I answered that question directly one comment prior. Is the question I just asked hard to answer? I am not building to an indictment of James Damore, if that's what you're wondering.

If you're asking about "the alt-right", you'll first have to define it.

As far as I know, that's not some duly constituted group - it's an insult used against a wide variety of people ("everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders") by their political adversaries.

And the intention of the insult is to encourage exactly what happened here - to associate people like James Damore with people like those marching in Charlottesville.

That's specifically not the question I asked. I wasn't asking about "the alt right". I deliberately removed "the alt right" from the question to avoid a pointless debate about what "the alt right" is.

One of the very first things I wrote here said not only that I don't have evidence that Damore is part of "the alt right" ---- one of his enthusiastic supporters did --- but to reject the logic that would assign him to any such group. Conservatives are not neo-Nazis. I'm not a conservative, but I have plenty of conservative friends, and I actually enjoy talking to them about policy more than to my fellow liberals.

So, again, I'm just interested in the principles here. Could you check out those two questions I asked upthread and give me a quick take on them? Thanks!

I think we've strayed too far off topic here. Since you've confirmed we're not talking about James Damore or even "the alt-right", I'm pretty sure nothing we're discussing is on-topic anymore.

Ok, but then I'm going to suggest that it is effectively impossible to compare anyone to a Nazi on the Internet, even if they are actual neo-Nazis.

I think that's a weird outcome but I believe that's where we're at.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from my statement that such a discussion is off-topic here...

Well, I guess because it's not off topic?

Here's what happened on this thread (all paraphrased):

1. "This firing was so dumb that it's going to drive lots of people into the arms of the alt-right".

2. "That's useful for the left because it allows them to call people Nazis without invoking Godwin's law".

3. "That's not what Godwin's law says, and regardless, the Nazi/alt-right comparison isn't frivolous.

And here we are.

My stake in this discussion isn't about Damore, who, for the third time, I don't believe is an alt-right figure (much as the alt-right would love to claim him as one). Rather, it's in challenging the trope that some accusations --- racism, Naziism, maybe communism? --- are so outré that they can't be made. That creates a safe space for people to actually be Nazis.

Your points 1 and 3 are about the alt-right...but you just said you weren't talking about the alt-right.

How is Charlottesville relevant again?

Because I'm leaving open --- or, really, stipulating --- the argument that "the alt right" doesn't have a clear enough definition to make those comparisons. I'm content to make comparisons with more specific subgroups.

What I see here is me going out of my way to accommodate your concerns about this discussion, and you trying to use those concessions as ammunition. I understand why that happens (it's a message board), but I'm not trying to score points off you.

I feel like you're trying to drag me down exactly the road I warned about.

This page is about James Damore, so why are we spending so much time talking about white supremacists and Nazis?

Unless you can directly justify the connection, I'm going to continue pointing out that making such irrelevant and unjustified associations is a common smear tactic.