Support NeoGAF

David___ · Mar 15, 2018

You'd think this would pass easily, but I guess not?

A House committee declined to pass a resolution that stated Tennessee denounces white nationalism and neo-Nazism.

It asked law enforcement agencies to consider the groups “domestic terrorist organizations," and to pursue criminal charges against them as police would in other types of terrorism.

If approved, the House would have resolved to “strongly denounce and oppose the totalitarian impulses, violent terrorism, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that are promoted” by the groups.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...condemn-neo-nazi-white-nationalist/425083002/

camelCase · Mar 15, 2018

A law to say that nazis are bad?

David___ · Mar 15, 2018

camelCase said:
A law to say that nazis are bad?

A law that would label neo-nazis as a domestic terrorist organization(or at least encourage them to do so) and be treated as such. Its in the 2nd quote in a short OP.

camelCase · Mar 15, 2018

David___ said:
A law that would label neo-nazis as a domestic terrorist organization and be treated as such. Its in the 2nd quote in a short OP.

I read it, lol. What a petty jab.

camelCase · Mar 15, 2018

Anyway it's a dumb law. Terrorism is still terrorism if by any other name and there is no difference to the state whether the perpetrator was a nazi or not. Anyone who thinks naziism is a legitimate problem big enough worth talking about today in America, hasn't been to America. I don't live in the south but people do not greet hate well where I'm from and would probably (unfortunately) go the route of those antifa assholes who mob justice'd a guy in the face because he had a swastika.

It's hotbutton political pandering

Bryank75 · Mar 15, 2018

Them and Antifa, both have to go.

EviLore · Mar 15, 2018

It's not the world's most shocking headline by any stretch, given Tennessee and all. The fact that the legislature didn't want to to touch it tells me that they're both conscious of these elements in their base and worried about losing the constituents sympathetic to White Nationalists, Nazis, etc. more so than they are about this largely symbolic measure. Dunno that it's especially noteworthy, though, aside from being another one for the endless pile of feel-bad articles.

On the I-really-don't-want-to-but-it-might-act-in-service-of-discussion devil's advocate side of this, the resolution seems worded broadly and vaguely, and expanding the classification of "terrorism" with vague, easily-abused language has rarely acted in the best interest of society or justice up to this point. Reading the full article, though, there's no mention of that as a consideration. Just crickets from the state legislators after the motion was brought forward.

David___ · Mar 15, 2018

EviLore said:
It's not the world's most shocking headline by any stretch, given Tennessee and all. The fact that the legislature didn't want to to touch it tells me that they're both conscious of these elements in their base and worried about losing the constituents sympathetic to White Nationalists, Nazis, etc. more so than they are about this largely symbolic measure. Dunno that it's especially noteworthy, though, aside from being another one for the endless pile of feel-bad articles.

This is the main thing that I'm worried about really. Like these people make up a significant amount of the voter base to the point that even an obvious symbolic gesture doesn't get through. If these were negligible numbers I doubt they would care about them, but considering they do it tells me they make up a good chunk of the voting base.

It's Jeff · Mar 15, 2018

So I'm confused about this, at least from what the article cites. It reads:

If approved, the House would have resolved to “strongly denounce and oppose the totalitarian impulses, violent terrorism, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that are promoted” by the groups.

The problem is that the article cites a gathering where there was no violent terrorism. The rest of this bullshit is rightfully protected speech. If these Tennessee Nazi asses are doing commiting terrorism, this movement makes sense. If you're trying to label them terrorists for demonstrations and ideas... you're fucking up. The Supreme Court will quash that.

way more · Mar 15, 2018

I would have liked to see that law debated. The problem is that if it became law it might go to the Supreme Court and suddenly there is a precedent saying the opposite of what you want. If they ruled such a law illegal then the mandate is "Neo-Nazis cannot be considered terrorists."

Corrik · Mar 15, 2018

To be fair, this is a misleading title. It declined to label neo-nazis domestic terrorist groups. Which is a lot different than refusing to denounce them. In fact, it is world of difference.

Doom85 · Mar 15, 2018

camelCase said:
Anyone who thinks naziism is a legitimate problem big enough worth talking about today in America, hasn't been to America.

So how many more Charlottesvilles have to occur before it is a problem? Seriously, maybe they're not one of the biggest issues the country is facing, but acting like it's a non-issue is just ignoring the reality of recent events.

LordPezix · Mar 15, 2018

Damn I would imagine that a lot of our great and or grand fathers wouldn't have a problem sorting out the situation, given they lvl'd up a few times while they were getting them "100 nazi scalpes!".

How the fuck did we even allow racist bastards like these on our soil, shit pisses me off man.

It's Jeff · Mar 15, 2018

Doom85 said:
So how many more Charlottesvilles have to occur before it is a problem? Seriously, maybe they're not one of the biggest issues the country is facing, but acting like it's a non-issue is just ignoring the reality of recent events.

I'm curious about your perspective on this. What is the reality of recent events, from what you see? A growing concern, something that's been underneath the surface - can you expand on this?

RokkanStoned · Mar 15, 2018

I don't really see what's bad with declining this one. It seems to be an attack on first amendment rights and doesn't even fit the most common definition of terrorism.
If a neo-nazi commits indiscriminate violence in order to create fear and reach political ends, then just charge them for domestic terrorism. If an organization of neo-nazis does so, then charge them. They're allowed to spew their hate though, so trying to brand them as domestic terrorists because of what they stand for, is just silly if you value the first amendment.

llien · Mar 15, 2018

But what's the point to conflate terrorism with other bads?
If the point is to have harsher punishment for it, it could be done without re-defining what terrorism does.
Neo-nazi might or might not be terrorists.

"totalitarian impulses"

Sensible chuckle.

mckmas8808 · Mar 15, 2018

camelCase said:
Anyway it's a dumb law. Terrorism is still terrorism if by any other name and there is no difference to the state whether the perpetrator was a nazi or not. Anyone who thinks naziism is a legitimate problem big enough worth talking about today in America, hasn't been to America. I don't live in the south but people do not greet hate well where I'm from and would probably (unfortunately) go the route of those antifa assholes who mob justice'd a guy in the face because he had a swastika.

It's hotbutton political pandering

And this is why the Nazis will always be liked in this country by a certain segment of people.

ickythingz · Mar 16, 2018

Antifa hasn't been labeled terrorists why should neo nazis?

Dubloon7 · Mar 16, 2018

ickythingz said:
Antifa hasn't been labeled terrorists why should neo nazis?

.................smh

Shamylov · Mar 16, 2018

I think some of you are confused about what a resolution is. This isn't intended to be a law prohibiting anything; this is a statement from a legislative body just to express something.

What's so difficult about saying Nazis and white supremacists are bad and putting it in writing?

RokkanStoned · Mar 17, 2018

Shamylov said:
I think some of you are confused about what a resolution is. This isn't intended to be a law prohibiting anything; this is a statement from a legislative body just to express something.

What's so difficult about saying Nazis and white supremacists are bad and putting it in writing?

First of all, no one's confused about it.
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HJR0583.pdf
This is pretty easy stuff to dismiss. Read all of it.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge law enforcement to recognize these white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations and to pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner [...]"

The resolution had a signal toward law enforcement as well as to classify white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations. The second bolded shows that the former refers to a wide branding, rather than just the more circular "terrorist neo-Nazi organizations are terrorist organizations". It should definitely be rewritten, because it's signaling an attack on the first amendment's freedom of assembly. It would be better if it said something about a focus on investigating terrorism activities in the neo-Nazi and white nationalist milieu, as well as making sure that it's not ignored compared to other terrorist investigations (which the part after the bolded shows them at least being the intention).

Second of all, it's a pointless resolution and sloppily made. It was an obvious political play by a democrat for something they'd obviously have to decline to pass. It'd basically be responded to by tons of resolutions against environmental, communist and socialist organizations. All of these things have a history of violence, hate and terrorism can be argued.
More so, just look at some of the things in the resolution: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that our State, the great State of Tennessee, and its people will not tolerate discrimination or hate in any form or manifestation [...]". This would effectively say "we don't tolerate discrimination or hate against nazis" with the whole of Tennessee behind it.

It's all a political play that media and everyone eats up. That's why the last line is about copies to almost everyone. It would be better if the resolution was rewritten to something that's less a political ploy and waste of time. At worst it would be a provocation that causes said groups to increase their activity, under fear of being under attack. It would be better to have a federal focus on investigation of neo-Nazi and white supremacist terrorism anyways, and political violence in general.

TTOOLL · Mar 17, 2018

ickythingz said:
Antifa hasn't been labeled terrorists why should neo nazis?

The same reason you can advocate for Communism freely and wear Che Guevara T-shirts.

rokkerkory · Mar 17, 2018

Some of the responses in this thread suggests defending nazis... my my my how soon we forget the tragedies of our recent past.

Shamylov · Mar 17, 2018

RokkanStoned said:
First of all, no one's confused about it.
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HJR0583.pdf
This is pretty easy stuff to dismiss. Read all of it.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge law enforcement to recognize these white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations and to pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner [...]"

The resolution had a signal toward law enforcement as well as to classify white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations. The second bolded shows that the former refers to a wide branding, rather than just the more circular "terrorist neo-Nazi organizations are terrorist organizations". It should definitely be rewritten, because it's signaling an attack on the first amendment's freedom of assembly. It would be better if it said something about a focus on investigating terrorism activities in the neo-Nazi and white nationalist milieu, as well as making sure that it's not ignored compared to other terrorist investigations (which the part after the bolded shows them at least being the intention).

Second of all, it's a pointless resolution and sloppily made. It was an obvious political play by a democrat for something they'd obviously have to decline to pass. It'd basically be responded to by tons of resolutions against environmental, communist and socialist organizations. All of these things have a history of violence, hate and terrorism can be argued.
More so, just look at some of the things in the resolution: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that our State, the great State of Tennessee, and its people will not tolerate discrimination or hate in any form or manifestation [...]". This would effectively say "we don't tolerate discrimination or hate against nazis" with the whole of Tennessee behind it.

It's all a political play that media and everyone eats up. That's why the last line is about copies to almost everyone. It would be better if the resolution was rewritten to something that's less a political ploy and waste of time. At worst it would be a provocation that causes said groups to increase their activity, under fear of being under attack. It would be better to have a federal focus on investigation of neo-Nazi and white supremacist terrorism anyways, and political violence in general.

This isn't a law so there's no infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. This resolution would merely have been a statement from the legislative body. I'm not sure why you're worried it's "sending a signal" when it's literally expressing opposition to white supremacists.

Also, you could argue all resolutions are political and pointless since the point is to make an official statement rather than a law. But this resolution isn't particularly useless. If anything, the fact that Republicans failed to get on board with such a simple message against white-supremacist groups means this resolution was quite useful in exposing their attitude towards them.

RokkanStoned · Mar 17, 2018

Shamylov said:
This isn't a law so there's no infringing on anyone's constitutional rights. This resolution would merely have been a statement from the legislative body. I'm not sure why you're worried it's "sending a signal" when it's literally expressing opposition to white supremacists.

Just because it isn't a law, doesn't mean it wouldn't infringe on someone's constitutional right if it tries to bypass legal process and get law enforcement to infringe instead. As I pointed out, the whole resolution is contradictive. Pass that and you'll look like an idiot that can't keep a single line of thought.

Also, you could argue all resolutions are political and pointless since the point is to make an official statement rather than a law. But this resolution isn't particularly useless. If anything, the fact that Republicans failed to get on board with such a simple message against white-supremacist groups means this resolution was quite useful in exposing their attitude towards them.

Resolutions do matter, when they're actually signaling a directions in which likely future action will be taken, but this isn't one of those. They can also be a good signal right after something happens, like if someone made a resolution after the school mass shooting. And this resolution literally includes a segment that would defacto defends the groups it attacks as well. There's ways to show opposition to racism that's not arbitrary, that doesn't delve into gray areas and that's internally consistent. It should be rewritten, as I said.
It's easy to be against neo-Nazis, white supremacists, black supremacists, criminals of various kind, radical muslims, etc. But our modern society exemplifies itself in the way it also protects those people as well. Since people are allowed their opinions, no matter how heinous, and since they're allowed to organize, it's always better to try measures in getting people out of those environments and prevent them from getting in them, rather than make a pompous statement that's not really well thought out. That's why I pointed out the few good parts of it, like making sure terrorism in those organizations isn't ignored and investigated like all other terrorism. And recommending the important focus in coming from federal law enforcement, in possibly linking multiple organizations to a larger network that commits or plans terrorist acts.
More so, a resolution like this could just end up with a resolution against Antifa, a resolution against socialist organizations and a resolution against communist organizations.

J Bro · Mar 18, 2018

Oh man, one guy ran down one woman in a car one time. Better start passing laws like crazy about this epidemic of Nazism. Let's all go to Trump rallies and beat up women with bike locks to show that this is not okay. /s

Kotzen Ducha · Mar 18, 2018

Thank God this didn't pass. How many liberals have been labeled Nazis? I have for not toeing the Twitter mob line on certain fringe issues.

Labels are scary because they aren't always used properly, so legislating against one seems like a bad idea.

It's Jeff · Mar 18, 2018

J Bro said:
Oh man, one guy ran down one woman in a car one time. Better start passing laws like crazy about this epidemic of Nazism. Let's all go to Trump rallies and beat up women with bike locks to show that this is not okay. /s

Haven't you heard? Nazis are everywhere. They're not a fringe group of assholes that always have more counter protesters than supporters by a wide margin. Have you looked in your bushes lately? Checked the closets?

J Bro · Mar 18, 2018

It's Jeff said:
Haven't you heard? Nazis are everywhere. They're not a fringe group of assholes that always have more counter protesters than supporters by a wide margin. Have you looked in your bushes lately? Checked the closets?

I looked under the bed but it was just another violent protestor...err...I mean brave anti-fascist. Luckily, I dodged the pepper spray.

SatansReverence · Mar 18, 2018

rokkerkory said:
Some of the responses in this thread suggests defending nazis... my my my how soon we forget the tragedies of our recent past.

Quote one...

Defending the freedom of speech regardless of who the speaker is, is one thing. Defending nazis is a totally different one. Stop being disingenuous.

*on topic*

You have to have a seriously broken perception of the world if you think it's ok to just label thing you don't like as terrorism.

Terrorism has a specific meaning for a reason. If it didn't, we could label feminist organisations as terrorists...

It's Jeff · Mar 18, 2018

J Bro said:
I looked under the bed but it was just another violent protestor...err...I mean brave anti-fascist. Luckily, I dodged the pepper spray.

You're lucky. My nephew spilled Fruity Pebbles on my kitchen floor. Instead of cleaning it up, he kicked it under the stove. Month later, there's a nest of Nazis under there. Don't leave food out man, that's how you get Nazis.

StrikeNinja24 · Mar 18, 2018

SatansReverence said:
Quote one...

Defending the freedom of speech regardless of who the speaker is, is one thing. Defending nazis is a totally different one. Stop being disingenuous.

*on topic*

You have to have a seriously broken perception of the world if you think it's ok to just label thing you don't like as terrorism.

Terrorism has a specific meaning for a reason. If it didn't, we could label feminist organisations as terrorists...

Nope, defend a nazi, get called out for it. I don't care about some loose interpretation of an amendment that the defenders didn't bother to understand.

You don't get to straddle the line anymore when one side is literal fucking nazis screaming "Jews will not replace us" in the streets, armed to the teeth.

Gun Animal · Mar 18, 2018

wish they'd passed it just to see the supreme court forced to overturn it.

since there are no self-described neo-nazis (besides federal agents and plants) can we please identify what views constitute 'Neo-Nazism'?

Ridcully · Mar 18, 2018

ickythingz said:
Antifa hasn't been labeled terrorists why should neo nazis?

They have, though, and I suspect therein lies a distinction. I would hazard the label is for organisations, rather than ideologies.

Hulk_Smash · Mar 18, 2018

It's Jeff said:
So I'm confused about this, at least from what the article cites. It reads:

If approved, the House would have resolved to “strongly denounce and oppose the totalitarian impulses, violent terrorism, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that are promoted” by the groups.

The problem is that the article cites a gathering where there was no violent terrorism. The rest of this bullshit is rightfully protected speech. If these Tennessee Nazi asses are doing commiting terrorism, this movement makes sense. If you're trying to label them terrorists for demonstrations and ideas... you're fucking up. The Supreme Court will quash that.

I just want to ditto this and add that this legislature saw right through it and knew they would be headed down the path of labeling a hate group as criminal even though they’ve committed no crime. This is bad law all around... unless you think criminalizing thoughts and speech is double-plus good.

Also, I wonder what the echo chamber over at the site-that-must-not-be-named thinks of this. Just for the lulz.

Rocket Number 22 · Mar 18, 2018

And who gets to decide what constitutes a neo Nazi? Outlawing actual Nazis is fine but everyone is Hitler now so it could be convienient to label anyone right of the far left a Nazi, I have even seen people on that other site call Joe Rogan and Boogie alt right for being centrists

Whats next? Outlawing Russians because they hacked the planet?

It's Jeff · Mar 18, 2018

Hulk_Smash said:
I just want to ditto this and add that this legislature saw right through it and knew they would be headed down the path of labeling a hate group as criminal even though they’ve committed no crime. This is bad law all around... unless you think criminalizing thoughts and speech is double-plus good.

Also, I wonder what the echo chamber over at the site-that-must-not-be-named thinks of this. Just for the lulz.

When conservatives were shitting their pants about Ice T's repetitive and rather forgettable Cop Killer, calling it dangerous and installing hatred, I disagreed then as well. Repugnant as they may be, Tennessee Nazis are protected to speak and gather. You are not a terrorist until you commit acts of terror. Ice T is not a cop killer until he kills a cop.

Nobody likes Nazis. Their ideology is dog shit cooking on a flat top grill. But Tennessee made the right call this time.

zumphry · Mar 18, 2018

Rocket Number 22 said:
And who gets to decide what constitutes a neo Nazi?

Lawmakers, presumably...lol..

Spheyr · Mar 19, 2018

StrikeNinja24 said:
Nope, defend a nazi, get called out for it. I don't care about some loose interpretation of an amendment that the defenders didn't bother to understand.

You don't get to straddle the line anymore when one side is literal fucking nazis screaming "Jews will not replace us" in the streets, armed to the teeth.

Carrying tiki torches isn't armed to the teeth

mckmas8808 · Mar 19, 2018

SatansReverence said:
Quote one...

Defending the freedom of speech regardless of who the speaker is, is one thing. Defending nazis is a totally different one. Stop being disingenuous.

*on topic*

You have to have a seriously broken perception of the world if you think it's ok to just label thing you don't like as terrorism.

Terrorism has a specific meaning for a reason. If it didn't, we could label feminist organisations as terrorists...

Do you believe the KKK were terrorist?

Cybrwzrd · Mar 19, 2018

The modern day news cycle.

Stage 1 Actual story-

Senator Bumblefark does not think children should be used as a food source

Stage 2 Article title-

Senator Bumblefark thinks babies are a delicious food source

Stage 3 Blog post -

Senator Bumblefark eats babies!

Stage 4 Discussion site - *we are here*

Nazi Bumblefark sucks the marrow from baby bones!

Stage 5 4chan -

Bumblefark leads a secret baby cannibalism sex ring

Stage six Facebook -

5 surprising new ways to prepare babies, Senator Bumblefark hates #5!

SatansReverence · Mar 19, 2018

mckmas8808 said:
Do you believe the KKK were terrorist?

I don't think anything the KKK do is for political gains and is purely for hate.

So, that would be a no.

Just to clarify for people who apparently do not know

Terrorism - the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

TrainedRage · Mar 19, 2018

Cybrwzrd said:
The modern day news cycle.

Stage 1 Actual story-

Senator Bumblefark does not think children should be used as a food source

Stage 2 Article title-

Senator Bumblefark thinks babies are a delicious food source

Stage 3 Blog post -

Senator Bumblefark eats babies!

Stage 4 Discussion site - *we are here*

Nazi Bumblefark sucks the marrow from baby bones!

Stage 5 4chan -

Bumblefark leads a secret baby cannibalism sex ring

Stage six Facebook -

5 surprising new ways to prepare babies, Senator Bumblefark hates #5!

lol how do you know? DEEP STATE confirmed--------------^

TheMikado · Mar 19, 2018

This resolution is BS, attempting to police and ideology enters into the realm of thought police. Unless there is actual encouragement or incitement to violence then law enforcement should treat these individuals no different than any one else in terms of the law. Having an abhorrent opinion does not immediately make you guilty of criminal action.

StrikeNinja24 · Mar 20, 2018

AranS said:
Carrying tiki torches isn't armed to the teeth

You are being willfully ignorant to think that they weren't also packing weapons.

Dunki · Mar 20, 2018

TTOOLL said:
The same reason you can advocate for Communism freely and wear Che Guevara T-shirts.

this is not as simple. In my country they are clearly terrorist. G20 for example. Or constantly attacking the police. They try to change the world with fear and violence. So they definitely should also be labeled terrorists

Doom85 said:
So how many more Charlottesvilles have to occur before it is a problem? Seriously, maybe they're not one of the biggest issues the country is facing, but acting like it's a non-issue is just ignoring the reality of recent events.

Charlottesville was an reaction to Berkley and the rising tensions between these two groups caused someone to snap.

And before anyone ask should the KK allowed to protest? Yes they should. That is also a part of democracy and a free state. In Germany neo Nazis also can protest as long they are following the rules. They are also always under heavy police protection. If they do not follow the protest rules anymore. The protest gets disbanded.

TheMikado · Mar 20, 2018

StrikeNinja24 said:
You are being willfully ignorant to think that they weren't also packing weapons.

Even if they were, you would have to prove they had/have intent to use them for assault and not self protection.
We are talking about laws here not Facebook and Twitter.

The same laws that protect minorities marching for civil rights are the same laws that protect these asshats.
Your opinion on whether you agree with them doesn't and shouldn't change their legal protections otherwise.
The reason these laws exist is because when jackasses like Trump get into office, (and you will always get a jackass in office that you don't agree with),
they can't say "your opinion is abhorrent so I will outlaw it". Literally the same laws protecting these people are the only laws protecting us from full on Trump dictatorship.

mckmas8808 · Mar 20, 2018

SatansReverence said:
I don't think anything the KKK do is for political gains and is purely for hate.

So, that would be a no.

Just to clarify for people who apparently do not know

Terrorism - the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

And this explains everything. Thanks. How you can't see that the KKK has always been terrorist is insane to me. Of course their acts were partially motivated by politics.

Dunki · Mar 20, 2018

mckmas8808 said:
And this explains everything. Thanks. How you can't see that the KKK has always been terrorist is insane to me. Of course their acts were partially motivated by politics.

In a free state or democracy they still should have the right to protest. If they do not have it why should BLM? It is your right to protest and this is one of the huge things we have to endure for freedom of speech and a democracy.

Hell in Germany we recently had protests from Muslims against Israel and they even did shout death to jews and Israel. You just have to endure this and make sure their extreme voices stay small. By censoring them they will get the victim position and gain more attraction,

appaws · Mar 20, 2018

Resolutions like this are just political stunts to dare your "opponents" to take a stand that you can then mischaracterize somehow for political gain.

People on the "right" are guilty of the same thing with the Farrakhan resolution thing. It's meaningless, and they are just looking for a dumb issue to try to tar a few democrats with.

Support NeoGAF

Tennessee legislators decline to pass resolution denouncing neo-Nazism

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Expansive Ellipses

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Hipster Princess

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives

Banned

Hipster Princess

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives

Member

Banned

Similar threads