CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — The city of Charlottesville was engulfed by violence on Saturday as white nationalists and counterprotesters clashed in one of the bloodiest fights to date over the removal of Confederate monuments across the South.
White nationalists had long planned a demonstration over the city’s decision to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee. But the rally quickly exploded into racial taunting, shoving and outright brawling, prompting the governor to declare a state of emergency and the National Guard to join the police in clearing the area.
Those skirmishes mostly resulted in cuts and bruises. But after the rally at a city park was dispersed, a car bearing Ohio license plates plowed into a crowd near the city’s downtown mall killing a 32-year-old woman. Some 34 others were injured; at least 19 in the car crash, according to a spokeswoman for the University of Virginia Medical Center. Several witnesses and video of the scene suggested that the crash might have been intentional.
Col. Martin Kumer, the superintendent of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, confirmed Saturday evening that an Ohio man, James Alex Fields Jr., 20, of Maumee, had been arrested and charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failing to stop at the scene of a crash that resulted in a death. But the authorities declined to say publicly that Mr. Fields was the driver of the car that plowed into the crowd.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Tempers Flare Over Removal of Confederate Statues in New Orleans MAY 7, 2017
Confederate Monuments Come Down and Emotions Rise MAY 19, 2017
White Nationalists March on University of Virginia AUG. 11, 2017
Airbnb Cancels Accounts Linked to White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville AUG. 9, 2017
White Nationalists Wield Torches at Confederate Statue Rally MAY 14, 2017
RECENT COMMENTS
Mford 2 minutes ago
Trump says "this has been going on a long time." Nonsense! 42 years on this earth and I've never seen Americans beating each other in the...
neb nilknarf 2 minutes ago
So these Southern neo-Confederate KKK terrorists types are copying European Islamic terrorists driving a vehicle into people to kill them?...
opinionsareus0 3 minutes ago
What did those generals represented in these Confederate memorials stand for? They stood for slavery, racism, and refusing to follow the...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
Later in the day, a Virginia State Police helicopter crashed near a golf course and burst into flames, leaving at least two people dead. The helicopter appeared to have been monitoring the protests.
Witnesses to the crash said a gray sports car accelerated into a crowd of counterdemonstrators, who were moving jubilantly near the mall after the white nationalists had left, hurling at least two people in the air.
“It was probably the scariest thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” said Robert Armengol, who was at the scene reporting for a podcast he hosts with students at the University of Virginia. “After that it was pandemonium. The car hit reverse and sped and everybody who was up the street in my direction started running.”
The planned rally was promoted as “Unite the Right” and both its organizers and critics said they expected it to be one of the largest gathering of white nationalists in recent times, attracting groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis and movement leaders like David Duke and Richard Spencer.
Many of these groups have felt emboldened since the election of Donald J. Trump as president. Mr. Duke, a former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, told reporters on Saturday that the protesters were “going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump” to “take our country back.”
Saturday afternoon, President Trump, speaking at the start of a veterans’ event at his golf club in Bedminister, N.J., again addressed what he described as “the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia.”
In his comments, President Trump condemned the bloody protests, but he did not specifically criticize the white nationalist rally and its neo-Nazi slogans beyond blaming “hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.”
“It’s been going on for a long time in our country, it’s not Donald Trump, it’s not Barack Obama,” said Mr. Trump, adding that he had been in contact with Virginia officials. After calling for the “swift restoration of law and order,” he offered a call for unity among Americans of “all races, creeds and colors.”
The president came under criticism from some who said he had not responded strongly enough against racism and that he failed to condemn the white nationalists groups by name who were behind the rally.
Among the critics was the mayor of Charlottesville, Mike Signer. “I do hope that he looks himself in the mirror and thinks very deeply about who he consorted with during his campaign,” he said.
The turmoil in Charlottesville began with a march Friday night by white nationalists on the campus of the University of Virginia and escalated Saturday morning as demonstrators from both sides gathered in and around the park. Waving Confederate flags, chanting Nazi-era slogans, wearing helmets and carrying shields, the white nationalists converged on the Lee statue inside the park and began chanting phrases like “You will not replace us” and “Jews will not replace us.”
Hundreds of counterprotesters — religious leaders, Black Lives Matter activists and anti-fascist groups known as “antifa” — quickly surrounded the park, singing spirituals, chanting and carrying their own signs.
The morning started peacefully, with the white nationalists gathering in McIntire Park, outside downtown, and the counterdemonstrators — including Cornel R. West, the Harvard University professor and political activist — gathering at the First Baptist Church, a historically African-American church here. Professor West, who addressed the group at a sunrise prayer service, said he had come “bearing witness to love and justice in the face of white supremacy.”
At McIntire Park, the white nationalists waved Confederate flags and other banners. As a photographer took pictures, one of them, who gave his name only as Ted because he said he might want to run for political office some day, said he was from Missouri, and added, “I’m tired of seeing white people pushed around.”
But by 11 a.m., after both sides had made their way to Emancipation Park, the scene had exploded into taunting, shoving and outright brawling.
Barricades encircling the park and separating the two sides began to come down, and the police temporarily retreated. People were seen clubbing one another in the streets, and pepper spray filled the air. One of the white nationalists left the park bleeding, his head wrapped in gauze.
Declaring the gathering an unlawful assembly, the police had cleared the area before noon, and the Virginia National Guard arrived as officers began arresting some who remained. But fears lingered that the altercation would start again nearby, as demonstrators dispersed in smaller groups.
Within an hour, politicians, including Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, and the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a Republican, had condemned the violence.
The first public response from the White House came from the first lady, Melania Trump, who wrote on Twitter: “Our country encourages freedom of speech, but let’s communicate w/o hate in our hearts. No good comes from violence.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Justice Department agents would support local and state officials in an investigation of Saturday’s events.
“This kind of violence is totally contrary to American values and can never be tolerated,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement.
Former President Barack Obama responded to the violence sending three tweets with a quote from Nelson Mandela: “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion... People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love... For love comes more naturally to the human heart than the opposite.”
After the rally was dispersed, its organizer, Jason Kessler, who calls himself a “white advocate,” complained in an interview that his group had been “forced into a very chaotic situation.” He added, “The police were supposed to be there protecting us and they stood down.”
Both Mr. Kessler and Spencer, a prominent white nationalist who was to speak on Saturday, are graduates of the University of Virginia. In an online video, titled “a message to Charlottesville,’’ Mr. Spencer vowed to return to the college town.
“You think that we’re going to back down to this kind of behavior to you and your little provincial town? No,’’ he said. “We are going to make Charlottesville the center of the universe.”
The Charlottesville street fights were the latest in a series of tense dramas unfolding across the United States over plans to remove statues and other historical markers of the Confederacy. The battles have been intensified by the election of Mr. Trump, who enjoys fervent support from white nationalists.
In New Orleans, tempers flared this spring when four Confederate-era monuments were taken down. Hundreds of far-right and liberal protesters squared off, with occasional bouts of violence, under a statue of General Robert E. Lee. There were fisticuffs and a lot of shouting, but nothing like the violence seen in Charlottesville.
In St. Louis, workers removed a confederate monument from Forest Park in June, ending a long drawn-out battle over its fate. In Frederick, Md., a bust of Roger Taney, the Supreme Court justice who wrote the notorious “Dred Scott” decision denying blacks citizenship, was removed in May from its spot near City Hall.
Here in Charlottesville, Saturday’s protest was the culmination of a year and a half of debate over the fate of the Lee statue. A movement to remove it began when an African-American high school student here started a petition. The City Council voted 3 to 2 in April to sell it, but a judge issued an injunction temporarily stopping the move.
The city had been bracing for a sea of demonstrators, and on Friday night, hundreds of them, carrying lit torches, marched on the picturesque grounds of the University of Virginia, founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson.
Many of the white nationalist protesters carried campaign signs for Mr. Trump.
University officials said one person was arrested and charged Friday night with assault and disorderly conduct, and several others were injured. Among those hurt was a university police officer injured while making the arrest, the school said in a statement.
Teresa A. Sullivan, the president of the university, strongly condemned the Friday demonstration in a statement, calling it “disturbing and unacceptable.”
Still, officials allowed the Saturday protest to go on — until the injuries began piling up.
The city of Charlottesville declared a state of emergency around 11 a.m., citing an “imminent threat of civil disturbance, unrest, potential injury to persons, and destruction of public and personal property.”
Governor McAuliffe followed with his own declaration an hour later.
“It is now clear that public safety cannot be safeguarded without additional powers, and that the mostly-out-of-state protesters have come to Virginia to endanger our citizens and property,” he said in a statement. “I am disgusted by the hatred, bigotry and violence these protesters have brought to our state over the past 24 hours.”
The Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, Ed Gillespie, issued his own statement denouncing the protests as “vile hate” that has “no place in our Commonwealth.”
Mr. Ryan agreed. “The views fueling the spectacle in Charlottesville are repugnant,” he said on Twitter. “Let it only serve to unite Americans against this kind of vile bigotry.”
Correction: August 12, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated the age of a man arrested after the Charlottesville rally. James Alex Fields Jr. is 20, not 32.
I'm not surprised. People in this part of Virginia are fething crazy. EDIT: Oh and they're terrible TERRIBLE drivers. When the young drive like the elderly, the elderly drive like this guy;
Speaking as someone whose been following the issues behind this for a few years I find the entire debate stupid. Robert E Lee is part of American history, and so is glorification of the Antebellum and Civil War South. You can't really get rid of either by taking down a statue. But the response to the issue from politicians and advocates is probably even more stupid.
Case and point; they renamed Robert. E. Lee Park to Emancipation Park. See they wanted to remove the statue but turns out the city isn't legally allowed to do that cause of some kind of state law about historic monuments and some such. So some "genius" decided that renaming the park would appease those upset about the statue. So they named the park Emancipation Park... with a statue of Robert E. Lee (and a few other Confedreate monuments) still inside. And I'm fairly confident that you're never more than 50 feet from a Confederate flag around here. I find it funny that Charlottesville officials are acting like this wasn't invited by them. If they hadn't been playing political games with this issue for the past two years, this probably wouldn't have happened.
I cannot begin to fully detail the stupidity that has taken place every step of the way with this locally. It's like a slap stick comedy.
LordofHats wrote: I'm not surprised. People in this part of Virginia are fething crazy. EDIT: Oh and they're terrible TERRIBLE drivers. When the young drive like the elderly, the elderly drive like this guy;
yes but the elderly ride to Valhalla shiny and chrome!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I, for one, thought it's silly to have "reverent" statues of Lee as he was a traitor.
I also think it's silly to get your panties wadded up right now and try to remove said statues.
However, instead, we learn more about our history and try not to repeat the same mistakes...eh?
I'm sure we'd all be a lot better for it...
there is an easy answer. Just put in a statue of Sherman pissing on the Lee statue with the inscription " hah hah!" Problem solved and historically accurate.*
* I have made this suggestion on certain right wing boards and evidently it's not a popular idea. Nothing like internet death threats to start the morning off right.
Regardless, you shouldn't remove monuments that tell of your history.
Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that the confederate flag was tied to slavery and racism and to deny otherwise is to be historically ignorant. However, the flag goes more beyond just that.
For some, its used as a cultural totem for southern heritage, it reminds them of where they are from and who they are as a people.
It is used to commemorate all those fallen soldiers who died in a war where brother fought brother on blood tainted soil, where young boys barely over the age of 10 were sent away from their mothers to play the drums out in the battlefield during the carnage and slaughter of battle where men died in the thousands by the hour.
It is to remember the men who got struck down by relentless barrages of bullets and would later die in agony from dehydration due to lack of medical attention in the scolding hot summer fields while insects feasted on their bullet wounds.
It was used as a reminder that the war was for a lost cause in the sense that 290,000 mandatory conscripted young men died for a small 1.5% of wealthy land owners. Almost all these men who were sent out to the battlefield didn't own slaves, and instead fought and looked out for each other, brother and brother.
When you grow up in an area with such rich history and heritage, you can't feel but the need to become part of it, and I think that's when people begin to start waving those flags.
When all you're surrounded by are fields where historic battles took place and monuments are erected to commemorate those brave soldiers, there is this emotional connection that begins to take shape.
Then, when an outside group of people try to take that heritage away from you, we see events like the one we saw today happen. I am in no way trying to condone the violence that took the life of a young innocent protester, I'm trying to help explain to some people why they fly those flags and why people are passionate in preserving those historic monuments that the left so dearly want to take down.
LordofHats wrote: Speaking as someone whose been following the issues behind this for a few years I find the entire debate stupid. Robert E Lee is part of American history, and so is glorification of the Antebellum and Civil War South. You can't really get rid of either by taking down a statue. But the response to the issue from politicians and advocates is probably even more stupid.
Case and point; they renamed Robert. E. Lee Park to Emancipation Park. See they wanted to remove the statue but turns out the city isn't legally allowed to do that cause of some kind of state law about historic monuments and some such. So some "genius" decided that renaming the park would appease those upset about the statue. So they named the park Emancipation Park... with a statue of Robert E. Lee (and a few other Confedreate monuments) still inside. And I'm fairly confident that you're never more than 50 feet from a Confederate flag around here. I find it funny that Charlottesville officials are acting like this wasn't invited by them. If they hadn't been playing political games with this issue for the past two years, this probably wouldn't have happened.
I cannot begin to fully detail the stupidity that has taken place every step of the way with this locally. It's like a slap stick comedy.
50 feet from a confederate flag or a Nazi flag it seems. it's funny how those two flags always show up together. We don't have statues of hitler around, none of king henry, none of any of the leaders we've defeated over the centuries. so dump those confederate statues of losers and traitors, statues are for winners. the south lost, they need to get over it.
so you think the towns officials invited this Nazi to run over people? Might as well blame trump then as he seems to have stoked up the fires of racism again. How about we include all the dakka posters who've stated they'd run over protesters if they were in the streets. As this guy was a Nazi southerner, we can definitely blame all of them as his actions are a reflection on their mentality.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Daemonhost Cherubael the American flag represents all of that as well, no need for the flag of the traitors.
sirlynchmob wrote: so you think the towns officials invited this Nazi to run over people?
I think it's a bit late to pretend to be the unwitting victim of political forces beyond their control as they are doing. They invited this kind of attention by making a spectacle of a trivial thing, and are now crying fowl that it's spiraled out of control.
Might as well blame trump then as he seems to have stoked up the fires of racism again.
I do blame Trump.
How about we include all the dakka posters who've stated they'd run over protesters if they were in the streets.
Yes. Those who would run over protestors are dangerous to society, far more dangerous than a person who smokes weed harmlessly. They have no respect for the people's right to assemble, nor human life.
Daemonhost Cherubael wrote: Then, when an outside group of people try to take that heritage away from you, we see events like the one we saw today happen. I am in no way trying to condone the violence that took the life of a young innocent protester, I'm trying to help explain to some people why they fly those flags and why people are passionate in preserving those historic monuments that the left so dearly want to take down.
First, it wasn't an outside group of people trying to take them away today: the people that came in rioting were from out-of-state. The people in Charlottesville are some of the most liberal in the state. It was their city council that decided to remove the statue. Meanwhile, the man who drove his car into the crowd was from Ohio.
Second, most of these statues are actually of relatively recent vintage - the status in question was erected nearly 70 years after the war ended. Tons of these statues and monuments went up from the 1930s through the 1960s. They're still building them - Arizona put one up in 2010, Tennessee put one up in 2011, and is building another now.
The Civil War monuments that currently liter the South have a lot more to do with Civil Rights era rejection of equality and affirmation of white superiority than war memorial, but I'd put forth that is still part of American history.
White supremacists know they are not sympathetic. They also know that the media loves to cover them. I believe their strategy isn't about gaining direct support but rather to draw out their opposite numbers on the far left in front of national news coverage cameras, which creates room for criticizing "many sides," to quote the President. The car incident today has badly sidetracked that plan - although it was (and has been) successful enough for the President to use exactly those words - "many sides" - in responding.
@LoH - your analysis of the long-on-rhetoric-short-on-wisdom maneuvering in Cville is 100% accurate (as a former resident).
Manchu wrote: White supremacists know they are not sympathetic. They also know that the media loves to cover them. I believe their strategy isn't about gaining direct support but rather to draw out their opposite numbers on the far left in front of national news coverage cameras, which creates room for criticizing "many sides," to quote the President.
I don't blame Trump for racism in the US, which is what we might call a pre-existing condition. I do feel like his dog whistles during the campaign, and his weasel words even now, have greatly normalized, or maybe emboldened, white nationalism in the US.
LoH - I will add to what you've said that Spencer has outmaneuvered local government in Charlottesville at every turn, which I guess is no surprise. That is the entire theme of his strategy. When you read what he says, he is very careful to use the vocabulary of identity politics, such that if he was an other-than-white person and talking about other-than-white people, his statements would be par for the course. Again, this is aimed at centrists who are not going to be sympathetic to white supremacy but who will note the (somewhat superficial) irony that black pride and hispanic pride are okay, whereas white pride is so utterly taboo that as a phrase it is equated with racism (notwithstanidng that nobody but the white supremacists themselves chose to dress up as KKK and neo-Nazis). The Powers That Be in Cville and at UVA, by contrast, have very little room to be creative and take risks. Spencer has nothing to lose whereas they stand to lose a lot over even little things. Spencer has a flair for asymetric media warfare, I will give him that.
Ouze - white pride (or nationalism or supremacy, we just don't have the vocabulary to objectively deal with this) is sort of the logical consequence of many decades of talking about race in one way for other-than-white people and another way for white people.
Verviedi wrote: A Nazi has killed an American on American soil. How many of our ancestors died in Europe, Africa, and Asia to prevent that from happening?
I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Yes, you should never forget one of the most important chapters of American history, but these flags and statues belong in a museum and the history books, or brought out for historical re-enactment.
By their logic, you should be building statues of British generals of the American revolution: Howe, Cornwallis, Gage, etc etc
Many loyalists left the nascent US for Canada after the AWI. Naturally, their political sympathies didn't play a role in the dveloping self-understanding of American history and identity. The opposite is true of the population of the CSA.
Manchu wrote: Many loyalists left the nascent US for Canada after the AWI. Naturally, their political sympathies didn't play a role in the dveloping self-understanding of American history and identity. The opposite is true of the population of the CSA.
Well, I hope everything calms down, and that nobody else gets hurt.
I've always wanted to visit Virginia, for as a student of military history, it has both Civil War history, and Revolutionary history with Yorktown. Two birds with one stone
whembly wrote: I, for one, thought it's silly to have "reverent" statues of Lee as he was a traitor.
...
Technically, Lee was not a traitor. In order to be a traitor, you have to betray your country by doing something illegal. Secession was actually legal until 1869, four years after the war ended. Proof being that no Southern Soldier was ever tried, let along convicted, of treasonous acts.
(note, this is just for historical accuracy, and in no way should be interpreted as cuda1179 endorsing or supporting the Confederacy or Robert E. Lee. )
As a Virginian, I heartily commend our Commonwealth to you!
It's quite important to understand that this incident is not especially a "Virginia thing."
Spencer went to the University of Virginia. He and his people probably targeted Charlottesville for this campaign because he is very familiar with the city and the university being in a tight spot regarding history and race. It's a liberal bastion in a rural Republican region - but it also turns on and trades in adulation of Thomas Jefferson, founder of UVA and Charlottesville's most famous resident.
History is endlessly complex. The news cycle is asymptotically superficial. It's oil and water.
whembly wrote: I, for one, thought it's silly to have "reverent" statues of Lee as he was a traitor.
...
Technically, Lee was not a traitor. In order to be a traitor, you have to betray your country by doing something illegal. Secession was actually legal until 1869, four years after the war ended. Proof being that no Southern Soldier was ever tried, let along convicted, of treasonous acts.
That's a tough one for a nation of defecting colonies! The sovereignty of a state precedes its legal system. I think the legality of seccession is therefore more a political (and military) than legal issue. But in the wake of the ACW, state sovereignty in the federal context was assuredly more of a legal technicality than a political reality, at least relative to previously. It was of course imperative to formally charge the people of the CSA with treason, if only via pardon.
For me, growing up in the ruins of the Confederacy, there was no contradiction between being a patriotic American and honoring CSA generals. I think that is a distinction foreigners (by which term I am also including Northerners) key into because for them the CSA itself is some would-be foreign land, whereas for us Southerners the USA and CSA are overlapping realities, in part. The CSA never totally went away, just as it had in some political sense always been a reality. Robert E. Lee is for us undoubtedly an American war hero, notwithstanding having fought against the United States and, had he been victorious, not even a US citizen. It's weird but history is more complex than Pepsi versus Coke.
I don't think it helps that Antifa turn up in hoodies and rags over their faces (the white supremacists just walk around bold as brass) looking to stir up trouble. People on both sides were involved with pepper spraying the other, and both claim to be the victims. Why are chemical sprays being brought by anyone to a 'peaceful demo'? Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back.
I'm also a bit concerned by the number of people asking why they are allowed to march, fly certain flags, say certain things. The price of having freedom of speech is that some people say stuff you really don't like.
Overall, I'm quite confused by the messages the left wing opposition to these demos want to promote, because it's seems like violence and censorship is bad... except when it comes to the far right. Well, that's not really in the spirit of free speech and seems hypocritical. If anything, these demos being counter protested and resulting in violence feeds exactly into the belief that they're being aggressively persecuted and censored by the left wing and authorities.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back..
Yes, I've seen a lot of endorsing of "it's always OK to punch a Nazi" or some version thereof, but assaulting someone for their political speech seems pretty off to me. Protecting free speech necessarily means protecting the crappiest speech; the popular ideas don't need to be defended.
So far as I can tell, the purpose of social media is join in on endorsing popular ideas with the consequence of ratcheting them up to weird extremes. "Nazis are bad" becomes "punch people who disgree with you."
It is costing Trump political capital. He has already been called out by senior Republican senators for condemning the violence in wishy-washy "everyone is equally to blame" terms.
President Trump wrote:We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country.
First, let's come back down from the social media noosphere, back to terra firma. This isn't actually about Nazis, folks. Bandying about the word "Nazi" and Nazi imagery, here is where the President's troubling "many sides" phrase actually rings true. You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism engineered by people like Spencer. And on the other hand, you have a news market absolutely ravenous for it. Nothing could be more clear, even in the torrent of digitalized news commentary, than Nazis being bad. Clarity is profitable in a noisy informatiom market and "many sides" are eager to tap into that clarity. Spencer loves the portrayal of his pathetic sideshow as top billing. Donald Trump is very familiar with this kind of relationship with the media. Of course, he understands what Spencer is doing and of course he doesn't want to play into it. Trump is not keen to help Spencer portray white American conservatives as poised on the brink of some kind of racist revolution. It's not what's going on in the US, for one thing. For another, that narrative is part of his opponents' case against him.
Can the social media bubble be divorced from terra firma when so many people rely it on for news rather than conventional media, and when Trump uses it so enthusiastically?
I hope so, because otherwise - at least for some people - we just had a Nuremberg-style rally in Charlottesville. (Except, no, we didn't.) It's like the inauguration: whatever actually happened, in the digital world it was simultaneously the best and worst attended inauguration of all time. Yes, we are in serious need of terra firma. We can pick on Kellyanne Conway for coining "alternative facts," but that's the dirty water we'ra all swimming in online.
Sure, internet noise doesn't translate accurately into a meaningful meatspace phenomenon. That's why Spencer organizes torchlit events. Snap some tight shots and you get a lot of drama to fuel the digitally-assisted imagination. He is leveraging the same media he baits into selling his work as something important when it really just isn't. He leverages the goofy antifa scenesters the same way into showing up for set piece battles. But take a wide angle shot and it's a sad kerfuffle.
This car incident is off-message. It's like the Australian girl getting shot by the Somali cop.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back..
Yes, I've seen a lot of endorsing of "it's always OK to punch a Nazi" or some version thereof, but assaulting someone for their political speech seems pretty off to me. Protecting free speech necessarily means protecting the crappiest speech; the popular ideas don't need to be defended.
Someone on my twitter retweeted a comment like 'my grandad knew the right way to treat nazis in WW2'
So I guess they mean shooting them? And I've a lot cheering pictures of them being pepper sprayed saying 'no one tattooed with a swastika is a victim'. I guess if you're a nazi you can't be a victim of crime now? And these are liberal lefties. Not comfortable with sone of this at all. If the car had been driven by antifa and had killed one of these nazis, would they be cheering that too? Not sure any more.
In the 1920s-30s communists and fascists had violent battles in the streets in parts of Europe, neither side comes out looking good because everyone else has to deal with the consequences.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back..
Yes, I've seen a lot of endorsing of "it's always OK to punch a Nazi" or some version thereof, but assaulting someone for their political speech seems pretty off to me. Protecting free speech necessarily means protecting the crappiest speech; the popular ideas don't need to be defended.
Someone on my twitter retweeted a comment like 'my grandad knew the right way to treat nazis in WW2'
So I guess they mean shooting them? And I've a lot cheering pictures of them being pepper sprayed saying 'no one tattooed with a swastika is a victim'. I guess if you're a nazi you can't be a victim of crime now? And these are liberal lefties. Not comfortable with sone of this at all. If the car had been driven by antifa and had killed one of these nazis, would they be cheering that too? Not sure any more.
In the 1920s-30s communists and fascists had violent battles in the streets in parts of Europe, neither side comes out looking good because everyone else has to deal with the consequences.
The torch march the night before went off without any problems. It wasn't until the Leftist counter protesters (some of which were armed with improvised weapons, as seen in some of the shots of the Challenger incident) started rolling in that the fuse had been lit.
Originally, the local police had labeled this as an accident caused by a combination of the counter protesters illegally marching in a vehicle-only lane, and a stupid (or panicky) driver. With all of the hubbub surrounding this incident (and event in general), it's a good idea to wait for all of the information before making "ironclad" conclusions.
President Trump wrote:We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country.
First, let's come back down from the social media noosphere, back to terra firma. This isn't actually about Nazis, folks. Bandying about the word "Nazi" and Nazi imagery, here is where the President's troubling "many sides" phrase actually rings true. You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism engineered by people like Spencer. And on the other hand, you have a news market absolutely ravenous for it. Nothing could be more clear, even in the torrent of digitalized news commentary, than Nazis being bad. Clarity is profitable in a noisy informatiom market and "many sides" are eager to tap into that clarity. Spencer loves the portrayal of his pathetic sideshow as top billing. Donald Trump is very familiar with this kind of relationship with the media. Of course, he understands what Spencer is doing and of course he doesn't want to play into it. Trump is not keen to help Spencer portray white American conservatives as poised on the brink of some kind of racist revolution. It's not what's going on in the US, for one thing. For another, that narrative is part of his opponents' case against him.
I'm sorry but I take umbrage with this stance.
There were individuals who were shouting "Blood and soil", a known neo-Nazi slogan. There were individuals wearing shirts quoting freaking Adolf Hitler.
There were Nazis present at the event. There were Klansmen present. Freaking DAVID DUKE was there, giving interviews about how this demonstration "fulfilled Trump's promises".
Trump's "condemnation" was mealy-mouthed garbage done in such a way that it tries to paint both sides as being equally at fault--and maybe if we were talking strictly about the fistfights or the shouting obscenities or throwing water bottles at each other, he'd have had a point.
But one of the Nazis/Klansmen/whatever branding you want to give the <insert obscenity here> drove a freaking car into a crowd, marching down a street exercising their freedom of assembly and right to protest.
And not enough for him to do that and hit people--he then backed the car up and ran over those he had already hit.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can the social media bubble be divorced from terra firma when so many people rely it on for news rather than conventional media, and when Trump uses it so enthusiastically?
As much as I detest social media, and can agree that it plays a role in the current mess in Europe and United States, the "conventional" media organs have demonstrated that they can't be trusted either.
The New York Times, which the OP used as his (or her) "news" source, is one of the major offenders in that area.
The torch march the night before went off without any problems. It wasn't until the Leftist counter protesters (some of which were armed with improvised weapons, as seen in some of the shots of the Challenger incident) started rolling in that the fuse had been lit.
This is bull. The Pier One Tiki Torch Brigade had a number of people rolling with improvised "shields", helmets, and rebreathers.
Originally, the local police had labeled this as an accident caused by a combination of the counter protesters illegally marching in a vehicle-only lane, and a stupid (or panicky) driver. With all of the hubbub surrounding this incident (and event in general), it's a good idea to wait for all of the information before making "ironclad" conclusions.
...lol?
No, it's not. You can find a video of the event. The driver comes down the road at a pretty high speed, hits some people, and then backs up over the people he hit.
David Frost once interviewed Sir Oswald Mosley on TV and an audience member started shouting over him. Sir Oswald turned it around as an example of why the BUF had to "fight for free speech" in the 30s, explaining that he put on a paramilitary uniform because the Communists raided their events to break them up. Sir Oswald thirty plus years later, on British TV, declared he led the Blackshirts to restore free speech to Britain.
Richard Spencer on Twitter yesterday:
We came in peace. It was the government and antifa that used force against peaceful, lawful demonstrators.
Kanluwen - you say you take umbrage at my statement but nothing you posted refutes the point that President Trump clearly has no interest in playing into Spencer's strategy for turning a pathetic molehill into a horrific mountain.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can the social media bubble be divorced from terra firma when so many people rely it on for news rather than conventional media, and when Trump uses it so enthusiastically?
As much as I detest social media, and can agree that it plays a role in the current mess in Europe and United States, the "conventional" media organs have demonstrated that they can't be trusted either.
Lemme guess, Tomi Lahren is a beacon of journalistic integrity?
The New York Times, which the OP used as his (or her) "news" source, is one of the major offenders in that area.
While not great, it's still miles ahead of Breitbart and Fox.
The torch march the night before went off without any problems. It wasn't until the Leftist counter protesters (some of which were armed with improvised weapons, as seen in some of the shots of the Challenger incident) started rolling in that the fuse had been lit.
This is bull. The Pier One Tiki Torch Brigade had a number of people rolling with improvised "shields", helmets, and rebreathers.
Originally, the local police had labeled this as an accident caused by a combination of the counter protesters illegally marching in a vehicle-only lane, and a stupid (or panicky) driver. With all of the hubbub surrounding this incident (and event in general), it's a good idea to wait for all of the information before making "ironclad" conclusions.
...lol?
No, it's not. You can find a video of the event. The driver comes down the road at a pretty high speed, hits some people, and then backs up over the people he hit.
I watched the footage of the torch march. Neo-nazi slogans aside, there wasn't anything out of the way going on, except Spencer's and Duke's fat asses attention whoring (as usual).
I also seen the viral vids of the Challenger incident. That alone doesn't prove malicious intent. I'm still waiting for the final conclusions of the investigation to come to light.
As it is, the driver is still facing charges for the incident.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can the social media bubble be divorced from terra firma when so many people rely it on for news rather than conventional media, and when Trump uses it so enthusiastically?
As much as I detest social media, and can agree that it plays a role in the current mess in Europe and United States, the "conventional" media organs have demonstrated that they can't be trusted either.
Lemme guess, Tomi Lahren is a beacon of journalistic integrity?
The New York Times, which the OP used as his (or her) "news" source, is one of the major offenders in that area.
While not great, it's still miles ahead of Breitbart and Fox.
People like Lahren are part of the problem.
Breitbart yes. Fox? They're two sides of the same coin.
So this is a thread about a right-wing gakker killing someone in which we focus on attacking the left. How come? You'd think that the focus would be on why the perpetrator thought it was OK to kill people, but instead we condemn unnamed "lefties" for exercising their right to free speech because it threatens free speech.
Manchu wrote: David Frost once interviewed Sir Oswald Mosley on TV and an audience member started shouting over him. Sir Oswald turned it around as an example of why the BUF had to "fight for free speech" in the 30s, explaining that he put on a paramilitary uniform because the Communists raided their events to break them up. Sir Oswald thirty plus years later, on British TV, declared he led the Blackshirts to restore free speech to Britain.
Richard Spencer on Twitter yesterday:
We came in peace. It was the government and antifa that used force against peaceful, lawful demonstrators.
Really Manchu?
Let's just forget for a second that we're talking about an agent provocateur here and assume that the "government and antifa" really did use force against the Nazis. Given how heavily that event was being watched and recorded, and that the ACLU Virginia had legal observers on the ground watching this...where's the proof that supports his claim?
Kanluwen - you say you take umbrage at my statement but nothing you posted refutes the point that President Trump clearly has no interest in playing into Spencer's strategy for turning a pathetic molehill into a horrific mountain.
Yet he has no problems playing into North Korea's rhetoric or playing up the Muslim terrorist threat--helping Muslim extremist groups.
And being blunt as possible right now: It's not going to play into Spencer's strategy to acknowledge it as an act perpetrated by a "white nationalist" or "domestic terrorist".
It's bull to try to say that this was part of some "strategy" or attempt to discredit Spencer's activities. He's been cozy to white supremacists for awhile now, it just seems like now the Republicans are finally calling him out on it.
Kanluwen - Seems like you missed my point. Spencer is using the same rhetorical tricks as Sir Oswald. Fascists in power generally don't care too much about protecting free speech; it's just the discredited, powerless, pathetic ones who reach for that excuse.
AlmightyWalrus - This thread is not only about the car incident, about which we know next to nothing - certainly nothing meaningful about Fields other than he has been arrested and charged with, among other things, murder. The death and the injuries caused by Fields, and them the helicopter crash and police fatalities, are parallel stories here to the story of a white supremecy rally/counter rally.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So this is a thread about a right-wing gakker killing someone in which we focus on attacking the left. How come? You'd think that the focus would be on why the perpetrator thought it was OK to kill people, but instead we condemn unnamed "lefties" for exercising their right to free speech because it threatens free speech.
What?
Nobody in their right mind would defend the driver, whether it's a politically motivated attack or not.
The thing is that in recent times, when the "lefties" show up in a counter demonstration, you have a number among their ranks that are not there to peacefully protest, but to "bash a fash". And these agitators tend to overshadow those that are there simply to make their opinions known.
It's a similar phenomena to ultra-right (who have more to lose when people among their numbers instigate violence) public gatherings, when you have beer-addled skinheads and bubba Klansmen show up shouting racial slurs and picking fights.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can the social media bubble be divorced from terra firma when so many people rely it on for news rather than conventional media, and when Trump uses it so enthusiastically?
As much as I detest social media, and can agree that it plays a role in the current mess in Europe and United States, the "conventional" media organs have demonstrated that they can't be trusted either.
The New York Times, which the OP used as his (or her) "news" source, is one of the major offenders in that area.
I don't think that is correct in the fullest sense. Obviously conventional papers like The Guardian or Daily Mail have biases, and they make mistakes sometimes. The good ones own up to teir mistakes and print corrections. Nothing human is perfect.
However I think most people would agree that there is a spectrum of probity, from something like the BBC at the top end, down to something Infowars at the bottom.
The BBC doesn't just make stuff up, and often falls over backwards to present both sides of an issue. This can happen even when one side is completely wrong and relies on lies to support its case (e.g. Lord Lawson on climate change.)
The problems with social media are well documented. But in a sense they are problems with people. It is up to each of us to accept that we are liable to confirmation bias, and that therefore we have a duty to seek out news, information and opinions from the spectrum of available sources rather than only our preferred media bubble.
I agree with your point about the "bash the fash" element on the left. In all movements (except possible the Women's Institute) there are likely to be some extremists who are either simply out for pagga, or believe that violence is justified in support of whatever cause they follow.
Manchu wrote: Kanluwen - Seems like you missed my point. Spencer is using the same rhetorical tricks as Sir Oswald. Fascists in power generally don't care too much about protecting free speech; it's just the discredited, powerless, pathetic ones who reach for that excuse.
Well actually they do reach for it, whether they're powerful or not. Spencer is, as mentioned, an agent provocateur. He's like the Westboro Baptist "Church" in that his schtick is to show up, stir up the pot, and then GTFO when he gets his Nazi face punched in--usually while crying about how the "government" let the Leftists do what they pleased but lil' old him got in trouble.
AlmightyWalrus - This thread is not only about the car incident, about which we know next to nothing - certainly nothing meaningful about Fields other than he has been arrested and charged with, among other things, murder. The death and the injuries caused by Fields, and them the helicopter crash and police fatalities, are parallel stories here to the story of a white supremecy rally/counter rally.
Well, we know that Fields is from Ohio(meaning he traveled to VA to be there) and people have pulled from his Twitter and Facebook images of him at Trump rallies. We also know that he claims he was "in fear for his life" hence the driving forward at high speed into the back of a vehicle, while hitting pedestrians, and reversing over the pedestrians he'd hit.
We also know that he fled the scene, and had the forethought to take his license plate with him.
Kilkrazy wrote: Can the social media bubble be divorced from terra firma when so many people rely it on for news rather than conventional media, and when Trump uses it so enthusiastically?
As much as I detest social media, and can agree that it plays a role in the current mess in Europe and United States, the "conventional" media organs have demonstrated that they can't be trusted either.
The New York Times, which the OP used as his (or her) "news" source, is one of the major offenders in that area.
I don't think that is correct in the fullest sense. Obviously conventional papers like The Guardian or Daily Mail have biases, and they make mistakes sometimes. The good ones own up to teir mistakes and print corrections. Nothing human is perfect.
However I think most people would agree that there is a spectrum of probity, from something like the BBC at the top end, down to something Infowars at the bottom.
The BBC doesn't just make stuff up, and often falls over backwards to present both sides of an issue. This can happen even when one side is completely wrong and relies on lies to support its case (e.g. Lord Lawson on climate change.)
The problems with social media are well documented. But in a sense they are problems with people. It is up to each of us to accept that we are liable to confirmation bias, and that therefore we have a duty to seek out news, information and opinions from the spectrum of available sources rather than only our preferred media bubble.
I'm of the opinion that bias can be just a damaging as full-on shilling or agitprop, since it tends to be more subtle.
But I have to give kudos to the British media, who have been more or less honest about their political biases, as opposed to U.S. media organs who sold themselves off as being made up of "journalistic integrity" and in a supposed stalwart pursuit of truth. Unfortunately, it always been about the agendas of journalists and money/ratings for the corporate media bigwigs.
I agree 100% with the last part. You're right in that it's generally a good idea to check all angles and perspectives, and use a variety of sources, before making up your own mind.
Manchu wrote: . You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism .
Spoiler:
and how do they feel about Trump's statement ?
Whilst Gorka works in the Whitehouse.
I would have posted the videos of the Pretend Soldiers from the "militias" too; y'know guys packing tacticool gear and long rifles with camo on like they're Real Soldiers.
The bigger issue there is that story drivers and media outlets biased against them both stand to benefit from their public feuding, as per CNN and President Trump. It's no coincidence that CNN president Zucker is the guy who greenlit the Apprentice as a NBC exec. I don't know of any similar boardroom connections for Spencer, but let's face it Spencer was a total nobody until NPR (notoriously liberal according to conservatives, even-handed according to liberals) interviewed him.
reds8n-
Uhhh yeah there are weirdos in the US who are willing to walk around in public with Nazi flags. There are also weirdos who dress up in animal costumes for lewd purposes. I hear tell there are even weirdos who collect toy soldiers and battle them against each other. I mean, the existence of a fringe doesn't demonstrate some kind of social revolution.
Manchu wrote: . You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism .
Spoiler:
and how do they feel about Trump's statement ?
Whilst Gorka works in the Whitehouse.
I would have posted the videos of the Pretend Soldiers from the "militias" too; y'know guys packing tacticool gear and long rifles with camo on like they're Real Soldiers.
I don't much care for LARPers either. But to be fair, there are more than a few involved in "patriot" groups and the old school militia movement that are ex-military.
Manchu wrote: The bigger issue there is that story drivers and media outlets biased against them both stand to benefit from their public feuding, as per CNN and President Trump. It's no coincidence that CNN president Zucker is the guy who greenlit the Apprentice as a NBC exec.
The Apprentice came before this Trumpsterfire of a presidency.
Don't know why you're bothering with that nonsense of an argument.
If you're trying to argue that CNN might be biased against Trump because of an attempt to drive ratings--fine. But let's not pretend that President Hairpiece is also constantly making a buffoon of himself and doing things that actually are newsworthy as well.
I don't know of any similar boardroom connections for Spencer, but let's face it Spencer was a total nobody until NPR (notoriously liberal according to conservatives, even-handed according to liberals) interviewed him.
You do understand that when pursuing a story, people might get interviewed whether they're famous or not?
Also--Spencer was not a "total nobody". He just wasn't well-known outside of white supremacist and/or law enforcement circles.
Manchu wrote: . You have on the one hand this optical illusion of neo-Nazism .
Spoiler:
and how do they feel about Trump's statement ?
Whilst Gorka works in the Whitehouse.
I would have posted the videos of the Pretend Soldiers from the "militias" too; y'know guys packing tacticool gear and long rifles with camo on like they're Real Soldiers.
I don't much care for LARPers either. But to be fair, there are more than a few involved in "patriot" groups and the old school militia movement that are ex-military.
And more's the shame for the US armed forces that they can hang that laurel on their mantle.
There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
Not getting very far engaging you because you seem to have barreled into the thread well off the rails. Zucker at NBC put Trump's reality show on TV, both men profited. Later on, Zucker at CNN gave Trump airtime widely criticized as disproportionate. Again, both men profited.
You call my argument nonsense but clearly you don't even know what it is. Second time you have done so. Please, Kanluwen, deep breaths.
NPR interviewed Spencer because he held a meeting attended by a thousand or so fellow morons in DC. NPR was criticized for giving Spencer airtime. The argument went, this guy shouldn't get a platform for his hate speech and NPR was just capitalizing on a torrid subject regardless of newsworthiness.
Being only well-known within a powerless fringe extremist political group yes very much does translate into being a nobody.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
There's an element to it that here in the United States, if things are done the proper way--then even Nazis are allowed to speak in public assuming their intent is not to stir up or agitate violence.
Saying "We should punch Nazis" is agitating for violence--you could instead do like what the counter-protesters were doing at the memorial park where they were singing at/mocking the Nazis.
Realistically, the second that any of the Nazis showed up like they did with "riot gear"(baseball pads, bike helmets, respirators, goggles, clubs, "shields", etc)...the police should have been pulling those people aside.
Additionally I just want to mention that one of the things seen at this event was the biggest reason why I oppose in any way, shape, or form these "militias". There are videos from the event on Twitter that show guys wearing full tac gear with radios, patches, and firearms talking about how "they can't do nothing about the protesters" like they're actual law enforcement officers or anyone who has a right to be at this event with a gun.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
And just to add to the double standard, we hear over and over again, usually from people on the right, that we need guns to protect ourselves against oppression. Well, Nazis are about as clear a case of oppression as you're ever going to find. The only real debate in Nazi evil is whether establishing their white utopia means starting up the gas chambers again, or merely "peaceful ethnic cleansing". They openly advocate horrifying evil against innocent victims, and yet somehow the real offense here is that someone dares to suggest using violence to remove the Nazi threat. So which is it? If you don't accept the use of violence against literal Nazis then don't ever talk about how the second amendment is necessary to protect against oppression.
Not getting very far engaging you because you seem to have barreled into the thread well off the rails. Zucker at NBC put Trump's reality show on TV, both men profited. Later on, Zucker at CNN gave Trump airtime widely criticized as disproportionate. Again, both men profited.
You call my argument nonsense but clearly you don't even know what it is. Second time you have done so. Please, Kanluwen, deep breaths.
Maybe, just maybe, you could have explained your stance to begin with in both cases?
NPR interviewed Spencer because he held a meeting attended by a thousand or so fellow morons in DC. NPR was criticized for giving Spencer airtime. The argument went, this guy shouldn't get a platform for his hate speech and NPR was just capitalizing on a torrid subject regardless of newsworthiness.
Being only well-known within a powerless fringe extremist political group yes very much does translate into being a nobody.
Yes a "powerless fringe extremist political group" with known/outed members in law enforcement, government, working in school systems, and working in media...usually trying to keep a low profile.
Where do we draw the line at who is or isn't okay to give airtime to? Whether or not it was a good idea to interview him or not, it brought him into the forefront as a symbol of something that is inherently wrong with America.
Why are Americans more worried about freedom of speech than Nazis?
OK this is a simple one.
We don't actually have Nazis in the US, in any meningful way. The ones we have are powerless goofballs no one takes seriously. Richard Spencer is trying to change that by manipulating the media and the media are happy to help because it generates clicks.
On the other hand, there is growing concern in the US that whereas in the past there seemed to be some kind of consensus about the meaning of free speech, it seems today that there is more disagreement about what is ok to say. Just this past week, CNN fired Jeffery Lord for sarcastically evoking "sieg heil" as part of his condemnation of Media Matters as a crypto-fascist organ masquerading as progressive.
It doesn't help that guys like Spencer and Yianopolis are also waving the Free Speech flag.
So in sum, one is not a credible issue while the other is.
Kanluwen -
Sorry my points were unclear to you. Again, Spencer false-flags free speech and the interests of media outlets can align with individuals they report about negatively.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
There's an element to it that here in the United States, if things are done the proper way--then even Nazis are allowed to speak in public assuming their intent is not to stir up or agitate violence.
That's the thing though, violence is inherent in Nazism. It is the lifeblood of the ideology. That shirt up above is an example:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote:The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people
ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a
culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
Agitating in favour of Nazism is thus per definition agitating for violence. The triumph of the strong over the weak is the core around which the entire ideology revolves. There is no such thing as arguing in favour of Nazism without arguing in favour of violence, it'd be like arguing for Communism without communally owned means of production or libertarianism without a free market.
When people start putting Hitler quotes on T-shirts and marching with Swastikas you're well beyond even the US definition of free speech.
Manchu wrote: Why are Americans more worried about freedom of speech than Nazis?
OK this is a simple one.
We don't actually have Nazis in the US, in any meningful way. The ones we have are powerless goofballs no one takes seriously. Richard Spencer is trying to change that by manipulating the media and the media are happy to help because it generates clicks.
...
Yes. "Powerless goofballs no one takes seriously" aside from the people who listen to them.
You know who else wasn't taken seriously?
Actual flipping Nazis.
On the other hand, there is growing concern in the US that whereas in the past there seemed to be some kind of consensus about the meaning of free speech, it seems today that there is more disagreement about what is ok to say. Just this past week, CNN fired Jeffery Lord for sarcastically evoking "sieg heil" as part of his condemnation of Media Matters as a crypto-fascist organ masquerading as progressive.
It didn't help that he also has defended lynching as a practice, so let's not pretend he was fired solely for "sarcasm".
It doesn't help that guys like Spencer and Yianopolis are also waving the Free Speech flag.
So in sum, one is not a credible issue while the other is.
Strictly speaking, they both are. Domestic terrorism associated with white supremacist groups is one of the larger threats facing national security and has been since the 1990s(remember Timothy McVeigh and the Turner Diaries?).
It just tends to get lost in the hubbub over some brown folks who flew a plane into the World Trade Center in 2001 and the fact that people keep saying "white supremacist" as though it's not interchangeable with "Klansman" or "Neo-Nazi" since the organizations actually have had a lot of overlapping membership for quite some time.
You are 100% correct that Nazism and violence are inseparable. But I have to think, actual Nazis from Nazi Germany would be pretty unimpressed with these slacktivists. OK you showed up in your dozens, well done. I guess you could say, everyone has to start somewhere? "They didn't take the Fuhrer seriously at first, either!" Is that something one of these white supremacists would say or is that something that the antifa larpers would say? I mean, both are committed to this fantasy. But actual Nazism is in no way, shape, or form influential in the US, no more so than Communism or the Knights Templar or the Decepticons.
Kanluwen -
Nice illustration of my point above. Yes, the Nazis weren't taken seriously in the Weimar Republic. So naturally they are on the verge of siezing control of the US in 2017. Naturally! Tim McVeigh blew up the fed builing in OK City 22 years ago. So white supremacy terrorism is "one of the larger" (???) national security threats today. Naturally! I'm sorry, I am actually taking this all in good spirits, I know you're concerned but it's pretty out of proportion. We aren't facing a white power campaign to take over the US through terrorism.
Manchu wrote: On the other hand, there is growing concern in the US that whereas in the past there seemed to be some kind of consensus about the meaning of free speech, it seems today that there is more disagreement about what is ok to say. Just this past week, CNN fired Jeffery Lord for sarcastically evoking "sieg heil" as part of his condemnation of Media Matters as a crypto-fascist organ masquerading as progressive.
If the Nazi threat is "irrelevant" then how exactly is this any different? A private organization firing an employee for being a poor representative of the company is not a free speech issue. There is not, and never has been, an obligation for private organizations to endorse or support speech they do not agree with, and there is no credible belief that the government is going to take any action against people who say things like that.
djones520 wrote: Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.
Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.
You are 100% correct that Nazism and violence are inseparable. But I have to think, actual Nazis from Nazi Germany would be pretty unimpressed with these slacktivists. OK you showed up in your dozens, well done. I guess you could say, everyone has to start somewhere? "They didn't take the Fuhrer seriously at first, either!" Is that something one of these white supremacists would say or is that something that the antifa larpers would say? I mean, both are committed to this fantasy. But actual Nazism is in no way, shape, or form influential in the US, no more so than Communism or the Knights Templar or the Decepticons.
Except when y'know, you have literal groups that have modeled themselves after the Nazis in terms of their organization and whatnot...
Kanluwen -
Nice illustration of my point above. Yes, the Nazis weren't taken seriously in the Weimar Republic. So naturally they are on the verge of siezing control of the US in 2017. Naturally!
And the Nazis took over the Weimar Republic with nothing but brute force and firepower, not by manipulating the common man and the organisms for government.
Yeah CNN firing Lord isn't government censorship, of course. "Free Speech" is not just a clause on the books. It is a social value. I don't think we're on the verge of rolling back freedom of speech by the US government anymore so than we are facing a credible Nazi political movement - neither of those thimgs are remotely real. What's going on, however, is there is not a consensus one what kind of language is acceptable broadly and what isn't. Yes, I am on board with putting free speech in quotation marks here. It's a question of social values, not law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: - Kanluwen
Following the same logic, how worried are you about the US facing a communist revolution any time soon?
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
We know what white supremacist thugs are like. But they're not on my side, I'm concerned the people on my side are relishing punching and pepper spraying them. That does bother me because it's not being done in self defence, counter protesters chose to meet them head on and brought weapons along knowing there would be conflict, people on both sides had it. I don't know where those on the left draw the line with violence towards nazis, clearly it's illegal to pepper spray them but that's ok because they're nazis. Really? Is that how we're going to manage this situation now?
What should have happened is that the police had managed it better, ready to step in if the demo got out of control. Instead it seems like the police were thin on the ground so counter protesters went out tooled up to oppose them instead. There's only one way that's going to go, thank god no body brought guns to 'stand their ground' and defend themselves.
Manchu wrote: Yeah CNN firing Lord isn't government censorship, of course. "Free Speech" is not just a clause on the books. It is a social value. I don't think we're on the verge of rolling back freedom of speech by the US government anymore so than we are facing a credible Nazi political movement - neither of those thimgs are remotely real. What's going on, however, is there is not a consensus one what kind of language is acceptable broadly and what isn't. Yes, I am on board with putting free speech in quotation marks here. It's a question of social values, not law.
This "rollback" seems quite a bit less plausible than the threat of Nazi ideology gaining more power. The social value of allowing people to say whatever they want seems quite a bit more generous than it has been in the past, and there has never been a time when "a company must tolerate anything you say while on the clock and can not fire you for making the company look bad" has been a value. The outrage here seems almost entirely over people who don't like that someone used their free speech rights to say "you're a ".
There no doubt are overlaps between neo-nazis and the KKK and other groups, but the evidence is that the extreme right's numbers nationwide are almost vanishingly small.
If I understand Manchu's argument correctly, it is that while fascist bigots are horrid, the amount of media attention paid to them is a mistake because there are bigger fish for the moderate centre and soft left to fry.
Nah. Who here has a problem saying Spencer is a nutjob? The problem is inciting violence, as outlined above by Howard Treesong.
Killkrazy -
Yes. And media outlets are effectively "cooperating" with Spencer et al. in the strategy to make their fringe group seem important. The other shoe dropping is, Spencer lures in the equally tiny alt left to scandalize the center right.
The other aspect is that if we suppress the voicing of "crimethink", such as the Google engineer's belief that a Y chromosome makes you better at logic, then we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to publicly refute such nonsense, and worse, we may lend credence to the view that we can't refute it.
Yes, the Google story is a great exampe of how "what is ok to say" is a live issue. But the "maybe there's something to Nazism after all" thing, that's not actually a thing.
I guess we can call 'both sides' if we're willing to consider the side yelling 'Jew will not replace us' and 'blood and soil' and driving cars into people equivalent to the one that isn't.
Given the number of Nazi salutes at that 'peaceful torchlight rally', I'm pretty sure it's valid to use the word 'Nazi' now. Although I will admit you don't typically associate Nazis with the scent of citronella and a lack of mosquitoes...
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't think it helps that Antifa turn up in hoodies and rags over their faces (the white supremacists just walk around bold as brass) looking to stir up trouble. People on both sides were involved with pepper spraying the other, and both claim to be the victims. Why are chemical sprays being brought by anyone to a 'peaceful demo'? Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back.
I'm also a bit concerned by the number of people asking why they are allowed to march, fly certain flags, say certain things. The price of having freedom of speech is that some people say stuff you really don't like.
Overall, I'm quite confused by the messages the left wing opposition to these demos want to promote, because it's seems like violence and censorship is bad... except when it comes to the far right. Well, that's not really in the spirit of free speech and seems hypocritical. If anything, these demos being counter protested and resulting in violence feeds exactly into the belief that they're being aggressively persecuted and censored by the left wing and authorities.
This. The scumsucking Nazis have a right to assemble just as everyone else. The antifa crowd is antithetical to that and both sides came to fight. Now the MSM is using it to attack Trump.WTF?
The car attack was a terror attack and should be prosecuted as such. But it is a separate issue.
Manchu wrote: If three moderators are posting in a thread about a recent white supremacy rally/homicide charge, rest assured discussion of that topic isn't banned.
Spinner wrote: I guess we can call 'both sides' if we're willing to consider the side yelling 'Jew will not replace us' and 'blood and soil' and driving cars into people equivalent to the one that isn't.
It's that good old 'centrist' nonsense about how the extreme left and right are as bad as each other. Because 'exterminate an ethnicity' and 'free healthcare for all' are morally equivalent.
Before telling everyone how terrible it is for some lefty to punch a racist in the face, it might be worth asking yourself if you'd be equally disappointed if the recipient was calling for the eradication of the infidel. Similarly, if you're going to claim that 'if you stand on a road you can't complain if you get hit', it would be helpful to quickly mull over whether you would react the same way if the driver was wearing a kaffiyeh and kandurrah.
Manchu wrote: If three moderators are posting in a thread about a recent white supremacy rally/homicide charge, rest assured discussion of that topic isn't banned.
So US Politics is permitted now?
OK let me pull out the orange text. I will personally start a thread called US Politics when it is okay to start such a thread again. The topic of this thread is the white supremacy rally in Charlottesville and the guy that drove into the crowd at that event. Futher questions as necessary welcome via PM, off topic posts will be deleted. Thanks!
Manchu wrote: Yes, the Google story is a great exampe of how "what is ok to say" is a live issue.
Not really. Of course posting a rant on a company network about how your co-workers are inherently inferior to you and didn't honestly earn their jobs is going to get you fired. That's a basic discipline issue, not anything related to freedom of speech.
But the "maybe there's something to Nazism after all" thing, that's not actually a thing.
Sure, not a thing, you say right after Nazis just held a rally and are boasting about how Trump is "their" president.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't think it helps that Antifa turn up in hoodies and rags over their faces (the white supremacists just walk around bold as brass) looking to stir up trouble. People on both sides were involved with pepper spraying the other, and both claim to be the victims. Why are chemical sprays being brought by anyone to a 'peaceful demo'? Lots of left wing people on twitter seem to support punching nazis, but that's just justifying starting violence. You can't cheer on hitting nazis and then complain when they hit back.
I'm also a bit concerned by the number of people asking why they are allowed to march, fly certain flags, say certain things. The price of having freedom of speech is that some people say stuff you really don't like.
Overall, I'm quite confused by the messages the left wing opposition to these demos want to promote, because it's seems like violence and censorship is bad... except when it comes to the far right. Well, that's not really in the spirit of free speech and seems hypocritical. If anything, these demos being counter protested and resulting in violence feeds exactly into the belief that they're being aggressively persecuted and censored by the left wing and authorities.
This. The scumsucking Nazis have a right to assemble just as everyone else. The antifa crowd is antithetical to that and both sides came to fight.
Antifa was one of the groups present counterprotesting.
Now the MSM is using it to attack Trump.WTF?
The car attack was a terror attack and should be prosecuted as such. But it is a separate issue.
Actually it's not.
People are rightly calling out Trump as a hypocrite. For years he criticized Obama as being "soft" on Muslims by refusing to refer to terrorist attacks by ISIS and the like as "Muslim extremism". This is another instance where a white supremacist has injured protesters under the auspices of "fearing for his life" and yet again Trump refuses to call it what it is. He tried to, like you, paint it as "both parties are equally at fault" in a very mealymouthed way.
Additionally, the driver of the car is known to be a Trump supporter and had pictures of himself at Trump rallies on social media. He was also photographed as part of the Nazi demonstrations yesterday, carrying a shield.
Manchu wrote: The problem is inciting violence, as outlined above by Howard Treesong.
And, as I pointed out, this is a blatant double standard when people on the right are often talking about how we need the right to own guns to protect against oppression. Well, the Nazis are about as clear a case of a legitimate target as you're going to get. If it's unacceptable to incite violence against literal Nazis then you might as well give up those guns, as there's never going to be a situation where you are justified in using them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
You don't get it. If I tell you to shut the hell up you foreign devil, the mods will rightfully take action to protect you. That's the First Amendment. It says you have the right to your opinion. Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
You don't get it. If I tell you to shut the hell up you foreign devil, the mods will rightfully take action to protect you. That's the First Amendment. It says you have the right to your opinion. Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.
What if, before you told him to shut up, he was talking about how all wiener dogs should be gassed?
Frazzled wrote: Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.
Can we stop framing this as "speech you don't like"? These are literal Nazis we're talking about, advocating genocide and a return to the ideology that slaughtered millions in the name of racial purity. That is far, far away from a mere difference of opinion.
djones520 wrote: Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.
Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.
This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's still the double standard that agitating for an Aryan society is well and good because it's covered by free speech but should anyone dare to say that we should punch Nazis then it's evil. It's like being afraid of a rattlesnake on your floor and failing to notice that your house is on fire. The strong (and, in my opinion, entirely rightful) condemnation of advocating violence against Nazis just doesn't materialize against the Nazis themselves.
Take this thread for instance: you've got multiple people condemning those that advocate violence against Nazis as it would violate their right to free speech. You've got absolutely no posts spending any energy condemning the actual Nazis who advocate for atrocities that are orders of magnitude worse than "punch a Nazi". Why is it so important to remind everyone that advocating for violence is bad in the case of "punch a Nazi" but seemingly inconsequential in the case of "Make America White Again!"? It's not like anyone thinks the Nazis want to just gently remove people they don't like, right?
You don't get it. If I tell you to shut the hell up you foreign devil, the mods will rightfully take action to protect you. That's the First Amendment. It says you have the right to your opinion. Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.
What if, before you told him to shut up, he was talking about how all wiener dogs should be gassed?
Well then clearly he is insane and needs mental help.
djones520 wrote: Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.
Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.
This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.
Manchu wrote: Yes, the Google story is a great exampe of how "what is ok to say" is a live issue.
Not really. Of course posting a rant on a company network about how your co-workers are inherently inferior to you and didn't honestly earn their jobs is going to get you fired. That's a basic discipline issue, not anything related to freedom of speech.
Frazzled wrote: This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
JFC, are you serious? You have people marching around with swastika flags and Hitler quotes and you're honestly going to tell me that what's really close to the Nazi ideal is pointing out that free speech is not, and never has been, an absolute right?
Google guy pretty much dared HR to fire him, guess he figured it was worth it because he was that concerned about Google's stance. NPR reported his sentiment (re: ideological echo chambers, not supposed biological sex differences) is not uncommon in Silicon Valley. Just an example of how there actually is real debate over freedom of expression as a social value. There is no controversy over whether Nazism is bad.
Guys like Spencer pose exactly zero threat to oppressing the people of the United States. Bringing up gun rights in this thread is a total red herring.
djones520 wrote: Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.
Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.
This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
Frazzled wrote: Your advocacy of stopping speech you don't like through violent means goes against that,just as my telling you to shut up violates the rules if Dakka.
Can we stop framing this as "speech you don't like"? These are literal Nazis we're talking about, advocating genocide and a return to the ideology that slaughtered millions in the name of racial purity. That is far, far away from a mere difference of opinion.
No they are not literal Nazis. Read a book. The last Nazis died in Argentina or at NASA*. Eve. If they were they still have the same speech rights as yourself.
No, that's exactly what it said. It was full of pseudoscientific garbage about how men are better suited to software jobs, which implies that his female coworkers are inferior and shouldn't have their jobs. It was blatantly inappropriate to be sharing that at work, and his firing should not be a surprise to anyone.
djones520 wrote: Is denying anyone the right to speech bad. Yes.
Blatantly false. We deny the right to speech all the time. There's no controversy over things like the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" example, making it illegal to use your speech to commit fraud, etc. Try threatening to kill the president and yelling "BUT MY FREE SPEECH" at the police when they come to arrest you, and see how much sympathy you get from anyone. The idea that freedom of speech is an absolute right is absurd, it clearly isn't and the only debate is over just what exactly should be permitted. And I honestly can't feel any sympathy for people who lose the right to advocate for genocide.
This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
This was not a "peaceful protest".
These were people who came spoiling for a fight, and when the protests were broken up they looked for another way to get it.
These were people who had men wearing full camo+body armor with patches all over their gear and radios with loaded firearms, presenting themselves as some kind of legitimate element of authority to counterprotesters and the media at large.
Pretending that both sides were in the wrong here ignores the fact that only one side had people get mowed down by a "disaffected" white male in his car, who then fled the scene and took the license plate of the car with him.
Frazzled wrote: No they are not literal Nazis. Read a book. The last Nazis died in Argentina or at NASA*. Eve. If they were they still have the same speech rights as yourself.
* Except the ones on the dark side of the Moon.
...
Swastika flags. Hitler quotes. And here you are, claiming that they aren't really Nazis. Unbelievable.
Frazzled wrote: This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
JFC, are you serious? You have people marching around with swastika flags and Hitler quotes and you're honestly going to tell me that what's really close to the Nazi ideal is pointing out that free speech is not, and never has been, an absolute right?
Spinner wrote: Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.
If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, than anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.
Spinner wrote: Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.
If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, then anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.
Exactly. Can we kill this thread now? The desire to kill the First Amendment as displayed here are terrifying. It's just a politics bashing thread now.
No, that's exactly what it said. It was full of pseudoscientific garbage about how men are better suited to software jobs, which implies that his female coworkers are inferior and shouldn't have their jobs. It was blatantly inappropriate to be sharing that at work, and his firing should not be a surprise to anyone.
Once again that is not what it said. And pseudoscientific? So apparently all of the behavioral sciences are now pseudoscience. Did you actually read the memo? Because I did and that isn't what it says.
Spinner wrote: Again, they were literally throwing up Nazi salutes, carrying Nazi flags, and chanting Nazi slogans.
If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, then anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.
Right, Klingons are a fictional species in a sci-fi universe. Nazis were a real ideology, and if you believe in the tenets of an ideology, then guess what? You're part of that ideology.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge the people chanting 'Jew will not replace us' and wearing shirts with Hitler quotes on them are Nazis?
My rambling takeaways from this entirely dirty situation?
-The driver is thankfully being charged with murder. Good. Should also be treated as a domestic terrorist, as frankly, anyone on t.v. would clamor for if he was a muslim workplace/club shooter. The only way to eliminate hateful actions in a civilized society is to crack down harshly and equally to all such actions no matter the source.
-I am also disgusted at the actions of the counter-protestors (not just in Charlottesville). Violent acts on the side of anti-hate group protestors make them just as dirty as those hate groups. The way to combat such groups is not to sound just like them. You need to show you are better than them, dammit. Make your side a stark difference from the ominous undertone of the hate groups, and the moment a collection of people on your side look like they are going to cause trouble, get the cops notified and get them gone so as to not taint your side.
The best way to show the insanity of hate groups is to have a situation where your group looks like well-centered adults while they look like Lord Humongous' goons.
-It was also extremely suprising to learn that a lot of the pictures of what look like cops and swat team officers are actually groups of white-supremacists who used an open carry situation to come loaded for bear, which I feel should be counted as inciting the situation just as bad as if groups on the other anti-side has bats and 2x4's.
If a group of hipsters with a rainbow flag shows up with bats and improvised weapons, they would be accused of coming to a situation ready to do violence. But if 20 Neo Nazi KKK members show up with rifles and body armor, they are just being mindful for their fellow's safety. Wait....huh?
-I think it's so funny that these white supremacist hate groups are built upon what is functionally White Tribalism. So completely ironic.
I find it so completely insane to hate people based on skin color or origin of birth.
Manchu wrote: If you dress like a Klingon, speak Klingon, and own a bat'leth ... Klingons are still fictional. Nazis were real, of course, in the 1930s amd 40s. In Germany. Before the Third Reich was totally defeated and Nazism was completely discredited on a continuing basis since then. These guys are white supremacists doing Nazi cosplay. They are losers. as Frazzled said. They are even bigger losers, by far and away, then anybody whose hobby is cosplaying a Klingon.
Lacking, at the moment, the power that the Nazis had in 1930s Germany does not stop them from being Nazis.
Reporting on Fields and his motives is on the way so hopefully we can stay on topic and polite enough to keep it open when we learn more about him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Lacking, at the moment, the power that the Nazis had in 1930s Germany does not stop them from being Nazis.
Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.
Yes, it actually is. Have you read it? He openly argues that the under-representation of women in tech jobs can be explained by women being less suited for those jobs than men.
And pseudoscientific? So apparently all of the behavioral sciences are now pseudoscience.
Not all, but large parts of them are. Evolutionary psychology, as a general rule, is pseudoscientific garbage. It makes up stories about how something could have evolved, offers no means of testing its theories, ignores alternative explanations, ignores contradictory examples from outside the popular sample group of "college students in Psych 101 who take my study for extra credit", and often makes serious mistakes about genetics and evolution. And when it very often conveniently "proves" that the social opinions and biases of 2017 are universal and inherent truths it's awfully hard to believe in it as a credible scientific discipline, and not just an exercise in making up justifications for existing beliefs.
And, in any case, even if you take the most charitable interpretations of the author's arguments it's still cringe-worthy and poorly thought out. Posting it on a company network was a very bad decision, and generated bad PR for the company. Firing an employee for something like this is not something new in 2017, and it is not a free speech issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.
Now you're just nitpicking. "Well they aren't technically Nazis because they aren't living in Germany in the 1930s" is a ridiculous argument. They proudly embrace Nazi ideology, Nazi symbols, etc, and labeling them "genocidal white supremacists" isn't exactly improving their status. It's a standard of dictionary literalism that is rarely applied to anything else, and I find it hard to believe that dismissing the Nazi label comes from nothing more than an immense level of concern with using proper terms.
Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.
Exactly. They have Shanghai-ed the power of pop culture to make them seem tough, and to establish an easy way for them to always have opponents to 'defend' their beliefs against by using the worlds most devisive word. They do not have the effort to actually research and follow the ethics that would require them to live as actual members of the Nazi party, much less even just a patriotic German soldier from that period, who 90% of the German military were.
They are simply using the fact that 'Nazi' is the easiest possible buzz-word to harness attention.
Yes, it actually is. Have you read it? He openly argues that the under-representation of women in tech jobs can be explained by women being less suited for those jobs than men.
Yes I have read it. You are saying that he is implying that women who he works with aren't qualified for their jobs. Which is a load of BS. He is giving the argument that women may not entering the field because of differences between men and women on average. Taking about documented differences between men and women on average isn't making a judgement on an individual person. I am sure there are plenty of individual men who are terrible software engineers and women are excellent ones.
Peregrine wrote: Not all, but large parts of them are. Evolutionary psychology, as a general rule, is pseudoscientific garbage. It makes up stories about how something could have evolved, offers no means of testing its theories, ignores alternative explanations, ignores contradictory examples from outside the popular sample group of "college students in Psych 101 who take my study for extra credit", and often makes serious mistakes about genetics and evolution. And when it very often conveniently "proves" that the social opinions and biases of 2017 are universal and inherent truths it's awfully hard to believe in it as a credible scientific discipline, and not just an exercise in making up justifications for existing beliefs.
And, in any case, even if you take the most charitable interpretations of the author's arguments it's still cringe-worthy and poorly thought out. Posting it on a company network was a very bad decision, and generated bad PR for the company. Firing an employee for something like this is not something new in 2017, and it is not a free speech issue.
Ok you don't like evolutionary psychology. Got it. So what do say to evidence from others fields then? Do you believe that biology has no influence on sex differences in behavior/personality?
I actually believe a new movement should start where absolutely no one ever shows up to protest hate groups to show they are not worth the time and effort. They just end up standing in front of a public building shouting at no one, where passers-by simply walk faster to get away from them.
Most of their support and membership comes from the need to be recognized, even in a negative way, under the vastly incorrect belief that being recognized makes you important.
I see a movement reduced to a few slack jawed yokels who have no power.
Trump is in the White House and quite happy to have Steve Bannon with him. The people drawn to fascism are not poor, inbred classist stereotypes of rural white Americans. They're middle and upper class whites who fear that their status as the only group that matters is threatened. The original nazis were mocked in the exact same way, too, and were thought to be useless up until they took power and enacted their ideology leading to the murder of millions who did not live up to the nazi standards of racial purity. There are a lot more non-white people in the US than in 1930 Germany so things won't shake out exactly the same but it's at best naive to act like nazis organising rallies and killing people they view as degenerates is harmless.
Lacking power is not their obstacle to being Nazis. The issue is, they aren't Nazis. They are 21st-century American white supremacists who have taken up an almost certainly crude misunderstanding of Nazism based on politics that have nothing to with mid-20th-century Germany. I mean, I am Catholic and I guess I could start a club where we practice sword fighting and horse riding but that wouldn't make me a knight.
Exactly. They have Shanghai-ed the power of pop culture to make them seem tough, and to establish an easy way for them to always have opponents to 'defend' their beliefs against by using the worlds most devisive word. They do not have the effort to actually research and follow the ethics that would require them to live as actual members of the Nazi party, much less even just a patriotic German soldier from that period, who 90% of the German military were.
They are simply using the fact that 'Nazi' is the easiest possible buzz-word to harness attention.
The original nazis were just as big a bunch of donkey-caves as the current nazis. They weren't better in any way. The legacy of the Third Reich is not being tarnished by modern nazis. In a historical academic context, sure, we can say Nazis to mean the original bunch and Neo-Nazis to mean the modern inheritors simply for clarity but in practical matters it's fine to just call them nazis. To act like there's some mystical essence to nazism that these crude men lack and thus aren't true pure Nazis is deeply suspicious.
As a neutral observer, I can never understand why anybody in the USA would want to associate themselves with Nazism, when you consider that thousands of Americans died fighting the Nazis in WW2.
AegisGrimm wrote: I actually believe a new movement should start where absolutely no one ever shows up to protest hate groups to show they are not worth the time and effort. They just end up standing in front of a public building shouting at no one, where passers-by simply walk faster to get away from them.
Most of their support and membership comes from the need to be recognized, even in a negative way, under the vastly incorrect belief that being recognized makes you important.
When you ignore the bully, the bully has free reign to do what he likes, and the bullied see no one standing up for them.
To be honest, I'm not sure the roots of the problems here is really about White Nationalism or Nazism.
It really feels like people are unable to listen to each other and their frustrations can't express in another way than violence. The fact people on the social media tend to entranch themselves by only following the news/trends only going with their beliefs doesn't help to solve this situation.
Conflict is also a way to communicate, though it has dire consequences. Recently, we have more and more "warlike" comments. Even the "jokes" on that matter are becoming more and more agressive.
Nothing good comes from it. As soon as you deny the other side to express their feelings and their own view of the situation, it's unavoidable that it becomes a conflict, sooner or later.
This event is just another example of what happens because of this whole situation. Indeed, I believe it's the result of something much, much deeper than that. People feel they aren't heard. They need it.
Sarouan wrote: To be honest, I'm not sure the roots of the problems here is really about White Nationalism or Nazism.
It really feels like people are unable to listen to each other and their frustrations can't express in another way than violence. The fact people on the social media tend to entranch themselves by only following the news/trends only going with their beliefs doesn't help to solve this situation.
Conflict is also a way to communicate, though it has dire consequences. Recently, we have more and more "warlike" comments. Even the "jokes" on that matter are becoming more and more agressive.
Nothing good comes from it. As soon as you deny the other side to express their feelings and their own view of the situation, it's unavoidable that it becomes a conflict, sooner or later.
This event is just another example of what happens because of this whole situation. Indeed, I believe it's the result of something much, much deeper than that. People feel they aren't heard. They need it.
Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.
Sarouan wrote: To be honest, I'm not sure the roots of the problems here is really about White Nationalism or Nazism.
It really feels like people are unable to listen to each other and their frustrations can't express in another way than violence. The fact people on the social media tend to entranch themselves by only following the news/trends only going with their beliefs doesn't help to solve this situation.
Conflict is also a way to communicate, though it has dire consequences. Recently, we have more and more "warlike" comments. Even the "jokes" on that matter are becoming more and more agressive.
Nothing good comes from it. As soon as you deny the other side to express their feelings and their own view of the situation, it's unavoidable that it becomes a conflict, sooner or later.
This event is just another example of what happens because of this whole situation. Indeed, I believe it's the result of something much, much deeper than that. People feel they aren't heard. They need it.
Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.
Those poor right wing bigoted Nazi's are sick of being called Nazi's and bigots. So naturally they have to run people over with cars.
The southerners never once did any name calling in over 200 years til the left correctly labeled them.
Except it's not actual Nazis and Bigots the left labels. They'll call people that just because they are white. They'll call people bigots just because you hold a viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs. They'll call you a chauvinist just because you are a guy. etc...
Grey Templar wrote: Except it's not actual Nazis and Bigots the left labels. They'll call people that just because they are white. They'll call people bigots just because you hold a viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs. They'll call you a chauvinist just because you are a guy. etc...
Ever stop to think that those being called bigots are actually bigots? there is a lot of inherent racism around, ever stop and think that if you're called a bigot, you might have said or done something really bigoted?
Ever stop to think that those being called sexists are actually sexist? there is a lot of inherent sexism around, ever stop and think that if you're called a sexist, you might have said or done something really chauvinistic?
Yes the viewpoints of Nazi's, bigots and chauvinists don't align with the left, the real question is why are you associating and in bed with Nazi's, bigots and chauvinists who are aligned with the right?
Grey Templar wrote: Except it's not actual Nazis and Bigots the left labels. They'll call people that just because they are white. They'll call people bigots just because you hold a viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs. They'll call you a chauvinist just because you are a guy. etc...
This is the exact narrative used by people on the right to demonise anyone with left wing leanings.
Spinner wrote: In this topic, we have people saying that you're not allowed to call the actual Nazis Nazis. Take that as you will.
ya they're neo-nazi's, complete different than the "real" Nazi's. they only occupy various positions in the white house and elected positions, not like their in any sort of power position.
Grey Templar wrote: Except it's not actual Nazis and Bigots the left labels. They'll call people that just because they are white. They'll call people bigots just because you hold a viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs. They'll call you a chauvinist just because you are a guy. etc...
This is the exact narrative used by people on the right to demonise anyone with left wing leanings.
Shhh you! It was the left that lead witch hunts to root out communist subversion in the 50s and destroyed lives with widespread labeling of those they disliked as "communists", tactics which still continue to this day!
Frazzled wrote: This argument is far closer to the Nazi ideal than anyone peacefully protesting yesterday. This is how Democracy dies.
JFC, are you serious? You have people marching around with swastika flags and Hitler quotes and you're honestly going to tell me that what's really close to the Nazi ideal is pointing out that free speech is not, and never has been, an absolute right?
It doesn't matter what they were advocating for they're allowed to March and espouse their political ideas as protected speech. Yelling fire in a crowded room where there is no actual fire or getting convicted of committing fraud has nothing to do with espousing political agendas or personal opinions which are protected speech. It doesn't matter if you're a proponent of white supremacy or black separatism or fascism or communism or libertarianism or a monarchist nobody else has the right to physically assault you because they don't like the ideas you're supporting and the State can't prosecute you because they think your ideas are bad or dangerous. If you can't see the horrible irony in demanding that an exception be made to allow people to physically assault people who endorse Nazism and for the State to be allowed to criminally prosecute people who are proponents of a white supremacist/Nazi political agenda then I humbly suggest you read up on Martin Niemoller he explains it very simply and very well.
Spinner wrote: In this topic, we have people saying that you're not allowed to call the actual Nazis Nazis. Take that as you will.
ya they're neo-nazi's, complete different than the "real" Nazi's. they only occupy various positions in the white house and elected positions, not like their in any sort of power position.
Are you claiming that there are currently neo-nazis sitting in local, state and federal elected offices in the USA? Who are they? What positions do they hold?
Spinner wrote: In this topic, we have people saying that you're not allowed to call the actual Nazis Nazis. Take that as you will.
ya they're neo-nazi's, complete different than the "real" Nazi's. they only occupy various positions in the white house and elected positions, not like their in any sort of power position.
Are you claiming that there are currently neo-nazis sitting in local, state and federal elected offices in the USA? Who are they? What positions do they hold?
Pretty positive he is referring to President Trump there.
Grey Templar wrote: Except it's not actual Nazis and Bigots the left labels. They'll call people that just because they are white. They'll call people bigots just because you hold a viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs. They'll call you a chauvinist just because you are a guy. etc...
This is the exact narrative used by people on the right to demonise anyone with left wing leanings.
It's not a narrative. It's what happens. I hate nazis. They're straight up evil. I do not support this rally in Charlottesville one bit. But I've been lumped in with people who do support them for nothing more than not being a self-loathing white man.
I have explained to someone why I feel that abortion is the ending of a human life. I was called an anti-choice chauvinist. I'm not anti-choice, I just think the choice happens prior to conception.
I have explained why I voted for Romney instead of Obama, on the actual issues of the election that had nothing to do with race. I was called a racist for not voting for Obama.
This happens all the freaking time. It's not all people on the left, but it is a significant chunk of people who claim they stand for freedom of speech and expression. Yet they seem all too eager to stamp out anybody who opposes them. What they are doing is wrong. Reacting to this with violence is also wrong. Everybody at that rally, both sides, should be ashamed.
Spinner wrote: In this topic, we have people saying that you're not allowed to call the actual Nazis Nazis. Take that as you will.
ya they're neo-nazi's, complete different than the "real" Nazi's. they only occupy various positions in the white house and elected positions, not like their in any sort of power position.
Are you claiming that there are currently neo-nazis sitting in local, state and federal elected offices in the USA? Who are they? What positions do they hold?
Pretty positive he is referring to President Trump there.
I wouldn't call Trump a neo-nazi ... but he probably is the neo-nazis' favourite president.
Grey Templar wrote: Except it's not actual Nazis and Bigots the left labels. They'll call people that just because they are white. They'll call people bigots just because you hold a viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs. They'll call you a chauvinist just because you are a guy. etc...
This is the exact narrative used by people on the right to demonise anyone with left wing leanings.
It's not a narrative. It's what happens. I hate nazis. They're straight up evil. I do not support this rally in Charlottesville one bit. But I've been lumped in with people who do support them for nothing more than not being a self-loathing white man.
I have explained to someone why I feel that abortion is the ending of a human life. I was called an anti-choice chauvinist. I'm not anti-choice, I just think the choice happens prior to conception.
I have explained why I voted for Romney instead of Obama, on the actual issues of the election. I was called a racist for not voting for Obama.
This happens all the freaking time. It's not all people on the left, but it is a significant chunk of people who claim they stand for freedom of speech and expression. Yet they seem all too eager to stamp out anybody who opposes them. What they are doing is wrong. Reacting to this with violence is also wrong. Everybody at that rally, both sides, should be ashamed.
I'm not denying for a second that there are a some people of any political persuasion who are too quick to condemn those with differing opinions. Can't you appreciate though, that when you said that this is what the left do, not this is what a small number of people, but the entirety of the left do, you're guilty of exactly what you accuse them of?
Spinner wrote: In this topic, we have people saying that you're not allowed to call the actual Nazis Nazis. Take that as you will.
ya they're neo-nazi's, complete different than the "real" Nazi's. they only occupy various positions in the white house and elected positions, not like their in any sort of power position.
Are you claiming that there are currently neo-nazis sitting in local, state and federal elected offices in the USA? Who are they? What positions do they hold?
Pretty positive he is referring to President Trump there.
yep, trump is fond of the Nazi salute after all. His cabinet could be full of them as well, he has hired some of the most morally reprehensible people he could find.
You're doing exactly what you claim people have been doing to you. You're saying that everyone who went there to protest Nazis went there to pick a fight, and should be just as ashamed as the people carting around a flag with a swastika on it. You're saying the people who were hit by a car driven by a white supremacist terrorist should be as ashamed as the driver of that car. You're saying that the people who stood up against racism should be as ashamed as the people calling for 'peaceful' ethnic cleansing and wondering if the genocide of black people would be 'wrong'.
jhe90 wrote: maybe both sides need to think about now, they ratchested the tension to point this happened after all.
maybe time to back off the hate.
Maybe we should hold the people actually killing people responsible for their actions?
As that sentiment is seemingly getting some traction here, I'm going to try and make sure to post it in the next terror attack thread. Surely it will go over well.
Nazism is a historical reality. But a lot of people don't really even believe in history as anything more than the simple idea that things happened before now. So you get the argument that because some people didn't take the actual Nazi party too seriously at some point before they took power that means if we, in a completely different time and place and culture, don't take anyone who calls themselves or - as is more often the case - is called by their political opponents by the term Nazi, that somehow not being committed to the idea that such a person is indeed a Nazi it means that Nazis will take over the United States - or, even more laughably, that this has already happened.
I don't think I've ever seen a clearer example of the echo chamber or bubble or whatever you want to call it than this kind of thinking. It's not only ahistorical; it's completely tautological.
Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I wouldn't call Trump a neo-nazi ... but he probably is the neo-nazis' favourite president.
Much more likely to be President Obama, who after all they could portray as the consumation of everything they believe is going wrong with America. With Trump, how can they say the system is rigged or complain that the country is being led by exactly the kind of person they hate and claim will destroy white people. With Trump, they can only gush about not being specifically called out. I mean, they read it as being in his favor. And they want the media to carry that same story, which it dutifully will. But that's not as electrifying as the guy in charge being living proof, in your own ignorant mind at least, for all your racist conspiracies.
jhe90 wrote: maybe both sides need to think about now, they ratchested the tension to point this happened after all.
maybe time to back off the hate.
Maybe we should hold the people actually killing people responsible for their actions?
As that sentiment is seemingly getting some traction here, I'm going to try and make sure to post it in the next terror attack thread. Surely it will go over well.
When has anyone argued that terrorists are not responsible for their actions? What people have argued is that the entire muslim population does not share some joint responsibility because a few fringe lunatics who happen to follow their religion decide to kill people.
They can't be actual Nazis because they lack that sweet 30's german mojo. Just like theres no communist in todays world.
They all dissapeared after the URSS disbanded, everybody knows that.
Sarouan wrote: To be honest, I'm not sure the roots of the problems here is really about White Nationalism or Nazism.
It really feels like people are unable to listen to each other and their frustrations can't express in another way than violence. The fact people on the social media tend to entranch themselves by only following the news/trends only going with their beliefs doesn't help to solve this situation.
Conflict is also a way to communicate, though it has dire consequences. Recently, we have more and more "warlike" comments. Even the "jokes" on that matter are becoming more and more agressive.
Nothing good comes from it. As soon as you deny the other side to express their feelings and their own view of the situation, it's unavoidable that it becomes a conflict, sooner or later.
This event is just another example of what happens because of this whole situation. Indeed, I believe it's the result of something much, much deeper than that. People feel they aren't heard. They need it.
Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.
Oh, so the poor, poor right are just victims here? Didn't they called everybody that disagreed with them in the 60-70-80 hippies, or communists, or marxists? Please. Name calling is as old as the world. Trying to put the blame in left or right just shows your own personal bias and agenda.
Again, if we don't realize that Communists are already in power in our government today then we will be doomed to suffer a communist revolution here in America !
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I wouldn't call Trump a neo-nazi ... but he probably is the neo-nazis' favourite president.
Much more likely to be President Obama, who after all they could portray as the consumation of everything they believe is going wrong with America. With Trump, how can they say the system is rigged or complain that the country is being led by exactly the kind of person they hate and claim will destroy white people. With Trump, they can only gush about not being specifically called out. I mean, they read it as being in his favor. And they want the media to carry that same story, which it dutifully will. But that's not as electrifying as the guy in charge being living proof, in your own ignorant mind at least, for all your racist conspiracies.
Except with Trump they can still complain about other people and blame them for standing in Trump's way to excuse his and their ideas being gak. Just like Hitler didn't stop arguing that the Jews and communists and other people the Nazis thought were undesirable were not a threat after the Nazis had gained complete power.
A lot of Trumps hardcore supporters still think there is some kind of shadow government run by Clinton (or people like her) who are seeking to obstruct Trump and prevent him from doing what he said, rather than accept his promises are utter bs and unworkable.
jhe90 wrote: maybe both sides need to think about now, they ratchested the tension to point this happened after all.
maybe time to back off the hate.
Maybe we should hold the people actually killing people responsible for their actions?
As that sentiment is seemingly getting some traction here, I'm going to try and make sure to post it in the next terror attack thread. Surely it will go over well.
When has anyone argued that terrorists are not responsible for their actions? What people have argued is that the entire muslim population does not share some joint responsibility because a few fringe lunatics who happen to follow their religion decide to kill people.
I meant it more as a reply that I would try the sentiment of not holding people responsible, just that we would all have to have a good long think on our actions. Apologies for the confusion.
Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
Hitler
I can understand that. Doesn't mean I am a Nazi. Hell its pretty much fact in some countries. Good quote from Hitler I have to say for its true of this time frame.
I can also say with conviction that the Neo Nazi today are not a power being they never learned to how to march. Got that one from a book which also ring true.
Before this all went down did you all know there was a push to change US Army bases named after Confederate Generals to change their names? That the DoD literally told them to "Ef Off"?
Like Ft Brag, Ft Lee etc etc
Wonder if George Washington statue going to be an issue later down the road. How did we get stuck on Nazi's?
edit
Woke up one cup of coffee in me. Mug is missing...
AegisGrimm wrote: My rambling takeaways from this entirely dirty situation?
-The driver is thankfully being charged with murder. Good. Should also be treated as a domestic terrorist, as frankly, anyone on t.v. would clamor for if he was a muslim workplace/club shooter. The only way to eliminate hateful actions in a civilized society is to crack down harshly and equally to all such actions no matter the source.
-I am also disgusted at the actions of the counter-protestors (not just in Charlottesville). Violent acts on the side of anti-hate group protestors make them just as dirty as those hate groups. The way to combat such groups is not to sound just like them. You need to show you are better than them, dammit. Make your side a stark difference from the ominous undertone of the hate groups, and the moment a collection of people on your side look like they are going to cause trouble, get the cops notified and get them gone so as to not taint your side.
The best way to show the insanity of hate groups is to have a situation where your group looks like well-centered adults while they look like Lord Humongous' goons.
-It was also extremely suprising to learn that a lot of the pictures of what look like cops and swat team officers are actually groups of white-supremacists who used an open carry situation to come loaded for bear, which I feel should be counted as inciting the situation just as bad as if groups on the other anti-side has bats and 2x4's.
If a group of hipsters with a rainbow flag shows up with bats and improvised weapons, they would be accused of coming to a situation ready to do violence. But if 20 Neo Nazi KKK members show up with rifles and body armor, they are just being mindful for their fellow's safety. Wait....huh?
-I think it's so funny that these white supremacist hate groups are built upon what is functionally White Tribalism. So completely ironic.
I find it so completely insane to hate people based on skin color or origin of birth.
All points in this post are just made of unrefined WIN.
I don't think white supremacists can possibly get the mileage out of Trump as they did Obama, except by alliance with the media. The media is desparate for stories about how since Trump's elections there are suddenly all these "emboldened" white supremacists ... they wanted the same stories when President Obama was elected: the election has emboldened these white supremacists! Once you are willing to go around in public with a giant Nazi flag, whether the NYT is there to cover it or not, you are already emboldened, or rather just beyond shame.
I agree with you in that Nazis have no real power or are any relevance in US politics. But when someone is a nazi, is a nazi. Here, in 50's Argentina or in 1925 Germany.
Plus, about the state issue... how we know hoy many statues where overthrow in the past from the classic or medieval era? The ones that now we take as monuments are normally in honour of generals, killers, etc... when past becomes history and the political dissasociation with a figure occurs, then it becomes national history and not a political party symbol.
If by "nazi" you mean white supremacist, or someone with strong authoritarian leanings, or just someone who is really a stickler about something minor ... yeah they're "nazis." But this is just a casual insult, not to be confused with a political ideology meaningfully connected to the actual, historical Nazis. And that distinction is being purposefully distorted here so that people can rationalize their fantasy of being important (that's the white supremacy side) or fighting the good fight against them with punches (that's the facebook politics side).
"we're Nazis! better pay attention to us or we will take over!"
That is becoming exceedingly narrow though. There were plenty of people we would say are Nazis for being members of the NSDAP especially after '33, but in no way share the same views as the 'hardcore' ones such as Hitler, Goebbels or Himmler. More mundane Nazis existed who supported, if not necessarily shared, the views of those higher up. There are certainly some people in the US that go exceedingly far in their views, such as Spencer, that could be called as such. If Spencer is, what would (certain) people that show up to rallies (partly) organized by him be?
If by "nazi" you mean white supremacist, or someone with strong authoritarian leanings, or just someone who is really a stickler about something minor ... yeah they're "nazis." But this is just a casual insult, not to be confused with a political ideology meaningfully connected to the actual, historical Nazis. And that distinction is being purposefully distorted here so that people can rationalize their fantasy of being important (that's the white supremacy side) or fighting the good fight against them with punches (that's the facebook politics side).
"we're Nazis! better pay attention to us or we will take over!"
- from Richard Spencer's super secret kampf-diary
I understand the reasoning behind your argument, and I think is pretty reasonable and correct in his own way, but I just don't think the same way. Lest agree to disagree.
jhe90 wrote: maybe both sides need to think about now, they ratchested the tension to point this happened after all.
maybe time to back off the hate.
Maybe we should hold the people actually killing people responsible for their actions?
as well as that but i mean they don't wake up 99% of time and think oh im gonna ram some people today.
That describes all major groups on this planet really, but that doesn't stop some people, including Trump in the spirit of his tweets, of making mountains out of molehills.
Richard Spencer is a pathetic wannabe Nazi. Maybe he started as a cosplayer and sort of got too far into it, I don't know. But what he absolutely is, is an unabashed white supremacist with views that the overwhelming majority of the people in the US find so embarassing, offensive, and/or idiotic that just the fact of him openly espousing them automatically discredits him. They only way he can get the attention he craves is to do his bizarre song and dance, replete with lurid and tasteless allusions to mass murderers, in front of mainstream media outlets that shamelessly want to get more clicks.
As for what I would call his followers? Misfit loser white supremacists. People whose views mean that they are ostracized by just about everyone in their own communities, much less the larger society.
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.
A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.
Richard Spencer is a pathetic wannabe Nazi. Maybe he started as a cosplayer and sort of got too far into it, I don't know. But what he absolutely is, is an unabashed white supremacist with views that the overwhelming majority of the people in the US find so embarassing, offensive, and/or idiotic that just the fact of him openly espousing them automatically discredits him. They only way he can get the attention he craves is to do his bizarre song and dance, replete with lurid and tasteless allusions to mass murderers, in front of mainstream media outlets who want to get clicks.
As for what I would call his followers? Misfit loser white supremacists. People whose views mean that they are ostracized by just about everyone in their own communities, much less the larger society.
I have read your opinion and rationale via various comments and I get where you're coming from. Realistically speaking Spencer will (likely, I can't see the future) never gain the same traction as that would require some ungodly amount of circumstances coming together. Yet some of his views go far beyond white supremacism in my opinion. Sure, giving him attention generates views as he is a really nasty individual that attracts attention, which the internet has given us plenty to pick from. But if people could call Spencer a Nazi, then certainly so could some of his followers be called as such. I think this comes down on personal view on how big or realistic their ambitions can get/are. But some of his views really get into the spirit if not the letter of Nazi ideology.
Because we have the benefit of hindsight we know what actual Nazis accomplished. Yet just for the sake of completion: Hitler also had to severely tone down his antisemitism to be successful in German elections. Most people found those views distasteful. There is the common saying that if you told the story of Hitler in 1920 without naming a country, people would have assumed it would have happened in France. Still, different times and circumstances I know. History doesn't repeat itself, but people do repeat past mistakes.
I think you make a good point. Dylann Roof was some kind of weirdo misfit who took it upon himself to murder innocent black people, ridiculously enough to trigger a "race war." But calling him a Nazi completely misses the point of his actions, his origin, his motivation. Roof's malice was not some kind a retro foreign import. That was pure American white supremacy. There needn't ever have been a Third Reich to have a Dylann Roof. And for these other American white supremacists, it is essentially the same although they crudely trot out Nazi symbols in the same way that you might see a Christian cross in Neon Genesis Evangelion.
@Disciple of Fate -
Hitler actually found that he had to ramp up his anti-semitism early in his political career. He was a classic opportunist. He refined his speeches, measuring success by the reaction of the crowd. Actual, historical Nazism is not a very coherent ideological platform for this, among other, reasons. It's most stable pillar was not even anti-semitism directly but rather expansion into a "germanization" of Eastern Europe.
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.
A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.
A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.
What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.
A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.
What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?
Probably wants to stick them in camps. A final solution of sorts
Manchu wrote: Furthermore, it is 100% exactly what guys like Richard Spencer need from you - because there is no other reason for them to be taken seriously than to pretend they are something completely other than what they are: a fringe group of completely unsympathetic wannabes who fixate on controversial terms and iconography to demand undeserved attention.
A good reason to take nazis seriously is that they organise and kill people. The thing is that "taking nazis seriously" does not mean letting them join in on governing or in any way tolerating them. Quite the opposite. The way to take nazis seriously on their promises of terror and genocide is to crush them. The nazis are angry over economic and demographic shifts that are going to remain whether you ignore what the nazis get up to or not. To characterise them as nothing but a bunch of fat, stinky, friendless nerds who've never even kissed a girl and all live in their mothers' basements is foolish. You can look goofy and be a murderer.
What exactly do you mean by "crush" them?
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
The president is following his usual pattern of refusing to call out white nationalists for what they are, after pandering to white nationalists for the past year and a half, and we have people trying to pull a Bill Clinton and argue about definitions rather than acknowledge the fact.
Manchu wrote: Hitler actually found that he had to ramp up his anti-semitism early in his political career. He was a classic opportunist. He refined his speeches, measuring success by the reaction of the crowd. Actual, historical Nazism is not a very coherent ideological platform for this, among other, reasons. It's most stable pillar was not even anti-semitism directly but rather expansion into a "germanization" of Eastern Europe.
That is very early in his career for a certain hardened group. which could be exactly what Spencer is doing. For the general public however Hitler certainly toned it down but it was still there, visible for anyone who wanted to look beyond the public facade. It certainly isn't a very coherent platform because it was just one man's (insane) vision. Yet his opportunism didn't take out the core of what he thought would be good for Germany. He always had a certain vague idea in his mind of which ethnic cleansing was certainly a part. Spencer in the same vein has a similar vague idea. I would disagree on the most stable pillar however, yes the drang nach Osten was important, but the main focus was more on Greater Germany that I would consider separate from that. Hitler himself actually started off with the antisemitism, with those views being one of his drivers to get into politics via the DAP. Only later moving into extreme nationalism and from there on moving into anti communist and the intertwined thinking of Lebensraum.
Again though, for the general public, Hitler never really talked openly about antisemitism, greater Germany or Lebensraum until the time was right at certain points, but they were always there in the background. Spencer ticks quite a few of the more generalistic boxes outside of the Germany-centric parts. So taking that into account I would very much say that Spencer would qualify as a neonazi.
I consider myself an intellectual and I support policies on both sides (I want people to defend their weed plants with their guns) and usually have something to say on an issue (though I don't post often in off-topic).
But I don't have words. We're arguing about 'how much power the Nazi's really have' or 'what even is a Nazi anyways' or 'is it wrong or right to advocate violence against people who advocate violence?'
This was a tragedy. A tragedy caused by a horrible Perfect Storm of political motivations.
I have never heard anyone on the Left call for violence against anyone who didn't already call for violence themselves.
I have heard people on the Right call for violence against people who have done nothing to them.
Say what you all must, argue about semantics and definitions if you must, but out here in the real world this single event has caused me to completely rethink the 'well the Right may have a point' that I wanted to believe earlier. The right wing is just wrong, much like how many religious people are wrong: When you point out that the 'extremists in their ranks are bad' they rise to defend them instead of calling them on their bs.
Manchu wrote: @Rosebuddy -
I think you make a good point. Dylann Roof was some kind of weirdo misfit who took it upon himself to murder innocent black people, ridiculously enough to trigger a "race war." But calling him a Nazi completely misses the point of his actions, his origin, his motivation. Roof's malice was not some kind a retro foreign import. That was pure American white supremacy. There needn't ever have been a Third Reich to have a Dylann Roof. And for these other American white supremacists, it is essentially the same although they crudely trot out Nazi symbols in the same way that you might see a Christian cross in Neon Genesis Evangelion.
American fascism is obviously its own beast. There are a lot of general material influences (roots in the middle class, hatred of labour, etc) but you can't just look at Nazi Germany and conclude that this is exactly how things will happen again. There are general right-wing extremists who don't fit fully into the nazi mould. But for the purposes of what to do I think it's alright to be somewhat broad with the nazi brush or at least talk about nazi-adjacent people. Groups that merely share most of the ideology and goals of a nazi movement and thus ally with them aren't really worth treating a lot better than you would the nazis proper. I was particularly talking about people who march to classical fascist chants and do nazi salutes, tho, were the similarity to historical nazis is outright intentional imitation.
There's generally more to Christian imagery than what NGE actually uses it for whereas nazi imagery doesn't have the depth or really any redemptive factors to it.
Depends on what means are available. If you've got state backing you can arrest them, dismantle their organisations and institute deradicalisation programs to help people who are at risk of falling into the milieu. Since that isn't actually the case the main thing that remains in the way of anti-fascist action is to just beat them (particularly since the Trump administration defunded the deradicalisation programs). If nazis are afrraid of appearing in public then a lot of the problem just doesn't happen. Doing all you can to get out the message of what options exist is also good but you can't cut back on directly protecting vulnerable groups.
One of the things which helps extremism is the belief that they represent the silent majority, that they are just saying what everyone else is thinking. The more people who speak out against extremism, the better because the extremists are emboldened when they perceive that their views are socially acceptable.
It certainly doesn't help when public figures (cough .. presidents .. cough, cough) draw false moral equivalency between fascists and antifascist protesters.
So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.
I guess I'm just dumb, but this whole thread seems to reek of yelling "no true scotsman nazi".
We used to have this argument about ISIL guys, remember? When you'd have a lone wolf attack by some guy who would scream out he was associated with ISIL. Then it turned out this guy has never actually evere been in contact with ISIL ever, but they believe any publicity is good publicity so they would take credit for the attack. We'd argue, what does it mean to actually be in ISIL? Do you have to go overseas to a training camp, or can you just watch some videos on youtube, or what?
This is useful because this is one of the few times that we actually sort of came to consensus that was widely agreed upon regardless of partisan stripe. In at least 2 threads that I recall, we decided if you want to call yourself a member of ISIL, we have no problem with you being charged with all sorts of anti-terrorism crimes for (whatever you did). If you want to join stupid clubs, you win stupid prizes.
As an analogy, I think it's useful here. People have the right to self determination, and if someone wants to carry a Nazi flag, wear a T-shirt that says Jews are inferior, and scream blood and soil while marching, it feels a little disingenuous to me to decide he's not really a Nazi. At best it seems to be oblivious, and at worse it seems like you're trying to rationalize away some unpleasant truths because you don't like what they say about a group you have sympathies for, or identify with, or what have you - I'm not trying to dogwhistle call someone a nazi, because... look, I don't think I'm putting this as artfully as I could be, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole "they're not really nazis" thing feels like is a way of not seeing something you don't want to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Damn if you do and damn if you don't for Trump.
So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.
I remember you specifically starting a thread right here on this forum condemning Obama for refusing to explicitly call out Islamic terrorism. I even linked to it right on the first page of this thread. I wonder what's changed since then. OTOH with that last sentence you might be saying you think he also should have been more explicit so perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
I don't think condemning nazi sympathizers and white nationalists should be a politically dangerous thing.
I think a lot of you on here who defend these pieces of human garbage do so because you say gak that people would punch you in the mouth for if we started thumping Nazi's again.
This whole incident is disgusting and the display in Charlottesville should be a wake up call that things are going off the rails.
This place is fething ridiculous. A woman is murdered and 20 more are injured by a right-wing terrorist, and this fething website goes out of it's way to bellow "but both sides!!!" and argue semantics over whether or not the people marching under the swastika should be referred to as Nazis or not.
Grey Templar wrote:This happens all the freaking time. It's not all people on the left, but it is a significant chunk of people who claim they stand for freedom of speech and expression. Yet they seem all too eager to stamp out anybody who opposes them. What they are doing is wrong. Reacting to this with violence is also wrong. Everybody at that rally, both sides, should be ashamed.
Yeah! Just look how angry and intimidating the crowd of people he went Y'all-Qaeda on are! (warning, image was taken during the crash)
Spoiler:
oldravenman3025 wrote:The torch march the night before went off without any problems. It wasn't until the Leftist counter protesters (some of which were armed with improvised weapons, as seen in some of the shots of the Challenger incident) started rolling in that the fuse had been lit.
Originally, the local police had labeled this as an accident caused by a combination of the counter protesters illegally marching in a vehicle-only lane, and a stupid (or panicky) driver. With all of the hubbub surrounding this incident (and event in general), it's a good idea to wait for all of the information before making "ironclad" conclusions.
Yeah, look at how angry all those "Leftist counter protesters" are!
If you ignore the fact that they surrounded the statue before the march reached it, and the march then "peacefully" encircled them with torches and prevented them from being able to leave, the counter protesters were totally the instigators! And even then, the counter-protesters have no reason to be scared or intimidated; groups of white supremacists/neo-nazis/nazis/fascists with torches have never done anything bad whatsoever.
Ouze wrote: I guess I'm just dumb, but this whole thread seems to reek of yelling "no true scotsman nazi".
We used to have this argument about ISIL guys, remember? When you'd have a lone wolf attack by some guy who would scream out he was associated with ISIL. Then it turned out this guy has never actually evere been in contact with ISIL ever, but they believe any publicity is good publicity so they would take credit for the attack. We'd argue, what does it mean to actually be in ISIL? Do you have to go overseas to a training camp, or can you just watch some videos on youtube, or what?
This is useful because this is one of the few times that we actually sort of came to consensus that was widely agreed upon regardless of partisan stripe. In at least 2 threads that I recall, we decided if you want to call yourself a member of ISIL, we have no problem with you being charged with all sorts of anti-terrorism crimes for (whatever you did). If you want to join stupid clubs, you win stupid prizes.
As an analogy, I think it's useful here. People have the right to self determination, and if someone wants to carry a Nazi flag, wear a T-shirt that says Jews are inferior, and scream blood and soil while marching, it feels a little disingenuous to me to decide he's not really a Nazi. At best it seems to be oblivious, and at worse it seems like you're trying to rationalize away some unpleasant truths because you don't like what they say about a group you have sympathies for, or identify with, or what have you - I'm not trying to dogwhistle call someone a nazi, because... look, I don't think I'm putting this as artfully as I could be, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole "they're not really nazis" thing feels like is a way of not seeing something you don't want to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Damn if you do and damn if you don't for Trump.
So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.
I remember you specifically starting a thread right here on this forum condemning Obama for refusing to explicitly call out Islamic terrorism. I even linked to it right on the first page of this thread. I wonder what's changed since then. OTOH with that last sentence you might be saying you think he also should have been more explicit so perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
I don't think condemning nazi sympathizers and white nationalists should be a politically dangerous thing.
I highly doubt that was me. Seriously doubt it. I won't start a thread questioning my Commander in Chief because I can get slammed if it was ever brought forth. In fact I remember you backing my inability to reply to a certain question concerning a stance towards the establishment.
Edit II
Ya I went over my thread posts in Off Topic. I did not start a thread calling Obama out for not condemning that brand of idiots
reds8n wrote: One would think that saying "Nazis are bad" would cost the President of the United States absolutely zero political capital.
How times change eh ?
Can we really be sure they were Nazis? I mean sure, they were marching under swastikas, were shouting Nazi phrases ("Blood and Soil" "The Jews will not replace us"), self-identify as Nazis and espouse political views that would feel right at home in 1930s Germany, but can we really be sure? It's like the old saying goes: "If it talks like a duck, espouses genocide like a duck, goose-steps like a duck and carries duck flags, can we be 100% certain that it's a duck? It might just be economically anxious"
lonestarr777 wrote: I think a lot of you on here who defend these pieces of human garbage do so because you say gak that people would punch you in the mouth for if we started thumping Nazi's again.
This whole incident is disgusting and the display in Charlottesville should be a wake up call that things are going off the rails.
I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Frazzled wrote: I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
If anything, I would say that they whole "it's OK to punch a nazi" idea is more dangerous to freedom, as an abstract. I realize it's a little tone deaf to say that an idea is dangerous when white supremacists literally killed people yesterday, but the latter is an uncommon situation that already has strong denunciation both socially and legally, and the former actually seeks to, in my opinion, normalize violence against a marginal group solely because of their political views.
So, at least in that regard, "Many sides" wasn't wholly wrong.
Frazzled wrote: I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Well, we will have to agree to differ on this one. I'm coming at this from a British perspective, where freedom of speech has limits in law defined by what is deemed socially acceptable. In the U.K. We have laws against hate speech, laws against issuing threats of violence and laws against inciting racial or religious hatred. In my humble opinion, we're all better of because of it.
Jihadin wrote: Ya I went over my thread posts in Off Topic. I did not start a thread calling Obama out for not condemning that brand of idiots
Are you 100% sure you didn't?
Spoiler:
At multiple points during the last administration, you and several other posters were really, really concerned over a perception that Obama wouldn't explicitly call Islamic terrorism exactly that because he wanted to be politically correct.
Now that white supremacists have committed an act of domestic terrorism, you seem concerned about the slippery slope that comes from labelling people. What's changed?
lonestarr777 wrote: I think a lot of you on here who defend these pieces of human garbage do so because you say gak that people would punch you in the mouth for if we started thumping Nazi's again.
This whole incident is disgusting and the display in Charlottesville should be a wake up call that things are going off the rails.
I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Saying the left invited it, and started it, and trying to claim they're not really Nazi's is defending them. Pretending that a hate group doesn't exist not only defends it, but allows it to continue.
so those 20 people deserved it. those meanies on the left called them bigots for being bigoted, quick hop in the car and run them over. that man ran over 20 people and killed a woman, but someone on the left punched a Nazi in the face, blame the left.
So fine, if they're not Nazi's then how about "a confederate ran over 20 people and killed a woman". confederates waving a Nazi flag, talk about bringing shame to confederates everywhere and showing clearly that that flag does represent a heritage of hate.
Jihadin wrote: Ya I went over my thread posts in Off Topic. I did not start a thread calling Obama out for not condemning that brand of idiots
Are you 100% sure you didn't?
Spoiler:
At multiple points during the last administration, you and several other posters were really, really concerned over a perception that Obama wouldn't explicitly call Islamic terrorism exactly that because he wanted to be politically correct.
Now that white supremacists have committed an act of domestic terrorism, you seem concerned about the slippery slope that comes from labelling people. What's changed?
Ah I over looked that. Though I didn't take a stance
Do you think Obama should be more open about who is behind the terror
Ducking and dodging over there and now I have to duck and dodge now that I'm home. This blows. So fellow Dakkas. Whats your take on this.
lonestarr777 wrote: I think a lot of you on here who defend these pieces of human garbage do so because you say gak that people would punch you in the mouth for if we started thumping Nazi's again.
This whole incident is disgusting and the display in Charlottesville should be a wake up call that things are going off the rails.
I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Saying the left invited it, and started it, and trying to claim they're not really Nazi's is defending them. Pretending that a hate group doesn't exist not only defends it, but allows it to continue.
so those 20 people deserved it. those meanies on the left called them bigots for being bigoted, quick hop in the car and run them over. that man ran over 20 people and killed a woman, but someone on the left punched a Nazi in the face, blame the left.
So fine, if they're not Nazi's then how about "a confederate ran over 20 people and killed a woman". confederates waving a Nazi flag, talk about bringing shame to confederates everywhere and showing clearly that that flag does represent a heritage of hate.
your argument appears unrelated to what posters actually wrote. Excellent strawman though. Kudos.
Jihadin wrote: Ah I over looked that. Though I didn't take a stance
Do you think Obama should be more open about who is behind the terror
Ducking and dodging over there and now I have to duck and dodge now that I'm home. This blows. So fellow Dakkas. Whats your take on this.
Just asking questions?
Spoiler:
I want to reiterate something I said here once - I don't always agree with you and I think we're often very opposed politically, but you're one of my favorite posters here because even in strong disagreement, you're never rude, or mocking, or throwing up strawmen, or other low-end forum behaviors. You're definitely a better dakkaroo than I am, in this regard.
So i want to make sure I'm being fair and honest with you. When you made the one post that brought us to this tangent, it kind of was open ended:
Jihadin wrote: Damn if you do and damn if you don't for Trump.
So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.
That last sentence there, I mean, are you agreeing he needs to be more specific or what? Or are you saying that hate on all sides is a core problem?
Frazzled wrote: I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Well, we will have to agree to differ on this one. I'm coming at this from a British perspective, where freedom of speech has limits in law defined by what is deemed socially acceptable. In the U.K. We have laws against hate speech, laws against issuing threats of violence and laws against inciting racial or religious hatred. In my humble opinion, we're all better of because of it.
Same for the Netherlands. That Friday night protest might not have even been allowed given the risk to public safety, given what this type of rally attracts. Certainly when the remarks about Jews were chanted the police would have stopped it. Similar racist/inciteful remarks have been made during protests here in the NL and that has always been the signal to intervene and stop it. Similar laws on hate speech and incitement. I find that to be a good thing in my opinion.
Frazzled wrote: I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Well, we will have to agree to differ on this one. I'm coming at this from a British perspective, where freedom of speech has limits in law defined by what is deemed socially acceptable. In the U.K. We have laws against hate speech, laws against issuing threats of violence and laws against inciting racial or religious hatred. In my humble opinion, we're all better of because of it.
Same for the Netherlands. That Friday night protest might not have even been allowed given the risk to public safety, given what this type of rally attracts. Certainly when the remarks about Jews were chanted the police would have stopped it. Similar racist/inciteful remarks have been made during protests here in the NL and that has always been the signal to intervene and stop it. Similar laws on hate speech and incitement. I find that to be a good thing in my opinion.
Indeed. However the US values the right of free speech perhaps as the greatest right of all. It's a difference between nations, based on why the US came into being.
Jihadin wrote: Ah I over looked that. Though I didn't take a stance
Do you think Obama should be more open about who is behind the terror
Ducking and dodging over there and now I have to duck and dodge now that I'm home. This blows. So fellow Dakkas. Whats your take on this.
Just asking questions?
Spoiler:
I want to reiterate something I said here once - I don't always agree with you and I think we're often very opposed politically, but you're one of my favorite posters here because even in strong disagreement, you're never rude, or mocking, or throwing up strawmen, or other low-end forum behaviors. You're definitely a better dakkaroo than I am, in this regard.
So i want to make sure I'm being fair and honest with you. When you made the one post that brought us to this tangent, it kind of was open ended:
Jihadin wrote: Damn if you do and damn if you don't for Trump.
So he condemns a certain group today and in turn condemns another group tomorrow of the opposite side which may turn into a "He's racist" angle. He took a neutral stance in condemning hate on all sides regardless of groups which to me is a core problem.
That last sentence there, I mean, are you agreeing he needs to be more specific or what? Or are you saying that hate on all sides is a core problem?
I'm saying regardless of what he does its not going to satisfy a group of people. That pretty much covers all POTUS we had. Eventually we get out this corner in say ten generations from now. Maybe.
As for the Hate part. First off you know I hate when a group gets stupid and does something that''s more stupid that compounds later on into more stupidity. When another grp involves itself with the the dumb grp the "disease" spreads into the other grp.
Let me get to Hate now. Hate is the core problem. With Hate ones denies or refuse to see another point of view. Hate blinds you. I've Hate for the Insurgents but I'm not blind to a point of stupid to know their background. As for the Hate for Robert E. Lee from one grp and another grp defending his removal using "Southern Heritage" as an excuse is plain outright F'ing dumb. I firmly believe Robert E Lee fought for the State of VA for he was a Virginian. He did not fight against the Union to uphold Slavery. IMHO
I think...key word think I made myself clear?
Example. IIRC isn't Jefferson statue across from Lee statue. One grp protesting the removal of the Lee statue and the other grp in front of Jefferson statue counter protesting. One grp had a permit to hold a rally protest and the other didn't have one(?)
Frazzled wrote: I have not seen any posts defending them, just their right to speak. I have seen lots of posters espousing anti American beliefs against the right of speech.
Well, we will have to agree to differ on this one. I'm coming at this from a British perspective, where freedom of speech has limits in law defined by what is deemed socially acceptable. In the U.K. We have laws against hate speech, laws against issuing threats of violence and laws against inciting racial or religious hatred. In my humble opinion, we're all better of because of it.
Same for the Netherlands. That Friday night protest might not have even been allowed given the risk to public safety, given what this type of rally attracts. Certainly when the remarks about Jews were chanted the police would have stopped it. Similar racist/inciteful remarks have been made during protests here in the NL and that has always been the signal to intervene and stop it. Similar laws on hate speech and incitement. I find that to be a good thing in my opinion.
Indeed. However the US values the right of free speech perhaps as the greatest right of all. It's a difference between nations, based on why the US came into being.
Its also down to experience I guess, having actually experienced Nazi rule we tend to be a bit less lenient. Still not going as far as Germany though, but then the same argument goes even more for them.
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad. Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad. Throwing bricks at people is bad. Throwing just about anything at people is bad. Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad. Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad. Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Crap. One of the spokesman for the Supremist grp wearing a Victory or Valhalla polo shirt. I own/wear one to work to.
You're clearly a White Supremacist and should be ashamed of yourself.
Seriously though, who fething cares?
Remember that time when 4chan fooled the Left into thinking the OK hand signal was a White Supremacist symbol?
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad.
Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad.
Throwing bricks at people is bad.
Throwing just about anything at people is bad.
Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad.
Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad.
Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
I'd like to add a caveat to the last bit:
"Unless it's warranted."
Sometimes, hitting someone over the head with a bike lock is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing a smoke grenade at someone is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing bricks at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing just about anything at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, punching people who are literal Nazis is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, blocking roads and attacking cars is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, destroying property is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Antifa thugs and white supremacists shed blood over the memory of when America was divided in a horrible civil war. Its truly sad to see the ghosts of the America's past come back for more blood. But as another poster said the CSA was never truly buried into the annals of history and since then we have paid dearly for this mistake.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Yes, you should never forget one of the most important chapters of American history, but these flags and statues belong in a museum and the history books, or brought out for historical re-enactment.
By their logic, you should be building statues of British generals of the American revolution: Howe, Cornwallis, Gage, etc etc
In England, statues of traitors hold prominent positions as well. Oliver Cromwell in my grandfather's own home town, Harry "Hotspur", Owen Glendower, Richard Neville, the list goes on. The south was given much more leniency than traitors normally get because of the need to heal the wounds of the country and put it back together, ugly compromises were made. But the US is not unique in that. Europeans were usually far more savage in those days of the defeated party, The pilgrimage of grace comes to mind as well as the cornish uprising.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Ouze wrote: I guess I'm just dumb, but this whole thread seems to reek of yelling "no true scotsman nazi".
We used to have this argument about ISIL guys, remember? When you'd have a lone wolf attack by some guy who would scream out he was associated with ISIL. Then it turned out this guy has never actually evere been in contact with ISIL ever, but they believe any publicity is good publicity so they would take credit for the attack. We'd argue, what does it mean to actually be in ISIL? Do you have to go overseas to a training camp, or can you just watch some videos on youtube, or what?
This is useful because this is one of the few times that we actually sort of came to consensus that was widely agreed upon regardless of partisan stripe. In at least 2 threads that I recall, we decided if you want to call yourself a member of ISIL, we have no problem with you being charged with all sorts of anti-terrorism crimes for (whatever you did). If you want to join stupid clubs, you win stupid prizes.
As an analogy, I think it's useful here. People have the right to self determination, and if someone wants to carry a Nazi flag, wear a T-shirt that says Jews are inferior, and scream blood and soil while marching, it feels a little disingenuous to me to decide he's not really a Nazi. At best it seems to be oblivious, and at worse it seems like you're trying to rationalize away some unpleasant truths because you don't like what they say about a group you have sympathies for, or identify with, or what have you - I'm not trying to dogwhistle call someone a nazi, because... look, I don't think I'm putting this as artfully as I could be, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole "they're not really nazis" thing feels like is a way of not seeing something you don't want to see.
I don't think you're dumb but I think you're giving too much thought to this "no true Nazi" angle that is really an irrelevant tangent. Whether people wear the shirts, hold the flags and promote the agendas and politics of Nazism because they desperate angry white supremacists or because they want to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews or whatever, doesn't matter. Whether they are true or untrue Nazis they still have the right to wear whatever shirt they want, advocate whatever political agenda they want and hold whatever opinions they want. Supporting our collective free speech rights has nothing to do with supporting or defending any particular speech. The only reason the "true Nazi" argument came up was due to the insistence that an exemption to free speech protection had to be made for Nazis because Nazis are so bad. The counter argument was made that the people in this scenario don't really pose the same threat as the Nazi party in 1930s Germany and really aren't enough of a threat to warrant such an over reaction. Nobody is arguing that Nazism and white supremacy are good ideas, they are clearly bad ideas but here in the US we're free to have bad ideas and to express those bad ideas without being suppressed by the State or physically attacked by other people.
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad.
Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad.
Throwing bricks at people is bad.
Throwing just about anything at people is bad.
Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad.
Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad.
Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
I'd like to add a caveat to the last bit:
"Unless it's warranted."
Sometimes, hitting someone over the head with a bike lock is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing a smoke grenade at someone is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing bricks at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing just about anything at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, punching people who are literal Nazis is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, blocking roads and attacking cars is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, destroying property is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Unless the person you're hitting with a bike lock or brick is presenting a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm to you it's not justified at all. That what our legal system and social conventions and shared accepted morality tell us. Disagreeing with an idea espoused by somebody else regardless of what that idea entails is never justification for physical violence.
I've personally never understood why people love causes that failed so much. Be it confederate, Nazi, Roman, samurai or what have you. I conceptually understand romanticism of the past, and the power of symbols and stuff, but it's never made much sense to me to tie significant aspects of your personality to well... losers. That's why I'm not worried about these "Nazis" - they've effectively branded themselves as losers, especially since they're spent decades playing the victim to the news media. No serious percentage of the American population is going to get behind them.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad.
Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad.
Throwing bricks at people is bad.
Throwing just about anything at people is bad.
Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad.
Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad.
Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
I'd like to add a caveat to the last bit:
"Unless it's warranted."
Sometimes, hitting someone over the head with a bike lock is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing a smoke grenade at someone is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing bricks at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing just about anything at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, punching people who are literal Nazis is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, blocking roads and attacking cars is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, destroying property is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
My desire to know more intensifies.
Could you explain us how and when it is morally acceptable to do this kind of things ?
When you disagree with someone ? Or when they don't vote democrate ? Or if they are white maybe ?
Please, care to elaborate ?
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad.
Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad.
Throwing bricks at people is bad.
Throwing just about anything at people is bad.
Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad.
Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad.
Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
I'd like to add a caveat to the last bit:
"Unless it's warranted."
Sometimes, hitting someone over the head with a bike lock is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing a smoke grenade at someone is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing bricks at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing just about anything at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, punching people who are literal Nazis is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, blocking roads and attacking cars is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, destroying property is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
My desire to know more intensifies.
Could you explain us how and when it is morally acceptable to do this kind of things ?
When you disagree with someone ? Or when they don't vote democrate ? Or if they are white maybe ?
Please, care to elaborate ?
1) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
2) when you are a police officer or a soldier using a smoke grenade
3) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
4) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
5) When they are advocating for the 'cleansing' of you or someone you care about.
6) When you are protesting an injustice in the world and trying to draw attention to your cause or the issue.
7) When you are protesting an injustice in the world and trying to draw attention to your cause or the issue.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Yes, you should never forget one of the most important chapters of American history, but these flags and statues belong in a museum and the history books, or brought out for historical re-enactment.
By their logic, you should be building statues of British generals of the American revolution: Howe, Cornwallis, Gage, etc etc
In England, statues of traitors hold prominent positions as well. Oliver Cromwell in my grandfather's own home town, Harry "Hotspur", Owen Glendower, Richard Neville, the list goes on. The south was given much more leniency than traitors normally get because of the need to heal the wounds of the country and put it back together, ugly compromises were made. But the US is not unique in that. Europeans were usually far more savage in those days of the defeated party, The pilgrimage of grace comes to mind as well as the cornish uprising.
Also you should be aware, most of these monuments were put up in the 20th century, and actually represent racist backlash to the civil Rights movements if their era.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument. Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots. But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them ! IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist. What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc... And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people ! You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them choose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Ironic given that you supported Le Pen
I supported her, her father before her, and I still support her because I think she is the most capable of protecting free speech and the laws in France.
When some others candidates tell, officially that secularism has to contrive sometimes , telling effectively that the law shouldn't be all the same everywhere in the country, or that pubs FORBIDDEN to women in Paris "is not a problem" wtf How do you want me to not vote for her ?
I love my country and my family, I don't want to let them a country wasted like Germany.
I want to have the right to express myself, to be free and the others to be free and express themselfs. This is why I supported her, and Trump and this kind of people. Because they are the only who care about this.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Please cite the posts defending Nazis on this thread.
You mean the posts where people are saying we can't call them nazis because "the nazis are no longer around"? Or the people saying they have the right to call for extermination of entire groups of people.
Just stick to threatening to kill people on message boards it works better for you
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
The Nazis weren't socialist either, just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic or a republic and how the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
Ouze wrote: I guess I'm just dumb, but this whole thread seems to reek of yelling "no true scotsman nazi".
We used to have this argument about ISIL guys, remember? When you'd have a lone wolf attack by some guy who would scream out he was associated with ISIL. Then it turned out this guy has never actually evere been in contact with ISIL ever, but they believe any publicity is good publicity so they would take credit for the attack. We'd argue, what does it mean to actually be in ISIL? Do you have to go overseas to a training camp, or can you just watch some videos on youtube, or what?
This is useful because this is one of the few times that we actually sort of came to consensus that was widely agreed upon regardless of partisan stripe. In at least 2 threads that I recall, we decided if you want to call yourself a member of ISIL, we have no problem with you being charged with all sorts of anti-terrorism crimes for (whatever you did). If you want to join stupid clubs, you win stupid prizes.
As an analogy, I think it's useful here. People have the right to self determination, and if someone wants to carry a Nazi flag, wear a T-shirt that says Jews are inferior, and scream blood and soil while marching, it feels a little disingenuous to me to decide he's not really a Nazi. At best it seems to be oblivious, and at worse it seems like you're trying to rationalize away some unpleasant truths because you don't like what they say about a group you have sympathies for, or identify with, or what have you - I'm not trying to dogwhistle call someone a nazi, because... look, I don't think I'm putting this as artfully as I could be, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole "they're not really nazis" thing feels like is a way of not seeing something you don't want to see.
I don't think you're dumb but I think you're giving too much thought to this "no true Nazi" angle that is really an irrelevant tangent. Whether people wear the shirts, hold the flags and promote the agendas and politics of Nazism because they desperate angry white supremacists or because they want to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews or whatever, doesn't matter. Whether they are true or untrue Nazis they still have the right to wear whatever shirt they want, advocate whatever political agenda they want and hold whatever opinions they want. Supporting our collective free speech rights has nothing to do with supporting or defending any particular speech. The only reason the "true Nazi" argument came up was due to the insistence that an exemption to free speech protection had to be made for Nazis because Nazis are so bad. The counter argument was made that the people in this scenario don't really pose the same threat as the Nazi party in 1930s Germany and really aren't enough of a threat to warrant such an over reaction. Nobody is arguing that Nazism and white supremacy are good ideas, they are clearly bad ideas but here in the US we're free to have bad ideas and to express those bad ideas without being suppressed by the State or physically attacked by other people.
You are, however, not allowed to incite violence. Advocating national socialism is inherently inciting violence, as we've already established. That's illegal in the US.
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad.
Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad.
Throwing bricks at people is bad.
Throwing just about anything at people is bad.
Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad.
Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad.
Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
I'd like to add a caveat to the last bit:
"Unless it's warranted."
Sometimes, hitting someone over the head with a bike lock is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing a smoke grenade at someone is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing bricks at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing just about anything at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, punching people who are literal Nazis is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, blocking roads and attacking cars is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, destroying property is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
My desire to know more intensifies.
Could you explain us how and when it is morally acceptable to do this kind of things ?
When you disagree with someone ? Or when they don't vote democrate ? Or if they are white maybe ?
Please, care to elaborate ?
1) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
2) when you are a police officer or a soldier using a smoke grenade
3) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
4) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
5) When they are advocating for the 'cleansing' of you or someone you care about.
6) When you are protesting an injustice in the world and trying to draw attention to your cause or the issue.
7) When you are protesting an injustice in the world and trying to draw attention to your cause or the issue.
If you really believe #5,6,7 are correct then you're working with a set of laws and ethics that are very different from the US legal system and society. Advocating genocide is deplorable but not make responding with physical violence legally or ethically justifiable. A perceived injustice does not make attacking people driving down the street in cars or destroying other people's property ethically or legally justified.
In a thread about a vehicular attack against counter-protestors at a pro white nationalist protest, hardly any posts have been about the attack. But there are lots of posts about how the nazi flag waving guys aren't really nazis, how it's the lefts fault they got mowed down by a car, how "both sides are bad" after one side committed murder, and a weird focus on people saying "it's not okay to say we should punch people" in the aftermath of a murderous attack.
A lot was revealed about people during the course of this thread.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Please cite the posts defending Nazis on this thread.
You mean the posts where people are saying we can't call them nazis because "the nazis are no longer around"? Or the people saying they have the right to call for extermination of entire groups of people.
Just stick to threatening to kill people on message boards it works better for you
1. Calling them racists or Neo Nazis is appropriate. However I saw Klan nomenclature on some (worse than neos in my opinion). I am just saying Nazis were a specific group that no longer exist.
2. I have not seen anyone post such in this thread.
3. I don't threaten over the internet, or even in person. Well my breath is pretty threatening...
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
We are talking about actual nazis walking around displaying classical nazi and fascist iconography while perfoming nazi salutes and chanting classical fascist rallying points. When you've got a group of people chanting "blood and soil" it is not an insult to categorise them as nazis. It is simple observation.
godardc wrote: Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
The deal with the national socialism of the original Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was to combine racial supermacy with economic socialism. The entire party was funded in part out of opposition to socialist ideology. They really weren't very socialist. They just wanted good stuff for aryans.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument. Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots. But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them ! IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist. What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc... And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people ! You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
According to the SJWs, I think most of our beloved grandparents would be called nazis, indeed. But they are not, we agree. See how stupid it is ? Because they have grown up a long time ago, and so they have a traditional education. I don't think my grandparents even know what lgbtqia etc etc means,so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady". Ok, let NK out of this. Take Venezuela then. Isn't it a wonderful socialist country ? See the results. When you let the power to this kind of people, this is what happens, everytime. You do know that even BEFORE the war, Nazis, the only true ones, killed at last thousands in camps ? Aktion T4 for example.
I know and agree, countries from Eastern Europe removed theirs statuts. And I keep thinking it is stupid. I'm no communist, but if It were a Lenin statut in my town, I would fight (not physically, don't worry I'm note a sjw) to keep it. Because it would be part of my history, and my town.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
The Nazis weren't socialist either, just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither democratic or a republic and how the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
Ouze wrote: I guess I'm just dumb, but this whole thread seems to reek of yelling "no true scotsman nazi".
We used to have this argument about ISIL guys, remember? When you'd have a lone wolf attack by some guy who would scream out he was associated with ISIL. Then it turned out this guy has never actually evere been in contact with ISIL ever, but they believe any publicity is good publicity so they would take credit for the attack. We'd argue, what does it mean to actually be in ISIL? Do you have to go overseas to a training camp, or can you just watch some videos on youtube, or what?
This is useful because this is one of the few times that we actually sort of came to consensus that was widely agreed upon regardless of partisan stripe. In at least 2 threads that I recall, we decided if you want to call yourself a member of ISIL, we have no problem with you being charged with all sorts of anti-terrorism crimes for (whatever you did). If you want to join stupid clubs, you win stupid prizes.
As an analogy, I think it's useful here. People have the right to self determination, and if someone wants to carry a Nazi flag, wear a T-shirt that says Jews are inferior, and scream blood and soil while marching, it feels a little disingenuous to me to decide he's not really a Nazi. At best it seems to be oblivious, and at worse it seems like you're trying to rationalize away some unpleasant truths because you don't like what they say about a group you have sympathies for, or identify with, or what have you - I'm not trying to dogwhistle call someone a nazi, because... look, I don't think I'm putting this as artfully as I could be, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole "they're not really nazis" thing feels like is a way of not seeing something you don't want to see.
I don't think you're dumb but I think you're giving too much thought to this "no true Nazi" angle that is really an irrelevant tangent. Whether people wear the shirts, hold the flags and promote the agendas and politics of Nazism because they desperate angry white supremacists or because they want to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews or whatever, doesn't matter. Whether they are true or untrue Nazis they still have the right to wear whatever shirt they want, advocate whatever political agenda they want and hold whatever opinions they want. Supporting our collective free speech rights has nothing to do with supporting or defending any particular speech. The only reason the "true Nazi" argument came up was due to the insistence that an exemption to free speech protection had to be made for Nazis because Nazis are so bad. The counter argument was made that the people in this scenario don't really pose the same threat as the Nazi party in 1930s Germany and really aren't enough of a threat to warrant such an over reaction. Nobody is arguing that Nazism and white supremacy are good ideas, they are clearly bad ideas but here in the US we're free to have bad ideas and to express those bad ideas without being suppressed by the State or physically attacked by other people.
You are, however, not allowed to incite violence. Advocating national socialism is inherently inciting violence, as we've already established. That's illegal in the US.
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
My grandfather didn't survive the Second World War. He's buried in a military cemetery in Italy. As a result I have some very, very strong opinions about anyone who marches under a far right flag.
in addition, my wife is not white. I'm thankful that I live in a country where people's freedom of speech does not extend to being able to belittle or demean her for having the wrong density of melanin.
These right wing scum are not pacifists. Their very beliefs are an act of violence, not literal, but mental and spiritual violence against anyone who does not fit their narrow definition of what race, religion or sexuality they believe to be what their country should consist of.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Please cite the posts defending Nazis on this thread.
You mean the posts where people are saying we can't call them nazis because "the nazis are no longer around"? Or the people saying they have the right to call for extermination of entire groups of people.
Just stick to threatening to kill people on message boards it works better for you
1. Calling them racists or Neo Nazis is appropriate. However I saw Klan nomenclature on some (worse than neos in my opinion). I am just saying Nazis were a specific group that no longer exist.
2. I have not seen anyone post such in this thread.
3. I don't threaten over the internet, or even in person. Well my breath is pretty threatening...
1) The klan and neo nazis are becoming one and the same and the groups are merging slowly but surely
2) It is on literally on every page open your eyes and actually read
3) I guess that is why you disappeared for a few weeks after I saw you threaten someone with death in this very sub forum
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
According to the SJWs, I think most of our beloved grandparents would be called nazis, indeed. But they are not, we agree. See how stupid it is ?
Because they have grown up a long time ago, and so they have a traditional education. I don't think my grandparents even know what lgbtqia etc etc means,so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady".
Ok, let NK out of this.
Take Venezuela then. Isn't it a wonderful socialist country ? See the results. When you let the power to this kind of people, this is what happens, everytime.
You do know that even BEFORE the war, Nazis, the only true ones, killed at last thousands in camps ? Aktion T4 for example.
I know and agree, countries from Eastern Europe removed theirs statuts. And I keep thinking it is stupid. I'm no communist, but if It were a Lenin statut in my town, I would fight (not physically, don't worry I'm note a sjw) to keep it.
Because it would be part of my history, and my town.
Bromsy wrote: I think limiting the ability to freely assemble and voice your beliefs is bad.
I think Nazi ideology is bad.
I think running over people with cars is bad.
I think many people in this thread are talking past each other.
That is about all I can commit to without getting invested in this more, and I have a tiny baby I'd rather be hanging out with.
I agree with all of that, but I'd like to add a few.
Hitting people over the head with a bike lock is bad.
Throwing smoke grenades at people is bad.
Throwing bricks at people is bad.
Throwing just about anything at people is bad.
Advocating punching people who say things you dislike is bad.
Blocking roads and attacking cars is bad.
Setting fire to cars and buildings is bad.
I'd like to add a caveat to the last bit:
"Unless it's warranted."
Sometimes, hitting someone over the head with a bike lock is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing a smoke grenade at someone is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing bricks at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, throwing just about anything at people is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, punching people who are literal Nazis is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, blocking roads and attacking cars is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
Sometimes, destroying property is morally, ethically, and legally justified.
My desire to know more intensifies.
Could you explain us how and when it is morally acceptable to do this kind of things ?
When you disagree with someone ? Or when they don't vote democrate ? Or if they are white maybe ?
Please, care to elaborate ?
1) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
2) when you are a police officer or a soldier using a smoke grenade
3) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
4) When your (or someone you care about's) life is in danger and you are defending yourself (or them).
5) When they are advocating for the 'cleansing' of you or someone you care about.
6) When you are protesting an injustice in the world and trying to draw attention to your cause or the issue.
7) When you are protesting an injustice in the world and trying to draw attention to your cause or the issue.
If you really believe #5,6,7 are correct then you're working with a set of laws and ethics that are very different from the US legal system and society. Advocating genocide is deplorable but not make responding with physical violence legally or ethically justifiable. A perceived injustice does not make attacking people driving down the street in cars or destroying other people's property ethically or legally justified.
"Advocating genocide" could be viewed as threatening the people you plan to genocide, no?
Attacking people driving down the street in cars is different than attacking cars.
Destroying other people's property because of a perceived injustice is literally what happened during the revolution that founded our country. The Boston Tea Party is the most commonly cited example.
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
We are talking about actual nazis walking around displaying classical nazi and fascist iconography while perfoming nazi salutes and chanting classical fascist rallying points. When you've got a group of people chanting "blood and soil" it is not an insult to categorise them as nazis. It is simple observation.
godardc wrote: Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
The deal with the national socialism of the original Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was to combine racial supermacy with economic socialism. The entire party was funded in part out of opposition to socialist ideology. They really weren't very socialist. They just wanted good stuff for aryans.
Yeah, there are actual neo nazis it would seem. But I get the feeling that every guy that went at the manifestation is being called a nazi, when they were only a few. Let avoid amalgam, guys, like everytime.
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
We are talking about actual nazis walking around displaying classical nazi and fascist iconography while perfoming nazi salutes and chanting classical fascist rallying points. When you've got a group of people chanting "blood and soil" it is not an insult to categorise them as nazis. It is simple observation.
godardc wrote: Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
The deal with the national socialism of the original Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was to combine racial supermacy with economic socialism. The entire party was funded in part out of opposition to socialist ideology. They really weren't very socialist. They just wanted good stuff for aryans.
Yeah, there are actual neo nazis it would seem. But I get the feeling that every guy that went at the manifestation is being called a nazi, when they were only a few. Let avoid amalgam, guys, like everytime.
I think it's safe to say that anyone not attending the rally under threat of death was either a Nazi or didn't disagree enough with them to leave the rally. The second part is almost more terrifying than the first; the first I always knew existed.
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
National Socialism is an inherently violent ideology. There is no way to enforce the ideals it espouses without at the very least the legitimate threat of violence against those who would resist.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument. Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots. But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them ! IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist. What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc... And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people ! You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
According to the SJWs, I think most of our beloved grandparents would be called nazis, indeed. But they are not, we agree. See how stupid it is ? Because they have grown up a long time ago, and so they have a traditional education. I don't think my grandparents even know what lgbtqia etc etc means,so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady". Ok, let NK out of this. Take Venezuela then. Isn't it a wonderful socialist country ? See the results. When you let the power to this kind of people, this is what happens, everytime. You do know that even BEFORE the war, Nazis, the only true ones, killed at last thousands in camps ? Aktion T4 for example.
I know and agree, countries from Eastern Europe removed theirs statuts. And I keep thinking it is stupid. I'm not communist, but if It were a Lenin statut in my town, I would fight (not physically, don't worry I'm note a sjw) to keep it. Because it would be part of my history, and my town.
Well seeing as SJW means whatever the popular flavor of the month is to its opponents I don't think so. Some people certainly go too far with the Nazi thing, but in this case most definitely not.
Being a Nazi and having traditional values are also two completely different beasts. One can be conservative and even bigoted, the other is downright inhuman.
Actually Venezuela is no different from any other country. We have had plenty of right wing dictatorships in South America murdering people. The nature of that particular beast is oppressive or murderous government, not any particular slant of left/right. Holding up Venezuela as some sort of defenitepath is like holding up Pinochet in Chile for 'right' wing values.
I do know about the T4 Aktion, did you know they were already Nazis BEFORE that? Regardless, T4 was not aimed at Jews or other ethnic groups like later, but at the undesirable German population, the one you couldn't really push on another country such as was envisaged with the Jews at first. Nazis didn't become Nazis the second they murdered someone, what a weird arbitrary line that would be. Some of those protesters there clearly identify with the Nazis and go out of their way to show it, ergo they are Nazis. Not all Nazis murdered people, certainly not at first.
So you basically would defend a statue of Hitler in Auschwitz, as its "part of my history, and my town" in your words? The people who used Lenin as an icon did horrible things to those people and their towns. The same goes for African Americans, the statue of Lee represents a very wrong and dark history to them that is apparently still ok to glorify to some, even though it represent treating people as property.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Yes, you should never forget one of the most important chapters of American history, but these flags and statues belong in a museum and the history books, or brought out for historical re-enactment.
By their logic, you should be building statues of British generals of the American revolution: Howe, Cornwallis, Gage, etc etc
In England, statues of traitors hold prominent positions as well. Oliver Cromwell in my grandfather's own home town, Harry "Hotspur", Owen Glendower, Richard Neville, the list goes on. The south was given much more leniency than traitors normally get because of the need to heal the wounds of the country and put it back together, ugly compromises were made. But the US is not unique in that. Europeans were usually far more savage in those days of the defeated party, The pilgrimage of grace comes to mind as well as the cornish uprising.
Also you should be aware, most of these monuments were put up in the 20th century, and actually represent racist backlash to the civil Rights movements if their era.
most of them within 35-50 years of the war, since it ended in 1865, that does make them in the 20th century (1900-2000) when the bulk of them were made/sculpted whatever, they had living veterans and their children around.by comparison, the traitor cromwell had his erected in 1899, he died in 1658, with obviously no living children or grandchildren in presence. I dont believe that most of them are racist backlash, the north was no less racist than the south who were about as racist as the other 99% of the globe. I would believe more recent racists hold those monuments for those reasons.
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
That's a quote still happening today in some countries. I pointed this out already. Its a good quote which still is happening today regardless of Nazism
Sorry guy.
I wanted to highlight that the "nazi" calling can change according to who you ask.
A lot of people fought the nazis, and won.
But people of this time, were living in a different world (segregation, etc..).
They were, and probably still are, a lot more conservative that most of the people today..
People of the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's would probably be called "biggots", "nazis" etc... By the very people of BLM, the feminists etc when they actually fouhgt the nazis. I wanted to highlight how absurd the situation has become.
So all this nazi calling is a nonsense, to me. You could call nazi almost everyone if you wanted, but it is not good, as it show a lack a tolerance and comprehension.
We don't have to fight each other, so violently. Those people just want to keep their history, their values. Let them in peace.
Did I get it right this time ?^^
d-usa wrote: In a thread about a vehicular attack against counter-protestors at a pro white nationalist protest, hardly any posts have been about the attack. But there are lots of posts about how the nazi flag waving guys aren't really nazis, how it's the lefts fault they got mowed down by a car, how "both sides are bad" after one side committed murder, and a weird focus on people saying "it's not okay to say we should punch people" in the aftermath of a murderous attack.
A lot was revealed about people during the course of this thread.
In a thread about the tragedy of somebody deliberately murdering and maiming people via crashing into a crowd with a car because of a difference in ideology I think it's very important to state that political differences don't justify a violent response. Recognizing that you shouldnt physically attack people who reject ideas you endorse includes acknowedging that running people over with a car because they oppose your Nazism is wrong. The appropriate response to somebody who promotes an idea or opinion you disagree with or who disagrees with an opinion or idea you support isn't a violent physical assault. You can debate them or ignore them but it's not acceptable to hurt them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
My grandfather didn't survive the Second World War. He's buried in a military cemetery in Italy. As a result I have some very, very strong opinions about anyone who marches under a far right flag.
in addition, my wife is not white. I'm thankful that I live in a country where people's freedom of speech does not extend to being able to belittle or demean her for having the wrong density of melanin.
These right wing scum are not pacifists. Their very beliefs are an act of violence, not literal, but mental and spiritual violence against anyone who does not fit their narrow definition of what race, religion or sexuality they believe to be what their country should consist of.
Sad to hear, my grandparents all lost family in the war, but didn't get killed fighting, as the war was over in a week here. My great grandfather was press-ganged by the Germans and died in the Ruhr area from Allied bombing sadly.
I'm in the same boat, my partner would not survive another one of those episodes. She is also the 'wrong' type, not so fun when they are contemplating ethnically cleansing your partner.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Yes, you should never forget one of the most important chapters of American history, but these flags and statues belong in a museum and the history books, or brought out for historical re-enactment.
By their logic, you should be building statues of British generals of the American revolution: Howe, Cornwallis, Gage, etc etc
In England, statues of traitors hold prominent positions as well. Oliver Cromwell in my grandfather's own home town, Harry "Hotspur", Owen Glendower, Richard Neville, the list goes on. The south was given much more leniency than traitors normally get because of the need to heal the wounds of the country and put it back together, ugly compromises were made. But the US is not unique in that. Europeans were usually far more savage in those days of the defeated party, The pilgrimage of grace comes to mind as well as the cornish uprising.
Also you should be aware, most of these monuments were put up in the 20th century, and actually represent racist backlash to the civil Rights movements if their era.
most of them within 35-50 years of the war, since it ended in 1865, that does make them in the 20th century (1900-2000) when the bulk of them were made/sculpted whatever, they had living veterans and their children around.by comparison, the traitor cromwell had his erected in 1899, he died in 1658, with obviously no living children or grandchildren in presence. I dont believe that most of them are racist backlash, the north was no less racist than the south who were about as racist as the other 99% of the globe. I would believe more recent racists hold those monuments for those reasons.
I would disagree with that. The one at issue was built in 1924 for example.
d-usa wrote: In a thread about a vehicular attack against counter-protestors at a pro white nationalist protest, hardly any posts have been about the attack. But there are lots of posts about how the nazi flag waving guys aren't really nazis, how it's the lefts fault they got mowed down by a car, how "both sides are bad" after one side committed murder, and a weird focus on people saying "it's not okay to say we should punch people" in the aftermath of a murderous attack.
A lot was revealed about people during the course of this thread.
In a thread about the tragedy of somebody deliberately murdering and maiming people via crashing into a crowd with a car because of a difference in ideology I think it's very important to state that political differences don't justify a violent response. Recognizing that you shouldnt physically attack people who reject ideas you endorse includes acknowedging that running people over with a car because they oppose your Nazism is wrong. The appropriate response to somebody who promotes an idea or opinion you disagree with or who disagrees with an opinion or idea you support isn't a violent physical assault. You can debate them or ignore them but it's not acceptable to hurt them.
What if their claim is "My ideology says I should gleefully murder you, and the only thing stopping me is that I might get caught (and evidently not even that in some cases)?"
d-usa wrote: In a thread about a vehicular attack against counter-protestors at a pro white nationalist protest, hardly any posts have been about the attack. But there are lots of posts about how the nazi flag waving guys aren't really nazis, how it's the lefts fault they got mowed down by a car, how "both sides are bad" after one side committed murder, and a weird focus on people saying "it's not okay to say we should punch people" in the aftermath of a murderous attack.
A lot was revealed about people during the course of this thread.
In a thread about the tragedy of somebody deliberately murdering and maiming people via crashing into a crowd with a car because of a difference in ideology I think it's very important to state that political differences don't justify a violent response. Recognizing that you shouldnt physically attack people who reject ideas you endorse includes acknowedging that running people over with a car because they oppose your Nazism is wrong. The appropriate response to somebody who promotes an idea or opinion you disagree with or who disagrees with an opinion or idea you support isn't a violent physical assault. You can debate them or ignore them but it's not acceptable to hurt them.
Indeed, the difference between a guy who would punch someone for being a Nazi and a guy who would run people over for being antifa or whatever is a difference of degree, not of type.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
According to the SJWs, I think most of our beloved grandparents would be called nazis, indeed. But they are not, we agree. See how stupid it is ?
Because they have grown up a long time ago, and so they have a traditional education. I don't think my grandparents even know what lgbtqia etc etc means,so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady".
Ok, let NK out of this.
Take Venezuela then. Isn't it a wonderful socialist country ? See the results. When you let the power to this kind of people, this is what happens, everytime.
You do know that even BEFORE the war, Nazis, the only true ones, killed at last thousands in camps ? Aktion T4 for example.
I know and agree, countries from Eastern Europe removed theirs statuts. And I keep thinking it is stupid. I'm not communist, but if It were a Lenin statut in my town, I would fight (not physically, don't worry I'm note a sjw) to keep it.
Because it would be part of my history, and my town.
Well seeing as SJW means whatever the popular flavor of the month is to its opponents I don't think so. Some people certainly go too far with the Nazi thing, but in this case most definitely not.
Being a Nazi and having traditional values are also two completely different beasts. One can be conservative and even bigoted, the other is downright inhuman.
Actually Venezuela is no different from any other country. We have had plenty of right wing dictatorships in South America murdering people. The nature of that particular beast is oppressive or murderous government, not any particular slant of left/right. Holding up Venezuela as some sort of defenitepath is like holding up Pinochet in Chile for 'right' wing values.
I do know about the T4 Aktion, did you know they were already Nazis BEFORE that already? Regardless T4 was not aimed at Jews or other ethnic groups like later, but at the undesirable German population, the one you couldn't really push on another country such as was envisaged with the Jews at first. Nazis didn't become Nazis the second they murdered someone, what a weird arbitrary line that would be. Some of those protesters there clearly identify with the Nazis and go out of their way to show it, ergo they are Nazis. Not all Nazis murdered people, certainly not at first.
So you basically would defend a statue of Hitler in Auschwitz, as its "part of my history, and my town" in your words? The people who used Lenin as an icon did horrible things to those people and their towns. The same goes for African Americans, the statue of Lee represents a very wrong and dark history to them that is apparently still ok to glorify to some, even though it represent treating people as property.
Excactly ! You pointed it right ! They are two different things. This is why I'm sick of seeing so many people, just being conservative and being called nazi for that (POTUS Trump for example). This is the point.
Yeah, nazi were nazi before killing people, ofc. They couldn't kill people before having the power. But calling a peaceful conservative nazi is bad, noone should be refered as nazi if they are not (the guy on the picture obviously wouldn't mind if you did, however, I guess).
It was a statut of General Lee, wasn't it ?
Yes I know how bad Lenin and his friends were, but this is no excuse for erasing history. Trying to hide history is vain.
Hmmm... so in the US, if I say"We should kill all the black people", wear white nazarene suits, and put giant cross on fire, I can be prosecuted for the justice... but if I make an ideology, give it a fancy name like "Papadopoulism"; and put between a 500 pages manifesto a line like "Black people? Hmm, we really don't need them, you know? Maybe if we just ... put them... to sleep. Forever. Under the water"... thats totally fine?
Galas wrote: Hmmm... so in the US, if I say"We should kill all the black people", wear white nazarene suits, and put giant cross on fire, I can be prosecuted for the justice... but if I make an ideology, give it a fancy name like "Papadopoulism"; and put between a 500 pages manifesto a line like "Black people? Hmm, we really don't need them, you know? Maybe if we just ... put them... to sleep. Forever. Under the water"... thats totally fine?
No. You could say it. Inversely everyone else is free to point and laugh at you and the government will probably investigate you.
Galas wrote: Hmmm... so in the US, if I say"We should kill all the black people", wear white nazarene suits, and put giant cross on fire, I can be prosecuted for the justice... but if I make an ideology, give it a fancy name like "Papadopoulism"; and put between a 500 pages manifesto a line like "Black people? Hmm, we really don't need them, you know? Maybe if we just ... put them... to sleep. Forever. Under the water"... thats totally fine?
No. You could say it. Inversely everyone else is free to point and laugh at you and the government will probably investigate you.
Galas wrote: Hmmm... so in the US, if I say"We should kill all the black people", wear white nazarene suits, and put giant cross on fire, I can be prosecuted for the justice... but if I make an ideology, give it a fancy name like "Papadopoulism"; and put between a 500 pages manifesto a line like "Black people? Hmm, we really don't need them, you know? Maybe if we just ... put them... to sleep. Forever. Under the water"... thats totally fine?
It should be fine. I think the consequences of people saying what they want are far better than another group of people deciding what is ok and is not ok for me say.
Both of them can go somewhere bad, but at least letting people say what they want is a battle of ideas instead of one side attempting to win an argument by force with a lot more exploiting issues that come with it.
d-usa wrote: In a thread about a vehicular attack against counter-protestors at a pro white nationalist protest, hardly any posts have been about the attack. But there are lots of posts about how the nazi flag waving guys aren't really nazis, how it's the lefts fault they got mowed down by a car, how "both sides are bad" after one side committed murder, and a weird focus on people saying "it's not okay to say we should punch people" in the aftermath of a murderous attack.
A lot was revealed about people during the course of this thread.
Well, I definitely think it's OK to punch people if you are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death I'm not a pacifist by any means, and carry a concealed firearm for just that (hopefully never) possibility.
So far as people getting into the weeds and tangents instead of the event itself... I get what you're saying, I do. But what discussion can be had about the event specifically? You're gonna need at least one faction to defend driving a car into a crowd of protesters, and that hasn't yet happened in this thread. Unfortunately some of the more recent posters who probably would make that argument blew their wad a little too soon and I think they're on vacation. Alas, the gakposting that could have been!
Much like Scaramucci, we barely even got to enjoy them. I am legitimately, non-sarcastically sad.
Ustrello wrote: Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep
Our grandparents wouldn't call someone they disagree with "nazi" just because they can't win an argument.
Our grandparents would probably have the same traditionalist view of the society that those "nazis" have
Our grandparents fought actual nazis, not the SJW of today (are they even aware of what nazi means ? National Socialism. I can tell you, by being in relation with some alt right members, that those guys aren't socialist, at all. So calling them nazis is wrong at so many levels...).
As everyone, I condemn what happened in Charlottesville. Violence shouldn't happen, especially between compatriots.
But this time SJWs have gone too far. Trying to erase the USA very own history is stupid, and dangerous. Then illegaly manifesting and opposing free speech, when presenting themselves as defenders of freedom... And eventually attacking people, fighting them !
IIRC, the white pride manifestation was legal, and pacifist.
What happened is very sad, indeed, but do realize that the Right was pacifist, as far as I know (let me know if it wasn't what happened, I don't have enough info in France, sadly).
I remember many and many people refering to the President TRUMP as Hitler, or a nazi etc...
And many were American ! That is seriously disturbing ! How can people refer to theirs compatriots as nazi, just because they disagree with them or because they tell mean things ? Telling bad things IS NOT the same as exterminating millions of people !
You know who send people into death camp today ? Who oppress and kill ? North Korea, for example. Communist North Korea. The leftists' dream come true, a whole country of communists, and this is what it looks like.
Today I learned that all our grandparents are white supremacists. Also my grandparents having survived the Second World War probably have some views on people waving flags with Swastikas on them, just guessing they aren't very nice views.
Again though, Hitler was not a socialist. I know how people love bringing that up. But Hitler made a point killing the only dedicated socialists in his party, he hated socialists. Nazis aren't socialists.
Also the SJW thing is stupid, removing statues isn't erasing history, its removing something glorifying something that should not be glorified (which is in essence what a statue does) in the opinion of a lot of people. Eastern Europe tore down statues of Lenin too, which was perfectly acceptable in most cases given their history with communism.
You can refer to people as Nazis when they actually act like them. Nazis are a lot of things and the defining factor of being a Nazi isn't exterminating millions, which after all wasn't the original intent of Nazi ideology, the war made them chose that option. They were already Nazis before those millions died.
Also North Korea being a leftist dream is hilarious, come on man
According to the SJWs, I think most of our beloved grandparents would be called nazis, indeed. But they are not, we agree. See how stupid it is ?
Because they have grown up a long time ago, and so they have a traditional education. I don't think my grandparents even know what lgbtqia etc etc means,so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady".
Ok, let NK out of this.
Take Venezuela then. Isn't it a wonderful socialist country ? See the results. When you let the power to this kind of people, this is what happens, everytime.
You do know that even BEFORE the war, Nazis, the only true ones, killed at last thousands in camps ? Aktion T4 for example.
I know and agree, countries from Eastern Europe removed theirs statuts. And I keep thinking it is stupid. I'm not communist, but if It were a Lenin statut in my town, I would fight (not physically, don't worry I'm note a sjw) to keep it.
Because it would be part of my history, and my town.
Well seeing as SJW means whatever the popular flavor of the month is to its opponents I don't think so. Some people certainly go too far with the Nazi thing, but in this case most definitely not.
Being a Nazi and having traditional values are also two completely different beasts. One can be conservative and even bigoted, the other is downright inhuman.
Actually Venezuela is no different from any other country. We have had plenty of right wing dictatorships in South America murdering people. The nature of that particular beast is oppressive or murderous government, not any particular slant of left/right. Holding up Venezuela as some sort of defenitepath is like holding up Pinochet in Chile for 'right' wing values.
I do know about the T4 Aktion, did you know they were already Nazis BEFORE that already? Regardless T4 was not aimed at Jews or other ethnic groups like later, but at the undesirable German population, the one you couldn't really push on another country such as was envisaged with the Jews at first. Nazis didn't become Nazis the second they murdered someone, what a weird arbitrary line that would be. Some of those protesters there clearly identify with the Nazis and go out of their way to show it, ergo they are Nazis. Not all Nazis murdered people, certainly not at first.
So you basically would defend a statue of Hitler in Auschwitz, as its "part of my history, and my town" in your words? The people who used Lenin as an icon did horrible things to those people and their towns. The same goes for African Americans, the statue of Lee represents a very wrong and dark history to them that is apparently still ok to glorify to some, even though it represent treating people as property.
Excactly ! You pointed it right ! They are two different things. This is why I'm sick of seeing so many people, just being conservative and being called nazi for that (POTUS Trump for example). This is the point.
Yeah, nazi were nazi before killing people, ofc. They couldn't kill people before having the power. But calling a peaceful conservative nazi is bad, noone should be refered as nazi if they are not (the guy on the picture obviously wouldn't mind if you did, however, I guess).
It was a statut of General Lee, wasn't it ?
Yes I know how bad Lenin and his friends were, but this is no excuse for erasing history. Trying to hide history is vain.
Again though, the point isn't that Nazi sometimes get flung too easily. The point was that some of those people there in Charlottesville would easily clarify as Nazis.
The Nazis did kill people before they came into power however, the scale being different, you just can't take killing people as the determining factor.
It was/is a statue of General Lee. Removing a statue isn't erasing history. Lee and the ACW will still exist in countless history books, movie portrayals, art and whatever there is. The point is that statues dedicated to people almost always have a glorifying aspect to them. Removing something that glorifies an event that should not be glorified is not equal to erasing history. It is rectifying something that shouldn't have been glorified in the first place.
As I said, at the end of the day, the Piramids are the tombs of oppresive kings that killed hundreds of people. But they are human patrimony.
They don't build you a statue or a big monument if you haven't killed a good bunch of people. Thats just how it works. You just need the right ammount of time, and no parties being associated with those monuments for a political agenda to be accepted by everyone. I'm sure that, if today wheren't political parties and groups in USA that associate with the ideas of that general, racism, slavery, etc... probably nobody would have any problem with that statue.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It was/is a statue of General Lee. Removing a statue isn't erasing history. Lee and the ACW will still exist in countless history books, movie portrayals, art and whatever there is. The point is that statues dedicated to people almost always have a glorifying aspect to them. Removing something that glorifies an event that should not be glorified is not equal to erasing history. It is rectifying something that shouldn't have been glorified in the first place.
Yeah, you don't see too many monuments of these guys, like, signing the surrender documents. It's always astride a horse, proud and unbroken.
I think there is an argument to be made for the historical value of monuments that went up in the immediate aftermath of the ACW - you know, in a year that starts with "18". However, as has been mentioned by Frazzled, a good deal of these monuments were put up in a timeframe that makes it very hard to see them as anything more than a middle finger to minorities increasingly seeking social parity.
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.
It's perfectly legal to advocate all kinds of violent ideas. I can organize a rally to support the idea that we need to kill off 1/3 of the global population as a cull to protect our planet's ecosystem and forcibly sterilized a majority of the survivors. That's an incredibly violent murderous horrible totalitarian idea but I am free to talk about as much as I want to whomever I can as long as I don't encourage those people to take direct violent action at my behest. I can openly and freely express my belief that it's a great plan and will save our environment but I can't advocate people to start culling 1/3 of the populace themselves.
Spoiler:
(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Galas wrote: Hmmm... so in the US, if I say"We should kill all the black people", wear white nazarene suits, and put giant cross on fire, I can be prosecuted for the justice... but if I make an ideology, give it a fancy name like "Papadopoulism"; and put between a 500 pages manifesto a line like "Black people? Hmm, we really don't need them, you know? Maybe if we just ... put them... to sleep. Forever. Under the water"... thats totally fine?
No. You could say it. Inversely everyone else is free to point and laugh at you and the government will probably investigate you.
Jihadin wrote: I'm saying regardless of what he does its not going to satisfy a group of people. That pretty much covers all POTUS we had. Eventually we get out this corner in say ten generations from now. Maybe.
I agree that there is definitely a subsection of the population that won't be happy if the POTUS denounces white supremacism, but is that a subsection that the POTUS should be tacitly pandering to with his silence?
So far as 10 generations, I sure would like to think so. But I'm not hopeful. I think this country is getting increasingly polarized, not less so, and I think there is a genuine rift in the US that I can't see ever ending.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm obviously a neutral observer on this, and as I've said many a time before, I love American history
but I can never understand why there are statues of a man who was, after all, a traitor to the USA, and responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Yes, you should never forget one of the most important chapters of American history, but these flags and statues belong in a museum and the history books, or brought out for historical re-enactment.
By their logic, you should be building statues of British generals of the American revolution: Howe, Cornwallis, Gage, etc etc
In England, statues of traitors hold prominent positions as well. Oliver Cromwell in my grandfather's own home town, Harry "Hotspur", Owen Glendower, Richard Neville, the list goes on. The south was given much more leniency than traitors normally get because of the need to heal the wounds of the country and put it back together, ugly compromises were made. But the US is not unique in that. Europeans were usually far more savage in those days of the defeated party, The pilgrimage of grace comes to mind as well as the cornish uprising.
Also you should be aware, most of these monuments were put up in the 20th century, and actually represent racist backlash to the civil Rights movements if their era.
most of them within 35-50 years of the war, since it ended in 1865, that does make them in the 20th century (1900-2000) when the bulk of them were made/sculpted whatever, they had living veterans and their children around.by comparison, the traitor cromwell had his erected in 1899, he died in 1658, with obviously no living children or grandchildren in presence. I dont believe that most of them are racist backlash, the north was no less racist than the south who were about as racist as the other 99% of the globe. I would believe more recent racists hold those monuments for those reasons.
I would disagree with that. The one at issue was built in 1924 for example.
The average private in either army would be approximately 75 in 1924, their children in their 50's and grandchildren 20-30's, that is still in living memory. You may not agree with it, but it is worth some consideration.
godardc wrote: so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady".
Oh good, transphobic bigotry, just what this dumpster fire of a thread needed. Remind me again why this is considered acceptable behavior?
The really galling thing is that when people engage in behavior like this, eventually the thread gets locked. It happens time and time again and amounts to a heckler's veto.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It was/is a statue of General Lee. Removing a statue isn't erasing history. Lee and the ACW will still exist in countless history books, movie portrayals, art and whatever there is. The point is that statues dedicated to people almost always have a glorifying aspect to them. Removing something that glorifies an event that should not be glorified is not equal to erasing history. It is rectifying something that shouldn't have been glorified in the first place.
Yeah, you don't see too many monuments of these guys, like, signing the surrender documents. It's always astride a horse, proud and unbroken.
I think there is an argument to be made for the historical value of monuments that went up in the immediate aftermath of the ACW - you know, in a year that starts with "18". However, as has been mentioned by Frazzled, a good deal of these monuments were put up in a timeframe that makes it very hard to see them as anything more than a middle finger to minorities increasingly seeking social parity.
Ironically the people that lived in the segregated areas that erected the monuments chose to enlist in our segregated military to go to Europe and defeat the Nazis whose iconography and ideology have been cooped by the groups that most vehemently fight to keep the monuments from being removed.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It was/is a statue of General Lee. Removing a statue isn't erasing history. Lee and the ACW will still exist in countless history books, movie portrayals, art and whatever there is. The point is that statues dedicated to people almost always have a glorifying aspect to them. Removing something that glorifies an event that should not be glorified is not equal to erasing history. It is rectifying something that shouldn't have been glorified in the first place.
Yeah, you don't see too many monuments of these guys, like, signing the surrender documents. It's always astride a horse, proud and unbroken.
I think there is an argument to be made for the historical value of monuments that went up in the immediate aftermath of the ACW - you know, in a year that starts with "18". However, as has been mentioned by Frazzled, a good deal of these monuments were put up in a timeframe that makes it very hard to see them as anything more than a middle finger to minorities increasingly seeking social parity.
In the Netherlands we have some controversial individuals from colonial times. Because the statues of them actually date back centuries the middle ground has been to change the inscription and fully detail all the horrible things they did. I still think some should go, maybe to a museum or something, cause they are outright scum if you read what they did. I think moving historical monuments or putting in an addendum should at least be considered. The more recent ones have very little value in and of themselves. Like you said, they are even further tainted by the reasoning of why those were put up.
Jihadin wrote: I'm saying regardless of what he does its not going to satisfy a group of people. That pretty much covers all POTUS we had. Eventually we get out this corner in say ten generations from now. Maybe.
I agree that there is definitely a subsection of the population that won't be happy if the POTUS denounces white supremacism, but is that a subsection that the POTUS should be tacitly pandering to with his silence?
So far as 10 generations, I sure would like to think so. But I'm not hopeful. I think this country is getting increasingly polarized, not less so, and I think there is a genuine rift in the US that I can't see ever ending.
I have to say I worry for the USA, too. I agree with you, it is getting increasingly polarized, sadly.
Galas wrote: Hmmm... so in the US, if I say"We should kill all the black people", wear white nazarene suits, and put giant cross on fire, I can be prosecuted for the justice... but if I make an ideology, give it a fancy name like "Papadopoulism"; and put between a 500 pages manifesto a line like "Black people? Hmm, we really don't need them, you know? Maybe if we just ... put them... to sleep. Forever. Under the water"... thats totally fine?
No. You could say it. Inversely everyone else is free to point and laugh at you and the government will probably investigate you.
But wherent the KKK prosecuted and put to jail?
Frequently their crimes happened when police arrested civil rights activists and then turned them over to be murdered by the Klan, as the case with Joseph Shoemaker in Tampa, Florida and of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner in Mississippi.
In the late 80s the Klan evaded large scale government action by breaking into separate local organizations that had no formal links.
Prestor Jon wrote: Ironically the people that lived in the segregated areas that erected the monuments chose to enlist in our segregated military to go to Europe and defeat the Nazis whose iconography and ideology have been cooped by the groups that most vehemently fight to keep the monuments from being removed.
To quote Saving Private Ryan, "We have crossed some strange boundary here. The world has taken a turn for the surreal."
Jihadin wrote: I'm saying regardless of what he does its not going to satisfy a group of people. That pretty much covers all POTUS we had. Eventually we get out this corner in say ten generations from now. Maybe.
I agree that there is definitely a subsection of the population that won't be happy if the POTUS denounces white supremacism, but is that a subsection that the POTUS should be tacitly pandering to with his silence?
So far as 10 generations, I sure would like to think so. But I'm not hopeful. I think this country is getting increasingly polarized, not less so, and I think there is a genuine rift in the US that I can't see ever ending.
10 generations? No way. When my father was in high school in Philly his father was approached by a neighborhood group that was circulating a petition to keep the school whites only (he didn't sign it because he had gone to integrated schools in CT). The only reason the Republicans are so strong in the South is because they won over all the Dixiecrats with racist pandering. Until the recent SCotUS ruling the DoJ oversaw elections in numerous southern states for my entire lifetime specifiacally because the federal govt deemed those states too racist to hold fair elections. When has a siting PotUS gone on tv to say negative things about white people?
Be positive at the beginning of the 20th century Klan marches could number tens of thousands. Now they can't get a hundred together even joining with their neo Nazi buddies.
d-usa wrote: In a thread about a vehicular attack against counter-protestors at a pro white nationalist protest, hardly any posts have been about the attack. But there are lots of posts about how the nazi flag waving guys aren't really nazis, how it's the lefts fault they got mowed down by a car, how "both sides are bad" after one side committed murder, and a weird focus on people saying "it's not okay to say we should punch people" in the aftermath of a murderous attack.
A lot was revealed about people during the course of this thread.
Hey... I was one of the first posters to say throw that driver in prison for a long time.
Where's da love for me?
Other than that... forgive me for largely sitting this one out... on the one side are right-wing White Supremacist and on the other are the left-wing Antifa (oxymoron of a name) willing to duke it out... I have zero feths to give...
All my feths are given to that victims who were vehicularly rammed yesterday.
Its Sunday. There's a lot of Army, Air Force and Navy personnel living off post here are on this side of Puget Sound. So if it spills over to hear it might ramp up
Jihadin wrote: Its Sunday. There's a lot of Army, Air Force and Navy personnel living off post here are on this side of Puget Sound. So if it spills over to hear it might ramp up
Not the type of march you're thinking of Jihad. Even if it were, I wouldn't expect many, if any to be involved.
We had Westboro out here recently while we were putting some Rakassans to rest, and nothing happened. If we can restrain ourselves in that situation, we're damn sure going to in others.
To continue my rambling, I hate Nazism and everything it stands for, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a democracy where people weren't allowed to say what they thought, no matter how repulsive.
As I've said before, the USA of old, confident in itself, and its values, would laugh of this fringe movement. Let them march would probably be the response.
And why not? American values of liberty, democracy, rule of law etc etc
has seen off Nazism, seen off Communism (China stopped being Communist a long time ago IMO)
it has nothing to fear from these fringe groups. American and Western values have won. Democracy 1 -0 Totalitarianism
But IMO, we seem to be losing these cherished values, we do seem to be heading for 'decline' because we don't seem to defend these great values anymore:
freedom of speech, of assembly, liberty and democracy etc etc
Jihadin wrote: Its Sunday. There's a lot of Army, Air Force and Navy personnel living off post here are on this side of Puget Sound. So if it spills over to hear it might ramp up
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.
Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.
Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.
Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?
Or cracking people's skulls open with bike locks?
Sure, someone advocating that obviously isn't covered by free speech either. With that out of the way, can you stop deflecting now?
Since this Seattle thing is developing, if we want to discuss that we're going to need to make a real effort to keep this thread polite. If this thread gets locked - and it's obviously just about out of runway - there is no way Seattle is gonna get it's own thread.
Frazzled wrote: Per Fox:
* Terrorist obsessed with Hitler.
* DOJ pursuing civil rights and terrorism related charges.
Frazzled wrote: Per Fox:
* Terrorist obsessed with Hitler.
* DOJ pursuing civil rights and terrorism related charges. Investigating to see if others involved.
I would be pleased to hear fox correctly calling this murderous bastard a terrorist. Are they doing that and (hopefully) not playing up the 'troubled young man' bs?
Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.
Not indeed at all. How many "feminazis" do you see marching with white supremacists and swastika flags. People spew this stuff about leftists calling them names and how it pushed them further to the right but I got bad news for you. If that name calling led to someone becoming an Neo-Nazi then they were already a Neo-Nazi before that happened. Somehow leftists who got called fascists (by people who apparently have no idea what fascism is) didn't end up shouting about the need to eradicate ethnicities or LGBT people.
Frazzled wrote:Indeed. However the US values the right of free speech perhaps as the greatest right of all. It's a difference between nations, based on why the US came into being.
You can sit down with that first amendment cheerleading because that's not it works in the real USA.
Frazzled wrote:You would have to permit it. That's what some say about Islam, and under that theory it would be acceptable to oppress them.
You do know that people are actually fighting ISIS (and similar groups) but that doesn't mean you get a license to hunt all muslims? Like how all Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are politically right wing but the rest of the people who are on the right wing of the political spectrum are not Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists and those wouldn't fall under the "punch a Nazi" doctrine. It's quite easy to keep them apart. One advocates for the murder of people who don't look like them (and even that's debatable, they would put me in a concentration camp because I'm the wrong type of white) and the rest don't.
Field reporter on the water street site of the attack says "what people are calling an act of terrorism." House members (R) who have been on have said at least basic things about bigotry, same with the democrat Governor, of whom you can find plenty of dated pictures that include confederate flags and sympathizers.
On the other hand, today, 24hrs after the Maria Baritrimo literally asked a guest if he thought the driver was intentional when he ran over and killed members of the alt-right. As in she was under the impression the victims were not unaligned counter protesters who had turned out to be reasonable human beings and so liberal gak like cheer and hold hands, but were instead "alt-right."
It was just one word out of place. Obviously she has to do a two hour news show where part of her job is to not blink and say the same set of buzzwords every three minutes.
But on a serious note, we're not looking at the bigger picture here, and that picture is this:
Does the USA still believe in the bill of rights?
This event was not about neo-nazis Vs. anti-fascist protestors. It was an event that started in 1776:
what kind of country does the USA want to be? Does it want to be a nation where everybody gets their say, no matter how repulsive their views?
Or does it want freedom of thought, of speech, to be 'approved' before it can be said or thought?
It's a battle for the heart and soul of America that has been ongoing since day 1, and hopefully, it's a battle that will always be fought.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that...
What I don't want to see is the States go the route of Britain and the Continent. I would prefer to not have the Thought Police come knocking at my door because I said something mean on Farcebook.
I don't think that your late countryman, Mr. George Orwell, intended for 1984 to be an instruction manual. We've gone far enough here with the surveillance, both public and private, and the (sadly necessary evil known as the) NSA.
Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. I think this really originates in the massive name calling that happens on both sides(but originated with the left). The left has a super bad habit of calling anybody who disagrees with them anything from "bigot" to "nazi" and everything in between. Naturally right wingers are sick of this, and eventually resort to name calling themselves. It's just a vicious cycle. Then real Nazis and bigots start showing up and you have a real mess on your hands.
Not indeed at all. How many "feminazis" do you see marching with white supremacists and swastika flags. People spew this stuff about leftists calling them names and how it pushed them further to the right but I got bad news for you. If that name calling led to someone becoming an Neo-Nazi then they were already a Neo-Nazi before that happened. Somehow leftists who got called fascists (by people who apparently have no idea what fascism is) didn't end up shouting about the need to eradicate ethnicities or LGBT people.
Frazzled wrote:Indeed. However the US values the right of free speech perhaps as the greatest right of all. It's a difference between nations, based on why the US came into being.
You can sit down with that first amendment cheerleading because that's not it works in the real USA.
Frazzled wrote:You would have to permit it. That's what some say about Islam, and under that theory it would be acceptable to oppress them.
You do know that people are actually fighting ISIS (and similar groups) but that doesn't mean you get a license to hunt all muslims? Like how all Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists are politically right wing but the rest of the people who are on the right wing of the political spectrum are not Neo-Nazis/fascists/white supremacists and those wouldn't fall under the "punch a Nazi" doctrine. It's quite easy to keep them apart. One advocates for the murder of people who don't look like them (and even that's debatable, they would put me in a concentration camp because I'm the wrong type of white) and the rest don't.
And what you seem to ignore by digging up a phenomena that has been dead for nearly a half-century, is that the "anti-communist" measures and proceedings enacted/proposed by that body is generally decried nowadays and is considered Unconstitutional by most modern ConLaw scholars. And there is the little matter of the communist movement in the United States being in cahoots, off and on, with Moscow during the period between the 1930's through the 1950's. The same thing happened to fascist and NatSoc movements in the United States during the war, being closely watched by Hoover's FBI and the House Committee of Un-American Activities.
There is a difference between wartime censorship (including Cold War censorship in the interests of national security)/keeping state secrets, and suppression of unpopular political and social views during peacetime. Which is the issue here.
So, skip the chest thumping. The United States enjoys a measure of free speech and expression not enjoyed elsewhere, including the supposedly "more enlightened" liberal social democracies of Western Europe. And I would prefer to keep it that way.
No, advocating national socialism is not inherently inciting violence. Advocating national socialism isn't illegal anywhere in the US. It isn't illegal to advocate any paerticular political ideology anywhere in the US.
Yes it is. See the Hitler quotes earlier in the thread. Violence is inherent to the Nazis, you cannot advocate National Socialism without advocating violence.
No, advocating for national socialism, a political system/ideology that includes violence is very different from actually being guilty of the crime of inciting violence. To be charged with inciting violence/inciting a riot you have to encourage/instigate people who are capable of receiving such communication from you and then proceed to actually commit acts of violence. You could stand in front of a crowd and tell them how awesome you think national socialism is and how we should put it into practice but if the crowd simply listens to you and even if they agree with you but nobody commits an act of violence then you haven't done anything wrong.
Oh, such as driving a car into protesters? Would that be violent enough?
If there is evidence of direct communication from the protest/rally to the person who drove the car in which that person tried to instigate acts of violences against the counter protestors by others including the driver then that first person who was communicating encouragement to commit acts of violence could and should be charged with inciting violence. However, simply promoting Nazism and white supremacy at a rally during which an attendee commits an act of violence doesn't meet the legal standard of inciting violence, that's why I including the text of the law and a link to it in my previous post in this tangent.
I agree, but it seems unlikely. It's being noted now that the vast majority of the original protestors were armed. The local police stating that they were outgunned, to put it simply.
Yet, barring the one man (who came from out of state), not one of them exhibited any intent to use deadly force.
Oh yeah the bad boogeyman that is European censorship. Nevermind the fact that such censorship is limited to extreme cases like Nazis, as Europe still has far-right parties. Some of you may even remember the FN party that managed to pass to the second round of the French elections earlier this year.
the south lost, they need to get over it.
".
