Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:

A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017

...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.

Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.

These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.

It *is* weakness when you won't tolerate dissenting views.

Why should we tolerate nazis?

So dissenting views are nazisms...

...and you see the problem here?

To be fair...Spencer literally is a Nazi.

He doesn't like to be called it, but of course Nazis would stoop to the nefarious depths of...rebranding.

 kronk wrote:
Specific:

If a guy wears an arm badge and makes a Nazi-esque salute, he's a fething Nazi and should be called one.

General:

If someone has a differing opinion from you, it's possible he's a Nazi, but unless he's making the salute, wearing the uniform, or quoting Mein Kamph, maybe don't call him one.

UNless its the SoupNazi, or alternatively those really annoying grammar Nazis you run across. I always found pushing them into a puddle to be an appropriate response.

 jasper76 wrote:
I am suggesting that your defense and security is in no small part provided for by the United States' contribution to the NATO alliance. If stating facts is US arrogance, than color me arrogant.

I was expecting you to more develop your point of view by listing, you know, actual threat to Switzerland that would have been deterred from attacking by the US support to NATO, and less chest-thumping. Then we could have discussed on the validity of those views, the credibility of those threats, exchanged sources on the subject, and then maybe at the end we would have reached a common, better informed opinion.
I should have learned by the previous poster I tried to engage with here. That doesn't happen. Repeating [“Death to America” is reason enough] or [Switzerland's safety is dependent upon the US] is all the argument I'll get :(. Enjoy your alternate facts, who needs reality after all?

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?

 whembly wrote:
He's snarking...

Trump won't pull out over the objections of many people he holds in high regards (ie, SoD Mattis, SoS Tillerman). He's just blowhard'ing...

That not the point. The point is that even if he did, it wouldn't change a thing for Switzerland. Damn I can't wait to see the USA ruined by this terrible leader to they finally lose that arrogance.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He's snarking...

Trump won't pull out over the objections of many people he holds in high regards (ie, SoD Mattis, SoS Tillerman). He's just blowhard'ing...

That not the point. The point is that even if he did, it wouldn't change a thing for Switzerland. Damn I can't wait to see the USA ruined by this terrible leader to they finally lose that arrogance.

It was a snarky comment. I apologize.

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just don't wear your MAGA hats on these protests/riots/crybaby-fest:

A woman wearing a #Trump-style hat was pepper sprayed at #UCBerkeley protests. She & @WayneFreedman are alright: https://t.co/g7WofodFyD pic.twitter.com/JD3Bt1y7rE

— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) February 2, 2017

...you just might eat some pepper spray in the face.

Isn't it strange to call these people "crybabies" and paint them as weaklings when what they do is organise to attack their enemies? Like, when Spencer got punched people started being all "the attacker was a cuck!!" and dug up someone completely different who was heavily into sexual humiliation and it turned out had even died two years ago to paint the puncher as supposedly a simpering wuss (I am of the opinion that it would only have made him cooler, really). But... he beat your dude. He beat your dude so bad, he has publicly said he fears for his movement if they aren't able to defend themselves. The goal was to get him to go away and he went away. A small victory but a victory none the less.

These crybabies, as you say, organised and braved the police in order to drive away Yiannopolous and Trump supporters. They have so far succeeded in this and had the support of the masses of other protesters. Hundreds of young leftists have now been given a taste of successful direct organising to protect their community. If this is weakness, them coming into strength would probably make you faint.

Yep, no evidence whatsoever in a rise in violent attitudes and actions from the left. Free speech and the right to peacefully assemble safe and sound!

That comment touches on what I find most troubling about these instances of violent rioting. It's indeed a small minority of the left participating in any physical altercation, and a majority that (at least when pressed) will condemn it.
But there's a sizable portion that, if not encouraging the acts, are at least kinda ok with them happening. Cause it's just nazis and bigots anyway, right? "Sure there are principles of free speech etc. that I use to espouse, but surely they don't apply when someone says things that's this inflammatory, do they?"

Even many who do not support violent actions are happy if protests succeed in preventing someone from even holding a speech or speaking at a gathering, are happy with the creation of a chilling effect. Yiannopolous in particular isn't likely to be discouraged by these situations, since he feeds off havoc and outrage. It's his game. Others might not be prepared to deal with the unpleasantness, causing a thinner and more anemic climate of discourse.


There are of course similar examples from the right, but at this point in time I feel the popular support for this behavior is far greater on the left. (at the moment, the right does their damage through parliamentary rather than non-parliamentary means ) I have few problem with people protesting against what someone have done or have said. It's a very different kettle of fish attempting to prevent someone from saying stuff in the first place.

 jasper76 wrote:
It was a snarky comment. I apologize.

This post was snarky? I completely misread it though, I really thought it was 100% serious.

Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It was a snarky comment. I apologize.

This post was snarky? I completely misread it though, I really thought it was 100% serious.

The comment about Trump pulling out of NATO was snark. That's what I was apologizing for.

The statement that the security of European countries relies in no small part on the US contribution to the NATO alliance is just a fact. Perhaps it was insensitive of me to say so, but it is what it is. I don't really feel a need to elaborate on Russian aggression, the threat of nuclear war, etc. Really, a secure Europe is in the interest of the United States, so I don't mind that some of my taxes go towards NATO, and I'm guessing a majority of Americans agree, or else we would be seriously considering pulling out of NATO.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

If people debated after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot, then may be there wouldn't be a ww1 and subsequently ww2. Same with tightening tensions in the USA one side ready to jump on the other without a round table debate is having spectacular results at the moment.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

If people debated after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot, then may be there wouldn't be a ww1 and subsequently ww2. Same with tightening tensions in the USA one side ready to jump on the other without a round table debate is having spectacular results at the moment.

The first world war was a conflict of empires, not ideas. And check out the letters between Nicky and Willy to see how well discussions went.

The round table debate doesn't work when one side refuses to come to the table for 4+ years, and then is rewarded for not doing so.

 Peregrine wrote:
Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):

I would argue he is more of the Klu Klux Klan type than a Nazi, but as I don't know the man I could be wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:
Since the subject of giving "alternative hugs" to Spencer has come up a again, yes, he is in fact a Nazi. Here is a quote from his own website (since deleted because it got too much attention):

I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)


Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?

Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement

"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.


Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.

This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.

I might not agree with the New Black Panthers (who actually ARE racists) but I wouldn't mind them speaking publically. I support their right to do it. Just like I support the right of Klansman to have marches. Just like I initially supported the Occupy Wall Street movement until they went full-slow and started doing illegal stuff and their camps got rapey. I supported the BLM movement when they were peaceful (and I still support the people in it that stayed true to the cause) before the vocal minority of their group took over and turned it into a farce.

You don't like Milo speaking at your campus? That's fine. Grab a sign and protest him. Denying him his right to speak his mind is wrong. Being violent about it is even more wrong. I wouldn't blame someone if they brought a giant canister of bear repellant to spray protesters with. Heck, after some of the violent I wouldn't blame someone for a self-defense shooting.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement

"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.


Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.

The point is that freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly do not go out the window for merely having the wrong set of ideas. These are Rights afforded to each US citizen by the Constitution, and they are fundamental liberal principles.

 jasper76 wrote:
The comment about Trump pulling out of NATO was snark. That's what I was apologizing for.

That was not what I was angry about.

 jasper76 wrote:
The statement that the security of European countries relies in no small part on the US contribution to the NATO alliance is just a fact.

This shows a lack of nuance. Europe is not an homogeneous entity. For countries in Eastern Europe that are members of NATO with few military power, this is definitely very true. For a country like, say, France, which is surrounded by countries that are friendly, which owns nukes and nuclear submarines, etc, Russia is about as threatening as, say, China is to the US. There is literally no realistic scenario where Russia attack France, even if the US decide to stay entirely neutral on the whole thing. As for Switzerland, I will just that it is not by chance that they are not part of NATO. It would be against their constitution to do so. And this has served them well during the whole 20th century.

This idea that every European country (that's if the difference between European countries is even acknowledged) is dependent upon the US for it's defense even in the current day situation, and that this is such a self-evident truth that there is no need to expand on it, is US arrogance.

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?

Considering the sheer amount of murders being committed by white supremacists and Islamic fascists, maybe it is the whole of the right that has a problem with violence?
Your liberal application of "leftists" blame for these riots means that it's OK to say that the whole of the right has a problem with murdering people with guns because some arseholes decide to gun down people in the street, church or mosque?

 Zywus wrote:
I'm troubled by how widespread the notion seems to be that the very act of being a nazi makes it ok for people to just decide on their own they're justified in inflicting physical violence on them. (I'm not necessarily pointing fingers to you here Peregrine)


Advocating for it being illegal to utter statements such the one quoted is one thing (although that wouldn't be unproblematic either). That funnels the violence through the legal system with it's checks and balances, due process etc. Something normally consider a very good thing. But taking such gleeful pleasure in someone administrating physical violence just on his own accord?
But hey, as long as it's a nazi, any principles don't apply. That's how principles work, right?

Remember what happened the last time we had Nazis in power? Talking to the Nazis didn't stop them. Making Nazism illegal didn't stop them. The only thing that stopped the Nazis was killing them and taking their country away.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
What America needs at the minute is more Melania Trump for speeches and occasions to calm down this Lefty vs Right aggression. Donald is his own worst enemy, I give him credit for his decisive actions. He is pumping out more orders than any recent president, problem being its inflating tensions of controversy. I imagine it is also because he wants to make a big impression within 100 days of office. Still he is not as bad and unpopular as President Hoover, where towns hung mannequins of him with slogans of 'hang hoover', there isn't yet a Hooverville on the White House lawn, and ex soldiers haven't tried to seize control. As I have said many times before give him time.

100 bad decicions isn't good just cause it's lot. Better 1 good than 100 bad. Trump is incapable of giving good ones

 cuda1179 wrote:
This thread is proof that if you disagree with someone strong enough, just label them as a Nazi or a Racist, then you automatically win the argument.

Given that, in some cases, we are talking about actual Nazi's and racists (as in the case of Spencer), and that society holds that such ideas are inherently and fundamentally flawed, then in some cases that is absolutely correct.

Granted, this has been abused many times, but we also havent had people giving nazi salutes in government administrative and conference buildings much either the way we're seeing now either. The extremes are becoming increasingly radical while both sides use those extremes, or other isolated examples of people going overboard or taking advantage of an event do just do gakky stuff because they can, to wholesale paint the other side with the same brush and advance the agenda of the extremists in doing so.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement

"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.


Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.

The point is that freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly do not go out the window for merely having the wrong set of ideas. These are Rights afforded to each US citizen by the Constitution, and they are fundamental liberal principles.

Yup.

Have a counter-protest all you want... no problems there.

But, to making the case that he/they deserves it (which, honestly no one would feel bad) is lunacy.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The comment about Trump pulling out of NATO was snark. That's what I was apologizing for.

That was not what I was angry about.

 jasper76 wrote:
The statement that the security of European countries relies in no small part on the US contribution to the NATO alliance is just a fact.

This shows a lack of nuance. Europe is not an homogeneous entity. For countries in Eastern Europe that are members of NATO with few military power, this is definitely very true. For a country like, say, France, which is surrounded by countries that are friendly, which owns nukes and nuclear submarines, etc, Russia is about as threatening as, say, China is to the US. There is literally no realistic scenario where Russia attack France, even if the US decide to stay entirely neutral on the whole thing. As for Switzerland, I will just that it is not by chance that they are not part of NATO. It would be against their constitution to do so. And this has served them well during the whole 20th century.

This idea that every European country (that's if the difference between European countries is even acknowledged) is dependent upon the US for it's defense even in the current day situation, and that this is such a self-evident truth that there is no need to expand on it, is US arrogance.

Fair enough. I really don't wish to further engage in an argument over the necessity of NATO (or lack thereof) towards European security. I'll just say again that I don't mind that some of my tax money goes towards the NATO alliance. IME, it is a worthwhile expenditure of our nation's wealth.

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?

I don't think many leftists want a civil war or a third world war. Of course, that doesn't really matter because leftists aren't the ones making this decision A civil war in the US would likely cascade unpredictably and isn't nice to think about but if it happens it would be because of the ruling class starting it to remain in control. How fair or free the election was doesn't really matter because of the fundamental problems that led to Donald Trump being a candidate at all, Hillary Clinton being his opponent and the Democrats refusing to see that the future is anti-capitalist. It also doesn't matter how legitimate or "qualified" Trump is or is not because he now has power and is using that power to do what he said he would. People who've spent decades being slavish adherents to rules and decorum above all, who believe that the means justify the ends, are incapable of standing up to his administration and in many ways unwilling. So people who are fed up with racism, with the end of safe employment, with increased militarisation of the police and with the destruction of public services now see that there truly isn't anyone but themselves that will do anything.

This situation has been brewing for a long time, both the fascists and the leftists. We're just done with the previous normal now. Trump doesn't represent a fundamentally different sort of politics to Obama, Bush, Clinton or whichever other president since Reagan or whatever. He's just putting the pedal to the metal on the machinery that already existed. He's doing with vinegar what others did with honey. The long, slow boiling of the frog jumped twenty degrees in one swoop and that can't be undone.

 whembly wrote:
But, to making the case that he/they deserves it (which, honestly no one would feel bad) is lunacy.

Ever hear the saying "never again"? If the price of making "never again" mean "never again" not "never again, unless the Nazis are acting within the law or stopping them would mean doing something illegal" is that Nazis occasionally get punched in the face when it isn't strictly necessary, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over some alternative hugs.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Spencer was the guy who stood up at a conference in DC, at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, right after Trumps victory, and made the statement

"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

In front of a crowd with many giving the Nazi salute.


Calling Spencer a Nazi is not inaccurate.

The point is that freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly do not go out the window for merely having the wrong set of ideas. These are Rights afforded to each US citizen by the Constitution, and they are fundamental liberal principles.

I wasnt disagreeing with that, just clarifying where the guy stood vis-a-vis the KKK vs Nazi definition comment earlier.

 r_squared wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

To me, it is indeed a sign of an underlying weakness. When people can't win the battle of ideas, they sometimes resort to other methods; in this case, violence, destruction, and mayhem.

If debate could defeat fascism, the Second World War would not have happened.

True enough. Do you really think the left wants a civil war over the fair and free election of Donald Trump? Or do leftists outside of the United States want to go to war with us now?

Considering the sheer amount of murders being committed by white supremacists and Islamic fascists, maybe it is the whole of the right that has a problem with violence?
Your liberal application of "leftists" blame for these riots means that it's OK to say that the whole of the right has a problem with murdering people with guns because some arseholes decide to gun down people in the street, church or mosque?

As I've said before,I think these kinds of activities should be denounced regardless of whether they come from the left, the right, or the center.

It's interesting how people seems to be much more worried about one nazi being punched in the face once, and whether or not this is a good thing, than millions of people facing life-changing change because of the ban. I guess one US nazi hurting for a week is more important than dirty middle-eastern being separated from their family/losing their life from denied medical operation/…