Car Hits Crowd After White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville Ends in Violence

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.

**Jihadin**

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

**Goliath**

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"

**Frazzled**

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

And now we're going full McCarthy. This thread doesn't have long.

**Ouze**

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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Google guy was foolish, sure, however what he did was not gross misconduct and he did not deserve to be sacked for it.

He should have been given a disciplinary by HR and sent on a diversity awareness course.

Jesus, Kilkrazy. Don't mince your words, tell us what you really think. The guy thinks wrong and should be re-educated.

**MonkeyBallistic**

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.

**Ouze**

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?

**sirlynchmob**

Frazzled wrote:
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**

Ouze wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
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.

**Ouze**

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?

**Disciple of Fate**

MonkeyBallistic wrote:
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.

**Bromsy**

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.

**Frazzled**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
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**

Ouze wrote:
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(?)

**Ustrello**

Man look at all of these nazi defenders, oh how our grandparents would weep

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
MonkeyBallistic wrote:
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.

**Jihadin**

Crap. One of the spokesman for the Supremist grp wearing a Victory or Valhalla polo shirt. I own/wear one to work to.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

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?

**Unit1126PLL**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
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.

**TheCustomLime**

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.

**thekingofkings**

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.

**godardc**

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.

**Prestor Jon**

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
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.

**Bromsy**

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**

godardc wrote:
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

**godardc**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
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 ?

**Frazzled**

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.

**Unit1126PLL**

godardc wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
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.