Prestor Jon wrote:

 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:

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

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.

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:

 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?

 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.

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 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.

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.

 godardc wrote:
so they are probably miles away from calling a woman with a dick "sir" or a man with boobs 'lady".

 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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


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.

 Galas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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?

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Galas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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?

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.

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder if the masses going to remove Lee house and Arlington.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 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.