|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2017 05:51 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:28 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:25 Falling wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get idealogical and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation. Yeah, that's kinda what i'm trying to say, i just like to type more words. edit: underscored happened in germany for way too long. It's going so far now that after G20, politicians went full apologist on what happened, trying to blame the Police for "escalating the situation". Oh c'mon. No sane german politician is defending the acts of the "black block" during G20. It's actually a good thing that politicians challenge the questionable actions of the police besides that it would be easy to hide behind "look at the left terror, everything was justified".
How many do i need to show you? Btw, it's not just about the black block, it's about left wing extremism in general: why is "Rote Flora" still open after it became clear that it is and was basically a headquarter for left wing extremists?
edit: and i'd like you to point me to the "questionable actions" taken by the police.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On August 14 2017 05:28 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:25 Falling wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get idealogical and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation. Yeah, that's kinda what i'm trying to say, i just like to type more words. edit: underscored happened in germany for way too long. It's going so far now that after G20, politicians went full apologist on what happened, trying to blame the Police for "escalating the situation".
What? That's exactly the opposite of what's happening... everyone is condemning the Black Block (as they should obviously) but no one at all is questioning some of the stuff the police did at G20. If they are going full apologist it's in favor of the police
|
|
|
On August 14 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
there's a difference between setting cars on fire or attacking the police, which I think is fucking stupid, and attacking people because you think you're part of the master-race and you want to see everybody else purged.
Any equivalence here is wrong. What exactly about those acts of violence makes you not draw equivalence? They're not equivalent because of their motivations? Because we already talked left wing and right wing as being different ideologies ... The only difference I've been seeing is left wing violence has its thread apologists.
It's an in-equivalence of extent. No violence of any kind is condonable, but if you're trying to tell me that throwing rocks and eggs at people is the same as purging the unworthy so the master race may thrive, let me strip you of that notion now. Pointing at violent protesters and saying it excuses racists who commit much more violent acts is disingenuous to the point of nonsense. They're both awful, but one is clearly worse. Violent leftists are immature, naive, stupid, misguided, etc. but Neo Nazis are deliberately hateful and divisive.
|
On August 14 2017 05:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:12 NewSunshine wrote:On August 14 2017 05:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:White Nationalist who attends the University of Reno, Nevada says that he is not the “angry racist” that is portrayed in a viral photo of him carrying a torch at a white nationalist protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Peter Cvjetanovic, 20, told KTVN that he traveled from Reno to Charlottesville to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The student said that he wanted to attend the rally to support the white nationalist movement.
“I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture,” Cvjetanovic opined. “It is not perfect; there are flaws to it, of course. However I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E Lee is a great example of that. He wasn’t a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time.”
Cvjetanovic said that he never expected the frightening photo of him to go viral.
“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was,” he noted. “I understand the photo has a very negative connotation. But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”
Cvjetanovic added: “As a white nationalist, I care for all people. We all deserve a future for our children and for our culture. White nationalists aren’t all hateful; we just want to preserve what we have.” Source "I care for all people, but I don't want to lose my white heritage." Right. Maybe something's lost in translation there, but i don't see those two statements as mutually exclusive (at least in a vacuum, not in regards to confed flag/statue of slave drivers etc). Maybe i'm misunderstanding "white heritage" based on limited english knowledge.
Nominally they aren't. But, as someone who grew up in the New England part of the US I can't say I've ever heard someone discuss 'white heritage' in real life. Polish, Irish, Scottish... sure. 'White heritage' only seems to come up when defending the slave-holding days of the South.. like, for example, defending a statue of Robbie E Lee.
|
On August 14 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
there's a difference between setting cars on fire or attacking the police, which I think is fucking stupid, and attacking people because you think you're part of the master-race and you want to see everybody else purged.
Any equivalence here is wrong. What exactly about those acts of violence makes you not draw equivalence? They're not equivalent because of their motivations? Because we already talked left wing and right wing as being different ideologies ... The only difference I've been seeing is left wing violence has its thread apologists.
Someone has to counter balance you, are the resident right wing apologist. Yesterday you were asserting that people to quick to call the people with Nazi flags racist.
|
Some helpful pre-Charlottesville reading for those who may or may not be an apologist
From January 2008 to the end of 2016, we identified 63 cases of Islamist domestic terrorism, meaning incidents motivated by a theocratic political ideology espoused by such groups as the Islamic State. The vast majority of these (76 percent) were foiled plots, meaning no attack took place.
During the same period, we found that right-wing extremists were behind nearly twice as many incidents: 115. Just over a third of these incidents (35 percent) were foiled plots. The majority were acts of terrorist violence that involved deaths, injuries or damaged property.
Right-wing extremist terrorism was more often deadly: Nearly a third of incidents involved fatalities, for a total of 79 deaths, while 13 percent of Islamist cases caused fatalities. (The total deaths associated with Islamist incidents were higher, however, reaching 90, largely due to the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas.)
Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities – making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.
Nearly half (48 percent) of Islamist incidents in our database were sting operations, more than four times the rate for far-right (12 percent) or far-left (10.5 percent) incidents.
Source
|
On August 14 2017 05:55 TheNewEra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:28 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:25 Falling wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get idealogical and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation. Yeah, that's kinda what i'm trying to say, i just like to type more words. edit: underscored happened in germany for way too long. It's going so far now that after G20, politicians went full apologist on what happened, trying to blame the Police for "escalating the situation". What? That's exactly the opposite of what's happening... everyone is condemning the Black Block (as they should obviously) but no one at all is questioning some of the stuff the police did at G20. If they are going full apologist it's in favor of the police
Another one who must've missed most statements of die Linke, Gruene etc?
Wanna see what "questionable things" the police did?
Für van Aken sind die Polizeibeamten selbst an der Gewalt schuld. “Die Eskalation vom Donnerstagabend ging von der Polizei aus”, sagt er im Gespräch im ZDF. Die Polizei habe den Protestzug angehalten und die Personen im Schwarzen Block aufgefordert, ihre Vermummung abzunehmen.
Die meisten Vermummten seien dieser Anweisung gefolgt. “Ich stand direkt daneben, ich hab das durchgezählt”, sagt van Aken. Nur noch zehn Prozent hätten ihre Vermummung getragen.
Trotzdem habe die Polizei weiter versucht, den Schwarzen Block von den anderen Teilnehmern der Demonstration zu trennen. Für van Aken völlig unnötig - und ein Auslöser der Eskalation. “Warum wollen sie den Schwarzen Block von restlichen Demonstranten trennen, wenn die sich genauso an die Regeln halten, die die Vermummung ablegen?”, fragt er.
For others: basically german police saw parts of the radical "black block" in groups of protesters and asked them to take off their masks. Roughly 10% didn't, but the police tried to separate the black block from normal protesters anyway.
He's arguing that police escalated the situation to violence because of that, because once they took of the masks, they were "normal protesters".
I mean.. Really?
Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities – making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.
Thank god that those seven people weren't killed by racists. I mean, that would make it so much worse. I guess.
The only thing this shows to me is that you have more right wing extremists than left wing extremists (pretty sure that's accurate). They're in no way less violent.
|
Here's something incredibly pathetic. The following is an image taken of a man attending yesterday's Charlottesville rally.
+ Show Spoiler +
If you look closely, you can just make out that the man performing Hitler's favorite physical gesture of power is wearing an 82nd Airborne Division hat.
The 82nd dropped into Normandy on D-Day.
|
That's.. odd.
First of all, the Fuehrer would be ashamed if you greet him so "low energy" (that's what the_donalds use?). Second, .. is there a reason for that? That's not the first time i see a reference like this that seems way off.
Is that because of that one picture where they pose behind a swastika flag? As in, a misunderstanding due to mentally challenged-ness?
Nominally they aren't. But, as someone who grew up in the New England part of the US I can't say I've ever heard someone discuss 'white heritage' in real life. Polish, Irish, Scottish... sure. 'White heritage' only seems to come up when defending the slave-holding days of the South.. like, for example, defending a statue of Robbie E Lee.
Yeah, i understand - i missed something there. I equalled "white heritage" with "my heritage" (and through that jumped to german heritage), which obviously is wrong.
|
On August 14 2017 06:07 farvacola wrote:Here's something incredibly pathetic. The following is an image taken of a man attending yesterday's Charlottesville rally. + Show Spoiler +If you look closely, you can just make out that the man performing Hitler's favorite physical gesture of power is wearing an 82nd Airborne Division hat. The 82nd dropped into Normandy on D-Day.
These people have no shame. They want to bask in the glory of the veterans of world war 2 and make the Nazi salute. WW2 is an action movie featuring Americans, the Nazis cartoon villains. They want it all.
|
On August 14 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
there's a difference between setting cars on fire or attacking the police, which I think is fucking stupid, and attacking people because you think you're part of the master-race and you want to see everybody else purged.
Any equivalence here is wrong. What exactly about those acts of violence makes you not draw equivalence? They're not equivalent because of their motivations? Because we already talked left wing and right wing as being different ideologies ... The only difference I've been seeing is left wing violence has its thread apologists.
You don't think motivations matter? If you squat a building or attack the police because you think that the state is your enemy that's detestable and stupid, but it's quite another thing to drive through a crowd of people because you don't even consider them to be human, or think that they're in the way of turning your country into what is essentially some kind of apartheid state.
There is no equivalent to this on the contemporary political spectrum. There is no Stalinist left trying to send you to the gulag.
|
On August 14 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:07 farvacola wrote:Here's something incredibly pathetic. The following is an image taken of a man attending yesterday's Charlottesville rally. + Show Spoiler +If you look closely, you can just make out that the man performing Hitler's favorite physical gesture of power is wearing an 82nd Airborne Division hat. The 82nd dropped into Normandy on D-Day. These people have no shame. They want to bask in the glory of the veterans of world war 2 and make the Nazi salute. WW2 is an action movie featuring Americans, the Nazis cartoon villains. They want it all.
White supremacist groups are slowly moving past the awkwardness of the overlap between people who fought the Nazi's and those who wish to celebrate them.
Moving into the stage of their children siding with their enemy.
|
I really don't see the link between me condemning (physical) violence of any kind with being a far-right apologist but whatever.
I think the KKK and those idiots marching with the nazi flag are fucking cretins. I have as much contempt for them as for people marching with a hammer-and-sickle flag, since both are equally skilled in historical awareness. But I still would not advocate violence against any of them, even the utter cretins, unless they get violent, in which case I'd like to see them in jail.
There is no good and bad throwing of molotovs. Just people who identify with extreme opinions and are at the same time desperate for a justification to alahu akbar their life away or hurt someone because they're given the moral permission or divine command to do so.
|
On August 14 2017 06:27 Kickboxer wrote:
I really don't see the link between me condemning (physical) violence of any kind with being a far-right apologist but whatever.
I think the KKK and those idiots marching with the nazi flag are fucking cretins. I have as much contempt for them as for people marching with a hammer-and-sickle flag, since both are equally skilled in historical awareness. But I still would not advocate violence against any of them, even the utter cretins, unless they get violent, in which case I'd like to see them in jail.
There is no good and bad throwing of molotovs. Just people who identify with extreme opinions and are at the same time desperate for a justification to alahu akbar their life away or hurt someone because they're given the moral permission or divine command to do so.
What about advocating for genocide is "non-violent"?
|
And of course, yes, that idiot in the car is a domestic terrorist. As would the murderer of a cop be, or is, in the case of those cops sniped not long ago.
|
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong.
|
On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong.
Words cannot be violent.
Some of the most amazing atrocities in the history of mankind have been committed because of words.
|
On August 14 2017 06:28 Kickboxer wrote:
And of course, yes, that idiot in the car is a domestic terrorist. As would the murderer of a cop be, or is, in the case of those cops sniped not long ago.
There is no common ground with Nazis. They want remove all the "impure" races from the US. And they will lie through their teeth to get the power to do it. This is not the first time either.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/photo/529185/
We didn't debate with them then and we won't now. Their violent bigotry has no place in the US.
Edit: The holocaust museum released a statement last year about words and violence. That the holocaust didn't start with raids, or camps, or ghettos. It started with words. Anyone who claims words can't do harm is just a damn fool.
|
United Kingdom10020 Posts
On August 14 2017 06:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong. Words cannot be violent. Some of the most amazing atrocities in the history of mankind have been committed because of words.
There's a context behind that though. Words are violent if you are an officer ordering some low ranked dude to go shoot a bunch of innocent people.
The free exchange of ideas in society is totally different, and although it can lead to violence, is not violent in of itself, no matter how abhorrent the idea.
If people use those ideas to go create havoc, it is those people who should take responsibility, not those who have the idea.
Otherwise we will have to retrospectively blame Nietzsche for the Nazis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1136145-860_poster_16x9-hmpt-1136145.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHFcZfuVwAAOesg.jpg)
