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.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
The people with the nazi scarfs chanting nazi slogans were only a small part of the unite the right movement and they alongside the organizers of the alt right movement had a right to assemble there. They'd petitioned the court after being barred entry to the park and won the legal battle to be allowed to do the "unite the right" rally.
Or do you not believe that the strength of your nation is diversity? That people of any creed, color, and ideology who make their home in the USA should be able to protest and utter their ideas in the public squares of your nation?
What happened was precisely that. An exercise in diversity and an attempt to engage the public discourse by the "alt right."
Then the left and Antifa showed up with their hired thugs and black masks, pepper spray, and it turns out the cops there were told to step down, and someone attending the protest driving a car gets crowded by people who oppose his ideology and people start smacking their bats on the side of his car and he floors it into the crowd and everyone with a microphone blames the alt right protesters who by any sensible standard would have been happy chanting slogans and going their merry way.
So who do you blame? The alt right? Who by any reasonable account had every right to be there? Or the Antifa "counter" protestors and radical communists who showed up to fight and fuck with a legally assembled protest "becahse there are nazi's there?" People who by all rights should have been turned away by the cops who by the way were told to stand down?
And you wonder why there is a narrative that runs counter to yours.
So who do you blame? The alt right? Who by any reasonable account had every right to be there? Or the Antifa "counter" protestors and radical communists who showed up to fight and fuck with a legally assembled protest "becahse there are nazi's there?" People who by all rights should have been turned away by the cops who by the way were told to stand down?
So showing up with assault rifles/militias, posing in shields and whatnot is "reasonable"?
Sidenote, counter protesters had every right to be there, too.
edit: jesus didn't see that you're actually arguing that the attack was an accident, are you retarded?
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skit read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them.
I read it. I addressed it to the best of my ability. He's putting forth no evidence or really any argument other than a tweet and claiming antifa is violent. The anitfa thing is something that most of us arguing with him admit and have presented evidence *for* him. We've also argued that it's nowhere near the same as what is happening at these neo-nazi and white supremacist rallies, specifically the one in Charlottesville. I'm asking for his argument, while presenting my own as well.
And I see you parroting the talking points of others, which are hardly argument and hardly admission of wrong on both sides. You responded to his tweet with your own preferred narrative, which is shared by many disreputable media organizations. You hold mutually exclusive perspectives, but I've seen you hold more faith that yours is backed by evidence and less faith that his is as well. This is the politics thread where facts plain as day to you come into conflict with facts plain as day to others. I see no reason to prejudice evidentially one opinion over another when both are offered as pure viewpoints.
On August 16 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote: I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts.
Because it goes contrary to common knowledge.
For example, your source on how easy it is to get a weapon? Completely missing the point. What you linked is the application form if you have a license.
On August 16 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote: I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts.
My intention was to inform you that my common knowledge, as an Australian, is that your common knowledge about Australia was not entirely correct, and therefore that additional sources were required to justify your point.
I think the important point is that the rate of gun-related incidents in Australia has gone down considerably as a result of the gun control measures of the 90s. If those gun control measures haven't actually made it much harder to get a gun for legitimate purposes, as you assert, then that seems like an even better case for gun control being a good thing.
On August 16 2017 12:57 Sermokala wrote: I just don't understand how it doesn't fall under the generally acceptable "its common knowedge" rule we useualy follow. I updated the post with a couple sources.
We state opinions all the time without backing as facts.
Because it goes contrary to common knowledge.
For example, your source on how easy it is to get a weapon? Completely missing the point. What you linked is the application form if you have a license.
This here is what you should've linked, and that certainly doesn't seem "easy" to me.
Well it seems relatively easy to me and thats what I posted in my opinion about gun control in australia.
Lets see.
You need to:
Be a fit and proper person (subjective, can be denied because reasons) Have not been convicted of anything in the past 5 years Have an actual reason for the license (including supporting documentation!) Have proof of weapons training Have a weapons safe Have completed an approved firearms course Pictures of yourself Be able to get to a police station with 100 points of identification (whatever that means)
For actually buying a weapon (you don't have one yet, nor are you allowed to buy one):
Said license. Mandatory waiting period. Be able to name the seller. If buying off private, have a police officer attending the transaction.
That's easy for you. Right.
edit: obviously ignoring the restrictions on weapons itself, on top of this.
On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote: Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd?
Yes.
edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
The people with the nazi scarfs chanting nazi slogans were only a small part of the unite the right movement and they alongside the organizers of the alt right movement had a right to assemble there. They'd petitioned the court after being barred entry to the park and won the legal battle to be allowed to do the "unite the right" rally.
Or do you not believe that the strength of your nation is diversity? That people of any creed, color, and ideology who make their home in the USA should be able to protest and utter their ideas in the public squares of your nation?
What happened was precisely that. An exercise in diversity and an attempt to engage the public discourse by the "alt right."
Then the left and Antifa showed up with their hired thugs and black masks, pepper spray, and it turns out the cops there were told to step down, and someone attending the protest driving a car gets crowded by people who oppose his ideology and people start smacking their bats on the side of his car and he floors it into the crowd and everyone with a microphone blames the alt right protesters who by any sensible standard would have been happy chanting slogans and going their merry way.
So who do you blame? The alt right? Who by any reasonable account had every right to be there? Or the Antifa "counter" protestors and radical communists who showed up to fight and fuck with a legally assembled protest "becahse there are nazi's there?" People who by all rights should have been turned away by the cops who by the way were told to stand down?
And you wonder why there is a narrative that runs counter to yours.
First, most of the video and photos don't seem to show that the neo-nazis and white supremacists were just a small element of the protest. They seemed to be a pretty large contingent, not to mention very front and center. I'm not arguing their constitutional right to assemble by the way. While they have a right to protest and utter their ideas in public I have the right not only to disagree but to condemn them if they are vile. An opinion does not mean you are free from consequence. Also I find it ironic you are talking about my nation being one of diversity and of many ideologies when the ideology being espoused very loudly by the protesters was one of oppression and genocide of those who aren't white.
I'm still waiting for all the photos and videos showing these hired thugs and black masks. I mean, again, aside from a few (as in an incident or 2) there doesn't seem to be reported violence by the counter-protesters except for claims made without evidence. There's also video of the car and it doesn't show him crowded by people and getting hit by bats and in fact the video shows he's got a pretty wide berth between the people he hits and where he comes from in this video. There's no evidence to support that claim you made about him being surrounded like that, with the inference that it wasn't his fault and he was trying to escape or something.
The Unite the Right protesters are yelling rhetoric that incites hate and even violence against the opposition and one of the men there decides to ram into a group of counter-protesters. Some there may think they're just saying random words, but they have meaning and when someone acts on those there's a connection. You don't get to blame the counter-protesters because not all of the Unite the Right protesters drove cars into people.
I've heard the argument the mayor told police to stand down and I'd like to see the proof because if that's the case then it was a bad move on his part.
The counter-protesters were there to protest the Unite the Right rally, not fight. Most of the pictures and video show aggression, weapons and fighting started by the Unite the Right protesters. The counter-protesters were mostly peaceful and mostly unarmed. Most police forces I believe allow spontaneous protests to a certain point, but usually step in after a while. I'll agree they should have stepped in earlier, but if the Unite the Right rally had the right to be in the town (they weren't confined to the park they had the permit to protest in) then so did the counter-protesters.
All I have to say in conclusion is, the rhetoric from the Unite the Right protesters was violent, hateful and vile and Americans have every right to counter-protest and condemn them.
On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote: Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd?
Yes.
edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd.
Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration.
On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote: Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd?
Yes.
edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd.
Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration.
On August 16 2017 13:14 xDaunt wrote: Is there a video showing the car before the guy gunned it and rammed the crowd?
Yes.
edit: don't go there, there's no ground for you or that argument to stand on. There's videos showing the car completely free accelerating into the crowd.
Post a link. The only videos that I've seen show the car already at speed plowing into the car. I want to see what was going on at the point of acceleration.
Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated.
Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read
Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack.
With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional.
On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening?
They should, because this is exactly what is happening.
Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument.
But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
So you are going to just stick to your talking points and not bother with evidence? Do you concede you can't show any Antifa violence in Charlotesville? The VICE video is pretty decisive in what it shows: the racist side was there to beat people with sticks and did beat people with sticks.
So you are just going to stick with your talking points and not read what I wrote? There were reports of confrontation between both sides there, but that's not what the post or the tweet is about entirely.
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
On August 16 2017 10:30 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read.
And we have lots of evidence that antifa is violent, as has been documented.
Here is something to read. When fascists came to Berkeley, Antifa caused some property damage. You keep getting to say that Antifa is violent for free. Pony up something beyond vandalism.
We've already had this discussion in this thread recently, but you are again confirming why you are one of the great ignored posters.
I'm not excusing anyone here for anything.
Honestly though, parroting talking points and never addressing opposing argumentation ("I refuse to actually read and understand what you wrote, so I'm just going to continue berating you for your wrongthink and bigotry") shouldn't necessarily be the default. But that's where we're at. Every week, I'm caught between whether Trump's the one gone wildly overboard, or whether the Dems, media allies, and most of this thread are more insane.
Except the only one parroting talking points and refusing to address opposing arguments is Introvert. He won't back up his claim that the violence was equal from both sides (or even really that there was much aside from a few scuffles by the counter protesters). He also isn't explaining that tweet, or backing it up with evidence, it's just him going "this tweet is correct". My answer is what is happening. Explain to me why my version is wrong and the other one is right. People like Trump aren't saying "Nazis are bad" and the left goes "yeah and we're angels". That's NOT HAPPENING. I'm not hearing it or seeing it. I'm hearing a lot of excuses from people on the far right about "but the left" and "but Antifa" or "not all the people at the neo-nazi rally were bad". How is that not a problem? Why is Trump's refusal to roundly condemn the Neo-nazis and white supremacists not bad. How is his attempt to blame the left and how terrible they are not that big of a problem? He blamed many sides! He defended the Unite the Right protesters, the ones who are on camera and pictures chanting Nazi slogans, yelling racist, vile rhetoric, beat counter-protesters and one of them killed a person with a car. He said the other side was just as to blame and claimed the protesters were good people. The President of the United States wouldn't condemn racist, neo-nazi hate filled rhetoric! He gave them a pass by blaming the "many sides" and saying there were "good people" there. He's doing his best to lighten what happened at the rally.
Did you read his claims and arguments? Serious question. I feel like your eyes glazed over during a skim read and you chose to characterize it as excuses. Or like you privilege your own and others assertions and think everybody else should be held to a higher standard of evidence. Frankly, I'm left wondering if you understood his claims rather than insert your own interpretations in place of them.
I asked Introvert for evidence of Antifa violence to support his claims. I then demonstrated what that evidence would look like with a stack of links showing Nazi violence in Virginia. I also provided good, neutral summaries of the violence in Virginia. The reports were decisive: the Nazis did it. Only hardcore racist websites said Antifa did anything. He then replied that I was one the most ignored posters for good reason and that I should go read previous, unidentified posts where he posts winning arguments.
Your response here is comparably lame. We are reading your arguments. The arguments have some smug insult combined with zero linked evidence. Your words are not enough. Cite a non-racist source to support the both sides violence claims. And then pony up the evidence and make the links between Antifa and the Left/Dems.
EDIT: it could be that this isn't an argument where evidence matters. This could just be a flavor of "the left is bad due to some strawman I posted", and details of Virginia are irrelevant to the discussion. Yeah, now that I think about it Matt Walsh was for sure just posting conservative butthurt about him having voted for and supporting a President that equivocates for Nazis. Walsh was just looking for a way to make the Left into badguys instead of himself.
You thought the point of the post and of the tweet was to equivocate on what happened in Virginia. It was NOT the point, and it is NOT what I did. It's what you read into it.
Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy.
You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead.
He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read
Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack.
With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional.
On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening?
They should, because this is exactly what is happening.
Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument.
But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation.
By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president.
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
How about you actually make that argument? Lots of conservatives are tried to make the "b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Alt-Left" argument stick. Why don't you actually pony up some real evidence of violence at Charlotesville that was Antifa induced. And then you need to make the critical second part of the argument: that antifa is linked to the broader Left/Dems.
We have the video from VICE. We have lots of news reports. Pony up the evidence that Antifa violence was anything comparable to the armed beatings that the racists were handing out in Virginia. Then pony up evidence linking Antifa back to the broader Left/Dems.
This wasn't explicitly about Charlotesville either.
If people calmed down for 3 seconds and just took the time to read
Tfw you post about the right's response to nazis being perceived as not enough right after a nazi terrorist attack and people don't have the reading comprehension not to assume you're talking about the attack.
With the exception of the president the right's response has been fine. A large exception. But even then we have a problem of lumping "alt-right" with everyone else, which is very intentional.
On August 16 2017 10:43 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:22 Odawg27 wrote:
On August 16 2017 10:04 Introvert wrote: Actually, I think most of the conservatives in this thread and elsewhere feel like this:
which is how politics today works. And Trump is not the right person to deal with this.
Except what's going on is this:
Violent, hateful rhetoric from Unite the Right protesters. Documented attacks and vile chants and statements from those protesters. A few scuffles between protesters and counter-protesters. A Unite the Right protester drives his car into a group of peaceful counter-protesters at high speed killing 1 and injuring 19.
Most people: "Nazis are bad!"
Trump and many on the far right: "Whoa, many sides are at fault for violence here!"
Most people: "wait, what? What about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists?"
Trump and many on the far right: "Stop trying to shut down free speech and the first amendment. The left is oppressive and wrong. A lot of those protesters were good people."
We already knew this, but it's unfortunate to see that fully reading and comprehending what was written is still a challenge here.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you believe the tweet from Walsh is correct? Not only that conservatives feel this, but they *should* feel this way because it's true that's what's happening?
They should, because this is exactly what is happening.
Are you serious? That's *not* what's happening at all. No one is claiming 100% innocence without provocation. Not only that, but the right (including Trump and this tweet) aren't leading with "Nazis are bad". They're leading with "All sides have blame" and "Yeah, but what about the violent, hateful left" (btw very little proof of that, and nothing anywhere near the hateful, vile rhetoric and actions by the Unite the Right protesters). Oh and the few that may be saying that first line; it's usually "Nazis are bad, but look at how bad the protesters on the left is, they have such a huge problem." In fact I was discussing that with another poster on here earlier who used that argument.
But it is. The most this thread can come up with about left-wing violence is "at least they are only vandals." That's not even true, as we've seen in places like Sacramento or DC. I mean in the past few months we are 1 for 1, DC shooter and car terrorist. But I don't know what world you are living in where this isn't being used to tar the whole right. And it's the final part that's the most important. Anything you say in response gets you labeled as an apologist. Even though everyone on the right is and always does come out in the strongest possible terms against these racists. Just pointing out that these two racially charged movements feed off of each other is enough for damnation.
By everyone I'm assuming you mean everyone but the president.
I've already noted the president several times, thanks for the one liner.
On August 16 2017 13:23 m4ini wrote: Link i just posted shows the entire situation where he accelerated.
Yeah, the video shows pretty clearly that he wasn't surrounded by people and just trying to make his way through a crowd.
It's absolutely mind-bending to me how you could come to any other conclusion than this being deliberate. This is like fucking brainwashed level of idiocy.
You can also see clearly from the car backing up that there was no one before the crowd, no bats, no whatever else is being peddled as a dumb excuse. The street is empty except for the crowd ahead.
He also rammed into additional cars that were in the crowd making it doubly obvious he wasn't trying to get through the crowd.
As was pointed out by someone else on reddit: he intended to kill way more people - he just couldn't see those two parked cars there which he hit pretty hard. Imagine those two not standing there (and that's obviously not to the credit of the driver, because again, he couldn't see them when he accelerated).
EPT
![[image loading]](https://cdn.davidwolfe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/170812-charlottesville-car-crash-1-ew-359p_ac7eaea94889069e4da4cffd1a6fb83b.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg)
