|
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 17 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:On August 17 2017 00:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these. the presiden't didn't say what? i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham. it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies. It's not my link, it's a tweet from StealthBlue, it's not a long statement and only indirectly quotes the president saying one thing, that a dead girl is morally equivalent to neo-Nazis.
ah, so noted it is indeed stealth's link.
and the president kinda did say some stuff like that. obviously in only a subset of his statements; but we can all see he's done far too much equivocating and false equivalencies on the topic.
the rest of my points stand at any rate.
|
On August 17 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these. the presiden't didn't say what? i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham. it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies. It's not my link, it's a tweet from StealthBlue, it's not a long statement and only indirectly quotes the president saying one thing, that a dead girl is morally equivalent to neo-Nazis.
Graham is going a bit far but it's kind of what Trump is saying. I wouldn't have used her specifically but that's the meat of the matter.
With his statement that "many sides" are at fault he at the very least blames both sides. We can both agree on that, right? Wether or not he blames both sides absolutely equally is going a bit further than what he actually said but I'd argue that he's trying to compare the two sides. Maybe he's not saying they're absolutely equal but he's trying to make them sound more equal ("than what they are"/"than what you year in media", take your pick).
The point hower is, that the women who died supposedly was one of those left-wing protesters as well. So he might not have literally said it but yes, he's kind of blaming her. The people she was with incited violence according to him and outside of one very specific nazi kid the blame isn't on specific people, it's on a group of people. And in Trumps case that group of people includes her.
So yes, it's not literally what he said, but it's what he meant. Wether he realized it or not.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Even then, the vast majority of those protesting the Nazis were not interested in attacking them. If the Nazis came to my city I'd be out protesting them and I have no interest in punching them until such a time that the US government asks for people to volunteer and do it in uniform. Within the opposition to the Nazis the violent minority argument holds water, opposition to Nazism is an extremely broad tent that should include basically everyone but Nazis. Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible.
|
|
|
On August 17 2017 01:07 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 17 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these. the presiden't didn't say what? i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham. it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies. It's not my link, it's a tweet from StealthBlue, it's not a long statement and only indirectly quotes the president saying one thing, that a dead girl is morally equivalent to neo-Nazis. Graham is going a bit far but it's kind of what Trump is saying. I wouldn't have used her specifically but that's the meat of the matter. With his statement that "many sides" are at fault he at the very least blames both sides. We can both agree on that, right? Wether or not he blames both sides absolutely equally is going a bit further than what he actually said but I'd argue that he's trying to compare the two sides. Maybe he's not saying they're absolutely equal but he's trying to make them sound more equal ("than what they are"/"than what you year in media", take your pick). The point hower is, that the women who died supposedly was one of those left-wing protesters as well. So he might not have literally said it but yes, he's kind of blaming her. The people she was with incited violence according to him and outside of one very specific nazi kid the blame isn't on specific people, it's on a group of people. And in Trumps case that group of people includes her. So yes, it's not literally what he said, but it's what he meant. Wether he realized it or not.
No, this is what he said, and he was actually exhibiting subtlety but was lost in the media cycle:
In fact, the young woman, who I hear is a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC, her mother wrote me and said through, I guess Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine, really actually an incredible, young woman.
Excuse me. You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You got a lot of bad people in the other group too.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543769884/transcript-trump-shifts-tone-again-on-white-nationalist-rally-in-charlottesville
|
On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible.
Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too.
You arguing that every racist is inherently violent?
edit: apart from the obvious problem in the entire discussion in the last what, 50 pages? People equal the counter protesters as representative for what the left is like. Which is idiotic again. I bet that there's considerably more "normal people" (including republicans) than actual proper antifas. You can't point at the general mass and say "look, they're generally less violent" - of course. That's because the smallest part of that mass is actually what we're talking about here, with the majority being more like you and me.
|
On August 17 2017 01:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:07 Toadesstern wrote:On August 17 2017 00:54 oBlade wrote:On August 17 2017 00:47 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 00:45 oBlade wrote:The president didn't say this, which people who listened to the president's own words know, so this is just Graham looking out for his own skin at the expense of throwing the president under a straw bus. For people who claim to be so serious about denouncing extremism, they seem actually faster to denounce the president for political bread crumbs. And a lot of people who would never otherwise give a second thought to the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells of the world are quick to cite them in times like these. the presiden't didn't say what? i'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that. as you link to a statement by graham, involving graham's interpretation of what the president said; but it's mostly just a statement by graham. it's also utter nonsense to call it throwing the president under a bus. graham has hated trump for quite some time now and has shown it time and again; throwing under the bus as an expression only applies to allies, not enemies. It's not my link, it's a tweet from StealthBlue, it's not a long statement and only indirectly quotes the president saying one thing, that a dead girl is morally equivalent to neo-Nazis. Graham is going a bit far but it's kind of what Trump is saying. I wouldn't have used her specifically but that's the meat of the matter. With his statement that "many sides" are at fault he at the very least blames both sides. We can both agree on that, right? Wether or not he blames both sides absolutely equally is going a bit further than what he actually said but I'd argue that he's trying to compare the two sides. Maybe he's not saying they're absolutely equal but he's trying to make them sound more equal ("than what they are"/"than what you year in media", take your pick). The point hower is, that the women who died supposedly was one of those left-wing protesters as well. So he might not have literally said it but yes, he's kind of blaming her. The people she was with incited violence according to him and outside of one very specific nazi kid the blame isn't on specific people, it's on a group of people. And in Trumps case that group of people includes her. So yes, it's not literally what he said, but it's what he meant. Wether he realized it or not. No, this is what he said, and he was actually exhibiting subtlety but was lost in the media cycle: Show nested quote +
In fact, the young woman, who I hear is a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC, her mother wrote me and said through, I guess Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine, really actually an incredible, young woman.
Show nested quote +
Excuse me. You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group, excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Show nested quote +
Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You got a lot of bad people in the other group too.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/15/543769884/transcript-trump-shifts-tone-again-on-white-nationalist-rally-in-charlottesville
Graham said "people like her" so I suppose it's not literally her but the people who protested like her?
I mean he's saying the nazi's had "some" very bad people but also people (without quantification) who were fine.
Meanwhile the left had some fine people but also people (without quantification) who are troublemakers. In fact he goes out of his way to say that it was a lot of troublemakers after that.
If I took his word for granted I'd get the idea that most of the nazis are nice people and some where awful while the left was mostly armed antifa with few decent people inbetween.
|
On August 17 2017 01:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible. Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too. You arguing that every racist is inherently violent? edit: apart from the obvious problem in the entire discussion in the last what, 50 pages? People equal the counter protesters as representative for what the left is like. Which is idiotic again. I bet that there's considerably more "normal people" (including republicans) than actual proper antifas. You can't point at the general mass and say "look, they're generally less violent" - of course. That's because the smallest part of that mass is actually what we're talking about here, with the majority being more like you and me.
True, it wasn't limited to just Nazis. There were also members of the KKK and white supremacist groups.
|
Canada11279 Posts
This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to.
Well, I mean for some people the very words of condemnation are disbelieved. So for those people, if a quick and utter denunciation is not sufficient, one wonders what would be enough to be demonstrate that one truly find something repugnant? Grovelling? Become a Democrat?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/13/ted-cruz-mocks-nyt-reporter-for-claiming-hes-posturing-by-condemning-white-nationalists/
NYT reporter Eric Lipton: “Sorry to be cynical, but most of all Rubio and Ted Cruz to me seem mostly to be doing a tremendous job of posturing for 2020,”
Cruz rejoinder: "Gosh, you're right. Because Nazis & the Klan have such love for Cuban-Americans. If only we worked for a paper that shilled for Stalin...."
But in the case of Trump, the man is so wishy washy on condemning the white supremacists (likely as others have said because he is reluctant to say bad things to people who have said good things about hims)- it's a clear pattern and it's not good.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 01:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible. Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too. You arguing that every racist is inherently violent?
These are people who were here to listen to Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch speak about the creation of a white ethnostate through. Not every racist is violent but these guys were out in force for a fundamentally genocidal goal. They're not looking to settle for apartheid, they're interested in cleansing.
To give an example that might make sense to a right leaning reader, every participant at a pro-choice rally might be considered to be fundamentally okay with the murder of the unborn. That's just baked into what they're doing. This is the same. If you're not interested in the white ethnostate then you're at the wrong rally.
|
On August 17 2017 01:26 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:18 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible. Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too. You arguing that every racist is inherently violent? edit: apart from the obvious problem in the entire discussion in the last what, 50 pages? People equal the counter protesters as representative for what the left is like. Which is idiotic again. I bet that there's considerably more "normal people" (including republicans) than actual proper antifas. You can't point at the general mass and say "look, they're generally less violent" - of course. That's because the smallest part of that mass is actually what we're talking about here, with the majority being more like you and me. True, it wasn't limited to just Nazis. There were also members of the KKK and white supremacist groups.
Ah, forgot that the usual suspects weren't invited, was exclusively about large extremist institutions. I guess all the counter protesters were antifa, correct?
These are people who were here to listen to Richard Spencer and Mike Enoch speak about the creation of a white ethnostate through. Not every racist is violent but these guys were out in force for a fundamentally genocidal goal. They're not looking to settle for apartheid, they're interested in cleansing.
To give an example that might make sense to a right leaning reader, every participant at a pro-choice rally might be considered to be fundamentally okay with the murder of the unborn. That's just baked into what they're doing. This is the same. If you're not interested in the white ethnostate then you're at the wrong rally.
No, they might've been there for other (racist) reasons, not to listen to talk to some dwerps. I'm not talking about those pudding faces posing behind shields, or having hitler quotes on their t-shirts. There's no argument from me there. But equalling everyone there with Nazis is simply wrong, even if you're trying to be witty and point out that the KKK and WS was there too. There also were "normal" (racist) persons, which are certainly racist but not even close to those poloshirt brigade.
Again, it's like arguing that every counter protester is an antifa. That's obviously not true. It's like arguing that because i went out and protested castor transports (nuclear waste) i'm suddenly a green moron, arguing that germans should be ashamed of showing the flag if the german national team is playing football.
I do understand what the rally was about, but if you really think that there were no "just racist" people (like your average grandma, uncle whatever, those stereotypes), i don't know. It feels a lot like you're making it way too easy for yourself to justify violent actions (which undoubtedly happened too) of antifas etc by saying "well Nazis are inherently violent though".
Sidenote, i'm pretty liberal. Quite on the left side of the spektrum in many aspects, although not in every. In regards to your pro-choice analogy, that's stupid too. For that equivalence you'd need to get every pro choicer to sign a document making clear that they actually do think that it's murder. Many of them do in fact do not think that.
|
On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 16 2017 18:13 Jacenoob wrote:
[quote]
Well you just compared the South/Lee to the undisputed biggest villain in mankind's history Hitler and the North/Washington to universal hero and Nobel Prize winner Churchill. Gne what? I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point.
Yeah a bit,that is true. Also I certainly don't advocate for banning him. My point is that this comparison was typical for the hybris the left is currently showing, trying to shut down any dissenting opinion with heavily exaggerated moral accusations or even actual authority. When you start your argument by equating your side with the literature nobel prize carrier and the other side with Hitler how do you expect any discussion to go?
A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions.
|
On August 17 2017 01:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 01:18 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible. Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too. You arguing that every racist is inherently violent? edit: apart from the obvious problem in the entire discussion in the last what, 50 pages? People equal the counter protesters as representative for what the left is like. Which is idiotic again. I bet that there's considerably more "normal people" (including republicans) than actual proper antifas. You can't point at the general mass and say "look, they're generally less violent" - of course. That's because the smallest part of that mass is actually what we're talking about here, with the majority being more like you and me. True, it wasn't limited to just Nazis. There were also members of the KKK and white supremacist groups. Ah, forgot that the usual suspects weren't invited, was exclusively about large extremist institutions. I guess all the counter protesters were antifa, correct?
Are you really arguing that people who saw Nazi flags, shrugged and went "no big deal" are being falsely vilified here? At the very least, they tolerated it. Which is what Trump is being accused of.
|
On August 16 2017 22:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2017 13:34 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 13:03 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 12:38 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 12:34 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 12:30 Odawg27 wrote:On August 16 2017 12:14 Danglars wrote:On August 16 2017 10:37 Introvert wrote:On August 16 2017 10:20 Wulfey_LA wrote:On August 16 2017 10:17 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
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: + Show Spoiler +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. 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. Ok. I'll go into deeper details with facts to back up my viewpoint. Neo-nazis and white supremacists, along with I'm certain a few good people, showed up to protest at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, NC. Counter-protesters showed up. The Unite the Right protesters waved Nazi and Confederate flags while chanting Nazi slogans and using violent rhetoric. There's video all over the place of this, if you need me to find it for you I will. Some of the Unite the Right protesters showed up with weapons. They're on camera starting fights and beating a black man (again, video and photos easily available to be provided). Counter-protesters were attacked and reportedly a small number of scuffles broke out started by them. Reports from many there say the counter-protester started fights were much smaller than those started by the Unite the Right protesters. One of the Unite the Right protesters drove his car into a group of counter-protesters at high speed, killing 1 and injuring 19. Politicians and many ordinary people express sadness at the death and violence, specifically from the Unite the Right protesters. President Trump gives a statement about the violence saying he condemns the violence, bigotry and hatred "on many sides, on many sides". He doesn't specifically mention white supremacists or neo-nazis. Those groups view that as him on their side. His aides and surrogates go in 2 directions. One is the statement of "well of course he doesn't support neo-nazis or white supremacists". The other side is to talk about how bad and terrible the left's protesters are. I can find those all over the web as well, specifically if you search Fox News shows. This is the angle taken up by many on the far right. They are framing this as the counter-protesters were just as bad and terrible. When questioned about why they need to add that to the conversation as it seems they are making excuses for the terrible, violent actions of the Unite the Right protesters while defending neo-nazis, they say they're not nazis and shouldn't be called nazi's by the intolerant left. So, where am I factually wrong? It seems like few on the far right are coming out to say Nazis are bad, with those on the left claiming total innocence. Where is that? And I'm not talking about how media or some people aren't bringing up Antifa. You are, you and Trump and other far right people are bringing them up yourselves, which runs counter to the left saying they're "100% innocent". I've presented factual evidence supporting my viewpoint and argument as to why that tweet is not based on anything real. First off, you can see Falling on mostly equitable violence on both sides. Read and watch. Secondly, the Washington Post: Show nested quote +
Within moments, there was chaos. Shoves. Punches. Both groups sprayed chemical irritants. Many marchers threw their torches toward the statue and the students.
Other than one university police officer, there was no sign of law enforcement along the march, and it was several minutes before police intervened. Both sides suffered injuries. They relied mostly on their cohorts for treatment until emergency personnel arrived.
Show nested quote +Counterprotesters had also gathered early. Members of anti-fascist groups yelled at the rallygoers. Many of them also carried sticks and shields. They were joined by local residents, members of church groups, civil rights leaders and onlookers. Show nested quote +A few minutes before 11 a.m., a swelling group of white nationalists carrying large shields and long wooden clubs approached the park on Market Street. About two dozen counterprotesters formed a line across the street, blocking their path. With a roar, the marchers charged through the line, swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals.
Counterprotesters fought back, also swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals. Others threw balloons filled with paint or ink at the white nationalists. Everywhere, it seemed violence was exploding. The police did not move to break up the fights. Show nested quote +Bottles and rocks continued to fly back and forth between rallygoers and counterprotesters. Smaller fights broke out and then settled. As the sporadic violence worsened, law enforcement leaders decided they had seen enough. WaPo1. Correct your explanation. Counter-protestors and ANTIFA showed up. Not "oh Neo-nazis and white supremacists, along with I'm certain a few good people" and "counter-protestors." Counter protestors, ANTIFA, of both violent and passive aims. 2. Both sides showed up with weapons. Correct your "Some of the Unite the Right protesters showed up with weapons. " *crickets on some of the others* It was a fucking miracle that the people on both sides bloodied and sent to the hospitals did not die. If you can't see that from two armed sides with sticks while throwing bottles and rocks, you're blind. 3.Trump's initial reaction was bad for the reason that groups like the KKK and white supremacist orgs might think he was with them. His speech was an accurate portrayal of events, but insufficient in the next days. He corrected this error twice, first on the next day, second at the long press conference. If you're portraying facts, include facts that the president did identify the groups by name for condemnation. 4. None of the counter protestors rose to the level of plowing through the crowd in an automobile. That part wasn't equitable. Full stop. The rest of the violence absolutely was, from WaPo reporting, videos, other newsites reporting. Both sides turned up to fight. As before, thank God more weren't killed from the violence because there was reckless disregard for who died with all the clubs rocks bottles. So it's absolutely right to condemn the white nationalists and neonazis there, full stop. It's ludicrous to not also call out violent factions in the counter protestors that showed up to do violence. Absolutely unexcusable to try to diminish their presence and aims like you do. That's at the heart of my viewpoint and those are the facts from the night particular to the night. Going further into the broader but related topics, namely where this fits in the culture war and the American left's contentment and justifications of left wing violent riots would require too much time to actually put forth here. xDaunt waded in and nobody read or responded in good faith, so it's very likely people are ready to have that conversation yet. Show nested quote +So, where am I factually wrong? It seems like few on the far right are coming out to say Nazis are bad, with those on the left claiming total innocence. Where is that? And I'm not talking about how media or some people aren't bringing up Antifa. You are, you and Trump and other far right people are bringing them up yourselves, which runs counter to the left saying they're "100% innocent". I've presented factual evidence supporting my viewpoint and argument as to why that tweet is not based on anything real. Also don't glaze over our president's two followup condemnations of the groups by name. Aka Nazis are bad, he said it, and I find unconvincing your appraisal of "few on the far right are coming out to say..." From my perspective, few on the far left are willing to condemn both groups and in fact consider both condemnations to be excusing the supremacist factions based on equity. Like people want to explore political violence on both sides, but the violence associated with BLM is verboten. Also, reminder that your first paragraph never mentioned Antifa when you summed up the nights events. You claim his tweet wasn't based on anything real, and now I've quoted primary reporting showing it's real, so it's your big shot to get it right. + Show Spoiler [Related] +
This is STILL unacceptable and actions speak louder than words.
First off, I'm not sure that one video from Ben Shapiro's show is enough for me to say there was equitable violence in Charlottesville. I watched it. It's bad. It shouldn't have happened. That counter-protester who reportedly did that is in the wrong. I'm not sure what you want me to say. BUT, to equate that to everything that the Unite the Right protesters did seems a bit of a stretch. I see a lot more violence and dangerous rhetoric from them in these videos than the counter-protesters. Also, I've never claimed counter protesters didn't show up. You're right, both sides showed up with weapons. But all of the reporting, videos and photos show there were many more Neo-Nazis and Unite the Right protesters armed than counter-protesters. Falling's own post, while trying to blame antifa for it as some sort of weapons-race, states the Unite the Right protesters were more violent and more ready for fights than Antifa (which according to reporting was a small minority of counter-protesters).
Your own quotes are actually working against you. The torches being thrown toward the statue and at the students is from Friday night. And the torch throwers were the protesters not counter-protesters. From everything I've seen it looks like the protesters started most of the violence Friday night, with the 30 UVA students there defending themselves.
As for Saturday, I'll admit I should have mentioned that a number of counter-protesters also came armed and ready for a fight. But from most of the reporting, the majority of attacks were from the Unite the Right protesters and most of the injuries were on the counter-protester side. One of your quotes actually says the Unite the Right protesters charged through the line of counter-protesters swinging sticks, punching and spraying chemicals.
I'm failing to see equitable violence on both sides. No, violence from counter-protesters isn't acceptable, but those cases are so few and far between compared to the Unite the Right protesters. I have never said that counter-protesters are angels, or their violence is justified. But trying to place blame, or show that the violence from them was similar or the same as the neo-nazis is trying to lighten what those white supremacists did.
Trump's initial reaction was bad because it blamed "many sides". This is the same as equating what counter-protesters did to what the neo-nazis did. His speech was at best a very, very vague statement of the facts. We knew about the violence from both sides. But we also knew that it was much, much heavier by the Unite the Right protesters based on video, pictures and reporting on Saturday. Hell, I'll give Trump a pass that we didn't know "for absolute certainty" that the driver was a neo-nazi (although that hasn't stopped Trump from tweeting about "terror attacks" that turned out not to be terror attacks but I digress). But he didn't name white nationalists or neo-nazis and condemn their actions, when their actions were not only the most vile, but the largest part of Saturday's rally.
None of the reporting videos, photos or witnesses says the violence sans the murder was equal. There's photos and video of the hateful, vile chants by the Unite the Right protesters, "blood and soil" and other Nazi chants among many others. They beat a large number of people, threatened others. I'm sure they also had a few instances where the Unite the Right protesters were threatened themselves or had to defend themselves, but again, from the video and pictures and reporters and witnesses that was a very small minority.
You have a number of statements from the WaPo. One of the first talks about how the Unite the Right protesters charged into the counter-protesters and started swinging. That's aggression from their side. "Counterprotesters fought back" is the next line. As in, defended themselves after being attacked. I wish violence didn't occur, I would like to believe the counterprotesters could've fallen back or gotten out of the way after the initial charge, but at the same time I realize that they have a right to defend themselves in that situaiton.
I think it's ludicrous to believe that we should be calling out counter protesters in the same breath we condemn white nationalists and neo-nazis. According to your own WaPo posting and the other reporting and evidence most of the violence was initiated by the Unite the Right protesters. And those that weren't were not nearly as bad, violent, nor widespread. You want me to condemn violence without reason on the part of counter-protesters I will. Show it to me and I will. But the one you did (the Shapiro video) is one person, not a chanting crowd armed with weapons, not a militant force victimizing someone or some group. What I won't do is believe that we should be talking about neo-nazis and white supremacists in the same tone and breath as the counter-protesters.
Trump's first statement refused to name them (and again, benefit of the doubt on facts from above sure). His second statement came out 48 hours later, well after it was confirmed yes the man was a neo-nazi who attended the Unite the Right rally. It was well after we all had time to watch and read the various reports and videos showing what happened (with most of the violence perpetrated, started and carried out by the protesters). Yes, Trump finally condemned them, but very late. Trump's first statement was "violence on many sides, many sides". So, yes, Trump didn't say Nazis are bad first, he said "many sides" and didn't call out Nazis until people said, "why in the world aren't you calling out the Nazis?".
Why do we even need to condemn the counter-protesters? Like I said, their violence without reason is wrong and shouldn't happen. I don't think a single politician has said that. But, during the events in Charlottesville, the counter-protesters mostly defended themselves from hateful neo-nazis. Also, condemning neo-nazis and counter-protesters in the same breath and the same tone does feel like excusing what the neo-nazis did. Why is it so important to condemn the counter-protesters in this situation if you don't believe they're similar or the same as the neo-nazis?
Sure, Antifa was there. I admit it. You... got me? But the tweets still aren't anything but opinion and it's opinion that doesn't seem backed up by facts. I've laid out that Trump and the far-right went out of their way to avoid talking about Nazis and did their damndest to insert a "violent left" into this debate. That right there runs counter to these tweets. The tweet states the left is bringing up their innocence or righteousness first after the far right condemns Nazis. But, again, Trump and the far right didn't condemn Nazis first, he condemned "many sides" being the *first* to point out the idea the left is at fault here too.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 01:28 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +This. Nobody is mad at Rubio or Cruz who both immediately and clearly condemned this terrorist attack. Although you'd think that would be a minimum standard we should be able to hold everyone to. Well, I mean for some people the very words of condemnation are disbelieved. So for those people, if a quick and utter denunciation is not sufficient, one wonders what would be enough to be demonstrate that one truly find something repugnant? Grovelling? Become a Democrat? http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/13/ted-cruz-mocks-nyt-reporter-for-claiming-hes-posturing-by-condemning-white-nationalists/NYT reporter Eric Lipton: Show nested quote + “Sorry to be cynical, but most of all Rubio and Ted Cruz to me seem mostly to be doing a tremendous job of posturing for 2020,” Cruz rejoinder: Show nested quote + "Gosh, you're right. Because Nazis & the Klan have such love for Cuban-Americans. If only we worked for a paper that shilled for Stalin...." But in the case of Trump, the man is so wishy washy on condemning the white supremacists (likely as others have said because he is reluctant to say bad things to people who have said good things about hims)- it's a clear pattern and it's not good.
Perhaps I should have laboured the point to death, although I really ought not to have needed to. Firstly, the NYT reporter wasn't a part of the discussion on team liquid I was referring to. Secondly, the NYT reporter wasn't angry at their lack of condemnation, he was accusing their condemnation of being cynical political posturing. That's very different. Thirdly, yeah, no shit people on the left won't be happy with the right until the right agrees with them. Becoming a democrat really is what the democrats want the republicans to do. That's basically the point. That's why they're arguing. One side thinks one thing, the other thinks the other, each side wants to convince the other to agree with them. Not really sure why you're surprised by this or think it's a problem. Consider the alternative, Cruz wanting to repeal Obamacare, the Democrats responding "look, you do you man, it's all good".
Your point was basically "no matter what the Republicans (short of fully agreeing with the Democrats) the Democrats seem to keep arguing with them. Clearly partisan politics has gone too far!" Your complaint basically consists of pointing at a functioning political system and failing to grasp what it is supposed to look like.
|
On August 17 2017 01:33 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:31 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 01:18 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible. Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too. You arguing that every racist is inherently violent? edit: apart from the obvious problem in the entire discussion in the last what, 50 pages? People equal the counter protesters as representative for what the left is like. Which is idiotic again. I bet that there's considerably more "normal people" (including republicans) than actual proper antifas. You can't point at the general mass and say "look, they're generally less violent" - of course. That's because the smallest part of that mass is actually what we're talking about here, with the majority being more like you and me. True, it wasn't limited to just Nazis. There were also members of the KKK and white supremacist groups. Ah, forgot that the usual suspects weren't invited, was exclusively about large extremist institutions. I guess all the counter protesters were antifa, correct? Are you really arguing that people who saw Nazi flags, shrugged and went "no big deal" are being falsely vilified here? At the very least, they tolerated it. Which is what Trump is being accused of.
Yup. The same way people like you walk away or worse, trying to justify violence of antifas etc by saying "well they deserved it though".
Do you even realise the equivalence (and hypocrisy) there?
edit: sidenote, i actually do think that whatever happens in rallies like these (and it always happens) is fair game, they can beat themselves up as long as they feel like it for all i care.
The difference is that i understand that there's "innocents" in regards to the law on both sides. As much as there are criminals on both sides, except one side took it too far.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 01:31 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 00:59 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:29 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:27 Jacenoob wrote:On August 17 2017 00:21 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 00:05 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:52 farvacola wrote:On August 16 2017 19:43 Jacenoob wrote:On August 16 2017 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Gne what?
I am sure you can make the difference between a reductio ad absurdum and a comparison. I am attacking the reasoning, not comparing the terms. You know who also liked to argue like that? Hitler and Stalin. And you know who argued like me? Churchill, Albert Einstein and Jon Snow. But on a serious note, the fact that these extreme characters come to your mind as comparisons for the North and South and thus also ultimately for protestors and counter-protestors reveals a lot about your extremely one-sided worldview. No, it merely says that he considers Trump's equivocal language so pathetic out of hand that it is appropriately lined up alongside an outlandish "Hitler/Churchill" comparison. Any "worldview" extrapolation nonsense is on you, noob. Help me out here. So Biff says Trump's comparison between Lee and Washington is so out of hand that it is like comparing Hitler and Churchill but at the same time Biff is not associating Lee with Hitler and Washington with Churchill even though he is replacing them 1 for 1 in his argument? That's not how A is to B as C is to D arguments work. They don't imply that A and C have anything in common. If A is Lee and C is Hitler so out of all the random examples in the entirety of our universe he could use for "C" it just happens that he chose Hitler by chance and there is no comparison to A whatsover? Oh my, what a coincidence! Yeah because nobody ever uses Hitler as an example. Especially not on the internet. It's unthinkable that he might do it. Unless... unless maybe there was some hidden meaning for you to find. I'll try and put it another way. If I were to say that Trump is the chicken that laid the egg of the resurgent KKK the correct response would not be "so you're saying Trump is a chicken!" I would not complain about that, it is not offensive in any way. Funny example. But what if someone commented on a video of a black person robbing another black person "this is like apes arguing over a banana"? Would you assume he was just randomly pulling that example, using A (Black people) and C (Apes) or would you ban the shit out of him? I hope you would ban the shit out of him! I think you're making a more direct comparison there than the one Biff made but I see your point. A google employee presenting his opinion on an actual issue respectfully and trying to base it on actual research, but his opinion is not politically correct? Gotta fire him and have him be condemned by most media outlets. People arguing over the observable problems of the mass immigration to the EU? Gotta be racists, let's make new laws to crack down on dissenting online opinions.
The google employee was fired for good reason. Bringing political opinions to work and showing them to everyone is like bringing your artistic nude self portraits to work and showing them to everyone. It doesn't matter how respectfully and well presented they are, it's work, that shit shouldn't be in the office. There are very real problems of oppression and human rights abuses in the US today and the right refuses to discuss them but loses its shit whenever someone right leaning deals with the pettiest, most irrelevant bullshit. It's really disingenuous by them.
|
Just a random Question.
ANTIFA was/is a big thing in germany since like ever but i never heard of it in the US/this Tread until very recently. What happened? Is it just a new "inn"-word or why is it suddenly everywhere?
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 17 2017 01:42 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 01:33 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 01:31 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 01:26 Nevuk wrote:On August 17 2017 01:18 m4ini wrote:On August 17 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 01:00 Broetchenholer wrote:
I still don't understand how you can compare neo nazis and violent opposers of neonazis. Sure, when it's about hitting each other, they are pretty equal. But usually that's where the similarities end. One side is consisting of people following or tolerating a philosophy of genocide and the other side wants to punch those people in the face. If they were actually political opposites, you would see Neonazis battling with the G20 protesters but strangely you don't see that. It's because one side is a movement built around an ideology (and stupidity) and the other side consists of a range of people with various political motivations that are united by their desire to punch somebody and not feel like the bad guys for doing it.
Of course that makes both sides guilty of escalating violence, commiting assault and should be treated equally before the law. Both sides should get the same message of the president: "Violence is no solution and violent protests no matter against what will not be tolerated." And then he needs to say that the ideology of one side of those protests leads to genocide and can not be tolerated.
And should we have a protest where extremist socialists call for murdering all business owners to establish a proletariat i expect him to condemn this philosophy in the same way, even if they battled in the streets with neonazis before.
Within the Nazi camp the violent minority argument doesn't really work because it presumes that Nazism contains a non violent mainstream that is ideologically impossible. Except this rally was not exclusive to Nazis (not to mention the argument is idiotic in the first place), there was plenty of other racists too. You arguing that every racist is inherently violent? edit: apart from the obvious problem in the entire discussion in the last what, 50 pages? People equal the counter protesters as representative for what the left is like. Which is idiotic again. I bet that there's considerably more "normal people" (including republicans) than actual proper antifas. You can't point at the general mass and say "look, they're generally less violent" - of course. That's because the smallest part of that mass is actually what we're talking about here, with the majority being more like you and me. True, it wasn't limited to just Nazis. There were also members of the KKK and white supremacist groups. Ah, forgot that the usual suspects weren't invited, was exclusively about large extremist institutions. I guess all the counter protesters were antifa, correct? Are you really arguing that people who saw Nazi flags, shrugged and went "no big deal" are being falsely vilified here? At the very least, they tolerated it. Which is what Trump is being accused of. Yup. The same way people like you walk away or worse, trying to justify violence of antifas etc by saying "well they deserved it though". Do you even realise the equivalence (and hypocrisy) there?
Wait, so you genuinely believe that there are good people who decided to become part of a Nazi rally and you're concerned that the left is making assumptions about their moral character based on their participation?
|
On August 17 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Just a random Question.
ANTIFA was/is a big thing in germany since like ever but i never heard of it in the US/this Tread until very recently. What happened? Is it just a new "inn"-word or why is it suddenly everywhere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
Wait, so you genuinely believe that there are good people who decided to become part of a Nazi rally and you're concerned that the left is making assumptions about their moral character based on their participation?
Where did i say that? I said racists. Not good people. But "not being good people" has nothing to do with what i'm saying, so how about you trying to stop strawmanning and start arguing decently?
I do differ between a "general racist" and a neo nazi/KKKlown. Maybe because i actually know what a Nazi is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
