|
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 20 2017 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 09:34 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:18 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 08:43 m4ini wrote:
It is that easy to condemn Nazis without looking like a hypocritical asshole. Which many of you here do, btw.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with my position (since we're mostly talking about me there rather than people like P6) but I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I actually wasn't talking about you, no idea why you would think that. You can include yourself if you'd like? I don't want to exclude people who think they belong in that category. I haven't even seen a posting of yours on the last page? P6's position is something along the lines of, violence is bad, but there isn't an equivalence of violence between both sides when one side is a murderous ideology and the other side is a violent group amidst a large range of protesters united to protest against a murderous ideology, so it's not really honest or interesting to invoke both (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm closer to what you describe. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite for it. If i understand you correctly, i do. There's no difference between a violent Nazi and a violent counter protester. If both sides show up to a rally armed with baseball bats (like in charlottesville - and no, the terror attack is an entirely different matter comparable to the dallas cop shooting, not retards wielding baseball bats), both sides are equally violent. Just one side is even more retarded than the other (and still a Nazi after the fight). That doesn't make any violence better than the other side. I've condemned and made fun of Nazis my entire life (i'm german after all, since you're swiss, you might know our laws etc in that regard). There's no excuse for Nazis/White Supremacists and their ideology. But if a left wing member goes violent, nobody actually cares. Play this little game. What if this rally would've turned out to be another huge clash, who would get the blame? Be honest. I am certainly fine with laws against the free speech of nazis and I would favor that as an overall solution. Doubt we can get that passed in the US any time soon tho. In the meantime, I'm having a lot of difficulty being morally annoyed by violence against nazis. I agree that I would be a hypocrite if there's no difference between a violent nazi and a violent counter protester, but I don't view that premise as correct. In order for a nazi not to be instigating in any way, I think I would need something like peaceful nazism to be a thing, and I don't think that it is.
There's a practical issue with violence against nazis though.
Violence has never, and will never stop anyone from being nazi. It is more likely to galvanize them as a group and maybe even win people over to their side. It gives them an (admittedly poor) excuse to keep shouting their awful shit.
What, I would ask, is the point of punching a nazi in the face?
If you're going to let people be violent against nazis, better off encouraging people to start exterminating them.
|
United States43738 Posts
On August 20 2017 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:34 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:18 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 08:43 m4ini wrote:
It is that easy to condemn Nazis without looking like a hypocritical asshole. Which many of you here do, btw.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with my position (since we're mostly talking about me there rather than people like P6) but I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I actually wasn't talking about you, no idea why you would think that. You can include yourself if you'd like? I don't want to exclude people who think they belong in that category. I haven't even seen a posting of yours on the last page? P6's position is something along the lines of, violence is bad, but there isn't an equivalence of violence between both sides when one side is a murderous ideology and the other side is a violent group amidst a large range of protesters united to protest against a murderous ideology, so it's not really honest or interesting to invoke both (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm closer to what you describe. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite for it. If i understand you correctly, i do. There's no difference between a violent Nazi and a violent counter protester. If both sides show up to a rally armed with baseball bats (like in charlottesville - and no, the terror attack is an entirely different matter comparable to the dallas cop shooting, not retards wielding baseball bats), both sides are equally violent. Just one side is even more retarded than the other (and still a Nazi after the fight). That doesn't make any violence better than the other side. I've condemned and made fun of Nazis my entire life (i'm german after all, since you're swiss, you might know our laws etc in that regard). There's no excuse for Nazis/White Supremacists and their ideology. But if a left wing member goes violent, nobody actually cares. Play this little game. What if this rally would've turned out to be another huge clash, who would get the blame? Be honest. I am certainly fine with laws against the free speech of nazis and I would favor that as an overall solution. Doubt we can get that passed in the US any time soon tho. In the meantime, I'm having a lot of difficulty being morally annoyed by violence against nazis. I agree that I would be a hypocrite if there's no difference between a violent nazi and a violent counter protester, but I don't view that premise as correct. In order for a nazi not to be instigating in any way, I think I would need something like peaceful nazism to be a thing, and I don't think that it is. There's a practical issue with violence against nazis though. Violence has never, and will never stop anyone from being nazi. It is more likely to galvanize them as a group and maybe even win people over to their side. It gives them an (admittedly poor) excuse to keep shouting their awful shit. What, I would ask, is the point of punching a nazi in the face? If you're going to let people be violent against nazis, better off encouraging people to start exterminating them.
I think the Second World War might disagree with your claim that violence doesn't stop people being Nazis.
|
On August 20 2017 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:34 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:18 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 08:43 m4ini wrote:
It is that easy to condemn Nazis without looking like a hypocritical asshole. Which many of you here do, btw.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with my position (since we're mostly talking about me there rather than people like P6) but I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I actually wasn't talking about you, no idea why you would think that. You can include yourself if you'd like? I don't want to exclude people who think they belong in that category. I haven't even seen a posting of yours on the last page? P6's position is something along the lines of, violence is bad, but there isn't an equivalence of violence between both sides when one side is a murderous ideology and the other side is a violent group amidst a large range of protesters united to protest against a murderous ideology, so it's not really honest or interesting to invoke both (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm closer to what you describe. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite for it. If i understand you correctly, i do. There's no difference between a violent Nazi and a violent counter protester. If both sides show up to a rally armed with baseball bats (like in charlottesville - and no, the terror attack is an entirely different matter comparable to the dallas cop shooting, not retards wielding baseball bats), both sides are equally violent. Just one side is even more retarded than the other (and still a Nazi after the fight). That doesn't make any violence better than the other side. I've condemned and made fun of Nazis my entire life (i'm german after all, since you're swiss, you might know our laws etc in that regard). There's no excuse for Nazis/White Supremacists and their ideology. But if a left wing member goes violent, nobody actually cares. Play this little game. What if this rally would've turned out to be another huge clash, who would get the blame? Be honest. I am certainly fine with laws against the free speech of nazis and I would favor that as an overall solution. Doubt we can get that passed in the US any time soon tho. In the meantime, I'm having a lot of difficulty being morally annoyed by violence against nazis. I agree that I would be a hypocrite if there's no difference between a violent nazi and a violent counter protester, but I don't view that premise as correct. In order for a nazi not to be instigating in any way, I think I would need something like peaceful nazism to be a thing, and I don't think that it is. There's a practical issue with violence against nazis though. Violence has never, and will never stop anyone from being nazi. It is more likely to galvanize them as a group and maybe even win people over to their side. It gives them an (admittedly poor) excuse to keep shouting their awful shit. What, I would ask, is the point of punching a nazi in the face? If you're going to let people be violent against nazis, better off encouraging people to start exterminating them.
Sure, it's not particularly useful. Not being violent against nazis isn't particularly useful either though.
|
On August 20 2017 08:37 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is here to make sure we all know that the left is bad, Mayor Martie Walsh helped them hurt conservatives and we should all ignore the fact the leader of our country only denounced Nazis when forced. And didn't mean it. Our president to date had not denounced nazis and meant it. Both sides folks, both sides.
Are you prepared to denounce the left wing violence at the Boston rally?
|
On August 20 2017 09:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 20 2017 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:34 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:18 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 08:43 m4ini wrote:
It is that easy to condemn Nazis without looking like a hypocritical asshole. Which many of you here do, btw.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with my position (since we're mostly talking about me there rather than people like P6) but I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I actually wasn't talking about you, no idea why you would think that. You can include yourself if you'd like? I don't want to exclude people who think they belong in that category. I haven't even seen a posting of yours on the last page? P6's position is something along the lines of, violence is bad, but there isn't an equivalence of violence between both sides when one side is a murderous ideology and the other side is a violent group amidst a large range of protesters united to protest against a murderous ideology, so it's not really honest or interesting to invoke both (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm closer to what you describe. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite for it. If i understand you correctly, i do. There's no difference between a violent Nazi and a violent counter protester. If both sides show up to a rally armed with baseball bats (like in charlottesville - and no, the terror attack is an entirely different matter comparable to the dallas cop shooting, not retards wielding baseball bats), both sides are equally violent. Just one side is even more retarded than the other (and still a Nazi after the fight). That doesn't make any violence better than the other side. I've condemned and made fun of Nazis my entire life (i'm german after all, since you're swiss, you might know our laws etc in that regard). There's no excuse for Nazis/White Supremacists and their ideology. But if a left wing member goes violent, nobody actually cares. Play this little game. What if this rally would've turned out to be another huge clash, who would get the blame? Be honest. I am certainly fine with laws against the free speech of nazis and I would favor that as an overall solution. Doubt we can get that passed in the US any time soon tho. In the meantime, I'm having a lot of difficulty being morally annoyed by violence against nazis. I agree that I would be a hypocrite if there's no difference between a violent nazi and a violent counter protester, but I don't view that premise as correct. In order for a nazi not to be instigating in any way, I think I would need something like peaceful nazism to be a thing, and I don't think that it is. There's a practical issue with violence against nazis though. Violence has never, and will never stop anyone from being nazi. It is more likely to galvanize them as a group and maybe even win people over to their side. It gives them an (admittedly poor) excuse to keep shouting their awful shit. What, I would ask, is the point of punching a nazi in the face? If you're going to let people be violent against nazis, better off encouraging people to start exterminating them. I think the Second World War might disagree with your claim that violence doesn't stop people being Nazis.
Actually that's factually incorrect. First of all, it didn't stop nazis being nazis, the ones alive were still nazis. Second, i think there's quite the difference between having your country blown to rubble, and a moron punching you in the face.
So that's absolutely idiotic reasoning.
Sure, it's not particularly useful. Not being violent against nazis isn't particularly useful either though.
Well.. I guess it has to do with upbringing. I learned that, if someone is violent to me, and i'm violent back, i'm no better.
I would certainly think that being able to say "we're different in every way than you" is useful. It sounds definitely weirder if you have to make concessions where you admit that you're equally shitty, just not sharing the despicable ideology.
|
United States43738 Posts
On August 20 2017 10:03 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 09:55 KwarK wrote:On August 20 2017 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 20 2017 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:34 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:18 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 08:43 m4ini wrote:
It is that easy to condemn Nazis without looking like a hypocritical asshole. Which many of you here do, btw.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with my position (since we're mostly talking about me there rather than people like P6) but I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I actually wasn't talking about you, no idea why you would think that. You can include yourself if you'd like? I don't want to exclude people who think they belong in that category. I haven't even seen a posting of yours on the last page? P6's position is something along the lines of, violence is bad, but there isn't an equivalence of violence between both sides when one side is a murderous ideology and the other side is a violent group amidst a large range of protesters united to protest against a murderous ideology, so it's not really honest or interesting to invoke both (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm closer to what you describe. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite for it. If i understand you correctly, i do. There's no difference between a violent Nazi and a violent counter protester. If both sides show up to a rally armed with baseball bats (like in charlottesville - and no, the terror attack is an entirely different matter comparable to the dallas cop shooting, not retards wielding baseball bats), both sides are equally violent. Just one side is even more retarded than the other (and still a Nazi after the fight). That doesn't make any violence better than the other side. I've condemned and made fun of Nazis my entire life (i'm german after all, since you're swiss, you might know our laws etc in that regard). There's no excuse for Nazis/White Supremacists and their ideology. But if a left wing member goes violent, nobody actually cares. Play this little game. What if this rally would've turned out to be another huge clash, who would get the blame? Be honest. I am certainly fine with laws against the free speech of nazis and I would favor that as an overall solution. Doubt we can get that passed in the US any time soon tho. In the meantime, I'm having a lot of difficulty being morally annoyed by violence against nazis. I agree that I would be a hypocrite if there's no difference between a violent nazi and a violent counter protester, but I don't view that premise as correct. In order for a nazi not to be instigating in any way, I think I would need something like peaceful nazism to be a thing, and I don't think that it is. There's a practical issue with violence against nazis though. Violence has never, and will never stop anyone from being nazi. It is more likely to galvanize them as a group and maybe even win people over to their side. It gives them an (admittedly poor) excuse to keep shouting their awful shit. What, I would ask, is the point of punching a nazi in the face? If you're going to let people be violent against nazis, better off encouraging people to start exterminating them. I think the Second World War might disagree with your claim that violence doesn't stop people being Nazis. Actually that's factually incorrect. First of all, it didn't stop nazis being nazis, the ones alive were still nazis. Second, i think there's quite the difference between having your country blown to rubble, and a moron punching you in the face. So that's absolutely idiotic reasoning.
You think every single Nazi was killed in WWII? None of them changed their minds after the war? We just killed every single one?
|
United States43738 Posts
On August 20 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 08:37 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is here to make sure we all know that the left is bad, Mayor Martie Walsh helped them hurt conservatives and we should all ignore the fact the leader of our country only denounced Nazis when forced. And didn't mean it. Our president to date had not denounced nazis and meant it. Both sides folks, both sides. Are you prepared to denounce the left wing violence at the Boston rally?
For what it's worth I'm pretty much always prepared to denounce violence (outside of state sanctioned justice). You show me some violence and I'll denounce it. Which violence are we denouncing today?
|
On August 20 2017 09:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 09:54 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 20 2017 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:34 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:22 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 09:18 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On August 20 2017 08:43 m4ini wrote:
It is that easy to condemn Nazis without looking like a hypocritical asshole. Which many of you here do, btw.
I'm fine with you disagreeing with my position (since we're mostly talking about me there rather than people like P6) but I don't see how I'm being hypocritical. I actually wasn't talking about you, no idea why you would think that. You can include yourself if you'd like? I don't want to exclude people who think they belong in that category. I haven't even seen a posting of yours on the last page? P6's position is something along the lines of, violence is bad, but there isn't an equivalence of violence between both sides when one side is a murderous ideology and the other side is a violent group amidst a large range of protesters united to protest against a murderous ideology, so it's not really honest or interesting to invoke both (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm closer to what you describe. And I don't think I'm a hypocrite for it. If i understand you correctly, i do. There's no difference between a violent Nazi and a violent counter protester. If both sides show up to a rally armed with baseball bats (like in charlottesville - and no, the terror attack is an entirely different matter comparable to the dallas cop shooting, not retards wielding baseball bats), both sides are equally violent. Just one side is even more retarded than the other (and still a Nazi after the fight). That doesn't make any violence better than the other side. I've condemned and made fun of Nazis my entire life (i'm german after all, since you're swiss, you might know our laws etc in that regard). There's no excuse for Nazis/White Supremacists and their ideology. But if a left wing member goes violent, nobody actually cares. Play this little game. What if this rally would've turned out to be another huge clash, who would get the blame? Be honest. I am certainly fine with laws against the free speech of nazis and I would favor that as an overall solution. Doubt we can get that passed in the US any time soon tho. In the meantime, I'm having a lot of difficulty being morally annoyed by violence against nazis. I agree that I would be a hypocrite if there's no difference between a violent nazi and a violent counter protester, but I don't view that premise as correct. In order for a nazi not to be instigating in any way, I think I would need something like peaceful nazism to be a thing, and I don't think that it is. There's a practical issue with violence against nazis though. Violence has never, and will never stop anyone from being nazi. It is more likely to galvanize them as a group and maybe even win people over to their side. It gives them an (admittedly poor) excuse to keep shouting their awful shit. What, I would ask, is the point of punching a nazi in the face? If you're going to let people be violent against nazis, better off encouraging people to start exterminating them. I think the Second World War might disagree with your claim that violence doesn't stop people being Nazis.
Like I said, killing all the nazis worked.
Punching them in the face, however, doesn't.
|
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) is to put the fear of god into them. They're supposed to be scared if they show up in public and the civil society needs to show that they do not buckle down. Whether that galvanizes them in private is really secondary, they can galvanize and sit in their own stew as long as they want, you need to draw a cordon sanitaire around them.
|
On August 20 2017 10:06 Nyxisto wrote:
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) is to put the fear of god into them. They're supposed to be scared if they show up in public and the civil society needs to show that they do not buckle down. Whether that galvanizes them in private is really secondary, they can galvanize and sit in their own stew as long as they want, you need to draw a cordon sanitaire around them.
Are there any other US citizens that should be scared to show up in public?
|
On August 20 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 10:06 Nyxisto wrote:
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) is to put the fear of god into them. They're supposed to be scared if they show up in public and the civil society needs to show that they do not buckle down. Whether that galvanizes them in private is really secondary, they can galvanize and sit in their own stew as long as they want, you need to draw a cordon sanitaire around them. Are there any other US citizens that should be scared to show up in public?
Black people at voting booths, apparently.
|
On August 20 2017 10:06 Nyxisto wrote:
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) is to put the fear of god into them. They're supposed to be scared if they show up in public and the civil society needs to show that they do not buckle down. Whether that galvanizes them in private is really secondary, they can galvanize and sit in their own stew as long as they want, you need to draw a cordon sanitaire around them.
Yeah, you do realise that it's legal to have that opinion in the US, right?
You're literally advocating terror "for the greater good", the fuck.
You think every single Nazi was killed in WWII? None of them changed their minds after the war? We just killed every single one?
That's your argument oO. You said that WW2 stopped people being Nazis. It didn't. Nazis still existed after, so that part of the argument is wrong. Then you're arguing that "war" somehow is equal to "violence", which is an absolutely moronic statement to make: i went to "war" (or what we nowadays call war, not even remotely comparable to what happened back then) - and i've seen people getting traumatised over that already. Seeing your entire country in ruins might have a different effect than fucking punching someone.
Third, and most importantly, how dead national socialism was after the war was for everyone to see in the 60s.
|
On August 20 2017 10:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 10:06 Nyxisto wrote:
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) is to put the fear of god into them. They're supposed to be scared if they show up in public and the civil society needs to show that they do not buckle down. Whether that galvanizes them in private is really secondary, they can galvanize and sit in their own stew as long as they want, you need to draw a cordon sanitaire around them. Are there any other US citizens that should be scared to show up in public?
Child molesters probably, don't think a peaceful child molester rally would go well. ISIS supporters. A few similar others but the rest is okay.
|
Well murderers, child molesters you can make a list of people you do not want to walk through the streets confidently. Law & order should be a thing Conservatives shouldn't have a problem with. Some social taboos exist for good reasons. If minorities are afraid of walking through the streets, but nazis confidently show their faces you've got the wrong priorities
On August 20 2017 10:09 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 10:06 Nyxisto wrote:
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) is to put the fear of god into them. They're supposed to be scared if they show up in public and the civil society needs to show that they do not buckle down. Whether that galvanizes them in private is really secondary, they can galvanize and sit in their own stew as long as they want, you need to draw a cordon sanitaire around them. Yeah, you do realise that it's legal to have that opinion in the US, right? You're literally advocating terror "for the greater good", the fuck.
I'm not calling for terror in any sense of the word. I'm calling for presence of the state. In most countries there's a monopoly on violence, and the implicit threat is that if you cross the line you'll be on the receiving end of it. Nazis fall strongly into the camp of people who should be aware of that threat, because if society does not uphold it, they are absolutely willing to exercise it themselves.
|
United States43738 Posts
On August 20 2017 10:09 m4ini wrote:
You're literally advocating terror "for the greater good", the fuck.
Surely you're aware that the default assumption is that if ever anyone gets a time machine the first thing they should do is go back to the 30s and commit an act of terror against an Austrian Nazi for the greater good. It's not an unheard of thought.
|
I'm not calling for terror in any sense of the word. I'm calling for presence of the state. In most countries there's a monopoly on violence, and the implicit threat is that if you cross the line you'll be on the receiving end of it. Nazis fall strongly into the camp of people who should be aware of that threat, because if society does not uphold it, they are absolutely willing to exercise it themselves.
No, you're not.
The point of violence against Nazis (state violence or otherwise) .
edit
Surely you're aware that the default assumption is that if ever anyone gets a time machine the first thing they should do is go back to the 30s and commit an act of terror against an Austrian Nazi for the greater good. It's not an unheard of thought.
Dude, are you on drugs or something? Genuinely? He's saying that a Nazi should be scared if he's walking down the street. Scared of violence, state or otherwise (vigilantism). I said that's the very definition of terror.
Time machines? Murder = Terror? Like, how about we go back further, we could stop all that by assassinating jesus, no religion, world peace. Why even argue thought experiments if you know full well (or should, at least) that this is certainly not the first thing they should do?
edit2: not to mention that i neither can nor am willing to participate in a very philosophical debate here, because i certainly disagree with going back in time to kill hitler being "good".
|
On August 20 2017 10:16 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not calling for terror in any sense of the word. I'm calling for presence of the state. In most countries there's a monopoly on violence, and the implicit threat is that if you cross the line you'll be on the receiving end of it. Nazis fall strongly into the camp of people who should be aware of that threat, because if society does not uphold it, they are absolutely willing to exercise it themselves.
No, you're not. .
"or otherwise" in the context of this US discussion, because in some places apparently state authority is not present. When all you have between a group of protesters and a bunch of nazis are citizens I think they have the right to use violence.
But this is far from ideal or unproblematic and I said so a few days ago already. The larger point is that extremists should be so afraid that you do not have violence in the streets in the first place. Extremists only show up in large numbers if they already feel secure to do so.
|
On August 20 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 08:37 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is here to make sure we all know that the left is bad, Mayor Martie Walsh helped them hurt conservatives and we should all ignore the fact the leader of our country only denounced Nazis when forced. And didn't mean it. Our president to date had not denounced nazis and meant it. Both sides folks, both sides. Are you prepared to denounce the left wing violence at the Boston rally?
I did it last page. Read then post, so your whataboutism is up to date.
|
On August 20 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 08:37 Plansix wrote:
Danglars is here to make sure we all know that the left is bad, Mayor Martie Walsh helped them hurt conservatives and we should all ignore the fact the leader of our country only denounced Nazis when forced. And didn't mean it. Our president to date had not denounced nazis and meant it. Both sides folks, both sides. Are you prepared to denounce the left wing violence at the Boston rally?
That flag should not have been stolen. I hope it's brought back with an apology.
|
I thought we already agreed violence was bad? Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
