|
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 11:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 11:22 NewSunshine wrote:On August 20 2017 11:10 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2017 10:40 Plansix wrote:On August 20 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2017 10:24 Plansix wrote:On August 20 2017 10:03 Danglars wrote: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. Last page you refused to denounce left wing violence at the Boston rally. Are you prepared to do this now? I got all violence in one sweep, never need to do it again. This has been a very productive discussion. So condemning both sides is sufficient for you now? I applaud your new outlook. And I applaud your intellectually dishonest reductivism, which you seem to cherish to the exclusion of anything else. Don't worry. I've seen little attempt to remain true to attacking Trump on angles you refuse to apply universally. When it's largely understood that principles can be changed to the situation, it's basically everything goes.
that's because you refuse to accept the reality that the principles are being applied universally, and what you're supporting is worse than some other things.
and the changing principles to the situation is what you're doing to justify your poor behavior and actions. it's sad how low you have to go in order to cover yourself.
|
Danglar's logic reminds me of this:
Sure, the cancer was aggressive. But the chemotherapy was also very aggressive. There was aggression on both sides.
|
On August 20 2017 11:33 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, when one side is being violent and the other side are Nazis then it's okay to condemn both sides. When one side are being violent Nazis and the other side are peacefully protesting the violent Nazis then it's not okay to condemn both sides. If you think the objection to Trump's condemnation of both sides was that it's never okay to condemn both sides, well, that's a dumb thing to think.
To date, both sides came ready to fight. And they fought. So uhh if we're belatedly endorsing Trump's approach except not mentioning him by name, it appears that he did right but his identity meant we couldn't admit it. Sad times.
|
On August 20 2017 11:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 11:33 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, when one side is being violent and the other side are Nazis then it's okay to condemn both sides. When one side are being violent Nazis and the other side are peacefully protesting the violent Nazis then it's not okay to condemn both sides. If you think the objection to Trump's condemnation of both sides was that it's never okay to condemn both sides, well, that's a dumb thing to think. To date, both sides came ready to fight. And they fought. So uhh if we're belatedly endorsing Trump's approach except not mentioning him by name, it appears that he did right but his identity meant we couldn't admit it. Sad times.
This is some next level word salad. I'm not drunk enough to translate it. I think it might mean that cancer treatment is also bad.
|
United States42692 Posts
On August 20 2017 11:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 11:33 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, when one side is being violent and the other side are Nazis then it's okay to condemn both sides. When one side are being violent Nazis and the other side are peacefully protesting the violent Nazis then it's not okay to condemn both sides. If you think the objection to Trump's condemnation of both sides was that it's never okay to condemn both sides, well, that's a dumb thing to think. To date, both sides came ready to fight. And they fought. So uhh if we're belatedly endorsing Trump's approach except not mentioning him by name, it appears that he did right but his identity meant we couldn't admit it. Sad times.
Both sides came ready to fight?
You think the Charlottesville terror attack was some kind of mutual battle?
Again, this is very simple.
The people protesting Nazis should be condemned when they do so violently. The people who are Nazis should always be condemned because you should never not condemn a Nazi.
So, if protesters are violent, both sides.
If Nazis are violent, Nazis.
If both are violent, both sides.
|
When in doubt, condemn nazis. Seems easy.
|
United States42692 Posts
If someone were to put me on the spot and ask me if I was willing to condemn the Nazis I wouldn't ask what they did first. They're Nazis. I get that you're against banning Nazis and punching Nazis but surely you should be okay with condemning Nazis with your words.
|
If I came upon a fight between to people and the only information I had was one of them was a Nazi, I know who I help in the fight.
|
On August 20 2017 11:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 11:03 m4ini wrote:
Sidenote, nobody here is calling the counter protesters antifa. In fact i had a go at farvacola (sry fam) for exactly that. I am very much able to distinguish between left wing extremists and counter protesters. You don't really seem to be able to though, wonder why that is. because I'm not gullible enough to fall for a shitty rhetorical trick? The "denounce both sides" shtick is the exact same thing as "all lives matter". "what you support black lives matter? Clearly not loving all people makes you a reverse-racist, state immediately that you like white people!" No sorry man not going to fall for that one. If nazis take it to the streets they're responsible for the violence, absolutely nobody else and there's no reason to even remotely shift the responsibility or attention
Ah, i understand. So if they're legally allowed to express a legal opinion on a legal rally (regardless of how retarded), nobody can be blamed for violence but them.
Of course. Who else would be, right?
To be blunt, you're not half as intelligent as you think you were by "figuring it out". You actually can't even grasp the fact that i constantly say that not "both sides" need to be denounced, because, and again i made that clear multiple times, i think there are three sides. I don't even understand what you're trying to say/prove with the BLM example to be honest. There's no "shtick". You denounce two sides, done. Funny though, the way you frame that argument, because you made clear that you don't condemn left wing violence, so i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say there. Apart from obviously nothing.
The only innocent people on a rally are, and you won't believe it even if you'd see it, i promise: innocent fucking people. There are no innocent people on the side of the Nazis, but that doesn't make everyone on sides of the counter protesters innocent. The majority, obviously, but not everyone. Violence is violence. If you don't understand that or disagree, i'd like you to make that crystal clear.
If I came upon a fight between to people and the only information I had was one of them was a Nazi, I know who I help in the fight.
Yeah, me too. The one who's on the ground getting beaten to a pulp regardless of which person that is.
|
@m4ini - come on. In this hour of increasingly reductive discussions, really feel that you could infer I didn't want anyone to die or be crippled. All things being equal(aka, the fight not going either way), I feel safe in assuming the Nazi was as fault because they are the Nazi. I don't want them to die, but I also don't want the "not a Nazi" to be hurt. I'm not going to watch the Nazi get beaten to death.
This is the type of discussion that these false equivalences bring out. Where we all trying to make an if/went flow charts for violent encounters.
|
On August 20 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
@m4ini - come on. In this hour of increasingly reductive discussions, really feel that you could infer I didn't want anyone to die or be crippled. All things being equal(aka, the fight not going either way), I feel safe in assuming the Nazi was as fault because they are the Nazi. I don't want them to die, but I also don't want the "not a Nazi" to be hurt. I'm not going to watch the Nazi get beaten to death.
This is the type of discussion that these false equivalences bring out. Where we all trying to make an if/went flow charts for violent encounters.
Dude you literally said "if i come to a fight ima help whoever is not the nazi", the fuck?
Oh and btw, no, it really isn't me that has to guess how much violence is "good enough" for a Nazi according to you. Apart from the obvious problem that your statement was dumb (if i come to a fight, i stop it, instead of joining/helping) in the first place.
If you're willing to hurt people for having an idiotic ideology, boy. Maybe Trump is your guy after all.
edit: btw.
If someone were to put me on the spot and ask me if I was willing to condemn the Nazis I wouldn't ask what they did first.
That statement is different, and i doubt i'd act different than Kwark. You defined consequences in your statement and that you're willing to possibly hurt the "wrong" person based on his ideology.
That's something i would not do. In that case, if you have any decency, you make sure that it doesn't come to someone being hurt(/hurt more).
|
On August 20 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
@m4ini - come on. In this hour of increasingly reductive discussions, really feel that you could infer I didn't want anyone to die or be crippled. All things being equal(aka, the fight not going either way), I feel safe in assuming the Nazi was as fault because they are the Nazi. I don't want them to die, but I also don't want the "not a Nazi" to be hurt. I'm not going to watch the Nazi get beaten to death.
This is the type of discussion that these false equivalences bring out. Where we all trying to make an if/went flow charts for violent encounters. Dude you literally said "if i come to a fight ima help whoever is not the nazi", the fuck? Oh and btw, no, it really isn't me that has to guess how much violence is "good enough" for a Nazi according to you. Apart from the obvious problem that your statement was dumb (if i come to a fight, i stop it, instead of joining/helping) in the first place. If you're willing to hurt people for having an idiotic ideology, boy. Maybe Trump is your guy after all.
You know what, you are right. I have no idea what I would do. Because making an if/when flow chart for a fight is stupid. A lot of these discussions are stupid. Because Danglars comes in here and makes his thread stupid with this whataboutism that he constantly does. What about violent democrats/liberals? Lets debate if a group of people yelling racial slurs at counter protester are the bad people or not. Or maybe the other side that threw a punch because of the racial slurs. And then we all start talking about which is worse, the liberals or the KKK/Nazis. I mean sure, the KKK hung black people from trees, but whatever. This is where our political discussion take us now. Do I feel sufficiently bad when people advocating for genocide are responded to with violance? Not bad enough, ok, well I guess I should have voted Trump.
This shit is stupid. Violence is terrible, it shouldn't happen at peaceful assembly. People shouldn't be able to bring AR-15s to peaceful protesters either, because that is stupid and not peaceful. If 20K people protest and only a few are violent, then there are likely a lot of them tried to stop it too. But the Nazis and racists are still Nazi racists. End of story.
|
I feel like we're in some reverse-McCarthyism where people are seeing Nazi's everywhere, and it surely helps ones moral high ground to point to your foes and just call them Nazi's. The only thing this does is continue stifling reasonable discussion and make the all ready wide gulf wider.
I agree with m4ini (I don't often, but I do here), that political violence should be denounced and to me it seems that people who tend to self-label as part of the "left" have trouble doing so (re: antifas, communists, etc.). Lest we forget, it wasn't all too long ago that someone shot up a baseball field with Republican congressman. So, clearly, this isn't a one-sided problem. As long as we're going to continue to be led by a false binary choice - both houses need to clean up their shit.
It shouldn't be hard to condemn Nazi's and radical Communists. It really shouldn't.
|
On August 20 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
@m4ini - come on. In this hour of increasingly reductive discussions, really feel that you could infer I didn't want anyone to die or be crippled. All things being equal(aka, the fight not going either way), I feel safe in assuming the Nazi was as fault because they are the Nazi. I don't want them to die, but I also don't want the "not a Nazi" to be hurt. I'm not going to watch the Nazi get beaten to death.
This is the type of discussion that these false equivalences bring out. Where we all trying to make an if/went flow charts for violent encounters. Dude you literally said "if i come to a fight ima help whoever is not the nazi", the fuck? Oh and btw, no, it really isn't me that has to guess how much violence is "good enough" for a Nazi according to you. Apart from the obvious problem that your statement was dumb (if i come to a fight, i stop it, instead of joining/helping) in the first place. If you're willing to hurt people for having an idiotic ideology, boy. Maybe Trump is your guy after all. You know what, you are right. I have no idea what I would do. Because making an if/when flow chart for a fight is stupid. A lot of these discussions are stupid. Because Danglars comes in here and makes his thread stupid with this whataboutism that he constantly does. What about violent democrats/liberals? And then we all start talking about which is worse, the liberals or the KKK/Nazis. I mean sure, the KKK hung black people from trees, but whatever. This is where our political discussion take us now. Do I feel sufficiently bad when people advocating for genocide are responded to with violance? Not bad enough, ok, well I guess I should have voted Trump. This shit is stupid. Violence is terrible, it shouldn't happen at peaceful assembly. People shouldn't be able to bring AR-15s to peaceful protesters either, because that is stupid and not peaceful. If 20K people protest and only a few are violent, then there are likely a lot of them tried to stop it too. End of story.
See, that's actually smarter. And i do agree, that most of these discussions here are absolutely pointless. I'm doing it to waste time (and calm down after playing campaign with mass dragoons), really. Nobody should actually care about what i say, the same way i don't actually care what other people think. A discussion is fun, usually anyway. That's about it, there's nothing to take away from here. Nobody is gonna change his opinion based on something he read here either.
I wouldn't even pin it on Danglars alone, especially in this case, you're not without blame either. I mean.. TL generally (without trying to be mean) is a leftist circlejerk. That's why i'm here, i generally have leftist views. Danglars and xDaunt have different views. That doesn't mean they derail, they just state their opinion.
I also don't understand where "liberals" comes from now, you're all over the place. You don't need to be liberal to condemn Nazis, that's something that should happen universally through all political spectrums.
Funny though, that you somehow make fun of "not feeling bad enough". I do feel bad regardless of who gets hurt, so where's that disconnect coming from? The only thing i can think of is that i actually am a normal protester, but you are not. I disagree with the notion that minus and minus somehow makes plus. And i'm not shortsighted enough to assume that violence against Nazis will stop them (anything short of executing them). In fact, i'm pretty convinced that the opposite is going to happen. It's not rocket science.
Oh and the AR-15 thing should go without saying. People actually shouldn't be allowed to own them, but we can discuss that once the next inevitable mass shooting occurs.
In regards to your (second to) last sentence: yup, of course. That only works under the assumption that everyone here condemns the entire mass of counter protesters though. Something that hasn't happened, not once. The few who tried to stop them never were under any "suspicion" (for the lack of knowing the actual english word). There's no "oh there's two violent ones, so all 20k suck". Never was, yet constantly it gets brought up.
edit:
I agree with m4ini (I don't often, but I do here)
i generally have leftist views
|
On August 20 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2017 12:41 m4ini wrote:On August 20 2017 12:37 Plansix wrote:
@m4ini - come on. In this hour of increasingly reductive discussions, really feel that you could infer I didn't want anyone to die or be crippled. All things being equal(aka, the fight not going either way), I feel safe in assuming the Nazi was as fault because they are the Nazi. I don't want them to die, but I also don't want the "not a Nazi" to be hurt. I'm not going to watch the Nazi get beaten to death.
This is the type of discussion that these false equivalences bring out. Where we all trying to make an if/went flow charts for violent encounters. Dude you literally said "if i come to a fight ima help whoever is not the nazi", the fuck? Oh and btw, no, it really isn't me that has to guess how much violence is "good enough" for a Nazi according to you. Apart from the obvious problem that your statement was dumb (if i come to a fight, i stop it, instead of joining/helping) in the first place. If you're willing to hurt people for having an idiotic ideology, boy. Maybe Trump is your guy after all. You know what, you are right. I have no idea what I would do. Because making an if/when flow chart for a fight is stupid. A lot of these discussions are stupid. Because Danglars comes in here and makes his thread stupid with this whataboutism that he constantly does. What about violent democrats/liberals? Lets debate if a group of people yelling racial slurs at counter protester are the bad people or not. Or maybe the other side that threw a punch because of the racial slurs. And then we all start talking about which is worse, the liberals or the KKK/Nazis. I mean sure, the KKK hung black people from trees, but whatever. This is where our political discussion take us now. Do I feel sufficiently bad when people advocating for genocide are responded to with violance? Not bad enough, ok, well I guess I should have voted Trump. This shit is stupid. Violence is terrible, it shouldn't happen at peaceful assembly. People shouldn't be able to bring AR-15s to peaceful protesters either, because that is stupid and not peaceful. If 20K people protest and only a few are violent, then there are likely a lot of them tried to stop it too. But the Nazis and racists are still Nazi racists. End of story.
The highlighted viewpoint is a dangerous one. It's a failure to view the issues and world in the lens of those who have differing views. When someone flies a plane into the IRS building, their justifications are the same. You may disagree, but to that person they view the situation just as you do with this. I am sure the people who have blown up abortion clinics view this the same way - they believe hundreds of thousands of babies have been killed, so they take action. When someone advances political violence based on subjective viewpoints it opens pandora's box. You might not like what comes out the other end.
|
Hey, let's not compare one guy who was immediately condemned by basically everyone on both sides to a large group of people who brought shields, guns, and other stuff and displayed evidence of organized training to follow commands in unison. Those things are not equivalent. Also, lest we forget, it wasn't all too long ago (it was a couple of years, but that's not really that long ago) that a white supremacist killed nine black people in a church because they "have to go."
Also, in his online manifesto:
I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.
And now they're starting to take it to the real world. So yes, antifa go too far sometimes, or hit the wrong targets. But they're also not the side that went to a massive rally with guns and the attitude of "We're not nonviolent. We'll fucking kill these people if we have to," while carrying flags representing slavery and genocide. If you'd rather those people intimidate everyone who would stand up to them with blatant willingness for violence and equipment to commit it, then sure, let's get rid of antifa.
EDIT: To clarify, I'd say that the antifa at Charlottesville came willing, prepared, and expecting violence, but not looking for it, while the kkk, neo-nazis, white supremacists, and associated parts of the alt-right went willing, prepared, and looking for violence. Can you tell me with a straight face that you think there would have been no violence whatsoever if antifa hadn't been present?
Also, I'm pretty sure antifa are mostly anarchists, not communists.
|
Also, I'm pretty sure antifa are mostly anarchists, not communists.
Might wanna double check that.
Hint: they call each other comrades.
https://nycantifa.wordpress.com/
In case you don't believe me.
To clarify, I'd say that the antifa at Charlottesville came willing, prepared, and expecting violence, but not looking for it
Ahm.. Come on now. I don't know how much you know in regards to antifa, but it's not hard to read up on it. Yes, they're looking for it. They're not peaceful by design. They're not "promoting left wing policies" but literally "fighting right wing policies".
To quote wiki (but you can certainly go through the blog, if you don't trust wiki).
"Unlike the traditional left, the ambit of self-described antifa groups is to oppose fascism in direct action"
Don't make the mistake and equal antifa with counter protesters, they're not the same. Not even close.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
There are anarcho-X groups, of which some are anarcho-communists. So not exactly mutually exclusive.
|
![[image loading]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41inCLqzfYL._SL500_AC_SS350_.jpg)
If these people aren't Communists, then these people aren't either.
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Antifa_Her_zu_uns.svg/220px-Antifa_Her_zu_uns.svg.png)
(If you don't know that's the German Communists (KPD) flag during the 1930s)
|
I feel like we need to clear some things up here, looking at some pictures.
This here is great, and has to happen every single time. This is where i would stand.
+ Show Spoiler +(back to gender discussion)
These are what i call "counter protesters". The good guys.
Now this here:
+ Show Spoiler +
Is not. I obviously don't need to show pictures of Nazis/KKK/WS, we know what they look like, and we know that they're bad.
The last four pictures are not to be thrown in with counter protesters. I certainly would not want to be put in the same category as them in case i go to a rally. The last four pictures are the people most here talk about. In case you haven't noticed: only one category has the "need" to wear facemasks (except the witches, but that's different). Just briefly give that a thought, and you come to the correct conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/739f8bea9caa05b89a68a729904e9a81566df53c/0_0_5184_3456/master/5184.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=f9c683a4768a587c297ea8c8fd169702)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6ece29436e857784b4b7cb0841958e9852811119/87_129_2040_1213/master/2040.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=68a631b9220b6772f0e9aa113d96bc81)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/bfc5f547ffaed4663013fed90599979695f0e630/289_280_4339_3087/master/4339.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=9121ef841da583eba1972d771ba8ad75)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/01e392cdbc89e0610fd4c41ff1079865d9194767/0_0_3500_2333/master/3500.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=c52c72b5fa0713a002795ecb938def4b)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/699ae9f10e38f3e89db2c0bce7c55427115fa32f/0_0_3200_2136/master/3200.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=6fea9239b9240441340b9c3934c564ab)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/48400d9caf5c5d4a7b2a4c9f009e5104628cd3ec/190_125_2810_1863/master/2810.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=a607902053bcd062d2fb44194502a202)
![[image loading]](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d55a0dfec65c600618510ca4d56b230e7fe44a34/0_153_3111_1983/master/3111.jpg?w=1010&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=4f809fc537dfd03261c964e1f35f641c)
