Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

War on Christmas, "militant" athiests, "militant" Christians, conspiracies about civil rights/gay rights/anti-gun organizations wanting reshape America with coercive force.  The constant painting of 95% peaceful 5% rowdy protests as riots.  The less savory elements in the right have been conflating pushback with violence for years.  I'm not surprised people are believing antifa and neo-nazies are the same thing.

[smjjames]

Both wings have been splitting from each other for some time now. The Democrats themselves are now trying to play catch up with the progressive/leftwing/liberal movement away from the center.

[Playergamer]

The governor is now defending the police response. I honestly don't understand how McAuliffe can say such stupid things.

“It’s easy to criticize but I can tell you this, 80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons." - actual quote

Look at some pictures of what happened, the vast majority of people there didn't have guns. If even half of them were carrying guns, that would've turned into some Freikorps vs Spartacists shit.

“You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army." - actual quote

There were a handful of militia guys there, yeah. Maybe a few dozen. The vast majority of the people there were polo shirt alt-righters or protesters though, and they aren't exactly an army.

“The police moved when they felt it was appropriate,” Mr. McAuliffe said. “They had to give people an opportunity to clear out of the park so they sent the word first, before we come in.” - actual quote

Again...no that's not what happened. The state police had formed a riot line long before any fighting started. Once a handful of tiny altercations broke out, they used almost inaudible megaphones to declare an unlawful assembly, and used chemical agents to push the nazis out into the street. They could've at the very least come up with a plan to keep the groups apart as they evacuated.

I don't know how Terry can say stuff like this. Maybe he caught Trumpism a while back.

[smjjames]

I get your Sparta reference, but I don't get the Freikorps thing. edit: Frei=Free?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The freikorps were fascist paramilitary groups in the Weimar Republic, while the Spartacists were a militant communist group.

[EnigmaticHat]

Both wings have been splitting from each other for some time now. The Democrats themselves are now trying to play catch up with the progressive/leftwing/liberal movement away from the center.

Yeah... but that's not what I'm talking about.  Republicans have been calling democrats naive losers/idiots for a long time.  And that's fair, I mean democrats have some pretty damn harsh stereotypes for Republicans.  Its possible to portray the opposition as complete idiots, and still be mostly accurate about what the opposition believes.

What I'm talking about is using language and propaganda to convince your supporters that peaceful actions are violent actions.  Not that political action will incite future violence, that literally [insert peaceful thing here] = violence.  Language is violent, beliefs are violent, unarmed groups are militant, non-violent protests are riots, political movements are coercive when there is 0 real evidence that they are.  Its not the same thing as simply having a different worldview or a lack of communication with the other side.  Its an intentional distortion of reality by media figures.

This video is way less subtle than this tactic normally is, which makes it a perfect example.  Excluding the blink-and-you-miss-it bit from 30-32 seconds, at no point in the entire ad does the narrator describe literal violence.  She explicitly describes peaceful speech for the entire video.  Yet she leads with the word assassinate.  At the end of the video the NRA lays it out real explicit, saying that we need to be ready to fight "the violence of lies."

[sluissa]

So here's a question.

If a nazi protests in a forest, and nobody's around to hear them. Does it make a sound? Does it matter at all?

Should probably preface this by saying that the car attack was criminal in the extreme and should be treated as such.

However... had antifa not shown up, what would have been the outcome of all of this? I'd argue that you'd have a bunch of people shouting horrible things in a park and generally being considered crazies and idiots and otherwise ignored.

Take it from the other direction. What if antifa were the only ones to show up. They did their normal thing. Mostly staying within the law and a trashcan or two being the only casualties? Most people would just ignore them, most people would consider them crazies. While not as horrible as nazi propaganda, some people would still think what they're saying was varying shades of dumb and horrible. In general though, they'd have been ignored.

The only reason either side is getting any defense here is because it became a clash. Two opposing sides and suddenly you're forced to associate with one otherwise you're viewed as supporting the other. The left are supporting the antifa people because hey, literal nazis one of which ran people over with a car. The right is... actually generally distancing themselves from the nazis... because literal nazis, one of which ran people over with a car... but the left is taking their lack of support for the antifa people and running with it to spin it as support of nazis.

You're allowed to hate everyone involved here. Just because someone was out "fighting nazis" doesn't mean you have to love them.

[EnigmaticHat]

Remember all the antifa marching against Mitt Romney?  No?  That's because in the absence of fascists, antifa wouldn't be doing anything.  They only popped up because the president had the likes of Steve Banon in his inner circle and a glowing recommendation from the KKK.

[Starver]

Not that I'm condoning either set of opposing protesters having weaponry in their arsenals, but isn't the whole idea of the Second Amendment (to some people's minds, i.e. the kind who tend to label their opponents as SJW Snowflakes, etc) that because you can never entirely trust a government to act in its people's interest, private weaponry is there as a protection (and deterrent) against unrepresentative lawmakers misruling the land..?

(It's not, BTW. But I'd bet that many of the WEs parading around in their cammo-suits and artillery pieces slung over their shoulders would claim as such, in other circumstances. It therefore comes down to what "well regulated" means, I suppose.)

[Playergamer]

Not that I'm condoning either set of opposing protesters having weaponry in their arsenals, but isn't the whole idea of the Second Amendment (to some people's minds, i.e. the kind who tend to label their opponents as SJW Snowflakes, etc) that because you can never entirely trust a government to act in its people's interest, private weaponry is there as a protection (and deterrent) against unrepresentative lawmakers misruling the land..?

(It's not, BTW. But I'd bet that many of the WEs parading around in their cammo-suits and artillery pieces slung over their shoulders would claim as such, in other circumstances. It therefore comes down to what "well regulated" means, I suppose.)

i mean tbf that is the point.

also tbf it makes no sense for well-regulated in the context of the second amendment to mean regulations on what firearms can be used: it much more likely refers to well-trained, drilled, etc.

((Not saying firearms shouldn't be regulated, just that literally everyone misinterprets the militia clause. I would be very happy with a situation where actual militias are formed, and those militias are allowed to keep heavier ordnance than private citizens.))

[smjjames]

I'm a bit surprised they even allowed weapons at all, period.

In that sort of context, Trump's vague response makes some sense since he was caught in the same bind, except that he didn't want to alienate his base. He got pilloried from both sides for his effort, or lack of.

Not that I'm condoning either set of opposing protesters having weaponry in their arsenals, but isn't the whole idea of the Second Amendment (to some people's minds, i.e. the kind who tend to label their opponents as SJW Snowflakes, etc) that because you can never entirely trust a government to act in its people's interest, private weaponry is there as a protection (and deterrent) against unrepresentative lawmakers misruling the land..?

(It's not, BTW. But I'd bet that many of the WEs parading around in their cammo-suits and artillery pieces slung over their shoulders would claim as such, in other circumstances. It therefore comes down to what "well regulated" means, I suppose.)

i mean tbf that is the point.

also tbf it makes no sense for well-regulated in the context of the second amendment to mean regulations on what firearms can be used: it much more likely refers to well-trained, drilled, etc.

((Not saying firearms shouldn't be regulated, just that literally everyone misinterprets the militia clause. I would be very happy with a situation where actual militias are formed, and those militias are allowed to keep heavier ordnance than private citizens.))

I don't recall the Second Amendment covering non-firearm weapons though. Would be funny if the amendment specified certain types of weapons that only existed in the late 18th century.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If antifa hadn't showed up, the neo-nazis wouldn't have "been ignored" they would have gone around beating brown people with those torches they brought. Which is what they tried to do anyway.

[sluissa]

Remember all the antifa marching against Mitt Romney?  No?  That's because in the absence of fascists, antifa wouldn't be doing anything.  They only popped up because the president had the likes of Steve Banon in his inner circle and a glowing recommendation from the KKK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Racist_Action

Generally considered the predecessor to Antifa and Antifa follows a lot of the same tactics and methods.

This is one of those situation where I might agree with their message, but I don't agree with their methods at all.

If antifa hadn't showed up, the neo-nazis wouldn't have "been ignored" they would have gone around beating brown people with those torches they brought. Which is what they tried to do anyway.

Because the government gives out public assembly permits for "Beating brown people with torches."

I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened. But you can't say with any certainty it would have devolved to violence either since they were attempting to follow the law from the beginning. But when you give them an enemy that wants to fight, you're much more likely to get a fight.

[Frumple]

In that sort of context, Trump's vague response makes some sense since he was caught in the same bind, except that he didn't want to alienate his base. He got pilloried from both sides for his effort, or lack of.

I mean... of course the POTUS's statements make more sense in the context of trying to pander to white supremacist and/or neo-nazi groups without outright saying he supports them? Lotta' his crap makes more sense if you stop trying to make excuses for the discrepancies involved, it just ain't exactly a glowing picture that gets painted in the process.

[RedKing]

If antifa hadn't showed up, the neo-nazis wouldn't have "been ignored" they would have gone around beating brown people with those torches they brought. Which is what they tried to do anyway.

This.

It's a bit like asking a black man, "Well, have you tried NOT being lynched?"

Or a young gay man, "Have you tried NOT getting beaten up?"