Print

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

[Not good with names]

It's straw men all the way down.  And as to the taking away their rights, I can only assume if the only way to keep the peace is to allow nazis the exclusive right to protest in some areas, then that means others don't have the right to protest in said area.

Plus, I like the fact that hey, the KKK used violence and murder throughout it's history for political effect (cough, like ISIS), but again they shouldn't be blamed when they attend a rally that becomes violent, because both sides, am I rite?

[Arx]

I realise you were probably writing that already, Salmon, but thank you, that answers my post nicely.

[smjjames]

It's straw men all the way down.  And as to the taking away their rights, I can only assume if the only way to keep the peace is to allow nazis the exclusive right to protest in some areas, then that means others don't have the right to protest in said area.

Plus, I like the fact that hey, the KKK used violence and murder throughout it's history for political effect (cough, like ISIS), but again they shouldn't be blamed when they attend a rally that becomes violent, because both sides, am I rite?

I think you're trying to joke around, but we're having a serious discussion here.

[Playergamer]

I didn't say words are violence. I said beating people with lit tiki torches is violence.

Yeah, that's true I suppose. It was violence against counter-protesters who fought back (and may or may not have initiated the brawl in the first place) which ended in the whole thing being broken up with tear gas, and one of the marchers being arrested for assault. Not bad.

Oh, and there was that thing with the car terrorism. The actual act of murderous terror that actually occurred at this actual rally.

A single guy road-raging his car into a march hours after the rally = the entire rally endorsing and planning a terrorist attack. The ISIS comparison remains ridiculous

There's an even easier counter to this.

The white nationalists DID engage in violence the night before.  When they were marching around with their tiki torches, they actively beat people up.  There was no counter-protest until the following day, and it was in response to the violent actions at the white nationalist rally the night before.

I've seen statements online from black people in the area thanking the counter-protest for showing up because they were fucking scared.

So this idea that they were just taking precautions against antifa showing up flies in the face of not only the history of the ideology and its directly stated intents, but also the reality of what actually verifiably happened at this very event in question.

First of all that's blatantly wrong. There was a counter-protest at the Jefferson statue, with a "UVA against fascism banner" and it ended in a brawl. They weren't beating random passerby.

Second of all there's still no evidence that they would've actually attacked anyone. People being scared isn't evidence they were going to end the rally with lynch mobs in the streets.

It's straw men all the way down.  And as to the taking away their rights, I can only assume if the only way to keep the peace is to allow nazis the exclusive right to protest in some areas, then that means others don't have the right to protest in said area.

Plus, I like the fact that hey, the KKK used violence and murder throughout it's history for political effect (cough, like ISIS), but again they shouldn't be blamed when they attend a rally that becomes violent, because both sides, am I rite?

I didn't actually see any klansmen there. Again, even if they were, it doesn't mean they were going to lynch passerby.

And yes, it is standard police practice to separate political events full of people that hate each other.

My writings a bit rushed because I'm sort of getting ninjaed over and over.

[SalmonGod]

First of all that's blatantly wrong. There was a counter-protest at the Jefferson statue, with a "UVA against fascism banner" and it ended in a brawl. They weren't beating random passerby.

I may be misinformed, but I don't see how this is much better.

Second of all there's still no evidence that they would've actually attacked anyone. People being scared isn't evidence they were going to end the rally with lynch mobs in the streets.

It may not be evidence, but when the fear is based on actual history, I don't see how you can call it unfounded, either.

And allow me to clarify this, because I have a feeling your response will be along your "didn't see any klansmen there" lines.  They were protesting the removal of a tribute to a man who fought in support of victimizing black people in the past.  Is that not making their stance pretty clear?

[Not good with names]

I will be more serious next time. x500

But David Duke was there.  So there's that.

[Playergamer]

First of all that's blatantly wrong. There was a counter-protest at the Jefferson statue, with a "UVA against fascism banner" and it ended in a brawl. They weren't beating random passerby.

I may be misinformed, but I don't see how this is much better.

Second of all there's still no evidence that they would've actually attacked anyone. People being scared isn't evidence they were going to end the rally with lynch mobs in the streets.

It may not be evidence, but when the fear is based on actual history, I don't see how you can call it unfounded, either.

It's better in that, instead of ganging up and beating down random passerby, a group drew up against them, words were exchanged, and a fight started. My whole point has been that they brought weapons in case of a fight against other groups, not to assault bystanders.

I can call it unfounded because none of the people at that rally ever walked through a town in Virginia beating up whoever they want because skin-hate, and I don't see them doing so in the future.

[SalmonGod]

A single guy road-raging his car into a march hours after the rally = the entire rally endorsing and planning a terrorist attack. The ISIS comparison remains ridiculous

Did you miss the part where I mentioned the guy had a 900-strong explicit Facebook fan club labeling him an American Hero less than an hour after he'd been identified?  Yeah, I can't directly associate that as being the very same people who were in Charlottesville, but it is quite explicitly people in the same ideological grain.

[smjjames]

There's an even easier counter to this.

The white nationalists DID engage in violence the night before.  When they were marching around with their tiki torches, they actively beat people up.  There was no counter-protest until the following day, and it was in response to the violent actions at the white nationalist rally the night before.

I've seen statements online from black people in the area thanking the counter-protest for showing up because they were fucking scared.

So this idea that they were just taking precautions against antifa showing up flies in the face of not only the history of the ideology and its directly stated intents, but also the reality of what actually verifiably happened at this very event in question.

First of all that's blatantly wrong. There was a counter-protest at the Jefferson statue, with a "UVA against fascism banner" and it ended in a brawl. They weren't beating random passerby.

Second of all there's still no evidence that they would've actually attacked anyone. People being scared isn't evidence they were going to end the rally with lynch mobs in the streets.

Yep, this account of the whole thing shows a video of said brawl, It doesn't show who threw the first punch, but it certainly looks like only the neo-nazis were the only one actively trying to fight. Also, no police presence either.

[Playergamer]

A single guy road-raging his car into a march hours after the rally = the entire rally endorsing and planning a terrorist attack. The ISIS comparison remains ridiculous

Did you miss the part where I mentioned the guy had a 900-strong explicit Facebook fan club labeling him an American Hero less than an hour after he'd been identified?  Yeah, I can't directly associate that as being the very same people who were in Charlottesville, but it is quite explicitly people in the same ideological grain.

Dear god almost a thousand people on the internet hold shocking opinions.

[RedKing]

So we're entering some kind of Zen koan territory where guys who think 'blacks and Jews are inferior and Hitler did nothing wrong' aren't equivalent to Klansmen, because they're not wearing robes and a hood?

You're right, they're worse. At least Klansmen had the understanding that they were an affront to common decency and thus, should hide their faces. These Abercromie & Fitch rejects feel emboldened to parade around openly. And they're going to reap the consequences of that decision.

[Playergamer]

So we're entering some kind of Zen koan territory where guys who think 'blacks and Jews are inferior and Hitler did nothing wrong' aren't equivalent to Klansmen, because they're not wearing robes and a hood?

You're right, they're worse. At least Klansmen had the understanding that they were an affront to common decency and thus, should hide their faces. These Abercromie & Fitch rejects feel emboldened to parade around openly. And they're going to reap the consequences of that decision.

I never said that. I said that nobody at this rally every beat up people in a lynch mob, which is factually true. They're scumbags, but they have a right to free speech. The consequences of their decision should be mockery for marching with citronella torches, not street fighting that leaves dozens injured.

They're emboldened to parade openly because they have that right as American citizens.

[Frumple]

I can call it unfounded because none of the people at that rally ever walked through a town in Virginia beating up whoever they want because skin-hate, and I don't see them doing so in the future.

Whoo boy honey I would bet you money -- actual money, not fake money or money I don't have, I got twenty bucks lying around I can't really afford to fritter away that I'd do it with -- that one or more of the people rallying around folks toting swastika flags about do, in fact, have some convictions under their belt where A) the victim(s) involved weren't white, and/or B) turned out to be considered a hate crime.

Seriously man, I would not want to be someone trying to lay the bet down that no one at a white supremacist rally that had open goddamn nazis walking around with it has gone around beating the shit out of brown people. You might slip through if you go with "On main street, in broad daylight, specifically in virgina", but I'm still not entirely sure that's a bet I'd be willing to make. Has anyone actually got around to checking that one? Because if there's bloody anywhere where someone involved might have done that, this was one of the spots.

And allow me to clarify this, because I have a feeling your response will be along your "didn't see any klansmen there" lines.  They were protesting the removal of a tribute to a man who fought in support of victimizing black people in the past.  Is that not making their stance pretty clear?

Don't forget the good ol' swastika and confed battle flags, man. I'm just going to wager it didn't take a minority within viewing distance of that mess seeing klan walking around in full regalia to ken on to what that lot was about.

[smjjames]

Also, today's stuff seems to be a hell of a lot more peaceful for some reason.

Anyways, reports are that knives are out for Bannon. He's had knives out for him before, so, not neccesarily a sign that he's absolutely on the outs.

As the axios link notes, it would be interesting to see what kind of havoc he could do if he got fired.

[SalmonGod]

A single guy road-raging his car into a march hours after the rally = the entire rally endorsing and planning a terrorist attack. The ISIS comparison remains ridiculous

Did you miss the part where I mentioned the guy had a 900-strong explicit Facebook fan club labeling him an American Hero less than an hour after he'd been identified?  Yeah, I can't directly associate that as being the very same people who were in Charlottesville, but it is quite explicitly people in the same ideological grain.

Dear god almost a thousand people on the internet hold shocking opinions.

That group looks like it was renamed to "Justice for James Alex Fields Jr", and is up to about 4500 members.

So... umm... when someone actually murders people, you deny that it means anything because

A single guy road-raging his car into a march hours after the rally = the entire rally endorsing and planning a terrorist attack. The ISIS comparison remains ridiculous

But when 4500 people actively state their support for the guy afterwards, presumably out of ideological sympathy, that's still not considered an endorsement from his political bloc.  It's just "people having shocking opinions on the internet".

So ok... I give up... I can see there there is literally no conceivable metric by which you'll see anything wrong or cause for concern, until there are actually public lynchings or government-aided genocide efforts.  And even then, I halfway believe you'll frame it as the fault of scary leftist mobs.