Print

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

[Frumple]

Eh, I'm getting increasingly sympathetic to the argument that when the nazi flags come out, that's no longer a peaceful protest, regardless of if they're actually actively attacking some one. Unless they're being burnt, I guess. When your shtick has genocide as a core goal I don't think you get to claim you're doing anything but trying to drum up enough support to start getting away with murder. Which ain't peaceful unless your head's not screwed on straight.

Could also say that, whatever argument is to be made for calling people out on violence, if there's Nazis involved you shut up until there isn't any more. Looking increasingly like this shit is base moral cowardice in the face of something that is real (they) damn (are) straightforward (Nazis), not some kind of high ideal. Some things you don't tolerate, and the fascist genocidal shits are on the shortlist and pretty high up. Especially so far as the U.S. goes. Going by our history we have an answer for what is warranted to put a stop to that breed of fascism, what tilts the scales of relative inequity close to even, and that answer was nuclear fire. So if we ain't hit that yet, there's still a good long way to go.

[RedKing]

Should we not honor the soldiers who died in the revolution, because one of the sparks was that the British might end slavery? Should we take down the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial, because they were old white men with slaves?

From your lips to Trump's ears:

"So this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson's coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all -- you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?"

Do y'all get your talking points from the same place that Chinese takeout menus come from? Cause it's remarkable how quickly all the folks on the right-wing of this argument have started invoking this idea. And this is *really* not the time to put that idea to the test.

And you'll note that I said "on the right-wing of this argument" and not just right-wing in general. Because a metric fuckton of Republicans are starting to desert 45 over this. It's gonna be amusing if this is the issue that redeems the soul of the Republican Party. Their strategists have got to be looking forward to 2018 and picturing the optics of being the party which is wedded at the hip with the American Nazi movement. And seeing electoral oblivion as a result.

[Trekkin]

I feel i should not be demonized for pointing out that such acts are wrong, and should not be celebrated, and further assert that such drawing of attention is not defacto support for white nationalism, or its ilk either. 

Not demonized, no, but it does come off as somewhat petty and banal -- and evocative of the jobsworths who have always used "proper procedure" and "policy" and so on to justify why they needn't listen to the scruffy folks demanding that they stop being evil. Many of those were, in fact, supporters of the very oppressive systems they helped craft to enshrine the status quo behind a bastion of paperwork, which is part of why such nitpicking is unlikely to be well-received. If someone just wants to be righter about something than both sides and therefore feel superior to both, the law is a great place to look, but it's hardly relevant.

Yes, the rule of law is the bedrock of our society, but laws are and always will be imperfect; they are our best attempt to codify and regulate justice, which will always be to some degree ad hoc and subjective and gray. This is why we have judges and pardons and jury nullification and de minimis violations and malum prohibitum laws: to stop the rule of law from becoming a tyranny dispensed by automata, and to keep it being something worthy of the trust we put in it.

On the one side, we have imperfect and incomplete evidence that a piece of cloth was stolen and burned, together with the misuse of a public flagpole. On the other side, racist facists are killing and hurting people with automobiles while emulating Nazis. This is, I think, one of those cases were taking a meticulous tally of vandals and ordinance violations is so far down the priority list that actually tasking the legal system with it would itself be unjust. Everyone involved has much, much better things to do.

[sluissa]

I feel i should not be demonized for pointing out that such acts are wrong, and should not be celebrated, and further assert that such drawing of attention is not defacto support for white nationalism, or its ilk either. 

Not demonized, no, but it does come off as somewhat petty and banal -- and evocative of the jobsworths who have always used "proper procedure" and "policy" and so on to justify why they needn't listen to the scruffy folks demanding that they stop being evil. Many of those were, in fact, supporters of the very oppressive systems they helped craft to enshrine the status quo behind a bastion of paperwork, which is part of why such nitpicking is unlikely to be well-received. If someone just wants to be righter about something than both sides and therefore feel superior to both, the law is a great place to look, but it's hardly relevant.

Yes, the rule of law is the bedrock of our society, but laws are and always will be imperfect; they are our best attempt to codify and regulate justice, which will always be to some degree ad hoc and subjective and gray. This is why we have judges and pardons and jury nullification and de minimis violations and malum prohibitum laws: to stop the rule of law from becoming a tyranny dispensed by automata, and to keep it being something worthy of the trust we put in it.

On the one side, we have imperfect and incomplete evidence that a piece of cloth was stolen and burned, together with the misuse of a public flagpole. On the other side, racist facists are killing and hurting people with automobiles while emulating Nazis. This is, I think, one of those cases were taking a meticulous tally of vandals and ordinance violations is so far down the priority list that actually tasking the legal system with it would itself be unjust. Everyone involved has much, much better things to do.

Hear that everyone? Nazis are on the loose, that means any and all lesser crimes are fair game since there's no reason to even bother looking in their direction while nazis are on the loose.

[Antioch]

I hate the sentence "they are just as bad as", but the antifa do have their fair share of assholes in their ranks.

[EnigmaticHat]

I feel i should not be demonized for pointing out that such acts are wrong, and should not be celebrated, and further assert that such drawing of attention is not defacto support for white nationalism, or its ilk either. 

Not demonized, no, but it does come off as somewhat petty and banal -- and evocative of the jobsworths who have always used "proper procedure" and "policy" and so on to justify why they needn't listen to the scruffy folks demanding that they stop being evil. Many of those were, in fact, supporters of the very oppressive systems they helped craft to enshrine the status quo behind a bastion of paperwork, which is part of why such nitpicking is unlikely to be well-received. If someone just wants to be righter about something than both sides and therefore feel superior to both, the law is a great place to look, but it's hardly relevant.

Yes, the rule of law is the bedrock of our society, but laws are and always will be imperfect; they are our best attempt to codify and regulate justice, which will always be to some degree ad hoc and subjective and gray. This is why we have judges and pardons and jury nullification and de minimis violations and malum prohibitum laws: to stop the rule of law from becoming a tyranny dispensed by automata, and to keep it being something worthy of the trust we put in it.

On the one side, we have imperfect and incomplete evidence that a piece of cloth was stolen and burned, together with the misuse of a public flagpole. On the other side, racist facists are killing and hurting people with automobiles while emulating Nazis. This is, I think, one of those cases were taking a meticulous tally of vandals and ordinance violations is so far down the priority list that actually tasking the legal system with it would itself be unjust. Everyone involved has much, much better things to do.

Hear that everyone? Nazis are on the loose, that means any and all lesser crimes are fair game since there's no reason to even bother looking in their direction while nazis are on the loose.

Its a flag.  They aren't that expensive to replace.  What even is this thread?  There was a terror attack.  Like if we want to talk about terrible terrible misdemeanors, okay, I'm really annoyed that the adjoining apartment makes my bathroom smell like pot.  No, wait, that's a felony.  Still wouldn't be the first thing I brought up if they got fucking murdered.

We've been talking about antifa this, violent counterprotestor that since the same day as the attack.  Which like fine, I get some users here don't like the anti-Trump and/or anti-fascist protestors.  But why are people trying to make this a topic of discussion now of all times?  What's the connection between the flag burning story and Charlottesville?  Cause if its just a coincidence you're bringing this up, that's kind of poor taste.

[Arx]

Sluissa is just pointing out that it's a bit silly to drop literally everything because there are currently violent Nazis in Charlottesville.

[EnigmaticHat]

And I'm pointing out that the response to a terror attack shouldn't be to immediately step up your criticism of the target.

[wierd]

Response to a terror attack should be to respond to the terrorists, through state approved means.

Burning flags, tearing down statues in mob justice style gatherings, and being general ne'r-do-wells is not the appropriate way to deal with terrorists.

It is not wrong to point that out.

[Lucus Casius]

Why not?  If the state response isn't sufficiently thorough, it falls to the people to take arms against their enemies.

If Neo-nazis and neo-confederates aren't their enemies, I don't know what are.

Edit:  Okay, "take arms" might be a little harsh, but I certainly think leaving things to approved legal channels is completely mad.

[wierd]

The alternative is vigilantism.  Or, does the phrase "Lynch mob" suddenly sound like a good thing?

[EnigmaticHat]

Response to a terror attack should be to respond to the terrorists, through state approved means.

Burning flags, tearing down statues in mob justice style gatherings, and being general ne'r-do-wells is not the appropriate way to deal with terrorists.

It is not wrong to point that out.

"Mob justice" refers to killings, beatings, or running people out of town.  A statue isn't a person.  You're conflating violence and non-violence.

And that still doesn't answer my question.  We were talking about antifa's "violence" before either of those things happened.  Hell, I think it came up within a couple hours of the attacks.  What is it about the Charlottesville attacks that made you want to go extra hard on the counterprotestors?  Why are the perceived misgivings of the counterprotestors relevant here?

Edit: Oh dear god dude.  The KKK actually lynched people.  Southerners who glorified the confederacy after its fall actually lynched people.  Not just imaginary murders that only happened in Brietbart land.  Not paranoid made up slippery slope murders.  Actual, real lynchings.

[wierd]

Antifa and its ill behavior were well documented before charlottsville.  That ill behavior has sent people to hospitals, and worse. Calling that violence is correct, because it can be called nothing else.

Also, you have me confused with somebody who is a white nationalist sympathizer. I did not do the thing you are giving me loaded questions over. I entered this discussion AFTER the statue was removed by an angry mob.

[Antioch]

Response to a terror attack should be to respond to the terrorists, through state approved means.

Burning flags, tearing down statues in mob justice style gatherings, and being general ne'r-do-wells is not the appropriate way to deal with terrorists.

It is not wrong to point that out.

"Mob justice" refers to killings, beatings, or running people out of town.  A statue isn't a person.  You're conflating violence and non-violence.

And that still doesn't answer my question.  We were talking about antifa's "violence" before either of those things happened.  Hell, I think it came up within a couple hours of the attacks.  What is it about the Charlottesville attacks that made you want to go extra hard on the counterprotestors?  Why are the perceived misgivings of the counterprotestors relevant here?

There has been plenty of antifa violence and harassment in the past.

here is one:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/25/former-college-prof-arrested-for-antifa-bike-lock-attacks-in-berkeley/

edit: ok that is some shitty right wing site, but they were the first link that had the arrest news and the video on the same page.

[Arx]

"Mob justice" refers to killings, beatings, or running people out of town.  A statue isn't a person.  You're conflating violence and non-violence.

I must say, I wasn't happy going to university when they were burning cars and buses and blowing up dustbins on campus. Even though no one was being murdered.