[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Poland isn't a homogenous state, they aren't multicultural, they don't claim to be, but they do formally denounce fascism and Marxism, which is what I was pointing out.

Was the picture you posted a formal governmental denunciation of Nazism and Marxism?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Was the picture you posted a formal governmental denunciation of Nazism and Marxism?

No, admittedly it wasn't, but I liked the photo because I despise communism and fascism equally (and Poland does denounce both officially).

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't understand the obsession with comparing them to the Nazi's. They can't be bad all on their own?

That's rather a good point. Yet unless I missed it, I haven't seen the post where you condemn the actions of the Nazis, KKK, and other garden variety bigots in Charlottesville without an accompanying statement along the lines of 'but AntiFa..."

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

That's rather a good point. Yet unless I missed it, I haven't seen the post where you condemn the actions of the Nazis, KKK, and other garden variety bigots in Charlottesville without an accompanying statement along the lines of 'but AntiFa..."

I've stated it multiple times right here in this thread and in others, without any such "but". I've even pointed out how my statements on those groups are not in context to my statements about Antifa or other groups. I really don't know how I can be any more clear, direct, or unequivocal about it.

Just so you personally understand my position, I condemn those groups unequivocally, with no ifs, ands or buts about it.

I condemn violence, I condemn bigotry, and I condemn hate groups. I condemn racism, I condemn prejudice, and I condemn discrimination on a basis of skin color. Period, Full Stop, unequivocally. I must also, apparently, point out that none of the above statements are enjoined to any others I've made, and should be read without context of, attention to, or in consideration of any other views I hold, expressly or implicit.

Also, FYR:

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Well then let me be clear.

White nationalists have no place in this country.

Violent extremists of any sort have no place in this country.

Originally Posted by snow-i

If you're looking for me to specifically reaffirm denouncing white nationalist groups and the like, I am happy to do so.

Originally Posted by snow-i

I am against the white nationalists. I am also against violence. Stop trying to use absolutionism to define what my views are or what you think they ought to be.

Originally Posted by snow-i

Now let me be unequivocal again. White nationalists have no place in our society or culture. None, whatsoever. Groups that turn a blind eye towards or perpetrate violence themselves have no place in our society either. Those beliefs are not in comparison to one another, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by snow-i

Trust me when I say these hateful piles of human debris do not represent the right in any capacity, the same way that Antifa's violence does not represent the mainstream left at large.

Originally Posted by snow-i

And just so you know, I am glad there are people willing to stand up and be heard in opposition to the white nationalists as well and make it clear we reject their views from our society - in a nonviolent way, of course.. I consider myself one of them. You too, obv.

^These were my relevant statements up to page 3. Infact, nowhere did I use any kind of "but". I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I qualified any of my statements on the White Nationalists, but it definitely couldn't have been from my posts.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't understand how a call denouncing violent extremism could be offensive to you - unless that is you believe that extremism is justified by one group or the other.

I am echoing Trump in calling for peace, calm, and an end to the violence? THE HORROR! I am also echoing pretty much every reasonable person that ever lived through periods of civil unrest.

If you're looking for me to specifically reaffirm denouncing white nationalist groups and the like, I am happy to do so.

If you're looking for me to phrase it in a way that ignores other groups using violent extremism to further their goals, however noble you may feel they are, well I can't get behind justifying, rationalizing, or ignoring that violence or extremism.

White supremacy and anti-fascism are not equivalent. That's the problem. Their actions in Charlottesville are both savage but saying their equal is unreasonable with the philosophy one side is promoting.


Second, the United States has a history of racism as long as its founding. We've made great strides in the past 50 years, but that shouldn't relax us to this threat. Like Germany and its concern about extremism, the United States should be remain vigilant to threats to that equality, and the President should unflinchingly and absolutely reject and condemn those that would degrade and deprive our citizens of their rights let alone harm and kill them for the color or their skin.

That's the goddamn problem. By saying 'everybody was bad' he stripped all power from his statement and he elevated the racists to the same level as those who reject it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You (collectively) giving the KKK and white nationalists the airtime they're getting is only helping them reach their goals. Same goes for the other extremists involved.

I no longer believe in shit like this. The internet does a better job of recruitment for them then TV ever will. Once a movement reaches critical mass (which to me, this signifies), their actions and beliefs must be broadcast. Let Americans see this ugly side that many have denied has been brewing even just last year. Putting the spotlight on this forces us to have the conversation; Parents have to explain to their children why this is wrong, and society has to decide to address it.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

^These were my relevant statements up to page 3. Infact, nowhere did I use any kind of "but". I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I qualified any of my statements on the White Nationalists, but it definitely couldn't have been from my posts.

I went back and read all of these posts, I'm not going to quote them, read them for yourself if you don't believe me. Every single one of them has a statement either before or after what you quoted (well you actually say AntiFa in one quote) either mentions AntiFa specifically or calls out 'other violent groups' as well as the Nazis. Well with the exception to the last one where AntiFa was called out in the post you were responding to in this quote. If you are going to quibble over the use (or lack thereof) of 'but', well I'll own that.

I'm not saying your wrong here- AntiFa is bad and violence should not be condoned, however my post was as response to you holding W.A.S. to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. I have no doubt you are totally and completely against the various right-wing hate groups. You made this clear. That was not my point.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In my view, she attributes to racism the challenges of daily life, not to any example of prejudice. Things like finding her new high-end apartment in downtown Denver was a struggle because she is not white, and the apartment complex would not allow her to hold the apartment for 60 days until her move in date, only 30 (which is their policy).

Assuming this is the case ... and I have no reason to not take you at your word ... then she's being silly. But is it possible that despite official "policy" that exceptions are made nonetheless from which white applicants have benefited whereas she hasn't? I'm not saying that's the case. I'm just wondering if that is where she's coming from? If not then again she's just being silly without question.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Can there not be "particular challenges" that I as a white male face routinely that you or her could never face? .

Well anything is possible my friend. But the real question is if it's probable? A simple example. Despite the fact that white guys have been known to rob cabbies ... the chances are nonetheless almost slim to none that a taxi will pass you by on the basis of you being a white male. Even in a high-crime area!. I'd be far more likely as a black man wearing a three piece suit on Wall St. to have a cabbie routinely pass me by and pick up a white person down the block. Hence why I prefer Uber. Not once have I ever had to deal with that kind of stupidity with that service despite all the drama surrounding its management. But I digress ...

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I'm also reposting these because they got lost when my post got misconstrued.

...and, of course, those goes back to what liberals were saying all during the election. Trump was legitimizing these people, emotionally and nationally. Their rhetoric (IMO) already feels bolder than last year – before we were dealing with white nationalists, now we have full-fledged neo-nazis showing up. Saturday is the continuation of that legitimization by Trump not calling out those specific ideologies. It was evident in the pic I posted:




Today saw Trump give a forced presser and it had all the sincerity of a child being forced to apologize for something he didn't think he did wrong. But it'll serve its purpose, for the left and the right. The left gets the president to denounce the racists publicly, on the record. Politicians on the right get to downgrade their "I'm concerned" status with Trump's previous statement to "I'm satisfied" he addressed the issue, and shitheads like Richard Spencer will perceive what happened fairly accurately:

"His statement today was more kumbaya nonsense," said Spencer, who attended and was slated to speak at the white nationalist "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday. "Only a dumb person would take those lines seriously."

"I don't think he condemned it, no," Spencer said. "Did he say 'white nationalist?' 'Racist' means an irrational hatred of people. I don't think he meant any of us.'"

And he'll continue to do this, knowingly or unknowingly, because he's at best indifferent to racism and because he instinctively knows these people (deplorable one might say) are his base of support.


In short:

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You really should do some light googling before taking a position. There's plenty of objective information on them just waiting for you to discover.

A quick glance at their wikipedia page says its a generic label used by far left groups and individuals to loosely organise protests, primarily against fascists and the alt-right.

Antifa seems to be a far left version of Al Qaida, structurally speaking. They are not organised on any large scale and I question whether the counter protestors are the ones labelling themselves as Antifa so much as the (predominantly RW) media are the ones labelling them Antifa.
In which case, arrest the ones you can prove were instigators or give it up.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So in your view, the violence against the Nazi's (and innocent reporters who showed up to cover the event) is justified?

If they deliberately targeted reporters (and not just from the likes of Fox or Breitbart) then I'm not going to say thats justified. This is the first I'm hearing of it though. If it happened by accident, reporters put themselves in dangerous places and get hurt often. Some get killed. You rarely see soldiers blamed when reporters die in wars, I don;t see this being different without specific intent. And I don't see how other reporters can possibly prove that.

Its more that I think the Nazis have to share the blame for any violence that occurs if not shoulder it completely. I believe violence is inherent in their position before any punches are thrown. I believe they can never be allowed to go unchallenged. I believe they are far more hateful than the counter protesters. I believe they are just waiting for the slightest excuse to massively escalate violence very rapidly.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't understand the obsession with comparing them to the Nazi's. They can't be bad all on their own?

Sure they could, but I am yet to see evidence that they are. They barely need to exist without the Nazis. They certainly have far fewer places to go and much less need for violence.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So what's your position on Antifa doing what they've done? It's justified? A good thing?

I just don't know if its avoidable as long as Nazis, fascists and white supremacists are allowed to hid behind free speech. As I keep saying, Put them together with their counter protestors and you have a recipe for violence.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There are plenty of options for dealing with vile scum. Showing up to engage in violent rioting should not be among them.

What would you do about them then?

Ultimately you have one hate-fuelled, angry group who are setting out from the get go to just piss people off more often than not. Then you have a group who wish to challenge their detestable ideology. Now either they show up intending to start a fight and have a riot, or they show up prepared to be attacked and able to defend themselves, much like a lot of those douchebags who protest carrying rifles (except they don't tend to expect to need them). Note these guys don't bring rifles or knives.

One way, they are deserving of criticism, the other they aren't really. Either way, you are going to struggle to prove their intent.

The other way to look at it is there is no real way to know who starts off the violence unless you were there in the thick of it. Assuming they get near the thick of it, RW media are going to blame the counter protestors, LW media the Nazis. Again the only thing you can be sure of is that if there were no Nazi assholes in the first place, there would be violence at all.

[The Final Dakar]

subego, do you agree/disagree?

Originally Posted by subego 

It's still not full support though.

I found the right word: Enable. He enables them.

[Waragainstsleep]

Is it time then for Nazism and white supremacy to lose its protected free speech status?

There is a good argument that hatred and violence are inherent to the ideology;
There is no political movement behind it to legitimise it as a movement or political viewpoint (no credible campaign to reinstate segregation or slavery etc);
Doesn't it undermine or contradict a lot of important language in the Constitution?

2A and its associated costs are deemed worthwhile to protect against an event that has not threatened to be repeated in over 200 years. WW2 remains within living memory. A minor restriction of free speech seems a small price to pay given the potential consequences of a nuclear superpower falling under the control or influence of a fascist regime.

[The Final Dakar]

I want to be clear here, I'm not defending liberal behavior. I'm goign to try to explain the thought processes behind it.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I'm not an alt-righter. I'm not a racist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a hateful person.
"Yes, you are. You just don't know that you are. The Nazis in Charlottesville represent what you wish you could say."

Aside from thoughtless assholes, the mistake here is guilt by association. I still have trouble sorting it out with Trump. The difficulty is coming up with the proper term to describe their behavior. With Trump, I've settled on enabler. He enables them, either through inaction or tacit approval.

When one side is warning you that said person is an enabler and you support them, you have enabled them as well. Now, obviously if you disagree with this analysis it becomes problematic. Or if you're unfairly stereotyped as having supported Trump because of your leaning. But that can be easily (or derogatorily, as Chongo shows) be rectified as identifying oneself as a never-trumper.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

For decades, the Left has referred to everyone who espouses the mildest of conservative views as racists, bigots, Nazis, and warmongerers (or at least carrying some subconscious element of each). Now that actual Nazis are marching the streets, is the correlation weakened? Nope. Being a conservative automatically makes you like them.

Guilty. It was during the Bush years I came to terms with softening some of the rhetoric. Its politics taken to an extreme: Are you authoritarian and ignorant of racism? Congrats! You've been upgraded to fascist and supremacist! The counter-example as how everything the left does is communist.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Identity politics have been out of control for a long time, but many progressives are taking it to another level.

Now you have my disagreement. Identity politics is real, Charlottesville proves that. But it's always existed, from the 3/5ths compromise to voter suppression. There's a segment of the population that believes that identifying a problem is worse than the problem itself. It's naive or devious bullshit.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm *mildly* impressed at some of the elected GOP reaction here. They've been slow to get their legs underneath them, and I hope they're not doing this because of pressure from moneyed interests, but there seems to be some real pushback on how shitty Trump has been regarding all this.

The big things, I think, is calling for Bannon to go (Miller and Gorka should go with him). It won't solve the problem, but it will insulate Trump from the more foul elements of the alt-right. It may not make his tirades better, but it might improve his governing.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, I loved this:


i.e., sunlight, the best disinfectant. The fact that racists don't feel the need to wear hoods anymore should terrify everyone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

subego, do you agree/disagree?


I found the right word: Enable. He enables them.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I went back and read all of these posts, I'm not going to quote them, read them for yourself if you don't believe me. Every single one of them has a statement either before or after what you quoted (well you actually say AntiFa in one quote) either mentions AntiFa specifically or calls out 'other violent groups' as well as the Nazis. Well with the exception to the last one where AntiFa was called out in the post you were responding to in this quote. If you are going to quibble over the use (or lack thereof) of 'but', well I'll own that.

We are talking about charlottesville. Am I to pretend none of what I said happened? Not express my view on the violence that occurred?

Seriously, what are you looking for here?

I haven't seen you have a post condemning Antifa without also condemning the White nationalists...soo....like you're a bad person or something, I guess.

I'm not saying your wrong here- AntiFa is bad and violence should not be condoned, however my post was as response to you holding W.A.S. to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. I have no doubt you are totally and completely against the various right-wing hate groups. You made this clear. That was not my point.

What exactly is your point then? I am not allowed to condemn left-wring AntiFa because White Nationalists and the KKK are worse? I have to do it in separate posts? Like on a timer?

What are the rules for condemning violent anarchists and white nationalists? Which ones did I break?

W.A.S depicted a comparison between Antifa and the DDay Allied forces. Do you not see the problem with this? Comparing actual the actual Allied heroes with violent anarchist trash?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

subego, do you agree/disagree?


I found the right word: Enable. He enables them.

I've been thinking about this.

Here's the "issue" I'm having.

At this point, I feel I've had enough up-close and personal with how Trump operates to make a definitive statement.

Outside the parameters of being a rich, old, white guy, most, if not all his racist behavior can be directly attributable to character flaws which while severe, aren't "being racist".

One can accurately describe the act as enable, but does it capture his motive?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm more worried about AntiFa because I don't see the problem manifesting in the same way. It would take a long time for AntiFa to wreck the left the way Nazis have wrecked the right, and let's be honest here... this would require organization, which isn't the anarchists strong suit.

What I'm worried about is the optics of AntiFa are so bad, they drive people away from the left, and Christ on a cracker... Trump will win again.

That's why they're dangerous.

Again, I follow your logic, but from my admittedly small sample group (my friends and family back in the states that voted for Trump, primarily because 'both sides are bad, and at least he's not Hillary), the event's in Charlottesville have finally pushed most of them to the point of while not exactly admitting their logic was flawed, into admitting that Trump has turned out to be a complete train wreck and they would never vote for him again, no matter who was running against him. None of my friends who voted for Hillary have looked at the events in Charlottesville and said, 'well that's it, I'm voting for Trump next time!'

You have to be really, really bad- like Joffrey bad- to be more deplorable than the Nazis. And pretty much the only thing AntiFa have going for them is that they have creeped a bit into the spotlight as a bunch of violent bastards- who were fighting Nazis.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Anyone else think that the nazi goobers have received enough free publicity?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Also. Stormfront is still up. All that sound and fury, the media all excited that they were being taken DOWN and GoDaddy and Google themselves were "tired of their shit"... and it lasted for a couple hours? Talk about a let-down.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't understand how a call denouncing violent extremism could be offensive to you - unless that is you believe that extremism is justified by one group or the other.

Let me offer an alternative perception: there are two crucial differences between the right-wing extremist at the rally and the left-wing extremists: (1) It was right-wing extremists who specifically referenced Trump and his policies being uplifting for their movement. And (2) it was a right-wing extremist who killed someone with a car and injured 19 others (if memory serves) — with less luck, more could have died. No one thinks that antifa activists are supporting Trump. Put another way, due to Trump's problematic history with being at the very least equivocal about right-wing extremists (of the caliber of David Duke and Richard Spencer) means it is particularly important for him to distance himself explicitly, saying to these groups I don't want your support and sympathy. (Some would go further than equivocal, but I don't want to get lost in the weeds.) When Trump wants to lash out, he is quick and he is very specific. Within an hour of Merck's CEO announcing he would leave the President's manufacturing council, Trump posted a disparaging Twitter message with name and everything, for example, and he wasn't shy about “that Mexican judge”, the “embattled Jeff Sessions” or Mitch McConnell. Not to mention Steve Bannon, who by his own account wanted to give the alt-right a home at Breitbart. Yet when it is about right-wing extremists, he can't even be bothered to say their names and the name of the victim in his first statement after the attack. Trump even went further and claimed that there were also good people among the right-wing protestors who yelled things like “Jews will not replace us!” In this aspect, Trump is different from Obama, Bush 2, both Clintons and Bush 1: with Trump's immediate predecessors, you wouldn't have to ask whether they would condemn Nazis and the like as a matter of course. Trump had to be pressured into it and then walked back. That is why Trump's position is morally reprehensible.

Again, perhaps your perception is different, but even skimming the conservative press, the reaction is quite unanimous and clear. Ditto for Republican members of Congress who immediately reacted the way you would expect politicians to.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We cannot have a discussion or begin the healing process until this stops from everyone. There will always be extremists - the best way to deal with them is to ignore them - else they are getting exactly what they want and will be further incentivized towards violence. You (collectively) giving the KKK and white nationalists the airtime they're getting is only helping them reach their goals. Same goes for the other extremists involved.

No, I strongly disagree: you don't solve problems by hiding them. In proportion to the size of the problem, you discuss and deal with them. Seeing the photos, I was shocked to see how many young men (I noticed only few women) turned up, most of them aged 20-35 from the looks of it. These are young people, the next generation, not old people for which the extremism problem solves itself in a decade or two. We have to do something now, and if we don't, these movements could take root in our societies.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm more worried about AntiFa because I don't see the problem manifesting in the same way. It would take a long time for AntiFa to wreck the left the way Nazis have wrecked the right, and let's be honest here... this would require organization, which isn't the anarchists strong suit.

I would like to know the numerical significance of crimes perpetrated by the Antifa, see how it has developed over time and compare them to crimes from right-wing groups. For example, even though the Antifa also caused mayhem at Obama's inaugurations, I don't remember hearing about them back then. When Trump was inaugurated, it became a major news story. In Germany, Antifa and other left-wing extremists commit less and different types of crimes (e. g. much more property crime and less assaults or worse). My point being that if this also holds true in the US, then as you wrote you'd have to use very different strategies.

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'm worried about is the optics of AntiFa are so bad, they drive people away from the left, and Christ on a cracker... Trump will win again.

I really hate it when a small number of idiots detract from an otherwise peaceful demonstrations, because in the perception of the media, all you see are photos of bashed windows, burning cars and whatnot. Regular demonstrators are lumped in.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We are talking about charlottesville. Am I to pretend none of what I said happened? Not express my view on the violence that occurred?

Seriously, what are you looking for here?

I haven't seen you have a post condemning Antifa without also condemning the White nationalists...soo....like you're a bad person or something, I guess.

That works in a "both sides are equally as bad" world. That's not this world.

This is a fun game, since every statement had a qualifier. I'm going to bold every qualifier you add that makes reference to anyone other than Nazis being bad:

Also, FYR:

Originally Posted by Snow-i
Well then let me be clear.

White nationalists have no place in this country.

Violent extremists of any sort have no place in this country.

Originally Posted by snow-i
If you're looking for me to specifically reaffirm denouncing white nationalist groups and the like, I am happy to do so. [but like...where]

Originally Posted by snow-i
I am against the white nationalists. I am also against violence. Stop trying to use absolutionism to define what my views are or what you think they ought to be.

Originally Posted by snow-i
Now let me be unequivocal again. White nationalists have no place in our society or culture. None, whatsoever. Groups that turn a blind eye towards or perpetrate violence themselves have no place in our society either. Those beliefs are not in comparison to one another, nor are they mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by snow-i
Trust me when I say these hateful piles of human debris do not represent the right in any capacity, the same way that Antifa's violence does not represent the mainstream left at large.

Originally Posted by snow-i
And just so you know, I am glad there are people willing to stand up and be heard in opposition to the white nationalists as well and make it clear we reject their views from our society - in a nonviolent way, of course.. I consider myself one of them. You too, obv.

^These were my relevant statements up to page 3. Infact, nowhere did I use any kind of "but". I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I qualified any of my statements on the White Nationalists, but it definitely couldn't have been from my posts.

[Chongo]

Your food for thought meme of the day.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ Yep. Ideologues are dangerous.

[Laminar]

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/defa...itage_splc.pdf

Erection of various monuments to the Confederacy over time:



Notice the two large peaks?

Two distinct periods saw a significant rise in the dedication of monuments and other symbols. The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The second spike began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists.

These aren't monuments erected to remind us of our history and built to honor great heroes, they were largely erected when the descendants of slaves had the audacity to believe themselves equal.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

or, just possibly, back then the outrage was sparked by the building of the monuments (not the other way around). Also, after Charlottesville, people attacked the Peace Monument in Atlanta, a sign of unity, just because they ignorantly thought it could be a pro-Confederacy statue (certainly is not), and attacked police when then tried to stop the frenzy.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Let me offer an alternative perception: there are two crucial differences between the right-wing extremist at the rally and the left-wing extremists: (1) It was right-wing extremists who specifically referenced Trump and his policies being uplifting for their movement. And (2) it was a right-wing extremist who killed someone with a car and injured 19 others (if memory serves) — with less luck, more could have died. No one thinks that antifa activists are supporting Trump. Put another way, due to Trump's problematic history with being at the very least equivocal about right-wing extremists (of the caliber of David Duke and Richard Spencer) means it is particularly important for him to distance himself explicitly, saying to these groups I don't want your support and sympathy. (Some would go further than equivocal, but I don't want to get lost in the weeds.) When Trump wants to lash out, he is quick and he is very specific. Within an hour of Merck's CEO announcing he would leave the President's manufacturing council, Trump posted a disparaging Twitter message with name and everything, for example, and he wasn't shy about “that Mexican judge”, the “embattled Jeff Sessions” or Mitch McConnell. Not to mention Steve Bannon, who by his own account wanted to give the alt-right a home at Breitbart. Yet when it is about right-wing extremists, he can't even be bothered to say their names and the name of the victim in his first statement after the attack. Trump even went further and claimed that there were also good people among the right-wing protestors who yelled things like “Jews will not replace us!” In this aspect, Trump is different from Obama, Bush 2, both Clintons and Bush 1: with Trump's immediate predecessors, you wouldn't have to ask whether they would condemn Nazis and the like as a matter of course. Trump had to be pressured into it and then walked back. That is why Trump's position is morally reprehensible.

This is great and all, but why do violent and hateful groups need to be compared to be condemned? In what strange world in the condemnation of violent extremists qualified this way? Or are you saying the hyperpartisanship we are experience justifies all that.

This is my point, ya'll are so caught up with comparing them for whatever reason to the point that it has an appearance of you being unwilling to condemn the violence of AntiFa, who have been violent before at many events having nothing to do with White Nationalists or the KKK.

Again, perhaps your perception is different, but even skimming the conservative press, the reaction is quite unanimous and clear. Ditto for Republican members of Congress who immediately reacted the way you would expect politicians to.

And you see left wing websites praising Antifa and comparing them to the DDay invasion. I don't get how any of that makes my statements worthy of admonishment.

No, I strongly disagree: you don't solve problems by hiding them. In proportion to the size of the problem, you discuss and deal with them. Seeing the photos, I was shocked to see how many young men (I noticed only few women) turned up, most of them aged 20-35 from the looks of it. These are young people, the next generation, not old people for which the extremism problem solves itself in a decade or two. We have to do something now, and if we don't, these movements could take root in our societies.

And historically, how has that worked out? Seriously, go look it up. You might be onto something from a moral perspective, but that completely ignores history which clearly demonstrates that violence in the streets only empowers the extremist groups.

When has engaging extremism with anything other than an A-10 Warthog led to anything productive?

It happened with the Nazis
It happened with Mussolini
It happened in France.

Again, it's a case of your ideological supposition not being reflected by the reality of the situation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That works in a "both sides are equally as bad" world. That's not this world.

Can anyone answer why they needed to be compared on an evil scale in order to be condemned?

What is the purpose of comparing how bad they are? They are bad, right? We should oppose bad people, right?? Or do you see it differently.

Whats wrong with condemning evil where it exists?

This is a fun game, since every statement had a qualifier. I'm going to bold every qualifier you add that makes reference to anyone other than Nazis being bad:

And which of my statements do you disagree with? Go ahead and bold those.

I mean look at what you've bolded. You find statements like "I oppose violence" and "violent extremists of any sort" to be objectionable? Seriously? We are further gone than I had feared, to the point that you're admonishing me for condemning violence.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That works in a "both sides are equally as bad" world. That's not this world.

This is a fun game, since every statement had a qualifier. I'm going to bold every qualifier you add that makes reference to anyone other than Nazis being bad:

I'm so glad you're around to call-out others for wrongthink, they really need to be segregated from the rest of the conversation, marking them as "other". I'm sure that will lead to more reasonable discussion about what happened at Charlottesville. This thread is about the events that happened there, and whether you like it or not, there were two violent, hateful sides in that situation. If you want an all "anti-nazi thread", where you can police non-nazi talk to your heart's content, knock yourself out.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Something somewhat similar just happened to Jordan Peterson when Business Insider labeled him "far-right."

Peterson banged out a rabid email, asking him to provide proof (over the course of his decades of work) that he was indeed far-right. After a few more exchanges, Business Insider amended the article to refer to Peterson as a "classic British liberal." This is fine and all, but the edit was made without apology or notation. You can read the article here, but what I'd like to focus on is Peterson's response and clarification of his personal political views:

It's part of a concentrated effort by both sides to assign labels to everyone. In this new world, you can either be extreme left or extreme right. In the media's eyes, there no such thing as a moderate anymore. Moderate viewpoints just don't generate as much revenue.

What's funny about it is that by labeling and grouping people as extremists, you're actually driving more and more extremism. It is the death of intelligent and honest discourse in politics.

I'm not exactly sure where I fall, but that quote resonated with me, and it drives me crazy that people who are as thoughtful as Peterson get carelessly lumped together with the alt-right.

I'm not sure everyone needs to fit neatly into any category. Doing so drowns out people's actual views, and replaces those views with an NFL-esque "root for the home team no matter what". We are nothing but unusually intelligent apes, highly prone to the "us vs them" tribalist paradigm. The media capitalizes for their own gain. Afterall, outrage = $$$.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's part of a concentrated effort by both sides to assign labels to everyone. In this new world, you can either be extreme left or extreme right. In the media's eyes, there no such thing as a moderate anymore. Moderate viewpoints just don't generate as much revenue.

Outrage Culture 2.0

What's funny about it is that by labeling and grouping people as extremists, you're actually driving more and more extremism. It is the death of intelligent and honest discourse in politics.

I'm not sure everyone needs to fit neatly into any category. Doing so drowns out people's actual views, and replaces those views with an NFL-esque "root for the home team no matter what". We are nothing but unusually intelligent apes, highly prone to the "us vs them" tribalist paradigm. The media capitalizes for their own gain. Afterall, outrage = $$$.

The creation of polar opposites is the purpose of identitarian politics. More revenue is generated by conflict than peace, and you can't have conflict without 2 (or more) warring sides. Moderates are forced to "choose a side", whether they like it or not, otherwise they're ostracized by both tribes, or worse, they're killed in the crossfire.

Right now what I hope happens is the "moderate middle" can get out of the crossfire and settle into a distinct, larger, 3rd tribe and mediate to bring about an armistice (peace seems unlikely). It's not ideal, but it's better than being torn apart.

[Snow-i]

And Google's ideology has led it to censorship of things it doesn't like. Time to break out the anti trust hammer. Regardless of whether or not you find the speech palatable is secondary to the issue of Google using it's market position to censor entities it chooses - a clear antitrust violation.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ned-by-google/

Wrong thread - mods you mind moving this to the google thread? Apologies

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ People have been switching to DDG over this. Over the last week our analytics have shown over a 25% increase in DDG traffic, and we're very small fries. Not sure how much this has bitten into Google's influence, but it must be affecting them.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I mean look at what you've bolded. You find statements like "I oppose violence" and "violent extremists of any sort" to be objectionable? Seriously? We are further gone than I had feared, to the point that you're admonishing me for condemning violence.

Do you honestly believe that to be the case?

The assertion was made that you haven't yet condemned the Nazi actions full stop, that you always had to add a qualifier about how the antifa are bad also.

You responded with a bunch of your own quotes that proved the assertion - it was important to you that you reference violence "on all sides," it wasn't enough to condemn Nazis.

I pointed that out.

You decided that I'm mad at you for condemning violence.

No, I'm admonishing you for intellectual dishonesty.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Over the last week our analytics have shown over a 25% increase in DDG traffic,

So they gained one more user?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So they gained 25 more users?

That's about right.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Ah, the glorious SPLC. They got to get all those nazis, even the people who aren't even nazis at all. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/cu...te-group-story

On August 17, CNN published a story with the headline: “Here Are All The Active Hate Groups Where You Live.” Was it a concise list of Nazi groups? No. It was the SPLC “hate map” and the “917 hate groups” that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) designated as dangerous. The post was just SPLC’s regurgitated map and list, given without comment, context or qualification.

A few hours later, CNN changed its story. Completely. The headline now reads: “The Southern Poverty Law Center’s List of Hate Groups.” Where before, it was promoting SPLC’s hate map as its own, now it merely (and meekly) links to the SPLC website.

Before, CNN had given a complete list of the “hate groups,” including the Alliance Defending Freedom, ACT for America, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association. It has since removed the list and replaced them with, “To see the SPLC’s full list, click here. (link) And for the SPLC’s explanation of why the organizations made the list, click here. (link)”

CNN originally had, “Scroll down to see the hate groups that operate out of your state.”

Nowhere in either article is there mention of the fact that Floyd Lee Corkins used the SPLC hate map to find his target, the Family Research Council.

CNN essentially reinforced the SPLC’s longstanding attacks against conservative groups. The SPLC hate map actually led to a shooting and an act of domestic terrorism.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Do you honestly believe that to be the case?

The assertion was made that you haven't yet condemned the Nazi actions full stop

An assertion, that on this very page and several others, is proved wrong. the text is right there for you to see. Which part of "unequivocal" is alluding your grasp?

un·e·quiv·o·cal
ˌənəˈkwivək(ə)l/Submit
adjective
leaving no doubt; unambiguous.


Which part of "Those beliefs are not in comparison to one another, nor are they mutually exclusive." is tripping you up?

" [but like...where]"

Literally every sentence saying "I condemn the white nationalists". What, the, **** dude. I am not backing off of my condemnation of the counter-protesters - which is precisely what I am perceiving you trying to get me to do right now.

, that you always had to add a qualifier about how the antifa are bad also.

Was not a qualifier - especially when I specifically pointed that out multiple times.

And what is wrong with that? Are they not also bad?

You responded with a bunch of your own quotes that proved the assertion - it was important to you that you reference violence "on all sides," it wasn't enough to condemn Nazis.

So you're arguing I had too much condemnation. You're right, it is not enough to condemn the Nazis. Are you making the case that's where my condemnation should end? Because in that case you're condoning the violence of the counter-protesters.

You're right, it wasn't enough to condemn the nazis, because they weren't the only ones out of line that day. Why this is such a hard concept to you eludes me, saving for the fact that you don't believe the counter-protesters for out of line or should be condemned. Point blank - is that what you're getting at?

I have to condemn the white nationalists, without condemning other violent actions, for you to accept my condemnation of the white nationalists?. Do you see how bizarrely backwards this is?

I pointed that out.

For what purpose? I still condemn the violence of the counter-protesters. Do you?

You decided that I'm mad at you for condemning violence.

You've made a case that somehow I am in the wrong for doing so. I cannot think of any logical explanation for this beyond you not wanting me to condemn the violence of both groups.

No, I'm admonishing you for intellectual dishonesty.

Condemning violence of multiple groups in conflict in the same post is now considered intellectually dishonest. If I haven't ONLY condemned the white nationalists, I am being intellectually dishonest? You need to look up what dishonest means, because I have been absolutely honest in every one of my posts and as a result you're admonishing me for condemning too many people who did horrible things that day.

I really get the feeling like what you're getting at is that AntiFa and the like should not be condemned. I really don't understand why else you could possibly have any rational basis for admonishing me for condemning them.

Where is your condemnation of the the KKK and white nationalists? Where is your condemnation of the violence? I don't see it, yet you still feel somehow you have some sort of moral superiority on me by admonishing me for condemning the violence. Not only are you being a massive hypocrite right now, I am perceiving a dishonesty from you in your motives for admonishing me - being that you truly believe no one should condemn the violence of the counter-protesters.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

An assertion, that on this very page and several others, is proved wrong. the text is right there for you to see. Which part of "unequivocal" is alluding your grasp?

My grasp? I didn't make the assertion in the first place, I'm trying to simplify the argument for you because you seem to have trouble following.

Was not a qualifier - especially when I specifically pointed that out multiple times.

And what is wrong with that? Are they not also bad?

It's a "but" statement. "Yes, Nazis are bad, but so are the other guys."

Do you understand how a "but" statement undermines whatever was just said?

Or are you going to nitpick the fact that you didn't literally say the word "but?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's a "but" statement. "Yes, Nazis are bad, but so are the other guys."

Do you understand how a "but" statement undermines whatever was just said?

Or are you going to nitpick the fact that you didn't literally say the word "but?"

Is the accusation he doesn't hate Nazis enough?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't understand the obsession with comparing them to the Nazi's. They can't be bad all on their own?

Nazis, however, apparently can't be bad all on their own.

Do you see it now?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the accusation he doesn't hate Nazis enough?

or that he hates AntiFa too much? Are we at the point where we need to "Little Miss Muffet" this?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

My grasp? I didn't make the assertion in the first place, I'm trying to simplify the argument for you because you seem to have trouble following.

This whole virtue signaling along specific and narrow rules is exhausting, unintuitive, and irrational to me.

It's a "but" statement. "Yes, Nazis are bad, but so are the other guys."

Do you understand how a "but" statement undermines whatever was just said?

Or are you going to nitpick the fact that you didn't literally say the word "but?"

"But" does not = "and." Do not conflate them. I've done just about everything possible in the english language to make this clear.

AND.

not BUT.

They are different words, because they have different meanings. none of my statements come close to implying "but" - infact, I even explicitly state that the two statements are not in comparison to each other, and are freestanding on their own merits.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Nazis, however, apparently can't be bad all on their own.

Do you see it now?

Yes they can, and are. I've stated as much multiple times. Do I need to quote myself again?

What you've just said is exactly the opposite of what I've said. That you think I'm implying anything of the sort is directly contradictory to my statements, my beliefs, and rationality itself.

[besson3c]

**** Nazis and the KKK. There, I said it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the accusation he doesn't hate Nazis enough?

What I'm getting from this is that because I condemn the violence of AntiFa that day at all, by default I am implicitly supporting the WNs, despite my explicit and clear statements to the contrary. That there's some whiff of me, while condemning both groups, giving some kind of a wink and a nod to WNism.

Essentially, because I am not in lock step with the preferred narrative of what happened that day which in my view is condoning violence as a means to fighting racism (or at least looking the other way), I must somehow be supportive of the WNists. This could not be further from the truth.

It wasn't just WNists that experienced AntiFa's violence - reporters and bystanders too. Perhaps I wouldn't be so stuck on this if I didn't see several videos of journalists getting their asses beat by these scumbags, and the media and some on this board giving that kind of behavior a pass because Nazi's are more eviler.

It's also quite a double standard, as getting anyone aside Dakar to condemn the violence of the violent counter-protesters that day has been beyond pulling teeth - in return it's begin suggested that I must secretly hold views that 10 and counting statements have specifically, unequivocally, and directly contradicted without disclaimer.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

**** Nazis and the KKK. There, I said it.

Agreed!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Agreed!

I forgot to respond to your earlier response where you agreed with my summation. Thanks for that! We are obviously on the same page.

I don't really know what this thread is about any longer, other than I guess how easily these conversations can be misconstrued and how delicate they can become?

I don't think anybody here really disagrees with the idea that nobody here believes that the concept of protesting the KKK/NNs is equivalent to Antifa, but Antifa in particular has made enough noise that they shouldn't be ignored completely.

I think we also all agree that the lead story here was the original KKK/NN rally given its size, organization, focus, fervor, and symbolism/significance in terms of what it means to have this sort of ideological belief/hatred running amok in the country. Again, if the point is that in addition Antifa should not be ignored, what else is there to say about all of this?

Maybe I'm just getting impatient. I'd much rather talk about the underlying trends of racism and hatred rather than just doing a postmortem of Charlottesville events, especially since it seems like this thread has just become our signature MacNN bickering.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

It's also quite a double standard, as getting anyone aside Dakar to condemn the violence of the violent counter-protesters that day has been beyond pulling teeth

See below for literally the very first post I wrote about my feelings about the events of that day. And it was written as a direct response to you, so I have to assume you saw it. Quoted in full, with some relevant points in bold.

No teeth were pulled.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Now for my perspective.

Of course violence against White Nationalists spewing their venomous ideology is not justified. Creating a false equivalence between a relatively small group of anarchists/criminals that injected themselves into the situation and an ideology that is 100% routed in hate is also not justified.

Any thinking person will easily admit that there were 'bad people' on both sides. We have a president that claims there were (and I'm quoting from memory so may not be 100% accurate) 'very fine people' on both sides. This is the issue.

SOME of the counter protesters behaved abhorrently. There is no justifying ANYONE who marched with torches, carried Nazi banners, chanted racist slogans, etc. They came to Charlottesville to spread hate and attempted to delegitimise large sections of the population. The other side was there to stand up against this hatred and barbaric ideology. SOME of those people did it in an illegal and immoral way. But both sides of the argument are not the same. Not even close.

To throw your hands in the air and say 'both sides are bad' is an cop-out and an abdication of morality.

I suppose it's too much to hope you will apologise for mischaracterising my comments and views once again.