If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
"This is how it'll go, guys. We're gonna burn a cross on the front lawn of city hall. You know, to protest white supremacy."
"Great plan!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Assuming that I was attempting to misinform anyone, and assuming that I was pushing an agenda.
This wasn't an assumption, you absolutely were. The narrative is strong with you.
This was not out of the blue, you have a long history of spreading misinformation from right-wing echo-chamber sites and attempting to pass them off as reality.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I'm willing to bet they didn't interview anyone from the alt-Right to get their perspective.
No worries, you represent their perspectives rather well.
(and now we've once again come to the point in the thread where the crazed partisans on the Left abandon the main topic, find something personal to home in on, and resort to attacks. Enjoy!)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Necessary? The necessary reaction to the right is criminal assault?
And on top of it, the "it's their fault I'm a criminal asshole" defense?
Wat
Why is it only the (we're no worse than you, honest) right that get to use an argument like that?
A reaction to fascism is necessary. When people who passionately believe that fascism is wrong and must not go unchallenged stand in front of a crowd who are chanting in support of genocide, who want violence to happen but don't want to throw the first punch (if they will get caught) so they provoke, things are going to kick off.
The anti fascists wouldn't turn up if the fascists didn't. Cause and effect.
Once upon a time some other anti-fascists turned up without a permit and caused a bit of a ruckus:
Were they just as bad?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
100% fact. You are all about the narrative, and create 'facts' to suit it. Consistently.
Let me ask you directly Paco - is violence against White Nationalists justified as a means of opposing them in the public sphere? Worthy of endorsement? Worthy of looking the other way?
Instead of exclusively attacking perspectives you disagree with, why don't you offer yours so that we can find some common ground?
Let me ask you directly Paco - is violence against White Nationalists justified as a means of opposing them in the public sphere? Worthy of endorsement? Worthy of looking the other way?
It's not, but I think people like Paco are bothered when some people on the right try to make this the story. The story is the original protest against a democratic decision relating to a statue that symbolized America's moral failures, and some incredibly backwards and repugnant ideology no matter how relevant in society today. The counter protests that grew out of hand is the side-story.
Yes, Antifa was wrong, yes it's not worthy of looking the other way, but without the KKK and neo-nazis there is no Antifa. With or without the neo-nazis and KKK in Charlottesville that day this ideology still exists, and so much so that it inspires violence. That, to me, is the real story.
So, I think some people get caught up on what it seems like false equivalency painting. I'm not talking about behavior in Charlottesville (in a way Charlottesville is another side-story to a much larger and troubling American story), I'm talking about equivalency as far as what that ideology actually means to our society.
Let me ask you directly Paco - is violence against White Nationalists justified as a means of opposing them in the public sphere? Worthy of endorsement? Worthy of looking the other way?
Instead of exclusively attacking perspectives you disagree with, why don't you offer yours so that we can find some common ground?
I have not attacked any perspective on this thread. I've simply pointed out that the Captain has a history of presenting right-wing fantasy and talking points as facts. He, or others in his far-right echo chamber concocted a story that the driver was a counter-protestor, either as a distraction or as wishful thinking.
He is someone who has constantly peddled easily disprovable lies on this board and then has a mini-meltdown when someone calls him on it.
I'm all for honest and open dialogue- but honesty needs to be a part of it. His constant barrage of lies are not helpful or even interesting anymore.
Let me ask you directly Paco - is violence against White Nationalists justified as a means of opposing them in the public sphere? Worthy of endorsement? Worthy of looking the other way?
Instead of exclusively attacking perspectives you disagree with, why don't you offer yours so that we can find some common ground?
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.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 16, 2017, 10:52 AM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No idea, since he doesn't.
Oops, got it switched around this time. Like the first time I asked: Show me how Trump's statements would be different if he did want to support the the Nazis and white nationalists.
You're wrong, they wanted to move it away from the statue they were there to march about in the first place.
I think for 90% of the general public, watching the white supremacists in Charlottesville this past week has left a terrible feeling in the pits of their stomachs. From what I gather, many (if not most) conservatives are also shaking their heads at Trump's "both sides" statements, which would explain his polling numbers dropping yet again.
Here's my concern: the white supremacists we've seen are worthy of the "Nazi" tag, and I can understand calling them fascists. They probably do wish Trump could wave his hand and deport every minority in an instant. I get it.
What I don't get is that the same terms (Nazi/fascist) get thrown around by Antifa when protesting people like Ben Shapiro. Professors from California State University referred to him as a neo-nazi after a speech given at their university. The same guy that writes that, "The "alt-right" is evil. White supremacism is evil. Neo-Nazism is evil," and, "I've spent more than a year slamming various factions on the right that refuse to disassociate from and condemn popularizers of the racist alt-right."
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."
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.
It's one of the many reasons that I never address politics from the pulpit — every side assumes things about you if you bring up a single issue, even if it's completely unrelated to their primary point of contention. Identity politics have been out of control for a long time, but many progressives are taking it to another level.
(
Last edited by Jawbone54; Aug 16, 2017 at 03:36 PM.
Reason: "reasons" not "issues" / last paragraph)
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 16, 2017, 12:07 PM
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.
It's one of the many issues that I never address politics from the pulpit — every side assumes things about you if you bring up a single issue, even if it's completely unrelated to their primary point of contention. Identity politics have been out of control for a long time, but many progressives are taking it to another level.
For as long as the internet has existed, Nazi = "someone I disagree with." Now it's back to meaning "Someone who wants to racially cleanse our nation" and we're immune to the term.
Originally Posted by Laminar
I think one issue here is that people on the left have been trying to point out the elements of white nationalism, Nazism, the KKK, and fascism evident in this administration for long enough that those on the right have been conditioned to reject those labels as hyperbolic. Except these are literally Nazis, white nationalists, and KKK members out here thanking the president for his support, then chanting the n-word and shouting "Jews will not replace us."
You give the impression of a thoughtful person who is able to see and (maybe?) respect opposing view points. This being the case, why are you falling into the trap that the issues surrounding 'identity politics' are of the left's sole making? There was just a gigantic march in Charlottesville that led to violence and death that was all about the 'identity politics' of the right.
Not all of the right. Being a fiscal or even social conservative does not make you a facist any more than being on the left makes you marxist.
'Identity Politics' has been around forever, it's just that it's been given a name and the right-wing is using it as a club to beat the left with. Perhaps there is a subtle difference in the way the right and the left express identity politics- the left seem to focus on 'I am different' where are the right tend to message 'You are different', but the end result is the same.
As for the specific example of Ben Shapiro? Why do people say these things about him? I assume it's because they haven't actually listened to what he says, and they only know the headlines. I disagree with him on many issues, but from what I have heard from him, he has rational, and well-reasoned arguments, and does not seem to be on the fringe. However, he has made a career out of being provocative. Let's review the titles of his books:
Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future
Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth
The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration
Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans
Evil in America
How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument
This is his public persona. If all you knew about him were the headlines, would you think he was someone who was open to reasoned dialog with the left? Or might you think he was an extremist ideologue?
As I've said, I don't believe this to be the case, but when you pick fights by using over-the-top rhetoric, should you really be surprised when people fight back with over-the-top rhetoric of their own?
I'm not saying it's right, but it's not exactly surprising.
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.
I feel like I keep saying this lately.
There might be a minority of extreme lefties who think exactly this way, but the left is allowed morons of its own.
The vast, vast majority on the left don't think all conservatives are Nazis. They do suspect some even among those who deny it, and they should, but it doesn't really matter because the actual problem is that even those who aren't Nazis, are voting with the Nazis.
This has never been truer than it is today. Everyone who voted for Trump knew what he said about this, and how much support he was getting. You might have believed he was going to flip eventually, but thats on you too for being a piss poor judge of an awful human.
His rhetoric was unequivocal, his links and allies with Breitbart, the alt-right, David Duke and then installing the likes of Bannon in the White House were clear before and after the election. If you voted for Trump, you threw tens of millions of people under the bus at the very least and you have zero worthy excuses.
Not enabling Nazis is bigger than you being able to eat out more often, its bigger than your job, its more important than abortion or welfare or government regulations or gun control. Last time people failed to realise that, 60 million people died.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I think for 90% of the general public, watching the white supremacists in Charlottesville this past week has left a terrible feeling in the pits of their stomachs. From what I gather, many (if not most) conservatives are also shaking their heads at Trump's "both sides" statements, which would explain his polling numbers dropping yet again.
Here's my concern: the white supremacists we've seen are worthy of the "Nazi" tag, and I can understand calling them fascists. They probably do wish Trump could wave his hand and deport every minority in an instant. I get it.
What I don't get is that the same terms (Nazi/fascist) get thrown around by Antifa when protesting people like Ben Shapiro. Professors from California State University referred to him as a neo-nazi after a speech given at their university. The same guy that writes that, "The "alt-right" is evil. White supremacism is evil. Neo-Nazism is evil," and, "I've spent more than a year slamming various factions on the right that refuse to disassociate from and condemn popularizers of the racist alt-right."
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."
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.
It's one of the many issues that I never address politics from the pulpit — every side assumes things about you if you bring up a single issue, even if it's completely unrelated to their primary point of contention. Identity politics have been out of control for a long time, but many progressives are taking it to another level.
This is good, thanks for cutting through the hyperbole with clarity. There's so much nazi panic going on, few people are thinking clearly anymore. Poland's official stance on this issue is clear and concise, and our country could learn from it:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What I don't get is that the same terms (Nazi/fascist) get thrown around by Antifa when protesting people like Ben Shapiro. Professors from California State University referred to him as a neo-nazi after a speech given at their university. The same guy that writes that, "The "alt-right" is evil. White supremacism is evil. Neo-Nazism is evil," and, "I've spent more than a year slamming various factions on the right that refuse to disassociate from and condemn popularizers of the racist alt-right."
I'm amending my earlier statement Ben Shapiro does not limit his over-the-top rhetoric to the headlines. I took some time and watch some of his 'greatest hits' on you tube, where he continually says things like 'all leftists are totalitarians', ''the left is evil', 'the left are the real racists,' and on and on and on.
When you use this rhetoric, you get it thrown back at you. He knows what he's doing, he's instigating confrontations. It's poor form that people rise to the bait, but not a head-scratcher.
I don't remember which thread it was, but (as I recall) Snow-i recommended that people listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast, as it was very popular in conservative circles and represented conservative thought in the US. If this is the case, it is surprising that there is such a divide in US politics? He is selling hyperbole and hate- not disagreeing with his opponents politically or logically, but by calling them evil. This isn't how bridges or built, it's how they are destroyed.
I've literally (as in literally literally) never heard Shapiro say 'all leftists are totalitarians', ''the left is evil', 'the left are the real racists,', and I listen to his podcast regularly. This is the hyperbole I'm talking about, it doesn't help anyone.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I mean, Shapiro did work for Breitbart. That's the literal alt right platform. I applaud his resigning in protest of how they treated their reporter last year but I mean, look at who you worked for.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I have not attacked any perspective on this thread. I've simply pointed out that the Captain has a history of presenting right-wing fantasy and talking points as facts. He, or others in his far-right echo chamber concocted a story that the driver was a counter-protestor, either as a distraction or as wishful thinking.
Or it could because there was a ton of speculation before the facts were made available - as happens with every controversy in the media. Are you claiming you are bias free in this regard?
The facts have come out, and Cap has accepted them. Whats the problem?
He is someone who has constantly peddled easily disprovable lies on this board and then has a mini-meltdown when someone calls him on it.
Sounds like a few people these forums - careful not to describe yourself when flaming other posters.
I'm all for honest and open dialogue- but honesty needs to be a part of it. His constant barrage of lies are not helpful or even interesting anymore.
Ok, feel free to see yourself out. If you were truly interested in honest and open dialogue, you would be having honest and open dialogue with us right now. That's not what you're doing.
So can we move forward or do you want to dwell on Cap jumping the gun before the facts were made widely available?
Ha! There's nothing a white woman can do for me that a black woman can't other than be white. And clearly I'm not impressed by that. Hence why I've never seen any reason to go "playing in the snow." It's just never been worth my time nor the aggravation that would ensue.
What makes the meme funny is that it mocks the fundamental fear driving these idiots. When you hear them yelling and screaming about "white genocide" what they are really talking about is the "threat" they perceive long-term miscegenation to be to their sense of "whiteness" as a social identity.
I've literally (as in literally literally) never heard Shapiro say 'all leftists are totalitarians', ''the left is evil', 'the left are the real racists,', and I listen to his podcast regularly. This is the hyperbole I'm talking about, it doesn't help anyone.
Unlike you, I don't make stuff up to support my position.
One of the top Ben Shapiro hits on YouTube.
3:00 - 'This is the truth- the left is totalitarian'
3:36 - 'The real racists are and always have been folks on the left'
5:41 - 'They deserve to feel bad about being a leftist, they are siding with an evil ideology'
It's not, but I think people like Paco are bothered when some people on the right try to make this the story. The story is the original protest against a democratic decision relating to a statue that symbolized America's moral failures, and some incredibly backwards and repugnant ideology no matter how relevant in society today. The counter protests that grew out of hand is the side-story.
Ah yes, the violence and rioting is the side story. The main story is a bunch of white nationalists protested for white nationalism, which happens all the freaking time but is usually ignored as it should be.
The difference here is that another violent group showed up to cause violence, and the White nationalists obliged them, thus thrusting the KKK and the like into the media spotlight - exactly what they were hoping would happen.
Yes, Antifa was wrong, yes it's not worthy of looking the other way,
So stop looking the other way
but without the KKK and neo-nazis there is no Antifa. With or without the neo-nazis and KKK in Charlottesville that day this ideology still exists, and so much so that it inspires violence. That, to me, is the real story.
You act as if neo-nazis and the KKK just popped into existence for this rally.
Extremists still exist? That's the story? Bad people exist and therefore the violence as a result is not worth talking about o condemning? I mean....what?
So, I think some people get caught up on what it seems like false equivalency painting.
People are getting caught on this idea that we should not be condemning the violence because white-nationalists are an extra special kind of scum. You're conflating that with equivalence of the motives behind the groups. It does not matter what the motive is, violence should be condemned. Period. Or do you disagree with this sentiment?
I'm not talking about behavior in Charlottesville (in a way Charlottesville is another side-story to a much larger and troubling American story), I'm talking about equivalency as far as what that ideology actually means to our society.
Ok, well this thread is specifically titled Charlottesville, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Charlottesville is the side story here. People in this thread are talking about Charlottesville, and condemning the violence there. But you seem to have a problem with that as if it's somehow not relevant to the OP, titled Charlottesville.
Or it could because there was a ton of speculation before the facts were made available - as happens with every controversy in the media. Are you claiming you are bias free in this regard?
The facts have come out, and Cap has accepted them. Whats the problem?
He spouted false info that fed into his narrative. Not for the first time. If that's your jam, so be it. As for be being bias free? Of course not, I doubt anyone is, however I have not every knowingly spread misinformation to support my argument. If you don't believe this to be true, cite where I have. I'll own it and apologise.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Sounds like a few people these forums - careful not to describe yourself when flaming other posters.
Please point out where I have ever done this.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Ok, feel free to see yourself out. If you were truly interested in honest and open dialogue, you would be having honest and open dialogue with us right now. That's not what you're doing.
This is not your forum, you don't get to show me the door. I gave my position above.You chose not to engage with it.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
So can we move forward or do you want to dwell on Cap jumping the gun before the facts were made widely available?
It would seem you are dwelling on it. I'm just responding to you at this point.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 16, 2017, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by OAW
Absolutely hilarious. [/img]
A meme about something that didn't happen doesn't help further productive discussion.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The main story is a bunch of white nationalists protested for white nationalism, which happens all the freaking time but is usually ignored as it should be.
Could you list a few of the recent white nationalist rallies of this magnitude and size?
Unlike you, I don't make stuff up to support my position.
One of the top Ben Shapiro hits on YouTube.
3:00 - 'This is the truth- the left is totalitarian'
3:36 - 'The real racists are and always have been folks on the left'
5:41 - 'They deserve to feel bad about being a leftist, they are siding with an evil ideology'
Why did I have absolutely no doubt? Because whenever CTP is so "emphatic" about something you can bet your next three paychecks it can be easily disproven in short order.
Originally Posted by Paco500
Forthcoming apology accepted.
Oh come on now. That would be too much like right.
People are getting caught on this idea that we should not be condemning the violence because white-nationalists are an extra special kind of scum. You're conflating that with equivalence of the motives behind the groups. It does not matter what the motive is, violence should be condemned. Period. Or do you disagree with this sentiment?
Could any of our resident right-leaning members who keep accusing those of us more left-leaning people of excusing or glossing over the violence and misdeeds by some of the counter-protesters point to where we are doing this?
Or could I ask by a show of virtual hands who on the left feels the violence of Antfi was justified? Because all I keep reading is everyone saying it wasn't ok.
So unless I'm missing something, you can stop throwing that against the wall to see if it sticks.
Our argument is that it is a false equivalence that 'both sides are to blame' as the vast majority of counter protestors were peacefully opposing racism and an abhorrent ideology while the protesters were actual Nazis, KKK members, White Nationalists and garden variety racists.
For as long as the internet has existed, Nazi = "someone I disagree with." Now it's back to meaning "Someone who wants to racially cleanse our nation" and we're immune to the term.
Exactly. Rendering it meaningless has eliminated a very useful, literal term from any rational person's lexicon. Actual, real-life Nazis need to be set apart, and "white nationalists" just doesn't do the job.
Originally Posted by Paco500
You give the impression of a thoughtful person who is able to see and (maybe?) respect opposing view points.
Thank you, but I wouldn't give myself too much credit. I hope to be respectful of all opposing viewpoints, with rare exceptions (NAMBLA, for instance). My environment and circumstances have played a big part in shaping my identity, so considering the other person's life experience should usually be the starting point to a conversation.
This being the case, why are you falling into the trap that the issues surrounding 'identity politics' are of the left's sole making? There was just a gigantic march in Charlottesville that led to violence and death that was all about the 'identity politics' of the right.
Don't get me wrong: the Right has absolutely guilty of viewing the Left through the lens of identity politics. I see my Facebook feed, and I live in the South. I see a lot of lazy misconceptions expressed.
Much of the Left just seems to be kicking the identity politics into overdrive since Trump's election, and have just assumed every Trump voter carries a hint of Nazi just underneath the surface. I think they're trying to find a reason why it happened, and the real answer is far more complicated than, "Conservatives really want to return to segregation."
'Identity Politics' has been around forever, it's just that it's been given a name and the right-wing is using it as a club to beat the left with. Perhaps there is a subtle difference in the way the right and the left express identity politics- the left seem to focus on 'I am different' where are the right tend to message 'You are different', but the end result is the same.
That actually might a really good way of phrasing it.
As for the specific example of Ben Shapiro? Why do people say these things about him? I assume it's because they haven't actually listened to what he says, and they only know the headlines. I disagree with him on many issues, but from what I have heard from him, he has rational, and well-reasoned arguments, and does not seem to be on the fringe. However, he has made a career out of being provocative. Let's review the titles of his books:
Yeah, the book titles are clearly chosen to provoke a reaction.
There are two things that I’ve noticed about him, as I’ve watched and read his work: he’s incredibly intelligent and incredibly confrontational. I do think he has a flair for the bombastic, but not like some others in the mix. I think Milo is putting on an act — I’m not even sure if he’s actually conservative. Shapiro is genuinely conservative, but I also believe he’s genuinely indignant about many things he perceives to be affronts to both nature and reason.
Whether or not someone agrees with him is one thing, but I don’t think he’s wrapped in a facade in quite the same way as an Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos.
This is his public persona. If all you knew about him were the headlines, would you think he was someone who was open to reasoned dialog with the left? Or might you think he was an extremist ideologue?
As I've said, I don't believe this to be the case, but when you pick fights by using over-the-top rhetoric, should you really be surprised when people fight back with over-the-top rhetoric of their own?
I'm not saying it's right, but it's not exactly surprising.
I don’t disagree. Again, he’s clearly provoking a reaction, but it’s almost the only way to widely present a topic for discourse. Those with a more academic approach have their books collecting dust in an Amazon warehouse bin.
I think for 90% of the general public, watching the white supremacists in Charlottesville this past week has left a terrible feeling in the pits of their stomachs. From what I gather, many (if not most) conservatives are also shaking their heads at Trump's "both sides" statements, which would explain his polling numbers dropping yet again.
Here's my concern: the white supremacists we've seen are worthy of the "Nazi" tag, and I can understand calling them fascists. They probably do wish Trump could wave his hand and deport every minority in an instant. I get it.
What I don't get is that the same terms (Nazi/fascist) get thrown around by Antifa when protesting people like Ben Shapiro. Professors from California State University referred to him as a neo-nazi after a speech given at their university. The same guy that writes that, "The "alt-right" is evil. White supremacism is evil. Neo-Nazism is evil," and, "I've spent more than a year slamming various factions on the right that refuse to disassociate from and condemn popularizers of the racist alt-right."
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."
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.
It's one of the many issues that I never address politics from the pulpit — every side assumes things about you if you bring up a single issue, even if it's completely unrelated to their primary point of contention. Identity politics have been out of control for a long time, but many progressives are taking it to another level.
Well said Jawbone.
It's worth noting that Shapiro is Jewish and often a target of the alt-right himself, to the point where the ADL specifically mentions him in their 2016 report. https://www.adl.org/sites/default/fi...k-Force_v2.pdf
There are more than several instances of the left leaning media calling shapiro alt-right, even in 2017, despite Ben being extremely, in no uncertain terms, anti-alt-right. I mean he's jewish for ****s sake.
Here's Hugh Hewitt admitting to widening the definition to all conservatives, thus lumping us together with the alt-right proper to justify calling Ben Shapiro alt-right. http://www.hughhewitt.com/supreme-court-breach/
There are far too many examples of the media painting the alt-right in broad brushes that includes just about every conservative they don't like, regardless of whether or not they hold those views (hint: the vast, vast majority of us do not).
Trying to paint an equivalence with the right to the alt-right is precisely the rationale that we, as conservatives, are attempting to fight.
There are more than several instances of the left leaning media calling shapiro alt-right, even in 2017, despite Ben being extremely, in no uncertain terms, anti-alt-right. I mean he's jewish for ****s sake.
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:
"Politically, I am a classic British liberal. Temperamentally, I am high in openness, which tilts me to the left, although I am also conscientious, which tilts me to the right. Philosophically, I am an individualist, not a collectivist, of the right or the left.
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.
There are far too many examples of the media painting the alt-right in broad brushes that includes just about every conservative they don't like, regardless of whether or not they hold those views (hint: the vast, vast majority of us do not).
Ha! There's nothing a white woman can do for me that a black woman can't other than be white. And clearly I'm not impressed by that. Hence why I've never seen any reason to go "playing in the snow." It's just never been worth my time nor the aggravation that would ensue.
Because they're white. Let's reverse that, eh?
"Ha! There's nothing a black woman can do for me that a white woman can't other than be black. And clearly I'm not impressed by that. Hence why I've never seen any reason to go "*insert bigoted term for sex with black women*". It's just never been worth my time nor the aggravation that would ensue."
Enjoy your day.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There might be a minority of extreme lefties who think exactly this way, but the left is allowed morons of its own.
The vast, vast majority on the left don't think all conservatives are Nazis.
Exactly...
They do suspect some even among those who deny it, and they should...
...wait...
...but it doesn't really matter because the actual problem is that even those who aren't Nazis, are voting with the Nazis.
So before you said, "the left is allowed morons of its own." But Nazis who claim to be conservative (but have a combined IQ that barely reaches triple digits) are supposed to weigh heavily on the collective conservative conscience?
I don't recall enabling them any more than the left doesn't recall enabling James Hodgkinson.
This has never been truer than it is today. Everyone who voted for Trump knew what he said about this, and how much support he was getting. You might have believed he was going to flip eventually, but thats on you too for being a piss poor judge of an awful human.
His rhetoric was unequivocal, his links and allies with Breitbart, the alt-right, David Duke and then installing the likes of Bannon in the White House were clear before and after the election. If you voted for Trump, you threw tens of millions of people under the bus at the very least and you have zero worthy excuses.
I complained bitterly about Trump during his entire campaign and lamented the GOP's naivete concerning the man who would set conservatism back 50 years. I've not supported him, nor defended him.
Not enabling Nazis is bigger than you being able to eat out more often, its bigger than your job, its more important than abortion or welfare or government regulations or gun control. Last time people failed to realise that, 60 million people died.
I feel like I was 100% on board with the tenor of your post until it degraded into the hyperbole at the end, with the United States entering the beginning of a new Holocaust. Trump will not be Hitler. He can't. He's getting voted out in three years. Even conservatives who loved him in northwestern Louisiana are looking around saying, "Well...crap."
Our government isn't set up for dictatorships. It's set up to topple those who attempt to acquire too much power. There won't be a Holocaust in America; a few hundred inbred protestors with tiki torches do not and will not have any sort of power.
Whatever semblance of power they thought they had ended the moment that poor woman got ran over. Now the entire nation hates them even more.
This viewpoint you expressed is all too common ...
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
^^ Whatever helps you. It's your fantasy, dog.
... because it reflects the very racist stereotype that black men are just salivating over white women as some some sort of sexual fantasy. As if for a black man being with a white woman is the ultimate sexual conquest. On the basis of her "whiteness" alone. I meant exactly what I said when I disavowed that notion.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Let's reverse that, eh?
There is no "reversing" that. Because there is no centuries long history of white men being lynched and their testicles cut off when mobs of black men thought a white man looked a black woman in a manner they deemed to be "inappropriate". But if you weren't so stuck on this false equivalency stupidity that might actually be readily apparent to you.
Much of the Left just seems to be kicking the identity politics into overdrive since Trump's election, and have just assumed every Trump voter carries a hint of Nazi just underneath the surface.
Yeah, it's lazy and painting in broad strokes, but just like with Ben Shapiro, it is a completely understandable reaction to the political reality. Trump ran an incredibly divisive campaign, steeped in racist undertones and actually encouraging acts of violence against his detractors. This is not my bias, this is reality. After all of this, the Republican party fell in line and voted him into the White House. Of course many on the left have suspicions about rank-and-file Republicans. Trump is their chosen leader, and he is full of provocative rhetoric. Why would it be surprising that some level of provocative rhetoric would be aimed back at the people that put this guy in the White House? The Republican establishment supported him, and the rank-and-file voted for him.
There should be no mystery as to why they are reaping the consequences.
Again, I don't agree with this. It's lazy. I know far too many people who I like and love very much who voted for Trump and I know they are not racist, neo-nazis. But then again my objection to right-wing politics is not ideological, well at least economically. I just think their ideas don't work for society- at least not the kind of society I want to live in.
The social side? I suppose there is some ideology there. After I had children, my world view changed radically. What if one of my kids was gay? Disabled? Somehow on the other side of the accepted norms of the social conservatives? So that's why I believe and vote the way I do. Because I imagined my children on the fringe and could not stomach being part of a society that would reject them.
Since I doubt you understand the, not so subtle, differences between this:
Originally Posted by Paco500
3:00 - 'This is the truth- the left is totalitarian'
3:36 - 'The real racists are and always have been folks on the left'
5:41 - 'They deserve to feel bad about being a leftist, they are siding with an evil ideology'
and this:
'all leftists are totalitarians', ''the left is evil', 'the left are the real racists,'
Let's see here. You're injecting absolutes where none exist, manipulating phrases that aren't about an entire group to make them seem like they are, and then outright distorting what he actually said. Why? What's the point in talking with you? It's a complete waste of my time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Could any of our resident right-leaning members who keep accusing those of us more left-leaning people of excusing or glossing over the violence and misdeeds by some of the counter-protesters point to where we are doing this?
There's a military saying, "armchair Generals talk tactics, real Generals talk logistics".
To put it another way, the fight is less with the enemy than it is with yourself.
AntiFa is ideological rot. I consider this to be the existential threat instead of the horde of Nazis the same way a General sees a broken supply train as the existential threat instead of the horde of Nazis.
Whether the Nazis win depends upon how well the rot can be contained.
Okay, in all seriousness here. I'm genuinely sorry for how you feel. What you believe isn't right, this isn't what you were a few years ago. I have cousins who would never date someone who's black, because they're black, and I was disowned by part of my family when I married a black woman. That didn't work out, for unrelated issues, but they were wrong, and you're wrong. While you should be mindful of the USA's past, it's not helping you in the present and will only poison the rest of your life. You can try to justify it, qualify it with "look what happened a half century ago" but you can't, it's overcompensation for what was absolutely a horrible time in history.
I didn't bring up anything about "black men are just salivating over white women", you're introducing a motive that I didn't have. You're the one who threw a racist "grenade" into this thread with a very inappropriate photo that unfortunately reflects where your mind is now, and it's a bad place. YOU'RE the one who is implying that the woman just wants the man because he's black, I guess as some revenge on her husband, or whatever. This is weird, some ****ed up stuff.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Let's see here. You're injecting absolutes where none exist, manipulating phrases that aren't about an entire group to make them seem like they are, and then outright distorting what he actually said. Why? What's the point in talking with you? It's a complete waste of my time.
Did he say 'some on the left are totalitarian,' or 'the real racists have always been some folks on the left?' True, I conflated the 'left are evil' with 'those on the left follow an evil ideology.' but that's pretty much a distinction without a difference- you don't often find good people following an evil ideology. He did not offer qualifiers or equivocations on any of those statements, nor can I see that they were implied. The entire tone of the video was that the left were not just misguided, they were actively bad people.
The point of original statement about Ben Shapiro was that he makes blanket, provocative statements about the left, and it is therefore no surprise that he get the same kind of rhetoric thrown back at him.
There's a military saying, "armchair Generals talk tactics, real Generals talk logistics".
To put it another way, the fight is less with the enemy than it is with yourself.
AntiFa is ideological rot. I consider this to be the existential threat instead of the horde of Nazis the same way a General sees a broken supply train as the existential threat instead of the horde of Nazis.
Whether the Nazis win depends upon how well the rot can be contained.
Containment goes poorly.
I would like to respond here, but apologies, I've read this several times over and I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, and I have a history of assuming you mean something far more objectionable than you actually do.
For as long as the internet has existed, Nazi = "someone I disagree with." Now it's back to meaning "Someone who wants to racially cleanse our nation" and we're immune to the term.
Top